The Reception of Exodus Motifs in Jewish and Christian Literature: "let My People Go!" 9004471111, 9789004471115

Citation preview

The Reception of Exodus Motifs in Jewish and Christian Literature

Themes in Biblical Narrative Jewish and Christian Traditions

Editorial Board Jacques T.A.G.M. van Ruiten Robert A. Kugler Loren T. Stuckenbruck Advisory Board Reinhard Feldmeier George H. van Kooten Judith Lieu Hindy Najman Martti Nissinen J. Ross Wagner Robyn Whitaker

volume 30

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/tbn

The Reception of Exodus Motifs in Jewish and Christian Literature “Let My People Go!” Edited by

Beate Kowalski Susan E. Docherty

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: Photo taken in St. Andrews, Scotland, at a conference where the idea for the present book originated. Photo by Beate Kowalski. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Kowalski, Beate, 1965– editor. | Docherty, Susan E., 1965– editor. Title: The reception of Exodus motifs in Jewish and Christian literature : “let my people go!” / edited by Beate Kowalski, Susan E. Docherty. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2022] | Series: Themes in biblical narrative, 1388–3909 ; volume 30 | Includes index. Identifiers: LCCN 2021030909 (print) | LCCN 2021030910 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004471115 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004471122 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Exodus—Theology. | Exodus, The—Biblical teaching. | Exodus, The—Typology. | Exodus, The, in literature. | Christian literature—History and criticism. | Jewish literature—History and criticism. Classification: LCC BS680.E9 R43 2022 (print) | LCC BS680.E9 (ebook) | DDC 222/.1207—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021030909 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021030910

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 1388-3909 ISBN 978-90-04-47111-5 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-47112-2 (e-book) Copyright 2022 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau Verlag and V&R Unipress. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Acknowledgements vii Notes on Contributors viii

Introduction 1 Beate Kowalski and Susan E. Docherty

PART 1 Exodus in the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint 1

The Victory Song of Miriam: A Comparative Analysis of Selected Modern Jewish and Christian Commentaries to Exodus 15 11 Camilla von Heijne

2

The Reception of the Exodus Tradition in the Psalter 36 Susan E. Gillingham

3

Reception of Exodus in the Book of Judith 56 Agnethe Siquans

4

Exodus in Wisdom of Solomon 74 Maurice Gilbert

5

Basis for a Relaunch or Epic Failure? Contrasting Receptions of Exodus in the Prophets 96 Benedetta Rossi

PART 2 Exodus in Early Jewish Literature 6

The Re-Use of Exodus Motifs in the Pseudepigrapha and Fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish Authors 117 Susan E. Docherty

7

Exodus in the Dead Sea Scrolls 137 Mika S. Pajunen

vi

Contents

8

Josephus and the Exodus 162 Erkki Koskenniemi

9

The Book of Exodus in Philo of Alexandria 183 Sean A. Adams

PART 3 Exodus in the New Testament 10

Exodus Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels 201 Garrick V. Allen

11

Toward Liberation and New Life for Trafficked Persons: A Markan Perspective (Mark 5:21–43) 222 Anne M. O’Leary and Patricia Murray

12

Exodus in the Book of Acts. A Prophetic Reversal of Israel’s History 250 Jenny Read-Heimerdinger

13

Revelation, Provision, and Deliverance: The Reception of Exodus in Johannine Literature 269 Joshua J.F. Coutts

14

Paul’s Use of Exodus: Appealing to the Wilderness Experience 287 David M. Allen

15

The Reception of Exodus Motifs in the Catholic Epistles 309 Beate Kowalski

16

Song of Moses, Song of the Lamb: The Reception of Exodus in the Revelation of John 334 Rita Müller-Fieberg



Conclusion 350 Beate Kowalski and Susan E. Docherty



Index 353

Acknowledgements We are most grateful to the DFG (German Research Foundation) and the Gesellschaft der Freunde der Technischen Universität Dortmund e.V. for their generous funding for an international conference on the topic. Although this sadly had to be postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic, we hope to be able to reschedule the event in the near future to enable further discussion and dissemination of the results of this research.

Notes on Contributors Sean A. Adams Senior Lecturer in New Testament and Ancient Culture at the University of Glasgow – Research Interests: Hellenistic Judaism; Ancient Education; Intertextuality; Manuscripts; Genre. David M. Allen Academic Dean, The Queen’s Foundation, Birmingham – Research Interests: The Use of the Jewish Scriptures in the New Testament; Canonical Readings of the Biblical Text. Garrick V. Allen Senior Lecturer in New Testament Studies at the University of Glasgow and a Research Associate at the School of Ancient and Modern Languages and Cultures, University of Pretoria – Research Interests: Book of Revelation; Paratextuality, Manuscript Studies; Textual Criticism; Ancient Interpretation. Joshua J.F. Coutts Assistant Professor of New Testament, Providence Theological Seminary (Otterburne, Canada) – Research Interests: Johannine Studies; Intertextuality; NT Christology; Theological Interpretation. Susan E. Docherty Professor of New Testament and Early Judaism at Newman University, Birmingham UK – Research Interests: Early Jewish and Early Christian Scriptural Interpretation; Qumran Scrolls; Septuagint; Pseudepigrapha; Apocrypha and New Testament. Maurice Gilbert SJ Professor Emeritus of Exegesis at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome – Research Interests: Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament. Susan E. Gillingham Emeritus Professor of the Hebrew Bible, University of Oxford and Senior Research Fellow, Worcester College, Oxford – Research Interests: Reception History of Psalmody, both Jewish and Christian; Literary and Theological Shaping of the Psalter; Iconography, Visual Exegesis and the Psalms.

Notes on Contributors

ix

Camilla Hélena von Heijne Senior Lecturer in Biblical Studies at Ersta Sköndal Bräcke University College in Stockholm – Research Interests: Jewish and Christian Reception of the Bible with Particular Focus on Genesis, Exodus, the Prophets and Angelology. Erkki Koskenniemi Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, Åbo Akademi, Turku – Research Interests: Early Jews and Christians in the Mediterranean World; Reception of Greek and Roman Literary and Philosophical Tradition in Early Christianity. Beate Kowalski Professor of Exegesis and Theology of the NT, TU Dortmund University – Research Interests: Gospel of John; Revelation of John; Reception of OT in the NT. Anne M. O’Leary PBVM Assistant Professor of Scripture at the Oblate School of Theology, San Antonio/ TX (USA) – Research Interests: Contextual Biblical Hermeneutics: Johannine Literature; The use of the OT in the Gospels; Mary and Religion; The Protogospel of James and Presentation spirituality; Scripture, Spirituality and Consecrated Life, and Christian praxis. Rita Müller-Fieberg Lecturer in Biblical Theology, Institute for Teacher Training in Essen and Lecturer for New Testament Exegesis, Kölner Hochschule für Katholische Theologie – Research Interests: Revelation of John; Reception of the Bible in Literature. Patricia Murray IBVM Executive Secretary of the International Union of Superiors General (UISG), Rome – Research Interests: Religious Life, Interculturality, Ministries at the New Peripheries. Mika S. Pajunen Academy of Finland Research Fellow at the University of Helsinki – Research Interests: Second Temple Judaism; Dead Sea Scrolls; Textual History and the Transmission of Traditions; Early Jewish Psalms and Prayers.

x

Notes on Contributors

Jenny Read-Heimerdinger Visiting Research Fellow, University of Roehampton and Newman University Birmingham – Research Interests: Greek linguistics; Second Temple Judaism; NT Textual Criticism. Benedetta Rossi Associate Professor of Old Testament Exegesis at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome – Research Interests: Jeremiah; Prophecy; Deuteronomy; Relation between Pentateuch and Prophetic Literature. Agnethe Siquans Professor for Old Testament Studies at the Faculty of Catholic Theology at the University of Vienna – Research Interests: Intertextuality and Inner-Biblical Exegesis; Feminist Interpretation of the Bible; Patristic Exegesis and Rabbinic Midrash; the Book of Daniel; Psalms.

Introduction Beate Kowalski and Susan E. Docherty The Exodus of the Israelite slaves from Egypt under Moses is one of the foundational narratives of the Hebrew Bible, and its retelling has shaped Jewish and Christian identity and theology across the centuries. Many forms have been employed to reflect on the significance of these events, including hymns, wisdom writings, apocalyptic visions, creeds, poetry, drama, art and music. A significant factor in the enduring powerful appeal over the centuries of these narratives is their fundamental concern for liberation from oppression. This project aims to bring together for the first time scholars with expertise in different aspects of the re-use of scriptural themes within later sacred texts to explore the effect of specific social and historical contexts on the selection and interpretation of particular Exodus motifs. Biblical traditions have deeply influenced European culture, but as the public understanding of this heritage diminishes, the recovery of the significance of one of the most central scriptural narratives is timely. The reception of the bible is an area of burgeoning scholarly activity as evidenced by the commissioning of a series of reception history commentaries by Wiley-Blackwell (http://bbibcomm.info) and the establishment of a dedicated Journal of the Bible and its Reception. It also attracts public interest because of the relationship between the bible and European culture, art and literature. The particular significance of later re-uses of the Exodus narratives, however, remains underexplored, although it has great relevance for contemporary European concerns about the assimilation of migrants from different ethnic and religious heritages. Far more studies have been published on early Jewish interpretations of Genesis than of Exodus, for instance, and there is no volume on Exodus in the series on the use of individual OT books within the NT edited by Moyise and Menken. Some recent publications are beginning to bridge this gap and highlight the potential for further research. This project seeks to build on this recent work in three distinctive ways: by bringing together scholars from across Europe with expertise in different aspects of the re-use of scriptural themes within later sacred texts and their wider reception in art, in order to consider the Wirkungsgeschichte of Exodus in a holistic and multifaceted way and by addressing the specific issue of the impact of different social and historical contexts on particular treatments of the Exodus narratives. In this volume an international team of contributors have explored the Exodus motifs in the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, in Early Jewish writings

© Beate Kowalski and Susan E. Docherty, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471122_002

2

Introduction

and in the New Testament, using different methods and approaches. One of the common themes in all of the articles is the issue of overarching frameworks. Almost all chapters recognise a network of Exodus motifs in the writings of the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint, in Early Jewish Literature, and in the New Testament. In addition, all authors pay attention to both the original and the new context of Exodus motifs. The phenomenon of composite quotations and allusions which is quite new in exegetical research is discussed by several papers. Intertextual methods are refined. Thus, the volume contributes to the current debates about intertextuality, quotations and allusions. Synchronic methods are applied to the different themes in all chapters, and contrasted to diachronic findings. Both Jewish and early Christian authors employ Exodus motifs in the service of the goal of identity-formation within their communities. In what follows, short introductions to the chapters are presented: Camilla Hélena von Heijne compares contemporary Jewish and Christian commentaries on the Song of Miriam in Exod 15:20–21. The methodological approach focuses on synchronic interpretations of the present form of the text. Thus, the comparison criteria are three main theological motifs: the deliverance at the sea as the basic theological paradigm of salvation, the portrayal of God’s activities in the Song of Miriam, and the role of Miriam. Additional criteria are the relationship between prose (Exod 14) and hymn (Exod 15), the relationship between Moses and Miriam, the portrayal of the enemies, and the motif of the mountain (15:7). The selected commentaries are written by two committed Jewish and Christian theologians. One central result is that all commentaries interpret the song symbolically as a paradigm of deliverance. This chapter is an important contribution to the Jewish-Christian dialogue. Susan E. Gillingham applies a historical-critical and literary-critical reading to the Psalter as a whole in order to explore the overall shape of the five books. In addition, the Jewish and Christian reception history of individual psalms (Ps 90–92; 105; 106) is analysed. Thus, the theological reflections combine two exegetical methods that have dominated research in both the past and the present. Diachronic research results are revised and completed by a synchronic view. Several Psalms are connected with Exodus motifs. There are no Exodus motifs in the first and second books as they present personal prayers, but more occur in the following books. Altogether, four pairs of psalms are mentioned which are connected with each other by using Exodus traditions. The overarching framework of Exodus traditions in psalmody is made visible by several examples.

Introduction

3

Agnethe Siquans’ chapter is remarkable in terms of methodological reflections and their application to the Book of Judith. The reception of Exodus in speeches, prayers, parallel narrative structures of both books and the main protagonists are explored. The song of Moses and Miriam at the Sea (Exod 15) is the most important intertext with Exodus in the Book of Judith (Jdt 9:7–8; 16:2), but it is also formative for the whole Book. In addition, three aspects of the reception of Exodus in Judith are examined which have not yet been noticed (midwives episode and Moses’ nativity story, acknowledging the true God; innocence of the Israelites). It becomes clear that the Exodus narrative is a theological and literary paradigm for the author of Judith to communicate his message: Israel’s God saves his people through the hand of a woman. One further research result is that the Book of Judith refers to the Septuagint version of Exodus. Maurice Gilbert explores Exodus motifs in Wis 10:15–19:22 in the context of the entire writing. Therefore, the Greek text, its unity, literary structure and genre, main theological themes, and its date is discussed first. The main Exodus motifs which are explored are Moses, the plagues and the portrayal of God. Five characteristics are summarised: hymnal anamnesis in rewriting the Exodus’ events, the universalism of the message, the Jewish reading of the books of Genesis, Exodus and Numbers, the actualisation of the rewritten Exodus, and the eschatology in Wis 10–19. Additional Exodus motifs in the section are the manna and the creation renewal. The Book of Wisdom is regarded as an encomium which is demonstrated at Wis 10–19. In terms of the reception of Exodus motifs, the term “midrashic rewriting” is used to explain the relationship between the two OT books. Benedetta Rossi explores the reception of Exodus in the prophetic books. Exodus is commonly recognised as a founding myth within the prophets. Following up the three major lines of interpretation of the reception of Exodus in the prophetic books, the survey methodology is reconsidered. The analysis undertaken in this chapter does not limit itself to exit formulas and the actual departure from Egypt but focuses on a network of Exodus motifs. A major focus is on intertwining references to Exodus and other OT writings and contrasting receptions of Exodus in the prophetic books. The prophets resume, modify and use Exodus motifs to relaunch history (battle of YHWH and divine wonders, election and covenant, exit from Egypt and entering the land). Susan E. Docherty investigates the reception of Exodus motifs in the extant fragmentary output of early Egyptian Judaism: the Exagoge of Ezekiel the

4

Introduction

Tragedian; the writings of Demetrius, Artapanus and Aristobolus; and Sibylline Oracles Book 3. Her focus is on the extent to which the Diaspora context of these texts, and their employment of Graeco-Roman literary genres, shaped the particular selection and interpretation of Exodus themes within them. Her study highlights a tendency among these authors to minimise certain motifs (e.g. the suffering of the Hebrew slaves and the wilderness wanderings) while accentuating and expanding others (e.g. the person and achievements of Moses and the magical elements of the Exodus narratives). These findings illustrate the impact of social and historical location on scriptural interpretation, and also contribute to our understanding of the levels of integration into the majority culture of Jews in the Egyptian Diaspora. Mika S. Pajunen examines the reception of the Exodus narratives within the Dead Sea Scrolls. His focus is on the approximately twenty Qumran texts which interact with this tradition, which he considers within three broad groupings: those (e.g. 4Q158; the Book of Giants; the Visions of Amram) which prophesy the Exodus as a future event; historical summaries (e.g. 4Q370; 4Q422; 4Q470) and liturgical texts (e.g. the Festival Prayers and the Words of the Luminaries) whch retell and reinterpret these narratives, often with an exhortatory purpose; and those (e.g. the Damascus Document and the Barkhi Nafshi Hymns) which employ the Exodus as a prototype of divine justice to explain contemporary events. This chapter, therefore, highlights the range of ways in which Exodus motifs are used within the Scrolls to reinforce the community’s theology and ideology. Erkki Koskenniemi analyses the interpretation of the narratives of Exodus 1–15 in the works of Josephus. He begins with a detailed explanation of the ways in which Josephus’ retellings differ from the underlying scriptural accounts, especially in their presentation of Moses and in the emphasis on the damage inflicted by the plagues on those who provoke God to anger. He then considers some of the key specific issues raised by Josephus’ treatment of these texts, including the extent to which his picture of Moses is influenced by Hellenistic literary and cultural norms, and by a wish to counter negative versions of the history of the Jews in contemporary circulation. His conclusions on these points sometimes challenge the scholarly consensus, as he argues that the influence of Hellenistic ideas on Josephus has often been overstated. Sean A. Adams explores Exodus motifs in the writings of Philo. Exodus is the second most referenced scriptural book (after Genesis) in the Philonic corpus, although this focus on Exodus is not evenly distributed across all of Philo’s works, and he engages with its text in a variety of ways. Adams offers a succint

Introduction

5

overview of this material, and then selects two major aspects of it for more detailed investigation. First, he considers several Exodus passages which are employed by Philo in multiple treatises and so can be assumed to have particular significance for him (e.g. Exod 3:14; 7:1). Second, he examines how specific Exodus passages are interpreted by Philo in his Allegorical Commentary. Adams draws out from this study some important conclusions about Philo’s general exegetical method, especially his exploitation of the intertextuality between Exodus and Genesis and other scriptural writings. Garrick V. Allen regards the Synoptic Gospels as part of the larger trajectory of Jewish literary production. The chapter emphasises the flexible ways that the Gospels alluded to and reused Exodus traditions. In addition, it pays attention to the fact that the evangelists engage with Exodus motifs through existing exegetical traditions (e.g. via Isaiah and other prophets). Examples are discussed from all three gospels. Three critical points related to scriptural reuse are highlighted: the development of Exodus motifs demonstrate the flexibility, complexity and mediation of scriptural tradition. Anne M. O’Leary and Patricia Murray present an interdisciplinary chapter which deals with the many faces of Exodus today (trafficking of human persons) and the founding of the international network Talitha Kum by the UISG (Rome). The biblical background of the name and work of the organisation is explored further in the first part. The focus lies on the Exodus motifs in form of the five citations of Exodus in Mark (1:2; 7:10; 10:19; 12:26; 14:24) in the wider context. Three intertwined research questions structure the chapter: 1. How does Mark’s use of the five [part-or composite] Exodus citations inform his portrayal of the identity and mission of Jesus? 2. How does a study of the Exodus citations listed above illuminate our reading of the interlocking healings by Jesus of Jairus’ daughter and that of the woman with the flow of blood(5:21–43)? How can the story of the two healings in Mark 5:21–43 inform the role of contemporary disciples in the church and in the world? Mark’s technique of intercalation captures in narrative structure the principle of universal wisdom, namely, that there always is “a story within a story”. Jenny Read-Heimerdinger illustrates the use of Exodus motifs in Luke-Acts which can be described as a dramatical transformation of parameters. The specific focus of this contribution is the attention to text-critical variations, in particular to the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D05). This aspect is usually ignored in intertextual studies. The following texts are analysed against their Exodus background: Acts 5:17–33; 12:1–17. The main results are that Exodus serves as a model for Peter’s deliverance from prison. The D05 ms of Acts is

6

Introduction

more complete and complex in terms of allusions to Exodus motifs. It uses the ancient event in a typically Jewish way, as a model to interpret the recent developments in the history of Israel. Joshua J.F. Coutts deals with Exodus motifs in the Fourth Gospel which includes only two citations of Exodus. John reads Israel’s Scriptures in light of the climactic event of Jesus. The contribution emphasises that John interprets Exodus traditions in the context of a broader interpretative tradition (Isaiah; Synoptic Gospels, in particular by Mark) which deals with divine revelation, divine teaching, and eschatological expectations. It does not isolate John’s direct engagement with the discrete Book of Exodus but considers explicit points of engagement with Exodus (John 1:14–18; 6:31; 19:36), John’s historical location and ripple effects of Exodus that extend across the Gospel. John’s Gospel read in light of Exodus motifs functions as a foundational, identityforming document for the people of God. David M. Allen explores the major uses of Exodus material in Paul’s letters, especially those directed to Rome and Corinth. He analyses the formal citations in Rom 9:15–17, the explicit comparison Paul develops between the wilderness generation and the situation of his Corinthian audience (1 Cor 10), the reference to the imagery of the Paschal lamb in 1 Cor 5, and the theme of Moses’ veiling his face in 2 Cor 3:7–18 (cf. Exod 32–34). This enables him to draw out some important methodological reflections about how Paul re-appropriates these traditions, drawn especially from the later section of the scriptural work, and where this situates him in relation to his contemporary exegetical context. Beate Kowalski deals with the only Catholic Epistle which alludes to Exodus motifs: 1 Peter. Though the letter is very familiar with the biblical writings, the author only alludes to a very few texts in Exodus (1 Pet 1:2; 2:9) which in fact are composite allusions. In this chapter the original and new contexts of these quotations are compared with each other. Sean A. Adams’ and Seth Ehorn’s rules for composite quotations are modified and used to classify the allusions to Exodus motifs in 1 Peter. They are a good starting point for the follow-up research project on composite allusions. The second surprising result was the overarching scriptural framework: the author of the letter cross-linked 1:2 and 2:9 by using pretexts from the Book of Exodus in order to construct Christian identity for his addressees. The letter opening in 1 Pet 1:1–2 already intends to evoke an overarching scriptural framework for constructing a distinct Christian identity to his audience. In terms of methodology, three issues are remarkable: 1. the importance of the context; 2. the composite nature of the allusions; and 3. the interconnectedness of the two text passages of 1 Peter by using Exodus.

Introduction

7

Rita Müller-Fieberg in the closing chapter again deals with the Exodus hymn (Ex 15) and its understanding in Rev 15. After a short survey of research and open questions related to the reception of Exodus motifs, the main focus lies on the song of Moses and the song of the Lamb in Rev 15:3 and its OT background. Allusions are analysed on a linguistic level, in terms of thematic similarities, structure and context. Exod 15:1–18 is recognised as paradigm for John’s reception of Exodus. In terms of methodology it is emphasised that processes of reception are always processes of acquisition and transformation. Exodus is not regarded as the only conceptual framework for NT theology of deliverance as it is only one writing among several inner- and extrabiblical rewritings.

PART 1 Exodus in the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint

⸪

Chapter 1

The Victory Song of Miriam: A Comparative Analysis of Selected Modern Jewish and Christian Commentaries to Exodus 15 Camilla von Heijne 1

Introduction

The aim of this essay is to analyse the interpretations of the so-called “Song of Miriam” in Exod 15:20–21 in a selection of contemporary Jewish and Christian Bible commentaries. In extension, I discuss the whole of chapter 15, as many scholars attribute the entire “Song of the Sea” to Miriam and/or view it as expansion of her original song (VV.20–21), later attributed to Moses (Tervanotko 2016, 43–46). The song constitutes the conclusion of the tale of the Exodus out of Egypt (chapters 12–15), culminating in the crossing of the Red Sea, or Sea of Reeds, and the triumph over the pursuing enemy army. Commemorating the first Passover, the song figures in both Jewish and Christian liturgy from early times.1 The location of the crossing is debated among scholars; the general view today is that the sea in question in fact is not the Red Sea, but the Sea of Reeds (Meyers 2005, 112–113). However, my focus is the text in its present form, source-criticism and historical questions are paid limited attention.2 The deliverance at the sea is a basic theological paradigm of salvation in both Judaism and Christianity, and in this light, I will focus on the theology, i.e., the commentaries’ interpretations of the portrayal of God and his actions in the song. My other focus is the role of Miriam. In Exodus, Miriam is depicted as one of the leaders of Israel alongside her brothers Moses and Aaron, and 1 The poem is recited daily in the Jewish morning services, and the song is the scriptural reading for the seventh day of Passover, see e.g., Sarna 1991, 76–77. The liturgical and theological impact of the Exodus tradition is already evident in the Psalms and the Prophetic literature, see, e.g., Pss 77; 78, 80; 105; 106; 114; Isa 43 and Hos 11. See also Childs 1974, 244. An example of the use of the song in popular contemporary Jewish music is Debbie Friedman’s “Miriam’s Song”, sung in both secular and religious contexts. In Christian liturgy, in Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox tradition, it is sung at the Easter vigil, when the history of salvation is recounted. 2 If not otherwise stated, the Bible translation used is the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).

© Camilla von Heijne, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471122_003

12

von Heijne

she is one of a few women given the title prophetess in the Bible. From a gender perspective, it is thus interesting to investigate if the perception of Miriam reflects the view of the role of women in the represented Jewish and Christian contexts. The selection criteria were that the commentaries must be relatively up to date and written from an outspoken Jewish or Christian perspective. Due to space constraints, the analysis is limited to two modern Jewish and Christian commentaries. As neither Judaism nor Christianity are homogenic religions, I have chosen commentaries of different profiles within both groups, i.e., both Liberal and Orthodox Jewish commentaries, and those written by both men and women. Is it possible to discern any confessional related differences between commentaries written from a Jewish or a Christian perspective, and, if so, in what way(-s)?3 Firstly, I briefly introduce each commentary’s profile and then discuss the exposition of the song in Exod 15:20–21 in the light of its textual context. I begin with analysing the selected Jewish and Christian commentaries separately in publishing order (sections three and four), then I summarise the results in a concluding discussion in section five. But first, let us take a closer look at the song itself and the questions it evokes. 2

Problems of Interpretation

The miracle at the sea is retold in both a prose version (chapter 14) and poetically in a worship hymn (chapter 15). Let us take a closer look at a few verses: [Exod 14:31] Israel saw the great work [lit. the great hand/arm/‫] ַהּיָ ד ַהּגְ ד ָֹלה‬ that the LORD did against the Egyptians. So the people feared the LORD and believed in the Lord and in his servant Moses. The Song of Moses (heading in NRSV) [Exod 15:1–3, 6] Then Moses and the Israelites sang [‫ ]יָ ִ ֽשיר‬this song to the LORD: ‘I will sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously; horse and rider he has thrown into the sea’ [2] The LORD is my strength and

3 The Christian commentaries are all written by Protestant scholars, as I have unfortunately yet to find any in-length (i.e., book-format) commentary written from a distinct Catholic perspective.

The Victory Song of Miriam

13

my might [‫ ]וְ זִ ְמ ָרת‬and he has become my salvation; this is my God, and I will praise him…. [3] The LORD is a warrior [‫ ;] ִאיׁש ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬the LORD is his name … [6] Your right hand, O LORD, glorious in power – your right hand, O LORD, shattered [‫ ] ִּת ְר ַעץ‬the enemy.’ [My italics] [15:11–15, 17–18] “Who is like you, O LORD, among the gods [‫ ָכמ ָֹכה ָּב ֵא ִלם‬-‫ִמי‬ ‫ ?]יְ הוָ ה‬Who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in splendor, doing

wonders? [12] You stretched out your right hand, the earth swallowed them. [13] In your steadfast love [‫ ] ְב ַח ְס ְּדָך‬you led the people whom you redeemed; you guided them by your strength to your holy abode. [14] The peoples heard, they trembled; pangs seized the inhabitants of Philistia. [15] … all the inhabitants of Canaan melted away … [17] You brought them [Israel] in and planted them on the mountain of your own possession, the place, O LORD, that you made your abode, the sanctuary, O LORD, that your hands have established. [18] The LORD will reign forever and ever.” [15:19] When the horses of Pharaoh with his chariots and his chariot drivers went into the sea, the LORD brought back the waters of the sea upon them; but the Israelites walked through the sea on dry ground.

The Song of Miriam (heading in NRSV) [15:20] Then the prophet [‫ ] ַהּנְ ִב ָיאה‬Miriam, Aaron’s sister, took a tambourine [‫ ] ַהּתֹף‬in her hand; and all the women went out after her with tambourines and dancing. [21] And Miriam sang [‫ ]וַ ַּת ַען‬to them [‫] ָל ֶהם‬: “Sing [‫ ] ִׁשירּו‬to the LORD, for he has triumphed gloriously; horse and rider he has thrown into the sea.” [My italics]. As stated, one of the obvious issues that strikes the reader of the victory song in Exod 15:1–21 is the relationship between the roles of Moses and Miriam as song leaders. Who is the originator of the song, and what is the connection between VV.1–18, in some Bible translations, including the NRSV labelled “The Song of Moses”, and the concluding remarks in VV.20–21, there entitled “The Song of Miriam”? These headings inserted in some translations are based on the references to Moses and Miriam in VV.1 and 20 respectively, but they are missing in the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT), and not all translations follow this interpretation. In the New International Version (NIV), for example, the whole song in Exod 15:1–21 is called “The Song of Moses and Miriam” (my italics). Also, many scholars prefer the title “The Song of the Sea” and point out that the purpose is

14

von Heijne

not to credit any human but to give God alone the glory as the Great Deliverer.4 In the Swedish Bible translation, “Bible 2000”, the whole poem is entitled “The Victory Song of Israel” (my translation). Yet another question pertains to the relationship between the prose account in chapter 14 and the hymn in chapter 15. The poem, or at least VV.20–21 attributed to Miriam, is generally seen as the primary version, and the song is often depicted as one of the most ancient texts in the Bible, but there are a few contesters (Sarna 1991 75; Tervanotko 2016 43–46; Childs 1974, 243–248). One striking difference between the versions is that Moses’ role in the deliverance disappears, there is no mention of Moses’ staff or hand in the song (cf. Exod 14:15, 21) but God is portrayed as the sole actor.5 Exod 14:30–31 is the narrator’s summary of the prose account (14:1–29) and his recounting of Israel’s response in faith when seeing God’s great deliverance, a response expressed by Moses and the Israelites bursting into praise (15:1ff). The song ends in the proclamation “The LORD will reign forever and ever” in V.18, thereupon the hymn again is interrupted by a second prose summary by the narrator in V.19. Then in V.20 “Miriam the prophet”, is introduced as song leader singing the same stanza (V.21b) as Moses and the Israelites did (V.2). Remarkable additions, however, are the usage of musical instruments and the reference to dancing. So, how is the portrayal of Miriam to be understood? Is she the original instigator of the whole song, later ascribed to Moses, or are VV.20–21 her concluding refrain/repetition of the preceding song of Moses? Did she lead all Israel in song, or only the women? Additionally, there are some linguistic problems to be addressed: Exod 15:21a in the NRSV reads: “And Miriam sang to them …”. However, the meaning of the verb ‫ ענן‬in V.21 is ambiguous, and the renderings differ. The New Jewish Publication Society translation (NJPS) has “Miriam chanted …” while the New King James Version (NKJV) has “Miriam answered,”6 and the Swedish Bible 2000 freely renders: “And Miriam led the song …”,7 implying Miriam to be the

4 E.g., Meyers 1994, 116 and Childs 1974, 246–248; the latter labels Exod 15:1–18 as “The Song of the Sea” and V.21 “The Song of Miriam”. 5 Another difference is the references to “the angel of God” and “pillar of cloud” in Exod 14, while no such mediators are mentioned in Exod 15. For a discussion of these mediators, see my dissertation von Heijne 2010, 96–101. In this book, I investigated the early Jewish perceptions (ca. 200 BCE–650 CE) of this enigmatic messenger figure in Genesis, briefly surveying the phenomena also in other biblical texts, e.g., Exod 3:1–6. In my article 2018, I discuss that text more in depth. See Lillas-Schuil et al. 2018, 67–89. 6 My italics. 7 My translation and italics.

The Victory Song of Miriam

15

song leader. The Septuagint (LXX) displays some notable divergences from the MT in VV.20–21: [20] Λαβοῦσα δὲ Μαριαμ ἡ προφῆτις ἡ ἀδελφὴ Ααρων τὸ τύμπανον ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐξήλθοσαν πᾶσαι αἱ γυναῖκες ὀπίσω αὐτῆς μετὰ τυμπάνων καὶ χορῶν, [21] ἐξῆρχεν δὲ αὐτῶν Μαριαμ λέγουσα ῎Αισωμεν τῷ κυρίῳ, ἐνδόξως γὰρ δεδόξασται· ἵππον καὶ ἀναβάτην ἔρριψεν εἰς θάλασσαν.8 In reading the NRSV, the impression is that Miriam only led the women in song. However, the Hebrew pronoun “them/‫ ” ֶהם‬V.21 is masculine plural. It is noteworthy that the LXX renders both the pronoun (αὐτῶν) and the verb in V.21 gender inclusively: “Ἄισωμεν τῷ κυρίῳ …/let us sing to the Lord”, a rendering in the first-person plural which may be understood as directed to both men and women.9 The same verb form is also used in Exod 15:1, where the MT there employs the first-person singular “I will sing”. Thus, the LXX seems to harmonise the so-called “Song of the Sea/Moses” with Miriam’s song. The verb used in V.21 “ἐξῆρχεν/she began/initiated,” may signify that the LXX translators saw Miriam as the leader and instigator of the song.10 An additional linguistic/text critical question pertains to the ending of Exod 15:2, is it proclaimed that the Lord is “my might” or “my song”? The musical instrument ‫ ּתֹף‬which Miriam uses is sometimes translated “timbrel”, sometimes “tambourine”, while others propose the rendering “handdrum”. However, as the precise determination of the musical instrument in question has little impact on the meaning of the song as such, I will not further discuss this issue. But it is undisputable that music and dancing distinguish Miriam’s part in the worship, and many see a connection to other military victory songs in the Bible. Most often, the performers who meet the homecoming soldiers with song and dance are women (Judg 11:34; 1 Sam 18:6 and Ps 86:24–26).11

8 9 10 11

www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/septuagint-lxx/read-the-bible-text/bibel/ text/lesen/stelle/2/150001/159999/ch/5737eb5072c3d9e48787e1645f8f8124/. My italics and translation. There is also an extended version of “The Song of Miriam” found in the Qumran manuscript 4Q365. See also Tervanotko 2016, 147–153, 196–199. However, in Pss 149 and 150 the performers may be both men and women, and the attribution to the “victory singing” as a distinct female activity is debated, see e.g., van Dijk-Hemmes 1994, 200–206, and Meyers 1994, 207–230. See also 1 Sam 10:5; 1 Chr 25:5–6.

16

von Heijne

Thus, in this regard, Miriam is not unique, but she is undeniably one of the few biblical women entitled prophet. The women bearing the title are counted on one hand: Miriam (Exod 15:20), Deborah (Judg 4:4), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14) and Noadiah (Neh 6:14). In Jewish tradition also Sarah, Hannah, Abigail and Esther are considered prophets, albeit not explicitly given the title, and Isaiah’s wife may possibly have been a prophetess (Isa 8).12 Remarkable, however, is the Swedish translation of Miriam’s title “‫ ” ַהּנְ ִב ָיאה‬in the Bible 2000; “Miriam, who had prophetic gift” (Exod 15:20a, my translation). Many scholars draw parallels between Deborah’s and Miriam’s victory songs, and although no instruments or dancing are mentioned in Judg 5 there is a reference to musicians in V.11. Both Deborah’s and Miriam’s songs are military in content, and there is most certainly a dependence on Exod 15 (the LXX version) in the victory song of Judith.13 In Exod 15:20a Miriam is for the first time introduced by name: “… the prophet Miriam, Aaron’s sister …”. However, what does her prophethood entail?14 And why is she called only Aaron’s sister, not Moses’ sister?15 Miriam’s role as one of the leaders during the desert wanderings is undisputable, but her prophetic function is less clear, and it remains to be seen how she is depicted in the various commentaries. Apart from Exod 15:20–21, the most well-known reference to Miriam is probably Num 12:1–9 where she is put on equal spiritual status with Aaron, but not on the same level as Moses who is “… entrusted with my whole [God’s] house … and he beholds the form of the Lord” (VV.7b, 8b).16 Outside of the Pentateuch, Miriam is mentioned in 1 Chr 5:29 (Eng. 6:3), where she is referred to as both Moses’ and Aaron’s sister, and the prophet Micah 6:4 depicts her as one of the three leaders of the Exodus: For I brought you up from the land of Egypt, and redeemed you from the house of slavery; I sent before you Moses, Aaron and Miriam. 12 13 14 15 16

See also b. Meg. 14a–b. See Meyers 2005, 116–119, Tervantoko 2016, 52–60, 151–153. See also Jdt 15:12–13; 16:1–17 and 9. For a discussion of the portrayal of Miriam and her prophetic role in ancient rabbinic literature, see Siquans 2015, 335–357. In Exod 2:1–10 she remains Moses’ anonymous sister. Noteworthy, however, is that the LXX version of Exod 6:20 mentions Miriam as Amram’s daughter alongside her brothers Aaron and Moses, while her name is omitted in the MT. See also Tervanotko 2016, 195–196. Both Aaron and Miriam are implicitly depicted as prophets in Num 12, receiving divine revelation through dreams and visions, but in distinction to “ordinary” prophets, God speaks to Moses face to face (V.8). See also von Heijne 2014, 30–46.

The Victory Song of Miriam

17

In Exod 15 “the hand of God” is repeatedly used metaphorically to describe God’s powerful intervention, fighting for Israel against the Egyptians (VV.6, 12, 16). The whole Egyptian army drowned, and the purpose of God’s victory is that “… the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD when I have gained glory for myself over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his chariot drivers” (Exod 14:18). How are the commentators handling this warrior God, and how do they deal with the fate of “the other”, in this case the Egyptians? Moreover, what about Pharaoh himself, did he also drown, or did the leader survive and only his troops perished? Another problematic issue pertaining to the portrayal of God is the exclamation in V.11: “Who is like you, O LORD, among the gods? …”. Does this question imply an ancient polytheistic worldview, or at least some kind of monolatry?17 Other peculiarities are the references to the conquest of Canaan and enemy peoples like the Philistines. Furthermore, in the context of the Book of Exodus, the holy mountain is Horeb/Sinai, but what is meant by “the sanctuary” in V.17, as the temple of Jerusalem is yet to be built? Thus, in summary, the five questions to be addressed are the following: 1. How is the relationship between the prose account in chapter 14 and the hymn in chapter 15 interpreted? 2. How is the relationship between the roles of Moses and Miriam as song leaders interpreted? What is the connection between Exod 15:1–18, in for example the NRSV labelled “The Song of Moses”, and the concluding remarks in VV.20–21, there entitled “The song of Miriam”? In connection to this issue, how is Miriam’s leadership and her titles as prophetess and Aaron’s sister perceived in the commentaries? 3. How is the portrayal of God in the song interpreted? 4. How are the commentaries interpreting the references to enemy peoples? 5. How do the commentaries interpret verse 17, which refers to “…. the mountain of your [God’s] own possession, the place, O LORD, that you made your abode, the sanctuary, O LORD, that your hands have established”? The questions are discussed in the order given above, but the focus is on the role of Miriam and the portrayal of God. However, questions one and three are closely interconnected, as the commentators discuss Exod 14 and 15 together and regard God’s deliverance and greatness as the central theme in both the 17

The LXX displays a significant divergence in the ending of this verse compared to the MT: “… δεδοξασμένος ἐν ἁγίοις/glorious among the holy ones”, i.e., angels, cf. LXX Deut 32:8. The difference between the MT and the LXX in these texts may imply a theological development in Israelite thought. See also von Heijne 2015, 20–24.

18

von Heijne

prose and the poem versions. Questions four and five are addressed in the light of the theological implications, but historical and source critical discussions are not the topic of this article. 3

Jewish Commentaries

The Call of the Torah. An Anthology and Interpretation of the Five Books of Moses by Rabbi Elie Munk, Volume Two: Shemos/Exodus 3.1.1 Introduction Rabbi Elie Munk was a Kabbalist and leader of the Orthodox Jewish congregation Rue Cadet in Paris. The commentary is the second of five volumes commenting on the Torah, having a Jewish Orthodox, traditional profile. Munk draws on all the classical commentators, such as the ancient rabbinic midrashim, Rambam and Rashi, as well as Kabbalah, and spiced his exposition with his own interpretations. The commentary includes the Chumash text based on the Art Scroll’s Stone Edition in Hebrew and in English translation (Munk 1994 [French original: 1981]). Munk follows the Synagogue’s liturgical division of the Torah into weekly Sabbath portions, parashot, thus putting Exod 15 in the context of parashat B’Shalach (Exod 13:17–17:16). 3.1

3.1.2 Commentary Munk introduces the “Song of the Sea”, using the traditionally Jewish title, by referring to Shemos/Exodus Rabbah, where the crossing of the sea and the Israelites’ subsequent worship is depicted as the turning point in salvation history, establishing God’s celestial throne and for the first time acknowledging him as not only the Creator but also as the Master of history. This is the first time God is praised by singing, and the “Song of the Sea” serves as a model for all future Jewish worship and liturgy, still recited for example in the daily prayers (Munk 1994, 183–184). In comment on Exod 15:1, which is translated “Then Moses and the Children of Israel chose to sing this song to HASHEM …”, Munk credits the song to Moses, but leaning on Rashi, he holds that all the people of Israel were prophetically inspired. Munk also refers to the Talmudic discussion about whether the Israelites sang only the refrain after Moses sang each stanza, or if he and the people sang the whole song together, as both views are represented (Munk 1994, 183). The relationship of V.19 to the “Song of the Sea” (VV.1–18) is given three answers. According to Ibn Ezra, the verse is part of the song as it exalts the

The Victory Song of Miriam

19

dual miracle which occurred simultaneously, the rescue of the Israelites and the drowning of the Egyptian army. This interpretation is supported by the paragraph break in the MT between VV.19 and 20. However, Ramban claims that the style of V.19 differs from the song, and contends that the verse serves as the introduction to the next two verses, i.e., Miriam’s song. Finally, R’ Saadyah Gaon regards V.19 as the Israelites’ summary of the “Song of the Sea” (Munk 1994, 195). In contrast to his discussion of V.19, Munk seems to take for granted that Miriam’s stanzas form an integral part of the hymn. However, in commenting on VV.20–21, he regards Miriam as leading the Israelites in song alongside Moses, but did she lead only the women or also the men? Because of the use of the masculine pronoun in V.21, Munk refers to some midrashim that contend that Miriam called out the refrain to the men too, while Rashi explains that Miriam led only the women in song while Moses led the men (Munk 1994, 196). Either way, Munk depicts Miriam as the embodiment of the righteous Israelite women, she symbolised: “… the role of all Jewish women as she once again ignited the sacred flame of enthusiasm and love of God in the hearts of the Israelites” (Munk 1994, 196–197). Although Miriam is preceded by Sarah, Munk points out that she is the first woman explicitly called a prophetess, testifying to her importance as a leader of Israel during a crucial historical era. In total, the Talmud mentions seven prophetesses in Jewish history, and the importance of their role cannot be denied. For example, the prophetess Hannah was the first to proclaim the resurrection of the dead, a fundamental Jewish principle of faith (Munk 1994, 196. See also b. Meg. 14a–b). Munk also addresses the reference to Miriam as only Aaron’s sister: according Ramban, the Torah did not want to omit Aaron’s name in the context of the “Song of the Sea”, while Rashi holds that Miriam’s prophetic gift first showed in predicting the birth of Moses, at a time when she still only was the sister of Aaron (Munk 1994, 195–196. See also b. Sotah 11b–13b; Exod. Rab. 1:13–22 and Siquans 2015, 341–357). Munk thoroughly discusses the portrayal of God as warrior. HASHEM is the Master of war, and by executing judgement upon the tyrannical Egyptian army, the God of Israel demonstrated his power to the heathen nations. The Israelites had gotten to know God gradually. During their stay in Egypt, they had known him as their Redeemer, now at the Sea of Reeds he revealed himself as the Great Warrior. The divine name, the tetragrammaton YHWH is in Jewish Orthodox manner rendered as HASHEM/the NAME in the Chumash. Munk pays special attention to the use of this divine name in this context,

20

von Heijne

since YHWH traditionally is not associated with vengeance but with divine love and grace. He refers to the proclamation of the divine name in Deut 7:9– 10, where God is portrayed as the merciful and faithful God towards those who fear him, even until a thousand generations, but also the just judge of those who hate him (von Heijne 2018, 158–174). By using the divine name YHWH in the victory song, as well as referring to “the right hand” of God, which in Kabbalistic thinking represents the principle of love, the Torah highlights that God’s war against evil does not contradict his love, which forever remains his main characteristic. The Egyptian army represents the evil powers, and their arrogance and defiance against God is justly punished. Ultimately, the destruction of evil is an expression of God’s love and a blessing for humankind (Munk 1994, 186–188). This eschatological theme is further shown by the imperfect tense of the Hebrew verb [‫ ] ִּת ְר ַעץ‬in V.6 “you will shatter”, God’s war against evil is ongoing, and according to the Zohar, the song is a prophecy of the divine punishment reserved for all Israel’s future enemies (Munk 1994, 188). The question in V.11a is interpreted rhetorically. The English translation of the Chumash says: “Who is like You among the heavenly powers [‫] ֵא ִלם‬, HASHEM!” A rendering of the verse going back to Rambam, but Rashi interprets ‫ ֵא ִלם‬as referring not to heavenly powers, i.e., angels, but to the mighty in this world. Munk also refers to the Midrash Mekilta that attributes the acclamation to the pagan nations, who were awestruck by the might of YHWH and became convinced of the futility of idolatry. Indeed, according to R. Eliezer, the author of this statement was none other than Pharaoh himself. The rabbis are divided on the question of whether Pharaoh survived or not, and if his death is implied in the statement: “The waters returned and covered the chariots … the entire army … not one of them remained” (Exod 14:28)? Various answers are given (Munk 1994, 189, 179). Wordplays and the exploration of the deeper significance of the Hebrew alphabet are common in Jewish mystical exegesis, and Munk refers in this context firstly to the Zohar, where it is pointed out that the Hebrew word ‫ָכמ ָֹכה‬ “like you” also can be written without the letter Heh at the end, and that the whispered letter is used in the exclamation in V.11 as a symbol of the nothingness that preceded God’s creation. God is distinguished from the mightiest powers (‫ ) ֵא ִלם‬of the universe by His creative power. Only God (‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ) ֱא‬is the Creator, able to create matter from nothingness (Munk 1994, 189). Secondly, Munk discusses the interpretation by the school of Rabbi Ishmael, reading the Hebrew as ‫ ִא ֵלם‬, meaning mute, an interpretation that highlights God’s silence during human suffering and hardship, i.e., the classical theodicy problem. Where was God in the exile? The destruction of the First Temple is

The Victory Song of Miriam

21

the first occurrence of God’s silence. How could an omnipotent God permit such a disaster to happen? According to Yoma 69b, God’s muteness was so vexing that the prophets Jeremiah and Daniel omitted from the Shemoneh Esre prayer two great attributes of God “mighty and awesome”. These two divine attributes were later reinstated in the prayer after the exile by the men of the great assembly. They declared the exile proves God’s long suffering towards the pagan oppressors and the preservation of Israel among her enemies testifies to his power. Furthermore, the painful death of Titus is interpreted as God’s silent punishment of the Roman general who destroyed the Second Temple (Gittin 56b). Munk concludes that although God sometimes hides his face from Israel, the hope of the ultimate redemption stands firm, as expressed by Rambam “I believe with complete faith in the coming of the Messiah, and although he may tarry, I await his coming daily” (Munk 1994, 189–191). According to Exod 15:11b, God is “… too awesome for praise …”, an exclamation that the commentator interprets as signifying that God’s greatness is beyond the grasp and words of humankind. Consequently, God can only be described in negative terms, i.e., what he is not, as the most perfect human praises could never do justice to God (Munk 1994, 191). God’s outstretched right hand (V.12) represents the divine oath that the earth should not incur any punishment for receiving the dead bodies of the Egyptian army. Moreover, Munk points out that in contrast to the righteous Abel, whose blood the earth also received, the Egyptians were not innocent victims, but their death was an act of God’s judgement. God’s kindness (‫ ) ֶח ֶסד‬and rescue of Israel (V.13), is his response to their complete devotion and trust in him while in Egypt. The reference to the holy abode alludes to the goal of the Exodus: the promised land was not merely to be Israel’s national homeland, but would serve to establish God’s dwelling on earth. Munk discusses extensively VV.14–18, which he understands to depict the conquest of the promised land and the building of the temple in Jerusalem, mirroring the heavenly sanctuary (Munk 1994, 193–194). To conclude, Munk offers an eschatological perspective; the final purpose of the Exodus is the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. The four peoples mentioned in V.14 represent all the nations of the earth, and the building of the temple in Jerusalem serves as the foundation of God’s holiness on earth, which is ultimately to be recognised by all. Munk finally refers to the Talmudic saying that if Israel instead of using the future tense “HASHEM shall reign for all eternity”, had used the present tense (V.18), the Kingship of the God of Israel would already be universally acknowledged. However, Israel’s lack of faith postponed the complete realisation of God’s reign on earth (Munk 1994, 194–195; my italics).

22

von Heijne

The Torah: A Women’s Commentary, eds., Dr. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Rabbi Andrea L. Weiss 3.2.1 Introduction Published in 2008 by the organisation Women of Reform Judaism, this commentary is written from a Jewish feministic perspective focusing on the role of women in the Bible, written exclusively by women; female rabbis, poets and academics.18 The editors (Cohn Eskenazi and Weiss 2008, xxxi) write: “Three words reflect our guiding principles: Contemporary, Jewish and Women.” The commentary includes the MT together with a slightly gender revised version of the NJPS translation where the tetragrammaton, ‫ יהוה‬is left untranslated (Cohn Eskenazi and Weiss 2008, xxxi–xxxv).19 Like Munk’s commentary, it follows the synagogal liturgical division of the Torah, putting Exod 15 in the context of parashat B’Shalach (Exod 13:17–17:16; cf. Meyers 1994, 379). 3.2

3.2.2 Commentary Professor Carol Meyers is the main commentator to the parasha entitled “Crossing the Sea and Crises in the Wilderness”. As introduction, she states that the climatic event of traversing the Sea of Reeds is related in two versions, a prose account in Exod 14:1–31, followed by a poetic account (15:1–22), labelled in rabbinic literature “Shirat haYam/Song of the Sea”. The two versions complement each other, without the prose version, the details and sequence of the event would be unclear, but without the poem, the soaring emotions expressed in praising God’s deliverance would be lost. She further points out that women and water frame the story, because just as Miriam once stood at the waters of the Nile watching over her baby brother, she now as a prophet, in the words of Meyers (1994, 379) “… leads the women in interpreting what the crossing of the water (the Sea of Reeds) means.”20 Meyers structures the poem into two segments, VV.1–18, with a prose frame (VV.1 and 19), followed by the briefer version in V.21, with a prose introduction in V.20, and she sees the hymn as possibly one of the most ancient biblical texts, dating to the late 12th or early 11th century BCE, much older than the prose account preceding it (Meyers 1994, 387). She regards the poem as probably a female composition, originally created and performed by women. It should most likely be attributed to Miriam, and the title “The Song of Miriam” thus 18 19 20

The commentary is hereafter abbrievated TWC. In this section, all English biblical quotations are taken from the commentary’s translation. In her discussion, Meyers (1994, 386–387, 392) designates the whole section Exod 15:1–21 as “Celebrating Deliverance”, VV.1–19 as “The Song at the Sea” and VV.20–21 “The Song of Miriam”, although she also claims that the latter title may be appropriate for the whole poem.

The Victory Song of Miriam

23

applies to the whole poem (15:1–21), and not only the conclusion. In argument, Meyers refers to the genre, since songs of military triumph, often accompanied by music and dancing, typically were performed by women. This is supported both by other biblical texts (Judg 11:34; 1 Sam 18:6–7; 2 Sam 1:20; Ps 68:25; 81:2; 149:3; 150 and Jer 31:4) and by archaeological findings of terracotta statues of women (never men) playing the hand-drum, her rendering of the mentioned musical instrument in V.20 (‫)ּתֹף‬. Furthermore, Miriam’s stanza in V.21 is likely the title of the full poem. The crediting of the song to Moses may probably be explained by his importance as the chief human protagonist in the Exodus narrative (Meyers 1994, 386–387, 392; see also Jdt 15:12–13). Meyers emphasises that Miriam is the first biblical woman entitled prophet, and states that the prophetic function in both the biblical world and in the contemporary surrounding cultures was gender inclusive. In Exod 15:20 Moses’ anonymous sister finally gets a name, an honour not bestowed upon all biblical women (cf. Exod 2:4; 7:9). Meyers (1994, 392) refers also to the prophet Micah, who acknowledged Miriam’s role as leader, alongside her brothers Aaron and Moses. In the section “Post-biblical interpretations,” Claudia Setzer discusses Miriam’s identity as prophetess as she never explicitly prophesies in the Bible. As validation, Setzer refers to the Midrash Mekilta saying that Miriam’s prophetic gift showed when she predicted the birth of her brother Moses (see also b. Sotah 11b–13b, Exod. Rab. 1:13–22). She also recounts the rabbinic discussion about where the women obtained their musical instruments. According to the Midrash Mekilta, the women trusted in God’s deliverance when leaving Egypt, so they prepared hand-drums and flutes, ready to praise YHWH. Rashi refers to these pious women, who showed such foresight and faith in God, as tzadkaniot, righteous in the feminine plural (Setzer 2008, 401). Setzer further states that according to the Midrash Mekilta, there were two choral groups at the sea, chanting the same song; Moses leading the men, Miriam the women, and in rabbinic literature, Miriam and Moses often appear in parallel as equal leaders during the Exodus. For example, in Midrash haGadol, the double appearance of the number three in Pharaoh’s two dreams refers to the three patriarchs and the three leaders of the Exodus, Moses, Miriam and Aaron. In this context, Setzer also mentions the legend of the miraculous well of Miriam supplying the Israelites with water during the desert wanderings (Setzer 2008, 401; see also Frankel 1996, xiii–xvi, 109–113). In the section “Contemporary Reflection” Patricia Karlin-Neumann remarks that Miriam had the foresight to bring her hand-drum, and the wisdom to gather her sisters in praise of God to affirm the miracle at the sea. At this moment she emerges as a leader of Israel. Previously, Miriam’s voice had only

24

von Heijne

been heard as a sister and daughter, but at the sea shore, she did not blend into the crowd, but her voice rang out for all to hear. Thus, Miriam is a role model for female leaders of today. In the words of Karlin-Neumann (2008, 402–403): Miriam is a leader: a prophet who speaks and binds others to God … In the waters of transition, Miriam sparks innovation, creativity, and hope, rooted in the past, yet focused on the future – just like contemporary women leaders. In comment on the divine imagery in the song, Meyers points out that it is praise to God alone as the Great Deliverer; Moses’ part is completely omitted, neither his rod nor his outstretched arm are mentioned. The shift of focus from Moses to God is evident already in the summary of the narrative (Exod 14:31). It is God’s great hand/arm, not Moses’ hand/arm, which is the instrument of victory. Also, in typical Jewish manner, the corporal language used in the MT is masked in the translation, speaking of God’s wondrous power rather than his great hand (Meyers 2008, 386). God’s saving of Israel is celebrated as an expression of his chesed, a relational term, indicating God’s utter loyalty and love towards his covenant people, (Exod 15:13; Meyers 2008, 391). In Exod 15:2 God is worshipped as the great warrior (lit. a man of war/‫ִאיׁש‬ ‫) ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬, a strikingly male metaphor. However, this imagery may not imply that the biblical authors perceived God as a male being, as female metaphors also are employed for depicting God in the Bible, for example a woman in labour (Isa 42:13–14). The designation “warrior” signifies God’s might and asserts that human military victories ultimately must be attributed to God. The notion of God’s right hand shattering the enemy similarly describes God’s military power, as the right hand is the one used for holding a weapon in Near Eastern mythology (Exod 15:6. Meyers 2008, 386, 389). The proclaiming of God’s Kingship should also be seen in this light (Meyers 2008, 390). Meyers understands the song as a historicised echo of the ancient Canaanite myth of the divine battle against the primordial forces of chaos, represented by surging waters. In the song, the natural elements, water and wind, become God’s weapons against human enemies. She advocates a symbolic interpretation of the victory, because if taken literally, the drowning of the whole Egyptian army would seem excessive and tragic. Thus, the point of the miracle is to proclaim God’s power and concern for the oppressed. Ultimately, the theme of the song is a celebration of God’s cosmic victory over the forces of chaos and evil (Meyers 2008, 385, 387; see also Isa 51:9–11 and Ps 89:6–19).

The Victory Song of Miriam

25

In commenting on Exod 15:11a “Who is like You, ‫יהוה‬, among the celestials; Who is like You, majestic in holiness …”. Meyers remarks that the designation “celestials” is a misleading translation of a word literally meaning “gods”. Since monotheism did not emerge in ancient Israel until the 6th century BCE, she holds that the verse possibly reflects an earlier polytheistic worldview. But in line with the NJPS translation, the term “gods/celestials” may also refer to “angels”. Either way, the rhetorical question proclaims the uniqueness and incomparability of YHWH, a declaration resounding throughout Jewish history which has become part of the daily liturgy (Meyers 2008, 388, 391. See also, e.g. 2 Sam 7:22–24; Ps 86:8–10; Isa 40:18; 46:5). As mentioned, Meyers interprets the hymn mythically, as a celebration of God’s victory over the powers of chaos, and she holds that the references to “Your [God’s] holy abode” (V.13) and “… Your own mountain … the sanctuary” (V.17) most likely do not refer to any historical temple or holy mountain, but to God’s heavenly abode, the archetype of all earthly sanctuaries (Meyers 2008, 391). 4

Christian Commentaries

The Historical Commentary on the Old Testament: Exodus by Professor Cornelis Houtman 4.1.1 Introduction As the title of the series indicates, these commentaries are written from a historical perspective. The three volumes on Exodus are written by Cornelis Houtman,21 who also is one of the series editors.22 According to the editors the contributors consist of scholars from many different Churches, and they “… will treat both the Jewish and the Christian interpretations of the past with due respect, but are free to take their own stand …”. The vision is to explore both the history behind the present texts, i.e., their historical context and prehistory, as well as their reception history in the Jewish and the Christian communities (Houtman 1996, II, ix, editorial preface). 4.1

21 22

The second volume, published in English translation (trans. Sierd Woudstra, Kok Publishing House: Kampen, 1996), encompasses Exod 7:14–19:25 and is thus the volume used in the present article. Cornelis Houtman, Professor of Old Testament at the Theological University, Kampen, since 1990.

26

von Heijne

The intended readership is scholars, ministers and a generally interested public. The exposition of each pericope first offers a new translation based directly on the Hebrew or Aramaic text, followed by a relatively brief section labelled “Essentials and Perspectives”, summarising the results of the exegesis in non-technical language, aimed at both the scholar and the layman. The focus is on the message of the text in its present form (Houtman 1996, x; editorial preface). The more detailed and technical body of exegesis is entitled “Scholarly Exposition,” discussing the texts in the light of the full range of issues raised by modern critical scholarship, although the focus remains on the historical context and reception (Houtman 1996, x–xi; editorial preface). 4.1.2 Commentary Houtman puts “Israel’s Song at the Sea”, as he entitles the poem (Exod 15:1–21) in the broader context of Exod 13:17–15:21, labelled “Pharaoh’s Destruction – Israel’s Deliverance” which he sees as a coherent unit (Houtman 1996, 221–233, 240). Like most scholars, Houtman regards the defeat of Pharaoh’s army and the deliverance of Israel as the climax and culmination of the Exodus story; the devotion and bonding of YHWH and Israel to each other is sealed by the deliverance and Israel’s responding ode of praise in chapter 15 (Houtman 1996, 229–233). In discussing the relationship between Exod 14 and 15, Houtman initially refers to the common view that “Miriam’s song” in Exod 15:21 is the original continuation of the narrative in Exod 14, and 15:1–18 is a later expansion: because of the insertion of 15:1–18, the original singers, Miriam and the women, were consequently made into singers of a refrain. According to this view, the “Song of Miriam” is very old, while the expansion the “Song of Moses” is of a much later date. This interpretation is supported by the custom of women hailing a victorious army in song recorded in Judg 11:34 and 1 Sam 18:6 (Houtman 1996, 240–241). Houtman, however, argues that the setting in Exod 15 is obviously different. It is a celebration of YHWH’s victory, in which neither the men nor the women played any part, both were passive spectators to the divine miracle, and the whole of Exod 15:1–21 is originally one song, aside from a few explanatory comments in prose (15:1, 19–20). Moreover, unlike many scholars, Houtman does not see the poem as an originally independent song, but as a complement to the prose version, for example, the reference to “horse and rider” (15:4) clearly presupposes Exod 14. Although its language differs from the rest of Exodus, that does not necessarily prove that the poem is archaic, as similar vocabulary is found in the Psalms. In genre, the poem could be classified as a thanksgiving

The Victory Song of Miriam

27

Psalm or hymn (Houtman 1996, 241–246). It was composed to celebrate the Exodus, performed in turn by male and female choirs, accompanied by dancing and music played on hand-drums. In this context, Houtman refers to the archaeological findings of hand-drums, which he admits most often were played by women, which also applies to dancing, a typically female activity.23 Thus, although Houtman does not regard the “Song of Miriam” as a separate, originally female composition, Miriam plays a prominent role. She sets the example and takes the lead and the other women follow her in song and dancing. Houtman interprets 15:21 as an antiphon which he translates “Miriam responded and sang to them [‫( ”… ] ָל ֶהם‬Houtman 1996, 293–295, my italics). According to Houtman, it is possible that the masculine suffix in ‫ ָל ֶהם‬may refer to women, and that the image in the present text of Moses singing with the men and Miriam with the women derives from the interweaving of diverse literary material. However, his own view is that ‫ ָל ֶהם‬in the current text likely is a call to Moses and the men, and that the women antiphonally sing the counter verse. Houtman also discusses the song in reception history, and recounts that the Midrash Mekilta portrays Moses as leading the men and Miriam the women, and according to Philo, the performers were a male and a female choir directed respectively by Moses and his sister. In distinction from Philo, Josephus credits the song entirely to Moses and is silent about Miriam and the women (Houtman 1996, 295).24 When discussing the portrayal of God, Houtman refers to the exegetical debate about whether the event was a miracle or not, but states that the narrator clearly regards it as a demonstration of God’s power. The purpose is to impress the readers and inspire them to put their trust in YHWH. The passage in Exod 15:11 is a rhetorical question, there is no one like YHWH. It is a proclamation of God’s Lordship over both nature and history (Houtman 1996, 230–238, 280–286). Chapters 14–15 exhibit affinity both with theophany accounts and accounts of holy war. YHWH is portrayed as warrior and King, fighting for Israel and executing judgment on the Egyptians. The drowning of the army is not cruel, but an act of divine justice. The Egyptians drown in the sea because they killed the Israelite boys by drowning them, and although Pharaoh’s drowning is not explicitly mentioned, Houtman personally regards 23 24

Houtman 1996, 294–295. Houtman also refers to rabbinic exegesis which points out that the Hebrew word [‫ ]מחול‬in V.20 besides dancing also may refer to an additional musical instrument, possibly “flute”. The designation of Miriam as Aaron’s sister is understood as an honorary reference, although Aaron plays no role in the crossing of the sea, his name is not left out beside that of Moses and Miriam, see Houtman 1996, 294.

28

von Heijne

it as implied, because if the main adversary remains alive, there is no real deliverance (Houtman 1996, 238, 247, 275). He further points out that the dating of the song is problematic, because it not only recounts the victory over Pharaoh’s army, but also the conquest of Canaan and Israel’s establishment in the holy land. In this light, Houtman interprets the terms, ‫ מכון חר‬and ‫ מקדש‬as referring to the same place: Zion, the place of the temple. Historically, the song has been understood as partly history, prophecy, prayer and praise, and Houtman holds that the declaration of YHWH’s Kingship has eschatological connotations (Houtman 1996, 241–242, 291–293). YHWH’s deliverance of Israel offers hope for future redemption, it is a paradigm for God’s victory over the forces of evil and oppression. Thus, there is no surprise that the Exodus in Christian exegesis became linked with baptism and freedom from the bondage of sin. According to Houtman, the biblical writer found no ethical problem in the death of the enemies and saw no need to exonerate God. But, to the Christian reader: … allegorical and typological exegesis … and, e.g., the conception that God’s modus operandi under the old dispensation differed from that under the new has removed the sting from Exod 14–15 (Houtman 1996, 230–233; see also, e.g. 1 Cor 10). The New American Commentary. An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, Volume 2: Exodus by Professor Douglas K. Stuart Introduction 4.2.1 The premise of the series is with the words of the editors “[…] unapologetically confessional and rooted in the evangelical tradition”. They emphasise that all contributors share their belief in the divine inspiration, authority and inerrancy of the Bible (Stuart 2006). The author of the Exodus commentary, Douglas K. Stuart is Professor of Old Testament at Gordon-Cornwell Theological Seminary and a pastor. Despite the title of the series, not all contributors are North Americans but some represent countries outside of the USA. The main intended readers are Christian ministers (Stuart 2006, editors’ preface). Stuart rejects the “documentary hypothesis” and argues for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (Stuart 2006, 28–34). The focus is on the practical application of the message in the contemporary Church, exploring both the historical meaning and the contemporary significance of the texts. Unless otherwise stated, the translation used is the NIV (Stuart 2006, editors’ preface). 4.2

The Victory Song of Miriam

29

4.2.2 Commentary As mentioned, Stuart sees Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. Thus, he is the author of the whole of the Book of Exodus including the poem in Exod 15:1–18, by Stuart entitled “the Victory Hymn of Moses”, which he puts in the context of the section Exod 13:17–19:25 labelled “the Wilderness Journey to Sinai”. According to Stuart, Moses composed the song directly after the miraculous divine rescue at the sea. The song is thus composed when Moses was eighty years old. Later, at the end of his life, when editing the Book of Exodus, Moses incorporated the song into the broader narrative, probably then adding the prose summary in V.19. Also, he argues, the opening in Exod 15:1 “Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the LORD …” clearly refers to Moses as the instigator. Since Moses was a prophet, indeed the prophet of prophets, Stuart sees no problem in the references to the conquest of Canaan and the establishment of the sanctuary in the promised land, and argues for a reading of VV.13–16a in the mode of the prophetic perfect (Stuart 2006, 346–347, 356–361). Stuart structures the song into five parts (Stuart 2006, 348–364): 1. Summons to praise the Lord (15:1–3) 2. Defeat of the Egyptians (15:4–10) 3. Praise and Thanks to the Lord (15:11–13) 4. Reaction of Future Foes (15:14–16a) 5. Israel, God’s Sanctuary (15:16b–18) According to Stuart, the song itself thus ends in V.18, and he labels Exod 15:19– 21 the “Prose Summary and Miriam’s Reprise of the Hymn”. The echo of 15:1 in V.21 indicates that Miriam taught the women the entire song, not only the introduction. In fact, V.21 contains the implicit title of the song, and by teaching it to the women Miriam made sure it would be sung in every Israelite home for all future generations. Although not the author, Miriam picking up the song and leading the women in praise contributed to its impact and popularity in Israel throughout the generations. Indeed, according to Rev 15:3, the song is even sung in heaven (Stuart 2006, 347). Like the other commentators, Stuart refers in this context to the typically female role in hailing a victorious army with music and dance (Stuart 2006, 361–364). Stuart remarks that Exod 15:20–21 is the first and only reference to Miriam by name in Exodus, and although she is most probably identical with the sister mentioned in Exod 2, it is not certain, because in Exod 15:20 she is explicitly called only Aaron’s sister. However, the sibling trio Moses, Aaron and Miriam are mentioned in many other texts of the Pentateuch, and the leadership of

30

von Heijne

the Israelites during the desert wanderings was a “family affair,” to use Stuart’s expression, a fact also confirmed by the prophet Micah. Miriam’s prominent role is also evident in the account of her funeral. The motive for Moses’ reference to Miriam in V.20 as only Aaron’s sister may be his modesty, or he simply followed his time’s custom of introducing a woman in relation to her oldest living male relative (Stuart 2006, 362–363). Miriam’s title as a prophetess indicates her leading role. Although rare, Stuart admits the Bible recognises female prophets. However, since Miriam never again is addressed as such in Exodus, the title may be due to her prophetic inspiration as worship leader in the present context. Stuart states that Miriam taught the women the song by singing it to them, and they repeated it after her, and holds that the use of the Hebrew pronominal suffixes at the time were much more fluctuant than in later forms of Hebrew, the seemingly male form [‫ ] ָל ֶהם‬in V.21 could thus very well refer to only women (Stuart 2006, 362–364).25 The choice of the divine name YHWH is to proclaim the uniqueness of the God of Israel. YHWH managed to do what no man could do. Humanly speaking, Israel’s odds were zero, they were doomed. Israel stood no chance against the most powerful and skilled army of the day. But YHWH fought for Israel, and for the one true, almighty God Pharaoh’s army was no match (VV.1–3). To God belongs all the glory, thus the song makes no mention of Moses or his staff, it was God’s hand that delivered Israel, Moses was merely his instrument (VV.6–7, 11–12). The point is that although Israel is a small people they have a great God (Stuart 2006, 348–350, 354–355). The statement in Exod 15:11 is a rhetorical question, declaring YHWH’s uniqueness, and the reference to gods should not be understood as an expression of polytheism. Rather, in the manner of Hebrew poetry the term refers to spiritual beings, both good and bad. In this light, Stuart argues for the LXX rendering of the verse, against NIV; YHWH is “glorious among the holy ones” i.e., the angels (Stuart 2006, 354–355). Stuart interprets the Egyptian army as representing the evil, satanic forces. Because of the corruption of this fallen world, YHWH must be a warrior, and as God the Father is a warrior the Son of God is a warrior, who will be the final destroyer of all evilness. Israel’s deliverance foreshadows the ultimate redemption of humanity. As God brought Israel out of the bondage in Egypt and led them to his holy abode, Christ calls those who believe in him out of the world and brings them to the heavenly Zion (Stuart 2006, 350, 355–361).

25

In regards to the ambiguous verb ‫ ענן‬in V.21, Stuart argues for the translation “to speak up” or to “sing” rather than “answer”.

The Victory Song of Miriam

31

Stuart discusses the interpretation of the Hebrew word ‫ זִ ְמ ָרת‬in Exod 15:2a. Which root is in view here, zmr I (song) or zmr II (might)? Referring to the use in the Psalms, he argues for the second rendering, against NIV. Thus V.2 should be translated “The Lord is my strength and my (might) …” (Stuart 2006, 349). According to Stuart, an important theological truth is affirmed in V.7, namely that God’s holy anger against evil is not opposed to his majesty or justice. In his own words:26 Modern sentimentalist thinking wants God to be ever-tolerant, always softhearted, and thus defines God’s justice as something other than how the Bible defines it. In fact, the just God revealed in the Bible will not tolerate evil (though he is extremely patient in waiting for repentance, as he was for at least eighty years with the Egyptians) and plans for its eventual total elimination. People who insist on being part of the process of evil will be eliminated as well. However, according to Stuart, Pharaoh himself, the main adversary, likely did not accompany his men into the sea, thus only his army drowned (Stuart 2006, 350–352). 5

Concluding Discussion

The hymn is a multifaceted text which poses many questions of origin/authorship, language, and not the least theology. Additionally, how are we to understand the hymn in relation to its prose counterpart (Exod 14)? I have tried to pinpoint the main issues, boiling them down to the five questions listed in section two. The aim has been to analyse the hymn in its present form and to investigate the answers to these questions in the selected commentaries. In both Jewish and Christian tradition, Israel’s final deliverance from the oppression in Egypt is the basic paradigm of salvation. In this light, my focus has been on the commentators’ interpretation of the portrayal of God and the role of Miriam (questions two and three). However, since chapters 14 and 15 are inseparable in the present context of the narrative, questions one and three are closely interconnected. Below, I present a comparative discussion and summary of the main results, and I argue that there are discernable differences between the commentaries based on their Jewish or their Christian contexts, but there are also similarities. Furthermore, they represent different profiles within each religion, which also impacts the interpretations. Munk and Stuart 26

Stuart 2006, 352; see also Exod 34:5–7.

32

von Heijne

stand in the more conservative Jewish and Christian respectively context compared to the historical approach of Houtman and the liberal feministic TWC. The TWC is the only one written by women. The setting of the textual context of the song varies in the commentaries, although they all put the starting point of the broader narrative at Exod 13:17, when Pharaoh has released the people. Following the Jewish liturgical division of the Torah into parashot, there is no surprise that both Munk and Meyers put the song in parashat B’shallah, ending in Exod 17:16, and the Jewish context is also evident in their references to Jewish sages and traditions although it is more extensive in Munk’s commentary. The two Christians put the ending of the broader context at Exod 15:21 (Houtman) and 19:21 (Stuart). The emphasis on the continual liturgical use of the song distinguishes the Jewish commentaries, although Stuart also points to its liturgical importance throughout history. However, as a Christian, rather than pointing to the Jewish daily prayers, he refers to Rev 15:3. Munk stands out in not discussing the hymn in relation to its prose version at all. The impression is that he, similarly to Stuart, as an Orthodox rabbi regards Moses as the author of the Torah. Stuart’s evangelical approach is evident in his rejection of the source-hypothesis, and he argues that Moses wrote the song (VV.1–18) immediately after the miracle at the sea. Later, in editing the Book of Exodus, he incorporated it into the broader narrative. Thus, Stuart regards the song as older than the prose version, a view shared by Meyers. However, in contrast to Stuart, Meyers claims that “The Song of the Sea/Shir haYam”, as it is known in the Jewish tradition, most probably originally was a female composition. Possibly, the kernel of the song (VV.20–21) was composed by Miriam herself, a kernel later expanded into the present form of the hymn and ascribed to the key figure of the Exodus, Moses. Interestingly, although not seeing Miriam as the instigator, but as a repeater of the song, Stuart agrees with Meyers that Miriam’s line in V.21 contains the implicit title of the song, and further states that it is thanks to her that it is sung in all Israelite homes throughout the generations, an interpretation that brings to mind the role of Jewish women as the keepers of the tradition. As one of her main arguments, Meyers refers to the typical female hailing of a victorious army with song and dancing, a fact supported by other biblical texts and archaeological findings. This argument is taken into consideration by all the others (except Munk), but is ultimately dismissed. For example, Houtman argues that the context of the song is different, at the seashore, both the men and the women were passive spectators to the divine miracle. Furthermore, he does not regard the poem as an originally independent song, but as a complement to the prose version. All the male commentators reject the idea of Miriam as the originator of the

The Victory Song of Miriam

33

song, but they agree on her importance as a role-model and inspirator of faith in picking up the song and leading the people (the men and/or the women) in worship. Miriam’s status as a leader and a prophetess is undisputed, with the possible exception of Stuart, who suggests that her prophetic inspiration may be limited to the ecstatic moment at the seashore. There appears to be a universal agreement on her sisterhood to both Moses and Aaron; a common view is that Miriam’s prophetic gift showed in predicting the birth of Moses. Not surprisingly, the role of Miriam is discussed most extensively in the TWC. All commentators pay the portrayal of God as warrior great attention, they see the song as a military hymn celebrating God’s victory over evil forces, represented by the Egyptians. However, Meyers alone points out the image of warrior as a distinct masculine metaphor, but emphasises that its use does not imply that the biblical author considered God a male being. They all agree that Moses disappears in the hymn; God is the sole actor to whom belongs all glory. YHWH demonstrates his Lordship over both nature and history. The mutual relationship between Israel and YHWH is sealed. God’s greatness and uniqueness is the central theme, as shown in the rhetorical question in V.11; there is no one like YHWH; whether ‫ ֵא ִלם‬refer to lesser gods, earthly or heavenly powers. Considering that Stuart alone argues for the LXX rendering of the verse: YHWH is “glorious among the holy ones” i.e., the angels, I find it surprising that he does not mention the divergences between the LXX and MT versions of Miriam’s song (VV.20–21), or the reference to Miriam in LXX Exod 6:20 as the sister of Moses and Aaron. Munk additionally offers a mystical understanding of Exod 15:11, reading ‫ ֵא ִלם‬as ‫ ִא ֵלם‬, meaning mute, an interpretation highlighting God’s silence during human sufferings and hardships such as the exile. Munk also distinguishes himself in discussing the divine name, YHWH, a name that in Jewish tradition represents God’s mercy, and the same applies to God’s right hand. However, in his conclusion, stating that YHWH’s mercy does not contradict his justice, Munk is supported by the other commentators, particularly the two Christian exegetes. As stated, all commentators agree on a symbolical interpretation of the song as God’s victory over the powers of evil and chaos, but to all but Meyers, that does not exclude a literal reading of the text. The drowning of the Egyptians was God’s righteous judgment of the oppressors. According to Houtman, Pharaoh most certainly also perished in the sea, because if Israel’s main adversary survived, there was no true deliverance. Stuart regards the miracle at the sea as a historical fact, although like Houtman he also sees Israel’s deliverance as the paradigm for the salvation in Christ. However, the dualistic perspective is more pronounced by Stuart. As God the Father is a warrior, so is the Son of

34

von Heijne

God. To Stuart, if read symbolically, the army represents the satanic powers, and historically speaking the Egyptians deserved their doom. However, according to Stuart, Pharaoh himself most probably survived, a claim I find exegetically problematic. Munk provides no clear answer as to whether Pharaoh survived or not, but renders the opinion of various Jewish sages who are divided on this issue. Meyers prefers to read the hymn exclusively mythically, as symbolising the divine victory over the powers of chaos and evil. The point is to proclaim God’s power and concern for the oppressed. She argues that this interpretation resolves an ethical problem, because if taken literally, the death of the whole Egyptian army would seem cruel. Only Meyers explicitly discusses this ethical dilemma. However, even if Houtman claims that the biblical author saw no need to exonerate God, he adds that the Christian allegorical and typological exegesis and the dispensation of the new covenant removes the sting from Exod 14–15. Munk, Houtman and Stuart all interpret the song eschatologically. God’s holy abode represents Zion/Heaven and the ultimate goal of the Exodus is the establishment of the Kingdom of God. However, there ends the similarities between Munk and the two Christian commentators and the confessional differences become obvious. While Houtman and Stuart both understand the song as the paradigm for the redemption in Christ, Munk talks about the coming Messianic age. The eschatological theme is not that evident in the feministic commentary, but as mentioned, the song is read symbolically as a proclamation of the divine victory over tyranny and oppression, and Meyers agrees with the others that the reference to God’s holy abode alludes to God’s celestial sanctuary. To conclude, all the commentators advocate a symbolical interpretation of the song, seeing it as the paradigm of deliverance, but its implication is coloured by their religious contexts. Bibliography Childs, Brevard S. 1974. The Book of Exodus. A Critical, Theological Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press. Cohn Eskenazi, Tamara and Weiss, Andrea L. (eds.). 2008. The Torah: A Women’s Commentary. New York: Union of Reform Judaism Press and Women of Reform Judaism. Dijk-Hemmes, Fokkelien van. 1994. “Some Recent Views on the Presentation of the Song of Miriam.” Pages 200–206 in A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy.

The Victory Song of Miriam

35

Edited by Athalya Brenner. The Feminist Companion to the Bible 6. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Frankel, Ellen. 1996. The Five Books of Miriam. A Woman’s Commentary on the Torah. New York: Harper Collins. Heijne, Camilla von. 2010. The Messenger of the Lord in Early Jewish Interpretations of Genesis. BZAW 412. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Heijne, Camilla von. 2014. “The Dreams in the Joseph Narrative and Their Impact in Biblical Literature.” Pages 30–46 in ‘I Lifted My Eyes and Saw’. Reading Dream and Vision Reports in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Elizabeth R. Hayes and Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer. LHB.OTS 584. London et al.: Bloomsbury. Heijne, Camilla von. 2015. “Angels.” Pages 20–24 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Theology. Vol. 1. Edited by Samuel Balentine. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heijne, Camilla von. 2018. “Mose ser Gud på ryggen: En komparativ analys av Exod 34:5–7 i ett urval nutida judiska och kristna bibelkommentarer.” Pages 158–174 in Ordet är dig mycket nära: Tolkningar av Gamla testamentet. Edited by James Starr and Birger Olsson. Skellefteå: Artos & Norma. Heijne, Camilla von, 2018. “The Messenger of the Lord and the Theophany in the Burning Bush: A Comparative Analysis of Selected Jewish and Christian Commentaries to Exodus 3:1–6, pages 67–89 in “ Må de nu förklara …” Om bibeltexter, religion, litteratur. Edited by Rosmari Lillas-Schuil et al. Borås: LIR skrifter: University of Gothenburg. Houtman, Cornelis. 1993. Exodus. 1. Chapters 1:1–7:13. HCOT. Kampen: Kok. Houtman, Cornelis. 1996. Exodus. 2. Chapters 7:14–19:25. HCOT. Kampen: Kok. Houtman, Cornelis. 2000. Exodus. 3. Chapters 20–40. HCOT. Kampen: Kok 2000. Houtman, Cornelis. 2002. Exodus. 4. Supplement. HCOT. Kampen: Kok 2002. Meyers, Carol L. 1994. Miriam the Musician. Pages 207–230 in A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy. The Feminist Companion to the Bible 6. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press 1994. Meyers, Carol L. 2005. Exodus. NCBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Munk, Elie. 1994. The Call of the Torah. An Anthology of Interpretation and Commentary on the Five Books of Moses. Volume 2. Exodus/Shemos. Translated by trans. E.S. Mazer and Yitzchok Kerner. Art Scroll Mesorah Series. New York: Mezorah Publications [French original: 1981]. Sarna, Nahum M. 1991. The JPS Torah Commentary. Exodus. The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. Philadelphia: JPS. Siquans, Agnethe. 2015. “‘She Dared to Reprove Her Father.’ Miriam’s Image as a Female Prophet in Rabbinic Interpretation.” JAJ 6: 335–357. Stuart, Douglas K. 2006. Exodus. NAC 2. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers. Tervanotko, Hanna. 2016. Denying Her Voice. The Figure of Miriam in Ancient Jewish Literature. JAJ.S 23. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Chapter 2

The Reception of the Exodus Tradition in the Psalter Susan E. Gillingham Over twenty years ago I wrote a paper on the Exodus tradition and Israelite psalmody (Gillingham 1999, 19–46). This used the historical-critical method to assess the evidence for this tradition in four pairs of psalms; I still affirm much of what I wrote then. So this volume has provided an ideal opportunity to revisit that paper and to add to it some reflections, this time through two other methods which I now use more frequently when writing about the Psalter. The first is a literary-critical reading of the Psalter as a whole, looking at the overall shape created by each of its five books.1 The second method takes up a reception history approach to individual psalms, showing how the afterlife of the psalm can throw light on its overall impact in Jewish and Christian tradition.2 So first I shall summarise in some detail my findings in that earlier paper. I shall then be able to make some observations about how a literary-critical reading of the Exodus tradition within the Psalter as a whole adds a further dimension to those earlier conclusions. From this I shall be able to show how this psalmic Exodus tradition lives on through the centuries, especially through its reception in art and music. 1 A Historical-Critical Reading of the Exodus Tradition in the Psalter That earlier paper was written because I was intrigued to see why the Moses/ Exodus tradition, which is about a wandering people deprived of land and status, protected by a deity who is always on the move with his people, could find its way into Psalter. For the Psalter, by contrast, is primarily about the traditions of David and Zion, concerned initially with an established nation and a royal state cult which ratifies its claims to land and status through a deity now housed in a Temple. As I looked at the pre-exilic uses of the Exodus tradition outside the Psalter – especially in Amos, Hosea and Deuteronomy – it became 1 Relevant literature will be given at fn 14. 2 For literature on this subject, see fn 16.

© Susan E. Gillingham, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471122_004

The Reception of the Exodus Tradition in the Psalter

37

clear that the memory of the Exodus served a refining purpose in addressing the over-comfortable aspirations of a nationalistic theology, reminding the people that election and privilege involved responsibility and obedience.3 As I looked at the exilic and then the post-exilic uses of the Exodus tradition, in texts such as Isa 40–55, and then in Haggai, Zechariah, Nehemiah, and Daniel, it became apparent the Exodus tradition also served a refining purpose. In this case it was to remind the people of the relational aspect of their election, given that much of their institutional framework had been broken under Babylonian and then Assyrian domination and later under Persian rule.4 It became clear that in all these texts, whatever their purported date, the shared concern was to encourage the people to remember that their election was dependent entirely upon the initiative of God in their history, which was greater than their own human endeavour (Gillingham 1999, 25–27). These observations about the Exodus tradition outside the Psalter provided a framework for study of the Moses/Exodus tradition in the psalms, for here too it seems to have been used to remind the people not only of their special election but also of their responsibility to God (and in places, of God’s responsibility to them). In this way, the Exodus tradition served to complement the David/Zion tradition, which was as much about the privilege as the responsibility of special election. In that article I sought to create some specific criteria for assessing the evidence of the Exodus tradition in psalmody. Although others might differ from my somewhat specific focus, I decided that the most important criteria were, firstly, references to the escape from Egypt, especially to the part played by Moses in this respect, and, secondly, allusions to the crossing of the Sea of Reeds.5 In my view only eight psalms really met these criteria, and four of them occurred in pairs: Pss 77 and 78; 80 and 81; 105 and 106; and 135 and 136. Another psalm, 114, which has some associations with the hymn in Exod 15, comprised, in a different sense, another pair, and I shall refer to this later.6 I first examined Ps 78. In my view this offers the most explicit combination of the Moses/Exodus and David/Zion traditions in the entire Psalter,  3 See Amos 2:10–11; 3:1–2; 9:7; Hos 2:15; 11:1; 12:9; also Deut 6:20–24; 26:5–11. 4 See Hag 2:45; Zech 10:10–11; Neh 9:9–11; Dan 9:15. 5 Reading ‫ יַ ם־סּוף‬as “Sea of Reeds”: ‫ סּוף‬in Exod 2:3, 5 clearly means “reeds”. This probably locates the Exodus at the Nile Delta. 6 Three other scholars who have worked on the Exodus tradition and psalmody have much in common with these proposals. See especially Emanuel 2012 who proposes Pss 78; 105; 106; 135 and 136, and also 66; 77; 95; 114 and possibly 23; also Fischer 2015, 221–233 who suggests Pss 77; 78; 80; 81, but also 66; and finally Harvey 1963, 383–405, who has slightly different examples, arguing for Pss 74; 83; 95; 105; 106; 114 for the best examples of Exodus typology.

38

Gillingham

so it is a significant psalm. The Exodus tradition appears especially in VV.12–13  and 52–53: In the sight of their ancestors he worked marvels in the land of Egypt, in the fields of Zoan. He divided the sea and let them pass through it, and made the waters stand like a heap. VV.12–13

Then he led out his people like sheep, and guided them in the wilderness like a flock. He led them in safety, so that they were not afraid; but the sea overwhelmed their enemies. VV.52–53

The phrase “like a heap” (‫מֹו־נֽד‬ ֵ ‫ ) ְּכ‬is also used in Exod 15:8. The verb “guide” (from the root ‫ )נָ ַהג‬is a common word used for God’s activity during the Exodus, found for example in Exod 15:13. Similarly the expression “like a flock” (‫ ) ַּכּצֹאן‬also has Exodus connotations, as in Pss 77:20 and 80:1, which also use this tradition. The Exodus tradition is used in Ps 78 as negatively as it is used in the book of Amos, which in that book places the entire northern kingdom under the judgement of God. It seems that this situation is expressed in Ps 78 as well. When we reach the end of the psalm we realise that its purpose is to denigrate Ephraim so that Judah, and with this, the David/Zion tradition, gains precedence, taking up these northern traditions for themselves: He rejected the tent of Joseph, he did not choose the tribe of Ephraim; but he chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, which he loves … He chose his servant David, and took him from the sheepfolds … VV.67, 68, 70

The use of the Exodus tradition in Ps 78 acts as a type of charter-myth: the southern kingdom “inherits” the Exodus tradition which, from the evidence in Amos and Hosea, for example, and prior to the fall of the northern kingdom to Assyria in 721, had been the dominant tradition in the north.7 So Ps 78 is about the way that the northern kingdom failed to heed the voice of prophets such 7 See Carroll 1971, 33–50 here, 148–149; also Day 1986, 1–12.

The Reception of the Exodus Tradition in the Psalter

39

as Amos and Hosea; that God’s judgement was the reason for its demise in 721; and that the southern kingdom now inherited this special tradition as part of their own election history – with the same sense of responsibility. Ps 77 also utilises the Exodus tradition at the end of the psalm, in VV.19–20: Your way was through the sea, your path, through the mighty waters; yet your footprints were unseen. You led your people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron. This psalm, as a communal lament, is explicitly concerned with the destruction of the northern kingdom: “Jacob” and “Joseph” (V.15) give us a sense of its northern pedigree. The preservation of this psalm must have been through Judah, the surviving kingdom, after 721, in the south. So “your people” (V.20) is no longer about the people of the north, but now refers to the Jerusalem community. Pss 77 and 78 thus have a similar function: the Exodus tradition speaks not only about privilege but responsibility, first for Israel and then for Judah. Pss 80 and 81, like Pss 77 and 78, also re-use northern elements. All four psalms have the title “Psalm of Asaph”, and many of the psalms in this collection have a northern orientation. Ps 80 is a communal lament, like Ps 77: that it was associated even in later times with the fall of the north is evident from the additional Greek superscription, “concerning the Assyrians” (ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἀσσυρίου). The northern tribe of Joseph and the northern clans of Manasseh and Ephraim are explicitly referred to in VV.1–2. The Exodus tradition is found in V.8: You brought a vine out of Egypt; you drove out the nations and planted it. Again, like Ps 77, what was probably once a prayer for God’s protection of the northern kingdom is now re-used, after its defeat by the Assyrians, by the southern kingdom. VV.17–19 at the end of the psalm could be seen as applying now to the Davidic king and to the Lord of Hosts at the Jerusalem Temple: But let your hand be upon the one at your right hand, the one whom you made strong for yourself. Then we will never turn back from you; give us life, and we will call on your name. Restore us, O LORD God of hosts; let your face shine, that we may be saved.

40

Gillingham

Ps 81 is a judgement liturgy, and if Ps 80 has some correspondences with Ps 77, then Ps 81 has some associations with Ps 78, where the Exodus tradition is also used in a negative way. Its northern elements are seen in the references to the “God of Jacob” in VV.1, 4, to the “decree in Joseph” in V.5, and the references to “Israel” in VV.4, 5, 11. The Exodus tradition is found especially in V.10, which is an allusion to the preface of the Decalogue (Exod 20:2 and Deut 5:6). I am the LORD your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. Open your mouth wide and I will fill it. V.9 has therefore been displaced, for one would normally expect it to follow, not precede, V.10 (see Exod 20:3 and Deut 5:7): There shall be no strange god among you; you shall not bow down to a foreign god. The admonition in V.6 (“I relieved your shoulder of the burden; your hands were freed from the basket”) also implicitly refers to the time of slavery in Egypt. The psalm reads as a prophetic liturgy, where the “I” speaking is not the psalmist, but God himself: this is a psalm with a clear judgement theme. It then becomes another “charter myth” for the southern kingdom: Joseph and Jacob have been rejected, so the onus is on the community of Judah to worship and obey the God who brought his people out of Egypt. So, again, we see how the southern kingdom, after the fate of the northern kingdom in 721, is now also linked to the Exodus tradition, and it bears the same responsibility as Israel should have done. Ps 114 is a very different psalm. VV.1–2 are a summary of Israel’s origins, linking together the Exodus tradition with that of Judah as God’s sanctuary (i.e. referring here to Jerusalem). VV.3–4 link together the two traditions of the crossing of the sea (from Exod 14–15) and the crossing of the river Jordan upon the entry into the land (from Josh 3–4). The personification of the mountain and hills rejoicing is typical of hymns of praise from the exile, as seen in Pss 96:1–12; 98:7–8, and in Isa 42:10–12; 43:20–21; 44:23; 51:3 and 55:12–13. VV.5–6 repeat VV.3–4 in question form. VV.7–8 call on the earth to join in the dance of creation – another exilic motif as seen in second Isaiah (e.g. 55:12). This is a composite psalm: it uses both Israel’s own traditions alongside ancient Near Eastern mythological theophany traditions, especially those of the Canaanite myth of Baal’s Victory over Prince River and Judge Sea, and the combat with chaotic waters. With a compression of so many traditions, it is likely to be a later psalm from the exile, where the tradition of the Exodus from Egypt and

The Reception of the Exodus Tradition in the Psalter

41

the escape from a foreign land becomes a paradigm for the exile in Babylon and the hope for a similar return to the land of Judah. The clearest use of the Exodus tradition is in VV.3, 5: The sea looked and fled; Jordan turned back … Why is it, O sea, that you flee? O Jordan, that you turn back? Ps 114 has several links with Exod 15:1–18. Although set in a narrative, Exod 15 also has several hallmarks of a composite hymn: VV.1–3 signify the call to praise, and the rest of the psalm states the reasons for doing so. VV.4–10, on the victory at the Reed Sea, makes use of the Exodus tradition: Pharaoh’s chariots and his army he cast into the sea; his picked officers were sunk in the Red Sea. The floods covered them; they went down into the depths like a stone. Your right hand, O LORD, glorious in poweryour right hand, O LORD, shattered the enemy. VV.4–6

The ending of this hymn, concerning the sanctuary of God, clearly connects the Exodus and Zion traditions in the same way as in Ps 114:1–2: You brought them in and planted them on the mountain of your own possession, the place, O LORD, that you made your abode, the sanctuary, O LORD, that your hands have established … Exod 15:17

When Israel went out from Egypt, the house of Jacob from a people of strange language, Judah became God’s sanctuary, Israel8 his dominion. Ps 114:1–2

Like Ps 114, Exod 15 uses mythological imagery concerning God as a divine warrior (V.3), God’s victory over the chaotic waters (VV.8–12), and his superiority 8 In the context of the rest of the psalm, “Israel” here is probably the exilic term for the people in exile. It is used frequently in this way in Isaiah, alongside Jacob: see Isa 41:8; 44:1, 21; 45:4.

42

Gillingham

over other gods (V.11) – imagery which is again taken up in second Isaiah (for example, Isa 51:9–10). Even though parts of this composite hymn are likely to be very early, the relevance of this for those in exile, like Ps 114, is clear: both hymns combine the Exodus tradition with the entry into the land (Exod 15:17 and Ps 114:1–2), thus offering hope amidst the peoples’ despair in exile. The four other psalms which each offer examples of the Exodus tradition suggest a different period and a different sort of authentication. Rather than being used to address the superiority of Judah in the pre-exilic period, these psalms apply the Exodus tradition to the post-exilic community in order to authenticate their election (and responsibilities for that election) at a time of living under foreign rule. Pss 105 and 106 are a pair. 1 Chron 16 uses the first fifteen verses of Ps 105 and the last two verses of Ps 106 in its account of the bringing of the Ark to the Jerusalem and the founding of the Temple. A post-exilic setting for both psalms is clear: the development of the traditions, at times in clear chronological order, is more organised than the composite traditions which made up the previous five psalms. In addition, the psalms use material from early sources in Genesis and Exodus, as well as priestly and Deuteronomic traditions – all suggesting a later date. Nothing is made of earlier tribal conflicts, nor of the Davidic monarchy, and Ps 106:27, 4 allude to the experiences of the Diaspora. Ps 105 uses the Exodus traditions more positively than Ps 106: 105:37–41 is a thanksgiving song, whilst Ps 106 throughout uses a lament form, where the emphasis is more on divine judgement. Hence in Ps 106 the Exodus tradition is used as a warning, with the aim of recovering the people’s confidence in God and in their election during a period of critical uncertainty after their return to the land.9 In Ps 105, the most detailed appeal to the Exodus tradition is in VV.37–38, where again we see several typical Exodus motifs such as “leading forth” out  of Egypt.10 Then he brought Israel out with silver and gold, and there was no one among their tribes who stumbled. Egypt was glad when they departed, for dread of them had fallen upon it. 9 10

All four pairs use the Exodus tradition both positively and negatively, whether as promise or as warning. Here the double use is for contrition and confession (106) and praise and worship (105). Interestingly there is no reference to Sinai in this psalm. Indeed, it rarely occurs at all throughout the Psalter, other than in Pss 50 and 68. See Gillingham 1999, 41 fn 56.

The Reception of the Exodus Tradition in the Psalter

43

The use of the Exodus tradition in Ps 106 is mainly through the references to the escape through the Reed Sea. VV.7–9 reverse any tradition of hope in election and the Exodus becomes a direct form of admonishment to the people: Our ancestors, when they were in Egypt, did not consider your wonderful works; they did not remember the abundance of your steadfast love, but rebelled against the Most High at the Red Sea. Yet he saved them for his name’s sake, so that he might make known his mighty power. He rebuked the Red Sea, and it became dry; he led them through the deep as through a desert. VV.7–12 offer an extensive use of the Exodus tradition, against a background  of admonition, which leads to the confession of guilt and plea for restoration in VV.45–47: For their sake he remembered his covenant, and showed compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love. He caused them to be pitied by all who held them captive. 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. Such confessions of guilt and pleas for restoration are evident from the times of Haggai (chapter 2) and Zechariah (chapters 7 and 8) up to the time of Nehemiah (chapter 9). It is interesting that neither Pss 105 nor 106 refers to Zion nor to David: the Exodus tradition is the sole defining means of identity. In contrast to Pss 105–106, the pairing of Pss 135 and 136 lacks any lament: the focus is entirely on praise of God’s mercy in restoring his people through the escape from Egypt, and again it seems that the thanksgiving also refers  to the restoration to the land after the exile. Ps 135:8–9 refers to the sojourn  in Egypt: He it was who struck down the firstborn of Egypt, both human beings and animals; he sent signs and wonders into your midst, O Egypt, against Pharaoh and all his servants.

44

Gillingham

The fact that the Exodus reference passes on quickly to the recounting of the wilderness and settlement traditions (VV.10–12) again suggests its relevance to the post-exilic community in their hope for independence in their possession of the land. Here, unlike Pss 105 and 106, the Exodus tradition is combined with the traditions concerned with Zion and the Temple (VV.1–4, 19–21). Indeed, the psalm ends with praise of God in Zion: Blessed be the LORD from Zion, he who resides in Jerusalem. Praise the LORD! V.21

Ps 136:10–15, with its repeated refrain, focuses especially on the Reed Sea traditions: who struck Egypt through their firstborn, for his steadfast love endures forever; who divided the Red Sea in two, for his steadfast love endures forever; and made Israel pass through the midst of it, for his steadfast love endures forever; but overthrew Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea, for his steadfast love endures forever … VV.10, 13–15

Like Ps 135, the Exodus tradition is used alongside the Zion/Temple traditions. The psalm is actually less concerned with the status of God’s people, unlike 135; its final verse offers, instead, praise to the “God of heaven”: O give thanks to the God of heaven, for his steadfast love endures forever. V.26

The paper concluded that, although the Exodus tradition is a minor theme in the Psalter as a whole, it plays an important part in shaping the identity of the Jerusalem Temple community at different stages in its history. In the first two pairs of psalms this is done by inverting the essence of the tradition itself: the Exodus is no longer about God’s protection of a wandering, landless people, but rather about the ratification of a settled, established community at various stages of their development. Pss 77/78, and Pss 80/81 appear to have used

The Reception of the Exodus Tradition in the Psalter

45

this tradition to ratify the election of the southern kingdom, after the fall of the north. In its claim to nationhood it combined the Moses/Exodus tradition with the David/Zion tradition, so showing (in effect twice over) the superiority of the kingdom of Judah. Ps 114 and Exod 15, both apparently composite works, seem to have had a greater appeal to those in exile: the Exodus tradition here is used to give the people hope in God’s ability to provide “a way through the waters” and so bring them back to the land with renewed worship at the Temple. The two other pairs of psalms (105/106 and 135/136) are most probably from the post-exilic period and together they illustrate the use of the Exodus tradition in another way. These are psalms for the returned exiles, and here the Exodus tradition ratifies their claims to the land and legitimates the importance of Zion and the Temple, despite the people being under Persian rule. In that paper some twenty years ago I unashamedly suggested a dating for each of these psalms, albeit in very general terms: four psalms as pre-exilic, one psalm as exilic and the other four as post-exilic. I actually still stand by these observations, although now I would be more cautious about assuming anything further about any historical context – for example, now I would say little about any specific festival (in that article I presumed the Passover liturgy enabled much of the preservation of these psalms, from pre-exilic to post-exilic times). I would also be very cautious about saying more about the survival of the Exodus tradition in the north (in that article, I presumed Gilgal was an important sanctuary in this respect). 2 A Literary-Critical Reading of the Exodus Tradition in the Psalter Were I to revise that article today, I would say more, from a literary-critical point of view, about the placing and arrangement of these psalms within the Psalter as a whole. This volume allows me to make such revisions. So, for example, with Pss 77 and 78, I would now argue, more thoroughly and from a linguistic point of view, that these two psalms were intentionally paired together by the editors of this collection in the Psalter. Just as Ps 77 ends with Moses and Aaron leading the people “like a flock” (V.29), Ps 78 ends with David as the shepherd of his people (V.71). And just as Ps 77:1 begins by asking God to hear, Ps 78:1 begins by asking the people to hear instead. Just as Ps 77:5 and 11 (Hebrew VV.6, 12) reflect on God’s mighty deeds “of old” (‫ ) ִּמ ֶּק ֶדם‬so in Ps 78:2 the psalmist also speaks of these mighty deeds, also using ‫ ֶק ֶדם‬. Furthermore, we read in both psalms of the mighty waters (77:16, 19; 78:13, 16, 20) of God’s “redeeming” his people (77:15 and 78:35) who are addressed as Jacob (78:5, 21, 31, 71 and 77:15),

46

Gillingham

and who in Ps 78:52 are led “like a flock” (‫) ַּכ ֵע ֶדר‬, as in 77:20 (‫ ַכּצֹאן‬, despite its use of a different word).11 But in addition, and also using a literary-critical approach, I would argue that the placing of all these “twinned psalms” (Zwillingspsalmen) at the different points in the Psalter enables us to see them highlighted, with their double emphasis, within the context of the unfolding of the story of the Psalter  as a whole. In order to support these observations, it is important to summarise briefly the so-called “story” of the Psalter as it is understood by several scholars today.12 Books One to Three (Pss 1–41; 42–72; 73–89) tell the story about the rise and fall of David.13 This can be illustrated by reference to the first and last royal psalm in these three books. Ps 2, heading up Book One, introduces us to the heights of God’s relationship with the king, for whom God speaks, using Ancient Near Eastern terminology, as a father speaks to his son (“You are my son; today  I have begotten you.” Ps 2:7). By contrast, Ps 89, at the very end of Book Three, speaks from the depths of despair, because God has broken his promises to the king (“But now you have spurned and rejected him; you are full of wrath against your anointed. You have renounced the covenant with your servant; you have defiled his crown in the dust.” Ps 89:38–39). Between these two poles of affirmation and rejection of the Davidic dynasty, Books One and Two mostly offer psalms to be read through the life of King David (seen by the plethora of headings “a Psalm of David”). Book Three, meanwhile, includes psalms which are more concerned with the demise of the northern and southern kingdoms: Pss 74 and 79, for example, lament the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple  (“O God, why do you cast us off forever? Why does your anger smoke against the sheep of your pasture? Direct your steps to the perpetual ruins; the enemy has destroyed everything in the sanctuary. Your foes have roared within your holy place; they set up their emblems there….” Ps 74:1–3).

11

12 13

The connecting of different psalms linguistically is a feature of my reception history commentary, where I argue that this intentional “placing” marks the first stages of the psalm’s reception history. I note this connection with most of the psalms, especially the pairs of psalms under discussion here. In the space allowed here I have restricted myself to a reference only to Pss 77 and 78 in this respect. Scholars who have written on this topic include Auwers 2000; Flint and Miller 2005; McCann 1993; Seybold and Zenger 1994; DeClaissé-Walford 1997; DeClaissé-Walford 2014; Wilson 1985; Zenger 2010. In what follows I have adapted my own outline of the story of the Psalter from Gillingham 2019, 68–85.

The Reception of the Exodus Tradition in the Psalter

47

Book Four (Pss 90–106) contrasts starkly with Book Three. Ps 90 starts with the heading “Psalm of Moses”, reminding us of that covenant God made with his people which is centuries older than that made with David. Throughout Book Four, human finitude and vulnerability are repeatedly contrasted with the overriding power and constancy of God. The seventeen psalms can be divided into four sub-groups, each comprising different themes which highlight different facets of the character of God, who here is presented as Refuge, King, Defender, and Creator/Redeemer. The first three psalms (90–92) are quiet and reflective prayer; the focus is on God as Refuge, and the figure of Moses and the traditions of the Exodus and wilderness are prominent. The next eight psalms are jubilant praise (Pss 93; 95–100), interrupted by a lament, reflecting on the judgement of God, in Ps 94; throughout the emphasis is on God as King, both over his people and over the entire cosmos. Here too the figure of Moses and the Exodus plays an important part. The following three psalms (101–103) return to the mood of reflective prayer, with personal complaints interspersed with declarations of faith: the theme is God as Defender, and although there are some echoes of Pss 90–92, the focus is not on Moses, but a fleeting glimpse of David as a paradigm of obedient faith. In the final collection (Pss 104–106) the figure of Moses comes back in view: this collection starts with a psalm of praise, and the emphasis is now on God as Creator (Ps 104) and Redeemer (105–106), with Ps 106, closely linked to 105, concluding Book Four with its more negative use of the Exodus tradition. If Book Three was a “Book of Questions”, Book Four offers some tentative answers, in four movements, twice progressing from quiet reflection to corporate praise.  The conclusion is more solemn, as it was at the beginning, with a considered reflection of the peoples’ inconstancy compared with the constancy of their God; in both psalms, implicitly and explicitly, the “God of Exodus” plays an important part. In Book Five (Pss 107–150) the story of the Psalms reaches its conclusion. It uses the themes of the other books and weaves them into an ongoing story of hope. There are two short collections of psalms headed “Of David”. One is at the beginning (Pss 108–110) and the other is near the end (Pss 138–145), and these remind us that God has not forgotten his promise made to David, despite all appearances. There are two “Alleluia” collections, also known as “Hallel Psalms” from the use of the term in the Hebrew: these are Pss 113–118 and Pss 146–150, and serve as a reminder that whatever happens to God’s people, God is still their King. The first Alleluia collection returns to the theme in Book Four: that God proved his kingship by redeeming his people from slavery in Egypt. The second Alleluia collection, at the very end of the Psalter, takes up the theme of

48

Gillingham

God’s kingship as seen in his role as Creator of the universe. Other psalms have been included to show that God’s plans for his people require some response. The long Torah Psalm 119 reflects on the other part of the Exodus story, the giving of the Law to Moses on Mount Sinai. The Law is not an irksome duty, but it is a gift of grace from God. Smaller psalms of instruction (111 and 112) and other psalms about God’s provision for his people in the face of awful suffering  (135–136 and 137) have been interwoven into this story. At the heart of Book Five is the collection of fifteen “Songs of Ascent”, Pss 120–134. These may have been used when the people made their pilgrimage up to Jerusalem. The collection reminds the people that Zion still plays an important part in God’s plans for his people, and this is where they receive God’s blessing. For example, Ps 125:1–2 reads: “Those who trust in the LORD are like Mount Zion, which cannot be moved, but abides forever. As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so the LORD surrounds his people, from this time on and for evermore …”. It is now possible to see how our Exodus psalms fit into this overall story. There are no such “Exodus psalms” in Books One and Two, and understandably so, given that the focus is on personal prayers seen through the life of David. Pss 77/78 and Pss 80/81 are set within Book Three. As we noted earlier,  they each belong to a collection of eleven psalms headed “of Asaph”, a group whose “family likeness” is the judgement of God on his people. As we have seen, some psalms refer to tribes and places in the northern kingdom before the fall to the Assyrians in 721 BCE. So, in Book Three as a whole, with its overriding theme of God’s judgement, we can now see how the four so-called “Exodus psalms” play a vital role in this story. They are a reminder that God had made another covenant with his people through Moses, and that the God who “set his people free” from slavery in Egypt has the power to do so again as the people face not only the end of the northern kingdom, and then not only the end of Judah, but also, with the demise of the monarchy and the destruction of the Temple, their exile to a foreign land. Pss 105 and 106 close Book Four, a book which has many other allusions to the experience of the exile: the heading “Psalm of Moses” over Ps 90 allows us to see how again we might read the whole of Book Four not primarily through the covenant with David, which has ended (Ps 89), but instead through the covenant with Moses. We saw earlier how Ps 105 praises the God of Exodus and has confidence in what God can do for his people, whilst Ps 106 laments the people’s constant disobedience, suggesting that the oppressive experience of the exile is what the people have deserved in their refusal to live obediently in the light of the covenant with Moses. So, Pss 105 and 106, about God’s provision for his people during the Exodus, serve overall to offer a sense of hope (105) and yet also warning (106). The hope is expressed in the word “Alleluia!” (“Praise the Lord!”) which is found, for the first time in the Psalter, at the end of

The Reception of the Exodus Tradition in the Psalter

49

Ps 105 and the beginning and even at the end of Ps 106. These two psalms thus play a critical part in Book Four. Pss 114 and 135/136 are set with Book Five. Ps 114 belongs to the first of the two “Alleluia” collections, thus linking it back to the word “Alleluia” in Pss 105 and 106; it is another important reminder that God once before redeemed his people from Egypt, leading them to the promised land. Ps 114 reminds us of the Exodus tradition expressed more generally in Book Four, not least the reference to God’s victory over the sea in, for example, Ps 98:3, 7 (see 114:3, 5). Pss 135–136 follow the collection of fifteen Pilgrimage Psalms, 120–134, which are mostly concerned with the presence of God in the Jerusalem Temple. So, again, within the Psalter’s overall story, the introduction of the Exodus tradition in Pss 135–136 is a reminder that the Jerusalem Temple community needs also to be built upon that ancient tradition of Exodus and the figure of Moses –  a tradition which is especially relevant given that the Davidic monarchy was not restored. In this way these four pairs of psalms, as well as Ps 114, are not just isolated psalms which independently offer some insight into the origins and purpose of the Exodus tradition in the Psalter, as a historical critical reading can demonstrate. This literary-critical appraisal, seeing the significance of these psalms as part of the shaping of the Psalter as a whole, offers new insights about the composite story of the Psalter, integrating the Exodus theology with the theology of Zion and the Temple, and replacing the disappointed hopes regarding the apparent end of the Davidic monarchy. 3

A Reception History Reading of the Exodus Tradition in the Psalter

We are now in a position to assess another use of the Exodus tradition in the psalms. Just as the historical-critical method is interested in the early history of psalmody, and the literary-critical interest in the Psalter is concerned with the later stages of the formation of the Psalter as a whole, a reception history approach looks at the later stages still. Reception history is about seeing the psalms throughout their entire cultural history, both Jewish and Christian, and so, in the light of our concerns in this paper, it is about seeing how the Exodus tradition functions not only in the formation and the placing of the relevant psalms, but in their later interpretation – initially through the liturgy and the commentary tradition, but later and most importantly in their representation through art and their performance through music.14 14

See Gillingham 2008; Gillingham 2018; Gillingham forthcoming. Much of what follows here has been adapted from the as yet unpublished third volume.

50

Gillingham

It is impossible to demonstrate the importance of this approach through all these nine psalms (excluding Exod 15). What I intend to do, therefore, is to focus on Book Four of the Psalter, which as we saw above utilises most the tradition of Moses and the Exodus, especially in the Hebrew text. I will highlight the later reception of the Exodus tradition in just two pertinent psalms, Ps 90 at the beginning of this book and Ps 106 at the end of it. We cannot understand the process of the reception history of these two psalms without understanding that Book Four is infused with Exodus theology because of the need to make sense of the exile, and indeed, in Jewish reception, of experiences of ongoing exile. Book Four has many associations with Isa 40–55, a work which also uses the Exodus tradition to address the trauma of the experience of exile. For example, Book Four begins and ends with pleas to God to “take pity” on his people (90:13 and 106:45, using ‫;)נחם‬15 the beginning and ending of Isa 40–55 emphasise exactly the same theme (Isa 40:1 and 54:11, also using ‫)נחם‬.16 At the beginning of each book, in Ps 90:5 and Isa 40:6–8, human frailty is compared with grass (‫) ָח ִציר‬. And in Pss 96:1 and 98:1, as well as in Isa 42:10, we read of the “new song” which is to be sung to celebrate what God will later do for his people. Furthermore, the universal reign of God is defiantly declared throughout both works, for example in Ps 96:4–5 and Isa 40:18– 23. Each denounces the worship of all idols, each playing on the Hebrew words for “gods” (‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ) ֱא‬and “nobodies” (‫ ) ֱא ִל ִילים‬as in Ps 96:5 and Isa 40:17–18 (Creach 1998, 63–76; Gelston 2010, 165–176; Gillingham 2015, 83–101; Mournet 2011, 66–79; Wallace 2007). There is however one key difference: although Isa 40–55 is equally interested in using the Exodus tradition as a means of encouraging the people (for example Isa 43:1–5; 44:27; 51:9–11), Book Four is more explicitly interested in Moses. Moses is only mentioned once in the Psalter outside Book Four, but seven times within it.17 The heading to Ps 90 is thus significant in that it enables us to read the figure of Moses as not only pertaining to this psalm but to the whole of Book Four. The importance of Moses in this and in the next collection is clearly emphasised in later Jewish reception history: for example, in the Midrash Tehillim not only Ps 90 is given Mosaic authorship, but also the next ten psalms, up to Ps 100 – one for each of the eleven of the tribes (Simeon

15 16 17

“Return O Lord! How long? Have pity on thy servants!” (Ps 90:3); and “He caused them to be pitied by all those who held them captive” (Ps 106:45 [Heb 47]). “Comfort, comfort [pity, pity] my people, says your God.” (Isa 40:1). “O afflicted one, storm-tossed, and not comforted [= “not pitied”] …” (Isa 54:11). Outside Book Four Moses is referred to only in Ps 77:21. In Book Four references are found in the title to Ps 90 and in Pss 99:6; 103:7; 105:26; 106:16, 23, 32.

The Reception of the Exodus Tradition in the Psalter

51

is excluded on account of that tribe’s disobedience as told in Num 25). So here Ps 90 is for Reuben; Ps 91, for Levi; and Ps 92, for Judah.18 And so, what of the later reception of the “Moses Psalm”, Ps 90? Its placing with Pss 91 and 92 shows the importance of the shared motif of “God as Refuge” (see Pss 90:1; 91:1–2, 9–10, and 92:12–13) which, in all three psalms, contrasts the theme of human transience with God’s constancy – a theme which we have already seen is very much attached to the Exodus tradition. The reception of Ps 90 utilises this theme in an extraordinary way. Firstly, it has been given a prominent liturgical use in both Jewish and Christian tradition. It is used at funerals in both traditions, and in Jewish liturgy It is also prominent in the Shivah service – the daily services lasting seven days at a mourner’s home after the burial. It is also frequently used (along with Pss 91; 92; 93 and 100) as “Verses of Song” (Pesuqe de-Zimra) heralding the “reception of Shabbat” (Kabbalat Shabbat). In Christian liturgy, this theme is developed even further: “Man Frail and God Eternal” has been given a popular appeal in the hymn by Isaac Watts, composed in about 1719. Through this liturgical use the psalm then took on a political reading: Watts” version is frequently used at Remembrance Day services in Britain, as well as at State Funerals (for example, that of Winston Churchill) to commemorate the permanency of God over and against the futility of war and the fragility of life: O God, our help in ages past, our hope for years to come, our shelter from the stormy blast, and our eternal home. A thousand ages, in thy sight, are like an evening gone; short as the watch that ends the night, before the rising sun. Time, like an ever rolling stream, bears all who breathe away; they fly forgotten, as a dream dies at the opening day.19 18 19

This contrasts markedly with the Davidic titles in the LXX tradition; it also explains the more Davidic/royal readings of these psalms in subsequent Christian readings because they were more dependent upon the Greek translation. See https://www.ccel.org/ccel/watts/psalmshymns.Ps.191.html.

52

Gillingham

In 1921 Ralph Vaughan Williams composed “Lord, Thou hast been our Refuge”, also developing the theme of human fragility and dwelling in God’s presence in this psalm. The choir (or sometimes a baritone soloist) chants the first verses, all explicitly on the brevity of life; this is followed by silence, and then the organ (or more arrestingly a single trumpet) breaks the hush with the first line of Watts’ “O God our Help in Ages Past”, to its familiar tune of “St Anne”. The two are performed in tandem until the end of the first verse of Watts’ hymn, after which the psalm continues, interspersed with fugal instrumental echoes of “St Anne”, reaching a finale with the last verses, starting with “The glorious majesty of the Lord be upon us”. This was sung by Westminster Abbey Choir at the 70th Anniversary Service of the Battle of Britain.20 This might at first sight seem to be wide of the mark in its application of an Exodus tradition. Initially Ps 90 would have had a particular resonance within the Jewish community, whether as a reflection on their wanderings in the wilderness under Moses, or as exiles in Babylon, or as Diaspora communities from that time onwards; but then the references to the experience of human fragility, and the appeal to God as Refuge, has appealed to both Jewish and Christian migrant communities over two millennia. This has allowed it a wider reception still: it has become a universal psalm, for it teaches how an experience of human fragility can be transformed by knowing that although life is temporal, God is eternal. The image by the Jewish artist Benn, dated 1952, to be viewed in the light of his experience in a French concentration camp during the Second World War, illustrates this well (Souriau 1970; Lander Markus 2015, 271–285): the angelic wings (perhaps signifying the wings of the cherubim) are set above the bright light against a clear blue sky, and the light casts ever-encircling beams, emanating from and returning to their source: “From everlasting to everlasting Thou art God”. What of the reception of the more specifically Exodus psalms, 105 and 106? Their reception by the Chronicler has encouraged their wider use in worship, at least in Jewish tradition. 1 Chron 16:8–36 is recited at the beginning of Pesuqe de-Zimra, and so by implication so too are Pss 105:96 and 106:47–48, as well as other verses from Pss 99:5, 9 and 94:1–2. Perhaps the best-known musical reception of Pss 105 and 106 is in Handel’s Israel in Egypt, written in all but a month in 1738. This is the only oratorio,  other than The Messiah, which is composed entirely from biblical texts, using choruses, airs and recitatives, but with no named characters. In Part I, the librettist, probably Charles Jennens, combined verses from Ps 105:23–28 with 20

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4vdOyc5Nnc.

The Reception of the Exodus Tradition in the Psalter

53

parts of Exodus to describe the plagues and events leading up to the escape from Egypt, with the last two choruses using Ps 106:9–11 (and Exod 14:31) as God rebukes the Red Sea (Stern 2011, 89–100).21 (Part II comprises entirely the Song of the Sea in Exod 15). So, in the first part of this oratorio, both psalms, despite their difference emphases, serve to point to a very different audience than the Jewish community after the exile that the grace of God is greater than the vicissitudes and infidelities of the people. The dire warning in these two psalms, whether seen from the viewpoint of God’s grace (Ps 105) or human rebellion (Ps 106), is ultimately of human destruction in the context of evil. The work of Benn illustrates this so well. The image of the boat with its mast and rigging torn and sinking is not about the chariots of Egypt but about more modern memories of the defeat of evil: and for Benn, again in the light of the Holocaust, this need to know that one day there might be an irrefutable destruction of human wickedness evil is critical for faith: “And the waters covered their enemies: there was not one of them left”. Ps 106, like Ps 90, is thus ultimately about hope. The Jewish and Christian reception of the Exodus tradition in Pss 90 and 105/106, and indeed within Book Four as a whole, agrees on two issues. The first is that the experience of loss and the threats upon human fragility expressed in these psalms – originally literally the re-living the experience of the Exodus in exile in Babylon, but later adapting the psalm to refer to any traumatic experience of loss – is held within the knowledge of the permanence and sovereignty of God. In Jewish reception, this usually relates to some physical experience of ongoing exile. In Christian reception, this is also sometimes physical, but more often it is associated with the ephemeral nature of humanity and the constancy of God’s incarnate love for his people. The second point of agreement is about the future hope expressed in these psalms: this is not only about events in the past. In Jewish tradition, the hope is founded upon Moses and the Torah, and will one day be completed through David and the promise of a coming Messiah. In Christian reception, this is founded initially upon both Moses and David, but its final consummation is in the person and work of Christ.22 The trajectory of the Exodus tradition in psalmody has a far broader compass than we might ever have imagined.

21 22

Cf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdU8k0bpY1Y. See Gillingham forthcoming on Ps 106.

54

Gillingham

Bibliography Auwers, Jean Marie. 2000. La Composition Littéraire du Psautier. Un État de la Question, CRB 46. Paris: Gabalda. Creach, Jerome. 1998. “The Shape of Book Four of the Psalter and the Shape of Second Isaiah.” JSOT 23.80: 63–76. DeClaissé-Walford, Nancy L. 1997. Reading from the Beginning. The Shaping of the Hebrew Psalter. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. DeClaissé-Walford, Nancy L. 2014. The Shape and Shaping of the Book of Psalms. The Current State of Scholarship, SBL.AIL 20. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press. Emanuel, David. 2012. From Bards to Biblical Exegetes. A Close Reading and Intertextual Analysis of Selected Exodus Psalms. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications. Fischer, Georg. 2015. Israels Auszug aus Ägypten in den Psalmen. Pages 221–223 in “Canterò in eterno le misericordie del Signore” (Sal 89,2). Studi in onore d compleannoanni Barbiero in occasione del suo settantesimo compleanno. Edited by Stefan Attard and Marco Pavan. AnBib 3. Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press. Flint, Peter W. and Miller, Patrick D. 2005. The Book of Psalms. Composition and Reception, VT.S 99. Leiden: Brill. Gelston, Anthony. 2010. “Editorial Arrangement in Book IV of the Psalter.” Pages 165– 176 in Genesis, Isaiah, and Psalms. Festschrift John Emerton. Edited by James Adney Emerton et al. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill. Gillingham, Susan E. 1999. “The Exodus Tradition and Israelite Psalmody.” SJT 52.1: 19–46. Gillingham, Susan E. 2008. Psalms through the Centuries. Volume One. Blackwell Bible Commentaries. Malden, MA; Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Gillingham, Susan E. 2015. “Psalms 90–106. Book Four and the Covenant with David.” European Judaism 48.2: 83–101. Gillingham, Susan E. 2018. Psalms through the Centuries: A Reception History Commentary on Psalms 1–72. Volume Two. WBBC. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing. Gillingham, Susan E. 2019. “Psalms of David, Psalms of Christ.” Pages 68–85 in Rooted and Grounded: Faith Formation and the Christian Tradition. Edited by Steven Croft. Norwich: Canterbury Press. Gillingham, Susan E. forthcoming. Psalms Through the Centuries. A Reception History Commentary on Psalms 73–151. Volume Three. WBBC. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Harvey, Julien. 1963. “La Typologie de l’Exode Dans Les Psaumes.” ScEccl 15: 383–405. Markus, Roberta Lander. 2015. “The Biblical Art of Benn.” Pages 271–285 in The Bible Retold by Jewish Artists, Writers, Composers and Filmmakers. Edited by Helen Leneman and Barry Walfish. Bible in the Modern World 71. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix.

The Reception of the Exodus Tradition in the Psalter

55

McCann, J. Clinton. 1993. The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter. JSOT.S 159. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Mournet, Krista. 2011. “Moses and the Psalms: The Significance of Psalms 90 and 106 within Book IV of the Masoretic Psalter.” Conversations with the Biblical World 31: 66–79. Seybold, Klaus and Zenger, Erich. 21994. Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung. Festschrift Walter Beyerlin. HBS 1. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Souriau, Benn and Souriau, Etienne. 1970. Les Psaumes. Lyon: Musée des beaux-arts. Stern, Max. 2011. “Exodus,” Pages 89–100 in Bible & Music. Influences of the Old Testament on Western Music. Jersey City, NJ: KTAV Publishing House. Wallace, Robert E. 2007. The Narrative Effect of Book IV of the Hebrew Psalter. StBibLit  112. New York and Oxford: Peter Lang. Wilson, Gerald Henry. 1985. The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. SBL.DS 76. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. Zenger, Erich. 2010. The Composition of the Book of Psalms. BEThL 238. Leuven: Peeters.

Chapter 3

Reception of Exodus in the Book of Judith Agnethe Siquans 1 Introduction Judith, the heroine of the deutero-canonical/apocryphal book named after her,1 is a well-known character.2 In particular, her depiction in visual arts (cf. Efthimiadis-Keith 2002; Georgen 1984; Stone 1992; Uppenkamp 2004) is striking as it is almost exclusively restricted to one scene of the narrative: Judith’s decapitation of Holofernes. However, the theological message can only be fully understood when the book is considered in its entirety.3 As is generally accepted in contemporary scholarship, the book is fictional literature and does not reflect an actual historical event (cf. Schmitz and Engel 2014, 50–61; Zenger 1981, 438). Philip Esler has shown the ludic way in which history is used in this narrative (cf. Esler 2002, 107–143).4 History, particularly Israel’s past including the Exodus from Egypt, plays an important role in the Book of Judith, as will be shown below. The book was most probably written at the end of the second century BCE (cf. Schmitz and Engel 2014, 61–63).5 At that time, many writings of the Hebrew Bible already existed and some had authoritative status. Moreover, these texts had also been translated into Greek. The Book of Judith includes numerous references to several of these texts, prominently among them the Book of Exodus. As some recent studies have shown, Judith is an original Greek writing, not a translation from a Hebrew or Aramaic Vorlage (cf. Corley 2008; Engel 1992; Joosten 2007). One important argument for this thesis is that there are

1 For the Greek text see Hanhart 1979. 2 For the reception of the Book of Judith cf. Siquans 2017; for the patristic reception cf. Siquans 2013a. 3 Cf. the precise analysis of the literary and rhetorical structure of the book by Craven 1983. 4 Esler does not include the Exodus in his discussion. 5 For the Hasmonean period as the historical context, cf. e.g. Bons 2017. Some authors interpret Judith as a counter-figure to Judas Maccabeus, cf. e.g. Zenger 1996, 34, who regards the message of the Book of Judith as “ein beabsichtigtes Gegenbild zu der im 1. Makkabäerbuch verkündeten Botschaft …, daß Israel gerettet wurde/wird ‚durch die Hand’ des Judas und seiner Brüder (vgl. 1 Makk 3,6; 4,35; 5,62).”

© Agnethe Siquans, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471122_005

Reception of Exodus in the Book of Judith

57

quotations from other books in Judith which do not presuppose the Hebrew text, but the Septuagint, one of the most obvious examples being Exod 15:3 (cf. Joosten 2007, 164–167). The reception of Exodus in the Book of Judith, therefore, works via the Septuagint version. The Exodus, the event as such, the biblical book and particular motifs are manifestly present in the Book of Judith. Many scholars have analysed the intertextual relations between Exodus and Judith. The recent commentary by Barbara Schmitz and Helmut Engel (2014, passim)6 discusses the references to Exodus in detail in the interpretation of the relevant passages. Erich Zenger (1981, 445–446) stressed the relevance of the Exodus perspective for the interpretation of Judith as a whole.7 The Song of Moses and Miriam at the Sea (Exod 15) is the most important intertext for the Book of Judith, quoted in Jdt 9:7–8 and 16:2, but it is also formative as a whole for the whole Book of Judith. This relationship and its implications have received much attention in biblical scholarship (cf. Schmitz 2014; Skehan 1963; Rakel 2003a, 2003b; Perkins 2007; Newman 1999, 117–144; Lang 2012; Egger-Wenzel 2009). However, there are also references to other Exodus passages, such as the episode about the plagues (Exod 7–11), the Exodus from Egypt in Exod 14, the lack of water in the desert (Exod 17; cf. van Henten 1995),8 and others. In the following, I will start with some methodological remarks (2). Then I will summarise the reception of Exodus in the Book of Judith, starting with the speeches and prayers (3), looking at the parallel narrative structures of both books (4), and comparing the main protagonists (5). Thereafter, I will examine three aspects of the reception of Exodus in Judith, which to my knowledge have not yet been noticed (6), and end with a short conclusion (7).

6 Due to the volume of detailed references to Exodus in the Book of Judith, it is not possible to deal with them all in the present article. 7 Zenger presents the Book of Exodus as a reference text for Judith, along with traditions of female heroes (Deborah and Jael in Judg 4–5; the woman who kills Abimelech Judg 9:53; and Esther), David who overcame Goliath (1 Sam 17), Ehud who outwits Eglon of Moab (Judg 3:12–31), Abraham’s victory over the Mesopotamian kings (Gen 14), the tradition of the miraculous salvation of Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah (2 Chron 32:1–23), Jerusalem’s salvation from Nikanor 161 BCE (1 Macc 7; 2 Macc 15), and Jehoshaphat’s victory over the Moabites, Ammonites, and the Meunites (2 Chron 20:1–30). Some of these references have been analysed in more detail by others. White 1992 argues for the story of Jael and Deborah as a model for Judith; Esler 2001 disputes her (and others’) argumentation and advocates for the story about David and Goliath as the most important parallel to the Judith narrative. For the Exodus perspective in the Book of Judith cf. also Zenger 1996; Hellmann 1992, 145–149. 8 For other references cf. Schmitz and Engel 2014.

58 2

Siquans

Methodological Considerations

Reception of texts, including authoritative texts, is an active process of communication between text(s) and recipients (cf. Siquans 2013b). This process takes place in a particular historical and cultural context. Received traditions, especially authoritative texts, must be adapted to new situations to preserve their plausibility and thus their authority. In the case of Judith, the context is the Hasmonean period and disputes – even conflicts – about the Jewish stance toward Hellenistic culture and politics. This means that reception always implies certain interests on the part of the authors with regards to the social, religious, and political groups s/he represents. As a late book of the Septuagint, the Book of Judith has intertextual relations to several books which later formed the Hebrew Bible. For some of these books, particularly the books of the Torah, and perhaps the prophetical books as well, one can assume authoritative status at the time of origin of Judith (cf. Zenger and Frevel 2016). Other texts, like the Books of the Maccabees, clearly do not have authoritative status. Therefore, discussion at the same level may be possible. This possibility, however, strongly depends on the social and political status of the people and groups producing and promoting the respective texts. Authoritative texts, such as the Book of Exodus, are adopted as an instrument for the affirmation of an author’s message. The reception of such texts corroborates the authority of the Book of Judith, argues for its plausibility, and strengthens its persuasiveness. Among the texts received by the Book of Judith, Exodus plays an important role. Judith refers to the Book of Exodus in various ways: it picks up specific terms and motifs which are prominent in the Exodus narrative, and even quotes the Book of Exodus. The references to Exodus are numerous and imply different levels, from obvious commonalities to more subtle parallels. Common motifs are perhaps the most obvious connection between Exodus and Judith. The identification of these is the first step of the analysis, followed by an examination of verbal connections, quotations as well as common vocabulary, especially when it is specific to these two texts. Common themes are identified via shared or similar vocabulary as well as via parallel narrative structures. In narratives, characters are another important aspect of relations between texts. Thus, their characterisation, their speeches and acts, and their functions must be examined to identify relations. In the following, these different kinds of parallels which clearly indicate a reception of the Book of Exodus by the later Book of Judith will be discussed.

Reception of Exodus in the Book of Judith

3

59

Speeches and Prayers

Speeches and prayers are central for the theological interpretation of the events in the Book of Judith (cf. Newman 1999; Schmitz 2004a, 2004b). Speeches and prayers constitute more than a third of the text of the book.9 Past or present events are interpreted through speeches or prayers voiced by important characters at the turning points of the narrative (cf. Schmitz and Engel 2014, 50).10 Judith is presented as a scribe and theologian who reflects what she is does in the light of the theological tradition and history of Israel (cf. Schmitz 2004b, 227–228). In particular, Achior’s speech to Holofernes (Jdt 5:5–21) and Judith’s prayers in Jdt 9 and 16 display references to the Exodus. Achior, the leader of the Ammonites, answers Holofernes’ arrogant words against Israel with a review of Israel’s history, which includes the Exodus from Egypt as one aspect of Israel’s relationship to their God (Jdt 5:10–14):11 10 And they descended into Egypt, for famine covered the face of the land of Chanaan, and they sojourned there until they throve. And there they grew to a very large number, and their race was countless. 11 And the king of Egypt outwitted them, and they befooled them; with clay and brick they abased them and reduced them to slaves. 12 And they cried out to their God, and he struck all the land of Egypt with plagues, from which there was no cure, and the Egyptians drove them from their presence. 13 And their God dried up the Red Sea before them 14 and led them toward the way of Sina and Kades Barne. And they drove out all the inhabitants of the wilderness … Boyd-Taylor 2007, 441–45512

V.10 refers to the immigration of Jacob and his family to Egypt (cf. Gen 47:27; Exod 1:1–5),13 and their reproduction (cf. Exod 1:7). V.11 summarises Pharaoh’s 9 10 11 12 13

Nebuchadnezzar’s speech (Jdt 2:5–13); Achior’s speech to Holofernes (Jdt 5:5–21); Judith’s speech to the elders (Jdt 8:11–27); Judith’s prayer (Jdt 9:2–14); Judith’s speech to Holofernes (Jdt 11:5–29); Judith’s prayer (Jdt 16:1–17). This technique is typical of Hellenistic historians. For a detailed analysis of Achior’s speech and its biblical references cf. Schmitz and Engel 2014, 175–194. All English translations from the Book of Judith in this article are from Boyd-Taylor 2007. The Book of Judith mentions only one sojourn in Egypt in contrast to the account of the Pentateuch (Abraham in Gen 12; Jacob’s family in Gen 47 and Exod 1).

60

Siquans

measures against Israel (cf. Exod 1:8–14).14 The verb κατασοφίζομαι only occurs in Jdt 5:11; 10:19 and Exod 1:10 in the LXX, thus pointing to a specific and intentional reception of the Exodus text. V.12 switches to God’s intervention: the people cry (ἀνεβόησαν) to their God (as they did in Exod 2:23 ἀνεβόησαν) and “he struck all the land of Egypt with plagues, from which there was no cure, and the Egyptians drove them from their presence.” Exod 7–11 and 12 are summarised in this sentence. The word πληγή – which is used in Jdt 5:12 – occurs in the Book of Exodus exclusively in Exod 11:1 and 12:13 (with reference to the death of the first-born). The verb πατάσσω, though, is an important term not only in Judith, but also in Exod 7–11: God “strikes” in Exod 3:20; 7:25; 9:15, [25]; 12:12, 23, 27, 29, and Moses “strikes” on God’s behalf in Exod 7:20; 8:12, 13 (cf. Schmitz and Engel 2014, 358). The hint to curing (ἴασις) may refer to Exod 15:26 where the verb ἰάομαι is used with reference to God. Achior describes the Exodus from Egypt as an expulsion (ἐξέβαλον). This interpretation is also present in Exod 6:1; 11:1; 12:33–39 (with the same verb ἐκβάλλω). However, in the Book of Exodus the motif of expulsion is closely connected to the motif of a flight from Egypt (explicitly in Exod 14:5) – a motif not present in the Book of Judith. The expulsion from Egypt is a parallel and repetition of Israel’s expulsion from Chaldea due to their conversion from gods to one God, as depicted by Achior in Jdt 5:8. The interpretation of Israel’s Exodus as an expulsion is prominent in diverse non-biblical Exodus accounts.15 Thus, there are two possibilities: either the author of Judith only used the LXX version of Exodus and exclusively focused on the motif of expulsion to adapt history to his ideological frame, or the author knew the extra-biblical accounts and was influenced by them in his presentation. In V.13, Achior reports that God dried up the Red Sea before the Israelites (Exod 14; Jos 2:10)16 and led them on the way to Sinai (Exod 19) and Kadesh Barnea (Deut 1:2, 19; Num 32:8). The presentation of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt in Achior’s speech clearly refers to the biblical account of the events in the Book of Exodus, but also in Deuteronomy, Numbers, and Joshua. The events are summarised and the references are explicit (from Canaan to Egypt; the famine; the King of Egypt; the plagues, the Red Sea, Sinai etc.). There are verbal connections and the course of events corresponds to the Book of Exodus.17 14 15 16 17

For literal parallels cf. Schmitz and Engel 2014, 184. E.g. Manetho, Lysimachos and others (cf. Schmitz and Engel 2014, 186). The verb καταξηραίνω in connection with the Red Sea is used only in Jdt 5:13 and Josh 2:10. The wording is closer to Josh 2:10 than to Exod 14. In his reaction to Achior’s speech, Holofernes refers to Israel as τὸ γένος τῶν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου (Jdt 6:5). For the possible negative implication of this denomination cf. Schmitz and Engel 2014, 201.

Reception of Exodus in the Book of Judith

61

However, only the people of Israel and their God, as well as the Egyptians and their king, perform as subjects in this narrative. Moses is completely ignored. Appropriate to the situation in the Assyrian camp and Holofernes’ challenge, Achior’s speech concentrates on the opposition of two peoples and their leaders. A saviour of the Israelites, a new Moses, is not yet in sight. Such a saviour will appear in the person of Judith. Achior focuses on salvation by God as later Judith focuses on God’s deed, omitting her own part in the story. In her prayer in Jdt 9, Judith quotes Exod 15:3 according to the LXX. There are further parallels between Jdt 9 (and 16)18 and Exod 15, and another quotation of Exod 15:3 in Jdt 16:2.19 Further motifs, which the author of Judith took from Exod 15, are: being Lord and king, the hand, wrath, strength, God as helper, saviour and protector, a focus on the temple, the relevance of the peoples, and others. Schmitz and Engel indicate Exod 15LXX as the literary and theological Vorlage inspiring the Judith narrative. “Das Buch Judit übernimmt und modifiziert Wörter, Motive und Gedanken aus diesem Text” (Schmitz and Engel 2014, 289). In Exod 15:3, God is characterised as κύριος συντρίβων πολέμους, “the Lord who crushes wars.”20 Schmitz regards this as the central theological concept of the Book of Judith: In Judith’s prayer the quotation of Exod 15:3 fulfils the function of stating the basic deficit and main misconduct of the Assyrian undertaking: the Assyrians did not realise that the God of Israel is a God who crushes wars (κύριος συντρίβων πολέμους). The Assyrian problem is not a military, but a theological one. Schmitz 2014, 8

A theological problem discussed in exegesis is whether the image of God in Jdt 9 is pacifistic, anti-militaristic or otherwise. Regarding Jdt 9:7 and 16:2, Larry Perkins states that “There is no explicit sense in these two contexts in Judith that this expression is celebrating God’s ability to end war, but rather it enforces his power to destroy all opposition” (Perkins 2007, 136). Judith Lang 18

19 20

Skehan 1963 examines the motif of “the hand” of Judith, God, and Moses in both books. He states connections between Jdt 16 and Exod 18:8–10; Exod 14, and other passages in Exodus, which speak of YHWH’s and Moses’ “hand.” Cf. Schmitz and Engel 2014, 282–289 for references of Jdt 9 to Exodus. For a comparison of these three texts cf. Schmitz and Engel 2014, 285. Another important intertext of Jdt 9 is Gen 34, the narrative about Dinah’ s rape and Simeon’s revenge. The same phrase also occurs in Isa 42:13. Similar expressions are used in Hos 2:20 and Ps 75/76:2–4.

62

Siquans

analyses the context of Exod 15:3 and concludes: “The surrounding narrative, both the Hebrew original and the Greek translation, portrays God as one who makes war for the benefit of Israel. Exod 15:3 is a massive statement of Yahweh’s ability to win every battle for his people by destroying Israel’s enemies” (Lang 2012, 184; cf. Skehan 1963, 108). Judith acts violently as well, yet the author uses other terminology than in the rest of the book (cf. Lang 2012, 186). Schmitz concedes that Exod 15:3LXX draws a militaristic picture of God and his acts, but states that Isa 42:3 and Jdt 9:7 and 16:2 “confirm the tradition of an antimilitaristic interpretation of Exod 15:3” (Schmitz 2014, 9). Zenger regards Judith as a counter-image to the belligerent world of warfare.21 Rakel finds a critical perspective on war in the Greek song of Moses and in Judith’s song (Jdt 16). In her opinion, Judith does not celebrate a warlike God. Her song represents a concept of resistance (cf. Rakel 2003b, 260), an alternative to Judas Maccabeus’ military rebellion (cf. Rakel 2003b, 272). To conclude, the expression “the Lord who crushes wars” implies violence in all cases where it is stated or quoted. God ends wars but not violence. In Exod 15, God’s intervention itself is warlike, but excludes human warfare. In Judith, his intervention by Judith’s hand displays another form of violence and also ends human warfare. Thus, God is portrayed as the Lord who ends wars using violence in one way or another. Schmitz lists and discusses nine “aspects of assimilation, modification, and reinterpretation in the citing of Exod 15:3 including the whole song 15:1–18LXX in Jdt 9 and the Book of Judith” (Schmitz 2014, 12). These encompass the narrated situation, the question “who is κύριος?,” the adversary, God as κύριος συντρίβων πολέμους, God’s wrath, God’s power, the greatness of God’s glory, the titles of God, and the aim: the gift of the Torah and the guidance into the land (the temple; cf. Schmitz 2014, 12–16). Jdt 9 literarily depends on Exod 15, modifies it, and adds new elements. The most important difference between the two texts is God’s intervention: “In contrast to the Book of Exodus, in the Book of Judith, all these aspects do not lead to an intervention of God who himself saves the people of Israel, but it is Judith, who empowers herself in reflecting (Jdt 8) and praying (Jdt 9) and saves her people by her deed” (Schmitz 2014, 16). In the speeches and prayers of Achior and Judith, the Exodus serves as a paradigm to interpret the Israelites’ situation. Thus, it assures the Israelites that God will save them from the Assyrians as he has saved them from the Egyptians.

21

“Gegenfigur zur bellizistischen Gewaltwelt” (Zenger 1996, 31).

Reception of Exodus in the Book of Judith

4

63

Parallels in the Narrative Structure

The presentation of Israel’s salvation in the Book of Judith displays strong parallels to the narrative structure of the Book of Exodus. Besides clear allusions to details of the Exodus narrative, the course of events is similar in both books. In Exodus and Judith, the Israelites are oppressed by a non-Israelite enemy and ultimately saved by their God. As Zenger and others have noticed, the confrontation between God and the human king (Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar) shapes the structure of the narrative. In both narratives, the decisive act takes place at night by “striking” (πατάσσω): YHWH strikes the Egyptians (Exod 12:12, 23, 27, 29) and Judith strikes Holofernes (Jdt 13:8). In both texts, “fear and trembling” (φόβος καὶ τρόμος; Exod 15:16; Jdt 15:2) fall upon the enemies (cf. Zenger 1981, 445). Moses and Judith are human leaders by whose hand God saves his people, although with different roles. This difference becomes clear at one point which is also relevant for the narrative structure (for the following cf. Schmitz and Engel 2014, 150–156): in Jdt 4:9, the Israelites cry (ἀνεβόησαν) to God. The same verbal form is used for the Hebrews in Egypt who cry to YHWH in Exod 2:23 (cf. Deut 26:7). The verb ταπεινόω, “to humble,” in Jdt 4:9 describes the situation of Exod 1:12 (same verb). Jdt 4:13 is the only instance in which God is the acting subject. This is the very point where Judith fundamentally differs from Exodus where God is the agent of his people’s salvation.22 The two verbs in Jdt 4:13, which define God’s intervention, are εἰσήκουσεν and εἰσεῖδεν (“he listened … and beheld”). Both verbs in the same form occur in Exod 2:24–25 as YHWH’s reaction to the Israelites’ cry. The reference to Exod 2:23–25 in Jdt 4 serves to characterise Judith as a figure similar to Moses (Schmitz and Engel 2014, 155). Schmitz and Engel conclude: Vor dem Hintergrund der biblischen Literatur reicht dieser Hinweis aus, um die im Folgenden erzählte Rettung anzudeuten. Es wird nur ausschnittweise zitiert, weil dem Leser klar ist, was als nächstes kommt. Wer die Bibel kennt, weiß, dass bald Rettung erfolgt, wenn gesagt wird, dass Gott auf die Not der Menschen blickt. Schmitz and Engel 2014, 15523

22 23

Cf. Exod 14:13, when Moses says to the Israelites: “Do not be afraid, stand firm, and see the deliverance that the LORD will accomplish for you today” (NRSV). However, this is not known to the people in Bethulia. Only the readers are informed about God’s reaction.

64

Siquans

The verb ἐπισκέπτομαι is used to denote God looking after his people in times of distress, especially in the context of their sojourn in Egypt (cf. Gen 50:24–25; Exod 3:16; 4:31; 13:15) and the end of the Exile (cf. Zech 10:3; Zeph 2:7; Jer 36:10; cf. Schmitz and Engel 2014, 157). The verbal congruencies between Jdt 4 and Exod 2:23–25 (and Exod 1) mark an important structural point in both narratives – a turning point in the fate of the Israelites. In both books, the question of knowledge and acknowledgment is crucial.24 In the Book of Exodus, the Egyptians (e.g. 14:4, 18) as well as the Hebrews (e.g. 6:7), but especially Pharaoh (e.g. 7:17; 8:6, 18; 9:14, 29) are expected to acknowledge YHWH. In Exod 5:2, the king rejects Moses’ request because, as he says, he does not know the Lord (‫לא ידעתי את יהוה‬/οὐκ οἶδα τὸν κύριον). In Judith, the motif of the acknowledgment of the true God is addressed primarily in Judith’s prayer in Jdt 9: V.7 states the missing acknowledgment by the Assyrians and V.14 prays for the acknowledgment of the true God by Israel and all peoples. After Achior has identified (ἐπιγινώσκω; Jdt 14:5) the dead Holofernes and realises the deed of God, he believes in the God of Israel (Jdt 14:10).25 5

The Protagonists: Torah Teachers and Prophets

The close intertextual relationship between the Book of Judith and Exodus, especially Exod 15, calls for a comparison of the protagonists of both texts. Rakel presents Judith as a “Mosegestalt,” assuming a gender-transgressing interfigurality (cf. Rakel 2003b, 249–260). According to Rakel, Judith is a teacher of the Torah and the model of a Torah observing Israelite. As God acts by the hand of Moses in Exod 14, so he acts by Judith’s hand in Jdt 13 (cf. Rakel 2003b, 258–260). Rakel also integrates the figure of Miriam into this interpretation as Judith’s war-critical song renews the war-critical tradition of Miriam’s song in Exod 15:20–21 (cf. Rakel 2003b, 260).26 Like Moses, Miriam, and Deborah, 24

25 26

Schmitz and Engel 2014, 179, count 14 appearances of the root -γνω-in Judith (incl. composita): Jdt 5:8; 8:13, 14; 9:14; 11:16; 14:5 (ἐπιγινώσκω), 8:20, 29; 9:7; 16:22 (γινώσκω), 9:11 (ἀπογινώσκω), 11:12 (διαγινώσκω), 9:6; 11:19 (πρόγνωσις). Apart from 5:8; 8:29, and 16:22, it only occurs in Judith’s speeches and prayers. In Exodus MT, the verb ‫ ידע‬is a keyword as well: cf. Utzschneider 2013, 155. The LXX uses the verb γινώσκω in Exodus 19 times as translation of ‫ידע‬: Exod 2:25; 6:7; 7:5, 17; 9:29; 10:2; 14:4, 18; 16:6, 12; 18:11; 25:22; 29:42, 46; 30:6, 36; 31:13; 33:13 [2×]. The Hebrew verb is translated by different verbs into Greek. See below 6.2. In the following, Rakel interprets Judith as a counter-figure to Judas Maccabeus and as the widow Zion. She also analyses the parallels between Judith and Jael and Deborah (cf. Rakel 2003b, 237–248).

Reception of Exodus in the Book of Judith

65

Judith is a theologian and “interpreter of Israel’s history as history of God.”27 Only Judith’s interpretation allows for an understanding of the events as salvation by the Lord. Van Henten examines parallels between Jdt 7–13 and Exod 17, Num 20, and Deut 33:8–11, the episode about the lack of water in the desert (cf. van Henten 1994, 1995). The shortage of water and testing motif connect these passages. Van Henten analyses parallels and differences between the texts and suggests regarding Judith as a “better Moses” (van Henten 1994, 46). Zenger also characterises Judith as a “Figuration” of Moses and Miriam (Zenger 1996, 29). Schmitz and Engel point to Exod 15:20–21 as the model for Jdt 15:12 (the singing and dancing of Judith and the women). However, they see Judith in the position of Moses in Exod 15 rather than in the role of Miriam.28 At several points in the story, Judith is compared to Moses: the reference to Exod 2:23–25 in Jdt 4:13, for instance, serves to depict her as comparable to Moses (cf. Schmitz and Engel 2014, 155); the phrasing “whosoever hears your name will be distressed” (Jdt 14:7) as a quotation from Deut 2:25 also hints at Moses (Schmitz and Engel 2014, 382). Hellmann parallels Judith and Moses as ideal types of Israel, yet also compares Judith to Miriam (cf. Hellmann 1992, 147–149). Hellmann and Egger-Wenzel explicitly focus on Judith as a prophet connected to Miriam and Deborah. Both perform a victory hymn to God and are designated as ‫נביאה‬/προφῆτις, “prophetess[es]” (Exod 15:20–21; Judg 4:4; 5; cf. Hellmann 1992, 103; Egger-Wenzel 2009; Zenger 1996, 31).29 Egger-Wenzel’s convincing arguments include Judith’s πρόγνωσις (Jdt 11:19)30 and her theological interpretation of Israel’s history in her speech to Holofernes (Jdt 11). Hellmann portrays Judith as acting according to God’s mission: she criticises and teaches the people, shows the right way to salvation and victory, interprets the situation in the face of God, recognises God’s concern for his people, and acts by virtue of her faith. “In diesem Sinn läßt sich durchaus auch von der fiktiven Gestalt Judit als einer ‘Prophetin Jahwes’ sprechen, die dazu beiträgt, Jahwes Heilshandeln in der Welt zu vollenden, ohne daß sie allerdings vom Erzähler 27 28 29 30

Rakel 2003a, 196: “Sie fungiert wie Mose, Mirjam und Debora als Interpretin von Israels Geschichte als Geschichte mit Gott. Erst diese Interpretation führt dazu, dass Befreiung als Gotteserfahrung verstanden und erinnert wird.” “Judit scheint in mehrfacher Hinsicht eher die Rolle und Stellung einzunehmen, die Mose an dieser Stelle im Buch Exodus hat, als die Mirjams” (Schmitz and Engel 2014, 393). Zenger characterises Judith as a critic and visionary in line with the great prophetic figures of Israel on the basis of her speech in Jdt 8:9b–36. In the LXX, this term only occurs in Jdt 9:6 and 11:19. The corresponding verb is used three times in Wisdom (Wis 6:13 and 8:8 with reference to Wisdom herself; Wis 18:6, referring to the Exodus).

66

Siquans

den Titel ‘Prophetin’ ausdrücklich erhielte” (Hellmann 1992, 103, original in italics). The dense textual interconnectedness and the parallels in particular details between Judith and Exod 15 suggest that Judith assumes the roles of both Moses and Miriam. Aspects of both characters and their songs intertwine in their reception in Judith. Schmitz and Engel call attention to the fact that the term προφητ- is used only once in Judith, specifically in Jdt 6:2 with reference to Achior (Egger-Wenzel, 2009, 117–118).31 In this role, Achior is sometimes compared to Balaam, a non-Israelite prophet (cf. Zenger 1996, 36). Achior’s speech in Jdt 5, to which Holofernes reacts by ironically calling him “prophesying,” in fact displays a prophetical character and parallels him to Balaam (Num 22–24). Achior himself is not compared to Moses, but in his speech he focuses on the Exodus as part of the Israelite history. That Aaron is missing among the references to Exodus may be due to the rather critical stance of the Book of Judith toward the (high) priests. This is visible in the author’s depiction of the high priest Joakim (Jdt 4:6–7) as focused on political and military instead of religious and cultic issues (cf. Schmitz and Engel 2014, 146).32 6

Three Additional Aspects of the Reception of Exodus in Judith

In the following, I will present three cases of the reception of Exodus in Judith which have not been discussed so far. The Reception of Exod 1–2 in Judith 6.1 Looking for the reception of Exod 1–2 in Judith might seem far-fetched at first. However, some connections to the situation of the Israelites in Egypt as described in Exod 1 have already been mentioned.33 In the following, I want to focus on Exod 1:15–21, the midwives episode, and Exod 2:1–10, Moses’ nativity story. Exod 1:15–21 portrays two midwives, Shiphrah and Puah, who resist Pharaoh’s order to kill the male Hebrew newborns. In opposition to Judith, the midwives’ 31 32 33

Egger-Wenzel designates Achior as a prophet as well as a counterpart to Judith the prophet. This role of the high priest reflects the situation in the Hasmonean period. Achior summarises the events narrated in Exod 1:1–14 in his speech to Holofernes. Jdt 4:9 alludes to the humiliation of the Israelites in Egypt (Exod 1:12).

Reception of Exodus in the Book of Judith

67

resistance is completely non-violent and passive. However, it is interesting that the issue of gender plays an important role in both narratives. The Egyptian king decrees that baby girls can live because he only fears the male military threat. He does not realise that females may present a danger to him. In the same way, Judith’s plan works because Holofernes only thinks of females in terms of sex. The unusual term θῆλυς, “female,” is used in Exod 1:16, 22 and in the phrase ἐν χειρὶ θελείας, “by the hand of a female” in Jdt 9:10; 13:15, and 16:5. Both Pharaoh and Holofernes underestimated female power. Moreover, both the midwives and Judith lie to the foreign leader to accomplish their goals (Exod 1:18; Jdt 9:10, 13). Both “fear God” (Exod 1:17 ἐφοβήθησαν τὸν θεόν; Jdt 8:8 ἐφοβεῖτο τὸν θεόν). Both “performed a deed” (ποιεῖν πράγμα; Exod 1:18; Jdt 8:23; 11:6).34 In both cases, two women are involved in the act of salvation: the two midwives, and Judith and her maid (ἅβρα).35 The verb ἀποκτείνω, “to kill,” used in Exod 1:16 does not appear in Judith. The verb περιποιεῖω, “to spare,” (Exod 1:16 for the female babies) is used in Jdt 11:9 for the Bethulians sparing Achior’s life. Both decisions turn out favourably for the Israelites and unfavourably for their enemies. In Exod 2:2, Moses is described as ἀστεῖος, “handsome, fine,” as is Judith in Jdt 11:23. In both scenes someone (the mother, Holofernes) looks at the person and perceives him/her as beautiful.36 More important is Judith’s selfintroduction to Holofernes as θυγάτηρ τῶν Ἐβραῖων, “daughter of the Hebrews” (Jdt 10:12). The word “Hebrew” is used in Judith only in 10:12; 12:11, and 14:18. All three occurrences refer to Judith in the camp of the Assyrians. “Hebrew(s)” is also an important name for the Israelites in Egypt. In Exod 1:1–2:10 it is used six times (Exod 1:15, 16, 19, 22; 2:6, 7). Judith’s identification as a Hebrew makes clear which side she is on. The word “daughter” is a key term in Exod 2 (cf. Siebert-Hommes 1994): in V.1 it refers to Moses’ mother, “one of the daughters of Levi;” in VV.5, 6, 8, 9, 10 it refers to Pharaoh’s daughter who saves Moses. Two “daughters” save the future savior of the Israelites. In Judith, the term “daughter” always designates 34

35

36

This terminology, of course, appears more often in the LXX: Gen 21:26; 44:15; Josh 9:24; Judg (A) 6:29; 1 Chr 21:8; Esth 7:5; 1 Macc 9:10; 2 Macc 1:34; Amos 3:7; Jer 40:16; 51:4. Thus, it can only be used as an additional argument for the connection between the two passages, strengthening other more exclusive and convincing observations. The term ἅβρα for “maid” is used in the LXX in Jdt 8:10, 33; 10:2, 5, 17; 13:9; 16:23, Gen 24:61 (Rebekah’s maidens, plural), in Est 2:9; 4:4, 16; 5:1 (pl.), and in Exod 2:5 for the maidens of Pharaoh’s daughter. She sends one of them to bring the basket with the child. Only in Judith and in Exod 2:5 is the singular used. Cf. Schmitz and Engel 2014, 248. In the LXX two other persons are characterised as ἀστεῖος, Susanna (Sus 1:7; not in Theodotion) and Eglon in Judg 3:17 (he is not handsome, but corpulent).

68

Siquans

Judith: in 8:1 and 16:6 she is introduced as “daughter of Merari,” in 10:12 she calls herself “daughter of the Hebrews”, in 12:13 Holofernes wants her to become a “daughter of the Assyrians”, and in 13:18 Uzziah addresses Judith as “daughter”. The term obviously identifies Judith’s belonging to a particular family and people. Van Henten (1995, 247) noticed a connection to Exodus: in the Hebrew Bible, there is only one man with the name “Merari”. He is the third son of Levi (cf. Exod 6:16 et al.). Judith is depicted as a descendent not only of the tribe of Simeon (Jdt 9:2) but also of the Levites. As van Henten (1995, 248) states, “somehow, the author depicts Judith in this genealogy as the ideal Israelite woman, who represents more than one tribe.” As a daughter of Levi, Judith is related to Moses’ mother (cf. Exod 2:1). Both women are Hebrew, daughters of Levi, and play a part in saving their people from foreign oppressors. The parallels between Judith and Exod 1–2 strengthen the relation between Judith and Moses on the one hand, and enrich Judith’s portrayal as a female savior of the Israelites on the other. 6.2 The Recognition of the True God by Achior ( Jdt 14:10 and Exod 14:31) As previously explained, the motif of acknowledging the true God is a relevant issue in both books.37 There is one point where the result of recognising the true God because of his redemptive deed for the Israelites is phrased in similar terms: Achior’s conversion in Jdt 14:10 displays parallels to Exod 14:31. In Exod 14:31, the Israelites see the Egyptians dead on the seashore. They recognise God’s deed, fear him, and believe in him: εἶδεν δὲ Ἰσραήλ τὴν χεῖρα τὴν μεγάλην ἃ ἐποίησεν κύριος τοῖς Αἰγυπτίοις ἐφοβήθη δὲ ὁ λαὸς τὸν κύριον καὶ ἐπίστευσαν τῷ θεῷ καὶ Μωυσῇ τῷ θεράποντι αὐτοῦ. Exod 14:31

Similarly, Achior, after seeing the head of the dead Holofernes, recognises what has happened as the deed of Israel’s God and believes in him: ἰδὼν δὲ Ἀχιὼρ πάντα, ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ ἐπίστευσεν τῷ θεῷ σφόδρα καὶ περιετέμετο τὴν σάρκα τῆς ἀκροβυστίας αὐτοῦ καὶ προσετέθη εἰς τὸν οἶκον Ἰσραήλ ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης. Jdt 14:10

In Jdt 5, Achior reviews Israel’s history and warns the Assyrians of the God of Israel’s intervention on behalf of his people. So far, this is theoretical 37

See above ch. 3.

Reception of Exodus in the Book of Judith

69

knowledge. Only when Achior sees with his own eyes what God has done does he believe.38 The Israelites as well as Achior see (ὁράω) what God has done (ἐποίησεν κύριος/ὁ θεός) and therefore believe in God (ἐπίστευσαν/ἐπίστευσεν τῷ θεῷ). Achior thus becomes an example for the Israelites and for the other peoples. Thereby Judith’s plea in Jdt 9:14 that the Israelites and the peoples might know that there is only one God has been accomplished. Other than Moses in Exod 14:31, Judith is not mentioned in this context. The role of Moses in the act of salvation itself is much smaller than the part Judith plays. Whereas God himself intervenes in the Book of Exodus, Judith prays to God and takes the initiative (cf. Schmitz 2014, 16). However, Judith ascribes the deed entirely to God,39 and it is God alone in whom Achior believes (although in Jdt 14:7 he falls down before Judith). The Innocence of the Israelites 6.3 The Book of Judith and the Book of Exodus share one particular feature: the oppression of the people is not caused by a transgression by Israel. This distinguishes the situation in Judith from many other narratives, especially in the books of the former prophets. In the Book of Judges, for instance, oppression by enemies is always the result of Israel’s turning away from YHWH and worshipping others gods (cf. Hentschel 2016, 270). This pattern illustrates the Deuteronomistic concept:40 when the Israelites sin, God punishes them; when they do not sin, they are well. This concept is prominent in the Book of Judith in both Achior’s (Jdt 5:17–18)41 and Judith’s speeches to Holofernes (Jdt 11:10 with reference to Achior’s speech). That the Exodus from Egypt serves as a central example in Achior’s historical review is not coincidental but illustrates the principle of God’s covenant with Israel according to the Deuteronomistic concept. Achior’s negative examples are the events leading to the destruction of the temple and the Exile (Jdt 5:18). In Jdt 5:19, Achior informs Holofernes that currently the Israelites are on the right path. This implies that Holofernes and his army will not be able to overcome these people. In 11:10, Judith also presupposes that the Israelites have not yet sinned. The archetypical model for 38 39 40 41

Jdt 14:10 is the only occurrence of the verb πιστεύω in this book. “Besides, she attributes all credit for the rescue of the people to the Lord …” (van Henten 1995, 240). Cf. the elaborate description of the consequences of holding and transgressing the Torah in Deut 28. “… in der Vergangenheit liegt für Achior der Schlüssel für das Verständnis der Gegenwart. Denn er erklärt das Schicksal Israels … mit einem einfachen Prinzip (Jdt 5,17): ‘Denn solange sie nicht vor ihrem Gott sündigten, erging es ihnen gut; denn er ist ein Gott, der das Unrecht hasst’ … Aber Achior weiß auch vom Gegenteil zu berichten. Ohne explizit die Verehrung fremder Götter anzusprechen, ergänzt er, dass Israel im Fall einer Abweichung von seinem Weg Krieg, Untergang und Exil erleiden musste (Jdt 8,15)” (Bons 2017, 120).

70

Siquans

Israel’s oppression without having sinned and their consequent salvation by their mighty God is the Exodus from Egypt. The corresponding situations may be an important reason for the extensive and intensive reception of the Book of Exodus by the author of Judith. 7 Conclusion The narration of the Exodus from Egypt in the Book of Exodus is a theological and literary paradigm (cf. Zenger 1981, 445–446; Schmitz and Engel 2014, 289 for Exod 15) for the author of Judith to communicate his message: Israel’s God saves his people through the hand of a woman. The Book of Exodus provides the author with a narrative pattern, with models for his protagonists as well as for prayers and hymns. Furthermore, the author adopts various motifs as well as quotes from the book and uses its terminology. These connections clearly show that the Book of Judith refers to the Septuagint version of Exodus. The Book of Exodus is one among several biblical texts received by Judith and is thus situated in a network of intertextual relations with different texts. From the focus on the aspect of expulsion in connection with the Exodus, we can possibly conclude that the author of Judith is also acquainted with extrabiblical traditions concerning the Exodus.42 However, of all texts referred to in Judith, the Book of Exodus is the most prominent. It shapes the entire narrative, its structure, its characters, and many of its details. Bibliography Bons, Eberhard. 2017. “Das Buch Judith. Konturen jüdischer Identität in hellenistischer Zeit.” Pages 103–125 in Konstruktionen individueller und kollektiver Identität. Alter Orient, Hellenistisches Judentum, Römische Antike, Alte Kirche. Edited by Eberhard Bons and Karin Finsterbusch. BThSt 168. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Boyd-Taylor, Cameron. trans. 2007. “Ioudith.” Pages 441–455 in New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

42

This phenomenon is present in another instance in Judith: Schmitz and Engel 2014, 275, assume that Jdt 9 does not refer to Gen 34 directly but to an aggadic tradition, such as T. Levi 5.3–4; Jub. 30:4–6.

Reception of Exodus in the Book of Judith

71

Corley, Jeremy. 2008. “Septuagintalisms, Semitic Interference, and the Original Language of the Book of Judith.” Pages 65–96 in Studies in the Greek Bible. Essays in Honor of Francis T. Gignac. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQ.MS 44. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America. Craven, Toni. 1983. Artistry and Faith in the Book of Judith. SBL.DS 70. Chico, CA: Scholars Press. Efthimiadis-Keith, Helen. 2002. “Text and Interpretation. Gender and Violence in the Book of Judith. Scholarly Commentary and the Visual Arts from the Renaissance Onward.” OTE 15: 64–84. Egger-Wenzel, Renate. 2009. “Mirjam, Debora und Judit – eine Prophetinnentradition?” Pages 95–122 in Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature. Yearbook. DCLY 2008. Edited by Hermann Lichtenberger and Ulrike Mittmann-Richert. Berlin: de Gruyter. Engel, Helmut. 1992. “‘Der HERR ist ein Gott, der Kriege zerschlägt’. Zur Frage der griechischen Originalsprache und der Struktur des Buches Judit.” Pages 155–168 in Goldene Äpfel in silbernen Schalen: Collected Communications to the XIIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament (Leuven 1989). Edited by Klaus-Dietrich Schunck and Matthias Augustin. BEATAJ 20. Frankfurt am Main et al.: Peter Lang. Esler, Philip Francis. 2001. “‘By the Hand of a Woman.’ Culture, Story and Theology in the Book of Judith.” Pages 64–101 in Social Scientific Models for Interpreting the Bible: Essays by the Context Group in Honour of Bruce J. Malina. Edited by John J. Pilch. Leiden: Brill. Esler, Philip Francis. 2002. “Ludic History in the Book of Judith. The Reinvention of Israelite Identity?” BibInt 10: 107–143. Georgen, Helga Theresa. 1984. “Die Kopfjägerin Judith – Männerphantasie oder Emanzipationsmodell?” Pages 111–124 in FrauenKunstGeschichte. Zur Korrektur des herrschenden Blicks. Edited by Cordula Bischoff et al. Gießen: Anabas-Verlag. Hanhart, Robert (ed.). 1979. Iudith. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Academiae Scientarum Gottingensis editum VIII.4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Hellmann, Monika. 1992. Judit – eine Frau im Spannungsfeld von Autonomie und göttlicher Führung. Studie über eine Frauengestalt des Alten Testaments. EHS.T 444. Frankfurt am Main et al.: Peter Lang. Hentschel, Georg. 92016. “Das Buch der Richter.” Pages 267–277 in Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Edited by Erich Zenger and Christian Frevel. KStTh 1.1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Joosten, Jan. 2007. “The Original Language and Historical Milieu of the Book of Judith.” Pages 159–176 in Vol. 5–6 of Meghillot. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Festschrift

72

Siquans

Devorah Dimant. Edited by Moshe Bar-Asher and Emanuel Tov. Haifa: University of Haifa. Lang, Judith. 2012. “The Lord Who Crushes Wars: Studies on Judith 9:7, Judith 16:2 and Exodus 15:3.” Pages 179–187 in A Pious Seductress: Studies in the Book of Judith. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits. DCLS 14. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter. Newman, Judith H. 1999. Praying by the Book. The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism. SBL.EJL 14. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Perkins, Larry. 2007. “‘The Lord is a Warrior – The Lord Who Shatters Wars’: Exod 15:3 and Jdt 9:7; 16:2.” BIOSCS 40: 121–138. Rakel, Claudia. 2003a. “Die Feier der Errettung im Alten Testament als Einspruch gegen den Krieg.” JBTh 18: 169–201. Rakel, Claudia. 2003b. Judit – über Schönheit, Macht und Widerstand im Krieg. Eine feministisch-intertextuelle Lektüre. BZAW 334. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Schmitz, Barbara and Engel, Helmut. 2014. Judit. HTHK.AT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Schmitz, Barbara. 2004a. Gedeutete Geschichte. Die Funktion der Reden und Gebete im Buch Judit. HBS 40. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Schmitz, Barbara. 2004b. “Vor-Denken und Nach-Denken. Die Funktion der Reden und Gebete im Buch Judit.” Pages 221–229 in Prayer from Tobit to Judith. Inaugural Conference of the ISDCL at Salzburg. Austria, 4–9 July, 2003. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley. DCLS 2004. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Schmitz, Barbara. 2014. “κύριος συντρίβων πολέμους: ‘The Lord Who Shatters Wars’ (Exod 15:3LXX). The Formative Importance of the Song of the Sea (Ex 15:1–18LXX) for the Book of Judith.” BIOSCS 47: 5–16. Siebert-Hommes, Jopie. 1994. “‘But if She Be a Daughter … She May Live!’ Daughters and Sons in Exodus 1–2.” Pages 62–74 in A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy. Edited by Athalya Brenner. FCB 6. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Siquans, Agnethe. 2013a. “Die Macht der Rezeption: Eckpunkte der patristischen Juditinterpretation.” Pages 171–197 in Macht – Gewalt – Krieg im Alten Testament: Gesellschaftliche Problematik und das Problem ihrer Repräsentation. Edited by Irmtraud Fischer. QD 254. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Siquans, Agnethe. 2013b. “Rezeption: Annäherung an ein Phänomen.” Protokolle zur Bibel 22: 1–17. Siquans, Agnethe. 2017. “Judith (Book and Person): III. Christianity.” Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception 14:1037–1038. Skehan, Patrick William. 1963. “The Hand of Judith.” CBQ 25: 94–110. Stone, Nira. 1992. “Judith and Holofernes: Some Observations on the Development of the Scene in Art.” Pages 73–93 in “No One Spoke Ill of Her”. Essays on Judith. Edited by James VanderKam. SBL.EJL 2. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Reception of Exodus in the Book of Judith

73

Uppenkamp, Bettina. 2004. Judith und Holofernes in der italienischen Malerei des Barock. Berlin: Reimer. Utzschneider, Helmut and Oswald, Wolfgang. 2013. Exodus 1–15. IEKAT. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. van Henten, Jan Willem. 1994. “Judith as a Female Moses. Judith 7–13 in the Light of Exodus 17; Numbers 20 and Deuteronomy 33: 8–11.” Pages 33–48 in Reflections on Theology and Gender. Edited by Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes and Athalya Brenner. Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House. van Henten, Jan Willem. 1995. “Judith as Alternative Leader. A Rereading of Judith 7–11.” Pages 224–252 in A Feminist Companion to Esther, Judith and Susanna. Edited by Athalya Brenner. FCB 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. White, Sidnie A. 1992. “In the Steps of Jael und Deborah: Judith as Heroine.” Pages 5–16 in “No One Spoke Ill of Her”. Essays on Judith. Edited by James VanderKam, SBL.EJL 2. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Zenger, Erich and Frevel, Christian. 92016. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. KStTh 1.1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Zenger, Erich. 1981. Das Buch Judit. JSHRZ 1.6. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn. Zenger, Erich. 1996. “‘Wir erkennen keinen anderen als Gott an …’ (Jdt 8,20): Programm und Relevanz des Buches Judit.” Religionsunterricht an höheren Schulen 39: 23–36.

Chapter 4

Exodus in Wisdom of Solomon Maurice Gilbert 1

The Context: Methodological Remarks

Many events of the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt are rewritten in Wis 10:15–19:22. Before presenting them, and in order to understand their purpose and their meaning, it is necessary to explain the context in which they are inserted. Let us proceed logically. The Greek Text of the Book 1.1 It is commonly acknowledged today that Wisdom was originally written in Greek and that its best critical edition was published in 1962 by Joseph Ziegler.1 However we are not obliged to accept every detail of his edition. For instance, his proposal for dividing pericopes could be questioned, as between 12:1 and 12:2 or inside Wis 19. There is still debate about his critical choices of the Greek text. In 12:22a, discussion is still going on about μυριότητι read in the majority of manuscripts and the hypothetical μετριόντητι (Leproux 2014, 272–289, esp. 283–285). Similarly Alexis Leproux recently proposed to read in 16:6b σύμβουλον with Mss S, A and V, instead of σύμβολον with Ms B (Leproux 2004, 161–192). Similarly, the hypothetical παρόντες in 19:14a may be preferable to the common reading παρόντας (Mazzinghi, 2005, 53–82, esp. 60–62; 2018, 500–501). The Unity of the Book 1.2 There are various types of argument in favour of the redactional unity of Wisdom. First of all, the whole text of the book is written neither in prose nor as a poem, but in what Chrysostome Larcher (1983, 90–91) called “free verse” or “rhythmic prose”. Throughout Wisdom, there is the same midrashic reading

1 The recent edition of Ceulemans and Verhasselt 2018, 107–117 does not change anything. This papyrus is dated “to the late seventh or early eighth century,” 108.

© Maurice Gilbert, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471122_006

Exodus in Wisdom of Solomon

75

of the Bible.2 Moreover in some developments, the same theme is mentioned three times, at the beginning, at the centre and at the end (Wis 1:16d; 2:9c, 24b: μερίς; Wis 11:15–16; 12:23; 16:1). Some themes are announced (Wis 6:25 opening 7–9; Wis 11:15 developed in 16:1–14; Wis 18:5 announcing 18:6–19:9). Lists are also found (Wis 10:1–19 and 19:10–12, 18–21) or enumerations (Wis 7:22–23; 14:25–26; 17:17–19; Léonas 2011, 99–126, esp. 103). Throughout the book, diptychs oppose just and unjust people: for instance, in Wis 3–4; 10 and in the seven diptychs confronting Egyptians and Hebrews in Wis 11:4–14; 16:1–19:9. Luca Mazzinghi (2016, 386–392, esp. 361–367) notes some rhetorical figures, especially metaphors of Death (Wis 1–6), and of Light and Darkness (Wis 17:1–18:4), anaphora (Wis 10; 17:13–15, 18b–19d), paronomasia (Wis 4:2; 5:3b, 10c, 14, 22a; and so on; 17:12–13; 18:15).3 It is also a well-known fact that there are no personal names in Wisdom (Cheon 1998, 111–119). More characteristic of the Book of Wisdom are the concentric structures, already observed by Addison G. Wright (1967, 165–184). Not only do a few of them appear in short passages like Wis 9:13–17aα and 18:20–25, but larger concentric structures seem to have organised parts of the book (Wis 1–6; 7–8; 9; 11:4–14 with 16:1–19:9; 13:10–15:13; Gilbert 1984, 283–324, esp. 301–306). On his part, in 1970, in order to prove the unity of the Book of Wisdom, James M. Reese (1970, 123–140) collected 45 flashbacks, either expressions or words, common to the first nine chapters and the last ten. 1.3 Literary Structure and Literary Genre of Wisdom An accurate analysis of the structure and the genre of Wisdom should also confirm its unity. To identify the literary genre of a text, it is necessary to define its literary structure and to compare it with other texts having the same structure. If possible, it would be useful to know if there are ancient academic descriptions of the identified literary genre, valid for the entire text in question. Mainly two proposals of a specific literary genre are still debated. The first one was presented in 1970 by James M. Reese. According to him, Wisdom is a logos protrepticos (117–121), but he did not proceed properly to its literary structure. His proposal was and still is frequently accepted, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world, for instance by David Winston in his commentary published in 1979 (18–20). Later he was less sure (Winston 2005, 1–18, esp. 2–5). However there is a serious problem: there is not even a single example of an ancient protreptic text including at the end a historical report like in Wis 10–19. 2 Even in Wis 7–9. See Schaberg 1982, 75–101; Vílchez Líndez 1990, 40–47. For the Scriptures in Wisdom, see Gilbert, 2000, 606–617. 3 See also, for paronomasia, Léonas 2011, 103.

76

Gilbert

The second proposal for the literary genre of Wisdom came first from Paul Beauchamp (1990, 347–369, esp. 358–359): it is an ἐγκώμιον, an encomium, a eulogy, according to the epideictic genre, but in his paper he did not offer an accurate analysis for the literary structure of Wisdom. On the contrary, the present writer proceeded with such an analysis before explaining why Wisdom is an encomium (Gilbert 1984, 301–309; Gilbert 1986, 58–119, esp. 65–87). In the meantime, Paolo Bizzeti did the same in 1984.4 In his commentary published in 1989, José Vílchez Líndez (38–39) discussed the question of the literary genre of Wisdom and concluded that it must be an encomium. Recently, Luca Mazzinghi (2018, 5–9, 23, 27–29) has accepted the literary structure of Wisdom in three parts (1–6; 7–9; 10–19) and the encomium as its literary genre. Now, the theory of the encomium was explained at least by Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian.5 This theory includes digressions, as we have in Wis 11:15–12:27; 13–15, and at the end historical examples like in Wis 10–19. Moreover, in Antiquity several texts offer a literary structure which corresponds to this theory of the encomium: for instance, Paradoxa stoicorum written by Cicero, Quod omnis probus liber est and De nobilitate by Philo of Alexandria, or De clementia by Seneca.6 For Wisdom, a summary of the results would be thus:7



I. Exordium (Wis 1–6: concentric)8 Short presentation of Wisdom, the main theme of the book (1:4–7 negative; 6:12–21 positive). Two speeches of adversaries (2:1–20 project; 5:1–13 eschatological consequences). Eschatological contrasts between just and unjust people (3–4). II. Eulogy of Wisdom (Wis 7–8) and prayer (9), both concentric9 Self-portrait of the young Solomon (7:1–22a; 8:2–21) and, at the centre, eulogy of Wisdom. Announced in 7:7 and 8:21, prayer for Wisdom (9).

4 Bizzetti 1984. The reaction of Reese 1990, 229–242, esp. 236–238, did not really touch the point. 5 The main references are given in Gilbert 1984, 307, n. 87. For their texts, see Gilbert 1986, 80–83, and Bizzeti 1984, 126–140. 6 See Gilbert, 1986, 83–84, and Bizzeti 1984, 140–145. 7 On the originality of Wisdom’s structure, see Gilbert 1986, 86–87, and Bizzeti 1984, 175–180. 8 Kolarcik 1991. 9 Leproux 2007; Gilbert 1970, 301–331 and Gilbert 1971, 145–166.

Exodus in Wisdom of Solomon





77

III. Confirmation through historical events (Wis 10–19) First FRAME by enumeration (10:1–11:4). First antithesis between just and unjust people (11:5–14). Announcement of the second antithesis (11:15–16) Two DIGRESSIONS: 1. the Lord is merciful for the Egyptians (11:17–12:2) and for the Canaanites (12:3–22), 2. but all of them were sinners: philosophers (13:1–9), idolaters (13:10–15:13 concentric) and, worse, also zoolaters (15:14–19). Second antithesis (16:1–4). Third antithesis (16:5–14). Fourth antithesis (16:15–29). Fifth antithesis (17:1–18:4). Sixth antithesis (18:5–25). Seventh antithesis (19:1–9). Concluding FRAME by enumeration (19:10–22).

1.4 Main Themes throughout Wisdom Lastly, several themes confirm the coherence and unity of Wisdom. 1. Wisdom, about which a large study was undertaken by Chrysostome Larcher in 1969 (329–414; Winston 1979, 33–43; Winston 1993, 149–164; 1993, 149–164; cf. Vílchez Líndez 1990, 93–104). It is striking that, after 10:21, except in 14:2, 5, the word Wisdom disappears. 2. Knowledge or ignorance of God (Gilbert 2011, 311–335). 3. The idea of Creation: for life (Wis 1–2), through Wisdom (Wis 7–10), by love (Wis 11:24–12:1); its parody (Wis 13–15) and its renewal (Wis 19:6–21; Gilbert 2011, 405–429; Passaro 2012, 17–86); instead of the Covenant, Creation is the basic theology of the sages. 4. Connected with the third one is the fourth, the cosmos (Beauchamp 1964, 491–526, esp. 493– 501; Gilbert 1982, 189–191; Mazzinghi 1997, 381–398). 5. Eschatology in Wisdom (Beauchamp 1964; Larcher 1969, 237–327; Vílchez Líndez 1990, 104–114; Blischke 2007; Edward 2012 and recension Gilbert 2014). 6. Back to the origins: origin of humankind (Wis 1–2), origin of Wisdom and of wise teaching with the figure of Solomon (7–9) and origin of Israel (Wis 10–19; Gilbert 2006, 171–185).10 7. Universalism and Justice. 8. Divine judgement and divine benevolence (Kolarcik 1999, 289–301). 9. Salvation (Harrington 2013, 181–190; Passaro 2012). 1.5 Date of Wisdom About the date of Wisdom, there is again disagreement among scholars, even if the second and the early first century BCE are today excluded. 10

Less convincing Dodson 2018, 45–61, esp. 48–53.

78

Gilbert

Accepting the proposal presented by Giuseppe Scarpat (1967, 171–189, esp. 180–184 and Scarpat 1989, 21–24 David Winston (1979, 20–25) explained why Wisdom was written at the time of Caligula (37–41 CE).11 In 1997, Samuel Cheon (1997, 125–149) strongly defended this proposal.12 Others prefer the time of Augustus (30 BCE–14 CE), including the present writer (Gilbert 1986, 91–93), followed by José Vílchez Líndez in 1990 (64–69), Moyna McGlynn in 2001 (recension by Gilbert 2002, 416–419), and Luca Mazzinghi (2018, 31–33). For their part, Andrew T. Glicksman (2011, 14–24) and Matthew Edwards (2012, 24–37) hesitate between these two proposals. Recently, the present writer and Mazzinghi have offered new arguments in favour of the Augustan period (Gilbert 2011, 121–140, esp. 124–129; Mazzinghi 2005, 68, 78). 2

Exodus in Wis 10–1913

Part 1 of this paper explained the context in which Wis 10–19 is inserted, a context with all its literary, historical and theological features. Moreover, in his rewriting of the events of the Exodus, the author emphasises a hymnal anamnesis of the facts (Gilbert 1983, 207–225), the Jewish reading of the Bible, an actualisation of the past, his tendency to universalise the message and the eschatological perspective (Gilbert 1997, 48–61; Mazzinghi 2004, 153–176, esp. 170–175). On the literary genre of this third part of Wisdom, the best external example of negative and positive biblical characters is found in De nobilitate, written by Philo of Alexandria. But in Wis 11:4–19:9, the confrontation between just and unjust people is organised according to a typical Jewish use of the Greek syncrisis, which has the originality of putting a cosmic element as the middle and efficient term between both people (Stein 1934, 558–575; Heinemann 1948, 241–251).14 Today any study of Wis 10–19 should compare these chapters simultaneously with ancient Jewish witnesses and Greek culture.

11 12 13 14

Less affirmative in his paper 2005, 2–4. See a critique of his position by Lietaert Peerbolte 2006, 97–116, esp. 97–98. The specific studies on these chapters are those of Schwenk-Bressler 1993; Cheon 1997, 424–429; Chesnutt 2003, 223–249; Lietaert Peerbolte 2006, 97–116; Ramond 2010, 201–214. See a schema in Gilbert 1986, 87.

Exodus in Wisdom of Solomon

79

2.1 Exodus in Wis 10:15–11:315 In the first part of the frame, concluded in 19:10–21, these verses introduce the character of Moses and give a summary of the Exodus. The particular literary genre of Wis 10 was identified in 1977 by Arnim Schmitt as a Beispielreihe, a series of examples in historiography, similar to those we read in Sir 44–49; 1 Macc 2:50–61; Heb 11:3–31 and elsewhere. Recently, Glicksman and Mazzinghi have added the similarity between Wis 10 and the Isis aretalogies. In Wis 10:15–11:3, the hero is Moses and he is the only one of whom it is said that Wisdom “entered” him: Moses is therefore presented as a wise man, and if he is called “holy prophet” in Wis 11:1, Wis 7:27 already explained that he became so by the active presence of Wisdom in him. But in the same verses, Moses is only the leader of the Hebrew people: it is the people who, thanks to Wisdom, found the way to freedom from their oppressors (inclusion between Wis 10:16 and 11:3). Lastly, the allusion to the Song of the Sea (Exod 15) in Wis 10:20–21 will be seen again as an inclusion in Wis 19:9. 2.2 The Seven Diptychs: Structure and Other References Reserving the two digressions (Wis 11:15–12:27 and 13–15) for the next paragraph (2.3), let us consider the structure of the diptychs in Wis 11:4–16; 16:1–19:9, comparing them with other series of the Egyptian plagues. In Wisdom, there are seven diptychs opposing seven plagues to seven benefits granted by the Lord to his people: 1. Nile water changed into blood – Water from the rock (Wis 11:4–14) 2. Hunger provoked by tiny beasts – Quails (Wis 16:1–4) 3. Death inflicted by locusts and flies  – The bronze serpent saving from death (Wis 16:5–14)16 4. Storm destroying harvest – Manna (Wis 16:15–29)17 5. Darkness – Light and pillar of fire (Wis 17:1–18:4)18 6. Death of firstborns – Death stopped by the prayer of Aaron (Wis 18:5–25)19 7. Drowning in the sea – Passing through safely (Wis 19:1–9). Plagues 2 and 3 are introduced together in Wis 11:15–16 and 16:1, and plagues 6 and 7 in Wis 18:5. Death was also experienced by the Hebrews according to plagues 3 and 6. Water is the instrument of plagues 1 and 7. Water is also, together 15 16 17 18 19

Schmitt 1977, 1–22; Enns, 1957, esp. 17–95; Glicksman 2011, 89–95; Mazzinghi 2015, 157–176, esp. 161–166; Kloppenborg 1982, 57–84, esp. 66–73. On Wis 10, see also Grelot 1961, 49–60; Enns 1995, 1–24; Mazzinghi 2014, 183–206, esp. 184–187; Reiterer 2016, 187–207. Maneschg 1981, 101–191; Maneschg 1984, 214–229; Schmitt 2001, 51–86. Dumoulin 1994, 1–153. Mazzinghi 1995. Priotto 1985; Mazzinghi, 2019, 41–54.

80

Gilbert

with fire, the means of plague four opposed to the benefit of the manna: this is the centre of the seven contrasts between Egyptians and Hebrews. If we put the same syncrisis with the references to Exodus and Numbers, we have this: 1. Nile water changed into blood (Exod 7:14–24) – Water from the rock (Exod 17:1–7; Num 20:1–13) 2. Tiny beasts (frogs in Exod 7:26–8:3) – Quails (Exod 16:9–13; Num 11:10–32) 3. Death inflicted by locusts and flies (Exod 8:12–28; 10:1–20) – The bronze serpent (Num 21:4–9) 4. Storm destroying harvest (Exod 9:13–35) – The manna (Exod 16:4–36; Num 11:7–9) 5. Darkness (Exod 10:21–23a) – Light and the pillar of fire (Exod 10:23b; 13:21–22). 6. Death of the firstborns (Exod 29–30) – Death stopped by the prayer of Aaron (Num 17:9–15) 7. Drowning in the sea (Exod 14) – Passing through safely (Exod 14). In the Book of Exodus, there are ten plagues (Exod 7:14–10:29; 12:29–30) and traditionally the drowning of the Egyptian army in the sea is not considered as a plague. On the contrary, in Wisdom there are seven plagues and the drowning of the Egyptians is the last one. Moreover, Wisdom does not mention the death of the Egyptian cattle (Exod 9:1–7) nor the plague of ulcers (Exod 9:8– 12). Wis 16:1–4 does not mention explicitly the frogs of Exod 7:26–8:10, and the different plagues of mosquitos, horse-flies and locusts in Exod 8:12–20; 10:1–20 are presented together in Wis 16:8–9, diptych 3. There is no traditional number of Egyptian plagues (Lietaert Peerbolte 2006, 104–112). For instance, in Pss 78:43–51 and 105:27–36, there are also seven plagues, but never in the same order; in both, the last plague is the death of the firstborn, even if death in the sea is mentioned in Ps 78:53. For Ezekiel the Tragedian20 and for Philo of Alexandria (Mos. I:94–146), there were ten plagues, the tenth being the death of the firstborn. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, II, 14, mentioned nine plagues, omitting the death of the cattle. The Book of Jubilees, 48:5–7, explicitly mentions “ten” plagues and enumerates them according to the biblical text of Exod. Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 10:1 does the same. Concluding his analysis of these texts, Lietaert Peerbolte observes that all of them insist on the Egyptian oppression of the Hebrews and that only Wisdom 20

Larcher 1969, 134, note 3, gave the list.

Exodus in Wisdom of Solomon

81

mentions the idolatry of the Egyptians: it would be preferable to say their religious mistake. Now, the syncrisis of Wis 11–19 is governed by two principles. Wis 11:5 says that the same cosmic element serves to punish some and to save others. Wis 11:16 adds that the instrument of sinning also serves for the punishment of the sinner. This second principle, which is not the talion (Gilbert 2011, 231–240),21 introduces the second and the third plagues. The first one introduces the others. 2.3 The Two Digressions in Wis 11:15–12:27 and 13–15 The first digression, Wis 11:15–12:27 (Haag 1990, 103–155; McGlynn 2001, 25–53; Krammer 2011, 317–342; Leproux 2007, 272–289), is perhaps the most profound theological reflection in the Bible on the kindness and mercy of the Almighty towards sinners. The purpose of the author is to justify plagues two and three inflicted by means of small animals, which are cosmic elements. Roughly speaking, the literary structure is not a syncrisis, but a parallel: after the principle in Wis 11:15–16, this digression is divided in two parts: Wis 11:17–12:2 about God’s behaviour towards the Egyptians, and Wis 12:3– 18 towards the Canaanites. Wis 12:19–22 draws a lesson for the Jews, and Wis 12:23–27 repeats the principle of Wis 11:15–16 and concludes announcing plagues six and seven. This long theological reflection on God’s moderation in punishing sinners is developed 1. towards the Egyptian people: God is all-powerful and capable of destroying sinners, but he prefers to balance sin and chastisement; the deepest reason for his tolerance and patience is his love of all his creatures, for his Spirit remains present in each of them (Wis 11:23–12:1; Gilbert 2011, 241–254; Bartolomé 2008, 29–54); his moderate punishment is intended for the conversion of sinners; 2. towards the Canaanite people, who are identified in Wis 12:2–6 with those who frequent the Hellenistic mysteries (Gill 1965, 383–386), God uses the same moderation sending them “wasps” only (Wis 12:8 interpreting Exod 23:28; Larcher 1985, 713–714). In his last observation, before concluding his first digression by inclusion of Wis 12:23–27 with Wis 11:15–16, the author applies his teaching of God’s mercy towards sinners to his own Jewish community (Wis 12:18b, 19–22; Gilbert 2011, 255–260). Wis 12:17 is a general principle, but alluding to the series of plagues in Egypt facing the stubbornness of Pharaoh, according to Exodus. However, Wis 12:18 contrasts this hardness with God’s usual moderation and this had 21

The Latin axiom Per quod quis peccat per idem punitur et idem was several times quoted by Emmanuel Kant.

82

Gilbert

also been the experience of the Hebrews during their Exodus (Wis 16:5–6), but Wis 12:18 is also a general principle and it is valid at all times and for everybody, including the author’s Jewish community: this is perhaps the reason for which Wis 12:18b uses the second plural person “us”. Now, using the same personal pronoun “us,” Wis 12:19–23 surely concerns the author’s Jewish community. In the book, it is the first personalised example of an actualisation of the message:22 Jews must hope for God’s mercy when they sin and, imitating their Lord, they must judge others with the same mercy. The second digression, Wis 13–15, intends to show that the religious practices of the Egyptians are the worst (Gilbert 1973). Its literary structure is organised according to the principle a minore ad maius: 1. Pantheistic philosophers: μάταιοι (Wis 13:1–9) 2. Idolatrous: ταλαίπωροι (Wis 13:10–15:13: concentric): First example: a sculptor of a wooden-idol for himself (Wis 13:10–19) Boat and the saving Providence (Wis 14:1–10)23 Origin and development of idolatry (Wis 14:11–21) Immoral behaviour of the idolatrous (Wis 14:22–31) Israel is not idolatrous (Wis 15:1–6) Second example: a potter making an idol for sale (Wis 15:7–13) 3. Idolatrous and also zoolatrous: ἀφρονέστατοι (Wis 15:14–19). In this digression, several texts allude to the Exodus of the Hebrews. The first one comes in Wis 13:1b: τὸν ὄντα alludes to the Greek version of Exod 3:14. The expression “the incommunicable Name” of Wis 14:21c, at the centre of this digression, is again an allusion to Exod 3:14 (des Places 1975, 154–158; 338–342; Bogaert 1999, 387–394). Another allusion to the Book of Exodus is implicit in Wis 14:25 at the beginning of a list of vices: this verse depends on the Septuagint version of Exod 20:13–14, the Decalogue, through Hos 4:12 (Gilbert 1973, 165–166). The next allusion in Wis 15:1: “You, our God, you are good and true, patient [μακρόθυμος];” these words are the self-portrait of the Lord at Mount Sinai according to Exod 34:6LXX, but freely interpreted through Pss 85 (86):5; 99 (100):5 and 144 (145):8–9. Wis 15:2 could be an allusion to the Golden Calf of Exod 32, and the expression “We are yours” echoes the Septuagint of Exod 34:6: “We will be to you.”24 Finally, in Wis 15:18, the Egyptian zoolatry is clearly in

22 23 24

A second will be read in 15:1–5. Beentjes 1992, 137–141; Mazzinghi 1997, 61–90; Lanzinger 2018, 50–59. On Wis 15:1–2, see Gilbert 1973, 174–182.

Exodus in Wisdom of Solomon

83

view: Exod 8:22 is the only one allusion to it in Wis. Therefore, in Wis 13–15, all the allusions to the Exodus are linked to the Covenant. 2.4 Exodus in Wis 19:10–22 The present writer considers these verses as the second and concluding part of the frame, in continuity with Wis 10:1–21 (Gilbert 2008, 19–32, esp. 28–30). The main arguments are not only a similar list of events in both, but also rare themes or expressions which appear in both texts. There are three: Sodomites are mentioned in Wis 10:6–8 and 19:14(–15?), 17; the song at the sea in Wis 10:20– 21 and 19:9; the words “Red Sea” in Wis 10:18 and 19:7. Reading Wis 19:10–21 right after Wis 10, the reader will find, in list form, a brief account of the origins of humankind and of Israel. Winston and Vílchez Líndez also include Wis 19:9 as the end of the seventh antithesis (Winston 1979, 323; Vílchez Líndez 1990, 532). There are other proposals, like those of Beauchamp (1964, 501–506) and of Mazzinghi (2018, 484): Wis 19:1–5, 6–12, 13–17, 18–21, 22.25 Wis 19:10–21 could be divided into three sections, 19:22 concluding the hymnal anamnesis. 1. Wis 19:10 recalls the second and third plagues, and 19:11–12 alludes to the second benefit. 2. According to Wis 19:13–17, the Egyptians were more guilty than the Sodomites. 3. Wis 19:18–21 explains that during the Exodus, cosmic elements modified their capacities: “land beings became aquatic and swimming ones migrated on earth” (19:19: nobody knows to which event 19:19a alludes, while 19:19b refers to the frogs in the second plague); “fire retained its force in water and water forgot its quenching properties; inversely, flames did not consume the flesh of perishable creatures walking among them” (19:20–21b: the storm in the fourth plague); “nor dissolve the crystalline easy melted type of the ambrosial food” (19:21c: the manna, the benefit in the same fourth syncrisis). Beauchamp (1964, 502–508) suggested reading Wis 19 in the light of Gen 1: Wis 19:7a: Gen 1:2 Wis 19:7b: Gen 1:9 Wis 19:7c: Gen 1:11–13 Wis 19:10–12: Gen 1:20–25 Wis 19:17: Gen 1:4–5, 14–19 Wis 19:18–21b: Gen 1:22, 24 Wis 19:21c: Gen 1:29 25

For Beauchamp 19:5 is a title.

84

Gilbert

Today, this proposal is globally accepted in this sense that the creation’s renewal affirmed in Wis 19:6 is detailed in the following verses through their connection with Gen 1: the events of the Exodus were a renewed creation (Bienaimé 1987, 425–449). In Wis 19:13–17 arises the question of the civil rights of the Jews in Alexandria (Priotto 1984, 369–394; Vílchez Líndez 1990, 551–575; Mazzinghi 2005, 53–82). For Mazzinghi, in these verses, it is difficult to see an allusion to the time of Caligula. Wis 19:18 is a crux interpretum, because of our fragmentary knowledge of Greek music. Nevertheless, several scholars have recently tried to bring to light this verse in which a transmutation of cosmic elements is asserted (Vílchez 1986, 37–49; Pistone 2005, 195–217; Jones 2009, 3–43; Passaro 2010, 101–123; Mazzinghi 2012, 63–79). The next paragraph (2.5) will give some explanations. 2.5 Salient Trends of Wis 10–1926 Five characteristics of these chapters seem important to the author. The first one is his hymnal anamnesis in rewriting the Exodus events (Gilbert 1983). In this account – an extension of Wis 9:18 – he generally addresses God in the second person, except when he writes about the culpability of the oppressors and their plagues. The model seems to be Exod 15:6–17, the song at the sea to which Wis 10:10 and 19:9 refer. The author also addresses the “Lord”, κύριε, in the vocative in other key-verses: Wis 12:2; 16:12, 26; 19:22. Sometimes, he uses other titles of God in the vocative when he wants to underline his universal power or action: 11:26; 12:18; 14:3; 15:1b; 16:7–8, 24. In Wis 12:12; 15:1–2, 4; 18:6–8, the author’s Jewish community is involved in the first plural person. But often the people of God are simply mentioned by their relation to God: “your sons” (Wis 12:19, 21 …), “your people” (Wis 12:19 …), “your saints” (Wis 18:1): the author does not want to exalt his people, but only God. The second salient trend is the universalism of the message (Kolarcik 1999). The Lord of Israel is not only God of the universe, but in a few texts the universality of the message is emphasised. In the first digression, God’s mercy is theologically justified by his universal care, love and presence through his spirit (Wis 11:20d–12:1, 13). In the second digression, his universal power is asserted (Wis 13:1, 3–5; 14:3–6; 15:1b, 11). In the last chapters of the syncrisis, the universal power of God’s Word is mentioned in Wis 16:12, 26, and the mission of Israel was to give to the world the imperishable light of the Law (Wis 18:4; Mazzinghi 1995, 251–263; Mazzinghi 2010, 37–59).27 26 27

Gilbert 1997; Mazzinghi 2004, 170–175. On the Law in Wisdom, see Mazzinghi 2004; Schaper 2013, 293–306.

Exodus in Wisdom of Solomon

85

The third one is the actualisation of the rewritten Exodus. In Wis 11:18–19, the monsters are those of the Greek tradition, like Chimera and Gorgona. Canaanite rites are presented as those of the Hellenistic mysteries. In Wis 12:19– 22, God’s mercy is a message for the actual Jewish community. The philosophers of Wis 13:1–9 are Hellenistic. Opposition to the cult of Isis is implicit in Wis 14:1–5. Divinisation of the kings in Wis 14:16–20 alludes to Roman practice and Wis 14:22 to the Pax Romana. Wis 15:1–4 is a profession of faith by the author’s Jewish community. Wis 15:12 is a Greek topic. Wis 17 borrows its vocabulary from Hellenistic magic and mystery; Isis is also alluded to. The Passover meal in Wis 18:9 is described according to the practice at the author’s time. The reference to the manna in Wis 19:21c could also allude to a Hellenistic practice in the mysteries, namely those of Isis in Alexandria (Dumoulin 1994, 136–143). The fourth one is the Jewish reading of the books of Genesis, Exodus and Numbers. In this matter, David Winston’s commentary (1979) is very accurate. Let us also remember that Wis 10–19 is not formally a historical report, but a praying meditation on ancient events: making free and clever use of his own Jewish tradition, the author wrote a kind of midrash (Vílchez Líndez 1990, 40–47). Recent researchers have confirmed this approach (Gilbert 1997, 51–53). Besides, in Wisdom there is no allegory, like in Philo of Alexandria. The last salient trend is the eschatology in Wis 10–19, especially in Wis 16:24– 25 and 19:6, 18 asserting the renewed creation: on these verses see the final section of this paper (3). Concerning eschatology in Wisdom, two mistakes have to be avoided. The first one is the confusion between eschatology and apocalypticism; Wis 10–19 is not an apocalyptic text, because apocalypticism looks to the future while refusing past history, and Wis 10–19 is properly founded on ancient reports of events considered to be historic, at least at the time of the author (Collins 1977, 121–142; Gilbert 2011, 357–383, esp. 371–378). For the present writer, to consider the eschatology of Wisdom as already realised would be another mistake: Matthew Edwards’ thesis conflates the cosmic pneuma of the Stoic philosophers and the divine pneuma which is in Wisdom (Wis 7:22b–26).28 On the positive side, concerning the steps of Reese and his flashbacks, Dumoulin, Mazzinghi and Priotto have noted that Wis 16–18 echoes Wis 5, the final cosmic battle of God against the unjust (Dumoulin 1994, 32–33, 92–93; Mazzinghi 1995, 200–201; Priotto 1985, 132–133).29

28 29

See above 1.4, at 5. On Wis 5:15–23, see Gilbert 2003, 307–322, esp. 313–320.

86 3

Gilbert

The Manna: Creation’s Renewal30

The purpose of this final section is to analyse Wis 16:15–29, and also 19:21c where the manna is presented as the crown of the author’s meditation on the Exodus. Wis 16:15–29 is at the centre of the seven syncrisis and Wis 19:21c is the last example of the creation’s renewal. 3.1 Wis 16:15–29 The literary structure of the fourth syncrisis has been analysed by various scholars. The best one, with verbal inclusions, was presented by Bizzeti (1989, 93–94), followed by Mazzinghi (2018, 420–421): 16:15: Title (one stich) 16:16–19: The fourth plague: storm of water and fire (twelve stichs) 16:20–23: The fourth benefit: the manna (twelve stichs) 16:24–29: Comment: 16:24–25: The changing creation (6 stichs) 16:25: Announcement of a teaching for Israel (3 stichs) 16:27–29: Application to the manna (6 stichs) Comparison with other references to the manna in ancient Judaism has been done by Beauchamp (1967, 207–218), Dumoulin (1994, 58–65), Scaiola (2002, 55–59) and Zsengellér (2010, 209–215). Of course, for this midrashic rewriting of the fourth syncrisis, the main sources are the narratives of Exodus and Numbers. For instance, in Wis 16:20c, the manna “provided every pleasure and suited every taste”: this is a genial resolution of two different explanations given in the Pentateuch: the manna had a taste of wafers made with honey (Exod 16:31) or a taste of cakes baked with oil (Num 11:8; Dumoulin 1994, 69). In Wis 16:15–29, the author asserts four points: 1. Both the storm and the manna, “a food of angels” (Wis 16:20a; Ps 78:25), came from heaven. 2. Flood and thunderbolt ruined the Egyptian harvest, but the animals of the second and the third plagues were spared by the fire, while fire used to cook the incorruptible manna did not melt it. 3. The manna is described in Wis 16:22a as “snow” (Exod 16:14: “hoar-frost”; see Wis 16:29a) and “ice” (Num 11:7LXX; see Wis 19:21c). 4. In Wis 16:24–25a, the natural phenomena of tension and slackening are explained by the Stoic physical doctrine, except that these changes

30

Dumoulin 1994, 1–153; Scaiola 2002, 41–62; Passaro 2004, 193–208; Nicklas 2010, 85–100; Zsengellér 2010, 197–216; Rytel-Andrianik 2012, 15–61, esp. 27–48.

Exodus in Wisdom of Solomon

87

depend on the will of God (Winston 1979, 300; Larcher 1985, 935–936). The idea that the creation adapts its capacities to the will of God comes back in Wis 19:6, 18–21. In Wis 16:26, the phenomenon of the manna first teaches the priority of the word of God (Deut 8:3). Therefore, the Hebrews had to respect Moses’ command to collect the manna early in the morning (Wis 16:27; see Exod 16:21). This command recalls the daily prayer of thanksgiving “at the dawning of the light” (Wis 16:28; see Ps 5:4). The eschatological dimension of the manna in Wis 16:15–29 as well as in Wis 19:21c has been underlined by Dumoulin (1994, 131–133) and Mazzinghi (2012, 69). 3.2 Wis 19:21c This long stich comes at the end of Wis 19:18–21, where 19:18 repeats the theme expressed, with different approaches, in Wis 16:24–25a and 19:6: during the Exodus, divine creation was renewed. Wis 19:21c is the seventh and the last example. The interpretation of its conclusive two words ἀμβροσίας τροφῆς is debated. Many (Holmes 1913; Bover 1947; Beauchamp 1964, 509, fn 1; then The New American Bible (1979); Vílchez Líndez 1990, 538; Mazzinghi 2018, 507) translate this expression by “heavenly food.” Very few are those who translate “ambrosial food.” For several scholars, the meaning of the expression is only a food conferring immortality. Recently others have accepted Paul Beauchamp’s proposal published in 1964. For him, this food of ambrosia means “le salut corporel des justes”; he acknowledges that the author of Wisdom never mentions a bodily resurrection, but this theologoumenon is implicit to his way of arguing. Émile Puech (1993, 92–98; 2005, 136–137) accepted Beauchamp’s prudent position (Beauchamp 1995, 175–186). Later, Dumoulin, Mazzinghi and the present writer did the same (Dumoulin 1994, 133–136; Mazzinghi 2012, 68–69; Mazzinghi 2018, 509–510; Gilbert 2006, 181–183). The ambrosia was, in Antiquity, a special food ensuring immortality or incorruptibility for the divinities. For Wis 16:20a, it was “a food of angels” given to the Hebrews in the desert; it became their food. So, a gift of God coming from the heavens became a new cosmic element eaten by the just for their survival. It is understandable that, in the renewal of creation, this new cosmic element was conceived as a part of the world in the future life of the just: the eschatology of our author implies a new cosmic part; therefore, not only immortality, but what we call resurrection. If the author did not say it explicitly in the last line of his reflection on the Exodus, using the expression “a food of ambrosia”, he must have had it in mind.

88

Gilbert

4 Conclusion If the literary genre of Wisdom is an encomium, as the present writer thinks, Wis 10–19 functions as a confirmation of the thesis proposed in the former chapters. Such a confirmation gives historical examples of the thesis. Moreover, Wis 10–19, a hymnal anamnesis, prolongs Wis 9:18 at the end of the prayer for Wisdom. Now, Wisdom is “the artificer of all” (Wis 7:22a) and “renews all things” (Wis 7:27b); by Wisdom, the ancestors were saved (Wis 9:18c). As for the exordium of Wis 1–6, the programmatic speech of the impious in Wis 2:1– 20 is framed by these theological assertions: “God did not make death […]; he created all things that they might stay; all the products of the world bring salvation” (Wis 1:13a, 14ab); “God created man for incorruptibility; he made him an image of his own nature” (Wis 2:23). Then in Wis 5:15–23, at the eschatological time, the pious ones will be protected by the Lord (Wis 5:16cd), who will use cosmic forces to destroy the impious (Wis 5:17–23). The midrashic rewriting of Exodus in Wis 10–19 is the best historical example of the former teaching of our author and the manna, the most impressive one. Bibliography Bartolomé, Juan José. 2008. “«Señor, amigo de la vida …» (Sb 11,26). El amor, paciente y pedagógico, del Dios creador.” Salesianum 70: 29–54. Beauchamp, Paul. 1964. “Le salut corporel de justes et la conclusion du livre de la Sagesse.” Bib. 45.4: 491–526. Beauchamp, Paul. 1967. “La cosmologie religieuse de Philon et la lecture de l’exode par le Livre de la Sagesse. Le thème de la manne.” Pages 207–218 in Philon d’Alexandrie. Lyon 11–15 Septembre 1966. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Beauchamp, Paul. 1990. “Épouser la Sagesse  – ou n’épouser qu’elle? Une énigme du Livre de la Sagesse.” Pages 347–369 in La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament. Edited by Maurice Gilbert. BEThL 51. Leuven: Peeters. Beauchamp, Paul. 1995. “Sagesse de Salomon. De l’argumentation médicale à la résurrection.” Pages 175–186 in La sagesse biblique de l’Ancien au Nouveau Testament. Edited by Jacques Trublet. LeDiv 160. Paris: Cerf. Beentjes, Pancratius C. 1992. “‘You Have Given a Road in the Sea’. What Is Wisdom 14,3 Talking About?” EThL 68: 137–141. Bienaimé, Germain. 1987. “Le retour du paradis dans le désert de l’exode selon la tradition juive.” Pages 425–449 in La création dans l’Ancien Testament. Edited by Louis Derousseaux. LeDiv 127. Paris: Cerf.

Exodus in Wisdom of Solomon

89

Bizzeti, Paolo. 1984. Libro della Sapienza. Struttura e genere letterario. RivB.S 11. Brescia: Paideia. Blischke, Mareike. 2007. Die Eschatologie in der Sapientia Salomonis. FAT 2.26. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. 1999. “KYRIOS, le Nom incommunicable (Sg 14,21).” Pages 387– 394 in Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages and Jacques Vermeylen. BEThL 143. Leuven: Peeters. Bover, José M. 1947. Sabiduría, in La Sagrada Biblia. I. BAC 26. Madrid: BAC. Ceulemans, Reinhard and Verhasselt, Gertjan. 2018. “Fragments of the Wisdom of Solomon (10:8B–D and 10:15B–17D) from Khirbet Mird (P. Leuven PAM 21 = Rahlfs 888).” ZPE 205: 107–117. Cheon, Samuel. 1997. The Exodus Story in the Wisdom of Solomon. A Study in the Biblical Interpretation. JSP.S 23. Sheffield: Academic Press. Recension: Luca Mazzinghi. Bib. 80 (1999) 424–429. Cheon, Samuel. 1998. “Anonymity in the Wisdom of Solomon.” JSJ 18: 111–119. Chesnutt, Randall D. 2003. “Covenant and Cosmos in Wisdom of Solomon 10–19.” Pages 223–249 in The Concept of the Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C.R. de Roo. JSJ.S 71. Leiden: Brill. Collins, John J. 1997. “Cosmos and Salvation. Jewish Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Hellenistic Age.” Pages 317–338 in Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism. Edited by John J. Collins. JSJ.S 54. Leiden: Brill. Dodson, Joseph R. 2018. “Rejection and Redemption in the Wisdom of Solomon and the Letter of Barnabas.” CBQ 80: 45–61. Dumoulin, Pierre. 1994. Entre la manne et l’Eucharistie. Étude de Sg 16,15–17,1a. AnBib 132. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Edward, Matthew. 2014. Pneuma and Realized Eschatology. FRLANT 242. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Recension: Maurice Gilbert. Bib. 95 (2014) 454–457. Enns, Peter. 1957/2018. Exodus Retold. Ancient Exegesis of the Departure from Egypt in Wis 10:15–21 and 19:1–9. HSM.M 57. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. (Reprint at Leiden: Brill). Enns, Peter. 1995. “A Retelling of the Song at the Sea in Wisdom 10,20–21.” Bib. 76: 1–24. Gilbert, Maurice. 1970. “La structure de la prière de Salomon (Sg 9).” Bib. 51: 301–331. Gilbert, Maurice. 1971. “Volonté de Dieu et don de la Sagesse (Sg 9,17s.).” NRT 93: 145–166. Gilbert, Maurice. 1973. La critique des dieux dans le Livre de la Sagesse (Sg 13–15). AnBib 53. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Gilbert, Maurice. 1982. “Il cosmo secondo il Libro della Sapienza.” Pages 189–199 in Il cosmo nella Bibbia. Edited by Giuseppe De Gennaro. Napoli: Ed. Dehoniane. Gilbert, Maurice. 1983. “L’adresse à Dieu dans l’anamnèse hymnique de l’Exode (Sg 10–19).” Pages 207–225 in El mistero de la Palabra. Homenaje a Luis Alonso Schökel. Edited by Vicente Collado and Eduardo Zurro. Madrid: Ed. Cristiandad.

90

Gilbert

Gilbert, Maurice. 1984. “Wisdom Literature.” Pages 283–324 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Michael E. Stone. CRINT 2.2. Assen: Van Gorcum and Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Gilbert, Maurice. 1986. “Sagesse de Salomon (ou Livre de la Sagesse).” in DBS 11: 58–119. Gilbert, Maurice. 1997. “The Last Pages of the Wisdom of Solomon.” PIBA 20: 48–61. Gilbert, Maurice. 2000. “Ben Sira and the Wisdom of Solomon. Their Interpretative Significance. Wisdom of Solomon and Scripture.” Pages 606–617 in The History of Interpretation. The Middle Ages. Edited by Magne Sæbø. HBOT 1.2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Gilbert, Maurice. 2003. “Sagesse 3,7–9; 5,15–23 et l’apocalypse.” Pages 307–322 in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. BEThL 168. Leuven: Peeters. Gilbert, Maurice. 2005. “The Literary Structure of the Book of Wisdom. A Study of Various Views.” Pages 19–32 in The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research. Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLS 2005. Berlin: de Gruyter. Gilbert, Maurice. 2006. “The Origins According to the Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 171– 185 in History and Identity. How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed its Earlier History. Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages and Jan Liesen. DCLS 2006. Berlin: de Gruyter. Gilbert, Maurice. 2011. “Your Sovereignty Comes from the Lord (Wis 6:3A).” Pages 121– 140 in La Sagesse de Salomon – The Wisdom of Solomon, Recueil d’études. Collected essays. Edited by Maurice Gilbert. AnBib 189. Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press. Gilbert, Maurice. 2011. “« On est puni par où l’on pèche. »” Pages 231–240 in La Sagesse de Salomon – The Wisdom of Solomon, Recueil d’études. Collected essays. Edited by Maurice Gilbert. AnBib 189. Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press. Gilbert, Maurice. 2011. “Les raisons de la modération divine (Sagesse 11,21–12,2).” Pages 241–254 in La Sagesse de Salomon – The Wisdom of Solomon. Recueil d’études. Collected Essays. Edited by Maurice Gilbert. AnBib 189. Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press. Gilbert, Maurice. 2011. “La conjecture μετριόντητι en Sg 12,22A.” Pages 255–260 in La Sagesse de Salomon – The Wisdom of Solomon, Recueil d’études. Collected Essays. Edited by Maurice Gilbert. AnBib 189. Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press. Gilbert, Maurice. 2011. “La connaissance de Dieu selon le Livre de la Sagesse.” Pages 311– 335 in La Sagesse de Salomon – The Wisdom of Solomon, Recueil d’études. Collected Essays. Edited by Maurice Gilbert. AnBib 189. Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press. Gilbert, Maurice. 2011. “Sagesse et histoire.” Pages 357–383 in La Sagesse de Salomon – The Wisdom of Solomon, Recueil d’études. Collected Essays. Edited by Maurice Gilbert. AnBib 189. Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press.

Exodus in Wisdom of Solomon

91

Gilbert, Maurice. 2011. “La relecture de Gn 1–3 dans le livre de la Sagesse.” Pages 405– 429 in La Sagesse de Salomon – The Wisdom of Solomon, Recueil d’études. Collected Essays. Edited by Maurice Gilbert. AnBib 189. Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press. Gill, David. 1965. “The Greek Sources of Wisdom XII 3–7.” VT 15: 383–386. Glicksman, Andrew T. 2011. Wisdom of Solomon 10. A Jewish Hellenistic Reinterpretation of Early Israelite History Through Sapiential Lenses. DCLY 9. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter. Grelot, Pierre. 1961. “Sagesse 10,21 et le Targum de l’Exode.” Bib. 42: 49–60. Haag, Ernst. 1990. “‘Die Weisheit ist nur eine und vermag doch alles.’ Weisheit und Heilsgeschichte nach Weih 11–12.” Pages 103–155 in Lehrerin der Gerechtigkeit. Studien zum Buch der Weisheit. Edited by Georg Hentschel and Erich Zenger. EThS 19. Leipzig: St. Benno Verlag. Harrington, Daniel J. 2013. “‘Saved by Wisdom’ (Wis. 9.18). Soteriology in the Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 181–190 in This World and the World to Come. Soteriology in Early Judaism. Edited by Daniel M. Gurtner. London: Bloomsbury. Heinemann, Joseph. 1948. “Syncrisis oder äußere Analogie in der ‘Weiheit Salomos’.” TZ 4: 241–251. Holmes, Samuel. 1913. “The Wisdom of Solomon.” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. I. Edited by Robert H. Charles. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Jones, Ivor H. 2009. “The Finale of the Wisdom of Solomon. Its Context, Translation and Significance.” JSPseud 19.1: 3–43. Kloppenborg, John S. 1982. “Isis and Sophia in the Book of Wisdom.” HTR 75: 57–84. Kolarcik, Michael. 1991. The Ambiguity of Death in the Book of Wisdom 1–6. A Study of Literary Structure and Interpretation. AnBib 127. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Kolarcik, Michael. 1999. “Universalism and Justice in the Wisdom of Solomon,” in Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom. Edited by Nuria Calduch-Benages and Jacques Vermeylen. Festschrift Maurice Gilbert. BEThL 143. Leuven: Peeters. Krammer, Ingrid. 2011. “Gottes Umgang mit dem Fehlverhalten des Menschen in Weish 11,15–12,27.” Pages 317–342 in Emotions from Ben Sira to Paul. Edited by Renate Egger-Wenzel and Jeremy Corley. DCLY 2001. Berlin: de Gruyter. Lanzinger, Daniel. 2018. “Wer baute das Schiff. Gottes und menschliches Wirken in Weish 14,1–10.” Bib. 99: 50–59. Larcher, Chrysostome. 1969. Études sur le Livre de la Sagesse. EtB. Paris: Gabalda. Larcher, Chrysostome. 1985. Le Livre de la Sagesse ou la Sagesse de Salomon. I, III. EtB 1, 5. Paris: Gabalda. Léonas, Alexis. 2011. “The Poetics of Wisdom.” Pages 99–126 in Et sapienter et eloquenter. Studies on Rhetorical and Stylistic Features of the Septuagint. Edited by Eberhard Bons and Thomas J. Kraus. FRLANT 241. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

92

Gilbert

Leproux, Alexis. 2004. “Moïse ‘conseiller de salut’ en Sg 16,6? Une question de critique textuelle.” RB 111: 161–192. Leproux, Alexis. 2007. Un discours de sagesse. Étude exégétique de Sg 7–8. AnBib 167. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Leproux, Alexis. 2014. “ἐπιείκεια divine ou la mesure du jugement selon Sg 11,15–12,27.” Pages 272–289 in Wisdom for Life. Edited by Núria Calduch-Benages. Festschrift Maurice Gilbert. BZAW 445. Berlin: de Gruyter. Lietaert Peerbolte, Bert Jan. 2006. “The Hermeneutics of Exodus in the Book of Wisdom.” Pages 97–116 in The Interpretation of Exodus. Festschrift Cornelis Houtman. Edited by Riemer Roukema. Leuven: Peeters. Maneschg, Hans. 1981. Die Erzählung von der ehernen Schlange (Num 21,4–9) in der Auslegung der frühen jüdischen Literatur. Ein traditionsgeschichliche Studie. EHS 23.157. Bern: Peter Lang. Maneschg, Hans. 1984. “Gott. Erzieher, Retter und Heiland seines Volkes. Zur Interpretation von Num 21,4–9 in Weisheit 16,5–14.” BZ 28: 214–229. Mazzinghi, Luca. 1995. Notte di paura e di luce. AnBib 134. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Mazzinghi, Luca. 1997. “La barca della provvidenza: Sap 14,1–10 e la figura di Iside.” Vivens Homo 8: 61–90. Mazzinghi, Luca. 1997. “Il cosmo nel libro della Sapienza.” Pages 381–398 in Libri sapienziali ed altri libri. Edited by Antonio Bonora and Michelangelo Priotto. Logos 4. Torino: EDC. Mazzinghi, Luca. 2004. “La memoria della Legge nel libro della Sapienza.” RSB 16: 153–176. Mazzinghi, Luca. 2005. “Wis 19:13–17 and the Civil Rights of the Jews of Alexandria.” Pages 53–82 in The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research. Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLY 2005. Berlin: de Gruyter. Mazzinghi, Luca. 2010. “Law of Nature and Light of the Law in the Book of Wisdom (Wis 18:4c).” Pages 37–59 in Studies in the Book of Wisdom. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJ.S 142. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill. Mazzinghi, Luca. 2012. “La creazione rinnovata (Sap 19,18–21).” Parola Spirito e Vita 66: 63–79. Mazzinghi, Luca. 2014. “The Figure of Moses in the Book of Wisdom.” Pages 183–206 in Canonicity, Setting, Wisdom in the Deuterocanonicals. Edited by Géza G. Xeravitz, Jószef Zsengellér and Xavér Szabó. DCLY 22. Berlin: de Gruyter. Mazzinghi, Luca. 2015. “Testi autorevoli di epoca ellenistica in analogia con gli scritti biblici. Un esempio illustre: il libro della Sapienza.” RSB 27.1: 157–176. Mazzinghi, Luca. 2016. “The Style of the Book of Wisdom.” Pages 386–392 in Die Sprache der Septuaginta – The Language of Septuagint. Handbuch zur Septuaginta –

Exodus in Wisdom of Solomon

93

Handbook of the Septuagint 3. Edited by Eberhard Bons and Jan Joosten. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus. Mazzinghi, Luca. 2018. Weisheit. IEKAT. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Mazzinghi, Luca. 2019. “«Mentre la notte era a metà del suo corso» (Sap 18,14).” in Parola Spirito e Vita 79: 41–54. McGlynn, Moyna. 2001. Divine Judgement and Divine Benevolence in the Book of Wisdom. WUNT 2.139. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Recension: Maurice Gilbert. Bib. 83 (2002) 416–419. New American Bible Revised Edition. 2013. Anselm Academy Study Bible Catholic Edition; ed. Carolyn Osiek, RSCJ, et al. Winona: Anselm Academic. Nicklas, Tobias. 2010. “‘Food of angels’ (Wis 16:20).” Pages 85–100 in Studies in the Book of Wisdom. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJ.S 142. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill. Passaro, Angelo. 2004. “Il serpente e la manna. Ovvero della parola che salva. Esegesi di Sap 16.” Pages 193–208 in Il libro della Sapienza.Tradizione, redazione, teologia. Edited by Giuseppe Bellia and Angelo Passaro. Studia biblica 1. Roma: Città Nuova Editrice. Passaro, Angelo. 2010. “Cosmology and Music. Wis 19:18 and the Concept of Creation in the Book of Wisdom.” Pages 101–123 in Studies in the Book of Wisdom. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJ.S 142. Leiden: Brill. Passaro, Angelo. 2012. “Sapienza, creazione e salvezza. Per una lettura d’insieme del libro della Sapienza.” Pages 17–86 in Plasmati dalla Sapienza. Edited by Laila Luci and Natalino Valentini Cantalupa, Torino: Effatà Ed. Pistone, Rosario. 2005. “The Lyre and the Creation. Music Theory and Persuasive Strategy in Wisdom 19.” Pages 195–217 in The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research. Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLS 2005. Berlin: de Gruyter. Places, Édouard des. 1975. “Du Dieu jaloux au Dieu incommunicable.” Pages 338–342 in Le monde grec. Pensée, littérature, histoire, documents. Festschrift Claire Préaux. Bruxelles: Ed. de l’Université. Places, Édouard des. 1975. “Un thème biblique et platonicien: ἀκοινώτητος.” Pages 154– 158 in Forma Futuri. Studi in onore del Cardinale Michele Pellegrino. Torino: Bottega d’Erasmo. Priotto, Michelangelo. 1984. “Il significato del confronto Egitto-Sodoma in Sap 19,13–17.” RivB 32: 369–394. Priotto, Michelangelo. 1985. La prima Pasqua in Sap 18,5–25. Rilettura e attualizzazione. RivB.S 15. Bologna: Editrice Dehoniane. Puech, Émile. 1993. La Croyance des Esséniens en la vie future: immortalité, résurrection, vie éternelle? Histoire d’une croyance dans le judaïsme ancien. EtB 21. Paris: Gabalda.

94

Gilbert

Puech, Émile. 2005. “The Book of Wisdom and the Dead Sea Scrolls. An Overview.” Pages 117–141 in The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research. Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLS 2005. Berlin: de Gruyter. Ramond, Sophie. 2010. “Causalités humaines et causalités divines dans l’anamnèse hymnique du livre de la Sagesse de Salomon (chapitres 11–19).” Pages 201–214 in L’intrigue du récit biblique. Quatrième colloque international du RENAB, Université Laval, Québec, 29 mai–1er juillet 2008. Edited by Anne Pasquier, Daniel Marguerat and André Wénin. BEThL 237. Leuven: Peeters. Reese, James M. 1970. Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and Its Consequences. AnBib 41. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Reese, James M. 1990. “A Semiotic Critique. With Emphasis on the Place of the Wisdom of Solomon in the Literature of Persuasion.” Semeia 50: 229–242. Reiterer, Friedrich Vincenz. 2016. “Beobachtungen zum äußeren und inneren Exodus im Buch der Weisheit. Eine Untersuchung von Weish 10,15–11,1.” Pages 187–207 in Exodus. Receptionen in deuterokanonischer und frühjüdischer Literatur. Edited by Judith Gärtner and Barbara Schmitz. DCLS 32. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter. Rytel-Andrianik, Pawel. 2012. From the Bread of Angels to the Food of Immortality. Manna in Wis 16:20–23; 19:21. Biblioteka Drohiczyńska 12. Warszawa: Sióstr Loretanek [Sisters of Loreto]. Scaiola, Donatella. 2002. “Il tema della manna nel libro della Sapienza. Un esempio di inculturazione.” Euntes Docete 55: 41–62. Scarpat, Giuseppe. 1967. “Ancora sull’autore del libro della Sapienza.” RivB 15: 171–189. Scarpat, Giuseppe. 1989. Libro della Sapienza. Testo, traduzione, introduzione e commento. I. Brescia: Paideia. Schaberg, Jane. 1982. “Major Midrashic Traditions in Wisdom 1,1–6,25.” JSJ 13: 75–101. Schaper, Joachim. 2013. “νόμος and νόμοι in the Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 293–306 in Wisdom and Torah. The Reception of ‘Torah’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Bernd U. Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter. JSJ.S 163. Leiden/ Boston, MA: Brill. Schmitt, Arnim. 1977/2000. “Struktur, Herkunft, und Bedeutung der Beispielreihe in Weish 10.” BZ 10: 1–22, reprint Pages 223–244 in Arnim Schmitt. Der Gegenwart verpflichted: Studien zur biblischen Literatur des Frühjüdentums. BZAW 292. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Schmitt, Arnim. 2001. “Heilung und Leben nach Weish 16, 5–14.” Pages 51–86 in Gerechtigkeit und Leben im hellenistischer Zeitalter. Festschrift Otto Kaiser. Edited by Jörg Jeremias. BZAW 296. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Exodus in Wisdom of Solomon

95

Schwenk-Bressler, Udo. 1993. Sapientia Salomonis als ein Beispiel frühjüdischer Textauslegung. Die Auslegung des Buches Genesis, Exodus 1–15 und Teilen der Wüstentradition in Sap 10–19. BEATAJ 32. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang. Stein, Edmund. 1934. “Ein jüdisch-hellenistischer Midrasch über den Auszug aus Ägypten.” MGWJ 42: 558–575. Vílchez Líndez, José. 1986. “El Libro de la Sabiduría y la teoría sobre la transmutación de los elementos.” Pages 37–49. Festschrift Augusto Segovia. Granada: Facultad de Theología. Vílchez Líndez, José. 1990. Sabiduría. Nueva Biblia Española. Sapienciales 5. Estella Navarra: Verbo Divino. Vílchez Líndez, José. 1990. Sapienza. Commenti biblici. Roma: Borla. Winston, David. 1979. The Wisdom of Solomon. AB 43. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Winston, David. 1993. “Wisdom in the Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 149–164 in In Search for Wisdom. Festschrift John G. Gammie. Edited by Leo G. Perdue, Bernard Brandon Scott and William Johnston Wiseman. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Winston, David. 2005. “A Century of Research on the Book of Wisdom.” Pages 1–18 in The Book of Wisdom in Modern Research. Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. DCLS 2005. Berlin: de Gruyter. Wright, Addison G. 1967. “The Structure of the Book of Wisdom.” Bib. 48: 165–184. Ziegler, Joseph. 1962. Sapientia Salomonis. Septuaginta 12.1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Zsengellér, József. 2010. “‘The Taste of Paradise.’ Interpretation of Exodus and Manna in the Book of Wisdom.” Pages 197–216 in Studies in the Book of Wisdom. Edited by Géza G. Xeravits and József Zsengellér. JSJ.S 142. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill.

Chapter 5

Basis for a Relaunch or Epic Failure? Contrasting Receptions of Exodus in the Prophets Benedetta Rossi The reception of Exodus in the prophetic books has been considered along three major lines of interpretation. Mainly, the prophets alluded to the release from Egypt to intensify Yhwh’s accusation against Israel (see Rendtorff 1997, 521–526). Then, some prophets refer back to Exodus in order to depict the exiles’ return from Babylon. Second Isaiah provides a case in point, although this is debated (see Barstad 1989; Berges 2004). As Markl (2013, 130–131) highlights, these two different receptions of Exodus bridge the gap between the deliverance from Egyptian slavery and the loss of freedom due to the Babylonian exile. Other various receptions of Exodus in the prophetic books are usually enumerated and labelled as “transformations of Exodus” (Markl 2013, 130–131). As such, they tend to be considered atypical and isolated forms of reception. In any case, Exodus is commonly recognised as a founding myth within the prophets. Concerning methodology: the presence of formulas indicating the release from Egypt is usually considered a crucial criterion for identifying references to Exodus. The Herausführungsformel provides an illustrative example of this.1 However, investigations of the reception of Exodus in the prophets seem to have come to a standstill. The absence or limited space devoted to this topic in volumes on Exodus and its reception during recent years exemplifies this state of affairs.2 Two steps are useful to move the investigation forward. The first step calls for a reconsideration of the survey methodology. Certainly, exit formulas offer a starting point for the analysis; at the same time, they limit the identification of Exodus to the actual departure from Egypt. As Dohmen and Ederer (2016, 1–2) highlight, “exodus” is only one of the many themes developed in the Book of Exodus. From this point of view, considering a network of motifs (Markl 2013, 128) will provide a better basis for understanding Exodus reception in the prophetic books. 1 For an extensive investigation of the formula, see Gross 1974; Rendtorff 1997. 2 Investigation of Exodus reception in the prophets is absent from Dozeman 2014. In Ederer and Schmitz 2017, Exodus in the prophetic books is not among the topics chosen by contributors.

© Benedetta Rossi, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471122_007

Basis for a Relaunch or Epic Failure?

97

Hence the second step. Motifs of Exodus in the prophetic books are expressed through lexemes and formulas taken from Exodus and other books of the Torah as well. For instance, the Mächtigkeitsformel shows a typically Deuteronomic terminology that conveys motifs from Exodus.3 By intertwining references to Exodus’ plagues and Lev 26, Amos 4:10 provides another example (Wolff 1977, 213–214). As a consequence, it is necessary to place the reception of Exodus in the prophetic books against the background of the broader dialogue between them and the Torah. Rom-Shiloni (2016, 836–839) identifies “interaction” as the proper paradigm for investigating how Torah and prophets influence each another. With these premises, identifying interests and discourses underlying the reception of Exodus in the prophets turns out to be a decisive step in the analysis. Moving in this direction, some scholars have traced the use of Exodus in prophetic books back to the debate on the identity of post-exilic Israel. According to Ska (2009, 160–162), the reference to release from Egypt in Exod 19:3–6 legitimised the status of the exiles as the true Israel and the covenant people. In particular, as De Pury and Schmid highlight, the exiles assumed the traditions of Exodus as an alternative foundation myth to that of the patriarchs. The reception of Exodus motifs in the prophetic books should also be interpreted against this broader background (see De Pury 1992, 204–207; 1994, 431–437 and Schmid 2010, 73–80). These insights, however, do not give an exhaustive explanation of the presence of a rather polemical use of Exodus in the prophetic books. The controversial stance displayed by some prophets toward Exodus has been typically interpreted as an aggravating circumstance in oracles of accusation.4 However, not all negative receptions of Exodus appear in oracles of accusation (e.g., Jer 21:1–10). In addition, interpreters tend to soften the polemical nature of references to motifs from Exodus in the prophets. For instance, Rendtorff 1997, 523, argues that Amos 3:1 and 9:7 do not question the Exodus but deprive it of its uniqueness. However, eradicating the privilege of Exodus is a harsh contradiction of Exod 19:3–6. In short: we are faced with contrasting receptions of Exodus in the prophetic books. How, then, do they relate to one another? On closer inspection, the question of the identity of post-exilic Israel is not the only discourse underlying the reception of Exodus in the prophets. Another problem is at stake: how to relaunch history after the catastrophe and exile? On what grounds is the relationship between Yhwh and Israel to be renewed and its stability secured? 3 In this regard, see Kreuzer 1997a; 1997b. 4 See, among others, Rendtorff 1977, 523–524; Markl 2013, 130.

98

Rossi

In what follows, I shall argue that conflicting receptions of Exodus in the prophets reflect the discussion about whether and to what extent the traditions of Exodus offer a sound basis for relaunching history. To illustrate this point, I shall consider three networks of Exodus motifs: the battle of Yhwh and divine wonders; election and covenant; and the Exodus pattern (i.e., exit from Egypt – desert – entering the land).5 After showing how prophetic books (especially Isaiah, Hosea and Ezekiel) resume, modify and use these motifs to relaunch history (§§1–3), I shall illustrate the subversion of similar motifs in the Book of Jeremiah (§4). In Jeremiah, the traditions of Exodus become the script for describing the end of Jerusalem and Judah. At the same time, for this prophetic book, Exodus motifs highlight the impossibility of relaunching history after its default. It seems that Exod 32:7–14, and especially Moses’ reference to the Exodus (VV.11–12) for relaunching history, is being criticised in Jeremiah (§5). For Jeremiah, discontinuity with the traditions of Exodus is necessary to open up the possibility of a new beginning. 1

The Battle of Yhwh and the Sea Motif

In a time of crisis, the battle of Yhwh and the motif of the sea offer the people a starting point to open up the future and relaunch history. Two strategies highlight this interpretation: the use and variations of the sea motif in oracles of reassurance (Isa 10:24–26; 11:15–16); and the mythologisation of the battle of Yhwh and its use in worship (Isa 11:15–16; 51:9–11). The mention of Egypt (‫בדרך מצרים‬, “after the manner of Egypt”) frames Isa 10:24–26: Egypt provides a meaningful comparison for both the oppression of Assur (V.24) and the liberation Yhwh will carry out (V.26). Two emblematic enemies of Israel are juxtaposed: Assur and Egypt.6 Yhwh will act against Assur in the way he moved against Egypt; for this reason, Assur’s destiny will be overthrown. If Assyria strikes the people of Yhwh with its rod (‎ ‫בשבט יככה‬, V.24) the latter will raise his “staff over the sea” (‎‫ם‬ ‎ ‫]…[ ומטהו על־הים ונשאו בדרך מצרי‬ ‫ועורר‬, V.26). The staff (‫ )מטה‬lifted (‫ ערר‬and ‫ )נשא‬over the sea in Isa 10:26 hints back to Exod 14:16: “lift your staff (‎‫ )הרם את מטך‬and stretch out your hand over the sea (‫)על הים‬.”

5 As regards the Exodus pattern, see Daube 1963, 11–38; Ausin 1986, 425–427; Alonso Schökel 1996, 25–35. 6 Williamson 2018, 580, highlights that Assyria could be a “cipher for any current oppressive power.”

Basis for a Relaunch or Epic Failure?

99

Stylistic disruptions and variations from Exodus highlight the reference further. Isa 10:24–26 displays a discontinuity in parallelism: in V.24, the rod of Assur is raised against the people of Yhwh (‎‫)עליך‬. In V.26, Yhwh will not lift his staff against the oppressor of his people (Assur), but “over/against (‫)על‬ the sea.” The stylistic disruption allows a more precise reference to Exod 14:16 (‫)מטהו על־הים‬,7 and simultaneously portrays the sea as an adversary (‫על‬, against): Assur ends up in parallel with the sea. As regards the content: in Exod 14:16, Yhwh commands Moses to raise (‫)רום‬ his staff (‫)מטה‬. In Isa 10:26, the staff (‫ )מטה‬is that of Yhwh, and he will lift it (‫ ערר‬and ‫ )נשא‬over the sea. In the plagues narrative, Moses’ staff has a decisive role. As Ska (1986, 82–93) points out, Moses’ staff comes into view in the plagues to enable the recognition of Yhwh’s power. In particular, Moses’ staff points to divine action over the elements of creation (water, sky, and earth): the power disclosed through the staff is that of the Lord of the universe.8 In Exod 14:16, the universal sovereignty of Yhwh, displayed by the staff of Moses, marks the beginning of Israel, whose birth occurs in the sea.9 In Isa 10:26, Yhwh’s staff raised against the sea evokes the universal sovereignty displayed in Exodus. The Lord of creation will overthrow the destiny of Assyria. Just as the power of Yhwh deployed in the passage of the sea (Exod 14:16) marked the beginning of Israel, so Isa 10:26 announces a new start that will take place when Yhwh overthrows Assur. The communicative context further highlights how the reference to Israel’s beginning in Exodus serves the purpose of relaunching history during a crisis. In Isa 10:24–25, Yhwh (the speaker) refers back to Exod 14:16 in a reassurance pronouncement (‫אל תירא‬, “do not fear”, Isa 10:24). The mention of the “manner of Egypt” (V.24)10 aims at convincing the recipient (‫עמי‬, “my people”) not to fear by recalling a reassuring tradition. Yhwh’s reference underlines the authoritativeness of the traditions of Exodus and provides a solid ground for the invitation not to fear. At V.26, the speaker changes. Through the phrase ‫“( בדרך מצרים‬after the manner of Egypt”) a prophetic voice takes up the memory of Exodus evoked by Yhwh at V.24, and develops it by an additional reference: “The Lord of hosts 7 8 9 10

In Isa 10:26, the emendation with ‫עלהם‬/‫ עליו‬instead of MT ‫( על הים‬see respectively Winton Thomas in BHS and Marti 1900, 107) is not compelling. The proposal tries to blunt the dissonance in the parallelism caused by ‫( על הים‬V.24). “En Ex 14 il ne s’agit pas d’une victorie d’Israël acquise grâce à l’aide de Dieu, mais d’une action de Dieu qui commande aux forces de l’univers” (Ska 1986, 93). “Ou encore, le bâton de Moïse préside à la naissance d’Israël, au sein de la mer” (Ska 1986, 93). The phrase ‫ בדרך מצרים‬refers to the Exodus plagues motif in Amos 4:10. See Williamson 2018, 580–581.

100

Rossi

will wield a whip against them (‎‫)ועורר עליו יהוה צבאות שוט‬, as when he struck Midian at the rock of Horeb (‫)כמכת מדין בצור עורב‬.” The parallel between the events of the sea and the defeat of Midian (Jdg 6–8)11 stresses the reliability of the Exodus tradition. Events that happened in Egypt have already happened again in the land. Therefore, the birth of Israel at the sea and the liberation brought out by Yhwh are reliable foundations for sustaining confidence and relaunching history in a time of crisis. The passage about the sea (Exod 14) is also a reference point for Isa 11:15– 16 (Beuken 2003, 322–323). The following phrases underline the reference: (i) V.15, the “sea of Egypt” (‫ )ים מצרים‬and the wind of Yhwh (‎‫ )רוחו‬hint back at Exod 14:21;12 (ii) in V.16, the Exodus formula (‫ )ביום עלתו מארץ מצרים‬comes into view. Compared with Exod 14, Isa 11:15–16 present some significant variations. First: the verb ‫ חרם‬hi. (‫והחרים‬, V.15) “destroy completely/vow to extermination” expresses divine action directed at the “tongue of the sea of Egypt” (obj. ‎ ‫)את לשון ים־מצרים‬. The phrase is unique in the HB. In the majority of its occurrences, the verb ‫ חרם‬has living beings as its object;13 when Yhwh is the subject of ‫חרם‬, the object of divine action is typically enemy nations (Isa 34:2; Jer 25:9). In Isa 11:15, the verb ‫ חרם‬seems to portray the “tongue of the sea of Egypt” as a living adversary of Yhwh, a cosmic element opposed to him.14 Yhwh’s opposition against this aquatic element appears again in the following locution: ‫ף‬‎ ‫והני‬ ‫“( ידו על־הנהר‬and shall wave his hand over the River”15). The syntagma ‫ נוף‬hi. + ‫ על‬indicates hostile actions against an enemy (e.g., Isa 19:16; Zech 2:13 with subj. Yhwh).16 Secondly, the action against the river (‎‫והכהו‬, Isa 11:15) is performed by the hand of Yhwh and his wind.17 In Exod 14:21, the hand of Moses (‎‫ויט משה את־ידו‬ 11

12 13 14 15 16 17

Williamson 2018, 583–584, expounds the reference: “the combination of the day of Midian and the Exodus […] suggests that the author wished to underline the level of God’s commitment to his people by remembering that the paradigmatic Exodus experience was also reflected later in the land itself”. Despite the difficulties of the text, the presence of wind is clear, and this points to Exod 14:21; see Williamson 2018, 702. Either man, peoples or cattle. When ‫( ארץ‬e.g. Is 37:11//2 Kings 19:11) or ‫( עיר‬Num 21:2, 3; Deut 2:34 etc.) are the obj. of ‫חרם‬, they refer, by metonymy, to their inhabitants. The phrase “the tongue of the sea” does not point here to a strip of land drawn into the sea, but to a gulf or bay. See Kedar-Kopfstein 1984, 601. The noun refers to Euphrates (see Williamson 2018, 702). According to Williamson 2018, 702, the phrase highlights a reversal of the curse against Jerusalem. The meaning of the phrase ‫ בעים רוחו‬is disputed; ‫ בעים‬is a hapax. Nonetheless, the reference to Yhwh’s wind is clear. See Williamson 2018, 682–684, who proposes to correct ‫ בעים‬with ‫עצם‬, “strength”, following ancient versions and according to the reference to Exod 14:21.

Basis for a Relaunch or Epic Failure?

101

‫על־הים‬, “Moses stretched out his hand over the sea”, V.21) and the wind of Yhwh (‎‫ויולך יהוה את־הים ברוח קדים עזה‬, “and Yhwh drove the sea back by a strong east wind”, V.21) carry out the action against the sea together. In particular, Yhwh’s wind (‫ )רוח‬refers to his creative power.18 In Isa 11:15, he is the protagonist with both his powerful creative forces (hand and wind). In sum: the prosopopoeia of the sea, personified as Yhwh’s adversary (obj. of ‫)חרם‬, and Yhwh’s creative power, hinted at by the wind, place the scene of Isa 11:15–16 against the background of primordial myths of creation and the divine battle against cosmic adversaries. The overlap between the events of the sea and a cosmic battle also appears in Isa 51:9–11. Motifs from Exodus appear within an invocation addressed to the “arm of Yhwh” (V.9). The prosopopoeia of the divine arm continues with two rhetorical questions (‫הלוא את היא‬, VV.9b, 19) which bring divine actions to the forefront. After struggling (‫ חצב‬and ‫ )חלל‬against Rahab and the dragon (‫)תנין‬, Yhwh dries up (‫ )חרב‬the sea and the waters of the abyss (‫)מיתהום רבה‬. The sea depths are finally transformed into a road (‫)השמה מעמקי־ים דרך‬. The mention of Yhwh’s arm and the following actions hint back at the miracle of the sea and the divine power deployed in Egypt (Berges 2015, 145–150).19 The intersection between Exodus motifs and creation is achieved through ambiguity of lexemes and their referents. The arm of Yhwh (‫זרוע‬, V.9) points to the divine liberation performed in Egypt (cf. Exod 6:6; see also the Mächtigkeitsformel in Deut 4:34; 5:15; 26:8). Also, the mention of Rahab (Isa 51:9b) and the noun ‫( תנין‬V.9b) recall events from Exodus. Elsewhere, Rahab refers to Egypt (e.g., Isa 30:7; Ps 87:4), and the noun ‫ תנין‬appears in the plagues narrative (Exod 7:9, 10, 12) to indicate the serpents into which the rods of Aaron and the wizards are transformed. On the other hand, in the battle against Rahab and the serpent (‫)תנין‬, the creator shows his power (Job 26:12) in the fight against the primordial chaos. In Ps 89, the destruction of Rahab and the enemy (V.11: ‫)חלל‬, carried out by Yhwh’s “powerful arm” (‫בזרוע עזך‬, V.11), follows a reference to Yhwh as Creator (VV.12–13). Ps 74:13–14 also associates the fight against the sea and the monsters of chaos with creation. The separation of the sea parallels the battle against the dragons in the waters (‫שברת ראשי תנינים על המים‬, “you broke the heads of dragons in the water”, V.13). VV.16–17 further expound the reference to creation. As already in Isa 11:15–16, the intertwining of Yhwh’s struggle with the sea, the primordial battle and the reference to creation take place within an invocation.20 18 19 20

See Ska 1986, 108–111. The verb ‫ חרב‬is used in a similar context also in Ps 106:9. Berges 2015, 149, highlights a cultic context. See also Koole 1998, 163–165.

102

Rossi

Juxtaposing traditions of the sea with myths of creation, together with the prosopopoeia (about the divine arm in Isa 59:10 and the sea in Isa 11:15), entangles myth and history. As Berges (2015, 152) highlights, myth becomes history, and history becomes myth. Through a process of mythologisation, Exodus is presented as a new origin to which it is possible to appeal in worship. To sum up: in a time of crisis, a new beginning can happen. Exodus tradition provides the foil for relaunching a history doomed to failure by the supremacy of an enemy. Reference to the battle of Yhwh and his cosmic power deployed against the sea, evoked in prayer and worship, provides a safe ground for communal hope. 2

Election and Divine Fatherhood

In Hos 11:1, the sentence ‫“( ממצרים קראתי לבני‬out of Egypt I called my son”) refers to Exodus. The phrase ‫ מן‬+ ‫ מצרים‬hints back to the way out of Egypt. Moreover, in the HB, the noun ‫“( בני‬my son”) is referred to Israel by Yhwh only in Exod 4:22–23. The time of the wilderness also comes into view in Hos 11:3–4.21 Hos 11:1 displays a unique rereading of the Exodus pattern (Rossi 2012, 49–54). The verb ‫ קרא‬replaces verbal forms typically linked to the phrase ‫ מן‬+ ‫ מצרים‬in the Herausführungsformel (e.g., ‫יצא‬, qal/hi.; ‫ עלה‬hi.; ‫ נצל‬hi.). Indeed, Hos 11:1 is the only occasion in the HB where ‫ קרא‬occurs in this context and refers to the exit from Egypt.22 Through a unique variation in the pattern of Exodus, Hos 11:1 creates a metaphor of election and covenant within the framework of Exodus. Two possible meanings of the sentence ‫ ממצרים קראתי לבני‬highlight this issue. (i) According to the most common interpretation, the phrase ‫ ממצרים‬has a spatial referent: Egypt is the place from which Yhwh calls Israel. In this case, the verb ‫קרא‬, “call out/summon”, is a call to move out of Egypt. The goal of this call is the land (see also Hos 11:11: ‫והושבתים על־בתיהם‬, “I will make them dwell in their houses”), but a further suggestion can be made. In Exod 19:4, Yhwh describes the Exodus from Egypt as a summons to him: “I brought you to myself” (‫)ואביא אתכם אלי‬. In the Exodus pattern, the verb ‫ בוא‬hi. usually describes the entrance into the land, i.e., the aim of the Exodus. In Exod 19:4, the same verb points to a different goal, i.e., Yhwh himself. In Exod 19:4, the verb ‫ בוא‬hi. reconfigures the encounter with Yhwh at Sinai as the aim of the

21 22

In this regard, see Wolff 1974, 257–258. Davies 1992, 254, underlines the peculiarity of ‫ קרא‬in the context of Exodus.

Basis for a Relaunch or Epic Failure?

103

Exodus from Egypt.23 The use of ‫“( קרא‬to summon”) in Hos 11:1 portrays the Exodus as a summons which will take place at Sinai. (ii) In addition, the syntagma ‫ ל‬+ ‫ קרא‬can also mean “to name”. In this case, the phrase ‫ ממצרים‬in Hos 11:1 may take on a temporal nuance: “since the time of Egypt.” Consequently, the title “my son” (‫ )בני‬can be considered a new epithet given to Israel: since the time of Egypt, Yhwh has given the young Israel (‫כי נער‬ ‫ישראל‬, “when Israel was a child”, V.1) the name “my son” (‫)בני‬.24 The gift of a new name (‫בני‬, “my son”), added to that of Israel in Hos 11:1, has two main functions. Calling Israel “my son” introduces the metaphor of Yhwh as the father, something which will be developed further in the following VV.3– 6. In particular, within the framework of the father-son relationship, naming (‫ )קרא‬can refer to adoption.25 The sequence of “love” (‫ואהבהו‬, “I loved him”, V.1) and adoption by Yhwh (‫קראתי לבני‬, “I called (him) ‘my son’”, V.1) is a metaphorical evocation of the election of Israel.26 As a consequence, in Hos 11:1, the election of Israel does not happen at Sinai (see Exod 19:3–9). Egypt is already the place where Yhwh chooses Israel and the moment when his care for the people begins. A key Exodus motif, i.e., divine election, is expressed metaphorically by Hos 11:1 and brought back to the time of Egypt. This metaphorical rereading of divine election opens the parable of Hosea 11 which further develops Yhwh’s fatherhood and his love which originated in Egypt. As Wolff (1974, 203) highlights, divine love discloses itself in different ways through Hos 11: from election (V.1) to a “suffering love” (VV.5–7) that “struggles against the divine wrath” (VV.8–9). The divine decision to relaunch history (V.9) and continue the relationship with the people is rooted in Yhwh’s love and election (V.1). According to Kövecses (2010, 287–288), one of the functions of metaphorical discourse is to convince (movēre). The metaphorical reference to election in Egypt in Hos 11:1 aims to persuade the recipients to look at the traditions of Exodus as a guarantee of continuity in Israel’s history with Yhwh. 23 24 25

26

In this regard, see Alonso Schökel 1996, 111. To support this reading, Elliger and Rudolph in BHS propose to amend ‫ קראתי לבני‬with ‫קראתי לו בני‬. However, the emendation is not compelling. In the laws of Hammurabi, the adoption and legitimation of children takes place through the words “you are my son” pronounced by the father; see Driver and Miles 1952, 350–353, 383–406. The connection between naming and fatherhood appears also in Hos 1:4, 6, 9: Hosea is asked to name (‫ )קרא ל‬his children. The reference of ‫ אהב‬to divine election is well attested and recognised. For instance, Deut 4:37 brings together love (‎‫ותחת כי אהב את־אבתיך‬, “because he loved your fathers”), election (‎‫ויבחר בזרעו אחריו‬, “he chose their descendants after them”) and the Exodus from Egypt (‎‫ויוצאך בפניו בכחו הגדל ממצרים‬, “and brought you out from Egypt with his own presence, by his great power”). For ‫ קרא‬as a synonym of ‫בחר‬, see Rossi 2012, 77–84.

104 3

Rossi

Exodus Pattern and Divine Fidelity

Scholars commonly recognise that Ezekiel 20 refers to Exodus; however, the interpretation of the reference is debated. The Exodus pattern, arranged in four steps (i.e., Egypt – exit from Egypt – wilderness time – entry into the land), offers the organising principle of the whole divine speech. As Zimmerli (1979, 405) highlights, Ezekiel picks up “the sacred core of the credo formulation […] and retells Israel’s history on the basis of it.” Two unique variations on Exodus motifs emphasise the sin of Judah and Jerusalem. The idolatry of the people already happens in Egypt (V.8). Moreover, in the desert (V.15), Yhwh vows not to lead the people into the land. The Torah reveals no trace of this idea (Kugler 2017, 50–51). By the most common interpretation, the stages of Exodus, reread by Ezek 20 in an original and free way (see Patton 1996, 73–74), function as an etiology representing the end of Judah and Jerusalem (V.33). Within this perspective, Exodus is not a source of hope for Ezekiel or an ideal for restoration (Patton 1996, 80). However, starting from V.33, the reference to the release (‫ יצא‬hi. + subj. Yhwh), which had marked the stages of a failed history in VV.5–32 (VV.6, 9, 10, 11, 22), points to a new beginning. The pattern of Exodus, evoked in VV.1– 29, also comes into view in VV.33–44. As Israel comes out from the peoples (‎‫והוצאתי אתכם מן־העמים‬, “I will bring you out from the peoples”, V.34), the desert follows (‫מדבר העמים‬, “the wilderness of the peoples”, V.35). Ezek 20:35–36 parallel the “desert of the peoples” (V.35) with the wilderness “of the land of Egypt” (‫)מדבר ארץ מצרים‬. In VV.37 and 39–40, covenant stipulation, rejection of idols, and service on the “holy mountain” of Yhwh come into view. The people finally enter the land in V.42: after destruction and catastrophe (V.33), the promised new beginning has the features of a new Exodus (Zimmerli 1979, 415). In short, Exodus offers Ezekiel 20 the ideal scheme for portraying the restoration. A question remains open: if Ezek 20:1–29 underlines the failure of the Exodus pattern, how is it possible to draw on this same tradition to describe the restoration (VV.33–44)? On closer inspection, Ezekiel 20 reconfigures the pattern of Exodus in its underlying assumptions. Israel in Egypt is not an oppressed people to be liberated, but a sinful and idolatrous people (V.8). The story of failure, modelled on the phases of Exodus (VV.5–32), is relaunched each time by the divine action “for his name’s sake” (‫ למען שמי‬+ ‫עשה‬, VV.9, 14, 22), together with reference to the release (‫ יצא‬hi., VV.9, 14, 22). As a matter of fact, the exit from Egypt, i.e. the pivotal event of the whole Exodus pattern, is no longer the liberation of an oppressed people nor is it the manifestation of divine power against an adversary. Instead, it ends up being the action by which Yhwh manifests his loyalty to himself. On these premises, the release performed by Yhwh,

Basis for a Relaunch or Epic Failure?

105

who brings out (‫ יצא‬hi.) his people, can work as a motif for the relaunching of history and offer a new beginning for the present generation. The accomplishment of the Exodus pattern is also the crucial criterion for describing the renewal of the present generation, i.e. the recipients of the divine speech from V.27 onwards. After a new release, which marks the end of exile (V.34), Yhwh will lead the addressees “into the desert of the peoples” (‫אל מדבר העמים‬, V.35). Here, a purification is announced: “I will purge out the rebels among you, and those who transgress against me; I will bring them out (‫ )אוציא אותם‬of the land where they reside as aliens, but they shall not enter (‫ )לא יבוא‬the land of Israel” (V.38). An unfinished Exodus distinguishes the rebellious from the faithful: Yhwh will not complete the path of Exodus for the rebels. They will experience release (‫אוציא אותם‬, “I will bring them out”, V.38), but they will not enter the land (‫אל אדמת ישראל לא יבוא‬, “they shall not enter the land of Israel”, V.38). The fulfilment of the Exodus and the entry into the land will be for a faithful generation. In sum: Ezekiel 20 reconfigures the pattern of Exodus. Release from Egypt, the journey into the desert, and the entrance into the land are highlighting Yhwh’s faithfulness to his promises. In this way, the paradigm of Exodus serves to relaunch history and shape a new generation. Exodus remains unfinished for the rebels: they will not enter the land. The fulfilment of Exodus will be the crucial criterion that distinguishes the faithful from the rebellious generation. 4

Between Epic Failure and No-Relaunch: Jeremiah’s Subversive Use of Exodus Motifs

Scholars have often noticed critical receptions of Exodus in Jeremiah27 and interpreted them as a reversal of the Exodus motifs, or even described them as anti-Exodus (see Abrego 1983, 202–206). On closer inspection, the dissemination of the Exodus motifs in Jeremiah and their context suggest the purpose of the references. Exodus comes into view as the moment of origin of the relationship between Yhwh and Israel (e.g., Jer 2:6; 7:22; 11:4). Nonetheless, the same traditions offer the script for describing the end of Jerusalem. Moreover, they do not provide a safe ground for relaunching a disastrous history. References to Yhwh’s battle and divine wonders, as well as to the Sinai covenant, will elucidate the issue in question.

27

For an extensive view on Exodus traditions in Jeremiah, see Fischer 2014; a shorter analysis of motifs from Exodus in Jer 30–31 is provided by van der Wal 1996.

106

Rossi

In 21:1–10, the motif of wonders performed by Yhwh in Egypt is evoked by the reference to the divine prodigies (‫)נפלאות‬: “perhaps Yhwh will act with us following all his prodigies (‫)ככל נפלאתיו‬, and he (i.e. Nebuchadnezzar) will turn away from us” (V.2). In Exod 3:20, the wonders operated by Yhwh (‫ עשה‬+ ‫)נפלאות‬, with his arm summarise in advance Yhwh’s struggle against Pharaoh (see Sonnet 2019, 35–39). The same participle (‫ )נפלאות‬alludes back to the wonders of Exodus in Jdg 6:13; Mic 7:15, Pss 78:11–16; 106:21–22. In Neh 9:17, the ‫ נפלאות‬are a summary recapitulation of the events of Exodus which were hinted at in VV.9–15. In Jer 21:2, the reference to divine wonders, and thus to Israel’s release in Egypt, underlines Zedekiah’s expectations and a communal hope (see ‫אולי‬, V.2). The expected liberation from an imminent Babylonian attack is based on the confidence that Yhwh will renew the miracles he performed against Pharaoh. Exodus traditions provide the king and the people with a source of confidence in the time of crisis. The prophetic answer takes up and subverts the same Exodus motif. Yhwh’s battle (‫ לחם‬+ Yhwh subj.) comes into view in the reply Jeremiah sends to the king through his messengers (VV.5–6). Yhwh will fight (‫“ )לחם‬you (‫)אתכם‬, with an outstretched hand and a powerful arm” (‫בידנטויה ובזרוע חזקה‬, V.5). In Exod 14:14, 25, Yhwh had fought (‫ לחם‬+ subj. Yhwh) on behalf of his people (‫לכם‬, V.14; ‫במצרים‬, V.25); in Jer 21:5–6, the divine battle is against Judah and Jerusalem.28 The use of the Mächtigkeitsformel (V.5) further stresses the reference to the release from Egypt and the divine struggle against Pharaoh (e.g., Deut 4:34; 5:15; 7:19).29 In Jer 21:1–10, however, Yhwh’s mighty arm and outstretched hand will be against his people. As a result, the king’s expectations evoked by the hints at Exodus motifs (21:2) are not only disregarded but overturned: Yhwh will not fight Nebuchadnezzar but his own people. Jeremiah’s prayer in 32:16–25 resumes the motif of the divine wonders in Egypt (‫פלא‬, V.17; ‫ אות‬,‫מופת‬, VV.20–21), as well as reference to the release from Egypt and entrance into the land. References to Exodus traditions support Jeremiah’s effort to persuade Yhwh to act on behalf of his people and Jerusalem besieged by Nebuchadnezzar. Again, however, the expectations conveyed by Exodus motifs are disappointed. At its very beginning, Yhwh’s answer to Jeremiah (32:27–35) takes up again the root ‫( פלא‬V.27). The motif of the wonders refers back to Jeremiah’s invocation 28 29

The reference to Exod 14:14–15 is highlighted by Fischer 2005a, 634, 636. In addition, Yhwh’s mighty hand (‫ זקה‬and outstretched arm) is an allusion to Exod 3:19; 6:6. In Jer 21:5, references to Exodus are coupled with a hint at Deut 29:27. The phrase ‫ובאף‬‎ ‫“( ובחמה ובקצף גדול‬in anger, in fury and great wrath”) highlights the link. See Fischer 2005a, 636–637.

Basis for a Relaunch or Epic Failure?

107

(VV.16–25). The adverb ‫( לכן‬V.28) establishes a causal link with Yhwh’s ability to perform any miracles (‫פלא‬, V.27). Once more, expectations of a favourable intervention in Jerusalem are raised. However, hopes are again disappointed. The adverb ‫( לכן‬V.28) does not introduce the promise of salvation resulting from the divine capacity to perform wonders. Quite surprisingly, Jerusalem’s surrender to the enemy comes into view, followed by the announced destruction (VV.28–35). Not only is the prophetic prayer unanswered; divine wonders are no guarantee of salvation but are harbingers of judgment.30 Jer 32:36–44 announce the restoration, but the new beginning will happen after the end of Jerusalem. In summary: expectations raised by the reference to the wonders of Exodus and to Yhwh’s battle to bring Israel out of Egypt are harshly disappointed. Exodus motifs and the roles of the protagonists are reversed: Yhwh is the enemy of his people; Nebuchadnezzar is not the adversary to be defeated, but the one to whom to submit (cf. 21:1–10). Located in key places in Jeremiah, references to the Sinai covenant mark (i) the beginning of the disastrous history of Yhwh with his people. At the same time, the way Jeremiah picks up on this motif points to (ii) the impossibility of relaunching history on this basis. (i) In Jer 7, a twofold reference alludes back to the enacting of the Sinai covenant. The sequence of verbs in Jer 7:9 hints at the Decalogue (Fischer 2005, 299–300).31 In 7:23, the wording of the invitation to listen to Yhwh (‫שמעו בקולי‬, “listen to my voice”) followed by the covenant formula (‎‫והייתי לכם לאלהים ואתם‬ ‫תהיו־לי לעם‬, “I will be your God and you shall be my people”) points to the same request in Exod 19:5 (‫אם־שמוע תשמעו בקלי‬, “if you listen completely to my voice”).32 Jer 11:4 and 34:12 place the enacting of the covenant with the fathers “on the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt” (‎‫ביום הוציאי־אותם מארץ־‬ ‫)מצרים‬. Although this is debated, the covenant located on the day of release from Egypt can plausibly be a reference to the Sinai covenant (Holladay 1986, 353–353; Fischer 2005a, 409). Moreover, the invitation to listen, already present in 7:9 (see also Exod 19:5), is also a leitmotif in 11:1–14. The Sinai covenant hinted at in Jer 7:9, 23 – and probably alluded to in Jer 11:1–14 – is picked up as the beginning of a failed story. The covenant conditions expressed in 7:23 are immediately disregarded in V.24: a refusal to heed 30

31 32

According to Yates 2006, 5–6, references to Exodus in Jer 32:20–22 are the reason for the restoration announced in 32:36–44. This interpretation, however, does not take into account the causal adverb “therefore” (‫ )לכן‬which links the restoration (VV.36–44) to the former judgement (VV.28–35). Maier 2002, 77–80, is inclined to see a short form of the Decalogue behind Jer 7:9. Fischer 2005a, 310–311; Fischer 2014, 75–76.

108

Rossi

(‫ולא שמעו ולא־הטו את־אזנם‬, “but they did not listen or incline their ear”, V.24) follows the invitation to listen to Yhwh’s voice (V.23). The request to walk in the ways commanded by Yhwh (V.22) is followed by the statement that everyone followed his own advice and the stubbornness of his heart (‫וילכו במעצות‬ ‫בשררות לבם‬, “they walked in their own counsels and in the stubbornness of their evil heart”, V.24). The covenant in force since the time of the release from Egypt is an epic failure and marks the beginning of a story that will lead to catastrophe. (ii) After the end of Jerusalem, the Sinai covenant will not even be able to be a basis for the relaunching of history; Jer 42:1–43:13 illustrates that. The flight of the remnant of Judah toward Egypt is often interpreted as an anti-Exodus (Abrego 1983, 202–206; Fischer 2014, 85–87).33 The movement from slavery to freedom was reversed when those who survived the end of Jerusalem took refuge from the Babylonians in Egypt. On closer inspection, not only the release from Egypt but also the covenant at Sinai constitute the negative foil for the narrative (see recently Caruso 2020, 90–94). The consultation of Jeremiah in Mizpah forwards the decision to flee to Egypt. Jeremiah 42:1–6 establishes the terms of the agreement between Jeremiah and those consulting him. The prophet is asked to intervene with Yhwh in favour of the remnant so that they may know “the way to go” (‎‫את־הדרך‬ ‫ )אשר נלך־בה‬and the “word we should do” (‎‫ ;ואת־הדבר אשר נעשה‬V.3). Jeremiah declares himself willing to act as a mediator and to report to the people everything that Yhwh has communicated to him: he will hide nothing of the divine message (V.4). Before receiving Yhwh’s response, the people (VV.5–6) solemnly commit themselves to act (‫כן נעשה‬, V.5) according to all the word of Yhwh (‫ ככל הדבר ישלחך יהוה אלינו‬, “according to all the word your God shall send us through you”). The commitment taken on by the remnant is set against the background of the enacting of a covenant. Both the object of the request (‫הדרך אשר נלך בה‬ ‫ואת־הדבר אשר נעשה‬, “the way we should go and the word we should do”, V.3) and the purpose of the collective commitment in V.6b (‫למען אשר ייטב לנו‬, “in order that it may be well with us”) refer elsewhere to the covenant between Yhwh and Israel. Thus, for example, in 7:23, the clause ‫“( למען ייטב לכם‬so that it may be well with you”) closes the reminiscence of the enactment of the covenant (‎‫והייתי לכם לאלהים ואתם תהיו־לי לעם‬, “I will be your god and you shall be my people”, V.23). As in 42:3 (‫את־הדרך אשר נלך־בה‬, “the way we should go”), so also in 7:23 (‎‫והלכתם בכל־הדרך אשר אצוה אתכם‬, “walk in all the way that I command you”), the required loyalty to the covenant is expressed through the image of the way forward (Fischer 2005b, 402). 33

According to Bodner 2015, 111, the people themselves reversed the Exodus.

Basis for a Relaunch or Epic Failure?

109

The commitment taken on by the leaders and “all the people from the smallest to the largest” (42:1) alludes back to the people’s commitment at Sinai; the wording of covenant enactment and its pattern highlight the reference. As regards wording: in Exod 19:8, after Yhwh expounds the clauses of the covenant (VV.3–6), all the people (‫כל העם יחדו‬, “all the people together”) proclaim their acceptance:34 “everything that Yhwh has said, we shall do” (‫כל אשר‬ ‫)דבר יהוה נעשה‬. As Fischer and Markl (2014, 213–214) highlight, this statement expresses absolute obedience to the covenant. The remnant of Judah takes on an analogous commitment in Jer 42:5: “May Yhwh be a true and faithful witness against us if we do not act according to everything that Yhwh your God sends us through you (‫)ככל הדב ראשר ישלחך יהוה אלהיך אלינו‬.” Concerning the pattern of enactment: Israel’s promise in Exod 19:8 sounds like a pre-emptive obligation. Before knowing the content of Yhwh’s words to the people, they commit themselves to executing them. Then, after Moses has communicated all the words of Yhwh and all the laws, they reaffirm their previous commitment in 24:3: “All the words that Yhwh has spoken we will do” (‫)כל הדברים אשר דבר יהוה נעשה‬. The reading of the book of the covenant is followed in 24:7 by a renewed pledge of allegiance expressed in similar terms: “All that Yhwh has spoken we will do, and we will listen” (‫כל אשר דבר יהוה‬ ‫)נעשה ונשמע‬. A pre-emptive obligation is also taken on by the people in Mizpah before Jeremiah. The pledge of allegiance spoken in 42:5 happens before the people know Yhwh’s response (“all the words Yhwh shall send us through you,” ‎ ‫)ככל־הדבר אשר ישלחך יהוה אלהיך אלינו‬. In Jeremiah, however, the pattern of the Sinai covenant is overturned. While Exod 24:3, 7 confirms the previous collective agreement with Yhwh (19:8), in Jer 43:1–4, a harsh rejection of Jeremiah and his message follows the communication of the divine words. The narrator’s conclusion in 43:4 underlines this disobedience (‫ולא שמע‬, “[the people] did not listen”) to the voice of Yhwh.35 Hints at the Sinai covenant in Jer 42:1– 43:7 show that, after the catastrophe of Jerusalem, the pattern of the Sinai covenant proves inadequate to relaunch history and foster a new beginning. To sum up: motifs from Exodus (e.g., Yhwh’s war and wonders) are resumed in Jeremiah to describe the end of Judah and Jerusalem (e.g., 21:1–10). The way out from Egypt and the Sinai covenant prove to be an epic failure from the very beginning (e.g., 7:22–23). After the end of Jerusalem, the Sinai covenant turns out to be inadequate to grant a new beginning and relaunch history; by fleeing to Egypt, the remnant of Judah turns the Exodus pattern upside down (42:1–43:7).

34 35

As Jacob 1997, 540 points out, in Exod 19:8, the people are unanimous for the first time. In 11:1–14, the phrase ‫ לא‬+ ‫ שמע‬indicates the breaking of the covenant.

110 5

Rossi

Basis for a Relaunch or Epic Failure? Underlying Discourses between the Torah and the Prophets

The examples given above illustrate different uses of networks of motifs from Exodus in the prophetic books. The issue at stake is how Exodus traditions can inspire hope in times of crisis and provide a reliable foundation for relaunching history. The battle of Yhwh and the sea traditions in reassuring pronouncements (e.g., Isa 10:24–26) as well as the mythologisation of the same motif for worship (e.g., Isa 11:15–16 and 51:9–11) indicate Exodus traditions as a guarantee of a new beginning in a time of crisis. In Hosea 11, election, under the metaphor of divine fatherhood and love, enables the relaunching of a story of infidelity. The reconfiguration of the Exodus pattern in Ezekiel 20 describes a failed history but, at the same time, allows a purified generation the chance of a new beginning. Jeremiah’s stance is quite different in this regard. Jeremiah takes up references to the divine battle and wonders in order to describe the end of Jerusalem (e.g., 21:1–10; 32:17, 20–21). References to the Sinai covenant and release from Egypt mark the beginning of a failed history (ch. 7) and, after the catastrophe (42:1–43:7), do not prove a reliable basis for relaunching it. What is Jeremiah arguing about? The role played by Exodus motifs for relaunching history in the Pentateuch can provide useful hints. Already at Sinai, mention of the release from Egypt appears to provide a basis for the relaunch of the history between Yhwh and Israel. In Exod 32:7–14, Yhwh’s intention to eliminate the people after the sin of the golden calf moves Moses to intervene. His intercession (VV.11–14) relaunches the story (Sonnet 2010, 484–486), and the first argument Moses produces to persuade Yhwh is the reminiscence of the Exodus from Egypt (Exod 32:11–12). Forgiveness (‫ )סלח‬and the ensuing covenant (‫ כרת‬+ ‫ )ברית‬will come about in Exod 34:9–10. Blum (1990, 73) considers Exod 32:7–14 the latest addition to Exod 32–34; Otto (1996, 88–91) highlights the role of the Pentateuch Redaction in Exod 32. Moreover, Otto (2016, 163–167) shows how the narrative of the golden calf refers to the fall of Jerusalem.36 Hence the crucial concern of Exod 32–34, i.e., the chance of pardon and of relaunching a failed history, plausibly mirrors post-exilic debates. In particular, the main issue at stake is the question as to what authority can provide a basis for relaunching history after destruction and exile. 36

So Otto 2016, 165: “[...] the destruction of the tablets of the Decalogue meant […] the destruction of the temple; and the restoration of the tablets meant that, despite the destruction of the temple, the relationship between Yhwh and his people was not definitively broken.”

Basis for a Relaunch or Epic Failure?

111

As highlighted by Otto (2009, 526–529), among others,37 many intertextual references show that Jeremiah knows Exod 32–34 and is addressing its primary concerns in a critical way. The subversive use of Exodus motifs in Jeremiah can be interpreted against this broader background. According to Jeremiah, the relaunching of history and consequent forgiveness (‫ )סלח‬is achieved neither by trusting in Yhwh’s wonders in Egypt (see 21:1–10) nor through Moses’ intercession (harshly criticised in 15:1); the pattern of the Sinai covenant does not prove reliable for granting a new beginning after the catastrophe (see 42:1– 43:7). On the contrary, what can offer a way toward forgiveness is listening to prophetic revelation (see Jer 26:19) and heeding the content of the prophetic scroll (see 36:3). The announcement of a new covenant (31:31–34) epitomises the ultimate relaunch of history. In Jer 31:31–34, the prophet once more takes up Exodus motifs in order to surpass them (Rossi 2018, 208–223). The authoritative model of writing the law at Sinai (Exod 24:12) is alluded to, and writing made redundant. Writing on the heart replaces the writing of the law on tablets. The internalisation of the divine Torah replaces the gift of the Torah mediated by Moses. In Exod 32 and 34, Moses’ intercession achieved the grant of forgiveness; after his death, pardon will be achieved through the reading of his written Torah (see Neh 8–9). In Jer 31:34, Yhwh will forgive in advance: pardon is included within the enactment of a new covenant. Bibliography Abrego, José María. 1983. Jeremías y el final del reino. Lectura sincrónica de Jer 36–45. Valencia: Institución San Jerónimo. Alonso Schökel, Luis. 1996. Salvezza e liberazione: l’Esodo. Bologna: EDB. Ausin, Santiago. 1986. “La tradición del Éxodo en los Profetas.” Pages 423–438 in Biblia y Hermenéuticas. VII Simposio Internacional de Teología de la universidad de Navarra. Edited by José María Casciaro. Pamplona: Ediciones Universidad de Navarra. Barstad, Hans M. 1989. A Way in the Wilderness. ‘The Second Exodus’ in the Message of Second Isaiah. Manchester: University of Manchester. Berges, Ulrich. 2004. “Der zweite Exodus im Jesajabuch. Auszug oder Verwandlung?” Pages 77–95 in Das Manna fällt auch heute noch. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testament. Festschrift Erich Zenger. Edited by FrankLothar Hossfeld and Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger. HBS 44. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Berges, Ulrich. 2015. Jesaja 49–54. HThK.AT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. 37

See also Knobloch 2009, 153–178; 2014, 77–79.

112

Rossi

Beuken, Willem A.M. 2003. Jesaja 1–12. HThK.AT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Blum, Erhard. 1990. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. BZAW 189. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Bodner, Keith. 2015. After the Invasion. A Reading of Jeremiah 40–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Caruso, Rocco. 2020. Il paradigma della scelta disobbediente. Studio narratologico di Ger 40–44. Roma: Gregorian & Biblical Press. Daube, David. 1963. The Exodus Pattern in the Bible. London: Faber and Faber. Davies, Graham I. 1992. Hosea. NCBC. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans. De Pury, Albert. 1992. “Osée 12 et ses implications pour le débat actuel sur le Pentateuque.” Pages 175–207 in Le Pentateuque, débats et recherches. XIVe Congrès de l’ACFEB, Angers, 1991. Edited by Pierre Haudebert. Paris: Cerf. De Pury, Albert. 1994. “Erwägungen zu einem vorexilischen Stämmejahwismus: Hos 12 und die Auseinandersetzung um die Identität Israels und seines Gottes.” Pages 413– 439 in Ein Gott allein? YHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. Edited by Walter Dietrich and Martin A. Klopfenstein. OBO 139. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Dohmen, Christoph, and Ederer, Matthias. 2016. “Wie Exodus zum Exodus wurde. Ein Buch und sein Thema.” Pages 1–16 in Exodus. Rezeptionen in Deuterokanonischer und frühjüdischer Literatur. Edited by Judith Gärtner and Barbara Schmitz. DCLS 32. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter. Dozeman, Thomas et al. (eds.) 2014. The Book of Exodus. Composition, Reception and Interpretation. VT.S 164. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill. Driver, Godfrey R. and Miles, John C. 1952–1955. The Babylonian Laws. Legal Commentary. Vol. 1 of The Babylonian Laws. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ederer, Matthias, and Schmitz, Barbara (eds.). 2017. Exodus. Interpretation durch Rezeption. SBB 74. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk. Fischer, Georg. 2005a. Jeremia 1–25. HThK.AT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Fischer, Georg. 2005b. Jeremia 26–52. HThK.AT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder. Fischer, Georg. 2014. “Zurück nach Egypten? Exodusmotivik im Jeremiabuch.” Pages 73–92 in A Pillar of Cloud to Drive. Text-Critical, Redactional, and Linguistic Perspectives on the Old Testament in Honour of Marc Vervenne. Edited by Hans Ausloos and Bénédicte Lemmelijn. BEThL 269. Leuven and Paris and Walpole, MA: Peeters. Fischer, Georg and Markl, Dominik. 2014. Das Buch Exodus. NSK.AT 2. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk. Gross, Walter. 1974. “Die Herausführungsformel. Zum Verhältnis von Formel und Syntax.” ZAW 86: 425–453.

Basis for a Relaunch or Epic Failure?

113

Holladay, William L. 1986. Jeremiah 1. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. Chapters 1–25. Hermeneia. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press. Jacob, Benno. 1997. Das Buch Exodus. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag. Kedar-Kopfstein, Benjamin. 1984. “‫ לשון‬lāšôn.” Pages 596–605 in Vol. IV of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by Gerhard J. Botterweck et al. Stuttgart and Berlin and Köln: Kohlhammer. Knobloch, Harald. 2009. Die nachexilische Prophetentheorie des Jeremiabuches. BZAR 12. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Koole, Jan L. 1998. Isaiah III. Volume 2: Isaiah 49–55. HCOT. Kampen: Kok. Kövecsec, Zoltan. 2010. Metaphor. A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kreuzer, Siegfrid. 1997a. “Die Mächtigkeitsformel im Deuteronomium Gestaltung, Vorgeschichte und Entwicklung.” ZAW 100.2: 188–207. Kreuzer, Siegfrid. 1997b. “Die Verwendung der Mächtigkeitsformel ausserhalb des Deuteronomiums. Literarische und theologische Linien zu Jer, Ez, dtrG und P.” ZAW 109.3: 369–384. Kugler, Gili. 2017. “The Cruel Theology of Ezekiel 20.” ZAW 129: 47–58. Maier, Christl. 2002. Jeremia als Lehrer der Tora. Soziale Gebote des Deuteronomiums in Fortschreibungen des Jeremiabuches. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Markl, Dominik. 2013. “Exodus.” Pages 128–134 in Wörterbuch alttestamentlicher Motive. Edited by Michael Fieger et al. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Marti, D. Karl. 1900. Das Buch Jesaja. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum AT. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Otto, Eckart. 1996. “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus”. Pages 61–111 in Studies in the Book of Exodus. Redaction – Reception – Interpretation. Edited by Marc Vervenne. BEThL 126. Leuven: Peeters. Otto, Eckart. 2009. “Jeremia und die Tora. Ein nachexilischer Diskurs.” Pages 515–560 in Die Tora. Studien zum Pentateuch. Gesammelte Schriften. BZAR 9 Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Otto, Eckart. 2016. “Born out of Ruins. The Catastrophe of Jerusalem as Accoucheur to the Pentateuch in the Book of Deuteronomy.” Pages 155–168 in The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah. Edited by Peter Dubovský, Dominik Markl and Jean-Pierre Sonnet. FAT 187. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Patton, Corinne. 1996. “«I Myself Gave them Laws that Were not Good»: Ezekiel 20 and the Exodus Traditions.” JSOT 69: 73–90. Rendtorff, Rolf. 1997. “Die Herausführungsformel in Ihrem Literarischen und Theologischen Kontext.” Pages 501–527 in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature. Festschrift Christian Henrik W. Brekelmans. Edited by Marc Vervenne and Johan Lust. BEThL 133. Leuven: Peeters.

114

Rossi

Rom-Shiloni, Dalit. 2016. “Introduction”. Pages 832–839 in The Formation of the Pentateuch. Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America. Edited by Jan C. Gertz et al. FAT 111. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Rossi, Benedetta. 2012. “«Dall’Egitto l’ho chiamato ‘figlio mio’». La chiamata di Israele (‫ )קרא‬in Os 11,1. Approfondimento semantico e risvolti interpretativi.” Pages 43–105 in “Quelli che amo io li accuso”. Il rîb come chiave di lettura unitaria della Scrittura. Alcuni esempi. Edited by Mario Cucca et al. Assisi: Cittadella. Rossi, Benedetta. 2018. “Conflicting Patterns of Revelation. Jer 31,33–34 and Its Challenge to the Post-Mosaic Revelation Program.” Bib. 99: 202–225. Schmid, Konrad. 2010. Genesis and the Moses Story. Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible. Siphrut 3. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Ska, Jean-Louis. 1986. Le Passage de la mer. Étude de la construction, du style et de la symbolique d’Ex 14,1–31. AnBib 109. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Ska, Jean-Luis. 2009. “Exodus 19:3–6 and the Identity of Post-exilic Israel”. Pages 139– 164 in The Exegesis of the Pentateuch. Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions. FAT 66. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Sonnet, Jean-Pierre. 2010. “God’s Repentance and ‘False Starts’ in Biblical History (Genesis 6–9; Exodus 32–34; 1 Samuel 15 and 2 Samuel 7).” Pages 469–494 in Congress Volume. Ljubljana 2007. Edited by André Lemaire. VT.S 80. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill. Sonnet, Jean-Pierre. 2019. “He who Makes Wonders. God’s Mirabilia in the Hebrew Bible between Narrative and Poetry”. Pages 31–47 in Astonishment. Essays on Wonder for Piero Boitani. Edited by Emilia di Rocco. Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. van der Wal, Adri J.O. 1996. “Themes from Exodus in Jeremiah 30–31.” Pages 559–566 in Studies in the Book of Exodus. Redaction, Reception and Interpretation. Edited by Marc Vervenne. BEThL 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Williamson, Hugh G.M. 2018. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary Isaiah 1–27. Volume 2. Commentary on Isaiah 6–12. ICC. London and New York: Bloomsbury. Wolff, Hans Walter. 1974. Hosea. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea. Hermeneia. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press. Wolff, Hans Walter. 1977. Joel and Amos. A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos. Hermeneia. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press. Yates, Gary. 2006. “New Exodus and No Exodus in Jeremiah 26–45. Promise and Warning to the Exiles in Babylon.” TynB 57: 1–22. Zimmerli, Walther. 1979. Ezekiel 1. A Commentary on the Prophet Ezekiel. Chapters 1–24. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

PART 2 Exodus in Early Jewish Literature

⸪

Chapter 6

The Re-Use of Exodus Motifs in the Pseudepigrapha and Fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish Authors Susan E. Docherty 1

Introduction: Scope, Definitions and Methodological Issues

The extant literature of the Second Temple era attests to a rich and lively tradition of engagement with the writings which now make up Israel’s Scriptures. This chapter is concerned with the treatment within this corpus of the accounts of the Exodus of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt (Exod 1:1–17:16). It aims particularly to explore the impact of social and geographical context on the re-use and interpretation of motifs from these narratives. This underpinning question has, therefore, partly shaped the selection of texts for detailed investigation below. The task of describing and classifying early Jewish writings is far from straightforward, since they were composed in different languages and literary genres across several centuries, in order to serve a range of purposes and meet the needs of diverse audiences. Traditionally, they have mostly been assigned to a broad and loose category of “Pseudepigrapha”, but this terminology is increasingly being criticised as inaccurate and anachronistic.1 The largely Christian transmission and final form of many of these works is also receiving ever-greater emphasis in modern scholarship (e.g. Kraft 1975; Davila 2005), with important consequences for the assessment of their value for reconstructions of early post-biblical Judaism. The boundaries of this artificial collection have always been fluid and contested, and debate continues about whether they should be extended to encompass works representing a longer time-frame and a broader religious provenance (see especially Bauckham et al. 2013). Following the more conventional narrower definition of Pseudepigrapha, only those texts widely accepted as the products of Second Temple Judaism will be considered in this study. However, the extant fragments of the writings  of several Hellenistic Jewish poets and historians will be investigated, even though they have been preserved only in later Christian sources and are not 1 See, for example, the recent discussion of the history of study of the Pseudepigrapha in Ahearne-Kroll 2019.

© Susan E. Docherty, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471122_008

118

Docherty

included in all the major collections of the Pseudepigrapha (e.g. Sparks 1984). Nevertheless, they provide important evidence for the reception of Exodus motifs among Diaspora Jews in the second and third centuries BCE, because they interact closely and intentionally with these now-scriptural narratives.2 Given the foundational status of the Exodus events for Jewish theology, extensive appeal to them within this later exegetical literature is only to be expected. Moses’ life and his leadership of the Israelites in Egypt is indeed widely celebrated throughout these texts, with particular emphasis placed on his theophanic experiences and his role as mediator of the law (e.g. 1 En. 89:29– 31; Sib. Or. 3:253–260; T. Mos. 1:14; 11:17; 4 Ezra 3:17–18; 9:26–37; 2 Bar. 59:1–4). Episodes such as the Hebrews’ slavery in Egypt and their actual departure from the land receive much less detailed attention, however, and are often summarised in later retellings (e.g. 2 Bar. 58:1–2; L.A.B. 9:1, 11–16; 10:1–7; 23:9–10; 3 Macc 2:6–7). This is doubtless partly due to the familiarity of Jewish communities with these narratives, making their comprehensive repetition unnecessary. It is prompted also, though, by the centrality of the Law for many of these authors, who consequently foregrounded the Sinai revelation as the climax of the people’s liberation from Egypt. The surviving output of early Egyptian Judaism presents something of a contrast to this general picture, and displays a marked interest in the Exodus events in themselves. This is understandable, as they provided Jews in a Diaspora context with an ideal vehicle for reflection on their contemporary relationships with their Gentile neighbours and rulers, and a basis for the creation of glorified accounts of their national history and ancestry, to rival those of other minority peoples within the Graeco-Roman Empire. They also offered a compelling story which could be readily adapted to fit a variety of Greek literary forms.3 Five early Jewish texts composed in Egypt which re-present or comment directly on the Exodus narratives will, therefore, comprise the main focus of this investigation: the extant portions of the Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian; the fragmentary writings of Demetrius, Artapanus and Aristobolus; and Sibylline Oracles Book 3. These all manifest a confident and creative 2 Holladay (2011, 23), for example, offers the following succinct definition of this group of fragmentary writings: “In one way or another, their point of view is defined by Israelite history and the Jewish bible.” 3 This paragraph is not intended in any way to overstate the separation between Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism, which cannot be maintained in view of the extent of Hellenisation within the land of Israel itself. However, it is fair to acknowledge that there was a greater incentive in the Diaspora to employ Hellenistic literary genres and concepts to present Jewish faith and to retell traditional narratives; see further the discussion in Collins 1983, 10–11.

The Re-Use of Exodus Motifs in the Pseudepigrapha

119

engagement with the popular contemporary genres of drama, poetry, historiography and oracle. Such facility implies a level of cultural integration (e.g. Barclay 1996, 125–180; Gruen 1998, 41–72), but, since the appropriation of these literary forms does not necessarily entail wholesale acceptance of Hellenistic ideas, a positive attitude on the part of these authors to Gentile practice and society more broadly cannot be assumed.4 The exploration of the re-use of the Scriptures in these particular writings brings with it appreciable methodological challenges, given their partial preservation, complicated tradition history, and later Christian redaction. Some originally Jewish sibylline oracles have evidently been extensively reworked, for example, and then subsumed into a larger anthology compiled over a period of several centuries. The surviving fragments of the works of Ezekiel, Demetrius, Artapanus and Aristobolus are all available only at third-hand, having been originally collected by the Gentile historian of the Jews, Alexander Polyhistor, in the first century BCE, before being quoted by the early Christian writers Eusebius of Caesarea and Clement of Alexandria. Only tentative conclusions can be drawn, therefore, about their interpretation of the Exodus narratives or their wider theological understanding, since the level of selectivity and bias operating at each stage of their transmission is unknown. Likewise, no definitive judgements can be made about the scriptural text form(s) employed by these authors, or the accuracy with which they reproduce their sources, beyond a recognition that they depend on a Septuagintal version, as demonstrated in, for instance, their accounts of the plagues.5 These limitations are, accordingly, acknowledged throughout what follows. 2

The Exodus in Five Fragmentary Egyptian-Jewish Sources: Introduction and Overview

2.1 The Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian The Exagoge offers one of the most substantial extant early interpretations of the Exodus narratives, employing the genre of Greek Tragedy to retell these events. It is the only surviving example of an early Jewish drama, although there are occasional references elsewhere to other attempts to adapt the Scriptures 4 This distinction is well made by Adams, who also helpfully stresses how Jewish authors frequently adapted Greek genres to fit their material and purposes, so that it is possible to speak of a mutual literary influence (Adams 2020, 57–58, 344–345). 5 For further detail on the use of the Septuagint in the Exagoge in particular, see Jacobson 1983, 40–42.

120

Docherty

for the theatre.6 A total of 269 lines, written in the classical verse form of iambic trimeter, are preserved in the writings of Clement (Strom. 1.23.155–156) and Eusebius (Praep. Ev. 9.28.2–4; 9.29.5–16). This is estimated to represent around a quarter of the original work.7 The author is named in these sources as Ezekiel, but nothing further is known about him, his background or geographical location, his purpose in writing, or whether his play was ever staged publically. The internal evidence of the text suggests, however, that he lived in the second century BCE, probably in Egypt, and perhaps in the city of Alexandria, home to a large and well-established Jewish community.8 His reworking of the Exodus narratives in dramatic form is a remarkable literary achievement, and a powerful witness to the access to a classical education enjoyed by at least some Diaspora Jews, and to their active participation in aspects of Graeco-Roman cultural life.9 The play follows both the detail and the order of the underlying scriptural accounts relatively faithfully, covering the sections from the oppression of the Hebrews in Egypt through the crossing of the Red Sea to the people’s first stop on their journey through the wilderness. There are, however, some marked abbreviations, especially in recounting the sending of the plagues upon the Egyptians. Two major non-scriptural expansions are also included: a dreamvision predicting Moses’ future greatness (Exag. 68–89); and a Utopian description of the oasis at Elim (Exag. 243–269). 2.2 Artapanus The otherwise unknown author Artapanus also provides a reasonably full treatment of the Exodus events. His work was probably composed in the second or third century BCE in Egypt, and displays some similarities to the writings of Hellenistic historians like Hecataeus of Abdera and the later Diodorus Siculus, as well as novelistic features (e.g. Adams 2020, 206–212). It is widely assumed to have been one of the sources used by Josephus for his Jewish Antiquities.10 6

7 8 9 10

See, for instance, the apparent polemic against this practice in Let. Arist. 312–316, and the specific mention of a play about Susanna composed by Nicolas of Damascus (Eustathius, Comm. in Dion. 976.52–53); see further Adams 2020, 65–66; and Kotlińska-Toma 2014, 241–242. Detailed proposals regarding the reconstruction of the entire play can be found in Jacobson 1983, 28–36. For a fuller discussion of the text’s provenance, see Jacobson 1983, 13–17. Holladay (1989, 303), for example, concludes: “His familiarity with Greek authors, as well as his appropriation of Greek tragic technique, suggests that he was well-schooled in the classical Greek tradition.” For further detail on the Greek literary influences on Artapanus, and his connections to other early Jewish literature, see Collins 1985, 894–895.

The Re-Use of Exodus Motifs in the Pseudepigrapha

121

The three extant fragments of his writing preserved by Eusebius in Book 9 (chapters 18, 23 and 27) of the Praeparatio Evangelica centre on the time spent in Egypt by three of the founding ancestors of the Jewish people, Abraham, Joseph and Moses. The scriptural narratives provide the basis for Artapanus’ version of their lives, but numerous alterations and additions are introduced so that they come to resemble typical Hellenistic heroes, who brought knowledge and culture to the Egyptians (e.g. Collins 1983, 32–33; Barclay 1996, 127–132). The extract dealing with Moses is the longest surviving portion of the text (Praep. Ev. 9.27.1–3), and it presents a thoroughly aggrandised picture of his life, from his adoption as a baby by Pharaoh’s daughter, through his flight into Arabia, to his return to Egypt in order to confront the Pharaoh and effect the glorious escape of the Jews through the Red Sea. Cultural and military achievements usually associated with other Graeco-Roman mythical figures, especially Osiris, Sesostris and Dionysus, are here attributed to Moses.11 Such cross-fertilisation of traditions is common in ancient works, and is linked to the broader cultural phenomenon of “competitive historiography”, through which different ethnic groups made a romanticised and propagandist case for the antiquity and excellence of their own people (Sterling 1992; cf. Bilde 1992). Artapanus’ particular recasting of the Exodus narratives, then, may have been intended both to bolster the national pride of his own community and to counter other versions of Jewish history in circulation at the time, especially those reproducing the kind of anti-Semitic traditions attested in the writings of the Egyptian priest Manetho.12 Through this form of writing, Diaspora Jews were encouraged to remain faithful to their own ancestral beliefs and customs, while adapting to the reality of their existence as a minority within a dominant culture (e.g. Kugler 2005, 78). 2.3 Demetrius the Chronographer Six extant fragments are ascribed to an early Jewish author called Demetrius. Five are included by Eusebius in Book 9 of his Praeparatio Evangelica, and a further short passage is quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 1.141.1). 11 12

The parallels between Artapanus’ Moses and the figure of Sesostris in Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historica Book 1 are comprehensively discussed in Zellentin 2008, 35–46; cf. Tiede 1972, 146–160. Collins is especially associated with this view, and identifies several specific aspects of Manetho’s account which he regards as being implicitly rebutted by Artapanus, including the claims (Ag. Ap. I.239–246) that Moses led an invasion of Egypt and forbade the worship of the Egyptian gods; see Collins 1983, 33–36; cf. Collins 2005; cf. Tiede 1972, 148–164. For a discussion of how another early Jewish writer, Josephus, responded to Manetho’s version of Jewish history, see the chapter by Erkki Koskienniemi elsewhere in this volume.

122

Docherty

Demetrius is generally assumed to have lived in Egypt, perhaps in Alexandria, during the third century BCE, although his location and context cannot now be established with certainty (Hanson 1985, 843–847). He appears to have been particularly concerned to resolve chronological issues and other potential problems raised by the scriptural narratives. Three of the surviving extracts relate specifically to the Exodus accounts, and exemplify clearly his overall exegetical approach. He attempts, for example, to reconcile the different traditions about the identity of the father of Moses’ wife Zipporah (Frag 3, Praep. Ev. 9.29.1–3), and to explain how the Israelites came to be equipped to fight the Amalekites during their wilderness wanderings (Exod 17:8–13) when, at least according to the Septuagint, they left Egypt unarmed (Exod 13:18). Like other interpreters, he concludes that the Israelites must have taken the weapons from the Egyptians who drowned in the Red Sea (Frag 5, Praep. Ev. 9.29.16; cf. Exod 13:18; 17:9–13; cf. Wis 10:20; Josephus, Ant. 2:349). 2.4 Aristobolus Five quotations from the writings of Aristobolus are preserved by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. 7.32.16–18; Praep. Ev. 8.9.38–8.10.17; 13.12.1–2; 13.13.3–8; 13.12.9–16) and, more partially, by Clement (Strom. 1 and 5). These are probably to be dated to the mid-second century BCE (Yarbro Collins 1985, 832–833). Aristobolus was apparently motivated by a desire to reconcile Jewish beliefs and history with Hellenistic thought, arguing, for example, that the philosophers Plato and Pythagoras were dependent on the Mosaic Law for their ideas (Frag 3, Praep. Ev. 13.12.1–2; Frag 4, Praep. Ev. 13.13.3–8).13 His interest in presenting Judaism in a favourable light within wider society is further indicated by his dedication of the original work to a Ptolemaic king (Praep Ev. 8.9.38; 13.12.1). The surviving fragments do not treat the Exodus accounts in any detail, but one discusses the date of Passover (Frag 1, Eccl. Hist. 7.32.16–18), and a second considers some apparent anthropomorphisms in the scriptural plagues narrative (Frag 2, Praep. Ev. 8.10.8). 2.5 Sibylline Oracles Book 3 The authors of the Sibylline Oracles adopted a literary genre which was highly popular throughout the ancient world. In its current form, this text consists of a large collection of anonymous oracles written in hexameter verse, divided into twelve books (Docherty 2014, 78–89). These deal with disparate subjects, including, for example, reviews of world history and pronouncements of doom on nations and cities regarded as deserving of judgement. Its transmission 13

For a fuller treatment of the writings and thought of Aristobolus, see Barclay 1996, 150–158.

The Re-Use of Exodus Motifs in the Pseudepigrapha

123

history is extremely complex and uncertain (Collins 1974), as it draws on pagan, Jewish and Christian material dating from across a very wide historical span (approx. second century BCE to seventh century CE). The composite compilation that forms Book 3 is generally considered to have at its core oracles composed originally in an Egyptian Jewish context in the second century BCE. In a section praising the Jews and the superiority of their law (Sib. Or. 3:218–294), the events of the Exodus are recalled Sib. Or. 3:248–255). These verses emphasise God’s protection and guidance of the people (Sib. Or. 3:249–253) and the great leadership exercised by Moses (Sib. Or. 3:252–255). 3

Re-Use of Exodus Motifs

This study fully recognises, then, that these five texts derive from a range of historical and social circumstances, and that the scriptural narratives are re-used in diverse ways and for different purposes in each of them. Their authors can be assumed to represent the theological plurality which characterised Second Temple Judaism as a whole (e.g. Barclay 1996, 4), so it is not to be expected that anything approaching a concrete and specifically Jewish-Egyptian understanding of the Exodus events can be drawn from them, especially given the limitations of their partial – and possibly partisan – preservation. Nevertheless, a close reading of them does enable the identification of certain shared emphases and interpretative approaches. These will be highlighted in what follows, under three broad headings: (i) Exodus motifs which are minimised or abbreviated in one or more of these writings, either deliberately in order to downplay them, or simply because they are taken for granted as well-known or self-evident; (ii) Exodus motifs which are accentuated or expanded; and (iii) any significant exegetical features. 3.1 Minimised Motifs 3.1.1 The Suffering of the Hebrew Slaves References to the oppression and hard labour endured by the Hebrews in Egypt are generally limited and lacking in specificity in these texts. The term “slavery” or “service” (Exod 1:14), is avoided, for instance, together with any mention of overseers or taskmasters (Exod 1:11). The killing of the male infants is spelled out only in the Exagoge (Exag. 12–13), and the courage of the midwives Shiphrah and Puah in defying the Pharaoh’s brutal orders (cf. Exod 1:15–22) is nowhere celebrated (for this omission, cf. also Jub. 46:14–16; L.A.B. 9:1; Philo, Mos. 1:5–15; Acts 7:19). In Book 3 of the Sibylline Oracles, no explanation at all

124

Docherty

is given of the events leading up to the Exodus (Sib. Or. 3:248), and Artapanus includes nothing more than a short, vague statement about a new Egyptian king treating the Jews badly (Praep. Ev. 9.27.2; cf. Exod 1:8). This brevity is doubtless partly due to the fact that these details were well-known to any Jewish audience, but it is possible that it reveals also a reluctance on the part of some authors to dwell on the hardships and indignities imposed on their ancestors, especially if one of their aims in writing was to foster ethnic pride  and confidence. Ezekiel the Tragedian provides an exception to this general trend, as, in addition to describing the drowning of the baby boys, he devotes four lines to recounting how the Hebrews were forced to make bricks and build cities for Pharaoh (Exag. 7–13). This attention to the people’s suffering is partly a consequence of the literary genre he chooses to use, since a tragedy is expected to inspire sympathy for its subjects. Elsewhere in the play, for instance, Ezekiel skilfully contrasts the weakness, weariness and helplessness of the Israelites on the shores of the Red Sea with the power of the huge and well-armed Egyptian force that was in hot pursuit (Exag. 204–210). However, the emphasis on this motif may also be related to his particular context, since he makes an unusually direct link between the Exodus and the experiences of contemporary Jews: “When Jacob left Canaan he came to Egypt with seventy souls and fathered a great people that has suffered and been oppressed. Till this day we have been ill-treated by evil men and a powerful regime …” (Exag. 1–6).14 A similar stress on the oppression of the Israelites by the Egyptians in later pseudepigraphical literature certainly seems to emerge during periods characterised by local conflict. Sibylline Oracles Book 11, for example, predicts an era of future punishment on Egypt, when the fortunes of the nation which previously enslaved the Jews will be reversed, so that it will become subject to other powers  Sib. Or. 11:298–314; cf. Apoc. El. 2:44). This suggests, then, that the Exagoge may have been composed during a time of some tension between Egyptian Jews and the Ptolemaic rulers, although the textual evidence is insufficient to determine its precise date of writing.15 Alternatively, these verses may simply be indicative of a wider desire among Egyptian Jewish communities to enhance their status with the Greek elite by distancing themselves from the native Egyptian population (Adams 2020, 64; Collins 1983, 7; Jacobson 1983, 8).16

14 15 16

All translations of the Exagoge in this chapter are taken from Jacobson 1983. Jacobson (1983, 5–13), for example, draws on these lines in support of his argument for a Maccabean dating, but Whitmarsh (2013, 216–217) proposes reading the play as an allegorical commentary on Ptolemaic Alexandria, represented here by Pharaonic Egypt. For a similar view of Artapanus’ work, see Koskenniemi 2002, 19–24.

The Re-Use of Exodus Motifs in the Pseudepigrapha

125

3.1.2 The Plagues The details of the plagues sent on Egypt (Exod 7:14–11:10) are recounted in summary fashion, if at all, in these texts. This tendency to paraphrase is partly a response to the length and repetitive style of the underlying scriptural narratives (Exod 8:16–10:23), and it is paralleled in a number of other early Jewish sources (e.g. Jub. 48:5–7; L.A.B. 10:1). It is also sometimes a consequence of the literary form employed: since it would have been technically problematic to actually present these disasters on stage, for instance, they are condensed in the Exagoge into a divine speech outlining what is about to befall the Egyptians. In addition to this frequent abbreviation, some divergence from the scriptural accounts can be observed in both the order and the description of the plagues. In the Exagoge (Exag. 132–151), for example, boils or sores are placed fourth and not sixth in the list, in between lice and flies, and the locusts are sent after rather than before the darkness. The extent of the effects of these punishments also differs in Ezekiel’s version from that found in the Septuagint, with some (boils and the death of the firstborn) limited to humans and others (the deadly pestilence) transferred from animals to people (cf. Aristobolus, Frag 2, Praep. Ev. 8.10.8; cf. Exod 9:3, 10; 11:5). The extant fragments of Artapanus include reference to only five of the scriptural plagues, presented in an unusual sequence (the flooding/changing colour of the River Nile; flies; sores; frogs; hail), and culminating in an additional punishment of an earthquake (Praep. Ev. 9.28.33; cf. the addition of a whirlwind, θύελλα, to the plague of darkness at Exod 10:22LXX). Similar variations are in evidence elsewhere in early Jewish literature (cf. e.g. Pss 78:44–51; 105:28–36; Jub. 47:5; L.A.B. 10:1; Josephus, Ant. 2:293–314), indicating that the formulation and arrangement of the plagues was not firmly fixed in the Second Temple period.17 It seems, too, that some of these interpreters assumed they had a certain freedom to express these punishments in terms which would have been intelligible to their audiences. Finally, Ezekiel and Artapanus stress the arrogance and presumption of the Pharaoh and his subjects as the immediate cause of the plagues, presumably in an effort to convince their audience that Israel’s God did not act indiscriminately or unjustly in afflicting the Egyptians in this way (Exag. 140, 148; Artapanus, Praep. Ev. 9.27.24, 31, 33; cf. 3 Macc 2:6; cf. Exod 7:3, 14, 22; 8:15, 32; 9:7, 12, 34; 10:21; 11:10). 3.1.3 The Wilderness Wanderings These five authors generally display very little interest in the wilderness wanderings, although it is important to recognise that the fragmentary survival of 17

For a similar discussion in relation to the Book of Wisdom, see Maurice Gilbert’s contribution elsewhere in this volume.

126

Docherty

their writings may create an inaccurate impression of their original intentions. In its extant form, however, the Exagoge offers no hint at all that the escaped slaves now face the prospect of an arduous journey which will last for four decades. Rather, the preserved section of the play ends on a wholly positive note, with the Hebrews taking their well-deserved rest in the paradisiacal oasis to which God guides them (Exag. 243–269; cf. Exod 15:27; see further below 3.2.3). The extracts of Artapanus’ work contain only one very brief reference to the wilderness, highlighting God’s ability to provide food for the people there (Praep. Ev. 9.27.37; cf. L.A.B. 10:7). In Sibylline Oracles Book 3, too, this period is characterised by God’s protection and leadership, symbolised by the constant presence with the Israelites of the pillars of fire and cloud (Sib. Or. 3:249–252). The more negative elements of the scriptural accounts of this time, in which the people grumble, challenge Moses’ authority, and practise idolatry (e.g. Exod 16:1–3, 19–20; 17:1–4; 32:1–24; Num 14:1–12; Pss 78:17–22; 95:8–11; 106:13–39), never surface in any of these writings. It is possible, then, that interpreters in a Diaspora context preferred to dwell only on the glorious aspects of the Exodus, like the dramatic escape through the Red Sea, for apologetic purposes, and in order to reinforce the confidence of their communities in God’s election of the Jewish people and ongoing providential care for them. 3.1.4 The Land of Israel This diminished focus on the journey of the liberated Hebrews through the wilderness is accompanied by a corresponding lack of emphasis in these texts on their eventual destination. Their goal is not named as Israel, and is described neither as the land promised to them by God, nor as a place flowing with milk and honey (e.g. Exod 13:5). Ezekiel simply presents the people as on their way to “another land” (Exag. 154), for instance, and his Moses even appears to consider Egypt as his real home, lamenting his temporary exile in the foreign country (ἀλλοτέρμονα) of Libya (Exag. 58; cf. Exod 2:22). The Diaspora Jews for whom the Exagoge was composed likewise perhaps viewed Egypt, the country of their birth and permanent residence, as their only home. Significantly, the people are termed “Hebrews” throughout the play, never “Jews” or “Israelites”. This appellation was possibly regarded simply as the most accurate or historically appropriate designation for the Exodus generation. It may, however, reflect a reluctance on the part of Diaspora communities to associate themselves too closely with the region of Judaea, especially in periods when significant tension and conflict erupted there, such as during the Maccabean wars. Nevertheless, the claim of these “Hebrews” (and perhaps also by implication that of contemporary Jews) to Palestine is made by these authors, occasionally

The Re-Use of Exodus Motifs in the Pseudepigrapha

127

and subtly, in references to it as their own land (Exag. 167) or their ancient homeland (Artapanus, Praep. Ev. 9.27.21). 3.1.5 The Giving of the Law In much early Jewish interpretative literature, the Exodus events are inextricably linked with the revelation of the Torah on Sinai, which is regarded as the culmination and ultimate purpose of the liberation from Egypt (see section 1 above). This connection is not nearly so prominent in these five texts, however, and in three of them there is no mention of the law at all. The brief account of the Exodus provided in the Sibylline Oracles does conclude with a reference to the giving of the commandments Sib. Or. 3:255–258), but on the whole this work highlights ethical values widely accepted within Graeco-Roman society above the specifics of Jewish regulation and ritual (e.g. Sib. Or. 3:234–247). Aristobolus also refers to the law, but only to emphasise its fundamental harmony with Greek philosophy (Frag 3, Praep. Ev. 13.12.1; Frag 4, Praep. Ev. 13.13.3–8; Frag 5, Praep. Ev. 113.12.10–11, 13–16).18 The extant version of the Exagoge and the fragments of Artapanus’ work both end without recording a Sinai theophany, although this argument from silence cannot bear too much weight given their partial preservation and later Christian redaction. However, the absence of this motif is congruent with other aspects of these writings: Artapanus, for instance, presents Moses as introducing rulings and cultural practices which benefit not only Jews but also the people of Egypt and Ethiopia (Praep. Ev. 9.27.4, 10, 12), and as displaying an accepting attitude towards Egyptian religion which actually contradicts some scriptural precepts. 3.2 Enhanced Motifs Passover 3.2.1 The continuing significance of the festival of Passover for Diaspora Jews throughout the Second Temple period is confirmed by these texts. This annual ritual provided the communal space for regular reflection on the meaning of the Exodus events. The Exagoge, for example, includes a speech detailing the instructions for both the first Passover meal and for its future observance (Exag. 152–193; cf. Exod 12:1–28). This provides a faithful, if condensed, version of the scriptural narrative, although without any allusion to the restriction of participation to native Israelites and those foreigners who have been circumcised (Exod 12:43–49). The author may simply have felt it unnecessary 18

For further discussion of Aristobolus’ efforts to reconcile the Scriptures and Greek philosophy, see e.g. Droge 1989; Barclay 1996, 150–158.

128

Docherty

to labour this point, since the Passover is clearly a specifically Israelite celebration: “… let the Hebrew men take for their families unblemished lambs or calves …” (Exag. 176). This omission is, however, understood by some commentators as intentional, stemming from either a reluctance to present Jews as exclusive and anti-social, or an unwillingness to dwell on the practice of circumcision, regarded by many educated Greeks as a barbaric and primitive custom.19 Aristobolus also discusses the Passover, as part of his wider attempt to relate the Jewish laws and Scriptures to Greek thought. He ascribes cosmic and astrological significance to its date (Frag 1, Eccl. Hist. 7.32.16–18), before seeking to root another characteristically Jewish ritual, the observance of the Sabbath day, in the natural and universal order of creation in a similar way (Frag 5, Praep. Ev. 113.12.12–16). Even Ezekiel and Aristobolus, then, two authors who display a particular openness to engagement with Hellenistic culture, recognise the value and importance for Jewish life of the Passover, while presenting its origins and meaning in terms intelligible also to interested Gentiles. 3.2.2 The Person and Achievements of Moses It is the person and achievements of Moses which are foregrounded above all in these texts, as indeed is the case across early Jewish literature more widely. This amplification leads to a consequent diminution in the role as co-spokesperson before Pharaoh of Aaron, who appears as only a very minor character, if he is mentioned at all (Exag. 116; Artapanus, Praep. Ev. 9.27.17, 22; cf. L.A.B. 12:2). Moses’ leadership is emphasised in the Sibylline Oracles (Sib. Or. 3:249–255; cf. T. Mos. 11:10), for example, and his wisdom by Aristobolus, who claims him as the ultimate inspiration for Greek philosophy and culture (Frag 4, Praep. Ev. 13.13.4). His royal education is highlighted in the Exagoge (Exag. 36–37; cf. Philo, Mos. 1:20–24), but the primary means of his glorification there is through the non-scriptural addition of a dramatic dream-vision (Exag. 68–89; cf. Miriam’s dream about Moses before his birth in L.A.B. 9:10). In this experience, Moses sees a huge throne on the top of Mount Sinai, on which sits a noble figure, generally assumed to be God,20 who offers Moses his own crown and a sceptre, obvious symbols of kingship, and invites him to take his place on this seat (cf. 1 En. 69:29). The vision is interpreted by his father-in-law 19

20

It is part of the evidence cited by Jacobson (1983, 135), for instance, in support of his argument that Ezekiel seeks to position the Jewish community as aligned with “civilised” Greek rather than “primitive” Egyptian culture, in which circumcision was practised; cf. Collins 1983, 207–208. It is possible, however, that this figure is to be understood as the Pharaoh, who moves aside for Moses in fulfilment of the scriptural claim that God has made Moses “a god to Pharaoh” (Exod 7:1); see e.g. Collins 1983, 208–209.

The Re-Use of Exodus Motifs in the Pseudepigrapha

129

as a prediction that Moses will become a great ruler with prophetic powers. This interesting reversal of the normal scriptural pattern, in which the dream of the Hebrew Moses is explained for him by a non-Jew (cf. e.g. Joseph and Pharaoh at Gen 40:1–41:36; Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar at Dan 2:1–45), implies a generally positive view of Gentiles. Commentators disagree about whether or not Moses is presented in this scene as a divine being,21 although he is clearly referred to as a “mortal” (θνητóς, Exag. 101) elsewhere in the text. However, there is little doubt that it is intended to underscore Moses’ unique status and close relationship with God. Philo does seem to have understood Moses as in some sense divine (e.g. Mos. 1:148–149; QE 1:29, 40), and he is equated directly with the Gentile god Hermes by Artapanus (Praep. Ev. 9.27.6). This development derives ultimately from the scriptural Exodus narratives, in which Moses is designated “as a god” to Aaron and Pharaoh (Exod 4:16; 7:1).22 The writings of Artapanus offer a particularly embellished picture of Moses’ remarkable role as a bringer of civilisation. He is said, for instance, to have invented all kinds of tools and weapons, and to have established the entire administration of Egypt (Praep. Ev. 9.27.3–12). Furthermore, by identifying Moses with the mythical Musaeus of Greek literature, Artapanus is able to associate him with Orpheus, claiming that he was actually the teacher of the putative founder of Hellenistic culture (Praep. Ev. 9.27.3–4; cf. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica Book 1, 46.8, although here and elsewhere Orpheus is said to have been the teacher rather than pupil of Musaeus). Even the account of the first plague is recast (Praep. Ev. 9.27.28), so that this action becomes the inauguration of the annual flooding cycle of the River Nile, the means of sustaining Egyptian life and agriculture (Barclay 1996, 128–129). Moses’ military prowess appears to be especially important to Artapanus, as he describes his defeat of the Ethiopians in battle against all odds (Praep. Ev. 9.27.7–9), and portrays his task of freeing his people from Egyptian oppression in war-like terms: “But a divine voice bade him campaign against Egypt, rescue the Jews, and lead them to their ancient homeland. He took courage and determined to lead a hostile force against the Egyptians …” (Praep. Ev. 9.27.21–22).23 This emphasis may have been inspired by the scriptural detail that the Egyptians feared the prospect of the Hebrews joining forces with their enemies against them in battle (Exod 1:10). It may also illustrate contemporary cultural expectations around true heroic qualities and actions, but it does not provide sufficient 21 22 23

See Van der Horst 1983; but cf. Jacobson 1981. Jacobson (1983, 90) suggests that this vision and other related traditions about Moses’ kingship may be related also to later exegesis of Ps 110:1. All translations from the fragments of Artapanus are taken from Collins 1985.

130

Docherty

evidence to confirm the intriguing proposal made by Zellentin (2008) that Artapanus himself belonged to the Jewish and Graeco-Egyptian military elite. These five texts are not exceptional among early Jewish writings in including traditions about Moses’ kingship, priesthood and even divinity,24 then, but such claims appear to have been particularly important in a Diaspora setting, contributing to the development of a Jewish apologetic historiography. This wider cultural context also specifically influences the depiction of Moses as a Greek hero (as in Artapanus) or philosopher (as in Aristobolus). Artapanus’ work in particular raises questions about, firstly, whether he expected his audience to recognise the extent to which he was modifying both popular Hellenistic legends and the scriptural narratives about Moses, and secondly, whether he was doing so playfully and primarily for entertainment purposes (Gruen 1998, 209), or with the intention of subverting them in order to demonstrate the pre-eminence of Jewish faith over all Gentile religion (e.g. Zellentin 2008, 31–33). Since the Egyptian cults are nowhere condemned in the extant text, and, indeed, Moses is specifically credited with their foundation (Praep. Ev. 9.27.49), the majority view among commentators remains that Artapanus’ aims are not directly apologetic. Rather, he, like Aristobolus, represents a strand of Diaspora thought which held to the possibility of a synthesis between Judaism and Hellenism, and stressed the valuable contribution that Jews could make to the societies in which they lived.25 3.2.3 The Oasis at Elim The motif of the oasis at Elim seems to have generated greater interest in the Egyptian Jewish literature than is warranted by the very brief reference to it in Scripture (Exod 15:27). This is all the more striking, given the general lack of focus on the wilderness period in these writings (see above 3.1.3). One of the fragments of Demetrius’ work (Frag 4, Praep. Ev. 9.29.15) mentions the oasis, with its twelve springs of water and seventy palm trees, and this verse receives particular elaboration in the Exagoge. The surviving portions of the play end 24 25

See further the examples provided in Meeks 1967, who draws particularly from the writings of Philo and the midrashim. Barclay (1996, 127–132) and Collins (1983, 35) see elements of syncretism in the religious outlook of Artapanus, but these are minimised by other commentators, such as Holladay (1977, 199–232). That some aspects of the narrative, especially the claim that Moses instituted the Egyptian cults, are startling is demonstrated in the revival by Jacobson (2006) of the view that this work could not have been written by a Jew. This theory, however, raises the difficult problem of why a Gentile author would have wanted to compose such a glowing and embellished account of Moses and other Jewish ancestors. Kugler (2002, 30–31) suggests that Artapanus represents a position that the Gentiles can be left to worship their own gods, as long as Jews remain faithful to Yahweh.

The Re-Use of Exodus Motifs in the Pseudepigrapha

131

with an ekphrastic description of the beauty and tranquillity of the lush, shady and fruitful meadow where the Hebrews take their rest (Exag. 243–269).26 This scene evidently reflects a tradition of interpretation, as other Hellenistic Jewish authors like Philo (Mos. 1:188) offer similarly idealised depictions of Elim, but it is also shaped by broader cultural ideas about utopia. Ezekiel’s decision to introduce a fabulous bird, usually taken to be a phoenix (Exag. 254– 269), for example, although partly inspired by the presence of the word φοῐνιξ (palm tree), in the Septuagint version of this verse in Scripture, mirrors the widespread association made in Graeco-Roman sources between birds and paradise, and between the appearance of a phoenix and rare and momentous events (Jacobson 1983, 152–164). The oasis episode offered Diaspora Jews a reassuring reminder of God’s providential care for their people, wherever they find themselves, then, and also opened up a useful space for connections to be drawn between scriptural narratives and Hellenistic literature. 3.2.4 Magic In the scriptural accounts, Moses, together with his brother Aaron, is presented as engaged in a contest with the wizards of Egypt, who in the end concede defeat to them and their all-powerful God (Exod 7:8–13, 20–24; 8:5–7, 16–19). This magical dimension of the narratives is often overlooked in modern readings, but is far more conspicuous in early Jewish interpretation. A whole tradition developed over time about these Egyptian sorcerers, for instance, who are named in various sources, Jewish, Christian and pagan, as Jannes and Jambres (or Mambres) (e.g. Jub. 48:9–12; 2 Tim 3:8; T. Sol. 25:4; Pliny, Natural History 30.2.11), and who become the main subjects of a work in their own right.27 Among these five authors, it is Artapanus especially who highlights Moses’ supernatural abilities. He includes an addition detailing both his miraculous escape from prison, and his success in reviving the Pharaoh from a dead faint by means of the magical device of speaking the divine name into his ear (Praep. Ev. 9.27.23–26). This latter episode may reflect the link made in Scripture between the Exodus events and Israel’s healing God (Exod 15:26;  cf. Josephus, Ant. 2:275–276; m. Sanh. 10.1). Artapanus also heightens the symbolic significance of Moses’ rod. This does function as something akin to a magic wand in the scriptural accounts of the plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea (Exod 7:8–12, 17–20; 8:5, 16–17; 14:16; cf. 4:3–4; 17:5–6, 9), and Aaron as well as Moses is able to wield it. Artapanus reserves its use entirely to Moses, 26 27

For a full treatment of this scene as an ekphrasis, see Heath 2006. For a full discussion of the Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres, and further references to the wider tradition, see Pietersma 1994, 24–25.

132

Docherty

however, and even claims that it is because of Moses that a staff dedicated to Isis is placed in every Egyptian temple (Praep. Ev. 9.27.32). The amplification of these elements by Artapanus and others fits with other literary and material evidence of the engagement of Jews in the kinds of magical practices which were prevalent throughout the Graeco-Roman Empire (e.g. Barclay 1996, 119–123). 3.3 Exegetical Approaches 3.3.1 Resolving Exegetical Problems Much early Jewish exegesis is motivated by the effort to resolve perceived difficulties within the scriptural narratives, and both this aim itself, and traditions resulting from it, are in evidence in several of these writings. The Exagoge clarifies how Moses came to learn about his ancestral history and religion despite being adopted into the Egyptian royal household at birth (Exag. 32–35), for example, and also, like many other sources, justifies the taking away of Egyptian goods by the escaping Hebrew slaves as compensation for all their labour (Exag. 166; cf. Jub. 48:18; Philo Mos. 1:141–142; Josephus, Ant. 2:314; b. Sanh. 91a; cf. Exod 11:2–3; 12:35–36). Demetrius’ work in particular is focused on explaining chronological discrepancies or other problematic verses in Scripture. Although this approach is characteristic of early Jewish interpretation generally, it also situates these authors within their broader Graeco-Roman cultural and literary context. Ancient writers were evidently concerned to try to solve the problems raised by classical texts, for instance, an endeavour exemplified in Philo’s series of Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus. The norms of contemporary Hellenistic historical and scientific writing also required due attention to be paid to establishing the reliability of the chronological and other information found in the available sources (Collins 1983, 28–29; Adams 2020, 87–90, 127–134). 3.3.2 Rationalism and Anti-Anthropomorphism The interest in rational interpretations of scriptural narratives and in downplaying examples of anthropomorphic imagery evident in some of these texts also implies an awareness of contemporary sensibilities. Both Artapanus and Ezekiel stress, for instance, that when Moses encounters God in the burning bush, he only hears a divine voice and does not actually see God (Praep. Ev. 9.27.21; Exag. 100–101; cf. Exod 3:1–6). Aristobolus is at pains to make clear that the scriptural references to God’s “hand” bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, or striking the Egyptians with plagues, are simply metaphors for God’s power (Frag 2, Praep. Ev. 8.10.7–9). Artapanus gives two possible explanations of the parting of the Red Sea, one attributing the Jews’ successful crossing simply

The Re-Use of Exodus Motifs in the Pseudepigrapha

133

to Moses’ knowledge of the ebb tides, and the other emphasising the divine power flowing through his rod (Praep. Ev. 9.27.35–37). This move satisfies the conventions of Hellenistic historiography, in which it was deemed necessary to interrogate alternative accounts of past events (Tiede 1972, 176), and also addresses potential scepticism among an educated Greek audience about some of the more miraculous aspects of the scriptural narratives. 3.3.3 Lack of Symbolic Interpretations Finally, there is very little figurative interpretation of the Exodus narratives within the extant Egyptian Jewish literature. The motifs commonly exploited symbolically in the writings of the church fathers, such as the rock that yields up water, are not central to these writings. The manna, for example, features only in Artapanus’ account, where it is described simply in terms that a contemporary audience would understand as evidence of God’s provision for the people: “God rained for them meal like millet, very similar in colour to snow …” (Praep. Ev. 9.27.37).28 4

Conclusions

As has been reiterated throughout this study, the five texts under investigation here employ a range of literary genres and were composed at different times for a variety of audiences and purposes, so they cannot be read as representative of a specific or unified Egyptian Jewish theological or exegetical tradition, especially given their incomplete preservation. Indeed, they frequently display an unexceptional understanding of the Exodus as a direct divine intervention prompted by God’s compassion and faithfulness towards the particular people of Israel which is entirely consistent with the view taken right across Jewish literature, both Palestinian and Diaspora (e.g. Exag. 106–108, 235–241; Artapanus, Praep. Ev. 9.27.21; Sib. Or. 3:249, 255; cf. e.g. 1 En. 89:16; L.A.B. 9:3; 19:8; cf. Exod 3:6–8). Nonetheless, some particular shared emphases and features of interpretation can be observed within them. These include a heightened interest in the oasis at Elim and in the magical elements of the Exodus events, but a diminished focus on the sufferings of the Hebrew slaves and on the connection between the people’s departure from Egypt and the revelation of the Torah. The work of these authors is also underpinned by the assumption of a certain freedom to alter or embellish the traditional material, especially 28

Jacobson (1983, 128–129) also highlights a possibly symbolic association between leaven and evil or impurity in Exag. 189–190 (cf. Matt 16:6; 1 Cor 5:6–8).

134

Docherty

where such additions enhance the status of Moses. Effective communication of the meaning of these events for their audiences appears to have been more important to them than reproducing the now-scriptural narratives literally and in detail. The geographical, historical and social contexts in which these five authors operated clearly shaped to some extent their selection and treatment of particular Exodus motifs. This cultural influence is evident first, in their initial decision to appropriate the popular Greek genres of drama, history and oracle. It is also operative in some of their specific interpretative moves, such as the downplaying of anthropomorphisms by Aristobolus, Demetrius’ interest in chronology, the portrayal of Moses by Artapanus as an archetypal Hellenistic hero, and the associations with contemporary literature evident in Ezekiel’s utopian description of the resting place at Elim. Their attitude to the land of Israel cannot be fully determined from the extant fragmentary evidence, but a yearning to return there certainly does not surface prominently in any of these texts. They reflect Jewish communities well-settled in the Egyptian Diaspora, then, with members who are able to operate confidently within the dominant Graeco-Roman culture. While these writers appear to have held a positive and open stance towards this wider world, it is important to acknowledge also their pride in their own national history which they seek to retell in intelligible and attractive forms, and their enduring attachment to the traditional stories and festivals of Judaism. Bibliography Adams, Sean A. 2020. Greek Genres and Jewish Authors: Negotiating Literary Culture in the Greco-Roman Era. Waco, TX: Baylor. Ahearne-Kroll, Patricia. 2019. “The History of the Study of the Pseudepigrapha.” Pages 103–131 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Fifty Years of the Pseudepigrapha Section at the SBL. Edited by Matthias Henze and Liv I. Lied. SBL.EJL 50. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press. Barclay, John M.G. 1992. “Manipulating Moses: Exodus 2.10–15 in Egyptian Judaism and the New Testament.” Pages 28–46 in Text as Pretext: Essays in Honour of Robert Davidson. Edited by Robert P. Carroll. LHBOTS 138. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Barclay, John M.G. 1996. Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE–117 CE). Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Bauckham, Richard; Davila, James R. and Panayotov, Alexander (eds.). 2013. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Non-Canonical Scriptures Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

The Re-Use of Exodus Motifs in the Pseudepigrapha

135

Bilde, Per (ed.). 1992. Ethnicity in Ancient Egypt. Studies in Hellenistic Civilization. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Collins, John J. 1974. The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism. SBL.DS 13. Missoula, MT: Mont. SBL. Collins, John J. 1983. Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. New York: Crossroad. Collins, John J. 1985. “Artapanus.” Pages 889–903 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Vol. 2. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday. Collins, John J. 2000. “Reinventing Exodus. Exegesis and Legend in Hellenistic Egypt.” Pages 52–62 in For a Later Generation. The Transformation of Tradition in Israel, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity. Edited by Randal A. Argall, Beverly A. Bow and Rodney A. Werline. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity. Davila, James R. 2005. The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha. Jewish, Christian, or Other? JSJ.S 105. Leiden: Brill. Docherty, Susan E. 2014 The Jewish Pseudepigrapha. An Introduction to the Literature of the Second Temple Period. London: SPCK; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Droge, Arthur J. 1989. Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Fraser, Peter M. 2001. Ptolemaic Alexandria. 3 vols. London: Sandpiper Books. Gruen, Erich S. 1998. Heritage and Hellenism. The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Gruen, Erich S. 2002. Diaspora: Jews Amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hanson, John S. 1985. “Demetrius the Chronographer.” Pages 843–854 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Vol. 2. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday. Heath, Jane. 2006. “Ezekiel Tragicus and Hellenistic Visuality. The Phoenix at Elim.” JTS 57: 23–41. Holladay, Carl R. 1977. Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism. A Critique of the Use of this Category in New Testament Christology. SBL.DS 40. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press. Holladay, Carl R. 1983. Fragments From Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume I Historians. SBL.TT 20. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Holladay, Carl R. 1989. Fragments From Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume II Poets. SBL.TT 30. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Holladay, Carl R. 1995. Fragments From Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume III Aristobolus. SBL.TT 39. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Holladay, Carl R. 2011. “Acts and the Fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish Authors.” NT 53:22–51. Jacobson, Howard. 1981. “Mysticism and Apocalyptic in Ezekiel the Tragedian.” ILLCS 6: 272–293.

136

Docherty

Jacobson, Howard. 1983. The Exagoge of Ezekiel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jacobson, Howard. 2006. “Artapanus Judaeus.” JJS 57: 210–221. Koskenniemi, Erkki. 2002. “Greeks, Egyptians, and Jews in the Fragments of Artapanus.” JSP 13:17–31. Kotlińska-Toma, Agnieszka. 2014. Hellenistic Tragedy. Texts, Translations and A Critical Survey. London and New York: Bloomsbury. Kraft, Robert A. 1975. “The Multiform Jewish Heritage of Early Christianity.” Pages 174– 199 in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults. Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty. Edited by Jacob Neusner. SJLA 12. Leiden: Brill. Kugler, Robert A. 2005. “Hearing the Story of Moses in Ptolemaic Egypt: Artapanus Accommodates the Tradition.” Pages 67–80 in The Wisdom of Egypt. Jewish, Early Christian, and Gnostic. Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen. Edited by Anthony Hilhorst and George H. van Kooten. AJEC 59. Leiden: Brill. Meeks, Wayne A. 1967. The Prophet-King. Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. Leiden: Brill. Pietersma, Albert. 1994. The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the Magicians. Leiden: Brill. Sparks, Hedley F.D. 1984. The Apocryphal Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sterling, Gregory E. 1992. Historiography and Self-Definition. Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography. NT.S 64. Leiden: Brill. Tiede, David Lenz. 1972. The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker. SBL.DS 1. Missoula, MT: Print. Dept., University of Montana 1973. Van der Horst, Pieter. 1983. “Moses’ Throne Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist.” JJS 24: 21–29. Whitmarsh, Tim. 2013. “Politics and Identity in Ezekiel’s Exagoge.” Pages 211–227 in Beyond the Second Sophistic. Adventures in Greek Postclassicism. By Tim Whitmarsh. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Yarbro Collins, Adela. 1985. “Aristobolus.” Pages 831–842 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Vol. 2. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday. Zellentin, Holger. 2008. “The End of Jewish Egypt. Artapanus and the Second Exodus.” Pages 27–73 in Antiquity in Antiquity. Jewish and Christian Pasts in the Greco-Roman World. Edited by Gregg Gardner and Kevin L. Osterloh. TSAJ 123. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Chapter 7

Exodus in the Dead Sea Scrolls Mika S. Pajunen 1

General Evaluation of Exodus Motifs in the Dead Sea Scrolls

This chapter examines the use of Exodus motifs in the broad corpus of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Before such an evaluation is possible, it is essential to define what is perceived as an Exodus motif. Such an investigation deals necessarily with the utilisation of a tradition, not the reception of a literary representative of a tradition. It is, hence, not a study on the reception of the Book of Exodus or one of the other more comprehensive representatives of the tradition, like Jubilees. It is, therefore, not necessary for this inquiry to discuss possible literary dependencies on specific compositions, but rather to analyse in more general terms how the Exodus tradition is used and why. The tracing of literary connections is an important study for establishing the role of different sources in a later writing, but it is not pertinent for establishing the general ways in which a tradition was utilised. The concept of “tradition” is, however, more ephemeral than that of a literary work, even though the exact amount of variance allowed within a literary work is also a matter of definition. Many sources, including most of those discussed in this chapter, represent the Exodus from Egypt, the subsequent wilderness period, the law-giving at Sinai, and the conquest of the land as largely inseparable parts of a broader tradition. Nevertheless, each of these parts has a separate central theme(s) and in broader literary works they are usually found as either distinct parts of a work or as separate compositions. Moreover, each of these traditions can be and has been utilised separately as well. It is, thus, possible to distinguish between an Exodus tradition, wilderness tradition, Sinai tradition, and conquest tradition. In terms of the Exodus tradition the key element is the events leading to Israel’s deliverance from Egypt as narrated, for instance, in Exod 1–15. Without a reference to these events, it is hard to justify a claim that the Exodus tradition was deliberately invoked by a writer. The main representatives of the Exodus tradition in the Dead Sea Scrolls are manuscripts of the Book of Exodus or some of its parts. Fragments of eighteen such manuscripts have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The text of the Book of Exodus differs substantially in them (Tov 2008, 151), and they are hence important witnesses to the development and early reception of the broader

© Mika S. Pajunen, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471122_009

138

Pajunen

Exodus tradition.1 The Dead Sea Scrolls also contain manuscript remains of other compositions currently in the Hebrew Bible or usually counted among the apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, or rewritten compositions that utilise Exodus motifs, such as Jubilees, parts of 1 Enoch, Tobit, and the so-called Reworked Pentateuch (RP) manuscripts (4Q158, 4Q364–367). Except for the RP manuscripts, these compositions are more fully preserved in sources other than the Dead Sea Scrolls and are discussed elsewhere in this volume.2 They are, therefore, not examined further in this contribution, but it is important to realise that their usage of the Exodus tradition is part of the overall treatment of the tradition in the corpus of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The following discussion will deal mostly with more subtle or passing references to the Exodus tradition in a variety of compositions representing diverse literary genres, and it is essential to remember that also such broader representatives of the Exodus tradition existed alongside the more subtle usage. In addition to the above-mentioned compositions, roughly twenty compositions among the Dead Sea Scrolls utilise the Exodus tradition in some recognisable way. A few of these cases are uncertain and highlight the methodological difficulties related to subtler references and the fragmentariness of the Scrolls, but in most cases that will be discussed the use of Exodus motifs is clear, although the reasons for the usage might not always be discernible. The references have been placed in three sections in accordance with the way(s) the Exodus motifs are used: 1) Divine revelation concerning the coming Exodus, which is still a future event in a literary setting; 2) historical summaries and paraphrases that retell/reinterpret the Exodus events; 3) Exodus  as a prototype of divine justice where the focus is not on the Exodus events as such but rather on contemporary events interpreted through this prototypical event. There are a few additional short references that will not be discussed in detail. These include a short mention of Israel leaving Egypt forty years before the narrated events in 1Q22 II, 6 that serves simply to contextualise the following narrative, and possible references to the Exodus tradition without proper context, like the mention of something written concerning a Pharaoh in 4Q180 5–6, 5.3 Naturally, the fragmentariness of the Scrolls means that there are

1 For an assessment of these texts in relation to the main theories of textual transmission, see, for example, Hendel 2010, 281–302. For the reception of the Book of Exodus in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see White Crawford 2014, 305–321. 2 See also, for example, Doering 2014, 485–510; White Crawford 2014, 306–314; Wold 2007, 47–74. 3 Note also the mentions of Moses, Pharaoh, and Egypt in 4Q127 1, which indicate a probable use of the Exodus tradition that is otherwise unpreserved.

Exodus in the Dead Sea Scrolls

139

bound to be references to the Exodus tradition that have not been preserved, but the following discussion gives a fair indication of the surviving evidence. 2

Prominent Uses of Exodus Motifs in the Dead Sea Scrolls

2.1 Divine Revelation of Exodus Events The first type of usage of the Exodus tradition in the Dead Sea Scrolls is to prophesy the events in literary settings that predate them. There are three compositions that refer to the Exodus events in this way, viz., 4QRPa, Book of Giants, and the Visions of Amram. The use of Exod 15:17–18 in the Florilegium is similar to these cases in the sense that the Exodus passage is used as a prophecy, but there is a marked difference in that the Exodus passage concerning the building of a sanctuary is interpreted as a prophecy concerning days still to come, not as something that has already happened. 4QReworked Pentateucha (4Q158) is mostly a combination of previously known Pentateuchal passages, including Exodus traditions, but the section discussed here, 4Q158 14, 5–9, is not known from other existing versions and hence worth mentioning here.4 The context of the passage has not been preserved, but it is a direct divine revelation concerning the Exodus events that are still in the future from the perspective of the literary setting. It is probably uttered by God to one of the patriarchs, such as Abraham or Jacob. 5. there will be distress, and [ ] I will create in [ ] this yoke/power of Egypt. And I will redeem them 6. from their hand, and I will make for myself a people unto [everlasting] gen[erations] from Egypt. And [the descen]dants 7. of your children I[will cause to dwell] securely  [in the l]and for [and I will throw Egypt in] the heart of the sea, in the depths of 8. the deep. [ ]where they will dwell 9. In [b]oundaries (4Q158 14, 5–9)5 The passage deals with the main events of Exodus: the confirmation of the choice of Israel as God’s people, their deliverance from Egypt, the destruction of the Pharaoh and his charioteers, and the promise of the land. It is in line 4 Another passage worth mentioning that is not found in other extant witnesses of the Exodus tradition is the Song of Miriam in 4QRPc (4Q365 6aii+6c 1–7) that is substantially longer than the version known from other witnesses. Other passages in the RP manuscripts dealing with Exodus events can more easily be seen as versions of the general textual tradition also found in other extant witnesses (see White Crawford 2014, 306–311). 5 The edition and translation of 4Q158 follow Tov and White Crawford 1994, 187–351.

140

Pajunen

with similar prophecies concerning “biblical” events that were added especially to patriarchal narratives in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls and some of the Reworked Pentateuch texts.6 The next passage to be discussed is from the Enochic Book of Giants (4QEnGiantsfar), a passage found in the Book of Dreams. The passage is an allegorical vision of the future given to Enoch. And the ram led forth [all of the eleven sheep to live and to pasture with it] 17. beside the wolves and they [multiplied and became a flock of many sheep and the wolves] 18. began to oppress the flock [till they had cast each one of their young into a great stream] 19. to sink in the waters. Then [the sheep began to cry aloud on account of their little ones, and to  complain] 20. [to their Lord. And a] sheep which had been preserved [from the wolves fled and came to the wild asses and I watched, while] 21. [the flock lamented and cried terrib]ly till the Lord [of the sheep] descended [ (4Q206 4ii, 16–21) 13. [ ] the waters, [and it arose until it covered the wolves. 14. And  I looked until all the w]olves who were pursuing that floc[k perished,] 15. [sinking and drowning, and] the waters covered them over. But [the flock departed from] 16. [those waters, and] they [came] to a wilderness, a place where [there was no] 17. [water nor] grass, and their eyes were opened [and they saw. And I looked] 18. [until the Lord of the sheep was pasturing] them and He gave them water to drink 19. [and grass to eat. And the sheep] ascended to the sum[mit] of a certain high rock, and the Lord 20. [of the flock sent him to the flock], and they all stoo[d at a distance.] 21. [Then I looked and, behold, the Lord of the flock stood facing] the flock and [his] appearance was [strong (4Q206 4iii, 13–21)7 The passage is in effect a summary of the main Exodus events but in a prophetic allegorical vision rather than as a historical summary/paraphrase that is much more typical in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The preserved text first tells of the arrival in Egypt of Israel, referred to as sheep, their multiplying into a great people, and their oppression by the Egyptians (wolves). The text breaks off and resumes in the next column with the drowning of the wolves and continues with a depiction of the wilderness period up to the theophany at Sinai.

6 See, for example, Perrin 2015. 7 The edition and translation of 4Q206 4 follow Milik 1976.

Exodus in the Dead Sea Scrolls

141

The third example of prophetic revelations concerning the Exodus events is offered by the Visions of Amram (4Q543–549). As the extant title of the composition, “A Copy of the Book of the Words of the Visions of Amram”, reveals (4Q543 1, 1; 4Q545 2, 1), the main literary figure in the work is Amram, the father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. While the composition deals with some events in Amram’s own life, the main focus in the preserved parts is on prophetic dream visions given to Amram, and many of these appear to relate to the future of his children, especially Moses and Aaron (e.g., 4Q543 2a–b, 4–5; 4Q546 8, 1–5; 4Q546 10, 1–4). Unfortunately, these visions are very fragmentarily preserved, but they seem to refer to the election of Moses and Aaron, the miracles they will perform in Egypt before Pharaoh, and their role in leading the people in the wilderness.8 The final passage dealt with in this section is found in a thematic commentary, the Florilegium. A passage from the Song of the Sea (Exod 15) is used in the Florilegium as a prophecy concerning a future sanctuary. 2. This is the house which [he will build] for [him] in the latter days, as it is written in the book of 3. [Moses, ‘The sanctuary,] O Yahweh, which your hands have fashioned. Yahweh will reign for ever and ever.’ (Exod 15:17– 18) This (is) the house which these will not enter 4.] [for]ever, nor an Ammonite, a Moabite, a bastard, a foreigner, or a proselyte forever, for his holy ones (are) there. 5. [His glory shall] be revealed for[ev]er; it shall appear over it perpetually. And strangers shall lay it waste no more, as they formerly laid waste 6. the sanctua[ry of I]srael because of their sin (4Q174 1 I 21, 2–6)9 This is a different kind of use of the Exodus tradition than in the three previous examples, but it is linked to their utilisation of the tradition by connecting a part of the Exodus tradition with prophecy. Here, however, the Exodus events themselves are not prophesied but rather the Song of the Sea is treated as a prophecy. It highlights the different ways the Exodus narrative and the poetic song could be used. The Exodus events narrated in the Book of Exodus and similar compositions are typically treated as historical events that happened during the time of Moses. They could, thus, be predicted only prior to their unfolding whereas the Song of the Sea could be seen as prophetic and even as referring to events that have not yet come to pass in a much later historical setting. The use of psalms as prophecies was common in the late Second Temple 8 See also, White Crawford 2014, 315–317; Perrin 2015. 9 The edition and translation of 4Q174 follow Milgrom 2002, 248–263.

142

Pajunen

period and also the Song of Moses in Deut 32 is also used in a similar manner (Pajunen 2019, 264–276). This likewise shows that even while the Florilegium is using a passage from the Book of Exodus, it does not necessarily refer to the Exodus tradition. While it can be argued that the passage is introduced as deriving from a specific book, the passage in question and the Florilegium are discussing the sanctuary rather than the Exodus tradition and the probable reference to Moses is most likely related to his role as a mediator of divine revelation. This is a case that should not be classified as the use of an Exodus motif even though it is a quotation from the Book of Exodus and valuable for analyzing the reception of that composition. 2.2 Historical Summaries and Paraphrases The most numerous type of use of the Exodus motifs in the Dead Sea Scrolls are historical summaries or paraphrases that refer to aspects of the Exodus tradition as examples of God’s past deeds and as reminders of his promises to Israel. While the Exodus tradition is used in a similar manner in these compositions, each of them has its own agenda that affects what motifs are picked up and why, as is the case with similar summaries, for example, in Neh 9 or Pss 78; 105, and 106. While the preserved text in all the following cases suggests the use of specific motifs derived from the Exodus tradition, in most of them the exact reason for the usage cannot be assessed because too little remains of the overall context. The literary genres of these compositions are different as well, including prose narratives, liturgical prayers, wisdom admonitions, a prophetic oracle, and a rule text. The first exemplar, 4Q470, seems to be the only one of these cases where a summary of the Exodus, wilderness, and Sinai traditions is part of a prose narrative that is describing past events, rather than discussing them in explicit connection with a contemporary audience. It is, however, also the least well preserved of these compositions, only containing three small fragments, and it might well be that such a recontextualisation of the Exodus tradition is simply not preserved. Be that as it may, the mention of Zedekiah in 4Q470 1, 3 and 1, 5 probably indicates that either the Exodus tradition is referred to as an example of God’s past acts or the composition contained a summary covering a broad stretch of the people’s past. 4Q470 is fragmentary, but the mentions of a “pillar of fire” (cf. Exod 13:21–22), Moses writing according to God’s words, and Kadesh Barnea in subsequent lines (4Q470 3, 5–7) suggest that the first partly extant lines of fragment 3, mentioning people crying to heaven and God as a healer (cf. Exod 15:26) and helper of the people (4Q470 3, 3–4) probably refer to the Exodus tradition.

Exodus in the Dead Sea Scrolls

143

The second exemplar, 4Q422, is a slightly better-preserved composition that recounts the mighty deeds God has done for and against his chosen ones from the creation onwards, with the extant text breaking off after the mention of the final plagues on Egypt. The perspective of the composition is entirely on God, the miracles and deeds he has wrought and the reasons for them. Hence, the recollection of the Exodus tradition also retells how God sent Moses to the people, how God appeared in the burning bush, how he sent Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh and hardened the heart of Pharaoh in order to multiply the miracles and demonstrate them to the people of Israel (4Q422 III, 4–7, 11; cf. Exod 4:21; 7:3; 10:20; 11:10). In line with this emphasis on God’s deeds, 4Q422 likewise places a particular emphasis on describing the plagues, recounting nine of them (4Q422 III, 7–12).10 It is likely that the composition would also have brought up the miracle at the Red Sea because of the marked emphasis on God’s miraculous deeds. Unfortunately, the extant text does not reveal why exactly God’s miracles are retold, but since there are no signs of liturgical rubrics, it seems the composition might have been meant for didactic or admonitory use. The third exemplar, 4Q374, is another fragmentary composition with only one substantial fragment among altogether sixteen pieces. The genre of the text is unclear. Since God is referred to both with the third (e.g., 4Q374 2 II, 5–8, 9, 16) and second person singular (e.g., 4Q374 7 and 10) and an audience is addressed several times with the first person plural “us” (4Q374 2 II, 5 4, 3; 11, 2; 12, 2), the composition is probably either an admonition or a prayer/psalm text. However, no liturgical rubrics or specific wisdom terminology has been preserved so the genre and agenda of the composition remain doubtful. The use of the Exodus tradition is nevertheless clear on the only substantial fragment (4Q374 2, II, 6–10, 6–10). 6. [And] he made him as God over the mighty ones and a cause of reeli[ng] to Pharaoh [7. [(And)] they melted and their hearts trembled and th[ei]r inward parts dissolved. [But] he had compassion upon [8. And when he caused his face to shine upon them for healing, they strengthened [their] hearts again, and knowledge [9. And though no one had known you, they melted and tre[m]bled. They staggered at the s[ound of 10. ] to them  [ ] for deliverance [ ] (4Q374 2, II, 6–10)11 10 11

Only the plague of “boils” is missing in relation to MT-Exod. For the description of the plagues in 4Q422, see also White Crawford 2014, 317–318; Dahmen 2016, 240–242. For the Hebrew text of 4Q422, see Elgvin and Tov 1994, 417–442. The edition and translation of 4Q374 follow Newsom 1995b, 99–110.

144

Pajunen

The mention of Pharaoh in line 6 and its paraphrase of Exod 7:1 (White Crawford 2014, 319), coupled with a mention of God making a planting for his elect in the most desirable of lands in the preceding line (4Q374 2, II, 5), already suggest the Exodus events as the most plausible point of reference (cf. Dahmen 2016, 242–243). Furthermore, the concepts of divine compassion and healing as a response to the fear of the people in lines 7 and 8 likewise find counterparts in the Exodus tradition (cf. Exod 14:10–14; 14:31; 15:26; Pss 78:38; 103:3–4, 8) and the reference to “deliverance” at the end of the preserved text would encapsulate the Exodus as a whole. The fourth exemplar, 4Q392, is another poorly preserved composition that appears to reflect on the nature of God and his miraculous works in creation and history (esp. 4Q392, 1, 3–4, 7–8). It is in this sense somewhat similar to 4Q422, discussed above, that likewise focused on God’s miraculous deeds, including the creation and Exodus. The remains of a passage dealing with the Exodus are found in fragment 2. 1. [Phar]aoh his [h]eart [ ] 2. [ ] they [did not he]ed the signs and wonders [ ] 3. [such as n]o kingdom [has seen ]to this day, and [ ] 4. [from the land of Egypt ]without number, in the mighty waters [he] cu[t] a walking path [ ] 5. [   he made] him [si]nk in the depths like a sto[ne   ] (4Q392 2, 1–5)12 The fragmentary passage appears to begin with a mention of God hardening the heart of the Pharaoh (cf. Exod 4:21; 7:13; 10:20; 11:10) and to continue with a summary statement concerning the plagues, which Pharaoh and the Egyptians did not heed (lines 2–3). The remains of the final three lines seem to recount the people of Israel crossing the Red Sea and the drowning of Pharaoh. The composition, therefore, offers a rather concise description of the main Exodus events (cf. Dahmen 2016, 243–244). The remaining passage suggests that this composition pays particular attention to God’s deeds and their effects on the Egyptians. This makes the perspective of the account slightly different from the other summaries and paraphrases discussed above, which typically emphasise God’s deeds and relationship with the people of Israel. Too little remains of the composition, however, to draw conclusions from this observation concerning the overall work and its literary agenda. The final example from admonitory/wisdom texts comes from two connected compositions, 4QAdmonition on the Flood (4Q370) and 4QSapiential 12

The edition and translation of 4Q392 follow Falk 1999, 25–44.

Exodus in the Dead Sea Scrolls

145

Admonitions B (4Q185).13 It is probable that 4QAdmonition on the Flood was one of the sources of 4QSapiential Admonitions B and the shared brief passage dealing with the Exodus was one of the parts taken from 4Q370 by the writer of 4Q185 and edited for the purposes of that composition (Pajunen 2016, 333–353). The remaining parts of 4QAdmonition on the Flood have a thematic structure similar to 4Q392 and 4Q422, discussed above, in the sense that it begins with a recollection of the creation and flood traditions (4Q370 I) and after admonishments connected with these events and the choosing of Israel as God’s people (4Q370 II, 1–6; cf. esp. Ps 103:6, 12–18) it moves to a remembrance of the Exodus tradition (4Q370 II, 7–9). 4Q370 approaches these traditions from the perspectives of election: divine salvation and care, human rebellion, and consequent divine judgment. Only a few words remain of the 4Q370 passage dealing with the Exodus events. In light of the material remains of 4Q370 and the parallel passages in 4Q185, it seems the section on the Exodus began with a call to the audience to be humbled by the mighty deeds of God and to remember the wonders he performed in Egypt. This opening statement is then followed by an admonition concerning the dreadful deeds of God to the Egyptians, which should cause the heart to tremble (cf. Exod 14:31, 15:14–16), and the good mercies he in turn displayed to the Israelites (cf. Exod 15:13, Ps 106:7), which should make the soul rejoice. The wording of 4Q370 probably derives mostly from the form of the Exodus tradition in Ps 105. The Exodus tradition is employed in 4Q370 to remind the audience about the strength of God, both wonderful and terrible, and the need to act according to his commands. 4QSapiential Admonitions B retains the call to remember God’s mighty deeds in Egypt and to be humbled by them, but in the subsequent passage which in 4Q370 dealt more fully with these divine deeds, the original connection with the Exodus traditions has been severed in 4Q185. By subtle changes and additions the passage in 4Q185 has been changed to a more general admonition concerning behaviour expected of people when searching for the correct way of living, that is, fearing God, doing his will, and rejoicing in his abundant mercies. While both admonitions recall the Exodus tradition, they do it for different ends and, while 4Q370 firmly connects admonitions to the contemporary audience with the Exodus events, 4Q185 altered the message to a more general admonition on how to find prosperity.14

13 14

For the edition and translation of 4Q370, see Newsom 1995a, 85–98, and for the preliminary re-edition and translation of 4Q185, see Pajunen 2016, 338–346. For a more thorough treatment of these passages in 4Q185 and 4Q370, see Pajunen 2016, 333–353.

146

Pajunen

The next composition, 4QOrdinancesa (4Q159), is the only legal text among the examined compositions. It offers explanations on specific practical matters related to obeying God’s commandments. The reference to the Exodus is used as a reason why Israelites are not to labour alongside people of other nations. 2. And the nations shall [not] work with the se[ed of Israel for they are His servants whom He took out of the land of] 3. Egypt, and He commanded regarding them that [he] not be sold after the fashion of [s]laves. (4Q159 2–4+8, 2–3)15 The ordinance not to even labour with the other nations is based here on God’s election of Israel as his separate portion (e.g., Exod 4:22; 19:6) and their deliverance from Egypt. The Exodus tradition is also used in one prophetic composition among the Dead Sea Scrolls, 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah Cd (4Q389). The composition appears to consist of prophetic oracles written down by Jeremiah. The references to the Exodus tradition seem to be part of a possible longer summary of the history of Israel presented in God’s first person voice that extended to the monarchic period (see 4Q389 5) and the destruction of Judah (4Q389 6). This is, however, merely a possibility since the fragment, 4Q389 2, with connections to Exodus, wilderness, and conquest traditions does not extend beyond those events and the later events are possibly referred to only on two exceedingly small pieces. 2. and I ]raised your heads when I brought y[ou out of the land of Egypt   ] 3. [ ] to them and what they repaid me, and I carried them[ as a man carries his son until] 4. [they came to]Kadesh Barnea, and I said to them [ ] [ ] 5. [ ] upon them and I swore in [ ] 6. [ ] and their children I brought to the [land   ] 7. [ ] and I walked with them [ ] 8. [ ]forty years; and it came to pass [ ] (4Q389 2, 2–8)16 While the beginning of the passage probably refers to God electing Israel and bringing the people out of Egypt, the passage appears to focus most of all on the wilderness period and the mercy and faithfulness of God in contrast to the rebellious deeds of the people.

15 16

The arrangement of the fragments and text of 4Q159 as well as the translation follow Bernstein 2012, 33–51. The edition and translation of 4Q389 follow Dimant 2001, 219–234.

Exodus in the Dead Sea Scrolls

147

The final two compositions to be discussed in this section are liturgical prayer texts, the Festival Prayers (1Q34+1Q34bis, 4Q508, 4Q509) and the Words of the Luminaries (4Q504–506). The festival prayers are a collection of prayers that were, according to the few surviving titles, meant to be recited during the major festivals, like the Day of Atonement (1Q34 1+2, 6; for partial titles, see 4Q509 10ii, 8; 131–132ii, 5). It is not clear what festival the following passage referring to the Exodus tradition related to. 5. But in the time of Your goodwill You chose a people for Yourself, because You remembered Your covenant 6. So You [established] them, setting them apart from all the peoples as holy to Yourself. And You renewed Your covenant for them in a vision of Your glory and words of 7. Your holy [spirit], by the works of Your hands and the writing of Your right hand, in order to declare to them the precepts of glory, and the eternal works (1Q34+34bis 3, II, 5–7; par. 4Q509 97–98 I)17 The passage does not mention names of specific people, places, or events, like the crossing of the Red Sea or the plagues, which would explicitly connect it with the Exodus tradition. Nevertheless, the choosing of Israel as the people of God and setting them apart as holy link the passage firmly with Exodus (e.g., Exod 4:22; 19:6). Moreover, the subsequent (ll, 6–7) renewal of the covenant, description of a theophany, and declaration of precepts are describing events at Sinai, which further suggests the first lines of the passage are indeed referring to the Exodus tradition. The Words of the Luminaries is a collection of prose prayers directed to God. The mentions of a prayer for the fourth day (4Q504 XI, 8) and for the Sabbath day (4Q504 XX, 5) seem to indicate that the collection consisted of a prayer for each day of the week.18 The prayers stem from a sense of continued exile and plead for God to remember his merciful past acts on behalf of Israel and not to hold the sins of the past generations against the contemporary community.19 The prayers appear to roughly follow the “biblical” chronology of events, focusing on specific periods on different days of the week. The prayers do, however, frequently reflect on key matters, like the choice of Israel from among the nations, which leads to a certain amount of repetition of key 17 18 19

The English translation follows Wise, Abegg, and Cook 2005, which is based on the edition of Milik 1955, 136, 152–154. For the text and arrangement of the fragments of 4Q504 and an overall assessment of the content, see Chazon 1991a and 1991b. For the central role of the exilic experience in the Words of the Luminaries, see Penner 2016, 175–190.

148

Pajunen

motifs and short references to the Exodus tradition are found in some sections of most of the preserved prayers. It seems that the prayer for the first day dealt with the creation of humankind and their transgressions leading to the flood  (4Q504 I). The prayer focusing on the Exodus appears to have been for the second day of the week, creating the same continuity from creation to Exodus as was frequently found in the admonitions above. 6. Re]member, please, that all of us are Your people. ‘You have borne us miracu[lous]ly 7. [on] eagles’ [wings] and brought us to Yourself ’ (Exod 19:4). ‘As an eagle stirs up its nest, [and] 8. hovers [over its young;] as it spreads its wings, takes them up and bears them aloft on its [pinions’ (Deut 32:11).] 9. [ ] [so we] dwell apart and are not reckoned among the nations. [ ] 10. [O Lord,] it is You who is in our midst in a pillar of fire, who [appears to us] as a cloud; [ ] 11. [ ]Your [hol]iness goes before us, Your glory [dwells] among [us.] 12. [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] before Moses, [Your] serva[nt] 13. [ ]for You [ ] 14. [ ] and You certainly do not consider innoce[nt] 15. [ ] as a man rebukes[his son] 16. [ho]ly and pure one[s] 17. [‘by doing so,] one shall live in them’ (Lev 18:5; Ezek 20:11, 13, 21). [ ]  18. [the o]ath which [You] promi[sed] (4Q504 III, 6–18)20 It is noteworthy that the Words of the Luminaries includes a number of rather direct quotations of earlier compositions, which is rare in prayers and psalms that typically utilise allusions instead. The extant portion of the recollection of Exodus events begins with references to Exod 19:4 and Deut 32:11 that already suggest a context in the Exodus/wilderness period. Exod 19:4 is a summary reminder by God about what he did to the Egyptians and how he brought the Israelites to himself and Deut 32:11 continues in the same vein, adding the aspect of protection while maintaining the imagery of an eagle carrying its offspring from danger. Line 10 makes the point of reference more explicit by mentioning the pillar of fire and the cloud as God’s manifestations among his people during the Exodus (e.g., Exod 13:21–22). As the opening rubric of the passage already states, the emphasis is on the election of Israel from among the nations.21 The probable ending of this prayer (4Q504 V, 15) returns to this perspective on Exodus and the election of Israel by referring to Exod 19:6 (4Q504 V, 10) and the setting apart of Israel as a holy people of priests. As will be shown 20 21

The translations of the quoted passages from the Words of the Luminaries are from Wise, Abegg, and Cook 2005. For the use of the concepts of parental love and divine discipline in this context, see Penner 2016, 10–13.

Exodus in the Dead Sea Scrolls

149

below, the election of Israel is also the main point in the shorter references to the Exodus in several of the other prayers. The exact extent and scope of the following prayers are uncertain because they are so fragmentary, but the prayer of the third day may have continued to concentrate on the election of Israel both from the perspective of the Exodus events and as a continuity for God’s promises to the patriarchs (esp. 4Q504 VI, IX–X). The prayer for the fourth day (4Q504 XI–IV) focuses on the covenant made at Sinai, but no extant rubrics help distinguish between the prayers for the fifth and sixth day (4Q504 XIV, 9–XX, 4). It is possible that the prayer for the fifth day centred on the wilderness period following Sinai and the rebellious acts of the people and God’s anger and forgiveness (4Q504 XIV, 9–XVI), and the prayer for the sixth day on the election of David and Zion and the transgressions of the people leading to the current prolonged exilic state of the people (4Q504 XVII–XX 4). Regardless, the lone words left of the possible beginning of the prayer for the fifth day, “wonders” and “from Egypt” (4Q504 XIV, 10–11) point to some kind of recollection of the Exodus. The following passage deals with the rebellious acts of the people in the wilderness, Moses’ intercessory role, and God’s mercy, but the section ends in a plea to God to “Remember the wonders that You performed while the nations looked on – surely we have been called by Your name” (4Q504 XV, 12–13). In this context the wonders probably refer to the Exodus events. This conclusion is strengthened by another passage later in the composition that also refers to the nations looking on as God acts and explicitly refering to the Exodus: You have remembered Your covenant 11. whereby You brought us forth from Egypt while the nations looked on (4Q504 XVIII, 10–11) While the Words of the Luminaries preserves other instances that might have contained references to the Exodus tradition, these are mostly lone words without a context. An exception is the final passage to be brought up here, which begins an exhortation concerning God’s punishments of Israel as chastening caused by their special status as the elect people (4Q504 XVI, 4–21). 4. all the nations are [as not]hing compared to You; [as] naught, as a mere spectre in Your presence. 5. In Your name alone have we boasted, for we were created for Your glory. You have adopted 6. us in the sight of all the nations; indeed, You have called 7. [I]srael ‘My son, My firstborn’ (Exod 4:22), and You have chastened us as a man chastens 8. his child. You have raised vacat us through the years of our generations  (4Q504 XVI, 4–8).

150

Pajunen

This passage highlights the overall use of the Exodus tradition in the Words of the Luminaries. It is above all used as the paradigmatic event where God elected Israel from among the nations as his own. This election is brought up in various contexts, related to God’s acts of judgment and salvation, as a reminder that they are all reflections of this special covenant relationship between God and his elected people. The recollection of the Exodus tradition is frequently connected with a call to God to remember this covenant relationship and its beginnings, and to act in a similar saving manner in the contemporary exilic situation of the people. At the same time the calls to remember likewise stress and remind the community listening or uttering these prayers that they are God’s chosen people and that he will, hence, surely act on their behalf as he has done before. Exodus as a Prototype of Divine Justice 2.3 The final type of utilisation of Exodus motifs in the Dead Sea Scrolls is their use as prototypical events. This usage is based on a theological concept that God always acts in a similar, and hence predictable, manner both in his acts of salvation and of judgment. Therefore, events, like Exodus, are not only historical occurrences of divine interaction with his elect but can happen in a comparable manner also in recent, contemporary, or future events. In contrast to the previous types of usage, the focus of the compositions is not so much on Exodus as a historical event that is studied, recalled, and interpreted for various aims, but on how the Exodus as a prototype of salvation can provide understanding of recent, contemporary, and future events. To put it in another way, where the other compositions interpreted the Exodus events and their meaning, these compositions rather interpret other events through the prototype of the Exodus. While the following examples, with the possible exception of the Qumran Barkhi Nafshi hymns (4Q434–438),22 are all from compositions probably deriving from the Qumran movement, similar interpretations are found in writings of other roughly contemporary Jewish groups, like the Psalms of Solomon and the New Testament gospels and Paul’s letters (e.g., Pajunen 2017, 252–276). It is, therefore, not a mode of interpretation restricted to the Qumran movement and the reason for its rather exclusive use in the writings of the Qumran movement among the Dead Sea Scrolls is probably that it is a late Second Temple period interpretive tradition and the Qumran Caves did not contain recognisable group-specific writings of other contemporary Jewish groups. 22

For the difficulties in determining the provenance of the Barkhi Nafshi, see, e.g., Pajunen 2012, 355–376.

Exodus in the Dead Sea Scrolls

151

The most prominent examples of this type of interpretation are found in the Damascus Document (CD) and the Barkhi Nafshi hymns. The other possible examples of similar utilisation of Exodus motifs are more restricted and uncertain. In terms of literary genre, it is noteworthy that apart from the Damascus Document the potential cases are all found in psalm texts. The Damascus Document is a composite work.23 It is a combination of sections largely consisting of admonitions with theologically construed recollections of the past (CD I–VIII and XIX–XX) that frame a legal section  (CD IX–XVI).24 The situation of the Qumran movement described in CD is usually seen by scholars in terms of a voluntary exile in the “land of Damascus”  (cf. Knibb 1976, 260–263; Abegg 1997, 111–125; Dahmen 2016, 246–248; Wassen 2019, 142–145). It is, however, possible in light of the theological interpretation of scriptural passages and their juxtaposition with events in the Qumran movement’s past in the CD that the movement might rather have perceived itself to be on a second Exodus or the motifs of the Exodus and exile are at least combined. The subtle juxtaposition between the Exodus from Egypt and the Qumran movement’s situation is done through theological interpretation of Exodus, wilderness, and Sinai traditions and terminologically and thematically linking them with the experiences of the movement. There are two separate passages near the beginning of the Damascus Document that utilise the Exodus tradition: In Egypt their descendants lived by their willful heart, too obstinate to consult 6. the commandments of God, each one doing what was right in his own eyes. They even ate blood; and the men were exterminated 7. in the wilderness. (God commanded) them at Kadesh ‘Go up and possess (the land’; but they chose to follow the will of) their spirit; and they did not listen 8. to their Maker’s voice or the commandments of their teacher; instead they grumbled in their tents. So God became angry 9. with their company (CD III, 5–9; cf. 4Q269 2, 1–6) For in times past, God punished 16. their deeds and His wrath burned against their misdeeds, ‘for they are a people without insight’ (Isa 27:11); 17. they are a people wandering in counsel, ‘for there is no insight in them’ 23 24

For an introduction to the Cairo (CD) and Cave 4 manuscripts (4Q266–273) of the Damascus Document and the composite character of the literary work, see, for example, Hempel 2000. For methodological difficulties in using the CD for any attempts to reconstruct a history of the Qumran movement, see, e.g., Grossman, 2002; Fraade 2018, 412–428.

152

Pajunen

(Deut 32:28). For in times past 18. Moses and Aaron stood in the power of the Prince of Lights and Belial raised up Yannes and 19. his brother in his cunning 25 to Israel the first time (CD V, 15–19; par. 4Q266 3 II; 4Q267 2)26 Perhaps surprisingly, the saving acts of God during the Exodus are not recalled in these passages. The focus is instead on the sins of the people that, according to the first passage, began already in Egypt and were at least partially the reason why that generation was punished and died in the wilderness. The second passage similarly presents the people as sinful in deeds and having no insight and thus prone to the persuasion of Belial’s agents. The connection with the Exodus and wilderness traditions is established in the first passage by the mention of Egypt, a continuity with the preceding retelling of how Israel under the patriarchs came to be in Egypt, and the subsequent mention of Kadesh  (CD III, 1–9). The second passage establishes the connection with a reference to Moses, Aaron, and the use of Deut 32. The retelling of Israel’s history in the CD connected with the first passage continues with a short account of the continuing transgressions of the people and their subsequent punishment and extermination because they abandoned the covenant (CD III, 9–12). After this the CD turns to the faithful remnant, the Qumran movement, to whom God revealed the desires of his will, whose sins he atoned for (cf. CD IV, 9–10), and with whom he established an everlasting covenant (CD III, 12–21). This stark contrast between the actions of the first covenant community, beginning already in Egypt, and the second faithful community already reveals the interpretation that the people of the first covenant, all of Israel, and the second, the Qumran movement, are seen as parallels but opposite in their responses to the divine will. Similarly, the second passage is set in a context of listing perceived past and contemporary transgressions of God’s will by the people and especially by leaders who led them astray (esp. CD V, 6–VI, 2). The beginning of the second passage, which stresses the lack of insight of the people through passages from Isaiah and Deuteronomy, has its counterpart in the beginning of the next section that once more describes the beginnings of the Qumran movement (CD VI, 2–11). The section begins with a statement that God remembered his 25

26

It is not entirely clear in the manuscripts whether the preferred reading is ‫בהרשיע‏ ישראל‬ ‫“ את הראשונה‬when seeking to do evil to Israel for the first time” or ‫את בהושע‏ ישראל‬ ‫“ הראשונה‬when Israel was saved for the first time” or whether there was some variance regarding this in the manuscripts. The translation of CD follows Wise, Abegg, and Cook 1996.

Exodus in the Dead Sea Scrolls

153

covenant with the forefathers and raised insightful men from Aaron and wise ones from Israel (CD VI, 2) who then became the establishers of the Qumran movement (cf. God raising the Teacher of Righteousness in CD I, 10–11). This statement forms a stark contrast to the preceding passage. It highlights that from the beginning the people of the new covenant are more insightful and obedient than those of the first covenant, whose lack of insight began already with the Exodus generation (similar interpretations of the contemporary situation, utilising passages from Deuteronomy can also be found, for instance,  in CD VIII, 9–17). There are other significant (contrasting) parallels in CD between the Exodus generation and the Qumran movement. One of these is the reference to Moses as “their teacher” (‫ )יוריהם‬in the first of the above passages (CD III, 8). The same verbal root is used for the Teacher of Righteousness (‫)מורה צדק‬. While the Exodus generation is said not to have heeded Moses’ commandments, the Qumran movement is exhorted to follow the correct laws as mediated by the Teacher of Righteousness (e.g., CD XX, 28, 31–33). Another explicit connection is the quotation of Exod 20:6 that is used in relation to the Qumran movement, as those faithful to God who voluntarily left the sanctuary when it was, in their view, defiled by the people (CD XX, 21–24). Finally, the grumbling of the rebellious people that is said to have angered God in the first passage above seems to be related to how the sins of the people are depicted in CD I as deceitful acts and quarrelling that make God very angry (CD I, 21). There are further connections to the wilderness and Sinai traditions that could be explored in the future in connection with the depiction of the Exodus. For example, the concept of a new covenant (e.g., CD VI, 19; VIII, 21; XIX, 34;  XX, 12) naturally recalls the first covenant at Sinai, and the future expected by the movement appears to include inheriting the land, growing fat on its produce, and ruling all the inhabitants of the earth (e.g., CD I, 7–8; XX, 33–34), which relates to the Exodus and conquest traditions as well as the general expectations of what God grants to his elect.27 These are, however, connections with a wider array of traditions and not as firmly connected merely with the Exodus motifs. All in all, there seems to be enough juxtaposition in the CD between the Exodus, wilderness, and Sinai traditions and the past and present of the Qumran movement to suggest that the writers of D-traditions saw the departure of the movement from the defiled sanctuary as an Exodus type event led by the Teacher whom God has raised up for this purpose as he had done 27

For general expectations during the late Second Temple period concerning what God grants to his elect, including land and the power to rule, see Pajunen 2013.

154

Pajunen

with Moses during the Exodus. The new covenant in the land of Damascus, with its revelation of divine commandments pairs with the events at Sinai whereas the contemporary situation of the movement appears to parallel the wilderness period.28 The exodus of the Qumran movement just led them first away from Palestine and the present temple practices and into the wilderness of the peoples, before an expected return and restoration. But in contrast to the previous wilderness period the new covenant people are admonished to stay faithful during their time of trial. The expectation of the future gaining of the land together with the other parallels also suggests, that the “conquest” is still ahead whereas the second Exodus and Sinai events have at least in part  already happened. The rest of the sources where a similar prototypical usage of the Exodus tradition is found are psalm texts. The first of these, 4QBarkhi Nafshi hymns,29 are barkhi nafshi type hymns that praise different aspects and actions of God as they are seen to have manifested in the past, present, and expected future (Pajunen 2012, 355–376). I have elsewhere examined these hymns in more detail and shown that they express ideas linked with a Jewish group referring to themselves as the current elect of God (Pajunen 2017, 252–276). The people of Israel as a whole are not mentioned in these hymns. As with the Qumran movement, the Barkhi Nafshi community also has a perception of itself as performing the law correctly in front of men and God (4Q434 1, 1). The group appears to consider itself as the heir to the promises God made to Israel and to be in the midst of a second perfected Exodus. Prophecies have come true in their past, some are constantly in effect, like divine protection (cf. God’s and his angel’s protection and guidance of Israel during the Exodus) and an understanding provided by God, and it is the expectation of the group that other prophecies will continue to be fulfilled in their future. In relation to the CD passages discussed above, it is noteworthy that proper understanding given by God is stressed in these hymns. The Exodus tradition is not referred to explicitly in these hymns. It is rather implicitly juxtaposed with the community’s past and present experiences through a cluster of quotations and allusions to scriptural passages and a matching flow of events. This is particularly true of a hymn in 4Q434 1 that first tells how God has saved the community from among the peoples, then how he has led them to a place in the wilderness where his angel encamps 28 29

Also note the idea of the Qumran movement eventually returning from the “wilderness of the peoples” in 1QM I 3 and 4QpIsaa 2–6, 18. Cf. 1QS VIII, 13–14. For the official edition, see Weinfeld and Seely 1999, 255–334.

Exodus in the Dead Sea Scrolls

155

around them, and finally how God has revealed to them his ways during this journey. The hymn utilises and reinterprets passages from Ps 103 and Deut 29:3 to express a connection with the Exodus and wilderness tradition, presenting the past experiences of the group as a fulfillment of Deut 29:3. This imagery is further connected with prophecies predicting the end of the exile, like Isa 42:16 and Jer 33:6, which are also seen as recently fulfilled. The group, thus, represents its past and present experiences as a return from exile in the form of a second perfected Exodus.30 The next two examples offer more explicit juxtapositions of God’s acts during the Exodus with what he is going to do in the future. The passages are found in the War Scroll (1QM), which can be described as a rule text concerning the conducting of holy war within an eschatological framework of a predicted end-time war. The two passages are, however, not part of the rule sections or the battle descriptions. They are in hymns celebrating the expected acts of God during the end-time war in view of his past actions. The first reference to  Exodus is found in a hymn recounting God’s role in past military victories of the people. 9. You will do to them [i.e., the nations] as You did to Pharaoh 10. and the officers of his chariots in the Re[d] Sea. You will ignite the humble of spirit like a fiery torch of fire in a sheaf, consuming the wicked. You shall not turn back until 11. the annihilation of the guilty. (1Q33 XI, 9–11)31 The reference to God drowning Pharaoh and his chariot troops in the Red Sea during the Exodus is explicit in this passage. It is used as a parallel for the way God is expected to deal with the nations forming the horde of Belial during  the end-time war. It is further interpreted as an act that will inspire and strengthen the military efforts of the humble of spirit. The second reference is found at the very end of a hymn that rejoices in the election of the Sons of Light, that is, the Qumran movement (1QM XIII,  7–XIV 1). The beginning of the hymn mentions the covenant with the forefathers and the election of the people of Israel several times (1QM XIII, 7, 9). This forms a connection with the Exodus and Sinai traditions and may in part explain why the Exodus tradition is again recalled at the very end of the hymn.

30 31

For a more detailed analysis, see Pajunen 2017, 264–276. For the Hebrew text of 1QM, see Duhaime 1995, 80–203. The translations of the two passages from 1QM follow Wise, Abegg, and Cook 1996.

156

Pajunen

1. like the fire of His fury against the idols of Egypt. vacat (1Q33 XIV, 1) Unfortunately, the preceding lines of the hymn are mostly lost and cannot  provide a proper context for this reference. The hymn seems to be utilising the judgment of Egypt’s gods in Exod 12:12, which is likened to an event that  the broader context of the hymn suggests is a judgment that will happen in the expected future. The two final exemplars of the use of Exodus motifs are the most uncertain of the discussed cases. They are brought up here as examples of possible allusions to the Exodus tradition or some parts of it. The first of these passages is from 4QSongs of the Sageb (4Q511), which consists of a collection of hymns apparently used by the Qumran movement to ward off evil spirits. With the lyre of salvation 9. they [shall ope]n their mouths for God’s compassion. They shall seek His manna. vacat (4Q511 10, 10 8–9)32 The possible connection between the Exodus tradition and this passage is based solely on the mention of “manna”. Manna is firmly tied in with God providing for the Israelites during the wilderness period and the psalmist also expects manna to be provided for the upright and blameless in the future. With manna establishing some connection with the Exodus and wilderness traditions, the preceding mentions of salvation and God’s compassion could likewise be understood as references to (a future) Exodus. There are, however, no further connections in the hymn that would strengthen the likelihood of such a reference beyond a mere possibility. The second example of a possible allusion to the Exodus tradition is from the Qumran movement’s hodayot psalms. The hodayot psalms are full of allusions to scriptural passages, but they are used in a manner that makes the recognition of the allusions and their identification with a specific passage tenuous. However, individual hodayot psalms often contain clusters of possible allusions to a scriptural passage, which can strengthen such an identification (Hughes 2006). The wording indicates that there might be a possible allusion to Exod 15:26 in 1QHa X, 8–9. The main concept connecting the passages is the speaker as a “cure”, but in the Exodus passage the speaker is God whereas in the Hodayot it is the psalmist. A connection is, thus, doubtful. But the hodayot psalm deals 32

For the Hebrew text of 4Q511, see Baillet 1982, 219–261. The translation of the passages follows Wise, Abegg, and Cook 1996.

Exodus in the Dead Sea Scrolls

157

with a division between the rebellious and faithful and the psalmist having the role of a mediator of wonderful secrets (1QHa 4–19). The verbal roots used in the psalm for God setting (‫ )ותשימני‬the psalmist as a mediator in order to test (‫ )ולנסות‬the “lovers of discipline” are the same as in Exod 15:25 where God sets (‫ ) ָשׂם‬a statute and an ordinance and tests (‫ )נִ ָ ֽסּהוּ‬the people. In the context of the Exodus passages the people have just complained to Moses (Exod 15:24) and the words of God in Exod 15:26 express the idea that if the people heed God’s words, he will be their cure in contrast to the diseases he brought on to the Egyptians. There are, therefore, more possible connections between the hodayot psalm and the Exodus passage in terms of terminology and overall ideas than individual potential echoes. If there is a connection, the hodayot speaker would seem to compare his role as a mediator to that of Moses, but the parallels are not strong enough in this case to indicate more than a possible reflection and adaptation of the Exodus tradition. Careful study of this particular hodayot psalm, and similar cases in the Hodayot and other Dead Sea Scrolls might, however, be able to uncover further utilisations of the Exodus traditions that are more implicit than most of the examples discussed in this study.33 3

Brief Methodological Conclusions

When all the above discussed evidence and those mentioned briefly at the beginning, like scriptural, apocryphal, pseudepigrahic, and rewritten texts, are considered, the Dead Sea Scrolls offer a rich attestation of Exodus traditions. These texts represent variant literary editions of the Book of Exodus and a great variety of other texts in diverse literary genres, using the broader Exodus tradition in various ways. They range from long narratives of the Exodus events to summaries used in admonitions, a legal text, psalms and prayers, and prophetic oracles. This study has focused most of all on short references to Exodus motifs and summaries of the Exodus tradition. The examples were placed in three categories in accordance with the type of use. The first cluster of texts consisted of compositions using the Exodus tradition in a literary setting preceding the events. In these texts the tradition was referred to via prophecies predicting the Exodus. The second, and most numerous category, of cases was summaries and paraphrases that interpreted the Exodus from a variety of perspectives, for example, in connection with admonitions concerning divine deeds and miracles throughout the “biblical” history. The third and final 33

Such possible allusions to Exodus are listed in Lange and Weigold 2011.

158

Pajunen

group of compositions discussed used the Exodus as a prototypical event in interpreting more recent and present situations of late Second Temple period Jewish groups, especially the Qumran movement. These writings interpreted the experiences of their group as a second Exodus event and/or expected God to act similarly in the future as during the first Exodus. Methodologically, it is important to realise that if one had looked for long quotations or exact verbal parallels, much of the discussed usage of Exodus traditions would not have been discovered. Such exact parallels are essential for studying the reception and development of a specific literary work, but a tradition is much more than its individual representatives. For recognising the use of a tradition, proper names of people and places, key events related to these, and more indirect use of sources can be more important than exact equivalence of terms. It is, for instance, the nature of a summarising paraphrase that only rare words are exactly the same as in some other textual representative of a tradition, yet it is often clear that the same tradition is being used. For example, Ben Sira’s long Praise of the Ancestors is full of the use of scriptural traditions, yet one is hard pressed to pinpoint the exact source used for every event. In order to gain a more comprehensive idea of the types of usage and scope of an entire tradition, all such evidence needs to be taken into account. Naturally this means that each case must be separately justified as has been done in this study. Most of the examples covered in this study provide fairly straightforward and explicit references to the Exodus tradition even if the reasons for recalling the tradition are sometimes unrecoverable or need further discussion. But some cases, like the Florilegium and Hodayot passages, also provided much needed limits to what can be accounted a representation of a given tradition or when there is simply is not enough evidence to establish the use of a tradition beyond a mere possibility. The most uncertain cases were found in the category of prototypical use because such usage is often subtle rather than making a direct and explicit comparison. If proper names or other clear indicators relating specifically to the Exodus events are completely missing, the claims concerning the use of the tradition become more uncertain. A similar overall flow of events, the direct use of specific scriptural passages that tie such cases to a recognisable tradition, and the convergence of a number of such possible indicators of usage in a larger passage, make such a case stronger. However, there will always remain some cases where enough certainty cannot be gained and these will have to remain in the realm of possibility rather than probability.

Exodus in the Dead Sea Scrolls

159

Bibliography Abegg, Martin G. Jr. 1997. “Exile and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 111–125 in Exile. Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. Edited by James M. Scott. JSJ.S 56. Leiden: Brill. Baillet, Maurice. 1982. “511. Cantiques du Sage (ii).” Pages 219–261 in Qumrân Grotte 4, III: 4Q482–4Q520. Edited by Maurice Baillet. DJD VII. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bernstein, Moshe. 2012. “4Q159: Nomenclature, Text, Exegesis, Genre.” Pages 33–51 in The Mermaid and the Partridge. Essays from the Copenhagen Conference on Revising Texts from Cave Four. Edited by George Brooke and Jesper Høgenhaven. STDJ 96. Leiden: Brill. Chazon, Esther. 1991a. “4QDibHam: Liturgy or Literature?” RevQ 15: 447–456. Chazon, Esther. 1991b. “A Liturgical Document from Qumran and Its Implications. ‘Words of the Luminaries’ (4QDibHam) [Hebrew].” Diss. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Dahmen, Ulrich. 2016. “Das Exodus-Motiv in Qumran. Ein Negativbefund und seine Implikationen.” Pages 231–252 in Exodus. Rezeptionen in deuterokanonischer und frühjüdischer Literatur. Edited by Judith Gärtner and Barbara Schmitz. DCLS 32. Berlin: de Gruyter. Dimant, Devorah. 2001. “389. 4QApocryphon of Jeremiah Cd.” Pages 219–234 in Qumran Cave 4, XXI: Parabiblical Texts. Part 4: Pseudo-Prophetic Texts. Edited by Devorah Dimant DJD XXX. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Doering, Lutz. 2014. “The Reception of the Book of Exodus in the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 485–510 in The Book of Exodus. Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Thomas Dozeman, Craig A. Evans and Joel N. Lohr. VT.S 164. Leiden: Brill. Duhaime, Jean. 1995. “War Scroll.” Pages 80–203 in Damascus Document, War Scroll, and Related Documents. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Dead Sea Scrolls. Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Elgvin, Torleif and Tov, Emanuel. 1994. “422. 4QParaphrase of Genesis and Exodus.” Pages 417–442 in Qumran Cave 4. VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Edited by Harold Attridge et al. DJD XIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Falk, Daniel. 1999. “392. 4QWorks of God.” Pages 25–44 in Qumran Cave 4, XX. Poetical and Liturgical Texts. Part 2. Edited by Esther Chazon et al. DJD XXIX. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Fraade, Steven D. 2018. “History (?) in the Damascus Document.” DSD 25: 412–428. Grossman, Maxine L. 2002. Reading for History in the Damascus Document. A Methodological Study. STDJ 45. Leiden: Brill. Hempel, Charlotte. 2000. The Damascus Texts. Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

160

Pajunen

Hendel, Ron. 2010. “Assessing the Text‐Critical Theories of the Hebrew Bible after Qumran.” Pages 281–302 in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by John J. Collins and Timothy Lim. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hughes, Julie A. 2006. Scriptural Allusions and Exegesis in the Hodayot. STDJ 59. Leiden: Brill. Knibb, Michael. 1976. “The Exile in the Literature of the Intertestamental Period.” HeyJ 17: 253–272. Lange, Armin and Weigold, Matthias. 2011. Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Jewish Literature. JAJ.S 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Milgrom, Jacob. 2002. “Florilegium: A Midrash on 2 Samuel and Psalms 1–2 (4Q174 =  4QFlor).” Pages 248–263 in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 6b: Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents. Edited by James A. Charlesworth et al. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Milik, Józef T. 1955. “34. Recueil de prières liturgiques” and “34bis. Recueil de prières liturgiques.” Pages 136 and 152–154 in Qumran Cave 1. Edited by Dominique Barthélemy and Józef Milik. DJD I. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Milik, Józef T. 1976. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Newsom, Carol A. 1995a. “370. Admonition on the Flood.” Pages 85–98 in Qumran Cave 4, XIV: Parabiblical Texts. Part 2. Edited by Magen Broshi et al. DJD XIX. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Newsom, Carol A. 1995b. “374. 4QDiscourse on the Exodus/Conquest Tradition.” Pages 99–110 in Qumran Cave 4. XIV. Parabiblical Texts, Part 2. Edited by Magen Broshi et al. DJD XIX. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pajunen, Mika S. 2012. “From Poetic Structure to Historical Setting. Exploring the Background of the Barkhi Nafshi Hymns.” Pages 355–376 in Prayer and Poetry in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Essays in Honor of Eileen Schuller on the Occasion of Her 65th Birthday. Edited by Cecilia Wassen, Ken Penner, and Jeremy Penner. STDJ 98. Leiden: Brill. Pajunen, Mika S. 2013. The Land to the Elect and Justice for All. Reading Psalms in the Dead Sea Scrolls in Light of 4Q381. JAJ.S 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Pajunen, Mika S. 2016. “Creating a Synthesis of Torah-centered and Proverbial Admonitions. The Direction and Significance of the Textual Connection between 4Q185 and 4Q370.” JAJ 7: 333–353. Pajunen, Mika S. 2017. “Exodus and Exile as Prototypes of Justice. Prophecies in the Psalms of Solomon and the Barkhi Nafshi Hymns.” Pages 252–276 in Functions of Psalms and Prayers in the Late Second Temple Period. Edited by Mika S. Pajunen and Jeremy Penner. BZAW 486. Berlin: de Gruyter. Pajunen, Mika S. 2019. “Differentiation of Form, Theme, and Changing Functions in Psalms and Prayers.” SJOT 33: 264–276.

Exodus in the Dead Sea Scrolls

161

Penner, Jeremy. 2016. “The Words of the Luminaries as a Meditation on the Exile.” RevQ 28: 175–190. Perrin, Andrew B. 2015. The Dynamics of Dream – Vision Revelation in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls. JAJ.S 19. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Tov, Emanuel. 2008. “The Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert.” Pages 128–154 in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible and Qumran. Collected Essays. TSA 121. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Tov, Emanuel and White Crawford, Sidnie. 1994. “Reworked Pentateuch.” Pages 187–351 in Qumran Cave 4, VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Edited by Harold Attridge et al.  DJD XIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wassen, Cecilia. 2019. “The Damascus Document (D).” Pages 142–145 in T&T Clark Companion to of Second Temple Judaism, Vol. 1. Edited by Daniel Gurtner and Loren  T. Stuckenbruck. London: T&T Clark. Weinfeld, Moshe and Seely, David. 1999. “434–438. 4QBarkhi Nafshia-e.” Pages 255–334 in Qumran Cave 4. XX: Poetical and Liturgical Texts. Part 2. Edited by Esther Chazon et al. DJD 29. Oxford: Clarendon Press. White Crawford, Sidnie. 2014. “Exodus in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 305–321 in The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B.  Dozeman and Craig A. Evans and Joel N. Lohr. VT.S 164. Leiden: Brill. Wise, Michael; Abegg, Martin and Cook, Edward. 1996. The Dead Sea Scrolls. A New Translation. San Francisco: Harper Collins. Wise, Michael; Abegg, Martin and Cook, Edward. 2005. “1QLiturgical Prayersa,b,” and “4QDibHama.” in Dead Sea Scrolls Reader 5. Poetic and Liturgical Texts. Edited by Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov. Leiden: Brill. Wold, Benjamin G. 2007. “Memory in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Exodus, Creation and Cosmos.” Pages 47–74 in Memory in the Bible and Antiquity: The Fifth DurhamTübingen Research Symposium (Durham, September 2004). Edited by Stephen C.  Barton, Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Benjamin G. Wold. WUNT 1.212. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Chapter 8

Josephus and the Exodus Erkki Koskenniemi 1

The Exodus in Josephus – General Considerations

The pleasant call to write about the Exodus in Josephus means first defining what is meant by the term “Exodus”. Does it refer to the topic of leaving Egypt, such a central theme in Philo’s works, or does it refer to a particular passage in Scripture? If the passage is meant, how extensive is the passage referred to: is it, for example, only the moment when Israel left Egypt, i.e. what is told in Exod 12:37–42, or a broader passage, Exod 4–15 or even 1–15; or does it refer to the entire journey from servitude to the Land of Canaan? Texts addressed in this volume certainly call on various kinds of approaches. In this contribution I present how Josephus retells the stories of Exod 1–15, but also ask what the topic of Exodus meant to him. This means that the figure of Moses must also be briefly treated here. Although he does not appear as legislator in Exod 1–15, these chapters do cover the early phases of his life and the triumph of his leading Israel out from Egypt. Louis H. Feldman, the most famous of all Josephus scholars of the previous century, collected much of his work in two massive volumes published in 1998, including a chapter on Moses.1 The second contribution by him (Feldman 2000) that must be mentioned here is his translation and commentary on the passage in question. Although I fully acknowledge the immense knowledge of the great scholar, I have also criticised his work, both for the methodology he employed and the content.2 He has presented some great ideals and intentions, according to which Josephus allegedly reshaped his biblical figures, including Moses. In my opinion, however, we should determine those passages

1 Feldman 1998, 376–460. See a comprehensive list of secondary literature on Moses in Josephus until 1987 on p. 376. 2 See Koskenniemi 2005, 229–230; Koskenniemi 2019, 18; see also Roncace 2000, 247–274 and Begg 1996, 69–110.

© Erkki Koskenniemi, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471122_010

Josephus and the Exodus

163

in which Josephus clearly deviates from the biblical original, and it is precisely there that the question as to how much he took from Hellenistic and Jewish traditions and how much was his own original thought must be asked. This kind of approach was by no means alien to Feldman, whose translations and commentaries include a vast amount of precious details, partly collected by his predecessors, concerning the Exodus especially in his translation and commentary (2000) mentioned above. The term “Rewritten Bible” was first used by Geza Vermes, but several scholars have worked on this area since then as well as prior to that. Although there have been discussions about the terms and the methods used, the research has taken long steps and this approach should now belong to the toolbox of every early Jewish scholar (Koskenniemi and Lindqvist 2008, 11–39; 2014, 27–50). When reshaping their sacred texts in rewritten stories, reworked psalms, legal texts or in their interpretations, firstly Jewish and subsequently Christian writers knowingly and unconsciously revealed something of their own views, situation and society. Josephus’ passage on the Exodus is, from the start, full of additions and changes, but it is not so far from the biblical original that it is impossible to trace the changes. It would be wise also here to follow the manner of Jacques van Ruiten, who put the biblical original and the story of Jubilees in parallel columns and developed a system to present the changes in detail (van Ruiten 2004, 29–46, esp. 31–33). Unlike Artapanus, for example, Josephus at least sometimes allows this kind of comparison. In this chapter, however, space constraints prevent the use of such columns. Josephus certainly had predecessors and he rows in a broad river of midrashic tradition. It is precisely here that the problems start. There was a time when scholars used rabbinic sources and thought that they were well aware of the traditions of the rabbis in the first Christian century. The Neusnerian revolution not only impacted research into the Gospels but also all older secondary literature on Josephus. Luckily we have many early Jewish works which we can date – at least roughly – and that is why the Book of Jubilees, Ezekiel the Tragedian, Artapanus and Philo, for example, play a great role when defining the flow of the traditions of the Exodus. Many details written down later, however, may also reveal something of what had been circulated earlier among Jews. The stories of the Exodus were retold in numerous versions containing surprising details. We only know a fragment of this immense tradition, and even if Josephus happens to tell us something we know of from earlier or later texts, we often have more questions rather than certain answers.

164 2

Koskenniemi

Josephus’ Version of the Exodus

The main passage where Josephus retells the events of the Exod 1–15 is Ant. 2:201–349. Although his texts mostly allow a detailed comparison, the stories of the sad slavery and the birth of Moses in particular differ from the biblical original. Josephus starts by giving a very negative picture of the Egyptians as a nation compared to the Hebrews (Ant. 2:201–204) and specifies the hard (and skilful) work the Hebrews had to do in Egypt (Ant. 2:203–204). The reason for killing the sons of the Hebrews was a prophecy by an Egyptian hierogrammateus,3 according to which a son born to them would destroy the Egyptians (Ant. 2:205).4 Moses’ father Amram is portrayed as a noble Hebrew as are so many of Josephus’ biblical figures.5 This is true also of Moses in later sources (Sifre Numbers 67, Exod. Rab. 1:8), and Josephus adds the detail of how God appeared to him in a nightly vision,6 telling him what had happened and what was going to happen (Ant. 2:212–216).7 Josephus here characterises Moses using extraordinary words (Ant. 2:216). Unlike in Exodus, the midwives were Egyptians and did not spare any children (Ant. 2:207), but Moses’ easy birth helped Jochebed to escape the watchers (Ant. 2:217–218).8 By putting the child into the basket the parents showed how much they relied on God (Ant. 2:219– 223). Pharaoh’s daughter, whom Josephus calls Thermuthis (Θέρμουθις),9 admired the size and beauty of the child, and because the child refused the breasts of Egyptian women, Miriam was able to bring his mother to nurture him (Ant. 2:224–227). Moses was not only intelligent but also such a beautiful child that people seeing him on the road forgot what they were doing and only gazed at him (Ant. 2:228–231).

3 The rabbinic tradition similar to this detail (Tg. Ps.-J. 1:15) is documented late; see Feldman 1998, 188–189. 4 Unlike Exodus, Josephus does not speak about daughters born to Hebrews, and he does not even hint at the possibility that they were raised to be misused by Egyptians, like L.A.B. does. Moreover, he does not speak about the duty to procreate even in desperate situations, like L.A.B. 27:7. 5 See, for example, Ant. 5:276 (Samson) and Feldman 1998, 378. 6 The birth of a famous man was often announced before his birth, although our sources are not very old; see Diogenes Laertius 3.2 on Plato, and Hist. Alex. Magni 1.4.8 on Alexander and Philostratus VA 1:4–6 and Ant. 45 on Apollonius and Koskenniemi 1994, 190–193. 7 Visions prophesying the birth of a great man were common in classical antiquity, but this is unique in Josephus (Feldman 1998, 379). Moses’ birth is prophesied by Miriam in L.A.B. 9:10. 8 Cf. Apollo’s birth in Theognis, 1.5–10; Callimachus 4:249–259. 9 Ant. 47:5 calls her Tharmuth and Artapanus 3:3 Merris.

Josephus and the Exodus

165

Thermuthis, who was childless,10 adopted Moses and he was to be the heir to the throne. When she showed the child to his father, however, Moses took the diadem and trampled it under his feet.11 The hierogrammateus immediately understood that this was the child promised to the Hebrews, and Moses narrowly escaped death (Ant. 2:232–237; Koskenniemi 2008, 281–296). A major addition is the unit telling how Moses acted as a successful general against the Ethiopians, who had attacked Egypt, and finally married their princess named Tharbis (Ant. 2:238–253). This passage has parallels in tradition, and the extensive addition requires closer attention in this contribution. The reason for Moses’ escape, according to Josephus, was not that he killed an Egyptian (Exod 2:11–15),12 which is omitted, but rather the Egyptians’ plot to catch and kill their benefactor. He subsequently escaped to the city of Madiane, called so after the son of Keturah,13 i.e. not to the land of Midian (Ant. 3:254– 257, cf. Exod 2:15), where Jethro adopted him and gave his daughter to him (Ant. 3:263) – here Josephus does not say a word about intermarriage, apparently because he considered the inhabitants offspring of Abraham. Curiously enough, that Jethro is a priest (Ant. 2:258) is not a problem for him either. The vision in the burning bush and the miracles were slightly modified in many ways (Ant. 2:264–276). The theophany is not described as accurately as in Exodus, and, as is often the case in early Jewish texts, God is reduced to a divine voice and the form of dialogue is reduced. Moses, however, meets God and not only receives a prophecy. Moses’ rod becomes a serpent, but he is not afraid of it, and although his hand turns white, Josephus does not say that it was leprous.14 Moses not only hears about the water turning to blood but, unlike in Exod 4, also performs the miracle himself. He is not as reluctant as in the original – his missing eloquence, for example, is reduced to problems with finding the right words to convince his own people – and above all, the way to Egypt is a military campaign from very beginning (Ant. 2:268). The event in Exod 4:24–26 is omitted. 10 11 12 13 14

Cf. also 2:232, where Josephus tells that the childless princess Thermuthis had been worried about the succession. Philo (Mos. 1:13) also knows the tradition. The later rabbinic literature knows the same story; see Exod.Rab. 1:26; Deut.Rab. 11:10 and Feldman 1998, 382–383; 2000, 198–199. In Artapanus Moses kills a man sent by the Pharaoh in self-defence (3.18). Josephus makes the sons of Keturah mighty men and colonists to exaggerate Abraham’s reputation, see Ant. 1:238–241. The ugly versions of Exodus claimed that the Egyptians threw out leprous people, the ancestors of the Hebrews (see below, pp. 168–170). This has caused scholars to pay special attention to all passages in which either the biblical original or Josephus speak about this disease. It should, however, be observed that LXX already says ὡσεί χιών, see Koskenniemi 2005, 235.

166

Koskenniemi

Moses goes to Pharaoh, offers his credentials, his merits in the war against the Ethiopians, and the miracle of the snake God attributed to him at the burning bush is used to beat the Egyptian sorcerers (Ant. 2:281–287) – the biblical original says nothing of the miracles during the first meeting (Exod 5) and apparently Josephus has mainly dropped this meeting and mixed parts of it with the next (Exod 7). He omitted God’s speech to Moses and the genealogy of Moses and Aaron (Exod 6) and after telling about the meeting Josephus returns to Exod 5 and the hardened labour of the Hebrews (Ant. 2:288–290).15 Josephus promises to retell the plagues as they are told in the Scriptures in order to show the extent of calamities and that Moses never failed in his predictions, as well as to teach that people should not provoke the Deity (to theion) and cause his wrath (Ant. 2:293). In actuality, Josephus changes a lot of the detail, especially by expanding and exaggerating the calamities, and even, curiously, dropping the fifth plague (pestilence in livestock, Exod 9:1–6). He consistently removes God’s words to Moses before each affliction, either because he wanted to avoid anthropomorphism or simply because he intended to shorten the story. He exaggerates the first plague of the water, where Moses does not meet the Pharaoh and Aaron does not use his rod, making it cause tortures and excruciating pain, and adds that the water was sweet to the Israelites16 and that Pharaoh was ready to let Israel go. Josephus here, as elsewhere in the stories of the plagues (cf. Exod 8:3; 8:14; 9:11) drops the Egyptian sorcerers (Ant. 2:294–295; cf. Exod 7:14–24). The second plague, frogs, is retold with some new details. Aaron’s rod is not mentioned and Moses makes the frogs disappear immediately, although in Exodus this happens the following day (Ant. 2:296–299; cf. Exod 7:25–8:11). During the third plague, lice (‫כנם‬, LXX σκνῖφες, in Josephus φθειρῶν … ἄπειρόν τι πλῆθος), Pharaoh was ready to send out the men but not their wives and children; Josephus here again omits Aaron’s rod (Ant. 2:300–302; cf. Exod 8:12–15). The somewhat enigmatic fourth plague (Ant. 2:303; Exod 8:16–32), according to the Hebrew text ‫עבר‬, and the Septuagint κυνόμυια, is rendered very briefly by Josephus, who uses the words θηρίων γὰρ παντοίων καὶ πολυτρόπων – many Jewish sources share the view that they were not ordinary insects.17 As already stated, the plague on livestock (Exod 9:1–7) is completely omitted, and Josephus presents the next one, boils (Ant. 2:304–305; cf Exod 9:8–12) very briefly, omitting the manner in which Moses causes the calamity as well as the Egyptian sorcerers, but exaggerating the disaster which lead to the death of many Egyptians. Similarly, although 15 16 17

On smaller changes and the reduction of Aaron’s role, see Koskenniemi 2005, 235–237. The same detail in Philo, Mos. 1:26, 144 and in Deut. Rab. 3:8. See Artapanus 3:31; Philo, Mos. 1:130–132; L.A.B. 10:1.

Josephus and the Exodus

167

Josephus retells the plague of hail, he renders both this plague (Ant. 2:305; cf. Exod 9:13–35) and the one of locusts (Ant. 2:306; cf. Exod 10:1–20) in only one sentence, leaving much out. When presenting the plague of darkness (Ant. 2:307–310; cf. Exod 10:21–29) Josephus reverses the events of the original, placing the meeting between Moses and the Pharaoh before the darkness, adds traditional elements to the disaster18 and makes the servants of the Pharaoh ask him to give up; moreover, he deletes Moses’ words that they did not know what they were going to sacrifice.19 Josephus only briefly summarises the last plague, the death of the firstborn (Ant. 2:311–314; cf. Exod 11:1–12:42). Most of the rulings concerning the Passover and the redemption of the firstborn, given extensively in Exod 12:43–13:16, are simply omitted, although a little later on Josephus does render parts of the stories, such as the date of the Exodus and reason for the unleavened bread (Ant. 2:316–319). Exodus recounts how God did not lead the people by way of the land of the Philistines, because God said “If the people face war, they may change their minds and return to Egypt” (Exod 13:17). In Josephus what was God’s thought is presented as Moses’ well-reflected plan (Ant. 2:322–323), and this has its reasons.20 Like several other writers he makes the Israelites leave Egypt unarmed (Ant 2:326).21 He also omitted the pillar of cloud and fire (Exod 13:21– 22). In general, he rewrites the biblical story of the Israelites wandering out from Egypt and the Egyptians following them until the Red Sea as an act in military history. When describing this miracle he leaves aside many details (such as God’s angel and the pillar of cloud in Exod 14:19–20 and God’s looking upon the Egyptians and their fear in 14:19, 24),22 but adds dramatic elements, e.g. the fear of the women and children, and especially Moses’ long speech 18 19 20 21

22

On the unnatural features of the darkness, see Koskenniemi 2005, 238. The reason for this omission might be the negative versions of Jewish cult, see Koskenniemi 2005, 239–240. On Josephus’ general intention, see further below. The nation was certainly armed in the battle against Amalek, but several writers state that it left Egypt unarmed. Demetrius the Chronographer (Fr. 5) shows that this detail was discussed among early Jewish scholars. The reason for different tradition is the text of Exod 13:18, where the Hebrew text has ‫ ֲח ֻמ ִ ׁ֛שים‬, but the Septuagint πέμπτη δὲ γενεὰ. Consequently, both Ezekiel the Tragedian (Exag. 210) and Philo (Mos. 1:170, 172, 174) follow the Greek version, making the Hebrews leave Egypt unarmed, but according to L.A.B. 10:3 part of the tribes were ready to fight and interestingly Josephus follows here the Septuagint or the Hebrew text used by translators, and explains later (Ant. 2:349) how Israel miraculously got the weapons off the drowned Egyptian army. No Jewish text renders the miracle on the Red Sea accurately following the original, and actually, the biblical story includes so much detail that it makes the deviations easy to understand. Josephus also takes much freedom. On details in Ezekiel, Artapanus, Philo and L.A.B., see Koskenniemi 2005, 75, 105, 119 and 194.

168

Koskenniemi

and prayer (Ant. 2:329–337). Josephus combines Ps 77:16–20 with the story of the Exodus, adding lightning and thunder to the events. After the extinction of the Egyptians the Hebrews cheered the whole night, and Moses himself composed a praise of God in hexameter verse (Ant. 2:346) – Josephus here, as elsewhere (see Ant. 4:303), may refer to hymns preserved within the Temple (Thackeray 1929, 90–91). He recounts that the tide brought them the Egyptian army’s weapons (Ant. 2:349), and when referring to Alexander’s conquest he gives a parallel for the miraculous event. The rest of the journey to the Land is not treated in this article, but it should be noted that Josephus summarises the Torah in an extensive passage both in Antiquities and Apion. To put it briefly, Josephus changes a lot in his account, in particular by adding details and even whole episodes, e.g. when he describes Amram and Jochebed, or the prophecy of the hierogrammateus, and also by adding a long passage about the war against the Ethiopians. He only drops a few episodes, including Moses killing the Egyptian and one of the nine plagues. All in all, he mainly retells what was told in Exod 1–15. The numerous changes and additions call, however, for a closer look at these details and for a definition of the general lines in Josephus’ presentation. 3

Hellenised (?) Exodus, Hellenised (?) Moses?

Josephus is, with Philo, the only Jewish writer whose works have been preserved so extensively. Understandably, scholars have seen several “Hellenisations” in his works, both in form and in content. Opinions on his place in the Greek world and his secular education have varied greatly during the last century. The contribution of G. Hölscher in PRE shows the older opinion: Josephus was, according to him, a noble Jew living in a purely Jewish Jerusalem, almost completely lacking a Greek education (Hölscher 1916, 1934–2000). Martin Hengel’s monumental Judaism and Hellenism turned the tide, however, and demonstrated that Jerusalem was a city where it was indeed possible to get a good secular education. Over subsequent decades, Josephus’ skills in Greek literature and culture were considered to have been better and better. While some scholars continued to believe that Josephus was by no means an expert in Greek culture (Rajak 1993, 47–49), he has often been (wrongly) considered as having been a diplomat, who certainly had received a very good secular education (Landau 2006, 17; Mason 2016, 13–35).23 The key player here was Feldman, 23

The sources, however, do not say that Josephus was “sent” to Rome and still less that he had worked as a diplomat: Josephus only wrote εἰς Ῥώμην μοι συνέπεσεν ἀναβῆναι (Life 13), and

Josephus and the Exodus

169

who presented how Josephus allegedly modelled the biblical figures according to Hellenistic ideals. When writing on biblical heroes Feldman refers to many Greek and sometimes even Latin texts to show how Josephus has, when retelling the biblical stories, allegedly alluded to texts well-known to his Greek readers.24 Moreover, Feldman tries to show how Josephus reshaped his heroes according to the cardinal virtues (wisdom, courage, temperance and justice) to make them more palatable to a broader audience. I have in my recent monograph (Koskenniemi 2019) tried to take several steps towards the older opinion: while it is indeed true, as Hengel has shown, that the Jews had learned to live in contact with the Greeks since Alexander and, moreover, that it was fully possible to study Greek culture in Jerusalem quite thoroughly,25 Josephus’ works show little acquaintance with Greek writers and philosophers. Unlike Philo, he rarely quotes or refers to Greek poets or philosophers, and when he does happen to do so, he often does it strangely. He was a considerable way off from Philo, the great expert, and was not even able to write his works in Greek without help.26 If this view is adopted, it also influences our view of how “Hellenised” Moses was in Josephus. As previously stated, Josephus rarely refers to Greek writers,27 but there is one exception here: he does refer to and quote Greek historians, and it is also

24

25

26

27

he may, as Feldman notes, have gone to Rome on his own initiative (Feldman, “Josephus” [CHJ], 902). For a good example of this kind of alleged allusion see Feldman 1998, 440: Pharaoh’s daughter playing by the river bank (Ant. 2:224) “is reminiscent of the similar scene describing Nausicaa on the shore of Phaeacia in Homer’s Odyssey (6.100ff)”. Moreover, Feldman claims the influence of irony in Greek tragedy (notably in Sophocles’ Oedipus the King) when Josephus points out that very persons who had tried to kill all Hebrew children were made to nourish him (Ant. 2:225). In my opinion, in these passages Josephus does not deviate much from the biblical original. The options were good at least from Herodes’ time, but it is nonsense to make Jerusalem compete with the greatest centres around the best scholars of Alexandria which allegedly had lost its attraction among intellectuals as Rocca 2008, 91–94 claims. Herod sent his own sons to be educated elsewhere, and although Rome was not chosen because it was better than Rhodes, Ephesus or Athens, Jerusalem was as a place of education miles off from all these cities. Scholars have estimated the role of this help differently: for some it has been only friendly, colloquial help, but others have attributed Josephus’ assistants with a more substantial role. The evidence shows, in my opinion, that after decades Josephus needed still help in his literary work, see Koskenniemi 2019, 283–289. Actually, Josephus, when writing on Exodus in Antiquities, only once refers to classical texts, i.e. when comparing the miracle on the Red Sea to events when Alexander crossed the Pamphylian Sea and God wanted to let the Persian Empire fall (Ant. 2:347–348). Josephus knew the tradition, either from Arrian 1.6 or from some other source.

170

Koskenniemi

clear that he used their works much more than we can determine.28 It is precisely here that we should appreciate both his talent and his sedulous work throughout his decades in Rome. Scholars have traditionally tried to define the position Josephus holds among Hellenistic historians. By modern standards, Josephus is neither the best nor the worst kind of Greek historian we know.29 He often deflects his sources and makes them say what he was willing to see, but as far as we know he never forged a document or knowingly referred to a spurious work (Pucci ben Zeev 1998, 368–373). As seen above, he does not discard any major story of Moses. It is clear, however, that he did reshape Moses and the Exodus following Greek ideals. This intention, however, also had its limits; many Hellenistic virtues, such as the cardinal virtues (wisdom, courage, temperance and justice), are and were primarily global, and thus they were by no means alien to the Hebrew Scriptures. No wonder, then, that Josephus described Moses and Abraham as figures filled with wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. What was the alternative to that? Feldman, however, describes the ideal of a Hellenistic hero as follows: In general, the Hellenistic hero had to be a philosopher-king in the Platonic style, a high priest, a prophet, and a veritable Pericles as described by Thucydides.30 It is a little unclear whether Feldman describes the end result of Josephus’ Moses here or an ideal figure in general, but the latter seems more probable. If this interpretation is correct, is there any historical figure that does fit the ideal? The greatest Hellenistic hero was Alexander, and he does not meet the standards, and Socrates, for example, is not even close to reaching them either. If the first alternative is correct, on the other hand, then Feldman first sets the goal and then presents the way to this goal, and this is rather problematic. A good example of the Hellenisation of Moses among Jews is what they say about his education. Exodus has not a word to say about it, but Philo, in 28 29

30

Scholars have long considered Nicolaus of Damascus to be Josephus’ main source of information about Herod’s times, and Tessa Rajak, for example, aptly says that Josephus was at pains to separate himself from Nicolaus; see Rajak 2007, 23–29. It would not be fair to compare Josephus to Thucydides only. The manners of Greek historians varied from works scholars honour still today, of which Thucydides is a good example, to historically worthless compilations, e.g. when Philostratus writes about how Apollonius met Nero and Domitian. This is also true concerning Jewish writers, such as Philo, who wrote about events in Alexandria and Rome, and Artapanus, who wrote about Abraham and Moses. Feldman 1998, 377.

Josephus and the Exodus

171

particular, extensively writes about Moses’ training and according to allegory he took stories from Abraham, gives him children from Hagar, i.e. secular wisdom, and from Sarah, i.e. the Torah.31 Josephus, like some other writers, has no word about Moses’ secular education. LCL translates in Ant. 2:236 that he was “educated with utmost care”, but because the word etrefeto may not include studies, Feldman translates correctly: “he received much care”. Josephus did not link Moses to the schools he himself had not visited. Some other features fit the idea that Josephus has Hellenised his heroes much better. Above all, Moses was a great statesman, general and rhetorician. Although the Hebrew tradition greatly appreciated wisdom, there was no direct equivalent for the Greek word “philosopher”. Although Josephus’ Moses easily surpasses all Greek philosophers, who had only copied his ideas, his Hellenized Moses is nonetheless a statesman. Josephus presents the mutiny of Korah (Num 16:1–17:31) extensively, and as a terrible revolt a statesman sometimes must face (Ant. 4:11–66). It was, however, the Hebrew πολιτεία in particular that was Moses’ masterpiece. Josephus summarises the Law and customs in Ant. 4:196–301 and Ag. Ap. 2:145–286. Especially in Apion Josephus makes Moses triumph easily over all the famous legislators (“Lycurguses, and Solons, and Zaleukos”) of the Greek world (Ag. Ap. 2:154–156); in this work Plato figures rather as a legislator (Ag. Ap. 2:257), showing how badly Josephus knew the Greek philosophical tradition. A great statesman is also able to lead his people in war. As seen above, Josephus already makes Moses a skilled general before he escaped from Egypt, when he was an Egyptian hero in the war against the Ethiopians. Josephus was not the first to attribute mighty military glory to Moses when he served the Egyptians, but he leans on a Jewish tradition only partly known to us. The only starting point for the tradition we have may have been Num 12:1, which states that Moses had an Ethiopian wife.32 Some scholars have disputed that this verse sparked the tradition, but at any rate Moses figured as a successful Egyptian general well before Josephus. Artapanus (3:5–19) recounts the Egyptian campaign against the Ethiopians, making Moses also a statesman who divided Egypt into 36 nomes and apparently also founded Gentile cults. The most extensive version of Moses as an Egyptian general we have is included in Antiquities, where Moses also reminds Pharaoh of his record (Ant. 2:282). Military skills were part of his leadership in Ant. 3:39–62 too. Much of the conflict with the Egyptians and the subsequent Exodus is (inconsistently) 31 32

On other Jewish writers, see Koskenniemi 2008, 281–296. On different proposals on the sources of Josephus see Feldman 2000, 200–202. See also Rajak 1978, 111–122.

172

Koskenniemi

reshaped as a military campaign, and Josephus also gives the numbers of the gigantic Egyptian army (Ant. 2:320–325). Every great leader of nations faced difficult moments with their own people. Josephus makes many of his heroes great rhetoricians,33 and Moses is by no means an exception in this regard. Scripture states that Moses says that he was never eloquent and, moreover, that he was “slow of speech and slow of tongue” (Exod 4:10), but Philo34 as well as Josephus, reshape this utterance. Josephus has Moses merely saying that it would be difficult to him to persuade his kinsmen (Ant. 2:271). There was no trace of a lack of eloquence, for example, when Josephus has Moses speaking in Ant. 2:329–337; 3:13–22; and 3:39–62. Moses, the great statesman, was also a splendid rhetorician. Josephus uses words about Moses which he never uses about any of his other heroes: … he shall deliver the race of the Hebrews from their distress among Egyptians, and he shall be remembered as long as the universe shall endure not only among Hebrews but also among foreigners. Ant. 2:216

Moses is a giant, but how high was the position Josephus attributed to him? It is too long a story to tell in detail here how scholars once believed that early Jewish writers made many biblical figures and especially Moses fit the alleged pattern of a typical Hellenistic “divine man”. This position started with scholars like Richard Reitzenstein (1906, 1910) and Gillis Wetter (1916) and Ludwig Bieler (1935–36) when scholars tried to show how Greek thought had influenced the Gospel tradition. The hypothesis gained strength after WWII and especially after Rudolf Bultmann, and the main line35 of the multifaceted 33 34 35

Good rhetoricians in Josephus’ works are, among others, Samuel (Ant. 6:88–91), Agrippa (War 2:345–401) and, of course, especially Josephus himself (for example in War 3:361–382). According to Philo, Moses had heard God’s words, and he understood that all human eloquence is, of course, dumbness compared with it (Mos. 1:83–84). The early hypothesis was constructed from various bricks and by various constructors. Some scholars (especially Reitzenstein) assumed a religious-historical development in the Mediterranean world, when the East started to influence the West. Some of them were influenced by an evolutionistic idea of religions (especially Wetter and Weinreich) and claimed that lower religiosity produces “divine men”, in Hawaii as well as in Mediterranean world. Bieler (1935–36), whose book played such a pivotal role, openly wrote that the concept was a Platonic model that never fully figures in a historical person. It took time before it became clear that Bieler’s alleged Greek concept was collected mainly from Christian texts and that he had with some later Greek texts resorted to

Josephus and the Exodus

173

hypothesis subsequently found its path: the Hellenistic concept had first influenced the early Jewish world,36 and then the Gospel tradition so strongly that Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish teacher, was finally remodelled according to the concept of Hellenistic divine men. The hypothesis reached the peak of its favour in the 1980s, but started to lose ground very soon after, and the reasons for this were clear. One of the first notions was that there were very few signs that early Jewish writers had indeed reshaped their heroes according to the alleged Hellenistic model.37 During the course of the research, specialists in Mark, for example, became more and more cautious of the hypothesis: what seemed to work, as they thought, in other New Testament layers, did not work in the studies of Mark. Johannine scholars, however, also became more cautious, as did scholars investigating Luke.38 It took time before it became clear that the entire concept of divine men had been collected using ancient sources only sparingly and uncritically. Moreover, it became apparent that early Jewish writers had not been influenced by this “unicorn”, and that the early Christian tradition would be better investigated without the modern construction hindering it from understanding the undoubted contacts between Jewish/Christian and Hellenistic religiosity. Concerning Moses in Josephus, the last and best contribution was given by David S. Du Toit (Du Toit 1999, 53–93). He presents how Josephus uses the term θεῖος very often but only seven times of men. He twice calls Moses θεῖος (Ag. Ap. 1:279; Ant. 2:232); in Ag. Ap. 1:279, however, he does not divinise him but tries to show that he was the first and the best of the old sages and that his legislation was the best in the world. Here, as in Ag. Ap. 2:232, θεῖος does not mean much more than εὐσεβής (relationelles Klassenadjektiv). Josephus once even calls Moses a θεῖος ἀνήρ: For if someone should investigate the construction of the Tent and should observe the clothing and the vessels of the priest that we use for the sacred service, he would find that our law-giver was a man of God (θεῖος ἀνήρ) and that the slanders we hear from the others are unfounded. Ant. 3:180

36 37 38

late texts from various continents. See Koskenniemi 1994, 73–76 and Koskenniemi 1998, 456–462. Hahn 1963, 292–308; on Moses in Josephus only briefly on p. 294; Schottroff 1983, 155–234, esp. 229–233 characterises Moses in Eupolemus, Philo, Josephus and Artapanus as θεῖος ἀνήρ; Koester 1970, 188, 216–217. The first decisive critique came from Holladay 1977, who showed that there was little evidence for the alleged pattern in early Jewish texts. See Koskenniemi 1994, 156–162.

174

Koskenniemi

Du Toit presents two alternative options here; the first that θεῖος has an equivalence with ἀνὴρ εὐσεβής here, or that it is used to show that it was Moses who knew God and was thus the best legislator of the world (“titulatur”). Today, few scholars, if any, connect Josephus’ Moses with Hellenistic divine men,39 although Josephus certainly sought Hellenistic models. 4

The Topic of the Exodus

The first day spent with the treatises by Philo shows the immense weight of Exodus in his religion. Although in the first book of his “Life of Moses” he also retold Moses’ life and how Israel left Egypt in detail, it is the allegorical interpretation that recurs in his works again and again. In this interpretation, Egypt did not only mean Egypt but also the world of pleasures. The great Exodus is adapted to the life of an individual, who has to leave the land of pleasures, following God’s commands to walk through the desert, i.e. this earthly life and all its temptations, refuse all the calls to return to “Egypt” and so finally end his spiritual emigration and reach the Promised Land. This pattern, taken and adapted from Plato’s Theaetetus, makes every reader of the Scriptures an asketes, who tries to become as similar to God as possible (Koskenniemi 2005, 131–133). Allegorical interpretation of the Exodus existed elsewhere in early Judaism and also appears in First Corinthians and Hebrews, but it seems to have been completely alien to Josephus. The Exodus is not a strong theological topic for Josephus. Antiquities presents Exodus in litteram, and for him it is a decisive part of the history of Israel. Unlike for Philo, the Greek influence does not come from the Platonic model, but rather from Hellenistic historiography. Even so, Josephus was in trouble, because in general – as seen in the stories of Abraham and Jacob – he reduced the role of the Land and God’s promises to the Patriarchs and their seed. 5

Josephus and Ugly Versions of the Exodus

An important feature concerning the Exodus in Josephus is his relentless opposition to the Gentile versions of it. Many Greek and Roman writers mentioned 39

See, however, Lehnhard 2013, 58–102; here 75–76, who claims that Josephus has reshaped “das Motiv des theios aner … ohne anscheinende Vergöttlichung wie bei Philo” (Lehnhard does not mention this concept when writing about Moses in Philo, pp. 74–75).

Josephus and the Exodus

175

Moses and the Exodus, and often by no means in a positive light. This feature has been well observed in earlier research,40 but new perspectives have now emerged. Several scholars believe that Josephus has attacked a straw man; that he himself and not Manetho or his successors identified Jews with the people expelled from Egypt, and that Josephus actually needed all the critical comments on Jews.41 The worst scenario was not that Gentile historians had written about the Jewish people critically, but rather that they completely overlooked the old, honourable nation. This opinion is undoubtedly partially correct. Although Josephus does not directly refer to ugly versions of the Exodus in Antiquities, he is always happy when he is able to quote texts where Jews were mentioned, even if they happened to appear in a less positive light. The Hebrews might have been labelled as cowards by Herodotus (Ant. 10:18–20) or stupid people by Agatharchides (Ant. 12:5–7) but they were at any rate mentioned, and this shows that the Jews had had a long history. This intention, however, only partly explains what Josephus writes. Recent years have taught scholars to be aware that Josephus’ works should not be treated as a unity. He wrote his works over decades and, principally, there might be differences between War and his later works. The Roman setting of his works in particular has now awakened much interest among scholars.42 This point of view opens a new perspective to Josephus and the ugly versions of the Exodus. Josephus in Antiquities treats Manetho and numerous other writers in a rather friendly way, but conversely they receive very aggressive treatment in Apion, although all the negative versions of the Exodus Josephus refers to already existed when he wrote War and the first books of Antiquities. A reason for the sharper tone should be sought in the Roman context of Josephus. Something had sparked his reaction, and it is more than probable that he himself had triggered this reaction. Josephus had aimed at compiling a national history, like Manetho had written about the Egyptians and Berosus about the Chaldeans, and he clearly sought Gentile readers for his work. He avoids conflicts with other historians in Antiquities, and happily refers to them if possible (see below). Apion, however, clearly differs from Antiquities, and much 40 41

42

The fundamental study was written by Gager 1987, 180–190; cf. Gabba 1989, 614–656. The main impact came from Gruen 1998, 41–72, who suggested that Josephus mixed Egyptian stories with Jewish traditions to show that the Jews were an ancient people. Folker Siegert, for example, adopted and developed the view; see Flavius Josephus, Über die Ursprünglichkeit des Judentums (e.g. Ag. Ap. 1–2). Lembi and Sievers 2005 with a contribution investigating the Roman setting. See also Haaland 2006. Today most scholars writing on Josephus understand the need also to ask what it meant that he wrote in Rome in the time of Flavians.

176

Koskenniemi

of the work consists of attacks against Apion, Manetho and others. The period shortly after his work shows that Josephus had not managed to write a comprehensive Jewish history for Gentile readers. The literary circles in Rome continued to treat Jews in a negative manner. Martialis still mocked Jews and Tacitus, like his predecessors, rendered a very negative version of the Exodus (Koskenniemi 2019, 251–252). The stranger within the literate circles of Rome had failed with his work, and in the city where the power of the Flavians rested on the successful war against Jews, his work made writers recall and circulate the negative versions rather than abandon them. Josephus’ own reaction to this can be seen in Apion, where he furiously attacks Manetho, Chaeremon and other anti-Jewish writers. 6

God, Josephus and the Exodus

Josephus thus often drops verses in which God speaks with Moses face to face, although he does not do this consistently. This is not unusual in early Jewish writings. Everyone freely retelling biblical events reshapes the roles he attributes to actors. When retelling the Exodus, all early Jewish texts either expanded or reduced the roles of God and Moses, also when retelling the miracles of the Exodus. Who is the real actor, making the miracles happen? God may have been reduced to a divine voice, as in Artapanus 3, or, as in many writings, God’s almighty power has absorbed Moses’ role almost totally, as in Wis 17. Such drastic changes do not appear in Josephus’ works, but his Moses is, however, far from the independent actor Artapanus presents him in the fragments we have of his work. Josephus, when freely writing on miracles, necessarily reshapes the roles.43 When retelling the miracles in Egypt, Josephus has significantly emphasised God’s role and reduced that of Moses: Aaron has almost completely lost his place (Koskenniemi 2005, 234–249). The roles of God and Moses may also have been redefined for other reasons. God rarely appears in dialogue with men in early Jewish writings, because since Aristobulos anthropomorphic features were considered problematic.44 To be true, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum interestingly may even add such passages and tell how Moses conversed with God before his death (L.A.B. 32:9). The Book of Jubilees, however, has the “Angel of Presence” telling Moses, i.e. stating everything that had happened in Egypt to the man who had been in the epicentre of the events. Israel’s God is distanced from human beings and angels 43 44

On the role of God in Josephus, see Feldman 1998, 425–433. See Aristobulos, Fr 2.8 and Birnbaum 2003, 309–329, esp. 315–317.

Josephus and the Exodus

177

take the role of mediators (Jub. 47–48). Philo, for his part, particularly hated all kind of anthropomorphism45 and thus greatly reduced Moses’ dialogues with God. Anti-anthropomorphic ideas have clearly influenced his rewriting of the original. Josephus prefers to play in midfield, following the biblical original even here much more faithfully than many other Jewish writers. He reduces, for example, God to a divine voice at the burning bush, but does not completely remove the dialogue (Ant. 2:272–274). Josephus, like many early Jewish writers, is rather reluctant to put Israel’s God in dialogue with human beings. This often leads him to expand Moses’ role, because, for example in Ant. 2:322–323, what was God’s thoughts (Exod 13:17–18) became the planning of an expert general. 7

Rationalisation of the Exodus?

Scholars have traditionally claimed that Josephus, when rewriting the Scripture, rationalised the original.46 The peak of this view was reached when Feldman frequently referred to the alleged ancient claim of the credulity of Jews: credat Iudaeus Apella by Horace (Sat. 1.5.97–103) according to whom the reputation of Jews was in their believing unbelievable stories. Josephus did everything to avoid this criticism, rationalising the biblical stories. This view is still partly relevant, but it should also be treated with caution. As presented above, Josephus tries to follow the manner of good Greek historians, and he rewrites the Exodus making it a good presentation of how the Hebrews left Egypt. This is the reason why Moses is an excellent general, great rhetorician and the best of all statesmen and legislators. Moreover, Josephus is reluctant to write about God’s thoughts, and that may be why he rewrites them as Moses’ rational planning. He may also give a more reasonable version of a biblical miracle story (Ant. 5:17–209) or explain a miracle, when writing on the Exodus (Ant. 3:7–8). In this sense, Josephus often “rationalises” the stories, also when retelling the Exodus. Several reasons speak, however, against the alleged rationalisation in Josephus. First of all, there is little evidence of the alleged credulity among the Jews. Jews may have believed in the miraculous, but they were not alone, 45 46

According to QG 2:62 man was not created in the image of the Father of Universe, but of his logos. It is impossible for a man to see God, but he sends the powers which are indicative of his essence (QE 2:37; 2:47). The opinion already appears in the comments of the LCL translation; for example, Thackeray and Marcus 1930, 168–169 and is common later, see Koskenniemi 2005, 228– 239. Today the view is held by Feldman 1998, 209–210 and Collins 2000, 8.

178

Koskenniemi

and they were hardly criticised only because of their belief. Feldman quotes Horace’s words, but we should not overlook that a great part of the people in Imperial Rome loved miraculous stories and were afraid of evil powers and that this trend continuously grew stronger. Earlier cultivated modern scholars may have placed this love of miraculous among the lower layers of the population: but also mighty men had their sages like Thrasyllus and Ptolemy, at their court (Tacitus, Ann. 6.20–21; Hist. 1.22), and to have one’s own magician seems to have been a kind of status symbol among mighty men, as Sergius Paulus (Acts 13:4–12) and Felix (Ant. 21:141–144) show. Moreover, as Pliny writes, “there is no one who does not fear to be spell-bound by curse tablets” (Nat. 28.19). Josephus did not predominantly write to Epicureans or atheists. Even more devastating for this view is an investigation of Josephus’ works. Although he indeed tries to write as a Greek historian and does reshape many biblical passages accordingly, nonetheless he still retells (with few exceptions) all the miracles of the Exodus, even exaggerating them, especially e.g. the darkness (Ant. 2:307–310). Admittedly miracles were a problem to him, but only if they were connected to a military fervour (Koskenniemi 2005, 249–254). Josephus is the only early Jewish author known to me who follows the biblical order of the plagues almost exactly, leaving only one of them out. 8 Conclusion When writing about the Exodus, Josephus retells every episode of Exod 1–15 with few exceptions, and although he changes much, his works are also a treasure for scholars tracing the reception history of the Scriptures. The similarities with other writers show that he rows in a strong midrashic tradition we only know from fragments. Josephus mainly follows the biblical original, but not slavishly, and he changes, adds and expands quite a lot, and sometimes renders the events very briefly. Scholars have suggested several intentions in Josephus’ works partly confirmed, partly questioned in the present contribution. It is true that Josephus “Hellenised” his Moses, but not as much as is often believed. Josephus makes his hero a skillful general, statesman and a rhetorician, but certainly not a “Hellenistic divine man”, as believed earlier. The reason his Moses follows Hellenistic cardinal virtues was not that Josephus had adopted Greek ethics but rather that wisdom, courage, temperance and justice were not alien to the Scriptures either. Moreover, although Josephus tried to follow the traditions of Greek historiography and often gives a less miraculous version of an event,

Josephus and the Exodus

179

the term “rationalisation” should be used with caution. Josephus retells almost every miracle of the Exodus and rarely – if ever – distances himself from them. The alleged bad reputation of Jews who believed everything is a modern bubble. Josephus did not only write to Epicureans, but his readers loved exotic wisdom and miracles. As stated above, Josephus often expanded or abridged biblical stories. This means that he necessarily and for a variety of reasons redistributed the roles of God, Moses and Aaron, and some intentions also explain his version. Josephus avoided anthropomorphism, although less strictly than Philo, and was, like most early Jewish writers, rather reluctant to put God in dialogue with men. He also tried to write a standard work on the history of Israel and followed multifaceted models of Hellenistic historiography. His Moses, however, has neither been turned into an independent actor, as in Artapanus, nor has he almost totally lost his role, as in Wisdom or Jubilees. Josephus followed the Scripture closely enough to walk the middle of the road. The Exodus was a very important topic for many Jewish writers, and even the New Testament shows how the tradition used it in ethical instruction. This seems to have been alien to Josephus. For him the Exodus was an important chapter in the history of Israel and Moses was the greatest hero of his people, above all as a law-giver and statesman and founder of the Hebrew manner of life. Bibliography Begg, Christopher. 1996. “Elisha’s Great Deeds according to Josephus.” Henoch 18: 69–110. Bieler, Ludwig. 1935–1936. THEIOS ANER. Das Bild des “Göttlichen Menschen” in Spätantike und Frühchristentum. Wien: Höfels. Birnbaum, Ellen. 2003. “Allegorical Interpretation and Jewish Identity among Alexandrian Jewish Writers.” Pages 309–329 in Neotestamentica et Philonica. Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen. Edited by David E. Aune, Torrey Seland and Jarl Henning Ulrichsen. NT.S 106. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Collins, John J. 22000. Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. The Biblical Resource Series. Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans. Du Toit, David S. 1999. “Die Verwendung von THEIOS als Attribut für Menschen in den Schriften des Flavius Josephus.” Pages 53–93 Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Brüssel 1998. Edited by Jürgen U. Kalms and Folkert Siegert. MJSt 4. Münster: LIT.

180

Koskenniemi

Feldman, Louis H. 1998. Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. Hellenistic Culture and Society 27. Berkeley, CA, Los Angeles, CA and London: University of California Press. Feldman, Louis H. 1998. Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible. JSJ.S 58. Leiden: Brill 1998. Flavius Josephus. 2000. Judean Antiquities 1–4. Translation and Commentary by Louis H. Feldman. Leiden: Brill. Flavius Josephus. 2008. Über die Ursprünglichkeit des Judentums (Contra Apionem) 1–2. Edited by Folker Siegert. SIJD 6.1–2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Gabba, Emilio. 1989. “The Growth of Anti-Judaism or the Greek Attitude towards the Jews.” Pages 614–656 in The Cambridge History of Judaism. II: The Hellenistic Age. Edited by William David Davies and Louis Finkelstein. CHJud 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gager, John G. 1972. Moses in Graeco-Roman Paganism. Nashville, TN: Abingdon. Gruen, Erich S. 1998. Heritage and Hellenism. The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. HellCS 30. Berkeley, CA, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Haaland, Gunnar. 2006. Beyond Philosophy. Studies in Josephus and His Contra Apionem. Oslo: Norwegian Lutheran School of Theology. Hadas-Lebel, Mireille. 1993. Flavius Josephus. Eyewitness to Rome’s First-Century Conquest of Judea. New York and Toronto: Macmillan/Maxwell. Hahn, Ferdinand. 1963. Christologische Hoheitstitel. Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum. FRLANT 83. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht 1963. Hata, Gohei. 1987. “The Story of Moses Interpreted within the Context of Antisemitism.” Pages 180–190 in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata. Leiden: Brill. Holladay, Carl R. 1977. Theios aner in Hellenistic-Judaism. A Critique of the Use of this Category in New Testament Christology. SBL.DS 40. Missoula, MT: Mount Scholars Press. Hölscher, Gustav. 1916. “Josephus.” PRE 9: 1934–2000. Koester, Helmut. 1970. “The Structure and Criteria of Early Christian Beliefs.” Pages 205– 231 in Trajectories through Early Christianity. Edited by James MacConkey Robinson and Helmut Koester. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Koskenniemi, Erkki. 1994. Apollonios von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese. Forschungsbericht und Weiterführung der Diskussion. WUNT 2.61. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Koskenniemi, Erkki. 1998. “Apollonius of Tyana – A Typical theios aner?” JBL 117: 455–467. Koskenniemi, Erkki. 2005. The Old Testament Miracle-Workers in Early Judaism. WUNT 2.206. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Josephus and the Exodus

181

Koskenniemi, Erkki. 2008. “Moses – a Well Educated Man. A Look to Educational Ideal in the Early Judaism.” JSP 17: 281–296. Koskenniemi, Erkki and Lindqvist, Pekka. 2008. “Rewritten Bible, Rewritten Stories.” Pages 11–39 in Rewritten Bible Reconsidered. Proceedings of the Conference in Karkku, Finland, August 24–26 2006. Edited by Antti Laato and Jacques van Ruiten. SRB 1. Turku: Åbo Akademi University. Koskenniemi, Erkki. 2014. “Apollonius of Tyana, the Greek Miracle Workers in the Time of Jesus and the New Testament.” Pages 165–181 in Hermeneutik der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen. Geschichtliche, literarische und rezeptionsorientierte Perspektiven. Edited by Bernd Kollmann and Bernd Zimmermann. WUNT 1.339. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Koskenniemi, Erkki. 2014. “Legal Texts Rewritten? Some Methodological Aspects.” in Cult and Holy Place. Edited by Erkki Koskenniemi and Cor de Vos. SRB 5. Turku: Åbo Akademi University. Koskenniemi, Erkki. 2019. Greek Writers and Philosophers in Philo and Josephus. Studies in Philo of Alexandria 9. Leiden: Brill. Landau, Tamar. 2006. Out-Heroding Herod. Josephus, Rhetoric and the Herod Narratives. AJECAGJU 63. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Lehnhard, Andreas. 2013. “Mose I (literarisch).” RAC 25: 58–102. Lembi, Gaia and Sievers, Joseph. 2005. Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond. JSJ.S 104. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Mason, Steve. 2016. “Josephus’s Judean War.”, Pages 13–35 in A Companion to Josephus. Edited by Honora Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. Pucci ben Zeev, Miriam. 1998. Jewish Rights in the Roman World. TSAJ 74. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Rajak, Tessa. 1978. “Moses in Ethiopia: Legend and Literature.” JJS 29: 111–122. Rajak, Tessa. 1983. Josephus. The Historian and His Society. London: Fortress Press. Rajak, Tessa. 2007. “Josephus as Historian of the Herods.” Pages 23–34 in The World of the Herods. Volume 1 of the International Conference The World of the Herods and the Nabateans Held at the British Museum, 17–19 April 2001. Edited by Josef Wiesehöfer. OrOcc 14. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Rocca, Samuel. 2008. Herod’s Judaea. A Mediterranean State in the Classical World. TSAJ 122. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Roncace, Mark. 2000. “Josephus’ (Real) Portraits of Deborah and Gideon. A Reading of Antiquities 5.198–232.” JSJ 31: 247–274. Ruiten, Jacques T.A.G.M. van. 2004. “Lot versus Abraham. The Interpretation of Genesis 18:1–19:38 in Jubilees 16:1–9.” Pages 29–46 in Sodom’s Sin. Genesis 18–19

182

Koskenniemi

and Its Interpretations. Edited by Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar and Edward Noort. TBN 7. Leiden: Brill. Schottroff, Willi. 1983. “ἀνήρ. Gottmensch I.” RAC 12: 155–234. Thackeray, Henry St. John and Marcus, Ralph. 1930. Jewish Antiquities Books 4–6 with an English Translation. LCL 490. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Thackeray, Henry St. John. 1929. The Man and the Historian. New York: Jewish Institute of Religion Press. Thackeray, Henry St. John. 1967. Foot Moore, George and Sandmel, Samuel. 1967. Josephus, the Man and the Historian. Jewish Institute of Religion. Hilda Stich Stroock Lectures, New York 1929. New York: Ktav Publication House.

Chapter 9

The Book of Exodus in Philo of Alexandria Sean A. Adams The Book of Exodus and its interpretation are prominent in Philo’s corpus. So frequently did Philo cite or allude to this book that few scholars have attempted to discuss this topic as a whole.1 A full discussion of Philo’s engagement with Exodus is not possible in the limits of this study. In this chapter, I begin with a general discussion of the reception of the Exodus narratives in Philo’s writings.2 From this broad overview, I divide my study into two parts. The first focuses on specific instances where Exodus material is employed by Philo across multiple treatises and the second examines how specific Exodus passages are interpreted by Philo in the Allegorical Commentary. The chapter concludes with a reflection on how Exodus was used by Philo as part of his wider practice of interpreting the works of Moses. 1

The Book of Exodus in Philo of Alexandria

Philo was a prolific writer with many of his texts fully or partially extant.3 Philo scholars divide his corpus into four broad categories: Allegorical Commentary, Exposition of the Law, Questions and Answers, and Other (in which texts can be grouped into philosophical and apologetic/historical works) (Royse 2009, 32–64). These collections represent the diverse works of Philo and his endeavour to interpret Scripture through his interpretive lens. Each grouping represents a different purpose and approach to the texts, which is expressed in a selection of different didactic and philosophical genres (Adams 2020, 88–118, 139–147, 277–291). Although not as prominent as Genesis in terms of the number of citations and allusions (tallied at 4,303 times),4 Exodus is the second most frequently 1 One recent attempt is Sterling 2014. This paper continues the work of Sterling and responds to findings. 2 For this study, unless otherwise stated, references to Exodus are always to the Book of Exodus, not the Exodus as an event. 3 Unless otherwise noted, I have used the standard edition of Cohn et al. 1962. 4 In this study, I am not making a hard delineation between citation, paraphrase, and allusion. As all represent points on the spectrum of intentional engagement by the author,

© Sean A. Adams, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471122_011

184

Adams

referenced and commented on book by Philo (1,755 times).5 Philo knew Exodus as a distinct scroll,6 but also as part of the Pentateuch, the larger literary composition crafted by Moses, the lawgiver of the Jewish people (cf. Mos. 2:45–47; Contempl. 2; Clifford 2007, 151–168). Philo’s understanding of the Pentateuch was nuanced and he was aware of compositional differences in Moses’ corpus. Specifically, Philo was conscientious of genre, asserting that “the oracles of the prophet Moses” is made up of three ἰδέαι: τήν μὲν περὶ κοσμοποιίας, τὴν δὲ ἱστορικήν, τὴν δὲ τρίτην νομοθετικήν (“the creation of the world, that concerning history, and the third with legislation”, Praem. 1; cf. Mos. 2:45–48; Josephus, Ant. 1:18).7 This division is meaningful for our discussion as Philo views substantial portions of Exodus as participating in the genre of legislation. As a result, although this study focuses primarily on Exodus, it has implications for how Philo employs Scripture more broadly and also needs to be put into conversation with how Philo uses other Pentateuchal texts.8 Of his known/surviving treatises, fourteen focus on Exodus and provide interpretations of its narrative (QE 1–6; Mos. 1–2; Decal.; Spec. 1–4; Virt.). The focus on Exodus is not evenly distributed across all of Philo’s works, nor does

5

6

7 8

differentiating them is not necessary for this paper. The number of intertextual references to Exodus identified by scholars necessitates a more holistic perspective prior to lower-level differentiation. On the importance of intentionality for understanding allusion, see Hermerén 1992, 203–220; Morgan 1985, 23–33; Leddy 1992, 110–122; Irwin 2001, 287–297. For allusions and citations of Exodus, I am indebted to Allenbach, et al. 1982. Cf. Sterling 2014, 412, who provides a tally of the allusions and citations of each chapter of Exodus in Philo’s corpus. While this is helpful, the distribution is skewed because of the inclusion of QE, which is not evenly preserved (see below). As a result, the charts need to be interpreted carefully. More helpful is his two appendices (pp. 426–436), which provide the details of Exodus use in each treatise of the Allegorical Commentary and Exposition of the Law. Neither project includes information from Animalibus, but in my reading of it I have not found Exodus allusions that are relevant to my arguments. Cf. Terian 1981. As opposed to identifying it by its traditional name (Ἔξοδος), Philo calls it Ἐξαγωγή (Migr. 14; Her. 14, 251; Somn. 1:117). Cf. Cohen 1997, esp. 58–61. The most recent work on this is by Buffa, who identifies three different ways that Philo uses the term ἔξοδος: 1) spatially; 2) metaphorically for a person’s departure from life; and 3) in reference to the departure from Egypt of the Jewish people (Buffa 2019, 109–118). This does not address the question of which version(s) of Exodus Philo used or had access to. This is beyond the purview of this study, but for discussion, see Katz 1950. For a discussion of this passage with the goal of situating Philo in his wider literary environment, see Kamesar 1997. In Her. 113–125 Philo comments on Exod 25:1–2 and, for the interpretation of which, he draws in Gen 1:1–2; Exod 13:1–2; Num 3:12; 31:28–29. This is a good example of how Philo treats Exodus in a way comparable to his discussions of Genesis. For an insightful study of how ancient authors engage in biblical exegesis, including nine theses for modern interpretation, see Kugel 1994, 247.

The Book of Exodus in Philo of Alexandria

185

he engage with Exodus in the same manner. Questions and Answers on Exodus (QE) is a running zetematic commentary on the whole of Exodus, originally comprised of six volumes, although only surviving in two books.9 On the Decalogue, On the Special Laws, and On Virtues are part of the Exposition of the Law, a thematic collection of texts that provides a broad overview of the Mosaic law.10 In QE and portions of the Exposition, passages from Exodus are used as the primary lemma for interpretation. This prominence is not found in the Allegorical Commentary, in which only passages from Genesis act as primary lemma. Despite this difference at the primary level, Philo uses Exodus as secondary and tertiary lemmata as well as making allusions to the work in all of his commentary series. This similarity in employing different books of the Pentateuch by engaging in both citation and allusion supports the principle that Moses should interpret Moses.11 The prominence of Exodus is reinforced by the fact that Exodus is the text that Philo employs most often in his interpretation of Genesis, but the equality of the Pentateuchal texts is shown by the similar way that they are used and interpreted by Philo.12 The two-volume On the Life of Moses is also part of the Exposition of the Law, in which Philo recasts the text of Exodus to present a biography of Moses (βίος, Mos. 1:1; 2:292).13 This work, although participating primarily in the genre of βίος, could also be viewed as participating in Rewritten Scripture that takes as its starting point the text of Exodus. The Hypothetica, also called Apology for the Jews, has substantial engagement with Exodus and, like Moses, retells parts of the Exodus narrative. Both texts take events from Exodus and mould them to fit their new literary genre, biography and apology, respectively.14 On the far end of the spectrum of intertextual engagement, Philo makes minimal use of Scripture in Flaccus and Legatio ad Gaium; two texts orientated 9

10 11 12 13 14

Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. 2.18.5) states that there were five books for Exodus Quaestiones. On secondary lemmata in the qc and qe, see Runia 1991. The passages extant are Exod 12:2– 23; 20:25; and 22:1–28:4. For the Armenian text, see Aucher 1826. On the Greek fragments see Petit 1978. Cf. Sterling 2018. Some (e.g., Royse 2009, 50–51) place Moses in the apologetic/historical category. This aligns with the wider practice in antiquity of Homer interpreting Homer. Cf. Porphyry, Quaest. hom. 2.297.16–17; Galen, Dig. Puls. iv 8.958.6 (Kühn); Plutarch, Adol. poet. aud. 4. Sterling (2014, 410) has counted the number of citations and allusions for the other books of the Pentateuch as identified by Allenbach et al.: Leviticus 737 times; Numbers 586 times; Deuteronomy 834 times. Feldman 2007, 19–27; Sterling 2018; Adams 2020, 277–283. For Philo’s use of Exod 2:2–3, see Tervanotko 2017, 151–153. Damgaard 2014, 233–248. For other influences on Philo and his interpretation of Exodus, see Lanfranchi 2007.

186

Adams

to a Roman, or at least a non-Jewish audience.15 This lack of allusions to and citations of Exodus is not particularly surprising, although it is worth highlighting the intentionality of Philo’s composition and his ability to discern what is necessary and appropriate, providing evidence that Philo was conscious of his audience. For instance, part of Philo’s discussion of Exodus is in response to negative claims made about Moses and the Hebrew people by outsiders.16 This is most prominent in Hypothetica, although here Philo does not explicitly draw from the biblical text of Exodus (although cf. Hypoth. 6:5), but responds to critiques by presenting a logical interpretation of events found in the text of Exodus (Vela 2008). Philo is not unique among his compatriots in authoring this type of defence, nor is he the only Jewish author to use Exodus as a crux for his argument.17 In this way, Philo participates in a wider Jewish practice. Philo’s allegorical framework is the most distinctive aspect of his interpretation of Exodus. For Philo, the deeper meaning of the Exodus was not the migration of the Jewish people, but the migration of a person from the realm of the body to the realm of the soul.18 This chapter will not focus on allegorical elements, preferring to concentrate on Philo’s reading and intertextual practices. Nevertheless, his use of allegory as a primary means of interpretation allows him to bring passages together that might not have been possible or obvious through a literal reading framework. 2

Important Exodus Passages in Philo

One method to evaluate Philo’s use of Exodus is to determine if he has an affinity for specific passages. Gregory Sterling adopted this approach, identifying sixteen texts of Exodus that Philo cites or alludes to at least ten times in his treatises (Sterling 2014, 418–420). Although this is one way of organising the data, it can give undue emphasis to passages for which we have extant portions of QE, as Philo often has multiple questions on a given verse, which dramatically alter Sterling’s calculations. Another (non-mutually exclusive) way

15 16 17 18

Goodenough (1938, 19–20) maintains that the Legatio is addressed to the new Emperor Claudius. Niehoff (2018, 56–57) provides some nuance, suggesting a Roman intellectual community. Smallwood (1961, 176) argues for a non-Roman audience. For example, Philo frames the Exodus in light of migration (ἀποικία), resisting the view that the Jewish people were fleeing from slavery or mobilising for war (Mos. 1:170). E.g., Manetho in Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1:228–252; Apion in Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2:15–17; Chaeremon in Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1:288. For discussion of Josephus’ practice, see the contribution by Erkki Koskenniemi in this volume; cf. Gager 1972; Gabba 1989. On Egypt in Philo, see Pearce 2007; Adams 2018, 66–69.

The Book of Exodus in Philo of Alexandria Table 1

187

Verses in Exodus that are used in five or more of Philo’s treatises

3:14 (Abr.; Cher.; Deo; Det.; Fug.; Her.; Mos.; Mut.; Plant.; QE; QG; Sacr.; Somn.; Spec.) (14 times) 7:1 (Det.; Leg.; Migr.; Mut.; Prob.; Sacr. Somn.) (7 times) 15:1 (Agr.; Contempl.; Ebr.; Leg.; Mos.; Sobr.; Somn.) (7 times) 33:11 (Cher.; Her.; Leg.; Migr.; Mos.; Sacr.; Virt.) (7 times) 2:23 (Conf.; Det.; QG; Leg.; Migr.; Mos.) (6 times) 5:2 (Ebr.; Leg.; Mos.; Post.; QG; Somn.) (6 times) 16:4 (Congr; Decal.; Leg.; Mut.; Mos.; Spec.) (6 times) 17:6 (Conf.; Decal.; Leg.; Migr.; Sacr.; Somn.) (6 times) 20:12 (Decal.; Det.; Ebr.; Frag.; Her.; Spec.) (6 times) 1:11 (Conf.; Virt.; Mos.; Post.; Somn.) (5 times) 4:14 (Det.; Migr.; Mos.; Mut.; QG) (5 times) 12:2 (Congr.; Mos.; QE; QG; Spec.) (5 times) 12:11 (Her.; Leg.; Migr.; QE; Sacr.) (5 times) 12:29 (Congr.; Mos.; Sacr.; Somn.; Spec.) (5 times) 15:25 (Congr.; Decal.; Migr.; Mos.; Post.) (5 times) 20:8–11 (Decal.; Her.; Opif.; Prov.; Spec.) (5 times) 25:30 (Cong.; Fug.; Her. QG; Spec.) (5 times) 28:30 (Her.; Leg.; Mos.; QE; Spec.) (5 times)

to interpret the data is to see which texts are cited or alluded to across multiple treatises. This change of criterion is not to downplay or overly promote the importance of certain verses of Exodus in a specific treatise (see more below), but to see how certain Exodus passages inhabit multiple literary settings by mitigating the unbalanced instances of citations and allusions in QE. When adopting this perspective, we find that eighteen passages are activated in at least five treatises.19 Nine passages overlap with those identified by Sterling (3:14; 4:14; 7:1; 12:2, 11; 15:1; 20:8–11, 12; 28:30), leaving us with nine different examples of important passages: 1:11; 2:23; 5:2; 12:29; 15:25; 16:4; 17:6; 25:30; 33:11.20 The content of these new verses have some overlap: three speak about Moses’ interaction with Pharaoh (1:11; 5:2; 12:29); four have a food theme; three discuss providing food and safe water to the Israelites in the desert (15:25; 19

20

A possible nineteenth could be added to the list, Exod 32:25–29, which is alluded to in six treatises. Although these five verses form a contained narrative, my reason for not including this example is that many other passages could have been included if a range of five verses was given. The passages from Sterling (2014, 418–420) that are not included once the parameters are changed are: Exod 12:6; 20:1–17; 20:8–11; 21:13, 14; 23:11; 24:10; 25:22.

188

Adams

16:4; 17:6); and one concerns placing bread before the Lord in the tabernacle (25:30). The final new passage, Exod 33:11, is theologically significant to Philo as it declares that “the Lord spoke to Moses, face to face, as if one will speak to his own friend” (καὶ ἐλάλησεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐνώπιος ἐνωπίῳ ὡς εἴ τις λαλήσει πρὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ φίλον). As a result, by changing the criteria, we can highlight different themes and passages from Exodus used by Philo. Exod 3:14 is the most prominent example from the table above. This verse is not only found across multiple treatises, but is also the most alluded to verse from Exodus by Philo.21 In this passage, God reveals his name to Moses (καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν) and for Philo this has deep philosophical and theological importance. The phrase ὁ ὤν, according to Philo, is not God’s true name (Deo 4; cf. Abr. 50–52), but an expression of his nature (Mut. 11; Somn. 1:230–231), distinguishing reality from what is and what is not (Mos. 1:74–76).22 This declaration provides the rationale for specific interpretations by Philo and is linked to other Pentateuchal allusions and citations. In Mutation, Philo quotes and alludes to Exod 3:14 and 7:1 a few times (11, 57, and 82; 19, 125, and 208, respectively). In Sacr. 9, Philo engages with both 3:14 and 7:1, using a quotation of the latter to interpret the former. The link between 3:14 and 25:19–22 is seen in three different treatises (e.g., Cher. 25–27; Fug. 101–112; Deo 5), suggesting that Philo viewed certain passages in Exodus as being interpretationally linked. The next most prominent verse is Exod 7:1, in which God tells Moses that he will be a “god to Pharaoh” and Aaron will be his prophet (καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων ἰδοὺ δέδωκά σε θεὸν Φαραω καὶ Ααρων ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἔσται σου προφήτης). This verse is interesting as a majority of its occurrences appear in the Allegorical Commentary.23 The repeated use of 7:1 in this corpus creates important verse associations, such as in Det. 38–44 and 177, where Philo closely links the reading of Exod 7 with Exod 4 (see more below).24 21 22

23 24

Allenbach et al. (1982, 60) identify fifty-two citations or allusions to Exod 3:14 in Philo’s corpus, nineteen of which are from qe. Sterling (2014, 419) agrees and identifies this verse as the most commonly cited Exodus passage in Philo’s corpus. Philo uses both the masculine, ὁ ὤν, and the neuter, τὸ ὄν, when discussing God’s transcendent nature. Cf. Drummond 1888, 2.63. For an important study of Philo’s use of this passage, see Runia 1995, 206–218. Birnbaum (2016) rightly reads 3:14 and 3:15 together as Philo’s practice of allegorically interpreting God’s literal name. Philo, Leg. 1.40; Sacr. 9; Det. 39–40, 161; Migr. 84, 169; Mut. 19, 125, 128; Somn. 2:189; Prob. 43. Commentary on this passage has not survived from qe. Philo, Migr. 84 and Det. 39–40 (again, both from the Allegorical Commentary) also link Exod 7:1 and 4:16 as both of them describe Moses as being a “god” to someone else, Pharaoh and Aaron, respectively. In the latter, Philo interprets Moses as the mind, which is in control of the mouth and its utterances (Migr. 81–84; QE 2:27, 44). For more discussion of how

The Book of Exodus in Philo of Alexandria

189

Exod 20:1–17, the ten commandments, is a prominent section in Exodus for Philo, who alludes or cites portions of it 119 times in his corpus. In particular, the commandments to remember the sabbath (20:8–11) and honour one’s parents (20:12) are notable and repeatedly discussed across his course (five and six treatises, respectively). The commandment to not covet (Exod 20:17) is also prominent in Philo’s corpus, being cited or alluded to seventeen times.25 Unsurprisingly, many of these references are concentrated in Decal. and Spec., but the value of this section as a whole is seen across Philo’s corpus. 3

Exodus in the Allegorical Commentary

Another way to evaluate Philo’s use of Exodus is to identify sections of his treatises in which he engages extensively with the text of Exodus. In this, I am not referring to treatises that take portions of Exodus as primary lemmata or are on topics drawn primarily if not exclusively from Exodus. In these works, repeated or extended engagement would be expected. Rather, this section investigates instances in specific treaties where Philo exegetes a passage in Exodus for a specific purpose. Of interest in this table is the general lack of overlap. Besides Exod 13:11–13, which is discussed in Spec. 1:135–138 and Sacr. 89–114, there is essentially no repeated, sustained engagement of Exodus passages in texts that do not focus on Exodus.26 Although one does not want to make too much of this finding, it does align with Philo’s practice of detailed exposition and exegesis in one treatise that is picked up or alluded to in another treatise without the need for a repeated explanation.

25

26

Moses was depicted as god-like in Jewish authors writing in Greek, see the contribution to this volume by Susan E. Docherty. Determining a specific count for this verse is difficult. When Philo references the commandments in Exod 20, should we count that as an allusion to a specific commandment, such as honouring parents, or not to covet, or should we not? Although either option is viable, I would suggest that the context of the allusion is important and openness in the decision-making process is necessary. In the case of Exod 20:17, thirteen allusions are specifically to this verse and four to a range of verses: Her. 172 (20:13–17); Decal. 51 (20:13–17), 106 (20:13–17), and 175 (20:13–18). Philo comments on 20:17 at length in Decal. 142–153, 173–174 and Spec. 4:78–131. Two possible exception could be Exod 22:26–27 (activated in Somn. 1:92–113) and 22:29 (discussed in Virt. 126–142) and Exod 32:20 (evaluated in Post. 158–164) and 32:17–19 (cited with commentary in Ebr. 96–125), but even in these two examples the connection is by proximity, not overlap.

190

Adams

Table 2

Important Exodus passages in Philo’s treatises

2:16–21 – Mut. 105–120 (14 times) 4:14–16 – Deter. 38–44, 126–140, and 170 (15 times) 12:15–16 – Spec. 2:150–161 (5 times) 13:11–13 – Spec. 1:135–138 (4 times) and Sacr. 89–114 (6 times) 15:17–18 – Plant. 47–55 (7 times) 21:13–14 – Fug. 65–107 (11 allusions/citations) (11 times) 22:26–27 – Somn. 1:92–113 (11 allusions/citations) (11 times) 22:29 – Virt. 126–142 (4 times) 23:22–28 – Praem. 79–126 (14 times) 30:34–35 – Her. 196–226 (5 times) 32:17–19 – Ebr. 96–125 (7 times) 38:9–17 [LXX]a – Her. 216–227 (14 times) a A confusing aspect of Sterling’s work (2014) is his use of Hebrew Bible references (Exod 37:17– 23) and not those found in the Septuagint (which is what Philo used). This reference is to the LXX verse numbers.

Because Exodus is so prominent in Philo’s writings, especially in the Exposition of the Law, I thought it best to focus on how Philo employs Exodus in works that are not explicitly discussing Exodus, namely the Allegorical Commentary.27 At certain places in the Allegorical Commentary, Philo moves away from Genesis (the source of the primary lemmata) to engaged with a passage in Exodus (one source of secondary lemmata) in a sustained way. In Table 3 we see that there are many places in Philo’s Allegorical Commentary where he paraphrases/quotes a verse or section from Exodus and proceeds to offer an extended discussion on it.28 Unsurprisingly this table 27

28

According to Sterling (2014, 411) there are 606 citations and allusions to Exodus in the Allegorical Commentary, with each treatise having at least five citations or allusions. Leg. 1:5; 2:12; 3:55; Cher. 13; Sacr. 29; Det. 42; Post. 23; Gig. 10; Deus 6; Agr. 5; Plant. 14; Ebr. 37; Sobr. 5; Conf. 26; Migr. 49; Her. 77; Congr. 35; Fug. 50; Mut. 51; Deo 7; Somn. 1:31; Somn. 2:24. Although Sterling’s work (drawing on Allenbach, et al. 1982) is very helpful, there are issues with his tallies. When a section in Philo’s treatise alludes to multiple passages from Scripture, Allenbach, followed by Sterling, takes a maximalist approach, including multiple references in his index. Sterling counts these to arrive at his number of 606, but in actuality the instances where Philo quotes or allusions to Exodus in his Allegorical Commentary are fewer (see discussion below). E.g., Post. 54–57 (Exod 1:11), 158–164 (Exod 32:20); Leg. 2:88–92 (Exod 4:1–5); 3:32 (Exod 22:1–2); 3:118–132 (Exod 28:30); Plant. 47–55 (Exod 15:17–18); Ebr. 67–70 (Exod 32:27– 29); Her. 14–19 (Exod 14:14–15), 216–227 (Exod 38:9–17 [LXX]). Certain parts of Exodus are

The Book of Exodus in Philo of Alexandria Table 3

191

Localised discussions of Exodus in Allegorical Commentary

Leg. 2:88–92 on Exod 4:1–5 Leg. 3:32 on Exod 22:1–2 Leg. 3:118–132 on Exod 28:30 Leg. 3:162–175 on Exod 16:4 and 16:13–16 Det. 38–44, 126–40, and 177 on Exod 4:2–16 Post. 13–16 and 169 on Exod 33:18–23 Post. 54–57 on Exod 1:11 Post. 158–164 on Exod 32:20 Plant. 47–55 on Exod 15:17–18 Ebr. 67–70 on Exod 32:17–19 Her. 14–19 on Exod 14:14–15 Her. 113–125 on Exod 25:1–2 Her. 168–172 on Exod 20 (ten commandments) Her. 216–227 on Exod 38:9–17 [LXX] Fug. 53–86 on Exod 21:12–14 Somn. 1:92–114 and Philo’s exposition of Exod 22:26–27

shares Exodus passages with the list from Table 2 above, including the lack of overlapping interpretations of Exodus passages. However, it has some important distinctions. Arguably the most focused discussion on Exodus in the Allegorical Commentary is Fug. 53–86 and Philo’s discussion of the fleeing of those accused of manslaughter to cities of refuge. Philo begins with a quote of Exod 21:12–14, which provides a lemma for extended interpretation. Exod 21:12 is quoted and discussed in Fug. 54 and 64, between which Philo offers an extended interpretation drawing from Greek authors and scriptural passages outside of Exodus. A similar practice occurs at Fug. 65 and 75–77 (where Philo quotes Exod 21:13) and 77 and 83 (where Philo quotes Exod 21:14 and 21:15–16). Although the primary interpretation takes place at Fug. 53–86, Philo returns to the content of Exod 21:13 three more times in the treatise (Fug. 93, 102, and 107), reminding the reader of his previous explanation.

underrepresented in Philo’s corpus. The covenant at Sinai is conspicuous for its near absence. For the two instances, see Philo, QE 2.45a, citing Exod 24:16; Her. 251, where Philo introduced Exod 19:18. On the shift from ‫ ברית‬to διαθήκη and Philo’s understanding of it, see Schwemer 1996, 92–101; Grabbe 2003.

192

Adams

Table 4

The structure of Exod 21:12–14 in Fug. 53–86

53 – quotation of Exod 21:12–14 54 – Beginning of interpretation of 21:12 55 – reference to “wise woman” named “Consideration” 56–57 – quote and interpretation of Deut 4:4 58 – quote and interpretation of Deut 30:15 and 20 59 – quote and interpretation of Lev 10:2–3 and Ps 113:25 [LXX] 60 – quote and interpretation of Gen 4:15 61 – quote and interpretation of Homer, Od. 12:118 62–63 – quote and interpretation of Plato, Theaet. 176a–b 64 – End of interpretation of 21:12 65–66 – Beginning of interpretation of 21:13 67 – quote and interpretation of Gen 48:15–16 68–70 – quote and interpretation of Gen 1:26 71–72 – quote and interpretation of Gen 1:27 73–74 – reference to and interpretation of Deut 27:12–13 75–77 – End of interpretation of 21:13 77 – Beginning of interpretation of 21:14 77 – quotation of Deut 19:5 as parallel to Exod 21:14 78–81 – interpretation of Exod 21:14 82 – quote and interpretation of Plato, Theaet. 176c 83 – Beginning of interpretation of 21:15 83–86 – interpretation of Exod 21:15 with allusion to Num 35

Another extended discussion of Exodus is found in Somn. 1:92–114 and Philo’s exposition of Exod 22:26–27. Unlike the example of Fug. 53–86, Philo does not reference or allude to many other scriptural passages. Rather, this section is a close reading of Exod 22:26–27, beginning with a literal interpretationi and continuing with an allegorical one with Somn. 1:102 acting as the pivot (ταῦτα μὲν δὴ καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα πρὸς τοὺς τῆς ῥητῆς πραγματείας σοφιστὰς καὶ λίαν τὰς ὀφρῦς ἀνεσπακότας εἰρήσθω, λέγωμεν δὲ ἡμεῖς ἑπόμενοι τοῖς ἀλληγορίας νόμοις τὰ πρέποντα περὶ τούτων). The only additional intertextual reference in this section is to Exod 10:21 in Somn. 1:114, which Philo uses to close his discussion. In addition to sustained, localised discussion of Exodus, Philo also uses specific passages to frame ideas or treatises. The treatise On the Posterity of Cain is a commentary on Gen 4:16, which tells how Cain went away from the face of God and dwelt in the land of Naid.29 After briefly comparing Cain with Adam, 29

On the death of the soul, see Zeller 1995; Conroy 2011.

The Book of Exodus in Philo of Alexandria

193

who was involuntarily sent away from God (Post. 10–11), Philo turns to the positive example of Moses, who earnestly strove to see God’s face (Post. 13–16), developing a clear allusion to Exod 33:12–23. This discussion of Moses’ desire is dropped, but returns near the conclusion of the work (Post. 169), creating a frame and interpretive foil for Philo’s discussion of Cain.30 Exod 4:2–16, which recounts Moses’ encounter with God through the burning bush, is key for Philo’s unpacking of Cain’s murder of Abel in Gen 4:8, the primary lemma of That the Worse is Wont to Attack the Better. By using the theme of conflict between unequals, Philo is able to weave his understanding of sophists and Moses’ battles with Pharaoh’s magicians in Egypt throughout the narrative.31 Specifically, Det. 38–44, 126–40, and 177 allude to and quote Exod 4:2–16, providing an example of an Exodus passages continuing throughout the work. In a parallel exegesis, Philo engages in localised framing for his interpretation of Exod 4. In Migr. 76–85, Philo uses the text of Exod 7:10–12 to bookend his discussion of Exod 4:14–16. Other passages from Exod 7 are intertwined within this section creating a strongly connected interpretive bond between Exod 4:14–16 and 7:10–12.32 One challenge when studying Philo’s engagement with Exodus is that certain verses in the Pentateuch are very similar, sometimes identical. For example, in Agr. 82, Philo quotes a phrase from Exodus, but the same words are found in both Exod 15:1 and 21.33 Agr 82 ἔστι δὲ τοιόσδε· ᾄσωμεν τῷ κυρίῳ, ἐνδόξως γὰρ δεδόξασται· ἵππον καὶ ἀναβάτην ἔρριψεν εἰς θάλασσαν· Exod 15:1 τότε ᾖσεν Μωυσῆς καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ τὴν ᾠδὴν ταύτην τῷ θεῷ καὶ εἶπαν λέγοντες ᾄσωμεν τῷ κυρίῳ ἐνδόξως γὰρ δεδόξασται ἵππον καὶ ἀναβάτην ἔρριψεν εἰς θάλασσαν

30

31

32 33

In other sections of the Allegorical Commentary, Philo draws on Exod 33 in support of initiation passages (e.g., Leg. 3:100; Gig. 50–55; Mut. 10–11). For a lengthy discussion on this passage from Exodus, see Spec. 1:41–50. For the importance of Exodus and the character of Moses for Philo’s construct of initiation, see Ryu 2015, 167–169. For Egypt as the land of the body, see Pearce 2007, esp. 164–167. Cf. Adams 2017. Philo is unique in viewing this portion of the Exodus narrative through the lens of sophistry. Much more common is the discussion of Moses’ ability to perform magic (see the discussion by Susan E. Docherty in this volume). Other examples of returning to a verse from Exodus quoted or alluded to earlier in the work include: Ebr. 19 and 77 on Exod 5:2; Ebr. 67–70, 95–99, and 121–125 on Exod 32. This overlap is noted by Colson and Whitaker 1930, 3, 149, but not by Geljon and Runia 2013, 177.

194

Adams

Exod 15:21 ἐξῆρχεν δὲ αὐτῶν Μαριαμ λέγουσα ᾄσωμεν τῷ κυρίῳ ἐνδόξως γὰρ δεδόξασται ἵππον καὶ ἀναβάτην ἔρριψεν εἰς θάλασσαν This lexical overlap poses a challenge for scholars and their desire to tally the number of allusions and citations within an author’s corpus. The way that Allenbach and Sterling treat this overlap implies that there are two quotations, rather than one.34 This creates a numeric problem for scholars, but it is not an issue for authors. Rather, it is a distinctive element of intertextual signalling that an author could exploit. In this instance, Philo’s quotation of a passage that is found in both the opening and close of the Red Sea song in Exodus acts as a lexical frame for his hymnic discussion.35 4 Conclusion From the above discussion we can come to some conclusions about Philo’s use of Exodus. First, Philo knew Exodus well and it was an important book for him. It is the second most cited and alluded to book by Philo (following Genesis) and the only other book to have a commentary and other treatises dedicated to it.36 Second, Philo regularly drew on Exodus for his argumentation. In some treatises Exodus was the primary lemma. However, in almost every treatise (excluding Embassy and Flaccus) Philo uses Exodus to explain other Pentateuchal passages. Third, although Philo recognised that Exodus was a distinct book, he made few references to the book as a whole. Fourth, Philo was selective in his use of Exodus. In the discussions above, Philo shows affinity for specific passages in Exodus, using them across multiple treatises and providing extended interpretations of them. In contrast, Embassy and Flaccus do not have any recognised citation or allusion to Exodus, suggesting that it was not appropriate for the discussion and/or the intended audience.

34

35

36

Allenbach, et al. 1982, 63; Sterling 2014, 428. Another example is the substantial overlap between Exod 31:2–4 and 35:30–31, of which the former is cited (almost) exactly (Gig. 23, 27, and 47; Plant. 26–27), but the indices give both references, suggesting multiple allusions. For further discussion of this, see Adams forthcoming. The pairing of localised texts to signal the interpretation of a larger passage is a common practice for Philo. In Leg. 3:162–175, Philo provides an extended interpretation of Exod 16:4, bringing in Exod 16:13–16 (Leg. 3:169) as further support. Two other Exodus passages are used as part of the interpretation (3:165, Exod 12:4 and 3:172, Exod 15:8). The only other biblical book to receive a commentary by Philo is Deuteronomy (On Rewards and Punishments).

The Book of Exodus in Philo of Alexandria

195

In the Allegorical Commentary, we found that Philo had localised engagements with Exodus, even though the primary lemma was from Genesis. The interconnection between the books of the Pentateuch is vital for our understanding of Philo’s work, supporting Philo’s holistic view of Moses’ authorship and the need for Moses to interpret Moses. This interconnected nature of Moses’ texts is most clearly seen in how Philo pairs certain texts, using them to interpret each other. The need to use other philonic or biblical texts as interpretive lens could lead to scholars seeing hidden or non-overt allusions to specific passages. Although not discussed above, Philo does not explicitly differentiate citations from paraphrases or allusions. He is aware of his citation practice and regularly provides quotations of Exodus and other texts (both scriptural and other). The exact wording is important for Philo as it provides the springboard for his allegorical interpretation. Nevertheless, this valuing of the text does not stop Philo from paraphrasing or expanding an interpretation. One of the challenges raised in this chapter is how to count examples of allusions and citations. At a few places in this study I differ from Gregory Sterling and his tallies. In one instance, I argued that the inclusion of qe gave undue emphasis to specific verses for which that portion of the commentary survived. Another difference is double counting (i.e., one quote or allusion in Philo’s corpus could refer to two or more passages in Exodus or the Pentateuch).37 This is not solely a problem of counting, but is an interesting element of intertextual signalling that an author could exploit. More study is needed on this feature.38 Bibliography Adams, Sean A. 2017. “To Be and Not to Be. Philo on the Difference between Philosophers and Sophists.” Presented at the 2017 SBL Annual Meeting. Adams, Sean A. 2018. “Movement and Travel in Philo’s Migration of Abraham. The Adaptation of Genesis and the Introduction of Metaphor.” StPhA 30: 47–70. Adams, Sean A. 2020. Greek Genres and Jewish Authors. Negotiating Literary Culture in the Greco-Roman Era. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

37

38

Also related to the issue of multiple counting (which is not problematic in Sterling’s 2014 study) is discerning whether or not a specific verse being activated when Philo make a broad reference (e.g., when Philo references the commandments in Exod 20, should we count that as an allusion to a specific commandment, such as honouring parents, or not?). This topic will be engaged with in my study with Seth M. Ehorn on Composite Allusions.

196

Adams

Adams, Sean A. forthcoming. “Composite Allusions in Philo of Alexandria.” In Sean A. Adams and Seth M. Ehorn (eds.), Composite Allusions in Antiquity. Allenbach, J. et al. 1982. Biblia Patristica. Supplément. Philon d’Alexandrie. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Aucher, Johannes Baptista. 1826. Philonis Judaei paralipomena Armena (Libri videlicet quottuor In Genesin, libri duo In Exodum, sermo unus De Sampsone, alter De Jona, tertius De tribus angelis Abraamo apparentibus). Opera hactenus inedita (Ex Armena verione antiquissima ab ipso originali textu Graeco ad verum stricte exequuta saeculo v. nunc primum in Latium fideliter translate). Venice: S. Lazarus. Birnbaum, Elisabeth. 2016. “What in the Name of God Led Philo to Interpret Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as Leaning, Nature, and Practice?” SPhA 28: 273–296. Buffa, Cristina. 2019. “Il termine ἔξοδος negli pseudoepigrafi dell Antico Testamento, in Filone di Alessandria e in Flavio Giuseppe.” Pages 103–130 in Exodos: storia antica di un vocabolo emblematico. Edited by Eberhard Bons, Anna Mambelli and Daniela Scialabba. Mulino: Società Editrice. Clifford, Hywel. 2007. “Moses as Philosopher-Sage in Philo.” Pages 151–168 in Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Tradition. Edited by Axel Graupner and Michael Wolter. BZAW 372. Berlin: de Gruyter. Cohen, Naomi G. 1997. “The Names of the Separate Books of the Pentateuch in Philo’s Writings.” SPhA 9: 54–78. Cohn, Lionel, et al. (eds.). 21962. Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt. 7 volumes. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1896–1930. Berlin: de Gruyter. Colson, Francis Henry and Whitaker, G.H. (trans.). 1930. Philo. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Conroy, John T. 2011. “Philo’s ‘Death of the Soul’. Is This Only a Metaphor?” SPhA 23: 23–40. Drummond, John J. 1888. Philo Judaeus: or, The Jewish-Alexandrian Philosophy in its Development and Completion. 2 Volumes. London: Williams and Norgate. Feldman, Louis H. 2007. Philo’s Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism. CJAS 15. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Fuglsang-Damgaard, Hans. 2014. “Philo’s Life of Moses and ‘Rewritten Bible’.” Pages 233– 248 in Rewritten Bible after Fifty Years: Texts, Terms, or Techniques? A Last Dialogue with Geza Vermes. Edited by József Zsengellér. SJSJ 166. Leiden: Brill. Gabba, Emilio. 1989. “The Growth of Anti-Judaism or the Greek Attitude towards the Jews.” Pages 614–656 in The Cambridge History of Judaism. II The Hellenistic Age. Edited by William David Davies and Louis Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gager, John G. 1972. Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism. SBL.MS 16. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

The Book of Exodus in Philo of Alexandria

197

Geljon, Albert C. and Runia, David T. 2013. Philo of Alexandria, On Cultivation: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. PACS 4. Leiden: Brill. Goodenough, Erwin Ramsdell. 1938. The Politics of Philo Judaeus: Practice and Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Grabbe, Lester. 2003. “Did All Jews Think Alike? ‘Covenant’ in Philo and Josephus in the Context of Second Temple Judaic Religion.” Pages 251–266 in The Concept of Covenant in the Second Temple Period. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C.R. de Roo. JSJ.S 71. Leiden: Brill. Hermerén, Göran. 1992. “Allusions and Intentions.” Pages 203–220 in Intention and Interpretation. Edited by Gary Iseminger. The Arts and their Philosophies. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Irwin, William. 2001. “What Is an Allusion?” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 59: 287–297. Kamesar, Adam. 1997. “The Literary Genres of the Pentateuch as Seen from the Greek Perspective. The Testimony of Philo of Alexandria.” The Studia Philonica Annual 9: 143–189. Katz, Peter. 1950. Philo’s Bible. The Aberrant Text of Bible Quotations in some Philonic Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kugel, James L. 1994. In Potiphar’s House. The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lanfranchi, Pierluigi. 2007. “Reminiscences of Ezekiel’s Exagoge in Philo’s De Vita Mosis.” Pages 144–150 in Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Tradition. Axel Graupner and Michael Wolter. BZAW 372. Berlin: de Gruyter. Leddy, Michael. 1992. “The Limits of Allusion.” British Journal of Aesthetics 32: 110–122. Morgan, Thaïs E. 1985. “Is There an Intertext to this Text? Literary and Interdisciplinary Approaches to Intertextuality.” American Journal of Semiotics 3: 1–40. Niehoff, Maren R. 2018. Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography. AncYBRL. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Pearce, Sarah J.K. 2007. The Land of the Body: Studies in Philo’s Representation of Egypt. WUNT 1.208. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Petit, Françoise. 1978. Quaestiones in Genesim et in Exodum. Fragmenta Graeca. OPA 33. Paris: Cerf. Royse, James Ronald. 2009. “The Works of Philo.” The Cambridge Companion to Philo. Edited by Adam Kamesar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Runia, David T. 1991. “Secondary Texts in Philo’s Quaestiones.” Pages 47–49 in Both Literal and Allegorical. Studies in Philo of Alexandria’s Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus. Edited by David M. Hay. BJS 232. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

198

Adams

Runia, David T. 1995. “God of the Philosophers, God of the Patriarchs. Exegetical Backgrounds in Philo of Alexandria.” Pages 206–218 in Philo and the Church Fathers. VC.S 32. Leiden: Brill. Ryu, Jang. 2015. Knowledge of God in Philo of Alexandria. WUNT 2.405. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Schwemer, Anna Marie. 1996. “Zum Verhältnis von Diatheke und Nomos in den Schriften der jüdischen Diaspora Ägyptens in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit.” Pages 67–109 in Bund und Tora. Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition. Edited by Friedrich Avemarie and Hermann Lichtenberger. WUNT 1.92. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Smallwood, Edith Mary. 1961. Philonis Alexandrini, Legatio ad Gaium: Edited with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Leiden: Brill. Sterling, Gregory E. 2014. “The People of the Covenant or the People of God. Exodus in Philo of Alexandria.” Pages 404–439 in The Book of Exodus. Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Craig A. Evans and Joel N. Lohr. VT.S 164. Leiden: Brill. Sterling, Gregory E. 2018. “Philo of Alexandria’s Life of Moses. An Introduction to the Exposition of the Law.” SPhA 30: 31–45. Terian, Abraham. 1981. Philonis Alexandrini de Animalibus. The Armenian Text with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. SHJ 1. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. Tervanotko, Hanna A. 2017. “‘The Princess Did Provide All Things, as Though I Were Her Own’ (Exagoge 37–38). Reading Exodus 2 in the Late Second Temple Era.” Pages 143–164 in The Bible and Women. An Encyclopedia of Exegesis and Cultural History. Volume 3.1. Early Jewish Writings Second Temple Period. Edited by Eileen Schuller and Marie-Theres Wacker. Atlanta, GA: SBL. Vela, Horacio. 2008. “Philo and the Logic of History.” SPhA 20: 165–182. Zeller, Dieter. 1995. “The Life and Death of the Soul in Philo of Alexandria. The Use and Origin of a Metaphor.” SPhA 7: 19–55.

PART 3 Exodus in the New Testament

⸪

Chapter 10

Exodus Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels Garrick V. Allen It is a testament to the compositional practices and literary erudition of early Jewish and Christian writers that scholars, like those who contributed to this book and many others besides, continue to interrogate their incessant usage of wording, themes, and ideas from antecedent works.1 The Synoptic Gospels are a part of this larger trajectory of Jewish literary production. Their authors crafted these stylised narratives in a way that connects the story of Jesus to major figures and events in Jewish Scripture, reflecting and further developing perspectives on the significance of Jesus’ life and activity as his earliest followers perceived it. The significance of Adam, Abraham, David, and Elijah and their stories crop up throughout the narrative; the exile, the politics of empire, and expectations of restoration underline the texture of these works. Even women like Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba are foundational for understanding the larger story Jesus’ activity, at least according to Matthew’s genealogy (1:2–16). Within this larger constellation of thematic and lexical borrowing from Jewish Scripture, the story of the Exodus from Egypt, Moses’ role as the prophet of liberation, and the symbolism of wilderness and salvific deliverance from Egypt play a central role. Setting aside for the moment the parallels between Moses’ activity as lawgiver at Sinai and Jesus as herald of a new law in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7) and other legal exegesis in the Gospels (Allison 1993, 172–194), this article examines the relationships that exist between the Exodus event and the narratives of the Synoptic Gospels, particularly at the place where the Synoptics differ most markedly: their beginnings. In one sense, this relationship is well-trodden ground in scholarship on the Gospels. So instead of cataloguing literary relationships and listing allusions, I want to instead emphasise the flexible ways that the Gospels alluded to and reused Exodus traditions, endeavoring also to show how each of the evangelists continued to develop their work’s relationship to the Exodus narrative in distinctive ways. Exodus traditions are central to the beginning of each of these narratives, but the relationship between Jesus’ activity and the Exodus event are articulated in varying ways. Although explicit quotations of the legal 1 As I have argued for the book of Revelation in Allen 2017.

© Garrick V. Allen, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471122_012

202

Allen

material from Exodus occur in numerous locations,2 the evangelists tend to filter their engagement with the narrative of Israel’s escape from Egypt through existing exegetical traditions and through the vector of other scriptural works, like Isaiah and other prophetic traditions.3 The Synoptic Gospels and Exodus have an intertwined literary relationship, but the ways that Exodus traditions are incorporated into these works defy straightforward categorisation. To demonstrate this, I will examine the literary relationships between the narrative of the Exodus event and the beginning of each of the Synoptic Gospels, noting the growing explicitness of references to the Exodus in as the tradition develops from Mark to Matthew to Luke. I conclude with some methodological considerations. 1

Mark and Exodus Traditions

The first chapter of Mark is replete with nuanced references and allusions to Jewish Scripture, including Elijah traditions and an emphasis on the location of the desert or wilderness. Mark makes his narrative’s indebtedness to Jewish Scripture explicit almost immediately: 1:2–3 is a quotation attributed to “Isaiah the prophet” (καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ), an ascription that veils its complexity.4 If we read Mark 1:1–3 as programmatic of the message of the book (Watts 1997, 53–55; Drury 1985, 25–36), Exodus traditions of divinely prepared movement and salvation, filtered through later prophetic traditions, are central to Mark’s conceptualisation of Jesus’ activity.

2 E.g. Mark 7:10 (Exod 20:12; 21:17, cf. Deut 5:16; Lev 20:9); 10:19 (Exod 20:12–16, cf. Deut 5:16– 20); Matt 15:4 (Exod 20:12; 21:17); Matt 19:18–19//Mark 19:19//Luke 18:20 (Exod 20:12–16// Deut 5:16–20). 3 A point emphasised for Mark by Watts 1997. 4 Some witnesses, even early ones like Codex Alexandrinus, omit the explicit reference, attributing the quotation instead simply to “the prophets” (τοις προφηταις), a tacit acknowledgement of the complexity of the quotation. Marginal comments in some manuscripts also draw attention to the quotation’s possible source texts. See Karrer 2019, 98–127 (esp. 118–120).

203

Exodus Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels

Mark 1:2b–3

Exod 23:20

Mal 3:1

ἰδοὺ [ἐγώ] ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου   πρὸ προσώπου σου   ὃς κατασκευάσει   τὴν ὁδόν σου

proto-MT OG/LXX ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ‫הנה אנכי‬ ἀποστέλλω ‫שלח‬ τὸν ἄγγελόν μου ‫מלאך‬ πρὸ προσώπου σου ‫לפניך‬ ἵνα φυλάξῃ σε ‫לשמרך‬ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ ‫בדרך‬

OG/LXX ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξαποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου καὶ ἐπιβλέψεται ὁδὸν πρὸ προσώπου μου

proto-MT ‫הנני‬ ‫שלח‬ ‫מלאכי‬ ‫ופנה‬ ‫דרך‬ ‫לפני‬

Isa 40:3

φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ Ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ

OG/LXX φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ   Ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου   εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν

proto-MT

‫קול קורא‬ ‫במדבר‬ ‫פנו‬ ‫דרך יהוה‬ ‫ישרו‬ ‫בערבה מסלה‬ ‫לאלהינ‬

As is well known, the textual form of the quotation in Mark 1:2–3, and the nature of its composition, are difficult to determine. The first clause of the quotation – “behold I am sending my messenger before your face” (ἰδοὺ [ἐγώ] ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου) is a verbatim representation of the OG text of the corresponding clause in OG Exod 23:30, especially if we choose to read the pronoun ἐγώ as part of Mark’s Ausgangstext.5 This utterance from Exodus occurs at the end of the Covenant Code, promising the logical completion of the Exodus event – the eventual (and conditional) conquest of Canaan. Despite their near verbatim relationship in the first clause, the Greek texts of Mark 1:2 and Exod 23:20 diverge in the second, and their divergence cannot be attributed to alternative rendering of the proto-MT: the angel in Exodus is sent 

5 ἐγώ is preserved in a number of witnesses, including the early pandect codices Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus. I suspect it was omitted from the main text of N-A28 in large part because of its coherence to Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1.

204

Allen

“in order that he will protect you on the road”, while in Mark the messenger is the one “who will prepare your way”. Similarities exist, but the details of the wording of the second clause in Mark’s quotation differ from Exodus’ Greek and Hebrew forms. Additionally, some aspects of Mark and Exodus’ Greek text agree with one another against the proto-MT, like the inclusion of the first person genitive pronoun modifying “angel/messenger” (μου). The second clause of the quotation appears at first glance to be a rendering of the Hebrew text of Mal 3:1, a passage that speaks of a messenger who prepares God’s way, preceding his manifestation at the temple. The figure in Malachi is a messenger of the covenant whose appearance will refine humanity (Mal 3:2–3), watching the road in preparation for a kind of new Exodus.6 The use of the third person singular future form of κατασκευάζω in Mark  (as opposed to ἐπιβλέψεται in Malachi) corresponds to ‫ פנה‬if it is read as a piel construction, as it is pointed in the Masoretic tradition (“to clear away”; “clean up”). An imperative piel construction of ‫ פנה‬appears also in Isa 40:3 and is translated as ἑτοιμάσατε (“prepare”) in the OG,7 a reading also preserved in Mark 1:3. The use of ἐπιβλέψεται (“he will look upon”) as an equivalent for ‫פנה‬ in OG Mal 3:1, suggests that the OG translator read ‫ פנה‬as a qal form (“to turn toward [attentively]”; cf. Job 21:5). Both forms of the Malachi text also lack the prepositional phrase witnessed in Exod 23:20 related to the road at the very end of the second clause (ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ). Even if it does not agree precisely with the formulation of the Markan quotation (τὴν ὁδόν σου vs. ὁδὸν/‫)דרך‬, the construction in Malachi is closer than its parallel in Exod 23:20. If we take Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1 as entities that Mark encountered as discrete literary units, it appears that the author drew the first clause word for word from Exodus and the second clause from a form similar to the sense of the proto-MT of Malachi. But the identification of the text form that stands behind the Markan quotation is complicated by the pre-existing relationship between Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1, texts whose forms suggest a multi-directional interpretive détente. The wording of proto-MT of Mal 3:1 is an obvious example of inner-biblical exegesis, reusing the Exodus utterance by adopting similar wording and themes and by using the promise of entrance into the promised land in Exodus as a model for God’s return to the temple, preceded by a messenger of the covenant.8 6 I use the collocation “new Exodus” to refer to the use of Exodus motifs from Jewish Scripture as a vector to conceptualise a new salvific event – like the end of exile or interpretations of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection – effected by God or his messiah in early Jewish and Christian literature. On the diversity of uses of “new Exodus” terminology in New Testament studies see Lynwood Smith 2016, 207–243. 7 On the similarities of Mal 3:1 and Isa 40:3, see Watts 1997, 73–74. 8 On scriptural reuse in Malachi, see Lear 2017.

Exodus Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels

205

Some elements are rearranged, like ‫לפני‬, and other referents are altered to correspond to a new literary context, like the personal pronouns, but these alterations are standard aspects of textual reuse in early Judaism.9 Many have noted that Malachi reuses or otherwise reworks Exod 23:30 (Hill 1987, 130), but there may also be influence by Malachi on the Exodus text in quantitatively small-scale ways, especially in the OG. For example, both OG Malachi and Exodus agree that it is “my angel” (τὸν ἄγγελόν μου) that has been sent, even though the Hebrew of Exodus lacks any pronoun, suggesting perhaps that the translator of OG Exodus (or his Hebrew Vorlage) was influenced by the wording of Mal 3:1.10 The similarities and complex relationship between the Exodus and Malachi texts create issues for identifying not only the text form, but also the literary work that Mark cites. The relationship between these utterances is so close that ancient Jewish readers would have easily collocated them as related units – Mal 3:1 and Exod 23:20 become linked and mutually illuminating texts for understanding God’s past and future salvific activities, first in Mark but then also in rabbinic literature (e.g. Exod. Rab. 23:20). The situation is such that it is equally plausible that Mark quotes a text form similar to the sense of the entire Malachi segment in the proto-MT (Yarbro Collins 2007, 136). If Mark utilised this form, it would explain his use of the first person pronoun in “my messenger”, and it is not inconceivable that the author rearranged the equivalent of ‫( לפני‬πρὸ προσώπου σου) back into the first clause. There is no definitive conclusion to reach here, but what is clear is that Mark’s use of the language of the Exodus is entwined with and filtered through a post-exilic prophetic re-imagining of the Exodus and God’s return. Malachi becomes an important intermediary tradition for Mark’s conceptualisation of the Exodus, especially because Mal 4:5 (MT 3:23) explicitly articulates Elijah as a precursor who is sent in a preparatory way before “the great and terrible day of the Lord.” This conclusion coheres with Mark’s use of Elijah imagery to symbolise John the Baptist’s activity (e.g. Mark 1:6; cf. 2 Kings 1:8; Zech 13:4). The second half of the quotation (Mark 1:3) does indeed come directly from the start of Deutero-Isaiah, a section that emphasises the impending end of exile (e.g. Isa 40:1–2; cf. Bar. 5:7–9; Pss. Sol. 11:4; 4Q176; 1QS VIII, 12–16; IX, 17–20).11 9 10 11

Also in the New Testament, e.g. Mark 1:11; 12:36; 14:24, 14:27, 62; Rom 3:11–18; 1 Pet 2:6–8. See further discussion in Marcus 2000, 147–148. The SP of Exod 23:20 does preserve ‫ מלאכי‬against the proto-MT ‫מלאך‬, perhaps suggesting an editorial relationship at the level of both the Hebrew and Greek texts of these utterances. See Wevers 1990, 369. Other parts of Isaiah, notably chapter 11 and 51, rework Exodus traditions in a way that correlates the coming end of exile with a new Exodus. See Fishbane 1985, 354–356. On Deutero-Isaiah in the Gospels and early Judaism see Allen (forthcoming).

206

Allen

This part of the Markan quotation follows the OG verbatim with the exception of the final word, using the third person pronoun (αὐτοῦ) instead of “our God” (τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν) because the referent is already in view in light of the clause’s collocation with the preceding material.12 Even in locations where Greek translations might diverge from one another based on different understandings of the Hebrew, both Mark and OG Isa 40:3 agree verbatim. Both simplify ‫“( בערבה מסלה‬a highway in the desert”) to τὰς τρίβους (“the paths”), substituting a plural for the singular, and both represent ‫“( ישר‬straighten”; “smooth”) with εὐθείας ποιεῖτε (“make straight”), even though other translational options for the piel form exist in the tradition.13 The second part of the quotation likely comes directly from an OG form of Isa 40:3, which has been collocated with a complex of other scriptural traditions because each of these texts speak of the preparation of a divine pathway. The composition of the quotation reflects the complexity of Markan practices of reuse when it comes to Exodus traditions more broadly. Jewish scriptural sources, potentially preserved in multiple languages, are combined in complicated ways due to their perceived similarity in wording and content. By opening his Gospel in this way, Mark alerts readers to the fact that his narrative is deeply connected to the story of Israel as it is preserved in Jewish Scripture and that his engagement with the Exodus event is mediated through intervening interpretive traditions. The quotation articulates that the story of Jesus is a recapitulation of the entrance into the promised land (Exodus), that the activity of John the Baptist is preparatory for God’s return (Malachi), and that Mark views the narrative of his work as pertaining to the end of exile (Isaiah). Within this larger complex of traditions, we see other allusions to Exodus in Mark’s opening chapter. John’s location “in the desert” and the gathering of people from Judea and Jerusalem (1:5) recalls the wilderness wandering that intervened between the Exodus event across the Sea of Reeds and the wilderness wandering (Guelich 1989, 18). John the Baptist is re-preparing Israel in the desert through baptism for the forgiveness of sins, a symbolic activity that also has resonances with Exodus traditions.14 Similarly, immediately after Jesus’ baptism, he is cast into the desert (εἰς τὴν ἔρημον) for forty days (1:12–13), 12 13 14

Some have intuited a christological alteration here, arguing that the antecedent of αὐτοῦ is Jesus. See Guelich 1989, 11; Watts 2007, 113. Codex Bezae (D05) preserves the reading τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν, creating an exact correspondence with Isa 40:3. OG Isa 40:3 is the only location where εὐθείας ποιεῖτε translates a form of ‫( ישר‬Hatch and Redpath 1987, 2, 1154–1168) and it is rendered with six other possible Greek equivalents (Muraoka 2010, 227). Nixon 1963, 13, for example, argues that the use of the verb ἀναβαίνειν to describe Jesus’ “coming up” out of the water of baptism is an allusion to the activity of the Israelites as

Exodus Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels

207

repeating in condensed form the forty years the Israelites wandered in the desert (Exod 16:35) and the forty days that Moses spent in the cloud of God’s presence on Sinai (Exod 24:18; see also Mark 9:1–13; Acts 1:3–4; Drury 1985, 25–36; Watts 1997, 102–121). Markan engagement with the Exodus in 1:1–15 is paradigmatic of his use of this tradition in other parts of the book. For example, a number of allusions to Exodus occur in the Olivet Discourse, combined with and subsumed by other scriptural resonances.15 Rarely has Exodus been considered a major intertext for Mark 13, a first person speech of Jesus that emphasises prophetic fulfilment, a cataclysmic eschatology, and apocalyptic language. The discourse is prompted by an anonymous disciple, who, upon leaving the temple, marvels at the size of the stone and the building (13:1). Jesus responds that these objects of awe will be cast down, one not left standing on anther (13:2). The location of the discourse then moves to the Mount of Olives across from the temple, where Peter, James, John, and Andrew ask Jesus privately when “the sign that all these things are about will be accomplished” (13:4). Jesus’ response begins with a series of warnings (13:5–13). They should not be led astray, “for many will come in my name saying that ‘I am’” (ἐγώ εἰμι; 13:6). Although debated, the use of “I am” language to speak of messianic pretenders is similar to Moses’ experiences at the burning bush (Exod 3:6, 14; 4:5), a conclusion supported by the quotation of Exod 3:6 in Mark 12:26.16 The national strife that follows the appearance of false messiahs will also occur on a smaller scale in the activity of the community (13:10). They will be handed over to authorities, punished and beaten, but the Holy Spirit will speak for God’s people, giving them the words to say when they stand before authorities (13:11). This trope is also located in the Lord’s assurance to Moses that he will put words in Aaron’s mouth and that God will be with Moses’ mouth and with Aaron’s mouth when they stand before Pharaoh (Exod 4:15). The community who will be harassed at the end of the age will be prophets like Moses, speaking to authorities and powers with words ordained by God’s spirit in that moment in an effort to affect a salvific event. The speech then shifts in 13:14 to a description of signs that more imminently precede the end. When these appear, people should be alarmed

15 16

they “go up” out of Egypt (ἀνέβησαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου; Exod 13:18) and “go up” into the promised land (ἀναβάντες; Deut 1:21). On the textual issues of quotations in the Synoptic apocalypse see Stendahl 1968, 79–83 [repr. Ramsey: Siegler, 1990]. See Evans 2014, 440–464 (here 445–448). The ἐγώ εἰμι formula of course has a wider valence, particularly in the Gospel of John. Numerous studies have explored Mark 13:6 within this matrix, e.g. Ball 1996.

208

Allen

(contra 13:7) and flee immediately when they see the desolating sacrilege set up  (τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως ἑστηκότα; cf. Dan 9:27; 12:11). This period is defined by universal suffering, “such as has not been from the beginning of creation that God has made until now” (13:19). This assertion about the intensity of suffering at the end of the age is an allusion to the impact of Exodus’ plagues: the rain (Exod 9:18), locusts (10:14), and wailing brought about by the death of firstborn (11:6) are events that have never and will never be experienced again (cf. also Dan 12:1) (Sloan 2019, 183–184). Appeals to the intensity of the plague traditions places the eschatological events that Jesus describes within the framework of judgement and eventual deliverance of God’s people. The discourse concludes with reprieve. God will cut short the days for the sake of the elect (Mark 13:20) and false prophets and messiahs giving signs and wonders will be manifest, immediately preceding the appearance of the son of man (13:26). He will emerge after the darkening of the sun, the refusal of the moon to give its light, and the shaking of the powers in heaven (cf. Isa 13:10; 34:4; Joel 2:10; 3:4; 4:15; 1 En. 102:2), sending his messengers to gather the elect from the four corners of the world. The message of the speech is reiterated through the metaphor of the fig tree and a call for watchfulness. Just as you know that summer is near when the fig tree blossoms, so too you will know that the end is nigh when these things occur; and they will occur before the passing of this generation (13:28–31), even if no one knows the exact hour (13:32–37). This outline of the end, culminating in the desecration (13:14) and destruction of the temple (13:2) is constructed in conversation with early Jewish literature, particularly prophetic and apocalyptic traditions. The desolating sacrilege (13:14) alludes to Danielic traditions of the temple’s desecration by foreign kings (cf. 1 Macc 1:41–64). Moreover, the language of the end of exile and associated cosmic disturbances is drawn from material in Isaiah and Joel (Mark 13:24–25). But Exodus traditions are also present in this broader tapestry of scriptural resonances, even if they remain an undercurrent in this larger picture. A number of other examples of Mark’s engagement with Exodus traditions could be mustered here,17 but these examples from Mark 1 and 13 are sufficient to demonstrate the way in which Mark engages the Exodus event. Material from Exodus is rarely the explicit focus of Mark’s scriptural engagement and rewriting, and these allusions are collocated and enmeshed with other scriptural works and utterances. In part, Mark construes Jesus’ activity as a new Exodus, using material directly from Exodus itself (e.g. Mark 1:2; 12:26) and also 17

E.g. the Transfiguration (Mark 9:1–13), the Last Supper (14:12–25), a quotation of Jesus about the resurrection in 12:26 (//Matt 22:32//Luke 20:37; Exod 3:6), and some miracles. See Nixon 1963, 11–19; Wook 2018, 62–75; O’Brien 2010; Evans 2014, 448–451.

209

Exodus Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels

Exodus traditions pertaining to the end of exile mediated through intervening interpretive and scriptural traditions. Exodus typologies are a persistent undercurrent in Mark,18 but beyond a few explicit quotations, Mark’s use of Exodus is largely implicit. 2

Exodus in Matthew

This situation changes in Matthew, who more explicitly presents his narrative, especially chapters 1–4, as a stylised enactment of the Exodus event (Tóth 2021). The ratcheting up of Markan sensibilities is most obvious in Matthew’s infancy narrative. Numerous features of Matthew’s expansion to Mark’s narrative allude to the Exodus, creating again a typological relationship between Matthew and the Exodus story more broadly. The first instance of Matthew’s engagement with the Exodus narrative is the family’s escape to Egypt. Following the visit of the magi, an angel of the Lord appears to Joseph in a dream, warning him to flee to Egypt to escape the coming violence of Herod (2:13). Joseph obeys this command (2:14), and the narrator explains this action as a fulfillment of “what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, ‘from Egypt I called my son’” (2:15), a quotation of Hos 11:1. Not only does the conflict between Herod and the child indicate that Herod viewed this child as a legitimate threat to his kingship, culminating in the slaughter of the innocents (Matt 2:16–18), but that the story of how Jesus will become king is connected inextricably with the Exodus event. The quotation of Hos 11:1 makes explicit the combination of Exodus and kingship themes, transferring the sonship of Israel in Hosea to Jesus (Ham 2009, 39–56, here 44–45). Matt 2:15

OG Hos 11:1

Proto-MT Hos 11:1

ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου From Egypt I called my   son

ἐξ Αἰγύπτου μετεκάλεσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ From Egypt I called again   his children

‫וממצרים‬ ‫קראתי‬ ‫לבני‬ And from Egypt I called   my son

18

So also Sahlin 1953, 81–95, who argues that the New Testament sees a direct typological correlation between “the historical Exodus and the Messianic deliverance” (p. 83). On Urzeit-Endzeit typological development within Jewish Scripture, see Fishbane 1987, 356–379.

210

Allen

On the surface this quotation is problematic for a number of reasons, including the fact that Matthew views Hosea’s words a prophecy in need of fulfilment when they simply reflect upon Israel’s disobedience in Hosea and that the quotation appears when Jesus and his family enter Egypt, not when they leave it.19 And, like Mark 1:2–3, this quotation has some deeper underlying textual problems. At first glance, Matthew appears to be an isomorphic translation of the proto-MT, and it differs from the OG in significant ways, using a different verb and referring to “my son” (τὸν υἱόν μου) instead of “his children” (τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ).20 The revisers to the Greek tradition too noted the differences between Hos 11:1 OG and proto-MT.21 They corrected the Greek text to more closely reflect the Hebrew, creating Greek versions within the stream to the proto-MT that are closer to Matthew’s rendering. Although these revising Greek texts have traditionally been thought to reflect periods later than the composition of the Gospels, it is now widely acknowledged that these recensions preserve earlier traditions, some of which (like this quotation) are also witnessed in early Christian writings.22 None of the later revisions correspond exactly to Matthew’s wording, but together they provide another option alongside the view that Matthew directly translated the Hebrew. Aquila and Theodotion both preserve the verb ἐκάλεσα and Aquila preserves τὸν υἱόν μου (Ziegler 1982, 172; Stendahl 1968, 101). In terms of understanding the sources for Matthew’s engagement with Exodus traditions, all that we can say for certain is that Matthew’s version of this text is aligned with the proto-MT stream of Hos 11:1, a textual stream reflected also in the revising Greek traditions. In any case, the quotation makes clear that the location of the family’s temporary exile is not coincidental, a point emphasised in the narrative at Herod’s death, interrupted only by the murder of the innocents.23 An angel again 19 20

21 22 23

Some of these issues are discussed in Beale 2012, 697–715 and Luz 2007, 118. See Beale 2012, 697 n. 1. who notes that [...] “it is clear that Matthew has quoted the Hebrew … and not the Greek OT”, a perspective shared also with Jerome in ad Aglasiam, who argues that the evangelists often appeal to the Hebrew when the wording of their quotations differ from the OG/LXX. See also Dodd 1953, 75–78 and a more nuanced take on the textual issues in Stendahl 1968, 39–41. For a brief overview of the relationship between OG and proto-MT Hosea in the context of recent debate on composition of the OG Twelve, see Theocharous 2012, 8–22 and Neef 2011, 106–118. The discovery of the 8HevXIIgr, the earliest manuscript to witness to the revision of the OG text, pushed the revision process significantly earlier. See Barthélemy 1963. This passage may also allude to the threat of the murder of Israelite children in Exod 1:15– 22. See Boxall 2014, 88. Allison 1993, 141 argues that the quotation of Hos 11:1 “tells us that there is a parallelism between what unfolds in Matthew 2 and what unfolded long ago  in Egypt.”

Exodus Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels

211

appears to Joseph in Egypt (2:19), telling him to “go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the life of the boy are now dead” (2:20). Joseph obeys and, guided by another dream, avoids Judea and returns to Galilee, apparently fulfilling another prophecy (2:21–23). The narrative movement to and from Egypt recalls Israel’s own history, which culminated in the Exodus event. In addition to the geographic symbolism, the angel’s message to Joseph upon the death of Herod that “the ones who were seeking the life of your child are now dead” (τεθνήκασιν γὰρ οἱ ζητοῦντες τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ παιδίου; 2:20) is a clear allusion to Exod 4:19. Following Moses’ encounter with God at the burning bush and the commissioning of his prophetic task (Exod 3:1–4:17), Moses desires to return to Egypt from Midian (4:18–19). The Lord tells him to “go to Egypt, for all those who were seeking your life are dead” (τεθνήκασιν γὰρ πάντες οἱ ζητοῦντές σου τὴν ψυχήν; OG 4:19). Moses, his wife, and children arise and go to Egypt where he begins his prophetic activity before Pharaoh. The wording of Matt 2:20 and Exod 4:19 are strikingly similar, both using the plural τεθνήκασιν even though it was only Herod seeking Jesus’ life, as is their syntactic arrangement and word order (Allison 1993, 140–144). Although Moses returns to Egypt in the quotation while Joseph and his family return to Israel, the explicit allusion draws a direct connection between Moses and Jesus – both are now at the point in their stories where their prophetic activities begin, both of which will culminate in a new Exodus, a significant salvific event. This impression is confirmed in Matthew 3, where Matthew begins to take up the narrative of Mark. Even though Matthew’s quotation that contextualises John’s activity is only of OG Isa 40:3 (cf. Mal 3:1/Exod 23:20 in Matt 11:10), other features of the passage allude to the Exodus in a way that is similar to Mark’s portrayal. Most obviously, Jesus’ baptism at the Jordan and his proclamation by God as “my beloved son” (3:17) is similar to Moses’ declaration before Pharaoh in Exod 4:22 that Israel is Yhwh’s firstborn son (τάδε λέγει κύριος υἱὸς πρωτότοκός μου Ισραηλ). Both declarations of sonship legitimate the instigation of events – the Exodus and Jesus’ ministry – that purport to lead to Israel’s liberation. Moreover, Jesus’ temptation in Matthew is expanded vis-à-vis Mark’s terse report. In Matthew Jesus is also in the desert for forty days (4:2), but he is tempted by Satan and relives Israel’s wilderness wandering. Again, the themes of kingship and Exodus are connected as Satan tempts Jesus to eat bread he can make from stones (4:3), recalling the manna in the wilderness, and to take up universal kingship (4:8–9; Allison 1993, 165–172). Following John’s arrest, Jesus then begins to proclaim that the kingdom of God is near (4:17). Matthew’s narrative appropriation of Exodus tradition does not stop after this chapter, as many have noted (Davies 1964, 25–93; Nixon 1963, 15; Smith, 2016, 220–222; Allison 1993, 172–190). In some cases, Matthew does explicitly

212

Allen

quote utterances located also in the literary work now known as Exodus,24 but this overview of Matthew 1–4 is sufficient to establish the ways that the evangelist engaged this tradition. Matthew’s repertoire of reuse is flexible. It includes the use of narrative devices like the geographic movement from Judea to Egypt to Galilee, explicit quotation of intervening traditions like Hos 11:1,25 and explicit allusions to precise utterances related to Moses’ activity like in Matt 2:20. Matthew’s variety of connections to Exodus traditions acknowledge the pattern of reference in Mark, making the typological connection between Jesus and Moses and the Exodus and Jesus’ activity more explicit, notably through the addition of the family’s escape to Egypt and return to Galilee. Matthew simplifies the textual issues associated with the quotation that precedes John the Baptist’s activity vis-à-vis Mark,26 but the way that the added narrative material in Matthew 1–2 continues to allude to Exodus traditions suggests that Matthew intuited Mark’s own allusions and composed in such a way that his infancy narrative emphasised this connection. This pattern continues in Luke. 3

Exodus in Luke

Like Matthew, Luke is attentive to the patterns of allusion, quotation, and symbolism in Mark that connect the Gospel narrative to aspects of the Exodus event. And the Lukan childhood narrative makes connections to the Exodus narrative in markedly different ways than Matthew, while other parts of the Gospel, like the Lukan transfiguration account, make the relationship between the Exodus more explicit than either Mark or Matthew. The first allusion to the Exodus narrative is located in the introduction of Zechariah, Elizabeth, and  their miraculous son, John, whose conception is markedly similar to the divinely ordained conception of aged, barren patriarchal wives in the Torah (Luke 1:7). A small detail about Elizabeth creates a direct link to Exodus. The only background information that we are told about Elizabeth is that she is a descendent of Aaron, Moses’ brother (Luke 1:6). She shares a name with Aaron’s wife, who is also called Elizabeth in OG Exod 6:23. We are also alerted to the fact that Elizabeth is a relative of Mary (Luke 1:36), and although Jesus 24 25 26

Matt 5:21 (Exod 20:13); 5:38 (Exod 21:24); 11:10 (Exod 23:20/Mal 3:1); 15:4 (Exod 21:17); 19:18 (Exod 20:12–16); 22:32 (Exod 3:6); 27:10 (Exod 9:12). Historically, Hos 11:1 may be one the first literary compositions to discuss the Exodus event, preceding the composition of the Book of Exodus. See Grabbe 2014, 61–87. The quotation in Mark 1:2–3 is also distributed in Luke, with the Exod 23:30/Mal 3:1 material appearing in 7:27. See van de Sandt 2009, 57–77 (here 58–59).

Exodus Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels

213

and John are not brothers like Aaron and Moses, the familial connection and explicit articulation of Elizabeth’s heritage connects the Lukan infancy narrative to the Exodus event by creating a parallel between the activity of Jesus and John that follows that of Moses and Aaron. Another feature that alludes to the Exodus is the interruption of the narrative by the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–56). This song is closely related to Hannah’s prayer in 1 Samuel (2:1–10; cf. L.A.B. 51:3–6), but also preserves parallels with Moses’ song after the crossing of the Sea of Reeds (Exod 15:1–18).27 In both texts God is a saviour (Luke 1:47 ἠγαλλίασεν τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρί μου, Exod 15:2 ἐγένετό μοι εἰς σωτηρίαν), he stretches out his arm in strength (Luke 1:51 ἐποίησεν κράτος ἐν βραχίονι αὐτοῦ, Exod 15:6, ἡ δεξιά σου, κύριε, δεδόξασται ἐν ἰσχύι, ἡ δεξιά σου χείρ, κύριε, ἔθραυσεν ἐχθρούς, 15:12 ἐξέτεινας τὴν δεξιάν σου), and God uplifts Israel in the face of her enemies (Luke 1:52–55; Exod 15:15–17). Beyond these thematic and lexical similarities, both Moses’ and Mary’s songs follow a decisive recognition of God’s power and completion of promises. In Exodus, the song immediately follows the culmination of the Exodus narrative and the destruction of the Egyptians, fulfilling the promised liberation from slavery. Likewise, Mary’s prayer follows a statement by Elizabeth, who notes that “blessed is she who believes that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her by the Lord” (Luke 1:45). The fulfilment of divine promises prompts both of these poetic texts, drawing an implicit parallel between the miraculous pregnancies (and John’s leaping in utero) and the escape from Egypt. The song foreshadows the significance of the activity of both the unborn Jesus and John that follows in the narrative. Zechariah’s prophecy (Luke 1:67–80) also alludes to the Exodus event. Zechariah notes that the God of Israel redeemed (1:68 ἐποίησεν λύτρωσιν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ), an action that Moses also attributes to God in his song (Exod 15:13 ὡδήγησας τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου τὸν λαόν σου τοῦτον, ὃν ἐλυτρώσω). And he points out that just as God has remembered his holy covenant with their ancestors (μνησθῆναι διαθήκης ἁγίας αὐτοῦ), and Abraham in particular, so he too now has rescued his people from their enemies (1:73–75). This phraseology is similar to the language of Exod 2:24 (καὶ ἐμνήσθη ὁ θεὸς τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ τῆς πρὸς Αβρααμ καὶ Ισαακ καὶ Ιακωβ), where God hears the cries of Israel under the yoke of slavery and remembers his covenant with their ancestors (cf. Lev 26:42; 2 Macc 1:2). This complex of allusions is further supported by an allusion to Isa 40:3 in Luke 1:76, a text that refers to Israel’s return from exile in the form of a new Exodus and which is quoted explicitly and extensively in Luke 3:4–6.  27

Bailey 1979, 29–35 notes a number of poetic structural parallels between the Magnificat and Moses’ song in Exod 15.

214

Allen

For Zechariah, John will be “the prophet of the Most High”, going before the Lord to prepare his way (1:76), connecting John to Elijah traditions. The special Lukan material in chapter 1 includes a constellation of allusions to the Exodus, collocated with and filtered through intervening scriptural development in Israel’s story. Exodus allusions persist in the description of Jesus’ birth and adolescence. When Jesus is presented to the temple authorities as the firstborn male of his family (Luke 2:22–38), a passage unique to Luke, the narrator makes it clear that this action was undertaken to follow the law that “every male who opens the womb will be designated as holy to the Lord” (πᾶν ἄρσεν διανοῖγον μήτραν ἅγιον τῷ κυρίῳ κληθήσεται). This narrative aside quotes parts of Exod 13:12–15, where Moses commands the Israelites to consecrate their firstborn upon their entrance into the land in remembrance of plague of the firstborn (Exod 12:29– 32). Moses gives provision to redeem firstborn male children and the first male offspring of some animals, an action that Jesus’ parents make by sacrificing a pair of turtledoves and young pigeons (Luke 2:24, cf. Lev 12:8). The wording of Luke 2:23 combines the commands related to animals about opening the womb (Exod 13:12 πᾶν διανοῖγον μήτραν) and the specific command about make children (13:13 πᾶν πρωτότοκον ἀνθρώπου τῶν υἱῶν σου λυτρώσῃ), even though the verbs differ (καλέω in Luke and λυτρόω/‫ פדה‬in Exodus). This quotation is particularly important for the development of Lukan Exodus motifs because the ritual activity of Jesus’ family is symbolically freighted. The activity of redeeming human male children in Exod 13:13 is a direct response to God’s saving activity. Parents will tell their children that their redemption is a sign that the Lord brought their ancestors out of slavery, killing the firstborn of all Egypt – both animals and humans: “It shall serve as a sign on your hand and as an emblem on your forehead that by strength of hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt” (Exod 13:16). Luke’s inclusion of this story indicates that, for him, Mary and Joseph are not simply carrying out legal responsibilities. Jesus’ consecration draws direct attention to a specific point in the Exodus narrative – the time between Israel’s release and Pharaoh’s change of heart to pursue them – suggesting that Israel again stands on the precipice of a salvific event. This view is reinforced by Simeon’s prophecy that his eyes have seen God’s salvation (Luke 2:30), by his parent’s amazement at these words (2:33), and by Anna’s prophecy (2:36–38), even though Luke fails to report its content.28 Luke further develops Exodus traditions related to Jesus’ birth and early life. 28

Other scriptural passages are also evoked in these texts. See, e.g., Lyons 2015, 640–656.

Exodus Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels

215

This pattern continues with Jesus’ journey to the temple as a twelve-yearold (Luke 2:41–51), a story that is unique to Luke and coincides with a major Exodus event: the Passover. It is not so much the action of the passage that is important, but a small note by the narrator that ties Jesus’ early life to the Exodus events. In the introduction to this section we are told that every year Jesus and his parents went up to Jerusalem for the Passover festival and that when he was twelve, they went up again as usual (2:41–42). Although not direct allusions to a particular text in Exodus, these statements, once again, present Jesus and his family as sensitive to the commands that Moses gives the Israelites before the cross the sea out of Egypt. In Exod 12:14–20, Moses tells the people that they are to keep the Passover as an annual festival, giving particular instructions for the ritual. And in 12:24–27 the perpetual ordinance is set up so that parents can pass onto their children the memory of deliverance from Egypt: “It is the Passover sacrifice to Yhwh, for he passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt, when he struck down the Egyptians but spared our houses” (12:27). Both times when Jesus appears at the temple in the Lukan infancy narrative, at his consecration and at one of his family’s journeys for Passover, these events are tied directly to the memory of the Exodus that parents were to pass on to their children. The contextual notes that the evangelist gives to explain their appearance at the temple are not simply narrative notices. Considering the selectivity of Luke’s infancy narrative, the events that he does record place Jesus’ movements as a child and family activities within in the context of the Exodus event, foreshadowing the significance of his activity as an adult. The Exodus theme is, like the parallel passages in Mark and Matthew, once again apparent also in John’s ministry (3:4), Jesus’ baptism at the Jordan (3:21), and his forty days in the desert (Luke 4:2; Acts 1:2–3).29 For example, Luke too quotes Isa 40:3–5 (3:4), expanding upon Matthew’s form of the quotation by adding more material beyond Isa 40:3. But Luke also highlights the relationship between the Exodus and other events narrated also in Mark and Matthew. For example, the transfiguration has obvious parallels with the Exodus narrative and new Exodus expectations (Mark 9:2–8//Matt 17:1–8//Luke 9:28–36), especially the appearance of Moses and Elijah, a collocation of figures found also in the compound quotation in Mark 1:2–3.30 But Luke 9:31 notes that the content of the conversation between Jesus, Moses, Elijah pertains to Jesus’ “going

29 30

On these texts and larger patterns of Exodus traditions in Luke, see Mánek 1957, 8–23 and Garrett 1990, 656–680. For another specific Lukan allusion see Luke 11:20 (“finger of God”) and Exod 8:19. See Marshall 1978, 475–476; Evans 2014, 440–445.

216

Allen

out” or “exodus” (ἔξοδον αὐτοῦ) that he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem.31 The lexeme ἔξοδος refers explicitly to the Exodus event in Heb 11:22 (cf. also OG Exod 19:1; Num 33:38; 1 Kings 6:1; Ps 104:38), raising the possibility that the discussion on the mountain of the transfiguration concerned Jesus’ impending fate in Jerusalem, conceptualised by the narrator as a new Exodus.32 Picking up on the allusions to the Exodus embedded in his sources, Luke makes these references more explicit by emphasising the link between Jesus’ appearances in Jerusalem and the Exodus, further conceptualising his activity in these terms. 4

Conclusion

The narratives of the Synoptic Gospels and Jesus’ activities are deeply connected with the Exodus narrative and their authors endeavoured to make this correspondence clear from the outset. Each Gospel emphasises this relationship in different ways, modifying their inherited traditions and, for the most part, making more explicit the typological connection between the Exodus and Jesus’ actions. For example, both the Matthean and Lukan infancy narratives expand upon Mark in ways that emphasise this relationship: Matthew narrates the story of the escape to and return from Egypt anchored in a quotation of Hos 11:1, and Luke describes Jesus’ early appearances at the temple in terms of legal obligations tied to the Exodus and the imperative for parents to teach their children about the significance of God’s deliverance of Israel. The Exodus event was an important conceptual resource for the Synoptic evangelists that influenced their presentation of the significance of Jesus’ activity. This selective analysis of Exodus traditions in the Synoptic Gospels highlights three critical points related to scriptural reuse that impinge on the methodology of “Old Testament in the New Testament” studies. The development of Exodus traditions in the beginning of the Synoptic Gospels demonstrates the flexibility, complexity, and mediation of scriptural traditions. Each of these features has consequences for how scholars identify, analyse, and interpret the reuse of scriptural traditions in the New Testament.33 And although these observations are not novel, they bear repeating in light of the recent 31 32 33

On this passage, and many of the other Exodus references in Luke vis-à-vis the Synoptics, see Mittmann, 2016, 321–370. Mánek 1957, 8–23 links the Transfiguration to the Lukan resurrection account. For other recent methodological reflections along these lines see Kowalski 2019, 86–102 and Docherty 2019, 11–22.

Exodus Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels

217

emphasis on the search for criteria and a unified methodology relevant for all New Testament works (Allen 2015, 3–16). When I describe the evangelists’ uses of scriptural traditions as flexible, I mean that they are not bound to refer to Scripture in any pre-determined way and that the intentionality of their references is not determined by the explicitness of their presentation. Authors working within a broader Jewish textual culture of the late Second Temple period, like the evangelists, were free to intuit connections between scriptural works, to interpret them in conversation with existing traditions, to present these interpretations in their own literary works with varying levels of explicitness, and to develop existing traditions and interpretations in new ways. The flexibility of reference is one main reason why scholars continue to disagree about the very presence of intertextual references and their significance for interpreting the target narrative. Yet, the density of references to the Exodus, especially at the outset of each of the Synoptic Gospels, cues readers to be sensitive to nuanced forms of presentation, even if allusions are remote, as the narratives progress. This flexibility of reference is an ambient feature that is common to early Jewish and Christian textual cultures more broadly and it is on clear display in how each evangelist develops connections between Jesus’ early life, the beginning of his ministry, and the Exodus (Docherty 2019, 21–22; Allen 2017). The second point is that the way that these references are presented to readers, and the interpretive processes that stand behind these references, is complex. But very rarely do scholars acknowledge this complexity in all its variety. We tend to compare two static literary entities – the Gospel of Mark and Exodus, for example – as we find them in modern print critical editions. And even if we acknowledge that Exodus existed in multiple languages and textual forms during the period that Mark was written, and that the material form of Exodus available to Mark differed significantly from our access to the work in printed books, many still fail to take into account a range of other factors that influenced the ways that Mark may have engaged with a given Exodus text. The factors include issues associated both with the underlying operation of reuse and its presentation (Tooman 2019, 23–39, esp. 35–36), including the interpretive possibilities of reading Greek and Hebrew in manuscript cultures (Allen 2017, 25–27), the role of memory, intuited relationships between remote scriptural utterances (e.g. Exod 23:20 and Mal 3:1), literary choices associated with the presentation of reused material, the transmission and reconstruction of the text of the New Testament, and the mediating influence of other Jewish interpretive traditions, among others. It is difficult to consider these intricacies when we access these traditions only through the medium of the critical

218

Allen

edition; we elide and obscure the multifaceted realities of literary composition in early Judaism when we work within exclusively print culture suppositions. My final point relates to the mediated nature of these traditions. When analysing the reception of scriptural traditions in early Christian literature, we must recognise that interpretive practices are mediated by intervening traditions.34 I have attempted to demonstrate that Exodus’ reception within the Hebrew Bible and its early versions, in Mal 3:1 for instance, influences its deployment in the New Testament and that the evangelists are not simply reading a copy of Exodus isolated from other traditions. But the mediation of traditions like the Exodus extends also to early Jewish traditions that were not eventually collocated in any biblical collection.35 Scholars recognise this reality when they consider relevant parallels in the Dead Sea Scrolls, early Jewish Hellenistic literature, or other works. But it is important for New Testament scholars in particular to situate the ways that their corpus engages scriptural traditions within a much broader discourse that defines early Jewish and Christian literary production. The Gospels are one point in a broader history of scriptural interpretation that uses Exodus traditions to conceptualise the location of a community within history, standing at the blurred boundary of the end of exile and the end of the age. If we want to know “how the New Testament uses the Old Testament”, we must continue to locate our close analyses within the larger context of engagement with Jewish Scripture in antiquity. And we must continue to find room within our methodologies to recognise that the New Testament is not an isolated corpus, but that it is part of a larger trajectory of engagement with Jewish scriptural traditions in antiquity. Bibliography Allen, David M. 2015. “Introduction: The Study of the Use of the Old Testament in the New.” JSNT 38: 3–16. Allen, Garrick V. 2017. The Book of Revelation and Early Jewish Textual Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Allen, Garrick V. forthcoming. “Israel’s Scriptures in the New Testament: Eschatology,” in The Old Testament in the New. Israel’s Scriptures in the New Testament and other Early Christian Writings. Edited by Matthias Henze and David Lincicum. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans. 34 35

See a recent articulation of this point in Docherty 2015, 1–19. See the articles by Susan E. Docherty, Erkki Koskenniemi, and Sean Adams in Section 2 of this volume.

Exodus Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels

219

Allison, Dale C. 1993. The New Moses. A Matthean Typology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Bailey, Kenneth E. 1979. “The Song of Mary. Vision of a New Exodus (Luke 1:46–55).” Theological Review 2.1: 29–35. Ball, David Mark. 1996. ‘I Am’ in John’s Gospel. Literary Function, Background and Theological Implications. JSNT.S 124. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Barthélemy, Dominique. 1963. Les devanciers d’Aquila. Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du dodécaprophéton. Leiden: Brill. Beale, Gregory K. 2012. “The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: One More Time.” JETS 55: 697–715. Boxall, Ian. 2014. Discovering Matthew. Content, Interpretation, Reception. London: SPCK. Davies, William David. 1964. The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Docherty, Susan. “New Testament Scriptural Interpretation in its Early Jewish Context: Reflections of the Status Quaestionis and Future Directions,” NT 57 (2015): 1–19. Docherty, Susan E. 2019. “Crossing Testamentary Borders. Methodological Insights for OT/NT Study from Contemporary Hebrew Bible Scholarship.” Pages 11–22 in Methodology in the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Context and Criteria. Edited by David M. Allen and Steve Smith. LNTS 579. London: T&T Clark. Dodd, Charles H. 1953. According to the Scriptures. London: Nisbet. Drury, John. 1985. “Mark 1.1–15. An Interpretation.” Pages 25–36 in Alternative Approaches to New Testament Study. Edited by Anthony E. Harvey. London: SPCK. Evans, Craig A. 2014. “Exodus in the New Testament. Patterns of Revelation and Redemption.” Pages 440–464 in The Book of Exodus. Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Craig A. Evans and Joel N. Lohr. VT.S 164. Leiden: Brill. Fishbane, Michael. 1985. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon. Garrett, Susan R. 1990. “Exodus from Bondage. Luke 9:31 and Acts 12:1–24.” CBQ 52: 656–680. Glazier-McDonald, Beth. 1987. Malachi the Divine Messenger. Atlanta, GA: Scholars. Grabbe, Lester L. 2014. “Exodus and History.” Pages 61–87 in The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Craig  A. Evans and Joel N. Lohr. VT.S 164. Leiden: Brill. Guelich, Robert A. 1989. Mark 1–8:26, WBC 34A. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. Ham, Clay Alan. 2009. “The Minor Prophets in Matthew’s Gospel.” Pages 39–56 in The Minor Prophets in the New Testament. Edited by Maarten J.J. Menken and Steve Moyise. LNTS 377. London: T&T Clark. Hatch, Edwin and Redpath, Henry A. 1987. A Concordance to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

220

Allen

Hill, Andrew E. 1998. Malachi. AB 25D. London: Doubleday. Karrer, Martin. 2019. “Scriptural Quotations in the Jesus Tradition and Early Christianity. Textual History and Theology.” in Ancient Readers and their Scriptures. Engaging the Hebrew bible in Early Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Garrick V. Allen and John Anthony Dunne. AJEC 107. Leiden: Brill. Kowalski, Beate. 2019. “Selective versus Contextual Allusions. Reconsidering Technical Terms of Intertextuality.” Pages 86–102 in Methodology in the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Context and Criteria. Edited by David M. Allen and Steve Smith. LNTS 579. London: T&T Clark. Lear, Sheree. 2017. Scribal Composition: Malachi as a Test Case. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Luz, Ulrich. 2007. Matthew 1–7. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Lynwood Smith, Daniel. 2016. “The Uses of ‘New Exodus’ in New Testament Scholarship: Preparing a Way through the Wilderness.” CBR 14.2: 207–243. Lyons, Michael. 2015. “Psalm 22 and the ‘Servants’ of Isaiah 54; 56–66.” CBQ 77: 640–656. Mánek, Jindrich. 1957. “The New Exodus in the Book of Luke.” NT 2.1: 8–23. Marcus, Joel. 2000. Mark 1–8. AB 27. London: Doubleday. Marshall, Ian Howard. 1978. The Gospel of Luke. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B.  Eerdmans. Mittmann, Ulrike. 2016. “‘Sie sprachen von seinem Exodus, den er in Jerusalem erfüllen sollte’ (Lk 9,31).” Pages 321–370 in Exodus. Rezeptionen in deuterokanonischer und frühjüdischer Literatur. Edited by Judith Gärtner and Barbara Schmitz. DCLS 32. Berlin: de Gruyter. Muraoka, Takamitsu. 2010. A Greek-Hebrew/Aramaic Two-way Index to the Septuagint. Louvain, Paris and Walpole, MA: Peeters. Neef, Heinz-Dieter. 2011. “Das Hoseabuch im Spiegel der Septuaginta – Aspekte der Deutung.” Pages 106–118 in Die Septuaginta und das frühe Christentum. WUNT 1.277. Edited by Thomas S. Caulley and Hermann Lichtenberger. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Nixon, Robin Ernest. 1963. The Exodus in the New Testament. London: Tyndale. O’Brien, Kelli S. 2010. The Use of Scripture in the Markan Passion Narrative. LNTS 384. London: T&T Clark. Sahlin, Harald. 1953. “The New Exodus of Salvation according to St Paul.” Pages 81–95 in The Root of the Vine. Essays in Biblical Theology. Edited by Anton Fridrichsen. New York: Philosophical Library. Sandt, Huub van de. 2009. “The Minor Prophets in Luke-Acts.” Pages 57–77 in The Minor Prophets in the New Testament, LNTS 377. Edited by Maarten J.J. Menken and Steve Moyise. London: T&T Clark. Sloan, Paul. 2019. Mark 13 and the Return of the Shepherd. The Narrative Logic of Zechariah in Mark. LNTS 604. London: T&T Clark.

Exodus Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels

221

Stendahl, Krister. 21968. The School of St. Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Theocharous, Myrto. 2012. Lexical Dependence and Intertextual Allusion in the Septuagint of the Twelve Prophets. Studies in Hosea, Amos and Micah. LHB/OTS 570. New York: International Clark. Tooman, William A. 2019. “Scriptural Reuse in Ancient Jewish Literature. Comments and Reflections on the State of the Art.” Pages 23–39 in Methodology in the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Context and Criteria. LNTS 579. Edited by David M. Allen and Steve Smith. London: T&T Clark. Tóth, Franz. 2021 (forthcoming). Der Exodus in Matthäusevangelium. Die Rezeption der Exoduserzählung in Mt 1–4 vor dem Hintergrund biblischer und frühjüdischer Schriftdiskurse. WUNT I. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Watts, Rikk E. 2007. “Mark.” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by Gregory K. Beale and Donald A. Carson. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Watts, Rikk E. 1997. Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark. WUNT 2.88. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Wevers, John William. 1990. Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus. Atlanta, GA: Scholars. Wook, Kim Sun. 2018. “The Wilderness as a Place of the New Exodus in Mark’s Feeding Miracles (Mark 6:31–44 and 8:1–10).” BTB 48: 62–75. Yarbro Collins, Adela. 2007. Mark. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Ziegler, Joseph. 31982. Duodecim Prophetae. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.

Chapter 11

Toward Liberation and New Life for Trafficked Persons: A Markan Perspective (Mark 5:21–43) Anne M. O’Leary and Patricia Murray

Introduction

This paper is about one of the many faces of Exodus today – the trafficking of human persons against their will, and often, initially without their knowledge. It is about a form of Exodus that is the antithesis of liberation. The scourge of human trafficking continues to be, as it was the past, a debilitating, deadening and, sometimes, death-rendering experience for its victims. The phenomena of globalisation and the revolution in communications means that like many other aspects of contemporary life, human trafficking is far less restrained by geo-political borders than heretofore. Such developments have enabled traffickers to organise ever-more sophisticated networks of collaboration to facilitate their illicit activities. However, that is not the last word. The human impulse for nurturing life means that people of all faiths and none continue to positively resist the trafficking of persons. People with roots in the Judeo-Christian faith traditions continue to hear and appropriate in their own contexts the cry of God, delivered through Moses to Pharaoh in ancient days. To the Hebrew slaves in bondage in Egypt and at the Lord’s command, Moses cried out: “Let my people go!” (Exod 5:1; 7:16, 26; 8:16, 17; 9:1, 13; 10:3, 4).1 This cry of protest, reverberating through the ages, enables people of faith today in turn to become sensitive to the silent cry (Sölle 2001, 69) of those desperate for liberation, care and the hope of finding a new and better life. In 2009, the response of one such group of people led to the founding of an organisation called Talitha Kum.2 It arose from the shared desire to coordinate and strengthen the already existing activities against trafficking undertaken by (Roman Catholic [RC]) consecrated persons across five continents, as well 1 All quotations and references in English to Scripture will be taken from the New American Bible Revised Edition 2013. The Greek follows the Nestle-Aland 2019 (see www.nestle-aland  .com/en/read-na28-online/). 2 It is a project of the International Union of Superiors General (UISG) in collaboration with the United Nations International Organization for Migration (IOM).

© Anne M. O’Leary and Patricia Murray, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471122_013

Toward Liberation and New Life for Trafficked Persons

223

as introducing new ones. Talitha Kum3 is a network of networks, organised in many different ways, promoting initiatives against trafficking in persons in their particular contexts and cultures. Inspired by the words of Jesus to the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:41), the goal of the organisation is to evoke the “the transformative power of compassion and mercy, which awakens the deep desire for dignity and life which may be asleep and injured by the many forms of exploitation.”4 The name and work of the Talitha Kum organisation has inspired the present project. It will involve the reception of Exodus motifs (in the form of citations, allusions5 and echoes6) in the scriptural unit Mark 5:21–43 (Matt 9:18–26; Luke 8:41–56). Scholars have frequently and fruitfully interpreted the Markan appropriation of Exodus motifs, often through the lens of Isaiah. For example, Rikk E. Watts’ volume (1997) reflects this orientation, as does his section on Mark (2007, 111–249); and other works – such as the two volumes of Richard B. Hays (2014) and (2016), and Garrick V. Allen (2020) – examine the echoes of Isaiah as but one of the many voices of the OT which continue to resound God’s voice within the Gospel for those who have ears to hear (Mark 4:9, 23).7 The scope of this paper is more modest. We will focus on the reception of five clear [part- or composite] citations of Exodus found in Mark – e.g. Mark 1:2 =  Exod 23:20; Mark 7:10 = Exod 20:12; 21:17 [16 LXX]; Mark 10:19 = Exod 20:12(–16);  Mark 12:26 = Exod 3:6; Mark 14:24 = Exod 24:8.8 As with Hays (2016), “Our discussion will be anchored in [Exodus] passages that Mark explicitly cites; yet these explicit citations repeatedly gesture toward wider contexts…. To read Mark faithfully, we must follow the pointers offstage” (Hays 2016, 16). 3 Other than when referring to the name of the aforementioned organisation, we will render the phrase, Talitha Koum as given in the New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE), Mark 5:41. 4 www.talithakum.info/en/about-us/vision. 5 We will apply the definitions of Hays 2016, 10: “An ‘allusion’ usually imbeds several words from the precursor text, or at least in some way explicitly mentions notable characters or events [or, we would add, themes and patterns] that signal the reader to make the internal connection.” 6 We will apply the definitions of Hays 2016, 10: “‘Echo’ … may involve the inclusion of only a word or phrase that evokes, for the alert reader, a reminiscence of an earlier text. Readers who hear the echo will discern some semantic nuance that carries a surplus of significance beyond the literal sense of the text in which the echo occurs ...”. 7 Hays notes that, “Such mental recognition by a reader often depends on what I am calling ‘allusion [or, we might add, echo] competence’.” See Hays 2016, 24. 8 So Watts 2007, 111–232. The Nestle-Aland28 and United Bible Society5 critical edition list the first four references only. A full assessment of the textual issues pertaining to each of the citations is beyond the scope of this paper.

224

O ’ Leary and Murray

Many studies on the reception of OT citations in the NT focus primarily on how these inform the immediate literary contexts in which they are found and/or the receiving text as a whole. The new contribution of this study lies in its methodological approach toward generating theological insights – that is, the refraction of one literary unit (with two interlocking narratives) in which no explicit citation from Exodus is found, i.e. Mark 5:21–43, against the literary contexts in which the citations from Exodus (listed above) are found. This approach will, we hope, provide further evidence of what Allen observed above, namely, “the flexible ways that the Gospels alluded to and reused Exodus  traditions … in distinctive ways.”9 In terms of method, this study will move from a synchronic to an existential approach. As we do so, we will apply a hermeneutic of Exodus, namely, a hermeneutic of liberation, that leads to transformation and new life – with a special focus on the presence/absence of women and children.10 We begin with the question: how does Mark’s use of the five [part- or composite] Exodus citations inform his portrayal of the identity and mission of Jesus? In responding to this, we will observe how Mark “carries forward and renarrates [aspects of] the story of Israel through intertextual references” (Hays 2016, 14 [italics original]). Secondly, we will explore the question: how does a study of the Exodus citations listed above illuminate our reading of the interlocking healings by Jesus of Jairus’ daughter and the that of the woman with the flow of blood, Mark 5:21–43? To respond to this, we will examine the two healing stories against the matrix of the respective literary contexts of the citations in Exodus and Mark examined in part one above.11 In responding to both of the above questions, we will engage in an exercise of figural  reading12 – namely, of retrospective interpretation or reading backwards using

9 10 11

12

“Exodus Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels” in this volume. Schüssler Fiorenza 1992, 40 writes, “A critical model for reading the Bible seeks to articulate feminist interpretation both as a complex process of reading and reconstruction and as a cultural-theological practice of resistance and transformation.” The note of Watts 2007, 111 is pertinent to this study also: “The study has taken the OT context seriously even though this approach may be controversial. Seen by some as assuming what one seeks to argue … or as being obviated by a citation’s rhetorical nature …, this approach has been born out of the well-attested principle of explanatory power: that doing so brings new light and coherence to Mark …”. Here, we draw on the definition of Auerbach 1968, 73, cited by Hays 2016, 2: “Figural interpretation establishes a connection between two events or persons in such a way that the first signifies not only itself but also the second, while the second involves or fulfils  the first.”

Toward Liberation and New Life for Trafficked Persons

225

the technique of metalepsis.13 Thirdly, and finally, the study will respond to the question: how can the story of the two healings in Mark 5:21–43 inform the role of contemporary disciples in the church and world? To respond to this, we outline how a hermeneutic of liberation can be fruitfully applied to further inform and inspire the vision and transformative action for change enabled by the members of the Talitha Kum organisation (founded 2009) and its  daughter-project, Wells of Hope (founded 2019) – reflecting the collaborative efforts of people working to end the affliction of human trafficking in our world, especially the trafficking of women and girls.

Part 1

When the five [part- or composite] Exodus citations found in Mark (listed above) are examined, three initial observations can be made: the first and fifth examples listed above are composite citations (Adams and Ehorn 2015, 4; Mark 1:2–3/Exod 23:20; Mark 14:24/Exod 24:8); four of the citations listed can be found in the same major section of the Book of Exodus concerning the covenant at Mount Sinai (Mark 1:2; 7:10; 10:19; 14:24/Exod 19:1–24:18),  while the fourth one listed occurs in the earlier narrative about a theophany and the divine commissioning of Moses by God at the burning bush (Mark 12:26/ Exod 3:1–4:9). Moreover, these five citations from Exodus are dispersed across the Gospel of Mark. They stretch from the announcement of Jesus’ anticipated arrival (Mark 1:2–3), marked soon after by his baptism and Spirit-driven fortyday Exodus into/out of the desert (Mark 1:9–13; Exod 16:35) to his anticipated departure, marked by a Passover meal like no other (Mark 14:22–26; Exod 12). This study will briefly examine each in turn below. 1.1

Mark 1:2 (Exodus 23:20) Mark 1:2b: ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὅς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου

13

From the Greek, μεταλαμβάνω (‘to take in a new way’), Hays 2016, 11 defines it thus: “Metalepsis is a literary technique of citing or echoing a small bit of a precursor text in such a way that the reader can grasp the significance of the echo only by recalling or recovering the original context from which the fragmentary [citation or] echo came and then reading the two texts in dialogical juxtaposition. The figurative effect of such an intertext linkage lies in the unstated or suppressed points of correspondence between the two texts.”

226

O ’ Leary and Murray

́ Exod 23:20: καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου ἱνα φυλάξῃ σε ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ Mark 1:2b has been long recognised as part of a composite citation, and more recently a combined citation (Stanley 2015, 204), within Mark 1:2–3. As outlined by Allen in detail, the first clause of Mark 1:2b (“Behold, I am sending my messenger ahead of you”) reflects verbatim Exod 23:20a; the second clause, Mark 1:2b (“he will prepare your way”), reflects the close reworking of that Exodus verse in Malachi (Mal 3:1; Watts 2007, 113; Boring 2006, 35; and Hays 2016, 22). As a composite citation, it simultaneously evokes both literary contexts, that of Exodus and Malachi (Exod 23:20–33; Mal 3:1–24). This study will focus on the former. Exodus context: the citation from Exod 23:20 is located at a point of the narrative where God is instructing the people of Israel (Exod 23:20–26). God assures them that he will send a messenger (“an angel” m+, cf. Exod 3:2) bearing his authority, who will guide and accompany them until their safe delivery is secured at the place that he has prepared for them (Exod 23:23). After admonishing to them not to bow down in worship to the gods of the tribes at that place, the author/redactor discloses God’s awareness of their bodily needs, including matters of unique concern to women: “You shall serve the Lord, your God; then he will bless your food and drink, and I will remove sickness from your midst; no woman in your land will be barren or miscarry; and I will give you a full span of life” (Exod 23:25–26). Markan context: following the brief yet theologically-charged prologue (Mark 1:1) Mark 1:2 marks the first note of the programme of spiritual/cultic and social/ethical reform that is inaugurated by John [the] Baptist (Mark 1:4–8; Mal 3:1). Using a typical Markan technique, namely of intercalation, Mark 1:2b is framed by references to the prophet, Isaiah (Mark 1:2a, 3; Watts 2007, 114). In antiquity, with regard to literary framing and chiastic patterns, the interpretive key to the literary unit was designed to lie in the central element(s). Regarding Mark 1:2b, Hays notes that, “Just as Isaiah employed the earlier Exodus imagery to depict God’s deliverance of Israel from the later Babylonian exile, so Mark draws on Exod 23:20 and Isaiah 40:3, texts that evoke both of these past acts of God’s deliverance of Israel, to introduce God’s coming again in power through Jesus” (Hays 2016, 23). Following the testimony of God, along with reference to five other major (male) witnesses of the Jewish tradition – Moses, Isaiah, Malachi, Elijah, John the Baptist – Mark summons the One to whom their testimony anticipates, Jesus Christ, to inaugurate his mission in Galilee (Mark 1:14–15; Carter 2019, 2). What this mission will look like will be subsequently be revealed. However,

Toward Liberation and New Life for Trafficked Persons

227

at this point we can say that the insertion of Exod 23:20 at the outset of the Gospel of Mark provides an initial intertextual clue that the identity and mission of Jesus Christ is linked the God of liberation who commands his people to worship him alone, and ensures that they are accompanied in their journey toward freedom; and once, free, promises to ensure their wellbeing and long-life. 1.2

Mark 7:10 (Exod 20:12 and 21:17) Mark 7:10a Μωϋσῆς γὰρ εἶπεν· Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου Exod 20:12 τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα Mark 7:10b καί· Ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρα θανάτῳ τελευτάτω.

Mark puts the spotlight on the commandment of God to honour parents in two different contexts – Mark 7:1–23 and 10:17–31 respectively. This suggests that the matter is pertinent to the revelation of an important aspect of Jesus’ identity and mission. Mark 7:10 constitutes a combined citation drawn from Exodus and is explicitly attributed to the prophet Moses. Both Mark 7:10 and Mark 10:19 mirror the command in Exod 20:12a rendered – “Honour your father and your mother” (cf. Deut 5:16). Neither verse reflects the second clause of Exod 20:12b (“that you may have a long life in the land which the Lord, your God, is giving you”) – as one might expect. The omission of the clause can plausibly be accounted for in light of the fact that the pretext for first explicit citation in Mark (Mark 1:2b) includes the same point in-part, albeit worded differently (“I will give you a full span of life”, Exod 23:26b). Rather, in Mark 7:10, it is “replaced” by a commandment, in antithetical parallelism (Boring 2006, 202), found in Exod 21:17. This second citation, Mark 7:10b, amplifies the covenant obligation reflected in the first clause, Mark 7:10a, by threatening the curse of death upon anyone who would dare to dishonour his/her parents (cf. Lev 20:9; 24:16). Exodus context: within the narrative context of the covenant at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:1–24:18; cf. Deut 5:6–21), the Decalogue is set against the prologue of God’s powerful act of liberation: “I, the Lord, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery” (Exod 20:2). The command to “Honour your father and mother” is placed fifth within the Decalogue (Exod 20:12a; cf. Lev 19:3; Sir 3:1–16). The number five in Jewish theological numerology constitutes a literary clue that here is found some essential aspect of the theology of the five Books of the Torah. The immediate context

228

O ’ Leary and Murray

suggests that it has to do with “life”. Watts notes that, as God is the source of all life, “the honor due to them [parents] goes beyond mere obedience or polite respect to loving them and honoring their role as Yahweh’s proxies in giving their children life … [therefore] honoring parents is counterpart to honoring Yahweh” (Watts 2007, 167. See Durham 1987, 285; and Dozeman 2009, 493). This may well account for the equal status of the mother reflected in the command, which John I. Durham (1987, 285; see Dozeman 2009, 493), notes as being “exceptional in the ANE (Ancient Near East)”. Further, Thomas B. Dozeman observes: “The linking of two positive commands, observance of the Sabbath and honouring parents, relates the worlds of worship and ethics.”14 Such an interpretation is supported by the fact that “the reference to God as Yahweh occurs in the first four commandments and ceases after the fifth” (Dozeman 2009, 493; see Watts 2007, 167). Markan context: Mark places the combined citation drawn from Exod 20:12a and Exod 21:17 in a context where he portrays the teaching role of Jesus (Mark 7:1–23). This instructional discourse, the second longest in Mark, falls into two main parts: VV.6–16, 17–23. Robert H. Gundry (1993, 349) outlines the chiastic pattern of part one thus: “(a) an OT-based [Isaiah] description (VV.6– 7) leading into (b) a charge (V.8), and (b’) a charge (V.9) growing out of (a’) an OT [Exodus] description (VV.10–13).” In this case, the intercalation constitutes a twice-repeated indictment against the Pharisees and scribes for disregarding the commandment of God while clinging to human tradition (b, V.8; b’, V.9). By way of illustration, Jesus refers to a practice called qorbãn (Κορβᾶν; Aramaic rendered ‫ ָק ְר ָּבן‬, “gift”; Mark 7:11; cf. Lev 2:1, 4, 12–13; Matt 27:6; France 2002, 286–287; Gundry 1993, 352–353). Jesus contrasts what “Moses said” (Mark 7:10a) to their preferred wisdom: “Yet you say …” (Mark 7:11). Those who practise this human tradition seek ostensibly to manifestly progress in covenant-holiness by vowing to dedicate their wealth to God’s temple, thus removing parental access to it forever (cf. Num 30:2–4; Deut 23:21–23). Jesus indicts them thus: “You nullify the word of God” (Mark 7:13).15 Wayne Carter (2019, 177) notes, that by comparison, “in 7:10, Jesus upholds honor and special care for mothers [and fathers] in the face of the scribal men’s economic exploitation that arises from their desire to honor God.” Seizing the opportunity for a further related “teaching moment” Mark’s Jesus then summons again the crowd beside the sea in a God-like fashion, 14 15

Dozeman 2009, 493. See Dohmen 2014, 198 who observes, “Only the sabbath and the parent command are formulated positively (“remember” and “honor”).” Donahue and Harrington 2002, 177 note that, “‘the word of God’ appears only here in Mark” (see Matt 15:6).

Toward Liberation and New Life for Trafficked Persons

229

“Hear me, all of you, and understand” (Mark 7:14; cf. Mark 12:29; Deut 6:4.). After instructing the crowd briefly on the topic of defilement, Jesus instructs his disciples further on the matter when he gets “home” (V.17). Jesus transposes the discourse from the issue of un/clean hands to that of un/clean foods and in doing so makes a stunning disclosure. He declares that one thing, and one thing alone, constitutes a source of defilement, namely, the evil thoughts which come “out from within” the heart of a person (Mark 7:15, 21, 23). The scope of this declaration is far reaching. The Pharisees and scribes know that only God has the authority to amend the laws given by him. If such an amendment is God’s will, and God’s will “transcends all obligations” (Moloney 2002, 141) it can only be because Jesus “is divine and the elders are not” (Gundry 1993, 356). Thus, Mark’s Jesus demonstrates his hermeneutical authority over Scripture in a way that is liberating and life-giving for parents and all who have ears to hear (Mark 7:16; Watts 2007, 112). 1.3 Mark 10:19 (Exod 20:12) Mark 10:19 τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας· μὴ φονεύσῃς, μὴ μοιχεύσῃς, μὴ κλέψῃς, μὴ ψευδομαρτυρήσῃς, μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς, τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα. The second occurrence of the commandment to “Honour your father and your mother” occurs in the first of a three-part set of dialogues with Jesus and his [could-be] disciples in Mark 10 on the topic of wealth (VV.17–22, 23–27, 28–31). Gundry outlines the chiastic pattern of the first part as follows: “(a) a rich man approaches Jesus with a question (V.17); (b) Jesus answers with the demands of the Law (VV.18–19); (c) the man responds by citing his obedience to those demands (V.20); (b´) Jesus answers with his own demands (V.21); (a´) the man departs with unwillingness to obey these demands (V.22)” (Gundry 1993, 552). Thus, the matter of the obedience to the commandments of the Torah functions as the interpretative key for the unit. As Jesus is “on the way” (εἰς ὁδόν Donahue and Harrington 2002, 302) from Galilee to Jerusalem a man runs up to him, kneels down before him and poses a burning question: “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Mark 10:17). In his response, Jesus demonstrates his prescience of the man’s fidelity to the commandments and recites a version of the last six commandments of the Decalogue: “You shall not kill/commit adultery/steal/bear false witness/defraud; honor your father and mother” (V.19). Several points are striking about this list: Mark’s Jesus substitutes the command: “You shall not covet your neighbour’s … [goods]” (Exod 20:17) with the

230

O ’ Leary and Murray

command not to defraud (Mark 10:19; cf. Lev 6:1–7; Mal 3:5). Second, he rearranges the order such that the command to honour parents is placed last/sixth. Third, as noted above, he omits the purpose clause given in Exod 20:12b. The command to honour parents forms a clear intratextual link evoking the earlier contexts in which it is found in Mark and Exodus (Mark 7:9–13; Exod 20:1–17). Adela Yabro Collins observes that, “The placement of the commandment to honor father and mother immediately after the command not to defraud evokes in the Markan audience the memory of the saying of Jesus regarding the circumvention of the former by the qorbãn-vow” (Yarbro Collins 2007, 479). To what effect, one might ask? Is there a degree of circumvention at work here? And by whom? The answer may be found in Jesus’ response to the man’s question: “You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have and give to [the] poor …; then come, follow me” (V.21; cf. Mark 14:7; Carter 2019, 387). Jesus desires the man understand that: “Reduced to a situation of need and dependence he will have the opportunity to be receptive to the action of God in his life” (Moloney 2002, 200). Even with the supportive gaze of Jesus’ love for him, he fails to grasp that it is not ultimately about what he “must do” (V.17; cf. Mark 12:28–34). Rather, as Moloney notes, “true discipleship is made possible only by the action of God” (Moloney 2002, 199). There is no circumventing that. Ironically, he remains “a man possessed by his possessions …” (Carter 2019, 280) unable to reorder his priorities and “let Jesus claim him utterly” (Moloney 2002, 200). Thus, Mark’s Jesus adds a seventh commandment (seven being a symbol of completion; Gundry 1993, 701) to the previous six. To the five negatively expressed ones, he juxtapositions two positive commandments: one, a Torah command to “honour” parents; the other, his command to “come, follow” him (cf. Mark 12:29–31; Exod 20:11–12; contra Boring 2006, 295). Such an interpretation is supported by the way in numbers “five and two”/“seven” are used in the Exodus-like feeding narratives in Mark (Mark 6:38, 41; 8:5–8, 20). Thus, from a literary perspective, we find that echoes of Exodus reverberate across Mark, as well as between Mark and its Exodus pretext. From a theological perspective, the account of the rich man serves as a vignette about how Jesus’ “words are now the authoritative revelation of God’s will, and obeying them and following him are now the path to eternal life of Israel’s long awaited eschatological redemption” (Watts 2007, 201). Any other path is less than complete (Gundry 1993, 554). 1.4 Mark 12:26 (Exod 3:6) Mark 12:26b ἐγὼ ὁ θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ καὶ [ὁ] θεὸς Ἰσαὰκ καὶ [ὁ] θεὸς Ἰακώβ

Toward Liberation and New Life for Trafficked Persons

231

Exod 3:6 ᾿Εγώ εἰμι ὁ θεὸς τοῦ πατρός σου, θεὸς Αβρααμ καὶ θεὸς Ισαακ καὶ θεὸς Ιακωβ The reference to the “Book of Moses, in the passage about the bush,” leaves no ambiguity as to what constitutes the immediate Exodus pretext for the partcitation in Mark 12:26. The form used by Mark is close to that of Exod 3:6LXX (cf. Matt 22:32), apart from the omission of the verb εἰμι (“I am”) and the phrase τοῦ πατρός σου (“of your father”). Exodus context: the citation reflecting Exod 3:6a is found in the context of a redacted narrative recounting a theophany at Horeb and God’s extended commissioning of Moses (Exod 3:1–4:17). The narrative is framed by reference to Moses’ interactions with his father-in-law, Reuel and Jethro (Exod 2:20–21; 4:18). At Horeb, God self-identifies as the eternal divine Presence, “I AM” (Ἐγώ εἰμι Exod 3:6, 14) … “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Exod 3:15–16; cf. Exod 2:24; 4:5; 6:3, 8; 33:1). The recitation of the names of the three patriarchs, Dozeman observes, “merges the story of the ancestors in Genesis with the story of Moses. […] The result is that, God is now obligated to act in the ongoing salvation of the Israelite people, because of the oath to the ancestors in Genesis” (Dozeman 2009, 133; 127; see Donahue and Harrington 2002, 351). What prompts God to act now is his distress at the plight of his people: “I have witnessed the affliction of my people in Egypt and have heard their cry of complaint against their slave drivers, so I know well what they are suffering” (Exod 3:7; cf. Exod 2:23, 25; 3:9, 16–17). God declares that he will “come down to rescue (ἐξελέσθαι) them” (Exod 3:8). To this end, Moses is tasked, on God’s behalf, with doing on a major scale for his own people something akin to what he had already done on a modest scale for the seven daughters of Jethro, priest of Midian. Mistaking Moses for an Egyptian, the daughters declared to their father, Reuel: “[He] saved us (ἐρρύσατο) from the interference of the shepherds. He even drew water for us and watered the flock” (Exod 2:19; cf. V.17; Dozeman 2009, 128). In gratitude for saving his daughters from potential violation, Reuel invites Moses “to have something to eat” and then offers one of them, Zipporah, to him in marriage (Exod 2:21; Gen 16:7–14). Markan context: Mark places the part-citation from Exod 3:6 in a context of a two-part narrative account concerning the topic of “resurrection” (Mark 12:18– 23, 24–27). Part one spotlights the Sadducees who “come to” Jesus with the purpose of demonstrating the unscriptural basis for belief in the resurrection. In this, their sole appearance in Mark, the Sadducees recount a hypothetical stock-tale about seven brothers who, upon their successive deaths [“the first … second … third … seventh died”, VV.20–22], take the same woman in marriage

232

O ’ Leary and Murray

to fulfil the levirate law of Moses (Deut 25:5–10; cf. Gen 38:6–26). None of the unions produce descendants. The Sadducees conclude by relaying that, last of all, the woman died. Mark frames this tale of the un/fortunate widow by means of an inclusio based, not on “death” as one might expect, but on “resurrection” (VV.18, 23; Gundry 1993, 700–701; see Boring 2006, 337–338). Part two spotlights Jesus’ response. In an astute theological fashion, the “Teacher” illuminates what “Moses wrote,” with reference to “the scriptures and the power of God” (V.24). Mark frames Jesus’ response by means of an inclusio based on his assessment of the Sadducees’ exegesis – “You are misled” (VV.24, 27). Reading backwards, in relation to “the scriptures” (Evans 2014, 466), Mark’s Jesus serves to put the primary emphasis on God’s continuing Presence: the “I AM” who was with the patriarchs in the past (as recorded in the Torah), is with them now, and will be with them into the future. In terms of “the power of God,” Jesus declares that it is within God’s power to raise people from the dead. A literary cue can be found in Mark’s use of the futuristic present tense: “The switch from ἀναστῶσιν, ‘rise’ (V.25; cf. Mark 12:18, 23), to ἐγείρονται, ‘are being raised’ (V.26), produces a divine passive meaning, ‘God is raising’” (Gundry 1993, 703; see Boring 2006, 340–341). If, by the power of God, the woman and her seven husbands are being raised from the dead when they rise” (V.25; Gundry 701, 702–703) – surely, the God of the three patriarchs will bestow on them [and their wives and children] the same privilege (“when they rise”)? Moreover, in response to the Sadducees’ trick question as to “whose wife will she be?” (V.23) Jesus further reveals an aspect of God’s power: all will rise and enjoy a new nature, like that of the angels (the presence of which Sadducees also denied); and marriage will be no more. In this way, as Teresa Okure points out, “He [Jesus] reinstates the equal dignity between the husband and wife … In the future kingdom, the end-time, all – parents, boys, girls – enjoy the same status, dignity, and freedom as God’s children” (Okure 2011, 140–141). Thus, Jesus’ prophetic-like response is oriented “to save” the Sadducees from ignorance of “the scriptures” and the woman from oblivion. The repeated disclosure that this woman (taken by seven husbands) produced “no descendants” is a subtle reminder that while parents act as “Yahweh’s proxies” in bringing forth new life, fertility and the ability to bear offspring is not determined by the agency or number of husbands but rather the power of “[the] God of the living” (V.27). Once again, Jesus demonstrates his hermeneutical authority over Scripture in a way that is liberating and life-giving, especially for women who are levirate-bound or barren.

Toward Liberation and New Life for Trafficked Persons

233

1.5 Mark 14:24 (Exod 24:8) Mark 14:24a καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν Exod 24:8 λαβὼν δὲ Μωυσῆς τὸ αἷμα κατεσκέδασεν τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ εἶπεν ᾿Ιδοὺ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης Mark 14:24a (“This is my blood of the covenant”) has long been recognised as a part-citation of Exod 24:8b (“This is the blood of the covenant”), a verse also alluded to in Zechariah 9:11 (Watts 2007, 229). Exodus context: the citation from Exod 24:8 is set within the heavily redacted narrative in which an account of a theophany (Exod 24:1-2, 9-11) frames that of the cultic ritual of the ratification of the Covenant (Exod 24:3–8). The account of the blood ritual in turn (VV.6, 8) frames the matter of Moses’ taking the Book of the Covenant and reading it aloud to the people (Exod 24:7; cf. V.3; Dozeman 2009, 565; see Durham 1987, 341–343). For the Israelites, “blood” conveys “life” and so “jurisdiction over the most vital substance must be divine” (Lev 17:4; Sperling 1992, 762). This accounts for its use in rituals of atonement (Exod 29:10–46; Watts 2007, 230; Dozeman 2009, 566; Gundry 1993, 842), in the purification of things (altar, sanctuary, temple) and persons (lepers); and in the consecration of persons (to priestly/ royal office) where it is used along with oil or water (Exod 29:9–21; 30:22–33; Lev 8:22–30; 14:1–32). Moses splashes some blood upon a single stone which symbolises God’s presence in their midst. It is circled by the twelve stone pillars that he erected to symbolise the Twelve tribes/whole of Israel (Gen 31:45–47). This covenant ritual marks the consecration of the Israelites to God alone, whom they know has the power to liberate them from the spiritual/moral bondage rendered by sin. With freedom comes new life (Exod 29:12; Lev 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34; 8:15; Sperling 1992, 762). Moses’ further act of sprinkling blood on the people marks a significant change of status for them. It signifies a new covenant kinship between them and God – one that goes beyond biological/tribal kinship. Thus, Moses does for his own people on a major scale something akin to what his wife, Zipporah, a Midianite, had done for her immediate family on a minor scale (Exod 4:24– 26). Zipporah’s prescience about God’s intention to kill her husband and her swift and savvy response saves his life. Sensing grave danger, she hastily acts to circumcise their son, and presses the child against his father such that

234

O ’ Leary and Murray

he was touched by his son’s blood. Her stunning intervention “transformed Yahweh from an adversary into a ‘blood kinsman’ (Heb ḥatan dãmîn), who was required by the newly established kinship to let Moses alone” (Gen 17:9–14; Sperling 1992, 763). The divine-human kinship is further reflected in Exod 24 as the ritual of ratification of the covenant is symbolically framed within a theophany account that is linked to Moses and his blood kin, namely, his brother, Aaron and his two sons, along with seventy elders. The “well-being” (Dozeman 2009, 565) offering (V.5) finds its completion when, “After gazing on God, they could still eat and drink” (Exod 24:11; cf. 18:12). Markan context: Mark places the part-citation from Exod 24:8/Mark 14:24 (“This is my blood of the covenant which will be shed for many”) in the context of the meal that Jesus shares with “the Twelve” (Mark 14:17, 22–25). It is set during the annual festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread when the people celebrate the divine liberation of their forefathers and mothers from slavery in Egypt. The word “covenant” (τῆς διαθήκης) a hapax legomenon in Mark, evokes the entire covenant-rich vocational story of Israel as a people bound to God (Boring 2006, 391). Moreover, as Exod 24:1–11, “is the only place where covenant blood and a formal meal are combined” (Watts 2007, 231), Mark is providing the strongest possible clue that what is recalled in this Exodus pretext signifies not only itself but also the second [Mark 14:22–25], while the second involves or fulfils the first. At the Passover meal, the Twelve partake of “bread” and “a cup” offered to them by Jesus (VV.22–23). Only after “they all drank from it” (V.23),16 does Jesus inform them that that which is poured out from the cup is “my [Jesus’] blood of the covenant” (Mark 14:24). Terminology pertaining to the pouring out of blood “is technical sacrificial language … [which] implies atonement for sin ...” (Yabro Collins 2007, 656). In this stunning/potentially scandalous fashion,17 Jesus indicates that at this “meal of freedom”, he is the sacrificial lamb (Mark 10:45). If, as noted above, that “blood” conveys “life” and that jurisdiction over the most vital substance is divine, Mark’s Jesus points to both his destiny and his divinity. He is coding to his disciples that in him resides the fullness of the God-Presence once manifest at Sinai. Thus, Mark “places Jesus’ death within the framework of God’s eschatological saving event in which 16 17

This statement is unparalleled in the Gospels. See Gundry 1993, 832. Sperling 1992, 762 notes, “The biblical sources agree that consumption of animal blood by Israelites and the strangers in their midst, even when incidental to eating meat, is a heinous crime equivalent to homicide (Lev 17:4), and constitutes ‘treachery’ (1 Sam 14:33) against God.”

Toward Liberation and New Life for Trafficked Persons

235

God’s covenant with Israel is not nullified or superseded, but eschatologically renewed” (Boring 2006, 391). Through the use of the term “body” (σῶμά) rather than “flesh”, (σάρξ), Mark creates an analeptic pointer to the earlier meal at the house of a man identified by his impurity – “Simon, a leper” – in Bethany (Mark 14:3–9; Gundry 1993, 831). An [unnamed] woman comes into the house and, in a ritual-like fashion, breaks a glass jar (Exod 24:10) and from it liberally pours out aromatic oil upon Jesus’ head. Such oil, as noted above, was used in the anointing/consecration of priests. Her costly sacrifice anticipates his (Mark 15:37). Her dramatic gesture points to Jesus’ priestly presence. He is and will continue to be after his death the Holy One in their midst. Read against the matrix of Exod 24:1–11, Jesus’ presence at the “meal of freedom” (Mark 14:22–25) is portrayed as a most extraordinary time when the Twelve (representative of all people, Mark 6:42–43) were privileged to “gaze on God, while they ate and drank” as were the [unnamed] woman and those who were at table with him in the house of Simon, the leper. In sum, from our study in part one above, three main insights emerge: first, by means of his portrayal of Jesus’ hermeneutical authority in relation to Scripture, Mark presents Jesus as unequivocally divine. Second, the study illuminates the way Mark portrays Jesus as continuing God’s mission of liberation for his people reflected in Exodus. Finally, Mark uses the Exodus citations to build up to a theological crescendo, namely, the revelation that the completion of the “well-being” offering of Sinai will cost Jesus’ nothing short of everything – his life.

Part 2

In this part we will explore the question: how does a study of the Exodus citations listed above illuminate our reading of the interlocking healings by Jesus of Jairus’ daughter and that of the woman with the flow of blood, Mark 5:21– 43? We will present the response in three parts: first, in a section entitled “Theological Orientation”, we note the way in which Mark draws on Exodus to orient the hearer/reader theologically at the outset of the Gospel; second, in a section entitled “Women, Daughters and Wrestling with Ambiguity”, we outline the way in which the inquiry brings Mark’s technique of ambiguity into relief and illuminates it; and, finally, in a section entitled “Jesus, Women and Whole-Making”, we note how this approach brings into relief the theme and theology of wholeness.

236

O ’ Leary and Murray

2.1 Theological Orientation As noted above, Mark’s use of Exod 23:20a serves to evoke the memory of God’s deliverance of Israel from bondage. Against this backdrop, Mark introduces God’s coming in power through Jesus. The literary context of the citation in Exodus speaks of God’s promise to care for his people, including explicit mention of concerns unique to women (Exod 23:25–25). The evocation of the Exodus pretext in Mark 1:2b serves to orient the hearer/reader to the reality that God’s commitment to his people is being realised in a unique way through Jesus. Mark’s healing stories (Mark 5:21–43) can be viewed as constituting a narrativisation of the fulfilment of the theological vision outlined in Exodus. Set at an unnamed location on the western side of the sea of Galilee, Mark 5:21–43 completes a section of dramatic miracles, demonstrating Jesus’ power and authority (Mark 4:35–5:43; cf 6:53–56). The story of Jairus, a synagogue official, begging Jesus to save the life of his [unnamed] daughter (Mark 5:21–24, 35a–43) frames that of an [unnamed] woman seeking Jesus, believing that he will heal her life-threatening condition (Mark 14:25–35a). On both counts, Jesus does not disappoint. Mother, Daughters and Wrestling with Ambiguity 2.2 The interlocking healing stories reflect many points of ambiguity which, in turn, contribute to the narrative tension – like “knots” that take loosening in order to unravel aspects of Mark’s theological agenda (Boring 2006, 156; Gundry 1993, 268). Following the principle that the central element holds the interpretative key to the whole unit, we move from the story of the bleeding woman to that of the girl who died and examine how both females are made wholly  well again. The nature of the illness and the matter of the economic status of the woman are just two of the many issues of ambiguity that arise from Mark’s terse account. The woman is described in terms of having “a flow of blood” (ἐν ῥύσει αἵματος, V.25; Lev 15:25–27). The lack of specification about the cause or location of her haemorrhaging has given rise to much scholarly debate as to whether her “flux” marks her out as being impure (Lev 15:25). Yarbro Collins points out that, “Although purity is not an explicit theme of the story, it is likely that some Jews at the time would have considered her ritually impure” (Yarbro Collins 2007, 284). What are the implications of this for those in the crowd whom she presses against (VV.24, 31); and, most especially, for Jesus, whose cloak she dares to touch? (VV.27, 30, 31; cf. Mark 6:56; Acts 19:11–12; Num 15:37–41)? When the case of the woman’s im/purity is refracted or overlaid against the matrix of literary contexts of Mark’s second Exodus citation (Exod 20:12/21:17;

Toward Liberation and New Life for Trafficked Persons

237

Mark 7:1–23), some of the literary tension is released and the ambiguity finds theological resolution, at least in part.18 In a testy exchange with the Pharisees and scribes, Jesus’ states that only that which comes “out from within” the heart can make a person unclean (Mark 7:15).19 Jesus’ declaration clarifies unequivocally that a person who suffers from bleeding is not unclean. Therefore, the traditional Levitical requirements for “a woman [who] is afflicted with a flow of blood” need no longer apply (Lev 15:25–33; Carter 2019, 140); nor, indeed, do those relating to corpse-contamination. This in turn illuminates the matter of Jesus subsequently taking the hand of Jairus’ daughter whom the people from the synagogue official’s house had reported dead (V.35b; cf. Lev 22:4–7; Wright 1992, 730). Mark reveals little about the suffering woman’s background. No information is proffered as to the nature of the suffering she experienced “at the hands of many physicians” (ὑπὸ πολλῶν ἰατρῶν, hapax legomenon). However, when the story of this woman is refracted against the matrix of the literary contexts of Mark’s third Exodus citation (Exod 20:12/Mark 10:17–31), several aspects are brought into relief. To any physician who may have taken advantage of the woman’s ill health or wealth, Mark’s Jesus would invoke the commandment: “You shall not defraud” (Mark 10:19; Yarbro Collins 2007, 281). Unlike the rich man who held on to his possessions, this woman “spent all she had” (lit. “spent her all,” V.26). Moreover, Jesus’ benediction to her to, “Go in peace and be cured of your affliction” (V.34) implicitly points to his recognition that even though the woman’s bleeding has completely “dried up” (ξηραίνω),20 there are other aspects of healing – spiritual, psychological, emotional and more – that may take longer to be realised (Mark 16:6; contra Cotter 2001, 59). Thus, while the literary tension in relation to the woman’s healing appears to be transposed into a future space, the ambiguity regarding what constitutes ultimate “wealth” finds theological resolution – namely, a faith that leads to Jesus who can effect a healing of the kind that is only within God’s power to accomplish (Mark 5:34). If such ambiguities are thus resolved, at least in part, in the story of the bleeding woman, can the same be said of the [unnamed] woman in the healing 18 19 20

It would seem to this author that Haber 2003, 191 overly presses the point: “In the end, Jesus brings about a total reversal in the circumstances of the hemorrhaging woman and ultimately resolves all elements of the narrative tension.” A.-J. Levine 1996, 387 notes that, “Uncleanness is not a disease, and it implies no moral censure; it is a ritual state which both men and women found themselves in most of  the time.” Of the seven participles that constitute the sentence which forms VV.25–27, Gundry 1993, 268 (Italics added) notes that, “The first five are attributive, describing her. The last two are circumstantial, telling what she does in relation to the main verb [‘to touch’].”

238

O ’ Leary and Murray

narrative that frames it, namely, the “mother” (V.40)? Her “appearance” toward the end of the narrative raises questions beyond the text: where is she all the while Jairus’ is seeking help?21 Unlike Jairus, who is introduced by name and by reference to his public role (ὁ ἀρχισυνάγωγος), we receive no such parallel information about the mother of their daughter. However, what we do receive is instructive. She and Jairus are identified as “the child’s father and mother” (V.40). What is communicated, albeit, a “literary crumb”, is theologically significant (Mark 7:28). Refracted against the matrix of the literary contexts of Mark’s repeated command to honour parents (Exod 20:12a/Mark 7:1–23/10:17–22), this “mother” is released from the shadows and rendered visible, theologically speaking.22 To honour parents is to honour their equal status as God’s proxies in bringing forth life. Moreover, no gift or quorbán offering to God in the temple will ever exceed the importance of honouring those whose sacred role is that of generating new life and whose ethical responsibility it is to care for and nurture it. When this “literary crumb” is overlaid against the literary contexts of Mark’s fourth Exodus citation (Exod 3:6/Mark 12:18–27), something further is illuminated. While the ambiguity of the whereabouts of the mother when Jairus seeks out Jesus remains, what is brought into relief is the dynamic nature of her presence in the narrative. She and those who cross the threshold into the room where her daughter lay in the grips of death23 (VV.35, 39) witness that, “He [Jesus] is not God of the dead but of the living” (Mark 12:27; VV.41–42). Like the healed “Daughter” mentioned earlier in the narrative (V.34),24 this mother witnesses on her own behalf (as do her companions Peter, James and John, who also maintain a silent presence; Gundry 1993, 273) that Jesus effects what is only within God’s power to accomplish. Given Jesus’ admonition that “no one should know this” (V.45) – the details of the mother’s reaction to what she saw and heard in the room remains, not surprisingly, undisclosed. So it is also, for her daughter (and the woman healed, V.34). Rather, in line with Mark’s penchant for ambiguity, for each of these three females, a literary thread remains hanging (not so, for the males present, Mark 9:2–19; 14:33). However, this in turn serves as a literary foil to hearers/ 21 22 23 24

Carter 2019, 120 notes how, “Issues of invisibility surround the girl and her mother in this androcentric narrative.” Contra Carter 2019, 133 who concludes that, “The girl’s mother plays no role.” See ibid, 132. Yarbro Collins 2007, 285 notes that, “The narrative rhetoric of the story, however, makes clear that she is really dead.” Cotter 2001, 59 notes how, “The choice of ‘Daughter’ is a very sensitive one. Given the intimate nature of the woman’s ailment, it allows a tenderness of address and at the same time maintains the most non-erotic, protective character for Jesus’ relationship to her.”

Toward Liberation and New Life for Trafficked Persons

239

readers to imagine how the next chapter of each woman’s story unfolds; or to tell their own stories of witnessing the miraculous in their lives or in the lives of others. 2.3 Jesus, Women and Whole-Making When the two interlocking healing narratives are refracted against the matrix of the literary contexts of the five Exodus citations found in Mark, while putting a special focus on diction (single words and vocabulary clusters), further intertextual correspondences surface. Against the backdrop of a hermeneutic of liberation, a vocabulary cluster based on the interlocking healing stories that include the combination of these two terms (or their synonyms), blood (αἵματος, V.25)25 and affliction (μάστιγος, scourge, lit. whipping, V.29),26 evoke echoes of the narrative of the suffering of the Israelites in Egypt. Add to this the diction related to the woman’s bleeding having dried up, (ἐξηράνθη; V.29);27 the matter of death (ἀπέθανεν, VV.23, 35, 39);28 and Jesus address to the girl, “Talitha” (V.41; Aramaic, lit. little lamb/ child)29 and the echoes of Exodus become stronger. However, what is even more striking is a vocabulary cluster shared between the literary contexts of the fifth Exodus citation in Mark (Exod 24:8/Mark 14:24) and Mark 5:21–43. Table 1

Exod 24:1–11

Mark 5:21–43

Mark 14: [17] 22–26

“twelve” (V.4 *2) “blood” (V.6) “eat” (V.11)

“twelve” (VV.25, 42) “blood” (V.25) “eat” (V.43) “body” (V.29)

[“twelve” (V.17)] “blood” (V.23) “eating” (V.22) “body” (V.22) “drink” (V.23) “covenant” (V.23)

“drink” (V.11) “covenant” (V.7)

25 26 27 28 29

Cf. Exod 4:9; 7:17–21; 12:7–23. Cf. Exod 3:7, 31; Mark 3:10. See also, Bock 2015, 196; Gundry 1993, 269. Cf. Exod 14:21–22. Cf. Exod 7:18; 9:4; 20:19. Cf. Exod 12:1–11; 29:39–41. See also, France 2002, 240 fn. 30; Bock 2015, 199, n. 231; Moloney 2002, 109.

240

O ’ Leary and Murray

In addition to shared diction, three further examples of correspondence can be noted between Exod 24:1–11 and Mark 5:21–43 which are thematic. Jesus’ striking act of bringing the three aforementioned close [named] companions into the room of the dead girl (seven are present in total), and driving the rest of the crowd out reverberates with echoes of the Lord’s instruction to Moses to bring his three [named] close companions/kin and seventy of the elders with him as he draws closer to God on Mount Sinai; while the Lord further commands that the rest of “the people are not to come up” (Exod 24:2/Mark 5:40). Jesus’ benediction of the healed woman to go in – “peace” (εἰς εἰρήνην) echoes the “peace/well-being offerings” made by Moses to the Lord (Exod 24:5/ Mark 5:34). And, finally, the command that the girl whom he raises up be given something to eat echoes the matter of Moses’ and his companions being able to “still eat and drink” after gazing on God (Exod 24:11/Mark 5:43). Applying a figural interpretative approach, Mark’s healed woman and girl can be viewed as portraying the narrative embodiment of the suffering and redemption of the Israelites and a prefiguring of the suffering and redemption inaugurated by Jesus (Levine 1996, 397; see Reid 1996, 142). Table 1 above brings into focus how the Markan literary unit (Mark 5:21–43) reflects a degree of theological mirroring. Figuratively speaking, the two “twelve-year” healing narratives hold a degree of literary tension, bringing a twin-aspect of the relationship between the “covenant of blood” ratified at Mount Sinai and Jerusalem into sharp focus. This aspect has to do with “life” and “whole-making”. Just as the covenant at Sinai effected a new kinship between God and the whole of the Israelite community, so the covenant inaugurated by Jesus effects the completion of the process of whole-making and extends its blessing to the whole of humanity. Thus, Okure (2011, 134) notes: “The ages of these two women30 are symbolic of that of the nation [humanity]. Until both [all] are cured, integrated into the community or raised to live their own life [lives] independently, the nation [humanity] as a whole cannot be cured.” Further, from the study of the matrix of the literary contexts of the Exodus citations found in Mark, several un(der)stated points of correspondences have emerged. In this study, these pertain to the narratives about two significant women – who do not get the scholarly attention relative to the male characters in the stories in which they appear. Meet again, Zipporah from Exodus and the [unnamed] woman who anoints Jesus from Mark’s Gospel.

30

Contra France 2002, 240; and Yarbro Collins 2007, 286, who notes that, “there is no indication that either number is symbolic.”

Toward Liberation and New Life for Trafficked Persons

241

The young Zipporah who was saved from the horror of being violated by shepherds becomes betrothed to the one who saves her, Moses (Exod 2:19). Thus, she begins a whole new life. The mature Zipporah, in turn, saves her husband, Moses, from death by drawing droplets of covenant-blood from her child and sprinkling them upon him, and, ironically, “saves” God from acting against God’s true life-giving nature. Paradoxically, the rescued one becomes the rescuer. Moses is saved from the threat of death and free to continue his mission as God’s agent of liberation. In Mark 5, the mature [unnamed] woman with a flow of blood is saved (σέσωκέν, V.34) from further debilitation, and potential death when Jesus turns his gaze toward her. The young [unnamed] daughter who is at betrothable/ menses age is saved, as her father had hoped (σωθῇ, V.23) from the horror of death (Mark 5:41; cf. 2:11). What Jesus is offering carries “overtones of salvation from sin and all its effects … [indeed,] of a larger salvation that includes eternal life” (Gundry 1993, 268–269) which God alone can accomplish. The verb used by Mark’s Jesus as he commands the girl to rise (ἔγειρε, V.41) is used again in relation to the three predictions of his resurrection (8:31; 9:31; 10:44); and, the verb used of her response (she “arose”, ἀνέστη, V.42) appears later in reference to Jesus’ resurrection (Mark 14:28; 16:6–7; Cotter 2001, 74). This helps illuminate the stunning act of the woman whose shattering of glass symbolically prefigures the shattering of death by Jesus (Mark 14:3). Death does not have the last word. Because Jesus’ body/corpse is risen, through his divine power and authority, all who come to faith in him come to enjoy a new (and eternal) life. The “stone” of his tomb has been “rolled away” (Mark 14:4/ Exod 24:4). One clothed in white tells the women that “Jesus … the crucified … has been raised” (Mark 14:6). And three [named] women, including a mother, were there to witness this: Mary of Magdala, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 15:47–16:1). They, along with the three [unnamed] women of Mark 5:21–43 and the [unnamed] woman with the jar of oil/ointment (Mark 14:3–9), would surely go on to tell and have others retell their stories about salvation and new life (Mark 16:7, 10, 12), just as we can plausibly assume the seven daughters of Midian, including Zipporah, would have done in their own day. In sum, the examination of the two interlocking healing stories against the matrix of literary contexts of Exodus citations found in Mark points to Mark’s theological agenda of portraying Jesus as the embodiment of God’s care for his people (Exod 23:20–26). Secondly, this approach illuminates how wrestling with Mark’s use of literary ambiguities and Exodus-like diction can bring characters (such as the girl’s mother) out of the shadows and theological insights (such as the reference to “twelve”/”whole”) into greater relief.

242

O ’ Leary and Murray

Part 3

This section will take up the question: how can the story of the two healings in Mark 5:21–43 inform the role of contemporary disciples in the church and world? Mark’s technique of intercalation captures in narrative structure a principle of universal wisdom, namely, that there always is “a story within a story”. This principle will be applied here when reflecting on the work of Rome-based organisation, Talitha Kum: An International Network Against Trafficking in Persons (2009), and its Middle Eastern daughter-project, Wells of Hope (2019). The account in Mark of the intrepid woman who pushes herself forward to touch Jesus’ garment “reminds contemporary women … of the kind of gutsy and persistent faith that does not relinquish hope even when all effort seems without result” (Reid 1996, 143). In contrast, the story of the raising of Jairus’ daughter from the dead shows how Jesus – using gestures of accompanying, of leading, not dominating – allows the young girl to stand up and claim her dignity and autonomy. While in Mark’s account the stories of two individual women – one old and one young – are linked by liberation and healing, the contemporary stories of the two organisations, Talitha Kum and Wells of Hope, are about groups of women collaborating together to raise up new life. The founding network chose the biblical invitation, “Talitha Koum” (Mark 5:42) to define its identity. Its members see that the words, “Young girl, I say to you, arise”, addressed by Jesus to the twelve-year-old daughter who lay there lifeless before her father, Jairus, and her [unnamed] mother, brought about an extraordinary transformation. This is the type of transformation that the women religious who are part of Talitha Kum seek for those held captive by this modern-day form of slavery. A study entitled, Global Estimate of Modern Slavery: Forced Labour and Forced Marriage (2017) finds that of the 40 million people who are ensnared in modern day slavery, 4.8 million are victims of forced sexual exploitation. Of those, the study found that in 2016, 99% are women and girls.31 The scale of the problem can seem overwhelming and any effort to bleed it dry almost inconsequential. The tentacles of these evil networks reach out at local levels, through local familial and community contacts, to prey on vulnerable individuals and exploit the dreams of many.

31

This study was produced in partnership with the International Labour Office, the Walk Free Foundation and the International Organization for Migration (IOM): The UN Migrant Agency (Geneva, 2017). See www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/  @dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_575479.pdf.

Toward Liberation and New Life for Trafficked Persons

243

However, the vision expressed in the Markan narrative has led thousands of religious women to stand up and commit themselves to the liberation of women and girls (as well as men and boys) who are daily deceived and trapped by the complex interconnectivity of international criminal networks.32 Religious women refuse to be silent in the face of such evil despite the risks and challenges. Talitha Kum was born out of sensitivity to the pain of those trafficked and the courage of those who said and continue to say, “No!” to indifference and “No!” to inaction (Sölle 2001, 54, 89). Seeds sown by (RC) religious congregations over centuries through antislavery and anti-trafficking initiatives began to sprout into something new in the late 1990s. In response to a public lecture on human trafficking given by Sister Lea Ackermann in Rome (1998),33 a working-group was established to raise awareness on the issue. Gradually, women religious began joining forces in an integrated network in order to develop resources and to act together. Subsequently, the International Union of Superiors General (UISG), in collaboration with the United Nations International Organization for Migration (IOM),34 developed a training programe to raise awareness among religious sisters in many parts of the world. It included workshops – in Italy, Albania, Nigeria, Romania, Thailand, Santo Domingo, Brazil, Portugal, the Philippines and South Africa (from 2004–2008) – which were led initially by Sister Bernadette Sangma FMA, Project Coordinator for UISG and Sister Eugenia Bonetti MC, the Italian Network Coordinator of UISG. These workshops, in turn, led to the creation of the first national and regional networks of sisters trained in relation to trafficking. The first international meeting of such networks took place in Rome in 2009 and Talitha Kum was born, and its first coordinator, appointed – Sister Estrella Castalone FMA (2010–2014), followed by the aforementioned, Sister Bottani (2015–present). Since its inception, the Talitha Kum network and its initiatives have reached ninety-two countries to date across five continents. As the work unfolded, the religious sisters have listened to the cries of anguish, stories of terror and pleas for help of many. They have seen how “this modern-day scourge”35 can damage and destroy lives. Like the woman healed in Mark’s account (5:25–35a), they

32 33 34 35

www.talithakum.info/en/about-us/vision. Given at the annual, “Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation Lecture”. On file at the UISG Offices, Rome. https://www.iom.int/. Pope Francis, “Address” to Members of the Santa Martha Group, February 9, 2018. See www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2018/february/documents/papa-fran  cesco_20180209_santa-marta-group.html.

244

O ’ Leary and Murray

are determined to push forward, strong in the belief that those whose lives they touch will be able to reclaim their dignity and autonomy. The Wells of Hope initiative in the Middle East brings together a group of Arab women from Christian, Muslim and Druze faith backgrounds, working together with religious sisters, “to raise awareness and find a meaningful way of helping survivors and preventing trafficking from expanding further.”36 Their story and the true story of one victim, Shaima, is narrated in a very moving documentary entitled Wells of Hope (2020).37 The story of Shaima mirrors countless other stories of women and young girls. Shaima’s story is retold in a most moving way, in the first person, by Nassim Alwan, a Druse storyteller. Shaima’s (aka Nassim’s) heart-rending account is interspersed with the voices of other protagonists. Shaima recounts how she escapes from Syria with her mother, her siblings and some of her neighbors. They begin the long walk to safety, to Lebanon, as the bombs rain down, killing her father. Along the way she and her family are placed in a refugee camp in Jordan (– a land which has a long tradition in welcoming refugees from various zones of conflict and wars in the region). They live in a plastic tent and feel totally “locked-in”. Through the slits in the bottom of the tent, they can only see the feet of the passersby. Shaima longs to go to school but has to stay at home to look after her brothers. One day, she buys a phone and discovers tools such as FaceBook and WhatsApp. She begins to connect with a Turkish man who eventually tells her that he loves her and wants to marry her. She longs to be happy and to help her family. He tells her that he is coming to bring her to Turkey but that she needs to get a passport and blood tests for his company. He sends the money to her and, shortly afterwards, arrives in Jordan for their wedding. It is a wonderful event in the refugee camp with food and music and dancing. He begins to help the people there, buying things for them. Then, the young couple depart for Jourieh to honeymoon. Shaima is overjoyed with happiness. So, too, her mother. Soon, the couple leave and, upon arriving in Turkey, live in a beautiful house; that is, until one day when her husband brings her to a different, unfamiliar, house. There, he introduces her to his friends. He then leads her into a very spacious room where there is a bed which looks like what one might find in a doctor’s surgery…. When Shaima gets alarmed at the sight, he reassures her that they are only there 36 37

Sister Annie Demerjian, RJM, Wells of Hope Documentary (2020). https://donorbox.org/wells-of-hope.

Toward Liberation and New Life for Trafficked Persons

245

to take a coffee. She takes the coffee but feels immediately the life draining from her (“[In that moment], I was lying in the bed, like they were cutting me and … they were taking my body away and … I felt empty inside.”)38 At the closing of Shaima’s story, we learn how she disappears and is no longer answering her cell phone. When her siblings go to the police to report this, they discover that Shaima’s husband’s name cannot be traced. They realise that he had deceived Shaima, her mother and all those whom he had met in the refugee camp. One year later, Shaima’s body is found in Turkey – “a corpse empty of all its organs, abandoned in a field” (cf. Exod 24:8/Mark 14:8–9, 24).39 While Shaima’s story ends tragically, her spilt blood, her empty corpse continues to emit the silent cry of all trafficked persons who long for liberation and the hope of a new life. Her sacrifice serves to animate the search for new life for others. The women in the Wells of Hope project are determined to cry out for the liberation and salvation of many women and girls who suffer in silence. Moreover, in the (re)telling of these contemporary “sacred stories”, no longer are women unnamed. Rather, as well as the voice of Nassim, we also hear the voices of Lia Beltrami, Director of the documentary, along with that of a Lebanese Good Shepherd Sister, Marie Claude Naddaf; the aforementioned Italian Comboni Sister, Gabriella Bottani, and a Syrian Jesus and Mary Sister, Annie Demerjian. Included also are the voices of three other members of the Wells of Hope initiative in Syria, namely, Marie Rummam, a Christian woman; and Wafa Makhamreh and Esraa Alshyab, both Muslim women. All three women come from the Syrian village of Mahes. These Arab women, as well their collaborators, are truly God’s angels (Exod 23:20/Mark 1:2–3), reaching out to those “who suffer from the silent suffering which is today’s slavery.”40 In their desert land, the cry of God continues to reverberate, “Let my people go!” (Exod 5:1). Their vision for those rescued is for them to live long and fruitful lives. Moreover, they also recognise the sacredness of the command to honour parents (Exod 20:12/Mark 7:10; 10:19); and, that in dishonouring Shaima’s mother, her fraudster-husband sinned gravely, choosing spiritual/moral death over truth and life (Mark 10:19). The women and girls who have been subjected to abuse and exploitation at the hands of traffickers are mothers and daughters whose lives have been dishonoured and their bodies defiled. Their hopes and dreams have been exploited. Moreover, those fortunate enough to have their freedom restored can sometimes be 38 39 40

Nassim Alwan, Wells of Hope Documentary. Ibid. Wafa Makhamreh, Wells of Hope Documentary.

246

O ’ Leary and Murray

regarded as disgraced by members of society and even by members of their own families. The message of Jesus that it is only the evil thoughts which come “out from within” the heart of a person can make her/him defiled is not always heard or understood. While “evil” may be a valid indictment of the traffickers, tragically, the label “unclean” is often cast as a cloak of added pain upon their victims (Mark 7:15–23). Although news of the girl’s death reaches Jairus while Jesus is being detained by the haemorrhaging woman, Jesus comforts and calls him thus: “Do not be afraid; just have faith” (Mark 5:36). Jairus is being asked to believe even in the face of death. He is being asked to “hold onto the love of God that makes all things possible in the face of wailing and weeping” (Mark 5:38; Shea 2005, 165). This is the kind of demand made of those trafficked and those who accompany them. They are called to believe that love is stronger than death (Exod 3:6/ Mark 12:26). In sum, for Sister Gabriella and the thousands of women religious engaged in the mission to combat human trafficking, the (Christian) sacred Scriptures are well-springs of inspiration and courage (Exod 2:15–22). They hear echoed in the biblical expression of Jesus, “Talitha Koum,” an invitation extended to them, and to all people of faith and good will across the world, to stand up and counter – with their voices, their actions, their daily choices, their lives – everything that promotes and supports the trafficking of persons.

Conclusion

This paper is a three-part study of the way in which God’s dream of liberation for people in bondage continues to be realised. Part one outlines how Mark’s use of five [part- or combined] citations from Exodus contributes to his portrayal of Jesus as the embodiment of the God of liberation who, though Moses, cried out to Pharaoh, “Let my people go!” (Exod 5:1). Part two outlines how the examination of Mark 5:21–43 against the matrix of literary contexts in which the Exodus citations are found amplifies the liberative aspect of Jesus’ healing mission. In the light of the findings above, part three examines the way in which the story of the interlocking healings of Jairus’ daughter and the woman with the flow of blood continues to inspire members of the mother and daughter organisations, Talitha Kum and Wells of Hope, in their flight against  human trafficking. As noted above, the new aspect of this study lies in its methodological approach toward generating theological insights – that is, the refraction of one literary unit (with two interlocking narratives) in which no explicit citation

Toward Liberation and New Life for Trafficked Persons

247

from Exodus is found i.e. Mark 5:1–43, against the literary contexts in which the five citations from Exodus (listed above) are found. In the view of the authors, this approach has succeeded in bringing “new light and [further] coherence to Mark.”41 It is hoped other scholars will use [or modify]42 the approach and apply it to other sections of the Gospel of Mark and the NT – and in this way further contribute to the broader area of study of the use of the OT in the NT. Further, the challenge by scholars Fowl and Jones (1993, 42) that we “must be willing to be interrogated by Scripture in addition to interrogating Scripture” inspired the rationale for approaching the topic of this paper as an example of “Exodus Today” in a collaborative and interdisciplinary way. This in turn captures, in miniature, the great hope that this paper will inspire wo/men of good will – from across faith traditions, cultures and continents – to continue to collaborate across time and space toward liberation and new life for trafficked persons. Bibliography Adams, Sean A. and Ehorn, Seth M. 2016. Composite Citation in Antiquity. Vol. 1 Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses. LNTS 525. London et al.: Bloomsbury. Allen, Garrick V. 2021. “Exodus Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels.” Pages (in the same volume) in Let My People Go! Reception of Exodus Motifs in Jewish and Christian Literature. TBN. Leiden: Brill. Allison, Dale C. 1993. The New Moses. A Matthean Typology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Bock, Darrell. 2015. Mark. NCBC. New York: Cambridge University Press. Boring, M. Eugene. 2006. Mark. A Commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Carter, Warren. 2019. Mark. Wisdom Commentary 42. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Cotter, Wendy. 2001. “Mark’s Hero of the Twelfth-Year Miracles. The Healing of the Woman with the Hemorrhage and the Raising of Jairus’s Daughter (Mk 5:21–43).” Pages 54–78 in A Feminist Companion to Mark. Edited by Amy-Jill Levine with Marianne Blickenstaff. Cleveland, OH: The Pilgrim Press. Dohmen, Christoph. 2014. “Decalogue” Pages 193–219 in The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception and Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Craig A. Evans and Joel N. Lohr. Leiden: Brill. 41 42

See Note 9 above. It would be interesting to evaluate how the use of the Masoretic Text with or instead of the LXX might have impacted this or might impact other similar studies in the future.

248

O ’ Leary and Murray

Donahue, John R. and Harrington, Daniel J. 2002. The Gospel of Mark. Sacra Pagina 2. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press. Dozeman, Thomas B. 2009. Exodus. ECC. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans. Durham, John I. 1987. Exodus. WBC 3. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers. Evans, Craig A. 2014. “Exodus in the New Testament. Patterns of Revelation and Redemption.” Pages 440–464 in The Book of Exodus. Composition, Reception and Interpretation. Leiden: Brill. Fowl, Stephen E. and Jones, L. Gregory. 1991. Reading in Communion. Scripture and Ethics in Christian Life. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans. France, Richard T. 2002. The Gospel of Mark. A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans. Gundry, Robert H. 1993. Mark. A Commentary on His Apology of the Cross. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans. Gurtner, Daniel M. 2017. ‘“Old Exodus” and “New Exodus” in the Gospel of Mark’. Paper presented at the Midwest Region of the Society of Biblical Literature, USA, 11 Feb 2017. 1–9. Unpublished. Haber, Susan. 2003. “A Woman’s Touch. Feminist Encounters with the Hemorrhaging Woman in Mark 5:24–34.” JSNT 26.2: 171–192. Hays, Richard B. 2016. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. Hays, Richard B. 2014. Reading Backwards. Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. Levine, Amy-Jill. 1996. “Discharging Responsibility. Matthean Jesus, Biblical Law, and Hemorrhaging Woman.” Pages 379–397 in Treasures New and Old. Recent Contributions to Matthean Studies. Edited by David R. Bauer and Mark Allan Powell. SBL.SyS 1. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Moloney, Francis J. 2002. The Gospel of Mark. A Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. New American Bible Revised Edition 2013. Anselm Academy Study Bible Catholic Edition. Edited by Carolyn Osiek. Winona, MN: Anselm Academic. Okure, Teresa. 2011. “Children in Mark. A Lens for Reading Mark’s Gospel.” Pages 127– 144 in Mark. Edited by Nicole Wilkinson Duran, Teresa Okure and Daniel Patte. Texts@Contexts. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress. Reid, Barbara E. 1996. Choosing the Better Part. Women in the Gospel of Luke. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. 1992. But She Said. Feminist Practices of Biblical Interpretation. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Shea, John. 2005. The Spiritual Wisdom of the Gospels for Christian Preachers and Teachers. Year B: Eating with the Bridegroom. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

Toward Liberation and New Life for Trafficked Persons

249

Sölle, Dorothee. 2001. The Silent Cry. Mysticism and Resistance. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Sperling, S. David. 1992. “Blood.” Pages 761–763 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 1. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday. Stanley, Christopher D. 2015. “Composite Citations. Retrospective and Prospective.” Pages 203–209 in Composite Citation in Antiquity. Vol. 1 Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses. Edited by Sean A. Adams and Seth M. Ehorn. LNTS 593. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Stockhausen, Carol Keern. 1993. “2 Corinthians 3 and the Principles of Pauline Exegesis.” Pages 143–164 in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNT.S 83. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Watts, Rikk E. 1997. Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark. WUNT 2.88. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1997. Watts, Rikk E. 2007. “Mark.” Pages 111–249 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by Gregory K. Beale and Donald A. Carson. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Wright, David P. 1992. “Unclean and Clean.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 6. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday. Yarbro Collins, Adela. 2007. Mark. A Commentary. A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Edited by Harold W. Attridge. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN:  Fortress Press.



Online Resources References

Francis, Pope. Address to Members of the Santa Martha Group, February 9, 2018 www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2018/february/documents/papa  -francesco_20180209_santa-marta-group.html. International Organization for Migration (United Nations) www.iom.int. Global Estimate of Modern Slavery: Forced Labour and Forced Marriage (2017) www  .ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/documents/publication/ wcms_575479.pdf. Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Gracae: Deutsche Biblegesellschaft (28th edition. Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 2019). www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online. Talitha Kum: An International Network Against Trafficking in Persons www.talithakum  .info. Wells of Hope: End Human Trafficking Project www.talithakum.info/en/projects/wells  -of-hope-update. Wells of Hope Documentary (2020) www://donorbox.org/wells-of-hope.

Chapter 12

Exodus in the Book of Acts. A Prophetic Reversal of Israel’s History Jenny Read-Heimerdinger 1

Exodus in Acts: Preliminary Remarks

This study will illustrate the use made of the story of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt in the Book of Acts. While Exod 12 remains the foundation text, or paradigm, the biblical account is not confined to that record, for it was developed in later writings of the Jewish Scriptures,1 notably the prophets, as well as in oral tradition. In the analysis of passages in the Book of Acts presented here, it will be seen that the narrator interprets what had been happening among the early followers of Jesus by drawing on a range of accounts of the Exodus and setting it in the context of this paradigmatic event in Israel’s history. He does so in such a way as dramatically to transform its parameters. References to the Exodus are not commonly identified in Acts2 despite its traditional connection with Luke’s Gospel, where Exodus allusions are indeed recognised. There is only one explicit mention of Passover in Acts (Acts 12:4), associated with the miraculous deliverance of Peter from the threat of execution by Herod. While some specialist studies identify the presence of key Exodus motifs in this account of Peter’s escape from prison (e.g., Strobel 1957; Dupont 1984, 336–341; Garrett 1990; Christopher 2018, 178), it is usual to find that Jesus’ passion is nevertheless seen as the foundational event that is being re-enacted.3 In other words, Christian rather than Jewish history is seen as 1 The term “Jewish Scriptures” is preferred to “Old Testament” in speaking of the Book of Acts since, whether dated at the end of the 1st or the beginning of the 2nd century, it was written at a time when the concept of “Old” and “New” testaments had not been formulated. Furthermore, it will be contended here that the writer was composing his narrative within a Jewish context, in which the Scriptures he was drawing on, in whatever language, were the sacred texts of the Jews first and foremost. 2 Commentators are generally reluctant to accept that Luke drew purposeful parallels with the Exodus (see, e.g., Barrett 1994, 577–578). 3 See, e.g., Parry 1995, 159–161; cf. Witherington 1998, 382 who believes that the parallels with the death of Jesus rather than the Exodus would have been more accessible and more obvious to Theophilus.

© Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471122_014

Exodus in the Book of Acts

251

the touchstone for understanding Peter’s rescue. Occasionally, features of the Exodus are noted, too, in Paul’s rescue from the shipwreck in Acts 27 (see Christopher 2018), but their primary function is once more understood as being to create a parallel with the suffering of Jesus. 1.1 The Author of Acts One of the reasons for giving more weight to the resemblances of the Acts incidents to Jesus’ experiences than to those of the ancient event of the Exodus may well be that the author of Acts, traditionally known as Luke, has until relatively recently almost universally been understood to be a Gentile; moreover, he was addressing his work to Theophilus as a recent Gentile convert. In line with that view, the book of Acts is read more as a historical account (with whatever particular purpose) rather than a theological one. Despite the weighty tradition behind it, however, the grounds on which it rests are being increasingly challenged, and a growing number of scholars argue that, on the contrary, Luke was Jewish – highly educated, with an excellent level of Greek, which suggests a Hellenistic background but Jewish nevertheless.4 His Jewish identity tends to be confirmed in this study, which reveals a sophisticated knowledge of Jewish teaching, derived from both scriptural and oral traditions. His education allowed him to propose complex and novel interpretations of some of those traditions and to speak with an authority that indicates a certain level of standing with his addressee. What is of especial importance is not to approach Acts with the preconceived notion that it represents a Gentile perspective, for that thinking is liable to control the conclusions and preclude the facts from speaking for themselves. Acts in a Jewish Context 1.2 Underlying the use made of the Exodus paradigm within a Jewish setting is a basic principle concerning the Jewish understanding of the life of Israel, namely that all of history is contained in the Torah (Neusner 1990, 131–132). Within this framework, the work of the Jewish historian seeking to interpret contemporary events thus consists in bringing to light the ancient models that lie behind what has taken place and that give the events coherence and

4 A scholar who challenged the Gentile identity of Luke already 50 years ago, proposing instead a Jewish perspective for the author of Acts, was Jervell 1972. Among studies published in the 21st century, see van ‘t Riet 2009, who comments: “He [Luke] is a Jew rooted in the Judaism of his days” (9).

252

Read-Heimerdinger

meaning.5 This is quite different from “typology”; in fact, it is the reverse of it, so to speak. As a Christian reading of Old Testament characters and events, typology views them as prefiguring characters, notably Christ, and events in the New Testament; a typological interpretation of scriptural references considers Christ to embody the fulfilment of the earlier, inferior events in this history of Israel and the Church to embody that fulfilment. Among those who recognise allusions to the Exodus in Acts, “typology” is the frequent framework in which they are understood (see, e.g., Marshall 1987; Weaver 2004, 155–159; Christopher 2018, 179–181). A Jewish understanding, in contrast, sees the Torah events and characters as the model par excellence, which is constantly being re-enacted as Israel continues to live out its calling as the chosen people of God. The biblical writings that follow the Torah serve as to expand and comment on the foundational models, and the oral teachings continue that activity (Fishbane 1987; Tardieu 1987; Instone Brewer 1992; Kugel 1994). It is thus possible, even likely, that the form of the Exodus story alluded to in a 1st century document such as the Book of Acts is, compared with the written Torah account, a version or even a compilation of versions that is modified by tradition. Seen from a Jewish point of view, the function of parallels between Jesus or his followers and the Torah narrative is not to say that in Christianity Judaism had been superseded, but rather to demonstrate that the recent happenings were in continuity with God’s actions with Israel throughout her history: Jesus was not some new and foreign God, his followers were not usurpers, but all were renewing the ancient, sacred paradigms laid down by the God of Israel. 1.3 The Addressee of Acts The counterpart to the use that the author of Acts makes of Jewish tradition is that he could presume that the person or people for whom he was writing would understand it. Much of what will be presented here in terms of reference to the Exodus would have little purpose if they did not. For example, in the case of a Jewish audience, the writer could suppose that they were familiar not only with the biblical stories but also with their interpretation and development in tradition. In order, therefore, for reference to be made to a paradigm from Israel’s history, it could be sufficient to slip in a simple word or phrase for the allusion to be clear; and to bring in cross-references to other texts by their customary association. Such use of “hooks” serving as keys to the

5 “Chaque épisode doit faire écho à un événement biblique qui le préfigure. C’est paradoxalement la conformité au modèle qui sert de critère à la vérité historique. N’a de portée historique qu’un événement dont on peut lire l’annonce dans l’Écriture” (Barc 2000, 9).

Exodus in the Book of Acts

253

biblical paradigm was already a well-used technique among Jewish exegetes as a means to connect scriptural texts (see Mann 1940; Perrot 1963). Finding evidence of its application in the Book of Acts is one pointer that it was written within a Jewish context where writer and addressee shared common ways of thinking and understood each other well. Theophilus is the name given by Luke to the addressee of both his volumes, evidently a person of high standing (κράτιστος, Luke 1:3). Research into the names of Jewish people in the centuries around the turn of the era (Ilan 2002) reveals that extant records preserve the name of only one Jew named Theophilus in the 1st century, the High Priest of 37–41CE, third son of Annas, brother-in-law of Caiaphas. When Acts is read through his eyes, then the allusions to the Exodus take on a profound significance, with dramatic consequences. 1.4 Textual Issues Not only did the Hebrew Scriptures undergo transformation but so did the writings that were gathered together at some point as the Scriptures of the Christian Church. The story of when the changes happened, how and why is a topic of debate among scholars of textual criticism, which will not be engaged with directly here.6 What will be seen, however, is that among the earliest copies of Acts there are important differences precisely in passages where it appears that the Exodus is being referred to as a means to interpret events in the life of the Church. In one particular Greek manuscript, the references are clearer and more numerous than in any other; what is more, they are made from a Jewish perspective. The document is known as Codex Bezae (D05), a bilingual Greek-Latin manuscript of the Gospels and Acts unlike any other that has been preserved. Copied around 400 ce, its text has support for many of its readings from much earlier documents – fragments of papyri, citations of the Church Fathers, the first translations into languages all around the Mediterranean. Because its readings are frequently singular among Greek manuscripts, they have generally been viewed as the whimsical inventions of a scribe, without any claim to authenticity. This study challenges that view, arguing that the Bezan presentation of the Exodus in Acts reflects a Jewish perspective that is in keeping with the character of the earliest days of the Church. Understanding its text depends on identifying the Jewish nature of many of its readings, which has generally gone unrecognised.

6 The text of D05 Acts is compared in detail with the text represented by N-A28 in RiusCamps and Read-Heimerdinger, 2004–2009.

254

Read-Heimerdinger

In what follows, the familiar text of Nestle-Aland (N-A28) will be compared with that of D05. Two passages will be examined where references to the Exodus are located, considering their effect on the message of the narrative: Peter’s prison escape in 12:1–17 as already mentioned and an earlier prison escape in 5:17–33, where explicit parallels with the Exodus are all but invisible except in D05 (see Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger 2004, 358–363; Read-Heimerdinger, 2003). Specific variant readings in D05 with respect to N-A28 will be given; the continuous Greek text of that manuscript can be accessed alongside a parallel English translation in Read-Heimerdinger and Rius-Camps 2013. Acts 27 will not be included in this study because the latter chapters of Acts are missing in D05.7 2

Acts 5:17–33

In the first five chapters of Acts, the focus of the Church’s activity under the leadership of the apostles is Jerusalem, as the seat of Jewish authority and the locus of the Temple. Luke’s use of the dual spelling of Jerusalem (Ἰερουσαλήμ/ Ἱεροσολύμα), more consistent in the D05 text (Read-Heimerdinger 2002, 311– 344),8 makes it clear that in the early days the followers of Jesus remained attached to traditional Jewish practices and sought to bring about change from within. Thus, the form Ἰερουσαλήμ is used throughout Acts up to the beginning of ch. 8,9 and it is in that context that the Church grows and develops. The attachment of the Jesus-followers to Jerusalem begins to change when Peter and John come into conflict with the authority of the Jewish leaders, following the healing of a lame man whom they had taken into the Temple against Jewish law (3:1–10). Unable to find any justification for punishing them, the leaders let them go while forbidding them to speak about the name of Jesus. As the apostles disregard their orders, the dismantling of their authority 7 For commentary on Acts 27, see Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger 2009, 364–391. 8 The Hebrew-derived spelling Ἰερουσαλήμ is used by Luke to signify Jerusalem as the holy city, the seat of authority, while the Hellenistic spelling Ἱεροσολύμα refers to Jerusalem as a neutral, geographical location. Luke is not alone in making use of the two spellings: cf. Paul’s letters, which read Ἱεροσολύμα at Gal 1:17, 18; 2:1 to refer to the geographical location and Ἰερουσαλήμ at Rom 15:25, 26, 31; 1 Cor 16:3; Gal 4:25, 26 in referring to the spiritual significance of Jerusalem. 9 The Hellenistic form is only introduced once mention is made of the church in Ἱεροσολύμα that was persecuted and dispersed following the challenge issued by the leader of the Hellenists, Stephen (8:1a). D05 then compares this group with the apostles who, for their part, remained in Ἰερουσαλήμ (8:1b D05).

Exodus in the Book of Acts

255

is represented by an earthquake that shook “the place” (ὁ τόπος, 4:31)10 where the apostles had gathered with fellow believers to ask God to enable them “to speak with all boldness as you stretch out your hand to heal and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus” (4:30). The intensity and success of the apostles’ activity (5:12–16) arouses the jealousy (5:17; or zeal: ζήλος) of the high priestly circle (including Theophilus as a son of Annas, brother-in-law of Caiaphas, among them) who imprison them (5:18). The concise account that follows of the apostles’ release by divine intervention (5:19–20) employs vocabulary typically associated with the Exodus: – The apostles are led out (ἐξαγαγών) from prison, the characteristic verb repeated throughout Exodus – During the night (διὰ νυκτόν), the time of the Exodus (Exod 12:12, 29–31, 42) – By an angel of the Lord (ἄγελλος κυρίου), the agent of the Exodus Num 20:16, cf. Exod 14:1911 – The angel instructs them to “stand in the Temple and speak to the people all the words of this life”, echoing the order given by God to Moses after leaving Egypt (Deut 5:28–33LXX)12 If, by using Exodus terms, the narrator is creating a parallel between the deliverance of the apostles and the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt, the scene acts as a statement about the changed identity of the People of God. It is the Jesus-believers who are identified with the oppressed Jews in Egypt, with Moses their leader; correspondingly, the oppressors have become the Jewish leaders – the Sadducees, the Pharisees and the High Priests. Lest it be thought that the vocabulary associated with the apostles’ deliverance is too commonplace for any intended reference to the Exodus to be read into them (see Christopher 2018, 181), D05 offers two further comments13 that 10 11 12

13

In biblical language, ὁ τόπος is frequently a LXX term used to refer to the tabernacle or Temple as a place of worship (cf. Lev 6:9, 19; 8:31; 2 Sam 6:17; 1 Chron 15:1; Ps 41:5). At the start of the Exodus account, it is the Lord himself who performs the deliverance of the people of Israel (Exod 12:23, 29, 50) but in later accounts the angel of the Lord is mentioned (Num 20:16, cf. Exod 14:19). Other echoes of the Exodus can be heard in the text surrounding Acts 5:19–20, e.g., the many signs and wonders performed among the people (5:12) reminiscent of the numerous miracles that Moses accomplished during the Exodus (Exod 7:3LXX; cf. Acts 7:36); the sick of Jerusalem who sought to be covered by the shadow of Peter (ἡ σκία ἐπισκιάσῃ, lit. “overshadow”, Acts 5:15) just as the cloud that preceded the Israelites in the desert overshadowed the tent of meeting (ἐπεσκίαζεν, e.g. Exod 40:35; cf. Isa 4:6, where God is depicted as creating a cloud by day as a shade (εἰς σκιάν, LXX) for the protection of the people of Jerusalem). Both comments are supported by the Middle Egyptian version, and the second by Ephrem.

256

Read-Heimerdinger

not only reinforce the parallel but, moreover, highlight the irony of the shift in the paradigm: – After putting the apostles in prison, the members of the high priestly circle each went to his own house (ἐπορεύθη εἷς ἓκατος εἰς τὰ ἴδια, 5:18 D05) – They got up early the next morning (ἐγερθέντες τὸ πρωί, 5:21s D05) Far from being mere vivid touches of colour or circumstantial detail (contra Metzger 1994, 288, 290), these two observations are reminiscent of the command Moses gave to the people of Israel as they prepared for the night when the Lord would pass through Egypt to kill the firstborn: “none of you shall go out of the door of his house until the morning” (οὐκ ἐξελεύσεσθε ἕκαστος τὴν θύραν τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ ἕως πρωί, Exod 12:22LXX). The comments would indeed be superfluous were it not that by their presence the leaders of high priestly circle are identified with the people of God, those who are obedient to God’s commands and protected by him. Their role is reinforced in the statement read by all texts at Acts 5:21: “they called together the Sanhedrin, that is, all the senate of the sons of Israel” (συνεκάλεσαν τὸ συνέδριον καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γερουσίαν τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ). Their action echoes that which Moses took when he transmitted the instructions concerning the Passover to the people of Israel: “Moses called all the senate of the sons of Israel” (ἐκάλεσεν δὲ Μωυσῆς πᾶσαν γερουσίαν υἱῶν Ισραηλ, Exod 12:21LXX). As leaders of Israel, the Jewish authorities walk in the footsteps of Moses but the narrative has established in the preceding scene (Acts 5:12–17) that it is the apostles, those who believe in and follow Jesus as Messiah, who have been given the divine power to teach, heal and lead the people of God. In other words, the Jewish authorities, who are initially presented as representing the faithful People of God, turn out to be the oppressors. The narrative of Acts 5 portrays the High Priest and the Sanhedrin as quite out of control while all the time the narrator has let his audience know exactly what was going on, providing they were able to pick up the clues that he gave. The narrator is doing more here than showing how the apostles suffered the same opposition from the Jewish authorities as Jesus. He is also doing more than taking up the Exodus event to show that God continues to protect those faithful to him. He is setting up a re-enactment of the Exodus, but one that, as it evolves, turns upside down the original paradigm. And yet, this is no Gentile Christian looking at the Jews from a position of superiority, claiming the spiritual high ground. Rather it is an observer who knows the situation and the Jewish mentality so well from an internal perspective that he can be both focused and innovative in his use of the Scriptures to target quite precisely his criticism of the leaders: this is not point scoring but tragedy. The tragedy lies in the fact that the Jewish leaders are shown to have rejected not only their

Exodus in the Book of Acts

257

Messiah but also the testimony borne to him by his chosen envoys and have become like the Egyptians, the enemies of the people of God. This first reenactment of the Exodus prepares for a second one related in Acts 12, which will affect Peter personally. 3

Acts 12:1–17

3.1 From Acts 6 to Acts 12 From Acts 6, the mission of the Church starts to move away from Jerusalem under the impulse of the Hellenist Jewish believers, even though they had been relegated by the Hebrew apostles to menial tasks (6:1–6). The apostles themselves are slow to change their Jewish mentality, allowing them to remain in the holy city of Jerusalem even after persecution of the Church had been instigated, as noted above with reference to the mention of Jerusalem at 8:1 D05. Peter’s outlook gradually begins to open out beyond the confines of Judaea (from 9:32 onwards) and traditional concepts of purity when he goes to the house of a tanner in Joppa (9:43). It is from there that he is called by divine intervention to speak for the first time to a Gentile in the Roman city of Caesarea and, against his own judgement (10:28), to enter a Gentile’s house. Finally, through the manifestation of the Holy Spirit while he is talking, he understands that the Gentiles are regarded by God as equal to Jews and that they had already been accepted by him. D05 seals this new-found awareness with the observation that it was at this point (and only now) that Peter fulfilled Jesus’ command to him before his denial: to turn and strengthen the brethren (σύ δὲ ἐπστρέψον καὶ [ποτε ἐπιστρέψας, N-A28] στήρισον τους ἀδελφούς σου; Luke 22:32 D05). On his way to explain the events to the church in Judaea, as he journeyed he “called the brethren and strengthened them” (προσφωνήσας τοὺς αδελφοὺς καὶ ἐπιστηρίξας αὐτούς, 11:2 D05, with support from a range of early versions). The implication is that the essence of Peter’s denial of Jesus had to do with his desire to defend the privileged position of Israel as the chosen people of God, which he has finally renounced (see ReadHeimerdinger 2012). Meanwhile, the Hellenist believers had been announcing the gospel to people who were not of Jewish origin (11:20, where the N-A28 reading of Ἑλληνιστάς requires the sense of Ἕλληνας given in D05). Gentiles were admitted to the church in Antioch (11:19–26), and a collection was organised for the famine relief of the church in Judaea, still predominantly of Jewish origin. Barnabas and Saul are entrusted with bringing that money from the Antioch

258

Read-Heimerdinger

church to the elders in Judaea (11:30), and will leave Jerusalem again at the end of this episode (12:25).14 It is important to note that their action of bringing money from Antioch, the Roman capital of the province of Syria, is the time setting for the incidents that follow in Jerusalem in Acts 12:1: κατ’ ἐκεῖνον δὲ τὸν καιρόν, because the visit of Barnabas and Saul is the framework, and supplies the cause, for the persecution of the Judaean church that takes place while they are there (see Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger 2006, 332–336 passim, 389–391). 3.2 Exodus as a Model for Peter’s Deliverance from Prison In Acts 12, traces of the Exodus model can be detected for a second time in Peter’s escape from prison, now with a different focus than in Acts 5 but building on the earlier miraculous deliverance. The paradigm is drawn on in order to show, at least in the D05 narrative, how Peter is finally freed from the limitations of traditional Jewish Messianic expectations. Acts 12 has a story of persecution of the believers similar to that of Acts 5. However, here it is motivated by the desire for popularity on the part of Herod Agrippa I, the Roman client king of Judaea. Being of Jewish descent himself (see Goodman 2007, 82, cf. Daube 1981, 23–25),15 Herod sought generally to gain favour with his Jewish subjects. This was his aim, according to Acts (12:3), in even killing James the brother of John and going on to arrest Peter. D05 spells out that what the Jews liked was his attack on the “faithful”: ἡ ἐπιχείρησας αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς πιστούς (12:3 D05). The circumstances of the arrest are carefully recorded. D05 firmly sets the scene “in Judaea” (12:1 D05), still the centre of the Church at this stage in the story. Peter is imprisoned during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (12:3) and remains there until he is freed, again by divine intervention, during the last night of the Passover celebrations. The very timing of the release suggests the Exodus model and a series of further clues follows. The allusions are more forceful in the D05 text where it becomes apparent that not only the Exodus paradigm but also later responses to it from among the biblical prophets are drawn on in order to communicate a revolutionary theological message. The N-A28 account of the story tends, in comparison, to read more as a historical report. The following pointers to the Exodus story, some of them already 14 15

Textual critics are divided as to how to explain the reading adopted by N-A28 for 12:25: ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ. See Metzger 1994, 350–352. D05 reads ἀπέστρεψαν ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ, with wide support for the preposition ἀπό. Whether or not Luke meant Herod of Acts 12 to be literally Agrippa 1 (see Dicken 2014) is, to some extent, irrelevant to the role he plays in the story as the Jewish client king.

Exodus in the Book of Acts

259

present in Acts 5, are likely to have been recognised by Jewish recipients of Acts:16 – The release happens at night (τῇ νυκτὶ ἐκείνῃ, 12:6), the time of the Exodus (Ex 12:12, 29–31, 42) – It is a night of watching: the church is engaged in prayer for Peter (Acts 12:5, 12) just as the night of Passover was a “night of watching” (Exod 12:42). The Bezan text of Acts 12:5 underlines the importance of the prayer in two ways: with the adjective “much” (πολλή), and with the adverbial phrase ἐν ἐκτενείᾳ (against N-A28 ἐκτενῶς) to express the earnestness of the prayer. While ἐκτενῶς is used in a variety of contexts elsewhere in the Scriptures, ἐν ἐκτενείᾳ is a phrase used only in association with the 12 tribes longing for the attainment of God’s promise to Israel (Acts 26:7) or of Israel pleading for deliverance (Jud 4:9LXX). The Jewish salvation resonance of the latter detail concords well with the extensive development in Jewish tradition of the night of watching into a time of Messianic expectation (Le Déaut 1963, 292, 296, esp. n. 116). It suggests that the people praying were aware that more than Peter’s physical deliverance was at stake. – The angel of the Lord (Acts 12:7) delivers Peter from the prison, just as the Israelites spoke of an angel sent by the Lord to bring them out of Egypt (Num 20:16). – A light shines in the building (Acts 12:7), seemingly emanating from the angel. Light is associated with the Exodus because of the image of the pillar of fire that accompanied the Israelites to give them light at night (Exod 13:21). In the targums to Exodus the theme is considerably expanded and the light becomes synonymous with the presence of God. Acts 12:7 D05 uses a rare compound of the verb read by N-A28 (ἐπιλάμπω in place of λάμπω), found only occasionally in the LXX and then only in a figurative sense, notably in Is 4:2 to refer to God shining forth in the last days from the sanctified city of Jerusalem when there will again be a cloud by day and the light of fire by night. – The first task of the angel is to waken Peter as he sleeps chained between two guards (Acts 12:6) by nudging his side (12:7). The verb πατάσσω chosen by all Greek MSS except D05 can mean not only to give a light push, as presumably here, but also a heavy blow and even to kill. It is used repeatedly in 16

The evidence of Christian communities such as the Quartodecimans of Asia Minor in the 2nd century, for whom the celebration of Passover in accordance with ancient Jewish tradition was especially important, indicates that when the story of Acts was read within a Jewish framework, the parallels would have been readily recognised (See Le Déaut 1963, 292).

260

–

–

–

–

–

Read-Heimerdinger

the narrative of Exod 12LXX (e.g. Exod 12:12, 23 [2×], 27) to refer to the killing of the first-born; it will be used in this sense of the angel killing Herod later in Acts 12 (12:23). In D05, a more neutral verb, νύσσω, is used in 12:7 so avoiding any misplaced comparison of Peter with either the Egyptians or Herod. Peter is told to act in haste (ἐν τάχει, Acts 12:7), reminiscent of the manner in which the Israelites were ordered to eat the Passover (Exod 12:11) or the Egyptians sent them out of their land (Exod 12:33), although in the LXX a different expression (μετὰ σπουδῆς/σπουδῇ) is used. He is also told to gird himself and put on his sandals (ζῶσαι καὶ ὑπόδησαι τὰ σανδάλιά σου, Acts 12:8), instructions given to the Israelites for the eating of the Passover (αἱ ὀσφύες ὑμῶν περιεζωσμέναι, καὶ τὰ ὑποδήματα ἐν τοῖς ποσὶν ὑμῶν, Exod 12:11); furthermore, he is to wrap his cloak around himself (τὸ ἱμάτιόν, Acts 12:8), reflecting the gesture of the Israelites who carried their kneading bowls wrapped up in their cloaks (ἐν τοῖς ἱματίοις αὐτῶν, Exod 12:34). The door leading out of the prison opens of its own accord (αὐτομάτη, Acts 12:10), echoing a tradition recorded by the Jewish Egyptian historian Artapanus in his rewriting of the Exodus story in the 3rd/2nd century BCE: when Moses was imprisoned by Pharoah, he was able to escape because the doors opened spontaneously (αὐτομάτως).17 Peter’s words (12:11) on finding himself outside the prison and realising that what had happened was real (νῦν οἶδα ὅτι ἀληθῶς ἐξαπέστειλεν κύριος τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξείλατό με ἐκ χειρὸς Ἡρῴδου)18 are reminiscent, first, of the words of Moses’ son Eliezer: εξείλατό με ἐκ χειρός Φαραώ, Exod 18:4LXX); and secondly, those of his father-in-law, Jethro, on hearing from Moses about the deliverance of the Israelites: Εὐλογητὸς κύριος, ὅτι ἐξείλατο τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἐκ χειρὸς Αἰγυπτίων καὶ ἐκ ἐκ χειρός Φαραώ· νῦν ἔγνων ὅτι μέγας κύριος παρὰ πάντας τοὺς θεούς …, Exod 18:10–11LXX. On realising what had happened, Peter goes to Mary’s house where a section of the Jerusalem church had gathered and he “declared to them how the Lord brought him out (ἐξήγαγεν) of prison” (12:17), using the same verb as is used repeatedly throughout Exodus.

17

18

Artapanus, De Judaeis, cited by Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 9.27.23; see also Josephus, Ant. 2:254– 255. Several scholars argue that the detail of the doors opening, among other non-biblical motifs, is material that Artapanus took from Euripides’ Bacchae; see Friesen 2015, 141–147. Be that as it may, similarities in miraculous escapes between Greek sources and Jewish ones by no means exclude the likelihood that the Jewish authors situate their accounts primarily with reference to the Exodus, a point well made by Christopher 2018, 180–181. Furthermore, stories about Moses such as those of Artapanus could well have been circulating as oral, if not written, tradition among Jewish communities in the 1st century ce. N-A28 has νῦν οἶδα ἀληθῶς ὅτι …

Exodus in the Book of Acts

261

– On the association of the prison with the Exodus may be noted a rabbinic Midrash on Exod 12 which speaks of the Feast of Passover as comparable to the celebration of the day on which “a king set free his son from prison”.19 So from what exactly is Peter delivered and in what way does the Exodus motif contribute to the message of the narrative? Several levels of interpretation are possible. On the most obvious, Peter is freed from the political power of Herod and the threat of death; the intervention of the angel of the Lord is a demonstration of how the Lord protects his Church. This literal interpretation takes the historical dimension of the narrative at face value. It is the one proposed by most commentators who acknowledge echoes of the Exodus story, viewing Peter’s escape as typological imitation, of Israel in the past and Jesus in more recent times, an example of God’s providence (cf. Weaver 2004, 156). It would be possible to be more precise, still on a literal level, and set the attack on Peter in its wider narrative context so as to take account of the fact that Herod was acting in order to please his Jewish subjects; the release of Peter from prison then represents the way in which the Church is able to withstand Jewish hostility. Recognising the use of the Exodus model makes evident the powerfully ironic comparison between the liberation of the Israelites from the oppression of the Egyptians under Pharaoh and the deliverance of the Peter from the oppression of the Jews under Herod (noted by Christopher 2018, 178). 3.3 Allusions to Ezekiel Another level of interpretation, a symbolic one that involves a more radical theological message, is pointed to by the presence of an enigmatic comment in Acts 12:17 and confirmed by a reading present in D05 at 12:10. Once Peter has related his miraculous escape to the church at Mary’s house (12:12–17), and after leaving instructions that the news be passed on to James and the brethren, the narrative states that he thereupon “went out and travelled to another place” (ἐξελθὼν ἐπορεύθη εἰς ἕτερον τόπον, 12:17). The vagueness of the comment is uncharacteristic of Acts and the phrase is not used elsewhere by Luke or, indeed, anywhere in the New Testament. It does occur once, however, in Ezek 12:3LXX, where its use sheds light on its meaning in Acts 12.20 In the course of the early part of the Book of Ezekiel, the prophet is instructed to perform a series of symbolic actions to illustrate to the people of Israel that because of their wickedness in Jerusalem, they are going to be brought out of

19 20

Exod. Rab. 12:42, cited by Le Déaut (1963, 235) who notes that the tradition is likely to date from a much earlier time than the rabbinic period. The allusion to Ezek 12:3 is recognised by Thiede 1987, 221–229. However, he identifies “the other place” as Babylon/Rome.

262

Read-Heimerdinger

the city and scattered among the nations. He is to equip himself like an exile leaving a town, dig through the walls of Jerusalem and “go like an exile from your place to another place” (εἰς ἕτερον τόπον, 12:3). When the people ask what he is doing, he is to tell them that his action is a sign that concerns “the ruler and the one guiding in Jerusalem and in all the house of Israel” (Ὁ ἄρχων καὶ ὁ ἀφηγούμενος ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ καὶ παντὶ οἴκῳ Ἰσραήλ, Ezek 12:10). The implication of taking up this phrase with reference to Peter is that at this point he left Jerusalem (Ἰερουσαλήμ), not the city as a geographical location but Jerusalem as the spiritual centre of the Church. Whether he went immediately or whether he even went at all in the literal sense, are questions that are irrelevant to Luke’s narrative intention. For the effect of evoking Ezekiel’s prophecy is to bring to the fore the serious and tragic consequences of the assimilation of the Jews with the Egyptians as enemies of God’s people: as leader of the apostles, Peter goes away from Jerusalem as the centre of authority for God’s people. The symbolic nature of this interpretation is endorsed by the D05 text of Acts 12:10, at the end of the events describing the escape from the prison. As Peter follows the angel through the prison, they come first to the iron gate which they go through then out and along one street before the angel disappears. D0521 specifies that as they go out of the prison, they “went down seven steps” (κατέβησαν τοὺς .ζ. βαθμούς), apparently leading from the prison to the street. In both texts, some care is given to marking the stages of the exit from the prison, specifying that Peter followed the angel through a first and a second prison, although the information is not strictly necessary; in this context, the additional detail of the seven steps is all the more curious. Textual critics commonly allow that a scribe may have had accurate local knowledge about the prison in Jerusalem and they see its inclusion simply as a means to make the report more colourful (see Metzger 1994, 347–348). That it has quite another significance can be deduced from the extensive use made of the book of Ezekiel in this episode. The allusion to Ezek 12:3 has been noted above and I have suggested elsewhere (see Read-Heimerdinger 1996, 301–312; Rius-Camps and Read-Heimerdinger 2006, 381–396) that in the Bezan text of Acts 12, Herod, whilst being a Jew, is assimilated with the Prince of Tyre, Israel’s chief enemy in the last days of Israel’s exile according to the prophecy of Ezek 26–28.22 The latter part 21 22

The Old Latin p and the Middle Egyptian manuscript give support to D05 here. The parallel is developed in detail by Garrett (1990) who, however, interprets the assimilation of Herod with the Prince of Tyre as a reference to the spiritual battle with Satan, in which Jesus, and now Peter, is victorious.

Exodus in the Book of Acts

263

of Ezekiel’s prophecy is devoted to his vision of the new Temple to be built when Israel returns from exile to Jerusalem and which the Messiah will enter (Ezek 40–46). A great number of exact measurements and numbers concerning the dimensions of the Temple are given, including the number of steps at the gates on each of the four sides of the building, between the inner and the outer courts and at the entrance to the outer court from the city (Ezek 40). At the latter, and only there, there are to be seven steps going up into the Temple (ἐν ἑπτὰ κλιμακτῆρσιν ἀνέβαινον ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν, Ezek 40:22 cf. VV.26, 32).23 At the east gate, these seven steps are the point of entry of the God of Israel into the restored Temple, his dwelling place (43:1–5). Ezekiel’s reference is the only mention of seven steps in the whole of the Scriptures. In the light of this single reference, the “seven steps” of Acts 12 can be understood as a clue that Luke is evoking the prophet’s vision of the eschatological Temple, represented by the prison. The understanding of the prison as a metaphor for the new Temple makes sense of the odd mention of two prisons, the first and the second, that Peter and the angel go through in Acts before the iron gate (12:10), for they correspond to the two Temple courts that figure repeatedly in Ezekiel’s vision. The Exodus parallel is again relevant to this aspect of the theological message. In some Jewish traditions (recorded notably in Exod. Rab. 18:81a), Passover was anticipated as the time when the Messiah would arrive in glory and splendour at the Temple in Jerusalem (see Le Déaut 1963, 279–283). He would arrive through the east gate of the Temple which, in the time of the Second Temple, outer and inner, was kept shut except on the night of the Passover when it was opened in case that was the year that the Messiah arrived. The practice tallies with the command given to Ezekiel to keep the east gate shut because it was the way that God had entered the Temple to go into the inner court (Ezek 43:4; cf. 44:1–3). Peter’s departure from Jerusalem at the end of the episode (12:17) follows on from his exit from the prison. In so far as the prison represents the hope of a new Temple and the presence of God with Israel in permanence, the allusions to both Israel’s history and prophesied future cause Peter’s deliverance and departure to be interpreted as an event more momentous by far than an example of God’s ongoing protection of his faithful servants. In a reversal of the promised future of Israel, instead of the Messiah entering the house of God 23

Ropes (2016, ad loc.) claims that the reference to seven steps in Ezekiel’s temple “furnishes no satisfactory explanation” for their mention in Acts 12: the explanation becomes satisfactory once the other pointers to Ezekiel in Acts 12 are taken into account and once the symbolic nature of the episode is recognised.

264

Read-Heimerdinger

in triumph, acclaimed by the people of Israel, the Lord has led the “faithful” (cf. Acts 12:3 D05) out of the Temple and away from the city where it was to be erected, for the reason that the leaders of Israel have rejected the disciples’ proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah. From a Jewish point of view, it is a profoundly tragic event for it signifies an exit from the hopes of a restored and renewed Israel. It has taken the re-enactment of the Exodus, through Peter’s imprisonment and miraculous escape, for him to realise and accept that Jerusalem and the Temple no longer have a part in God’s plan. The time is now right for the expansion of the Church’s mission, and from Acts 13 the focus of the narrative will be on the Gentiles as the Antioch church sends out Barnabas and Saul. Even so, not all of the Church will follow Peter’s understanding, for in Jerusalem (Ἰερουσαλήμ) there are brethren, led by James the brother of Jesus, who were not among those praying for Peter or hearing his story (see Acts 12:17), and they will remain attached to the Temple, to Ἰερουσαλήμ and to Jewish regulations (cf. Acts 21:18–26). 4

Implications of the Exodus Allusions for Interpreting the Reception of Acts and Its Textual History

In the preceding analysis of Acts 5 and Acts 12, it has been observed that, in comparison with the N-A28 text, the D05 form of Acts not only displays more complete and more complex allusions to the Exodus but furthermore uses the ancient event in a typically Jewish way, as a model to interpret the recent developments in the history of Israel. It is not that the Exodus model is absent from the N-A28 text – the acknowledgement of them by a number of studies already mentioned testifies to that – but that some of the keys to activating it are missing. It is commonplace for exegetes to view the Bezan readings as additions, “simple explanatory information” (see Barrett 1994, 574). That assessment is based on the presupposition that the text of the manuscripts behind the familiar text pre-date the text transmitted by Codex Bezae. It fails to take account of the support for a large number of otherwise singular D05 readings in the earliest translations in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Middle Egyptian, Aramaic, before the text was standardised in the respective vulgates. Furthermore, it fails to see the function of the Bezan readings as connecting the account of contemporary history with the ancient history and the future expectations of the Jewish people. It should be pointed out here that the nature of the D05 readings in the

Exodus in the Book of Acts

265

two passages examined in this study is not exceptional; on the contrary, words, phrases, sentences with a similar function occur as alternative readings to the familiar text on almost every page of Acts. Given the significance of many of these readings in and for a Jewish context, questions have to be asked (and answered) as to why they would have been inserted at a later date, and how, and by whom. Without any presupposition that the quality of the text that has been transmitted by alternative manuscripts is better, the logical explanation is that the Bezan text of Acts was earlier and was updated in a variety of ways to make it more accessible to a Church that gradually moved away from its Jewish roots. According to the text of D05, in setting out the history of the early days of the Church, the author is placing it within the well-known and well-loved history of Israel. By activating the Exodus model, the Bezan text accords the story of the Church a layer of meaning that goes deeper than a merely historical one: it is a theological meaning, derived from the place the Church is seen as occupying in the history of Israel. It is communicated through readings that, far from being embellishments dictated by a scribe’s fancy, can be seen to be references to traditions associated with the Exodus found either in the Bible or in oral Jewish interpretation. The narrator of this text is not a lowly copyist: he has the skill to be innovative and creative in his application of a scriptural paradigm; he has the boldness to apply it such a way as to address a message of prophetic dimensions concerning the tragedy of what has happened to the leaders of the people of God. Since the publication of Epp (1966), there has existed the widespread belief that D05 is the work of a Gentile reviser who sought to present Christianity as anti-Judaic, superior to Judaism which it had replaced. The verdict hinges on first, the identification and, secondly, the interpretation of the numerous places in Acts D05 where criticism of the Jews is more pointed and more severe than in other early manuscripts. A detailed analysis of the Bezan text reveals that this criticism, which is even more forceful in places than Epp recognised, is made from an internal Jewish perspective. This outcome should not be surprising, for the writings of the Jewish prophets are already testimony to the fact that ferocity of criticism against the people of Israel has no need of Gentiles to deliver it. It is contended here that the presence of a dense and intricate accumulation of Jewish sources, interpreted to make theological comment on events in the early Church, is evidence precisely of an author of Jewish origin writing within a Jewish context to a Jewish recipient.

266

Read-Heimerdinger

Bibliography

Primary Sources



Secondary Works

Eusebius of Caesarea, Praeparatio Evangelica: www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/ files/eusebius_pe_09_book9.htm (last accessed 1.6.2020). Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews: www.lexundria.com/j_aj/2.254-2.263/wst (last accessed 1./6.2020). Aland Barbara and Aland, Kurt. 282013. Novum Testamentum Graece. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

Barc, Bernard. 2000. Les Arpenteurs du Temps. Essais sur l’histoire religieuse de la Judée à la période hellénistique. Histoire du texte biblique 5. Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre. Barrett, Charles Kingsley. 1994. Acts of the Apostles I. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Christopher, Dany. 2018. The Appropriation of Passover in Luke-Acts. WUNT 2.476. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Daube, David. 1981. Ancient Jewish Law, Leiden: Brill. Dicken, Frank. 2014. Herod as a Composite Character in Luke-Acts. WUNT 2.375. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Dupont, Jacques. 1984. Nouvelles Études sur les Actes des Apôtres. Lectio Divina 118. Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Epp, Eldon J. 1966. The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts. SNTS 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fishbane, Michael A. 1987. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Friesen, Courtney J. 2015. Reading Dionysus. Euripides’ Bacchae and the Cultural Contestations of Greeks, Jews, Romans, and Christians. STAC 95. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Garrett, Susan R. 1990. “Exodus from Bondage. Luke 9:31 and Acts 12:1–24.” CBQ 52.4: 656–680. Goodman, Martin. 2007. Rome and Jerusalem. The Clash of Ancient Civilisations. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Ilan, Tal. 2002. Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity I. Palestine 330 BCE–200 CE. TSAJ 91. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Instone Brewer, David. 1992. Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE. TSAJ 30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Jervell, Jacob. 1992. Luke and the People of God. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.

Exodus in the Book of Acts

267

Keener, Craig S. 2013. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. Vol. 2, 3:1–14:28. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. Kugel, James L. 1998. Traditions of the Bible. A Guide to the Bible as it was at the Start of the Common Era. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press. Le Déaut, Roger. 1963. La Nuit Pascale. Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive a partir du targum d’Exode XII. AnBib 42. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Mann, Jacob. 1940. The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue. I. New York: Ktav Publishing House. Marshall, Ian Howard. 1987. “Apg 12 – ein Schlüssel zum Verständnis der Apostelgeschichte.” Pages 192–220 in Das Petrusbild in der neueren Forschung. Edited by Carsten Peter Thiede. Wuppertal: Brockhaus. Metzger, Bruce M. 21994. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Neusner, Jacob. 1994. The Midrash. An Introduction, Lanham et al.: Rowman and Littlefield. Parry, David. 1995. “The Release of the Captives – Reflections on Acts 12.” Pages 156–164 in Luke’s Literary Achievement. Collected Essays. Edited by Christopher M. Tuckett. JSNT 116. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Perrot, Charles. 1963. “Un fragment christo-palestinien découvert à Khirbet-Mird.” RB 70: 506–555. Read-Heimerdinger, Jenny. 1996. “The Seven Steps. A Prophetic Interpretation in the Bezan Text of Acts 12.” Pages 303–310 in Codex Bezae. Edited by David C. Parker and Christian-Bernard Amphoux. Leiden: Brill. Read-Heimerdinger, Jenny. 2002. The Bezan Text of Acts. A Contribution of Discourse Analysis to Textual Criticism. JSNT.S 236. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Read-Heimerdinger, Jenny. 2003. “The Re-Enactment of the History of Israel. Exodus Traditions in the Bezan Text of Acts.” Pages 81–96 in Honouring the Past and Shaping the Future. Religious and Biblical Studies in Wales. Edited by Robert Pope. Leominster: Gracewing. Read-Heimerdinger, Jenny. 2013. “Le Codex de Bèze. Un texte pré-canonique du Nouveau Testament.” Pages 95–108 in Les religions et leurs rapports aux textes fondateurs, Religions et modernités. Edited by Anne-Laure Zwilling. Relmod 12. Genève: Labor et Fides. Read-Heimerdinger, Jenny and Rius-Camps, Josep. 2013. Luke’s Demonstration to Theophilus: The Gospel and Acts of the Apostles according to Codex Bezae. London: Bloomsbury. Rius-Camps, Josep and Read-Heimerdinger, Jenny. 2004–2009. The Message of the Bezan Text of Acts. A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition, I. JSNT.S 257. II LNTS 302. III LNTS 365. IV LNTS 415. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

268

Read-Heimerdinger

Ropes, James Hardy and Cadbury, Henry Joel. 2016. The Acts of the Apostles. Vol. I. Charleston: Nabu Press. Tardieu, Michel (ed.). 1987. Les règles de l’interprétation, Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Thiede, Claus-Peter. 1987. “Babylon der andere Ort. Anmerkungen zu 1 Petr 5,13 und Apg 12,17.” Pages 221–229 in Das Petrusbild in der neueren Forschung. Edited by Carsten-Peter Thiede. Wuppertal: Brockhaus. van’t Riet, Peter. 2009. Luke, the Jew. Introduction to the Jewish Character of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. Zwolle: Folianti. Weaver, John B. 2004. Plots of Epiphany. Prison-Escape in Acts of the Apostles. BZNW 131. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Witherington, Ben. 1998. The Acts of the Apostles. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

Chapter 13

Revelation, Provision, and Deliverance: The Reception of Exodus in Johannine Literature Joshua J.F. Coutts Although the Fourth Gospel includes only one or two citations of Exodus, it would be a mistake to assume thereby that the Evangelist (hereafter “John”) assigned minor importance to the book. As is commonly observed, in his engagement with Scripture, John prefers to allude to passages or evoke scriptural themes over explicitly citing texts.1 So, to the extent that he engaged with the text and message of Exodus at all, he is more likely to have read Exodus as containing narrative themes and images which had resonance across what for him was a single scriptural tapestry. The Johannine epistles contain no citations of Scripture and are generally more free of its imprint. Nevertheless, they undoubtedly share the same milieu with the Gospel, if not the same author, and so are likely to exhibit evidence of similar influences and emphases.2 On this basis, an investigation of the reception of Exodus in John’s Gospel may justifiably be extended to include them. I begin with some methodological considerations that locate this essay in the context of the volume as well as give a rationale for the approach taken here. Although all reception is historically and linguistically located, John reads Israel’s Scriptures explicitly in light of one dominant feature of his own context, namely the climactic event of Jesus. At the same time, he maintained that the Jesus event is both the original and ultimate significance of those Scriptures: “[Moses] wrote about me” (John 5:46; cf. 1:43).3 So also with the Book of Exodus. Furthermore, John’s engagement with Exodus was mediated by an intervening tradition of Exodus interpretation He likely drew upon the Jesus traditions preserved in the Synoptic Gospels, in which Jesus is already 1 See Barrett 1947, 155–169. More recently, see Hays 2016, 284. 2 This uncontroversial claim is sufficient for the purposes of this essay. The fraught questions of authorship of the Gospel and Epistles need not be engaged. 3 Whether John assumes that the biblical authors saw the pre-existent Logos or caught anticipatory glimpses of the earthly Jesus is a matter of continued debate. Hays argues that Jesus is not the climax in “salvation history” for John; rather, Scripture has always been “suffused” with his presence. Hays 2016, 283–289. For the view that Isaiah sees, not a pre-existent Logos but the future Christ, see Williams 2010, 187–206.

© Joshua J.F. Coutts, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471122_015

270

Coutts

cast against a scriptural background; and he was likely familiar, in particular, with Mark’s Gospel, which arguably employs Exodus motifs.4 And he also read Exodus as part of the fabric of Israel’s Scriptures in which its themes were already received and refracted.5 Thus, it could be said that John regarded Exodus as a text already “received”. In light of these points, it is somewhat artificial to isolate John’s direct engagement with the discrete Book of Exodus. The approach of this essay will be to consider first John’s explicit points of engagement with Exodus (John 1:14–18; 6:31, and 19:36) as a basis for establishing the nature of his reception of Exodus. Second, John’s historical location makes it essential to trace the intervening interpretive Exodus tradition for clues as to how and why he received Exodus as he did.6 Third, on the basis of our investigation of clear points of engagement with Exodus, we may explore with greater confidence those passages that more faintly exhibit the impact of Exodus, which may be considered the ripple effects of Exodus that extend across the Gospel. In this way, we attend to John’s preference for evoking themes and allusion over citation. Due to the lack of citations in the epistles, they will be discussed at this point also. This approach may bring a greater degree of methodological precision and clarity to a subject which, in the past, has generated somewhat tenuous proposals about the relationship between Exodus and John.7 Of course this does not exhaust John’s 4 More scholars are now willing to grant that John knew and used Mark, and perhaps also expected some knowledge on the part of his readers. See the recent essay collection, John’s Transformation of Mark, eds. Eve-Marie Becker, Helen K. Bond, and Catrin H. Williams (London: Bloomsbury, 2021). The lack of exact verbal correspondence between John and the Synoptics is no surprise, given his adaptation of other sources, such as his own material and Scripture (Sproston North 2015, 207–219). For Exodus themes in Mark, see Watts 1992. 5 John uses the designations “the Law” and “Scripture” almost interchangeably (15:24–25; 10:34; 12:34). Some “Scriptures” or scriptural images are drawn not from one particular passage, but rather collected from several, such as the image of the “Vine” (Isa 27:2–6; Jer 2:21; Ezek 15:2; 17:6–10; 19:10–14; Hos 10:1; Ps 80). And even specific passages alluded to are intermingled with others. Examples of this will be discussed below. 6 A recent essay by Evans 2014, 440–464 is too broad to give space to this. 7 Many older studies of Exodus in John were overly confident in identifying specific structural or thematic correspondences between the two books. Sahlin identifies a thoroughgoing typology in John drawn from figures and events in Exodus through 1 Kings (Sahlin 1957, 208– 215). Smith 1962, 329–342 advances an implausible argument for specific parallels between Jesus’ signs and the plagues of Egypt. Glasson 1963, 40–44 traces various Exodus themes in John, of varying plausibility. Among the more dubious is his suggestion that the picture of Moses with outstretched arms, flanked by men on either side (Exod 17:12) is echoed by the crucifixion of Jesus between two men. As Nixon 1963, 20 well observed: “St. John’s Gospel has always been a happy hunting-ground for those who are interested in typology.” Ironically, Nixon’s own treatment does not avoid some of the tendencies against which he warns. More recent studies are of variable quality. Brunson’s proposal (2003, 153–179) that John features a “new Exodus” motif has much to commend it, but does not treat the Book of Exodus. Paul

Revelation, Provision, and Deliverance

271

reception of Exodus, but it is hoped that the overall portrait of John’s reception of Exodus set forth here will not be too far off the mark.8 I will contend that John engages directly but not simply with Exodus; rather, he concretises a history of interpretation of Exodus that is simultaneously understood in light of the Jesus-event. Moreover, John’s distinctive reception of Exodus was facilitated in particular by his reading of Isaiah.9 1

Jesus and Divine Revelation (Exodus 33–34 in John 1:14–18)

Most scholars are agreed that John 1:14–18 alludes to Exod 33–34 (e.g. Hanson 2009, 39–16). In Exod 33, Moses petitions God in the “tent (σκηνή) of meeting” to “show me your glory”. Yet, he is offered only a glimpse of God; and the revelation, when it is given in chapter 34, is somewhat unexpectedly a proclamation of God’s covenant name, expounded as his character, “abounding in love and faithfulness.” Here, God’s self-revelation as “the Lord” (‫יהוה‬/κύριος) who delivers his people through mighty acts in the Exodus is extended to include the gracious character that is demonstrated in the context of Exod 34 as he extends a second chance to an idolatrous Israel in the form of new tablets.10 John evokes this paradigmatic theophanic revelation in his prologue in order to present Jesus as the ultimate revelation of God. Whereas “no one has ever seen God” (1:18) (even Moses), he is disclosed in the Logos, who “tented” (σκηνόω) in the midst of his people, and manifested the divine glory that Moses had asked to see, which similarly turns out to be the character of God’s name, “full of grace and truth” (1:14).11 John has seen in the Logos the glory hidden

Coxon’s thesis (2014) is advanced through questionable allusions and links built upon an insufficiently rigorous methodology. For a sound critique of such methodology, see Foster 2015, 96–111. 8 Several Johannine features such as the Law, the Sabbath, signs, the feast of tabernacles, the place of worship, divine deliverance, revelation, and presence can be linked thematically to the Exodus event. Yet, as these are ubiquitous in Jewish Scripture and tradition, it is unclear to what extent John consciously derived them from the text of Exodus, which is the starting point for this study. 9 A parallel phenomenon occurs in Mark 1, where Exod 23:20 is read in conjunction with Malachi 3:1–3 and Isaiah 40:3. See Garrick V. Allen’s discussion of Mark in the current volume. 10 The Exodus narrative is punctuated by the repeated refrain, “I am the Lord” (ἐγὼ κύριος in the LXX; Exod 6:2, 6–8, 29; 7:5, 17; 10:2; 12:12; 14:4, 18; 15:26; 16:12; 20:2; 29:46). 11 The LXX of Exod 34:5 πολυέλεος καὶ ἀληθινός does not accord exactly with John 1:14 πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας. This has led some scholars to suppose that John drew directly from the Hebrew at this point, since χάριτος more accurately reflects the Hebrew ‫הסד ואמת‬.

272

Coutts

from Moses, and the embodiment of the divine name which had so punctuated the Exodus narrative. This reception of Exodus functions at the entry-point to the Gospel to underscore the legitimacy of the revelation that comes through Jesus, as preserved in the narrative that follows. Somewhat similarly, the Temple Scroll (11Q19) opens with a re-writing of Exod 34, the effect of which is to emphasise the authority of the scroll as direct revelation by God to Moses on Sinai (Crawford 2014, 312–313). And the author of Jubilees frames his work as the content of what was revealed to Moses (through an angel) on Sinai in Exod 24 (Jub 1:1–5, 1:27–2:1). Since this event precedes the replacing of the smashed tablets (Exod 34), the author of Jubilees implies that his own work precedes the Torah itself, with which it is intimately connected (VanderKam 2010, 25–44). By comparison, John employs the Sinai revelation as a framing device for his own Gospel. Although he contrasts Moses and the Law with the Logos and “grace and truth”, it is not clear that John intends to contrast two separate revelatory events. Rather, his aim is to harness the authority of the Sinai event for his own Gospel. He found justification for this use of Exodus in at least two other sources, by means of which he read Exod 33–34. The first of these is the Synoptic tradition, which picked up the Sinai theophany in ways that may have functioned as a catalyst for John’s own direct engagement with the passage. Mark recalls Exod 33:19–23 and employs its epiphanic significance when he presents Jesus on the sea about to “pass by” his disciples, and then declaring to them “I am” (ἐγώ εἰμι; Mark 6:48–50). The transfiguration account is likewise reminiscent of the Sinai theophany, with its reference to the mountain setting, cloud, tents, and Moses. In Luke’s version of the transfiguration, the description of Jesus revealed in glory (δόξα) may imply that Moses is finally granted to see, in Jesus, the glory of which he only heard in Exodus.12 Interestingly, John has no transfiguration account and drops Mark’s reference to Jesus “passing by” from his own version of the sea narrative (John 6:17–21). If he knew the Synoptics, he would likely have drawn upon them allusively as he does Scripture. Thus, it is plausible that he redeployed the Synoptic reception of the Sinai theophany in his prologue.13 However, as these passages do not account for all the allusions 12

13

Jesus’ promise to the disciples in Mark 9:1 that they would “not taste death,” just prior to the transfiguration, may have created the consternation among believers regarding the death of the “beloved disciple” to which the dialogue of John 21:20–23 was recorded as a response. The authorial testimony “we beheld his glory” (John 1:14) could likewise be taken as fulfilment of Jesus’ promise. See Allison (forthcoming). Scholars have long argued for this in the case of the transfiguration in particular. For a recent discussion, see Lee 2004, 100–105.

Revelation, Provision, and Deliverance

273

to Exod 33–34 in John 1:14–18, at the most, they catalysed John’s own direct engagement with Exodus. More significantly, John finds justification for associating Jesus with the divine revelation of Exod 33–34 in the text of Isaiah. Jewish tradition was aware of a potential conflict between God’s declaration to Moses that no one could see God and indications elsewhere that God was in fact seen – perhaps most explicitly in Isaiah’s claim to have seen the Lord (Isa 6:1) – and addressed it in various ways.14 John’s own solution to this tension is a Christological reading of Isaiah 6:1: “Isaiah said this because he saw his [i.e., Jesus’] glory and spoke about him” (John 12:41). The glory about which Moses only heard could be “seen” by Isaiah because it was Jesus’ glory. Moreover, Isaiah’s vision of Jesus’ glory is for John the substance of the whole text of Isaiah – not just chapter 6. He signals this by juxtaposing citations of Isaiah 6 and Isaiah 53 (both of which feature a figure who is “exalted” and “glorified”), and by locating these at the climax of Jesus’ ministry to correspond to the role of John the Baptist as witness to the coming “Lord” of Isa 40:3–5 (John 1:23). Isaiah’s glory language, insofar as it was eschatologically framed and associated with the servant, furnished John with the basis for associating Jesus with God and with eschatological divine revelation. For John, then, Isaiah’s vision functioned as a response to Moses’ request to see divine glory, and as the primary lens through which Exodus itself was to be read. Thus, John’s own testimony, “we beheld his glory” (1:14), corresponds to the witness of Isaiah, who “saw his glory and spoke about him” (12:41). The ripples this engagement with Exodus effected may more tentatively be observed across the Gospel and epistles. Jesus’ opponents, self-identified as “disciples of Moses,” know that God “spoke” to Moses (9:28–29). And like Moses, the Israelites saw no form, but only heard a voice at the foot of the mountain (Exod 20:18–19; Deut 4:12). Jesus both compares and contrasts his opponents with their forbears and with Moses when he charges that they have not seen God’s “form” nor even “heard his voice” (5:37). The confusion of those in the crowd who identify the theophanic voice in 12:28–29 variously as “thunder” or as angelic serves to illustrate Jesus’ point. By contrast, Jesus alone has seen the Father, and can therefore disclose him (1:18; 3:13; 6:46; 8:38).15 Similarly, it is 14

15

The tension exists within Exodus itself, where the seventy elders see God himself (Exod 24:9–10; cf. “the place where God stood” in the LXX translation or the “glory of God” in Tg. Onq. Exod 24:9–10). Buffering language is similarly introduced in treatments of the Isaiah 6 vision. E.g., Exag. 68–82; Asc. Isa. 3:8–10; Tg. Isa. 6:1 (cf. Tg. Onq. Exod 34:5); b. Yebam. 49b. See discussion in Williams 2010, 192–196; and see also David Allen’s treatment of 2 Corinthians in this volume. In the pericopae adulterae, Jesus is similarly pitted against Moses. The probable allusion to Exod 31:4 in Jesus’ act of writing twice in the ground “with the finger” (τῷ δακτύλῳ)

274

Coutts

Jesus, not Moses, who enjoyed the face to face intimacy with God, as is implied in 1:2 (cf. 1 John 1:2): “the word was toward (πρός) God.”16 And John may well be targeting Moses traditions of a mystical ascent when he counters that “no one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven” (3:13).17 Moreover, it is plausible that John regarded Philip’s request, “Show (δεῖξον) us the Father” (14:8) as an echo of Moses’s request: “Show (δεῖξον) me your glory” (Exod 33:18LXX). Yet, since Jesus himself is the glory Isaiah saw, and those who have seen Jesus have seen the Father (John 12:45; 14:7, 9), Jesus’ promise to manifest himself to his disciples (ἐμφανίσω αὐτῷ ἐμαυτόν; 14:21–22) is for John the ultimate response to Moses’ request for God to manifest himself (ἐμφάνισόν μοι σεαυτόν; Exod 33:13LXX; Glasson 1963, 77). Indeed, the petition in Jesus’ prayer that believers may see his glory (17:24) receives an initial fulfilment in the confession of the prologue, “we beheld his glory” (1:14). And Jesus’ disclosure of the “grace and truth” that constituted the character of the divine name proclaimed to Moses (1:14; Exod 34:5–6) corroborates Jesus’ retrospective claim to have revealed the divine name (17:6, 26; Coutts 2017, 82–85). The “I am” statements which occur between the two bookends of prologue and prayer constitute part of this name revelation. However, John’s appropriation of the language of Exodus in these striking ways was facilitated by Isaiah, in which the concept of divine name and glory revelation is taken up as an eschatological promise (e.g., Isa 40:5; 52:6),18 and in which God repeatedly declares that “I am he” (Williams 2000, 255–303). It is perhaps no surprise, then, that just as John’s testimony is paired with Isaiah (John 1:14; 12:41), so the first witnesses to the resurrection echo Isaiah (“I saw the Lord”) when they confess “I/we have seen the Lord” (John 20:18, 25; cf. Isa 6:1).

16

17 18

distinguishes Jesus as the scriptural interpreter and revealer par excellence, while also clarifying the Law is written by God, not Moses. See Keith 2009, 12–13, 175–202. Evans argues that the typical rendering of πρός as “with” here is unwarranted. The standard translation “toward” better fits the context. Evans 2014, 459. Although Moses is distinguished as one who spoke with God “face to face” (Exod 33:11; Num 12:7–8), Jewish tradition maintains that, ultimately, he failed to witness his object (Philo, Mut. 2). So, in John’s Gospel, Moses’ “disciples” claim that God only “spoke” to Moses (9:29), alluding to Exod 33. Meeks 1968, 295–301. Ascent traditions of other prophets or apocalyptic visionaries may also be in view. Coutts 2017, 31–70. The author of Deutero-Isaiah recognised the centrality of the divine name to the Exodus tradition (whether he knew the textual Exodus known to us or not), and seems to have derived his own name concept, in part, from there. In Isaiah 63:8–14, 64:1–2, the author concludes that God rescued Israel to establish his “name”, and envisions a future deliverance which would result in the disclosure of God’s “name”.

Revelation, Provision, and Deliverance

275

When we turn to the Johannine epistles, direct engagement with Exod 33– 34 is much more difficult to identify. So, the assumption of a shared milieu with the Gospel is an important basis on which to consider traces of Exodus reception. We are on the firmest ground when we observe that the idea grounded in Exod 33 that “no one has seen” God recurs throughout the epistles (1 John 4:12, 20; cf. 3 John 11).19 As in the Gospel, however, the revelation of the Son in his incarnation, attested in the proem (1 John 1:1–3), derives theophanic quality from the fact that “the life was with/toward (πρός) the Father” (1 John 1:2; cf. John 1:2). Consequently, the hope that “we will see him as he is” (1 John 3:2), reminiscent of John 17:24, is offered in contrast to the hiddenness of God.20 Other possible allusions to the Exodus theophany in the epistles could be adduced, such as the emphasis on the divine character of love (1 John 4:9–10; cf. Exod 34:5–6 in John 1:14, 16). However, this language has been so scoured of any traces that would tie it exclusively to Exod 33–34 that the author can hardly be supposed to have been engaging significantly with Exodus at these points. 2

Jesus and Divine Exodus Provision (Exodus 16 in John 6)

The second clear engagement with Exodus occurs in the narrative of John 6, and explicitly in a citation that incorporates Exod 16:4. Just before Passover, Jesus feeds a multitude with bread on a mountain, and then while walking on water, declares ἐγω εἰμι to his frightened disciples – features which unmistakably recall aspects of the Exodus narrative. When the crowd tracks Jesus down again, they ask him for a “sign” that will repeat the provision of manna in the wilderness, appealing to Exod 16 (in combination with Ps 78 [77]), “He gave them bread from heaven to eat” (6:31). In his response, Jesus presents himself as the true “Bread” to which the Exodus manna could only point. All four Gospels feature the basic components of the feeding narrative, and John’s account of the initial feeding and sea crossing overlaps substantially with Mark’s account in particular, with its reference to grass, the cost of the bread (200 denarii), twelve baskets of leftover bread gathered with the fish besides, and Jesus’ statement ἐγω εἰμι to his disciples in the boat. Moreover, 19 20

The wording of 1 John 4:12 (θεὸν οὐδεὶς πώποτε τεθέαται) closely mirrors that of John 1:18: Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε. The referent of “him” (αὐτόν) is probably Jesus, as suggested by 2:28 (cf. John 17:24). But God (θεοῦ in 3:2) is also a possible referent if what is revealed in V.2 is “what we will be”. So Brown 1982, 394–395. See the discussion in Smalley 2007, 147.

276

Coutts

Mark’s hint at some deeper significance in the loaves which the disciples failed to understand (6:52) may have inspired John’s exploration of the significance of both the leftovers (John 6:12b; cf. 6:39; 17:12; 18:9)21 and the “true bread”, which in John’s account, the “crowd” struggles to understand (John 6:26). However, John is not unaware of the links to Exodus in this feeding tradition, since several distinctive features of his account deliberately evoke Exodus.22 Only in John does the crowd itself regard Jesus’ miraculous feeding as reminiscent of Exodus, for they wonder if he might be “the prophet” (like Moses; 6:14) and cite Scripture that incorporates Exod 16:4. In his response, Jesus corrects their interpretation of Exodus by stressing that the Father, not Moses, gave them manna, and also gives the “true Bread.” Moreover, John casts the crowd as the Israelites of the Exodus wandering. In response to Jesus, and even in the face of his sign(s), they argue (μάχομαι) and “grumble” (γογγύζω; 6:41, 43), as had the wilderness generation.23 And so the same deadly fate that met their “grumbling” forebears awaits them (6:49–50, 53, 58; cf. Num 14:29–32) if they do not come to Jesus to have life (cf. 5:40). Thus, the Exodus narrative of divine provision to a recalcitrant people is pointed up and even re-enacted here as a way of infusing Jesus’ discourse with theological, polemical, and rhetorical significance. At the same time, the Exodus provision is clearly subordinated to Jesus who is the “true” Bread from heaven. And, interestingly, whereas the Israelites grumbled, were fed manna from heaven, and then saw the glory of the Lord (16:10), in John 6 the crowd is fed and then grumbles, but does not see divine glory (Riley 2019, 98). In fact, Jesus echoes the declaration of the prologue that no one has ever seen God (1:18), derived from Exod 33, when he says “not that anyone has seen the Father” (6:46). John’s creative reception of the Exodus provision – particularly the identification of Jesus with manna – participates in a broader interpretive tradition. 21 22

23

John takes this in a different direction than Matthew 16:12, which expounds the ambiguity left by Mark 8:21. It should be noted that, somewhat surprisingly, John omits two elements in Mark’s account that are reminiscent of Exodus: Jesus’ seating people into groups of hundreds and fifties (Mark 6:40; cf. Exod 18:21, 25) and the description, noted earlier, of Jesus “about to pass by” the disciples in the sea crossing. This language is reminiscent of Israel in the desert. See, in the LXX, Exod 17:3; Num 11:1; 14:27. It is used only of Israel, and only here and in Josh 9:18. Although it is rare in the Synoptics (Matt 20:11; Luke 5:30), it occurs four times in John (6:41, 43, 61; 7:32). As three of these occurrences emerge in the context of the citation of Exod 16, it is a fair inference that John draws upon Exodus in his presentation of the Jews. The only other New Testament occurrence of “grumbling” (1 Cor 10:10) appears alongside explicit reference to the Exodus narrative. Hoskyns 1940, 1:195. Glasson 1963, 101–102. The motif of rebellion in the face of signs appears in Ps 78 (77):17, 32, 56 and Num 14:11 (cf. Ant. 2:327; John 6:30).

Revelation, Provision, and Deliverance

277

Some Jews of the Second Temple and rabbinic periods anticipated a time when God would again provide his people with “manna” (e.g., Wis 16:20; 2 Bar. 29:8; Midr. Eccl. 1.9), and already in the first century the association of manna with Torah was well-established. Likewise, Moses’ roles as Law-giver and as conduit of manna became conjoined even as Torah came to be regarded as life-giving like the life-sustaining manna.24 Similarly, wisdom is often associated with manna (Philo, Mut. 259; Exod. Rab. 25:7), or as food to be eaten (Sir 24:9, 21; Prov 9:5; cf. John 6:35).25 Indebted as he may be in part to such traditions, John himself justifies his reception of Exodus in part by creatively combining the narrative base of Exodus with other scriptural texts. This occurs first in the citation in verse 31. Although John assumes the narrative base of Exod 16 on the one hand (Borgen 1965, 40), the wording of the citation is more likely derived from Ps 78 (77):24 (Menken 1996, 52–54). Related, a subtler conflation of Exodus with the psalter is perceptible in the significance John attributes to the fragments left over after the feeding. Jesus commands his disciples to gather the leftover fragments “so none will be lost (ἀπολλύμι)” (6:12), just as the manna was not “left” (καταλείπω) until morning (Exod 16:19). Yet this description symbolises the disciples themselves (6:39; 17:12), who are preserved in accordance with an unspecified “Scripture” (17:12; cf. 18:9; 6:39), which is most likely Ps 41.26 This triangulation of texts and motifs displays John’s hermeneutical assumption that Exodus participated in a wider scriptural network of meaning. The conflation of Exodus with other Scripture becomes clearer still when the crowd’s citation becomes the basis for a long exposition of the cited passage in the form of Jesus’ response, which includes a citation of Isa 54:13: “they will all be taught of God” (6:46).27 For John, this Isaianic promise is realised as people “come to Jesus”. Jesus “sat down” on the mountain and yet delivers no teaching as we might expect (cf. Matt 5:2; Luke 4:20) because he is the teaching of God that Isaiah spoke about – to which the manna, symbolic of Torah, was but a precursor. So, although John’s association of manna (Exod 16) with 24 25 26 27

Philo, Mut. 253–263; Mek. Exod. 13:17; 15:26; Exod. Rab. 29:9. See Borgen 1965, 148–154. Harstine 2002, 46. See Borgen 1965, 154–158. Elsewhere, Borgen identifies points at which the paraphrases of Exod 16 in John 6 resemble wider rabbinic interpretation of Exod 16. See, e.g., Exod. Rab. 25:3, 6; Mek. Exod. 16:4; Philo, Mos. 1.201–202; 2.267. Borgen 1965, 7–27. The most common proposal is Ps 41 (40):10, via John 13:18. But if the fulfilled Scripture applies primarily to the keeping of disciples, the “Scripture” could be Prov 24:22a. See von Wahlde 2006, 174–175. Since the citation is introduced by the plural “prophets,” it is possible that Jer 31:33–34 is also in view. Equally, it was not unusual to refer to “prophets” when only one reference was intended. See, e.g., Ant. 2:3–5. Menken 1996, 69–71.

278

Coutts

teaching (Isa 54) may be dependent on manna and Torah traditions, he justifies his interpretive presentation of Jesus as the true Bread with an appeal to Isaiah in particular.28 Subtler points of engagement with Exod 16 are similarly tinged with the mediating impact of Isaiah. Jesus’ offer of food that does not “spoil” (6:27–28) stands in direct contrast to the manna which did spoil (Exod 16:20). Yet, the language here is reminiscent also of Isa 55:1–3 – a text that lay ready to hand for John, who cites from Isa 54 in the immediate context. Exod 16:20LXX: “Some left part of [the manna] until morning, and it bred worms and stank.” John 6:27: “Do not work for food that spoils, but for the food that endures for eternal life.” Isa 55:1–3LXX: “Why do you place a value with money and your labour to what does not satisfy? Listen to me and you will eat good things.” Similarly, God’s promise in Exod 16:8 of “flesh [i.e., quail] to eat” in the evening and “bread in the morning” may lie behind Jesus’ claim to be able to provide both “bread” and “flesh” in 6:51.29 And yet, the association of bread and flesh in the context of Passover here in John 6 is likely informed by the significance John attaches to the Passover lamb, which itself depends in part on Isa 53, as will be discussed further below. Elsewhere in the Gospel and in the epistles, allusions may be made to other aspects of Israel’s sojourn, such as the Feast of Tabernacles (7:2, 37) and the image of a spring of water (7:37–38). But here the language is so suffused with other texts and interpretive traditions that it has nearly broken free from its origins in the text of Exodus. This, too, illustrates both John’s extensive engagement with Exodus, and creative combination of Exodus with other texts. Thus, John adapts the Markan tradition and draws upon manna traditions and other scriptural passages – notably the psalter and Isaiah – to present Jesus as the 28 29

For Borgen, Isaiah 54:13 functions here as a “subordinate quotation” – a characteristic part of the exposition of a base text in Jewish homilies as seen in Philo, Leg. 3:162–168; cf. Philo, Mut. 253–263. Borgen 1965, 38–43. Pitre 2015, 200–201; Ferda 2019, 371–387 strengthens the case for an allusion to Exod 16 here by arguing for the textual variant in 6:52 that excludes αὐτου: “How can this man give us flesh to eat?” not “… his flesh to eat.” In this shorter reading, readers of John 6 would detect dramatic irony between the question of the crowd against the backdrop of Exod 16, assumed by the Bread discourse more generally.

Revelation, Provision, and Deliverance

279

ultimate embodiment of the divine provision which accompanied the people of God during the Exodus. 3

Jesus and the Passover Lamb (Exodus 12:46 in John 19:36)

A final clear instance of John’s engagement with Exodus occurs in the Gospel’s Passion narrative, where a citation of Exod 12:46 identifies Jesus with the Passover lamb, the bones of which were not to be broken (John 19:33, 36). This is the first of two citations with which John concludes his passion account, just as he marked the climax of Jesus’ public ministry with a double quotation (12:38–40). This prominent placement indicates that the identification of Jesus with Passover and the Passover lamb is of great importance to John’s portrait of Jesus, and is therefore likely to be expressed elsewhere. Clearly John intends that some analogy be drawn between Jesus and the protection God provided for Israel from the angel of death, and more generally the deliverance achieved for Israel from slavery. All four Gospels clearly link Jesus’ death with the Passover festival, and John is likely aware of Mark’s account at least. The reference to Passover before Jesus’ anointing (12:1) accords with Mark 14:1, and the reference to Mary anointing Jesus before it occurs in John’s own narrative (11:2) may indicate that he has drawn upon Mark explicitly.30 Nevertheless, distinctive elements in John’s Passover references indicate that he has engaged directly with Exodus in his own way. Unlike in the Synoptics, John clearly locates Jesus’ death on the day of Preparation (19:14, 31, 42) to imply its coinciding with the slaughter of Passover lambs (Schlund 2005, 130). And John alone refers to wine vinegar being offered on a “hyssop” branch – perhaps to recall the hyssop used to smear the doorposts and lintels with blood (Exod 12:22).31 More suggestively, John points out that Jesus’ bones were not broken, in accordance with the stipulations for Passover lamb preparation (19:29, 36). Interestingly, John’s account of the feeding omits any reference to Jesus breaking the bread, perhaps to reinforce this link with the Passover lamb (John 6:11; cf. Mark 6:41).32 These features indicate

30 31

32

Bauckham 1998, 147–172. But note Sproston North’s important critique of Bauckham’s view (Sproston North 2003, 449–468). See Lee 2011, 25. John’s reference to hyssop (ὑσσώπῳ) contrasts with the Synoptic term, “reed” (κάλαμος; Mark 15:36 and para). However, it is possible that this word was confused with the similar word ὑσσῷ (“javelin”) in the original text, or else its Passover significance is too subtle. Schlund 2005, 123–124. I am indebted to David Allen for pointing this out.

280

Coutts

that, familiar as he may be with some of the synoptic tradition, John has also engaged directly with the text of Exodus. However, as we have seen before, John reads Exodus as part of a larger scriptural network of meaning. The Passover significance of the citation, so crucial for John’s interpretation, derives from Exod 12, and the wording, “none of his bones will be broken”, is reminiscent of Exod 12:10, 46LXX, “a bone from him you shall not break” (cf. Num 9:12).33 However, the wording aligns more closely at some points (notably the verb form συντριβήσεται) with the text of Ps 33:21 LXX, “The Lord keeps all their bones; not one of them will be broken”, which otherwise contains no hint of Passover.34 Exod 12:46LXX

Ps 33:21LXX

John 19:36

a bone from him you shall not break

The Lord keeps all their bones; not one of them will be broken

none of his bones will be broken

ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψετε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ

κύριος φυλάσσει πάντα τὰ ὀστᾶ αὐτῶν, ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐ συντριβήσεται.

ὀστοῦν οὐ συντριβήσεται αὐτοῦ.

Linguistic similarity between these passages gave rise to the unique citation form in John 19; but the psalm, insofar as it promises vindication to the righteous of Israel, may have provided John with a way of overlaying this text on the death of Jesus. Thus, John both intensifies the Synoptic tradition and adds to the scriptural tradition by identifying Jesus so closely with the Passover Lamb. Yet, interestingly, rather than record a Passover meal (as in the Synoptics), John sprinkles Passover throughout his narrative in ways that suggest that the meal has been thoroughly “digested” in Christ. The Passover festival itself occurs three times in John’s narrative, and is referred to several times.35 More specifically, in the Bread Discourse, the move from “bread” to “flesh” in the 33

So various scholars have suggested this is the source of the citation. Reim 1974, 52; Freed 1965, 113. 34 Menken 1996, 165; Hays 2016, 317. Interestingly, in Jubilees 49:14 an allusion to Ps 33 is given as the reason for the injunction not to break the bones in Exod 12. 35 πάσχα (2:13, 23; 6:4; 11:55 [×2]; 12:1; 13:1; 18:28, 39; 19:14), εὁρτή (2:23; 4:45; 5:1?; 6:4; 11:56; 12:12, 20; 13:1, 29). Mark Stibbe (1994, 103) sees much evidence of Passover symbolism in the Gospel of John, and even suggests the whole of the Gospel could be described as a

Revelation, Provision, and Deliverance

281

context of Passover evokes paschal lamb imagery.36 And most scholars agree that John the Baptist’s testimony that Jesus is “the Lamb of God” (1:29, 36) likely constitutes, at least in part, an allusion to Jesus as the Passover Lamb (e.g.: Skinner 2004, 89–104). This is problematised somewhat by the fact that, unlike the Passover lamb, this Lamb “takes away the sin of the world.”37 It is possible that John the Baptist envisions a sacrificial lamb (Davies 1992, 234), or more remotely, the Akedah (Glasson 1963, 100). Yet it is more likely that John has combined the Passover Lamb with the concept of the servant in Isa 53, who suffers, and “like a lamb” is slaughtered “bearing sins” (Nielsen 2006, 252–254; Evans, 1993, 182–183). Isa 53 is significant for John elsewhere (12:38). John thereby generated a new composite image of Jesus as the Passover Lamb who inaugurates an era of deliverance precisely by bearing Israel’s sin, which is transmuted as “the sin of the world.” Isa 53 enables John to deploy the Passover image within a new narrative featuring deliverance from enslavement to the ultimate enemy of sin. On this basis, we may be justified in recognising the discussion of slavery and deliverance in John 8 as deriving its significance from Exodus (8:33–36; cf. 1 John 5:19). Once more, then, we see John’s use of Exodus mediated in particular by his reading of Isaiah. As a re-enactment ritual, the Passover had for generations contemporised the Exodus event, transforming history into metaphor and so transcending time and space (Barmash 2015, ix). By employing Passover imagery, John reenacts the Exodus in his own narrative; yet through the mediating lens of the Psalms and Isaiah, the new deliverance effected by the Lamb of God illuminates the ultimate significance of the Passover itself. There is no overt engagement with Exod 12 or Passover imagery in the Johannine epistles. The closest point of thematic overlap is the description of Jesus as the sacrifice (ἱλασμός) who “takes away” sin (1 John 2:2; 3:5; 4:10; cf. John 1:29). This language is not indebted to Exodus or Isaiah; however, it is possible that the conjoining of Exodus paschal imagery and the Isa 53 figure contributed something to the sense of what is conveyed here (see Hengel 1989, 67).

36 37

“Passover plot” in its movement through three Passover festivals (2:13; 6:4; 13:1). See also Daise 2007, 103. “The movement from miracle to the discourse, from Moses to Jesus, and, above all, from bread to flesh, is almost unintelligible unless the reference in V.4 to the Passover picks up 1:29, 36, anticipates 19:36, and governs the whole narrative” (Hoskyns 1940, 1, 281). Loader 2017, 159; Schlund 2005, 156. However, note the association between Passover and sin offerings (Num 28:22; Ezek 45:21–25; 1 Cor 5:7), and the idea that the Passover Lamb was a sacrifice (Ant 2:312; 1 Cor 5:7). Later rabbinic tradition regarded it as atoning (Exod. Rab. 15:12; Midr. Exod. 12:6).

282

Coutts

4 Conclusion Although the discussion above has focused on the three explicit points of engagement with Exodus, in each instance, the impact of Exodus has been observed far beyond citations.38 Moreover, John interpreted Exodus in the context of a broader interpretive tradition. In each case examined above, John adapts and extends the interpretive tradition in the Synoptics in ways that reflect his own engagement with Exodus. That engagement is indirect insofar as John reads Exodus as part of a single scriptural tapestry. Of particular significance is Isaiah, in which divine revelation, divine teaching, and divine deliverance are the object of eschatological expectation. In particular, the prophet’s experience of seeing divine glory supplied John with the means of subordinating Moses to Jesus, and mediated his access to the text of Exodus. Thus, the claim of the prologue, “we beheld his glory” (1:14), and the witness of John the Baptist, “Behold the Lamb” (1:23), and of the Beloved Disciple, “he who saw this has testified” (19:35), all participate in Isaiah’s access to the glory that was withheld from Moses: “Isaiah said this because he saw his glory” (12:41). The occurrence of the same theme and language in 1 John may tentatively be regarded as the ripples of the impact of Exodus. At the same time, insofar as Jesus is the ultimate divine revelation, he is on a par with Scripture itself (2:22), and is himself stitched into the very fabric of Scripture (1:45; 5:39, 46). There is a certain hermeneutical symmetry between reading Exodus through the lens of the Psalter or Isaiah, and reading the whole of Scripture through the lens of Jesus. And for John, these lenses through which Exodus is “received” are mutually-reinforcing insofar as Jesus is for John the very reason the Scriptures are read as a single tapestry. In the resulting portrait, Jesus is presented as casting the shadows first glimpsed in Exodus, and Exodus must now be considered in light of the event of Jesus. In harvesting the content of Exodus for his Christology, John also, like the authors of Jubilees and the Temple Scroll, harnesses the authority of Exodus as the locus of divine revelation for the legitimation of Jesus and the Gospel in which he is presented. Indeed, John may have intended his Gospel as a whole to function similarly to Exodus as a foundational, identity-forming document for the people of God – many of whom had not “seen” and yet

38

This alerts us to the possibility of points of engagement with Exodus that are not attached to these clear texts. Nevertheless, this study gives us a firmer footing on which to investigate the plausibility of such engagement.

Revelation, Provision, and Deliverance

283

believed (John 20:29–32).39 It contains the major elements which characterise the proto-type: God’s self-revelation to, provision for, and deliverance of his people. What is distinctive to John’s account, and indeed reflective of the synthesising power of his thought, is his presentation of Jesus as the locus of all three of these Exodus features. Furthermore, whereas Exodus culminates in the worship of God at Sinai and the construction of the place of worship, John records a shift in the locus of worship to the one who “tented among us” and who alone discloses the Father (4:21–24; 1:14; 17:6). Traces of the identityforming significance of Exodus occur in John’s narrative in such statements as: “our Fathers ate manna in the desert”; “we have never been slaves of anyone”; “we are disciples of Moses”; and “no one has ever seen God.” Yet, it is the Johannine addendum to this that represents the creative sublation of Exodus to the experience of Jesus: “we beheld his glory” (John 1:14); and “we will see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). Bibliography Allison, Dale C. forthcoming. “‘Jesus did not say to him that he would not die’. John 21:20–23 and Mark 9:1.” in John, Jesus, and History vol. 4. Edited by Paul Anderson. Atlanta, GA: SBL. Barmash, Pamela. 2015. Introduction to Exodus in the Jewish Experience. Echoes and Reverberations. Edited by Pamela Barmash and W. David Nelson. Langham: Lexington. Barrett, Charles Kingsley. 1947. “The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel.” JTS 48: 155–169. Bauckham, Richard. 1998. “John for Readers of Mark.” Pages 147–172 in The Gospels for All Christians. Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans. Borgen, Peder. 1965. Bread from Heaven. An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo. NT.S 10. Leiden: Brill. Brown, Raymond E. 1982. The Epistles of John. Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Brunson, Andrew C. 2003. Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John. An Intertextual Study on the New Exodus Pattern in the Theology of John. WUNT 2.158. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Coutts, Joshua J.F. 2017. The Divine Name in the Fourth Gospel. Significance and Impetus. WUNT 2.447. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

39

For discussion of how Exodus is deployed for identity formation in 1 Peter, see the chapter by Beate Kowalski in the current volume.

284

Coutts

Coxon, Paul S. 2014. Exploring the New Exodus in John. A Biblical Theological Investigation of John Chapters 5–10. Eugene, OR: Resource. Crawford, Sidnie White. 2014. “Exodus in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 305–321 in The Book of Exodus. Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Craig A. Evans and Joel N. Lohr. Leiden: Brill. Daise, Michael A. 2007. Feasts in John. Jewish Festivals and Jesus’ ‘Hour’ in the Fourth Gospel. WUNT 2.229. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Davies, Margaret. 1992. Rhetoric and Reference in the Fourth Gospel. JSNT.S 69. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. Enz, Jacob J. 1957. “The Book of Exodus as a Literary Type for the Gospel of John.” JBL 76: 208–215. Evans, Craig A. 2014. “Exodus in the New Testament. Patterns of Revelation and Redemption,” Pages 440–464 in The Book of Exodus. Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Craig A. Evans and Joel N. Lohr. Leiden: Brill. Evans, Craig A. 1993. Word and Glory. On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Prologue. JSNT.S 89. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Ferda, Tucker S. 2019. “Flesh from Heaven. The Text of John 6:52 and its Intertext.” NTS 65: 371–387. Foster, Paul. 2015. “Echoes Without Resonance. Critiquing Certain Aspects of Recent Scholarly Trends in the Study of the Jewish Scriptures in the New Testament.” JSNT 38: 96–111. Freed, Edwin D. 1965. Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John. NT.S 11. Leiden: Brill. Glasson, T. Francis. 1963. Moses in the Fourth Gospel. SBT 40. London: SCM. Hanson, Anthony T. 1976. “John 1:14–18 and Exodus 34.” NTS 23: 90–101. Harstine, Stan. 2002. Moses as a Character in the Fourth Gospel. A Study of Ancient Reading Techniques. JSNT.S 229. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Hays, Richard B. 2016. Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels. Waco, TX: Baylor. Hengel, Martin. 1989. The Johannine Question. London: SCM Press. Hoskyns, Edwyn C. 1940. The Fourth Gospel. 2 Vols. London: Faber & Faber. Keith, Chris. 2009. The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus. NTTSD 38. Leiden: Brill. Lee, Dorothy A. 2011. “Paschal Imagery in the Gospel of John: A Narrative and Symbolic Reading.” Pacifica 24: 13–28. Lee, Dorothy A. 2004. Transfiguration. New Century Theology. New York: Continuum. Loader, William. 2017. Jesus in John’s Gospel. Structure and Issues in Johannine Christology. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

Revelation, Provision, and Deliverance

285

Marcus, Joel. 1992. The Way of the Lord. Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. Meeks, Wayne A. 1968. The Prophet-King. Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. NT.S 14. Leiden: Brill. Menken, Maarten J.J. 1996. Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel. Studies in Textual Form. CBET 15. Kampen: Kok Pharos. Nielsen, Jesper T. 2006. “Lamb of God.” Pages 217–256 in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language. Edited by Jörg Frey, Jan Gabriël van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann. WUNT 1.200. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Nixon, Robin Ernest. 1963. The Exodus in the New Testament. Tynedale Fellowships for Biblical Research. New Testament Lectures. London: Tynedale Press. Pitre, Brant. 2015. Jesus and the Last Supper. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans. Reim, Günter. 1974. Studien zum alttestamentlichen Hintergrund des Johannesevangeliums. SNTS.MS 22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Riley, Paul C.J. 2019. The Lord of the Gospel of John. WUNT 2.478. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Sahlin, Harald. 1950. Zur Typologie des Johannesevangeliums. Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift = Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis 4. Uppsala: Lundequistska Bokhandeln. Schlund, Christine. 2005. “Kein Knochen soll gebrochen werden”. Studien zu Bedeutung und Funktion des Pesachfests in Texten des frühen Judentums und um Johannesevanglium. WMANT 107. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Skinner, Christopher. 2004. “Another Look at ‘The Lamb of God’.” BSac 161: 89–104. Smalley, Stephen S. 2007. 1, 2, 3 John. WBC 51. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Smith, Robert Housten. 1962. “Exodus Typology in the Fourth Gospel.” JBL 81: 329–342. Sproston North, Wendy E. 2003. “John for Readers of Mark? A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Proposal.” JSNT 25: 449–468. Sproston North, Wendy E. 2015. A Journey Round John. Tradition, Interpretation and Context in the Fourth Gospel. LNTS 534. London et al.: Bloomsbury. Stibbe, Mark W.G. 1994. John as Storyteller. Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel. SNTS.MS 73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tsuterov, Alexander. 2009. Glory, Grace, and Truth. Ratification of the Sinaitic Covenant According to the Gospel of John. Eugene, OR: Pickwick. VanderKam, James C. 2010. “Moses Trumping Moses. Making the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 25–44 in The Dead Sea Scrolls. Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts. Edited by Sarianna Metso, Hindy Najman and Eileen Schuller. STDJ 92. Leiden: Brill.

286

Coutts

Von Wahlde, Urban C. 2006. “Judas, the Son of Perdition, and the Fulfillment of Scripture in John 17.12.” Pages 167–182 in The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context: Studies in Honor of David E. Aune. Edited by John Fotopoulos. NT.S 122. Leiden: Brill. Watts, Rikk E. 2000. Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark. BSL. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Williams, Catrin H. 2000. I Am He. The Interpretation of ‘Anî Hû’ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature. WUNT 2.113. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Williams, Catrin H. 2010. “Seeing the Glory. The Reception of Isaiah’s Call-Vision in John 12:41.” Pages 187–206 in Judaism, Jewish Identities, and the Gospel Tradition: Essays in Honour of Maurice Casey. Edited by J.G. Crossley. London: Equinox.

Chapter 14

Paul’s Use of Exodus: Appealing to the Wilderness Experience David M. Allen 1 Introduction It is hard to overstate the significance of the Exodus for Paul. Be it in terms of formal quotation from the Exodus text (Exod 32:6; 1 Cor 10:7), be it reference to specific concepts such as the giving of the Law (Exod 24:12–18; Gal 3:17), be it allusion to events found within the narrative which Exodus sets forth (Exod 9:17; Rom 9:15), or be it re-narration of the wider narrative to which it attests (Exod 32–34; 2 Cor 3:7–18), few Pauline readers would contest the notion that Paul draws extensively on its content and wider reception. Exodus matters for Paul. Such significance may be demonstrated in a variety of ways. For example, Sylvia Keesmaat (1994, 1997, 1999) has given extensive attention to the Pauline appeal to Exodus imagery and tradition. Building on Richard Hays’ intertextual insights, her work is insightful and well received, but in terms of the scope of her project, “Exodus” becomes somewhat broad in terms of its definition. Similarly, Bryan Estelle (2018) has recently sought to map the usage and development of the Exodus motif within the canonical witnesses, and accordingly traces its treatment within the Pauline corpus. However, his focus essentially locates the term against the backdrop of exile/new Exodus imagery, and his response becomes thematic rather than exegetical.1 Both types of approach, though laudable for what they themselves set forth, are beyond the scope of our attention. To put it more succinctly perhaps, our concern is “Exodus” the textualised narrative, rather than “Exodus” the conceptual theme. That said, Exodus’ narrative genre necessarily requires engagement with its espoused narrative, and consideration accordingly of its constitutive events and content, whether reference to the Meribah/Massah episode (Exod 17:1–7), whether invocation of the Golden Calf account and its 1 Hence, 1 Cor 10:1–10, the primary locus for Exodus engagement within the Pauline corpus, receives only minor discussion within his analysis.

© DAVID M. ALLEN, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471122_016

288

Allen

ramifications (Exod 32–34), or whether allusion to the very receipt of Torah itself (Exod 24:12–18 et al.). As such, Paul’s use of Exodus is very much geared to such narratival connections and their wider contextual appropriation. But at the same time, the precise parameters of the discourse, and their significance for Paul, are potentially more moot; is Paul’s venture into Arabia (Gal 1:17), for example, to be viewed as a quasi-Exodus motif and thus as a wider referent to the Exodus text/narrative? Indeed, perhaps more than other texts of the Jewish scriptural tradition, the boundary between text – narrative – motif becomes blurred, and the “use” of Exodus complexified accordingly. The parameters of Genesis, one notes, are similarly fluid (for example, in terms of the multiple forms of Genesis that so emerged, and in the blurred distinction between text and narrative),2 but at least in those instances, there is not a separate or distinct genesis motif that emerges as an independent entity or concept. It may therefore be that we default to a backdrop or source of Exodus traditions, one whose boundaries are fluid, but which can be said, however anachronistically, to have an “Exodus DNA”. To put it another way, we are purposefully seeking Paul’s use of Exodus narratives and text, as opposed to the more thematic new Exodus, but recognise that the borderline between the two concepts becomes inevitably blurred and contested. Moreover, Israel’s wilderness experience effectively becomes a primary locus for Pauline appeal, as it is a quintessential source for any Second Temple Jewish exegete or interpreter, Pauline or otherwise.3 And determining the precise textual origin of the material is not straightforward, as imagery can derive – often in tandem – from both Exodus and Numbers, and thus lack the specific textual origin that contemporary commentators might desire. We shall see this, for example, in respect of the rock’s provision of water (Exod 17:1–7; Num 20:1–13). Similarly, consideration of Paul’s use of Exodus inevitably incorporates analysis of Paul’s appeal to Moses, and/or his own self-understanding as a quasi-Mosaic figure.4 Not all such “Mosaic” speculation or reference can necessarily be classified under the “Exodus” umbrella though; Paul’s claim that “Moses writes” (Rom 10:5), for example, alludes to Lev 18:5 and is therefore evidently outside our concerns. We will therefore consider only the explicit citations of Exodus in the Pauline corpus, most of which (though not all) are found within the Corinthian 2 Cf. for example (Menken and Moyise 2012, 5): “[...] the book of Genesis is functioning in the New Testament documents more as a narrative than as a text”. 3 On the reception of the wilderness theme more generally, see Burden 1994. On the capacity for the wilderness to be “a place where both divine punishment and divine provision abound,” see Pierce 2017, 157–172. 4 See, for example, Stockhausen 1989.

Paul ’ s Use of Exodus

289

correspondence. This suggests that Paul’s (predominantly Gentile) readers possessed the necessary basic knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures,5 but as part of our methodological considerations, we will test out the extent of, and basis for, such Exodus awareness (of both the macro-narrative of Israel’s wilderness years and the specific detail of individual texts). It is possible, for example, that Paul used Exodus tradition/imagery in his missionary preaching in Corinth, and this might have occasioned his more formal or explicit usage/citation of such material (particularly the Paschal lamb reference of 1 Cor 5:7) in the subsequent epistolary correspondence. 2

The Use of Exodus in 1 Corinthians 10

The explicit comparison Paul draws between the wilderness generation and the situation of his Corinthian audience is surely the most developed and direct appeal to Exodus within the Pauline corpus. Although there is only one formal quotation within the chapter (1 Cor 10:7; Exod 32:6), the volume of allusion, echo and resonance across the unit is multivalent, and the entire pericope is steeped in Exodus/Exodus-related material. The narration of 1 Cor 10:1–11 stands out partly for its explicit association of Israel and the church (10:1, 11), partly for what might seem creative exegesis of the Exodus text (10:2), and partly for the bevy of scriptural allusions present across the whole unit (10:7– 10, in particular). Indeed, it is one of the longest extended retellings within the Pauline corpus (Schneider 2009, 51), with the most numerical concentration of scriptural allusions and resonances across 1 Corinthians (Works 2014, 87). As such, it offers a primary case study on the various interpretative options available to Paul, and to those seeking to engage with his use of the Exodus text. Situated within the extended discourse of 1 Corinthians 8–10, and thereby its constituent discourse of matters pertaining to food sacrificed to idols, the contours of the pericope are broadly clear (though its conclusion might be 10:13 or 10:11, with 10:12–13 offering some explanatory application or significance). Either way, bearing in mind the ongoing Exodus-related images of 10:12–13, it is perfectly reasonable to include those latter two verses within our wider discussion. The warning against falling (πίπτω – 10:12) would seem to draw on the imagery of wilderness demise (cf. Exod 32:38), as would the 5 Even though sceptical as to the scriptural literacy of predominantly Gentile churches, Stanley 2016, 55 willingly concedes that the discourses of 1 Cor 10:1–12 and 2 Cor 3:7–18 testify that Paul “assumes that the Corinthians are familiar with some of the central episodes of the Exodus story”.

290

Allen

subsequent threefold repetition of testing language in 10:13 (πειρασμός – cf. Exod 17:7, Deut 6:16). Likewise, the comparative appeal to divine faithfulness (10:13) would seem to be a key component of Exodus imagery (Exod 34:6, for example, but arguably a focal aspect of the Exodus itself), albeit, of course, one manifest across the Jewish Scriptures. Furthermore, the comparison with how Hebrews appropriates such Exodus/wilderness imagery, and with such similar appropriation of key terms of fall (Heb 3:17, 4:11), testing (Heb 3:8–9, 4:15) and faithfulness (Heb 3:2, 5, 12, 19; 4:2) is striking, and thus 1 Cor 10:12–13 and Hebrews 3–4 show remarkably similar appropriation of the warning or heuristic application of Exodus imagery.6 2.1 The Use of Exodus in 10:1–5 It only takes a cursory reading of 1 Corinthians 10 to encounter the way in which Paul’s re-narration of the Exodus material is reworked through the light of Christian experience, and with the consequent interpretative implications. Israel’s ancestors become instead those of the Gentile Corinthians (10:1),7 and the events in which these ancestors participated are re-worked in ways that, on first sight at least, vary significantly from the Exodus testimony. The fundamental purpose of the appeal is to underscore how all Israel benefitted from divine faithful provision (cf. the fivefold repetition of πάντες in 10:1–4), a feature that would seem generally consistent with the Exodus tenor. But the specification of such provision, particularly the food and drink references (10:3–4), would seem to derive from the Corinthian context of food sacrificed to idols and is likewise essentially rendered through the Christian lens. Similarly, although Israel’s passing through the Red Sea is remembered (1 Cor 10:1–2; cf. Exod 14:22), it is recast as an experience of baptism,8 and one “into Moses”.9 (The expression is anachronistic at one level, of course, but equally may just be a recasting of Moses into Christ terms, what might be termed a “back reading” 6 See Allen 2008, 192–193. However Pierce 2017, 162 rightly points out that “[w]here the author of Hebrews makes clear that through Jesus the ‘new covenant’ has better gifts (Heb 2:4) and harsher punishments (Heb 10:26–29), Paul connects Christ to the wilderness further encouraging solidarity between the Corinthians and the ‘wanderers’.” 7 The phrase οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν (10:1) may be a reference to Num 20:5 – possibly so bearing in mind the frequent references to Numbers elsewhere in the pericope – but it may be merely coincidental bearing in mind the generic language so used. 8 See Baird 1990, 286–287: “The crossing of the sea graphically represents Baptism, since the water was a wall on either side (Exod 14:22), and the cloud, which normally went before them, had moved behind (Exod 14:19) and seemed to cover them (Ps 105:39).” 9 Baron and Oropeza (2016) suggest that the same Babylonian Gamara that reads proselyte baptism into the Red Sea may have affected Paul (at an earlier date), but “baptised into Moses” is a genuine Pauline novelty, drawing on the “baptised into Christ” formulation.

Paul ’ s Use of Exodus

291

of the Exodus account).10 Likewise, rather than being followed by a cloud (Exod 13:21–22), Israel is said to be under it (1 Cor 10:1), an allusion that may also draw on Ps 105:39. Wilderness Israel was, of course, provided with “heavenly”-sourced food (Exod 16:4–25) and drink (Exod 17:6), but, in Paul’s retelling, both incidences are recast as πνευματικός (10:3–4), with such terminology likely informed by the wider pneumatological discussion found in the letter (cf. 2:13, 15).11 Of course, the precise wilderness instances to which the spiritual provision refers are not specified by Paul, and that likely reflects their reference to a plurality of divine provision, and potentially to several wilderness “events”. But either way, at first glance at least, Paul’s use of the Jewish Scriptures draws explicit connections between the (Gentile) Corinthian audience and their Israelite predecessors, especially in terms of God’s consistent actions with both parties, and the lessons that may be so learnt. The Corinthians are located within what Weeks (2014, 86) terms a “new past”. However, such novelty or “Christianisation” of the story is not necessarily the sole Pauline interpretative technique, as 10:1–5 may also be said to reflect established Jewish exegetical conventions or principles. This would seem to be particularly the case in terms of the rock that sourced the πνευματικός water. The provision of such water may incorporate two parallel wilderness episodes  – that at Rephidim (Exod 17:1–7), where the Horeb rock is struck, yielding water (but with the resultant renaming of the location as Massah/ Meribah in view of Israel’s grumbling), or that in Num 20:1–13, where again, at Kadesh, Moses strikes a rock to bring forth water, and the place is also named Meribah (in respect of Israel’s rebellion that occasioned the demand for water). Significantly, one suggests, both episodes serve to “bookend” the wilderness experience (and may be seen to “encapsulate” it in some sense); both occasion some form of rebellion, but equally also generate questions as to how Israel continued to be “watered” throughout their wilderness journey. Various traditions emerged seeking to resolve this question. One common perception, roughly contemporaneous to Paul, was that a “well of water” (L.A.B. 10:7, 11:15; Tg. Onq. Num. 21:16–20) travelled with Israel accordingly for the forty year period,12 and this would seem to derive from the exegetical 10 11 12

Hay 1990, 244 avers merely that “[...] the passage implies that even in Moses’ time salvation came through Christ, not that Christ was a new Moses.” On the issue of over-spirituality, see Oropeza 2000, 69–86. As with the baptismal reference (10:1), the πνευματικός food may likewise have sacramental, eucharistic connotations, particularly in view of later references (1 Cor 10:16–17, 21; 11:23–32). See Enns 1996, 25: “Paul’s statement is evidence of the existence of a ‘moveable well’ tradition of some sort as early as the first century AD.”

292

Allen

combination of the two rock-water traditions, and assume that they formed a unity. The twice-struck rock becomes a transient “well”, so to speak, and thus equated with the well specified in Num 21:16–18, specifically so in t. Sukkah 3:11 and Midr. Num. 1:1. Paul stands somewhere within this tradition, and hence his odd observation that the rock “followed” Israel, rather than being a Pauline imposition onto the narrative, would instead seem to draw on existing tradition, and/or manifest established Jewish interpretative perception, seeking to resolve the very questions generated by the text. Indeed, Paul does not defend the moveable rock claim, presumably because he does not believe it needed “defending”. But even if the rewriting of the Exodus events can still be said to draw on Jewish exegetical techniques, and/or manifest the techniques and findings of common contemporary extrabiblical readings, the declaration that the Rock is Christ remains something of a genuine christological or christocentric shift for Paul.13 As Aaegeson (2006, 179) summarily opines: “the identification of Christ with the Rock virtually jumps out at the reader and intrudes upon the reader’s literary consciousness.” The specific inclusion or naming of Christ within the wilderness journey is therefore likely a distinctively Pauline creation, rather than one he inherited. At the same time, this still does not rule out his essential participation in pre-existing interpretation of the text, nor the application of it in established Jewish terms. The well is allegorically associated with Torah (CD VI, 3–4), and the one who engages with the Law is equivalent to an abundant well (b. Avot 6:1; Aageson 2006, 166–167). Philo likewise finds the wilderness well to be a source of “incomparable wisdom” (Ebr. 112), an ascription potentially to its association with Torah, and thus to partake from the well/rock became to partake of the very wisdom of God. Furthermore, if the divine presence is elsewhere presented in “rocky” terms (Deut 32:4; Ps 95:1; cf. Ps 78:15–16), and the source of “watery” wisdom (Leg. 2.84–86), then it would seem consistently Pauline, in view of his christological reflection elsewhere (cf. 1 Cor 8:6) to depict the rock likewise as Christ.14 As such, Christ becomes in some sense a real presence in the wilderness for Paul (Pierce 2017,

13

14

Hays 1989, 94 has proposed that Paul’s interpretative lens is Deut 32, and there are plausible reasons to concur with that view, notably the portrayal of the rock in divine terms (Deut 32:4) and the allusion to Deut 32:17 in 1 Cor 10:20. But Exodus remains an integral factor in Paul’s theological reflection. The rich tradition of spiritual food/water associated, for example, with the rock is a better fit than Deuteronomy for the Corinthian situation. Aageson 2006, 168: “In the symbolic transformation of the tradition, he has simply substituted Christ for the rock, which as he already knew represented Torah.” Cf. also Hurtado 2003, 564–578.

Paul ’ s Use of Exodus

293

162–164),15 or as Thiessen (2013, 120) suggests, “Christ was pneumatically present in the physical rock at the time Israel wandered in the wilderness”.16 2.2 The Use of Exodus in 10:6–11 The second section of the unit (10:6–11)17 turns to four specific examples of Israelite disobedience, relating various instances whereby “some” Israelites (as opposed to the πάντες of 10:1–4) demonstrated manifest disobedience or evil behaviour.18 The fourfold warning of 10:7–10 has a balance or structure to it, a fact that scholars have long realised, and the unit may therefore have origins in midrash.19 Drawing on material found in both Exodus and Numbers, Paul presents the four scenarios as τύποι from which the Corinthians might learn (10:6) and therefore not desire evil as did their wilderness ancestors. In each warning (or at least the latter three), the “fault” of the wilderness generation is specified, and their resultant punishment or fate then set forth. He subsequently ascribes them with heuristic τυπικῶς value (10:11),20 material written down not merely for the wilderness generation itself, but specifically, Paul asserts, for their import for the contemporary reader, on whom the end of the ages has come, in the hope that his Corinthian audience might not themselves fall to the specified equivalent sin. That is, the import or instructional significance of the Exodus events becomes purposeful not for the actual wilderness participants, but instead for the contemporary reader. It is the present moment – rather than the historical or original one – that becomes determinative in this regard. Notably for our purposes, the first exemplar (10:7, citing Exod 32:6) assumes primacy in this regard, providing an intriguing fulcrum for the entire pericope, distinguishing between sitting to eat (cf. 10:1–4) and rising to “play”, disobediently so (cf. 10:6–11).21 Encapsulating both aspects, Exod 32:6 becomes the primary launch pad for the learning derivative from the idol worship of the wilderness generation, and specifically in the Golden Calf incident 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Pierce 2017, 162–164. He continues: “by claiming the Rock was Christ, Paul identifies Christ with Israel’s God” (121). On the potential chiastic structure of 10.6–11, see Heil 2005, 107–108. Tαῦτα (10:6) is forward-looking in this regard. Likewise, “craving evil” (10:6) anticipates VV.7–10, rather than expressing another activity in its own right. On the midrashic aspect of 1 Corinthians 10, see Baron and Oropeza 2016, 71–79. Cf. also Meeks 1982, 71: “The elegant symmetry of the piece is not adventitious but is founded on a quite subtle exegesis of the one scriptural verse that is formally quoted”. Τύπος therefore acts as a frame or inclusio for the unit – V.6 and V.11. In view of the negative or idolatrous dimension to παίζω here, and the verb’s capacity to be understood in either positive or negative terms, it is notable that Gen 21:9–10 – the backdrop to Gal 4:29 – also resonates with a similar play (pun intended) on παίζω.

294

Allen

(Exod 32–34). Indeed, Paul returns to the idol feasting conducted by Israel κατα σαρκα in 10:18–20, and hence the focal citation of Exod 32:6 seems to be continually operative. The Exodus narrative has been reshaped by the contemporary Corinthian situation, but its original, narratival “force” continues to be employed by Paul. As Hays (1989, 93) succinctly notes: “18b–20a … project the action of the golden calf worshippers onto the screen of present experience.” The citation of Exod 32:6 in 1 Cor 10:7 is generally consistent with the LXX form, save for a minor lexical change (the contraction from πιεῖν to πεῖν) (Heil 2005, 145). As such, the mention that Israel “sat down” to eat and drink may just be a grammatical necessity derivative from the citational form. However, its inclusion suggests a formality or deliberative aspect to the Golden Calf feasting, and focuses attention onto the commemorative act – rather than the actual construction of the image. This initial warning (10:7) also differs from the subsequent three in several ways. Unlike the other τύποι, it is explicitly signalled as a quotation, with a specified introductory formula (IF). Its Exodus origins are more explicitly tied to the idolatrous food question in which the unit is contextualised, and that may increase its significance,22 but that, in and of itself, does not require Paul to quote Scripture explicitly; instead, intrinsic to the phenomenon of quotation is to invest the exemplar with particular significance over and above the other three. Second, the precise textual form does not actually prescribe the specific nature of Israel’s disobedience. Whilst there is some verbal play (pun intended) on the notion of παίζω, it is not immediately obvious as to how the quotation functions as a warning, at least not sufficiently so to bear the exemplary τύπος designation. Third, and related to this, unlike the other three instances, the repercussions or consequence of the exemplar are not specified, and purely in the given textual form, its “warning” status would seem limited. Scholars therefore arrive at different conclusions as to the effect of the quotation. Stanley (2004, 98), for example, proposes that “what appears to be an innocent discussion of a biblical story turns out to be a carefully crafted attempt to wield power over the mind and wills of the Corinthians”. The appeal to Exod 32:6 qua quotation is thus perceived to be more efficacious than a mere allusion or scriptural echo; re-narration of the episode may yield some significance, but appeal to the episode specifically via quotation serves to reinforce 22

For Collier 1995, 66, Exod 32:6 thus becomes “midrashically definitive”. At the same time, he further avers that “Numbers 11 becomes the main text of exposition, not only being strongly alluded to in both VV.6 and 10, but also being midrashically unfolded by Exod 32:6 which is directly quoted. Exod 32:6 is a secondary text, itself midrashically derived from Numbers 11 by way of gezerah shawah on καθίζειν and άναστήναι” (72).

Paul ’ s Use of Exodus

295

apostolic authority. However, Exod 32:6 may also be a rhetorically significant passage in Paul’s own mind – the anchor point for his argument, so to speak. Indeed, without the outcome of the warning specified, for 10:7 to have any “bite” or function, it necessarily requires the Corinthians have some knowledge of the event, specifically the feasting that accompanied the construction of the Golden Calf, and the consummation of food and drink sacrificed to idols (Exod 32:5–6). The rising to “play” (rather than the construction of the Golden Calf itself) thus becomes a primary instance of idolatrous behaviour on the part of all Israel.23 In this sense, the situational parallel is a fitting one for the Corinthian context of food sacrificed to idols (8:1–13), and particularly the defiling impact such practice might engender (8:7). Hence Francis Watson’s (2008, 18) more maximalist analysis of the quotation’s context would seem apposite: Paul’s warning against idolatry requires the reader to recognize the context of the passage cited in the story of the Golden Calf. Only a knowledge of the original context can fill the gap between a warning against idolatry and a scriptural text that, apart from its context, merely seems to speak of some unspecified festive occasion. Here at least, the reader’s knowledge of the original context is indispensable. Exodus and/or wilderness references continue to permeate 1 Corinthians 10, contributing to further paraenetic exhortations against sexual immorality (10:8; cf. the sexual engagement with Moabite women – Num 25:1–9),24 testing God so as to occasion the sending of serpents (10:9; cf. Num 21:4–9) and grumbling against God (10:10; cf. potentially Num 14:2–4, but may equally be an allconsuming assessment of wilderness grumbling). The remaining three τύποι of wilderness disobedience hence seem to draw more on Numbers than Exodus, but still continue to demonstrate wilderness narratival – as opposed to specifically textual – examples of craving evil (cf. 10:6). Indeed, one wonders whether such Exodus/Numbers demarcation was as prominent in Paul’s mind as in that of the modern interpreter, and hence whether the “wilderness” theme covered events sourced from both Exodus and Numbers, with the difference between the two texts more blurred than we might desire. 23 24

Wevers 1990, 521 notes the shift in Exod 32:6b between the singular ἐκάθισεν and the plural ἀνέστησαν, preserved by Paul, and this perhaps underscores the “whole” of Israel’s idolatrous participation. The difference between the 24,000 fatalities reported in Num 25:9 and Paul’s 23,000 (1 Cor 10:8) may derive from a textual variant in Paul’s source, or may simply reflect a Pauline error. Either way, the numerical difference is incidental to our interests.

296

Allen

Engaging with 1 Cor 10:1–11, particularly with its amalgam of recontextualised scriptural allusions, also raises methodological questions as to the scope of the interpretative enterprise, and the precepts with which one begins the process. The pericope crystallises the question as to whether a scriptural quotation, particularly one incorporating an introductory formula, should form the initial, or controlling, interpretative key,25 or whether the new (Corinthian) context is determinative in this regard.26 It may be that the options are not mutually exclusive, and that the Exodus-Corinth exchange is dialogical with both contexts shedding interpretative light on the other.27 Exodus’ narratival genre enables this, encourages it even, such that the respective narrative worlds (scriptural and contemporary) become mutually informing and interpreting; the “process of travel” is both ways, with neither one necessarily “dominant”. First Corinthians 10 is best understood when both situational “narratives” – Exodus and Corinth – are reciprocally invoked. Likewise, the Exod 32:6 citation also prioritises the question as the extent or scope of its reference, namely whether it extends to the entire Golden Calf episode (Exod 32–34), or even to wider Exodus contextual matters. Where some might advocate for an essentially minimalist contextual reference (and that the citation evokes merely some form of general Israelite disobedience), others argue for a far wider narratival evocation. Hwang (2011, 578) proposes, for example, that the citation goes beyond the Golden Calf context and evokes fuller or wider covenantal feasting episodes from the Exodus narrative: “the making, breaking and restoration of Israel’s covenants with Yahweh are the dominant ideas of Exodus 32–34” and so form a broad template backdrop accordingly for 1 Corinthians 8–11. 3

The Use of Exodus in 1 Corinthians 5

First Corinthians’ other specific reference to Exodus is equally – if not more – explicit than that in 10:1–11, but its scope is somewhat briefer and more allusive, at least in terms of why the appeal is made. In 5:7, Paul describes Christ as a Paschal lamb, and contextualises this within the Passover celebration of unleavened bread and the associated malevolent effect of yeast; the image becomes a metaphor as to the effect one sexually immoral figure might have on the whole congregation (5:6–8). The wider soteriological implications of the Paschal imagery are not explored in further depth, but as with 10:1–11, the 25 26 27

Such an approach is effectively embraced by Heil 2005, Works 2014. Cf. DiMattei 2008. Moyise 2000 makes a similar point in respect of dialogical intertextuality.

Paul ’ s Use of Exodus

297

allusion is essentially in service of practical exhortation. As such, the Exodus reference may just be seen as a passing remark on Paul’s part, and with no more significance attached to it beyond that. However, Paul’s explanatory silence at 5:7 remains quite loud. The relative lack of explanation as to the Paschal lamb – the mere statement of the situation, particularly for a Gentile audience – suggests that the Corinthians were sufficiently aware of the wider Passover narrative, perhaps as part of Paul’s missionary preaching, and that further explication was therefore not needed. The appeal to unleavened bread, albeit in terms of appeal to the pernicious nature of yeast, specifically draws on the narrative of Exod 12:14–20; indeed, the exclusionary fate of the one who eats leavened bread (12:19) may form the template for Paul’s rejection from the community of the man found living with his father’s wife (1 Cor 5:4–5). Likewise, in view of the subsequent discourse around meat sacrificed to idols, and the way in which Paul utilised Exodus narratives in the service of that, one would be unwise to dismiss 5:7 so quickly. Indeed, Works (2014) persuasively argues that the Paschal lamb reference prepares the way for the more extended discourse of chapter 10, whose strident associations with the wilderness generation might otherwise have come somewhat out of the blue. She further contends that 5:7 underscores the way in which the Corinthians are (already) integrated into the Exodus story. Without the (previous) reference of 5:7, the appeal to οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν (10:1) is a sharp disjuncture for the Gentile audience; with it included, the way is already “prepared” for shaping their identity as the “people of God”. Works (2014, 160) summarises accordingly: The story of Israel’s exodus, a story first and foremost about God, was formative in shaping Israel’s identity as the people of God. Paul finds in this tradition fitting instruction for the fledgling church at Corinth, a church called into existence by the same God who elected Israel. Also notable in 5:7 therefore is that the “direction of travel” is different to the Exodus usage in 1 Cor 10:1–11. That is, Passover put into Corinth, rather than Corinth put into Passover; the contemporary “story” is shaped by the preceding one, rather than vice-versa. 4

The Use of Exodus in 2 Corinthians 3

The other extended Pauline narratival engagement with Exodus material is found in 2 Cor 3:7–18 and its reworking of the narrative of Exod 32–34, particularly the discourse of Moses’ veiling of his face. At one level, aside from

298

Allen

Paul’s engagement with it, the Exod 32–34 text itself creates some ambiguities, to which scholars have frequently given attention. The particular role of Exod 33:1–11 has been a scholarly curiosity, for example, and the role of the veil (Exod 34:33) generates interpretative questions even before one considers Paul’s take on it. Exod 33:20 avers, for example, that one cannot look on God and live, and hence one might expect the veil to have been necessary for Moses’ encounter with God, rather than with Israel in the aftermath of the divine encounter. But once again, as with 1 Cor 10:1–11, at first sight (again, pun intended!), Paul’s articulation of the events, and his reading of Exod 34, would seem to depart significantly from the narrative presented there.28 In particular, Exodus offers no explicit “motive” for the veiling, whereas Paul’s recasting of the narrative specifically ascribes one to Moses, namely to keep Israel from seeing the end of the glory being set aside (ὸ τέλος τοῦ καταργουμένου – 2 Cor 3:13). Moses’ veiling might be seen as protecting Israel in some way, rather than concealing its fading, and/or it might portray Moses as is in some sense duplicitous or actively complicit in concealing this fact from Israel. And aside from the specific consistency with Exodus, Paul’s own assessment of the event also raises internal integrity tensions, with 3:7 and 3:13 offering potentially contrary assessments of the purpose of the veiling and the continuity of the glory’s presence. There is also ambiguity as to when Paul supposes the glory actually does fade (3:7, 13), whether it was in Moses’ own time, or whether in the Christian era. Although there remains some novelty in Paul’s retelling, particularly of Exod 34:28–35, just as with 1 Cor 10:4, there are a number of Jewish parallels to the type of approach Paul pursues. Linda Belleville (1993, 165–185) considers a number of these, including Philonic awareness of Israel’s incapacity to embrace the Mosaic dazzling visage (Mos. 2:70) and the Qumran perception of the “waning of facial glory when divine communication ceases” (1QH 5, 29–32). As such, she ventures that there were a number of Mosaic/ glory traditions upon which Paul might draw, and hence 2 Cor 3:7–18 is an amalgam of these, alongside Paul’s own perception of the text/event. Equally, other commentators have also sought to appeal to a consistent Paul in this regard, or at least a view that his reading is a “fair” one. Scott Hafemann (2015), for example, contends that Moses comes down with his face glorified (Exod 34), and that Moses thus becomes the means by which God is present with God’s people. However, rather than being a source of joy and hope, Israel (Hafemann 28

Belleville 1993, 165–166 lists a number of divergences, including, for example, that Paul has added to the Exodus account the Israelites’ incapacity to look at Moses’ face. Cf. also the assessment of Hafemann 2015, 86–86.

Paul ’ s Use of Exodus

299

suggests) recognise this as ultimate judgement – i.e. in the aftermath of the Golden Calf, they must watch out as sinful people. In the light of that – and in view of God’s mercy – “the veil makes it possible to bring the glory of God into the midst of the rebellious people” (2015, 91). This is consistent, Hafemann (2015, 97) argues, with God’s judgement and mercy across the whole narrative unit. He concludes: Moses veiled himself in order that the sons of Israel might not gaze “into the outcome or result” (τὸ τέλος) of that which was being rendered inoperative – that is, the death-dealing judgement of the glory of God upon his ‘stiff-necked’ people as it was manifested in the old covenant (see also Hafemann 2005). On this reading the telos of 2 Cor 3:13b takes place in Moses’ time, not Christ’s, and Paul’s interpretation is consistent with the Exodus narration. Land (2019) pursues a similar “consistency” line, arguing that Paul reads Exod 34 well, finding that the veiling is necessitated by Israel’s hard-heartedness and rejection of God’s ways (Land uses the term “reactive withdrawal” to describe their response). He proposes that “the logic of 2 Cor 3:13–14 is that Moses did not veil to prevent the sons of Israel from staring εἰς τὸ τέλος τοῦ καταργουμένου – he veiled because their hearts were hard” (2019, 65). As such, Paul is correcting a misreading of Exod 34, potentially proposed by his opponents that Moses’ veil conceals the fading, and he offers instead a straightforward reading of the text and of Moses’ integrity (Land 2019, 296–302).29 Watson (2004) also finds Paul reading the text consistently but arrives at different conclusions. For Watson, Paul reads the Golden Calf narrative as “a parable about its [i.e. the Law] impact on those it addresses” (2004, 290–291). The very fact that the giving of the Law coincides with the paradigmatic rebellion manifest by the construction of the image is telling; the events of Exod 32–34 therefore testify to Torah’s incapacity to deal with sinfulness. As such, Moses’ veiling, whether deceptive or otherwise, conceals the fading or transitory nature of the glory of the Law, whose inherent weakness the Golden Calf episode has exemplified. Hence the potential implication of deception on Moses’ part is not a Pauline creation, but one manifest by the Exodus text itself; the latter “raises the suspicion that Moses’ veiling is disingenuous, and that, seeming to conceal a permanent glory, it actually conceals the passing of that glory” (Watson 2004, 296). 29

Land suggests Paul and Timothy are similarly “veiled” when they read the Jewish Scriptures to the Corinthians (2 Cor 3:15), because the Corinthians’ hearts are likewise hardened.

300 5

Allen

The Use of Exodus in 2 Corinthians 8:15

As well as the wider narratival appeal of 2 Cor 3:7–18, Paul also explicitly quotes from Exodus in the second Corinthian epistle. The citation in 2 Cor 8:15 is a direct quotation of Exod 16:18, and is specified with a direct IF, but, unlike the other examples previously discussed, it lacks any direct Exodus narrative context. Instead, the context features the grace of giving in terms of the mooted collection; there is nothing immediately to tie the quotation to its Exodus origins, and there would seem to be no reason to expect the Corinthians to make the connection. The citation therefore would appear to offer a counterargument to the notion that the Corinthians are necessarily aware of the provenance of Pauline citations; that is, where the other formal Exodus quotations strongly require original contextual awareness, to the same audience, Paul appears to offer one the import of whose context is not immediately obvious. Or, irrespective of the audience’s scriptural literacy, it might also offer an alternative perspective on the extent to which the text’s original context actually mattered to Paul when Exodus is cited.30 Furthermore, there is something of a proverbial-saying style to the quotation that would further differentiate it from the previous Exodus-related incidents; and even if it is known to be Exodus cited, it does not seem to be presented as Exodus “qua-Exodus”.31 Indeed, the context of Exod 16:18 – the sharing of graciously received manna – if anything runs counter to the giving to which Paul is exhorting the Corinthians. Richard Hays (1989) offers an alternative assessment of the citation, however, venturing that it does indeed function within its wider Exodus context. He contends that Exod 16:18 directs the reader to “appropriate gathering” – as much as one needs, but not more. Israel gathers more on the sixth day, for example, so that they do not need to do so on the seventh (Exod 16:22–26). As such, Hays conceives of the quotation, and its Exodus context, as an “economic parable” that encourages “radical dependence on God”; “Paul taps Exodus 16 and then walks away leaving the reader to draw out the sap … Paul gathers little of the text of Exodus, but he comes away with no lack of significance” (1989, 90–91). This is, of course, contextual awareness or metalepsis at its most foregrounded, but it must most plausibly locate that awareness with Paul himself rather than with his Corinthian audience.

30 31

I’m grateful to Joshua Coutts for drawing this distinction to my attention. Ellis 1957, 134, for example, describes it as one of several Pauline OT citations which are “no more than analogies or applications of principles”. And as Hays 1989, 88 notes, why bother “giving”, if God can miraculously intervene?

Paul ’ s Use of Exodus

6

301

The Use of Exodus in Romans 9:15–17

Romans’ two direct quotations of Exodus come in quick succession, in Rom 9:15 and 9:17 respectively. In both instances, the IF takes an unusual form “Scripture says to”, with Moses the first addressee, and Pharaoh the second; but the “source” for each quotation derives from different parts of the Exodus account. At one level, the first citation (Exod 33:19; Rom 9:15) is a broad appeal – via a convenient proof text, perhaps – to God’s ability to make choices as he sees fit, and it may have no wider significance beyond that. However, the direct appeal to the text as Scripture suggest that it warrants further attention, and the quotation’s Exodus provenance may have contextual significance in Paul’s mind. The citation is drawn, once again, from the Golden Calf narrative, and bearing in mind the significance of that event for the Corinthian discourse, it would seem possible that Paul likewise draws on its context here. Although not explicitly specified in Rom 9:15, the Golden Calf narrative would continue to provide a quasi-paradigmatic manifestation of Israel’s rejection of God, a theme explored across the whole Romans 9–11 discourse; it might also be in Paul’s mind in Rom 1:23, and the reference to τετράπους images (cf. Ps 106:19). Whilst the Exod 33 backdrop is not critical to the interpretation of Rom 9:15, it would certainly seem to add some narratival and theological resonance. The appeal to Exod 9:16 is a strange one, and a rare foray for Paul (at least in explicit citation) into the early part of Exodus and to Israel’s experience in Egypt.32 Technically, Exodus records YHWH telling Moses what to say/impart to Pharaoh, rather than the latter being addressed directly, and the potential parallelism with 9:15 might suggest the obvious IF in both instances would be “God said” (i.e. YHWH addresses both protagonists at different parts of the Exodus narrative). However, Pharaoh ultimately remains the recipient of the divine statement, and Paul’s IF here so testifies to his perception of Scripture (specifically here, Exodus) as equating to the divine voice (cf. Gal 3:8), and attests to the authority the text so possessed for Paul. And likewise, the given IF – in both 9:15 and 9:17 – underscores the capacity of Scripture to address directly both Jew and Gentile (importantly so in the context of wider Jew/ Gentile questions of Romans 9–11).33 32

33

The discourse around hardening in Romans 9–11 may also pick up the theme of Pharaoh’s heart being hardened (Exod 7:13; 9:34), described by Abasciano 2011, 76 as the “most striking feature of the exodus narrative”. Cf. also Moyise (2010, 50): “the story of Moses and Pharaoh has become paradigmatic for God accomplishing his gracious purposes through those who are – currently – opposing him”. On the Exod 9:16 citation more widely, see Abasciano 2011, 76–140.

302 7

Allen

Methodological Considerations

Exodus provides a repository of material on which Paul can draw, particularly in terms of the obedience – or otherwise – of the wilderness generation. The framework and narrative impinge on Pauline reflection at both the meta-level of the core Exodus/wilderness paradigm, as espoused in the work of Keesmaat and others, or more specifically, as we have observed above, via nitty-gritty interaction with the text itself. We might therefore draw the following methodological reflections as to Paul’s use of the Exodus text: 1. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Christ event has in some sense impacted upon Paul’s reading of Exodus, and that “Christian” terms or ideas have percolated within his interpretation (for example, “baptised into Christ” – 1 Cor 10:2). DiMattei contends that the later, contemporary narrative (that of the Corinthians) dictates Paul’s hermeneutical process, particularly in respect of how he appropriates Exodus traditions in 1 Corinthians 10; the former, scriptural narrative is effectively silenced by the contemporary Corinthian situation and its contemporary (“for us”) application. The wilderness account is, in some sense, recast, Christianised even, with πνευματικός food and baptism imported into Israel’s situation. The Corinthian context shapes the wilderness renarration, and the themes of the letter recalibrate the contours of the Pauline retelling; it becomes a different wilderness narrative in this regard, and would look unfamiliar to some readers of the wilderness account. 2. Paul reads the Exodus text in ways differently to his contemporaries (Watson 2004, passim). Indeed, Paul claims the events attested within the wilderness texts (Exodus and Numbers) were written down for the benefit of the current (Corinthian) readers, those on whom the end of the ages has come (1 Cor 10:11). Hermeneutically at least, Paul conceives of the Exodus text as having not just pedagogical or heuristic value  – though that is certainly implicit within the τυπικῶς designation34 – but also beyond that, the essential purpose of the Exodus text is for the benefit of the contemporary Pauline reader. The eschatological emphasis of 10:11 brings the significance and purpose of the text/narrative to

34

This serves to limit the semantic extent of the τύπος for Paul here; in both 10:6 and 10:11, it proffers a series of heuristic examples, rather than establishing an explicit typological appeal. There is no sense that the episodes of 10:6–11 are to be repeated by the Corinthians. Cf. Fee 1987, 458.

Paul ’ s Use of Exodus

3.

4.

5.

35

303

an explanatory climax, one whose timing is essentially in the present moment. Scripture’s “time” is for the present, for the now. At the same time, as the Qumran Pesherists attest, the eschatological “nowness” of Scripture is not a Christian de novo, but rather exemplifies the continuing manifestation of contextual Jewish interpretative practice. Indeed, to reduce Paul the interpreter merely to Christian reading fails to exhaust our understanding of Paul’s use of Exodus, and Paul’s interpretative grid remains characteristically influenced by contemporary Jewish exegetical practice. The appeal to the movable rock/well (1 Cor 10:4) or the potential waning of the divine glory (2 Cor 3:13) portray Paul as in some way in continuity with other interpreters. To propose, therefore, that audience’s scriptural awareness (for example of the Golden Calf incident), or current contextual concerns (Corinthian idolatry) or creative use of exegetical techniques (such as midrash) as all being mutually exclusive is to miss the rich interpretative diversity Paul’s treatment of Exodus occasions. Paul’s usage of the Exodus text is generally “post-Exodus” or “post-Egypt”; Rom 9:17 aside, there is relatively little appeal to Exod 1–15 and to Israel’s time in Egypt, and Paul makes little  – if any  – use of Moses’ early life (Moyise 2010, 49). Instead it is the “late-Exodus”, or wilderness, narratives that feature most significantly on Paul’s radar. In particular, the Golden Calf episode becomes something of a pivot or fulcrum around which Paul’s scriptural interpretation and metaleptic practice is outworked, whether through the explicit citation of Exod 32:6 (1 Cor 10:7), or the mooted Golden Calf allusion in Rom 1:23, or via the re-narration of the “veiling” of Moses’ descent from the mountain (2 Cor 3:7–18). Paul assumes audience knowledge of Exodus – or exodus – as narrative/ tradition, if not explicitly as text.35 If Paul’s Corinthian readers knew nothing of the Exodus then the apostle is both a poor assessor of his congregation’s capability and a wasteful interpreter of Scripture. Instead, Paul seeks to bring the respective stories  – those of Exodus and those of his hearers – into some form of correspondence or mutual evocation, and the degree to which the Exodus “context” transfers over, or the extent to which the contemporary situation dominates, becomes decisive in this regard. The more maximalist approaches of Hwang or Hafemann in respect of 1 Corinthians 10 and 2 Corinthians 3 are certainly plausible, but are necessarily dependent on a wider incorporation of the Exodus For the view that the Corinthians’ scriptural awareness was quite developed, see Williams 2019, 168–172.

304

6.

7.

36 37

38

Allen

narrative. Conversely, those who propose that the presenting context of the Pauline scenario – in Corinth itself – becomes determinative and prevails over any previous Exodus-source material, effectively set the Exodus origins to one side. Hence our analysis has not so much resolved the “original context” question, but merely served to re-present it, and demonstrate the contrasting interpretative implications so generated.36 “Exodus” becomes for Paul a wider amalgam of traditions and material, and not just the scriptural record, and goes beyond that which is specifically found in our received Exodus “text”. As Enns surmises, “(i)t is not just the words on the page but the interpretative tradition as well that made up Paul’s Old Testament” (Enns 2005, 151).37 This means that Paul’s interpretation of what constitutes “Exodus” or wilderness material – or more precisely what “boundaries” such content – is more fluid than contemporary readers might perceive. The denotation of angelic mediation at Sinai (Gal 3:19–20) is a case in point. Exodus itself – in Masoretic form at least – makes no mention of angelic mediation, and by citing it, Paul seemingly departs from the scriptural path. However, as is well known, the tradition of angelic mediation at Sinai is well established in Jewish literature prior to Paul (cf. Jub. 1:27–28) and likewise within LXX testimony (Deut 33:2), such that the boundaries between biblical and extrabiblical become somewhat blurred. Indeed, Belleville (2019, 333) goes as far as to advocate for Gal 3:19–20 being “echoes of Scripture”,38 legitimately so, one suggests, bearing in mind the Pauline contemporary testimony. Allied to this, Paul becomes less dependent on the Exodus text, and more on the broader narrative of which it is composed. Narratival – rather than explicit textual – connections come to the fore; hence the very genre of the text – as narrative – enables Paul to make a multiplicity of hermeneutical connections, and not be “restricted” to a linear or one-dimensional mode of citation. This is particularly pertinent for the heuristic strategy Paul deploys when he fuses contemporary and scriptural “stories” together, as narrative enables this type of interplay between past and present in After an extensive review of the question by the SBL Paul and Scripture seminar, Stanley 2012, 324–325 laments whether this question will ever be satisfactorily resolved. Similarly Enns 1996, 32: Paul “is not himself interpreting the rock of the Old Testament, nor is he consciously adducing an existing exegetical tradition; rather, he is simply talking about the biblical story in the only way he knows how, in accordance with the way he (and apparently his audience as well) had received it.” Emphasis added. She continues: “The Galatians’ use of the LXX would have exposed them to Yahweh’s angelic host and ‘by the hand of Moses’ in a way that the Hebrew Scriptures would have not.”

Paul ’ s Use of Exodus

305

ways that other genres don’t permit.39 This of course, only compounds the wider contextual question noted above, as narratives can incorporate much more diverse contexts than “simple” textual quotations, and the degree to which narrative context is “transferred” thus becomes even more methodologically contested. Mere citation of an individual text along with – and inextricably linked to – the wider narrative(s) of which it is inextricably part, and to which it alludes, becomes part of that newly constructed narrative fabric. That all said, a significant amount of the wilderness detail remains in its “new” retelling, and this requires a certain degree of familiarity with the Exodus (and Numbers) material. Paul still shows evidence of engaging with Exodus for Exodus’ sake, and whether it is the accompanying rock, the idolatrous calf, or the Paschal lamb, Exodus remains necessarily very much at the Pauline table, and its essence is not lost or eclipsed, quite the reverse. The contemporary situation remains significant, of course, in the re-narration of the wilderness tradition, but it is not a sufficient interpretative lens just of itself. Bibliography Aageson, James W. 2006. “Written also for our Sake. Paul’s Use of Scripture in the Four Major Epistles with a Study of 1 Corinthians 10.” Pages 152–181 in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans. Abasciano, Brian J. 2011. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:10–18: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis. LNTS 317. London: T&T Clark. Allen, David M. 2008. Deuteronomy and Exhortation in Hebrews. An Exercise in Narrative Re-presentation. WUNT 2.238. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Baird, William. 1990. “1 Corinthians 10:1–13.” Interpr. 44: 286–290. Baron, Lori and Oropeza, Brisio J. 2016. “Midrash.” Pages 42–62 in Exploring Intertextuality. Diverse Strategies for New Testament Interpretation of Texts. Edited by Brisio J. Oropeza and Steve Moyise. Eugene, OR: Cascade. Belleville, Linda L. 1993. “Tradition or Creation? Paul’s Use of the Exodus 34 Tradition in 2 Corinthians 3:7–18.” Pages 165–186 in Paul and the Scriptures of Israel. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNT.S 83. Sheffield: JSOT Press.

39

Cf. Di Mattei 2008, 82: “Past and present, the text and its re-presentation  … seem to coalesce into a single narrative fabric.”

306

Allen

Belleville, Linda L. 2019. “The Sinai-Mεσίτης Tradition in Galatians 3:19–20.” Pages 325– 334 in Paul and Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Land. PaSt 10. Leiden: Brill. Burden, Terry L. 1994. The Kerygma of the Wilderness Traditions in the Hebrew Bible. AmUS.TR 163. New York: Peter Lang. Collier, Gary D. 1995. “‘That We Might Not Crave Evil’. The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians 10:1–13.” JSNT 17: 55–75. DiMattei, Steven. 2008. “Biblical Narratives.” Pages 59–93 in As it is written. Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley. SBL.SyS 50. Leiden: Brill. Ellis, E. Earle. 1957. Paul’s Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker. Enns, Peter. 1996. “The ‘moveable well’ in 1 Cor 10:4. An Extrabiblical Tradition in an Apostolic Text.” BBR 6: 23–38. Enns, Peter. 2005. Inspiration and Incarnation. Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Estelle, Bryan D. 2018. Echoes of Exodus. Tracing a Biblical Motif. Westmont, IL: InterVarsity Press. Fee, Gordon D. 1987. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans. Hafemann, Scott J. 2005. Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel. The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3. WUNT 1.81. Tübingen: Mohr. Hafemann, Scott J. 2015. Paul’s Message and Ministry in Covenant Perspective. Selected Essays. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. Hay, David M. 1990. “Moses through New Testament Spectacles.” Interpr. 44: 240–52. Hays, Richard. 1989. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Heil, John Paul. 2005. The Rhetorical Role of Scripture in 1 Corinthians. SBL.SBL 15. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature. Hurtado, Larry W. 2003. Lord Jesus Christ. Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans. Hwang, Jerry. 2011. “Turning the Tables on Idol Feasts. Paul’s Use of Exodus 32:6 in 1 Corinthians 10:7.” JEThS 54: 573–587. Keesmaat, Sylvia C. 1994. “Exodus and the Intertextual Transformation of Tradition in Romans 8.14–30.” JSNT 54: 29–56. Keesmaat, Sylvia C. 1997. “Paul and his Story: Exodus and Tradition in Galatians.” Pages 300–333 in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel. Investigations and Proposals. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNT.S 148. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Keesmaat, Sylvia C. 1999. Paul and his Story. (Re) Interpreting the Exodus Tradition. LNTS 181. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Paul ’ s Use of Exodus

307

Land, Christopher D. 2019. “It’s not like Moses veiled so that the Israelites didn’t stare. A Hypothesis Regarding Paul’s Understanding of Exodus 34.” Pages 263–302 in Paul and Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Land. PaSt 10. Leiden: Brill. Meeks, Wayne A. 1982. “‘And rose up to play’. Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1–22.” JSNT 5: 64–78. Menken, Maarten J.J. and Moyise, Steve. 2012. Genesis in the New Testament. LNST 466. London: Bloomsbury. Moyise, Steve. 2000. “Intertextuality and the Study of the Old Testament in the New Testament.” Old Testament in the New Testament. Essays in Honour of J. Lionel North. Edited by Steve Moyise. JSNT.S 189. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Moyise, Steve. 2010. Paul and Scripture. Studying the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic 2010. Oropeza, Brisio J. 2000. “Apostasy in the Wilderness. Paul’s Message to the Corinthians in a State of Eschatological Liminality.” JSNT 22: 69–86. Pierce, Madison N. 2017. “The Wilderness Tradition in 1 Corinthians, Wisdom of Solomon and Hebrews.” Pages 157–172 in Paul and the Greco-Roman Philosophical Tradition. Edited by Joseph R. Dodson and Andrew W. Pitts. LNTS 527. London: Bloomsbury. Schneider, Michael. 2009. “How does God Act? Intertextual Readings of 1 Corinthians 10.” Pages 35–52 in Reading the Bible Intertextually. Edited by Richard B. Hays, Stefan Alkier and Leroy Andrew Huizenga. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. Stanley, Christopher D. 2004. Arguing With Scripture. The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul. London: T&T Clark. Stanley, Christopher D. 2012. “What we Learned – and What we Didn’t.” Pages 321–330 Paul and Scripture. Extending the Conversation. Edited by Christopher D. Stanley. SBL.ECL 9. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature. Stanley, Christopher D. 2016. “Rhetoric of Quotations.” Pages 44–57. in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel. Investigations and Proposals. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders. JSNT.S 148. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Stockhausen, Carol Kern. 1989. Moses’ Veil and the Glory of the New Covenant-The Exegetical Substructure of II Cor 3:1–4,6. AnBib 166. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico. Swafford Works, Carla J. 2014. The Church in the Wilderness. Paul’s Use of Exodus Traditions in 1 Corinthians. WUNT 2.379. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Thiessen, Matthew. 2013. “‘The Rock was Christ’. The Fluidity of Christ’s Body in I Corinthians 10.4.” JSNT 36: 103–126. Watson, Francis. 2004. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. London: T&T Clark. Watson, Francis. 2008. “Scripture in Pauline Theology. How Far Down Does it Go?” JThI 2: 181–192.

308

Allen

Wevers, John William. 1990. Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus. SBL.SCSt 46. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Williams, H.H. Drake. 2019. “From the Perspective of the Writer or the Perspective of the Reader. Coming to Grips with a Starting Point for Analysing the Use of Scripture in 1 Corinthians.” Pages 153–172 in Paul and Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Land. PaSt 10. Leiden: Brill.

Chapter 15

The Reception of Exodus Motifs in the Catholic Epistles Beate Kowalski 1

General Discussion of the Reception of the Exodus Narratives in the Catholic Epistles

Though the OT plays a prominent role in the Catholic Epistles the Exodus narratives are rarely quoted.1 In particular, 1 Peter is very familiar with the biblical writings.2 However, according to N-A27 1 Peter alludes only to three texts in Exodus, and the recent edition only lists one pretext3 from the OT. The letter which was regarded as a rhetorical step-child (Martin 2007, 41–71) also seems to be an outsider in terms of Exodus motifs. Following a review and close reading of 1 Peter, the list of quotations and allusions in N-A27 and N-A28 can be doubted. This is not surprising as the editors of the text-critical edition never defined criteria for allusions and quotations. A close reading of the Greek text of 1 Peter and Exodus leads to a more differentiated picture. Considering the particular context of the proposed allusions in the letter, more Exodus motifs can be detected than have been noticed so far. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the author of 1 Peter had an underlying conceptual framework in mind as he interconnects the relevant text passages via Exodus motifs. In addition, these passages have key functions in the composition of the entire letter. If we take only the three proposed references in 1 Pet 1:2; 2:9 (Exod 19:6 etc.; 23:22LXX; 24:7), it already becomes clear that they are not only programmatic for the theology of the letter, but play a decisive role in the reception history and development of ecclesiology in the churches, especially of Vatican II. In terms of methodology, issues of composite citations and allusions, the need for a contextual analysis, and the possibility of an overarching scriptural framework created by OT pretexts have to be discussed. The following essay will 1 Intertextuality in 1 Peter is a topic which is analysed in regard to traditions from Ephesians and James; cf. Schmidt 2013, 303–324. 2 Jobes 2006, 311–333, 311 states: “The book of 1 Peter quotes and alludes to the Septuagint more frequently than any other New Testament book, relative to its brief length.” She analyses the LXX textual tradition in 1 Peter. Cf. also Vahrenhorst 2013, 259–275. 3 The term pretext includes all types of usage OT texts by the NT writer.

© Beate Kowalski, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471122_017

310

Kowalski

examine only 1 Peter as no citations and allusions can be found in the other Catholic epistles. 2

Textual Examples and Exodus-Related Motifs in 1 Peter

A brief survey of the structure and main theological ideas of 1 Peter are helpful for the analysis of intertextual relations to the Exodus narrative. Apart from the epistolary frame (1:1f; 5:12–14) the letter cannot be regarded as real correspondence with a particular Christian community. Consequently, exegetes continue to discuss its literary genre (homily, circular letter). The different theological ideas are associatively connected with each other central themes and leitmotifs include suffering, joy, faith, salvation, persecution in daily life as a Christian. Specific life situations are addressed: duty of loyalty regarding the political entity, misery of slavery, conflicts in mixed marriages between Christians and Gentiles, privileged position of men, and the risks of ecclesial offices. In contrast to the language, which reveals the sociolect of an insignificant minority, identity markers from the OT tradition attempt to strengthen the addressees. In addition, the writer relies on many older traditions from the OT and NT.4 The date of origin and situation of the addressees do not lead to a period of persecution but rather to the social alienation of Christians and Gentiles. 1 Peter can be structured in manifold ways. One quite convincing structure was developed by Fika J. van Rensburg. She proposes a letter heading (1:1–2), followed by the letter opening (1:3–12) which frames the central part together with the conclusion (5:12–14). The central part can be divided into four sections (inferences): 1:13–25 (hope in grace); 2:1–10 (obligation for a Christian); 2:11– 4:19 (code of conduct for aliens); 5:1–11 (code of conduct within the church). In terms of our research question, we can already say that Exodus motifs are part of the letter heading and one of the central parts. They might have a programmatic function for the entire work. The addressees are described as chosen aliens in the dispersion (1:1: ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶ; cf. 2:4, 6, 9, 11), who experience joy and suffer various trials (1:6: λυπηθέντες ἐν ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς; cf. 4:12). They live as sojourners (1:17; 2:11), experience slander (2:12; 3:16: καταλαλέω) and suffering (πάσχω occurs frequently: 2:19, 20, 21, 23; 3:14, 17, 18; 4:1[bis], 15, 19; 5:10; cf. 4:16: αἰσχύνομαι), 4 Cf. Aejmelaeus 2011, 125–147; van Rensburg and Moyise 2002, 275–286, 277: “We may conclude then that our author was capable of original exegesis but rarely strayed from the stock passages used by Christians before him.”

The Reception of Exodus Motifs in the Catholic Epistles

311

which is interpreted (reframed) as grace and participation in Jesus’ passion (4:13: κοινωνεῖτε τοῖς τοῦ Χριστοῦ παθήμασιν; Schmidt 2013, 303–324). The writer explicitly mentions the following social roles among the communities: emperors and governors (2:13: βασιλεύς, 2:14: ἡγεμών), free men (2:16: ἐλεύθερος) and slaves (2:18: οἰκέτης), women and men/husbands (3:1–7), holy women (3:5) the elders (5:1: πρεσβύτερος), and the younger (5:5: νέος). As the writer of 1 Peter mainly addresses Gentile-Christians5 he refers only to a very few biblical figures as examples of certain virtues: prophets in general serve as example of searching and enquiring (ἐξεζήτησαν καὶ ἐξηραύνησαν), salvation (1:10–12); Sarah is an example of obedience towards Abraham (3:6); Noah is an example of God’s patience with disobedient people (3:20). Nevertheless, OT and NT traditions play a prominent role in 1 Peter.6 Moreover, 1 Peter principally does not refer to the historical books of the OT but to the prophets (Isa) and wisdom literature. The very few references to Exodus stand out against this general usage of the OT. 2.1 Preliminary Survey According to the database of the LXX project at the Kirchliche Hochschule in Wuppertal 1 Peter uses (the project calls all examples “Schriftzitate”) the OT in the following 19 cases:7 1 Pet 1:16 1 Pet 1:24 1 Pet 1:25 1 Pet 2:3 1 Pet 2:68 1 Pet 2:7 1 Pet 2:8 1 Pet 2:22 1 Pet 2:24 1 Pet 2:25 1 Pet 3:10

Lev 11:14 Isa 40:6f Isa 40:8 Ps 33:9 Isa 28:16 Ps 117:23 Isa 8:14 Isa 53:9 Isa 53:4, 5 Isa 53:6 Ps 33:13, 14

5 Cf. Stenschke 2009, 97–116, 119–103 who regards 1 Pet 4 as strongest evidence. 6 Cf. Still and Webb 2014, 455–471, 459 who call them “scriptural models”. 7 Vahrenhorst 2010, 229–248, 229 lists 1 Pet 1:16, 24–25; 2:6, 7; 3:10–12; 4:18; 5:5 as quotations and adds 1 Pet 2:3, 22; 3:14–15. Moyise 2012, 42 states that Ps 34:12–16; 118:22 are directly quoted in 1 Pet 2:7; 3:9, and Isa 8:14; 28:16; 40:6–8; 43:20, 21; 53:9; insignificant allusions are Isa 8:13; 11:1; 53;4, 5, 6, 7, 12 (cf. 45); in addition, 1 Peter verbally quotes from Prov 3:34; 11:31; Lev 19:2. 8 Cf. Himes 2016, 227–244.

312

Kowalski

(cont.)

1 Pet 3:11 1 Pet 3:12 1 Pet 3:14 1 Pet 3:15 1 Pet 4:8 1 Pet 4:14 1 Pet 4:18 1 Pet 5:5

Ps 33:15 Ps 33:16, 17 Isa 8:12 Isa 8:13 Prov 10:12 Isa 11:2 Prov 11:31 Prov 3:34

All 19 cases make use of the LXX and not of the Hebrew text (Vahrenhorst 2013, 259). Among the verbal quotations in 1 Peter the Book of Exodus does not occur. The majority are taken from Isaiah9 (10 times), Psalms (5 times, while only quoting from the two Psalms 33 and 117), Proverbs (3 times) and Leviticus (once). It seems that the prophetic writings and wisdom literature are the main sources of the writer. Half of the quotations are introduced with different formulas: 1:16 (διότι γέγραπται [ὅτι]) 1:24 (διότι); 2:3 (εἰ); 2:6 (διότι περιέχει ἐν γραφῇ); 3:10 (γάρ); 4:8 (ὅτι); 4:14 (ὅτι); 5:5 (ὅτι); all other quotations are not marked at all and/or quoted freely. Only twice the classical γέγραπται or ἐν γραφῇ are used by the author (1:16) and indicate a direct quotation (italics by BK). However disappointing the quantitative analysis might be, we cannot draw the conclusion that allusions in general are less significant. Allusions to OT and NT traditions occur more frequently compared with the verbal quotations. It is important to examine their meaning within their specific context. The two comprehensive reference tools for intertextual studies are the text-critical editions of the NT, the Greek New Testament (5th edition) and Nestle-Aland (27th and 28th edition).10 Both differ with regard to their list of quotations and allusions. GNT5 distinguishes three categories of cross references: quotations, definite allusions, and the vague category of literary and other parallels. Whilst GNT5 at least mentions what criteria have been used to compile the first and second list, N-A28 does not discuss the issue in its 9 10

Egan 2016, esp. p. 43 analyses the use of Isa in 1 Pet (1:13–2:10; 2:11–25; 3:1–4:11; 4:12–5:11) in terms of ecclesiology. He regards 1 Pet 1:10–12 as hermeneutical key. Cf.: https://projekte.isbtf.de/easyview_v20/ – The LXX NT project does not mention textcritical difficulties neither in 1 Pet 1:2, nor in 2:9 (https://projekte.isbtf.de/lxx-nt/index .php).

The Reception of Exodus Motifs in the Catholic Epistles

313

introduction at all. Though the 28th edition has a more extensive list of quotations and allusions than previous ones, a methodological reflection is still missing. Nevertheless, both text-critical editions serve as a starting point of our examination. GNT5 classifies Exod 19:6 as verbal quotation in 1 Pet 2:9 and 19:5f; 33:22LXX as allusion or verbal parallel in 2:5. 9. 1 Peter

2:5 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:9b

Index of quotations

19:6LXX

Index of allusions and verbal parallels 19:6 19:5 32:22LXX

N-A27 and N-A28 provide slightly different information. According to the recent 28th edition, only 1:2 alludes to Exod 24:7. In the case of 1 Peter the 27th edition surprisingly mentions more allusions to the OT than the 28th edition. 1 Peter

Allusions

New Testament

1:2 (N-A27; N-A28) 1:2 (N-A27)

Exod 24:7 Exod 24:8

2:9 (N-A27) 2:9 (N-A27)

Exod 19:6 etc. Exod 23:22LXX

None Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; Heb 9:20; 10:29; 13:20 Rev 1:9; 5:10 Rev 1:6

According to the “Loci Citati Vel Allegati” and the text presentation of 1 Peter only allusions to Exod exist. The result comes as a surprise as περιποίησιν11 […] τὰς ἀρετάς in 2:9 are italicised as suspected verbal quotations. All three 11

περιποιέω only occurs in Exod 1:16; 22:17 and 1 Pet 2:9.

314

Kowalski

allusions to Exod12 in 1 Pet also appear in other NT writings: the Passion narrative of the Gospels, in Hebrews and Revelation of John. Thus, the author is indebted to Christian exegesis of Jewish writings (van Rensburg and Moyise 2004, 277). His reading of the OT does not seem to be unique or exceptional. A direct quotation (1 Pet 2:9) from Exodus is only mentioned in GNT5. This text-critical edition is more precise. Allusions to Exodus are only to be found in the beginning of the letter. Both are composite allusions with references to OT and NT traditions. The writer of 1 Peter seems to be rooted in the Jewish-Christian tradition as can be seen below. 1 Peter13 Exodus

Further allusions of 1 Pet 1:2 and 2:914

1:2

Exod 24:7f

2:9

Exod 19:6 etc.; 23:22LXX

Dan 4:1 Rom 8:29; 2 Thess 2:13; Heb 12:24 Isa 42:12; 43:20; 43:21; Mal 3:17 Acts 26:18; 1 Thess 5:4; 2 Cor 4:6; Col 3:12; Eph 5:8; Rev 1:6

Archer and Chirichigno’s OT quotes in the NT only mentions Exod 19:6 (combined with Isa 43:20f; 61:6) as the pretext of 1 Pet 2:9 (Archer and Chirichigno 1983). There might be an echo of Exodus motifs in 1 Pet 1:18–21 as the text uses the terms redeemed (ἐλυτρώθητε) and the Passover Lamb (τιμίῳ αἵματι ὡς ἀμνοῦ ἀμώμου). However, neither the verb λυτρόω nor the noun ἀμνὸς are used in the Exodus narratives which deal with the liberation of Israel. Though the idea might allude to Exodus motifs, verbal parallels cannot be found.15 Hereafter, we will verify if 1 Peter alludes to or quotes from those sections of Exodus which are listed in N-A28 and/or GNT5. We also look for probable further pretexts from the Exodus narrative in 1 Peter. Finally, we will examine and classify probable composite allusions/citations.

12 13 14 15

According to N-A28 Exod 19:6 is not a quotation. According to N-A28. The Greek New Testament also exhibits familiarity with an interpretive tradition that also appears in earlier Christian texts. Many thanks to Susan E. Docherty for directing me to this parallel.

The Reception of Exodus Motifs in the Catholic Epistles

315

Example 1: 1 Peter 1:2

2.2 1 Peter

OT

Traditional Christian exegesis of Exod 24

1:2 κατὰ πρόγνωσιν θεοῦ πατρὸς ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη.16 κατὰ πρόγνωσιν θεοῦ πατρὸς ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη.

Exod 24:3 […] κύριος ποιήσομεν καὶ ἀκουσόμεθα

Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; Heb 9:20; 10:29; 13:20

16

17 18

Exod 24:7 καὶ λαβὼν τὸ βιβλίον τῆς διαθήκης ἀνέγνω εἰς τὰ ὦτα τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ εἶπαν πάντα ὅσα ἐλάλησεν κύριος ποιήσομεν καὶ ἀκουσόμεθα 8 λαβὼν δὲ Μωυσῆς τὸ αἷμα κατεσκέδασεν (‫)זרק‬17 τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ εἶπεν ἰδοὺ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης ἧς διέθετο κύριος πρὸς ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων τῶν λόγων τούτων18

The verse contains some grammatical issues: εἰς has a telic meaning (for the purpose of). The genitive Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is a possessive genitive with respect to obedience (“sprinkling through the blood of Jesus Christ”). Carson 2011, 1017 suggests another solution: He regards obedience and sprinkling as a hendiadys which alludes to Ex. He translates: “Christians have been chosen ‘for (the purpose of) obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ’ – that is, to enter into this new covenant relationship in which we pledge our obedience while the covenant is sealed by Jesus’ death. The genitive Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is, then, possessive, modifying ‘blood’ – a way of referring to Jesus’ death while understanding that this is a new covenant commitment modeled on the type of the old-covenant confirmation ceremony.” ‫ זרק‬is rendered with in κατασκεδάννυμι Exod 24:7 and with ῥαίνω in Exod 29:21 (MT: Exod 29:20) and with προσχέω in 24:6. Moses is sprinkling blood on his people; this motif is closer to 1 Pet 1:2 than Exod 29:21 where blood is sprinkled on Aaron and his sons.

316

Kowalski

(cont.)

1 Peter

OT

Traditional Christian exegesis of Exod 24

Exod 29:21 καὶ λήμψῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐλαίου τῆς χρίσεως καὶ ῥανεῖς (‫)זרק‬ ἐπὶ Ααρων καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν στολὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς στολὰς τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἁγιασθήσεται αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ στολὴ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αἱ στολαὶ τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ δὲ αἷμα τοῦ κριοῦ προσχεεῖς πρὸς τὸ θυσιαστήριον κύκλῳ κατὰ πρόγνωσιν θεοῦ Dan 4:1 Ναβουχοδονοσορ πατρὸς ἐν ἁγιασμῷ ὁ βασιλεὺς πᾶσι τοῖς λαοῖς πνεύματος εἰς ὑπακοὴν φυλαῖς καὶ γλώσσαις τοῖς οἰκοῦκαὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος σιν ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῇ εἰρήνη ὑμῖν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, χάρις ὑμῖν πληθυνθείη καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη.

κατὰ πρόγνωσιν θεοῦ πατρὸς ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη.

According to GNT5 and N-A28, 1 Pet 1:2 alludes only to Exod 24:7f. A critical review leads to two further texts in Exodus which the writer might have had in his mind: Exod 24:3 and Exod 29:21. All three texts refer to the cultic act of blood-sprinkling and the sealing of God’s covenant with Israel. The major difficulty of this assumption is that none of the three pretexts can be classified as verbal quotation or definite allusion. Only a contextual analysis might confirm this composite allusion. 2.2.1 Context in 1 Peter The first allusion to the Book of Exodus can be found in the praescript to the first letter of Peter. It is part of the adscriptio which describes the aforementioned addressees in detail. Apart from their geographical identity of being

The Reception of Exodus Motifs in the Catholic Epistles

317

exiled in the dispersion of the four19 Roman provinces in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia (1:1) the author characterises their identity as Christians.20 Already in his very first verse he calls them ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς. With the adjective παρεπίδημος which is only used 5 times in the entire Greek Bible (Gen 23:4; Ps 38:13; Heb 11:13; 1 Pet 1:1; 2:11) the author of 1 Peter classifies the Christians in the category of the patriarch Abraham who is still homeless in the face of Sarah’s death. Like their Jewish forefathers they live as strangers and sojourners in an exile situation (cf. also 1 Pet 2:11: ὡς παροίκους καὶ παρεπιδήμους). Though the idea of being strangers is rooted in only a very few traditions of the OT and in 1 Peter, it has programmatic meaning in regard to the construction of Christian identity in this letter. The non-identity is the main characteristic of the Christian identity. It is closely connected with the geographical region, the διασπορά (1:1). As it remains undefined in 1 Peter, we might assume an allusion to Israel in the wilderness and the Exodus narrative.21 Paradoxically, the addressees are also called ἐκλεκτός (cf. 1 Pet 1:1; 2:4, 6, 9), an adjective which alludes to the OT theology of election (cf. especially Isa 42:1; 43:20; 45:4; 65:9, 15, 23) which is rooted in the Exodus experience. They receive a new identity with these honorary titles. With his adscriptio the author sets the tone for his letter and his addressees. He creates a Christian identity that alludes to the core identity of Israel. Furthermore, with this Leserlenkungssignal he points his readers to the main tradition of his theology, the OT. 2.2.2 Context in Exod 24 Exod 24:1–8 narrates the account of the Mosaic covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai. It is the most important event in the central part of the Book of Exodus (17:1–24:11). With this cultic act, the liberated Israelites became God’s covenant people. During Israel’s journey through the wilderness God reveals himself to Moses during forty days and nights and delivers his commandments to his people. The highlight is the confirmation of a covenant between him and his people. Leitmotifs which occur more frequently are the following expressions: πᾶς ὁ λαός, τὰ ῥήματα κυρίου, τὸ ὄρος, δώδεκα φυλὰς τοῦ Ισραηλ, ὁλοκαύτωμα, θύω/ θυσία/θυσιαστήριον, σωτήριος, αἷμα, τὸ βιβλίον τῆς διαθήκης/τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης. Moses sprinkles blood on the people as solemn commitment and blood oath. If the people break the covenant, their blood is required.

19 20 21

Bithynia and Pontus were one province at the time of 1 Peter. Feldmeier 1992, 104 states a Christian identity which derives from the negative experience of non-identity. Many thanks to Garrick V. Allen for this very helpful thought!

318

Kowalski

2.2.3 Analysis of the Allusion According to N-A28 1 Pet 1:2 alludes to Exod 24:7f. A comparison of the two texts reveals that both have only one word in common, αἷμα (genitive singular form in 1 Peter, accusative singular form in Exod 24:8), which is frequently used in the entire Greek Bible (496 times, quite often in Lev, Ez, Ex, Hebr, Ps, Rev). The author does not introduce the text from Exodus with an introductory formula. On the basis of this weak result, the allusion has to be reviewed. Usually, one single word does not supply evidence of a probable allusion. However, as could be demonstrated above, V.2 has to be read in the context of the letter heading, 1:1–2, with its programmatic meaning for the entire letter. In particular, the characterisation of the addressees plays an important role in 1 Peter. The following terms point to theological ideas which are closely connected with the Exodus tradition and the core identity of Israel:22 ἐκλεκτός, διασπορά, παρεπίδημος, ἁγιασμός, and αἷμα. Simply because of this contextual analysis, we can assume Exod 24:8 as pretext of 1 Pet 1:2. The allusion does not interrupt the train of thought. Further investigations are necessary. Similarities and differences between the two texts in their specific contexts are necessary. Whilst Moses sprinkles blood upon the people of God which was taken from the sacrificed peace offerings of oxen (in Exod 24:5, 8), Christians are sprinkled with the blood of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:2). 1 Pet 1:2 applies the noun ῥαντισμός which according to Louw and Nida (1989) belongs to the semantic field of “activities involving liquids or masses”, and in fact alludes to the Book of Numbers (19:9, 13, 20, 21). It is only used a second time in the NT by Heb 12:24. Exod 24:6 connects the verb προσχέω with the cultic act. It is frequently used in Lev and Exod but does not occur in the NT. The Hebrew equivalent ‫ זרק‬normally is rendered with περιρραντίζω (Num 19:13, 20) and describes the blood covenant between God and his people (further motifs are the book of the covenant in 24:7: τὸ βιβλίον τῆς διαθήκης). It is a point of discussion among scholars if the verb ῥαίνω in Exod 29:21 might be the OT pretext. It is the second text in the OT in which a crowd of people and the garment of priests (Aaron and his sons) are sprinkled with blood. According to Lutz Doering (2013, 91), this combination points to the theological idea of a common priesthood in 1 Pet 2:5, 9.

22

Stenschke 2009, 103 underlines that the identity markers are honorary titles of Israel which the author now uses for Gentile-Christians. “Es hat den Anschein, dass diesen Gebrauch weder zufällig noch willkürlich ist, sondern dazu dient, diesen relative jungen heidnischen Konvertiten eine neue Identität als Gottes Volk in Kontinuität mit dem Volk Gottes von alters her zu schaffen bzw. diese zu bestärken” (108).

The Reception of Exodus Motifs in the Catholic Epistles

319

The meaning of the symbolic act of sprinkling with blood is completely transformed by the author of 1 Peter. The blood does not derive from sacrificed animals, nor is it connected with the covenant of God with his people. The cultic act of establishing a covenant between God and his people as described in detail in Exod 24:1–8, with sacrifices on an altar by Moses and its rich liturgical elements, was reduced and personalised by the author of 1 Peter. He neither mentions the word διαθήκη in his entire letter, nor sacrificed animals (he only uses the term θυσία once in 2:5 in connection with the adjective πνευματικός). Instead, he mentions two targets: εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμόν – the obedience and sprinkling by Jesus Christ. The idea of obedience can be found in Exod 24:3 but not word-for-word (κύριος ποιήσομεν καὶ ἀκουσόμεθα).23 However, by way of the allusion to Exod 24 the author describes a new covenant, which was established by the crucifixion of Jesus and which differs from the description in Exod 24:1–8 (Brox 1993, 57f). Is it actually possible to identify a clear allusion to Exod 24:7f in 1 Pet 1:2? It seems to be a very narrow path at first sight. H.T. Sidney Page gives three reasons, which support the suspected allusion: 1. Only four times the OT mentions the act of blood-sprinkling: Exod 29:21; Lev 8:30; 14:6f. The ritual is used for purification of an unclean person, for the consecration of priests and only once for the ratification of God’s covenant. It is unlikely that 1 Peter refers to the blood-sprinkling of individuals. His clear reference to the idea of obedience and the reference to the rather large geographical area of his addressees leads to the conclusion that he had Exod 24 in his mind. 2. A sideways glance to the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’ Last Supper (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24) confirms this argumentation. The expression τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης refers to Exod 24:8 (Luke 22:20: τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, and 1 Cor 11:25: τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι differ from this expression). 3. The last reason is given by the context of 1 Pet 1:2. The entire letter underlines “the idea of a Christian community as a new covenant people who are heirs to the privileges of ancient Israel” (Page 2010, 297; cf. 1 Pet 2:9). “The evidence that Exod 24 provides the source for the allusions to obedience and blood-sprinkling in 1 Pet 1:2 is overwhelming, and if 1 Peter is understood in the light of the Exodus narrative, the obedience in view is almost certainly the obedience of human beings rather than of Christ” (Page 2010, 297).

23

Cf. Page 2010, 291–298 whose starting point is Francis Agnew’s interpretation of εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. She argues against his “creative solution” that regards obedience as the obedience rendered by Christ rather than the obedience of believers to Christ.

320

Kowalski

Finally, we need to ask why the author of 1 Peter employs phrases from Exodus with a different contextual meaning. His utilisation of the OT can be described as a creative continuation in the sense of a typological24Christological understanding. The social situation of the Christians is regarded as analogous to Israel’s experience of strangeness and homelessness (Still and Webb 2014, 461). This kind of usage of the OT could be understood as “ecclesiological” or “ecclesio-centric”.25 The author makes a shift from a literal to a metaphorical meaning. It is no longer the blood of sacrificed animals but the blood of Jesus Christ which is sprinkled. It is no longer a mediator, like Moses who sprinkles the blood among the people of God. The blood-sprinkling is also not explicitly described as a cultic act which ratifies the covenant. It seems as if the author of 1 Peter alludes to Exod because of its evocative power.26 Though 1 Peter does not address the sacrifice of Jesus and the new covenant, the allusion to Exod introduces this idea. The two contexts differ and clash. Perhaps it is possible to assume a dialectic (imitation) as there is a struggle between two different theological concepts of salvation. Whilst the blood of sacrificed animals had to be repeated, the crucifixion of Jesus was unique. 2.2.4 Classification of the Allusion The allusion in 1:2 can be classified as composite allusion. The author of 1 Peter might have had Exod 24:3, 7f; 29:21 in mind. According to Adams and Ehorn (2016, 1–16) we might call this a combined allusion as two or more excerpts are joined back-to-back to form a verbal unit that an informed audience would take as coming from a single source. In terms of creativity, the writer is indebted to early Christian traditions. The motifs of blood and covenant also occur in the Passion Narrative, more precisely in the narrative of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. 2.3 Example 2: 1 Peter 2:9 – A Composite Allusion The second example is more complex insofar as the sentence is longer and refers to several OT pretexts. Furthermore, it is disputed if 2:9 contains an allusion or citation (Carson 2011, 1030).

24 25 26

Brox 1993, 105 argues against a typological reading. He refers to 1 Pet 1:12 and states that, according to the writer’s understanding, the prophetic words are a priori made for the Christian community. Many thanks to Joshua J. Coutts for his thoughts on this. Cf. also Fika J. van Rensburg and Steve Moyise 2002, 283 who assume this for the usage of Isaiah too.

The Reception of Exodus Motifs in the Catholic Epistles

321

1 Peter

OT

Traditional Christian exegesis of Exod 24

2:9: ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς· 2:9: ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς·

Exod 19:6: ὑμεῖς δὲ ἔσεσθέ μοι βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα καὶ ἔθνος ἅγιον ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ

Acts 26:18; 1 Thess 5:4; 2 Cor 4:6; Col 3:12; Eph 5:8; Rev 1:6

Exod 23:22: ἐὰν ἀκοῇ ἀκούσητε τῆς ἐμῆς φωνῆς καὶ ποιήσῃς πάντα ὅσα ἂν ἐντείλωμαί σοι καὶ φυλάξητε τὴν διαθήκην μου ἔσεσθέ μοι λαὸς περιούσιος ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐμὴ γάρ ἐστιν πᾶσα ἡ γῆ ὑμεῖς δὲ ἔσεσθέ μοι βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα καὶ ἔθνος ἅγιον ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ἐὰν ἀκοῇ ἀκούσητε τῆς φωνῆς μου καὶ ποιήσῃς πάντα ὅσα ἂν εἴπω σοι ἐχθρεύσω τοῖς ἐχθροῖς σου καὶ ἀντικείσομαι τοῖς ἀντικειμένοις σοι 2:9: ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, Isa 42:12: δώσουσιν τῷ θεῷ βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος δόξαν τὰς ἀρετὰς αὐτοῦ ἐν ταῖς νήσοις ἀναγγελοῦσιν ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς·

322

Kowalski

(cont.)

1 Peter

OT

2:9: ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς· 2:9: ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς· 2:9: ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς·

Isa 43:20: εὐλογήσει με τὰ θηρία τοῦ ἀγροῦ σειρῆνες καὶ θυγατέρες στρουθῶν ὅτι ἔδωκα ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ὕδωρ καὶ ποταμοὺς ἐν τῇ ἀνύδρῳ ποτίσαι τὸ γένος μου τὸ ἐκλεκτόν27 Isa 43:21: λαόν μου ὃν περιεποιησάμην28 τὰς ἀρετάς μου διηγεῖσθαι

27 28 29

Traditional Christian exegesis of Exod 24

Isa 43:20: εὐλογήσει με τὰ θηρία τοῦ ἀγροῦ σειρῆνες καὶ θυγατέρες στρουθῶν ὅτι ἔδωκα ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ὕδωρ καὶ ποταμοὺς ἐν τῇ ἀνύδρῳ ποτίσαι τὸ γένος μου τὸ ἐκλεκτόν 21 λαόν μου ὃν περιεποιησάμην τὰς ἀρετάς μου διηγεῖσθαι29

The only OT pretext which uses γένος and ἐκλεκτός in connection with the people of God. The only OT pretext which uses λαός and περιποιέω in connection with the people of God. Isa 43:20f and 61:6 are mentioned in Archer and Chirichigno; both pretexts can be neglected as the verbal parallels are too small.

The Reception of Exodus Motifs in the Catholic Epistles

323

(cont.)

1 Peter

OT

2:9: ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς· 2:9: ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς·

Isa 61:6: ὑμεῖς δὲ ἱερεῖς κυρίου κληθήσεσθε λειτουργοὶ θεοῦ ἰσχὺν ἐθνῶν κατέδεσθε καὶ ἐν τῷ πλούτῳ αὐτῶν θαυμασθήσεσθε

Traditional Christian exegesis of Exod 24

Mal 3:17: καὶ ἔσονταί μοι λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ εἰς ἡμέραν ἣν ἐγὼ ποιῶ εἰς περιποίησιν30 καὶ αἱρετιῶ αὐτοὺς ὃν τρόπον αἱρετίζει ἄνθρωπος τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν δουλεύοντα αὐτῶ

Context in Exodus 2.3.1 All pretexts from Exodus belong to the central part (17:1–24:11) which thematises God’s self-revelation at Mount Sinai. Core identity markers of God’s people are introduced, so in a sense, Exod deals with core identity markers as the text does not deal with an individual Jewish identity. Context in 1 Peter 2.3.2 1 Pet 2:9 is part of the longer unit 2:1–10 which deals with the people of God as living stones and chosen people. It is a paraenetic exhortation which opens with a strong appeal to put away all malice, guile, insincerity, envy and slander (V.1). The unit can be divided into three smaller subunits: 2:1–3 is an exhortation, VV.4–6 reveals the Christology and ecclesiology with rich metaphors from the OT and a quotation from Isa 28:16, and VV.7–8 draws pastoral-ethical conclusions for the addressees. VV.9–10 is the climax of the entire unit which deals with Christian identity. The OT quotation from Isa 28:16 in V.6 can be 30

The only OT pretext which uses περιποίησις in connection with the people of God.

324

Kowalski

regarded as the central verse of the unit. λίθος is a leitmotif in this text segment (5 times in Pet 2:4, 5, 6, 7, 8) which occurs frequently in the Book of Exodus. Stones are used for different purposes of daily and cultic life. They are closely connected with the breastplate of Aaron (cf. Exod 28) and used for the vestments for the priesthood which bear the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. The term ἀκρογωνιαῖος or κεφαλὴν γωνίας alludes to Isa 28:16 and Ps 117:22. The following theological identity markers are listed in the direct address (ὑμεῖς): V.9: γένος ἐκλεκτόν (Isa 42:20), βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα (Exod 19:6; 23:22LXX), ἔθνος ἅγιον (Exod 19:6; 23:22), λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν; V.10: ποτε οὐ λαὸς νῦν δὲ λαὸς θεοῦ (Hos 1:9; 2:1, 25). The list of designations is solemn and centred around the idea of God’s people (γένος, ἔθνος, λαός). The author uses several OT pretexts: Isa 42:23; 43:20f; Exod 19:6; 23:22f LXX; Mic 3:17; Hos 1:6, 9; 2:25. Direct quotations are taken from Isa 43:21; Hos 1:6, 9; 2:25 whilst the other pretexts can be classified as allusions.31 2.3.3 Analysis of the Composite Citation 1 Pet 2:9 uses two verses from Exod (19:6; 23:22LXX) which have the following sequence of six words in common: ὑμεῖς δὲ […] βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα […] ἔθνος ἅγιον 1 Peter omits the words: ἔσεσθέ μοι, which are used in Exod 19:6 and 23:22LXX, and inserts γένος ἐκλεκτόν from Isa 43:20. The grammatical form of the pretexts remains unchanged. It only occurs three times in the entire Greek Bible. Consequently, we might call this a verbal quotation without an introductory formula. The writer combines the quotation with further pretexts from the OT prophetic tradition (Isa 43:12, 20; Mal 3:17) which all contain the motif of God’s chosen people possessed by God (Mal 3:17 uses the verb αἱρετίζω and the noun περιποίησις). Further expressions are taken from the OT: τὰς ἀρετὰς […] ἀναγγελοῦσιν is slightly copied from Isa 42:12 (ἐξαγγείλητε), τὸ γένος […] τὸ ἐκλεκτόν derives from Isa 43:20, λαόν μου ὃν περιεποιησάμην τὰς ἀρετάς from Isa 43:21. According to GNT5 the terms βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα […] ἔθνος ἅγιον are italicised and the reference to Exod 19:632 is given; the ὑμεῖς δέ seemed too unspecific 31

32

Van Rensburg 2004, 381–396 typifies Hos 1:6–2:1 in 1 Pet 2:10 as heuristic imitation; the author summarises the text. “The author wants to redefine the readers through a new application of the Hosea text, now no longer exclusively on the Israelites, but on all those who believe in Christ.” She follows Steve Moyise’ taxonomy of explicit and implicit quotations, explicit and implicit allusions, and echoes (cf. 384). Exod 23:22 is missing as it only occurs in the LXX.

The Reception of Exodus Motifs in the Catholic Epistles

325

for the editors. N-A28 indicates only an allusion to Exod 19:5; 23:22LXX while Isa 42:21 is regarded as verbal quotation. Interestingly, 1 Peter combines Exod with Deutero-Isaiah who announced a second Exodus (cf. Isa 40:3 et al.). N. Brox underlines that election and holiness are key elements of the argumentation. The ideas of a chosen race and royal priesthood are expressions of God’s favouring election. As the terms are used in the plural form, the author describes a corporate identity (verbs are in the plural form: V.1: ἀποθέμενοι; V.2: ἐπιποθήσατε; V.2: αὐξηθῆτε; V.3: ἐγεύσασθε; V.4: προσερχόμενοι; V.5: ζῶντες; V.7: πιστεύουσιν; V.9: ἐξαγγείλητε; V.10: ἠλεημένοι; ἐλεηθέντες; pronoun 2nd person plural: V.7: ὑμῖν; V.9: ὑμεῖς, ὑμᾶς). He applies the metaphors to his ecclesiology and not to the individual Christian. A contrast to unbelievers can be seen (V.7: ἀπιστοῦσιν δὲ λίθος ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας). It cannot be doubted that 1 Pet 2:9 is a composite allusion. The writer refers to Exod 19:6 etc; 23:22LXX; Isa 42:12, 20; 43:20f; Mal 3:17. Isa 43:20 is the only OT pretext which uses γένος and ἐκλεκτός, Isa 43:21 is the only OT pretext which uses λαός and περιποιέω, and Mal 3:17 is the only OT pretext which uses περιποίησις in connection with the people of God (this text is closer to 1 Peter). Exod 19:6; 23:22LXX are the only OT texts with the expressions βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα and ἔθνος ἅγιον. 1 Pet 2:5 uses a similar phrase: βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα καὶ ἔθνος ἅγιον. Both verses are the only references in the NT with the words ἱεράτευμα and ἅγιον. In contrast to Exod 19:6 the author of 1 Peter combined ἱεράτευμα with βασίλειον and ἅγιον with ἔθνος. This means that the allusion in 2:5 is very weak. Only Isa 42:12 is a very uncertain reference. It might be possible to state that 1 Peter quoted verbally Exod 19:6 as the sequence of 6 words is identical: ὑμεῖς δὲ ἔσεσθέ μοι βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα καὶ ἔθνος ἅγιον ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ (Exod 19:6)

ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς (Exod 19:6)

2.3.4 Classification of the Allusion The allusion in 2:9 can be classified as composite citation without an introductory formula. The author of 1 Peter verbally quotes a sequence of six words from Exod 19:6; 23:22LXX which only occurs three times in the entire Bible. He combines the quotation with another direct quotation from Isa 43:20, 21 and Mal 3:17, the only pretexts which uses the phrase εἰς περιποίησιν in relation to the people of God and, in case of Isa 43:21, combine the expression with

326

Kowalski

τὰς ἀρετάς.33 According to Adams and Ehorn (2016, 1–16) we might call this a combined quotation as two or more excerpts are joined back-to-back to form a verbal unit that an informed audience would take as coming from a single source. The text looks like a jigsaw puzzle: ὑμεῖς δὲ (Exod 19:6) γένος ἐκλεκτόν (Isa 43:20), βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα (Exod 19:6; 23:22), ἔθνος ἅγιον34 (Exod 19:6; 23:22), λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν (Isa 43:21; Mal 3:17), ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς (Isa 43:21) ἐξαγγείλητε (Isa 42:12) τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς καλέσαντος εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς. Though composite citations are the norm, this specific example is very creative and, apart from some similarities with Rev, unique in the NT.35 The verse solemnly affirms the Jewish-Christian identity of the addressees of 1 Peter. The author applies motifs from the Jewish tradition and applies them to the Gentile-Christians. 3

Connected Allusions – Overarching Scriptural Framework?

Did the author of 1 Peter intend to cross-link 1:2 with 2:9 by using pretexts from the Book of Exodus?36 How do the pretexts cohere?37 Both text passages

33

34 35

36

37

Van Rensburg 2004, 393 states that Exod 19:5–6; Isa 43:20–21 are explicit allusions whilst Hos 1:6–2:1 are implicit allusions which can be classified as heuristic imitation that “seeks to define itself through a rewriting or modernising of a past text” (385). Further types of imitation are: reproductive, eclectic, dialectic, exact imitation. The saved individuals are being transformed into the people/nation of God. The coherence of this supports the more questionable first example, making it more likely. Joshua J. Coutts comments on this observation as follows: “This is very interesting! Have you any reflections on why the author combined all these pre-texts? Does he, for instance, deliberately draw on a wide scriptural base to harness the ‘identity’ of the people of God from the whole of the tradition (and not just a single event/moment)? And/or to increase the rhetorical impact? Or do Isa/Mal give him other language he needs that suit his purposes?” Cf. Sommer 2017, 299–317 who talks about “text-text-relations” (301). He states an underlying conceptual framework by way of OT pretexts for the Book of Revelation. Egan 2016, 221 came to the conclusion that “the explicitness of scriptural quotations diminishes over the course of the letter”. Cf. Egan 2016, 9–13 gives a survey of the “organising principles scholars have provided for understanding the role of scripture in 1 Peter?” (p. 13).

The Reception of Exodus Motifs in the Catholic Epistles

327

are the only parts of 1 Peter which deal with Christian identity in any detail.38 1 Pet 1:2 as part of the letter opening is a key verse for the letter; it is thematically linked with 2:1–10 by the idea of Christian identity and allusions to the Book of Exodus. Thus, we can conclude that the Exodus narrative, in particular its central part, is the main source of the writer for his construction of Christian identity. The following aspects of identity in 1:1–2 and 2:1–10 allude to Ex: 1 Peter

Exodus

1:1: ἐκλεκτοῖς (cf. 2:4, 6, 9) 1:1: παρεπιδήμοις (cf. 2:11) 1:1: διασπορᾶς 1:2: εἰς ὑπακοὴν (cf. 1:14, 22; 3:6) 1:2: καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος

The terms are not mentioned in Exod but the concept of a chosen people, of strangeness and homelessness are central. 24:3: ποιήσομεν καὶ ἀκουσόμεθα 24:7 ποιήσομεν καὶ ἀκουσόμεθα 24:8: λαβὼν δὲ Μωυσῆς τὸ αἷμα κατεσκέδασεν τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ εἶπεν ἰδοὺ τὸ αἷμα τῆς διαθήκης ἧς διέθετο κύριος πρὸς ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων τῶν λόγων τούτων Blood taken from animals sprinkled on the people of God 29:2: καὶ λήμψῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐλαίου τῆς χρίσεως καὶ ῥανεῖς ἐπὶ Ααρων Blood taken from animals sprinkled on Aaron and his sons 19:6: ὑμεῖς δὲ 19:6; 23:22LXX: βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα 19:6; 23:22LXX: ἔθνος ἅγιον

2:9: ὑμεῖς δὲ 2:9: βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα 2:9: ἔθνος ἅγιον

The writer of 1 Peter constructs identity for Christians of primarily Gentile origin. He focuses especially on their ethical behaviour that should differ from that of the Gentile majority. In addition, he calls his audience to recognise a

38

Still and Webb 2014, 455 underline that only few scholars pay attention to the issue of identity in 1 Peter.

328

Kowalski

common history, a common future, and common commitments.39 Thereby he creates a Christian story with selected elements from Jewish history. As his audience does not have rich Jewish memories, he focuses on the prophets (Isa), in particular on the restoration of Israel,40 and the wisdom literature (Pss, Prov). The motifs taken from the Exodus narrative do not recall the journey of Israel but rather the central incident, the ratification of God’s covenant (1:2), and the identity of Israel as royal priesthood and holy nation (2:9). 1 Peter adapts Israel’s history to the early Church with an immediacy of the text’s world (Hays 1989, 160). His worldview is rooted in the OT which he regards as Christian scripture.41 The question if the addressees would have understood the OT pretexts might, therefore, be answered with a “yes”. In terms of hermeneutics, 1 Peter’s use of the OT is unreflective.42 Steve Moyise states: “But he does not address any of the issues that arise in applying such texts directly to Christ or the Church. […] The author of 1 Peter simply assumes that his readers accept that key texts like Isaiah chapter 8, 28, 40 and 43, and key terms like ‘chosen people’ and ‘royal priesthood’ speak about Christ or the Church […]” (Moyise 2012, 60). Therefore, Fika J. Van Rensburg describes the dynamic interaction between 1 Peter and the OT as heuristic imitation: “[…] the new work seeks to define itself through a rewriting or modernising of a past text” (Van Rensburg 2004, 385 fn 30). Though her classification as imitation is convincing, the term “identification” comes closer to 1 Peter’s application of OT texts to his addressees. The traditional category of prophecy and fulfilment just as the term continuity (Carson 2011, 1032) cannot be applied to 1 Peter’s usage of Exodus. It is quite natural that the writer also uses the Exodus narrative as a reference work as it is a formative and foundational narrative in which he found meaning for his addressees. He applies the ideas of a chosen people and the covenant between God and his people to his Christian addressees. This selection does not overstrain the mainly Gentile-Christians as it does not recall 39 40

41 42

Still and Webb 2014, 457f. They apply the social identity theory (SIT) of H. Tajfel and John Turner (“How does a person understand itself in relation to a certain group.”) to 1 Peter. They explore the cognitive, evaluative and emotional aspect of SIT. Egan 2016, 72 states: “The story of restoration that undergirds Peter’s gospel proclamation makes it natural to view Isaiah as ‘hermeneutical center of gravity’ with the letter, corresponding significantly with Hays’ finding for Paul.” He further talks about an “extension of the scriptural narrative” which “addresses directly the people” (75). Cf. Still and Webb 2014, 459f. Based on the quotations from Isa they state a Christological reading of the OT (p. 460). I discussed this issue with Garrick V. Allen who disagrees with Steve Moyise’s statement: “Like all NT authors, 1 Pet does not explicitly reflect on the procedures behind the reuse – it’s just done. But this doesn’t mean that it was unreflective.”

The Reception of Exodus Motifs in the Catholic Epistles

329

details of the liberation from Egypt.43 However, Gentiles were familiar with the contours of the Exodus event. The presence of the few references in 1 Peter and their intertwining with prophetic traditions shows that these communities were very aware of Exodus traditions. The concepts of election (ἐκλεκτός: 1:1; 2:4, 6, 9) and holiness (ἁγιασμός: 1:2; ἅγιος: 1:15, 16; 2:5, 9; 3:5; ἁγιάζω: 3:15) belong to the core identity markers in 1 Peter. The addressees are sanctified by the Spirit (1:2). They are called to holiness like God who called them (1:15; cf. also V.16 which quotes Lev 11:44f; 19:2). They are asked to live as a holy priesthood (2:5: εἰς ἱεράτευμα ἅγιον) and called a holy nation (2:9: ἔθνος ἅγιον). We might conclude that the letter opening in 1 Pet 1:1–2 was intended to evoke an overarching scriptural framework for constructing a distinct Christian identity to his audience. The author interweaves several OT texts with NT traditions in order to correlate them with his readers. His text comprehension reveals that he is very familiar with the sacred scriptures of Israel.44 He responds to the experienced strangeness and homelessness of his audience with positive and constructive identity markers from the Exodus tradition. 4

Methodological Reflections (Allusions, Reception, etc.)

1 Peter is a good example for overlooked allusions to the OT. In comparison with the general use of the OT, the historical books and in particular Exod only play a minor role. This result might be explained by the Gentile-Christian audience, which had (little) memory of OT and Jewish traditions. It was a challenging hermeneutical task to integrate them into the biblical tradition and to develop a Christian identity, the identity of God’s people, which is deeply rooted in the OT.45 In terms of methodology, we need to ask how the author of 1 Peter used Exodus. Three issues are remarkable: 1. the importance of the context

43 44 45

Cf. Still and Webb 2014, 463 state: “[…] 1 Peter is able to create a sense of shared history and belonging for his readers. Israel’s narrative provides a cognitive context for the Christian experience.” Cf. Vahrenhorst 2013, 274: “Er [der Autor von 1 Petr] lebt in ihnen [= den Hl. Schriften] und verwendet ihre Sprache und ihre Inhalte – so wie er sie im Licht dessen, was er zu sagen hat, versteht.” Achtemeier 1996, 69 (over-)emphasises this statement: “[…] 1 Peter has appropriated the language of Israel for the church in such a way that Israel as a totality has become for this letter the controlling metaphor in terms of which its theology is expressed.”

330

Kowalski

(cf. Walser 2013); 2. the composite nature of the allusions; and 3. the interconnectedness of the two text passages of 1 Peter by using Exodus. 1. The importance of the context for intertextual studies is emphasised by several scholars.46 However, there is no agreement that an allusion to a single verse or phrase evokes the whole context of the pretext. The occurrence of composite allusions and inner-biblical rewriting processes prove the awareness for contexts. NT authors did not have an atomistic understanding of their sacred sources although atomistic lexical relationships between texts create initial links (e.g., composite citations and allusions). 2. The composite nature of quotations was examined by Sean Adams and Seth Ehorn.47 The editors distinguish between combined citations, conflated citations, and condensed citations. Both are continuing with a project on composite allusions. They strive to work toward a clearer definition of composite allusions. A working definition of allusions might be: a text that is not marked as an allusion (no explicit attribution to an author nor speaker, no use of an introductory formula, no noticeable break in syntax between the allusion and its new literary context). The composite nature of an allusion is given if two or more texts are fused together (the fusing must not include conjunctions; in this case the allusion should not be considered composite). Is the distinction between combined, conflated and condensed citations helpful for defining composite allusions? We also need to ask: how many words must be included from either text passage of a composite allusion? How remote must the second (or third, etc.) text be from the first? Can the second (or third, etc.) text be taken from the same book/chapter? How do minor conflations differ from fuller allusions? In terms of 1 Peter, the two text passages provide classic examples of combined allusions (two or more excerpts are joined back-to-back to form a verbal unit that an informed audience would take as coming from a single source). According to our observations, both allusions have a summative function as they evoke larger passages from the Exodus narrative. 3. The interconnectedness of the two texts passages in 1 Peter is given by two facts: both are the only texts in the letter which deal with Christian identity in a non-ethical and non-paraenetic but affirmative way (2nd person plural forms). Furthermore, both text passages refer to the same Exodus motifs, which describe the theology of God’s people. Constructing 46 47

Cf. Moyise 2006, 24–31; Kowalski 2019, 86–102. Cf. Adams and Ehorn 2018.

The Reception of Exodus Motifs in the Catholic Epistles

331

Christian identity by using Exodus motifs leads to the assumption of an overarching scriptural framework. Bibliography Achtemeier, Paul J. 1996. 1 Peter. A Commentary on 1 Peter. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Adams, Sean A. and Ehorn, Seth M. 2016. Composite Citation in Antiquity. Vol. 1 Jewish, Graeco-Roman, and Early Christian Uses. LNTS 525. London et al.: Bloomsbury. Adams, Sean A. and Ehorn, Seth M. (eds.). 2018. Composite Citations in Antiquity. Volume Two: New Testament Uses. LNTS 593. London et al.: Bloomsbury. Ådna, Jostein. 2010. “Alttestamentliche Zitate im 1. Petrusbrief.” Pages 229–248 in Von der Septuaginta zum Neuen Testament. Textgeschichtliche Erörterungen. Edited by Martin Karrer and Siegfried Kreuzer. ANT 43. Berlin: de Gruyter. Aejmelaeus, Anneli. 2011. “Pauline Heritage in 1 Peter. A Study of Literary Dependence in 1 Peter 2:13–25.” Pages 125–147 in The Early Reception of Paul. Edited by Kenneth Liljeström. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 99. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society. Archer, Gleason L. and Chirichigno, Gregory C. 1983. Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament. Chicago, IL: Moody Press. Brox, Norbert. 1993. Der erste Petrusbrief. EKK XXI. Zürich: Benziger and NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Carson, Donald A. 2011. “1 Peter.” Pages 1015–1045 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by Gregory K. Beale and Donald A. Carson. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Doering, Lutz. 2013. “Gottes Volk. Die Adressaten als ‘Israel’ im Ersten Petrusbrief.” Pages 81–113 in Bedrängnis und Identität. Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. BNZW 200. Berlin: de Gruyter. Egan, Patrick T. 2016. Ecclesiology and the Scriptural Narrative of 1 Peter. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications. Feldmeier, Reinhard. 1992. Die Christen als Fremde. Die Metapher der Fremde in der antiken Welt, im Urchristentum und im 1. Petrusbrief. WUNT 1.64. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Hays, Richard B. 1989. Echoes of scripture in the Letter of Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Himes, Paul A. 2016. “Why did Peter change the Septuagint? A Reexamination of the Significance of the Use of τίθημι in 1 Peter 2:6.” BBR 26:2: 227–244. Jobes, Karen H. 2006. “The Septuagint Textual Tradition in 1 Peter.” Pages 311–333 in Septuagint Research. Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures.

332

Kowalski

Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series 53. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature. Kowalski, Beate. 2019. “Selective Versus Contextual Allusions – Reconsidering Technical Terms of Intertextuality.” Pages 86–102 in Methodology in the Use of the Old Testament in the New: Context and Criteria. Edited by David Allen and Steve Smith. LNTS 579. London: T&T Clark. Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A. (eds.). 1989. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. Vol. 1 Introduction & Domains. New York: United Bible Societies 3. Martin, Troy W. 2007. “The Rehabilitation of a Rhetorical Step-Child. First Peter and Classical Rhetorical Criticism.” Pages 41–71 in Reading First Peter with New Eyes. Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter. Edited by Robert L. Webb and Betsy Bauman-Martin. LNTS 364. London: T&T Clark. Moyise, Steve. 2006. “Respect for Context Once More.” IBS 27: 24–31. Moyise, Steve. 2012. The Later New Testament Writers and Scripture. The Old Testament in Acts, Hebrews, the Catholic Epistles and Revelation. London: SPCK. Page, Sydney H.T. 2020. “Obedience and Blood-Sprinkling in 1 Peter 1:2.” Westminster Theological Journal 72.2: 291–298. Rensburg, Fika J. Van. 2004. “The Old Testament in the Salvific Metaphors of 1 Peter.” Pages 381–396 in The Catholic Epistles and Tradition. Edited by Jacques Schlosser. BEThL 176. Leuven: Peeters. Rensburg, Fika J. van and Moyise, Steve. 2002. “Isaiah in 1 Peter 3:13–17. Applying Intertextuality to the Study of the Old Testament in the New.” Scriptura 80.2: 275–286. Schmidt, Karl Matthias. 2013. “Die Gnade des Leidens. Die Positionierung des Ersten Petrusbriefes im Gegenüber zum Epheser-und zum Jakobusbrief.” Pages 303–324 in Bedrängnis und Identität. Studien zu Situation, Kommunikation und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes. Edited by David S. du Toit. BZNW 200. Berlin: de Gruyter. Sommer, Michael. 2017. “Von politischen Räumen … Das Lied des Mose und die Apokalypsen des frühen Judentums und frühen Christentums.” Pages 299–317 in Mosebilder. Gedanken zur Rezeption einer literarischen Figur im Frühjudentum, frühen Christentum und der römisch-hellenistischen Literatur. Edited by Erik Eynikel and Elisabeth Hernitscheck. WUNT 1.390. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Stenschke, Christoph. 2009. “‘… das auserwählte Geschlecht, die königliche Priesterschaft, das heilige Volk’ (1 Petr 2.9). Funktion und Bedeutung der Ehrenbezeichnungen Israels im 1. Petrusbrief.” Pages 97–116 in Christen, Juden und die Zukunft Israels. Beiträge zur Israellehre aus Geschichte und Theologie. Edited by Berthold Schwarz and Helge Stadelmann. Edition Israelogie 1. Frankfurt: Lang.

The Reception of Exodus Motifs in the Catholic Epistles

333

Still, Todd D. and Webb, Natalie Rose. 2014. “‘Aliens’ among ‘Pagans’, Exiles among ‘Gentiles’: Authorial Strategy and (Social-)Identity in 1 Peter.” Pages 455–471 in T&T Clark Handbook to Social Identity in the New Testament. Edited by J. Brian Tucker and Coleman A. Baker. London: Bloomsbury. Vahrenhorst, Martin. 2013. “Der Text der Septuaginta in den Zitaten des 1. Petrusbriefs.” Pages 259–275 in Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in Early Christianity = Textgeschichte und Schriftrezeption im Frühen Christentum. Edited by Johannes de Vries and Martin Karrer. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 60. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature. Walser, Georg. 2013. Old Testament Quotations in Hebrews. Studies in Their Textual and Contextual Background. WUNT 2.356. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Chapter 16

Song of Moses, Song of the Lamb: The Reception of Exodus in the Revelation of John Rita Müller-Fieberg 1

Exodus in Revelation: A General Survey

The Book of Exodus has often been considered as one of the most influential writings in world literature and world history (cf. Fischer and Markl 2009, 385). But is it also possible to apply this general sense of influence to the particular case of the Book of Revelation? To which degree of concentration and in which ways does John of Patmos enter into dialogue with the Exodus traditions? Regarding some examples of recent research about the reception of the Book of Exodus, Revelation seems to be on the margins of attention. The last book of the Bible is either not considered at all, or at least is outside of the major focus of studies such as Porter’s (2016), who examines only generally the development of OT themes in the NT. The same is true for the studies of Ederer and Schmitz (2017) and Neuber (2018), who concentrate specifically on the role of Exodus itself. Evans (2014) establishes manifold connections between Exodus and NT writings, especially the Gospels and Paul, but leaves Revelation out of consideration altogether.1 As for research about OT influences on Revelation itself, Exodus receives only marginal attention. It is well known that John, who regards himself as a prophet, favours especially the reception of prophetic literature. Several monographs on the author’s use of Ezekiel (Ruiz 1989, Kowalski 2004), Isaiah (Fekkes 1994), Daniel (Beale 1984) and Zechariah (Jauhiainen 2005; Allen 2017) have been written. Indeed, at first glance, narrative parts of the OT seem to be less important to John. There are nevertheless some publications focusing on John’s references to Exodus such as the monographs of Smith Casey (1981) and Adamsen (1992), and the articles of Casey (1987) and Kowalski (2016). Sommer analyses broader portions of Revelation in relation to the Exodus tradition. He considers especially the reception of the plague narratives in his dissertation (Sommer 2015), as well as the covenant motif (Sommer 2016). 1 An exception is presented by Gärtner and Schmitz (2016), who offer an article about Exod 19–20 in Revelation (Sommer 2016).

© Rita Müller-Fieberg, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471122_018

Song of Moses, Song of the Lamb

335

Other contributions are limited to one single motif or passage of text, and will be mentioned further below. During the last decades, the awareness has increased that John’s Revelation as “a mosaic of the OT” (Kowalski 2016, 32) or “Textnetzwerk” (Sommer 2015, 1) cannot be interpreted just from the perspective of one single OT book. Recent findings (e.g. Sommer 2015; 2016) underline once more the interdependence of OT references in the Apocalypse. It will require further studies to analyse in which way and why John combines this large variety of OT passages and motifs, and we can expect in any case that his reuse of Exodus theology will be marked by further intermediary receptions of the Exodus text in other biblical and extrabiblical writings. In this short chapter, however, we will be limited to Exodus references in Revelation, but these should be taken as just one voice in a big multivocal choir with John as a conductor who is engaged in Jewish scriptural traditions of the late Second Temple period, and who writes “a scribal Apocalypse” (Allen 2017, 2). Even if its author does not employ any introductory formulae for formal citations, John’s Revelation is the NT writing with more allusions to Scripture than any other. The appendix of the current edition of Nestle-Aland (N-A28) lists quite a high number of Exodus allusions in Revelation (cf. the overview in Kowalski 2016, 35–37), though besides the lack of criteria concerning the definition of allusion, such a purely quantitative survey (on the basis of connections between a single or only a few verses) can just give only a first impression of John’s reception of Exodus. Further references to important theological motifs and narrative patterns of the Exodus tradition should also be taken into consideration in order to gain a reliable and comprehensive overview. Some of the crucial aspects concern the perception of God in Exodus and the Book of Revelation. The theme of God’s absolute and everlasting sovereignty is brought up in the Dreizeitenformel ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος (Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8; with variations in 11:17; 16:5; 17:8) as a development of the divine selfdeclaration ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν in Exod 3:14. In continuity with the Exodus context, the embedding of the Dreizeitenformel presents God as the mighty deliverer who takes care of his people (cf. Wengst 2015, 116). At the same time and in accordance with the Exodus tradition as well (cf. the mention of worship as the aim of liberation from Egypt in Exod 3:12), the placement of Rev 4:8; 11:17; 16:5 in the midst of heavenly liturgy gives an impression of God’s holiness and worship as the only appropriate reaction of his people (cf. Kowalski 2016, 47–48). The intermediate hymnic passages and the visions of heavenly reality focus on God’s presence among his people as another central feature of John’s approach to God with reference to Exodus (cf. Lichtenwalter 2009, 412). Apart from several mentions of σκηνóω (Rev 7:15; 12:12; 13:6; 21:3), the term σκηνή is used twice and provides certain links to biblical Shekinah theology

336

Müller-Fieberg

(cf. Exod 25:8; 29:45–46; 40:34–38). Rev 15:5 pictures ὁ ναὸς τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, following especially Exod 40:34–35 (cf. Tóth 2014, 278). Even if the reference of Rev 21:3 to the temple vision of Ezek 37:26–28 might be stronger, ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων alludes to the desert tent of the Exodus traditions as well, and by combining the two concepts creates a magnificent eschatological perspective of hope. God dwelling among his people here is closely associated with covenant theology and the wording μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων extends the idea of God’s people to all nations. God’s activity in judgment is especially well represented and announced in the three plague septets of the Apocalypse (the opening of the seals in Rev 6:1– 8,1, the blowing of trumpets in Rev 8:2–11:19 and the pouring out of bowls in Rev 15:1–16:21). These listings (with 15 allusions indicated in N-A28 concerning Rev 8 and 16 in particular) show very clear references to the Egyptian plagues of Exod 7–11 (cf. Dohmen 2015, 265). Sommer’s dissertation (2015) points out that John’s reading of Exodus was mediated by the prophetic literature. John’s reception of the Egyptian plagues could be read in the light of the Day of the Lord tradition which is especially behind Rev 6:12–17 and interwoven in his reuse of the plagues in the lists of trumpets and bowls. Even if every Exodus plague is mentioned at least once (cf. Kowalski 2016, 38), the literary shortening from ten to seven plagues (which can already be observed in Pss 78 and 105) may be understood as kind of reversal of the seven days of creation (cf. Wold 2011, 253–255). In any case, in initiating the plagues, John portrays God as the sovereign Lord of his creation. Placing the Exodus plagues in a global eschatological context, Revelation tends to describe them in a more far-reaching way. The cosmic expansions of Rev 8:8–9 (cf. Exod 7:20), Rev 8:12 (cf. Exod 10:21), increased once again in the third septet (e.g. Rev 16:3–4, cf. Exod 7:7–21), are only some selected examples of this movement toward universalisation. On the other hand, God’s activity towards his people consists in his protection and providence. Just like God protects his people with its livestock and land from the Egyptian plagues (e.g. Exod 9:4–7, 26; 10:23; cf. Smith Casey 1987, 25), the believers are sealed for protection from the plagues (Rev 7:1–8; 9:4). And as a kind of parody, John shows the supporters of the beast wearing its mark as well (Rev 13:16; 14:9, 11; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4). The Passover narrative (Exod 12:1–12:51) contains another important image of safeguarding that John the Seer seems to take up in his Apocalypse: the idea of deliverance through blood (Rev 1:5; 5:9; 7:14) evokes the smearing of the blood of the Paschal lambs on the Hebrews’ doorposts. And the slaughtered Lamb (the title for Christ preferred by John) in the midst of the heavenly throne evokes the Paschal lamb (Rev 1:5; 5:6; cf. Giesen 2012, 195). The motif of God’s liberation and his care in the wilderness connects the Exodus experience with the woman of Revelation 12 to whom two wings of a great eagle are given (cf. Exod 19:4) to enable her to fly into the

Song of Moses, Song of the Lamb

337

wilderness where she is nourished. And in Rev 2:17, the promise of the (hidden) manna (cf Exod 16:31–35) is given to the one who overcomes. As for the relation between God and his people, the motif of the Sinai covenant is alluded to in Rev 11:19, where the Seer places the ark of the covenant within the heavenly temple. And even if the universalised formula of the covenant in Rev 21:3 (cf. the plural form λαοί) has other direct references like Lev 26:12 and Ezek 37:27, the Exodus narrative remains the fundamental background. Furthermore, in Rev 21:7 John takes up the promise of inheritance (cf. κληρονομέω in Exod 23:30 with regard to the promised land) as the epitome of eschatological salvation. According to Sommer (2016, 301–305), the covenant theology of Exod 19:4–6 also gleams through the cultic designation of the Christian community as kings and priests in Rev 1:6; 5:10 and 20:4–6. The last magnificent vision of Revelation in Rev 21:1–22:5 promises the everlasting reign of God’s people (Rev 22:5) and combines this eternal governance with the direct view of God’s face (Rev 22:4) – a complete union with God that is impossible even for Moses (cf. Exod 33:18–23) before the time of eschatological fullness. The paradigmatic references listed above show a wide range of different connections between the Exodus tradition and the Book of Revelation from analogies of theological motifs and narrative patterns to allusions with literal parallels. In what follows, I would like to take a closer look at this complex interaction of Exodus references by analysing a specific passage of the text. For this in-depth analysis I shall select an example of John’s reception hitherto unconsidered in my overview and which offers a broad spectrum of reception patterns as well as important theological insights: the song of God’s servant Moses and of the Lamb (Rev 15:3–4). This is the only text in the Book of Revelation where the name of the protagonist of the Exodus narrative is mentioned. It recalls the important two songs of Moses in the Pentateuch. I shall focus on the Red Sea song in Exod 15, all the more so because this chapter of Exodus is reused by John several times and in different contexts. The song of Moses in Deut 32:1–43 (cf. the comparison with Rev 15:3–4 in Tilly 2009) and other OT passages will be included in our considerations where necessary. 2

“The Song of Moses, the Servant of God, and the Song of the Lamb” (Rev 15:3): A Prominent Example of John’s Approach to Exodus Motifs

The song by the Red Sea of Moses and Miriam in Exod 15:1–21 and the song in Rev 15:3–4 are the first and the last songs of the Bible; the word ᾠδή occurs for the first time in Exod 15:1 (LXX) and for the last time in Rev 15:3 (cf. Stare

338

Müller-Fieberg

2004, 130). As such, these two songs constitute a kind of hymnic framework for God’s saving power through history. The following considerations include the verses the song is surrounded by (Rev 15:1–8) and can be based, among others, on the prior contributions of Moyise (2004), Stare (2004), Gallus (2008), and especially on the detailed analysis of Son (2017). Starting with the question of the existence of linguistic allusions, we shall study similar narrative elements and motifs and compare the structure and literary as well as historical context of the two songs. The analysis will be rounded off by a conclusion also with a view to John’s reception of Exodus in general. 2.1 Allusions on a Linguistic Level The audition of the hymn in Rev 15:3b–4 is arranged in three parts: the parallelismus membrorum of Rev 15:3bc praises the great and amazing deeds and the just and true ways of God. God is addressed as κύριε ὁ θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ and ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν. A rhetorical question (τίς οὐ μὴ φοβηθῇ, κύριε, καὶ δοξάσει τὸ ὄνομά σου;) is followed by a statement of several reasons, in Rev 15:4 introduced by ὅτι and concerning God’s holiness and righteousness as well as the worship of all nations. What might be “puzzling” (Moyise 2015, 201) at first sight is that despite the explicit attribution of the song to Moses, the song in Rev 15:3–4 seams to bear no apparent similarity to Exod 15:1–18. Apart from very subtle links between the two songs (e.g. the common use of terms like θαυμαστός in Exod 15:11; Rev 15:3 and δόξα/δοξάζω in Exod 15:6–7, 11; Rev 15:4; cf. Song and du Rand 2009, 96), we cannot find any allusions on a linguistical level.2 Other OT passages are much closer to the wording of the song. Psalm 86:8–10 especially shows in its LXX version3 a high verbatim agreement with Rev 15:3–4 (cf. Moyise 2004, 350) concerning the worship of all nations before God the Lord, his name, and the greatness of his works. Rev 15:3 offers literal parallels with the song of Moses in Deut 32:4 where God’s faithfulness and justice are praised. Some other parallels to be mentioned here are Ps 145:17 and Jer 10:6–7. 2.2 Thematic Similarities In contrast to the observations on a linguistic level, the thematic contacts between Exod 15:1–21 and Rev 15:1–8 are much stronger. Using categories of 2 Given the definition of “allusion” as “the accordance of more than one single word” (Kowalski 2020, 90) on the level of a sentence. 3 The LXX text is predominantly used for reasons of better comparability. But we have to keep in mind that John was certainly familiar with Hebrew and Aramaic as well. Cf. Yarbro Collins 2017, 31.

Song of Moses, Song of the Lamb

339

narrative criticism and comparing narrative elements between the two chapters, Son identifies “obvious similarities in the main characters, the spatial setting and the plot” (Son 2017, 10). There are certainly some characters in Rev 15:1–8 without parallels in Exodus (the seven angels, one of the four living creatures). But there is a comparability between the singers of the song, Moses with the children of Israel (Exod 15:1) and Miriam the prophetess with all the women (Exod 15:20) on the one side and the overcomers (Rev 15:2: τοὺς νικῶντας) on the other side. Both of them sing a song of victory and deliverance accompanied by musical instruments (Exod 15:20: timbrels; Rev 15: κιθάρας τοῦ θεοῦ like in Rev 5:8). As for direct antagonists, one could say that Pharaoh and his elite military force who are totally destroyed (Exod 15:4–5) correspond to the conquered beast with his image, mark and the number of his name (Rev 15:2). The complete defeat of the oppressive rulers of Egypt and Babylon/ Rome underlines the theme of liberation from oppression as an essential link between the two songs. But while the Exodus song describes the tremendous fear of other hostile nations when faced with God’s intervention on behalf of his people (Exod 15:14–16),4 Rev 15:4 evokes the Völkerwallfahrt motif with the worship and pilgrimage of all nations. Regarding the spatial setting both victorious singing scenes are located near the sea. The hymn of praise sung by the Israelites takes place directly after crossing the Red Sea. And John’s vision speaks of “a sea of glass mingled with fire” (Rev 15:2, with comparison particle: ὡς θάλασσαν ὑαλίνην μεμιγμένην) and the conquerors of the beast standing on this sea. This image is difficult to interpret (cf. the discussion in Lichtenberger 2013, 210). It could be an echo of the congealed deeps in the heart of the sea related to the wrath of God (Exod 15:8); in which case the fire would represent divine judgment. At the same time, it seems to refer to the sea of glass like crystal before the throne in the vision of the heavenly throne (Rev 4:6). There is a significant difference in the spatial as well as in the temporal setting between the embedding of the two songs: the song beside the Red Sea is sung after the wonderful liberation from the Egyptians and considers the future history of the people (Exod 15:12–18). As one of several hymnic interludes in Revelation, the vision and audition of the song in Rev 15:3–4 is located in heaven (even if the distress of the believers and the judgement on earth is still an ongoing process). The temple of the tent of 4 The passage Exod 15:14–16 is also twice alluded to in Rev 11:11, 18 with an accent on the riot and fear of God’s saving power for the benefit of his worshippers (Exod 15:16: ἐπιπέσοι ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς φόβος καὶ τρόμος//Rev 11:11: φόβος μέγας ἐπέπεσεν ἐπὶ τοὺς θεωροῦντας αὐτούς and Exod 15:14: ἤκουσαν ἔθνη καὶ ὠργίσθησαν//Rev 11:18: καὶ τὰ ἔθνη ὠργίσθησαν). Rev 11 and Rev 15–16 also share common themes with Deut 31–32, a typical example of “multiple utilisation” of OT intertexts in Revelation. Cf. Sommer 2017, 481–483.

340

Müller-Fieberg

witness in Rev 15:5 is also presented as a heavenly place (ὁ ναὸς τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ). The appearance of the temple motif in connection with the song as well as with the last seven plagues in Rev 15:5, 8 is another important link to Exod 15. Exod 15:17 looks towards the future (earthly) history of Israel and promises on the basis of temple and Zion theology the dwelling of God with his people in his sanctuary (cf. Exod 15:13) on the mountain of his inheritance (εἰς ὄρος κληρονομίας σου).5 The scene of both songs is marked by the victory over the oppressors. God who has liberated those who belong to him is praised and worshipped. The two passages show a close relationship concerning their theocentric view and several analogies in their perception of God (his uniqueness and salvation, his miraculous and redeeming work, the importance of his name, as also the wrath of God against the oppressors – even if this motif is more widely developed in the Exodus song). But while Exod 15:3 calls God a κύριος συντρίβων πολέμους and the whole song presents him destroying the enemies, the song of Rev 15:3–4 (even if it is integrated into a scene of judgement) emphasises the glory of God provoking the worship of all nations (cf. Stare 2004, 134). What the last verse of the Exodus song proclaims – the eternal reign of the Lord (Exod 15:18: κύριος βασιλεύων τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ ἐπ᾽ αἰῶνα καὶ ἔτι) – gets a new and universalised focus in Rev 15:3 where God, the κύριος and παντοκράτωρ, is praised as ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν. 2.3 Structure and Context The poetic songs of Exod 15 (in its two-fold form) and Rev 15 are both integrated in a prose text. In the Exodus song of Moses the direct communication with God (Exod 15:6–17) is framed by testimonies about him (Exod 15:1–5, 18) whereas the Revelation song is continuously addressed to God. As Miriam is not mentioned in the designation of the song in Rev 15:1, we shall now concentrate on the structure of Exod 15:1–18. The song of Moses is divided into two parts with V.11 and V.18 as the apogee of each part. Exod 15:1–11 looks back on the Red Sea salvation. The event is reviewed once again with emphasis on the power, greatness and glory of God. At the same time, this part of the song reflects in detail the selfish purposes of the Egyptian enemy (Exod 15:9), the wrath of God (Exod 15:7–8) and his power of destruction by making full use of the elements of his creation. Consequently, the rhetorical questions in Exod 15:11 point to the uniqueness among the gods, to God’s glory and holiness 5 The allusion to the Shekinah theology of Exod 40:34–35 is here even clearer. Rev 15:5, 8 and Exod 40:34–35 are interconnected by the phrase ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου and by the combination of the motifs of temple and glory (δόξα) (cf. Tóth 2014, 277).

Song of Moses, Song of the Lamb

341

and to his marvelous deeds. The second part of the song (Exod 15:12–18) addresses the future way of God’s people as a whole (cf. especially Exod 15:13). The motif of fear and dread of other hostile nations even mentioned by name remains of some importance (Exod 15:14–16). But this part culminates in the hope for the common dwelling in the temple (Exod 15:17) and for God’s eternal kingdom (Exod 15:18) – an orientation towards the future history of the people that invites further receptions. Compared to Exod 15, the song in Rev 15:3–4 is much shorter.6 There are large overlaps regarding the basic motif of deliverance and worship as well as regarding the presentation of God. In contrast, the Revelation song is solely praise for God; it contains no remarks of triumph over the enemies and integrates all nations in God’s adoration (Rev 15:4). The most striking parallel is the double rhetorical question at the centre of each song aiming at the incomparability of God (Exod 15:11: τίς ὅμοιός σοι ἐν θεοῖς, κύριε; τίς ὅμοιός σοι, δεδοξασμένος ἐν ἁγίοις …; Rev 15:4: τίς οὐ μὴ φοβηθῇ …). A remarkable parody of Exod 15:11 is to be found in Rev 13:4, where the proskynesis before the beast who rises out of the sea is commented upon by a similar double rhetorical question (τίς ὅμοιος τῷ θηρίῳ καὶ τίς δύναται πολεμῆσαι μετ’ αὐτοῦ;). While the characterisation of God as a man of war (Exod 15:3) is a sign of his power to liberate his people, the ἐξουσία of the beast is just given to oppress the believers. The larger literary context of Exod 15:1–21 is the first big section of the book (Exod 1–18) where the way out of the Egyptian slavery towards God’s mountain Sinai is told. Afterwards, Sinai is the centre of the second section (Exod 19–40, with a focus on covenant and sanctuary). The songs of Exod 15 are presented as the immediate hymnic response to the salvation at the Red Sea (Exod 13:17– 14:31) which is narrated as the final culmination of the liberation process. The departure into the wilderness as a step into the unknown with Sinai as destination directly follows. The historical context of Exod 15 is not easy to identify. On the one hand, the Book of Exodus certainly represents some real living conditions under the influence of the Egyptian Pharaohs in the late Bronze Age. On the other, the Exodus has become the founding history of Israel and its original experience with God. It has been received as a fundamental document of Israel’s identity and theology in the light of later experiences of oppression and foreign domination until the completion of the writing process during the Persian period (and beyond). The song of Moses and the Lamb in Rev 15:3–4 is situated within the apocalyptic main body of Revelation (Rev 4:1–22:5) at the beginning of the last 6 Son 2017, 94 concludes that “Rev 15:3–4 summarises and paraphrases Exod 15:1–18” as is usual in other intertestamental apocalyptic literature, too.

342

Müller-Fieberg

and hardest of three plague series, the vision of the seven bowls (Rev 15:1–16:21) from which arise the further visions of eschatological judgement and fullness. It is part of the heavenly prelude (15:1–8) to the bowl plagues in Rev 16 that show several similarities to the Egyptian plagues. In this connection, Rev 15–16 shows both sides of the Exodus theme, deliverance as well as judgment. As concerns the historical background, John has to face the claims of the Roman Empire for loyalty of all subjects probably at a time when the Emperor Domitian (AD 81–96) intensified the imperial cult. The seven letters written to the churches in Asia Minor, especially the letters to Ephesus (Rev 2:1–7), Pergamum (Rev 2:12–17) and Thyatira (Rev 2:18–29), demonstrate the conflict between daily life in a pagan society and Christian witness. In this crisis situation with the permanent danger of social marginalisation, repression and even persecution, John requires a clear decision. This decision is not only a political one. It pertains to every area of life, requires fidelity to God’s commandments and his covenant and prohibits all forms of idolatry.7 John contrasts the magnificence of the new Jerusalem, the bride of the Lamb (Rev 21:1–22:5), as the fulfillment of all hopes to Rome as Babylon the great prostitute, seductive in her splendor (Rev 17:1–18:24), but doomed to be destroyed. He urges his recipients to join a “new Exodus in which God’s faithful people are brought out of Babylon into a land of promise” (deSilva 2014, 471): ἐξέλθατε ὁ λαός μου ἐξ αὐτῆς ἵνα μὴ συγκοινωνήσητε ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐκ τῶν πληγῶν αὐτῆς ἵνα μὴ λάβητε (Rev 18:4; cf. Exod 11:8). 2.4 Exod 15:1–18 in Rev 15:1–8: A Paradigm for John’s Reception of Exodus In various respects the way John the Seer refers to the song(s) of Exod 15:1–21 can be considered representative for his reception of the Exodus theme in general. First of all, the title in Rev 15:3 could be understood as a kind of reading instruction for the song in Rev 15:3–4 and offers at the same time a hermeneutical key for the understanding of John’s particular accentuations. As the only hymn in Revelation with a concrete title at all (cf. Stare 2004, 121), Rev 15:3 offers a juxtaposition of two designations (τὴν ᾠδὴν Μωϋσέως τοῦ δούλου τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν ᾠδὴν τοῦ ἀρνίου). Moses is defined as the servant of God, a frequent title for him in the OT which strikingly appears also at the end of the Red Sea narration when Israel sees the great work of the Lord and believes him and his servant Moses (Exod 14:31). Even if the words of the song in Rev 15:3–4 do not themselves correspond to the songs of Moses (neither in Exod 15:1–18, nor in Deut 32:1–43), the mere mention of Moses and the topic of triumph connected 7 Cf. Sommer 2017, 316, who regards the song of Moses in the context of Rev 15–16 as part of the reception history of Deut 31–32 in the early Jewish and early Christian apocalypses.

Song of Moses, Song of the Lamb

343

with his name and title is able to evoke certainty and consolation (cf. Hieke 2015, 285). The author of Revelation adds as a second designation the Lamb, using his preferred title for Christ once again (a title with some roots in the Exodus narrative, too, as we have seen). The role of the Lamb in this scene is interpreted in different ways. Because there are some hymns in Revelation addressed to (God and) the Lamb (Rev 5:9–13; 7:10; 11:15 et al.), the Lamb in unity of action with God is sometimes supposed to be also the addressee of the following song (in the meaning of a genitivus objectivus; cf. the translation das Lied zu Ehren des Lammes in the revised Einheitsübersetzung 2016). But the juxtaposition with Moses in Rev 15:3 could also favour the interpretation that the Lamb Jesus, who is saved by God out of death, praises God here with Moses side by side for his life-giving power (cf. Stare 2004, 132). In any case, the attribution of the song to the Lamb sheds new light on the Exodus perspective and has a new focus on the salvation and redemption in Christ. This christological perspective defines also the use of all other OT motifs in Rev 15:1–8 and elsewhere. Rev 15:1–8 develops important themes in accordance with the rest of the Book of Revelation and in continuity with the OT context and theology of Exod 15. Both texts and both books reflect – historically and literally – a situation of powerlessness, a perspective from below. Based on this background, they design a strictly theocentric concept of salvation. Because of his incomparable power and holiness, God is worshipped as the unique deliverer from oppression. John must be aware of this Exodus context; he participates in it as a matter of course and certainly counts on readers with appropriate biblical knowledge. At the same time, he undertakes a recontextualisation in the eschatological horizon of the final redemption by Christ. Now God is praised for his just and true deeds for Jesus and his followers against the hostile powers. In a conflict of cosmic extent, God is the παντοκράτωρ and the βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν (Rev 15:3). In this universalised apocalyptic perspective, salvation is located not beside the Red Sea on earth, but in heaven. And the focal point of salvation is not only Israel as the empiric people of God towards its specific enemies, but the Christian community from all nations that will be gathered in the eternal dwelling of God. Up to this point one might even agree with deSilva’s statement that Exodus “provides the conceptual framework for the NT’s ultimate vision of deliverance” (deSilva 2014, 471): “No NT author draws upon the Exodus as forthrightly and pervasively as John the Seer, for whom God’s future actions on behalf of God’s People and against their enemies are cast in the shape of a grander Exodus on a global scale” (deSilva 2014, 470). But we should be careful here in two ways. First of all, John is just one link in a long chain of inner- and

344

Müller-Fieberg

extra-biblical rewriting.8 The Exodus motif was retold and reused not only by various OT and NT traditions, but also by several intertestamental writings (for an overview see e.g. Son 2017, 17–58). With regard to the chosen example of Exod 15 and Rev 15, the forward-looking orientation of the second part of the Red Sea song (Exod 15:12–18) provides an invitation to further re-readings. The prophetic expectation of a new Exodus and a new Moses who will lead it is in some intertestamental sources combined with the hope for a Messiah (e.g. 1 Macc 14:41; T. Levi 8:14–16; 1 QS IX, 11). Moreover, we know the correspondences established between Jesus and Moses in the NT writings (e.g. Matt 1–2; 5–7). So John’s reuse of the Exodus traditions might have been regarded “as organically growing out of the Old Testament itself” (Beale 1998, 128) and the further intermediary writings. Secondly, we should not overestimate the importance of Exodus and set its influence on John the Seer as dominant. The search for literary allusions in the song in Rev 15:3–4 has already demonstrated that John combines OT pretexts of different origins – a creative technique that can be observed in every chapter of Revelation. Intertextual studies as listed above have shown that the author of Revelation refers extensively to prophetic writings especially. He artfully interweaves the different strands of promises and creates an image of supreme eschatological hope. 3

Exodus in Revelation: Some Remarks on a Methodological Challenge

As “the only book to incorporate allusions in almost every verse, while never explicitly quoting Scripture” (Moyise 2015, 201) the book of Revelation poses some difficulties for its interpreters to detect and classify allusions reliably. Linguistic allusions (with at least two literal accordances; cf. Kowalski 2004, 61) are perhaps the most easily identified. But the analysis of the Exodus background of Rev 15:1–8 is just one example for the finding that John does not need verbatim allusions to be very close to an OT pretext. We have seen that the reference to Moses in the title is enough to evoke the entire literary and historical context of Exod 15. Other types of allusions are in Revelation often of greater importance even though they may not fulfil the linguistic standards and sometimes remain less explicit. It is therefore essential to identify thematic and theological allusions, common narrative patterns, as well as structural and 8 Neuber 2018, 10–11 describes this phenomenon as “eine Transformationskette, denn viele Wiederaufnahmen des Motivs beziehen sich auf frühere Transformationen, die sie vorfinden. (…) Jede Generation, jede Gemeinschaft erzählt ihre eigene Exodus-story.”

Song of Moses, Song of the Lamb

345

stylistic parallels (e.g. the rhetorical question in Exod 15:11 and Rev 15:4), as has been attempted here in the analysis of Rev 15:1–8 and the Exodus song in Exod 15. Summarising and generalising the findings, we could conclude that the Book of Exodus is an indispensable intertext of the Revelation of John. To focus on the reception of Exodus in Revelation was our task here and such a concentration on a single OT writing may help us to appreciate its special contributions. But doing so, we have to be aware of the limited perspective to be gained through the lens of a single book. The fact that most of the recollections of the OT are combined into groups as composite allusions requires a multi-perspective approach (cf. Sommer 2015, 18) with respect to the interaction of the OT pretexts. The present reflections need to be complemented then as Fletcher advocates, foregrounding the reading of “combined voices”, rather than “isolating single voices” as an important approach to reading. (Fletcher 2017, 28). The question how reception could be understood with regard to John the Seer has first of all to focus on author and text: “We can observe John at work but cannot reconstruct what was in his mind as he worked” (Yarbro Collins 2017, 31). Therefore, we cannot know exactly whether his reuse of the Exodus material happens consciously or unconsciously. I would prefer not to make an either-or decision for the whole book. The author obviously participates in the conceptual world of the entire Bible and shares the common traditions. At the same time text analyses suggest that the Seer is guided by special OT main texts and uses his pretexts with their original context in mind (cf. Müller-Fieberg 2003, 147–148). It remains to be mentioned that processes of reception are always processes of acquisition and transformation (Neuber 2018, 11: “Aneignungs- und Transformationsprozesse”) with feedback effects on the received texts and motifs. Every new reception creates new potentials of meaning. With his idea of dialogical intertextuality, S. Moyise emphasises “that the influence between texts is two-way: the new affects the old while the old affects the new” (Moyise 2002, 424). He gives the example of Rev 5:5–6 where the Lion of the tribe of Judah and the slaughtered Lamb are juxtaposed. On the one hand, this christological reinterpretation of the traditional messianic expectation by using the metaphor of the slain lamb transforms our reading of the OT passages. On the other hand, the lamb in Revelation “has also picked up many of the traits of the warrior lion” (Moyise 2004, 349; cf. Rev 6:16; 14:10; 17:14). Another example is the juxtaposition of the song of Moses and the song of the Lamb in Rev 15:3. The choice of this double title for one and the same song points to Exod 15 as the hermeneutical background of the NT song even though the wording of Rev 15:3–4 reflects other OT passages. Conversely, it is a new challenge with

346

Müller-Fieberg

some fruitful tensions to read the song of Moses in Exod 15 with John’s universalised apocalyptic perspective in our minds. Thus the “dialogical nature of biblical interpretation leads to the conclusion: “No one who has read Revelation will look at Exodus in quite the same way” (Moyise 2020, 179). Bibliography Adamsen, Georg S. 1992. Exodusmotiver i Johannes’ Åbenbaring. Århus: Teoltryk. Allen, Garrick V. 2017. The Book of Revelation and Early Jewish Textual Culture. SNTS.MS 168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beale, Gregory K. 1984. The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John. Lanham: University Press of America. Beale, Gregory K. 1988. John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation. JSNT.S 166. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Casey, Jay S. 1987. “Das Exodusthema im Buch der Offenbarung vor dem Hintergrund des Neuen Testaments.” Concilium 23: 22–28. deSilva, David Arthur. 2014. “Exodus, the. II. New Testament.” in EBR 8: 467–471. Dohmen, Christoph. 2015. Exodus 1–18. HThK.AT 2.1. Freiburg and Basel: Herder. Ederer, Matthias and Schmitz, Barbara (eds.). 2017. Exodus. Interpretation durch Rezeption. SBB 74. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk. Evans, Craig A. 2014. “Exodus in the New Testament. Patterns of Revelation and Redemption.” Pages 440–464 in The Book of Exodus. Composition, Reception and Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Christopher A. Evans and Joel N. Lohr. VT.S 164. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill. Fekkes, Jan. 1994. Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation. Visionary Antecedents and their Development. JSNT.S 93. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press. Fischer, Georg and Markl, Dominik. 2009. Das Buch Exodus. NSK.AT 2. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk. Fletcher, Michelle. 2017. Reading Revelation as Pastiche. Imitating the Past. LNTS 571. London: Bloomsbury. Gallus, Laszlo. 2008. “The Exodus Motif in Revelation 15–16.” AUSS 46: 21–43. Gärtner, Judith and Schmitz, Barbara. (eds.) 2016. Exodus. Rezeptionen in deuterokanonischer und frühjüdischer Literatur. DCLS 32. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter. Giesen, Heinz. 2012. “Der Christustitel ‘Lamm’ und sein religionsgeschichtlicher Hintergrund.” Pages 173–196 in Die Johannesoffenbarung. Ihr Text und ihre Auslegung. Edited by Michael Labahn and Michael Karrer. ABiG 38. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.

Song of Moses, Song of the Lamb

347

Hieke, Thomas. 2015. “Die literarische und theologische Funktion des Alten Testaments in der Johannesoffenbarung.” Pages 271–290. Poetik und Intertextualität der Johannesapokalypse. Edited by Stefan Alkier and Thomas Hieke and Tobias Nicklas. WUNT 1.346. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Jauhiainen, Marko. 2005. The Use of Zechariah in Revelation. WUNT 2.199. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Kowalski, Beate. 2004. Die Rezeption des Propheten Ezechiel in der Offenbarung des Johannes. SBB 52. Stuttgart: Verlag Stuttgarter Bibelwerk. Kowalski, Beate. 2016. “‘Let my people go, that they may serve me’. Exodus Motifs in the Revelation of John.” Henoch 38: 32–52. Kowalski, Beate. 2020. “Selective Versus Contextual Allusions: Reconsidering Technical Terms of Intertextuality.” Pages 86–102 in Methodology in the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Context and Criteria. Edited by David M. Allen and Steve Smith. LNTS 579. London: T&T Clark. Lichtenberger, Hermann. 2013. Die Apokalypse. ThKNT 23. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Lichtenwalter, Larry Lee. 2009. “Exodus and Apocalypse: Deliverance Then and Now.” Pages 393–418. In Christ, Salvation, and the Eschaton. Essays in Honor of Hans Karl LaRondelle. Edited by Daniel Heinz, Jiri Moskala and Peter M. van Bemmelen. Andrews University: Berrien Springs. Moyise, Steve. 2002. “Intertextuality and Biblical Studies: A Review.” Verbum et ecclesia 23: 418–431. Moyise, Steve. 2004. “Singing the Song of Moses and the Lamb: John’s Dialogical Use of Scripture.” AUSS 42: 347–360. Moyise, Steve. 2015. The Old Testament in the New. An Introduction. Second Edition. Revised and Expanded. T&T Clark Approaches to Biblical Studies. London: Continuum. Moyise, Steve. 2020. “Concluding reflection.” Pages 178–186 in Methodology in the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Context and Criteria. Editey by David M. Allen and Steve Smith. LNTS 579. London: T&T Clark. Müller-Fieberg, Rita. 2003. Das ‘neue Jerusalem’ – Vision für alle Herzen und alle Zeiten? Eine Auslegung von Offb 21,1–22,5 im Kontext von alttestamentlich-frühjüdischer Tradition und literarischer Rezeption. BBB 144. Berlin and Wien: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Neuber, Carolin. 2018. “Ein altes Motiv immer neu  – Zu den Transformationen des Exodus. Eine Einführung.” Pages 7–19 in Der immer neue Exodus. Aneignungen und Transformationen des Exodusmotivs. Edited by Carolin Neuber. SBS 242. Stuttgart Verlag Stuttgarter Bibelwerk. Porter, Stanley E. 2016. Sacred Tradition in the New Testament. Tracing Old Testament Themes in the Gospels and Epistle. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

348

Müller-Fieberg

Ruiz, Jean-Pierre. 1989. Ezechiel in the Apocalypse. The Transformation of Prophetic Language in Revelation 16,17–19,10. EHS.T 376. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Smith Casey, Jay. 1981. Exodus Typology in the Book of Revelation. Louisville, KY: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Sommer, Michael. 2015. Der Tag der Plagen. Studien zur Verbindung der Rezeption von Ex 7–11 in den Posaunen-und Schalenvisionen der Johannesoffenbarung und der Tag des Herrn-Tradition. WUNT 2.387. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Sommer, Michael. 2016. “Bund, Tora und eklektizistische Identitätsbildung. Zur Rolle von Exod 19–20 in der Apokalypse des ‘Christusanhängers’ Johannes.” Exodus. Rezeptionen in deuterokanonischer und frühjüdischer Literatur. Edited by Judith Gärtner and Barbara Schmitz. DCLS 32. Berlin and Boston, MA: de Gruyter. Sommer, Michael. 2017. “Von politischen Räumen … Das Lied des Mose und die Apokalypsen des frühen Judentums und frühen Christentums.” Mosebilder. Gedanken zur Rezeption einer literarischen Figur im Frühjudentum, frühen Christentum und der römisch-hellenistischen Literatur. Edited by Michael Sommer, Erik Eynikel and Veronika Niederhofer and Elisabeth Hernitscheck. WUNT 1.390. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Sommer, Michael. 2017. “‘Show me the way to heaven?’ Der Leser und die Konstruktion der Raumstrukturen der Offenbarung des Johannes.” Pages 473–486 in New Perspectives on the Book of Revelation. Edited by Adela Yarbro Collins. BEThL 291. Leuven: Peeters. Son, Hayoung. 2017. Praising God beside the Sea. An Intertextual Study of Revelation 15 and Exodus 15. Eugene, OR: Wipfandstock 2017. Song, Young M. and du Rand, Jan A. 2009. “The Story of the Red Sea as a Theological Framework of Interpretation.” Verbum et ecclesia 30: 94–98. Stare, Mira. 2004. “Das neu gesungene Lied des Mose (Offb 15,3b–4).” Pages 121–138 in Führe mein Volk heraus. Zur innerbiblischen Rezeption der Exodusthematik. Festschrift Georg Fischer. Edited by Simone Paganini, Claudia Paganini and Dominik Markl. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Tilly, Michael. 2009. “Die Offenbarung des Johannes und das Moselied (Dtn 32).” Pages 453–464 in Beiträge zur urchristlichen Theologiegeschichte. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus. BZNW 163. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Tóth, Franz. 2014. “Die Schechina-Theologie in der Johannesapokalypse.” Pages 257– 304 in Das Geheimnis der Gegenwart Gottes. Zur Schechina-Vorstellung in Judentum und Christentum. Edited by Bernd Janowski and Enno Edzard Popkes. WUNT 2.318. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Wengst, Klaus. 2015. “Protest als Zeichen und Widerspruch. Soziale und politische Aspekte im Gottesbild der Offenbarung.” Pages 113–128 in Das Gottesbild in der Offenbarung des Johannes. Edited by Martin Stowasser. WUNT 2.397. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Song of Moses, Song of the Lamb

349

Wold, Benjamin G. 2011. “Revelation 16 and the Eschatological Use of Exodus Plagues”, Pages 249–266 in Eschatologie/Eschatology. The Sixth Durham-Tübingen Research Symposium. Eschatology in Old Testament, Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Tübingen, September, 2009). Edited by Hans-Joachim Eckstein, Christof Landmesser and Hermann Lichtenberger. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Yarbro Collins, Adela. 2017. “The Use of Scripture in the Book of Revelation.” Pages 12–32 in New Perspectives on the Book of Revelation. Edited by Adela Yarbro Collins. BEThL CCXCI. Leuven: Peeters.

Conclusion Beate Kowalski and Susan E. Docherty At the end of this volume, the various strands presented in the chapters will be brought together. How and why are the Exodus motifs examined? Why is it helpful for understanding how Exodus has been read? How do these studies move the scholarly conversation forward? An international and ecumenical team of experts in their specific field explored the reception of Exodus in the Hebrew Bible and Septuagint, in Early Jewish Literature, and in the New Testament. Due to space constraints, not all relevant literature could be explored. It would be worthwhile, for example, to conduct further research into the Exodus motif in the Books of Judges and Ruth, as well as further prophetic and wisdom books. Also the use of Exodus motifs in Jewish and Christian liturgy, in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, in literature, music and arts would be a worthwhile follow-up project. Some current social justice issues (e.g. human trafficking, migration, religious fundamentalism) have been explored in terms of the Exodus traditions but this aspect of the reception of Exodus could certainly be developed further. The analysis of the interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures in later writings always involves methodological challenges, such as dealing with texts which are extant only in a fragmentary (e.g. the Qumran scrolls) or third-hand form (e.g. the Hellenistic Jewish compositions cited in Eusebius). There is no certainty about the exact nature and wording of the scriptural sources which these authors employed, and it is not always clear whether they are drawing on wider tradition rather than the Exodus material itself. Each contributor was asked to address these methodological issues within their chapter, but were at liberty to approach them in their own way. They were also allowed the freedom to explore different kinds of scriptural re-use, depending on the nature of their focus text(s), including direct citations, allusions, narrative patterns and themes. Recent discussions about detecting the Exodus citations and intertextual methodology (Adams, Sean A./Ehorn, Seth M., Composite Citations in Antiquity, Vol. I/II, London 2016/2018 and David Allen/Steve Smith (eds.), Methodology in the Use of the Old Testament in the New, London 2019) are applied and critically reflected. The avoidance of atomistic views on allusions, the awareness of very complex allusions and quotations (intertwining references to Exodus and other OT writings) and of overall scriptural frameworks characterise the unique approach of this project. The impact of

© Beate Kowalski and Susan E. Docherty, 2022 | doi:10.1163/9789004471122_019

Conclusion

351

social and historical location on scriptural interpretation has become apparent in all chapters. The reception of Exodus is a process of acquisition and transformation. The Exodus is an important factor for the larger trajectory of Jewish-Christian literary production. Exodus is not one motif among others but the central, foundational and identity-forming motif which connects both the Jewish and Christian traditions. It is connected with biblical figures (e.g. Moses and Miriam, Judith), religious institutions (e.g. the covenant), liturgical traditions (e.g. the psalms), major theological ideas (God as liberator, meaning of memory, battle of YHWH, divine wonders, election, entering the land, identity formation, prophecy and eschatology). The wider field of rabbinic writings as well as the writings of famous Christian theologians and mystics could be explored in the future. The individual studies in this volume combine to highlight the diverse and creative ways in which Exodus traditions and motifs have been adapted over the centuries in order to make their message of God’s liberating power continually relevant for new audiences and circumstances. We hope that this series of essays will make a real contribution to the field of intertextuality and the reception of the Bible.

Index Selected entries are mainly motifs from the Exodus narrative and methodology. Aaron 11, 16, 19, 23, 27, 29, 33, 39, 45, 66, 79, 80, 101, 128, 129, 131, 141, 143, 152, 153, 166, 176, 179, 188, 212, 213, 234, 315, 318, 324, 327 Actualisation 3, 78, 82, 85 Aliens 105, 310, 333 Allegory 85, 171, 186 Allegorical 5, 28, 34, 124, 140, 174, 179, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 197 Allusion Clear allusion 63, 193, 211, 319 Combined allusion 320, 330 Composite allusion 6, 195, 196, 314, 316, 320, 325, 330, 345 Complex allusion 264, 350 Contextual allusion 220, 332, 347 Connected allusion 326 Definite allusion 312, 316 Direct allusion 215 Explicit allusion 211, 212, 326 Fuller allusion 330 Implicit allusion 324, 326 Incorporate allusion 344 Interconnectedness of allusions 6, 66, 330 Intertextual allusion 221 Linguistic allusion 338, 344 Literary allusion 344 Multiple allusion 194 Overlooked allusion 329 Possible allusion 156, 157, 275 Probable allusion 273, 318 Proposed allusion 309 Questionable allusion 271 Suspected allusion 319 Verbatim allusion 344 Angel (of God/of the Lord/of presence/of death) 87, 154, 167, 176, 203, 204, 205, 209, 210, 226, 255, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 272, 279 Apocalyptic 1, 85, 90, 135, 207, 208, 274, 341, 343, 345, 346 Apollonius of Tyana 164, 170, 180, 181

Apostle 254, 255, 256, 257, 262, 267, 268, 303 Aristobolus 176 Art 1, 18, 36, 49, 54, 72, 97 Artapanus 4, 118, 119, 120, 121, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 170, 171, 173, 176, 179, 260 Barkhi Nafshi hymns 4, 150, 151, 154, 160, 161 Battle 4, 52, 62, 85, 101, 129, 155, 167, 193, 262 Battle of Yhwh 3, 98, 102, 105, 106, 107, 110, 351 Cosmic battle 85, 101 Divine battle 24, 101, 106, 110 Beast 79, 80, 336, 339, 341 Blood of the covenant/blood ritual/oath  233, 234, 240, 241, 279, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 327, 332, 336 Book of Giants 4, 139, 140 Bread 94, 167, 188, 211, 234, 258, 275, 276, 278, 279, 280, 281, 283, 296, 297 Bush (burning) 35, 132, 143, 165, 166, 177, 193, 207, 211, 225, 231 Christian exegesis of Jewish writings 314, 315, 316, 321, 322, 323 Christological/christocentric 292 Christological alteration 206 Christological exegesis/perspective/ reading/understanding 273, 285, 320, 328, 343 Christological reinterpretation 345 Christological reflection 292 Citation Combined citation 226, 227, 228, 246, 330 Composite citation 226, 247, 249, 309, 324, 325, 326, 330, 331, 350 Condensed citation 330, 331 Conflated citation 330 Direct citation 350 Explicit citation 223, 224, 227, 246, 288, 301, 303 Focal citation 294

354 Citation (cont.) Formal citation 6, 335 Juxtaposing citation 273 Unique citation 280 Clement of Alexandria 119, 120, 121, 122 Codex Bezae 5, 206, 253, 264, 266, 267 Commentary, Christian 2, 5, 11, 12, 25 Commentaries, Jewish 2, 5, 11, 12, 18, 32 Comparative Analysis 11–35 Contemporary 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 11, 23, 24, 28, 56, 118, 119, 124, 126, 129, 132, 133, 134, 138, 142, 145, 147, 150, 152, 153, 154, 222, 225, 242, 245, 251, 264, 288, 292, 293, 294, 296, 297, 302, 303, 304, 305 Context 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 51, 52, 59, 64, 68, 70, 75, 80, 84, 105, 108, 111, 123, 124, 128, 129, 130, 132, 136, 138, 144, 145, 148, 154, 155, 158, 162, 163, 181, 211, 221, 224, 232, 233, 234, 237, 239, 240, 242, 256, 257, 259, 260, 267, 268, 271, 275, 277, 280, 284, 287, 288, 296, 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 315, 318, 322, 323, 324, 325, 335, 336, 341, 342, 344, 346, 347, 349, 350, 351 Covenant 3, 24, 34, 43, 46, 77, 83, 89, 98, 102, 102, 107, 108, 109, 110, 147, 150, 152, 197, 198, 204, 228, 233, 234, 239, 296, 306, 315, 317, 320, 334, 337, 341, 342, 351 Another covenant 48 Ark of the covenant 42, 337 Blood of the covenant 233, 234, 240, 241 Book of the covenant 109, 233, 318 Covenant enactment/ritual 109, 233 Covenant code/formula 107, 203 Covenant obligation 227 Covenant with David 48, 54 Covenant with Israel 69, 235, 316, 318 Covenant with Moses 48 Covenant people (God’s) 24, 44, 47, 97, 139, 144, 207, 262, 289, 316, 317, 318, 319, 323, 324, 328, 329, 330, 336, 337, 341, 343 Covenant theology 336, 337 First covenant (with the forefathers, ancestors) 152, 153, 213 God’s covenant 47, 235, 271, 316, 317, 318, 319, 328 New covenant 34, 111, 153, 154, 233, 290, 307, 315, 319, 320

Index Old covenant 299, 315 Ratification of the covenant 233, 234, 285, 319, 328 Sinai covenant 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 149, 153, 191, 225, 227, 285, 317, 337 Creation 3, 20, 40, 77, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 93, 99, 101, 102, 128, 143, 144, 145, 148, 161, 184, 208, 243, 305, 336, 340 Crossing of the Sea 11, 18, 22, 27, 40, 120, 131, 144, 147, 213, 219, 276, 290, 319, 320 Culture 1, 4, 23, 58, 71, 78, 114, 121, 128, 129, 134, 135, 168, 169, 180, 195, 217, 218, 223, 247, 346 Cultural 17, 49, 58, 119, 120, 121, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 198, 224, 266 Damascus Document 4, 151, 152, 153, 154, 159, 161, 292 Daniel/Danielic 21, 37, 91, 129, 208, 346 Darkness 75, 79, 80, 125, 167, 178 David/Davidic 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 57, 149 Dead Sea Scrolls 4, 71, 90, 93, 137–161, 218, 284, 285 Decalogue 40, 82, 107, 110, 185, 227, 229, 247 Deliverance 4, 6, 11, 14, 17, 22, 23, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 63, 96, 197, 139, 143, 144, 146, 201, 208, 209, 215, 216, 226, 236, 250, 255, 258, 258, 259, 260, 261, 263, 269, 271, 274, 279, 281, 282, 283, 336, 339, 341, 342, 343, 347 Desert 16, 23, 30, 43, 57, 65, 87, 88, 98, 104, 105, 161, 174, 187, 202, 206, 207, 211, 215, 225, 245, 255, 276, 283, 336 Demetrius 4, 118, 119, 121, 122, 130, 132, 134, 135, 167 Diaspora 4, 42, 52, 118, 120, 121, 126, 127, 130, 131, 133, 134, 135, 179, 198 Digressions 76, 77, 79, 81 Diptych 75, 79, 80 Divinity 130, 234 Divine man 172, 178 Divine name 19, 20, 30, 33, 131, 272, 274, 283 Divine revelation 6, 16, 138, 139, 142, 271, 273, 282 Drama/dramatical/dramatically/dramatic/ dramatist 5, 119, 120, 126, 128, 134, 136, 167, 186, 235, 236, 250, 253, 278

Index Drown 17, 27, 31, 122, 167 Dwell 102, 124, 126, 128, 139, 148 Ecclesiology/ecclesial 309, 312, 320, 323, 325, 331 Egypt/Egyptian Egypt 1, 3, 11, 16, 19, 23, 30, 31, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 47, 49, 52, 53, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 66, 67, 69, 70, 74, 81, 89, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 149, 151, 152, 156, 162, 164, 165, 167, 171, 174, 175, 176, 177, 184, 186, 193, 197, 201, 202, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 215, 216, 222, 227, 234, 239, 250, 255, 256, 259, 270, 301, 303, 329, 335, 339 Egyptian 3, 4, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 30, 34, 67, 79, 80, 81, 82, 86, 96, 118, 119, 121, 123, 124, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 171, 172, 175, 231, 255, 260, 262, 264, 336, 340, 341, 342 Egyptian diaspora 4, 134 Election 3, 37, 39, 42, 43, 45, 98, 102, 103, 110, 126, 141, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 155, 317, 325, 329, 351 Elim, Oasis at 120, 130, 131, 133, 134 Eschatology 3, 77, 85, 85, 87, 89, 207, 218, 249, 351 Eschatological/eschatologically 6, 20, 21, 28, 34, 76, 78, 87, 88, 155, 208, 230, 234, 235, 263, 273, 274, 282, 302, 303, 307, 336, 337, 342, 343, 344, 348 Ethiopia 127, 181 Ethiopians 129, 165, 166, 168, 171 Eusebius 119, 120, 121, 122, 185, 260, 266, 350 Exagoge, The 118, 119, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 132, 136, 167, 197, 198 Exilic, pre- and post- 40, 41, 42, 42, 44, 45, 97, 110, 114, 149, 150, 205 Exilic and postexilic uses 36, 37 Ezekiel the Tragedian 80, 118, 119, 124, 136, 163, 167 Fatherhood 102, 103, 110 Festival 4, 45, 127, 134, 147, 215, 234, 279, 280, 280

355 Firstborn 43, 44, 80, 125, 149, 167, 208, 211, 214, 256 Fly 79, 80, 125 Forty (years/days) 138, 146, 206, 207, 211, 215, 291, 317 Foundation/foundational 1, 6, 21, 97, 100, 110, 118, 130, 201, 242, 250, 252, 282, 328, 351 Framework 37, 102, 208, 234, 251, 252, 258, 259, 302, 309, 348 Allegorical framework 186 Conceptual framework 7, 309 Eschatological framework 155 Hymnic framework 338 Institutional framework 37 Reading framework 186 (Overarching) scriptural framework  6, 309, 326, 329, 331 Frog 80, 83, 125, 166 Genesis 1, 3, 4, 5, 14, 35, 42, 54, 94, 114, 132, 181, 183, 184, 185, 190, 194, 195, 197, 231, 288, 307 Golden Calf 82, 110, 287, 293, 294, 295, 296, 299, 301, 303 Healing 131, 143, 144, 224, 236, 237, 239, 240, 241, 242, 246, 247, 254 Hellenisation 118, 170 Hellenism 130, 135, 168, 180 Hellenistic 11, 58, 59, 81, 85, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 163, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 178, 179, 218, 251, 254, 350 Herod Agrippa I 258 History/historical/historically 1, 2, 4, 6 Historical summary 140 Historical-critical method/reading 2, 36, 49 Reception history 1, 2, 25, 27, 36, 46, 49, 50, 54, 178, 309, 342 Historiography 79, 119, 121, 130, 133, 136, 174, 178, 179 Horeb 17, 100, 231, 291 Hosea 36, 38, 39, 98, 103, 103, 110, 112, 114, 209, 210, 219, 220, 221, 325 Human Trafficking 222, 225, 243, 246, 249, 350

356 Hymn/hymnic 1, 2, 7, 12, 14, 17, 19, 22, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 40, 41, 42, 51, 52, 65, 70, 94, 154, 155, 156, 168, 194, 335, 338, 339, 341, 342, 343 Barkhi Nafshi hymns 4, 150, 151, 154, 160, 161 Hymnal anamnesis 3, 78, 83, 84, 88 Hymnic framework 338 Qumran hymns 150 Victory hymn 29, 65 Hyssop 279 I am 207, 219, 231, 232, 271, 272, 274, 274, 286 I am the Lord 17, 40 Identity 1, 3, 23, 43, 44, 90, 136, 224, 227, 242, 255, 333 Identity, Christian 1, 6, 23, 317, 326, 327, 329, 330, 331 Identity, Corporate 325 Identity, Geographical 316 Identity, Gentile 251, 297 Identity, Israelite/Jewish 71, 97, 114, 135, 179, 251, 297, 318, 323, 326, 328, Identity, prophetic 23 Identity markers 310, 318, 323, 324, 329 Identity, theories 328 Identity-formation 2, 283, 351 Identity-forming 282, 351 Idol/Idolatry/Idolatrous/idolaters 20, 50, 77, 81, 82, 104, 126, 271, 289, 290, 293, 294, 295, 297, 303, 305, 306 Inner-biblical exegesis/rewriting process 204, 330 Interpretive traditions 206, 217, 278 Intertextuality 2, 5, 197, 220, 296, 305, 307, 309, 332, 345, 347, 351 Jewish Antiquities, The 80, 120, 168, 169, 171, 174, 175, 180, 181, 182, 266 Jewish reading 3, 78, 85 Journey/journeyed 29, 105, 120, 126, 155, 162, 168, 215, 227, 257, 285, 291, 292, 317, 328 Judith 3, 16, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 351 Korah 171 Lamb of God 281, 285 Land of Israel 105, 118, 126, 134, 211

Index Law(s) 48, 84, 109, 111, 118, 122, 123, 127, 128, 137, 153, 154, 171, 183, 184, 185, 201, 214, 229, 232, 254, 270, 271, 272, 274, 287, 292, 299 Liberation 1, 98, 100, 101, 104, 106, 118, 127, 201, 211, 213, 222, 224, 225, 227, 234, 235, 239, 241, 242, 243, 245, 246, 247, 261, 314, 329, 335, 336, 339, 341 Literary Literary genre 4, 75, 76, 78, 79, 88, 122, 124, 151, 185, 310 Literary structure 3, 75, 76, 81, 82, 86, 90, 91 Literary-critical approach/appraisal/ reading/point of view 2, 36, 45, 46, 49 Liturgy 11, 18, 25, 40, 45, 49, 51, 159, 335, 350 Livestock 166, 336 Logos 177, 269, 271, 272 Magic/magician/magical 4, 85, 131, 132, 133, 136, 178, 193 Malachi 204, 205, 206, 219, 220, 226, 271 Manetho 60, 121, 175, 176, 186 Manna 3, 79, 80, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 93, 94, 95, 133, 156, 211, 275, 276, 277, 278, 283, 300, 337 Massah/Meribah 287, 291 Memory 37, 99, 161, 215, 217, 230, 236, 329, 351 Metaphor/metaphorical(ly) 17, 24, 33, 75, 102, 103, 110, 113, 132, 184, 195, 196, 198, 208, 263, 281, 296, 320, 323, 325, 238, 332, 345 Method 5, 36, 57, 163, 186, 224 Historical-critical method/reading 2, 36, 49 Literary-critical approach/appraisal/ reading/point of view 36, 45, 46, 49 Methodological 2, 3, 6, 58, 74, 117, 119, 138, 151, 157, 181, 202, 216, 219, 224, 246, 269, 270, 289, 296, 302, 313, 329, 332, 344, 350 Methodologically 158, 305 Methodology 3, 6, 7, 96, 164, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 291, 309, 329, 332, 347, 350 Reception history 1, 2, 25, 27, 36, 46, 49, 50, 54, 178, 309, 344

Index Midrash/midrashically/midrashic 3, 18, 19, 20, 23, 27, 50, 74, 85, 86, 88, 94, 130, 160, 163, 178, 261, 267, 293, 294, 303, 305, 307 Midrashic rewriting 3, 86, 88 Miracle 12, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27, 32, 33, 101, 106, 107, 136, 141, 143, 157, 165, 166, 167, 169, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 208, 221, 236, 255, 281 Miraculous 23, 29, 57, 131, 133, 143, 144, 168, 177, 178, 179, 212, 213, 239, 250, 258 Miraculous(ly) 167, 260, 261, 264, 276, 300, 340 Miriam 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 57, 64, 65, 66, 128, 139, 141, 164, 181, 337, 339, 340 Modern Slavery 242, 249 Moses 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 39, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 73, 79, 87, 92, 98, 99, 100, 101, 109, 110, 111, 114, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126, 127, 128–130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 141, 142, 143, 148, 149, 152, 153, 154, 157, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168–174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 201, 207, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 219, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 231, 232, 233, 234, 240, 241, 246, 247, 255, 256, 260, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 276, 277, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 288, 290, 291, 297, 298, 299, 301, 303, 304, 306, 307, 315, 317, 318, 319, 320, 337, 338, 339, 342, 343, 344, 351 Moses’ nativity story 3, 66 Music 1, 11, 14, 15, 16, 23, 27, 29, 35, 36, 49, 52, 55, 84, 93, 244, 339, 350 Myth/mythology/mythical/mythological/ mythically/mythologisation 3, 24, 25, 28, 38, 40, 41, 96, 97, 98, 101, 102, 110, 121, 129 Narrative 1, 3, 5, 23, 24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 41, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 69, 70, 108, 114, 117, 118, 120, 130, 131, 138, 142, 157, 184, 193, 201, 202, 206, 209, 212, 213, 214, 215, 217, 220, 226, 227, 231, 233, 236, 237, 238, 240, 250, 254, 256, 258, 261, 264, 269,

357 272, 281, 284, 285, 287, 288, 289, 292, 296, 298, 299, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 328, 331, 334, 335, 337, 338, 339 Androcentric narrative 238 Contained narrative 187 Exodus narrative(s)/calf narrative/ wilderness narrative/plague narrative(s)/Passover narrative 1, 3, 4, 23, 58, 63, 86, 110, 118, 119, 120, 121, 129, 133, 141, 183, 185, 193, 201, 202, 209, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 239, 240, 259, 271, 272, 275, 276, 277, 287, 288, 294, 296, 297, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 309, 310, 314, 317, 319, 327, 328, 329, 330, 334, 336, 337, 338, 343 Feeding narratives 230 Foundational narrative 1, 328 Gospel narrative 212, 216 Healing narrative 239, 240 Herod narrative(s) 181, 210 Infancy (or childhood) narratives 209, 212, 213, 215, 216 Interlocking narratives 224, 246 John’s narrative 272, 275, 279, 280, 283, 284 Joseph narrative 35 Judith narrative 57, 61 Luke’s narrative 262 Mark’s narrative 209 Matthew’s narrative 211 Narratival 288, 294, 295, 296, 297, 300, 301, 304 Narrative movement 211 Narrative pattern/structure 70, 242, 344, 350 Passion narrative/Last supper narrative 220, 279, 297, 314, 320 Patriarchal narrative(s) 140 (Parallel) narrative structure 57, 58, 63 Plagues narrative 99, 101, 122 Prose narrative(s) 142 Scriptural/traditional narrative(s) 118, 121, 122, 123, 125, 127, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 Theophany narrative 225 Torah narrative(s) 252 Night (of Passover/of watching) 51, 63, 164, 168, 255, 256, 258, 259, 263, 317 Nile 22, 37, 79, 80, 125, 129

358 Oasis of Elim 120, 126, 130, 131, 133 Oppression/Oppress/Oppressor/Oppressive  1, 21, 24, 28, 31, 33, 34, 48, 63, 68, 69, 70, 79, 80, 84, 98, 99, 104, 120, 123, 124, 129, 140, 255, 256, 261, 339, 340, 341, 343 OT tradition 310, 315, 316, 321, 322, 323 Passover 11, 45, 85, 122, 127, 128, 167, 215, 225, 234, 250, 256, 258, 259, 260, 261, 263, 266, 275, 278, 279, 280, 281, 296, 297, 314, 336 Paschal Lamb 6, 281, 289, 296, 297, 305, 336 Passover Lamb 278, 279, 280, 281, 314 Paul 6, 150, 220, 249, 251, 254, 270, 283, 287–307, 328, 331, 334 Pentateuch 16, 28, 29, 36, 46, 51, 59, 86, 110, 112, 113, 114, 128, 132, 138, 140, 184, 185, 193, 195, 196, 233, 325, 328, 337 Pestilence 125, 166 People People of God 84, 147, 198, 252, 255, 256, 257, 265, 266, 282, 297, 318, 320, 322, 323, 325, 326, 327 People of Israel 18, 61, 62, 133, 143, 144, 154, 155, 226, 255, 256, 261, 263, 265 Pharaoh 13, 17, 20, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 41, 43, 44, 59, 63, 64, 66, 67, 81, 106, 121, 123, 124, 125, 128, 129, 131, 138, 139, 141, 143, 144, 155, 164, 165, 166, 166, 167, 169, 171, 187, 188, 193, 207, 211, 214, 222, 246, 261, 301, 301, 339, 341 Philo of Alexandria 27, 76, 78, 80, 85, 88, 123, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 177, 179, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 274, 277, 278, 283, 292 Philonic 4, 195, 197, 298 Philo’s works 162, 184 Pseudo-Philo 80 Philostratus 164, 170 Pillar of cloud/fire 14, 79, 80, 112, 142, 148, 167, 201, 259 Plagues 3, 4, 53, 57, 59, 60, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 97, 99, 101, 119, 120, 122, 125, 131, 132, 143, 144, 147, 166, 168, 178, 208, 270, 336, 340, 342, 349

Index Plato/Platonic 122, 164, 170, 171, 172, 174, 192 Portrayal of God 11, 17, 19, 27, 31, 33 Portrayal of Jesus 235, 246 Prayer 18, 21, 28, 32, 39, 57, 59, 62, 64, 72, 76, 102, 143, 147, 148, 149, 157, 160, 161, 168, 259, 274 Aaron’s prayer 79, 80 Festival prayers 4, 147 Hannah’s prayer 213 Jeremiah’s prayer 106 Judith’s prayer 59, 61, 64 Liturgical prayer 142 Mary’s prayer 213 Personal prayers 2, 48 Prayer for wisdom 76, 88 Prayer of thanksgiving 87 Prophetic prayer 107 Reflective prayers 47 Priest/priestly 42, 121, 165, 173, 231, 233, 235, 318, 319 High priest 66, 170, 253, 256 People of priests 148 Priesthood (common, royal) 130, 318, 324, 325, 328, 329 Prince of Tyre 262 Promises 46, 105, 142, 149, 154, 166, 174, 213, 227, 280, 337, 340, 344 Promised child 165 Promised land 21, 29, 49, 104, 126, 165, 174, 204, 206, 207, 337 Promised liberation/future 213, 263 Promised new beginning 104 Prophecy 20, 28, 139, 141, 164, 165, 168, 210, 211, 213, 214, 262, 263, 328, 351 Prophets/prophet(ess) 12–16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 29, 30, 33, 65, 66, 79, 96–114, 170, 184, 188, 201, 202, 209, 214, 226, 227, 261, 276, 334, 339 Prophetic revelation 111, 141 Prototype of exodus/divine justice/ salvation 4, 138, 150, 150, 160 Pseudepigrapha 117–136, 138 Qumran 159, 160, 298, 303 Qumran caves/grotte 150, 159, 160 Qumran hymns 150 Qumran manuscript/scrolls 15, 159, 350

Index Qumran movement 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158 Qumran texts 4 Quotation Composite quotation 2, 6 Compound quotation 215 Direct quotation 300, 301, 312, 314, 324, 325, 326 Double quotation 279 Formal quotation 287, 289, Implicit quotation 324 Subordinate quotation 278 Verbal quotation 312, 313, 316, 324, 325 Rabbinic 23, 164, 261, 277, 281 Rabbinic exegesis/interpretation 27, 35, 277 Rabbinic literature/writings/sources 16, 22, 23, 163, 165, 205, 351 Rabbinic midrashim 18 Reception 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 26, 36, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 60, 66, 70, 72, 94, 96, 97, 98, 105, 112, 113, 114, 118, 137, 138, 142, 158, 159, 161, 183, 198, 218, 219, 223, 224, 247, 248, 264, 269, 270, 271, 272, 275, 276, 277, 284, 286, 287, 288, 309, 329, 331, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 341, 342, 345, 346, 350, 351 Reception history 1, 2, 25, 27, 36, 46, 49, 50, 54, 178, 309, 342 Red Sea 11, 25, 41, 43, 44, 53, 59, 60, 83, 120, 121, 122, 124, 126, 131, 132, 143, 144, 147, 167, 169, 194, 290, 337, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 348 Rephidim 291 Resurrection 19, 87, 88, 93, 204, 208, 216, 231, 232, 241, 274 Rewriting 3, 78, 84, 86, 88, 177, 208, 260, 292, 326, 328, 330, 344 Rewritten Bible 163, 180, 181, 196 Rock 79, 80, 100, 133, 140, 288, 291, 292, 293, 303, 304, 305, 307 Rod (of Moses/of Assur) 24, 98, 99, 131, 133, 165, 166 Role of Women 12, 22 Royal (education, household, psalm, priesthood, readings, office) 36, 46, 51, 128, 132, 233, 325, 328 Ruth 201, 350

359 Sacrifice/sacrificial 167, 214, 215, 234, 235, 245, 281, 289, 290, 295, 297, 318, 319, 320 Salvation 11, 13, 18, 31, 33, 57, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69, 70, 77, 88, 89, 107, 145, 150, 156, 202, 214, 220, 231, 241, 245, 259, 269, 291, 310, 311, 320, 337, 340, 341, 343, 347 Sanhedrin 256 Second Temple 21, 72, 89, 90, 94, 117, 123, 125, 127, 135, 141, 150, 153, 158, 160, 161, 197, 198, 217, 263, 277, 288, 335 Second Temple Judaism 72, 117, 123, 161 Septuagint 1, 2, 3, 15, 57, 58, 70, 71, 82, 91, 92, 119, 122, 125, 131, 166, 167, 190, 219, 220, 221, 309, 331, 332, 333, 350 Serpent, bronze 79, 80, 101, 165 Seven steps 262, 263, 267 Sibylline Oracles 118, 119, 122–123, 124, 126, 127, 128 Sinai 17, 29, 42, 48, 60, 82, 102, 103, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 118, 127, 128, 137, 140, 142, 147, 149, 151, 153, 154, 155, 191, 201, 207, 225, 227, 234, 235, 240, 272, 283, 285, 304, 306, 317, 323, 337, 341 Slavery, slave 1, 4, 16, 40, 48, 59, 96, 108, 117, 118, 123, 124, 126, 132, 133, 164, 186, 213, 214, 222, 227, 231, 234, 242, 243, 245, 249, 250, 279, 281, 281, 283, 310, 311 Sojourners 310, 317 Song Song of Judith 16, 62 Song of Miriam 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 22, 26, 27, 29, 34, 139 Song of Moses 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 23, 26, 29, 57, 62, 142, 213, 334–349 Song of the Lamb 7, 334–349 Song of the Sea 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 32, 53, 72, 79, 141 Speech of Achior 59, 60, 61, 66, 69 Storm/stormy 50, 51, 79, 80, 83, 86 Story 3, 5, 22, 26, 46, 47, 48, 49, 57, 61, 65, 66, 71, 89, 104, 107, 108, 110, 114, 118, 136, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 172, 177, 180, 201, 206, 209, 214, 215, 216, 224, 225, 231, 234, 236, 237, 238, 239, 242, 244, 245, 246, 250, 252, 253, 258, 259, 260, 261, 264, 265, 289, 291, 294, 295, 297, 301, 304, 306, 328, 344, 348 Subversion 98

360 Symbol/symbolism/symbolical(ly) 2, 20, 24, 33, 34, 131, 133, 178, 201, 206, 211, 212, 214, 220, 230, 233, 234, 240, 241, 261, 262, 263, 277, 280, 284, 292, 319 Syncrisis 78, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 91 Synoptic Gospels 5, 6, 201–221, 224, 247, 269, 270, 272, 276, 279, 280, 282, 319 Tabernacle 188, 255 Talitha Kum 222, 223, 225, 242, 243, 246, 249 Targum 91, 267 Temple, Jerusalem/Israelite 17, 20, 21, 25, 28, 36, 39, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 61, 62, 69, 110, 154, 168, 204, 207, 208, 214, 215, 216, 228, 233, 238, 254, 255, 263, 264, 272, 336, 337, 339, 340, 341 Tent 38, 173, 244, 255, 271, 336, 339 Theios aner 135, 174, 179, 180 Theocentric concept/view 340, 343 Theophany 27, 35, 40, 127, 140, 147, 165, 225, 231, 233, 234, 272, 273, 275 Theophilus 250, 251, 253, 255, 267 Torah 18, 19, 20, 22, 32, 34, 35, 48, 53, 58, 62, 64, 69, 94, 97, 104, 110, 111, 113, 127, 133, 160, 168, 171, 212, 227, 229, 230, 232, 251, 252, 272, 277, 278, 288, 292 Torah and prophets 97 Typological 28, 34, 209, 212, 216, 252, 261, 302, 320 Universalisation 336 Utopia 131, 134 Veiling 6, 297, 298, 299, 303 Victory 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 33, 34, 40, 41, 49, 57, 65, 339, 340 Wells of Hope 225, 242, 244, 245, 246, 249 Wilderness 22, 29, 38, 44, 47, 102, 104, 111, 120, 126, 140, 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 211, 220, 221, 275, 288, 289, 290, 291, 295, 302, 304, 305, 307, 317, 336, 337, 341 Wilderness account/narrative/ renarration/texts 302, 303 Wilderness ancestors 293 Wilderness demise 289 Wilderness disobedience/ grumbling 295

Index Wilderness experience 287, 288, 291 Wilderness generation 6, 276, 289, 293, 297, 302 Wilderness inhabitants/participants/ people 59, 104, 141, 149, 293 Wilderness journey 29, 291, 292 Wilderness period/time 104, 130, 137, 140, 154, 156 Wilderness tradition 137, 142, 146, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 305, 306, 307 Wilderness wanderings 4, 122, 125, 206, 211 Wisdom 1, 3, 5, 23, 65, 74–95, 125, 128, 136, 142, 143, 169, 170, 171, 178, 179, 228, 242, 247, 248, 277, 292, 307, 311, 312, 328, 350 Wisdom admonition 142, 144 Unity of Wisdom 74, 77 Women/midwives 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 65, 66, 67, 68, 123, 164, 167, 198, 201, 224, 225, 226, 232, 235, 236, 237, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 248, 295, 311, 339 Bathsheba 201 Deborah 16, 57, 64, 65, 73, 181 Esther 16, 57, 73 Jael 57, 64, 73 Judith 16, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 94, 112, 159, 220, 346, 348, 351 Miriam 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 57, 64, 65, 66, 128, 139, 141, 164, 181, 337, 339, 340 Rahab 101, 201 Ruth 201, 350 Shiprah and Puah 66, 123 Tamar 181, 201 Wonders 3, 13, 43, 98, 105, 107, 110, 111, 114, 144, 145, 149, 208, 255, 295, 351 Words of the Luminaries 4, 147, 148, 149, 150, 159, 161 Zion 28, 30, 34, 36, 37, 38, 41, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 64, 149, 340