Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel's Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible (Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures) 9781575061528, 157506152X

Citation preview

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page i Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Genesis and the Moses Story

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page ii Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Siphrut Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures Editorial Board

Stephen B. Chapman Duke University Tremper Longman III Westmont College Nathan MacDonald Universität Göttingen and University of St. Andrews 1. A Severe Mercy: Sin and Its Remedy in the Old Testament, by Mark J. Boda 2. Chosen and Unchosen: Conceptions of Election in the Pentateuch and Jewish-Christian Interpretation, by Joel N. Lohr 3. Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible, by Konrad Schmid

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page iii Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Genesis and the Moses Story Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible

Konrad Schmid

Translated by

James D. Nogalski

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2010

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page iv Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

ç Copyright 2010 by Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Schmid, Konrad, 1965– [Erzväter und Exodus. English] Genesis and the Moses story : Israel’s dual origins in the Hebrew Bible / Konrad Schmid ; translated by James D. Nogalski. p. cm. — (Siphrut : Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Bible ; 3) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57506-152-8 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Patriarchs (Bible) 2. Exodus, The. 3. Bible. O.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 4. Jews—History—To 1200 b.c. I. Nogalski, James. II. Title. BS573.S35513 2010 222u.1092—dc22 2009054100

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.†‰

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page v Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi 1. Introduction: Ancestors and Exodus in the Historical Books of the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. The Temporal Sequence in the Historical Books of the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. The Sequence of the Ancestors and the Exodus . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1 4

1.2.1. The Continuity and Discontinuity of the Narrative Flow of Genesis–Exodus 4 1.2.2. The Problem in the Scholarly Discussion 7 a. Classifications of the Ancestor Narrative and Exodus 7 b. Arguments for J Running through a Tetrateuch 13

1.3. Preliminary Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1.3.1. The Literary Horizon of the Investigation: Genesis–2 Kings 16 a. Overarching Structures 17 b. The Origin of the Division of the Books 23 c. The Problem of Dividing the Tetrateuch and the “Deuteronomistic History” 29 1.3.2. The Problem of the Textual Evidence 35 a. Differences of Textual Evidence 35 b. Differences in the Arrangements of Books 41 1.3.3. Methodological Considerations 46

2. Analytical Investigation: Markers of the Original Independence of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story within Genesis–2 Kings . . . . . . . . . . . 50 2.1. Literary Indicators in Genesis–2 Kings for Dividing Genesis from Exodus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 2.1.1. Anticipatory References in Genesis to Exodus 50 a. The Bridging Function of the Joseph Story? 50 b. Genesis 46:1–5a 55 c. Genesis 15:13–16 57 d. Genesis 12:10–20 57 e. Genesis 12:1–3 58 f. Summary 60

v

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page vi Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

vi

Contents

2.1.2. References to Genesis in Exodus–Numbers 60 a. Exodus 1 62 b. Exodus 2:24; 6:2–8; Leviticus 26:42 65 c. Exodus 3:1–4:18 66 d. The Promise of Land as an Oath to the Patriarchs in Exodus–Numbers 66 e. Summary 67 2.1.3. The “Fathers” of Israel in Deuteronomy: Patriarchs or the Exodus Generation (and Their Ancestors) 67 2.1.4. References in Joshua–2 Kings back to Exodus and Genesis 69 a. The Ancestors in Joshua–2 Kings 69 b. The Exodus in Joshua–2 Kings 70

2.2. Additional Indicators for the Division of the Ancestor Story and the Exodus Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 2.2.1. Evidence from Psalms and the Prophetic Books 70 a. Psalms 70 b. Prophetic Books 73 2.2.2. Etiological Narratives in Genesis 81 2.2.3. The Name Yhwh in Genesis and Exodus 81 2.2.4. The Pacifism of the Ancestral History 82 2.2.5. The Ancestors as “Foreigners” in Canaan 84 2.2.6. The Blessing of Jacob (Genesis 49) and of Moses (Deuteronomy 33) 84 2.2.7. Deuteronomy as a Farewell Speech in the Land East of the Jordan 85 2.2.8. The Triple Ending of Israel’s Salvation History in Joshua 21:43–45, Joshua 23, and Joshua 24 87 2.2.9. Time-Spans in Genesis and Exodus–Deuteronomy 89 2.2.10. The Double Withdrawal of God as the Direct Actor of History 90 2.2.11. Problems of the Classical Source Division in Exodus–Numbers 90 2.2.12. Summary 92

2.3. The Ancestor Story as an Independent Text Complex . . . . . . . 92 2.3.1. Concerning the Independence of Genesis 12–50 93 2.3.2. The Promises in the Framework of the Ancestor Story 97 a. The Promises to the Ancestors as a Redaction-Historical Problem 97 b. The Theology of Promise in the Ancestor Story 101 c. Open and Fulfilled Promise 104 2.3.3. Concerning the Literary Sociological Classification 106 2.3.4. Ancestor Narratives and Narratives of the Judges 109 2.3.5. Concerning Religio-Historical Typology 110 2.3.6. The Ancestor Story as Israel’s Tradition of Its Origins 114 2.3.7. Summary 116

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page vii Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Contents

vii

2.4. The Moses/Exodus Story as an Independent Text Complex . . . 117 2.4.1. Exodus without Eisodos? 122 2.4.2. Contours of an Independent Moses/Exodus Story 126 a. The Question of the End 126 b. The Exodus Concept 130 2.4.3. The Problem of the Beginning of an Independent Moses/Exodus Story 139 2.4.4. Concerning Literary and Sociological Classification 144 2.4.5. Religio-Historical Typology 145 2.4.6. The Moses/Exodus Story as a Tradition of Israel’s Origin 147 2.4.7. Summary 148

2.5. The Problem of the Primeval Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

3. Synthetic Reconstructions: The Merger of the Ancestor Story with the Moses/Exodus Story and the Development of the Image of History in Genesis–2 Kings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 3.1. The Ancestor Story as Preface to the Moses/Exodus Story . . . . 156 3.2. The God of the Ancestors as the God of the Exodus . . . . . . . 158 3.2.1. Genesis 15 158 a. Recent Discussion of Genesis 15 158 b. The Literary Integrity of Genesis 15 161 c. Genesis 15 in Its Context 162 d. Abraham as Prophet 165 e. Genetic Aspects of the Text 166 3.2.2. Exodus 3–4 172 a. Recent Discussion of Exodus 3–4 173 b. The Literary Integrity of Exodus 3–4 175 c. Exodus 3–4 in Its Context 177 d. Moses as “Prophet” 181 e. Aspects of the Text’s Genesis 182

3.3. The Fulfillment of the Promises to the Fathers . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 3.3.1. Joshua 24 as Conclusion of the Hexateuch 193 3.3.2. Joshua 24 197 a. Recent Discussion of Joshua 24 197 b. The Literary Integrity of Joshua 24 198 c. Joshua 24 in Its Context 199 d. The Structure and Profile of Statements in Joshua 24 e. Joshua as “Prophet” 208 f. Genetic Aspects of the Text 208

204

3.4. The Death of Joseph and the Oppression of Israel in Egypt as a Theological Link between Genesis and Exodus . . . . . . . 214 3.4.1. Genesis 50:25–26 3.4.2. Exodus 1 216

214

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page viii Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

viii

Contents

a. Literary Classification 216 b. The Life-Threatening Oppression of Israel in Egypt 217 c. The Exodus as Salvation from Death 220 d. The Prophetic Psalm, Exodus 15, as the Conclusion of the Presentation of Salvation 221

3.5. Redaction-Historical Contours of the Literary Connection of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story . . . . . . . 224 3.5.1. A Unified Redaction? 224 3.5.2. Other Textual Pieces 233 3.5.3. The Redaction-Historical Relationship to P 236 3.5.4. The Prehistory of the Literary Connection of the Ancestors and the Exodus in P and Second Isaiah 237 a. P 238 b. Second Isaiah 248 c. Tradition-Historical Changes 252 3.5.5. Dating 254 3.5.6. Place 258

3.6. Theological Aspects of the Unified Ancestor and Moses/Exodus Story . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 3.6.1. Traditions of Origin and Salvation History 259 a. Genesis–2 Kings: Between Tradition of Origins and Future Expectation 259 b. The Place of the Salvation History in the History of Theology c. The Role of Faith 263 3.6.2. Unconditional Promise and Obligation 265 3.6.3. Abraham as a Figure of Compromise 267 3.6.4. God as Savior 269 3.6.5. The Promise of Land Sworn to the Three Ancestors and the Origin of the Pentateuch as Torah 271 a. Hexateuch and Pentateuch 271 b. The Theme of the Pentateuch 274 c. The Promise of Land as Oath and the Formation of the Torah 276 d. Reemphasizing Prophecy in the Pentateuch 279

260

4. Repercussions: The Sequence of Ancestors and Exodus in Intertestamental and New Testament Reception. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 4.1. Reception within the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 4.1.1. Nehemiah 9 282 4.1.2. The Chronicler’s History 286 4.1.3. Psalm 105–6 290 a. Psalm 105 291 b. Psalm 106 292 c. Psalms 105 and 106 in Their Context

293

4.2. Later Receptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page ix Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Contents

ix

4.2.1. Sirach 44–50 295 4.2.2. Sirach 51:12a–o 299 4.2.3. Baruch 1:15–3:8 300 4.2.4. Jubilees 302 4.2.5. 4QDibHam 305 4.2.6. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 306 4.2.7. The Animal Apocalypse and the Apocalypse of Weeks 309 a. The Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90) 309 b. The Apocalypse of Weeks (1 Enoch 93:1–10; 91:11–17) 313 4.2.8. Fourth Ezra 315 4.2.9. Second Baruch 53–74 316 4.2.10. Judean and Samaritan Historians 318 a. Artapanus 318 b. Pseudo-Eupolemus 319 c. Pseudo-Hecataeus II 321 4.2.11. Non-Jewish Historians 321 a. Hecataeus of Abdera 321 b. Manetho 322 c. Lysimachus of Alexandria 324 d. Apion 324 e. Berossus 324 f. Summary 325 4.2.12 Acts 7 326

4.3. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328 4.3.1. Conceptions Oriented toward the Ancestors 328 4.3.2. Conceptions Oriented toward the Exodus 330 4.3.3. Mediated and Alternative Positions 331 4.3.4. The Themes of the Ancestors and Exodus as Diverse, Fundamental, Theological Arguments 332

5. Conclusion: Position in the History of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 5.1. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334 5.2. Models for the History of the Literary Development of Genesis–2 Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 5.2.1. The Source Theory 335 5.2.2. Current Positions 336

5.3. Continuity and Discontinuity with Other Models . . . . . . . . . . 342 5.3.1. Pentateuchal Research in the Framework of Genesis–2 Kings 342 5.3.2. The Fundamental Gap between Genesis and Exodus 5.3.3. Documentary Hypothesis or Redactional Linking of Separate Blocks 346

342

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page x Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

x

Contents

5.3.4. P as an Originally Independent Written Source Covering Creation to Sinai 347 5.3.5. Post-Priestly Redactional Activity 347 5.3.6. Open Questions 348 a. Resulting Problems for the History of Literature b. History, Interpretation, and Faith 350

348

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427 Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427 Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page xi Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Preface This book is an English translation of my Habilitationsschrift, Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments (WMANT 81; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999). 1 The notes and the bibliography have been updated. Some passages have been expanded or modified to clarify the meaning or to engage with recent scholarly contributions. Nevertheless, I have to admit that the English version of this book remains a work whose origin in the German-speaking academic tradition can be clearly recognized. Although the bibliography provided at the end of this work is extensive, it probably still lacks some contributions, especially from American and Israeli scholars. I apologize for these shortcomings. However, I hope that this book can provide a glimpse of recent European discussions about the composition of the Pentateuch, regardless of whether or not the reader agrees with the literary-historical proposals formulated here. For the convenience of the reader, quotations from German books have been translated into English. In this book, I argue that the Priestly thread is the first to link together the main themes of the primeval story, the patriarchal story, and the exodus story. Originally, Genesis on the one hand and the Moses story on the other provided two competing traditions of Israel’s origins that were not combined before the time of the Priestly Code—that is, the early Persian period. Thus, I depart from some of the main tenets of the Documentary Hypothesis such as the existence in the Tetrateuch both of a J source and of an E source that bridged the literary and theological gap between Genesis and Exodus before the Priestly Code. Of course, one can distinguish Priestly and non-Priestly texts in Genesis and in Exodus. But it is in no way clear that all non-Priestly texts are a priori pre-Priestly texts, as the 1. See the reviews by David M. Carr, Bib 81 (2000): 579–83; Ludwig Schmidt, TLZ 125 (2000): 1012–14; John Van Seters, JBL 119 (2000): 341–43; Henrik Pfeiffer, ZAW 113 (2001): 320–21; Eckart Otto, “Forschungen zum nachpriesterschriftlichen Pentateuch,” TRu 67 (2002): 125–55, 150–52. More extensive treatments are provided by David M. Carr, “Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives,” in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History (ed. A. Wénin; BETL 155; Leuven: Peeters, 2001) 273–95; Erhard Blum, “Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen,” in Abschied vom Jahwisten (ed. J. C. Gertz et al.; BZAW 315; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002) 119–56; John Van Seters, “The Patriarchs and the Exodus: Bridging the Gap between the Two Origin Traditions,” in The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman (ed. R. Roukema; CBET 44; Leuven: Peeters, 2006) 1– 15; and Hans-Christoph Schmitt, “Erzvätergeschichte und Exodusgeschichte als konkurrierende Ursprungslegenden Israels: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik,” in Die Erzväter in biblischer Tradition: Festschrift für Matthias Köckert (ed. A. C. Hagedorn et al.; BZAW 400; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009) 241–66.

xi

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page xii Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Preface

xii

Documentary Hypothesis tends to suggest. Furthermore, it is not obvious that some or even all of the pre-Priestly elements in Genesis and in the Moses story were literarily linked together from their literary-historical beginnings, as the J and E hypotheses assume. To my mind, the textual evidence in Genesis and Exodus points in another direction: the pre-Priestly material in both text blocks is literarily and theologically so divergent that their present linkage is more appropriately interpreted as the result of a secondary redaction than as thematic variation in an early, literarily unified document such as J, whose diversity may be explained by positing different origins of the material in the oral prehistory of that work. What this book is proposing, may sound “bold,” 2 but it is not new and does not stand alone in the current scholarly discussion of the Pentateuch. Following observations from Kurt Galling and Martin Noth, Albert de Pury and Thomas Römer already suggested in 1989 and 1990 that there are no pre-Priestly links between Genesis and Exodus. Independent of my work in Erzväter und Exodus, Jan Christian Gertz came to the same conclusion in his book Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch (FRLANT 186; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000, especially pp. 381–88). Eckart Otto’s recent publications (“Mose und das Gesetz: Die Mose-Figur als Gegenentwurf politischer Theologie zur neuassyrischen Königsideologie im 7. Jh. v.Chr.,” in Mose, Ägypten und das Alte Testament [SBS 189; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000] 43–83; idem, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und im Hexateuch: Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens [FAT 30; Tübingen: Mohr, 2000]; idem, Die Tora des Mose: Die Geschichte der literarischen Vermittlung von Recht, Religion und Politik durch die Mosegestalt [Hamburg, 2001]; idem, Mose: Geschichte und Legende [Munich: Beck, 2006]) and, to a certain extent, but with some hesitations, 3 Reinhard Kratz’s Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament (trans. J. Bowden; London: T. & T. Clark, 2005) share the same opinion as well. Meanwhile, the discussion on this topic is documented in two volumes, Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (ed. Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte; BZAW 315; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002); and, more controversially, A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (ed. Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid; SBLSymS 34; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006). My thanks go to James D. Nogalski, who has prepared the translation, and to Peter Altmann, Matthias Bochow, Felipe Blanco Wissmann, Martin Leuenberger, Christian Metzenthin, and Luise Oehrli, who helped me in the preparation of this book. I would also like to thank David Carr for allowing me to borrow the title of 2. Van Seters, JBL 119 (2000): 343. 3. See, e.g., pp. 279, 281, 307.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page xiii Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Preface

xiii

this book from his essay “Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story.” 4 Finally, my thanks go to Jim Eisenbraun, Beverly McCoy, and John Cook of Eisenbrauns for their diligent work on this book and its publication. Konrad Schmid Zurich, January 2009 4. Carr, “Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story” (see n. 1 above).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page xiv Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 1 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Chapter 1

Introduction Ancestors and Exodus in the Historical Books of the Hebrew Bible

1.1. The Temporal Sequence in the Historical Books of the Hebrew Bible The first nine books of the Bible (Genesis–2 Kings) narrate the history of Israel from the beginning of the world to the exile. 1 The presentation is chronologically arranged, and its flow is largely consistent. The narrative continuity, with the exception of Deuteronomy, is not interrupted by book superscriptions, such as those found in the prophetic and wisdom books. Most books in Genesis–2 Kings are attached to the preceding book by a narrative 2 or syndetic 3 construction, sometimes directly connected to the last sentence of the preceding book, so that the narrative flow essentially transcends the books. Only the forms of the first verses of Genesis (. . . arb tyvarb), Deuteronomy (hla μyrbdh), Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel (. . . yhyw) could in any way come into question as independent book beginnings. 4 As a rule, a Hebrew narrative begins with either an asyndesis or yhyw. 5 Thematically, however, these books are tightly incorporated into the narrative thread of Genesis–2 Kings.

1. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. The division of 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings, as the lack of a concluding masora shows, is considered postMasoretic (§1.3.1.b). Ruth only comes between Judges and Samuel in the Greek tradition (see §1.3.2.b for extensive treatment of the question of the origin of the book divisions). 2. Lev 1:1 (. . . arqyw); Num 1:1 (. . . rbdyw); Josh 1:1; Judg 1:1; 1 Sam 1:1; 2 Sam 1:1 (. . . yhyw); 2 Kgs 1:1 (. . . [vpyw). 3. Exod 1:1 (. . . twmv hlaw); 1 Kgs 1:1 (μymyb ab ˆqz dwd ˚lmhw). The Codex Alexandrinus and a Syrian manuscript presume a syndesis, while the LXX and Vulgate attest to asyndesis for Exod 1:1 (. . . twmv hla). 4. It is difficult but not impossible to view the syndetic nominal sentence of Exod 1:1 (. . . hlaw twmv) and the w=x-qatal sentence of 1 Kgs 1:1 (μymyb ˆqz dwd ˚lmhw) as an independent narrative beginning. 5. See W. Gross, VTSup 32 (1981), 135 n. 13 (for the problem of syndesis on the narrative beginnings, see p. 133). For a different view, see Meyer, Grammatik, §100.3b (his example, however, is Esth 1:1 [yhyw]); Schneider, BN 70 (1993): 70, 85; see Knauf, BN 78 (1995): 16–17.

1

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 2 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

2

Chapter 1. Introduction

The Genesis–2 Kings complex is thus not merely a series of individual books whose contents coincidentally fit together. The coherence of Genesis–2 Kings is knit quite differently and more tightly than that of Isaiah–Malachi or the Ketubim. Genesis–2 Kings forms a large historical work that can be read from beginning to end as a continuous story. 6 A fixed term to designate it has not yet been developed, although Freedman’s proposal of “Primary History” has gained some acceptance. 7 Kaiser refers to it as the “great historical work of salvation and judgment” (“Heils-Unheilsgeschichtliches Grossgeschichtswerk”), 8 Rose speaks more generally of the “historiographical corpus of the Bible” (“corpus historiographique de la bible”), 9 Schmitt characterizes Genesis–2 Kings as the “late Deuteronomistic Historical Work” (“spätdeuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk”), 10 and Kratz uses the term “narrative books” (“erzählende Bücher”). 11 Virtually no one today holds that the account of Genesis–2 Kings simply records the historical events. There is wide agreement that the image of history that Israel constructed is not congruent with that history itself. 12 The relationship between this image of history and the actual history of Israel has been understood very differently. The current discussion covers the entire spectrum from a belief in the fundamental impropriety of using the Hebrew Bible for historical reconstruction to the belief in the Hebrew Bible’s trustworthiness in all points of its presentation of history. The iconoclastic banishment of all Hebrew Bible historical elements into the realm of fiction has, however, already gone out of fashion. Above all, the phenomenon of the completely fictional writing of history would itself need to be historically plausible for it to be a workable thesis. On the other side, the traditional approach to the historical books of the Hebrew Bible has been afflicted with no less fundamental problems. Despite their knowledge of the divergence between actual history and its biblical presentation, the overwhelming majority of 6. See the extensive treatment under §1.3.1.a. 7. Freedman, “Pentateuch,” IDB 3:712; Freedman and Geoghegan, “Noth,” 128; Mandell/Freedman, Relationship, ix (see p. 85); see Freedman, VTSup 9 (1963), 251, 254, 257; Kissling, Characters. 8. Kaiser, Theologie, 159–62. 9. Rose, RTP 118 (1986): 217. He calls the historical work of Genesis–2 Kings before the Priestly writing the “Yahwistic historiography” (p. 233; see Rose, “Empoigner,” 133). 10. Schmitt, “Geschichtswerk.” 11. Kratz, Composition. However, he includes Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah in this term. 12. The theme has been widely treated. See the discussions of Smend, Elemente, 176–85; Smend, “Überlieferung,” 14–15; Barr, JR 56 (1976): 11; Perlitt, “Auslegung,” 164–66; Liverani, RivB 28 (1980): 9–32; Reventlow, EdF 173 (1982), 65–137. For the entirety, see Dentan, Idea; Van Seters, Search (concerning him, see Koch, Bib 67 [1986]: 109–17); Cancik, NBL 1; Sacks, “Approaches”; Droge, “Interpretation”; Sigal, “Manifestations”; Cazelles, “Geschichtsschreibung”; Garbini, History; Miller/Hayes, History, 54–79; Edelman, Fabric; Winkelmann, RAC 15; Lemche, Vorgeschichte, 212–18; Weinberg, Chronist, 119–21. See Müller, UF 26 (1994): 373–74 (see also below, §5.3.6.b.). Jason of Cyrene, with whose work Thompson (ABD 3:207) starts the beginning of the writing of history, scarcely marks any real break with older presentations of history. Jason’s primary purpose in writing was to demonstrate how the temple, while threatened by the heathens, was continually protected by God in marvelous ways (see Hengel, Judaism, 175–80, especially p. 180). For the difference between tendentious literature and propaganda, see Licht, “Biblical Historicism,” 112; Walton, Literature, 118.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 3 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Temporal Sequence in the Historical Books of the Hebrew Bible

3

scholars working on the history of Israel 13 have continued to maintain a fundamental concurrence between the series of epochs and the actual flow of Israel’s history: the ancestors, the exodus, the wandering in the wilderness, the conquest, the period of the judges, and the monarchy. The sequence is affirmed as essentially historically accurate, and the literary connection among these themes is generally not contested for the oldest strata in the historical books ( J or DtrH). Such historical and literary reconstructions could be characterized with Weippert as “subdeuteronomistic” because of their general agreement with Genesis–2 Kings. 14 Just because a historical reconstruction agrees in its main features with the narrative of the Hebrew Bible does not by itself argue against the reconstruction. Nevertheless, it is problematic if a historical critique limits itself to a rationalistic paraphrase of ancient sources without critically inquiring into the coherence of their general overview. 15 We should not presuppose that the series of stories about Israel presented in Genesis–2 Kings depicts a historical sequence of events. And, as a consequence, it is far from clear whether we can identify one (or several) comprehensive structural thread like J or E in the historical books that is reflective of this history and repeats it in literary terms. Rather, more fundamentally, we should ask: Did the account in Genesis– 2 Kings already exist in outline form from the beginning of ancient Israel’s literary activity (as von Rad argued), 16 because it more or less corresponds to the historical realities? Are the arrangement of its basic lines and its conceptualization actually older than the individual complexes that have been strung together within it? Or is the relationship reversed? Is the sequence, at least in parts, secondary to the individual epochs? De Pury 17 and Römer 18 have raised anew the question of the relationship between the stories of the ancestors and of the exodus. Contrary to the Documentary Hypothesis, they posit originally independent traditions (not only orally but also literarily) of the origins of Israel existing alongside one another in these two text complexes. According to de Pury and Römer, the literary presentation of the period of the ancestors and the period of the exodus did not originally follow one after the other as two chronologically ordered events of one and the same history of the origins of Israel. This question of the relationship between the ancestor story in Genesis and the Moses story is the focus of this investigation, as indicated by the title. De Pury and Römer approach the problem 13. See the literature mentioned by M. Weippert, TRu 58 (1993): 72 n. 2. 14. Ibid., 73; see idem, VT 23 (1973): 415–42. 15. For example, see the critique of Knauf, “From History”; Jamieson-Drake, Scribes; Thompson, Early History; Smelik, “Use”; Uehlinger, “Kultreform,” 59–60. See also the collected work of Edelman, Fabric; and for an opposing view, Herrmann, “Abwertung.” 16. See von Rad, “Hexateuch,” 3–8. 17. De Pury, “Tradition patriarcale”; VTSup 43 (1991), 78–96; “Osée 12”; “Erwägungen”; EstBib 52 (1994): 95–131; compare already idem, ETR 51 (1976): 358–59. 18. Römer, ETR 61 (1986): 1–19; Väter, especially 568–75; Nachwort, 119–23; “Récits Patriarcaux”; RTP 125 (1993): 21–39; “Historiographies”; Transeu 13 (1997): 57–59.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 4 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

4

Chapter 1. Introduction

from the “outside”—de Pury concentrates on Hosea 12 19 and Römer on the problem of the identity of the “fathers” in Deuteronomy. 20 The focus of the current work is on the text of Genesis–Exodus, about which the following questions are posed: How should one evaluate the connection between the ancestors and Exodus from a literary-historical perspective? Were the ancestor story and the exodus story already bound to one another from the beginning of ancient Israelite literature because the ancestors and the exodus also belong together historically? Or are there clues that their combination first occurs in the later literature? This problem cannot be decided from reconstructions of the history of Israel which presuppose that the ancestral period and the exodus period were epochs that occurred one after the other, and therefore their literary combination is “ancient.” When investigating the premonarchic and monarchic epochs of ancient Israel, we have hardly any sources at our disposal other than the historical traditions of the Hebrew Bible, the historical adequacy of which is precisely what is in question. In the case of the primeval story of Genesis 1–11, there is general agreement that the paradise story, the flood narrative, and the tower narrative do not depict historical events. In the wake of Thompson and Van Seters, confidence has waned that historically trustworthy transmission begins with the ancestral story in Genesis 12. 21 In addition, we cannot presume that the events presented in the beginning of Exodus form a border between the fictional ancestral period and the beginning of a history of Israel that can be investigated historically. For the premonarchic period, and specifically the epochs of the ancestors and the exodus, no evidence from ancient Near Eastern sources or from archaeology exists that could prove the historical reliability of the Hebrew Bible on this point. In what follows, therefore, the historical transmission of the Hebrew Bible in Genesis– 2 Kings has to be investigated critically in order to ask whether the sequence of epochs presented by the historical books, specifically the connection of the ancestors and the exodus, actually formed a constant in the literary history of Israel, or whether, based on evidence in the text (specifically literary cross references) there were elementary processes of transformation that resulted in the current sequence of epochs in the historical books.22

1.2. The Sequence of the Ancestors and the Exodus 1.2.1. The Continuity and Discontinuity of the Narrative Flow of Genesis–Exodus Where is the evidence for doubting that the narrative sequence of Genesis– Exodus is not completely smooth and was not already extant in the earliest literary layers of Genesis and Exodus (and following) as generally held? Narratively, the current form of the text scarcely poses problems. The transition from the ancestors to the exodus, from the story of the ancestors to the story of the people, appears at first glance to be consistent and clear. After the events about Abraham, Isaac, Ja19. See below, §2.2.1.b. 20. See below, §2.1.3; §3.6.5. 21. See Thompson, Historicity; Van Seters, Abraham. 22. See the considerations of the preceding under §1.3.3.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 5 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Sequence of the Ancestors and the Exodus

5

cob, and their families (Genesis 12–36), the Joseph story (Genesis 37–50) brings Egypt on stage, where the tribe of Jacob grows into a great and powerful people. The Israelites were oppressed by the Egyptians and forced into hard manual labor. When they grew stronger in spite of the oppression, Pharaoh responds in fear and orders all newborn Hebrew males killed (Exodus 1). The story of the birth and deliverance of Moses (Exodus 2), who would later be entrusted with leading his people out of Egypt (Exodus 3–4), appears at this point. Moses’ task succeeds after several complications (Exodus 5; 7–12), and the Israelites depart from Egypt and at the Sea of Reeds are miraculously delivered from the Egyptian troops following them (Exodus 13–15). After the miracle at the Sea of Reeds, there is a slight break in the narrative. Then the story of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt picks up with the events in the wilderness and at Sinai and continues on to the possession of the land. From this survey of prominent plot lines, the sequence of the ancestors and the exodus appears simply as a thematic transition within a continuous narrative. Although the place, time, and protagonists change between Genesis and Exodus, this change is not unusual within a large-scale ethnic history that incorporates the history of its ancestors. At the same time, a closer look at the narrative surface reveals small cracks at the transition between the ancestors and the exodus. Given the indication in Exod 2:1 (also in 6:20) that the mother of Moses is a grandchild of Levi, 23 only three generations appear to lie between Jacob and Moses. According to Exod 12:40–41, however, the Israelites are supposed to have remained in Egypt for 430 years. Attempts have been made to harmonize these contradictory indications with great ingenuity, 24 but a unified perspective cannot be achieved for these two passages. The chronologically shortened transition from Jacob to Levi and his daughter to Moses clearly contradicts the idea that the Israelites lived under oppression in Egypt for centuries, an idea that is ignorant of a migration by the tribe of Jacob into Egypt shortly before. Further inquiry reveals a whole series of inconsistencies that argue against both the theory of a single narrator behind the stories of the ancestors and the exodus and also against the idea that the transition between the two stories stems from this same hand. To begin with, among the numerous promises of land in Genesis only one passage (15:13–16; but see Gen 50:24) mentions that the descendants of the ancestors will once again leave Canaan and that the promise of land will only be fulfilled with a returning immigration. 25 The other promises of land in Genesis do not suggest this idea and in fact appear quite at odds with it. This is especially clear 23. Concerning the problem of Exod 2:1, see the extensive treatment below in §2.4.3. 24. See the discussion in §2.2.9. 25. On the basis of its linguistic dependence upon P, Gen 15:13–16 should be seen as a much later text (see below, §3.2.1).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 6 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

6

Chapter 1. Introduction

from passages that address the land promise to “you and your descendants” (see Gen 13:15; 26:3; 28:4, 13; 35:12). 26 The numerous etiological notes in Genesis point in the same direction. They seem to presume that Israel has lived in its land from the time of the ancestral period. Otherwise, current ordinances would more likely have been explained with reference to the conquest of Joshua. These etiological notes exhibit no awareness of the intervening “exile” recounted in Exodus through Deuteronomy. For a reader coming from Genesis, the migration to Egypt and the second immigration under Joshua are surprising, or at least they do not appear to be an organic continuation of the ancestral story. Rather, the ancestors story focuses on the land of Israel, a focus that is strangely reduplicated in the conquest narratives of Joshua. Neither the promises of land in Genesis nor the promises of innumerable descendants point toward the account of Exodus (and following). Vice versa, the statement that Israel became great and numerous in Exodus 1 does not point back to the beginning of the story of the ancestors (e.g., 12:2; 13:16). 27 If a single author were responsible for the ancestral and exodus narratives, it is hard to explain his failure to correlate the promise of innumerable descendants in Genesis with the statement that Israel became great and numerous in Exodus. The Joseph story also casts doubt on an original comprehensive narrative of Genesis–Exodus. With great narrative effort, the Joseph story explains why and how Israel came to Egypt. It does not succeed, however, in creating a plausible transition between the ancestors and Exodus. While Joseph is described as a distinguished man in the Egyptian court (see Gen 41:37–46) and in Pharaoh’s favor, the Israelites appear at the beginning of the book of Exodus as maliciously treated manual laborers of the sort usually taken as prisoners of war. The pharaoh in Exodus is portrayed as a cruel despot who abuses the Israelites and who wants to keep them in check. This complete change is justified only in a short transitional piece, Exod 1:6–8, which reports the death of Joseph and his generation while introducing a new pharaoh who no longer knows anything of Joseph, previously the second-ranking person in Egypt (see Gen 41:37–46). 28 Is a seamless story narrated in this manner? One gets the impression from Exod 1:6–8 that two originally separate blocks of tradition were joined together secondarily rather than that Genesis and Exodus form a seamless, organic narrative. This impression of a hiatus between Genesis and Exodus is strengthened as one reads further in Exodus. Besides Exodus 1, the call of Moses in Exodus 3 is the most significant textual bond between the ancestors and the Exodus stories. Moses encounters a deity on God’s mountain who introduces himself with the words, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God 26. See the list of references in Rendtorff, Problem, 42. 27. Contra Levin, Jahwist, 45–46, who understands Exod 1:9 (μwx[w br . . . μ[) as the fulfillment of Gen 12:2 (lwdg ywg). Intertextual relations exist only between Exod 1:7 and Genesis 17 (both classic P texts). See the detailed discussion below in §2.1.2.a. 28. For the particular function of the material, see Westermann, Genesis 37–50, 94.

spread is 6 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 7 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Sequence of the Ancestors and the Exodus

7

of Jacob” (Exod 3:6). The name of this God is apparently unknown to Moses and to the Israelites (Exod 3:13), contrary to the account of Genesis. In Exodus 6 the deity again reveals himself to Moses, this time in Egypt, saying that, though he appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as “El Shaddai,” he did not make his name “Yhwh” known to them. These statements contradict the story of the ancestors, which places the name Yhwh not only in the mouth of the narrator but also the characters. In Gen 15:7 (see Gen 12:7–8) and 28:13 God presents himself to Abraham and Jacob explicitly with the words “I am Yhwh.” Whatever the reasons might be for Exodus 3–4 and Exodus 6 to postpone the announcement of the name Yhwh until the time of Moses, it is clear that these texts reflect a fundamental discontinuity between the ancestors narrative and the exodus story. This discontinuity makes it difficult to accept the conclusion that the ancestral narrative continued into the exodus story from its literary beginnings, or vice versa, that the exodus story was introduced originally by the ancestral narrative. 29 1.2.2. The Problem in the Scholarly Discussion a. Classifications of the Ancestor Narrative and Exodus While doubts about an early literary connection between the ancestors and Exodus are not new, they have been largely displaced by the dominance of the Documentary Hypothesis. In his Habilitationsschrift of 1928, Galling argued that the ancestors and Moses blocks represent two originally independent “traditions of the election” of Israel. 30 A year later, Alt considered the independence of the ancestral story from a different perspective. 31 Noth, cautiously following Galling’s lead, 32 determined that the ancestral theme and the exodus theme, among others, were independent tradition complexes in the preliminary stage of the source documents. In fact, he highlighted their difference quite clearly: “Among the great themes, the content and location of the ‘ancestor’ theme is self-contained and isolated. It thus hardly came to be firmly fixed to the affiliated themes.”33 29. The indicators of a literary division between Genesis and Exodus (and following) will be discussed in detail below in §2.1 and §2.2. 30. Before Galling, see among others Staerk, Studien I, 27–29, 46–49 (see Römer, Väter, 394 n. 653 and idem, “Yahwist,” 13). 31. For Alt, the “explanation of the idea of election in the ancestral story and its tension with the Moses tradition” (Alt, “Gott der Väter,” 62–63) lay in the preliterary incorporation of the oral transmission of the God of the fathers into the ancestral story. Alt preferred this solution over the literarycritical solution of Galling (ibid.). 32. See the reference in Noth, HPT, 46 n. 154. Noth’s criticism was that Galling erred “in that he traced the construction of the ancestral story in the Pentateuch transmission to a single literary act” (ibid.). This critique is especially surprising in the light of Noth’s own observations. Noth himself affirmed that the ancestral story in Genesis had been connected to the rest of the Pentateuch only in “the transmission-historically late passage of Genesis 15” (p. 218). So one may wonder why he did not accept a late literary connection between Genesis and Exodus by means of the insertion of Genesis 15. The reason lies in the predominance of the Documentary Hypothesis. 33. Ibid., 198.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 8 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

8

Chapter 1. Introduction

“Since . . . the theme of the ancestor story, as Galling has already correctly seen, was subsequently placed before the following themes we must seek the starting point of the whole within the transmission complex presented to us as the Moses story.”34 Thus, for him the exodus tradition functioned as the most important and most foundational theme of the Pentateuch. 35 “The ‘leading out of Egypt’ is the . . . foundational confession of Israel and simultaneously the gamete of the entire grand, later Pentateuch transmission.” 36

Noth, however, dismissed the idea that the basic sequence of the ancestor story and the exodus events was not yet fixed at the earliest literary stage. Rather, he thought that the ancestors and the exodus were already combined in an alleged source called G that was available to the oldest literary works J and E. 37 This was clearly due to the influence of von Rad and his early dating of the “small historical creed,” 38 which Noth accepted. 39 Von Rad held that the creed formulations and their expression in Deut 26:5–9, Josh 24:2–13, and 1 Sam 12:8–9 40 were “given from the oldest times.” 41 As a result, the salvation-historical outline of the Hexateuch was presumed to be just as old. J, who worked in the time of Solomon and was the creator of the first large-scale history covering from creation to the possession of the land in Israel, only had to adopt this outline. 42 Von Rad thus located the dichotomy between the ancestors and the exodus in the realm of the oral tradition, prior even to the pre-Yahwistic history of the pentateuchal traditions, so their connection belonged to the oldest pentateuchal stratum ( J). 43 Most interpreters have followed him to this day despite the widely recognized critique of the early dating of the “small historical creed.” 44 Currently, a majority of scholars, es34. Ibid., 46. 35. Ibid., 47. Noth therefore also treats the theme of “the leading out of Egypt” (pp. 47–50) at the beginning of the “main themes of the transmission of the Pentateuch,” while the theme of “promise to the ancestors” was addressed later (pp. 54–58). 36. Ibid., 49 (the italics in the original retained); see p. 51: “The narrative of the leading out of Egypt forms the crystalizing core of the entire grand pentateuchal narrative” (the italics in the original retained). 37. Ibid., 39–41 (followed also by Seebass, TRE 26:197). In so doing, Noth does not decide whether “G” was an oral or written entity. For his dialogue with von Rad, see Noth, HPT, 41. 38. Von Rad, “Hexateuch,” 3–4, 8–9. 39. Noth, HPT, 2–3, 46, et al. Noth also thought that the conceptual connection of the ancestors and the exodus was older than the oldest fixed written form (ibid., 46 n. 154) because he considered the “all Israel” orientation of the Pentateuch transmission to be its “foundational inventory” (p. 42). See Smend’s critique in “Stämmebund,” 122–28. 40. See von Rad, “Hexateuch,” 54–57. After all, von Rad carefully considered the question whether the theme of the fathers belonged originally to the salvation-historical flow and cited Psalms 78 and 136 as evidence suggesting otherwise. 41. Ibid., 4. 42. According to von Rad, “only” the prefacing of the primeval story and the insertion of the Sinai tradition can be traced to J himself (“Hexateuch,” 50–53, 63–67). The ancestral story was merely enlarged (pp. 62–70). 43. Ibid., 58; see also Zobel, TRE 16:464: “Moses learned to recognize Yhwh, while the ancestors recognized El.” See also Herrmann, TRE 12:701. Albertz attempts a religio-historical solution, TRE 16:376–78. 44. Many scholars have shown that the so-called small historical creed of Deut 26:5–9 cannot be an ancient tradition piece that is “by form and content very much older than the literary context where it is currently situated” (von Rad, “Hexateuch”; but see his own relativizing statement in von Rad,

spread is 9 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 9 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Sequence of the Ancestors and the Exodus

9

pecially in the English speaking realm, continue to equate the foundational literary compositional layer ( J) in Genesis with that in Exodus (and the following books) ( J as well). 45 Although some are willing to differentiate redactional layers within J and to date J to the exilic period, it is still rarely doubted that J or its equivalent (as the first literary unifying thread in Genesis and Exodus–Numbers) has completed the joining of the ancestors and the exodus. In other words, the unity of J is still maintained. The Documentary Hypothesis shaped by von Rad and Noth has proven to be one of the most successful hypotheses in biblical studies. A generation ago, its acceptance was comparable to that of the two-source theory in the Synoptic Gospels studies; there was a far-reaching consensus about the validity of their model. Without any additional literary inquiry, scholars could investigate the theology of J or the place of E in Canaanite religion and present their results in monographs. The literary questions were deemed to be settled; evidence to the contrary was explained with ad-hoc hypotheses. Therefore, given the hypothesis of von Rad and Noth, it is hardly surprising that the fundamental difference between the tradition of the ancestors and the exodus only appeared when one stepped away from the traditional source theory. 46 Of course, up until the mid-1970s this hardly ever happened in the Germanspeaking world. However, the Canadian researcher Winnett stated in 1965 in a foundational essay on the problem of the Pentateuch 47 that neither the early J, ATD 2/49 3). I mention the following here: the studies of Rost, Lohfink, and Richter; see the review of Radjawane, TRu 38 (1974): 205–6, as well as Hyatt, Festschrift May; Carmichael, VT 19 (1969): 273–89; Wassermann, ThV 2 (1970): 27–46; Levin, Verheissung, 137 n. 18; Schmidt, “Einleitung und Theologie,” 28–29; Kreuzer, “Identität”; Gertz, “Stellung” (for an extensive treatment of the history of research, see Pitts, Creed); differently however Daniels, “Creed,” esp. 241–42. For a new proposal concerning the translation, see Janzen, “A Starving Aramean Was My Father,” VT 44 (1994): 374. 45. See the definition of the Yahwist in H. H. Schmid, Jahwist, 17. It is taken up by Levin, Jahwist, 10. 46. Revolutionary for the time but scarcely noticed was Hoftijzer’s work on the promises of the ancestors in 1956. Hoftijzer did not presuppose the traditional source theory for his investigation of the promises to the ancestors. Rather, he distinguished two groups of promises based on their linguistic features. He named the first the E-S group, because of its designation of God as El-Shaddai. Genesis 17 is the central text in this group, which is usually assigned to P. He assigned the non-Priestly promises to the other group (the “Gen XV group”). Hoftijzer’s E-S grouping is well motivated based upon its formal terminology, and it is compatible with the classic Documentary Hypothesis (there with P). However, because he assigns all other promises to the Gen XV group as a literarily unified text layer, he loses sight of the independence of Genesis. Hoftijzer determined Genesis 15, which mentions the exodus and subsequent events, to be an independent and literarily unified covenant narrative (Verheissungen, 14). Therefore, along with Genesis 15, all other promises of this group (that is, all of the non-Priestly promises) presuppose, according to Hoftijzer, the connection of the ancestors to the exodus (for a critique of Hoftijzer, see especially Köckert, Väterverheissungen, 35–39). If Hoftijzer had investigated the question of the internal layering of the non-Priestly promises and of the literary-historical classification of Genesis 15 more closely, the relative literary independence of Genesis within the Pentateuch would surely have occurred to him. 47. In 1950, the Swedish researcher Östborn concluded, by drawing upon Pedersen (Israel III–IV, 653–69), who himself followed the Documentary Hypothesis, that Genesis and Exodus–Deuteronomy were two independent tradition blocks (Cult, 21–29). Because his primary interest was in substantiating the origin of the canon, he did not develop this thesis further.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 10 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

10

Chapter 1. Introduction

consisting of individual narratives, nor the early postexilic late J extended beyond Genesis. He claimed that P was the first to combine late J, extending from creation to Joseph, with the independent Moses narrative. 48 In contrast to Winnett, who considered the late J to be the main author particularly of Genesis, 49 the version of J proposed by his student Van Seters was closer to the classic Documentary Hypothesis. Although Van Seters separated the traditions of the ancestors and Exodus 50 and saw J as late (but still exilic), 51 he sees J as the author who joined the ancestors and Exodus. 52 According to Van Seters, the literary extent of J reached from Genesis 2 to Joshua 24, which J composed and inserted within the Deuteronomistic History. 53 Simultaneously with Van Seters, Zimmerli recognized a clear gap between the ancestors and Exodus in his 1972 book Grundriss der alttestamentliche Theologie. 54 Zimmerli considered the “core component” 55 of the Hebrew Bible to be faith in God, which he presents first in his book, 56 in the self-presentation of Yhwh in the Decalogue as the God who led Israel out of Egypt (Exod 20:2–3; Deut 5:6–7). Only in a subsequent section does he discuss “Yhwh, the God of the fathers” and the “promise.” 57 Like Noth, Zimmerli did not draw any implications from this for assessing the literary history of the Pentateuch. Zimmerli explicitly refuted Galling’s acceptance of a double election tradition of Israel.58 He saw in the ancestor story just the “roots” of the story of the people narrated in Exodus so that his division of the ancestors and Exodus remains a thematic division.59

Rendtorff ’s work, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, which appeared in 1977, represents the most important break with the dominant view of “horizontal” instead of “vertical” divisions in the literary sources of the Pentateuch. 60 He postulated a literary division of the various tradition complexes (“larger units”) of the Pentateuch that signified a certain redaction-historical transforma48. Winnett, JBL 84 (1965): 1–19 (concerning Winnett, see also Levin, Jahwist, 26–27; Bieberstein, Josua, 42–43); for the independent Moses narrative, see Winnett, Mosaic Tradition. 49. Winnett, JBL 84 (1965): 18. 50. Van Seters, VT 22 (1972): 448–59; idem, Prologue, 233, 242–43. Before Van Seters (see also Macholz), see the reference in Römer, Väter, 3–4, with nn. 15–16. 51. See Van Seters, Abraham, 311. 52. See idem, Prologue, 242–43. 53. See idem, Festschrift Ahlström. 54. The English translation (Zimmerli, Outline) was published 1978. The arrangement of material in Preuss is noteworthy as well. He treats the exodus event as the “Primal Election” at the beginning of volume 1 (Preuss, Old Testament Theology, 1:40–49), but does not treat the ancestors until volume 2 (Preuss, Old Testament Theology, 2:3–18). 55. Zimmerli, Outline, 17. 56. Ibid., 21–27. 57. Ibid., 27–32. 58. Ibid., 27. 59. Ibid., 28. 60. Compare also the unpublished dissertation of Kessler (Querverweise) from 1972. Though it did little in the way of synthesis, it proceeded not from the models of layers provided by the history of research but from the explicit cross-references between the various transmission units in the pre-Priestly Pentateuch. The basic lines of Blum’s model of the origin of the Pentateuch are already foreshadowed here.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 11 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Sequence of the Ancestors and the Exodus

11

tion of the tradition-historical observations of Noth. 61 In so doing, Rendtorff called the unity of J into question. Thus, while Van Seters, 62 Schmid, 63 and Vorländer, 64 cast doubt on the traditional Solomonic dating of J, 65 Rendtorff raised the more fundamental question of the validity of J as a comprehensive source layer. 66 Instead, he saw the pre-Priestly Pentateuch as compiled of “larger units” that have been only loosely combined redactionally. 67 In his short essay for the congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament in 1974 (which appeared in print in 1975), Rendtorff conceived of the Priestly Writing as a redactional work that was the first to bring together literarily the various “larger units” in the Pentateuch into a single sequence of events.68 In his 1977 monograph, he limited the extent of P to Genesis 1–Exodus 6, so that P spans the Primal, the Ancestral, and the Exodus stories, but not the entire Pentateuch.69 The first combination of all of the larger units of the Pentateuch appeared in a “deuteronomistically shaped editorial layer.” 70 This layer is especially detectable in Gen 50:24; Exod 13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:1–3; Num 11:12; 14:23; and 32:11. 71 It is not clear from Rendtorff ’s discussion whether the P redactional work preceded this D editing or followed it, thus leading to contrary assessments of Rendtorff ’s position: De Pury and Römer understand Rendtorff to set D before P; 72 Otto reads Rendtorff in just the opposite way.73 Rendtorff first “clarified” his position in his introduction to the Hebrew Bible: the “relationship” of the Priestly editorial layer to the Deuteronomistic editing “is still largely unexplained.”74 With Rendtorff one finds the same problem reflected that distinguished Winnett and Van Seters:75 Were the thematic complexes in the Pentateuch—or at least several of them—first arranged and strung together by P or at an earlier stage?

61. Rendtorff, Problem, 19–28, 147–73. Houtman also speaks of “larger units” (Pentateuch, 424) he distinguishes Genesis, Exodus–Numbers, and Deuteronomy. 62. Van Seters, Abraham. 63. H. H. Schmid, Jahwist. 64. Vorländer, Entstehungszeit. One should also mention Diebner and Schult, “Argumenta”; and Schmitt, Josephsgeschichte, 189–90. 65. See the recent works of Berge, Zeit, 313; L. Schmidt, “Pentateuch,” 102–3. 66. Rendtorff, Problem, especially p. 148; compare Thompson, Traditions, 49–50. 67. Rendtorff, Problem, 19–28. For Thompson, “Traditional complex-chain narratives” are comparable (Traditions, 156–57). From these narratives, he nevertheless finds 5 (7) in Genesis + Exodus 1– 23. Rendtorff had an early forerunner in Budde (see Budde, Geschichte; about Budde, see Hölscher, Geschichtsschreibung, 13). Budde thought J reached to Samuel and conceived it as a school. He divided J into an oldest J in Samuel, a J2 in Judges, a J3 in Exodus–Joshua, a J4 in Genesis 12–50, and the latest J5 in the primeval story. 68. Rendtorff, VTSup 28 (1975), 166; idem, JSOT 3 (1977): 9. 69. Idem, Problem, 141, 161–62. 70. Ibid., 163. 71. Ibid., 162–63 (see the treatment of Otto, VF 22 [1977]: 93–94). 72. De Pury, Pentateuque, 63. 73. Otto, TRu 62 (1997): 6. 74. Rendtorff, The Old Testament, 162. 75. In his encounter with Rendtorff (JSOT 3 [1977]: 2–10), Van Seters reacted vehemently against the idea “that the connection between the patriarchal history and the traditions in Exodus to Numbers was not made before the priestly redaction of the Pentateuch” (Van Seters, JSOT 3 [1977]: 17–18). Van Seters instead attributes this connection to his J.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 12 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

12

Chapter 1. Introduction

Rendtorff ’s basic approach has been taken up by Blum, who argues in particular for the independence of the ancestral history into the exilic period. 76 The connection of the ancestors and the exodus, according to Blum, is attributable to Kd, the deuteronomistically shaped compositional layer in the Pentateuch, to which he assigns a whole series of texts traditionally identified as JE. 77 In so doing, the broadest gaps in the composition (Kd) are bridged. 78 Levin’s 79 “Yahwist” (also exilic) first combined the independent components of the ancestral history with the Moses story that begins in Exodus 2. 80 Thus both Blum and Levin date the literary context (Genesis–Exodus and following) “late,” compared with the Documentary Hypothesis. Nevertheless, Levin continues to argue that the ancestors and exodus traditions were joined at the same literary level in which the narrative substance of Genesis and Exodus (and following) was arranged. By contrast, Blum distinguishes Genesis from Exodus (and following). He contends that the internal coherence of Genesis was already provided for in the redactional text that he labels as “ancestral history 2” (“Vätergeschichte 2”), while it was primarily Kd that brought the material in Exodus–Numbers/Deuteronomy into its current sequence and arranged it. Nevertheless, Kd is prominently represented before Exodus in Genesis *15. With regard to the evident asymmetry between Genesis and Exodus–Numbers/ Deuteronomy, Blum sees the unity of J (contra Rendtorff ) as structurally preserved in its elementary lines in the form of his pentateuchal Kd. In a recent contribution, however, Blum (“Verbindung”) has modified his Kd hypothesis and is now limiting its literary extension to Exodus–Deuteronomy. Albertz draws heavily on Blum. He separates the ancestor and exodus traditions, not only literarily but also in terms of their sociological origins. For him, the ancestral history is a product of “a piety of early Israelite families projected onto the forefathers,” while “the specific beginning of Israel’s history of religion” starts with the exodus from Egypt, whose transmission was accomplished by the large exodus group. 81 The canonical placement of the ancestors before the exodus is the result of later systematizing of the narrative material, which he ascribes to Blum’s Kd. 82 76. Blum, Vätergeschichte. Compare the unconvincing critical treatment of Blum in WynnWilliams, State, albeit essentially only for Genesis 25–33 (the problem of the redactional joining of the “larger units” remains largely untreated). In Blum (Vätergeschichte, 392), the D edition of the ancestral story is dated to “the last third of the sixth century.” 77. Blum, Vätergeschichte, 396–99; idem, Pentateuch, 102–7 (especially p. 103). One may find a collection of Kd materials in Ska, Bib 72 (1991): 253–63. Kd did not yet incorporate the primeval story (Blum, Pentateuch, 107–8). For discussion of this problem, see §2.5 below. 78. Blum, ibid., 103. However, Blum presupposes knowledge of the exodus tradition and the conquest by the still independent ancestral history, even as the continuation of the ancestral history (idem, Vätergeschichte, 360). On this point, his literary-historical reconstruction is dependent of the notion of a Hexateuch. The outline of the salvation history of the Hexateuch remains in the background of the ancestral history. 79. Levin, Jahwist, 430–33 (“post Deuteronomic”–“pre-Deuteronomistic”). 80. See ibid., 389–93. 81. Albertz, History, 1:42. 82. Ibid., 28.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 13 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Sequence of the Ancestors and the Exodus

13

Along with Knierim and Moberly, de Pury and Römer are among the most prominent scholars who have divided the ancestors and Exodus in recent times. 83 These scholars date the literary connection of the two complexes even later than Blum. According to de Pury and Römer, Isaiah 40–55 and P are the first Hebrew Bible writings to combine the ancestral history and the Moses story. De Pury and Römer, like Winnett 84 and Rendtorff in his 1975 essay, see no prePriestly connection between the ancestors and Exodus. 85 The same conclusion has recently been reached by Gertz in his investigation of the redactional history of Exodus 1–15. 86 b. Arguments for J Running through a Tetrateuch The literary division of the traditions of the ancestors and the exodus in current discussion is no longer so unusual, though it is not yet a “trend.” Pentateuch discussions, especially in the English-speaking world, remain more closely associated 83. Knierim, “Composition,” 353–55. Moberly, Old Testament. See also Moberly, OTG. See the discussion of Moberly in Eslinger, “Exodus 6:3,” 191–93, and §2.3.5 below. De Pury, “Tradition patriarcale”; idem, VTSup 43 (1991), 78–96; idem, “Osèe 12”; idem, “Erwägungen”; idem, EstBib 52 (1994): 95–131. See already in a certain sense idem, ETR 51 (1976): 358–59. See also Kratz, ZTK 94 (1997): 23, and n. 57; idem, TRE 28:373. Römer, ETR 61 (1986): 1–19; idem, Väter, especially 568–75; idem, Nachwort, 119–23; idem, “Rècits Patriarcaux”; idem, RTP 125 (1993): 21–39; idem, “Historiographies”; idem, Transeu 13 (1997): 57–59. Concerning Römer’s Väter, see the review by Seebass, TRev 87 (1991): 102–5. For an extensive and very critical review, see Lohfink, Väter. 84. Winnett, JBL 84 (1965): 18, with n. 25. 85. See de Pury, “Erwägungen,” 430; Römer, Väter, 554, 568–75. Since the publication of the original German version of this study in 1999, several other scholars have reached the same or a similar conclusion, see esp. Gertz, Tradition; Otto, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch; idem, “Mose,” and the contributions in Gertz et al., Abschied; slightly different: Kratz, Composition, 279, 281, 307. Diebner also divides the history of the ancestors from the exodus but not as autochthonous and allochthonous. Rather, he treats them as two allochthonous traditions of the origins of Israel (Diebner, Festschrift Helck; see “Roman,” 60 [see also Davies, Scribes, 93, 105]). He distinguishes the Abraham narrative as a myth about the origins of the Mesopotamian exile from the Moses narrative as a myth about the origins of the Egyptian exile. The main problem with this thesis is that the significance of Genesis as a narrative about an Abraham exodus hinges upon Gen 11:31 (P). There is no plausible explanation why, in Hebrew Bible tradition history, the ideas of a small Egyptian exile would have won out (compare Diebner’s own words in Festschrift Helck). For the function of the Abraham exodus, instead see Römer, “Récits Patriarcaux,” 222. The results of L. Schmidt are noteworthy since he is otherwise one of the most vehement representatives of the Documentary Hypothesis (L. Schmidt, ZAW 104 [1992]: 1–27). He treats the question of the context of Genesis and Exodus, although he depends on dubious presuppositions (Römer, “Récits patriarcaux,” 19, 20 n. 74, 26). Using argumentation that is independent of any model, Schmidt attempts to prove that “there was already a work before 587 that contained at least a presentation of Abraham and Jacob in which both ancestors received a promise of land from Yhwh.” 86. Gertz, Tradition; idem (ed.), Grundinformation; see also Köckert, VTSup 109 (2006), 123. This proposal of the literary separation of Genesis and Exodus before P is discussed in two volumes: there are the essays in Gertz et al. (eds.) Abschied vom Jahwisten—especially noteworthy is the contribution by Blum (“Verbindung”), in which he limits the literary extent of Kd to Exodus–Deuteronomy; and there is the controversial debate in Dozeman and Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? See also the preface to this study.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 14 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Chapter 1. Introduction

14

with the Documentary Hypothesis (see, among many others, Friedman, Who Wrote; Friedman, Hidden Book; Friedman; Commentary; Friedman, Bible with Sources; Propp, AB 2; Campbell, O’Brien, Sources; Collins, Introduction). Even in Europe there are a number of recent works that still defend the classic source model. However, if one inquires into any one of these works, their arguments for a comprehensive J are surprisingly weak. Kaiser writes: Basically, one assigns to the Yahwistic History of J as the foundational material of the pentateuchal narratives, all texts that are not Elohistic, not Deuteronomistic, and not Priestly and which are connected to a concrete narrative thread and use Yhwh as the name for God. 87

However, it is extremely uncertain that the residue of pentateuchal narrative material forms a coherent whole once the E, D, and P materials are removed—assuming these elements can even be identified and extracted. In Kaiser’s definition, J is scarcely more than a residue of the history of research. The speculative character of J is even more apparent with Levin. There must have been a redactional thread available in the pre-priestly material that first joined a considerable part of the diverse material to the existing sequence of the salvation historical story. 88

Levin is certainly correct that the current order of the material in Genesis– Numbers must have been created through redactional work, but whether this redactional activity had a tetrateuchal horizon from the outset, and whether it was pre-Priestly, is unclear and would require a thoroughgoing rationale. These things cannot simply be assumed. Even where the arguments for the (tetrateuchal) unity of J have been set forth in more detail, they are not very convincing. Seebass appropriately observes that “from the outset, the material in Genesis . . . has little affinity for its continuation in Exodus.” 89 He confesses that the “hiatus” between the ancestors and Exodus is “still palpable in Exodus 1.” 90 At the same time, he thinks that the synthesis between these two tradition-historical complexes was completed before J. On what basis? Seebass argues that the consistency of J is recognizable by its “manifest parallels to ‘E’.” 91 However, this argument is based on two ad-hoc and unsupported hypotheses: E must have been received only in fragmentary form because it was incorporated into J, and J was a continuous entity in Genesis–Numbers because it amalgamated the E fragments. This circular argument hardly proves that J was a tetrateuchal entity. 87. Kaiser, Grundriss, 1:63. See also Smend, Entstehung, 86. 88. Levin, Jahwist, 9 (emphasis by Levin). For a contrasting and more convincing opinion, see Kratz, TRE 28:373. 89. Seebass, TRE 26:187. 90. Ibid., 197. 91. Ibid., 193–94.

spread is 3 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 15 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Sequence of the Ancestors and the Exodus

15

Two debated premises comprise Zenger’s argument for a “Jerusalem History” from the seventh century as a companion piece to the classic “Jehovist.” 92 In the first edition of his Einleitung, his “main argument” for this preexilic, even preDeuteronomistic, history runs as follows: 93 because Deuteronomy 1–3, 5, 9–10 should be dated late preexilic, and their parallels in Exodus/Numbers are prior to them, the tetrateuch of Genesis–Numbers must be preexilic. Both premises of Zenger’s are strongly contested. The idea that, contrary at least to the Continental European consensus, 94 Deuteronomy 1–3, 5, 9–10 should be dated preexilic rests on Cross’s thesis of a Josianic “Deuteronomistic History” 95 that stretched from Deuteronomy 1 to 2 Kings 23. Cross’s thesis, in turn, largely depends on the debatable historicity of the so-called Josianic reform. 96 Cross claimed that the preexilic, Josianic edition of the “Deuteronomistic History” was shaped by two themes: the sins of Jeroboam on the one hand and the promise of a dynasty to David on the other. 97 However, it is impossible to prove that this preexilic edition encompassed more than *Samuel–Kings, since the supposed “Deuteronomistic” work in Deuteronomy–2 Kings is of a quite different nature. As von Rad states, it is “hard to demonstrate that the Deuteronomistic redaction of the books of Kings and that of the book of Judges would have resulted from a single procedure.” 98 The idea of a unified preexilic work spanning Deuteronomy to 2 Kings 23 is debated, and therefore it should not be the basis for compositional arguments. 99 Given Perlitt’s observation of the mutually contingent correspondence between the presentation of the overthrow of the land west of the Jordan in Deuteronomy 1–3 and that of the land east of the Jordan in Joshua 1–11, 100 proof of the preexilic origin of Deuteronomy 1–3 would also have to extend to Joshua 1–11. In light of Bieberstein’s conclusions regarding the origin of the conquest tradition at the beginning of Joshua, a preexilic date is unlikely. 101 However, even if Zenger’s preexilic dating of Deuteronomy 1–3, 5, 9–10 is accepted, problems still exist with his theory. While there are parallels in these 92. Zenger, Einleitung, 112–19; see Lohfink, Väter, 105. 93. Zenger, Einleitung, 116–17. This line of argument is lacking in the subsequent editions. 94. See Noth, DH, 14, 79–93. See also Rose, ZBK 5/2, 371–73. 95. See also G. Braulik in Zenger, Einleitung, 80. 96. For example, see Lohfink, BETL 68 (1985), 24–48; Gieselmann, ZAW 106 (1994): 229–36; Uehlinger, “Kultreform.” 97. These two themes were joined, according to Cross, in the portrayal of the Josianic reform of 2 Kings 22–23: “Jeroboam led Israel into idolatry and ultimate destruction as all the prophets had warned. In Josiah who cleansed the sanctuary founded by David and brought a final end to the shrine founded by Jeroboam, in Josiah who sought Yahweh with all his heart, the promises to David were fulfilled.” This work can thus be described as a “propaganda work of the Josianic reformation and imperial program” (Cross, “Themes,” 284). For a recent discussion of this approach, see Schmid, “Wellhausen.” 98. Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:347. For this problem, see below in §3.3.2.c. 99. See now Witte et al. (eds.), Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke. For the problem of the context between Deuteronomy 1–3 and the Deuteronomic law, see below, §2.4.7. 100. Perlitt, BKAT 5 29. 101. Bieberstein, Joshua.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 16 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

16

Chapter 1. Introduction

Deuteronomy texts to Exodus and Numbers, parallels to Genesis are limited to the mention of the ancestral trio, the literary originality of which is dubious in Deuteronomy 1–11. 102 Therefore, it is possible to argue from Deuteronomy for a prior Exodus/Numbers tradition block but not for a prior Genesis–Numbers block. At the same time, the question of priority between the Deuteronomistic framework and Exodus–Numbers narrative material remains unsettled. 103 Even if Zenger’s argument for the priority of (Genesis/)Exodus–Numbers is accepted, it is by no means clear whether Deuteronomy 1–3, 5, 9–10 presuppose the events reported in (Genesis/)Exodus–Numbers as a literary sequence. Although the order of the events in Deuteronomy reaches further and further back into the past, they are by no means arranged strictly according to the sequence of Exodus–Numbers. For example, the incident with the golden calf is recounted in Deuteronomy 9– 10, after the Decalogue in Deuteronomy 5, instead of the other way around (as the reversed narrative order in Deuteronomy 1–3; 5; 9–10 would suggest). The most recent essays on the Pentateuch, at least in the German-speaking realm, that reckon with a pre-Deuteronomistic and tetrateuchal J or a comparable entity 104 thus continue to be based on a broad tradition of research that almost exclusively considers horizontal text divisions rather than vertical block divisions. Furthermore, the arguments in support of this traditional approach are not fully convincing. 105 In any case, these recent essays have not formulated a satisfying answer to the question of the literary relationship between the ancestors and the exodus.

1.3. Preliminary Considerations 1.3.1. The Literary Horizon of the Investigation: Genesis–2 Kings The relationship of the ancestors and Exodus cannot be addressed as a problem internal to the Pentateuch. For good reasons, recent investigations into the formation of the Torah in the Persian period take into account that Genesis–Deuteronomy has been secondarily delimited from a larger block of material. 106 One 102. See Römer, Väter. 103. See Rose, Deuteronomist; Van Seters, Festschrift Coats. 104. In Carr’s investigation of Genesis, the pre-Priestly networks inside Genesis readily appear before one’s eyes (Carr, Reading, 149–51). Carr intends, however, “that, in fact, this proto-Genesis story did continue in some form into the Moses story” (p. 218). The links between Genesis and Exodus suggested by Carr (p. 217) are, however, debatable (see in more detail Schmid, “Gap,” 36). Hendel sees a “common pattern . . . indicating that a common tradition underlies the present form of both story cycles” (Epic, 139–40) behind the Jacob and Moses stories. The points of contact, however, are so general that they fit hero sagas of various types. They provide no arguments for a document accomplished in a single draft or even in the same milieu. (Concerning Hendel, see de Pury, VTSup 43 [1991], 90 n. 48.) 105. For Wellhausen, there was no disputing that “Q and JE are continued beyond Genesis into the book of Joshua” (Wellhausen, Composition, 61). 106. See the discussion below in §3.6.5.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 17 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Preliminary Considerations

17

cannot discuss pentateuchal problems as though Joshua–2 Kings did not exist because the narrative threads of the Pentateuch continue in the Former Prophets. It is much more likely that the constitution of the Pentateuch as Torah was secondary to the development of the continuous narrative thread of Genesis–2 Kings than that the Pentateuch first grew into its final form and then, in toto, was attached to the subsequent historical books with miraculous thematic connection. Some recent discussions still date the creation of a pentateuchal (or tetrateuchal or hexateuchal) core earlier than that of the subsequent historical books primarily because of the dominance of Noth’s thesis of the “Deuteronomistic History.” This thesis legitimated the treatment of the Pentateuch separate from the Former Prophets (see §1.3.1.c below), despite the literary evidence of their unity. However, in examining the Pentateuch, the context of the historical books as a whole must be considered, since it is likely that the formative literary processes both in Deuteronomy and also in Genesis–Numbers took place within the framework of Genesis–2 Kings. 107 There is also evidence of redactional activity in the larger structures that order Genesis–2 Kings as a coherent transmission complex. Several of these unifying structures are presented below in support of my contention that Pentateuch investigation must consider the context of Genesis–2 Kings as a whole. a. Overarching Structures The chronological information in Genesis–2 Kings provides a clear example of redactional work that spans Genesis–2 Kings. (a) The Chronology in Genesis–2 Kings. Difficulties immediately arise when one examines the chronology in Genesis–2 Kings because the various biblical text witnesses (MT, Samaritan Pentateuch, LXX) present different dating systems, 108 and the dating systems in Josephus and the book of Jubilees are different yet again. 109 This multiplicity of dating systems likely arose as a result of the importance of calendrical systems in ancient Judaism. Apparently, various groups reworked and changed the biblical dating systems according to their own interests. The importance of these issues is illustrated by the secession of the Essenes from the Jerusalem temple after 152 b.c.e. as a result of controversies over the calendar. 110 107. See also Schmitt, VTSup 66 (1997), 262. Contrary to Seebass, TRE 26:186; Lohfink, TP 71 (1996): 484. 108. See the overview in the tables in Hughes, Secrets, 44–45 (as well as pp. 234–41). For the particularly numerous differences in Genesis 5–11, see table 7. For details, see Bousset, ZAW 20 (1900): 147; Kittel, RE 3 21:640–41; Tov, Textual Criticism, 337–38 (bibliography); Noth, DH, 18–27; Stenhouse, “Samaritan Chronology”; Jacob, Exodus, 1049–59; Sauer, TZ 24 (1968): 1–14; Van Zyl, History; Shenkel, Chronology; Larsson, JBL 102 (1983): 401–9; O’Brien, “Judges,” 238 n. 1; Wenham, WBC 2 xxviii–xxx. The information in Demetrius largely agrees with the LXX (see N. Walter, JSHRZ 1/2:289); Hughes, Secrets, 241–42. 109. See ibid., 244–50; Cogan, ABD 1:1003; VanderKam, ZAW 107 (1995): 80–100. 110. See Stegemann, Essener, 231–41; Maier, Qumran-Essener III, 52–160, especially pp. 140–42; Lange and Lichtenberger, TRE 28:66.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 18 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

18

Chapter 1. Introduction

It is difficult to determine how the different dating systems are related to one another. 111 However, the Masoretic system is clearly tendentious. The chronological data in Genesis through Exod 12:40 place the exodus from Egypt in the year 2666 anno mundi. 112 As often noted, this number is significant because it constitutes two-thirds of 4000 years, which was apparently perceived as a world era. 113 1 Kgs 6:1 places the beginning of the temple construction under Solomon in the fourth year of his reign and 480 years after Israel’s departure from Egypt, 114 which is the year 3146 anno mundi. It is noteworthy then that these chronological data make the year 4000 anno mundi coincide with the Maccabean temple dedication and the establishment of the Hanukkah festival in 164 b.c.e. 115 According to the chronology in the book of Kings, from the beginning of the temple construction in the 4th year of Solomon (1 Kgs 6:1) until the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians in 587 b.c.e. 116 in the 11th year of Zedekiah (2 Kgs 25:2) was 430 years, precisely the length of Israel’s stay in Egypt according to Exod 12:40–41.117 The references in Kings to the length of the reigns of each king of Judah after David and Solomon, who each ruled forty years according to 1 Kings 2:11 and 11:42, are as shown on p. 19.118 It seems logical to conclude that the chronological system of Genesis–2 Kings was first fixed during or after the Maccabean dedication of the temple. Seen from this perspective, the Masoretic chronology in the historical books is, in a sense, an elaborate vaticinium ex eventu. 119 This is significant for our discussion because it 111. For a summary, see Tov, Text, 279–80. 112. For the chronology of P, see Hughes, Secrets, 5–44; Pola, Priesterschrift, 342 (bibliography). The fact that P set the exodus in the year 2666, as Pola argues, is hardly probable. Several scholars consider the temple dedication under Solomon in 2800 to be the goal of the chronology of P: Lohfink, VTSup 29 (1978), 211 n. 61; Koch, TRE 12:576; Hughes, Secrets, 46; and Kreuzer, ZAW 103 (1991): 253 n. 4. Hughes (Secrets, 46) also points to the calculation of the first year of Abraham as the year 1600 anno mundi. For the differences between the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch (Samaritanus) in Exod 12:40– 41, see Hughes, ibid., 33–36; Andrei, Hen 18 (1996): 15 n. 33. For the history of exegesis of the 430 years in Exod 12:40, see the entire work of Andrei, ibid., 9–67. 113. For example, see Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 318–19; Bousset, ZAW 20 (1900): 147 n. 11. See also Koch, ZAW 95 (1983): 423. The observation goes back to information from Gutschmid in Nöldeke, “Grundschrift,” 11. Compare Johnstone, ZAW 99 (1987): 24, with n. 11. 114. For these 480 years as the sum of the partial data in the historical books, see Kittel, RE 3 21:644; Noth, DH, 18–25. The LXX offers 440 years (see Hughes, Secrets, 36–37, with n. 22). 115. So Jepsen, ZAW 47 (1929): 251–55; Murtonen, ST 8 (1955): 137; Johnson, Purpose, 32–33; Thompson, Historicity, 14–16; Koch, ZAW 95 (1983): 423; Lohfink, “Priesterschrift,” 237; Hughes, Secrets, 234–35, with n. 1; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 48–49; Kaiser, Grundriss, 1:60; Knauf, Festschrift Donner, 83, with n. 5; Davies, Scribes, 180–81, 199 n. 15; Schmid, Literaturgeschichte, 209–10. Kaiser points out that, according to the LXX which dates the exodus to the year 3346, the year 4000 coincides with the downfall of the Northern Kingdom (Grundriss, 1:60). 116. For the problems of ancient chronology between 587 and 164 b.c.e., see Hughes, Secrets, 235–37. Concerning the scenes, see, for example, Donner, GAT 4/2 447–49. 117. See the calculations in Koch, VT 28 (1978): 435. 118. For the differences in the LXX, see Hughes, Secrets, 57. 119. For understanding the Hebrew Bible canon, this discovery is significant. It implies that even after the close of the Torah portion of the canon in the Persian period, retouching the text was possible into the Maccabean period—at least with respect to the chronological data. Schmitt and Witte reckon with very late text additions in Numbers 22–24: Schmitt, Festschrift Kaiser (1994), 184–87;

spread is 9 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 19 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Preliminary Considerations

1 Kgs 14:21 1 Kgs 15:2 1 Kgs 15:9 1 Kgs 22:42 2 Kgs 8:17 2 Kgs 8:26 (2 Kgs 11:3 2 Kgs 12:2 2 Kgs 14:22 2 Kgs 15:2 2 Kgs 15:33 2 Kgs 16:2 2 Kgs 18:22 2 Kgs 21:1 2 Kgs 21:19 2 Kgs 22:1 2 Kgs 23:31 2 Kgs 23:36 2 Kgs 24:8 2 Kgs 24:18

Rehoboam Abijah Asa Jehoshaphat Jehoram Ahaziah Athaliah Joaz Amaziah Azariah/Uzziah Jotham Ahaz Hezekiah Manasseh Ammon Josiah Jehoaz Jehoiakim Jehoiachin Zedekiah

19

17 years 3 years 41 years 25 years 8 years 1 year 7 years) 40 years 29 years 52 years 16 years 16 years 29 years 55 years 2 years 31 years 3 months 11 years 3 months 11 years

Rehoboam to Zedekiah Solomon’s Reign minus 4 years (1 Kgs 6:1)

394 years 36 years

Total

430 years

suggests that the chronological system of Genesis–2 Kings could only have been incorporated by redactional activity traversing Genesis–2 Kings as a whole (see Exod 12:40–41; 1 Kgs 6:1). The chronology demonstrates that Genesis–2 Kings was perceived as a large historical work and was literarily revised as such. Other organizing themes running through Genesis–2 Kings also suggest this conclusion. (b) Genesis–Joshua, Judges–Kings as the History of Salvation and Judgment. Certainly the most elementary organizing theme in Genesis– 2 Kings is the division of the material into one large history of salvation section and one large history of judgment section, 120 each connected with the theme of land. 121 The salvation Witte, “Segen” (see already Wellhausen, Composition, 352; Holzinger, KHC 4 xii; Baentsch, HKAT 1/2 lxvi). Does b. B. Bat. 14b–15a (μ[lb tvrpw wrps btk hvm) reflect memories of this when it specifically mentions that, alongside his book, Moses also authored the section about Balaam? Concerning this problem, see also Leiman, Canonization, 51–52, 163–65 n. 160. 120. The fact that alternative or competing organizing themes can still be recognized alongside this twofold division does not invalidate it. Rather, they occasionally indicate that this salvation-judgment scheme was superimposed on existing text material that already had its own structure. These competing themes include Sinai as a boundary marker in the narratives about the grumbling (see H. Schmid, EdF 237 [1986], 54 [bibliography] and Römer, Festschrift Smyth-Florentin) and individual, positive royal evaluations in the time of the monarchy. 121. Kaiser has argued that Genesis–2 Kings can be called a historical work of salvation and judgment (TheolAT 1:159). Traditional research divides these parts into two independent historical works: traditional research has seen the extent of the ancient written sources (like J, E, and P) in the “salvation-

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 20 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

20

Chapter 1. Introduction

history narrated in Genesis–Joshua moves from creation and the promises to the ancestors to the possession and division of the land. In contrast, the history of judgment in the royal period in Samuel–Kings ends in the loss of land. 122 Judges forms a somewhat neutral transition between the two. Salvation history is held together by the theme of the land that is promised and then possessed, while the history of judgment is held together by the life of Israel in the land under the monarchy, which is evaluated negatively when read in this context. 123 Salvation History – Possession of the Land Genesis–Joshua

Judgment History – Loss of the Land ( Judges) Samuel–Kings

One finds the decisive turning point at the end of the book of Joshua (chap. 24), which recapitulates the hexateuchal salvation history. 124 This history reaches its climax in Israel’s taking possession of the land with its cities and its crops that it neither built nor planted but now uses (v. 13). The history that led to this situation can be called salvation history in the sense that, despite its own resistance, Israel was led out of Egypt and took possession of a land whose goods it did not produce itself. Although Joshua 24 leaves no doubt that this salvation history has concluded with the possession of the land, the history continues, and Joshua 24 is not merely the end of Genesis–Joshua but also the transition to Judges–Kings. 125 Contrary to older theories of the Hexateuch that classify Joshua 24 as a conclusion, 126 one must emphasize that Joshua 24 looks forward just as much as into the past. Joshua invokes the first commandment (v. 14) for the people of Israel after the historical review of 24:2–13. However, he also affirms, against the protests of the people: You are not able to serve Yhwh (hwhy ta db[l wlkwt al, v. 19). Despite Israel’s affirmation of its obligation to Yhwh as its God, it is clear already in Joshua 24 that it will not be able to carry out its obligation. The monarchic period confirms that Israel will abandon Yhwh and serve foreign gods. historical” portion, while the judgment history that follows in the land forms the subject of the “Deuteronomistic History.” Von Rad described this latter work as “Israel’s comprehensive confession of guilt” (Old Testament Theology, 1:337; see also Steck, Israel, 138–39). 122. See already Weippert, VT 23 (1973): 441 and elsewhere. 123. The judgment history is held together by a fine network of promise and fulfillment. See von Rad, “Königsbücher,” 193–95; Weippert, VTSup 43 (1991), 116–31. 124. It is noteworthy that the events of Sinai are not mentioned (as earlier seen and evaluated by von Rad, “Hexateuch”). However, one should be careful about speaking of “something missing” within the context of uncertain literary hypotheses. Instead, the counterquestion should be posed: what then should be expected within the fictitious situation of this speech and of the thought of Joshua 24? See the details in §3.3. 125. Early on, Budde correctly affirmed that Joshua 24 was written “in anticipation of the testing immediately to follow” (KHC 7 xiii; see also Brekelmans, VTSup 43 [1991], 1–9). He saw this as an argument for tracing J and E further into Judges and the following books. 126. See also Bieberstein, Josua, 339.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 21 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Preliminary Considerations

21

It is clear from Levin’s penetrating analysis that Joshua 24 specifically foreshadows the monarchic period as the time of Israel’s apostasy from Yhwh. Levin has shown that Joshua 24 reports a type of royal election that narrates the “origin of the theocracy.”127 Therefore, Joshua 24 plays out in Shechem, which is the “place where kings are made.”128 Yhwh is king of Israel and every earthly king can only be competition. From the perspective of Joshua 24, the entire monarchic period of Israel is censured; the monarchic period is qua monarchic period a time of judgment.

In Josh 24:20, Joshua formulates the salvation and judgment pattern in Genesis–2 Kings in a microcosm: If you abandon Yhwh and serve foreign gods, then he will turn and do evil to you [[[r] and destroy you after having done good to you [bfy in Hiphil].

The future “evil action” ([rhw, waw + perfect) of Yhwh is contrasted with the “good action” of the past (byfyh, pf.). The asymmetry of the “good and evil action” of Yhwh toward Israel is noteworthy. While Yhwh’s past “good actions” were unconditional (there is no mention of Israel’s previous behavior), Israel must be careful not to “abandon” (bz[) Yhwh in the future; otherwise Yhwh will “do harm” to Israel. Thus, Joshua 24 begins a new epoch for Israel in which its salvation depends upon Israel itself. 129 In a certain sense, the structuring of Genesis–2 Kings as a grand historical work of salvation–judgment is also supported by the distribution of divine speeches and actions in Genesis– 2 Kings. This distribution points to the continual withdrawal of God from the events of the world and of Israel from creation to exile. It is probable that the receding of the direct intervention of God in the world is effected by the character of the underlying material. In any case, the salvation-historical epoch in the present text of Genesis–2 Kings 127. Levin, Verheissung, 114–16. 128. Ibid., 117. Shechem could also be chosen as location for the scene in Joshua 24 because Abraham built the first sanctuary in the land there (Gen 12:6). Joshua 24 and Genesis 12 thus form an inclusio. 129. The sequence of God’s “good” (bfy, Hiphil) and “evil action” ([[r, Hiphil) that Josh 24:20 unfurls can be seen in a large network of references for bfy, Hiphil (Gen 4:7; 12:16; 32:10, 13; Exod 1:20; 30:7; Lev 5:4; Num 10:29, 32; Deut 5:28; 8:16; 9:21; 13:15; 17:4; 18:17; 19:18; 27:8; 28:63; 30:5; Josh 24:20; Judg 17:13; 19:22; Ruth 3:10; 1 Sam 2:32; 16:17; 20:13; 25:31; 1 Kgs 1:47; 2 Kgs 9:30; 11:18) and for [[r, Hiphil (Gen 19:7, 9; 31:7; 43:6; 44:5; Exod 5:22–23; Lev 5:4; Num 11:11; 16:15; 20:15; Deut 26:6; Josh 24:20; Judg 19:23; Ruth 1:21; 1 Sam 12:25; 25:34; 26:21; 1 Kgs 14:9; 16:25; 17:20; 2 Kgs 21:11). Josh 24:20 also fits into these. The series of statements is opened by Jacob’s prayer in Gen 32:10–13, in which Jacob refers back to the prosperity (bfy, Hiphil) Yhwh promised him, specifically the promise of progeny. The promise that Yhwh would “do well” for Israel is encountered again in Num 10:29, 32; Deut 8:16; 30:5. This series also concludes with the fulfillment notices of Josh 21:43–45; 23:14–15; 24:20. These notices affirm that the good Yhwh had promised had all been achieved. The series of statements about the “evil action” ([[r, Hiphil) of Yhwh begins with the objection of Moses in Exod 5:22. Exod 5:23 ignores it and ascribes the evil action to Pharaoh. The confession of Num 20:15 and Deut 26:6 is formulated this way. Peculiarly, Josh 24:20 first speaks of the “evil action” of Yhwh toward Israel in the event that Israel forsakes Yhwh, a statement that 1 Sam 12:25 takes up and strengthens, but without success. The monarchic period is a long period of apostasy from Yhwh that reaches its climax in the evil deeds of Manasseh. Thus, 2 Kgs 21:12 affirms in the description of the rule of Manasseh that Yhwh will bring judgment (h[r) on Jerusalem and Judah.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 22 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

22

Chapter 1. Introduction

is characterized by a greater divine presence in the world in contrast with the judgmenthistorical epoch.

(g) The Sequence of Guilt, Punishment, and Preservation as a Structuring Principle in Genesis–2 Kings. One well-known type of narrative, found primarily in the primeval story of Genesis 1–11, is characterized by the cycle of guilt, punishment, and preservation 130 (for example, see Genesis 2–3, 4, 6:1–4, 11:1–9, and with qualifications, also the flood narrative in Genesis 6–9). At the same time, the sequence of guilt, punishment, and preservation, which characterizes these individual narratives, also forms an overarching structure for the entire primeval story, effected particularly by the ordering of the paradise (Genesis 2–3) and flood narratives (Genesis 6–9). In the context of the primeval story, the flood is punishment for the growth of human guilt since the creation of humanity. 131 However, humanity is not completely destroyed by the flood; Noah and his family survive the catastrophe. Furthermore, the promise of preservation at the end of the flood narrative (Gen 8:21–22) neutralizes the curse on the land pronounced as punishment on humanity at the end of the paradise narrative (3:17; compare 5:29). 132 This macrostructure of guilt, punishment, and preservation is found again in subsequent narratives. As Blum has noted, Exodus 32, the affair of the golden calf, and Numbers 13–14, the episode with the spies, are particularly important in this regard. On the one hand, they provide “associations with the primeval story,” and on the other hand, they have a macrostructural function in their larger context. 133 Exodus 32 and Numbers 13–14 create a pattern for Israel’s folk history beginning with Exodus that is quite analogous to the primeval story with respect to the cycle of guilt, punishment, and preservation. The punishment in Num 14:36–37 is connected to the guilt of the apostasy in Exodus 32, as explicitly noted in Exod 32:34, but there is also the preservation of a remnant (Num 14:38). Thus, the primeval story and the folk history share the same thematic structure of guilt, punishment, and preservation; but even more notably, the presentation of Israel’s state history also exhibits this structure. Portrayed as an antitype of the golden calf (Exodus 32), the “sins of Jeroboam” in 1 Kings 12 (the erection of the bull images in Dan and Bethel) constitute Israel’s fundamental guilt and presage 130. See Westermann, “Arten,” 47–58 (for the terminology of “narratives of guilt and punishment,” see Steck, Festschrift von Rad, 544 n. 52); Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 64–73; see also the “stories of crime and punishment” by Van Seters, Prologue, 189; and the observations in Clines, Theme, 61–79; Oeming, TTZ 102 (1993): 34–35; Blenkinsopp, Festschrift Freedman, 4. Otto assigns the beginning of this sequence in the primeval story to his Pentateuch redaction (Festschrift Michel, 191). 131. For the relationship between Gen 6:1–4 and Genesis 3 (especially v. 6) as “guilt,” see Oeming, TTZ 102 (1993): 48. 132. See Steck, Festschrift von Rad, 528–31; for a different view, see Levin, Jahwist, 108. 133. “Following the nearness of God preserved in Exodus 24, the apostasy in Exodus 32 structurally exhibits the lines of a ‘fall’ throughout (perhaps also in view of the resulting “lessening of status” for God’s people). And the downfall in the wilderness of the generation that was rejected, with the exception of the faithful Caleb, is reminiscent to a certain extent of the flood tradition” (Blum, Komposition, 191; see Schmidt, Old Testament Introduction, 100–101; Blenkinsopp, Festschrift Coats, 111; Römer, “Jugement,” 11–14).

spread is 9 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 23 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Preliminary Considerations

23

the punishment of the downfall of the Northern Kingdom in 2 Kings 17. 134 2 Kgs 17:16, 21–22 explicitly refers back to 1 Kings 12, and a remnant is preserved: “Nothing remained but the tribe of Judah alone” (2 Kgs 17:18). Thus, the primeval story, the history of the people, and the state history contain similar thematic structures, and this similarity is not coincidental. Rather, this similarity is due to redactional activity in Genesis–2 Kings as a whole. Genesis– 2 Kings should therefore be considered as a redactional unit. To underscore the point that Genesis–2 Kings should be regarded as a contiguous history, note my earlier comments (see p. 1) that the syntax at the beginning of most of the books indicates that the books in Genesis–2 Kings form a single unit.

b. The Origin of the Division of the Books The origin of the division of Genesis–2 Kings into nine books can only be dated approximately. 135 The division is attested in the Greek codices (for example, a, A, B; 4th and 5th century c.e.), 136 which have both subscriptions and secondary superscriptions for each book. But the division is apparently older because Origen, Melito, Josephus, Philo, and 4 Ezra 14:14–18 are all aware of it. 137 How far back can we go beyond these first-century c.e. witnesses? 138 The discoveries of Qumran are the most important starting point. The biblical books were written on separate scrolls in Qumran as a rule. 139 Exceptions exist in the scrolls of 4QGen–Exoda (earlier 4Gena and 4Exodb) 140 and 4QPaleoGen– Exod1 (earlier 4QpaleoExod1 or 4QpaleoExodn), 141 which in all probability included Genesis and Exodus. Comparable cases are 4QExod–Levf (earlier 4QExodf ) 142 and 4QLev–Numa, 143 which contain fragments from Exodus and 134. The “decisive interpretive formula of the event” in Exodus 32 “(see the incongruence of the number in Exodus 32) is taken from the report about Jeroboam I . . . 1 Kgs 12:28b = Exod 32:4b,8b” (Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 208). 135. See also Oesch, Petucha, 22–27. 136. See Swete, Introduction, 201–2 (already with the incorporation of Ruth either between Judges and Kingdoms [A, B] or between Joshua and Judges [N+V]). 137. For Origen and Milto, see Eusebius, H.E. 6:25 (Swete, Introduction, 203, 215) and 4:26 (Swete, Introduction, 203); for Josephus, see Beckwith, Canon, 23–24. For Philo, see Holzinger, Hexateuch, 3; Ryle, Philo, xxff.; Swete, Introduction, 215; Beckwith, Canon, 22, 50. See also Swete, Introduction, 215; and the rabbinic material in Leiman, Canonization; Olson, Death, 44–45. 138. It is often claimed that the LXX translation of the Torah already presupposed its fivefold division (for example, see Eissfeldt, Introduction, 156; Tilly, Einführung, 26–27, with reference to Demetrius and Aristobulus). The evidence indeed points in this direction since the five books of the Torah in the LXX go back to (at least) five different translators (see Wevers, HBOT, 1/1:95). 139. See Tov, Text, 86–87, 166; and idem, Scribal Practices, 74–79. As already with Sir 49:10, the Book of the Twelve was then valid as a book. See Glessmer, RevQ 62 (1993): 179–80; for the sequence of Malachi–Jonah in 4Q76, see Fuller, Festschrift Watts; Steck, ZAW 108 (1996): 70–86. 140. Davila, RevQ 61 (1993): 4–5; see DJD 12 7–30. 141. The scroll contains letters from the last verses of Genesis and passages from Exodus 1–4, 8– 12, 16–20, 22, 25–28, 36, 40(?). See Ulrich, Manuscripts, 106–11; Maier, Qumran-Essener II, 15–16; DJD 9 17–50. 142. F. M. Cross, DJD 12 133–34. 143. See Glessmer, RevQ 62 (1993): 164–65; Maier, Qumran-Essener II, 19; and E. Ulrich, DJD 12 153–76. 1QS, 1QSa, and 1QSb also existed on a single scroll.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 24 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

24

Chapter 1. Introduction

Leviticus and from Leviticus and Numbers, respectively. It may be that these scrolls traversing two books are simply fragments of scrolls containing the entire Pentateuch. 144 This explanation is even more plausible for the Mur 1 scroll from Wadi Murabbºat, which contains fragments from Genesis (passages from Genesis 32– 35), Exodus (4–6), and Numbers (34:36). 145 The formulation “the book of Moses and the books of the prophets and David’s psalms” from 4QMMT (4Q397 = 4QMMTd ) points in the same direction with its noteworthy singular construction “the book of Moses.” 146 Nevertheless, no extant scroll indisputably includes Genesis–Deuteronomy. 147 Were there specific superscriptions to the scrolls at Qumran? Because the beginnings of many scrolls have been lost through erosion, superscriptions for individual scrolls can only be documented with certainty in a few isolated cases. The fragment 4Q8c (4QGenh title) is particularly significant because it contains the word tyvrb (written without a) 148 and appears to be a superscription to a scroll of Genesis. The text of Genesis perhaps followed in the next columns; it is not clear whether this title stood horizontally or vertically next to the columns. No other superscriptions to biblical books are attested.149 However, three additional manuscript superscriptions are known from Qumran: 1QS, 4QDibHama, and a work with the title hvwm rps vrdm (4Q249). 150 In 1QS (1Q28) 151 the superscription ]ˆmw djyh ˚[rs is easily recognized as such because it runs parallel to a seam and therefore stands at a right angle to the following text. 152 In 4QDibHama (4Q504,) 153 the superscription twramh yrbd appears on the back side of the text, as is the case also in 4Q249.154 1QIsaa apparently had a cover page on which a superscription would have been placed.155 Furthermore, several “identification tags” have been found that were sewn onto the first columns of scrolls in order to identify them. 156 144. Ulrich is skeptical of this position (E. Ulrich, DJD 12 175). 145. See J. T. Milik, DJD 2 75–78: “The fragments of Genesis and Exodus and the two from Numbers almost certainly come from the same manuscript. . . . It is possible that the scroll originally contained the complete Torah” (p. 75). 146. For the authorship of Moses, see Mack, “Shadow”; Carr, Reading, 20–21. See also the singular designation hvm trwt in 1QS 5:8; 8:22; CD 5:2; 15:2, 9, 12 or simply hrwt in 1QS 5:21; 6:6; CD 6:4; 14:8; 15:13; etc. (see Stegemann, “Mitte,” 161 n. 39). In the Hebrew Bible, see also the term “book (of the law) of Moses” (hvm [trwt] rps) in 2 Chr 25:4; 35:12; Neh 8:1; 13:1. Similarly, Mark 12:26 refers to the “book of Moses” (singular) when citing Exod 3:2, 6 (see Eissfeldt, Introduction, 156). 147. See Stegemann, “Mitte,” 164 n. 50; 165 n. 56; and 180 n. 123. See Maier, Qumran-Essener III, 9–10. It cannot be ruled out that there were scrolls in antiquity that included the entire Hebrew Bible (see Oesch, Petucha, 118 n. 5 [bibliography]), but they would have been exceptional. 148. See DJD 10 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994). 149. See, however, Exod 1:1–6 in 4Q13 (4QExodb), Deut 1:1–17 in 4Q35 (4QDeuth), and 1 Kgs 1:1 in 5Q2 (5QKgs). See Glessmer, RevQ 62 (1993): 159–73. 150. See Maier, Qumran-Essener II, 191–92; DJD 10. 151. See DJD 1 107. 152. See DJD 10 63. 153. See DJD 7 137–39. 154. See DJD 10 63. 155. See Trever, “Scroll,” xiii–xiv; and Tov, Text, 166. 156. See Haran, JANESCU 22 (1993): 60–61 (with bibliography in n. 25).

spread is 9 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 25 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Preliminary Considerations

25

In sum, it is clear that recording books on separate scrolls was the norm at Qumran, even though there is evidence of scrolls that contain multiple books, as the scroll fragments encompassing Genesis–Exodus and Leviticus–Numbers demonstrate. 157 However, there do not appear to have been standardized book superscriptions yet. 158 As far as we can tell, the placement of the scroll description (either at a right angle to the text that follows or on the back side of the scroll’s text) shows that they were labeled for library use. The scrolls from Qumran thus exhibit the canonical book divisions. Are there clues that suggest that Genesis–2 Kings, or multiple portions thereof, were considered a single book in the era before Qumran? The lack of book superscriptions for Genesis–2 Kings comparable to the superscriptions in the prophetic books or the wisdom books (except Deut 1:1) points in this direction. Judging from the ancient production techniques, a scroll encompassing the entirety of the text of Genesis–2 Kings would not be impossible; 159 a scroll in principle could be nearly any length. Because of the inner coherence of Genesis– 2 Kings, it is conceivable, and in the rabbinic period it is even attested, that there were scrolls encompassing Genesis–2 Kings as a whole. 160 Nevertheless, such extensive scrolls would be difficult to handle so that the subdivisions would have been suggested for practical reasons alone. The total number of 22 to 24 books in the Hebrew Bible according to Josephus and 4 Ezra 14 presupposes one book per scroll, reckoning Samuel, Kings, the Twelve, Chronicles, and Ezra–Nehemiah each as one book. 161 Josephus sometimes speaks of Isaiah, Daniel, or Ezekiel seperately as “books.”162 157. The individual books of Genesis–2 Kings at Qumran are attested in different quantities, which is not merely a matter of coincidence. The pentateuchal books, especially Deuteronomy, were more important at Qumran than the Former Prophets: Genesis (17), Exodus (17 [15]), Leviticus (12), Numbers (7), Deuteronomy (29), Joshua (2), Judges (3), Samuel (4), Kings (3). Compare the list in Maier, Qumran-Essener III, 10–11. 158. However, 4Q491 (4QMa) fragment 17, column 4 mentions “the book of Psalms” (rps μylhth). Apart from that, the oldest testimonies to titles of the biblical books are found in Philo (see Beckwith, Canon, 246–48). For the problem of book introductions (“motto verses”) and its ancient oriental background, see von Soden, UF 14 (1982): 235–39. 159. See Oesch, Petucha, 118 n. 5; Haran, Festschrift Rendtorff, 169; Tov, Scribal Practices, 74–79; the summary in my Buchgestalten, 35–43. Tov calculates for 4QPentPara–d (4QRPb–e = 4Q364–67) a total length of 27 meters, but see the skeptical considerations in Maier, Qumran-Essener II, 308–9 (Tov, Text, 166). 160. See Beckwith, Canon, 241–45; Schmid, Buchgestalten, 38–39; Stipp, Bib 76 (1995): 495–97. One should especially note the rabbinic evidence in b. Gi†. 60a, where the use of divided scrolls of the individual books of the Pentateuch in the synagogue is forbidden (Blau, Buchwesen, 65, with n. 3; Tov, Textual Criticism, 204). Note also y. Meg. 73d, along with Soferim 3:1, which allow one to deduce that unifying the Torah and the Prophets was practiced in many places in the rabbinic period: Blau, Buchwesen, 63, with n. 4, Leiman, Canonization, 60–61; see also Oesch, Petucha, 118 n. 5. In conjunction with Haran ( JJS 36 [1985]: 1–11), Blum opines that such extensive scrolls could only have been produced beginning in the first centuries c.e. (Blum, Pentateuch, 111 n. 43). However, based on the evidence from Egypt and Greece, there is nothing that says they could not have been produced during the period of the Hebrew Bible itself. 161. For the difference between 22 and 24 books, see the extensive treatment of Beckwith, Canon, 235–73; Kaiser, Grundriss, 3:124 n. 7, and the material in Str-B 4/1:419–23. 162. See the evidence in Beckwith, Canon, 264 n. 21. The same is true for Sirach in rabbinic texts (ibid.).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 26 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

26

Chapter 1. Introduction

This plural usage points to the fact that bulky individual books could even be divided into several scrolls.

Can one go back earlier than Qumran for a terminus a quo of these book divisions? One clue is provided in the trail that Nogalski has followed with respect to Hosea–Malachi as the Book of the Twelve (XII). Nogalski has demonstrated that the seams of the books in the XII are connected to one another with a network of catchwords, demonstrating the redactional unity of the Book of the Twelve. 163 If one examines the book seams in Genesis–2 Kings, one can recognize similar patterns. To begin with, there is a comprehensive interweaving of Genesis–Deuteronomy through the repetition of the data of the places and persons from the end of one book at the beginning of the following. 164 Exod 1:1–6 takes up the scenery and characters from Gen 50:15– 26–Joseph and his brothers in Egypt–and again reports the death of Joseph (πsy tmyw, Gen 50:26/Exod 1:6). 165 This is reminiscent of the phenomenon of catchlines in ancient oriental literature: in the case of two sequential tablets, the first column of the second tablet is quoted in the colophon of the preceding. 166 In the Torah, however, these “catchlines” do not correspond to each other literally but in terms of content. The epilogue in Exod 40:36–38 creates a clear ending to the book.167 Following, the beginning of Leviticus (1:1–2) mentions the tent of meeting (d[wm lha) from Exod 40:34–35 and has the same actors as Exod 40:34–38: Yhwh, Moses, and the Israelites. Similarly, Leviticus concludes in 27:34 with a colophon, “These are the commandments that Yhwh gave to (la) Moses for the Israelites on the mountain of Sinai,” which is then taken up in Num 1:1–2, “Yhwh spoke with Moses in the wilderness of Sinai . . . ,” followed by the census of the Israelites before breaking camp (Numbers 1–3). Numbers also ends with a colophon in 36:13: “These are the commandments that Yhwh commanded through (dyb) Moses to the Israelites on the steppes of Moab ( bawm twbr[b).” 168 Deut 1:1–5 repeats this localization with more precision as the setting for events in the book. 169 Deuteronomy ends with the death of Moses (34:7–8), the succession of Joshua (34:9), and a concluding evaluation of Moses (34:10–12). Joshua begins with the recapitulation of Moses’ death (1:1–2), the installation of Joshua—now by Yhwh—and the “canonical” fixing of Moses’ instructions to Joshua, from which he should not deviate “to the right or to the left.” Thus the use of geographical data, which has stitched the seams of the books from the end of Genesis to the beginning of Deuteronomy, is replaced here by character information. However, the transition from Joshua to Judges is effected quite sim163. Nogalski, Literary Precursors; see Redactional Processes by the same author. 164. See Olson, Death, 46–49; also Clines, Theme, 25–27; Ben Zvi, BN 62 (1992): 7–11. 165. The enumeration in Exod 1:1–5 is traditionally assigned to P (see Houtman, HCOT, 226; see also Pola, Priesterschrift, 168, 170), but this does not explain why the enumeration in Gen 46:8–27, traditionally treated as an addition to P (Ps), anticipates Exod 1:1–5 (see the bibliography in Blum, Vätergeschichte, 249 n. 32; Pola, Priesterschrift, 170 [“secondary anticipation”]; see Gen 35:22–26). Exod 1:1–5 was therefore understood earlier as a post-P introduction to Exodus (“RP”). See the review of scholarship in Weimar, ZAW 86 (1974): 176 n. 9; see also Levin, Jahwist, 315, with n. 6. Weimar himself (p. 200) assigns Exod 1:1–4, 5b, 7 to Pg. 166. For the question of the catchlines in the Hebrew Bible, see Haran, JJS 36 (1985): 1–11. 167. See Weinfeld, EncJud 13:232. 168. See the distribution of (bawm twbr[) in Num 22:1; 26:3, 63; 31:12; 33:48–50; 35:1; 36:13; Deut 34:1, 8; Josh 13:32. 169. See Perlitt, BKAT 5/2 11.

spread is 3 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 27 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Preliminary Considerations

27

ilarly to Deuteronomy–Joshua: Joshua ends with the death of Joshua (24:30–31)—without, however, determining a successor—and Judg 1:1 mentions Joshua’s death in precise analogy to the formulation in Josh 1:1. Judges then identifies the “Israelites” as the main actors, corresponding to the lack of a successor.170 Judges ends with the affirmation: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Each did what was right in his own eyes” (21:25), thus separating it from the subsequent books about kings, Samuel–Kings. 171 One may conclude, especially from the Greek transmission of the text, that Samuel–Kings were originally one contiguous work.172 The Greek version of the books of Samuel and Kings are called a¥ Basile∂ai, 173 a name that apparently derives from ancient tradition. 174 Jerome also knows one book that encompasses Samuel and Kings, but it is already subdivided into two. 175 1 Sam 1:1 is the first historical book after Gen 1:1 to offer a completely independent narrative starting point, “And there was (yhyw) a man among the people of Ramah . . . ,” which introduces a “book of Kings” with a continuous narrative to the end of 2 Kings.

This cross-referencing at the seams of the books reflects the division of the material into books. Therefore, it is clear that the book subdivisions in Genesis– 2 Kings must be older than the last redactional shaping of the text. The division into books was incorporated into the final forms of the text, meaning the book divisions are older than the fixing of the text of the Torah and Nebiªim. It is questionable whether one can trace the division into books further back than the 170. It has often been pointed out that the beginning of the book of Judges (1:1–2:5) is awkward. The varied repetition of Josh 24:28–31 in Judg 2:6–9 (see Becker, Richterzeit, 64–68; and Blum, Festschrift Brekelmans) shows that Judg 1:1–2:5 was presumedly first conceived as the introduction to an independent book of Judges (see Auld, VT 25 [1975]: 261–85; Smend, “Land,” 221, 227; Becker, Richterzeit, 62 [for Judg 1:1–18]). The short book of Ruth, which stands between Judges and Samuel in the Greek and Latin Bibles, is left out of consideration at this point. Concerning its insertion at this location, see Zenger, ZBK 8 9–10; Frevel, NSKAT 6 9–11; Fischer, Rut, 108–11. For this transition of Joshua–Judges in the LXX (see also CD 5:3–5) and Rofé’s diachronic thesis (Rofé, Hen 4 [1982]: 17–36; idem, Editing, 74–75), see below §3.3.2. 171. The expression also appears in Judg 17:6; 18:1; and 19:1. Compare it with Talmon, ˚lm. He understands ˚lm, however, as a synonym of fpwv and believes the related passages can be dated in the premonarchic period. Campbell proposes an originally independent document 1 Samuel 1–2 Kings 10 from the ninth century (Campbell, Prophets). 172. B. B. Bat. 14b knows only one book of Samuel and one book of Kings, authored by Samuel and Jeremiah, respectively. As with Ezra, there are no concluding masorah at the end of 1 Samuel and 1 Kings. See the discussion in Römer and de Pury, History, 26. 173. Thackeray points out that Basile∂ai should be translated Reigns, not Kingdoms (Thackeray, Septuagint, 17). See also Montgomery and Gehman, Kings, 1. 174. The choice of gaps in the four part division of 1–4 Kingdoms that we now have does not appear to have been firmly fixed, especially between 2 Kingdoms and 3 Kingdoms. Lucian divides between 1 Kings (3 Kingdoms) 2:11 and 2:12—between the reigns of David and Solomon. Book 7 of the Antiquities by Josephus also begins at this point. 175. Concerning 1 Samuel, Jerome writes: Incipit Liber Regum qui apud Hebraeos in duobus divisus est voluminibus (“The beginning of the book of Kings which in the writings of the Hebrews is divided into two volumes”; see Kittel, HAT 1/5 v). For Samuel–Kings as one book, see also EncJud 4:1225– 26. The LXX translation also exhibits the connectedness of Samuel–Kings. Contra the assumption of Thackeray ( JTS 8 [1907]: 262–78), the LXX of Samuel–Kings does not derive from two different translators but from the symbiosis of the original translation with a revised version (Barthélemy, Devanciers, 46–47; compare Shenkel, Chronology, 7). Otherwise, the Greek books of Genesis–2 Kings do show signs of different translators.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 28 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Chapter 1. Introduction

28

second century b.c.e., before the oldest manuscripts from Qumran. 176 Some retouching and insertions could have been done in the Maccabean period in the Torah as well as the Nebiªim. 177 Therefore, it is not necessary to conclude that the book divisions of the Pentateuch 178 had already occurred in the Persian period. 179 What is the logic of the delimitation of the books? It is important to understand, first, that the book division in Genesis–2 Kings could not have been made solely for quantitative reasons because the size of the books from Genesis–2 Kings are clearly not of equal length. 180 Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Samuel Kings

1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings

20,611 words 16,712 words 11,950 words 16,413 words 14,294 words 10,051 words 9,884 words 13,264 words 11,036 words 13,140 words 12,280 words

Genesis is longer than Joshua and Judges put together and nearly twice as long as Leviticus. If, therefore, the creation of uniformly sized blocks of the material did not guide the delimiting of the books, then what did? A delimitation based on content cannot be supposed for all of the books. Genesis and Deuteronomy are relatively independent blocks of material, while Exodus–Numbers are closely interrelated. Leviticus especially cannot be conceived of as an independent block. 181 Joshua and Judges are also relatively self-contained, as are Genesis and Deuteronomy, while Samuel–Kings form a larger, coherent, and apparently independent unity. And, as already said, Samuel–Kings were already deemed a single book in the ancient text transmission. 176. Contra D. T. Olson, Death, 46, 51–53. 177. See, for example, the findings on the chronology in Genesis–2 Kings noted above in §1.3.1.a. 178. Along with the observations about the seams of the text, a further clue to the dating of the book divisions in Genesis to Deuteronomy is found in the subdivision of the promises of land to the three ancestors (Gen 50:24; Exod 32:13; 33:1; Num 32:11; Deut 34:4; see Lev 26:42). These promises, by their appearance in all five books, appear to reflect the fivefold division of the Pentateuch. Still, the redaction-historical order is uncertain. See §3.6.5. 179. Even the correlation of the fivefold division of the Psalter with the fivefold division of the Torah (see Kratz, ZTK 93 [1996]: 27–28) does not provide a certain terminus a quo since the direction of dependence is by no means indisputably fixed. The fivefold division of the Psalter is meaningful (see Kratz, ZTK 89 [1992]: 37 n. 106; also see idem, ZTK 93 [1996]: 22–34), while the meaningfulness of the pentateuchal divisions is less clear (besides emphasizing Leviticus in its center). For the designation “Pentateuch,” see the material in Holzinger, Hexateuch, 2–3. 180. From TLOT 3:1444. See also the evaluation of the Masoretic verse-numbering in Haran, Festschrift Rendtorff, 171. 181. Contra Haran, Festschrift Rendtorff, 174–76. See also Douglas, Leviticus; Rendtorff, “Is It possible?”; Rendtorff and Kugler (eds.), Leviticus.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 29 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Preliminary Considerations

29

How then did the existing boundaries of the books emerge if neither technical explanation (Why are the books of Genesis–2 Kings not all the same length?) nor one based on the contents (Why do the borders of the books not always coincide with the limits of the units of meaning?) are plausible? 182 One must consider both factors together; both the size of the blocks of material and their contents appear to have played a role. One can clearly see this in the division of Exodus–Numbers into Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Although Genesis and Deuteronomy make sense as independent books, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers do not. If size alone had been determinative for dividing the texts into different scrolls, nothing would have stood in the way of a twofold division of Exodus–Numbers: there would have been room for the narrative in Exodus–Numbers on two scrolls that would each have been about the size of Genesis. Why the division into three? A plausible suggestion is that the threefold division was intended to accentuate Leviticus in the middle. Leviticus stands between books of almost equal length, Exodus and Numbers, and is provided with an outer frame by Genesis and Deuteronomy.183 It is clear that the division of the Pentateuch into five books is not older than the delimitation of the Torah within Genesis–2 Kings. 184 The delimitation of the book of Leviticus can only be understood in the framework of the Torah. Looking to Joshua–2 Kings, the delimitation of the books of Joshua and Judges presents no difficulties. They are almost the same length and are each unified by their respective protagonists. For Samuel–Kings, the problem is the apparently secondary subdivision into Samuel and Kings, which was then divided once more into 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings in the post-Masoretic period. The uniform sizing of the material may in fact have played a role in these divisions since definitive internal viewpoints can hardly be recognized. Perhaps the unnatural order of events at the beginning of Kings (Solomon is actually anointed in 1 Kings 1, while David dies in 1 Kings 2) is intended to create continuity between the secondarily delimited books of Samuel and Kings.

c. The Problem of Dividing the Tetrateuch and the “Deuteronomistic History” The preceding discussion makes it clear that the contiguous context of Genesis–2 Kings forms a (redactional) unity. However, it has rarely been studied as a unity in the past decades. Scholars have only recently approached it from this 182. This incongruence between the delimitation of the books and the boundaries of units of meaning distinguishes Genesis–2 Kings from, for example, the history of Herodotus. See Mandell and Freedman, Relationship, 179–87. 183. See Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 134–35 (opposed by Seebass, TRE 26:186). See also the observations of Schart, Mose, 52 (adopted by Smith, Pattern, 286; see also pp. 306–7). See further the observations on the correspondence of the concluding verses of Exodus and Deuteronomy on the one hand and Leviticus and Numbers on the other in Ben Zvi, BN 62 (1992): 7–11. For the internal structure of Leviticus, see Seitz, JSOT 70 (1996): 17–32. 184. The delimitation of Malachi 1–3 as its own book distinct from the Zechariah transmission (see Steck, Abschluss, 127–36, 197), perhaps around the turn of the third to second century b.c.e., already shows that a specific total number of books can be important for a corpus (Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 46–47). In this case, Malachi was apparently attached to the Minor Prophets in order to complete the count of twelve minor prophets so that the Major and Minor Prophets together would correspond to the three ancestors and the twelve tribes. It is not clear, however, why the Pentateuch is divided into five, except for the accentuation of Leviticus. Did it have something to do with the corresponding structure of the Psalter (see n. 179 above)?

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 30 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

30

Chapter 1. Introduction

perspective (again), 185 perceiving and investigating the broad textual context of Genesis–2 Kings. 186 The neglect of the larger context of Genesis–2 Kings by studies of this narrative complex results from the unusual popularity of the literary-critical hypothesis set forth by von Rad and Noth. This thesis explained the text of Genesis– 2 Kings as joining two originally independent historical works. 187 On the one hand, the work contained in Genesis–Numbers originally also included a presentation of the conquest. 188 On the other hand, the so-called “Deuteronomistic History” consisted of the books of Deuteronomy–2 Kings. 189 The idea that Genesis–2 Kings is not fundamentally unified and lacks a completely continuous narrative, especially on the level of a “primary layer” (Grundschicht), is also motivated by other reasons. If such a primary layer of a continuous narrative existed, it naturally could not be older than the last event narrated in 2 Kings 25. Thus, scholars sought ways to make the composition of the prehistory of Israel chronologically somewhat contemporaneous with the events it reports. How could such a history, so far removed from the actual events, be historically reliable? In order for the history to be datable to the Davidic-Solomonic period, its scope could not go further than the book of Samuel, or at most the initial chapters 185. Older research often reckoned with a pre-Deuteronomistic historical work of *Genesis– 2 Kings or, more cautiously, with the wider extent of the pentateuchal sources beyond Joshua. See Cornill, ZWKL 6 (1885): 113–41; idem, “Quellenkritik”; idem, ZAW 10 (1890): 96–109; Kittel, TSK 65 (1892): 44–71; Budde, Geschichte, 57–59; idem, Richter und Samuel, 165–66, 268–69; idem, KHC 7 xii–xv; idem, KHC 8 xii–xxi; Benzinger, Jahvist; idem, KHC 9; Staerk, Entstehung, 11–16; Smend, ZAW 39 (1921): 181–217; Hölscher, Festschrift Gunkel; idem, Geschichtsschreibung; idem, Religion, 35 n. 1; Eissfeldt, Quellen; idem, Introduction, 134–35, 565; Östborn, Cult, 29–40 (apart from the source models, in association with I. Engnell); Simpson, Composition; see the entire review of research in Hölscher, Geschichtsschreibung, 7–19; Jenni, TRu 27 (1961): 1–32, 97–146; Fohrer, Introduction, 196–236; Müller, Eschatologie, 56 n. 128. Among more recent works, Otto (Mazzotfest) and Koch (TRE 12:574) still find J in Joshua 1–11. See also Coats, CBQ 47 (1985): 47–54; idem, JSOT 38 (1987): 15–32; see the review in Bieberstein, Josua, 40–42. Tengström, Hexateucherzählung, believes he can devise a foundational hexateuchal narrative between Gen 11:27 and Joshua 24 (see the accurate criticism in Gunneweg, TRu 50 [1985]: 122–24). Ackroyd (Chronicler, 262) envisioned J reaching from creation to David and E from Abraham to the division of the monarchy. 186. See Rendtorff, Problem, 168; Cryer, BN 29 (1985): 58–74; Rose, RTP 118 (1986): 217–36; Miller and Hayes, History, 85–87; Boorer, CBQ 51 (1989): 195–208; idem, Promise, 5–33; Van Seters, Prologue, 1; Kaiser, TheolAT 1:159–62; Nobile, Anton 61 (1986): 207–24; idem, Anton 64 (1989): 501–17; idem, BETL 94 (1990), 179–90; Vermeylen, Dieu de la promesse; Houtman, Pentateuch, 441– 46; Pleins, Festschrift Freedman; Schmitt, “Identität,” 277; idem, “Geschichtswerk”; Bieberstein, Josua; see also Whybray, Making, 13; Van Seters, Prologue, 1; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 34–35; Freedman and Geoghegan, “Noth,” 128; Mandell and Freedman, Relationship; Lang, NBL 2:443; Cancik, NBL, 1:819; Knierim, “Composition,” 352; Kissling, Characters, 13–16. 187. See Smend, Elemente, 162–63 (also Kaiser, TheolAT 1:159; Mandell and Freedman, Relationship, 85–103). 188. See Noth, CH, 139–40. Noth is referring on p. 140 n. 3 to von Rad (“Hexateuch,” “especially 3–8”). According to Noth, the conquest presentation of JE fell out even before the combination of JEP with the “Deuteronomistic History” (Noth, CH, 141; HPT, 20; see also Kaiser, TheolAT 1:159; Grundriss 1:51, 55). 189. For the reception of Noth’s thesis of a “Deuteronomistic History” encompassing Deuteronomy–2 Kings, see von Rad, VF (1947–48), 52–56; idem, Old Testament Theology 1:297–98 and n. 4. Notably, it was never certain “where the seams between . . . (the Deuteronomistic History) and the Pentateuch lie” (Smend, Elemente, 162–63; see also, however, idem, “Überlieferung,” 11).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 31 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Preliminary Considerations

31

of 1 Kings. For this reason, the “old” Pentateuch sources, willingly traced by earlier scholars to the Former Prophets, come to an end at least by these points.190

The idea that Genesis–2 Kings compositionally consists of the two large blocks of Genesis–Numbers and Deuteronomy–2 Kings continues as a foundational premise for an area of research that is less sure of itself than 25 years ago with regard to the relationship between these two blocks of tradition. Despite numerous differences between older approaches and more recent discussions of the Pentateuch or Tetrateuch and the “Deuteronomistic History,” the implicit or explicit assumption is that Genesis–Numbers(/Deuteronomy/Joshua) and Deuteronomy–2 Kings can be meaningfully separated from one another and investigated as separate literary units. Herein lies a remarkable uniformity between the older (Noth and von Rad, for example) and even the most recent schemes (Rose, Blum, Van Seters, and Levin, for example) of Genesis–2 Kings. The essential separation in Genesis–2 Kings has remained; only the diverse diachronic ordering of the larger blocks (Genesis– Numbers on the one hand and Deuteronomy–2 Kings on the other) is new. Even where scholars have reckoned with redactional strata that encompass Genesis–2 Kings, they have not questioned the division between Genesis–Numbers and Deuteronomy– 2 Kings as a fundamental presupposition. Thus, in the three-layer model of the “Deuteronomistic History” from Göttingen, the author of the latest layer, DtrN, is considered a candidate both for editing the pre-Priestly Tetrateuch and combining it with Deuteronomy–2 Kings. 191 Rose postulates essentially two Deuteronomistic layers in Deuteronomy–2 Kings, 192 of which he maintains that the latter is possibly identical with the J who is active in the Tetrateuch. 193

A fundamental division between the Tetrateuch and the Deuteronomistic History is by no means immediately apparent. If one assumes a deep literary break between Numbers and Deuteronomy, then the difficulty arises of how to understand the narrative flow of Genesis–Numbers, because the storyline from the creation of the world to Israel’s stopping point east of the Jordan is not self-evidently a literary unity; rather, the narrative is open-ended. This problem is not new. The Documentary Hypothesis could not offer a satisfactory solution with its problematic theory of a loss of text: before its combination with Deuteronomy–2 Kings, the prePriestly Tetrateuch was a history with hexateuchal horizons, but eventually the narrative of the conquest was lost. 194 Also, the suggestion recently (re)articulated 190. See n. 185 above. 191. Smend, Entstehung, 125. See the critical evaluation by Van Seters, Festschrift Brekelmans, 304– 19. Ahuis, in connection to E. Ruprecht (see 10 n. 9), posits a post-Priestly Deuteronomistic redaction of the Tetrateuch, DtrT (Ahuis, Exodus 11:1–13:16, 67–72). Schmitt recognizes a late Deuteronomistic layer running throughout Genesis–2 Kings that has combined the Tetrateuch and the Deuteronomistic History with one another and that he also places after P (VTSup 66 [1997], 276–78). 192. Rose, RTP 118 (1986): 224–25; ZBK 5/1 23–24; 5/2 330. 193. Idem, RTP 118 (1986): 230; idem, Deuteronomist, 323–28. 194. So, among others, Noth, HPT, 33 n. 127; and CH, 107–47; and many who have adopted his conclusions. However, with Van Seters, one should ask concerning a hexateuchal J: “Why would anyone

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 32 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

32

Chapter 1. Introduction

by Levin that the narrative context from creation to Balaam is sufficient is hardly a convincing solution to the problem. 195 The “preface theory” appears at first glance to solve the problem by positing that Genesis–Numbers was never independent but was secondarily appended to the front of Deuteronomy–2 Kings (Rose, Blum, Van Seters). But this theory creates a new problem: without presuming an older Tetrateuch or Hexateuch, Deuteronomy 1–3 is hardly a plausible narrative beginning for a Deuteronomistic History because, although syntactically acceptable, the narrative presupposes too much knowledge of previous events. 196 Deuteronomy 1–3 presumes the reader knows who Moses is and how Israel’s current situation east of the Jordan came about. The same is true for the flow of Joshua–2 Kings. The prior history of Israel is presupposed, at least from the exodus out of Egypt, as seen by the numerous cross-references. For Noth, this presented no problem because he thought that histories of J and E begun in the Tetrateuch were naturally older than Deuteronomy–2 Kings. Now, however, if the narrative block of Genesis–Numbers is dated later than that of Deuteronomy–2 Kings, it is difficult to explain why Deuteronomy 1–3 begins with a recapitulation when there was nothing to recapitulate. 197 Thus, the late dating of the Tetrateuch does not solve its own redaction-historical problem. It only postpones it, because new problems with the beginning of the Deuteronomistic History arise. Another difficulty is that the proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis 198 already recognized that the text of Genesis–Numbers is not as free of deuteronomistic insertions as the classic model had envisioned. 199 Both the older and the more recent syntheses that divide Genesis–Numbers and Deuteronomy–2 Kings must explain this deuteronomistic activity with ad hoc hypotheses. Within the framework of the Documentary Hypothesis, one either accepts that the prePriestly Tetrateuch has been edited deuteronomistically alongside or after the rewrite a history of a period in a distant past . . . if it did not make any connection with the Yahwist’s own time?” (Van Seters, Search, 234). 195. Several attempt to do this: Wolff, “Kerygma des Jahwisten,” 354–55, 368–69; Schmidt, BZ 25 (1981): 82–102; Levin, Jahwist, 23, 50. See also, dubiously, Kaiser, TRE 21:313; Fritz, Festschrift Kaiser (1994), 114 (“Num 21:1–3 als erhaltenes End von ‘J’ ”). However, situating the pre-Priestly texts literarily (with a tetrateuchal horizon) after Numbers 24 then remains problematic, in particular Num 25:1–5 (see Blum, Pentateuch, 114–15). 196. See Mittmann, Deuteronomium 1:1–6:3, 178; Gertz, “Deuteronomium 1–3.” 197. See also Lohfink, “Deuteronomium und Pentateuch,” 32: “Deuteronomy 1–3 are clearly reformulations of known material, not original formulations.” 198. Holzinger already spoke about the “notoriously very close relationship between D and JE (Holzinger, Hexateuch, 301; see also Holzinger, KHC 1 xxiii). Fuss designates RJE as a “Deuteronomistic redactor” (Fuss, Pentateuchredaktion; see p. 390, for example). Seebass (TRE 26:192) is of the opinion that “Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic influence” on JE is uncontested. For discussion of the problem, see the overviews in Smend, Entstehung, 63–64; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 373; and Seebass, TRE 26:192. In recent essays, material traditionally associated with JE in Genesis–Numbers is described as deuteronomistic (Blum, Vätergeschichte; Blum, Pentateuch. See also Dozeman, God; Johnstone, Exodus, 75–76). 199. See Noth, DH, 12–13, with n. 2.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 33 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Preliminary Considerations

33

vision of the history of Deuteronomy–2 Kings, 200 or one designates the tetrateuchal deuteronomisms as “proto-deuteronomistic” texts. 201 The most recent treatments of Genesis–2 Kings have greatly expanded on particularly the first hypothesis of a deuteronomistic redaction of the Tetrateuch in Genesis–2 Kings. They have done so in two different ways. Either one pushes the Yahwist later chronologically and theologically so close to the Deuteronomistic History that the classical deuteronomisms in Genesis–Numbers can now be assigned to the Yahwist, 202 or one extends the distinctions so far that the deuteronomistic pieces of the Tetrateuch can be associated with the latest deuteronomistic layer in Deuteronomy–2 Kings. 203 But if the individual themes in Genesis–Numbers and in Deuteronomy–2 Kings are supposed to have been related to each other through separate redactional activity, and if that activity is shaped primarily by deuteronomistic redactors ( J / Kd in Genesis–Numbers or Dtr in Deuteronomy–2 Kings), then the obvious question is why these two redactions should be viewed as completely separate from each other. The motive is none other than the allegiance to the traditional separation of the Tetrateuch and the Deuteronomistic History, which lacks any clear legitimation in the text. This does not mean that there are no fundamental literary-critical divisions in Genesis–2 Kings, but it is doubtful whether the decisive seam is between Numbers 36 and Deuteronomy 1. Of course, there are indicators that support the division of (Genesis–)Numbers and Deuteronomy(–2 Kings), specifically, the beginning of the Deuteronomic law. It must be borne in mind, however, that the Deuteronomic law does not begin with Deuteronomy 1 but, depending upon one’s perspective, with chaps. 5, 6, or 12. For numerous reasons, the Deuteronomic law corpus should be understood not only as secondary to the context of the historical books but also as having been inserted into the framework of Deuteronomy. 204 In addition, the giving of the law east of the Jordan in Deuteronomy is not the only block of legal material in the flow of the historical books. The giving of the law at Sinai (Exodus 19–Numbers 10) is considerably more extensive and interrupts the narrative flow even more clearly than the Deuteronomic law, and large portions of the Sinai law have been considered secondary within the narrative context.205 Yet, no one considers the breaks between Exodus 18 and 19 or Num 10:10 and 10:11 to be decisive in the same way as the breaks before and after Deuteronomy.

200. See Smend, Entstehung, 62–69. See the recent outline of the history of research in Römer and de Pury, Histoire, 67–72. 201. Brekelmans, VTSup 15 (1966), 90–96. See also Vervenne, Festschrift Labuschagne; Vervenne, VTSup 66 (1997), 365–80. Blum offers an extensive discussion of the problem (Blum, Vätergeschichte, 373–75). 202. H. H. Schmid, Jahwist; Van Seters, Abraham; Van Seters, Prologue; Van Seters, Life; Van Seters, VTSup 43 (1991), 58–77; Van Seters, Festschrift Brekelmans (for differentiating J–D, see Van Seters, Festschrift Kaiser; Van Seters, Life, 458–61). See Levin, Jahwist (for differentiating J–D, see pp. 430– 33). See also (though without J) Blum, Vätergeschichte; Blum, Pentateuch; Aurelius, Fürbitter. 203. Rose, RTP 118 (1986): 230; Smend, Entstehung, 154. 204. See the discussion in §2.4.7 (and bibliography). 205. See the discussion in §3.6.2 (and bibliography).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 34 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

34

Chapter 1. Introduction

If the division of Genesis–Numbers and Deuteronomy–2 Kings that is so prominent in the history of research is ignored, then a reading of Genesis–2 Kings leads to other observations. Narratively, the most decisive breaks stand at the beginning of Exodus and Judges, 206 and their beginnings are formulated quite similarly.207 Exod 1:6, 8 lkw πswy tmyw And Joseph died and all his wyja brothers

Judg 2:8, 10 ˆb [vwhy tmyw And Joshua, son of Nun, ˆwn died . . .

awhh rwdh lkw and that entire generation ... ...

rwdh lk μgw . . . and also that entire generation wpsan awhh was gathered to their fathers. wytwba la

vdj ˚lm μqyw And there arose a new king rva μyrxm l[ over Egypt who knew nothing πswy ta [dy al of Joseph

rja rwd μqyw And there arose another al rva μhyrja generation after them who hwhy ta w[dy knew nothing of Yhwh

The function of these passages is obvious. Just as Exod 1:6–8 distances the events of the Joseph story from that which follows, so Judg 2:8–10 “invalidates” the book of Joshua, in fact the entire Hexateuch (2:10!). 208 Both breaks are necessary within the literary context of Genesis–2 Kings: the theological pattern in Judges (apostasy, distress, cry, salvation) only makes sense if Israel no longer knows anything of Genesis–Joshua and the obligations that coalesce there; 209 likewise, the Exodus narrative is only plausible if the events of the Joseph story, specifically the events in Egypt, are no longer known. These gaps at the beginning of Exodus and Judges divide Genesis–2 Kings into three parts, Genesis, Exodus–Joshua, and Judges–2 Kings, each of which has a recognizable independence from the others. Genesis, consisting of primeval and ancestral stories, can stand on its own. 210 The same is true for the narrative block of the exodus from Egypt to the conquest (Exodus–Joshua) 211 and for the presentation of the periods of the judges and the monarchy in Judges–2 Kings. This last block falls into two self-contained units (with Judges comprising one unit and Samuel–Kings the other) indicated by their thematic differences and the new beginning in 1 Sam 1:1. We do not yet need to evaluate the passages in Exod 1:6–8 and Judg 2:8, 10 to determine whether the three transmission blocks (Genesis, 206. See the synopsis in Blum, Pentateuch, 102, and Van Seters, Life, 16. Blum evaluates the similarity of Exod 1:6–8 and Judg 2:8–10 by classifying them as deuteronomistic (Pentateuch, 102–3, but see now Blum, “Connection”), while Van Seters sees this text in Judges as “a development entirely within the Dtr traditions or his sources,” with Exod 1:6–8 ( J) then being dependent upon Judg 2:8– 10 (Life, 16). For the historical-critical assignation of Exod 1:6–8, see §2.1.2.a (pp. 62ff.). 207. Compare Vriezen, VT 17 (1967): 334–53; Coats, VT 22 (1972): 129–42. See also the review of scholarship in Blum, Pentateuch, 102 n. 5. 208. Already stated quite clearly by Vriezen, VT 17 (1967): 343. The author of Exod 1:6, 8 would have “known something of a gap between both periods in the history of his people.” 209. See the discussion in §3.3.2.c (pp. 199ff.). 210. See the discussion in §2.3 (pp. 92ff.). 211. See §2.4 (pp. 117ff.).

spread is 6 points longer

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 35 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Preliminary Considerations

35

Exodus–Joshua, and Judges–2 Kings) existed not just in an oral preliminary stage but as text complexes at a literary level. Nevertheless, this much is clear: when these observations are compared with the dominant view that the fundamental compositional blocks in Genesis–2 Kings are Genesis–Numbers and Deuteronomy–2 Kings, the textual evidence is lacking for the two-part literary division of the material into the Tetrateuch and the Deuteronomistic History. Instead, the most notable literary markers in Genesis–2 Kings suggest a three-part division into Genesis, Exodus–Joshua, and Judges–2 Kings. It is therefore more than questionable whether the traditional diachronic differentiation (Genesis–Numbers and Deuteronomy–2 Kings) is adequate for the interpretation of Genesis–2 Kings. 1.3.2. The Problem of the Textual Evidence Given the present state of research, exegetical investigations of the Hebrew Bible can no longer unquestioningly accept the MT as their textual basis. Instead, the textual basis has itself become a problem. It is not possible, however, to enter into the discussion of individual or even the majority of text-critical problems in Genesis–2 Kings. Rather, it will suffice to be conscious of the textual questions, even if only to show in general terms the problems of the text transmission and the differences in the arrangements of the books.

a. Differences of Textual Evidence Above all, it has become clear since the Qumran finds that the old idea of an “original text” of the Hebrew Bible that was also fixed with the canonization of the books must be considerably altered. 212 The biblical manuscripts from Qumran as well as the ancient versions show such diverse transmission of various textual forms of the same biblical books that we must affirm with Blum: “There are as many final forms as there are text witnesses.” 213 The biblical text can nowhere be found, especially not in one particular text witness. The diversity of the transmitted text around the turn of the era was something akin to the current variety of modern Bible translations in use alongside one another. At any rate, one must guard against projecting back into an earlier time the notion of a text of the Hebrew Bible that was as uniformly and faithfully transmitted as the text of the rabbinic period. Even the Torah, after its canonization in the fourth century, 214 was not meticulously transmitted down to the letter, as shown both by its dating system, which was adjusted in the Maccabean period, 215 and by the many differences among the pentateuchal manuscripts from Qumran, slight 212. See the discussion in Cross and Talmon, Qumran; Tov, Textual Criticism, 155–63; Tov, JJS 39 (1988): 5–37; Tov, “Groups”; Brooke, “Textual Tradition,” 282. Compare Lange and Lichtenberger, TRE 28:45–65. 213. Blum, VTSup 43 (1991), 46–57. See also Vervenne, BETL 126 (1996), 37–38; Tov, Text, 8, 146, 154–55. Compare also Stipp, BZ 34 (1990): 16–37; Tov, VTSup 43 (1991), 345–59; Tov, Textual Criticism, 2, 14–15; Ulrich, “Pluriformity,” Ulrich, Festschrift Talmon. For the related overlap between text criticism and literary criticism, see Stipp, BZ 34 (1990): 16–37; Bieberstein, Joshua, 72–73 (see also p. 1 n. 3 above, criticizing Tov’s Textual Criticism). 214. See §3.6.5 (pp. 271ff.). 215. See above, §1.3.2.a.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 36 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

36

Chapter 1. Introduction

though they may be. 216 The Qumran evidence shows that the biblical text was not slavishly copied: instead, it was still possible to do slight retouching of the text. 217 The fact that the multiplicity of texts attested at Qumran gave way to a standardized consonantal text that stands behind the MT is not due to a specific official scribal decision. 218 Rather, though it may not be the exclusive reason, the situation is essentially due to the Pharisees, 219 the definitive group within Judaism after the Jewish war, who used and cared for what would later become the Masoretic Text tradition. 220 At the same time, we must not be misled by the textual transmission evidenced at Qumran. Van der Woude quite correctly points out that the situation at Qumran cannot be generalized to all of Judaism at that period. 221 Text findings at Masada 222 and at Wadi Murabbaºat 223 do not show the same multiplicity as at Qumran but attest a consonantal text that belongs to the proto-Masoretic text tradition. In addition, the Greek scroll of the Book of the Twelve from Na˙al Óever, which can be dated in the second half of the first century b.c.e., 224 provides an example of an LXX revision of the proto-Masoretic tradition. 225 This means that alongside the textual diversity demonstrated at Qumran there was also a tendency in Judaism prior to 70 c.e. toward standardization. Van der Woude, in conjunction with Tov, envisions a relatively unified text tradition that was nurtured, particularly in the priestly circles of the Jerusalem temple, and that would later become the Masoretic Text tradition. 226 Literary-sociological considerations of text production and text 216. See also the finding of the Genesis–Exodus presentation in Jubilees. Jubilees presumes a text of Genesis–Exodus that cannot be identified with either the MT, the LXX, or the Samaritan text (see VanderKam, Textus 14 [1988]: 83). 217. See the examples in Brooke, “Textual Tradition.” For the possible corrections of content of the biblical texts, see Tov, “Corrections,” 300–301. 218. See the examples for this conceptualization in Albrektson, VTSup 29 (1978), 49 n. 2. Compare Greenberg, who wants to trace the standardization of the Hebrew Bible text to the scribal activity of the temple circles in the second century b.c.e. ( JAOS 76 [1956]: 157–67). See also van der Woude, “Pluriformity,” 158–60 n. 23. 219. See Zenger, Einleitung AT, 27. For a different perspective on the transition from the Pharisees to the rabbis, see Weiss, TRE 26:480–81 (bibliography). For the use of scripture by the Pharisees, see Stemberger, Jewish Contemporaries, 88–95. 220. See Barthélemy, “Histoire,” 354; Albrektson, VTSup 29 (1978), 49–50; Aejmelaeus, “Vorlage,” 78; and cautiously, Stemberger, Hermeneutik, 76. 221. Van der Woude, “Pluriformity,” especially pp. 167–69. See also Stemberger, Hermeneutik, 75–76. 222. See Yadin, IEJ 15 (1965): 1–120; Tov, Textual Criticism, 191; Talmon, DSD 3 (1996): 168– 77. For the problem of the songs of the Sabbath sacrifice at Masada (0QShirShab, MsMasada), see Maier, Qumran-Essener I, 39–43 (bibliography, p. 41). 223. DJD 2 75–85 (fragments from Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) and 181–205 (Book of the Twelve). 224. See Tov, DJD 8 26. 225. See Barthélemy, Devanciers, especially 266–70; Tov, DJD 8 102–4; van der Woude, “Pluriformity,” 161. 226. See Tov, Textual Criticism, 191: “Although this textual plurality was characteristic for all of Palestine, it appears that in temple circles there existed a preference for one textual tradition, i.e., the texts of the Masoretic family”; see also van der Woude, “Pluriformity,” 163 n. 33.

spread is 6 points longer

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 37 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Preliminary Considerations

37

tradition in the Second Temple period point in this direction as well. 227 Additionally, the Tendenz of the Letter of Aristeas, which dates near the end of the second century b.c.e., becomes most understandable as an apology for the LXX 228 if one takes into account the opposition to this undertaking of a Greek translation from Palestine, specifically from Jerusalem. 229 This opposition existed because some parties were attempting to expunge the deviant text traditions. 230 Following van der Woude, one could continue to accept the idea of some sort of an “original text” for the Hebrew Bible. The pure canonical form of the biblical text certainly never existed because canonization apparently did not mean protection of the letters in every respect. However, early proto-Masoretic forms of the text did exist 231 that would have been shaped and transmitted in the Second Temple circles instrumental in the development of the Hebrew Bible. 232 At the same time, the possibility that non-Masoretic textual witnesses to Genesis–2 Kings could have preserved superior readings cannot be excluded. The most important among these witnesses are the LXX, the biblical manuscripts from Qumran, and the Samaritan Pentateuch (limited to Genesis–Deuteronomy). The findings of these witnesses with respect to Genesis–2 Kings will be mentioned here quite briefly, but the details must be left for another occasion. (a) LXX. Just as the Hebrew text never existed, so the Greek text also never existed. 233 The LXX translations within a single codex 234 have diverse pre-histories for the various books, and even within the books, since the books were circulated, edited, and translated on individual scrolls. 235 One must also consider whether the translation was entirely or partially revised or whether an entire book was processed by several translators because it existed on several scrolls. 236 The LXX text of Genesis–2 Kings should therefore be viewed as a mixture of various translations and revisions. The following are the most notable differences between the MT and the LXX in the books of Genesis–2 Kings. 237 In the Pentateuch the LXX largely agrees with the MT.238 It 227. See Lohfink, “Bewegung,” 335–47; Schmid, Buchgestalten, 35–43. 228. For a discussion of the compositional goal of the Letter of Aristeas, see van der Woude, “Pluriformity,” 164 n. 36; Feldmeier, “Weise.” 229. See van der Woude, “Pluriformity,” 165. 230. For the textual base of the LXX, see the review of van der Woude, ibid., n. 38. 231. See Tov, Textual Criticism, 164–80; Tov, HBOT, 1/1:57. 232. For examples of the availability of scrolls compiled in Jerusalem, though the question of master scrolls is rather quickly dismissed, see Haran, JANESCU 22 (1993): 58; and Klijn, “Library.” 233. This holds true for the Pentateuch as well as for the rest of the Hebrew Bible (see Aejmelaeus, “Parataxis,” 175; Lust, “Septuagint,” 31). Concerning the influence of the Greek Pentateuch on the translation of later books, see Tov, Festschrift Barthélemy, 578–79. 234. Compare the recent bibliography of Dogniez (Bibliography, 125–69). A summary of fundamental questions is discussed in Wevers, HBOT, 1/1. 235. See Aejmelaeus, “Vorlage,” 80–81; Tov, Festschrift Barthélemy, 579. 236. See idem, Text-Critical Use, 48. 237. One finds small verse rearrangements in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, and 3 Kingdoms. See the details in Swete, Introduction, 231–32, 234–39. There are also small expansions and omissions. See ibid., 242–49. See also the overview in Römer and de Pury, “Historiography,” in Israel Contructs Its History, 88–93. 238. Wevers suggests at least five translators in the Greek Pentateuch (Wevers, HBOT, 1/1:95). Based on the vocabulary, the development of the Pentateuch of the LXX should be dated in the second

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 38 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

38

Chapter 1. Introduction

deviates from the MT primarily in the chronology of Genesis239 and in the second tabernacle report of Exodus 35–40, where it offers a shorter and differently arranged text.240 It differs as well in the last four verses of the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32, which in the LXX has an expanded form of eight distichs. 241 The differences between the MT and the LXX in Joshua–2 Kings are considerably more substantial than in the Pentateuch. They are explained primarily by the fact that Genesis–Deuteronomy attained a fixed state earlier than Joshua–2 Kings. 242 The LXX 243 of Joshua is 5% shorter than in the MT, and attests to an underlying Hebrew text that diverges from the MT244 and may represent an older stage of the text development. 245 It also offers significant pluses: 246 at the end of the book, after Joshua’s death, the LXX reports the oppression of the Israelites by the Moabite king who appears also in Judg 3:12. 247 Rofé concludes that the LXX of Josh 24:33 (see CD 5:1–5) attests to an older stage of Joshua–Kings in which the entire passage of Judg 1:1–3:11 is lacking. 248 Various reasons that will be discussed in §3.3.2.c argue against this thesis.249 The LXX text of Judges 250 poses mainly inner-Greek problems. Samuel, in particular however, offers an LXX text that differs significantly from the MT.251 The greatest difference is found in 1 Samuel 16–18, where the LXX offers a text that is almost 50% shorter. 252 It is not clear, however, how this text is related to the MT. Also in Kings, half of the third century b.c.e. (Lee, Study; Aejmelaeus, “Septuaginta,” 2, with n. 5; for the question of a messianic tendency in the Pentateuch of the LXX, see Lust, “Septuagint”). For the Greek Pentateuch manuscripts from Qumran, see Ulrich, Festschrift Wevers. 239. See Skinner, ICC 134, 167, 233; Tov, Text-Critical Use, 302. In Genesis, one should especially note both the divergences in Genesis 1 (Steck, Schöpfungsbericht, 40–44) and the small addition to Gen 4:8 (Swete, Introduction, 243). 240. See the overview in ibid., 231–32, 235–36; Tov, Text-Critical Use, 303; Fraenkel, “Quellen,” 141–42; Wevers, Exodus, 51–54; Aejmelaeus, “Problem,” 119. For the genetic process, see Aejmelaeus, “Problem,” 130 (“free translation and a different ‘Vorlage’ ”). More recently, taking into account the “monacensis” of the Old Latin, see Bogaert, BETL 126 (1996), 399–428. Büchner points to similarities between LXX Exodus and MekhY (Büchner, JNSL 22 [1996]: 35–38). 241. See Swete, Introduction, 243; P. Sanders, Provenance, 154–59; Himbaza, Bib 83 (2002): 527– 48. For Deuteronomy as a whole, see Aejmelaeus, “Septuaginta.” Stemberger discusses interesting deviations of details in Gen–Deut LXX (Hermeneutik, 55–59); See also examples of the avoiding of anthropomorphism in Exod 19:3; 24:10; and Josh 4:24 in Würthwein, Text, 69. For the meaning of the exodus in Exod 3:21 and 11:2–3 in the LXX, see Collins, CBQ 56 (1994): 443–48. 242. Swete, Introduction, 244, states “that it was not regarded by the translators as sharing the peculiar sanctity of the Torah.” Perhaps, however, this is already true for the underlying Hebrew text (Vorlage). See the details of Joshua–2 Kings in Barthélemy, Critique textuelle, vol. 1. 243. For the history of the book of Joshua in Greek, see Greenspoon, Studies; Bieberstein, BN.Beiheft 7 (1994); compare the overview in Noort, EdF 292 (1998), 46–59. 244. See Orlinsky, VTSup 17 (1969), 187–95; Tov, Textual Criticism, 327. 245. See Auld, ZAW 90 (1978): 412–17; idem, VTSup 30 (1979), 1–14; Rofé, “Joshua,” 20; Tov, Textual Criticism, 327. 246. Compare 16:10; 19:4–48; 21:42; 24:30, 33 (Tov, ibid., 330–31). 247. Compare Rofé, Hen 4 (1982): 17–36; idem, Editing; Tov, Text-Critical Use, 300–301; idem, Textual Criticism, 330–32. 248. Rofé, Hen 4 (1982): 17–36; Tov, Textual Criticism, 332. For a different view, see Rösel, VT 30 (1980): 348–49; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 55–56 n. 59. 249. Compare the criticism of Rofé in Blum, Vätergeschichte, 60 n. 59. 250. For the text history of Judges in Greek, see Soisalon-Soisinen, Textformen; Bodine, Text. Trebolle Barrera points to references to the LXX Judges in 4QRia (Trebolle Barrera, RevQ 15 [1991]: 97–99). 251. See the discussion in Pisano, Additions (for a history of research, see pp. 1–10). 252. See Tov, Textual Criticism, 334–36; idem, Text-Criticical Use, 298–99.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 39 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Preliminary Considerations

39

which, like Samuel, originally formed a single book,253 the LXX deviates from the MT. 254 This deviation appears in the chronologies 255 and in the divergent and more extensive presentation of the division of the kingdom in the LXX.256 The Isaiah narratives in 2 Kings 18–20 and the concluding chapter of 2 Kings 25 provide an opportunity to compare the corresponding passages in Isaiah (36–39) and Jeremiah (52). Person concludes that the oldest available text versions of these events are Isaiah–LXX and Jeremiah–LXX.257 (b) Qumran. The textual remains of Genesis–2 Kings in the Qumran scrolls are uneven: on the one hand, several books (e.g., Deuteronomy) are very well attested while others (e.g., Judges) are poorly attested; 258 on the other hand, the texts of the well-attested books are quite divergent from one another. The fact that considerably more fragments of the books of the Pentateuch have been found at Qumran than of the Former Prophets259 is because of the higher value placed on the Pentateuch, within which Deuteronomy stands as the central point of interest. This explanation is supported by the references to passages from Genesis–Kings in other writings: pentateuchal passages are much more frequently quoted than passages in Joshua–2 Kings, with Deuteronomy again given preference.260 Regarding the variety of textual witnesses, it appears that different textual forms of a book existed alongside one another at Qumran. These textual forms are distinguished in terms of their agreement (or lack thereof ) with the Samaritan, LXX, or other text witnesses. For Genesis– 2 Kings, it is perhaps of significance that 4QLevd and 4QDeutq (see also 4QSama) show commonalities with the LXX, while 4QpaleoExodm, 4QNumb, and 4QDeutn attest to a proto-Samaritan text. Several scroll fragments (1QDeuta, 2QExoda,b, 2QNumb, 2QDeutc, 5QDeut, 11QLevb, 4Q Josha261) attest to text types that are not known elsewhere. 262 As already noted, one must be careful about deducing a correspondingly diffuse situation in Judaism before 70 c.e. from the presence of various text types alongside one another in Qumran. Rather, the indicators point toward a certain dominance of the proto-Masoretic tradition. 253. Regarding the unity of the translation, see Barthélemy, Devanciers, 46–47; Shenkel, Chronology, 7; for a different perspective, see Wevers, HBOT, 1/1:89. 254. See the summary and the bibliography in Tov, Text-Critical Use, 303–4. 255. See the details in Shenkel, Chronology; Tov, Text-Critical Use, 299; idem, Text, 280; Trebolle Barrera, Kings; Fernández Marcos, Scribes. For the underlying text of Kings in Josephus, see Spottorno, “Remarks.” 256. See Talshir, Story; Schenker, “Jéroboam”; Shaw, JSOT 73 (1997): 55 n. 1 (bibliography). 257. Person, Kings–Isaiah, 114–16. 258. Compare the compilations of Glessmer, RevQ 62 (1993): 153–92; Ulrich, DSD (1994); Ulrich, DSD (1995); Maier, Qumran-Essener III, 162–69; in detail, see now DJD 12 (4QGen-Exoda; 4QGenb–k; 4QExodb–e; 4QExod-Levf; 4QExodg–k; 4QLev-Numa; 4QLevb–e.g, 4QNumb); DJD 14 (4QDeuta–q; 4Q Josha–b; 4Q Judga–b; 4QKgs) and DJD 9 (4QpaleoGen-Exod1; 4QpaleoGenm; 4QpaleoExodm; 4QpaleoDeutr–s; 4QLXXLeva; pap4QLXXLevb; 4QLXXNum; 4QLXXDeut). 259. In Qumran, exemplars of the following are attested: 17 from Genesis and Exodus (Exodus 15?), 12 from Leviticus, 9 from Numbers, 29 from Deuteronomy, 2 from Joshua, 3 from Judges, 4 from Samuel, and 3 from Kings. See Maier, Qumran-Essener, 3:10–11. 260. Reference is made to these texts as follows (to the extent that these are recognizable with relative certainty [see Maier, Qumran-Essener III, 10]): 40 times for Genesis, 38 times for Exodus, 76 times for Leviticus, 29 times for Numbers, 110 times for Deuteronomy, once for Joshua, none for Judges, 7 times for Samuel, and 4 times for Kings (ibid., 10–11). 261. See Bieberstein, Josua, 76. The positioning of Josh 8:30–35 before Josh 5:2 in 4Q Josha is especially noteworthy. The MT has the text after 8:29; the LXX has the text after 9:2 (see Tov, Textual Criticism, 332). Soggin situates Josh 8:30–35 between Josh 24:27 and 24:28 (Soggin, Joshua, 241). 262. See Tov, “Groups,” 97–101.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 40 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

40

Chapter 1. Introduction

(g) Samaritanus. The Samaritan Pentateuch (Samaritanus or SamP263) represents an important text witness to Genesis–Deuteronomy alongside the LXX and Qumran.264 In its current form, the SamP is only indirectly relevant to the textual history of the Hebrew Bible, for it has clearly been revised for the purpose of the religious community of the Samaritans.265 The specifically Samaritan insertions and transpositions are, however, easy to recognize.266 The most important of these are found in the revision of Exodus 20 which, especially through the interpolation of Deut 27:4–7, 267 anchors the holiness of Gerizim in the Decalogue. 268 The Samaritan version transposes other passages as well: Gen 31:11–13 is found after 30:36; Exod 30:1–10 is transposed with Exod 26:35; Deut 3:24–28 and 2:3–6 follow Num 20:13; Deut 27:2–7 and 11:30 follow Deut 5:18.269 263. The authoritative edition remains that of von Gall, Pentateuch, although von Gall has constructed a (sometimes questionable) mixed text from different manuscripts and versions that is nowhere attested. A new edition of the Samaritan Pentateuch is currently in preparation in Spain. Giron Blanc, Genesis, has already appeared. For the text transmission, see Baillet, RevQ 13 (1988): 531–46; R. T. Anderson, in Crown, Samaritans, 390–96; Tov, “Groups,” 399–400. A Samaritan version of Joshua is also known in addition to the Pentateuch (see Gaster, ZDMG 62 [1908]: 209–79, 494–549; see discussion in Crown, PEQ 96 [1964]: 79–97; Jaros, Sichem, 130–31). It was, however, never adopted as holy Scripture by the Samaritans. For discussion of the high value of Joshua among the Samaritans, see Zangenberg, SAMAREIA, 181–82. For the so-called “Chronicles II” of the Samaritans, which contains material from Joshua–2 Kings and Chronicles, as well as Psalms, see Macdonald, Chronicle (text: pp. 77–191); P. Stenhouse in Crown, Samaritans, 222–23; Zangenberg, SAMAREIA, 195–213; Houtman, Pentateuch, 450 n. 74. 264. For the origins of the Samaritans (for the self-designation as μyrmv, “watchers” [of the Torah] instead of μynwrmwv, “Samaritans,” see Bóid, “Use,” 595), see the history of research in Pummer, JSS 21 (1976): 48–55; Crown, JQR 82 (1991): 17–50; Dexinger and Pummer, Samaritaner; Baillet, DBSup 11 [785–87, bibliography]. Schur, History, 13–19, draws the lines too broadly perhaps. Earlier, one either accepted (based on Ezra 4:1–5) that the so-called Samaritan schism occurred in the Persian period in the fourth century b.c.e. (see Kippenberg, Garizim, 57–59; Crown, JQR 82 [1991]: 17–50; idem, “Look”), or in agreement with Josephus (Ant. 11.302–47; see Zangenberg, SAMAREIA, 59–63; and Kippenberg, Garizim, 50–59) one placed it in the Alexandrian period (M. Mor, in Crown, Samaritans, 10). Today, a second-century date is also suggested (Purvis, Pentateuch [concerning Purvis’s later modifications, see Crown, “Look,” 133 n. 1]; Beckwith, Canon, 131; Tov, in Crown, Samaritans, 398–99; or more cautiously, Tov, Textual Criticism, 83). To be sure, traces of an early temple on Gerizim (Crown, “Look,” 150–51 [bibliography]) as well as the canonization of only the Torah by the Samaritans argue against a late date. The fact that the writing of the Samaritan version bears the imprint of the Hasmonean period only means that it did not participate in the further development of the writing, not that it first arose in this period (Kippenberg, Garizim, 69; B. K. Waltke, “Samaritan Pentateuch,” ABD 5:932–40, especially pp. 934–35; see R. T. Anderson, “Samaritans,” ABD 5:941–43. 265. Concerning the orthographic and grammatical peculiarities of the SamP, see Margain, “Pentateuque samaritain,” 235; Margain, DBSup 11:763–64. 266. See Tov, in Crown, Samaritans, 398, 401; Waltke, “Samaritan Pentateuch,” ABD 5:936–38. 267. In addition, Exod 13:11; Deut 11:29; 27:2–3; Deut 11:30; and Exod 20:18–19 were inserted after Exod 20:17a. Compare the presentation by Zangenberg, SAMAREIA, 183–84; Tov in Crown, Samaritans, 403–4; Tigay, JBL 94 (1975): 329–42; Tigay, “Conflation,” 68–83. Less convincingly, Ben-Hayyim (“Commandment,” 492) situates this expansion of the Decalogue in the early Christian period. 268. The anchoring of Gerizim in the Decalogue (see also Deut 27:4 in the SamP) can also be observed in Samaritan Decalogue manuscripts; see Strugnell, RB 74 (1967): 555–80; Dexinger, Festschrift Kornfeld, 111–24. By contrast, in the MT and in most LXX manuscripts, “Gerizim” has been replaced with “Ebal.” 269. See Margain, “Pentateuque samaritain,” 231.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 41 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Preliminary Considerations

41

Further, the centralization formula in Deuteronomy (“the place that Yhwh your God will chose”) has been formulated using the perfect in the SamP (“the place that Yhwh your God has chosen”), and, instead of Jerusalem, it is thought to be related to Shechem, the place that Yhwh had chosen since the time of Abraham. 270 Further, one may observe that the designation of God as μyhla has been construed as singular (see the MT) in four specific cases (Gen 20:13, 31:53, 35:7; Exod 22:8) in order to avoid any infringement upon monotheism. 271 By restricting their canon to Genesis–Deuteronomy, the Samaritans clearly give Genesis considerably more weight in the Samaritan Pentateuch than its position is given in the Hebrew Bible: Genesis is the only canonical book that plays out in the land of Canaan. Of course, the role of Shechem in Genesis is also important, because Shechem and Gerizim are the decisive holy places of the Samaritans. In addition to the accentuated position of Genesis, the patriarchs have been portrayed more idealistically. Thus, the SamP smooths over the treachery and thievery of Jacob and Rachel toward Laban in Gen 31:19–20. According to the SamP, Joseph is not driven to divining signs (vjn in Gen 44:5), which is forbidden by Lev 19:26, but employs tests (hsn). 272 Furthermore, his grandchildren were not born on the knees of Joseph (πswy ykrb l[), which would have been perceived as inappropriate, but were born “in the days of Joseph” (ymyb πswy) in Gen 50:23. 273 In Jacob’s blessing, the curse on the anger of Levi and Simeon (rwra μypa in Gen 49:7) is changed to ryda_ μypa (“mighty is their anger”). 274 If these revisions are all tallied, the proto–Samaritan Pentateuch is shown to deviate from the MT in about 6,000 places, but about 2,000 of these agree with the LXX, and its texttype is also attested at Qumran. 275 Thus the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch was widely circulated in ancient Palestine 276 and was not primarily a sectarian writing. Rather, it offers a revision of the proto-Masoretic tradition.277

b. Differences in the Arrangements of Books In the transmission of the Hebrew text of Genesis–2 Kings, there is scarcely any variation in the sequence of the books. 278 However, the position and function 270. See Tov, in Crown, Samaritans, 404. 271. See Kippenberg, Garizim, 73; Margain, DBSup 11 (1991): 767. 272. See the examples in Tal, “Samaritan Targum,” 205–7. 273. See Waltke, “Samaritan Pentateuch,” ABD 5:937. 274. Ibid., 938. 275. The most important manuscript is 4QpaleoExodm; see Sanderson, Scroll; Maier, QumranEssener II, 18; Waltke, “Samaritan Pentateuch,” ABD 5:933–34. See also Tov, “Understanding”; Tov, in Crown, Samaritans, 401–7; Margain, DBSup 11:769–70; Dexinger, “Origins”; Zangenberg, SAMAREIA, 331–42. 276. See Tov, Textual Criticism, 81. 277. See Tov, JSOT 31 (1985): 3, 23 n. 2; also van der Woude, “Pluriformity,” 156. 278. Genesis–2 Kings is the part of the Hebrew Bible in which no uncertainty exists concerning the order of the books in the Jewish sources (Beckwith, Canon, 119, 206, believes Josephus presupposes that Job comes before Joshua [this is the sequence in the Peshitta because the authorship of Job was traditionally associated with Moses], but this is not demonstrable from Josephus). In Christian sources, hardly any uncertainty exists concerning the order of the books (Beckwith, Canon, 182; Brandt, Endgestalten; compare the occasional placement of Leviticus and Deuteronomy together by several church fathers [Holzinger, Hexateuch, 2–3; Swete, Introduction, 226; Leiman, Canonization, 165 n. 264], the lists of Epiphany of Salamis [diverse arrangements; see Beckwith, Canon, 189], and Bryennios [Genesis,

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 42 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

42

Chapter 1. Introduction

of Genesis–2 Kings within the entire Hebrew canon is significant. 279 Differences in the sequence of books outside of Genesis–2 Kings are also important for understanding how Genesis–2 Kings is perceived. In contrast to the (mainly) fourfold division of the books found in the LXX canon, perhaps of Christian origin (Law, History, Wisdom, and Prophets), 280 the Hebrew canon exhibits a threefold structure (Torah, Nebiªim, Ketubim). 281 This threefold division of the Hebrew Bible is already attested at Qumran in 4QMMT 282 and also in the Prologue to Sirach, in Philo, and in Luke 24:44. 283 There can be no question that the division of Genesis–2 Kings into Torah and Nebiªim (Former Prophets) is secondary to the obvious comprehensive cohesion of this grand historical work. 284 The fact that the Torah–Nebiªim scheme left the contiguity of Genesis–2 Kings intact and that Joshua–2 Kings and Isaiah– Zechariah/Malachi were joined together as Nebiªim 285 suggests that the threefold division of the canon encountered a sequence of Genesis–2 Kings and a prophetic corpus. This can also be supported externally: in all the different sequences of books in the ancient witnesses, 286 the basic arrangement of Genesis–2 Kings and Exodus, Leviticus, Joshua, Deuteronomy, Numbers; see Leiman, Canonization, 165 n. 264]). On the canonical position of Ruth, see Fischer, Ruth, 108–11. 279. Beckwith (Canon, 181) and Lohfink (TP 71 [1996]: 488–89) point out that the fixing of the sequence of the biblical books relates to the printing press. It is a fallacy, however, to give fundamentally the same weight to the relationship between Isaiah (see Isa 1:2/Deut 29:22) or Psalms (see Ps 1:1–2) and Genesis–Deuteronomy as the relationship between Joshua–2 Kings and Genesis–Deuteronomy. The latter connection exhibits a unified context that has been perceived as unified in the Hebrew Bible itself (see Psalm 105; Nehemiah 9; and similar texts). In addition, in ancient libraries, scrolls attest which arrangements and systems (indeed, as a rule, linear systems) were followed (see Sarna, Festschrift Kiev; Sarna, Ancient Libraries; Haran, JANESCU 22 [1993]: 51–61). 280. See below. 281. See the comparison in Zenger, Einleitung AT, 27–33. The fact that the sequence of books in the MT is thematically determined and does not simply mirror the order when the individual writings entered the canon is demonstrated clearly by the well attested sequence of Ezra–Nehemiah– 1–2 Chronicles. In contrast to the chronological order, 1–2 Chronicles, with its concluding chapter 2 Chronicles 36 (see Kratz, “Identität”; concerning 2 Chr 36:23, see Num 23:21), is placed at the conclusion of the canon (concerning Esther, see Beckwith, Canon, 206–7) in order to end the canon with a message of hope for the salvific intervention of God for his people, aided by foreign rulers, ending with the term for return, hl[, “go up,” from the exodus tradition (see Zenger, Einleitung AT, 25; unfounded is Östborn, Cult, 74). 282. 4QMMT refers to “the Book of Moses, the book(s of the pro)phets and Davi(d’s Psalms)” (see Maier, Qumran-Essener III, 373; Kratz, “Mose”) whereby David’s Psalms perhaps already stands as an abbreviation for the whole of the Ketubim, quite similarly to Luke 24:44 (see Qumran-Essener III, 9–10; Maier dates 4QMMT [4Q397] to the Herodian period [Maier, Qumran-Essener III, 370]). Alongside 4QMMT, note the scrolls that encompass at least two books: 4QGen–Exoda (earlier 4Gena and 4Exodb); 4QpaleoGen–Exodl (earlier 4QpaleoExodl or 4QpaleoExodn), and 4QLev–Numa— which directly attest to the sequence of Genesis–Exodus and Leviticus–Numbers. 283. See the material in Str-B 4/1:417–23. 284. See, for example, Lebram, VT 18 (1968): 177 and extensively §3.6.5 below. 285. The reference to Josh 1:7 in Mal 3:22–24 shows that this combination reflected a literary sensibility (Steck, Abschluss, 134–35). 286. Without claiming completeness, Beckwith presents nine different orders for the Prophets and more than 70 for the Writings (Beckwith, Canon, 208).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 43 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Preliminary Considerations

43

the prophetic books remains the same. Joshua–2 Kings are placed at the beginning of the Nebiªim because they continue the Torah, and the four prophetic books (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve) are arranged (in most cases) either according to a supposed chronology 287 or according to size, 288 but always following Joshua–2 Kings. Within the Ketubim, there is no dominant sequence of books; orders deviate from one another based on chronology, size, or liturgical usage. 289 The Ketubim part of the canon, however, is consistently placed after Genesis– Zechariah/Malachi. What is the internal logic of the sequence of historical and prophetic books? In his discussion of the theology of the Hexateuch, von Rad saw a connection between Genesis–2 Kings and the corpus propheticum. Concerning the conclusion of the book of Joshua, in which the division of the land is accomplished, he noted: The great historical plan of Yahweh with Israel has reached its goal, and thus the summary of the Hexateuch as a whole is complete. [. . .] This great Deuteronomistic summary, however, also has a clearly audible undertone of warning. As with his promises, Yhwh will also allow the fulfillment of his threats to proceed in the case of disobedience ( Josh 23:11ff.). [. . .] However, such was far from Israel’s final word concerning Yahweh’s bestowal of the land. The confession to Yahweh as the giver of the land of Canaan was taken up by the prophets and actualized once again in an entirely new way, especially in Deutero-Isaiah. 290

The grand unified history of salvation and judgment presented by Genesis– 2 Kings ends with a desolate situation because it narrates the story of Israel from the creation to the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem and thereby offers a grand etiology of the fall of Israel. This denouement has often been perceived as a problem, and scholars have attempted to discover a glimmer of hope for the future in the concluding episode of 2 Kgs 25:27–30, which tells of the pardon of Jehoiachin in Babylon. Thus, von Rad was convinced that this passage “attained a special theological significance,”291 namely, “that the Davidides had not yet met an irreversible end.” 292 On the other hand, Noth suggested that the author of the Deuteronomistic History could have “added” this section “because this event, unimportant for the history itself, once more belongs to the presentation of the fate of the Judean kings.” 293 Both interpretations have found followers: the “minimizing”294 explanation of 287. The Twelve, as a collected book, was placed after the “great prophets,” although it was partially dated before Isaiah. 288. So b. B. Bat. 14b; see Blau, Buchwesen, 52. The Book of the Twelve manuscript 4Q76 offers a special case by placing Jonah after Malachi and thus attains a positive ending for the Book of the Twelve concerning the nations. See the discussion in Fuller, Festschrift Watts; Steck, ZAW 108 (1996): 249–53; but also P. Guillaume, “The Unlikely Malachi–Jonah Sequence (4QXIIa),” JHS 7 (2007), www.jhsonline.org. 289. See Beckwith, Canon, 209 and the references on p. 229 nn. 68–70. 290. Von Rad, Old Testament Theology 1:304–5. 291. Idem, “Geschichtstheologie,” 203. 292. Ibid. 293. Noth, DH, 74; see pp. 97–98. 294. Thus, the conceptualization by Begg, JSOT 36 (1986): 49.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 44 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

44

Chapter 1. Introduction

Noth has been adapted by L. Schmidt, 295 Würthwein, 296 Begg, 297 and Becking; 298 the “maximizing” view is espoused by Zenger 299 and Levenson. 300 How can we decide? On the one hand, the accentuated position of 2 Kgs 25:27–30 is in fact noteworthy, but on the other hand, one should not overplay the unpretentious character of the passage.301 Furthermore, the concluding position of 2 Kgs 25:27–30 cannot carry what the text’s content does not provide. In light of the previous comments regarding the placement of Genesis–2 Kings in the canon, 2 Kings 25 does not present an absolute ending but a transition to the corpus propheticum (Isaiah–Malachi) that theologically complements the narrative flow of Genesis–2 Kings.

It is unclear from the brief concluding passage in 2 Kgs 25:27–30 what Israel should expect after the destruction of Jerusalem. However, this is the subject of extensive theological discussion and exploration in the subsequent prophetic books. 302 The corpus propheticum attached to the historical books opens up a view into the future. The first book, Isaiah, offers a kind of comprehensive compendium that the subsequent prophets once again explicate in their books, according to their own epochs: Isaiah pronounces judgment (compare Jeremiah) but also announces a coming salvation (Isaiah 40–66; compare Ezekiel and the Twelve). If one reads Genesis–2 Kings as a unified historical work of judgment and salvation with its main turning point at the end of Joshua, where the salvation history is concluded, then, in the arrangement of the MT, the work segues into the content of the corpus propheticum, where we encounter decisive statements about Israel’s future. 303 With the conclusion of the salvation history in Joshua 24, in which God acted directly on behalf of his people, the prophets move into the foreground. God no longer intervenes directly in history but declares himself through his prophets. This enhancement of the prophets through the three stages, Genesis–Joshua, Judges– 2 Kings, and Isaiah–Zechariah/Malachi, was later radically revised so that not Genesis– Joshua but Genesis–Deuteronomy was delimited as the first and most important division within Genesis–2 Kings. The Torah is thus an entity that is open-ended, its promises now uncoupled from the conquest reports in Joshua, which still follows but is now attached to the Nebiªim. Thus, the Torah attains a prophetic quality, too: its statements are not understood historically, as referring to Israel’s past; rather, they now point beyond this history (see the extensive treatment below in §3.6.5). 295. L. Schmidt, “Geschichtswerk,” 112. 296. Würthwein, ATD 11/2 481–84. 297. Begg, JSOT 36 (1986): 53. 298. Becking, “Amnesty.” 299. Zenger, BZ 12 (1968): 16–30. 300. Levenson, JBL 103 (1984): 353–61. 301. See the discussion in Begg, JSOT 36 (1986): 51–55; Römer, ZAW 109 (1997): 10–11. 302. See also Sanders, ABD 1:844–45. 303. Although there are hints of this future perspective in the historical books, they appear only in isolated passages and with a cautious tone: for example, Lev 26:42–45; Deut 4:29–31; 30:1–10; 32:1–43; and 1 Kgs 8:46–53. These passages look beyond the exile to a possible subsequent salvation for Israel.

spread is 12 points short

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 45 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Preliminary Considerations

45

The LXX order of books is different from the MT. 304 However, this order is likely a Christian creation; there was never, apparently, a special Jewish Alexandrian canon of the Hebrew Bible. 305 The Greek Prologue to Sirach and Philo lead to the conclusion that the Jews in Alexandria employed the same threefold canonical structure that was typical in Palestine. 306 The Christian arrangement of the LXX is secondary to this threefold structure. 307 Therefore, nothing can be deduced from the sequence of the books in the LXX about the pre-Christian period. The following observations are offered concerning the sequence of books in the LXX, in which it is necessary to differentiate among the various manuscripts:308 Codexes a (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus), and B (Vaticanus) place Ruth in the chronologically appropriate position between Judges and 1 Kingdoms (1 Samuel), and they situate Chronicles after Genesis–Kingdoms instead of the corpus propheticum. Beyond this, a, A, and B diverge. 309 In a and B the books of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra au and bu) follow Chronicles, and a further attaches Esther, Tobit, Judith, and 1–2 Maccabees, thus forming a grand historiographic corpus from the creation to the Maccabees. In a, the prophets follow, along with the remaining writings (the ending of the Hebrew Bible is provided by the book of Job). After Chronicles–Ezra au + bu (Ezra–Nehemiah), B places Psalms, Proverbs, Qohelet, Canticles, Job, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Esther, Judith, and Tobit, and places the prophets in the final position. In A, Ezra au + bu are separated from Chronicles: the prophetic books appear after Genesis–Kingdoms + Chronicles followed by the remaining books (as well as–according to the codex’s table of contents–the Psalms of Solomon). The LXX thus tries to assemble the historical transmissions and arrange them chronologically. 310 This concept is particularly evident in a, 311 whereas the arrangement of B appears to be conceived in the following manner: the historical presentations of Genesis–Kingdoms + Chronicles–Ezra au + bu (Ezra–Nehemiah) are followed by the books of “David” 304. See the overview in Swete, Introduction, 201–10, which is arranged according to the manuscripts (a, A, B, N+V along with the Church Fathers); Kaestli and Wermelinger, Canon, 151; Elliott, JSNT 63 (1996): 119–20. 305. See Katz, ZNW 47 (1956): 191–217; Sundberg, Old Testament, 51–79; Sundberg, CBQ 28 (1964): 194–203; idem, CBQ 30 (1968): 143–55; Leiman, Canonization, 38–39; Barton, Oracles, 30– 32; Hengel, “Schriftensammlung,” 35–39, 55 (see also the bibliography on p. 36 n. 4). 306. Beckwith, Canon, 110–18, 141. 307. Lohfink rejects the acceptance of the Christian origin of the order of the LXX, and he wants to trace it back more likely to “the stronger genre consciousness of the Greek educated librarians in Alexandria” (TP 71 [1996]: 491). Still, there are no Jewish examples for the LXX sequence of books and, additionally, the evidence of Sirach and Philo stands against this idea. For the origin of the LXX in the Egyptian Diaspora, see Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, Septante, 55–56. Concerning the diaspora in Deut 28:25 (for hw[z), see Aejmelaeus, “Septuaginta,” 3–4. Based upon the particular name in the LXX (e.g., Iakwb or Iwshf as in Palestine instead of IakouboÍ or IwshfoÍ as in Egypt) one can deduce that the translators were from Palestine (pp. 61–62). 308. See the compilations in Swete, Introduction, 201–14; Kaestli and Wermelinger, Canon 151; compare Hengel, “Schriftensammlung,” 65. 309. Swete, Introduction, 201–2. 310. See Tov, Textual Criticism, 136. 311. Codex Sinaiticus (a), however, is only preserved fragmentarily in Genesis–Kings and Chronicles, Ezra–Nehemiah. It contains sections from Genesis 23–24; Numbers 5–7; 1 Chronicles 9–19, as well as in Ezra–Nehemiah the text following Ezra bu (Neh) 9:9 (see the details in Swete, Introduction, 129–30).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 46 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

46

Chapter 1. Introduction

(Psalms) and “Solomon” (Proverbs, Qohelet, Canticles, and [interrupted by Job]312 the Wisdom of Solomon), then Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and finally the prophetic books. Chronology also appears to have determined the internal order of the Prophets:313 Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah, followed by the remaining “Minor Prophets” in their MT sequence stand before Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, the latter of which is counted among the Prophets in the LXX. The arrangement of the “Minor” before the “Major” prophets provides the effect of bringing Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, with their messianic prophecies, as well as Daniel, with the vision of the son of man in Daniel 7, closer to the New Testament, which follows in the Christian canon.

1.3.3. Methodological Considerations Both the initial observations about the transition from Genesis to Exodus and the history of scholarship provide reason enough for asking when the literary connection was made between the ancestors and Exodus. The classic position that the thematic sequence was present from the beginning of Israelite literary production is still held by many interpreters, but, as we have seen, with dubious rationale. 314 How should we proceed to answer this question? One could argue that a cogent solution can only be achieved by developing a comprehensive redactionhistorical model for Genesis–2 Kings. This cannot and will not be attempted here, given the current state of the field, which cannot reach consensus on even fundamental methodological questions, let alone on the reconstruction of the different stages of the texts of the Hebrew Bible. Such a project, therefore, holds little promise, especially given the large amount of the text involved. Instead, what follows is a basic diachronic interpretation of the text material in Genesis–2 Kings, which allows a description of the possible contours of the combination of the traditions of the ancestors and of Exodus within the framework of Genesis–2 Kings. Discussion and critique of previous research will play an important role, because even recent literary-historical models of the Hebrew Bible’s historical books, at least in part, are founded on basic conventional convictions, although the evidence for them is not always well attested. Yet, these convictions play an important role in interpreting the text. The decisive divergences in scholarship do not result from the presentation of significantly different text observations but from the same observations interpreted differently and (especially) given different weight. Every model of the literary history of Genesis–2 Kings can rely on both supporting and contradictory text material. The overall plausibility of a specific model therefore depends primarily on convincingly working out the basic redaction-historical phases more than upon the detailed literary-critical splicing of the source material. Literary criticism, when performed only with the narrow focus of a few verses, has little prospect of obtaining consensual results. Literary-critical reconstructions must pay 312. Job perhaps stands before the “Solomonic” Wisdom of Solomon because it goes back to a Hebrew original like the preceding books. 313. See Swete, Introduction, 227. 314. For the diverse scholarly emphases on the origins of Israel in various interpretive contexts, see Sasson, JSOT 21 (1981): 3–24; Smyth-Florentin, “Modèles,” 42.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 47 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Preliminary Considerations

47

attention to larger thematic constellations and justify their basic conclusions. The classic literary-critical method asked questions about doublets, tensions, and gaps; and it had a tendency to break up the texts into fragments, the rearrangement of which has not always been successful. Redaction-historical processes and their literary-historical sequence must also be developed for large blocks of text such as Genesis–2 Kings. The following reflections in this work are therefore thematically oriented and are not primarily concerned with the illumination of genetic text processes in all details but questions the conceptual coherence and incoherence of the work. The first stage of investigation concerns the literary cross-references between Genesis and Exodus (and following). 315 Where do cross-references appear, and what is their proper literary-historical interpretation? In what follows, I first investigate the explicit references in Genesis to Exodus (and following), and then the other way around, in Exodus (and following) to Genesis. In this process, no particular model of the origin of the Pentateuch or the historical books is presupposed. The only assumed result of previous scholarship for this study is P, a constant in both older and more recent studies because of its secure founation. Although P continues to represent the most secure hypothesis in pentateuchal research,316 several problems are being discussed anew. Along with the old questions of the difference between Pg and Ps and the dating and the delimitation of Pg, 317 it is debated whether P was 315. Van Seters (Prologue, 192–93; see also idem, JSOT 3 [1977]: 17–18) warns against isolating individual parts too quickly while overlooking the form of the whole in order to find ancient Israelite literary works, whether they be Gunkel’s legends or Noth’s individual themes. One must ask whether the story of the ancestors and the exodus are meaningful form-critical entities and how much weight can be attributed to explicit cross-references (see also Gunneweg, TRu 50 [1985]: 117 and elsewhere: “Are the pentateuchal themes also bracketed together without brackets?”). Van Seters’s example (Prologue, 192), showing how little, in his opinion, cross-references reveal is not convincing, however. The fact that the period of the Judges is only mentioned once in Kings (2 Kgs 23:22) does not prove that networks of references may be lacking in extensive literary works such as Deuteronomy–2 Kings. Rather, this fact is significant because there are other clues that different “Deuteronomistic” perspectives are encountered in Judges than in Kings (see below, §3.3.2.c). 316. See, for example, Rendtorff (Problem, 84): “If one surveys the current situation of pentateuchal research, then one must affirm that only two things can be recognized out of the proposals of the Documentary Hypothesis: (1) There is a Priestly source in the Pentateuch; however, no consensus exists concerning its precise intention or which texts should be attributed to its foundational form. (2) There are also additional layers of sources (one or several). However, no consensus exists concerning their number, their delimitation, or their relationship to one another.” See Crüsemann, Tora, 281, with n. 24; Schmid, VTSup 32 (1981), 379–94; Fritz, ZTK 84 (1987): 426; Carr, Reading, 39–40, 43–47. 317. Pola follows a minimalist tendency with respect to a very brief P (Pola, Priesterschrift), while Blum wants to abandon the differentiation between P g and P s (Blum, Pentateuch 223–34). For the history of scholarship concerning the distinction between P g and P s, see Utzschneider, Heiligtum, 22–35; and Zenger, TRE 27:436. See the discussion in Zenger, Einleitung, 97–98. Does P end with the giving of the law at Sinai or continue to Deuteronomy 34, Joshua, or even Judges? Those believing P ends with the giving of the law at Sinai include: Aurelius, Fürbitter, 187–88; Pola, Priesterschrift (who sees Exod 40:16, 17a, 33b as the last P text); Kratz, Composition, 225–247; Zenger, Einleitung, 95; Zenger, TRE 27:438–39 (Lev 9:24); Köckert, JBTh 4 (1989): 59 (Leviticus *16, but compare n. 131); idem, Festschrift Wagner, 148 (Numbers 20); Otto, “Deuteronomium 4,” 214 n. 69, and 217; Otto,

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 48 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

48

Chapter 1. Introduction

ever an independent written source or only existed as a redactional layer.318 Without being able to address the question in detail, I favor an originally independent P that extended from creation to Sinai for the following reasons: (1) Several literary discoveries within the classical P passages suggest P was a written source rather than a redactional layer.319 The narrative “gaps,” such as the missing introduction of the Moses figure inside an independent P can be sufficiently explained, 320 and the internal coherence of P is quite evident from the internal reference structure of its programmatic texts. The current designation by Blum of the Priestly source as “neither ‘source’ nor ‘redaction’ ” only appears to cut the Gordian knot. 321 Regarding the logic of the incorporated Priestly writing, Blum is certainly correct that P did not transform “the substance of the transmission . . . , but (interpreted) it by reformulations inserted in blocks.” 322 Blum characterizes KP as follows: “the compositional texts were not immediately written into the main text. Rather, they were first conTRu 62 (1997): 36 (Exod 29:42–46b); compare also the review by Seebass, TRE 26:191. Concerning the lines of inclusion from creation to Sinai, see Kearney, ZAW 89 (1977): 375–87; Janowski, Sühne, 309, with nn. 195, 198 (bibliography); Weimar, RB 95 (1988): 337–85; Blum, Pentateuch, 306–7, with n. 73 (bibliography); Smith, Pattern, 116, with n. 131. Those believing P stops with Deuteronomy 34 include Noth, CH; Elliger, “Sinn”; Fritz, Tempel, 1; Weimar, BN 23 (1984): 85; Zenger, Bogen; L. Schmidt, Priesterschrift, 241–71; Carr, Reading, 120; Christensen, ZAW 104 (1992): 197–202; Frevel, Blick. Those who see the end of P in Joshua include: Nöldeke, “Grundschrift,” 94–107; Mowinckel, Tetrateuch, 51–76; Lohfink, “Priesterschrift”; Blenkinsopp, CBQ 38 (1976): 290–91; Peterson, HAR 4 (1980): 131–45; Cortese, Jos 13–21; Milgrom, ABD 5:454–61; Propp, VT 46 (1996): 477; Knauf, Priesterschrift (see the review by Noort, EdF 292 [1998], 173–81). The following show sympathy for this position: Crüsemann, Tora, 330 n. 5; Seebass, TRE 26:192; Carr, Reading, 120; compare the discussion in Weimar, BN 23 (1984): 86–87, with nn. 22–23. Blum takes into account secondary Priestly texts in Joshua, which however, should be distinguished from KP (Blum, Festschrift Brekelmans, 210–11). Van Seters believes P continues to Judges (Van Seters, Search, 340–41). 318. On the one side, see the following: McEvenue, Style, 151; Lohfink, “Priesterschrift,” 223–24 (see the argumentation on 224–25 n. 31); Klein, Festschrift Wolff, 58; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1, vi, 272–73; Klein, BETL 126 (1996), 229 n. 21; Gross, TTZ 87 (1987): 100 n. 12; idem, Festschrift Lohfink; Zenger, Bogen, 32–36; idem, Einleitung, 93–94; idem, TRE 27:437–38; Weimar, BN 23 (1984): 84, 88; Janowski, Sühne, 8–9 n. 51; Koch, VT 37 (1987): 446–67; Steck, Festschrift Koch, 287; Emerton, JTS 38 (1988): 396–98; Streibert, Schöpfung, 46–47; L. Schmidt, Priesterschrift, 4–10, 34, and other passages; Campbell, Festschrift Lohfink; Pola, Priesterschrift, 29–31; Carr, Reading, 114–40; Otto, BETL 126 (1996), 66 n. 23; Otto, TRu 62 (1997): 36; Krüger, ZAW 108 (1996): 519–33; Propp, VT 46 (1996): 458–78; Gertz, Tradition, 352–357 (but see the reservations on p. 391); Kratz, Composition, 225–247. On the other side, see the following: Cross, “Priestly Work,” 324–25; Van Seters, Abraham, 130–31, 279, 285, 311; idem, Life, 100–103; idem, Festschrift Milgrom; Rendtorff, Problem, 112–46; idem, “Origines”; Tengström, Toledotformel; Utzschneider, Heiligtum; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 426–27 (for older scholars [Graf, Löhr, Pfeiffer, Volz], see ibid., 425; as well as Van Seters, Abraham, 279 n. 1; Emerton, JTS 39 [1988]: 382–83; Smith, CBQ 58 [1996]: 28 n. 16; Otto, TRu 62 [1997]: 5–6, with nn. 26–27); Blum, Pentateuch, 221–22, 229–30, 355 (see also the articles mentioned there on p. 229 n. 2); Nicholson, IBS 10 (1988), 192–206; Vervenne, BETL 126 (1996); see Ska, ZAW 94 (1982): 530–48; idem, “Remarques”; idem, Bib 76 (1995): 396–415 (“relative indépendance”). Köckert remains undecided ( JBTh 4 [1989]: 32). 319. See what Koch calls the “pivotal data” (Koch, VT 37 [1987]: 446–67) as well as the recent works of Propp, VT 46 (1996): 458–78; Otto, TRu 62 (1997): 460 (with others); Zenger, TRE 27:437–38. For the question of genre, see Lohfink, Priesterschrift, 209; Koch, VT 37 (1987): 455; Van Seters, Search, 8–18, 79–92; idem, Festschrift Milgrom, 570, with n. 5. 320. See Rendtorff, Pentateuch, 130; Blum, Pentateuch, 240. See Fischer, BETL 126 (1996), 154; and alternatively, Otto, TRu 62 (1997): 13. 321. Blum, Pentateuch, 229–85; see also Römer, Väter, 566 n. 478; Köckert, Festschrift Wagner, 148–49, with n. 11; Vervenne, BETL 94 (1990), 88; idem, BETL 126 (1996), 46–47. 322. Blum, Vätergeschichte, 270; quoted in idem, Pentateuch, 235.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 49 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Preliminary Considerations

49

ceptualized ‘for themselves’ (naturally, through knowledge of the transmission to be revised).” 323 With this explanation, however, we are once again back to the Documentary Hypothesis in essential aspects. 324 Blum’s “neither-nor” comes very close to the traditional “both-and.” (2) The fact that P in Deuteronomy, specifically in Deuteronomy 34, is not attested with certainty has become increasing apparent.325 As a result, of course, the attempt to trace P into Joshua is also weakened. There are very few notes like Josh 18:1 + 19:51 that can be recognized as having a proximity to P linguistically. In the case of these texts, Blum has convincingly shown that they are redactional.326

Alongside the explicit cross-references, there are also other indicators, even outside Genesis–2 Kings, that suggest the heterogeneity of the ancestor story and the exodus story. These indicators are presented in §2.2. The next step, based on the clues that have been discovered, is to inquire whether the ancestor story and the exodus story can each be meaningfully conceived as independent entities (§2.3, §2.4). A further section addresses the relationship to the primeval story (§2.5). After these steps, which are primarily analytical, in a preliminary synthetic reconstruction I attempt to trace the redactional connection of Genesis and Exodus (and following) in §3. The work concludes with a look at the after-effects of the canonical sequence of ancestors and Exodus in the literature of the late Hebrew Bible period, the intertestamental period, and the New Testament period (§4). This chapter puts the results of §2 and §3 in a new light from the perspective of reception history. In addition, I attempt to position the results in the history of scholarship (§5). 323. Ibid., 241–42; compare 305 n. 68. 324. For a proposal similar to Blum, see Schmidt, Priesterschrift, 8; Pola, Priesterschrift, 30 n. 79. 325. See especially Perlitt, ZAW 100 (1988), supplement volume: 65–87; Dohmen/Oeming, Kanon, 60–61; Stoellger, ZAW 105 (1993): 26–51; Pola, Priesterschrift; Zenger, Einleitung, 94–95. Frevel, Blick, decidedly argues for the classical option. 326. Blum, Pentateuch, 228.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 50 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Chapter 2

Analytical Investigation Markers of the Original Independence of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story within Genesis–2 Kings

2.1. Literary Indicators in Genesis–2 Kings for Dividing Genesis from Exodus 2.1.1. Anticipatory References in Genesis to Exodus a. The Bridging Function of the Joseph Story? In the present form of the text of Genesis–Exodus, the patriarchal narrative and the presentation of the exodus event are primarily connected by the narrative of Joseph and his brothers (Genesis 37–50), which explains how Israel came to Egypt. The narrative of the so-called Joseph story is thus central to the question of the literary relationship between the ancestors and Exodus. However, there is no consensus on the literary classification of the Joseph story, and the literary-critical approach of Wellhausen has endured until recently: 1 It should be supposed that this work [meaning Genesis], here [meaning in Genesis 37–50] as elsewhere is composed of J and E. Our earlier results demand that we accept this and would be shaken if this were not demonstrable. 2

It is obvious that the Joseph story represents a pivotal point in the traditional explanation of the Pentateuch as arising from comprehensive, parallel narrative threads. If each of the literary works combined in the Pentateuch already presupposes its story-line, then each must narrate the transition from the ancestors to the exodus. 3 1. The following provide overviews of the history of scholarship: Scharbert, BN 37 (1987): 104– 28; Boecker, Festschrift Preuss (see the bibliography mentioned there, p. 35 n. 1); Soggin, “Genesis,” 427–36 (bibliography); Paap, Josephsgeschichte; Schmid, “Josephsgeschichte.” 2. Wellhausen, Composition, 52. 3. For example, see Donner, Josephsgeschichte, 24: “The ancient pentateuchal sources must have told the story of the transition of Joseph’s tribe from Palestine to Egypt.” See the critique of Knauf, Ismael, 35–36; idem, Midian, 101 n. 456.

50

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 51 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Literary Indicators for Dividing Genesis from Exodus

51

However, while Rudolph and Volz questioned the validity of the source division in the Joseph story by challenging the status of the Elohist, 4 von Rad demonstrated its unified character as a novella shaped by wisdom elements. 5 On the basis of von Rad’s study, Whybray correctly points out that it cannot be both ways: 6 the Joseph story cannot be an artfully written novella and a bridge element made up of the two old pentateuchal narrative strands, J and E, between the ancestors and the exodus. 7 In spite of recent attempts of L. Schmidt, the source division of the Joseph story has lost its plausibility. 8 There is a greater tendency now to view the Joseph story as a self-contained, meaningfully planned novella. 9 Where it is judged to have been augmented, it is thought of more in terms of the growth of a “block” than as a revision of two parallel strands. 10 With the rejection of a division of the Joseph story into two parallel sources, the view that its primary function was to connect the ancestors and the exodus also fails. The conclusion that both supposed narrative strands in Genesis 37–50 are also thought to extend before Genesis 37 and after Genesis 50 is due more to the traditional theory than any plausible textual proof. To be sure, in the current form of Genesis–Exodus, the Joseph story forms a transition from the time of the ancestors to Israel’s sojourn in Egypt and the exodus. However, the Joseph story was not originally composed for this purpose, as Noth mistakenly proposed. 11 The following points argue against Noth’s proposal: in addition to several discrepancies in Genesis 12–36 that point toward the original independence of the Joseph story from the ancestor narrative, 12 the transition material is not shaped 4. Volz and Rudolph, Elohist (there are also older scholars, e.g., Nöldeke, mentioned on p. 146); Rudolph, Elohist. 5. Von Rad, “Josephsgeschichte und ältere Chokma”; idem, “Josephsgeschichte.” Von Rad saw the Joseph story as a product of the “Solomonic enlightenment.” 6. Whybray, VT 18 (1968): 522–28; before him, see also Weippert, Landnahme, 92 n. 3. 7. At the same time, in my opinion indefensible compromise solutions have been presented. Donner rejects the source division of Genesis 37–50 (Donner, Josephsgeschichte, 14–24) and sees the Joseph story at the stage of JE as a bridge between the ancestors and the exodus. Nevertheless, he asserts that J and E originally had connected the ancestors and the exodus in their own ways: J “in the form of a short note without much content,” and E “with a more extensive story, perhaps even a small Joseph story” (Donner, Josephsgeschichte, 36; see also Paap, Josephsgeschichte, 171–72). Both claims lack textual foundation. Schmitt correctly remarks that “it is unacceptable to want to save the Documentary Hypothesis by simply bracketing out the Joseph story” (Schmitt, ZAW 97 [1985]: 173 n. 72). 8. Schmidt, Literarische Studien; L. Schmidt, TRE 17:255–58; see also Ruppert, Josephserzählung; Seebass, Geschichtliche Zeit. 9. See Whybray, VT 18 (1968): 522–28; Steck, Paradieserzählung, 120–24 n. 29; Coats, From Canaan; Donner, Josephsgeschichte; Willi-Plein, Hen 1 (1979): 305–31; Westermann, Genesis 37–50, 25–26; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 230–34; Soggin, Genesis, 424–54 (see the bibliography in Schmitt, ZAW 97 [1985]: 163 n. 10; and Blum, Vätergeschichte, 231 n. 5). However, one should not downplay the problems in Genesis 37–50, specifically in Genesis 37. These difficulties can be explained in terms of redactional expansions; see Schmid, “Josephsgeschichte.” 10. So, for example, Dietrich, Josephserzählung; for a different perspective, see Levin, Jahwist, 265– 316. 11. Noth, HPT, 208. 12. See Schmitt, Josephsgeschichte, 127–28; Dietrich, Josephserzählung, 45; Schmid, “Josephsgeschichte.”

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 52 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

52

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

consistently. On the contrary, it is clear, especially in the previously mentioned linking passage of Exod 1:6–8, that the Joseph story is anything but an organic bridge between the ancestors and the exodus. 13 In Exod 1:6–8, the effects of the Joseph story must first be “suspended” before the events of Exodus can begin. 14 After Exod 1:6–8, Joseph, formerly the second in charge in Egypt, is not mentioned again apart from the notice of transporting his bones to Canaan in Exod 13:19 and Josh 24:32, which Joseph commissioned in Gen 50:24. 15 Further observations point to the same conclusion. Crüsemann, in particular, has noted the diametrically opposed presentation and evaluation of kingship in the Joseph story and the beginning of the Exodus narrative. Both narratives concern the Egyptian kingship, which for Crüsemann transparently points to the Solomonic rule, the time period of the author of J. 16 The Joseph story functions as a legitimizing document for moderate rule and royal taxation, while the Exodus narrative presents harsh criticism of forced labor imposed by the royal state. 17 If one attributes the pre-Priestly material in both Genesis 37–50 and Exodus 1–15 to J, then problems arise. In order to continue to hold to the “unity of ‘J,’ ” Crüsemann must ascribe to J an ambivalent attitude toward kingship to avoid calling it contradictory. 18 This is not very plausible. Rather, this observation provides clear evidence against the existence of a common “basic layer” (Grundschicht) through which the Exodus narrative continues the Joseph story. Another discrepancy alongside the differing views of kingship is found in the divergent characterization of the forefathers of Israel. The Joseph story portrays Israel’s forefathers, as does Genesis in general, as herders of small livestock and seminomads, who willingly moved from Canaan to Egypt. 19 In Exodus 1–15, Israel is portrayed quite differently, as enslaved forced laborers, like others one might find in Egypt who were as prisoners of war. 20 We are not told how this mutation of Israel’s forefathers took place, except for the tenuous notice in Exod 1:6–8, which 13. Similarly Kratz, Composition, 275. In a synchronic study of Genesis, Dahlberg suggested reading the Joseph story as a contrasting element to the primeval story: “The Joseph narrative does not function . . . primarily as a bridge between the patriarchal narratives and the exodus material, but as inclusio for the book of Genesis” (Dahlberg, TD 24; see Clines, Theme, 84–85). Even though the inclusio elements mentioned by Dahlberg are rather vague, and from a literary-historical perspective it can hardly be concluded that Genesis 37–50 was composed as a contrast to Genesis 1–11 (which admittedly Dahlberg does not suggest), his observations clearly show, in their own way, that the shaping of the Joseph story as an Eisodos tradition represents a marginal theme in Genesis 37–50. 14. Müller, WO 9 (1977/78): 79 n. 10; see Weippert, Landnahme, 92; Römer, “Joseph,” 82; Schmitt, Josephsgeschichte, 124–27. 15. See Weimar, Meerwundererzählung, 116–19. 16. Crüsemann, Widerstand, 174–80; see Albertz, History, 1:120 with n. 54, 292. 17. See also the passage in 1 Kgs 9:20–22 that has the Solomonic drudgery being performed only by foreigners (see Dietrich, BN 34 [1986]: 7–16). 18. Crüsemann, Widerstand, 178–79. 19. See, for example, Gen 46:32–34 and 47:3–6 along with Gen 12:16; 15:19; 18:6–8; 20:14; 21:27; 24:10ff.; 26:12, 14; 27:9, 28, 37; 30:28–43; 31:17; 32:6, 8, 15; See also Donner, GAT 4/1 87–88. 20. See the material in Weippert, Landnahme, 90–93.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 53 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Literary Indicators for Dividing Genesis from Exodus

53

tersely balances Genesis 37–50 and Exodus 1–15. On this point then as well, it is difficult to postulate one and the same author for Genesis 37–50 and Exodus 1–15. Finally, the Joseph story does not exhibit any inextricable relationship with the purpose of forming a bridge between the ancestors and the exodus. At the end of the Joseph story, Israel finds itself back in Canaan in order to bury Jacob (50:7–13), and by means of a single verse (50:14) we are told that Joseph and his brothers returned to Egypt where the concluding scene takes place. 21 Literary-critically, the burial of Jacob in Canaan cannot be removed from the Joseph story, because the preceding material has carefully led up to it (compare Gen 47:29–31; 49:29–32). However, the transition of Israel to Egypt after the death of Jacob represents only a subplot in the Joseph story. 22 In fact, it may be that the conclusion of the Joseph story was originally set in Canaan instead of Egypt, because 23 Gen 50:14 offers only a terse report of a second relocation to Egypt (Gen 50:15 “seems to envisage a different situation at the death of Jacob from the preceding verse”), 24 which may be redactionally anticipated by the children left behind in 50:8b. Furthermore, the structurally significant 25 promise in Gen 46:2–4 26 links the return of Jacob with his death in the land of Canaan. Finally, Jacob’s blessing in Genesis 49 situates the life of the tribes in Canaan. 27 Thus the Joseph story appears originally to have continued the ancestral story primarily through the connection with Genesis 12– 36 established in Gen 46:2–4 without reference to Exodus. 28

21. In the current form of the text, the return to Egypt (50:14; on this verse, see Gertz, “Transition,” 77–82) is prepared by the announcement of Joseph in 50:5 (hbwvaw “and I will return” or “I want to return”) as well as the narrative thread in 50:8b that the children, the sheep, and the cattle should remain in the land of Goshen. But 50:8b is prima facie contradictory to the first part of the verse (50:8a), which states that the trip to Canaan was undertaken by the “entire house of Joseph and his brothers, and from the house of his father,” including the women, children, and relatives (see H. A. Hoffner, TDOT 2:107–16). The contrast between Gen 50:8b and v. 8a is particularly noteworthy if, following Locher, πf is understood as not just “young children” but also dependents, family, and relations, which would also include women, children, elderly, slaves, etc. (C. Locher, TDOT 5:347–50). It makes no sense to accentuate the whole house in 50:8a when the next sentence immediately limits it so drastically. Thus, 50:5 has a double meaning, and 50:8b (along with h[rp ydb[ lk and μyrxm ≈ra ynqz in 50:7) is a later insertion to provide material motivation for returning again to Egypt in 50:14, which perhaps already appeared suspect to ancient readers. Concerning the life of the Israelites in the land of “Goshen” in Gen 45:10; 46:28–29, 34; 47:1, 4, 6, 27; and 50:8, which one encounters again in Exod 8:18 (P) and 9:26, see Schmitt, Josephsgeschichte, 121–24 (for another perspective, see Dietrich, Josephserzählung, 47–48). 22. See also Schmitt, Josephsgeschichte, 129, with n. 170. 23. For the place-names in Gen 50:11, see the discussion in Westermann, Genesis 37–50, 201–2. 24. See Redford, Study, 31; 50:14b (wyba ta wrbq yrja) is missing in the LXX. 25. See the discussion in Blum, Vätergeschichte, 298–300. 26. See §2.1.1.b. 27. See also the discussion of Westermann concerning the double conclusion of the story of the fathers: “It ends in chap. 50 with the coming of the twelve tribes of Jacob to Egypt, after chap. 49 with the rise and the development of the tribes in the land of Canaan.” Westermann, EdF 48 (1975), 31. 28. See the observations of Miscall, JSOT 6 (1978): 28–40.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 54 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

54

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

Additionally, passages such as Gen 45:5–7 and 50:20 that speak about Israel living (hyj in 45:7; 50:20) as “a great flock rescued” (hldg hfylp in Gen 45:7) and as a “strong people” (br μ[_ in Gen 50:20) do not originally have the exodus event in view. Rather, as the context makes clear (45:6–7), 45:7 concerns the actual deliverance from famine, and 50:20 looks back (compare the perfect forms) on the famine (Gen 41:56–57; 42:19, 33; 43:1).29 Gen 45:7 represents the conditions that make it possible for Israel to become a people. The Joseph story already develops a national perspective for Israel, which strongly favors the idea that the story did not originally develop as a transition to Exodus because it moves toward an independent explanation for the existence of the people of Israel alongside Exodus 1, as is evident from Genesis 49. 30

The grave consequences mentioned by Wellhausen that a renunciation of the source division in the Joseph story have largely occurred with respect to the Elohist. Its existence in the Pentateuch as a continual, written source is so uncertain (though not just on the basis of the findings in the Joseph story) that it is hardly taken into consideration any more, at least in the European context. This is not the case 31 for J (or its equivalents) if J is understood as the main compositional layer in the pre-Priestly Tetrateuch. Despite the aforementioned discrepancies and the notorious problems in dating 32 the Joseph story, several composition-historical models continue to proceed from the idea that a pre-Priestly narrative thread can be found in the Joseph story that originates in the ancestor stories and continues into the Exodus story.

29. Westermann sees in 45:7b a “later expansion” (Westermann, Genesis 37–50, 143–44). Dietrich sees it otherwise (Dietrich, Josephserzählung, 39). 30. See also μ[ in Gen 49:29, 33 (also 49:10, 16). 31. See already: Rudolph and Volz, Elohist; Rudolph, Elohist (by contrast: Eissfeldt, “Komposition”); Mowinckel, Erwägungen; Pedersen, Israel I–II, 27; more recently, Redford, Study, 251–53; H.-C. Schmitt, Josephsgeschichte, 178–84; idem, ZAW 97 (1985): 174–75; Whybray, Making, 35–36; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 121–38; Kaiser, Grundriss, vol. 1, who only wants to conceive E as a source in Genesis 20–22; different, Wolff, EvT 29 (1969): 59–60; Klein, EvT 37 (1977): 247–60; Jaros, Stellung; McEvenue, ZAW 96 (1984): 315–22; Seebass, “Yahwiste”; Seebass, TRE 26:185–209; Fritz, Festschrift Kaiser, 112; L. Schmidt, VF 40 (1995), 24–25; idem, “Pentateuch,” 103–6; idem, Festschrift Michel; Graupner, Elohist. 32. Classically Solomonic: Ruppert, Josepherzählung, 208–35; von Rad, ATD 2–4; Westermann, Genesis 37–50, 19; Coats, From Canaan, 79; Boecker, Festschrift Preuss, 41–42; Berge, Zeit; L. Schmidt, VF 40 (1995): 3–28; Donner ( Josephsgeschichte, 24) dates it as Solomonic or shortly thereafter. Several go into the period of the Northern Kingdom: Blum, Vätergeschichte; for Genesis 37–45, Dietrich, Josephserzählung, 62–66 (while he places Genesis 37–50 as a bridge between Genesis and Exodus shortly after 722 b.c.e. [p. 76]); Smith, Pattern, 157–58 with n. 67; Görg, Beziehungen, 119, 123. Redford (Study, 250) limits the time of origin to between 650 and 425 b.c.e. Meinhold, ZAW 87 (1975); Soggin, Festschrift Anderson; Römer, “Joseph,” 84–85; idem, ZAW 109 (1997): 11 n. 50 (sixth to fifth century); and Gosse, Structuration, 153–54, date it postexilic. Vergote, Joseph, 203–13 (see extensive discussion in Redford, Study, 250) situates the Joseph story in the second century (compare Seebass, Geschichtliche Zeit, 114–18); Schmitt (Josephsgeschichte, 162–63) remains in the Solomonic period for his Judah layer, while he dates the Reuben layer as exilic/postexilic (p. 169). The reverse is true for Kebekus (Joseferzählung, 254, 334), whose Reuben layer is situated in the eighth century while the later Judah layer, as designated by him, has a postexilic date. The latest suggestions are Soggin, Genesis, 435 (“Hellenistic”) or p. 430 (not later than the Maccabean period) and Diebner, “Roman,” 67–68 (second or first century b.c.e.).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 55 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Literary Indicators for Dividing Genesis from Exodus

55

Based on the preceding observations, it is more likely that the originally independent stories of Joseph and of the ancestors were first combined into the larger complex of Genesis 12–50. This can be recognized above all by Gen 46:2–4 (see §2.1.1.b below). The Joseph story’s function as a bridge between the transmission of the ancestors and the exodus, by contrast, arose secondarily. This second stage is only sparsely attested redactionally. There are few passages in Genesis 37–50 that anticipate the exodus: explicitly, the closely related texts of Gen 48:21 and 50:24–25; and implicitly, Gen 50:(5, 8), 14, 22, 26, 33 the closing scene of the Joseph story in Egypt. It is a well-established view that neither Gen 48:21—like Genesis 48 in general 34—nor 50:22–26 is original to the Joseph story. 35 The most important redactional linking texts in Genesis 50, vv. 24 and 25, which allow the end of the Joseph story to appear as prelude to the subsequent presentation of exodus and conquest, will be treated extensively in §3.3.1, §3.4.1, and §3.6.5. Gen 50:24 initiates a plot-line that traverses the breadth of the Pentateuch—a sworn promise of land (Exod 32:13; 33:1; Num 32:11; Deut 34:4), and Gen 50:25 initiates a plot-line that even traverses the breadth of the Hexateuch— the transporting of Joseph’s bones (Exod 13:19; Josh 24:32). Here it will suffice, first, to affirm that diachronic classification of these verses is also not so certain that they can be indisputably affirmed as pre-Priestly. 36 It is clear in any case that the literary findings on the Joseph story contradict more than support the traditional idea of a comprehensive basic layer ( J or something similar) running throughout Genesis–Exodus. Rather, the findings suggest that a connection was made through redactional links between the two relatively independent tradition complexes, Genesis and Exodus (and following). b. Genesis 46:1–5a The special placement of Gen 46:1–5a within the Joseph story has often been noted and discussed. 37 God appears to Jacob and blesses his migration to Egypt with promises of fertility and return to Canaan, along with the assurance that Joseph will “close his eyes.” This sort of direct revelation by God does not appear anywhere else in the Joseph story but is strongly reminiscent of the preceding ancestral narratives in language and content. Since the rise of the classic Documentary Hypothesis, the redactional function of this passage has been imminently clear. 38 In particular, Blum has worked out the connections between Gen 46:1–5a

33. See Redford, Study, 24; Kessler, Querverweise, 176–77; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 257. 34. See the overview in Blum, ibid., 250–54; compare Redford, Study, 22–24. 35. Blum, Vätergeschichte, 255–56; compare Redford, Study, 25–27. 36. Concerning P in Genesis 37–Exodus 1, see §3.5.4.a. 37. See the review by Blum, Vätergeschichte, 246; Ruppert, Festschrift Scharbert, 271–73. 38. Traditionally assigned to E (see Gunkel, Genesis, 439–40). Continuing to assign Gen 46:1–5a based on the source theory must inevitably lead to (quite unconvincing) literary-critical segmentation of the text; see Ruppert, Festschrift Scharbert.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 56 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

56

and the promises in Gen 31:11, 13; 26:2–3; and 12:1–2, 39 showing which lines of the ancestral traditions Gen 46:1–5 has assimilated and thus how Gen 46:1–5 incorporates the Joseph story into the complex of ancestral traditions, creating a large “ancestral story” of chaps. 12–50. Gen 46:1–5a is usually seen as a bridge text that faces both forward and backward. Verse 4a (because of the use of hl[) is identified as an “anticipatory reference to Exodus.” 40 However, this understanding is neither required nor suggested by the text. 41 Gen 46:1–5a does not refer to events beyond Genesis 50. The sequence of events that vv. 3–4 delineate is as follows: Yhwh will move with Jacob to Egypt (3ba, 4aa), in order to make him into a great people there (lwdg ywg in 3bb), in order to lead him out again (4ab), 42 and Joseph will close his eyes (4b). If this sequence is compared with the subsequent events, then it does not extend beyond the Joseph story: Jacob moves to Egypt in Gen 46:5–7; Gen 47:27b 43 notes the multiplication of Israel (hrp; hbr); and Gen 50:7–13 specifies the return to Canaan as well as the burial of Jacob by Joseph. Gen 46:3–4 v. 3ba, 4aa v. 3bb v. 4ab v. 4b

Themes trek to Egypt becoming a people return Jacob’s burial

Genesis 46–50 46:5–7 47:27b 50:7–10 50:13

Gen 46:1–5a looks forward to the return of Jacob to Canaan in Genesis 50, not to the return of Israel in Exodus–Joshua. Therefore, Gen 46:1–5a has been formulated for the purpose of encompassing only the ancestral story in Genesis 12–50. 44 39. See Blum, Vätergeschichte, 246–49, 297–301; compare Redford, Study, 18–20; Carr, Reading, 178. 40. See Blum, Vätergeschichte, 247 (but see his self-correction in “Verbindung,” 131–33 [see also below, n. 44]); compare Redford, Study, 20; Westermann, Genesis 37–50, 156 (see also pp. 152, 209– 10); Van Seters, JSOT 3 (1977): 17; idem, Prologue, 318–20; Gertz, “Transition,” 77. 41. The phrase lwdg ywg in Gen 46:3 does not prepare the reader for the beginning of Exodus, where μwx[ br . . . μ[ appears in Exod 1:9. The term lwdg ywg occurs 18 times in the Hebrew Bible (Gen 12:2; 17:20; 18:18; 21:18; 46:3; Exod 32:10; Num 4:12; Deut 4:6, 7, 8, 38; 9:1; 11:23; 26:5; Josh 23:9; Jer 6:22; 50:9, 41). 42. That the second-person-singular suffix should “really relate collectively to Israel” (Kessler, Querverweise, 164 n. 4; p. 317 in connection with von Rad, ATD 2–4 352) is not justified at all. Rather, Gunkel has already correctly noted, “ ‘I will bring you back’ in the coffin [is] an announcement of the narrative of Jacob’s burial in Canaan” (Gunkel, Genesis, 440; Westermann, Genesis 37– 50, 156, sees it differently). 43. Usually associated with P (see Noth, HPT, 18; Lohfink, “Priesterschrift,” 222–23 n. 29). However, P is of uncertain value in the Joseph story, and thus, Gen 46:3–4 cannot convincingly be categorized as post-Priestly. 44. This is also supposed in Blum’s conception (see Vätergeschichte, 360), but he believes that “the hearer/reader . . . [i.e., understanding Gen 46:1–5a] does not [require] a literary context, but knowledge of the salvation-historical outline to the conquest.” Blum has now modified his opinion; see “Verbindung,” 131–33 n. 63.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 57 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Literary Indicators for Dividing Genesis from Exodus

57

Once the proper function of Gen 46:1–5a is recognized, the possibility of seeing the Joseph story in Genesis 37–50 (without chaps. 12–36) as the original introduction to Exodus (and following) is simultaneously eliminated. The redactional link in 46:1–5a creates an “ancestral story” of Genesis 12–50 but not a “Joseph–Exodus story” of Genesis 37–50 + Exodus (and following). Furthermore, the discrepancies between Genesis 37–50 and Exodus 1–15 regarding the perspective of the Egyptian king and the Israelites can be recalled, as well as the annulment of the Joseph story in Exod 1:6–8.

c. Genesis 15:13–16 Gen 15:13–16 contains a preview that explicitly speaks of a 400-year sojourn (rwg) of Israel enslaved (db[) and oppressed (hn[) in Egypt (15:13), of the judgment (ˆyd) of Egypt (15:14a), and of the departure (axy) of Israel (15:14b, 16) and the return to Canaan in the fourth generation. In contrast to Gen 46:1–5a, Gen 15:13–16 incontestably envisions the events recounted in the book of Exodus (and following). However, the episode in Genesis 15 is by no means an integral component of the ancestral story. Rather, commentators have long found it to be awkward in the context and resistant to classification within one of the classical sources. Genesis 15 is one of the most prominent bridge texts in Genesis, which literarily joins Genesis to Exodus. I will treat this chapter extensively in §3.2.1. There, I will address its literary-historical classification—specifically, its relationship to Genesis 17 (P). d. Genesis 12:10–20 The ancestral story begins with the narrative of Abraham’s trek to Egypt, the danger to Sarah there, and the return to Canaan (Gen 12:10–20). 45 This narrative clearly evokes images of the exodus event, and the vocabulary in the passage suggests that these associations are intentional: Pharaoh is struck ([gn) with plagues (v. 17), as in Exod 11:1; he sends (jlv) Abraham and his entourage forth, echoing the key word in Exodus 5–11 (v. 20); 46 even the commands to let Abraham and Moses go correspond to one another (˚lw jq in Gen 12:17 and wklw wjq in Exod 12:32). “In many respects, the episode is accordingly shaped as a prefiguration of the later exodus, as a piece of salvation history at the beginning of the history of Israel.” 47 How one should evaluate this prefiguration is unclear at first glance. However, we can at least note that in diachronic terms Abraham does not prefigure Moses, but Moses is an epigone of Abraham. In any case, Gen 12:10–20 is not necessarily a literary bridge between Genesis and Exodus, connecting the flow of events in these two books, because the typological correspondence between Abraham and Moses would also be quite 45. For the anchoring of Gen 12:10–20 in its context, see 13:3–4/12:8 and Noth, HPT, 233 n. 612; compare Levin, Jahwist, 141. 46. See Blum, Vätergeschichte, 309; for the corresponding use of jlv in the Piel in Isaiah 40–55, see Kratz, Kyros, 104. 47. Blum, Vätergeschichte, 309. See also the references to the predecessors in ibid., n. 14; and Ha, Genesis 15, 199–200.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 58 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

58

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

conceivable between two independent narrative works. The semblances to the exodus in Gen 12:10–20 do not persuasively signify a literary connection between Genesis and Exodus. The other two versions of the narrative of the “endangered ancestress” also show affinities with the exodus event although they involve Abimelech of Gerar and not the Egyptian pharaoh. Genesis 20 to some degree portrays Abimelech as a positive counterpart to the pharaoh of Gen 12:10–20 48 but also to the pharaoh of the exodus. 49 Abimelech is immediately given a message from God (20:3, 6) and exhibits fear of God (20:11, 14; compare the Egyptian midwives in Exod 1:17, 21). Therefore, he is “healed” from his “plagues” (20:17–18). In Gen 26:2–4 Isaac is told not to wander to Egypt,50 and in v. 16 Abimelech commands Isaac to leave him because he has become strong (μx[; compare Exod 1:7, 12, 20). 51 It is difficult to decide the extent to which these are intentional allusions to Exodus. They probably belong to the late phases of the formation of Genesis wherein the continuation of Genesis in Exodus may be presumed.

e. Genesis 12:1–3 The promise to Abraham in Gen 12:1–3 is seen not only as an important connecting text between the primeval story and the ancestor story 52 but has often been interpreted as foreshadowing the national history in Exodus and following: 53 “I will make of you a great nation” (lwdg ywgl; 12:2). This statement corresponds conceptually, though not verbally, to the affirmation of the pharaoh in Exod 1:9 that “the people of the Israelites” (larcy ynb μ[) have become “too numerous (br) and too strong (μwx[w).” W. H. Schmidt remarks: “The pharaoh himself confirmed that the promise of increase was realized or had been realized.” 54 However, there is not a declaration that the increase of Israel in Egypt is a fulfillment of a promise, nor does Exod 1:9 correspond verbally with anything in Gen 12:2: the people are called μ[ in Exod 1:9, not ywg, and their size is described as br and μwx[ instead of lwdg. Schmidt’s supposition that Gen 12:2 speaks of ywg because, “over against ºm (kinship), the political-national aspect of the people is more in view,” he himself considers uncertain. 55 However, Westermann correctly concludes: “One finds no inkling that the increase of the people in Egypt is a fulfillment of a preceding

48. See Jacob, Genesis, 474–75; Van Seters, Abraham, 171–75; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 327. 49. See Jacob, Genesis, 475: “The pharaoh of Abraham is a precursor to that of Exodus. He knows nothing of God, the fear of God, or sin. A deity does not appear to him because pharaoh considers himself to be such. Since, for him, only force helps, it is sufficient to report on these and their success. It is different for Abimelek.” 50. For the connection of 26:2–4 with the commissions of 12:2–3; 31:11, 13; and 46:1–5a, see Blum, Vätergeschichte, 298, 300. 51. The apparently Egyptian names for Abimelech’s companions, Ahuzzath and Phicol, are also suggestive at this point (compare Görg, Beziehungen, 115). 52. See Steck, Festschrift von Rad. 53. For example, Müller, Eschatologie, 54; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 146, 149–50; W. H. Schmidt, BZ 25 (1981): 90–91; Levin, Jahwist, 134; compare Clines, Theme, 89–96. 54. Schmidt, BZ 25 (1981): 91; see also Levin, Jahwist, 134. 55. Schmidt, BZ 25 (1981): 90 n. 29.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 59 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Literary Indicators for Dividing Genesis from Exodus

59

promise.” 56 On the contrary, the promise of a nation in Gen 12:2 has not been formulated with Exodus 1 in mind. Furthermore, regarding the land theme, Gen 12:1–3 does not give any hint that the entire exodus (and Sinai) event lies between the promise and its fulfillment as is the case in Genesis 15. 57 Instead, the implication in Gen 12:1–3 is that the promise will be fulfilled during the ancestors’ sojourn in the land of Canaan. There is thus no evidence for a literarily conceived connection between Gen 12:2 and Exodus 1. Even the encounter with the Moabites in Num 22:6, which is depicted as being analogous to the confrontation between Israelites and Egyptians in Exodus, is not connected with Gen 12:2. 58 Direct literary relationships occur only between Exodus 1 and Numbers 22, not between Genesis 12 and Numbers 22. Alongside the theme of increase, the theme of blessing and curse in Gen 12:3 is cited by some scholars as pointing beyond Genesis: 59 with the statement of Balaam, “Those who bless you will be blessed, and those who curse you will be cursed” (Num 24:9), “the lines that began with the promise to Abraham” come to a close.60 A certain correspondence is apparent, yet the differences in tense (imperfect/perfect) and vocabulary (llq/rra) argue against the view that this correspondence is a general inclusio by a tetrateuchal author or redactor (such as J). Also, concerning the content, it does not make much sense that Gen 12:3 should have been formulated as preparation for Num 24:9 on the same literary level, or the reverse, that Num 24:9 resolves Gen 12:3. The Balaam episode features the theme of blessing and curse on an abstract level that is foreign to Gen 12:1–3. The “cursing” of Israel desired by Balak through Balaam does not attract the curse to Moab itself, as Gen 12:1–3 indicates, but attracts the “blessing” of Israel. The Balaam episode is not concerned with the position of a foreign people with respect to Israel, as would be expected from Gen 12:1–3, but with the power of Yhwh over heathen mantics. Thus, Num 24:9 perhaps alludes to Gen 12:3, but this is an isolated redactional construction that depends on this text alone and not a literary thread running the length between the two passages. The age of this reference in Numbers 24 to Genesis 12 in literary-historical terms depends on the dating of the Balaam pericope as a whole. I am skeptical of an early date based on the evidently late insertion of the Balaam pericope of Numbers 22–24,61 the divergence between the Balaam image in Numbers 22–24 and the other references to Balaam in the 56. Westermann, Verheissungen, 27. Concerning Exod 1:7 and Gen 17:2, 20 (P), see §2.1.2.a below. 57. In Gen 12:1–3, the land theme is not simply taken back (so, Wolff, Kerygma des Jahwisten, 354–55; see Levin, Jahwist, 49–50). Rather, Gen 12:1–3 is bound to a network of statements in Genesis 12–13. The “showing” (har in Hiphil) of the land by Yhwh anticipates the “seeing” (har) of Abraham in 13:14–15 (see Köckert, Vätergott, 252–53), in which (together with the traversing of the land in 13:17) the phrase already has the sense of a legal agreement with Abraham. Gen 12:1–3 is thus narrowly coupled with the subsequent promise of land (Gen 12:7; 13:14–17), but nothing having to do with Exodus and Sinai can be recognized. 58. Compare br (Exod 1:9/22:3), μwx[ (Exod 1:9/Num 22:6), ynpm ≈wq (Exod 1:12/Num 22:3). See Levin, Jahwist, 380–81. In the “encounter with the Moabites,” Müller sees the “paradigm for J” for the “conquest” (Müller, Eschatologie, 54). 59. See also the discussion, albeit limited to Genesis, in Coats, Festschrift Wolff. 60. Levin, Jahwist, 382. See Wolff, “Kerygma des Jahwisten,” 358–59, 368; Schmidt, BZ 25 (1981): 90 n. 28; Berge, Zeit, 25–26; Wynn-Williams, State, 172 n. 117. One should also compare Gen 27:29 and Exod 12:32. 61. See the references above in §1.3.1.a, n. 119 (p. 18) and Witte, “Segen.”

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 60 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

60

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

Hebrew Bible (Num 31:8, 16; Deut 23:5–6; Josh 13:22; 24:9; Mic 6:5; Neh 13:2), and the quite peculiar understanding of prophets in Numbers 22–24, which has its closest parallel in Philo (De specialibus legibus 4, §49: “no pronouncement of a prophet is ever his own; 62 he is an interpreter prompted by Another in all his utterances”). By no means should a pre-Priestly origin be presumed.

f. Summary A review shows that within Genesis, only 15:13–16 and 50:(5, 8b), 14, 22–26 at the end of the Joseph story anticipate the subsequent events presented in Exodus. 63 As many exegetes have noted, Noth’s view that the Joseph story was conceived as a bridge between the stories of the ancestors and Exodus cannot be maintained. Despite arguments to the contrary, not even the redactional passage of Gen 46:1–5a can be used to salvage Noth’s view. The literary connections between Genesis and Exodus are quite sparse within Genesis. As a side note, there are, however, passages in Genesis that show Abraham as a pious observer of Torah (i.e., Gen 22:18bb and 26:5b, 64 the latter presuming the former passage), 65 which apparently point toward Deut 11:1 (compare 1 Kgs 2:3) and Deut 28:1. These connections may reflect the sequence of pentateuchal books including Deuteronomy.66 Since, however, these passages do not carry the narrative forward, further classification is difficult; they can only be mentioned as bracketing pieces and cannot be traced further.67 On the other hand, certain parallels between narratives in Genesis and Exodus must be acknowledged, such as Genesis 29/Exod 2:15ff. 68 or Gen 32:23ff./Exod 4:24ff. 69 We cannot, however, speak of references forward or backward, because it is by no means clear if the relationships are even literary in nature.

2.1.2. References to Genesis in Exodus–Numbers When the issue is approached from the other direction, comparable results emerge. The recognition that the promises to the ancestors hardly play any role beyond Genesis was one of the main reasons Rendtorff thought that the different tradition complexes in the Pentateuch should be viewed as originally separate literary units: 70 62. The difference between Numbers 22–24 and the mention of Balaam in Deut 23:5 is also decisive. While in Deut 23:5 Balaam apparently actually curses Israel but Yhwh turns the curse into blessing, in Numbers 22–24 Balaam cannot curse. Rather, the curse is turned to blessing in his mouth. 63. See already Noth, HPT, 200. See also Seebass, TRE 26:187. 64. See Seebass, TRE 26:187; Ego, Abraham (compare the later history of interpretation in Sir 44:20; CD 3:2–4; 2 Bar. 57:2; b. Yoma 28b). 65. See Levin, Jahwist, 206. 66. See ibid., 178, 206; for a different perspective, see Van Seters, Festschrift Kaiser, 227. 67. De Pury presents Gen 26:5; 22:15 directly in the context of the connection between Genesis and Exodus (and following): “Abraham serves, in a proleptic manner, as the first observer of the law” (de Pury, VTSup 43 [1991], 95). 68. See W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 84; Van Seters, Life, 31–32. 69. W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 223. 70. Blenkinsopp also calls attention to “the relative paucity of reference back to the story of the ancestors in Genesis 12–50” in Exodus–Numbers (Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 117). He discusses the passages

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 61 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Literary Indicators for Dividing Genesis from Exodus

61

The ancestors and the promises given to them are not mentioned anywhere in the books of Exodus and Numbers in passages where there is widespread agreement about the traditional source division regarding one of the older sources, except in the formulaic speech of the “God of the fathers.” 71

The dearth of references back to the patriarchs was not unrecognized by the proponents of the classical source division, but they found explanations that were consistent with their source hypotheses. Noth thought that the Yahwist himself operated as an author especially in the primeval story and in the connecting element to the history of Israel in Gen 12:1–3: In that which follows he [the Yahwist] stayed almost exclusively with the transmitted material of the pentateuchal narrative without intervening to change or expand its substance. It was enough for him to have said clearly in the opening portion how he wanted all the remaining material to be understood. 72

Thus, according to Noth, within J, one should not expect references back to Genesis in Exodus–Numbers. In this argument, however, the the unity of J is presupposed and not proven. To be sure, the text complex of Exodus–Numbers is not entirely without reference back to Genesis. To begin with, Exodus 1 forms a clear bridge between Genesis and Exodus (I will examine this text in §4.2.a). But further references back to Genesis in Exodus–Numbers are quite sparse, limited essentially to the naming of the ancestor triad, “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exod 2:24; 3:6, 15–16; 4:5; 6:3, 8; 32:13; 33:1; Lev 26:42; Num 32:11).” 73 Specific individual events in Genesis are not taken up. Although the divine manner of speaking to the ancestors about the promise of the land prompts one to look back for a specific event, a definitive narrative in which such an oath is given is lacking in Genesis. 74

that either belong to P (Exod 2:24; 6:2–9; Lev 26:42) or represent secondary connections (Exod 3:6, 15–16; 4:5; 32:12; 33:1; Num 32:11). In this context, note also the questions by children in Exod 12:26ff.; 13:14ff.; Deut 6:20ff.; Josh 4:6–7, 21ff. (see the discussion in Soggin, VT 10 [1960]: 341–47; Lohfink, Hauptgebot, 113–16; Loza, RB 78 [1971]: 481–500; Fabry, BETL 68 [1985], 351–56; de Pury and Römer, “Mémoire”). They only cover the exodus–conquest narratives. 71. Rendtorff, VTSup 28 (1975), 166. 72. Noth, HPT, 238 (quoted also by Rendtorff, VTSup 28 [1975], 161). 73. For discussion of the “fathers” passages in Exod 13:5, 11; Num 11:12; 14:16, 23; and Num 20:14–16, see below under §2.1.2.d (p. 66). The “Jacob” passages in Exodus–Numbers are of little help (Exod 1:1, 5; 2:24; 3:6, 15–16; 4:5; 6:3, 8; 19:3; [32:13: Israel]; 33:1; Lev 26:42; Num 23:7, 10, 21, 23; 24:5, 17, 19; 32:11): only Exod 19:3 (“the house of Jacob”) and references in the Balaam pericope of Numbers 22–24 are independent of the ancestor triad. Exod 19:3 is not sufficiently specific as a designation to deduce anything of a literary relationship for Genesis–Exodus. Numbers 22–24 represents a self-contained unit that in its present form should perhaps be dated quite late, as several recent interpreters have argued (Kaiser, Grundriss, 1:64; H.-C. Schmitt, Festschrift Kaiser; Witte, “Segen”). 74. Genesis 15 has been identified as such a text but with uncertain rationale (see Blum for example); see below, §3.6.5 (pp. 271ff.).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 62 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

62

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

The ancestor triad passages can easily be classified. Exod 2:24; 6:3, 8 are classic P texts, 75 which are presupposed by Lev 26:42. This text group will be treated in §2.1.2.b (p. 65). Exod 3:6, 15–16; 4:5 belong to the episode of 3:1–4:18, which along with 2:23ab–25 interrupts the context of 2:23aa/4:19 and contains the nonPriestly call of Moses (§2.1.2.c, p. 66). 76 The remaining texts, Exod 32:13; 33:1; and Num 32:11, all speak of the promise of land as an oath to the patriarchs, indicating that they belong together (§2.1.2.d, p. 66). a. Exodus 1 As one would expect, the most important connection between Genesis and Exodus comes at the boundary between the books, in particular the opening chapter of Exodus. Exod 1:1–8 connects the book with the narrative in Genesis, 77 essentially by repetitions. The list of the names of the sons of Jacob and their families who came to Egypt were already provided in Gen 46:8–27, which reported that the group consisted of about 70 persons 78 (Gen 46:27 79/Exod 1:5). The death of Joseph, mentioned in Exod 1:6, was already reported in Gen 50:26. The affirmation that the sons of “Israel” increased greatly in Egypt (Exod 1:7) was already encountered in Gen 47:27b (dam wbryw wrpw). The superscription to the book in Exod 1:1a, hmyrxm μyabh larcy ynb twmv hlaw, is identical to the text of Gen 46:8aa, including the difficult syntax of hlaw. 80 It has been suggested that these repetitions are connected with the conceptualization of Genesis as its own book: 81 anyone who wants to read Exodus must first be informed about the events that Exod 1:1–6 briefly summarizes.

75. See, for example, Noth, HPT, 18; Lohfink, “Priesterschrift,” 222 n. 29; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 89–90; Weimar, BN 23 (1984): 85 n. 18; Koch, VT 37 (1987): 462–63; Römer, Väter, 546–48; Blum, Pentateuch, 239, with n. 40; Pola, Priesterschrift, 336–37. 76. Often noted. See, for example, Noth, HPT, 30 n. 103; Blum, Pentateuch, 20. 77. See Davies, Israel, 38; and Weimar (BETL 126 [1996], 198), who views Exod 1:1–7 as intentionally drawing on Genesis 45–50 as a conclusion to Genesis. However, his reconstruction of a source list for Exod 1:1–7 is not very convincing (Weimar, Exodusgeschichte, 39–40; see also Van Seters, Life, 20 n. 15). 78. Concerning vpn in Exod 1:5, see the extensive treatment in Davies, Israel, 23, with n. 2 (bibliography). 79. For the relationship of “66” (Gen 46:26) and “70” (Gen 46:27), see Fischer, BETL 126 (1996), 150–51 n. 7; Houtman, Exodus 1, 66–68. For the information in the LXX, “75” (Gen 46:27; Exod 1:5; compare Acts 7:14), see Stemberger, “Stephanusrede,” 236–37. The number 75 is also attested in Qumran (4QGen–Exoda [4Q1]). The supposed number of 70 nations in Genesis 10 is not a valid argument for “70” instead of “75” in Gen 46:27 and Exod 1:5, because 71 persons are listed in Genesis 10 who stem from Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth (compare Jacob, Genesis, 296–97, who eliminates “Joktan” from Genesis 10 and thus remains at 70). 80. The LXX and Vulgate read the easier hla, which Weimar (Exodus: Geschichten, 22–23) sees as original, contrary to the rules of text criticism. 81. See Davies, Israel, 24–25; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 134; Fischer, ZKT 117 (1995): 209; Weimar, BETL 126 (1996), 197–200; idem, NBL 1:783 (“Umfunktionierung des urspr. Schlusses der P-lichen Jakobsgeschichten Ex 1:1–5*”); and most decisively Levin, Jahwist, 315.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 63 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Literary Indicators for Dividing Genesis from Exodus

63

In addition to the report of Joseph’s death in Exod 1:6, 1:7–8 also informs the reader that Joseph’s brothers and their generation have also died. These verses, such as vv. 1–5, also connect Genesis and Exodus by reporting the details necessary for understanding the subsequent narrative of Exod 1:9ff. in light of the Genesis narrative. Exod 1:6–8 marks a turn of epochs, similarly to how Judg 2:8, 10 marks the turn of epochs between Joshua and Judges. 82 As a background to the series of events in Exodus, some recollection of the actors of Genesis, specifically of the Joseph story, must be offered. However, the significant gap between Joseph, who is so highly stationed in the Egyptian court in the closing chapters of Genesis, and the Israelites’ hard labor as slaves in Exodus 1 is filled in the briefest space with the report that Joseph has fallen into oblivion, though he was the second man in Egypt after Pharaoh. Exod 1:7, in particular, allows for a source-critical classification of Exod 1:6–8 because 1:7 is of central significance to this passage and to the following one, which presumes 1:7. 83 Exod 1:7 is also unambiguously a classic P text. 84 Exod 1:7 is tightly incorporated into the structure of P, with connections reaching back to the divine commission to humanity to multiply in Gen 1:28, which is repeated in Gen 9:1 in the address to Noah. In both passages the verbs hrp and hbr appear in parallel as in Exod 1:7, and notably the statement that humanity will “fill the earth/land” (ta walmw ≈rah) appears in both passages. The significance of ≈ra in Exod 1:7 has changed from meaning earth to meaning land. The statement in Gen 9:7 featuring the verbs hrp and hbr belongs with Exod 1:7, along with Gen 1:29 and 9:1. Only here and in Exod 1:7 is the verb ≈rv related to humanity, which may be explained by the comparable contexts. Just as the world must be repopulated in Genesis 10 (list of nations!) after Genesis 9, so must a “great and powerful” people emerge in Exod 1:9 from the 70 souls in Exod 1:5.85 Significantly, the promise of increase to Abraham is taken up again in Gen 17:2, 6, 20, from which the formulation dam damb in Exod 1:7 is derived. 86 Only P interprets Israel’s becoming a people in Egypt as fulfillment of the promise of increase given to the ancestors.

Exod 1:7 is concerned with mediating the report in Exod 1:5 (see Gen 46:28) of 70 descendants of “Israel” in Egypt with Pharaoh’s statement only four verses later: “Look, the Israelite people has become too numerous (br) and too strong 82. See §1.3.1.c. 83. For the classic arrangement, see the review in H.-C. Schmitt, Josephsgeschichte, 125 n. 146. 84. See Vriezen, VT 17 (1967): 345–46; Lohfink, “Priesterschrift,” 222 n. 29; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 29–31; Weimar, BN 23 (1984): 85 n. 14; idem, BETL 126 (1996), 199; Blum, Pentateuch, 10, 239 with n. 40; Steck, Festschrift Koch, 306–8; Gosse, EstBib 51 (1993): 164–67; Gertz, Tradition, 352; for a different perspective, see Van Seters, Life, 19–20; and Levin, Jahwist, 315 (“post-final redaction”). 85. Gosse, EstBib 51 (1993): 167; idem, SJOT 11 (1997): 4; see already Cassuto, Exodus, 8; Jacob, Exodus, 6; as well as in rabbinic interpretation, for example in Pesiq. Rab Kah. 10. Because of ≈rv Weimar wants to see Exod 1:7 as the fulfillment of the “Noachic blessing” in 9:7 (Weimar, Exodusgeschichte, 30). However, the increase of the Israelites in Egypt cannot be the goal of the repopulation after the flood. 86. See Weimar, ibid., 33–34.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 64 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

64

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

(μx[w) for us.” The basis for the events of Exod 1:9ff. is that Israel has become a great people, and this is precisely what Exod 1:7 narrates: “And the Israelites were fruitful and teeming, and they multiplied (wbrw) and became strong (wmx[w),” and indeed “in an overwhelming large measure” (dam damb), “and the land became full of them.” 87 Exod 1:7 thus literally anticipates Pharaoh’s statement in 1:9, but it also appears to look beyond 1:9 toward Exod 1:20, which states that despite Pharaoh’s command to kill the newborn males, the people “increased” (wbrw) and “became very strong” (dam wmx[yw). In the context of classical source theory, one can only marvel at the correspondence of Exod 1:7 (P) and 1:9, 20 ( J)—“The transformation of a small group of Jacob’s people into a large and threatening body, noted above in P, can also be detected in J (see the adjectives μwx[w br in v. 9)” 88— or discount the agreement in order to maintain the classic theory intact. 89 Clearly, however, Exod 1:9, 20 presume the increase reported in 1:7. If there are good reasons for assigning Exod 1:7 to P, then 1:9, 20 cannot be older than P. This situation creates considerable difficulties for anyone wanting to argue for a pre-Priestly bridge between Genesis and Exodus in Exodus 1. The key statement of Exod 1:7 belongs to P and is presupposed by the subsequent Priestly and nonPriestly texts in Exodus 1. Therefore, unless we assume that the text is fragmented, a pre-Priestly text cannot be reconstructed in Exodus 1. In other words, it appears that Exodus 1 contains no material older than P. Both the classic and the recent models of the Pentateuch must devise ad hoc hypotheses regarding the transition from Genesis to Exodus. Noth assigns Gen 50:1–10a, 14a (14b), and Exod 1:8–22 to J, and Gen 50:10b, 11, 15–26, and Exod 1:15–20 (21) to E,90 which leaves only fragmentary material in each thread. Although Blum maintains “that Exod 1:6, 8, in connection to and in common with Gen 50:24, . . . forms a transition bound in every respect between the two transmission complexes,”91 because he brackets Exod 1:7 (P) out of 1:6–8, 92 Pharaoh’s statement in Exod 1:9 lacks context. Van Seters has noted this: “It is . . . clear that this short statement about the increase of the people in v. 7 is necessary to the sense of v. 9, where the increase is now understood as a threat.”93 He thus assigns Exod 1:7 to J. In order to salvage a pre-Priestly connection to Genesis in Exodus 1, the clear P wording in 1:7 must be stricken as a later revision. According to Levin, Exod 1:1–7 is a “post-final redactional addition” that arose as a prologue to the book of Exodus in the course of the division of the books. “The mixture of 87. The br μ[ statement in Gen 50:20 does not function as the background for understanding Exod 1:9, 12, for in Gen 50:20 the development as a people has not yet been stated. Concerning μx[ in Exod 1:7, see Gen 18:18 (μwx[w lwdg ywg). See also Deut 9:14, 26:5 (see N. Lohfink, TDOT 11:299). 88. Coats, VT 22 (1972): 136. 89. See W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 11–12, 32–33 (see also the review by Weimar, Exodusgeschichte, 25 n. 21), wmx[yw in Exod 1:7, 20 stems from “RP .” Against the literary-critical analysis of Exod 1:7, see Weimar, Exodusgeschichte, 25–33; N. Lohfink, TDOT 11:297. 90. Noth, HPT, 30, 35–36. 91. Blum, Pentateuch, 103; but see now his self-correction in “Connection,” 105 n. 44 (with reference to Gertz, Tradition, 360). See also H.-C. Schmitt, Festschrift Brekelmans, 393–94. 92. Blum, Pentateuch, 10, 239 with n. 40. 93. Van Seters, Life, 20.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 65 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Literary Indicators for Dividing Genesis from Exodus

65

Priestly and Yahwistic material in this verse continues to attract attention. There is no handle for a source-critical division. Exod 1:1–7 presupposes the unification of the two sources.” 94 Thus, the same problem as with Blum’s interpretation arises: Exod 1:9 is diachronically separated from its necessary presupposition in Exod 1:7.

The notion that Exod 1:15–21 (which tells about the “god-fearing midwives”) is secondary to its context, as source theory has long accepted (E over against J in Exod 1:6, 8–12, 22) 95 is an idea that should be maintained. Exod 1:15–21 in its context is not the product of a compilation of sources but of a redactional expansion. The midwives episode primarily serves as a correction to the negative image of foreigners in Exodus 1: the midwives, presented by the narrative as Egyptians, 96 are god-fearing, and they frustrate the pharaoh’s plans. In other words, there is also godly activity among foreigners. 97 To be sure, this statement appears to have been later changed to an Israelite perspective. The MT suggests that the midwives were not really foreigners by using Hebrew names98 for the midwives as well as by using the designation tyrb[h tdlymh, which, because of the MT’s determination of tdlymh, has to be interpreted as Hebrew midwives. 99 Thus it was Israelite midwives that feared God. However, the midwives seem originally to have been Egyptians (i.e., the determination of tdlymh seems to be secondary), because Exod 1:22 relates that Pharaoh’s command was directed to Egyptians. It is unlikely that Hebrew midwives would have been commissioned to enforce infanticide against their own people. In addition, Exod 1:19 implies that the midwives also worked among the Egyptians.100

b. Exodus 2:24; 6:2–8; Leviticus 26:42 Exod 2:24ab–25 101 and 6:2–8 are assigned unanimously to P. Lev 26:42 has been designated either as P, 102 as the conclusion of H (expanding the Priestly writing?), 103 or as a post-Priestly redaction with a mixed Priestly and Deuteronomistic profile. 104 At any rate, Lev 26:42 is not older than P. Thus, Exod 2:24; 6:2– 8; and Lev 26:42 cannot have established a pre-Priestly literary bridge between Genesis and Exodus. 105

94. Levin, Jahwist, 315. 95. See W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 22. 96. See also the explicit mention in Josephus, Ant. 2.9.2. 97. See in particular, Römer, ETR 69 (1994): 265–70. Van Seters sees it differently, just as he sees his J at work in the entire non-Priestly text of Exodus 1, including 1:15–21 (Van Seters, Life, 23). 98. hrpc, “beauty” and h[wp, “glamor” or “girl” (see W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 42). 99. See ibid., 4–5. 100. See ibid., 19–20. 101. Concerning Exod 2:23aa, see Blum, Pentateuch, 239 n. 40. 102. See ibid., 325–32. 103. See Kaiser, Grundriss, 1:82–83. 104. See Lohfink, “Abänderung,” 135–36; Römer, Väter, 548–50. Lev 26:42 uniquely lists the three patriarchs backwards, beginning with Jacob. 105. For a specific arrangement of the ancestors and exodus in Exod 6:3, see below in §3.5.4.b (pp. 248ff.).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 66 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

66

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

c. Exodus 3:1–4:18 Alongside Exodus 1, Exodus 3–4 is the most important literary bridge in the book between Genesis and Exodus. Exodus 3–4 and Exodus 1 correspond reciprocally: after Exodus 1 has negated the events narrated in Genesis, Exodus 3–4 pulls Genesis and Exodus together again, positively. Without Exodus 3–4, Genesis would be merely a prelude to Exodus with no substantive significance for that which follows. However, through Exodus 3–4, the Moses/Exodus story is placed within the hexateuchal horizon that extends from the promises given to the ancestors to the conquest (see 3:6–8). According to the Documentary Hypothesis, Exodus 3–4 is a conglomeration of JE. Recent studies treat this complex as part of a pre-Priestly compositional layer in the Tetrateuch (Blum, Van Seters, Levin, Rose). However, Otto more recently has suggested that Exodus 3–4 may be later than P. 106 Exodus 3–4, like Genesis 15, will be addressed extensively as a prominent literary bridge below in §3.2.2, because the essential elements for the date of the literary connection between Genesis and Exodus are decided by these passages. d. The Promise of Land as an Oath to the Patriarchs in Exodus–Numbers The following passages also mention the ancestor triad in Exodus–Numbers: Exod 32:13; 33:1; and Num 32:11. In both content and language, they belong together, and they form, with Gen 50:24 and Deut 34:4, a string of statements traversing the Pentateuch related to the land promised to the patriarchs. 107 Although this theme extends beyond Genesis–Exodus, it is not taken up in Joshua–2 Kings. The common language and content are easy to recognize in these passages, but their literary-historical arrangement is by no means clear. At any rate, it cannot be presumed that the arrangement concerns a pre-Priestly literary thread. The intent of these statements is to connect significant events in the Moses story back to the ancestors, which reminds one of P and its theological concentration on the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 17. This interest allows one to consider whether P is presupposed by these texts. Below, in §3.6.5 (pp. 271ff.) we will return to this question in more detail. Exod 13:5, 11; Num 11:12; and 14:16, 23 speak of the land promised to the “fathers” but do not mention “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” 108 Römer has dealt extensively with these passages. 109 The most notable feature of these texts is that the oath to the “fathers” can also 106. Otto, BETL 126 (1996), 101–11; see now the discussion in Römer, “Exodus 3–4” (with a negative evaluation of an overall post-Priestly origin of Exodus 3–4). 107. Although these statements are almost equally divided among the five books of the Pentateuch (this fact appears to indicate a redactional intention), the lack of a corresponding example in Leviticus is noteworthy. Supposedly, Lev 26:42 is the corresponding element in Leviticus (it does not speak of an oath but of a covenant with the ancestors). See the discussion in §3.6.5 (pp. 269ff.). 108. See also Josh 1:6; 5:6; 21:43; Judg 2:1; Jer 32:22. 109. Römer, Väter, 554–61 (differently, see Skweres, Rückverweise, 107); concerning Boorer, Promise, see below, §3.6.5. However, Römer’s argument that Exod 3:17 should be seen as a “reference text” to Exod 13:5, and therefore the “fathers” in Exod 13:5 are not to be identified with the patriarchs

spread is 9 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 67 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Literary Indicators for Dividing Genesis from Exodus

67

be interpreted as being directed to those being addressed (Exod 13:11; Num 14:16) or to their immediately preceding relatives (Num 11:12). An unequivocal reference to Genesis, or even a suggestive one, therefore is not provided here. It is immediately clear from the canonical flow of the text in the historical books that the “fathers” in these passages can and should be seen as identical with the patriarchs. Another reference to the “fathers” is found in the confessionally formulated text of Num 20:14–16. The fathers of Israel have gone to Egypt where they remained for a long time and were oppressed. Yhwh heard their cry and sent them a messenger (˚alm), 110 who led them out of Egypt. This is not ancient tradition because its portrayal of Kadesh as the boundary with Edom can hardly be explained apart from a postexilic context.111 Furthermore, Num 20:14–16 shows clear signs of being a redactional summary of the canonical form of the text. 112 Thus, one cannot gain support from Num 20:14–16 for a pre-Priestly bridge between Genesis and Exodus.

e. Summary Explicit references in Exodus–Numbers back to Genesis are quite limited. Those that can be assigned literary-historically are Exod 2:24; 6:3, 8; Lev 26:42. They belong to P or to the literary entourage of P. The most prominent bridge between Genesis and Exodus in Exodus 1 also presupposes P because of the statement in Exod 1:7, constitutive to the context, which is most often assigned to P. What remains is essentially the Exod 3:1–4:18 complex as well as the passages that speak of the promise of land to the patriarchs as an oath (Exod 32:13; 33:1; Num 32:11). Their literary classification will be discussed extensively (see below, §3.2.2, pp. 172ff.; §3.6.5, pp. 271ff.). 2.1.3. The “Fathers” of Israel in Deuteronomy: Patriarchs or the Exodus Generation (and Their Ancestors) The most difficult passages to assess are those in Deuteronomy that refer back to Genesis and Exodus. While Deuteronomy, specifically its framing pieces, is replete with references to Exodus–Numbers, it also repeatedly mentions the patriarchs of Genesis. 113 Nowhere else in the Enneateuch is the history of Israel so clearly summarized along the principle lines presented in the Tetrateuch (meaning that it begins with the ancestors) than in the historical reviews of Deuteronomy. Note that the “small historical creed,” so important to von Rad, appears in Deuteronomy. Nevertheless, like the surrounding historical books, Deuteronomy is is weak (Römer, Väter, 557). Exod 3:17 (see 3:8) belongs to a context (3:1–4:18) in which the patriarchs are strongly anchored (3:6, 15–16; 4:5). 110. Blum convincingly shows that this more likely calls to mind Moses than an angel (Blum, Pentateuch, 119–20, with n. 75; for a different perspective, see Römer, Väter, 551–52 with n. 390). For ˚alm as a designation for prophets, see Isa 44:26; Hab 1:13; Mal 1:1; 2 Chr 36:15–16. Does the ˚alm terminology used in Num 20:16 stand critically alongside the angel texts in Exod 3:2; 14:19; 23:20, 23; 33:2; and Judg 2:1–5? 111. See Blum, Pentateuch, 119, with n. 73. See also Römer, Väter, 551–52. The idea that Num 20:15 does not yet have the “motif of the increase of the people in Egypt” (Lohfink, TDOT 11:298), is not plausible above all because of the change to the first-person plural that occurs there. 112. See the details in Kessler, Querverweise, 323–24. 113. See the monograph by Skweres, Rückverweise.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 68 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

68

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

not a literary unity but has a complex development. 114 The question thus arises as to the age of these texts in Deuteronomy that refer back to Genesis and Exodus– Numbers. Römer, 115 following Van Seters, 116 proposes that in Deuteronomy the “fathers” (twba) did not originally refer to the patriarchs but to the generation of the exodus or a previous generation. 117 Römer explains the passages that explicitly identify the “fathers” using the apposition “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (1:8; 6:10; 9:5, 27; 29:12; 30:20; 34:4 [without twba]) as later revisions, which perhaps not accidentally are seven in number. 118 Thus he excises the ancestor triad from its literary context (the entire v. 4 in the case of 34:4, 119 where “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” do not stand in apposition). 120 According to Römer, only in the course of a pan-pentateuchal redaction of the book, 121 primarily evidenced by the strategically important passages of Deut 1:8 and 34:4, 122 were the “fathers” in Deuteronomy identified with the patriarchs in Genesis. 123 Various redaction-historical arguments against the original identity of “fathers” in Deuteronomy with “ancestors” in Genesis exist. I will only briefly mention the most important points from Van Seters 124 and Römer. 125 The arguments are discussed extensively in the controversy between Römer and Lohfink. 126 In short, the theological viewpoint behind the promises to the ancestors runs counter to Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic theology, so that the promises can hardly be associated with the beginning stages of Deuteronomism. First, the unconditional promises of land in Genesis fit poorly with the Deuteronomic position that possession of the land depends upon obedience to the law. Then, the Deuteronomic creed text of Deut 26:5–9 does not mention the promise of land. Also, a certain tension appears between the drastic statements of overthrow (compare Deut 6:18–19; 9:3–6; 11:25) and the statements of the promise of land in Genesis. Further, the image of the oath of land, as Deuteronomy generally formulates the promises of land to the “fathers,” is attested only sparsely in Genesis, making it unlikely that 114. See the foundational considerations for the layering of Deuteronomy and its function for pentateuchal criticism in Otto, Festschrift Brekelmans. 115. Römer, Väter. 116. Van Seters, VT 22 (1972): 448–59. 117. See also Wyatt, ZAW 90 (1978): 101–4; Blenkinsopp (Pentateuch, 115) is skeptical concerning Van Seters’s ideas; concerning Römer, Väter, compare Seebass, TRev 87 (1991): 102–5; Lohfink, Väter. 118. Römer, Väter, 269–70; idem, “The Book of Deuteronomy,” 206–7, with reference to Braulik, Festschrift Füglister, who counts seven passages in Deuteronomy. 119. Römer, Väter, 254. 120. Skweres (Rückverweise, 208) speaks of a “tendency to fuller expressions” regarding the connecting words twba + the pronominal suffix + N. N. 121. Römer, Väter, 270, 566. 122. Ibid., 269; idem, “Deutéronome,” 77, 95–96. 123. See also Gosse, EstBib 51 (1993): 459–72. Nevertheless, Kreuzer has again put forth the older, questionable idea that in the “small historical creed” of Deut 26:5–10 “two originally independent confessions have been combined, namely an Israelite rural confession and the exodus confession of Numbers 20” (e.g., 20:14–16). Kreuzer, “Identität,” 142; see idem, Frühgeschichte, 149–83. 124. Van Seters, VT 22 (1972): 451–52; see the critique of Blum, Vätergeschichte, 294 n. 27. 125. See the summary in Römer, Väter, 266–71. 126. Ibid.; Lohfink, Väter.

spread is 9 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 69 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Literary Indicators for Dividing Genesis from Exodus

69

the image originally derives from Genesis. Finally, the fact that the patriarchal names stand in apposition to “fathers” (except for Deut 34:4) leads to the idea that “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” are additions intended to equate the deuteronomic “oath-to-the-fathers” theology of Deuteronomy with the “promise-to-the-ancestors” theology of Genesis.

If Römer is right, then the references to Genesis in Deuteronomy should all be classified as secondary. For Deuteronomy, the history of Israel originally began with the departure from Egypt. 127 Only with the forming of the Pentateuch was the prequel of Genesis incorporated into the historical reviews in Deuteronomy by means of identifying the “fathers” with the patriarchs. Römer’s idea has been strongly resisted in a monograph by Lohfink: “He [i.e., Römer] wants to reject a ‘Patriarchs’-Deuteronomy in favor of a ‘Exodus’Deuteronomy. However, in so doing he overlooks the fact that it is a ‘Horeb’Deuteronomy with a double preface.” 128 The idea that the current “Patriarchs”– Deuteronomy link was effected by the appositional insertion of the ancestor triad where the fathers are mentioned is certainly attractive, 129 but it remains uncertain just like most diachronic judgments. It is worth considering whether the passages in question are perhaps as a whole much later and, thus, already presuppose the attachment of Genesis to Exodus (and following), making Römer’s minute literary criticism unnecessary. However, this question cannot be treated in detail here. Thus, at this point one must suspend judgment on the references in Deuteronomy back to Genesis. Given the current debated appraisal of the naming of the patriarchs inside Deuteronomy, we cannot offer decisive arguments for or against a literary division in Deuteronomy. In §3.6.5 (pp. 271ff.), I will, however, return to the promises of land sworn to the three patriarchs in Deuteronomy and once again consider the theses of Van Seters and Römer. 2.1.4. References in Joshua–2 Kings back to Exodus and Genesis a. The Ancestors in Joshua–2 Kings The situation in Joshua–2 Kings is quite comparable to that in Exodus– Numbers, except that we also encounter the problem of the “fathers” found in Deuteronomy. The ancestor triad is only named specifically within Joshua– 2 Kings in Josh 24:4; 1 Kgs 18:36; and 2 Kgs 13:23. 130 Otherwise the patriarchs of 127. That Deuteronomy has been saturated by the exodus tradition is shown by the approximately 50 places in the book that refer to Exodus. See the discussion in Kreuzer, “Exodustradition.” 128. Römer, Väter, 105. In addition to the explicit identifications (1:8; 6:10; 9:5, 27; 29:12; 30:20; 34:4), he names the following as examples in Deuteronomy in which the twba refer to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: 1:11, 21, 35; 4:1, 31, 37; 6:3, 18, 23; 7:8, 12, 13; 8:1, 8; 10:11, 15; 11:9, 21; 12:1; 13:18; 19:8; 26:3, 15; 27:3; 28:11; 31:7, 20 (compare Römer, Väter, 73). 129. The indicators for literary criticism should not be undervalued. The mention of the oath to the fathers (1:8, 35; 4:38; 6:10, 23; 7:13; 10:11; 11:9, 21; 19:8; 26:3; 30:20; 31:7) as a rule appears in texts that show signs of successive text growth (for Deut 1:8, compare Perlitt, BKAT 5 52; Mittmann, Deuteronomium 1:1–6:3, 20 [with refs. to predecessors]; Nielsen, HAT 1/6 22). However, these are usually evaluated as growth involving Deuteronomy alone. 130. See de Pury, “Tradition patriarcale,” 261.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 70 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

70

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

Genesis appear relatively seldom in Joshua–2 Kings. Jacob and the Eisodos into Egypt are mentioned in 1 Sam 12:8. 131 In other respects, Joshua– 2 Kings is like Exodus–Numbers: except for the naming of the ancestor triad, there are no explicit references back to Genesis in these texts. As in Deuteronomy, 132 it is by no means clear that the naming of the “fathers” in Joshua–2 Kings (originally) meant the ancestors in Genesis. The connection is even more tenuous in Joshua–2 Kings in comparison with Deuteronomy, because, unlike in Deuteronomy (1:8; 6:10; 9:5, 27; 29:12; 30:20; compare 34:4), the mention of “fathers” in Joshua–2 Kings is not followed by the apposition “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” 133 b. The Exodus in Joshua–2 Kings The case is clearly different with regard to the theme of the exodus. Joshua– 2 Kings on multiple occasions refers back to the leading of Israel out of Egypt ( Josh 2:8–11; 5:1; 9:9; 24:2–8; Judg 2:1; 2:11; 6:8–9; 10:11; 11:13; 19:30; 1 Sam 4:8; 6:6; 8:8; 10:18; 12:6; 15:2; 2 Sam 7:6; 1 Kgs 8:16; 8:51; 9:9; 2 Kgs 17:7, 36). 134 In contrast to the question of allusions to Genesis, many places in Joshua– 2 Kings clearly presuppose not just the events of Exodus but their literary presentation. 135 It seems that these passages take Exodus–Numbers as the starting point of a single context that runs continuously through Joshua–2 Kings. This is even more plausible once one problematizes Deuteronomy as the beginning of a larger historical work of Deuteronomy to 2 Kings based on the critiques of a continuous, literarily independent pre-Deuteronomistic Tetrateuch. Deuteronomy 1–3 can only plausibly be a beginning unit as long as one accepts a separate Tetrateuchal history. Deuteronomy presupposes too much knowledge by the reader to be the starting point of a narrative intended to be materially self-sufficient. I will return more precisely to the question of a context extending from Exodus to 2 Kings and its relationship to the classic delimitation of Deuteronomy–2 Kings, below in §2.4.2 (pp. 126ff.) and §2.4.7 (pp. 148ff.).

2.2. Additional Indicators for the Division of the Ancestor Story and the Exodus Story 2.2.1. Evidence from Psalms and the Prophetic Books a. Psalms It is also evident from the Psalter, specifically the so-called historical psalms (e.g., Psalms 77, 78, 105, 106, 135, 136), that the ancestor story and the exodus 131. See also the “God of Jacob” in 2 Sam 23:1. 132. See the extensive discussion in Römer, Väter, 271–394. For the promise of land sworn to the “fathers” in Joshua, in opposition to Römer, see Lohfink, Väter, 75–85. 133. In Josh 24:3, only Abraham is called “father,” but this is for a specific reason. See the discussion below in §3.6.3. 134. See Westermann, Geschichtsbücher, 39–40. 135. See already Mittmann, Deuteronomium 1:1–6:3, 178 (see the reference in Knauf, “Historiographie,” 414 n. 20), and the extensive discussion in Westermann, Geschichtsbücher, 39–40.

spread is 9 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 71 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Additional Indicators for the Division of the Ancestor and Exodus Stories

71

story were not bound together literarily into a narrative sequence from the beginnings of Israelite literary production as the Documentary Hypothesis supposed. 136 Quite significantly, none of the so-called historical psalms, except Psalm 105, refers to the ancestor story. 137 Apart from Ps 105:6, 9, 42, Abraham appears only in Ps 47:10 (“the God of Abraham”); “Isaac” only in Ps 105:9. There are 34 passages mentioning “Jacob” in the Psalter (Pss 14:7; 20:2; 22:24; 24:6; 44:5; 46:8, 12; 47:5; 53:7; 59:14; 75:10; 76:7; 77:16; 78:5, 21, 71; 79:7; 81:2, 5; 84:9; 85:2; 87:2; 94:7; 99:4; 105:6, 10, 23; 114:1, 7; 132:2, 5; 135:4; 146:5; 147:19). Except for Ps 77:16 138 and 105:6 (see 114:1, “the house of Jacob”), the Jacob passages all relate to the people and not to the patriarch of Genesis. Jacob stands parallel with “Israel” in Ps 14:7; 22:24; 53:7; 78:5, 21, 71; 105:10, 23; 114:1; 135:4; and 147:19. The “God of Jacob” is mentioned in 20:2; 24:6; 46:8, 12; 75:10; 76:7; 81:2, 5; 84:9; 94:7; 114:7; and 146:5 (see bq[y ryba in 132:2, 5). In addition to Ps 77:16 and 105:17, “Joseph” appears as a designation for the people in 78:67; 80:2; and 81:6.

Alongside the missing allusions or references to the ancestor story of Genesis, there are clear statements in the historical psalms that portray the beginnings of Israel as being in Egypt (77:16–21; 78:12, 43–62; 106:6–7; 135:8–9; 136:10– 12). 139 This characteristic of the majority of psalms that mention the exodus story fits the theological profile of the final form of the Psalter: because it is a prayer book for readers rooted in Torah piety (see Psalm 1), Moses and the exodus tradition of Israel, in which Israel receives the Torah, naturally stand in the foreground of historical reminiscences in the Psalter. 140 Kratz has suggested that the historical flow of the Psalter, organized by its five-part doxological division, starts not with the exodus but with David.141 After the prelude to the whole Psalter in Psalm 1, the first two books (Psalms 2–41; 42–72) relate to the time of David and Solomon. The third book (73–89) ends with the forfeiture of the kingdom. The fourth book (90–106) has an exilic-period perspective142 and ends in 106:47 with the petition for a gathering from the nations, while the fifth book (Psalms 107–50) concerns restitution. It encompasses return and deliverance (107–17), the path into the sanctuary (118–35), and the elementary supply of life (137–50).143 136. The evidence from the Psalter plays an important role even for Römer’s thesis of the “fathers” in the Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic realm as the exodus generation versus the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (see below, §2.1.3) The plural twba does not refer to the patriarchs nor are the patriarchs ever designated twba (Römer, Väter, 521–22, 534, 541–42; idem, Nachwort, 113). 137. See Kühlewein, Geschichte, 158. 138. Here, the people of the exodus are designated πswyw bq[y ynb; see Weber, Psalm 77, 132–35. 139. Stamm’s thesis (TLOT 1:293) that the ancestors tradition is presupposed in the exodus event by the use of lag (“redeem”) with the sense of “getting back something lost” can receive only qualified acceptance. This meaning for lag works for Exod 6:6, but it does not fit Exod 15:13, which does not describe the exodus as a whole but only the deliverance at the Sea of Reeds. According to Exodus 15, Israel was “chosen” in Egypt and “redeemed” at the Sea of Reeds. The same is true for the Psalms examples mentioned by Stamm (74:2; 77:16; 78:35; 106:10): the immediate context of 74:2 speaks of “acquiring” (Ringgren, TDOT 1:353); and 77:16 and 78:35 only trace the election back as far as the liberation of Israel from Egypt (Ringgren, TDOT 1:354). 140. See Levin, ZTK 90 (1993): 358; Kratz, ZTK 93 (1996): 32; Zenger, Einleitung, 249–51. 141. Kratz, ZTK 89 (1992): 37 n. 106; Kratz, ZTK 93 (1996): 21–28. 142. For Psalm 90, see Krüger, Bib 75 (1994): 191–219. 143. For this three-step movement, see Kratz, ZTK 93 (1996): 26.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 72 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

72

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

The closest parallel to this historical outline is found in 1–2 Chronicles / Ezra–Nehemiah. 144 After the “genealogical vestibule” (1 Chronicles 1–9), the portrait there also begins with David (1 Chronicles 11–29) and Solomon (2 Chronicles 1–9), traces the history of Israel through the periods of the monarchy (2 Chronicles 10–36), the Exile (2 Chronicles 36), and (if one takes Ezra–Nehemiah along with the Chronicler’s history) the return and reconstruction of the temple (Ezra 1–6), ending with the presentation of the postexilic restoration under Ezra and Nehemiah. One must differentiate as follows: in its final form, the Psalter does not view the Moses/ Exodus tradition as Israel’s authoritative transmission of its origins, as is the case with many individual psalms. Rather, like the Chronicler’s history, it places Israel’s origins in the time of David and Solomon. The current Psalter on the whole remains directed toward the Torah. Indeed, its opening piece (Psalm 1) shows that the Psalter does not place itself on the same level as the Torah. Rather, “by including the history of Israel . . . it supplements and explicates the material contained in the Torah of Yhwh. The Psalter is thus not yet Torah, but it is well on the way to becoming the Torah of David, itself a subject of study alongside the Torah of Moses and the Prophets. At least by the time of Qumran it has become such.”145

The various views of the ancestors and exodus in the Psalter were noted quite early in biblical scholarship. Jirku limited his own investigation into “the oldest history of Israel in the frame of didactic presentations” to “the time from the exodus from Egypt to the wandering in Canaan,” because “among the didactic presentations, there are sometimes several more events mentioned that fall in the time before Moses that include, especially, the call of Abraham out of Mesopotamia, the downfall of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Jacob’s journey to Egypt. However, the mention of these dates happens relatively infrequently.” 146 Similarly, Lauha (in 1945) affirms in his work on the historical motifs in the Psalms: Except for Psalm 105, which arose relatively late, we must affirm that the patriarchs are referred to surprisingly little. Even in the extensive historical perspective that is found in Psalm 136, which covers the events of the past from the creation to the conquest, the patriarchs are notably lacking (see also Psalm 78). 147 . . . For Judaism, the patriarchs formed a highly valued religious and national motif. The Old Testament itself is also replete with a line of tradition that attaches special weight to the fundamental significance of the story of the ancestors, and it already appears in the various sources of the pentateuchal narrative. In the folk world of sagas, the ancestors apparently became beloved figures quite early. By contrast, in Yhwh religion itself, the story of the patriarchs became central in Judaism only relatively late. 148

144. See ibid., 27–28. 145. Ibid., 28. 146. Jirku, Geschichte, 5. 147. Lauha, Geschichtsmotive, 45. 148. Ibid., 34–35.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 73 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Additional Indicators for the Division of the Ancestor and Exodus Stories

73

Quite similarly to Lauha, Kühlewein hints at the thesis of the literary separation of the ancestors and Exodus. Except for the late Psalm 105, the fathers are not mentioned in any review of history in the Hebrew Bible. If we compare 80:9–12; 135:8–12; or recognized late reviews such as Psalm 78 or 106 or even 136, which begins with the creation of the world, the story of the ancestors is nowhere even suggested. That is certainly not accidental and cannot be explained by postulating that these texts were “free variants of the genre (of the historical creed).” It is far more likely that the Sea of Reeds tradition or the exodus was the original beginning of the historical reviews, while the transmission of the story of the fathers was only bound to it over the course of time and was attached to what already existed. 149

One must certainly be careful about drawing direct conclusions concerning the literary-historical development of the Pentateuch from the selection of historical themes in the Psalms. The separate treatment of the ancestors and the exodus in the Psalter need not indicate two literarily independent complexes. Still, the accentuation of the exodus theme combined with the simultaneous lack of reference to the patriarchs is a noteworthy point that does converge with the literary evidence mentioned above in §2.1, in which one finds only a loose connection between Genesis and Exodus in the historical books. b. Prophetic Books If we inquire about the significance of the ancestor story and the exodus story in the prophetic books and examine the explicit references, the results are meager. For Vorländer (1978), the prophetic books’ lack of reference to the material of the Pentateuch served as proof for his dating of the Yahwistic history to the sixth century at the earliest. 150 Still, caution is required. On the one hand, the lack of mention does not necessarily mean lack of knowledge. On the other hand, scholars maintain that large parts of the prophetic books do not stem from the time of the prophets for whom they are named. We must therefore evaluate alternative explanations for the far-reaching “pentateuchal silence” of the prophets, especially the “critical question of the tradition in the prophetic literature” along the lines of Zimmerli. 151 At the same time one may mention several notable observations on the prophetic books. The relationship of the prophetic books to the Pentateuch has not yet been investigated extensively. 152 The fluid state of the research of both the 149. Kühlewein, Geschichte, 158. 150. Vorländer, Entstehungszeit. 151. See Zimmerli, “Infragestellung,” 57. 152. See provisionally idem, Festschrift Kornfeld; H.-C. Schmitt, VT 32 (1982): 170–89; L. Schmidt, Festschrift Kaiser; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/2 313 (bibliography); Gosse, Structuration, 90–109, 164–66. For the patriarchs, C. Jeremias, Festschrift Zimmerli. For the Abraham narratives, see Hardmeier, WD 16 (1981): 27–47. For Exodus, Lubsczyk, Auszug; Norin, Meer; Spreafico, Esodo. Hosea is abundantly

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 74 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

74

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

prophetic books and the Pentateuch does not appear to allow such an undertaking; nor are the prospects promising. Thus, in what follows I can only evaluate several distinctive, individual passages and offer tentative conclusions. (a) Hosea 12. For A. de Pury, Hosea 12 serves as the locus classicus for the investigation of the Jacob legend and the Moses legend, which he sees as two competing traditions of the origins of Israel: 153 The particularity of the poem of Hosea 12 lies in the fact that its author does not refer to one tradition but instead evokes two distinct traditions so as to oppose the one to the other. The patriarchal tradition is depreciated while the Mosaic tradition is valued. The addressees of the poem are themselves also invited to decide between two legends of origins, to choose the one and reject the other. In other words, the hearers are confronted with the obligation of choosing their ancestor: Jacob or Moses. 154

This contrast is clearly evident in Hos 12:13–14 in particular: Jacob fled into the field of Aram, Israel served for a wife (hvab), And for a wife (hvab) he kept watch (rmv). But by a prophet (aybnb) Yhwh brought Israel out of Egypt And by a prophet (aybnb) he [Israel] was kept (rmvn). 155

Hos 12:13–14 is divided in two by multiple opposing elements. The twice repeated hvab (for a wife) and aybnb (by a prophet) stand in clear contrast, as do the Qal rmv (guard) and the Nifal rmv (be protected). 156 The fleeing of Jacob to investigated, especially Hosea 12 and its relationship to Genesis. In addition to the commentaries, see Vriezen, OTS 1 (1942), 64–78; Ginsberg, JBL 80 (1961): 339–47; Ackroyd, VT 13 (1963): 245–59; Jacob, EvT 24 (1964): 281–90; Good, VT 16 (1966): 137–51; Vollmer, Rückblicke; Willi-Plein, Vorformen; Ruppert, Bib 52 (1971): 488–504; Coote, VT 21 (1971): 389–402; Diedrich, Anspielungen; Vuilleumier, RHPR 59 (1979): 491–98; Eslinger, JSOT 18 (1980): 91–99; Fishbane, Interpretation, 377–78; McKenzie, VT 36 (1986): 311–22; Gese, “Jakob”; Neef, Heilstraditionen; Daniels, Hosea; Lust, ETL 65 (1989): 81–93; Ausín, EstBib 49 (1991): 5–23; Whitt, ZAW 103 (1991): 18–43; Yee, Composition; de Pury, “Osée 12”; idem, “Erwägungen”; idem, EstBib 52 (1994): 95–131; idem, L’Ancêtre. 153. See idem, “Osée 12”; idem, “Erwägungen”; idem, EstBib 52 (1994): 95–131; idem, L’Ancêtre (see also van der Toorn, Family Religion, 300); by contrast, see Seebass, TRev 87 (1991): 103. A thorough treatment is now offered by Blum, Festschrift Köckert. 154. De Pury, “Osée 12,” 206; see also idem, VT 41 (1991): 88–93. A very different exposition is presented by Gese, “Jakob,” and Neef, Heilstraditionen, 48–49 (for precursors, see pp. 25–28). They see Jacob as positively described in Hosea 12 and thus opposed to the usual understanding (attested in Gese, “Jakob,” 84 n. 1; Neef, Heilstraditionen, 28–35). However, Gese does agree that Jacob is overshadowed by Moses (“Jakob,” 92). Neef is less clear. He sees Jacob and Moses alike as “models set up in contrast to apostate Israel” (Neef, Heilstraditionen, 56). Daniels (Hosea, 52) argues for de Pury’s view, observing that Hosea 12 may distinguish “periods” (it would be more cautious to say portions) of the history of Israel but does not necessarily presuppose a chronological order: “The development from Jacob to Ephraim is followed as if the Exodus had never occurred! . . . The Exodus-wilderness period thus retains its salvific character despite its (chrono)logical position within the development from Jacob to Ephraim.” The simplest explanation thus lies with de Pury, that the ancestors and the Exodus were not yet connected with one another. 155. Translation according to de Pury, “Erwägungen,” 423. 156. See Jeremias, ATD 24/1 157; de Pury, “Erwägungen,” 427–28.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 75 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Additional Indicators for the Division of the Ancestor and Exodus Stories

75

Aram and the leading of Jacob out of Egypt also stand in opposition to one another. The contrast between vv. 13 and 14 is clearly indicated linguistically and thematically. But what does it mean? Of particular importance is the meaning of the wife in 12:13. Should one be thinking here of sexual rites against which the book of Hosea rails elsewhere? 157 Many scholars think so, but it is more plausible, with de Pury, to interpret 12:13 in strict opposition to 12:14. If 12:14 uses the prophet (Moses) as the central figure of the origin of Israel, through whom Israel was protected, 158 then the wife (Rachel) in 12:13 may also be considered a figure of the origin, through whom Israel was protected. “As soon as . . . the Israelite hearer of the poem experienced something of Jacob’s wife or wives, the hearer knew that it concerned the mother of Israel.” 159 Thus, Hos 12:13–14 places two different conceptions of Israel’s identity against one another: The genealogical and the prophetic. The question runs: What determines who Israel is: belonging to a genealogy, that is to a tribal system, or obeying the word of Yhwh mediated by the prophets? . . . In other words, the true identity of Israel does not rest on birth, but on calling. 160

It is unclear to what extent these conclusions can be applied to the literary development of the Pentateuch, 161 because no unambiguous quotations from the ancestor story and the exodus story appear in Hosea 12. It is clear, however, that the writer of Hosea 12 knows the ancestor story and the exodus story as independent conceptualizations of the origins and is aware of the problem of the double rationale for Israel’s identity. Hosea 12 alludes negatively to the Jacob tradition in contrast to the Moses tradition, 162 and Hos 12:10, like 11:1 (compare 13:4), locates the beginnings of Israel in Egypt. 163 How old is Hosea 12? The literary-historical classification of this chapter is difficult. However, the placement and function of Hosea 12 inside the book of Hosea allows several relative boundaries. Hosea 12 is undoubtedly connected to the older complex of Hosea 4– 11* 164 but with a clear gap. If de Pury’s exposition of Hosea 12 is correct, then it is clear that activating the exodus tradition in Hosea 12 is not entirely consistent with the central assertions in 8:13 and 9:3 (Israel must return to Egypt) which ignore the exodus. As it appears, Hosea 4–11* destroys both the Jacob tradition (the multiple satirical references to 157. See Wolff, Hosea, 216; Jeremias, ATD 24/1 157; Whitt, ZAW 103 (1991): 27, 38–41. 158. De Pury (“Erwägungen,” 429) speaks of a “mediator.” 159. Ibid. 160. Ibid. 161. Eslinger, JSOT 18 (1980): 91–99; Lust, ETL 65 (1989): 81–93; and Fishbane, Interpretation, 377–78 think that the Genesis text was available to Hosea 12, while Whitt (ZAW 103 [1991]: 18–43) assumes a common source behind Hosea 12 and the Jacob cycle of Genesis. 162. See also the negative evaluation of Jacob in Jer 9:3 (see H.-J. Zobel, TDOT 6:202, bibliography). 163. Instead of “I am Yhwh your God from the land of Egypt,” the LXX reads, “I, the Lord your God, have brought you out of the land of Egypt,” thereby harmonizing the presentation in Genesis– Exodus. 164. This complex purports to be a continous unity within the existing book of Hosea; see Jeremias, ATD 24/1 18–19, 59–60, 149.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 76 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

76

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

Bethel as “Beth-aven” [“house of delusion”] in 4:15, 5:8, and 10:5 point in this direction) and the Moses tradition (Israel is on the threshold of a new exodus toward Egypt) as the enduring foundation of Israel. The content of Hosea 12 especially clashes with the concluding text of Hosea 11. With its accusation against Ephraim, Hosea 12 begins and ends “as though chap. 11 (especially 11:8–11) did not belong to the book of Hosea.”165 From this Jeremias concluded that Hosea 12–14 should be viewed as a separate collection of Hosea speeches alongside Hosea 1–3 and 4–11. 166 The difference between Hos 11:8–11, which speaks of the unbroken suffering and devotion of Yhwh toward Ephraim/Israel, and Hos 12:1, 15 could also be seen as a conscious correction: one statement presupposes the other and corrects it. By placing Hosea 11 before Hosea 12, one could imagine that Hosea 11, with its unconditional turning of Yhwh to Ephraim/Israel (11:8–11) like that of a father to a son (11:1), stands as a complaint against Hosea 12. Hosea 11 would thus reflect critically on Hosea 12. Still, it is difficult to remove Hosea 11 from the context of 4–11, which finds its climax and its conclusion in this chapter.167 In this case, it is more likely that Hosea 12 should be seen as a correction of Hosea 11. Hosea 12 then, above all, places the function of the prophets in the proper light in contrast to Hos 11:4:168 the prophets are to be seen as futile “ropes” and “cords” that were unable to draw the people to Yhwh. It is not the unconditional turning of Yhwh to Israel that ensures Israel’s future, but Israel’s obedience to Moses and the prophets. This theme is also expressed in the call to repentance at the end of the book in Hos 14:2–3. From the perspective of the history of theology, it is also more plausible to consider the salvation statements as conditional as in the other prophetic books than as doing away with conditions. In the same sense Jeremiah 3, with its call to repentance, shapes the unconditional statements of Jeremiah 31,169 and similar observations can be made about the book of Isaiah.170

(b) Amos 3:1. Analysis of the book of Amos is comparable with that of Hosea 4–11*, which is not surprising if the supposition of Jeremias holds true that an independently existing book of Amos never existed. Rather, the book of Amos is aligned from the beginning with the preceding book of Hosea. 171 Also, the book of Amos conceives of Israel as the Israel that came from Egypt (2:10; 9:7). 172 Amos 9:7 can even generalize this notion and, with polemical distortion, cite corresponding exodus events as mythic origins for other countries. The genealogical affiliation with “Jacob” in no way guarantees Israel’s existence as God’s people. 173 Rather, only the fact that Yhwh chose them matters, but this affects Israel negatively. Hear this word that Yhwh has spoken against you, against the whole family that I brought out of the land of Egypt (μyrxm ≈ram ytyl[h). You alone have I chosen from all the tribes of the earth. Therefore, I bring punishment (dqpa) upon you (μkyl[) for all your iniquity. (Amos 3:1–2)

165. Ibid., 149. 166. Ibid. 167. Ibid., 139. 168. See the discussion in Zenger, Festschrift Schreiner. 169. See my Buchgestalten, 277–94. 170. See Kratz, Kyros, 206–16. 171. J. Jeremias, “The Interrelationship between Amos and Hosea”; idem, Amos, 5. 172. See the discussion in Gese, Festschrift Würthwein. 173. See the discussion about “Jacob” in Amos by J. Jeremias, Festschrift Scharbert.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 77 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Additional Indicators for the Division of the Ancestor and Exodus Stories

77

It is hardly an accident that Amos 3:1–2 is one of the passages in the book of Amos that is composed in the language of the book of Hosea. 174 The dichotomy between the ancestors and Exodus is not only present in Hosea but also shapes the ensemble of the books Hosea and Amos. 175 (g) Micah 7:20. The concluding verse 176 of the book of Micah offers one of the most informative statements for my subject, which Römer has already evaluated. 177 It states: You will show faithfulness (tma) to Jacob, and goodness (dsj) to Abraham as you swore to our fathers from the days of old.

As is evident from its use in Josh 2:14, Dan 1:9, and Song 7:13, 178 the phrase ˆtn l dsjw tma, “showing goodness and faithfulness to someone” in Mic 7:20 refers not to the patriarchal figures “Jacob” and “Abraham” themselves but to their descendants, specifically “the current generation and their progeny.” 179 It is noteworthy that 7:20b mentions the “fathers.” Given that 7:20a uses “Jacob” and “Abraham” for the current generation, it is not apparent that the “fathers” in 7:20b refers to the historical figures “Jacob” and “Abraham” themselves: why should Mic 7:20 use “Jacob” and “Abraham” to address its hearers and “fathers” where it means “Jacob” and “Abraham”? In addition, although it mentions the oath “from the days of old” (μdq ymym), it apparently has in mind a repeated oath. Therefore, the “fathers” corresponds to the phraseology in Deuteronomy*, specifically the oath terminology native to Deuteronomy* that is also reflected in the subsequent historical books; the “fathers” are the exodus generation or its forebears. Thus, Mic 7:20 presents a significant argumentation: the beneficent deeds that Yhwh will show his people are grounded in the oath to the fathers of the exodus generation (see Mic 7:15). Thus the ancestors tradition is reinterpreted in such a way that it does not have in mind a founding tradition of origins but is used to address the audience itself as “ancestors.” Mic 7:20 takes up the ancestor tradition in 174. See the evidence in idem, Amos, 49–50 n. 8. 175. The positive counterpart to Amos 3:1–2 is the exodus promise of Joseph to his brothers in Gen 50:24: “And Joseph said to his brothers, I am about to die, but God will surely take notice of you (μkta dqpy dqp) and he will bring you up (μkta hl[hw) from this land (tazh ≈rah ˆm) into the land that he swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Since Gen 50:24 belongs with the series of statements regarding the sworn promise of land that apparently arose toward the end of the formation of the Pentateuch (see below, §3.6.5), it is perhaps better to speak of Gen 50:24 as a contrastingly targeted reception of Amos 3:1–2 than to endorse the opposite direction of dependence. Intertextually, Amos 3:1–2 is also bound to Genesis by the noteworthy expression “tribes of the earth” (Gen 12:3; 28:14). See the discussion in J. Jeremias, Amos, 49–50 n. 8 (see Jer 1:15; 2:4; 25:9; Ezek 20:32; Pss 22:28; 96:7). 176. For the (postexilic) dating, see the references in Römer, Väter, 538 n. 294. 177. Ibid., 538–39. 178. See HALOT 1:692–93. 179. Wolff, Micah, 231 (referred to by Römer, 208); Fishbane, Interpretation, 349–50; Köckert, Vätergott, 295–96, with n. 642; see Hitzig, Propheten, 208.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 78 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

78

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

such a way that it becomes completely bound to the exodus concept of the ancestral oath in the exodus generation (see Mic 7:15). 180 The intention of this argument is obvious. God’s binding oath to his people is the oath to the exodus generation, which at the same time is tied to that generation’s obedience to the law (see Mic 6:8). The foundation of the concept of promise in Genesis is thereby criticized and made conditional. The theological orientation of Mic 7:20 is quite comparable with that of Hosea 12. The ancestors tradition has been subordinated to the exodus tradition in Mic 7:20 in a way that makes it improbable that they were already presupposed as a literary sequence. Rather, it appears that we have a dialogue between two independent, contiguous conceptions that were also still separated literarily. (d) Jeremiah 2:4–6; 11:3–5. The book of Jeremiah plays an important role in Van Seters’s supposition expressed in 1972 that the Hebrew Bible originally differentiated between “ancestors” and “fathers.” 181 In Jeremiah, and significantly even in the classic D passages, several examples exist where Israel’s origins are presumed to be in Egypt and not in the ancestral period. Furthermore, the “fathers” have nothing to do with the patriarchs of Genesis. The most important of these are found in Jeremiah 2 and 11: What wrong did your fathers find in me that they distanced themselves from me and went after nothingness? They did not ask: Where is Yhwh who brought us out of Egypt, who led us in the wilderness, in the land of the steppes and the precipices, in barren and dark land, in a land that no one traversed and in which no one lived? ( Jer 2:4–6)

In Jeremiah 2, Yhwh’s definitive act of election does not lie in his promises to the ancestors in Genesis but rather in leading the “fathers” out of Egypt (note the phrase “who brought us out of Egypt”). Jer 11:3–5 expresses similar ideas with different phraseology. Here, too, the origin of Israel as God’s people is situated in Egypt, as the literary position of the covenantal formula in this passage indicates. Jeremiah 11 is even more decisive than Jeremiah 2, because the sworn promise of land to the “fathers” is mentioned as having happened earlier than the exodus. However, this promise did not yet establish Israel’s identity as God’s people. Rather, its identity was conditioned on obedience to Yhwh. Cursed is the one who will not listen to the words of this curse that I commanded your fathers on the day that I led them out of the land of Egypt, out of the iron smelting oven, saying: “Listen to my voice and do as I command you. Then, you will be my people and I will be your God so that I may fulfill 180. With Fishbane (Interpretation, 349–50); and Lohfink (Väter, 102), this “Exodus orientation” is even stronger if one takes into account the idea that Mic 7:18–20 has been definitively influenced by Exod 34:6–7. 181. See Van Seters, VT 22 (1972): 448–59.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 79 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Additional Indicators for the Division of the Ancestor and Exodus Stories

79

the oath that I swore to your fathers, to give them this land that flows with milk and honey, as it is this day.” ( Jer 11:3–5)

Jeremiah then shows the same pattern resulting from literary-critical analysis (if one follows Van Seters and Römer) in Deuteronomy* (without the appositional mention of the names of the patriarchs): Israel’s “fathers” belong to the time of the exodus, and it was their generation to whom the land was sworn. (e) Ezekiel 20:5–6; 33:24. Among the prophetic books (except for Hosea 12), Ezekiel offers the most important indicators outside the Pentateuch regarding the determination of the relationship between the ancestors and Exodus. Two texts are especially important: Ezek 20:5–6 and 33:24. 182 Ezekiel 20 contains a historical outline spanning the time of the fathers in Egypt to the present situation of the exile. 183 In so doing, the author attempts to show that the exile is a result of Israel’s guilt since the exodus. 184 On the day that I chose Israel, I raised my hand to the descendants of the house of Jacob [in an oath]: “I am Yhwh, your God.” On that day I raised my hand [in an oath] to bring you out of the land of Egypt into a land that I have shown you that flowed with milk and honey. It is the ornament of all lands.

It is obvious that Ezek 20:5–6 places the origins of Israel and its relationship to God in Egypt. As in Exodus 6, the revelation of the name Yhwh is situated in Egypt. 185 Like Jeremiah 11, the author of Ezekiel 20 also knows about a prehistory of Israel (see bq[y tyb [rz, “the seed of the house of Jacob”) but chooses to speak first of the “election” (rjb) of “Israel” from Egypt. Equating the time of the “election of Israel” (larcy yrjb μwyb) with God’s addressing the “descendants of Jacob” gives the impression that the descendants of Jacob were first qualified theologically as “Israel” by Yhwh’s self-identification in Egypt, the promise of the exodus, and the conquest. 186 The perspective in Ezekiel 20 is thus similar to Hosea 12 (compare Amos 3:1–2): the ancestors tradition achieves no theological relevance of its own; Israel’s identity as God’s people is grounded in the salvific act of the exodus. This view of the patriarchs in Ezekiel 20 has its counterpart in a quotation in Ezek 33:24. There Abraham appears as the symbol for the indigenous inhabitants whose claim to the land was opposed by the exiles. 187 182. See also Römer, Transeu 13 (1997): 57–59. 183. See Krüger, Geschichtskonzepte, 228–81. 184. For the negative evaluation of the exodus in Ezekiel 20, see ibid., 251. The exodus theme is then used positively in the future promises for Israel in a broad array of texts (Ezek 11:17–18; 20:34– 35, 41–42; 28:25; 29:13; 34:13; 36:24; 37:12, 21; 39:27). 185. Concerning the similarity between Ezekiel 20 and P, see Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 407–8; or more extensively Pola, Priesterschrift, 207–14. 186. This distinction between “Jacob” and “Israel” can also be found in Ezek 28:25; 37:25, 28; 39:25, 29. 187. See Hossfeld, Untersuchungen, 309. For the exodus terminology in Ezekiel, see pp. 309–14.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 80 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

80

O mortal, the inhabitants of these ruins in the land say, “Abraham was but one man, and he possessed the land. But we are many. The land was given to us as a possession.”

This quotation in the mouth of the remnant population in the land shows that the figure of Abraham was apparently not connected in any way with the exodus tradition. Instead, the Abraham traditions appear to be the ground for legitimizing the possession of the land by those who remained in it during the exile and resisted the claims of possession by the returnees. 188 Thus, the book of Ezekiel shows that the traditions of the ancestors and the exodus could still be used as independent arguments for competing formulations for the identity of Israel. Van Seters aptly asks: Is it really possible to maintain . . . that the two election traditions of exodus and the patriarchs could still be kept quite separate in Ezekiel’s day when, according to the usual dating of J, they were already completely integrated in the Pentateuchal sources by the early monarchy? 189

(z) Summary. We have established that the passages in the prophetic books concerning the relationship of the ancestors and Exodus are certainly more complex than in Psalms. There is a series of statements, however, that is fundamentally comparable to the dominant views in the historical Psalms, from which only Psalm 105 deviates. As a rule, Israel is characterized as Israel from Egypt onward (see Amos 2:10; 9:7; Hos 11:1; 12:10; 13:4; Jer 2:2, 4–5; 11:3–5; Ezek 20:5–6), and where the ancestors are mentioned, it is usually in a negative light (see Hosea 12; Jer 9:3; Ezek 33:24). 190 Now, one could argue that none of this proves the coexistence of two transmission complexes (the tradition of the ancestors and the exodus tradition), but the prophetic passages should be understood as different evaluations of two periods in the same history of the origins of Israel. It appears to me that this understanding works best in Jeremiah 11, where both the exodus and the “fathers” are mentioned (although not described with utter clarity). 191 With regard to the other texts, however, especially Hosea 12 and Ezek 33:24, it is quite clear that the ancestor story and the exodus story function as alternatives and are presupposed as traditions of the origins, each with different aims. The situation in the prophetic corpus as a whole is certainly more complicated than may appear from the brief selection of texts addressed here. In Isaiah 40–62 and in Jer 30–31 the exiles are addressed as “Jacob” or “Abraham.” The designation of the people with one of the names of the ancestors, such as traditionally adhered to residents in the land, can thus be transferred to the exiles. 192 However, this is a secondary usage and is clearly recognizable as such. 188. Ezek 28:25 and 37:25 connect the first bestowal of land not with “Abraham” but with “Jacob.” Here, however, there is no competition between the population of the land and the returnees. 189. Van Seters, VT 22 (1972): 449 n. 1; in contrast to Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1:405–6. 190. See Römer, RTP 125 (1993): 23–25. Römer compares these historical reviews that function as structuring features with the closing choir of the Greek tragedies (ibid., 27; see W. Schmid and Stählin, Geschichte, 117, 131). 191. For the literary-historical classification, see my Buchgestalten, 295–304. 192. See the details in ibid., 164–77.

spread is 12 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 81 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Additional Indicators for the Division of the Ancestor and Exodus Stories

81

2.2.2. Etiological Narratives in Genesis It is obvious that many narratives in Genesis 12–36 are etiological 193—for example, the origin of the Ishmaelites (Genesis 16), the narrative of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), 194 the derivation of the neighboring peoples of Moab and Ammon (Gen 19:30–38), the narrative of Beersheba (Gen 26:26–33), the relationship of Jacob/Israel to Esau/Edom (Genesis 25, 27) and to the Arameans (Genesis 29–31), the narratives about Bethel (Genesis 28:10–22) and Penuel (Gen 32:23–33), and others. 195 The traditions already noted within the Abraham narratives that establish the identity of Israel in distinction to its neighbors by stories of separation are particularly well represented. [I]n the Pentateuch, we find narratives which relate the origin of Israel to Palestine itself. The stories of Abraham and Lot, and particularly the separation narrative in Genesis 13, relate the origin of Israel in the separation of the Israelite peoples from those of the Moabites and Ammonites; similarly the Abraham/Ishmael narratives separate Israel from its southern neighbors. 196

Such etiologies, especially those that concern specific geographic and ethnographic relationships are further evidence that the ancestral history of Genesis 12– 36 (and not just in its oldest form) did not anticipate a total migration of Israel to Egypt in the end, as the current narrative flow of Genesis presents. Rather, these stories are open to Israel’s remaining in Canaan permanently. 197 Within the overall storyline of the historical books, the relationships of the ancestral period addressed by the etiologies make little sense once the political situation of Israel in Canaan has been completely altered by the migration to Egypt and the return, along with the military conquest. 2.2.3. The Name Yhwh in Genesis and Exodus The revelation of the name Yhwh to Moses in Exod 6:2–3 (P) is presented in such a way that it does not presume any prior knowledge by Moses of the identity of Israel’s God as Yhwh. The same is the case in Exod 3:13–15. 198 In Exodus 3 and 6, neither Moses nor the Israelites know that God was known to their forebears as Yhwh. Exodus 3 and 6 thus contradict Genesis, according to which humankind began in the time of Enosh “to call on the name of Yhwh” (Gen 4:26). The patriarchs also communicated openly with Yhwh, who presented himself explicitly as Yhwh (Gen 15:7; 28:13; see Gen 12:7–8). 199 193. See the discussion in Lohfink, Genesis 2f, 33–36, and the bibliography in Smend, “Überlieferung,” 17 n. 29. For a critical perspective of the narratives traditionally described as etiologies, see the bibliography of van Dyk, ZAW 102 (1990): 19 n. 2. 194. See Keel, Küchler, and Uehlinger, OLB 2:249–57. 195. See the examples in Burrows, “Israel,” 104. 196. Thompson and Irvin, “Joseph and Moses Narratives,” 212. 197. See G. Schmitt, Landtag, 91. 198. See the extensive treatment below in §3.2.2. 199. See already Bentzen, “It is difficult to assume that J should have contained such divergent theological conceptions concerning the invocation of the name of Yhwh as Gen 4:26 and Exod 3:13

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 82 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

82

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

The source model defuses this problem by ascribing a developmental theory of revelation to E (Exod 3:13–15) and P (Exod 6:2–3): the ancestors of Genesis in the E and P sources did not yet actually know the name Yhwh, which remained (largely) 200 unintroduced in both E and P (μyhla). However, in so doing, the source model does not clarify the contradiction between Exod 3:6 and the use of the name Yhwh. Rather, the contradiction is passed on to the redactor RJE (who combined J and E) and is still a problem for RJEP. Why was Genesis not revised according to the viewpoint of Exod 6:3 (P), given that this sort of revision was consistently done in the case of the name change from “Abram/Sarai” to “Abraham/ Sarah” according to the viewpoint in Gen 17:5, 15 (P)? 201 In addition, if the prePriestly JE already portrayed the ancestors as Yhwh worshipers, why would P revert to (pre-JE) level of E on this point? The use of the name Yhwh in Genesis and Exodus shows that P does not present the ancestors in Genesis as Yhwh worshipers, even though there were lines of tradition presumably before and alongside P that identified God and Yhwh in the primal and ancestral history. 202 The antiquity of the use of the name Yhwh in Genesis may be a complex problem because the perspectives of the narrator and the actors should also be distinguished. At any rate, one can maintain the following: the Yhwh-shaping of the ancestral history is not rooted so strongly within the story that one can maintain unreservedly that there was an early smooth textual connection to the subsequent history of Moses/Exodus, where the Yhwh-shaping is much more clearly recognized. 2.2.4. The Pacifism of the Ancestral History It is noteworthy how few portrayals of battle and war appear in the ancestral narratives of Genesis, despite the fact that the land whose soil and water the ancesand 14b” (Introduction, 45; cited by Berge, Reading, 103 n. 1). Recent commentaries often downplay the material problem in Gen 4:26 (see Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 339–42; Seebass, Urgeschichte, 174). 200. Concerning hwhy in Gen 17:1; 21:1 (P), see Weimar, Exodusgeschichte, 85–86; Lohfink, “Priesterschrift,” 232 n. 42; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 257; Zenger, Gottes Bogen, 141 n. 11; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 421 n. 10. For a different perspective, see L. Schmidt, Priesterschrift, 5 [redactional insertion into the Priestly layer]; Seebass, Vätergeschichte I, 99. For 21:1, see also Weimar, Exodusgeschichte, 86 n. 18. 201. See Blum, Vätergeschichte, 430 n. 72; idem, Pentateuch, 234. 202. Concerning the problem, see Moberly, Old Testament; Weisman, ZAW 104 (1992): 177–97, both of whom, in their own way, recognize literary and original pre-Yahwistic transmission complexes in the ancestors narratives. One should not categorize Exod 6:3 as the terminus a quo for the use of the name Yhwh in Genesis, especially not on the narrative level. The internal redaction history of Genesis 12–50 speaks against this idea, but also epigraphic findings make it appear quite unlikely that a stillindependent Genesis would not have used Yhwh as the name for God (see the inscriptions of Kuntillet ºAjrud and Óirbet el-Qom [see, for example, Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, 210–48, bibliography]). Moreover, the hwhy–μyhla phenomenon in Genesis would be more understandable if Genesis was not just made Yahwistic after P, for then it would be more reasonable to expect a consistent, thoroughgoing Yhwh-God identity. However, such is not the case. To be sure, one should ask whether the explicit “revelation of the name” of Yhwh in Gen 15:7 and 28:13 should not be grouped with Exod 6:3. Concerning Genesis 15, see §3.2.1. On Gen 28:13, observe that the review in Gen 31:13 does not appear to know of the self-presentation of Yhwh in Gen 28:13 (together with the promise).

spread is 6 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 83 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Additional Indicators for the Division of the Ancestor and Exodus Stories

83

tors used was by no means unsettled. Conflicts were inevitable, as seen in the comparable circumstances in Joshua and Judges. Earlier, this absence of conflict in Genesis 12–36 was explained sociologically, as a result of the fact that the patriarchs were nonmilitary, nomadic herdsmen. 203 However, Rose, 204 followed by Lohfink, 205 has argued that military references in the tradition were intentionally removed from the ancestor story. Rose suggests that the pacifist coloring of the ancestor narratives is not comprehensive and perhaps not even original. Genesis 14 presents Abraham as an international war hero, even though Genesis 14 cannot be counted among the oldest, or even among the older, material of Genesis. 206 Thus, with Rose, it appears to me “unlikely that such a warrior narrative is connected with a person who does not even offer a single point of contact with its viewpoint.” 207 Military narratives are also found in Genesis 32 and 34. Alongside these, note also the designations for God such as bq[y ryba or qjxy djp that derive from military ideology. 208 As a second line of support for his thesis of the “demilitarization of war,” Rose adduces supporting texts from secondary layers of Genesis that in his opinion exhibit expressions from military ideology with a pacifist sense, such as the promise “Do not fear!,” the promise of land, and the comforting statement “I am with you.”209 Even if, like Lohfink, we question whether these expressions all stem from and are to be explained by a thematic context of war, 210 I tend to concur with Rose’s overall model. 211 The ancestor story of Genesis does not appear always to have been as peaceable—certainly not from the beginning—as it is presented in its current form.

Rose explains the pacifist profile of the patriarchal narratives of Genesis in terms of a “later dating of the Yahwist,” 212 for which he suggested the time frame between Isaiah and Deuteronomy. 213 It is much more promising, however, to follow Lohfink’s explanations: “A motif appears that is clearly essential to the narrative: in the ancestral period construed as the ‘period of the fathers,’ the overthrow of the land was not yet accomplished.” 214 If the ancestors narrative and the exodusconquest narrative are viewed as originally independent conceptions of Israel’s origins, then this process of “demilitarization” should not be located between the prepentateuchal ancestor tradition and the ancestor tradition of the older sources. Rather, it should be located at the joining of the independent ancestor stories with the historical books, especially Joshua.

203. For example, von Rad, Old Testament Theology 1:175, see also Gressmann, Mose, 393. 204. Rose, BZ 20 (1976): 197–211. 205. Lohfink, “Schichten,” 268–69. 206. For Genesis 14, see the bibliography in §3.2.1. 207. Rose, BZ 20 (1976): 197–211, 198; in agreement, see Lohfink, “Schichten,” 266. 208. See, for example, Köckert, Vätergott, 62–67, who uses this argument to contest Alt’s hypothesis of the ancestral God. 209. Rose, BZ 20 (1976): 200–205. 210. Lohfink, “Schichten,” 267–68. 211. As does Lohfink, ibid., 267. 212. Rose, BZ 20 (1976): 208. 213. Ibid., 211. In contrast, see idem, Deuteronomist, 316–28. 214. Lohfink, “Schichten,” 268.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 84 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

84

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

2.2.5. The Ancestors as “Foreigners” in Canaan On multiple occasions in Genesis the ancestors are referred to as “foreigners” in Canaan. Looking more closely, it is apparent that these statements are limited to a particular textual layer: it is exclusively the P texts of Genesis in which the ancestors are referred to as “foreigners” (μyrg; 215 see 17:8; 23:4; 216 28:4; 35:27; 36:7; 37:1; see the summary in Exod 6:4). The uses of the verb rwg vary somewhat but are not contradictory. It appears in Genesis in both Priestly and non-Priestly texts (Gen 12:10; 19:9; 20:1; 21:23; 26:3; 32:5; 35:27; 47:4): Gen 35:27 belongs to P; 19:9 is related to Lot in Sodom; 20:1 relates to Abraham in Gerar; 32:5 relates to Jacob with Laban; 47:4 relates to Joseph’s brothers in Egypt; and in 21:23 Abimelech speaks to Abraham. Only in Gen 26:3 does a non-Priestly text state, from the mouth of God, that “Isaac sojourned as a foreigner” in Gerar; yet Gerar was foreign territory in the monarchic period. 217 It is obvious that the designation of the ancestors as “foreigners” (μyrg), who as such could not acquire land as a possession, 218 presupposes a historical picture in which the ancestral period is followed by the stay in Egypt, the exodus, and the conquest, which finally ends the μyrg status of Israel. If the passages describing the ancestors as “foreigners” (μyrg) in Canaan are, however, limited to P, 219 and no corresponding statements exist in the older strata of the text, then we have further evidence that the pre-Priestly ancestors history was not designed from the outset as aiming toward the Eisodos into Egypt and the departure from there in order to narrate a much later possession of the land in Canaan. Nowhere in the pre-Priestly text of Genesis do the forebears of Israel wander from their land. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not “foreigners” in Canaan according to pre-Priestly traditions. Rather, through them, Israel was settled in the land. 2.2.6. The Blessing of Jacob (Genesis 49) and of Moses (Deuteronomy 33) Even if—between Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33—only the latter can strictly be considered a “blessing” (hkrb in Deut 33:1), while the former is a farewell speech followed by a “blessing” (in 49:28), it is nevertheless clear that the two passages are closely related to one another. They are “doublets,” so to speak: both 215. The substantive rg is found in Genesis–Exodus only in P (in the passages mentioned; see R. Martin-Achard, TLOT 1:390–92). For the expression μyrgm ≈ra in P and its translation, see Blum, Vätergeschichte, 443; Köckert, Festschrift Wagner, 156, with n. 30. 216. For discussion of how Genesis 23 belongs to P, see Blum, Vätergeschichte, 441–46 (another view in Pola, Priesterschrift, 308–9). Von Rad concluded from Genesis 23 that the patriarchs “at death . . . had inherited and were no longer ‘strangers’ (Priesterschrift, 51; see also Pola, Priesterschrift, 309). 217. For example, see K. Elliger, BHH 1:547–48. 218. See D. Kellermann, TDOT 2:441. For the legal positioning of rg, see ibid., 439–49; Bultmann (Der Fremde, 17–22, and 34–212) sorted according to the different legal corpora of the Hebrew Bible. 219. Von Rad noticed this early on (von Rad, Hexateuch, 62–63). He thought, however, that the corresponding presentation was “just as present for the Yahwist,” even if he did not use the term.

spread is 3 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 85 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Additional Indicators for the Division of the Ancestor and Exodus Stories

85

texts are poetic compositions in a narrative context; in each text the twelve tribes are addressed by a central figure ( Jacob and Moses, respectively) who characterizes the tribes or speaks thematically about their future. This type of blessing of the descendants by an ancestor is frequent enough in Genesis (27:27–29; 48:15–16; 49) to make Moses in Deuteronomy 33 appear more like Jacob in Genesis 49 than the other way around. This is all the more true because Jacob is more closely associated with the twelve tribes and because the blessing in Deuteronomy 33 after the alternating blessings and curses of the preceding chapter is surprising. 220 Nevertheless, nothing essential depends upon determining the literary relationship between Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 at this point. No matter how it is appraised, 221 it is clear that the blessing by the tribal father Jacob of the twelve tribes in Genesis 49 is duplicated in the course of the historical books by a corresponding blessing by Moses in Deuteronomy 33. The unique feature in Moses’ blessing in Deuteronomy 33 is that he brings the law into play at a prominent point (33:4): 222 hvm wnl hwx hrwt Moses gave us Torah, bq[y tlhq 222 hvrwm its possession is the assembly of Jacob. The “reduplication” of Genesis 49 by Deuteronomy 33 can sufficiently be explained if Genesis did not always stand before Exodus, for which numerous converging indicators exist. 223 In this case, Moses blesses Israel in the framework of the exodus story (Deuteronomy 33, with special attention to the Torah) just as Jacob does in the patriarchal story (Genesis 49). 2.2.7. Deuteronomy as a Farewell Speech in the Land East of the Jordan The stylization of Deuteronomy as a farewell speech prior to entering the land provides another argument for dividing between the ancestor story and the exodus 220. See Rose, ZBK 5/2 577. For Deuteronomy 33, see the recent detailed study by Beyerle, Mosesegen. For a different view, see Schorn, Ruben, 104–16. For Genesis 49, see ibid., 248–64, as for Deuteronomy 33 with a late date (see also Macchi, Israël; Schöpflin, ZAW 115 [2003]: 501–23). Zobel, Stammesspruch, deals with Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 as historical sources and hardly entertains literary compositional questions. 221. Most of the works mentioned in the preceding note conduct extensive literary criticism on Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33. 222. The conjecture that wvrwm (‘its possession’; see BHS) is original has no textual support and creates the problem that the supposed reference, Yhwh, is quite far removed in v. 2. 223. Concerning the possible concluding function of Genesis 49, see Dietrich, Josephserzählung, 49–50; Schmid, “Josephsgeschichte.” It is also no accident that Israel in Deuteronomy 33, quite undeuteronom(ist)ically, is called “Jacob” (33:4, 28). It is further noteworthy that Genesis 15 and Joshua 24, texts that clearly serve to connect Genesis and Exodus, in their own opening verses point back to Deuteronomy 33. The “shield” of Abraham in Gen 15:1 is taken from Deut 33:29, and Josh 24:1 reads like the realization of Deut 33:5. See also §3.2.1.e and §3.3.2.f. Compare further the observations of Nobile, Anton, 189; as well as the diachronic considerations for Gen 49:1–12 in H.-C. Schmitt, Festschrift Brekelmans, 397–99.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 86 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

86

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

story. Reuter has advanced the idea that already the pre-Deuteronomistic Deuteronomy, recognizable by its historicizing introductions to the commandment and the land endowment formulas, was especially created both for its speech by Moses and (the most important point there) for its fictive setting as a prelude to the conquest. 224 If this is the case, then it means nothing less than that the Deuteronomic law, whether originally a speech of Yhwh or of Moses, should be classified as an allochthonous foundational system for Israel from the beginning. Imagine a comparative situation in which the Swiss constitution or the foundational law of Germany was proclaimed in the Balkans or in the Sahara! This Moses fiction is only plausible under the pressure of a tradition from the already “quasi-canonical” theology of history that had been formally and programmatically compiled by “Ur-Deuteronomy” [i.e., Deuteronomy 6–26] in Deut 6:20–23. 225

Because of its fictive setting outside the land, “Ur”-Deuteronomy already appears to presuppose the Moses/Exodus story as an independent conception of Israel’s origins and knows nothing, or chooses to know nothing, of the ancestors’ previous stay in the land. 226 It should be noted at this point that the legal material of the Pentateuch is found exclusively in Exodus–Deuteronomy but is lacking in Genesis. The laws in Exodus–Deuteronomy are divided into two large blocks, (1) the Sinai pericope of Exodus 19–Num 10:10 and (2) Deuteronomy 12–26, which together dominate Exodus–Deuteronomy, comprising over two-thirds of the text, with the remaining narrative portions of Exodus 1–18 and Num 10:11–36:13 constituting the remaining third.227 The characteristic incorporation of law and history is thus found in the Pentateuch only in Exodus–Deuteronomy while Genesis consists exclusively of narrative. By itself, this does not argue for a literary division between the ancestors and Exodus because the giving of the law is traditionally connected with Moses. We can see by this asymmetry, however, how different the blocks of tradition of the ancestral history and the Exodus history are. In the intertestamental era, this difference was perceived as a considerable theological problem. The book of Jubilees addresses the problem of how the patriarchs could have kept the law before Moses, since the law was first given through Moses (see §4.2.4, pp. 302ff.).

224. Reuter, Kultzentralisation, 213–26. Others express different opinions: Rose, ZAW 89 (1977): 56 n. 26; Lohfink, Bib 71 (1990): 34–42; idem, TP 65 (1990): 387–91; idem, “Deutéronome,” 42, with n. 14; as well as Römer, “Deutéronome,” 68, with n. 10. They aver that Deuteronomy was originally conceived as a speech of Yhwh. For the above argument, only the setting in the land east of the Jordan is determinative. 225. Zenger, “Sortie,” 309. 226. See de Pury, VTSup 43 (1991), 83 (with reference to Deut 26:5): “The Deuteronomist decidedly does not know anything of the patriarchs, not even Jacob. It seems to me that his attitude is the result of a refusal. For him, the history of Israel begins in Egypt, and there was no Israel, even embryonically, before the birth and the election of the people by Yhwh in Egypt.” 227. Knierim (“Composition,” 355) provides a precise count: Exodus 1–18: 11.5%, Exodus 19– Numbers 10: 42%; Numbers 10–36: 19%, Deuteronomy: 26.5% (the sum of these data, however, is only 99%).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 87 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Additional Indicators for the Division of the Ancestor and Exodus Stories

87

2.2.8. The Triple Ending of Israel’s Salvation History in Joshua 21:43–45, Joshua 23, and Joshua 24 Three passages at the end of the book of Joshua follow the conquest of Israel in Canaan and mark something of a conclusion to the narrative thread. Josh 21:43– 45 states that, with the conquest, the oath of Yhwh to the fathers has been completely fulfilled. Joshua 23 maintains, similarly, that all the promises have now been met (23:14). Finally, the book ends with Joshua 24, in which Joshua obligates Israel to Yhwh as its God and recapitulates Israel’s salvation history as it is presented in Genesis–Joshua. It brings this history to a preliminary ending but also indicates the narrative direction of Joshua–2 Kings (see especially, Josh 24:19). Joshua 23 is connected closely to Josh 21:43–45: Joshua explains to Israel ( Joshua 23) what has already been reported in the earlier narrative ( Josh 21:43–45); and Josh 23:1 is verbally linked back to Josh 21:44 (jynh “give rest” 228). The thematic differences, however, demonstrate that these texts constitute two separate endings to the book of Joshua.229

Joshua 23, as a whole, is a modified and expanded adoption of Josh 21:43– 45. 230 Josh 23:2–8 takes up Josh 21:43 but binds the continued occupation of the land to the stipulation of obedience to the law (23:6–8). Josh 23:9–13 alters Josh 21:44 slightly, because 23:9b adds that no one has withstood Israel to this day, thus, making the promise conditional in the future. Josh 23:14–16 affirms the fulfillment of all the promises, as reported in Josh 21:45, but also threatens the loss of land in the case of disobedience. 231 How far back does the literary horizon of these two passages reach? At first glance, the context of Joshua 24 gives the impression 232 that Josh 21:43–45 refers to the gift of the land promised to the patriarchs of Genesis. 233 Thus, Yhwh gave Israel the entire land that he had sworn to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it and lived (bvy) in it. And Yhwh gave them peace (jwn) round about (bybsm), just as he had sworn to their fathers, and no one could stand before them among all their enemies (μhybya lkm). Yhwh gave all their enemies into their hand. Nothing was lacking from all the good things that Yhwh had promised to the house of Israel. Everything was fulfilled. ( Josh 21:43–45)

228. For the different concepts of “giving rest” in Deuteronomy–2 Kings, see von Rad, “Ruhe”; Braulik, “Konzeption”; Moenikes, ZAW 104 (1992): 346–47. 229. See Smend, Festschrift von Rad, 130–33; Mayes, History, 48. 230. See also the comments of Römer, Väter, 360 n. 454. Differently, Römer himself (Väter, 360 n. 455) also holds that Josh 21:43–45 and Joshua 23 should be attributed to the same layer. Blum correctly argues against this (Festschrift Brekelmans, 185–86). 231. See O’Brien, History, 76; see also Smend, Festschrift von Rad, 130–33. 232. In the LXX, this impression is made explicit by the surplus material in 21:42, which anticipates 24:31a; see Rofé, Hen 4 (1982): 17–36, 34–35. 233. See “Abraham,” “Isaac,” and “Jacob” in Josh 24:2–4.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 88 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

88

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

However, when examined more closely, it is clear that the formulations of Josh 21:43–45 do not relate back to the promises to the ancestors in Genesis 234 but to Deut 12:10. 235 And you will cross the Jordan and live (bvy) in the land that Yhwh, your God, has given you as an inheritance. And he will give peace (jwn) among all your enemies (μhybya lkm) round about (bybsm). And you will dwell securely (bvy).

Deut 12:10, however, addresses the Exodus generation. The literary horizon of Josh 21:43–45 thus reaches back not to Genesis but only to Deuteronomy. 236 However, that means that in Josh 21:43–45 “fathers” do not originally mean the patriarchs of Genesis. Instead, the word refers to the generation that Moses led out of Egypt. 237 A further observation supports the idea that Josh 21:43–45 refers back to Deuteronomy and not Genesis. The affirmation of the fulfillment of the oath of land in Josh 21:43ab is formulated with the phrase μtwbal ttl [bvn rva_. Yhwh gave the Israelites the land “that he had sworn to give to their fathers.” Josh 21:43 affirms a delayed, not a direct fulfillment of the promise of land. Actually, the land should have already been given to the fathers–it had been sworn to them, according to the perspective of Josh 21:43. But only now had it been occupied. This gap is explained by considering the promise-of-land texts in Deuteronomy that are directed toward the fathers (1:34–35; 6:18, 23; 7:8, 12–13; 8:1, 18; 10:11; 11:9, 21; 19:8; 26:3, 15; 28:11; 31:7, 20–21, 23).238 Josh 21:43–45 knows, therefore, that in Deuteronomy the land was specifically sworn to the “fathers.” If it referred back to the Genesis promises of land, the formulation in Josh 21:43 would be unnecessary because most Genesis promises are explicitly directed to the descendants ([rz). 239

What about Joshua 23? In contrast to Josh 21:43–45 (see Deut 12:10), Joshua 23 has no direct correlation to an earlier text because it refers back to Josh 21:43– 234. So, falsely, Mayes, History, 48. 235. See Braulik, VTSup 36 (1985), 31–32; O’Brien, History, 59, 74–75; bvy and jwn appear parallel only in these two places (Braulik, VTSup 36 [1985], 32). Römer sees here a reference back to Deut 1:8, 35; 3:20 (Väter, 359–60). Lohfink wants to locate Josh 21:43–45 in the same redactional layer as this double reference (Lohfink, Väter, 82; see idem, Festschrift Wolff ). In Göttingen’s three layer model, Josh 21:43–45 is generally assigned to DtrH (see Smend, Festschrift von Rad, 130–31; Becker, Richterzeit, 68 with n. 16 [bibliography]). Noth (DH, 40) considers whether Josh 21:43–45 could be an addition, since Joshua 23 is anticipated here (Smend wonders the opposite, in Festschrift von Rad, 131–32 n. 31). 236. See also Nelson, OTL, 239. 237. See Braulik, VTSup 36 (1985), 31. The intertextual relationships between Josh 21:43–45 and Deut 1:8, 35; 3:20 (Römer, Väter, 359–60; Lohfink, Väter, 81–82) do not argue against this determination; for Deut 1:8, see Römer, Väter, 359 n. 448. The “perspectival” combination of the oath to the patriarchs with the oath to the “Exodus-Horeb-Kadesh generation,” which Lohfink takes into account (Väter, 83–85) cannot be justified as the primary meaning. It is first achieved in the arena of the redactional reworking of Genesis and Exodus (and following). 238. For the ancestors passages in Deut 1:8; 6:10; 9:5; 29:12; 30:20; and 34:4, see Römer, Väter, 153–60, 196–256 and the opposing perspective of Lohfink, Väter; and H.-C. Schmitt, ZAW 104 (1992): 20–24. 239. See Rendtorff, Problem, 42.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 89 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Additional Indicators for the Division of the Ancestor and Exodus Stories

89

45 as a whole and picks up on its statements and modifies them as shown above. Joshua 23, like 21:43–45, does not look further back than Deuteronomy (though Joshua 23 refers not just to Deuteronomy 12 but also to Deuteronomy 5–11 as well as 31). The case is different for Joshua 24. 240 As shown by the summary of history in 24:2–12, Joshua 24 in its current form concludes a hexateuchal thread from the patriarchs of Genesis (who are mentioned specifically in Josh 24:2) to the conquest of the book of Joshua. Josh 21:43–45, Joshua 23 and 24 thus bring three different lines of tradition to their conclusion. Josh 21:43–45 reflects on the oath of the gift of land to Moses’ generation. Joshua 23 modifies this with the stipulation of obedience to the law, while Joshua 24 points back to the promises of land to the patriarchs of Genesis: Gen

Deut

Deut 12

Josh 21:43–45

Josh 23

Josh 24

The very fact that these differences are embedded in the current narrative flow (as shown especially by the LXX) without being harmonized suggests that the final form is not a unified composition constructed from scratch. Rather, originally separate material has been brought together, perhaps analogous to the later application of the “fathers” in Deuteronomy to the patriarchs of Genesis. 2.2.9. Time-Spans in Genesis and Exodus–Deuteronomy Genesis spans a time-frame from creation to the death of Joseph that extends over 2,000 years according to the biblical chronology. At the beginning of Exodus there is a gap of 430 years according to Exod 12:40–42. 241 This gap is “the largest jump in time . . . shown by the pentateuchal narrative in the transmitted form,” from which, however, nothing is reported. 242 The remaining events in the Pentateuch, in Exodus–Deuteronomy, play out during the 120 years of Moses’ life, 243 and Deuteronomy covers nothing more than the last day of Moses’ life. Knierim remarks: The extent of the material alloted to each of the two time spans is extremely disproportionate, a factor that must be considered programmatic and not merely the result of the relative availability of information for the two parts of the work. 244 240. For the relationship of Joshua 23 and Joshua 24, see §3.3.2.c. 241. Concerning the LXX and the SamP, which relate the 430 years to the habitation of the Israelites in Canaan and Egypt, see Hughes, Secrets, 33–36; Andrei, Hen 18 (1996): 15 n. 33. 242. Noth, ATD 5 1. 243. Concerning these, see Perlitt, ZAW 100 supplement (1988), 77–78; Jacob, Genesis, 177. 244. Knierim, “Composition,” 354. Knierim concludes from this that “the division between Genesis and Exodus–Deuteronomy is therefore fundamental, while all other divisions within the ‘Pentateuch’ are subservient to it.”

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 90 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

90

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

Thus, the very different time-spans in Genesis and Exodus–Deuteronomy suggest that two distinct kinds of blocks of tradition have been combined. These blocks originally had nothing to do with one another, and Deuteronomy, with its time frame of a single day, represents a special case within Exodus–Deuteronomy that is relevant source-historically. A related feature that was already mentioned earlier (p. 5) is the contradictory chronological connection made between the ancestors and the time of Moses. According to Exod 2:1 and 6:16–20, no more than three to four generations lie between Moses and Jacob. Exod 12:40–41, however, mentions a 430-year stay in Egypt. Here, we have two manifestly different perspectives that cannot be harmonized with one another. 245 Rather, the one combines the ancestor story and the Exodus story in the most narrow way genealogically, while the other aims to present the most dramatic background possible for the Exodus event, which does not appear to presuppose an Eisodos that occurred only shortly before. 2.2.10. The Double Withdrawal of God as the Direct Actor of History Above, in §1.3.1.a, I already noted that the historical books present the continuous withdrawal of God as a direct participant in the events of history. Both Genesis and Exodus–2 Kings portray this withdrawal. In Genesis itself, the transition is from a God who acts directly upon the world (Genesis 1–11) and who speaks with humans (Genesis 12–36) to a God who is only active indirectly and in the background of events (Genesis 37–50; see 50:20). In Exodus, God once again intervenes in world events (Exodus 7–12, 13–14) in a manner that is elsewhere known only in the primeval story. Subsequently, a similar withdrawal of God from history can be detected through the interpretation of the fall of Judah and Jerusalem as a Babylonian act of destruction directed by God. 2.2.11. Problems of the Classical Source Division in Exodus–Numbers For Wellhausen, it was “a clear matter” that both P and JE continued beyond Genesis. 246 At the same time, even Wellhausen admitted that the “division” between J and E could not always be “carried through in detail.” 247 Holzinger viewed the “analysis of JE in Exodus as considerably more difficult” than in Genesis. 248 Baentsch maintained that in Exodus–Numbers it was “in many places al245. See the attempt by Jacob (Exodus, 1033–43) as well as the material in Str-B 2:668–71. Koch (ZAW 95 [1983]: 416) and Lührmann (ZAW 100 [1988]: 421) “solve” the problem counter to the rules of textual criticism. They view the difficult reading of the MT as secondary to the obviously harmonizing reading of the SamP and the LXX (see §1.3 n. 239, p. 23 above). The hiatus between Genesis and Exodus in Exod 12:40 is thus eliminated, albeit with circular reasoning. “M cannot be correct since P, to whom the note is originally ascribed, elsewhere announces that only four generations dwelt in Egypt” (Koch, ZAW 95 [1983]: 416). For a contrary opinion, see Kreuzer (ZAW 103 [1991]: 252–58), who presents his own problematic explanation of the origin of the “430 years” (p. 255 and n. 6). 246. Wellhausen, Composition, 61. 247. Ibid., 72.

spread is 9 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 91 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Additional Indicators for the Division of the Ancestor and Exodus Stories

91

most impossible to divide the sources from one another.” 249 Noth introduced his Numbers commentary in the following manner: “If one took the fourth book of Moses by itself, one would not easily arrive at the idea of ‘thoroughgoing sources,’ but would more likely arrive at the idea of an unsystematic combination of numerous transmission pieces of varying content, age, and character (‘fragmentary hypothesis’).” 250 Schmidt correctly remarks in the introduction to his Exodus commentary 251 that, in Exodus, “consensus rules in a very much smaller measure than in Genesis concerning the division of the individual layers.” 252 Gunneweg affirms: “The source division in Genesis is relatively unproblematic, but from Exodus onward it is considerably more difficult. . . . One cannot rule out the idea that for long stretches of Exodus–Numbers, and even already in the Joseph story, ‘sources’ are difficult to recognize and that non-source-like material prevails.” 253 Seebass also agrees that the explanatory value of the source division from Genesis on beyond Exodus to Numbers steadily declines. 254 Von Rad was perhaps the most self-critical in 1971, when he judged that, “in our opinion, much to its own detriment, the analysis of the book of Exodus, especially chaps. 1–14, has to this day not emerged from its dependency upon the methods of interpreting Genesis.” 255 This problem of the Documentary Hypothesis is repeated to some degree by Blum’s Kd, which according to Blum, from Exodus onward “permeates considerably deeper into the substance of the narrative.” 256 In my opinion, given the acceptance of diverse redactional activity in Genesis and Exodus (and following), the literary unity of Kd across Genesis and Exodus should be examined once again (see the discussion below, §5.3.2, pp. 342ff.). Blum himself has changed his opinion in the volume Abschied vom Jahwisten ( J. C. Gertz et al., eds.) and he now considers the beginning of Kd to be in the book of Exodus (see Blum, “Verbindung”).

These judgments show how much pentateuchal research has been determined by theories that were first explored and defended in Genesis and then assumed to be equally applicable in Exodus–Numbers. Because the Documentary Hypothesis rendered a quite satisfying explanatory model for the text of Genesis, and because scholars were encouraged in no small measure by the traceability of P beyond Genesis, the idea became widely accepted that the same model must also be adequate for the subsequent books, even in places such as Numbers where the isolated findings “by themselves would not exactly lead to this result.” 257 248. Holzinger, KHC 2 xi; idem, Hexateuch, 112–13. 249. Baentsch, HKAT 1/2 lxiv. 250. Noth, ATD 7 8; see idem, ATD 5 4–5. 251. See the synopsis of the history of scholarship in Zenger, Sinaitheophanie, 207–31, which shows that, of the 117 non-Priestly verses of the Sinai pericope, not one is undisputed with respect to its classification. 252. W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 8; see the review of the discipline there as well. 253. Gunneweg, TRu 50 (1985): 130. 254. Seebass, TRE 26:196. 255. Von Rad, EvT 31 (1971): 581. 256. Blum, Vätergeschichte, 467. 257. Noth, ATD 7 8.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 92 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

92

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

In fact, alongside the notoriously uncertain E, to this point only J “has been delimited with sufficient certainty for Genesis.” 258 But not even on this point are we on solid ground because the questions are again wide open as to whether J can be ascertained in the Joseph story and how the non-Priestly pieces of the primeval story are related to the classic J texts of Genesis 12–36. 259 Thus, in all probability P is the only layer in the Pentateuch that reaches beyond Genesis, while J and— to a lesser degree—E only have explanatory value in the places where they were developed as hypotheses: in Genesis. If Genesis and Exodus and following cannot be described by the same model with respect to their literary genesis (and the Documentary Hypothesis appears to have shown at least this much) then the conclusion that that there are two different transmission blocks presents itself as an attractive option. 2.2.12. Summary The discussion to this point has been concerned with the explicit literary connections between Genesis and Exodus (and following), on the one hand (§2.1), and further indicators of the original independence of Genesis and Exodus (and following), on the other (§2.2). The literary bridges between Genesis and the subsequent books are quite sparse. Whether Genesis and Exodus were joined together prior to P will have to be proven based on an investigation of Genesis 15 and Exodus 3–4. At any rate, the transition from Genesis to Exodus is not smooth enough to support the explanation that these two transmission complexes were only independent in their pre-literary form. Rather, the results shown here indicate that, with Genesis and Exodus (and following), we have two narrative blocks that originally existed side by side as literary texts and that have been connected to one another only by relatively modest means. The following sections will first treat more thoroughly the question whether the ancestor story and the Moses/Exodus story can actually be understood as originally independent literary entities (§2.3 and §2.4). The primeval story will also be examined in an excursus fashion (§2.5), while the next major portion of this work (§3) will examine synthetically how Genesis and Exodus came together.

2.3. The Ancestor Story as an Independent Text Complex Can the indicators suggesting the literary division of the ancestor story and the Moses/Exodus story withstand scrutiny and show that these two complexes were originally independent and that, in fact, such a view of their form offers a better explanation than the assumption of an early coupling of the two complexes?

258. Köckert, ThViat 14 (1985): 45. 259. See the discussion in Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 93–94; idem, Festschrift Freedman; Ska, EstBib 52 (1994): 37–62; Otto, Festschrift Michel; Krüger, “Herz,” 74–81.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 93 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Ancestor Story as an Independent Text Complex

93

2.3.1. Concerning the Independence of Genesis 12–50 Anyone reading the book of Genesis will share Gunkel’s assessment: “Genesis is a collection of tales.” 260 Although the flow of the narrative is chronologically consistent, it is not continuous. Rather, the reader encounters independent incidents connected to one another by relatively brief notes. The Joseph story is an exception in that it presents an independent but extensive narrative with a unifying plot. Thus it is distinct both from the narratives about the three ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Genesis 12–36), and from the Primeval History (Genesis 1–11). However, the Joseph story is much more closely connected to the ancestor narratives of Genesis 12–36 than to the primeval story of Genesis 1–11, based on the relative continuity of place, time, and active persons in Genesis 12– 50. It is therefore justified that we distinguish between the ancestor story of Genesis 12–50 and the Primeval History of Genesis 1–11 and treat Genesis 12–50 by itself. 261 Can Genesis 12–50 be seen as a once-independent, coherent text? Judging by the actors, place, and time, the complex is self-contained. Genesis 12–50 narrates events about the ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as their children— their wanderings, the appearances of God to them, and the threats to them. However, there are contextual links at the extremities of the block of Genesis 12–50: Genesis 12 begins with a speech by God to Abraham that instructs him to move to the land of Canaan, and Genesis 50 ends with the commission of the dying Joseph to his brothers in Egypt to transport his bones to Canaan. In its current form, Genesis 12 and Genesis 50 are directed toward the preceding and subsequent material, respectively. Genesis 12 is connected to Gen 11:27–32, the report of the journey from Ur Kasdim to Haran by Terah and his tribe, within which one finds the later protagonists Abraham, Sarah, and Lot. The events in Gen 12:1–5 are also set in Haran (12:4b, 5). The promise and commission of Joseph in Gen 50:24–25 looks forward to the subsequent Exodus of Israel out of Egypt and the conquest in Canaan, and the burying of Joseph’s bones in Canaan does not occur until Josh 24:32 (see Exod 13:19). Judging by the “textual edges,” Genesis 12 and 50, we cannot speak of the independence of Genesis 12–50. Rather, Genesis 12 and 50 serve to embed the complex of ancestral narratives in its current context. Genesis 12 attaches to Genesis (1–)11 and Genesis 50 and looks forward as far as Joshua 24 (see Gen 50:25 / Josh 24:32). Thus, the ancestral story is integrated into the context of the primeval story and the national history of the exodus to the conquest. However, this picture fundamentally changes when one looks into the core material of Genesis 12–50.

260. Gunkel, Genesis, viii; see the discussion in Scullion, “Stories.” 261. Concerning the relationship of Genesis 1–11 and Genesis 12–50, see §2.5.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 94 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

94

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

If one excludes Gen 12:1–5 and Gen 50:22–26, which connect Genesis 12–50 to the preceding and following material, then the ancestral narratives, together with the Joseph story, appear as an independent unit. There are hardly any references back to Genesis 1–11 in Genesis 12–50 outside of Gen 12:1–5 (but see 13:10); and previews to the subsequent material, specifically the departure from Egypt, are limited to Gen 15:13–16, as well as Gen 48:21 and 50:(5, 8), 14. In fact, based on the etiologies and the interpretation of the ancestors as foreigners first “invented” by the Priestly source, we saw that the ancestral story originally was not designed for the continuation in Exodus and following. This is reason enough to take the contextual connections at the edges of Genesis 12–50 as redactional in character, rather than belonging to the narrative substance of Genesis 12–50. Except for the usual assignment of 12:4b, 5 to P, the literary classification of 12:1–5 is quite unclear and touches on the difficulty of determining the relationship of the primeval story to the ancestor story. 262 The classical view unanimously attributes 12:1–4a to J.263 The question remains unresolved, however, as to what prior J material 12:1–4a should be attached. The closest preceding undisputed J text (according to traditional source divisions) is the story of the tower in Gen 11:1–9. Yet, there is no clear link between this and the Abraham story beginning in 12:1. Therefore, as a rule, Gen 11:(27b),264 28–30 265 are assigned to J as a bridge distinguishing two independent Abrahamic genealogies ( J and P) within Gen 11:27–32. Yet, neither can Gen 11:26–32 be meaningfully divided into two narrative threads, 266 nor does such a division provide a satisfactory context for J.267 The possibility must be considered that parts of the account have been lost. However, recent alternatives face no less-significant problems. Back in 1975, Van Seters looked at Gen 12:1 as an introduction to an independent Abraham story and explained its abrupt starting point by the idea that its author “seems to approximate most closely a prophetic prose tradition form in which a divine command comes to a prophet, followed by the appropriate action, often followed by a subsequent word from Yahweh.”268 However, the analogies cited by Van Seters ( Jonah 1:1–3; 3:3; Jer 18:1–6; 13:1–11)269 are not really 262. For the history of research, see de Pury, Promesse divine, 48–55. 263. For example, see Noth, HPT, 17, 28. 264. Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 134. 265. Gunkel, Genesis, 156; Noth, HPT, 28; von Rad, ATD 2–4 119, 121; Kilian, Abrahamsüberlieferungen, 279–80; Emerton, VT 42 (1992): 37–46; Seebass, Vätergeschichte I, 6–8. See the discussion in Berge, Zeit, 16 n. 27. Kratz (Composition, 270–74), rather unconvincingly, postulates an original, pre-Priestly connection between 11:8 and 12:1. 266. See Van Seters, Abraham, 225 (“it all belongs to P”); Köckert, Vätergott, 262 n. 485; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 440–41; compare Crüsemann, Festschrift Wolff, 16; as well as Blenkinsopp, Festschrift Freedman, 3 n. 9. The same holds for the vote by Emerton concerning the source division in Gen 11:27–32 (Emerton, VT 42 [1992]: 37–46). Emerton collates indicators that argue for assigning 11:28–30 to J but appears to see no problem in the fragmentary nature of the narrative context. In the meantime, however, Van Seters has changed his mind: “I must retract my earlier discussion and regard the material in 11:28–31 as belonging to J even though it has been reworked into its present P form” (Van Seters, Prologue, 202). The option for source division in Gen 11:27–32 for Westermann, which he does not discuss in detail, is not convincing for precisely the reasons he mentions (Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 134; see also Blum, Vätergeschichte, 440–41, with n. 36). 267. See Steck, Festschrift von Rad, 536 [129] n. 33. 268. Van Seters, Abraham, 224. 269. Ibid., 224 n. 38.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 95 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Ancestor Story as an Independent Text Complex

95

comparable to Gen 12:1 in terms of their formulations, and only Jonah 1:1–3 forms the beginning of an independent narrative like Gen 12:1. Rather, I maintain with Blum, “that Gen 12:1ff. cannot represent an original beginning text. How narratives begin is seen in 1 Sam 1:1; Job 1:1, and Ruth 1:1. By contrast, Gen 12:1 begins immediately with an action that from a narrative perspective at least, presumes an ‘exposition.’ ”270 The problem with Blum’s view that such an exposition is not the primeval story is that it leads to the unsatisfying conclusion that the exposition is no longer preserved.271 If we decide that Gen 12:1–4a presupposes the primeval story, along with 11:26–32 (P)—the Abraham genealogy necessary for 12:1—then we must locate 12:1–4a as post-Priestly.272 This is worthy of consideration (see below, §2.5, pp. 151ff.), but the difficulty is that Gen 12:1–3 does not by itself look beyond Genesis, which would be expected for a post-Priestly text.273 In my opinion, this second point weighs so heavily that the following will proceed from a position, open to revision, of a pre-Priestly dating of Gen 12:1–4a. The case of Gen 50:22–26 and the anticipatory preparation in 48:21 is far simpler, because these passages are dispensable within the Joseph story, which has reached a quintessential thematic conclusion in 50:20. 274 Gen 50:22–26 and 48:21, by contrast, belong to redactional layers whose horizons stretch far beyond Genesis.275 Specifically, 50:24 and 50:25 276 belong to two clearly recognizable, transcending threads that combine as a unit. On the one hand, they connect the theme of the promise of land to the patriarchs as an oath (Gen 50:24; Exod 32:13; 33:1; Num 32:11; Deut 34:4), and on the other hand, they unite the Hexateuch by the theme of the transporting of the bones of Joseph (Gen 50:25; Exod 13:19; Josh 24:32). Exod 1:6–8 creates the essential connection between Genesis and Exodus. This text will be treated more extensively in §3.4.

Apart from the periphery and Genesis 15, there are no clues in Genesis 12–50 that this complex belonged to a larger context from its inception. The ancestor story of Genesis 12–50 is relatively self-sufficient when viewed from outside, but we must now ask about its cohesion from within. There is no question that Genesis 12–50 represents an entity that has grown literarily and perhaps also pre-literarily. Specifically, since the form-critical research of Gunkel, the formation of the ancestor story is generally conceived of as a collection of individual tales in cycles of tales. 277 However, as a rule the written collection of the tales and cycles has been assigned to the tetrateuchal or hexateuchal written sources J and E without ever examining the possibility of an independent ancestor history. The relatively self-enclosed nature of the 270. Blum, Vätergeschichte, 343 n. 11. See Berge, Zeit, 15 n. 25; as well as Gross, VTSup 32 (1981), 135 n. 13: “The opening of an independent narrative with wayyiqtol of a verb other than HYY is to my knowledge nowhere else attested in the Old Testament.” 271. See Blum, Vätergeschichte, 359–60, with 343–44 n. 11. 272. So Crüsemann, Festschrift Wolff, 29 (against this idea, see Blum, Vätergeschichte, 359 n. 2); Ska, Festschrift Brekelmans. Köckert agrees with Crüsemann that Gen 12:1–3 presupposes P texts in Genesis 1–11; see Vätergott, 265 (strangely, Köckert does not use these observations for dating Gen 12:1–4a [Vätergott, 294–99]). 273. Contrary to ibid., 266; see above, §2.1.1.e. 274. See von Rad, ATD 2–4 355; Seybold, TDOT 5:228–45, 238. 275. Blum, Vätergeschichte, 255. 276. For the historical-critical analysis of Gen 50:24–25, see below, in §3.4. 277. Gunkel, Genesis, xxviii, lxix–lxxx. See Westermann, EdF 48 (1975), 14–68 (for example, 46, 48). Blum and Wynn-Williams are now critical of this (Blum, Pentateuch, 214 n. 35; Wynn-Williams, State, 243). Early on, Eissfeldt resisted separating the narratives (Eissfeldt, “Stammessage”).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 96 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

96

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

story of Abraham/Lot (*13; 18–19 278), of the Jacob cycle (Gen *25–33 279), and of the Joseph story (*37–50 280) is still easily recognizable in the present form of Genesis. This suggests that each of these goes back to an independent tradition complex.281 For the 278. See Blum, Vätergeschichte, 280–89; O’Brien, ABR 38 (1990): 2; Kilian, Abrahamsüberlieferungen, 285–89 (Genesis *12f.; *18f.; see Kilian’s self-correction in Kilian, Festschrift Scharbert, 159, 162– 63, 166); Levin, Jahwist, 139, 143–46; Römer, Transeu 7 (1994): 111 (with Gen *12:10–20); Köckert, VTSup 109 (2006), 120. However, see also Carr (Reading, 203–4), who identifies the “author of the Non-P Abraham story” with the “author of the broader Non-P connections”; and Kratz (Composition, 270–72), who thinks the Abraham story in toto is redactional (less helpful are the essays by Wallis, ZAW 81 (1969): 18–40; Golka, ZAW 90 (1978): 186–95 [see also the discussion of Golka in Berge, Zeit, 34–35 n. 16]; Collin, “Tradition”). The Abraham/Lot cycle is constituted primarily of references in Gen 13:10, 12 to Genesis 19, the narrative connection of Gen 18:1 to Gen 13:18, the open nature of Genesis 13 (Blum, Vätergeschichte, 283; see already Noth, HPT, 199 n. 540), the parallel opening scenes in Genesis 18 and 19 (synopsis by Blum, Vätergeschichte, 280; see already Gunkel, Genesis, 158–60), and the parallel execution of events concerning Abraham on the one hand (Gen 13:2, 7, 8–9, 18 and Genesis 18*) and Lot on the other hand (Gen 13:5–6, 7, 8–9, 10–13; Gen 19*). Just as the Lot-thread runs toward the birth of Moab and Ammon, the Abraham-thread finds its endpoint in the birth of Isaac (see Gunkel, Genesis, 159, 196, 198; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 279; O’Brien, ABR 38 [1990]: 3; Jericke, BN 88 [1997]: 31–37). Note that in this Abraham/Lot cycle, Abraham and Lot were originally treated as two men of the same rank (μyja μyvna in 13:8), while the determination of Lot as the nephew of Abraham is a construction of P (11:13; 12:5; see the discussion in Van Seters, Abraham, 225–26). For the question of an exact determination of the starting point within Genesis 13, see Blum, Vätergeschichte, 286. Contra Blum, however, the reference to Abram’s riches in 13:2 does not give the impression that Gen 12:10–20 is here already presupposed. It is more likely that 12:10–20 offers a later etiology for 13:2. With 13:2, 5, a good narrative starting point exists (concerning the naming of Lot in 12:4–5, see Blum, Vätergeschichte, 286). This Abraham/Lot cycle apparently originated in Judah (see Blum, Vätergeschichte, 290). Lemaire presents an unlikely early date (shortly before 1000 b.c.e.) for the original Abraham cycle (Lemaire, Festschrift Nielsen, 75 [see also Zwickel, in BZ 36 (1992): 218–19, for Genesis 12–13*–J]). Concerning the alleged “field of Abram” in a list of places overthrown by Shoshenq I (compare Meyer, Israeliten 266; Gunkel, Genesis, 157), see Noth, ZDPV (1937): 291; HALOT 1:9. 279. See de Pury, “Promesse”; idem, VTSup 43 (1991), 78–96; Weisman, ZAW 104 (1992): 177–97; Nauerth, Untersuchungen; Wynn-Williams, State, 29–191 (in dialogue with Blum); Wahl, Jakobserzählungen. See also the synchronic structural observations in Fishbane, JJS 26 (1975): 20. The Jacob cycle of Genesis *25–33 looks back to fundamental stages of growth. If one follows Blum, it goes back perhaps to a Jacob-Laban story (Genesis *29–31) from Northern Israel that was expanded into a Jacob-Esau-Laban story by means of the incorporation of the Jacob-Esau narratives in Genesis *25, 27 (held together by 25:23 and 27:27–39, 39–40; see Blum Vätergeschichte, 202) and the shaping of the finale in Genesis *32–33 (Blum Vätergeschichte, 140–49; for the Penuel story as an integral element of the Jacob narrative of *25–33, see Blum Vätergeschichte, 143–45; for 33:17 as the conclusion of the narrative, see pp. 147–49). This story made its way to the southern border of Israel and interpreted the relationships between Israel, Edom, and Aram on the basis of the incidents surrounding their ancestor Jacob, similarly to the way the Abraham-Lot cycle explained the relationship of Israel to Ammon and Moab (see ibid., 202). 280. See the history of scholarship on Genesis 37–50 above, §2.1.1.a (pp. 50ff.). Concerning the attempt by Kratz (Composition, 274–79) to analyze Genesis 37–50 as a redactional expansion of Genesis 12–36, see my “Josephsgeschichte.” 281. See Rendtorff, Problem, 22; Westermann, EdF 48 (1975), 34; Blum, Vätergeschichte; de Pury, VTSup 43 (1991), 83–84; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 99. The completeness of these tradition blocks was also a notable issue for the Documentary Hypothesis. Scholars therefore attempted to reconstruct corresponding “pre-literary” cycles (Kilian, Abrahamsüberlieferungen; Lux, Väterverheissungen, 7–59; de Pury, “Promesse”; Otto, Jakob in Sichem [see discussion in Blum, Vätergeschichte, 150–51]; Donner, Josephsgeschichte). If the classic source division is abandoned, the reconstruction of these cycles is much more plausible (see Blum, Vätergeschichte), since the cycles do not remain fragmentary because the narrative

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 97 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Ancestor Story as an Independent Text Complex

97

Abraham and Jacob cycles, the question of individual tales lying behind them requires examination, because, unlike the Joseph story, these cycles consist of thematically selfcontained incidents placed sequentially. 282 Further, if the literary isolation of the individual tales is not successful, we must also take into account the explanation of earlier oral stages, even though this option is not exactly favored.283

The task of determining how these diverse text complexes have grown together literarily cannot and should not be undertaken here. For our interests, it is sufficient to provide some clarity about the cohesion of the ancestor story in its latest, still-independent form. Take note especially of the promises in the ancestor story which, as has long been recognized, create the essential literary cohesion of the ancestor story. 284 2.3.2. The Promises in the Framework of the Ancestor Story a. The Promises to the Ancestors as a Redaction-Historical Problem After the interpretation of Genesis loosed itself from Gunkel’s concentration on the individual tales, 285 von Rad in particular drew attention back to the overarching connections of the individual narratives: The transmission material that has come together from Abraham’s call to the death of Joseph is so colorful, yet it also has a sustainable, connecting framework, namely the so-called promise to the ancestor. One can at least say that the colorful narrative mosaic has been given a thematic connection . . . by the constantly reappearing promise. 286

However, von Rad did not consider the promises to be redactional links between the individual episodes of the ancestor story, as one might suppose from this observation. Rather, in connection with Alt, the promises were “ancient” in von Rad’s view. 287 They reach back “tradition-historically to the time of the fathers substance must be reserved for the sources. The same holds true for the Exodus story. See the (extremely hypothetical) attempt to reconstruct a pre-Yahwistic version by Weimar and Zenger, Exodus, 22–27. 282. See Westermann, EdF 48 (1975), 36, 46. See also Blum’s personal skepticism with respect to his own working out of the individual tales (Blum, Pentateuch, 214 n. 35) as well as Wynn-Williams, State, 243. De Pury also declares himself to be against the idea of individual tales in the Jacob cycle (de Pury, Promesse divine; idem, “Tradition patriarcale,” 266–68). 283. Concerning the problem, see Wahl, Jakobserzählungen. 284. See the itemization of Hoftijzer, Verheissungen, 6–31; von Rad, “Verheissenes Land,” 87–88; Westermann, Verheissungen, 120; Rendtorff, Problem, 40–57; Clines, Theme, 32–43 (for Genesis–Deuteronomy). See also Brettler, Shnaton 5–6 (1978–79): vii–xxiv. 285. For the history of research, see McKane, Studies, 16–194; Westermann, Verheissungen, 92– 111; Westermann, EdF 7 ( 2 1976), 114–18; Köckert, Vätergott, 13–53; Wynn-Williams, State. 286. Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:167; taken up by Westermann, Verheissungen, 12; Giesen, Wurzel [bv, 228; see Noth, HPT; Hoftijzer, Verheissungen, 1; Rendtorff, Problem, 37–41, 151; idem, VTSup 28 (1975); idem, Überlieferung. Emerton (VT 32 [1982]: 14–32) weighs it carefully. The following reject it: Seebass, EvT 37 (1977): 210–29; idem, Bib 64 (1983), 189–210; O’Brien, ABR 38 (1990): 1–17. 287. Alt, “Gott,” especially 23; see von Rad, Theology, 1:166 (n. 4), 169 (n. 8).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 98 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

98

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

themselves.” 288 The God of the fathers “had promised the occupation of the land and many descendants to the ancestors of Israel, who were camped at the edge of the cultivated land.” 289 Naturally, the promises have been transformed in the formulation of the written sources. Still, to use Alt’s term, these promises lay like “a veil” over the older transmission. 290 Hoftijzer objected to the view of Alt and von Rad. 291 He did not see a “base layer” in the promises of the ancestor tradition but elements of redactional composition that first arose in a time “in which the existence of the people was seriously threatened, or perhaps first in the exile.” 292 Rendtorff singled out the ancestor story, interconnected by the promises, as illustrating that the Pentateuch is not to be explained as complete documents but as the redactional joining of individual, “larger units” such as that of the ancestor story. The horizon of the promises does not extend beyond Genesis, and outside Genesis the promises are hardly referred to; 293 rather, they provide the cohesion within the ancestor story. In fact, the promises in most cases are not integral components of the narratives in which they stand 294 but serve to unite the individual episodes or larger narrative complexes inside Genesis 12–50. Following Rendtorff ’s lead, Blum presented an 288. For the question of the historical background of the patriarchal narratives, see the surveys of the history of research by Weidmann, Patriarchen; Scharbert, VF 19 (1974): 2–22; Leineweber, Patriarchen; Westermann, EdF 2 7 (1976), 69–73; Thiel, ThV 14 (1985): 11–15; Donner, GAT 4/1 87 n. 13; Wenham, WBC 2 xx–xxviii. In particular, for example, see the conventional essays of Bimson, “Archaeological Data,” 85; Selman, “Customs,” 128; Fisher, Festschrift Gordon, 59–65; Wiseman, “Abraham,” 153–54. On the other side, see Thompson, Historicity; Van Seters, Abraham; idem, Bib 61 (1980): 220–33; Dever, in Hayes and Miller, History; Morrison, BA 46 (1983): 155–64; Soggin, Geschichte Israels, 79–91; idem, Genesis, 196; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 126–29. 289. Von Rad, Theology, 1:168. Sometimes it has been presumed that the form and structure of the promises are dependent upon ancient Near Eastern royal gift documents: see Weinfeld, JAOS 90 (1970): 185–89; Fensham, TZ 23 (1967): 306–14; Loewenstamm, JAOS 91 (1971): 509–10; Giesen, Wurzel [bv, 240–41; Lipinski, TDOT 14:324. 290. So Alt, “Gott,” 23. 291. Hoftijzer, Verheissungen, 96–99. 292. Ibid., 99. 293. Rendtorff, Problem, 57–70, but see pp. 75–79. Westermann believes that the function of the promises (to the degree they are not indissoluble components of the narratives) is to form a bracket between the ancestor story and the national history: “This text group shows that the ancestor story as such was composed in view of the national history more than its prehistory” (Westermann, EdF 48 [1975], 30–31). This argument, however, is misleading to a certain extent. The etiological assessment of Israel’s relationship with its neighboring peoples in the ancestor story show that the narrative was already conceived as national history. 294. The most important exceptions are Genesis 18 and 19 (alongside Genesis 15). In these narratives, neither the promise of a son (see Emerton, VT 32 [1982]: 17–18 [see also the reference to 16:11]; Westermann, Verheissungen; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 317) nor the promise of deliverance can be excised from the narrative because together they form a central element (pp. 279, 281–82; Blum stresses correctly that 19:30–38 cannot be seen as an addition either synchronically or diachronically [see the reference on p. 281 n. 5 to Gunkel, Reventlow, and Westermann and others]). We can see from Genesis 18–19 that the promise theme was perhaps original to the Abraham-Lot cycle, and from there it was incorporated into the whole ancestor story, so its particular form of land oath to the three patriarchs is now visible throughout the entire Pentateuch (see the discussion in §3.6.5).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 99 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Ancestor Story as an Independent Text Complex

99

elaborate study in which he shows the (diachronically staged) 295 interconnecting function of the promises for the ancestor story, and in which he considers the independence of this complex from Exodus and the subsequent books, reaching into the exilic period. 296 According to Blum, the ancestor story, in its latest yet still independent form (Vg2), is primarily structured and combined by means of the promises of Gen 12:(1), 2–3, 7; 13:14–17; 26:2, 3aba; 28:13–14; 31:(11,) 13; 46:3–4. 297 We will turn to this more closely in the next section. As with Rendtorff, 298 Blum (in his 1984 Komposition der Vätergeschichte) reckons with a specific stratum of promises in Genesis, the horizon of which extends beyond Genesis. For Blum, the “D-Promises” 299 stand in the context of a Pentateuch-wide revision (D/Kd) that included Genesis (12:7); 300 15; 16:10; 22:15–18; 24:7; 26:3bb–5, 24; 28:15; 31:3; 35:1[–5]; 50:24(, 25). 301 Are there promises in the ancestor story that look beyond Genesis, as Blum proposed in 1984 for his “D-promises”? 302 We can immediately affirm Genesis 15 in that 15:13–16 explicitly previews events that are presented in Exodus.303 Also, the promise of the land as an 295. The preferred procedure of a redaction-historical differentiation between the promises since Rendtorff (Problem, 42–43) is not without problems. In this procedure, the promises are grouped according to contents or structure (for example, “you,” “you and your seed,” “your seed”) and then dated relative to each other based on such indicators. That the results must be countertested by the flow of reading is demonstrated by the relationship of Gen 12:1–3 and 12:7. In 12:2, Abraham is promised that a great people will arise from him, and a promise of land for his descendants ([rz) follows in 12:7. Apparently, 12:7 is derived from 12:2 and placed in such a way as to portray a process of becoming a people and the subsequent gift of land to “this great people.” (Gen 12:1–4a and 12:7 were taken together by Gunkel, Genesis, 164–66; von Rad, ATD 2–4 123–24; White, JBL 92 [1973]: 168–70; Van Seters, Abraham, 223, 227; another perspective is found in Westermann, Verheissungen, 13–14, 28, 133; idem, Genesis 12–36, 154–56. For a critique of Rendtorff, see also Van Seters, Prologue, 220. Gosse [Structuration, 93, 99] assigns the promises in Gen 12:7 and 13:15, which reserve the land for “the descendants,” to “a sacerdotal redaction.”) 296. Blum, Vätergeschichte, 298. For the Abraham narratives, see also de Pury, “Tradition patriarcale,” 261; Köckert, Vätergott, 164–77; idem, VTSup 109 (2006): 103–28; Römer, Transeu 7 (1994): 107–21. 297. Blum (Vätergeschichte, 298, 300) saw only the promises of Gen 12:(1), 2–3; 26:2–3; 31:11, 13; and 46:1–5a as definitive for this composition (“Vg 2 ”). Since then, however, based upon the work of Köckert (Vätergott, 250–55), Blum has corrected himself and included the promises of Gen 13:14–17 (together with 13:18) and 28:13–14 in this group (Blum, Pentateuch, 214 n. 35), and tacitly with Köckert, perhaps also 12:7. When he did this, his “main reason for accepting a ‘Vätergeschichte 1’ comprising the Abraham–Lot narrative and the Jacob story” collapsed (Blum, Pentateuch, 214). 298. Rendtorff, Problem, 75–79. 299. Blum, Vätergeschichte, 362–83; but see now his corrections in “Verbindung,” 140–45, 153– 54, where he modifies the Kd hypothesis and limits it to Exodus 1 to Deuteronomy 34. 300. According to Blum (Vätergeschichte, 383), Gen 12:7 belongs to D, but according to his own correction (Pentateuch, 214 n. 35, following Köckert, Vätergott, 253), Gen 12:7 should be attributed to Vg2 along with Gen 12:1–3 and 13:14–17. 301. Gen 50:24 and Gen 50:25 are divided literarily by Blum (Pentateuch, 103 nn. 7, 10; 364; differently in idem, Vätergeschichte, 256; “Verbindung,” 151). See §3.4.1 below (pp. 214ff.). 302. Idem, Vätergeschichte, 362–419. 303. However, Blum separates Gen 15:13–16 source-critically and traces this insertion back to a “markedly late,” meaning post-Priestly “formation of transmission” (ibid., 379). However, see an opposing view in §3.2.1.b below and the recent modifications on Genesis 15 by Blum, “Verbindung,” 142–43.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 100 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

100

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

oath in Gen 50:24–25 (along with its satellite references in 24:7; 26:4) manifestly belongs to a series of statements running through the whole of the Pentateuch (Exod 32:13; 33:1; Num 32:11; Deut 34:4). However, the assignation of these texts to D must be assessed critically. Below, in §3.2.1 (pp. 158ff.) and §3.6.5 (pp. 271ff.), I will investigate these extensively. For Blum’s remaining D texts (Gen 16:10; 22:15–18; 26:24; 28:15; 31:3; 35:1[–5]), it is less clear whether they really extend beyond the literary horizon of Genesis. Methodologically, Blum’s attributing them to D is explained primarily by their “deuteronomic” language, which is formulated in the language of indicative passages generally identified as “Deuteronomistic” in Deuteronomy–2 Kings and Jeremiah. However, this methodology is no longer appropriate in the present debate over Deuteronomy, because there are “nonDeuteronomistic” texts in “Deuteronomistic” language in the Hebrew Bible and vice versa. 304 Indeed, the formulation (hbr Hiphil + ˚[rz) of the promises of increase in Gen 16:10; 22:17; and 26:4 does echo passages in Deuteronomy (7:13; 13:18). However, Deut 13:18, with its image of “compassion,” extends beyond the customary ideas of Deuteronomistic thought. For this reason, it is correctly interpreted as an addition.305 Deut 7:13 does not belong to the oldest layer of Deuteronomy, 306 so labeling Gen 16:10; 22:17; and 26:4 as D promises is not convincing for either the profile of these texts or their literary-historical ordering. 307 The D promises of Yhwh’s “being with” or Yhwh’s leading (26:3, 24; 28:15; 31:5) are similar to Gen 16:10; 22:17; and 26:4 in that they are spread throughout the Dtr literature: Josh 1:7, 9; 2 Sam 7:9; 8:6, 14. The most elaborate promise is in Gen 28:15, and Blum here points first to Deut 31:6, 8; Josh 1:5; 1 Kgs 6:13; 8:57. However, in addition to Josh 1:7, 9; 2 Sam 7:9; and 8:6, 14, the closer parallels to Gen 28:15 also belong to text layers that belong entirely to the late world of Dtr thought. The further examples cited by Blum (1 Kgs 8:34; Jer 16:15; 24:9; 29:10, 14) 308 that are supposed to prove the Dtr character of Gen 28:15 belong to later and the latest tradition formations, whose content sometimes even runs contrary to “deuteronomism.” 309 Thus, also for the promises of Gen 26:3, 24; 28:15; and 31:5, the idea that they belong to a D layer is a conceptually and redactionhistorically weak argument that is hardly convincing. Clearer still than with the promises of fertility, the themes of “being with” or leading do not extend beyond the narrative context of the ancestor story, even though they are supposed to have arisen in a time when Genesis was already connected literarily to Exodus. Finally, Blum’s observations concerning Genesis 24 also point to a later period for the D texts than Blum has suggested. 310 The problem of mixed marriages treated here “in the last third of the sixth century,” where he situates his “D-Revision,”311 is no real proof, because

304. See the discussion in my Buchgestalten, 31–33 (bibliography). 305. See Römer, Väter, 167, with n. 848; Rose, ZBK 5/1 307–8; K. Schmid, Buchgestalten, 120 n. 306. 306. Rose, ZBK 5/2 451–52 (“Layer III”). 307. The promise of a multitude directed to Hagar in Gen 16:10 shows that the multiplying of the theme of promise does not in itself have to foreshadow the presentation of a literary fulfillment in Exodus. This promise first finds fulfillment in the later, secondary Ishmael toledot of Gen 25:12–19. 308. Blum, Vätergeschichte, 158–62. 309. For the Jeremiah examples, see my Buchgestalten, 346–49. 310. Blum, Vätergeschichte, 383–89. 311. Ibid., 392.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 101 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Ancestor Story as an Independent Text Complex

101

the relevant texts, which Blum also mentions, found in Ezra 9–10, Nehemiah 9–10, and 13, 312 date to at least a hundred years later. All told, closer inspection of Blum’s D promises reveals that only Genesis 15 and 50:24 (with 24:7; 26:3–4) point with some certainty to redactional layers that extend beyond Genesis. Characterizing them as D texts, however, is questionable. The remaining D promises as a group all appear to belong to late strata of Genesis, which probably already presume the connection of Genesis and Exodus.

b. The Theology of Promise in the Ancestor Story If we trace the course of the theology of promise for the independent ancestor story through its most important programmatic texts (following Blum), 313 then the following picture emerges. At the beginning of the ancestor story (Gen 12:1), Yhwh commands Abram, who is still in Haran, to move into the land that he will show him (har Hiphil). Further, Yhwh promises him: And I will make you into a great people and bless you and make your name great so that it is blessed. And I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you, I will curse. And all generations of the earth will acquire blessing 314 through you. (Gen 12:2–3)

The ancestor story thus opens in Gen 12:2–3 with a grand promise to Abraham that includes Yhwh’s increase and Abraham as the mediator of blessing. Significantly, the promise of land is missing; it comes to Abraham as soon as he stops in the land at Shechem (12:6): I will give your descendants this land. (12:7)

The fact that the promise of land first appears when Abraham is in the land is coherent with the stereotypical speech about “this land,” but it is especially noteworthy from the perspective of the division between Genesis and Exodus (and following). 315 The placement of the promise of land within the land in the ancestor

312. Ibid., 387. Blum believes, however, that the particular problem of Ezra–Nehemiah is not conceivable without a pre-history, and he points to Exod 34:15–16; Deut 7:3–4; Josh 23:12–13; Judg 3:5–6; and 1 Kgs 11:2 as Dtr examples of a polemic against mixed marriages. If one does not presuppose Noth (DH; see Blum, Pentateuch, 109 n. 35), then the stringency of these texts is certainly limited. Whether they belong in the sixth century is quite questionable. 313. Blum, Vätergeschichte, 289–301 (guided by the task of distinguishing between “Ancestor Story 1” and “Ancestor Story 2,” a division that he now also doubts [see idem, Pentateuch, 214 n. 35]). 314. HALOT, 1:160, mentions the meaning “to wish on oneself a blessing” for ˚rb. Traditionhistorical considerations speak in favor of the translation chosen here with respect to the mediation of a blessing in royal ideology that is also operative in Gen 12:1–3 (see, for example, Steck, Festschrift von Rad, 146, with n. 70; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 149–50; Soggin, Genesis, 201–2; Köckert, Vätergott, 276–77). J. Scharbert decides the problem in a Solomonic way (Scharbert, TDOT 2:307). 315. The promise of “this land” (tazh ≈rah; in addition to 12:7, compare 13:15; 15:18; 17:8; 24:7; 28:4, 13; 35:12; 48:4; 50:24) cannot be subsumed under the divine speech in Haran. Thus, Abraham receives it in the first stopping point in the land itself (H. H. Schmid, Jahwist, 141; see Blum, Vätergeschichte, 299, 333; Berge, Zeit, 18–19).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 102 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

102

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

story itself elicits an eminent critical problem regarding the land promises to the fathers cited by Moses in Deuteronomy, 316 which is set outside the land. 317 The trajectory begun in Gen 12:1–3, 7 reaches its highpoint in the divine speech of Gen 13:14–17 set in Bethel (13:3). 318 Now, Abraham “sees” (har in Gen 13:14–15) the land that Yhwh said he would show him (har Hiphil in 12:1). And its transfer is effected by the double legal ritual of looking over it (Gen 13:14– 15) and walking through it (˚lh Hithpael in 13:17). 319 Lift your eyes and look (har) from the place where you stand to the north, and to the south, and to the east and to the west. For the whole land that you see (har participle), I will give you and your descendants forever. And I will make your descendants like the dust of the earth so that if one could count the dust of the earth, one could also count your descendants. Arise, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I will give it to you. (Gen 13:14–17)

The promise in Gen 13:14–17 intensifies the contents of Gen 12:1–3, 7. Abraham becomes a kind of “great people”—one can no longer “count” his descendants—and the land assigned to be transferred to him is as wide as he can see. The mediation of blessing, however, is not repeated in Gen 13:14–17. Genesis 12–13 forms the prelude to the ancestor story by framing the interrelated promises of Gen 12:1–3, 7 and 13:14–17, the content and formulation of which are resumed in Yhwh’s promissory speech to Jacob in Bethel. The fact that the promises depend primarily on Abraham can be explained compositionally: 320 the promise theme stands at the beginning of the ancestor story and so is especially connected with the first ancestor, Abraham. 321 The promise theme may have traditionally been associated with the figure of Abraham, as the promise narrative of Genesis 18 shows. 322 The brief story about Isaac also contains important promise passages that are placed in continuity with the Abraham promises, as the later tradition in Gen 26:5 explains: because of Abraham’s obedience to the law, Isaac is included in the promise. Do not move to Egypt. Live in the land that I will tell you. Remain as a foreigner in this land, and I will be with you and will bless you, for I will give you and your descendants all these 323 lands. 324 (Gen 26:2, 3aba) 316. See Deut 1:35; 6:10, 18, 23; 8:1; 10:11; 11:9, 21; 19:8; 26:3, 15; 28:11; 31:7, 20–21 (see the arrangement of the examples in Römer, Väter, 13). 317. See already, in his own way, Alt, “God of the Fathers,” 13. 318. See Köckert, Vätergott, 250–55. 319. See Daube, Festschrift Eissfeldt; Pedersen, Israel, 3–4:207; Lipinski, TDOT 10:100. 320. See Westermann, EdF 48 (1975), 37. 321. For the genesis of the sequence Abraham–Isaac–Jacob, see for example Gese, “Gestaltwerdung,” 302–3 with n. 7. See also Tournay, RB 103 (1996): 321–36. 322. See Westermann, EdF 48 (1975), 38. 323. See BHS. 324. For the plural, see Blum, Vätergeschichte, 299.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 103 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Ancestor Story as an Independent Text Complex

103

In the narratives about Jacob, the promise theme retreats slightly: “It appears that the promise theme dominates the Abraham story, while blessing dominates the Jacob story.” 325 Seen narratively, the themes of promise and blessing are not disconnected from one another in the Abraham and Jacob stories. Rather, in the narrative flow the promises to Abraham (12:1–3, 7; 13:14–17) and Isaac (26:3–4) are first transferred to Jacob by way of the blessings (Gen 27:27–29). Then, in a second stage they are expanded or strengthened by a renewed promise (28:13–14) that is closely connected linguistically and conceptually to Gen 12:1–3, 7 and 13:14–17. I am Yhwh, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. The land where you lie I will give to you and your descendants. And your descendants will be like the dust of the earth. You will spread to the west, to the east, to the north, and to the south. And in you and your descendants all the families of the earth will acquire blessing. (Gen 28:13)

As with 12:1–3, 7 and 13:14–17, here the gift of land, increase, and the mediation of blessing appear as contents of the promise, though they have been combined into a single promise. In the Joseph story, Jacob again receives a promise: I am your God, the God of your father. Fear not. Go to Egypt, for there I will make you into a great nation. I myself will go with you to Egypt, and I will lead you up from there, and Joseph will close your eyes. (Gen 46:3–4)

The passage contains promises of increase, formulated linguistically as in Gen 12:2 (lwdg ywg), and of the presence of Yhwh, the return of Jacob, and his burial by Joseph. If we examine all the promise texts together, it is evident that the Bethel promises to Abraham (Gen 13:14–17) and Jacob (28:13–14) correspond closely, 326 and they are framed by related promises in Gen 12:1–3 and 46:3–4. 327 Thus, the promise to Isaac in Gen 26:3–4 attains a central position, the weight of which was shifted forward by later traditions with two Abrahamic cross-references (26:3, 5). One sees that the promises do not simply represent selectively placed theological highpoints but provide a comprehensive structure to the ancestor story. Alongside its concentric structure of promises, the independent ancestor story demonstrates a second organizational system that consists of the travel directives (12:1–2; 26:2–3; 31:3, 13b; and 46:3–4), where each stands in the context of a promise.328

325. Westermann, EdF 48 (1975), 47. 326. See the synopsis in Blum, Vätergeschichte, 290–91. 327. See lwdg ywgl ˚c[a; see Rendtorff, Problem, 47; H. H. Schmid, Jahwist, 127; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 298–99; and extensively Ska, Festschrift Brekelmans, 378–84. 328. See especially Blum, Vätergeschichte, 300; Carr, Reading, 178. For Gen 46:3–4, see above, §2.1.1.b.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 104 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

104

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

Gen 12:1–2 Mesopotamia § Canaan

Gen 26:2–3 Canaan § Egypt

Gen 31:3, 13b Mesopotamia § Canaan

Gen 46:3b–4 Canaan § Egypt

And Yhwh spoke to Abram: Go from your land, from your kin, and from your father’s house into the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.

There, Yhwh appeared to him [Isaac] and spoke: Do not move to Egypt. Live in the land that I will show you. Remain as a foreigner in this land, and I will be with you and will bless you, for I will give you and your descendants all these lands.

And Yhwh spoke to Jacob: Return to the land of your fathers and your kin. I will be with you. (. . .) Now, go. Leave this land and return to the land of your kin.

Fear not [ Jacob]. Go to Egypt, for there I will make of you a great nation. I myself will go with you to Egypt, and I will bring you back from there, and Joseph will close your eyes.

The focus on the land of Canaan in these travel directives is immediately recognizable: the commands to travel to Canaan (12:1–2; 31:3, 13) report nothing of a later return trip, and Gen 26:2–3 forbids Isaac to go to Egypt. In Gen 46:3–4 permission to travel to Egypt is connected immediately with the assurance of a subsequent return to Canaan. The idea that this organizational system originated in a redactional layer that extended beyond Genesis— even to the conquest of Joshua—is therefore unlikely.

c. Open and Fulfilled Promise Classic pentateuchal research already appropriately described the theological profile of an independent ancestor story, although it did so in its own way— namely, in terms of the religion of the fathers, in the wake of Alt. 329 The promise theology is an open promise theology, meaning that it is not determined by the correspondence of promise and subsequent fulfillment but by promise alone. Maag followed the lead of Alt and tried to make it plausible as a typically nomadic form of religion. 330 Nomadic religion is a religion of promise. The nomad does not live in a cycle of planting and harvesting, but in the world of migration. That is the world of here today, there tomorrow, where one knows that the children will die in another place from where the parents are buried. 331

However, Maag uncritically used Genesis texts of such diverse stamps and origins in his reconstruction of an ancestor religion that his religio-historical model of 329. See Alt, “God of the Fathers” (for the reception history, see K. T. Andersen, ST 16 [1962]: 170–78; Haran, ASTI 4 [1965]: 30–55; Koch, “Götter,” 12–18; Köckert, Vätergott; Soggin, Genesis). For discussion of the history of oral transmission, see Van Seters, Abraham, 131–38, 158–64, 233–35; Long, VT 26 (1976): 187–98; the thematic volume of Semeia 5 (1976); de Pury, “Tradition patriarcale,” 236–37. 330. Maag, “Hirte”; idem, “Malkût”; idem, “Sichembund”; see also Pedersen, Israel, 1–2:190–93. 331. Maag, “Malkût,” 156. Significantly, Maag had to strike the promise theme from the thematic stock of the nomadic religion of the fathers. Possessing land is foreign to nomadic life. He replaced it with the promise of transmigration that he found in an idealized pattern in Gen 12:1–4.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 105 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Ancestor Story as an Independent Text Complex

105

the history of the ancestors was untenable. 332 What Maag described was not the nomadic religion of the ancestors but the theology of promise of the ancestral story in its final literary form—a history that moves within the fictional framework of nomadic life. Von Rad, like Maag (and in conjunction with Alt), described the land theme as an originally open-ended promise that did not point toward a subsequently presented fulfillment. For that promise of land from the God of the fathers was originally a very direct and simple promise. And, it was certainly a long way from the premonition of a repeated leaving of the land and a second wandering. 333

By contrast, von Rad claimed that within the hexateuchal horizon, the land promise theology of the “Yahwist” implies a fundamental break with the “promise of land by the God of the fathers”: For the Yahwist, however, the promise of land to the fathers is directed toward fulfillment in the time of Joshua. In its directness, it is surprisingly broken. 334 . . . We have here one of the most interesting problems of Old Testament theology: promises fulfilled in history but not thereby deactualized. Instead, they are retained as promises but on a new level and in a partially changed form. 335

The difference between a direct and mediated, between an open and fulfilled promise was already familiar to earlier scholars, but they explained the difference in religio-historical terms as a contrast between the pre-Yahwistic religion of the fathers and the religion of the Yahwist. 336 However, under the assumption of a literary division between the ancestor story and the Exodus story, a redactionhistorical solution demands consideration: open-promise theology in Genesis and the lines of promise-fulfillment in Genesis–Joshua are two conceptual stages within the literary development of the Hebrew Bible itself. 337 The promises of Genesis 332. For a (correct) critique of Maag, see also Köckert, Vätergott, 23–26, with n. 41. 333. Von Rad, “Verheissenes Land,” 90. See also Gese, “Gestaltwerdung,” 303: “With its foundational motifs of a promise of descendants and land as well as the sanctuary etiologies, the fathers’ tradition points specifically to the closest possible connection with Israel’s existence in the land.” 334. Von Rad, “Verheissenes Land,” 90; idem, Hexateuch, 50–52, 61–63; idem, Old Testament Theology 1:170–71; see also Noth, HPT, 56. For a critique of the closed nature of a Hexateuch and the option of Genesis–2 Kings, see Goldingay, “Patriarchs,” 25. Different than von Rad perhaps, see Wolff (“Kerygma des jahwistischen Geschichtswerk”) who discusses a tetrateuchal extent for the Yahwist. Thus, the question was resolved on the level of the Yahwist, not on the level of the collaboration on Deuteronomy–2 Kings. 335. See von Rad, “Verheissenes Land,” 99–100. 336. See the critique in Van Seters, Bib 61 (1980): 220–33; Köckert, Vätergott; Fritz, “Bedeutung.” 337. The independence of the theology of promise in Genesis is also shown by the fact that it is not shaped as a theology of the promise of land in the same exclusive manner when it is used in the subsequent books. The theme of the increase of the people is just as important in Genesis as that of the land. To be sure, the increase of the people is verified several times in Exodus 1 (1:7, 9–10, 12, 20), so that the promise of increase no longer has any function after Exodus 1. Still, it is noteworthy that this increase is not interpreted as fulfillment of the promise (see Westermann, Verheissungen, 27).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 106 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

106

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

constitute a meaningful context for the ancestral story as a whole and, indeed, without the continuation of Exodus–Joshua (and following). 2.3.3. Concerning the Literary Sociological Classification 338 Recent scholars have often attempted to interpret the ancestor narratives as family narratives. 339 In fact, some contents of the ancestor narratives easily fit the needs of familial religion. This includes (as supported, for example by Albertz) the promise of a son (which, however, may be explained tradition-historically by the dynastic necessity of the Canaanite city-state of Hebron [Genesis 18]), preservation from danger, protection from superior groups, and so on. 340 However, explaining the ancestor narratives as the product of family religion poses considerable difficulties. The recognizably early stages of the ancestor story (the cycles of Abraham/Lot, Jacob/Esau, and Jacob/Laban) were formed in such a way that they already explained the relationship of Israel to neighboring peoples (to Moab, Ammon, Edom or Aram). The ancestor story does not map the family relationships of tribes. Rather, it maps political relationships of different entities in the image of the relations of ancestral fathers and mothers to one another. 341 Thus, in my opinion, the ancestor narratives should not be considered as having originated in the unofficial 342 popular religion. 343 For in such a milieu, determinations of outward political relationships are not obvious themes such as are exemplified in the ancestors narratives, even in their older strata. 344 The political contents of the ancestor story suggest instead that it should be assigned to a milieu that, in one way or another, was involved in state administration. Römer, 345 in connection with Loretz, has put forth his own hypothesis about the origin of the ancestor story. 346 The written elaboration of the ancestral story is indebted to the “sub338. Concerning the historical classification of the still-independent ancestor story, see the deliberations below in §3.5.5 (pp. 254ff.) about the historical starting point of the literary combination of Genesis and Exodus (and following). 339. See Albertz, Frömmigkeit; idem, History, 1:25–39 (see the self-relativization, 28 n. 18; 250); Hardmeier, WD 16 (1981): 27–47; Oden, JBL 102 (1983): 192; extensive bibliography in Albertz, GAT 8/1 25–26. 340. See the presentation in ibid., 33–39. 341. So primarily Blum, Vätergeschichte. One must object to Albertz (History, 1:44–45) in finding political orientation only in the large-group religion of the Exodus generation. 342. For this distinction, see Albertz, ibid., 1:23–28. Berlinerblau raises fundamental methodological questions about this model of “popular religion” (Berlinerblau, JSOT 60 [1993]: 3–26). 343. See Vorländer, Mein Gott; Westermann, Verheissungen, 151–68; Loretz, JARG 3 (1978): 149– 201; H. Schmid, Jud 36 (1980): 73–87; Worschech, Abraham, 157–79; de Pury, “Tradition patriarcale,” 269; Römer, RTP 125 (1993): 32; idem, “Récits patriarcaux”; van der Toorn, Family Religion, 300. See also Lauha, Geschichtsmotive, 34–35; Clements, Abraham and David, 61–62; Knauf, BZ 29 (1985): 97–103. For non-biblical material with comparison for the “God of the fathers,” see Koch, “Götter.” 344. See also de Pury’s criticism (VTSup 43 [1991], 92 n. 55) of Albertz, Frömmigkeit, 165–98, and Köckert, Vätergott, 157–61, 309–10. 345. Römer, “Récits patriarcaux,” 218. See also van der Toorn, Family Religion, 206–7. 346. Loretz, JARG 3 (1978): 149–201; see also de Moor, UF 27 (1995): 1–20. For a critique of Loretz, see also Wahl, Jakobserzählungen, 135–37.

spread is 12 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 107 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Ancestor Story as an Independent Text Complex

107

limation” of the worship of the dead and the worship of ancestors, which are forbidden347 by Deuteronomism. 348 Together with the Decalogue’s command about parents, the ancestor story forms, according to Römer, a substitute for the ancestor cult.349 In fact, note how much weight the ancestral story gives to the procedures of burial (buying the grave in Genesis 23; 33:19 [see Josh 24:32]; laying a father in the grave in Gen 25:9–10; 35:29; 50:13–14; mourning the dead in Gen 50:10–11; and embalming in Gen 50:2–3, 26). Still, the question of cultic worship of the dead in a preexilic ancestor cult is debated.350 But even if we accept the existence of an ancestor cult, the strict version of Römer’s thesis cannot be maintained whereby the ancestor story was based on older material351 but was recorded in the Persian period as a substitute for the worship of the dead.352 The literary findings in Genesis 12–50 do not allow us to conclude that the contents were merely disparate materials from the preexilic period. Rather, Genesis 12–36 clearly points to already-existing, larger cycles that were then connected to one another and further expanded. It is possible that the ancestral story (later) took on the function of replacing an ancestor cult (but that is hard to demonstrate). However, the ancestor story was not written for this purpose.

Then where should we seek the groups who transmitted the ancestor narratives? With due caution, and following de Pury, we shall investigate the so-called ≈rah μ[. 353 347. Loretz’s suggestion of seeing the “first commandment” as originally being directed toward figurines of “ancestor gods” is quite unconvincing (Loretz, “Ahnen- und Götterstatuen-Verbot,” 506). In his opinion, only later was this commandment expanded to forbid foreign gods completely. 348. See Stolz, Monotheismus, 128–32 (bibliography); Spronk, Afterlife; van der Toorn, BO 48 (1991): 40–66; idem, ZA 84 (1994): 38–59; idem, Family Religion, 206–35; Bloch-Smith, Burial Practices; Loretz, “Ahnen- und Götterstatuen-Verbot,” 503–4; Hutter, Religionen, 150–53; Tropper, Nekromantie, 161–350; see also the thematic issue of TQ 177 (1997), especially the articles by Wenning, van der Toorn, and Podella therein; and Wenning, BiKi 61 (2006): 8–15; Berlejung and Janowski, Tod und Jenseits. 349. Römer (“Récits patriarcaux,” 218–19) even postulates with Lust (VTSup 26 [1974]) among others (see the bibliography in Keulen, Manasseh, 100; see also Podella, “Nekromantie,” 126) an etymological connection between bwa (which according to Römer [219] should be defined as the dead spirit of an ancestor; see also the defining concept in B. B. Schmidt, Dead, 151 [“the One-whoreturns”]) and ba (“father”). This is hardly likely. See Ebach and Rüterswörden, UF 9 (1977): 56–70; UF 12 (1980): 205–20 (bwa is a “thing . . . in the context of an oath to the dead . . . the means of swearing whereby one can attain entry to the underworld” [UF 12 (1980): 205]; H. A. Hoffner, TDOT 1:130–34). 350. See, for example, the skeptical position of B. B. Schmidt, Dead, 275–76. See also the article μyapr (R. Liwak, TDOT 13:602–14). Schmidt points to the forbidding of the worship of the dead and the lack of necromancy and ancestor cult in the preexilic prophetic tradition in Hosea, Amos, and Isaiah. He positions himself against the widely accepted idea that the preexilic cult of the dead and ancestors was suppressed in the postexilic period (so, for example, by Loretz, JARG 3 [1978]: 149–201; Lewis, Cults, 181; Bloch-Smith, Burial Practices 150–51, etc.). For a fundamentally different position, see Lewis, Cults, 171–81; Bloch-Smith, Burial Practices, 108–51; see also the bibliography in Schmidt, Dead, 132 n. 1. Concerning Bloch-Smith, see the critique in Wenning, TQ 177 (1997): 82 n. 1 (bibliography; see also Wenning, BiKi 61 [2006]: 8–15). Wenning accepts a different, mediating position (idem, TQ 177 [1997]: 92). He interprets the archaeologically provable “customs of costumes and adjunctive elements” not as proof of “a life in the grave as a house of the dead that will last until life on the other side. Apparently, [rather,] these served to offer all manner of protection for the powerless and defenseless dead ones during the process of decomposition, a time when the dead still look like a person.” 351. Römer, “Récits patriarcaux,” 225. 352. Ibid., 221. 353. See already H. Schmid, Jud 36 (1980): 73–87; de Pury, VTSup 43 (1991), 92. This position is compatible with Steck (Festschrift von Rad, 146–48, with n. 73) as a redefined source (if one limits J

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 108 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

108

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

The term ≈rah μ[ originally 354 described the Judean landed nobility 355 who held no position that was constitutionally fixed but nevertheless played a highly influential role. To a certain extent, the nobility formed the backbone of the Davidic Dynasty. Unlike royal officials, they were not dependent on the king. In critical moments of the history of Judah, quite the contrary, the endurance of the kingdom depended on them. The ≈rah μ[ accordingly embodied the land interest of Judah and the aristocracy of the Davidic Dynasty. 356 Above all, the nobility’s coup against Mattan, the priest of Baal, and Queen Athaliah (2 Kgs 11:18, 20; see 2 Chr 23:17, 21) shows their Judahite autochthonous roots and the desire to defend Judahite tradition from foreign influence. 357 With the loss of the kingdom in 587 b.c.e., the ≈rah μ[ disappeared. Perhaps those belonging to the ≈rah μ[ were killed (2 Kgs 25:19) or deported (2 Kgs 24:14). Nevertheless, a portion remained in the land (≈rah μ[ tld; the lesser of the ≈rah μ[), who apparently formed the definitive indigenous power base (see Hab 2:4; Zech 7:5). Despite the portrayal in the Hebrew Bible, the land of Israel was not devoid of people during the Exile. 358 Alongside the archaeological finds of the settlement structure of Palestine, the clearest indication of this in the late Babylonian and early Persian period is the prominent rivalries between those returning and those who had remained in the land—rivalries that shaped the postexilic period. 359 Perhaps the Babylonians destroyed the fortified cities, but the unfortified settlements could have continued to exist largely unbothered, so that life in the country continued, as it appears, under the aegis of the ≈rah μ[. Did the particular relationship of the ≈rah μ[ to the kingdom influence the royal 360 depiction of Abraham, as found in the various texts of Genesis (see especially Gen 12:1–3), so that one does not have to interpret this depiction as a reaction to the loss of the kingdom? Within a political organizational structure, in which the ≈rah μ[ and not the royal to Genesis 12–36). Steck classifies J as “countryside Judeans loyal to the king” (see also Weimar, Berufung, 135–36; Zwickel, BZ 36 [1992]: 217). Concerning the ≈rah μ[, see the foundational works of Würthwein, ºam haªarez; Talmon, ≈rah μ[; Seitz, Theology; Gunneweg, ≈rah μ[; Kessler, Staat, 200; Willi, Juda, 11–17, 30–33. It is noteworthy that the expression ≈rah μ[ never appears in Deuteronomy + Joshua. 354. In the postexilic context, the term experienced a decisive reformulation. It described the people who remained in the land (see 2 Kgs 24:14) who had mixed with non-Jews (see Neh 13:23) and who then appear as opponents to the restoration of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9:1–2, 11; 10:2, 11; Neh 10:29, 31–32). It can then be used for the Samaritans (Ezra 4:4), for the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine (Ezra 3:3; 9:1; Neh 9:30; Gen 23:12–13; Num 14:9), or for the Egyptians in Egypt with the meaning “indigenous” in Gen 42:6 (E. Lipinski, TDOT 11:175; see Gunneweg, ≈rah μ[; Willi, Juda, 30–33; Stiegler, Gemeinde, 125–27). 355. According to Würthwein (ºam haªarez, 3), this conceptualization stems from Max Weber (see Levin, Sturz, 67). 356. Willi, Juda, 14; Gunneweg, ≈rah μ[, 29. Levin presents a very different position (Levin, Sturz, 67): the ≈rah μ[ designates not a particular political class but the whole of the Judean citizenry. 357. See E. Lipinski, TDOT 11:175. 358. See Willi, Juda, 18–26; Barstad, Myth; idem, “After.” 359. See my Buchgestalten, 269 n. 319 (bibliography). 360. See Steck, Festschrift von Rad, 146 n. 70; H. H. Schmid, Jahwist, 133–36.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 109 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Ancestor Story as an Independent Text Complex

109

house itself functions as the guarantor of the kingdom, it is easy to suppose that the ancestor Abraham could appear as a royal figure. Furthermore, the important role of the wives of the ancestors appears to depict a sociological reality. The texts show traces of a Queen Mother (hrybg). 361 Even the name hrc, “princess,” shows that Sarah is not simply portrayed as a nomadic figure. The Queen Mother had a prominent position in Judah. With two exceptions, 362 the name and parentage of the mother is given for every king of the Davidic Dynasty. We do not observe a similar phenomenon for the Northern Kingdom. The expression hrybg (“mistress, lady, patron”) describes “a dignity with official character” whose function in the Hebrew Bible can be inferred better from Neo-Assyrian and Ugaritic parallels. 363 She appears to have had significant influence regarding succession to the throne. 364 She could take over the affairs of the regime and economy,365 as well as religious cult functions. 366

2.3.4. Ancestor Narratives and Narratives of the Judges The attribution of the ancestor narratives to the ≈rah μ[ can be demonstrated even more persuasively from another perspective. The Hebrew Bible includes two tradition blocks that thematicize life in premonarchic Israel in the land: the ancestor story of Genesis and the book of Judges. 367 In the final form of the narrative of Genesis–2 Kings these two transmission complexes are divided from one another by the Exodus, Sinai, wilderness wandering, and the occupation of the land. Thus, from the biblical perspective, they represent two distinct epochs of the prehistory of Israel: the ancestral period on the one hand and the period of the judges on the other. However, if the narrative course from Genesis to Judges does not go back to a time before the state (at least as a narrative fiction), then one may assume that Genesis and Judges do not represent two historical epochs separated from one another by two hundred years. Rather, they represent essentially the same long period, the premonarchic period of Israel in its land. What distinguishes Genesis and Judges from one another is their contrasting perspectives. The essential difference between some of the patriarchal narratives in Genesis and the deliverer/judge narratives in Judges may not be that they come from a different day and age but that the former focus on tribal and intertribal relationships (expressed in terms of patriarchal figures, family traditions, and genealogies), while the latter focus on individual leaders and events. 368 361. See Donner, Amt; Ihromi, VT 24 (1974): 421–29; H. Kosmala, TDOT 2:367–82; Willi, Juda, 13. 362. Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:16–24) and Ahaz (2 Kings 16); compare Donner, Art, 2, with n. 7. 363. Ibid., 3. 364. Ibid., 3–4, 6–7. 365. Ibid., 9, 11, 14. 366. Ibid., 17–18. 367. For the following deliberations, it does not matter whether one considers a pre-Deuteronomistic collection of the Judges narratives (see Richter’s book of deliverers; Richter, Untersuchungen; Richter, Bearbeitungen) or assigns the composition of the individual narratives to the Deuteronomist (DtrH; so Becker, Richterzeit, 300). 368. Miller and Hayes, History, 90 (see already Pedersen, Israel, 1–2:13, 16, 28–29); Kratz, Composition, 206; Guillaume, Waiting.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 110 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

110

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

The difference in milieu behind the narratives of Genesis and Judges becomes clear from a cursory reading. At the center of Genesis 12–50 are the patriarchs, who are influential and wealthy sheiks who also associate with foreign royal courts. 369 Judges, however, features a small, hostile, networking group that is sporadically led by a charismatic figure and that must continually resist external threats. If it is true that Genesis 12–50 is somehow related to the influential ≈rah μ[, while the hero narratives in Judges emerged from more charismatic, nationalistic-minded circles, then the difference between Genesis and Judges—as well as their current order inside the historical books—can be explained in terms of different traditions in Israel describing the nonmonarchic period in the land. These different traditions originated in different circles and were only brought into a linear sequence during the course of the composition of Genesis–2 Kings. 370 §3.3.2.c (pp. 199ff.) below will show that the current form of Judges, with the poignant “Deuteronomistic Judges scheme,” is most easily explained by the merger of Genesis and Exodus (and following). Thus, the parallel treatment of Genesis and Judges, with all their differences, can be evaluated as another clue to the special position of Genesis within the historical books. Formulated in the classical vocabulary of the source theory, Genesis is a literary-critically relevant “doublet” to Judges. In addition, the literary-sociological assignation of the ancestor story to the ≈rah μ[ gains a sharp profile if compared with this “doublet.” 2.3.5. Concerning Religio-Historical Typology Even though Alt’s influential theory of the Gods of the fathers 371 must be abandoned, 372 its enduring value lies in the fact that Alt recognized the religion of the forefathers of Israel described in the ancestor narratives of Genesis as a distinct type of religion. Its uniqueness is especially evident in comparison with the subsequent historical books. The presentation of God that shapes the ancestor narratives is overtly inclusive in nature. 373 The patriarchs come into contact with a series of deities during their travels and paths. The deities reveal themselves under different names, and the patriarchs erect cultic places to them at different places. For the reader of Genesis, it is of course clear that behind these deities stands one and the 369. See Thiel, Entwicklung, 14–15 (see also idem, ThV 14 [1985]: 11–27); Albertz, History, 1:29. 370. Here again appear the results of Wahl’s conclusion that Wellhausen was correct, in contrast to Alt and Gunkel, because the Jacob narratives do not stem from the era that they describe (Wahl, Jakobserzählungen, 310–11). Rather, they represent projections backward from the period of the state. If the sequence Genesis–Judges (only the two books) had appeared in the monarchic period, the existence of separate ancestor and Judges narratives would have been inconceivable. 371. See Alt, “God of the Fathers.” 372. See Köckert, Vätergott; Fritz, Festschrift Kaiser (1994), 116; see the overview in Donner, GAT 4/1 90–94. 373. For the difference between “excluding and including identifications,” see Stolz, “Monotheismus Israels,” 41–45; for the ancestor stories, see especially de Pury, “Osée 12”; idem, “Erwägungen”; Kratz, ZTK 94 (1997): 23.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 111 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Ancestor Story as an Independent Text Complex

111

same God (μyhla), namely hwhy. For the actors in the narratives, this is not so clear, and their uncertainty doubtless has a religio-historical background. Behind the ancestor narratives lie stories that originally treated numerous different deities and their sanctuaries as only Yhwh 374 had been treated. 375 In their travels, the ancestors discover what eventually was the result of the tradition, which is the identity of diverse local deities with the one God of Israel. Given the numerous cultic establishments that are described in the ancestral story, Levin proposed that we have a diaspora polemic against the demand for a centralized cult in Deuteronomy 12. The ancestor narratives in their “Yahwistic” (according to Levin) context are organized specifically as anti-Deuteronomic. 376 However, one should not overestimate this conceptual difference redaction-historically. What happens before Moses does not yet necessarily have to correspond to later law in the perspective of the authors of the Hebrew Bible. The narrative flow must be taken into account. Nevertheless, one cannot deny that the multiplicity of cult sites in the Hebrew Bible that must be centralized according to Deuteronomy are presented as the inheritance of the patriarchs. Moses corrects in Deuteronomy what the patriarchs established in Genesis.

Correspondingly, alongside the inclusive conception of God in the ancestor narrative, we must mention the peacefulness of this story. Except for the separate story of Genesis 14, the patriarchal narratives are almost free of military encounters. The ancestors and their dependents engage settlers in the land, ally themselves, and ratify treaties with them. All of these are anathema and forbidden to the conquest generation by Joshua: “You shall make no contract with the inhabitants of the land” ( Judg 2:2; see Exod 34:12, 15; Num 33:52, 55). We may trace a certain part of this disposition, as Rose states, to a “demilitarization” of the ancestor story when it was placed before the national history of Israel from the Exodus to the conquest (see above, §2.2.4, pp. 82ff.). However, it may also be partially explained by the religio-historical origin of the material forming the foundation of the ancestor story: religio-politically, the religion of the ancestor story tended toward integration not elimination. The ancestor narratives thus reflect an essentially autochthonous concept of the assimilative development of Israel’s identity in its land.

374. The name Yhwh in the ancestor story is most clearly present in the Abrahamic story (see the table in Weisman, ZAW 104 [1992]: 180). There is hardly an Abrahamic story without the name Yhwh while, with Weisman, this might be considered a possibility for the Jacob-Esau-Laban cycle. 375. Van Seters (Bib 61 [1980]: 220–33), Köckert (Vätergott), and Fritz (Entstehung, 143–46) have stressed that (contrary to the thesis of Alt, “God of the Fathers”) the archaic-sounding “designations for the ancestral God” in Genesis were not reflexes of an El-deity now melded with Yhwh (see also Zobel, TRE 16:464) that enable the religio-historical reconstruction of an ancestral god religion. Rather, they are from the outset particular appellations of a Yhwh religion. However, I do not believe it has been proven that they do not reflect a religio-historical background for local deities and their sanctuaries. Rather, the different legends of the founding of cults allow us to recognize that the Israelite sanctuaries have a history (see also Donner, GAT 4/1 90–94). 376. Levin, Jahwist, 430–31.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 112 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

112

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

The category of autochthony is valid in a revised perspective even if one holds to the existing form of Genesis, which has Abraham coming from Mesopotamia:377 the book of Genesis reports Abraham’s immigration from Mesopotamia to Canaan (Gen 11:27–32; see 15:7). Yet, the same is true for the progenitor of the neighboring peoples Ammon and Moab—Lot. 378 He came with Abraham from Haran to Palestine, and Edom is traced back to the twin brother of Jacob—Esau. According to the canonical form of Genesis, Israel is just as indigenous to its land as its neighbors, who all together are considered genealogically related. From a literary-historical viewpoint, the autochthony of the ancestor story is presented more clearly. The idea that Abraham and his tribe come from Ur of the Chaldeans and that they come to Canaan by way of Haran is found only in P (Gen 11:27–32) and in Gen 15:7, which takes up 11:28. Also, anyone who is skeptical of assigning this concept to P and who conducts a search for a continuous J division of sources in Gen 11:27–32, must take into account that the Chaldeans as a ruling entity first appeared in the Neo-Babylonian period and are not attested before the seventh century b.c.e. 379 The same is true regarding a close connection between Ur and Haran, which is first plausible in the Neo-Babylonian period. 380 In all probability, the idea that the patriarchs (as with Moses) were not indigenous to the land but were wanderers (this time from Mesopotamia) is a later construction in the wake of the needs of the Babylonian golah that is only attested in P and later.

The identity of Israel according to the ancestor narratives rests on an adequate genealogical derivation. In Gen 29:31–30:24 + 35:16–20 and chap. 49, Israel’s identity is based on belonging to the twelve tribes. 381 The genealogical organization of Israel has graduated levels: the tribes are composed of clans, houses of fathers, and families. In fact, the concepts are never so clearly delineated from one another that their order can be fully determined. 382 It is clear, however, that the entity of Israel according to this conception is defined genealogically and not ideologically. 383 377. See Lemaire, VT 34 (1984): 95–101; see also Maag, “Hirte,” 116 n. 11a; idem, “Malkût,” 152. 378. Precisely in Moab, one can show epigraphically that portions of Israel were conceived as autochthonous from time immemorial. The Mesha Inscription (KAI 181) notes in line 10: “And the people of Gad (dg var) had lived forever (μl[m) in the land of Ataroth (trf[ ≈rab).” 379. See Donner, GAT 4/1 95 with n. 39 (bibliography). 380. See Van Seters, Abraham, 24–25; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 224; Donner, GAT 4/2 95. It is uncertain whether the name of Abraham’s father, Terah, comes from the moon-god (see, for example A. Jeremias, Alte Testament, 340; Koopmans, Joshua 24, 315 n. 255) and thus plays on the moon cult in Haran. In this respect, see the midrashic material on Abraham in Wünsche, Lehrhallen I, 14–45. 381. The time of origin and the religio-historical background of the concept of the twelve tribes have been left open since the breakdown of Noth’s amphictyony hypothesis (see Noth, System; see on the one hand, Koichi, AJBI 2 [1976]: 29–59; Levin, VT 35 (1995): 165–91; Schorn, Ruben, 283; and on the other hand, see Schaper, VT 46 [1996]: 361–74). Schorn recently argued that Genesis 29–30 exemplifies the earliest example of the concept of the twelve tribes, sometime “between the eighth and sixth centuries b.c.e.” (Schorn, Ruben, 81). At any rate, note that tribal systems are not limited only to periods before states; rather, there is a whole series of examples of tribal structures functioning as lower-level government organizational structures (Schorn, Ruben, 55–59, with n. 25). For the number twelve, see Schorn, Ruben, 100–103. 382. See H.-J. Zobel, ThWAT 8:970. 383. Schorn points to the fact that this genealogical coherence need not rest ultimately on an actual genetic connection (Schorn, Ruben, 57). Rather, it can be an expression of a feeling of political association.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 113 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Ancestor Story as an Independent Text Complex

113

What does the concept of the twelve tribes have to do with “a ‘decentralized’ system of an ideal Israel” 384 established in the period after the fall of the Northern Kingdom, when a new meaning for the unity and identity of Israel was necessary? Taking into account the fundamental literary division between Genesis and Exodus (and following), with few exceptions (Deuteronomy 33; Ezekiel 48), this genealogical concept of the identity of Israel plays only a marginal role in either the “Deuteronomistically” shaped literature or in the prophetic books. It seems that the concept of twelve tribes as constituting Israel’s identity is a specific feature of the literarily still-independent Genesis. The “people-of-God” concept of Deuteronomy and the thematically related literature is sharply distinguished from this concept (see further discussion in §2.4.5, pp. 145ff.). It is the Priestly literature, which conceptualizes Israel primarily in terms of the Abrahamic covenant, that broadly reactivates the idea of the twelve tribes (Num 1:5–15; 2:3–31 = 10:14–29; 7:12–83; 26:5–51, etc.)—even though it perhaps appears in secondary text strata. 385 From this point, a further conclusion may be drawn: P first brought the ancestors and Exodus into a sequential relationship. Concerning the religio-historical development of the ancestral story, Moberly believes that the story should be designated as a fundamentally pre-Yahwistic transmission complex that was later “made Yahwistic.” 386 Moberly sees this process of “making” the ancestor story “Yahwistic” from the perspective of Mosaic “Yahwism” analogous to the New Testament’s interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. He therefore labels the ancestor story the “Old Testament” of the Old Testament. The greatest difficulty with this thesis consists in the fact that the ancestral story makes extensive use of the name Yhwh, as Moberly himself recognizes. 387 Yhwh even introduces himself as Yhwh in Genesis (15:7; 28:13). Moberly devotes an entire chapter to the question, “Why is the name Yhwh used in Genesis?” 388 which he answers as follows: “The use of the name Yhwh in Genesis conveys the perspective of the storytellers who tell the originally non-Yahwistic patriarchal stories from within the context of Mosaic Yahwism.” 389 Moberly sees the frequent use of the divine epithet μyhla instead of the name hwhy in Genesis (traditionally assigned to E and P) as a conscious recognition that “God” in Genesis was not always the same as Yhwh. 390 A few instances of hwhy are still clearly

384. Ibid., 99. 385. Albertz, TRE 16:376–77. 386. Moberly, Old Testament; see Moberly, Genesis 12–50, 15, 75, etc.; see also Eslinger on Moberly (Eslinger, Exod 6:3, 191–93). 387. Moberly, Old Testament, 36, 38–39; Eslinger counts 148 examples of Yhwh in Genesis, of which 96 may be attributed to the narrative level (Eslinger, Exod 6:3, 190). 388. Moberly, Old Testament, 36–78. 389. Ibid., 36; see pp. 45, 78. The reference to Ibn Ezra on p. 37 n. 2 is noteworthy. He mentions a Rabbi Joshua, who was of the opinion that all of the places mentioning Yhwh in Genesis were added by Moses. Concerning the oldest explicit designation of Moses as the author of Genesis, see Beckwith, Canon, 173 n. 66. Spinoza also expressed the view (in his Tractatus theologico-politicus) that the author of the Pentateuch presented the God-worship of the ancestors as Yhwh-worship (Moberly, Old Testament, 37–38 n. 3). 390. Ibid., 39.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 114 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

114

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

recognizable as additions; 391 Moberly maintains the substance of the ancestor story to be very old—the oldest traditions stem from the time in which they are set.392 In their own way, the ideas of Moberly repeat what Alt set forth in “the God of the Fathers.” Behind the ancestor story, there is a historically recognizable form of religion that did not yet have anything to do with the Yhwh worship of the Hebrew Bible. Alt and Moberly differ in that Moberly sees not only the historical backgrounds but also the literary traditions of the essential threads of the ancestor story as belonging to this pre-Yahwistic religion. The concrete literary-historical image that Moberly puts forth about the development of Genesis and its “exclusively monotheistic” interpretation—namely, through Exodus 3–4 and Exodus 6 —is hardly plausible. A series of recent investigations have shown that the redactional processes shaping Genesis extend well into the late period of the Hebrew Bible and they are more incisive than Moberly is prepared to accept. At the same time, Moberly (and Alt) is fundamentally correct in what he sees: behind Genesis lies a distinct type of religion that should be distinguished from the type of religion behind Exodus–Numbers/ Deuteronomy and that has its own literary history, at least for some time. However, both types of religion concern Yhwh religion (though apparently not from the beginning for the ancestor story). They existed simultaneously alongside one another and do not, as Moberly suggests, form two stages following one after the other. For this reason, the characterization of the ancestor story by Moberly as the “Hebrew Bible” of the Hebrew Bible is not convincing. One also must consider that the theological significance of the ancestor story does not derive merely from the Moses/Exodus story. Rather, the promises of land to the three ancestors as an oath in Exodus–Deuteronomy show that not only has Genesis been interpreted from the point of view of Exodus but Genesis itself provides a theological position to which Exodus–Numbers/Deuteronomy must defer.393

2.3.6. The Ancestor Story as Israel’s Tradition of Its Origins How should we more specifically categorize the independent ancestor story form-critically? 394 In conjunction with de Pury, Römer, and Weinfeld, the concept of the “tradition of origins” might be suggested, but it needs more precise clarification. 395 It touches on the concept of the election tradition that was so dominant in earlier research, though this concept was also problematic. It was inspired by dialectic theology (though essentially unstated) and conversely also influenced it:396 Yhwh’s action toward Israel is essentially an act of election; and Israel is conscious of its special position in the ancient Near East from the very beginning. Galling already described the Exodus and ancestor stories as two different “election traditions.” However, the catchword “election” (rjb) used for the relationship of Yhwh to Israel only plays a very modest role both in Genesis and in Exodus 391. Ibid., 43–44. 392. Ibid., 194, 198. See the dialogue with Lemche, Thompson, Van Seters, and Köckert, on pp. 191ff. 393. See below, §3.6.5. 394. The form-critical analysis called for in literary-critical reconstruction is a methodological step often neglected. For the Pentateuch, see earlier especially von Rad (Hexateuch) and recently Van Seters (Van Seters, Jahwist; Prologue, 8–23, 328–33; Life, 457–68). 395. Weinfeld, “Promises,” 353–54; idem, Land (“foundation story”; see also Thompson, Origin Tradition). Weinfeld points to the Greek and Roman Ktisis legends as an analogy. 396. For an overview, see Koch, TRE 10:202–5; see also Patrick, ABD 2:434–41.

spread is 6 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 115 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Ancestor Story as an Independent Text Complex

115

(and following), which is not surprising. 397 “Election” presupposes a concept of universality: since Yhwh is the God of the entire world, God can chose one people. However, this concept is not attested before Isaiah 40–55—even the Jerusalem cult tradition must here be excluded. The choice does not refer to the people, but to the king, temple, and city. Further, the thesis of a fundamental break in tradition between preexilic Israel and its surroundings cannot be maintained historically in a way that would explain its “election consciousness.” The fact that the religion of Israel is primarily a national Near Eastern religion like that of its neighbors becomes ever clearer through religio-historical research into the Hebrew Bible. 398

The genre of the “tradition of origins,” when applied to Israel, describes a tradition of election that constitutes the founding identity and the inception of Israel. Direct possibilities for comparison with the “tradition of origins” cannot be found in the neighboring cultures of Israel. The existence of a people in its territory did not require explanation in the ancient Near East. The Hebrew Bible itself offers the best example of another “tradition of origins” in the Moses/Exodus story, which must be treated in more detail in what follows (see below, §2.4, pp. 117ff.). A certain model from ancient Near Eastern literature may have existed in the form of the report of a military campaign that legitimates the annexation of a certain area.399 One can also point to building inscriptions and legends of the founding of the cult that serve to legitimate certain institutions, especially sanctuaries. For Mesopotamia, one can even observe, with respect to genre, how the historical tradition developed from the inauguration and building inscriptions. 400

“Traditions of origins” are more closely definable from a functional perspective by paying attention to the particular understanding of time—an understanding that fundamentally distinguishes between primal time and current time. 401 This understanding of time traditionally applies to what is structured as “mythic” and is for this reason largely unobserved in the Hebrew Bible. 402 The Hebrew Bible has been deemed essentially “myth free” for more than an entire era of research as a result of theological fear of contact with the idea of myth. It is obvious that one can gain little by beginning with the traditional definition of myth as a “story of gods” 403 that is characterized by the way “it lets gods act and that its stage lies 397. For rjb, see Wildberger, “Neuinterpretation”; Seebass, TDOT 2:73–87. Similar things can be said of the concepts [dy and hnq that Galling mentions (Galling, Erwählungstraditionen, 3). 398. See, for examples, the overview in Weippert, Synkretismus; Stolz, Monotheismus; Hartenstein, VF (2003): 2–28. 399. For example, see the material in R. Borger, TUAT 1:354–410. 400. See Gese, “Geschichtliches Denken,” 84, with n. 10. 401. See also Dalferth, “Gott und Zeit,” 245–47 (concerning the implications of his conclusions for Christian understandings of time, see Koch, “Qädäm,” 278–80). 402. For the fundamental problem of defining a myth, which cannot and must not be entered here, see the discussion in Huppenbauer, Mythos, 88–89, with n. 112; Stolz, “Umgang,” 82; Burkert, HWP 6, 282 (concerning myth as “traditional narrative”); Dalferth, Mythos, 13–35 (bibliography, 28 n. 33). Concerning the use of the concept of myth in the study of the Hebrew Bible, see Hartlich and Sachs, Ursprung; Rogerson, Myth; Petersen, Mythos, 1–19; H.-P. Müller, Jenseits; idem, ZTK 80 (1983): 1–25; Oden, ABD 4:946–56; Soggin, Genesis, 2–3; see the literature in JBT 4 (1989): 337–39. 403. The famous definition of myth in Gunkel, Genesis, xii (see also Schmidt, Old Testament Introduction, 62).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 116 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

116

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

on the other side of space and time.” 404 The Hebrew Bible offers no “stories of gods” because the vast majority of its texts know only one acting God, Yhwh, and this God does not act on the other side of time and space, but within history.405 Strict limits are placed on the written traditions of Israel by the assumption of monotheism under which the Hebrew Bible was written and edited. In contrast to other cultures of the ancient Near East, as often noted, in Israel one does not find the stories of gods at the beginning of the world but stories of the people’s own experiences which are, obviously, interpreted as the story of God. 406

The evidence of the Hebrew Bible does not mean, however, that the concept of myth is irrelevant for describing the thought world of the Hebrew Bible. If the category of myth is defined from a functional perspective, 407 then we may observe a fundamental impulse to establish orders of life. Facts are explained by narratives concerning origins. Precisely this function is central to the traditions of origins in the ancestor story and the Moses/Exodus story. Thus, from a functional perspective, we can also speak of these as origin “myths.” Departure and conquest are even events of the “founding primal period” 408 that are explicitly characterized in Mic 7:20; Isa 51:9; Pss 44:2; 74:2; 77:12; 78:2. 409 At the same time, the etiologies and the cult establishments in the ancestor narratives explain the life of the time. 410 At the center of the “tradition of origins” lay the way it traced the current life relationships, order, and desires to specific origins that established them back in the ancient past. The ancestor story grounded the identity of Israel as a people of twelve tribes in a land that was given by God to their forefathers. It also explains their relationship to the neighboring peoples of Ammon, Moab, Edom, Aram (and, in later additions, even to Egypt). 2.3.7. Summary The following can be maintained: the ancestor story of Genesis *12–50 may be understood as an independent narrative complex apart from the Priestly portions and the texts that link it to Exodus (Genesis 15; 48:21; 50:24–25). It establishes its own understanding of the existence of Israel in its land. Textually, it encompasses the following texts, approximately determined: Gen *12–13; 411 *16; *18–19; 412 404. Gressmann, RGG 4:618; for comparable content, see Van Seters, Yahwist, 66 (see also the references mentioned there in n. 1). For the question of the connection between myth and ritual, see the discussion in Petersen, Mythos, 31–32 with n. 61; H.-P. Müller, ZTK 80 (1983): 9–10 with n. 24. 405. See, however, the discussion of the Yhwh kingship psalms in Jeremias, Königtum Gottes (compare the critique of Janowski, ZTK 86 [1989]: especially pp. 406–7; Koch, “Qädäm,” 261 n. 37). 406. See idem, TRE 12:572. Koch shows that these “primal” presentations of Israel are themselves mythically structured (idem, “Qädäm”). 407. See the foundational works of Malinowski, Myth; and Eliade, Sacred and Profane, 95; Zenger, VTSup 32 (1981), 473; Pannenberg, Christentum; idem, “Mythos,” 111–12; Stolz, “Umgang”; Koch, “Qädäm,” 252; for a history of scholarship, see Hübner, Mythos, 48–92. 408. Concerning this term, see Koch, “Qädäm,” 252. 409. See Pannenberg, Christentum, 32 n. 59; Koch, “Qädäm,” 254. 410. The decisive question here is whether or not the ancestral narrative was already introduced by the primeval story that laid out the corresponding orders of life for humanity. The literary result here, however, is too unclear to allow definitive statements. See §2.5.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 117 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Moses/Exodus Story as an Independent Text Complex

117

*21; (*22?); 413 *25:19ff.; *26; *27–33; 414 *35; *37; 415 *39–45; 416 *46:28ff.; *47; *49; *50 (minus 50:8b, 14, 22–26). Thus, Genesis *49 functions as the order for the life of the tribes in the land as the prominent high point before Genesis *50. The independent ancestor story was held together redactionally and was theologically shaped by its promises. It represents open-ended promise theology that is not conceived from the outset as a narrative line of promise and fulfillment. Rather, it speaks to the present time of the reader. It is very difficult to decide and must remain an open question whether or not the ancestor story was already introduced by a primeval story before being combined with Exodus (and following); see the discussion below, in §2.5.

2.4. The Moses/Exodus Story as an Independent Text Complex The Hebrew Bible (and with it the majority of the extant ancient reports about Israel 417 ) portrays the origin of Israel as the Exodus from Egypt, 418 although the first book of the Bible is Genesis and not Exodus. 419 The Exodus from Egypt forms the content of a series of confessions, on the basis of which Israel’s connection to Yhwh can be described (for example, Exod 13:14; 20:2; 29:46; 32:4; Lev 19:36; 22:33; 25:38, 55; 26:13; Num 24:8; Deut 5:6; 6:20–24; 1 Kgs 12:28; Isa 43:16–19; 63:11–14; Jer 2:4–6; 16:14–15; 23:7–8; 32:21; Hos 11:1–2; 12:10; 13:4; Amos 3:1–2; 9:7; Dan 9:15; and many others). In addition, the etiological formula “from the day of the Israelites’ going up from/leading out of Egypt to this day” ( Judg 19:30; 1 Sam 8:8; 2 Sam 7:6; 2 Kgs 21:15) 420 or the historicizing 411. For Gen 12:10–20, see above, §2.1.1.d. Gen 13:1 is a redactional bridge verse. 412. Without Gen 18:17–19, 20a–33 (see Blum, Vätergeschichte, 400–405 [bibliography]; Levin, Jahwist, 168–70; Ben Zvi, JSOT 53 [1992]: 27–46; Soggin, Festschrift Kaiser [1994], 214–18, bibliography). 413. See the considerations of Blum, who opts for the inclusion of Genesis 22 in his Vätergeschichte 2 (Blum, Vätergeschichte, 328–31); however, others discuss a much later period of origin, such as Alexander, JSOT 25 (1983): 17–22; Veijola, ZTK 85 (1988): 155; Levin, Jahwist, 175–77; K. Schmid, Festschrift Kaiser. 414. For Genesis 34, see Levin, Jahwist, 263; otherwise, Blum, Vätergeschichte, 210–23. 415. For Genesis 38, see Krüger, “Genesis 38” (bibliography). 416. For the source-criticism of Genesis *37–50, see the literature above in §2.1.1.a (pp. 50ff.). 417. See below, §4.2.11 (pp. 321ff.). 418. See the compiled material in Smend, “Auszug,” 28–37; but also Noth, HPT, 47, 49 (“primal confession”; the theme of the leading out of Egypt, according to Noth, should even be seen as common Israelite origins [see the critique in Gunneweg, ZTK 61 (1964): 5 n. 12]); von Rad, Old Testament Theology 1:175–76; Lubsczyk, Auszug; Norin, Meer; R. Schmitt, Exodus, 15; Kreuzer, Frühgeschichte; idem, “Identität”; Koch, TRE 12:573–74; Levin, Verheissung, 48–50; Eslinger, “Freedom,” 187–88; Redford, Egypt, 408–9; Kitchen, ABD 2:701; Loewenstamm, Exodus, 53–68; Rendtorff, Festschrift Brekelmans. 419. Durham opens his Exodus commentary with the provocative sentence: “The Book of Exodus is the first book of the Bible” (Durham, WBC 3 xxix, xxiii). 420. See Koch, TRE 12:574; Gross offers a classification of the various formulas (Gross, ZAW 86 [1974]: 425–53). For references in Deuteronomy, see Kreuzer, “Exodustradition.”

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 118 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

118

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

meaning of the Passover and Matzah Festival, 421 the Festival of Weeks, 422 and the Festival of Booths 423 as recalling the events in conjunction with the departure from Egypt show that the Exodus served as the decisive event of origin to which Israel owed its character as God’s people. The reference to Yhwh as the one who led Israel out of Egypt is much more common in the Hebrew Bible than Yhwh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This clear witness in the Hebrew Bible entails historical implications that allow for the observations put forth above in §2.1 and §2.2: there is an important line of research—leading from Galling and Noth to Rendtorff and Blum—that takes into account an originally independent narrative (whether oral or written) that reported only the Exodus of Israel from Egypt and that did not originally follow the ancestral story of Genesis. At the same time, it remains difficult to explain how the leading out of Egypt is conceptualized without the prelude of the ancestor story and the Joseph story, which function as an Eisodos tradition. Is Donner correct that “in order to be able to leave Egypt one must first have wandered into it”? 424 Or, is an Exodus story conceivable without an Eisodos? Here we must differentiate further: is an Exodus narrative imaginable by itself without the preceding ancestor story when the reader knows nothing about the prehistory contained in this narrative? In other words, is it possible to begin a narrative with the Exodus from Egypt without any knowledge on the reader’s part concerning the ancestral story? The assumption that the Exodus narrative originally was an independent oral narrative that (however) conceptually presupposed the reader’s knowledge of the ancestral story created no problems for the classical Documentary Hypothesis: the Exodus narrative is a separate tradition complex that connects to the “prelude” of the ancestor story, just as expressed in “the historical creed”—that is, “existing from the oldest times.” 425 Noth goes even further by observing that the oral version of the themes “leading out of Egypt” and “leading into the cultivated land,” on the one hand, and the “promise to the ancestors,” on the other hand, are more or less conceptually independent of one another. They are only secondarily connected to one another based on the common focus on the “possession of the cultivated land”; thus, the promises to the ancestors have now been placed before the Exodus-conquest tradition, creating the arc of promise and fulfillment in the Hexateuch. 426 Thus, dividing up the ancestors and the Exodus is simply common sense for the classic Pentateuch hypothesis about the oral form of the stories from the ancestors to the conquest. In fact, in the stricter sense put forward by Noth, the 421. Deut 16:3; Exod 12:27; 13:8, 14. 422. Deut 16:12. 423. Lev 23:43. For the entirety, see Noth, “Historisierung,” 37; Koch, TRE 12:573. 424. Donner, GAT 4/1 98. 425. Von Rad, Hexateuch, 3. 426. See Noth, HPT, 56, with n. 176.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 119 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Moses/Exodus Story as an Independent Text Complex

119

theme of the “leading out of Egypt” originally had nothing to do conceptually with the ancestors’ traditions. My earlier arguments concerning the literary division of the ancestors and the Exodus—that is, Genesis and Exodus (and following)—create doubt that there ever was an original written form of a narrative beginning with the Exodus from Egypt that was originally introduced by Genesis. Rather, a number of observations suggest that on the pre-Priestly level there was not only an oral but also a literary Exodus story that was independent of Genesis. So one must ask, can a literarily independent narrative that began not with Genesis but with Exodus be reconstructed in the historical books of the Hebrew Bible? And how would such a narrative have appeared before its combination with Genesis? It is obvious that at this point only the broad outlines of such a larger narrative can be established. To this point, research on the developmental history of Exodus (and following) has still not produced any consensus-building theses. To no small degree, as von Rad lamented, this is because of the dependence upon Genesis research, which all too frequently misjudged the character of Exodus (and following) over against Genesis.427 This much can be observed: compared with Genesis, the narratives in Exodus–Joshua have an amazing consistency with respect to the place, time, and protagonists.428 The actors remain largely the same, and the events follow meaningfully upon one another, and in fact, presuppose each preceding book’s content in many respects.429 The strong coherence of the Moses traditions is also demonstrated in that no clear structural divisions appear in the narrative material in Exodus–Joshua. 430 Noth admitted that, of the originally independent main themes of the Pentateuch traditions, the theme of “leading in the wilderness” (to which a large part of the transmission of Exodus–Numbers is assigned) “could not function, strictly speaking, as an independent theme”: “In any case, it presupposes the themes of ‘leading out of Egypt’ and ‘leading into the cultivated land.’ ‘Leading into the wilderness’ draws on both.” 431 For Smend also, the division of the “leading out of Egypt” and the “leading into the cultivated land” “appears somewhat artificial.”432 Rendtorff, too, is uncertain about the delineation of “larger units” in the Pentateuch after the primeval story (Genesis 1–11) and the ancestor story (Genesis 12–50): “various suggestions have been made for delimiting larger units in the subsequent books of the Pentateuch.”433 From Exodus onward, divisions for the narrative material do not appear obvious. Thus, it is entirely correct that a successive growth of the individual narratives into narrative cycles as in Genesis is rejected. Rather, we should presume a continuous Moses/Exodus story as the foundation behind the present shape of the text of Exodus (and following).

427. Von Rad, EvT 31 (1971): 581; see above, §2.2.11 (pp. 90ff.). 428. See Blum, Pentateuch, 215–16. 429. See already Gressmann, Mose, 386 (see the differentiation in pp. 384–85, 386–87, as well as the historical conclusions of pp. 436, 438). 430. For the laws in Exodus–Deuteronomy, see preliminarily below, §3.6.2 (pp. 265ff.). 431. Noth, HPT, 58. See also Fritz, Israel, 2–3. Today, we would also pass a similar judgment on the “revelation at Sinai” that Noth defined as an independent theme because he like von Rad saw this tradition complex as a festival legend for a festival of making or renewing a covenant (Noth, HPT, 59–60). 432. Smend, “Jahwekrieg,” 185–86; see Gunneweg, TRu 50 (1985): 121. 433. Rendtorff, Problem, 22; see also idem, Überlegungen, 70–79.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 120 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

120

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

It is not clear how this story would have looked. Winnett attempts to ascertain an independent Moses narrative, 434 which he saw as the only pre-Priestly narrative thread in Exodus and Numbers. In the German-speaking world, reconstructions of a Moses narrative stand in the shadow of the Documentary Hypothesis. Where extended contexts have been identified, as a rule they are assigned to the sources ( J, E, P) with their literary horizon extending across Genesis at least as far as Numbers, since by definition, it is the sources that created the narrative flows. 435 In isolated cases, some source texts have been reconstructed that precede the large sources ( J, E, P), but these earlier source texts necessarily remain fragmentary because of the underlying value placed on the Documentary Hypothesis.436 This fundamental problem remains in recent literature. In his monograph on the development of the Pentateuch, Blum primarily limits his handling of Exodus–Numbers and Deuteronomy to highlighting what he believes is the main compositional layer, Kd. Thus, Blum maintains that there was probably already an elaborate Exodus story before the combination of Genesis and Exodus that was not introduced by the ancestor story. It likely began “with Israel in Egypt and the Exodus, and then encompassed the wilderness period and the stop at the mountain of God. . . . In this sense it was a Moses narrative from which Kd could draw (along with the ancestor story) as the most important source material.”437 However, Blum never examines how this source material should be described.438 As with similar treatments, this source material must be fragmentary, because for Blum, the compositional pillars in Exodus–Numbers are assigned to Kd. Römer follows Blum in accepting that Exodus–Numbers439 is a constructed life of 434. Winnett, Mosaic Tradition (see viii, 173–206). 435. See Auerbach, Moses, 8–9; Fohrer, Überlieferung; H. Schmid, Mose; Schart, Mose. 436. See Meyer, Israeliten, 46–49; Gressmann, Mose; Fritz, Israel, 135–36; Weimar and Zenger, Exodus. 437. Blum, Pentateuch, 216–17. This postulate is, however, already relativized in advance. “The sections of Exodus 1–14(15) and Exodus 19–34 are certainly impressively and compositionally ‘rounded out,’ but as we saw, this occurred in the redactional shaping of the larger composition. The sections thus marked have hardly any diachronic significance beyond their synchronic structural meaning” (p. 215). One should inquire further about this “hardly.” 438. See ibid., 42 and the methodological considerations on p. 41 n. 155 concerning the fluid borders of “transmission history” (for Blum’s use of the term, see Vätergeschichte, 2 n. 3) and “tradition history.” “Between the two poles of knowing content and transmitting a text fixed in its wording, one can envision an infinitely varied spectrum of possible means of reception.” At this point, the methodological divergence as well as the results of the two main works of Blum (Vätergeschichte and Pentateuch) are recognizable, which Van Seters already pointed out (JBL 111 [1992]: 122–24). Blum’s literary conclusion about Genesis are processed and presented in a distinctly different manner from conclusions about Exodus–Numbers. That could be caused, however, not merely by Blum’s growing skepticism (see Pentateuch, 214 n. 35) but also by the different literary character of Genesis on the one hand and Exodus–Numbers on the other hand. Perhaps Genesis actually does look back on a longer literary prehistory than Exodus–Numbers (as Blum himself notes in Komposition, 213–14)? Recently, Blum has significantly altered his opinion on Kd; see idem, “Verbindung.” 439. The present literary position of the death of Moses, after the promulgation of the Deuteronomic law, is not original. The broad distance between the announcement of the death of Moses in Num 27:12–23 and his death itself in Deuteronomy 34 stands out. “We may detect in the subsequent narrative in Numbers a note almost of embarrassment that Moses is still alive (e.g., ‘Avenge what the Midianites have done to the people of Israel; then you will be gathered to your people,’ Num 31:2)” (Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 229). This gulf is explained by the construction of Deuteronomy (see, for example, Noth, CH, 121–22, 146–47; idem, HPT, 19 n. 61; Blum, Pentateuch, 227; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 229–32; and below, §2.4.7). Thus Num 27:12–23 is repeated in a varied form once again in Deut 32:48ff. (earlier, this usually considered P; but see arguments to the contrary [Perlitt, ZAW

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 121 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Moses/Exodus Story as an Independent Text Complex

121

Moses, 440 the origin of which he dates to the 7th century b.c.e. 441 What this Moses narrative looked like literarily is still undetermined. Levin suggests that a Moses story lies at the literary forefront of his J, traces of which can still be recognized in Exod 2:1–23*; 4:20a, but which then breaks off.442 One might ask, however, whether this “break” is discerned because the compositionally key texts that follow are assigned to the “Yahwist,” which by definition has a tetrateuchal parameter. 443 Weimar and Zenger, as well as Knauf, attempt to work out the oldest exodus story.444 Their (starkly diverging) literary criticism is, however, methodologically problematic because they only inquire about the oldest layer. They offer no redaction-historical counterproof for the development of the existing form of the text.445 At least methodologically more enlightening is the suggestion of Albertz, who presents a multi-stage developmental model for Exodus 1–15 that relies on Blum’s Pentateuch model but also “tentatively” inquires what lies behind Kd. 446 Albertz recognizes the further preliminary stages of a “no longer completely preserved plague and Exodus narrative . . . from the exilic period” in the following: 447 Exod 1:9–12; 448 1:15–2:23aa; 4:19–20a, 24–26(?); 5:1–2 (3–19), 20– 21; *7:14–12:39 449 (without Kp and Kd); 13:17–19:21–22; *14; 15:1aa (1ab,b–18), 20– 21 as well as “the rest of a Moses narrative” in 1:9–12, 15–2:23aa; 4:19–20a, 24–26(?) . . . 5:3–19(?) . . . 14:5a(?), which belongs to the Northern Kingdom during the reign of Jeroboam I. 450 Apart from problematic questions of detail that should be discussed carefully, this model is also only processed in fragmentary fashion. For example, Exod 13:19 certainly has a broader horizon than just the plagues through the exodus narrative.451

Fischer presented the thesis, similarly to earlier scholars (who, however, worked with source-critical reductions), 452 that a self-contained “narrative” is found in Exodus 1–15. 453 Actually, Exodus 1–15 can fairly clearly be recognized as a unit with a certain degree of inner coherence. The so-called Song of the (Reed) Sea in 100 (1988 supplement): 72–76]). At any rate, it seems likely that the death of Moses appeared in the immediate literary vicinity of its announcement and of the deaths of Miriam (Num 20:1) and Aaron (Num 20:22–29). 440. Römer, ZAW 109 (1997): 4; idem, Transeu 13 (1997): 52–53, 59. 441. Römer (ZAW 109 [1997]: 4 n. 17) points to the popularity of the Sargon legends in the New Assyrian period and sees close connections between Exodus 1 and the tower construction narrative of Genesis 11, which he places in the same time period, along with Uehlinger, Weltreich. 442. Levin, Jahwist, 392. 443. Ibid., 9. 444. Weimar and Zenger, Exodus, 22–27; Knauf, Midian, 125ff. 445. Concerning Weimar and Zenger and Knauf, see also Utzschneider, Atem, 78 n. 138. 446. Albertz, History, 1:42–43. 447. Ibid., 43. 448. Corrected in the English translation; see ibid. 449. Albertz joins Otto (VT 26 [1976]: 3–27) in concluding that the exodus narrative “runs toward the founding of the Matzah festival” (Albertz, History, 1:35 n. 47, 253). 450. Ibid., 43. 451. See Gen 50:24–25; Josh 24:32; see extensively below, §3.3.1. 452. In addition to Gressmann, Mose, 387–88; see also Pedersen, ZAW 52 (1934): 167; von Rad, “Moseerzählung”; Rendtorff, Problem, 22; Isbell, “Exodus 1–2”; Gunn, “Hardening.” See further, those with limitations: Knauf, Midian; Utzschneider, Atem; Fohrer, Überlieferung. 453. Fischer, ZKT 117 (1995): 203–11; idem, BETL 126 (1996), 149–78; idem, Bib 77 (1996): 32–47. See also Deist, OTE 2/3 (1989): 36–52.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 122 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

122

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

Exodus 15 454 creates a clear break in conjunction with the summary in 14:30–31 before the narrative threads of the book of Exodus continue. 455 It remains questionable, however, whether Exodus 1–15 was once an independent narrative or whether it was separated from its context by the incorporation of the caesura in Exodus 15 (see below, §3.4.2.d, pp. 221ff.). The radical solution of Fischer, to interpret Exodus 1–15 in its existing form as a self-contained narrative is confusing because of the clear points of reference forward and backward (such as Exod 3:12 or 13:19), relating Exodus 1–15 to larger literary contexts. 456 Exodus 1–15 in its current form is part of a larger narrative. 2.4.1. Exodus without Eisodos? We have already noted that the independence of the exodus theme at the preliterary stage was also recognized in the classical Documentary Hypothesis. How can we support this independence more precisely, especially when the evidence shows that it was also maintained in the literary realm? Outside Genesis–Exodus, the Hebrew Bible knows both the idea that Jacob (and his sons) went to Egypt (Num 20:15; Josh 24:4; 1 Sam 12:8; Deut 10:22; 26:5) 457 and the idea that the predecessors of Israel simply lived in Egypt (Deut 6:21–23; Ezek 20:5ff.; Amos 2:10; Hos 2:17; 11:1ff.; 12:10, 14; 13:4; Pss 78:12ff.; 106:6–8; 136:10–15). 458 The Joseph story is presupposed or mentioned only in Ps 105:18–23. Deut 6:12–13 is particularly clear and can even be perceived as a catechetical passage: 459

454. See Zenger, VTSup 32 (1981), 453; Fischer, Bib 77 (1996): 37–40, 43–46; Houtman, Exodus 2, 240–47; and below, §3.4.2.d. 455. See also the whole inclusio between hl[ Qal and μjl Niphal in Exod 1:10 / Exod 13:18; 14:14, 25 (see Utzschneider, Atem; 49–50 [see 68 n. 120]; Rupprecht, ZAW 82 [1970]: 442–47). 456. In this respect, see also the material in Blum, Pentateuch, 102–7. Fischer’s argument against P in Exodus 1–15 is not convincing (Fischer, ZKT 117 [1995]: 210). If (the embedding of ) P was not the last redactional stage of Exodus 1–15 (see the recent work of Otto, BETL 126 [1996], 61–111), then, if we were to remove P, Exodus 1–15 would not provide a complete narrative. Concerning the literary-historical origins of the Moses story see now also Gertz, Tradition, 379; Kratz, Composition, 279–95; Otto, “Mose”; idem, Moses. With these contributions, to be sure, the discussion on the literary shape of a pre-Priestly Moses story is not yet closed. Gertz has to reckon with a breakup of this narrative after Exod 4:24–26. Kratz proposes a fully reconstructed story from Exodus 2 to Joshua 12 (p. 294) which, however, shows some severe inconsistencies, for example, in Joshua 2–3, and his assignment of (parts of ) Deut 34:5–6 to this story is dubious both from a literary-critical and a methodological point of view. Otto’s reconstruction of his earliest literarily-fixed Moses story culminates in the promulgation of (some of ) the laws in Exodus 34. This text, however, is probably a late epitome of the Covenant Code (see Carr, “Method”). 457. See de Pury, VTSup 43 (1991), 83; Soggin, GI, 94–95. It is noteworthy that none of the patriarchal names appears in Deut 10:22 and 26:5. 458. We should also note the passages in the Hebrew Bible that speak about Yhwh’s “finding” Israel in the wilderness (Deut 32:10; Jer 2:2; Ezek 16:1ff.; Hos 9:10; 10:11; 13:5). The suggestion that we should reconstruct a particular “founding tradition” from this has correctly not been heeded (Bach, Erwählung; see Wolff, BKAT 14/1 212–13). 459. See the bibliography in Römer, Väter, 236 n. 1228; and de Pury and Römer, “Mémoire.”

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 123 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Moses/Exodus Story as an Independent Text Complex

123

And you shall say to your sons: We were slaves in the house of Pharaoh in Egypt, but Yhwh led us out of Egypt with a strong hand. And Yhwh worked great and awesome signs and wonders before our eyes against Egypt, Pharaoh, and his entire household. 460

The second group mentioned above shows that it was also possible for the Hebrew Bible to speak about the origins of Israel in Egypt without the notion of an Eisodos. 461 This view is not that the Israelites were originally Egyptians; 462 Israel is portrayed as being its own ethnic entity. Rather, it is a well-attested fact that from the beginning of the second millennium b.c.e. the area around the Nile Delta was populated by a large number of Asians. 463 At this point it is necessary to address the much discussed problem of the “Hebrews.”464 It is striking that the word μyrb[, which appears 35 times 465 in the Hebrew Bible, is mentioned primarily in Exodus. 466 Gen 6

Exod 14

Deut 2

1 Sam 8

1 Chr 1

Jer 3

Jonah 1

460. For the oath of the fathers mentioned in Deut 6:23, see Römer, Väter, 235–39. 461. See Utzschneider, Atem, 78. Differently, see Sarna, Exploring, 5. However, without giving a reason, he states, “While the book [i.e., Exodus] is more or less a self-contained literary unit, it is incomprehensible except as a sequel to the Book of Genesis.” For the narrative beginnings in Akkadian epics, see Wilcke, ZA 67 (1977): 153–216. 462. The Hebrew Bible also contains traces of the approach attested in Manetho, which identifies the Israelites as Egyptians (Stern, Authors, 78–83). First, the daughters of Reuel believe Moses was an “Egyptian” (Exod 2:19). This, however, must be interpreted within the fiction of the narrative. It is quite notable, however, that in Exod 5:16 the foreman of the Israelites objects to the Pharaoh that he “sinned against his people,” and the oppressed Israelites seem to be the object (“his people”). However, the text is uncertain here (see W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 244), and the possibility (even if forced) remains for understanding the verse as seeing Pharaoh as sinning against “his people,” meaning the Egyptians, in that he lets them “beat” the Israelites (see the review in idem, BKAT 2/2 244). 463. See Albright, JAOS 74 (1954): 222–23; Schneider, UF 19 (1987): 255–82; Bietak, “Canaanites”; de Pury, VTSup 43 (1991), 82–83 with reference to LÄ 6:331–32; Donner, GAT 4/1 97–102; Zenger, TRE 23:334–35; de Moor, Festschrift Gibson, 215. For the history of scholarship, see Engel, Vorfahren. 464. So, for example, Koch, VT 19 (1969): 37–81; Donner, GI, 70–71 (bibliography); Soggin, GI, 89–90 (bibliography). For the later equation of Ebra∂oi with ΔIsrahl∂tai in intertestamental and New Testament literature, see W. Gutbrod, ThWNT 3:374–76, 391–94; Koch, VT 19 (1969): 37– 81. 465. Gen 14:13; 39:14, 17; 40:15; 41:12; 43:32; Exod 1:15–16, 19; 2:6–7, 11, 13; 3:18; 5:3; 7:16; 9:1, 13; 10:3; 21:12; Deut 15:12 (twice); 1 Sam 4:6, 9; 13:3, 7, 19; 14:11, 21; 29:3; 1 Chr 24:27; Jer 34:9 (twice); 34:14; Jonah 1:9. Perhaps one should list an additional example in the LXX and the SamP of Exod 1:22 (Koch, VT 19 [1969]: 40). In addition, in Num 24:24 the LXX reads ÔEbra∂ouÍ for rb[. 466. There is a far-reaching discussion over the question whether μyrb[ should be associated with the ºapiru mentioned in Mesopotamian and Egyptian texts, where these appear not to designate an ethnic entity but a negatively connoted sociological entity of “outlaws” (see, for example, D. N. Freedman and B. E. Willoughby, TDOT 10:430–35; Albertz, History, 1:45, with n. 26, 258). In the linguistic usage of the Hebrew Bible, the opposite is clear, that yrb[ is consistently used as an ethnic term, specifically used when someone is encountering foreigners (Egyptians and Philistines).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 124 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

124

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

The evidence is even more striking when one recognizes that the examples in Deuteronomy (15:12) and Jeremiah (34:9, 14) are apparently dependent on the law about freeing slaves in Exod 21:1–6, from where the term Hebrews in these instances derives. 467 It is also noteworthy that within Genesis the term is unevenly distributed: the word (μ)yrb[ is found almost exclusively in the Joseph story (Gen 37:14, 17; 40:15; 41:12; 43:32); only one example (Gen 14:13) appears in Genesis 12–36, while the primal story only mentions the heros eponymos “Eber” (rb[ in 10:24). Gen 14:13 designates Abraham as a Hebrew,468 but Genesis 14 is a text all of its own. 469 The term yrb[ thus appears foreign to the ancestor story in Genesis 12–36, while the book of Exodus begins with a significant number of yrb[ references (1:15–16, 19; 2:6–7, 11, 13, etc.) that apparently derive from the transmission process. The mention of the “God of the Hebrews” (μyrb[ yhla) instead of the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” or something similar (see the petitions of 5:3–4, 7:16) especially shows this. The Joseph story mediates between the text blocks of Genesis and Exodus, where μyrb[ is used as a designation for the people, while “Israel” is used in reference to a single person, Jacob.470 Does the appearance of the expression μyrb[ in Exodus reflect the consciousness of the narrator that the entity that departed from Egypt was not simply identical with “Israel,” meaning the descendants of the ancestors, but was an entity that needed to be distinguished from Israel? Perhaps the statement in Exod 12:38 that during the exodus “many mixed people” (br[) went with them is intended to be a wordplay on yrb[. 471

Historically speaking, it is only reasonable to accept that “Israel” originated from these Asiatic people groups. 472 Likewise, it is conceivable that this historical reality was known in Israel, and the people continued to appeal to their origins in Egypt. As a result, it is not an insurmountable problem that the literary presentation of the Israelites who dwelled in Egypt does not report how they entered Egypt. The presence of Asiatic portions of the population in Egypt is not necessary to a narration about their departure. Exod 1:6–8, which has been treated already, functions as a narrative introductory sentence that hints at a former literary and conceptual independence of Genesis. 473 It speaks of the death of Joseph, his brothers, and their generation, as well as his being forgotten in Egypt. It shows that the Joseph story represents anything but a natural introduction to the exodus story. Rather, at the beginning of Exodus, every recollection of the Joseph story must first be effaced narratively in order for the antagonism between Egypt and Israel that characterizes Exodus to be believable at all. If the Joseph story did not always directly precede Exodus, Exodus was 467. Exod 21:6 / Deut 15:12–18 is the only legal clause in which the expression yrb[ occurs. 468. See Weippert, Bib 52 (1971): 407–32. See also the note in Van Seters, Abraham, 57 n. 68. 469. See below, §3.2.1.b (bibliography, p. 161). 470. See Koch, VT 19 (1969): 52. 471. Ibid., 54. 472. See the Stele of Amenophis II; the sample letter from the time of Ramesses II in TGI 2, 35– 36; and Papyrus Anastasi 6:53–60 in TGI 2, 40–41. See the discussion of Weimar and Zenger, Exodus, 120–26; Herrmann, Aufenthalt, 39–47; Utzschneider, Atem, 78–81; and Zobel, Festschrift Sauer. 473. See its treatment in Vriezen, VT 17 (1967): 334–53; Coats, VT 22 (1972): 129–42; Blum, Pentateuch, 102–3; Van Seters, Life, 16–19; and above in §2.1.2.a (pp. 62ff.). The same transitional formula appears in Judg 2:8–10; see the discussion in §1.3.1.a (pp. 16ff.).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 125 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Moses/Exodus Story as an Independent Text Complex

125

either introduced by another opening piece that is now lost, or far more likely, it began nowhere else than in Egypt. 474 Gen 15:13 and Exod 12:40 point in this direction. They speak of an Egyptian sojourn for Israel that lasts 400 or 430 years, about which the Hebrew Bible reports very little. 475 In fact, elsewhere (Exod 6:16–20) Moses is introduced as the greatgrandson of Levi, meaning that the time span between Jacob and Moses was limited to four generations. 476 Do the data about the number of years in Gen 15:13 and Exod 12:40 then preserve a memory that the people of Israel had their own prior history distinct from the ancestors’ tradition? Or, do these verses merely serve to make the forgetting of Joseph more plausible (Exod 1:8)? At any rate, the ancestor story and the Joseph story combined do not function adequately as a prelude to the exodus without these notes. However, the long period of the oppression of Israel in Egypt does function narratively as a prelude for the succeeding story. Thematically, beginning a Moses narrative in Egypt without an Eisodos is thus conceivable and unproblematic. The scholarly findings at the beginning of the book of Exodus also point to the fact that Genesis 12–50 was not always the introduction to Exodus. Therefore, for a distinct part of the Hebrew Bible, Israel was Israel in the strictest sense only from Egypt onward.

The sections of Herodotus and Strabo about the Phoenicians that narrate the departure of their ancestors from Babylon show that “departure” epics without Eisodos traditions are not religio-historically unique. 477 Furthermore, Amos 9:7 points in this direction. The idea that “the Philistines stem from Caphtor” or that the “Arameans stem from Kir” were not freely invented in Amos 9:7. Finally, Genesis 11 does not explain how Abraham came to Ur of the Chaldeans. Thus, the existence of an exodus story does not require there to have been prior knowledge of an Eisodos story. Finally, there is also a clue outside the Hebrew Bible (though admittedly uncertain) regarding a historical work beginning with the exodus. If one relies on the 474. Or, should Exodus (and following) be conceived as an independent Fortschreibung of Genesis? This is anything but apparent. There is no doubt that something akin to an exodus narrative existed before P, whatever its scope. The broad attestation of the exodus creed in the books of the Hebrew Bible as well as the complex literary history of Exodus–Numbers and Deuteronomy argue against beginning the literary presentation of Exodus with P. Exod 1:6, 8 shows that existing texts (Genesis 37– 50/Exodus 1–15) were combined with one another. Individually, the P passages in Exodus can be read as working with existing material (see especially the observations of Ska, ZAW 94 [1982]: 530– 48; idem, “Remarques”). This does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that P was a redactional layer. A literarily independent P could also have been oriented toward existing material. 475. See Dever and Clark, “Traditions,” 122. For a history of interpretation of this time span, see Kreuzer, ZAW 98 (1986): 199–210; Lührmann, ZAW 100 (1988): 420–23; Talmon, Festschrift Rendtorff; Andrei, Hen 18 (1996): 9–67. At any rate, the 430 years of Exod 12:40 seem to mirror the 430 years of the First Temple period (see §1.3.1.a, pp. 16ff.). 476. In Ruth 4:18–22, the time between Judah and David is abbreviated to 11 generations. The names cited, however, show that the historical picture of the Hexateuch is presupposed. See Zenger, ZBK 8 101–2. 477. Herodotus 1.1, 7.89; Strabo, XVI 3.4.27; see Hölscher, Geschichte, 39.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 126 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

126

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

report of Aristobulus in Eusebius, 478 as reported in the Letter of Aristeas, in the Persian period there was a Greek translation of the “narrative of the Exodus of the Hebrews . . . from Egypt and a clear portrayal of all the events they experienced as well as their taking possession of the land and an extensive presentation of the whole giving of the law,” meaning the books of Exodus–Joshua. 479 Even if this notice is not historically trustworthy, it still shows that an independent context for Exodus (and following) was quite conceivable in antiquity. 2.4.2. Contours of an Independent Moses/Exodus Story Can a combination of narratives that begin with Exodus prove to be a sufficient entity on its own—that is, without at least the pieces that connect it with Genesis? 480 And how far does this context extend if the Moses/Exodus story is introduced without Genesis? I am not concerned here with a redaction-historical model as a whole but, within the boundaries of this work, I simply seek to determine the outline and conceptualization of an exodus narrative that was still independent of Genesis. That the beginning of an independent Moses/Exodus story must lie somewhere in the beginning chapters of the book of Exodus is obvious. There one finds the explanations necessary for understanding what follows. Determining the beginning, however, is not very easy because the current starting point is clearly shaped as a bridge to Genesis (see in detail, below, §4.3, pp. 328ff.); thus, I will start with the question of the end. a. The Question of the End What can we conjecture was the literary form of the Moses/Exodus story beginning with Exodus before it was joined with Genesis? In determining its literary 478. Praep. ev. 12.12:1–2. 479. Translation according to N. Walter, JSHRZ 3/2 274. 480. Noth presented the view that Moses was not originally associated with the theme of leading people out of Egypt. Rather, he was secondarily attached to this theme, as well as the remaining pentateuchal themes in which he is presented as the chief figure (HPT, 161–63; see p. 156). For Noth, Exod 5:*3–19 and other passages, where the elders function as speakers to the Egyptians serve as an example of Moses’ entering the exodus story secondarily (HPT, 70–71, 162–63; concerning Exod 5:3–6:1, see Gertz [Tradition, 335–45], who considers this passage to be redactional). Opposed to this view, for example, see Schnutenhaus, Entstehung, 137–38, 151–52; Smend, “Jahwekrieg,” 189–99; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 253–54; Aurelius, Fürbitter, 4; Albertz, History, 1:43 n. 9, 256, 48 n. 33, 258 (bibliography). Before Noth, Hölscher also contested the original connection between Moses and Exodus (Hölscher, Geschichte, 64; see also Meyer, Israeliten, 72–82). Following Hölscher (Geschichte, 69), the thesis has been primarily developed further by his student, Koch (“Tod des Religionsstifters”): the religion of Israel was not established by a founder. Noth’s thesis that the figure of Moses was originally anchored only in the tradition of his burial in the land east of the Jordan cannot be sustained (HPT, 156–75, especially pp. 170–75; see Schmidt, EdF 191 [1990], 2–4; Boecker, Altes Testament, 1–10). Today, scholars have become skeptical (in no small measure because of the recession of tradition-historical reconstructions) that Moses represents only a secondary addition. The consensus now is that Moses was apparently connected with the exodus from the beginning as well as with the current form of the Moses traditions in Exodus–Numbers–Deuteronomy (see Herrmann, EvT 28 [1968]: 301–28; Rendtorff, “Mose,” 157–61, 163; W. H. Schmidt, Kairos 18 [1976]: 42–54; idem, BKAT 2/1 254; idem, EdF 191 [1990], 124–29; Aurelius, Fürbitter, 2, 203; Boecker, Altes Testament, 4, 9–10).

spread is 12 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 127 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Moses/Exodus Story as an Independent Text Complex

127

end point, we should recall our conclusions regarding the explicit references to the patriarchs in Joshua–2 Kings: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are completely lacking in Judges; in Joshua, they only appear in 24:4; 1 Sam 12:8 mentions “Jacob” and the Eisodos to Egypt; 481 in 1–2 Kings, the patriarchs are found only in 1 Kgs 18:36 and 2 Kgs 13:23. Taken alone, this conclusion is certainly one important sign, but it is further supported by the impressive number of cross-references to Exodus in Joshua–2 Kings ( Josh 2:8–11; 5:1; 9:9; 24:2–8; Judg 2:1, 11; 6:8–9; 10:11; 11:13; 19:30; 1 Sam 4:8; 6:6; 8:8; 10:18; 12:6; 15:2; 2 Sam 7:6; 1 Kgs 8:16; 8:51; 9:9; 2 Kgs 17:7, 36). However, even these passages cannot convincingly point to the literary context of Exodus (and following) as being linked with Joshua–2 Kings, because they are also understandable without assuming a literary connection to Exodus. However, there is a series of intertextual connections between Exodus and the entity usually delimited as the Deuteronomistic History‚ Deuteronomy– 2 Kings. These connections are not easily explained as contact points between independent works; 482 instead, they suggest a context of contiguous works. First, the situation of Israel’s forced labor in Egypt presented at the beginning of Exodus has a parallel in the presentation of the Solomonic period in Kings. With the exception of Chronicles, the expression twnksm yr[ (“storage cities”) in Exod 1:11 only appears in the context of Solomon’s construction activity. The same is true for the expressions used for forced labor, sm (1 Kgs 9:15) and lbs (1 Kgs 5:29; 11:28). Although these data have been viewed as an argument for the early Solomonic dating of J, an internal literary explanation is more compelling. 483 The word choice in Exod 1:11 apparently is intended to cast a negative light on Solomon’s building activities. 484 On this point, Solomon was no better than the Egyptian pharaoh of the exodus. 485 Exodus 1, however, is a text that probably already 481. 2 Sam 23:1 names the God “of Jacob” where it is used as an eponym for the people of Israel. 482. See also Johnstone, Festschrift Anderson, 166–68; Smith, Pattern, 155–56. It remains uncertain how the connections between Joshua 3–4 and Exodus 14 should be explained in the face of the apparently complex interaction of the origins of both text forms (Bieberstein, Josua, 398–400). The idea that “the crossing of the Sea in Exodus 14 was modeled on that of the crossing of the Jordan ( Joshua 3–4)” is too simplistic (Johnstone, Festschrift Anderson, 167). One needs to distinguish between the connections that extend across Exodus–2 Kings and the ideas running through Genesis–2 Kings, such as: faith (ˆma Hiphil in Gen 15:6; Exod 4:1, 5, 31; 14:31; 19:9; Num 14:11; 20:12; Deut 1:32; 9:23; 2 Kgs 17:14), the completion (alm Piel) of following Yhwh into Canaan (Num 14:24; 32:11–12; Deut 1:36; Josh 14:8–9, 14; 1 Kgs 11:6), and the remorse (μjn Niphal) of Yhwh (Gen 6:6–7; Exod 32:12, 14; 1 Sam 15:11, 35; 2 Sam 24:16–17), to which Schmitt draws attention (H.-C. Schmitt, VTSup 66 [1997], 266–76). 483. W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 39: “Thus the presumed author, the Yahwist, who composed his work in the Solomonic era according to the usual opinion, may have described the situation of Israel in Egypt in the language of his day.” See also pp. 249–50; Crüsemann, Widerstand, 175–76; as well as Albertz, History, 1:142 n. 28, 307. 484. See also Van Seters, Life, 24. 485. Crüsemann (Widerstand, 177 n. 56) and Albertz (History 1:142) want to understand Exod 5:16, where the Isralite foreman objects to the Egyptian pharaoh that he has sinned (tafjw; concerning the text, see W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 244; Albertz, History, 1:142 n. 29, 308) against his own people (˚m[) as being secretly directed against Solomon. It is questionable, however, whether one can interpret the surface text against this sort of textual background to determine its historical origin, especially an

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 128 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

128

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

presupposes a literary connection between Genesis and Exodus. Therefore, one cannot rely on these observations for the matter discussed here. Nevertheless, elsewhere in Exodus, we find other critiques of Solomon. 486 Albertz noted parallels between the presentation of Jeroboam’s rebellion and the events narrated in Exodus 2–5. 487 Like Moses (Exod 2:1–10), Jeroboam (1 Kgs 11:26) is of distinguished origin and revolts against the ruling power because of the burdensome forced labor (1 Kgs 11:26–28 / Exod 2:11–15). In both cases, the rebellion fails and Jeroboam, like Moses, must flee into foreign territory (1 Kgs 11:40 / Exod 2:15). 488 Both return after the death of the king (1 Kgs 12:2 489 / Exod 2:23 / 4:19–20), an event that leads to negotiations about the forced labor (1 Kgs 12:3–15 / Exod 5:3– 19). However, the negotiations do not resolve the problem but instead lead to the people’s exodus in the one case and to the division of the kingdom in the other. 490 I should mention the observations by Van Seters regarding these parallels. He thinks that Exodus 2 suggests a close relationship with the presentation of the Egyptian incidents of Hadad the Edomite in 1 Kgs 11:14–22, which appears just before the rebellion of Jeroboam. 491 The accumulation of connections between the Moses figure in Exodus 2–5 and Jeroboam (and Hadad) in 1 Kings 11–12 is hardly accidental. Rather, it it appears more likely that there was once a literary presentation of Exodus that culminated in the legitimation of Jeroboam’s rebellion: an exodus narrative from *Exodus to 1 Kings 12(*ff.?) that was a founding and legitimizing legend of the Northern Kingdom. 492 In addition, note that 1 Kgs 12:28 bases the identity of the origin that is so conjectural. Next, one would also have to consider the thematic affinity between the murder of the children in Egypt (Exod 1:15–22) and Solomon’s verdict in 1 Kgs 3:16–28. 486. For the connection between Exodus and Deuteronomy–2 Kings one must also point out the anti-Solomonic orientation of the deuteronomic king law (Deut 17:14–20). See Johnstone, Festschrift Anderson, 167. 487. Albertz, History, 1:141–42, in conjunction with Crüsemann, Widerstand, 175–78. 488. The linguistic correspondence is quite close here: Exod 2:15 jrbyw hvm ta grhl vqbyw 1 Kgs 11:40 jrbyw μ[bry ta tymhl hmlv vqbyw Albertz does not take literary dependence into account but explains the literary affinity as “analogous proceedings of events” (Albertz, History, 1:142 n. 24, 307). In light of the frequent connections between Exod 2:2–5 and 1 Kings 11–12, we should not be too quick to exclude a redaction-historical explanation. 489. See BHS. 490. Albertz evaluates the points of contact between Moses and Jeroboam in such a way “that the battle between the Solomonic forced laborers begun by Jeroboam and the Northern tribes was led by a call to liberate the fathers from the Egyptian oppression, and this ancient religious recollection received its first narrative arrangement from the actual experiences of the rebellion of Jeroboam” (Albertz, History, 1:142). This conclusion regarding historical actualities is little warranted. First, one can only affirm that the presentations at the beginning of both the exodus event and the rebellion of Jeroboam have been brought into line with one another. It has not been shown that the author of the report belonged to the historical milieu of Jeroboam. 491. Van Seters, Life, 32–33. On Hadad the Edomite, see Bosshard, Festschrift Steck. 492. Van der Toorn determined that the exodus story was specifically a “national charter myth” of the Northern Kingdom (van der Toorn, Family Religion, 300). This judgment is only valid, however,

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 129 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Moses/Exodus Story as an Independent Text Complex

129

nameless national god of the Northern Kingdom on this action of leading the people out of Egypt. The northern orientation of this far-reaching narrative is a further indication that it did not begin with the ancestoral story of Genesis because the Abrahamic narratives have a decidedly Judean imprint. The Jacob-Joseph narratives certainly exhibit a northern flavor, especially the Joseph story. However, it presents a completely different concept, as Crüsemann in particular has shown—specifically, it is loyal and legitimates authority; it is not critical of authority. 493 As a result, it can hardly be considered a prelude to a hypothetical Moses–Jeroboam narrative. The pro-Jeroboam shape of this exodus narrative naturally could not be maintained over the course of the literary development of the Hebrew Bible. Most importantly, it is reversed by Exodus 32. The narrative of the golden calf in Exodus 32 strictly disavows any positive associations with Jeroboam provided by Exodus 2–5. The bull images of Jeroboam in Exod 32:4b, 8b become the “original sin” of Israel to which Kings returns over and over again (1 Kgs 14:16; 15:26, 30, 34; 16:2, 19, 26; 22:53; 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:29, 31; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9; 18:24, 28; 17:21; 23:15). 494 The negative connotations of the bull images in 1 Kings 12 anticipated by Exodus 32 clearly preclude any possibility of evaluating the rebellion of Jeroboam or the origin of the Northern Kingdom positively. Whether Exodus 32 was still conceived within the framework of a narrative context independent of Genesis cannot be answered definitively. In the intercessory passage of Exod 32:7–14, the three patriarchs are named, though 32:7–14 is rather unanimously and correctly seen as an addition in its context. 495 At the same time, even without 32:7–14, based on the structural analogy to the primeval story (Exodus 32 as the “fall” of the people) shown above in §1.3.1.a (pp. 16ff.), we may establish that the writer of Exodus 32 knew Genesis as a prelude to Exodus and the following books. Corresponding to the uncertain literary-historical placement of Genesis 2–3, it is also conceivable that Genesis 2–3 is oriented toward Exodus 32, and the “fall” of Israel had been expanded universally by Genesis 2–3.496 The question must remain open for the time being.

The narrative that opens Exodus may have reached further than 1 Kings 12 while still being independent of Genesis. A large thematic arch stretching from the beginning of Exodus to the end of 2 Kings is detectable; it is formed first by the correspondences between Josiah and Moses, and then by the contrasting typology

for a specific redaction-historical shape of the exodus story. For the question of an “Israelite national epic,” see Mowinckel, ZAW 53 (1935): 130–52; Talmon, “Epic”; Hendel, Epic. 493. Crüsemann, Widerstand, 143–55. To Crüsemann the problem is that the “Yahwist” had to work with “two totally different images” of the kingdom (Crüsemann, Widerstand, 178). Specifically, he had to work with the positive view of the Joseph story and the negative view of the exodus narrative. Note that both times it is the Egyptian kingdom that comes into view. Indirectly, this is an argument against the conceptual “unity” of a “Yahwist” source encompassing Genesis and Exodus (a unity with which Crüsemann continually deals with in the face of this difficulty [178]). 494. Exod 32:4b, 8b is literally taken from 1 Kgs 12:28b; see Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 208; Knoppers, Festschrift Freedman. 495. See, for example, Aurelius, Fürbitter, 41–44 (bibliography), 91–100. Sometimes the insertion is limited to 32:9–14. 496. See Otto, Festschrift Michel (“post-Priestly”).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 130 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

130

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

of the exodus and the exile. 497 Thus, just as Israel was led out of imprisonment in Egypt, 2 Kgs 25:21 confirms that Judah was deported, corresponding to the note about the fall of Israel in 2 Kgs 17:23. 498 I must also point out the correspondence between Israel’s sojourn of 430 years in Egypt (Exod 12:40–41) and the total of 430 years that constituted the regencies of the Judean kings from Rehoboam to Zedekiah (see §1.3.1.a). This correspondence, however, is only valid if one takes into account the possibility that P has reworked an older tradition in Exod 12:40–41. Only the addition of 2 Kgs 25:27–30, which narrates the rehabilitation of Jehoiachin in Babylon, awakens associations with the destiny of Joseph in Egypt, and thus associations with an event described in Genesis. After 1 Kings 12, however, the connections with Exodus–Numbers become more sparse. One thing is clear, however: the context of the historical books beginning with Exodus does not merely extend to Numbers, Deuteronomy, or even Joshua; it extends to Kings. 499 b. The Exodus Concept The notion of “leading” (the people) “out of Egypt” in Exodus (and following) is complex. As a rule one distinguishes the various perspectives of release, expulsion, and flight. 500 How does the concept of the exodus narrative appear if one presumes it is still independent from Genesis? In its present narrative form, the theme of the exodus as a release clearly takes prominence. The exodus is due to Yhwh’s initiative; through the plagues, he forces Pharaoh to allow Israel to leave under Moses and at the Sea of Reeds saves Israel from the pursuit of the Egyptians. 501 Moses performs the signs (twa, Exod 8:19; 10:1–2), but it “is clear that all activity lies with Yhwh. Yhwh is the originator of the plague.” 502 The depiction of Moses as a prophet fits with this structure. 503 The messenger formula, hwhy rma hk, is found in the Pentateuch only in the Exodus book and, except for 4:22; 5:1; and 32:27, only in Exodus 7–11 (7:17, 497. See the discussion in Römer, Transeu 13 (1997): 52–53 (see Exodus 12 / 2 Kgs 23:22–23; Exodus 32 / 2 Kings 23; Deut 6:5 / 2 Kgs 23:25). 498. Concerning 2 Kgs 25:21 as a concluding note, see O’Brien, History, 271; Moenikes, ZAW 104 (1992): 339. 499. Concerning the relationship to the so-called “Deuteronomistic History,” see below, §2.4.7 (pp. 148ff.). 500. See the discussion in Noth, ATD 5 88; H. Schmid, EdF 237 (1986), 42–45 (bibliography); Görg, “Exodus,” 635; Utzschneider, Atem, 84; Vervenne, JNSL 22 (1996): 45–58. It is still unclear the extent to which these various lines of meaning are related to plausible literary-critical or traditionhistorical reconstructions. See the cautious statements related to literary-critical evaluation in Blum, Pentateuch, 42–43, 217; Albertz, History, 1:42–43; Vervenne, JNSL 22 (1996): 45–58. The conclusion of Weimar and Zenger remains quite hypothetical (Weimar and Zenger, Exodus [see the discussion also in Albertz, History, 1:43 n. 8; 256]). 501. On this point, see the observations of Kegler, Festschrift Rendtorff. 502. Stolz, ZTK 69 (1972): 137. 503. See H. H. Schmid, Jahwist, 44–53.

spread is 6 points short

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 131 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Moses/Exodus Story as an Independent Text Complex

131

26; 8:16; 9:1, 13; 10:3; 11:4). Thus, it is clear that Moses and his counterpart Pharaoh 504 are Yhwh’s tools to bring about the many signs and wonders in Egypt (10:1–2; 11:9). Theologically, this understanding of the exodus narrative is strongly reflected 505 in the statements of recognition (8:6, 18; 9:29; 10:2; cf. 7:17; 9:14) introduced by ˆ[ml. 506 The deeds of Yhwh that lead to the liberation of Israel from Egypt and cause its success are designed so that the one (8:6!) 507 and only powerful God is recognized. Thus, Pharaoh should become better educated by the plagues (see the “provocation of Pharaoh” 508 in Exod 5:2), but he does not (Exod 9:30). The special goal of the plagues as well as the deliverance at the Sea of Reeds is Israel’s recognition of Yhwh (10:2; 14:31). Yhwh’s will is performed by means of Pharaoh’s perpetual obduracy (dbk Qal and Hiphil 7:14; 8:11, 28; 9:7, 34; 10:1), which Exodus explicitly designates as being divinely effected (Exod 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 17). 509 Exodus 14 ends with the death of the Egyptians (14:30), which is an appropriate consequence for perpetual obduracy. Once one recognizes that this redactional conception of the exodus narrative is structured by the plague story, then it is not hard to recognize that this framework must belong to an advanced stage of the history of the theology of ancient Israel. Yhwh appears as a God who can proceed as he chooses in sovereign exercise of his world dominion over Egypt and Pharaoh, and who also allows the people of Israel to leave Egypt and resettle in Israel. The thematic question of Pharaoh in Exod 5:2 is: “Who is Yhwh that I must listen to his voice? I do not know Yhwh, and I will not let Israel leave.” This question shows that Pharaoh’s guilt arises from the fact that he is not a worshiper of Yhwh and does not want to become one. In the Hebrew Bible, alongside the notable reliance on statements of recognition and obduracy by Ezekiel, 510 this concept stands closest to Cyrus’s statements in Deutero-Isaiah (44:28; 45:1, 13; 48:14) and the passages in Jeremiah that describe 504. See Noth, ATD 5 51. 505. See the extensive and accurate description in Blum, Pentateuch, 13–17; as well as Utzschneider, Atem, 56–62. 506. See Zimmerli, “Erkenntnis,” 65; adopted by Blum, Pentateuch, 14–15, with n. 23. 507. See H. H. Schmid, Jahwist, 51–52. The nearest parallels are found in Deut 4:35, 39; 1 Kgs 8:60; 2 Kgs 19:19 (ibid., 52 n. 27). 508. Blum, Pentateuch, 15 (the Hebrew quotation is misplaced); see Albertz, History, 1:43 n. 6, 256. Eslinger points out that Exod 5:2 is the first recognition formula in the Bible (Eslinger, “Exodus 6:3,” 193–94). 509. See C. Dohmen and P. Stenmans, “dbk,” TDOT 7:13–22, 21; F. Hesse, “qzj,” TDOT 4:301–8; extensive work in Jacob, MGWJ 68 (1924): 118–26, 202–11, 268–89; Wilson, CBQ 41 (1979): 18–36; Gunn, “Hardening,” JSOTSup 19 (1982), 72–96; Van Seters, Life, 87–91. The redaction-historical ordering of these passages is debated: H.-C. Schmitt (Festschrift Kaiser [1989], 215, with n. 96) wants to assign the examples whose position is important (Exod 7:3; 11:10, before the first and after the last plagues) to his “final redaction” of the Pentateuch (see p. 212 n. 75a). Blum, on the other hand, attributes them (in conjunction with the classic position) to Kp (Blum, Pentateuch, 254–55). 510. See Zimmerli, “Erkenntnis”; Ska, Bib 60 (1979): 198–205; H.-C. Schmitt, Festschrift Kaiser (1989), 205.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 132 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

132

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

Nebuchadnezzar as a servant of Yhwh ( Jer 25:9; 27:6; 43:10). 511 The Daniel narratives in Daniel 2–4 should also be mentioned here. Exod 5:1–2 is even textually linked to Isaiah: just as Pharaoh did not know ([dy) Yhwh and therefore would not let Israel leave (jlv Piel) Egypt, so recognition of Yhwh 512 ([dy; Isa 45:3) by Cyrus leads him to ‘release’ (jlv Piel in 45:13) the Judean deportees from the Babylonian golah. 513 Whether Cyrus is fashioned as “a ‘newer’ and better ‘Pharaoh’ ” 514 or Pharaoh is fashioned as an “older” but worse “Cyrus” may for now remain unresolved. It is clear, at any rate, that a comparable concept of the relationship between Yhwh and the earthly king exists for the Pharaoh of the plague narratives and for Cyrus of Deutero-Isaiah. Yhwh is the world ruler, and earthly kings are subordinate to him and owe accountability to him. 515 Looking beyond the bounds of the Hebrew Bible, the closest parallels to this conception are found in the ideology of the Persian Empire, 516 and corresponding images of Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar appear in Isaiah 40–55 and Jeremiah, respectively. 517 The nations of the world and their king, the Persian emperor, were put in their positions by and owed their allegiance to Ahuramazda, who was considered the world ruler. 518 This suggests itself as the historical milieu for the exodus narrative with the plague cycle: the intellectual background by which it was influenced was Persian imperial ideology. Coming from this time period, the obduracy theory is also understandable: “The opposition to the Israelite community by the nations is no indication that Yhwh lacks power over the heathen. Rather, it is part of a divine plan.” 519 These general considerations about the theological history of the plague cycle can be further supported. For a long time it has been accepted that the plague cycle

511. For the context of the Cyrus texts as being the same as the Nebuchadnezzar-as-servant texts in Jeremiah, see Kratz, Kyros, 110, 141; Steck, “Gottesknechts-Texte,” 156 n. 36; Schmid, Buchgestalten, 232–35. 512. The recognition formula connects Exodus 7–11, Isaiah 40–55, and Ezekiel closely to one another. See the detailed conclusion of Vervenne, Festschrift Beuken. 513. See Kratz, Kyros, 104, 107. 514. So ibid., 104, with n. 388. 515. That the plague narrative is formed by this conceptual context can be supported further in the characterization of Pharaoh as “a recalcitrant and disobedient son” (hrwmw rrws ˆb) as in Deut 21:15–18, a son who should be castigated back to sanity (Jacob, MGWJ 68 [1924]: 275–81). “Pharaoh is thus a recalcitrant son. He is also a child of God, but a disobedient one. Mizraim is a brother of Israel, a brother of the other child of God” (p. 281). 516. See Boyce, CHJ 1:281–83, 287–88; Thompson, “Matrix,” 114–15. 517. See Kratz, Kyros, 175–91; K. Schmid, Buchgestalten, 230–53. 518. See the evidence in Koch, Weltordnung, 149–50. See especially the Persian royal inscriptions: DSe, 30–42: “The lands (dahyava) were in unrest (yaud-) and one struck the other. Yet I introduced the following by the strength of Ahuramazda: so that no one strikes another, each is in its (preordained) place” (compare the table of nations in Genesis 10 for P); and DNa 30–38: “As Ahuramazda saw this world in unrest (yaud-), he gave it to me, and made me king. I am king. By the strength of Ahuramazda I brought them back to their place. What I said about them, they did as it was my will” (quoted by Koch, Weltordnung, 150). 519. H.-C. Schmitt, Festschrift Kaiser (1989), 204.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 133 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Moses/Exodus Story as an Independent Text Complex

133

was only incorporated into the exodus narrative at a late date. 520 Already, Noth observed that the narrative of the Egyptian plagues presented in the later, “more expansive” legend style is added to the indispensable foundational core of the narrative, which is the theme of the “leading out of Egypt.” This theme must communicate the “oppression” of the Israelites, their wandering, and their deliverance by the destruction of the Egyptians in the sea. 521

Levin theorized that neither his post-Deuteronomistic nor his pre-Deuteronomistic “Yahwist” contained a plague narrative. 522 In addition to the unsuccessful plagues, 523 it takes the killing of the firstborn (related to Passover) before the goal is reached. The fact that Deut 7:15 and 28:60 speak of the “sickness of Egypt” (μyrxm [7:15, ylj +] 524 hwdm) points in the same direction. 525 The concrete plagues in Exodus 7–11, which are more than and different from sicknesses, 526 thus do not yet appear to be known. That means that, however one differentiates within the plague cycle diachronically, the oldest layer apparently does not belong to the substance of the exodus narrative but to a later arrangement of sources. The source-critical problem of the plague cycle cannot be treated more extensively here, because the question of the relationship of the Priestly material to the non-Priestly material of the text cannot be decided without an extensive and detailed investigation. For now, this much we know: the delimitation of the Priestly portions of the plague cycle has almost unanimous consensus. Following the Priestly introduction in 7:1–13, the third (8:2–15) and the sixth (9:8–12) plagues are considered thoroughly Priestly.527 In the first two plagues, the 520. For the history of research, see Houtman, Exodus, 2:10–24. 521. Noth, HPT, 65–66. 522. Levin, Jahwist, 335; Kaiser, TheolAT, 1:179 n. 54. At the same time, Levin notes the structure of at least the first four non-Priestly plagues in J before the joining with P (Levin, Jahwist, 336). See also the similar decision of Gertz, Tradition, 74–188, 395. 523. See Meyer, Israeliten, 32; Fohrer, Exodus, 72; Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 364–65. 524. The word ylj appears only in Deut 7:15; concerning the word, see HALOT 1:318. 525. See Van Seters, ZAW 98 (1986): 35; idem, Life, 81; Albertz, History, 1:43 n. 7, 256. Blum concludes that there was a plague transmission before Kd (Blum, Pentateuch, 37 n. 141). Van Seters is critical of him (Van Seters, Festschrift Milgrom, 578 n. 35). Redactional additions into the plague cycle after Kd were, according to Blum, minimal in nature. He takes into account Exod 7:15, 17, 20; 10:2a (Blum, Pentateuch, 37 n. 141; see pp. 15–16 n. 28. These examples should be added to the table in Ska, Bib 72 [1991]: 256). 526. In Exodus, they can be characterized as twalpn (wonders, 3:20), twa (sign, 4:17, 28; 7:3; 8:19), tpwm (wonder, 4:21; 7:3, 9; 11:9–10), [gn (strike, 11:1), hpgm and πgn (blow, 9:1 and 12:13, respectively). In conjunction with the departure from Egypt, Deuteronomy also speaks of μytpwmw tta (signs and wonders, 4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 11:2–3; 26:8; 29:2 [read by Van Seters, Life, 81: “4:34” instead of “4:32” and “7:19” instead of 7:9]; see Jer 32:20–21). However, in a very unspecific manner, Yhwh is always the subject of doing the signs and wonders. See also Deut 28:46, where the curses that come upon disobedient Israel can count as “signs and wonders.” 527. Concerning the counting, see L. Schmidt, Plagenerzählung, 1; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/2 351–52. Krasovec speaks of comprehensive themes (Krasovec, “Themes”). Concerning the reception of the plagues in the Wisdom of Solomon, Josephus, and Philo, see Houtman, Exodus 2, 17–18. Dumermuth offers religio-historical parallels (Dumermuth, ZAW 76 [1964]: 323–25).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 134 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

134

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

following verses are assigned to P: 7:19–20aa, 21b, 22, and 8:1–3ab, b. 528 The only debate surrounds the classification of texts like P that previously were generally assigned to E (9:22– 23a, 35; 10:12–13a, 20–22, 27). 529 After the exclusion of E from the plague cycle, prompted by Noth, 530 scholars either attributed these texts to P (although only where P was considered a supplementary layer) 531 or viewed them as post-Priestly insertions.532 Except for the incomplete connection between 8:11ab, b and 8:3, which is insignificant, the P texts form a coherent context with their own profile and their own consistent structure.533 P essentially demonstrates in Exodus 7–11 the transcendence of Yhwh and his emissaries over the Egyptian magicians. Therefore, we should include the first miracle (7:8–13), the changing of Aaron’s staff, as a prelude. According to P, five miracles were performed before Pharaoh, of which the first three (changing of Aaron’s staff, water into blood, frogs) were imitated by Egyptian magicians. 534 With the fourth miracle (gnats), they fail and profess, “that is the finger of God” (8:14): 535 and with the fifth, they are themselves affected (9:11) and are no longer able to appear for the contest. “This closed context is disrupted by the plagues of the flies (Exod 8:16–28) and the cattle plague (Exod 9:1–7).”536 The seven non-Priestly plagues, usually attributed to pre-Priestly texts,537 exhibit notable commonalities. They are each introduced with an extensive commission from Yhwh to 528. Noth, HPT, 18; Fohrer, Exodus, 70; Lohfink, “Priesterschrift,” 222 n. 29; Blum, Pentateuch, 245; Levin, Jahwist, 336; Van Seters, Festschrift Milgrom, 572 (read “8:12–15” instead of “8:12–25”); L. Schmidt, Plagenerzählung, 1; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/2 354; idem, BETL 126 (1996), 229 n. 21; Smith, Pattern, 199–201. Smith draws attention to the antithetical connection of the P plagues to the first creation account. 529. See the review in Kohata, Jahwist, 105 n. 81. 530. Noth, ATD 5 62–84; see Noth, HPT, 36. Noth divided the plague cycle only between J and P. 531. Noth, ATD 5 53; Blum, Pentateuch, 246–50; concerning Blum, however, see Otto, TRu 62 (1997): 11 n. 48. 532. Kohata, Jahwist, 99–115; L. Schmidt, Beobachtungen, 23–35; idem, Priesterschrift, 10–19; W. H. Schmidt, BETL 126 (1996), 226 n. 2; Gertz, Tradition, 395. 533. Concerning the Priestly layer in the plague cycle, see the classic treatment in Wellhausen, Compostion, 62; Noth, HPT, 18 (somewhat differently in ATD 5 52–53, discussed in H.-C. Schmitt, “Plagenerzählung,” 202–4 with nn. 36, 41); Elliger, Sinn, 174–75; Kohata, Jahwist, 126; L. Schmidt, Plagenerzählung, 2; Levin, Jahwist, 336 (7:19–22; 8:1–3, 11–15; 9:8–12; 11:10); Gertz, Tradition, 395–96. For discussions on interpreting the textual complex as an expansion model, see Blum, Pentateuch, 242–56; Ska, Bib 60 (1979): 191–215; Van Seters, Festschrift Milgrom. In Van Seters’s objections (Life, 103–12; and Festschrift Milgrom, 573) to an independent introduction assigned to a P cycle, he argues primarily with the idea that the introduction usually assigned to P (7:1–13) and the concluding note (11:9–10) fit poorly with the P plagues. In particular, its central statement about the “multiplying” (hbr Hiphil) of the signs and wonders in Egypt by Yhwh in 7:3 is debated in its redactionhistorical classification (see W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/2 318–19; Otto, TRu 62 [1997]: 11 n. 48). That the obduracy statements in P (7:13, 22; 8:15; 9:12) do not point back to respective signs and wonders statements (which in P are not connected with the demand for release but point back to the introduction [ibid.]) does not argue against the coherence of the P texts. Van Seters’s denial that P narrates a magician contest depends primarily on his belief, which is not entirely convincing, that 7:8–13 is dependent on 4:2–4 and not the other way around (Van Seters, Life, 109–10; idem, Festschrift Milgrom, 577–78). 534. On the unevenness with regard to where the repetition of the miracle can be narrated without the establishment of the original condition, see W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/2 632. 535. See the religio-historical material in Gaster, Myth, 1:236. 536. Otto, TRu 62 (1997): 11. 537. The Nile into blood (Exod 7:14–25), frogs (7:26–8:11), gnats (8:16–28), pestilence (9:1–7), hail (9:13–35), locusts (10:1–29), and death of the firstborn (11:4–8; 12:29ff.). See Blum, Pentateuch, 13; Van Seters, ZAW 98 (1986): 31–39.

spread is 3 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 135 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Moses/Exodus Story as an Independent Text Complex

135

the messengers and conclude with a statement about Pharaoh’s obduracy.538 At the same time, their coherence is more fragmented than the P context. Narrative gaps are found between 7:18 and 7:20, and, particularly obvious, between 7:29 and 8:4, where the overrunning of the frogs is announced in 7:26–29 but only narrated in 8:2 (P) and then presumed in 8:4. The unchanging structural scheme of the seven non-Priestly plagues speaks more for an originally independent context; the narrative gaps speak more against it. The hypothesis that the non-Priestly plagues were conceptualized as an expansion to P must certainly be considered, but it does not solve all the problems. Skepticism about such a solution fits better with the concept of seven independent non-Priestly plagues that serve as a castigation of the Pharaoh. Kaiser speaks of the “compelling miracle(s)” rather than the “demonstrative miracles” that P offers. 539 The non-Priestly plagues are notable for Moses’ role of announcing and interceding. As L. Schmidt has demonstrated, the one action depends upon the other: Moses can announce the plagues, but he also is the definitive mediator who can intercede. 540 Taken together, the preceding observations argue for the classical solution. The non-Priestly portions are not redactional expansions of P, as discussed in recent studies of the flood narrative. 541 Rather, these non-P portions constitute an independent pre-P narrative, even though the narrative is now fragmentary. The P plague cycle is likewise independent, which is evident from its structure, but in its broad strokes it moves in continuity with the previously existing tradition. 542

To the extent it is recognizable, this exodus line of thought with regard to a forced release of Israel from Egypt by means of the plagues appears to be largely independent of Genesis theologically. 543 The question of the relationship of Israel’s ancestors to foreign rulers, or to the heathen, is certainly the theme in a number of narratives (for example, Gen 12:10–20; 14; 20; 26; 37– 50). However, the specific conception of Exodus is lacking: none of the divine speeches in Genesis uses the recognition formula that plays a central role in exodus narrative.544 The middle (and, at the same time, perhaps the latest) narrative of the “endangered ancestress” in Genesis 20 is the most comparable with Exodus, although in the form of a positive counterpart. 545 It ascribes the fear of Yhwh to Abimelech of Gerar (Gen 20:11, 14, 17; compare the Hebrew midwives in Exod 1:17, 21),546 which spares him from the plagues (Gen 20:17–18). In addition, Abraham appears as a prophet (20:7; see Moses in Exod 32:9–14) because of his ability to intercede for Abimelech.547 Abimelech acts as 538. See the overview in H. H. Schmid, Jahwist, 45. 539. Kaiser, TheolAT, 1:177. 540. L. Schmidt, Plagenerzählung, 64–65. 541. Ska, EstBib 52 (1994): 37–62; Blenkinsopp, Festschrift Freedman; idem, Pentateuch, 77–86; Krüger, “Herz,” 73–76; Kratz, Composition, 256–59. 542. See Noth, ATD 5, 52; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 242. 543. See also Gertz, Tradition, 395–96. Kratz (Composition, 293) remains unclear about his decision. Utzschneider defines the “theme, the narrative idea of the exodus narrative” as “a strict theocentric political theology: the God of Israel is the only and, especially, the immediate subject and agent of the liberation of Israel” (Utzschneider, Atem, 75). 544. Zimmerli, “Erkenntnis,” 57. Concerning the recognition formula, see Vervenne, Festschrift Beuken. 545. See Blum, Vätergeschichte, 406–7 (bibliography). Differently, Van Seters, Abraham, 183 (Genesis 26 as the latest narrative). For the classical assignation to E, see Kaiser, Grundriss, 1:74–77. 546. See the discussion in Römer, ETR 69 (1994): 265–70; idem, “Sages-Femmes.” 547. Blum points also to connections with Jonah (Blum, Vätergeschichte, 408).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 136 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

136

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

Pharaoh should but does not in Exodus (Exod 5:2, etc.). It is reasonable to consider whether Genesis 20 was influenced by Exodus, but because Genesis 20 is a distinctly “late element” in Genesis and has no important compositional function in the book, we cannot speak of a conceptual link between Genesis and Exodus based on Genesis 20. That the “obduracy” of Pharaoh can be portrayed as divinely caused (Exod 4:21; 7:3; 10:1; 11:10; 14:4, 17) appears similar to the manner in which God’s action is portrayed in the Joseph story. The latter also treats the Egypt theme, but, unlike Exodus 1–15 where God participates directly in the events, God only stands in the background of the events in Gen 50:20. Thus, even this connection does not manifest a closer conceptual relationship between Genesis and Exodus.

The exodus narrative is a self-sufficient unit with a concept of release that accentuates the fact that Yhwh, the God of Israel, is at the same time the powerful ruler of the world, who can and must be “recognized” as such. A connection with Genesis is provided only by several secondary bracketing passages (Exod 1:1–6; 2:23–4:18; 6:2–8; 13:19) that are attributed to either P ([Exod 1:1–6; 2:23ab–25; 6:2–8) or a later hand (13:19 and Exod 1:1–6 [if one does not assign these to P]). Otherwise, they seem to be block-like insertions in the context (Exod 2:23ab– 4:18; see the extended discussion below in §3.2.2, pp. 172ff.) but not belonging to the sustaining elements of Exodus 1–15. For the reader the meaning of the exodus as release is more obvious than the meanings of expulsion or flight. The release perspective stems primarily from the cycle of plagues, which forced the Egyptians to release the Israelites. We have seen, however, that the plague cycle sits rather loosely in its context. The idea that there was once an exodus narrative without the plagues is quite likely. 548 Exod 11:3b reads: “The man Moses was also greatly esteemed (dam lwdg) in the land of Egypt in the eyes of the servants of Pharaoh and in the eyes of the people.” This statement does not fit well with the plague narratives in Exodus 7–12 because a notice of the esteem in which Moses was held among the Egyptians could hardly have stood originally in the same context with the plagues. The secondary character of the plague cycle in its context can also be verified by the state of the text in Exodus 3– 7. Exod 4:21–23, which compares the wonders in 4:1–9 with those of the plague narrative, is clearly a redactional formation in its context.549 Exod 5:20–6:1 forms no organic connection with 5:3–19 but transitions to the plagues, the announcement of which was reported in 3:18–20 and 4:21–23. 550 On the other hand, the opening text of the plague cycle, Exod 7:14–16, shows that the plague schema has been expanded in order to refer back to Exodus 5. 551

548. See Kessler, Querverweise, 208; Knauf, Midian, 128–29 (and the reference to predecessors, p. 128 n. 561; especially Noth, HPT, 66); Levin, Jahwist, 335; Gertz, Tradition, 395. For the history of scholarship, see Steingrimsson, Zeichen. Psalms 78 and 105, which mention the plagues, hardly attest to an older exodus story than the current form (see Van Seters, ZAW 98 [1986]: 32). Albertz (History, 1:72 n. 7) points out that the image of the “sickness of the Egyptians” (Deut 7:15; 28:60) apparently does not yet presuppose the plagues, and he evaluates this, along with the prophetic sign of Moses in the plague narrative, as a sign of exilic dating. 549. See Kessler, Querverweise, 197–99 and below, §3.5.2. 550. See the details in Kessler, ibid., 202–6 and below, §3.5.2. 551. Ibid., 207; H. H. Schmid, Jahwist, 45.

spread is 6 points short

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 137 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Moses/Exodus Story as an Independent Text Complex

137

If the plagues were not the reason for the Israelites’ leaving, what was? Exod 11:2 and 12:36 state that the Israelites stole gold and silver from the Egyptians,552 were driven away, and then pursued. See 12:33a: “And the Egyptians oppressed the people in order to drive them out of the land quickly.” Before the inclusion of the plagues, the exodus appeared as an expulsion rather than as a release. Knauf, 553 in conjunction with Görg, 554 proposes an Egyptian counterpart to this presentation of the exodus in the Elephantine Stele of Sethnacht.555 On the basis of these witnesses that are independent of one another, he believes he can reconstruct the historical events556 lying behind them. A group of Asiatics attempted to seize power over Egypt under the 552. For this motif, see Coats, VT 18 (1968): 450–57; Radday, ASTI 12 (1983); but also Jacob, MGWJ 68 (1924): 118–26, 202–11, 268–89. 553. Knauf, Midian, 124–41; see Donner, GAT 4/1 131–34; and further, de Moor, Yahwism, 136ff.; idem, Festschrift Gibson, 217–25. For a contrasting view, see Albertz, History, 1:45 n. 21, 257– 58. For older attempts at finding Moses documented, see Cornelius, ZAW 78 (1966): 77 nn. 12–13; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 74. 554. Görg, Kairos 20 (1978): 279–80; see also idem, NBL fascicle 4, 635; Zenger, TRE 23:332. 555. For the text, see Drenkhahn, Elephantine-Stele, 64–65. 556. Of course, these are highly debated (see already the note of caution in Meyer, Israeliten, 451 n. 1). See the overview in H. Schmid, EdF 237 (1986); Miller and Hayes, History, 67–68; W. H. Schmidt, EdF 191 (31995); Durham, WBC 3 xxiv–xxvi; Soggin, GI, 108–10; von Nordheim, Selbstbehauptung, 85–102; Redford, “Canaan and Israel in the Ancient Times,” 408–22; Zenger, TRE 23:330–41; Sarna, ABD 2:696–98; Kitchen, ABD 2:702–6; Beegle, ABD 4:909–18; Stolz, Monotheismus, 84–91, esp. p. 87; Cazelles, TDOT 9:28–33, 38–39 (bibliography); Donner, GAT 4/1 123–33 (bibliography); de Moor, Festschrift Gibson, 213–14; Smend, HZ 260 (1995): 1–19; Görg, Beziehungen, 143–44; Frerichs and Lesko, eds., Exodus. Bimson (Redating) believes that the exodus and the conquest should be dated in the 15th century b.c.e. Traditionally, also Daiches, Quest; Campbell, Interp 39 (1975): 141–54 (see among the older works: Volz, Mose; Auerbach, Mose [see discussion in Eissfeldt, “Mose”]). Albertz (History 1:44) believes that the notice about Israel’s forced labor in Egypt and the construction of the storage cities of Pithom and Ramses in Exod 1:11 is “believable”; Gressmann (Mose, 2) describes it as “a historical splinter” (see also Herrmann, Aufenthalt, 45–47; Donner, GAT 4/1 103–4 [“historical glimpse”]; Bietak, “Comments,” 168–69; de Moor, Festschrift Gibson, 215–17; Soggin, GI, 93; Levin [Verheissung, 49–50] also reckons with a historical kernel to the exodus story; those undecided include: Kessler, Querverweise, 182, with n. 1; Görg, Beziehungen, 136–37). By way of contrast, see Redford, VT 13 (1963): 401–18; idem, “Perspective,” 138–40; idem, “Sojourn,” 62, 66 n. 32 (“Brickmaking and the construction of cities were precisely the activities assigned by the Assyrians to their prisoners of war in bondage”); Knauf, Midian, 104–5; Lemche, Vorgeschichte, 63–64. Several treat the exodus as fiction: Thompson and Irvin, “Joseph and Mose Narratives”; Diebner, Festschrift Helck; Lemche, Ancient Israel, 109. Once again different from Görg, Knauf, and de Moor are Redford (Egypt, 412; idem, “Perspective,” 144; Redford and Weinstein, ABD 3:344) and Assmann (Ägypten, 314–15). Regarding the historical background of the exodus narrative, they write that the experience of the exodus from Egypt was not that of the Hebrews but of the Hyksos (see the discussion in Redford and Weinstein, ABD 3:346–48), whose traditions the Hebrews inherited. Israel elevated these transmissions to the level of its own normative past and made them the subject of its own cultural memory when the people needed this past for their present. This present, however, should certainly not be placed prior to the appearance of the prophets. Hence, the literary arrangement of the Joseph story, the exodus narrative, and all remaining biblical references to Egypt are considered to stem from the late period of Egypt and not from Egypt of the Bronze Age, which is where the tradition places the exodus (Assmann, Ägypten, 314–15; see Görg, NBL, fascicle 4, 634; Stolz, Monotheismus, 87; Lemche, Vorgeschichte, 62). A similar process can be observed on the part of Egypt in the Ptolemaic period. The Israelite exodus stories were perhaps received from Manetho and bound together with Israel’s own memories of the Hyksos and Amarna periods (see Redford, “Perspective,” 148–51).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 138 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

138

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

leadership of the Pharaoh’s treasurer, 557 By (Baj), who was possibly of foreign origin 558 and who could be identical 559 with the Syrian ºrsw (Arßu/Irßu) mentioned in the Harris I papyrus. 560 They lived among the lower classes later under Pharaoh Sethnacht, who drove them out of the country. 561 According to Knauf and de Moor, this by/ºrsw was none other than Moses. This identification is supported by the second name of by, which only appears once, in an inscription from Asswan. 562 This inscription contains the element ms from msj (“Moses”): Rº-ms-sw-hº.m-ntrw B·j. 563 The treasurer, then, in a certain sense, was also called “Moses.” The sources, of course, cannot really bear the weight of the identification postulated by Knauf. Even he admits that “everything could have been completely different.”564 They do show, however, that one must take into account processes that were historically analogous to the exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt. 565 There is another meaning alongside the meaning of the exodus as release or expulsion: Exod 14:5a mentions that “the king of Egypt was notified that the people had fled (jrb).” In this half-verse, which interprets the exodus as flight, some have wanted to see a third variant tradition that knows neither the plagues nor the expulsion, since this variant stands in tension with both. 566 However, a historical-critical reconstruction of this exodus narrative cannot succeed. The supposed prefiguring of Israel’s exodus from Egypt as flight (14:5) 567 by the flight of Moses in Exod 2:11ff. 568 could also be conceived as a trace of an older, unbroken presentation. 569 Still, the notice in Exod 14:5a that the people have fled is scarcely more than a transmission splinter, 570 and we should interpret it more cautiously (if 557. Under the young King Siptah, whose mentor and patron was By; see Drenkhahn, Elephantine-Stele, 40–41, 51. 558. Knauf, Midian, 136; Hornung, Grundzüge, 109. 559. Drenkhahn, Elephantine-Stele, 53–54 (with a review of research); for a critique, see Malamat, Analogies, 24–26 (with n. 20, bibliography). Drenkhahn explains the name difference thus: “someone later gave fictive or foreign names to undesirable persons” (Elephantine-Stele, 54). 560. See the discussion in Erichsen, Papyrus Harris, vol. 1; Drenkhahn, Elephantine-Stele, 71–72. 561. Hornung, Grundzüge, 109–10. 562. Drenkhahn, Elephantine-Stele, 43–44; see p. 40. 563. De Moor, Festschrift Gibson, 217. 564. Knauf, Midian, 137. 565. For a critique of Knauf, see Görg, “Exodus,” 635; idem, Beziehungen, 144–45; Utzschneider, Atem, 87; Stolz, TRE 28:590; Malamat, Analogies, 24–26. 566. See Noth, ATD 5 88; idem, HPT, 65 n. 193; Görg, Kairos 20 (1978): 277; Albertz, History, 1:72. Cazelles believes de Vaux is probably correct that an Egyptian scribe in the Solomonic court added the version of the exodus as expulsion to the older version of the exodus as flight (Cazelles, TDOT 9:34). However, that is speculation. For discussion of the problem, see Zenger, TRE 23:335. 567. See also W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 82. 568. Because the term ldgyw used in 2:11 is different from the term used in 2:10, some believe that Exod 2:11ff. was originally independent of 2:1–10 (ibid., 81). However, this difference is too marginal to postulate a separate existence for 2:1–10 distinct from 2:11ff. (see also Childs, OTL, 28). Exod 2:11ff. presupposes the preceding birth story of Moses (see “he went out” [from Pharaoh’s courtyard] in 2:11, 13). Another problem is that 2:11 also appears to presuppose Exodus 1 (see twlbs, “forced labor” in 1:11/2:11; see W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 80). It is not compelling, however, that Moses therefore must have lived either in Pithom or Ramses (for locating Pithom and Ramses, see Redford, LÄ 4; Utzschneider, Atem, 89–91). 569. It is also interesting that the narrative beginning with the exposition in 2:1–10 speaks of Moses and his “brothers” as “Hebrews” (2:6–7, 11, 13; compare 1:13, 16, 19 [22]) not as Israelites. Furthermore, the notice of flight in Exod 14:5a does not mention the “Israelites” but simply the “people.” 570. W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/2 365.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 139 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Moses/Exodus Story as an Independent Text Complex

139

not as “a post-Priestly gloss . . . to 14:5b which interprets historically the need demanded in 12:11” 571) as anticipating the subsequent persecution. We should not postulate that a specific version of the exodus narrative was behind it.572

2.4.3. The Problem of the Beginning of an Independent Moses/Exodus Story Literarily, the problem of the beginning of an independent exodus narrative is difficult to determine: the beginning of the book of Exodus, Exod 1:1–8, presupposes the Joseph story; 573 the subject of Exod 1:9–10 relates to 1:8; and Exod 1:11 is impersonally formulated. Additionally, the narrative can begin neither with Exod 1:9 574 nor with 1:11. As shown above in §2.1.2.a (pp. 62ff.), Exodus 1 as a whole does not contain text material that reaches back before P. Thus, Exodus 1 is excluded as a candidate for the beginning of an independent exodus narrative. 575 The impossibility of having an independent exodus narrative begin in Exodus 1 does not, however, support the opposite hypothesis; the model of the classical Documentary Hypothesis to explain the state of the text: the original introduction to Exodus is Genesis. Concerning the transition from Genesis to Exodus in particular, the Documentary Hypothesis provides no satisfying solution. In none of the three sources, J, E, or P, does the context between Genesis 50 and Exodus 1 remain intact. 576 One must reckon with missing material in each source. Even newer models fail to formulate problem-free suggestions for the transition from Genesis to Exodus (see above, §2.1.2.a). Although Blum believes that in Kd the flow of Gen 50:24, Exod 1:6, 8 spans the gap between the ancestors and Exodus “succinctly in every respect,” 577 without 1:7 (P), the reason for Pharaoh’s fear in Exod 1:9 is lacking. The same problem faces Levin’s “Yahwist,” who narrates the transition from Genesis to Exodus in Gen 50:*14, *26; Exod 1:8–9. 578 This problem is only solved by Van Seters but at the cost of the difficult assignment of Exod 1:7 to J, despite its clear associations with a network of P statements. 579 The literary bridges between Genesis and Exodus show that these blocks were not bound 571. Knauf, Midian, 130–31; see p. 139 n. 591. 572. See especially Vervenne, BETL 126 (1996), 42; idem, JNSL 22 (1996): 45–58; and the reference to Gen 31:22–25; see the synopsis in ibid., 53; see also Weimar and Zenger, Exodus, 51–52 n. 56; Levin, Jahwist, 341. 573. See Weber, BN 55 (1990): 66; Gosse, EstBib 51 (1993): 163–67; Weimar, BETL 126 (1996), 197–98. 574. As Albertz suggests (Albertz, GAT 8/1 43). The subject of rmayw, the new king of Egypt from 1:8, remains unnamed in 1:9. 575. Koch sees in Exod 1:15 the beginning of an old departure narrative (Koch, VT 19 [1969]: 54), but he assumes that a loss of text precedes it. Winnett has his Moses narrative begin with Exod 3:1 (Winnett, Mosaic Tradition, 173). Concerning Exodus 3–4, see below, §3.2.2 (pp. 172ff.). 576. See Noth, HPT, 18, 30, 35–36; and above, §2.1.2.a (pp. 62ff.). 577. Blum, Pentateuch, 103. See now his considerations on that point in “Verbindung,” 145–46. 578. Levin, Jahwist, 74. Carr (Fractures, 291) and Blum (“Verbindung,” 145) point out that information may be communicated only in the form of direct speeches. In the case of Exod 1:7 and 1:9, however, this seems to be an ad hoc hypothesis. 579. Van Seters, Life, 19–21; Gertz, Tradition, 366–68.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 140 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

140

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

together as a single complex from their inception but were two different and in all probability literarily separate traditions. If Exodus 1 is excluded as a narrative beginning, then, in conjunction with an old theory of Meyer and Gressmann, 580 the birth story 581 of Exodus 2 is a likely possibility for a narrative beginning. 582 The Moses story begins with the birth of Moses, 583 but there are objections to consider: 584 the story of Moses’ birth and childhood narrates his deliverance from the infanticide (1:22) arranged by Pharaoh. Therefore, Exodus 1–2 are often considered an indissoluble narrative complex. However, several considerations argue against taking Exodus 1 as an original introduction to Exodus 2. 585 Exod 2:1–10 586 is readable and understandable by itself, apart from Exodus 1. 587 Thus, the birth story of Moses is not one of salvation from infanticide by the Egyptians but one of the exposure and the miraculous protection of Moses. We will see that certain narrative elements in Exodus 2 clearly point toward this solution. 580. Meyer, Israeliten, 48; Gressmann, Mose, 1–16; see also Childs, OTL, 8–11; Isbell, “Exodus 1–2,” 38. 581. See also the literary reconstruction of a version preceding the written form, in Weimar, Untersuchungen, 31; idem, Berufung, 214 n. 33; idem, BETL 126 (1996), 182 n. 14; 184 n. 21 (with a correction of his older reconstruction). Concerning the history of reception, see Cohen, Story. 582. Willi-Plein sees Exod 2:1–10 differently, as being within the larger context of Genesis– Exodus ( J) from the beginning (Willi-Plein, VT 41 [1991]: 110–18). She points out that ˚lyw in 2:1 continues the narrative chain in Exodus 1 (p. 113), so that in the present context it must be said that the events of 2:1 play out after the decree of Pharaoh (Greenberg, Understanding Exodus, 37–38). However, ˚lyw appears “redundant” (Houtman, Exodus 1, 270) and therefore was either not translated by the LXX or was simply read as yhyw (Ehrlich, quoted by Houtman, Exodus 1, 270). If one follows Schneider (Schneider, BN 70 [1993]: 64, 70, 85), then vya ˚lyw would be possible as the beginning of a narrative (Weimar, BETL 126 [1996], 182 n. 14). 583. See also Kratz, Composition, 282, 285; Otto, “Moses.” Rendtorff points out that Exodus 2 hardly contains any allusions to what follows and possesses a certain independence (Rendtorff, Festschrift Coats, 12–13). One could thus conclude that a separate tradition lay behind Exodus 2. On the other hand, certain themes in Exodus 2 may certainly be conceived as openings to the exodus event. Thus, the scene on the Nile with the deliverance of the child Moses forms an antitype to the events at the Sea of Reeds, and Moses’ flight (2:15) anticipates that of the people (Exod 14:5). 584. See the discussion in Weber, BN 55 (1990): 54–56. 585. The chiastic structure in Exod 1:15–22 observed by Wicke provides a thematic contrast between Exod 1:1–14 and 2:1–10 (Wicke, JSOT 24 [1982]: 101–2), but it does not allow us to conclude that these two flight passages have the same literary origin. The same is true for SiebertHommes, VT 42 (1992): 398, 403. Willi-Plein also maintains Exod 1:15–2:10 as literarily unified ( J) on the basis of the consistent theme and the leading word ˚ly. See Van Seters, Life, 24–29 (for ˚lyh in Exod 2:6a as the midpoint of Exod 2:1–10 [70+1+70 words], see Siebert-Hommes, VT 42 [1992]: 401; Ebach, “Schwester,” 132; Weimar, BETL 126 [1996], 186 n. 27). Coats (Moses, 43–48) and Childs (8–11) as well as Weimar (BETL 126 [1996], 189–90, 197) have already spoken for a traditionhistorical division of 1:15–22 and 2:1–10. In Exodus 1–2, Berge discusses only the problem of the literary-critical layers but draws no conclusions concerning a fundamental cross-referencing between Exodus 1 and Exodus 2 (Berge, Reading, 153–80). 586. The narrative is not literarily (or perhaps tradition-historically) unified. With Noth (HPT, 30; idem, ATD 5 14–16), W. H. Schmidt (BKAT 2/1 51–55), and Levin ( Jahwist, 320), I think that vv. 4, 7–10aa should first be seen as a later expansion of the birth narrative. Similarly, Weimar (BETL 126 [1996], 182 n. 14) sees the basic narrative in Exodus 2 as comprising 1–3, 5aa, b, 6aa, b, 10aa* (only ˚lyh ldgyw). 587. See also the variation in Acts 7:19; see the discussion in Pesch, EKKNT 5/1 251.

spread is 15 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 141 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Moses/Exodus Story as an Independent Text Complex

141

Against this interpretation one could object that the exposure of Moses would not have any motivation without the threat of the infanticide. 588 However, a threat of exposure alone emerges from Exod 2:1–3 if we recognize that Exod 2:1 does not necessarily present Moses as a child born in wedlock. Rather, the text suggests, if not requires, that we understand Moses as born out of wedlock: tybm vya ˚lyw ywl 589tb 590ta jqyw ywl. The terminus technicus for matrimony is hval jql (“to take as wife”; Gen 4:19; 11:29; 20:2–3; 24:3–4; etc). 591 By contrast, jql without an intransitive object, as it appears in 2:1, is not always formulated elliptically 592 but can also mean sexual activity between a couple outside of marriage, 593 including rape. 594 The idea that in Exod 2:1 Moses is described as a child out of wedlock is also suggested by the fact that Moses’ parents remain nameless in Exod 2:1, a fact that is extraordinarily noteworthy for a biblical hero such as Moses. 595 Apparently, Exod 6:20 (see Num 26:59) was already disturbed by this association in Exod 2:1 and filled out the simple jqyw to hval jqyw (he took her as a wife) and also named Moses’ parents—Amram and Jochebed. In so doing, Jochebed functions as the aunt of Amram, and even this provides an explanation for 2:1: a man from the house of Levi married the daughter of Levi, thus his aunt. 596 The closest parallel to Exod 2:1–2 is Hos 1:2–3,597 which is not about a marriage, contrary to the traditional opinion. 598 It does not mean, “Hosea took Gomer to be his wife.” Rather, the commission from God in Hos 1:2 is: μynwnz ydlyw μynwnz tva ˚l jq ˚l (“Go, take for yourself a woman of whoredom and children of whoredom”).599 The deed in Hos 588. So Van Seters, Life, 25: “The genocide theme is a necessary part of the birth story.” 589. The LXX reads “among the daughters of Levi.” Concerning the problem of the familial relationship of Moses’ parents according to Exod 2:1 and the “sister” of Moses in 2:4, see Houtman, Exodus 1, 270–79; Fischer, BETL 126 (1996), 161–62; Weimar, BETL 126 (1996), 185, with n. 24. Various possibilities are discussed in Ebach, “Schwester.” 590. Noth sees the nota accusativi as secondary in order to make the mother of Moses the only daughter of Levi (Noth, HPT, 201 n. 454). For a discussion of whether ta demands the article, see GKC §117d; Davies, Israel, 87. 591. H. Seebass, TDOT 8:19. See also Plautz, ZAW 76 (1964): 311–12; Wolff, BKAT 14/1 13; Andersen and Friedman, AB 24 156–57; Weider, Ehemetaphorik, 12 n. 38 (but confusing hva jql and hval jql). 592. So, H. H. Schmid, TLOT 2:650; for Exod 2:1, see also Macchi, ETR 69 (1994): 397–98. 593. Compare Gen 6:2; see also Gen 24:67 (Andersen and Friedman, AB 24 156). Blum (“Verbindung,” 146 n. 124) contests Gen 6:2 and 24:67 as examples. However, Gen 6:2 reads μvn μhl wjqyw and not μvnl μhl wjqyw. Therefore, it is not clear that a marriage is envisioned here; it is even improbable. Accordingly, the wording in Gen 24:67, hval wl yhtw hqbr ta jqyw, first speaks of sexual intercourse (hqbr ta jqyw) and then, in a second step, of marriage (hval wl yhtw). 594. 2 Sam 11:4 (Seebass, TDOT 8:19). 595. The idea occasionally put forward that the names of Moses’ parents have been removed from Exod 2:1 because they contradict those in Exod 6:20 is less probable. Exod 2:1 is considerably more prominently placed than 6:20. Thus, retouching would be expected in 6:20. Furthermore, the sister of Moses in Exod 2:4 is also introduced anonymously (see Baentsch, HKAT 1/2 10). 596. The LXX has smoothed out Exod 6:20 even more in order to avoid an incestual relationship: “the daughter of his father’s brother.” Jochebed was thus the cousin of Amram. 597. See Van Seters, Life, 27. 598. Gen 38:1–2 shows how a marriage would be described in narrative form. 599. Whether a verb (“and attest”) should be expanded before μnwnz ydly (see Wolff, BKAT 14/1 15, but see p. 6; Jeremias, ATD 24/1 26; Weider, Ehemetaphorik, 7) is by no means certain (Andersen and Freedman, AB 24 142).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 142 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

142

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

1:3 is formulated in a corresponding fashion: rmg ta jqyw ˚lyw (“And he went and he took Gomer”). Above all, there was no marriage of Hosea and Gomer, because with a married woman, even if she were a prostitute, no “children of whoredom” would result.

If then, according to Exod 2:1, Moses was an illegitimate child of a violent union of a Levite with a daughter of Levi, then there is reason enough for the mother (notably, nothing else is said of the father) to expose the child. The connection of infanticide is accordingly a secondary motivation. Thus, the narrative sequence of 2:2–3 is also explained, in that the mother of Moses first hid him for three months, “when she saw that he was beautifiul (bwf),” before exposing him to the elements. 600 Apparently, the idea is implied that the mother of Moses had decided she would put him aside right away, but because of his “beauty” she kept him with her at first. If Exod 2:2–3 is interpreted only from the perspective of the infanticide of Exodus 1, then the abstruse idea must be accepted that the mother only hid her beautiful children, not her ugly children from the Pharaoh and his people.601 Of course, the function of the “beauty” of Moses in Exod 2:2 is not humane or even politically correct, but in the context of a planned abandonment of an illegitimate child it is easier to understand than in the framework of a generally planned infanticide. The statement by Pharaoh’s daughter in Exod 2:6 that the boy who has been found is “a Hebrew child” is understandable in any case; however, it is not associated with the infanticide in Exodus 1 at all. Exod 2:6–10 does not even hint at the fact that the daughter of Pharaoh hid Moses or that she willingly disobeyed the command of her father. Apparently, Exodus 1 should not be presumed here.

This interpretation can be supported further on the basis of the oft-cited Sargon parallels to the Moses birth story. 602 In the Sargon legend, Sargon’s mother was a high priestess. 603 She was supposed to live a chaste life. 604 Sargon was an illegitimate child and thus did not know his father, as the legend explicitly notes. 605 Thus, 600. Concerning the construction and translation, see GKC §177h; Davies, Israel, 87–88; Houtman, Exodus 1, 271, 273. 601. See Jacob, Exodus, 21 (in conjunction with Ramb): “All mothers love their children, whether they are pretty or not.” His translation, “how he was so good in stature,” does not solve the problem. The notice of Moses’ beauty also stuck out for Sarna, Exploring, 28. He interprets it as the resumption of the approval formula in Genesis 1 (“The birth of Moses is another Genesis, an event of cosmic significance.” See also Jacob, Exodus, 25). However, it makes a considerable difference whether God or a human states bwf yk. See below, §2.5 (pp. 151ff.). 602. See Gressmann, Mose, 8–9; Jacob, Exodus, 23; Childs, JBL 84 (1965): 109–22; idem, Exodus, 8–11; Sarna, Exploring, 29–31; Cohen, Story, 6–10; Levin, Jahwist, 319–20; Houtman, Exodus 1, 290– 91; Macchi, ETR 69 (1994): 401–2; Otto, Mose; text in ANET 119; RTAT, 123–24. Concerning the Sargon Legend, see Güterbock, ZA 42 (1934): 62–65; for a monograph, see Lewis, Legend; for the motif of the abandoned child, see RlA 1:332; PRE 2/2 2 588–89; Redford, Numen 14 (1967): 209–28; Gaster, Myth 1:224–30. The Sargon parallels contradict the decision of Zenger that the Moses figure had no royal references (Zenger, TRE 23:355). See instead, Van Seters, Life, 1–3, with n. 3. 603. CAD 4:173 suggests understanding entu without a sign for the deity following, as “high priestess.” Entu in a construct relationship with a sign for the deity means a lower level priestess. See also Hutter, Religionen, 87. 604. This comes from a series of omen texts (see CAD 4:173). Beyerlin believes that the enitum may indeed marry but must remain childless (Beyerlin, RTAT 123). 605. Column 1:2 reads: um-mi- e-né-tu (CAD 4:173: e-ni-tum) a-bi ul i-di (text from Lewis, Legend, 36).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 143 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Moses/Exodus Story as an Independent Text Complex

143

the birth story of Sargon also describes the socially problematic birth of a leading personality who is compensated by divine protection when he is abandoned. At the same time, with Exodus 2 as a starting point for the story of Moses, we have an apology for the Egyptian origins of Moses. 606 Moses was a Levite, and if one takes Exod 2:1 literally, then on his mother’s side, he was even a direct descendant of Levi. However, Moses grew up incognito with the daughter of Pharaoh. He got his name from her, and she accepted him as her son. 607 Josephus early on described “Moses” as an Egyptian name. 608 Perhaps this background was known even earlier (see also 2:19), as Willi-Plein suggests 609 and therefore provided a Hebrew etymology. 610 This is all the more likely because Exod 2:1–10 is not a story of childhood but only a birth story that continually revolves around the term dly and its derivations. 611 The narrator perhaps knew the Egyptian name Moses and its meaning, and transplanted the Egyptian etymology of Moses into a story that simultaneously put all the emphasis on Moses’ being a “Hebrew,” and indeed, a Levite. 612 606. See Houtman, Exodus 1, 225–26; and especially, Levin, Jahwist, 318, 392. 607. See the narrative parallel between the mother of Moses (“daughter of Levi”) and the daughter of Pharaoh: Mother of Moses artw x jqtw hrmjtw Daughter of Pharaoh artw x hjqtw jtptw See the discussion in Davies, Israel, 102; Görg, Beziehungen, 145–46; concerning the “daughter of Pharaoh” (with Görg), see 1 Kgs 3:1; 7:8; 11:1. 608. Albeit, with a re-Egyptized meaning of the popular etymology of Exod 2:10 (which provides an active participle for a passive participle [see Greenberg, Understanding Exodus, 43]): the Egyptian mw means “water,” and uj /ejshÍ means “that which is pulled from the water” (Arch 2:9, 6; C. Ap. 1:31; see GesB17 466; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 73–74; C. Houtman, DDD 1114; concerning the actual etymology of the Greek MwushÍ, see Griffiths, JNES 12 [1953]: 225–31). Actually, Moses may be derived from m¶j, “born” (see Griffiths, JNES 12 [1953]: 225–31; Herrmann, EvT 28 [1968]: 303–4; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 73–74; Zenger, TRE 23:332–33; see the discussion in Redford, Egypt, 418 n. 119). Knauf points out the different renditions of the Egyptian s with the Hebrew ç in hvm (“Moses”) and s in ssm[r (“Ramses”) in Exod 1:11 (Knauf, Midian, 105; Knauf, Umwelt, 104; see also Redford, Egypt, 418; see also Griffiths, JNES 12 [1953]: 231; Herrmann, EvT 28 [1968]: 304, with n. 7; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 74; Görg, Beziehungen, 143–44). In these, s/s represents the usual rendering in the first millennium, while the Hebrew v in the name Moses suggests the second millennium (Redford, Egypt, 418: “before the eighth century b.c.e.”). According to Knauf, “a strong argument for the historicity of the connection of Israel, Exodus, and Egypt” (Knauf, Umwelt, 104). To be sure, there is no real parallel to hvm. Possibly, this nominal form is an exception (see W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 74 with reference to Helck, VT 15 [1965]: 43–47). In addition, despite the Egyptian name, Moses does not necessarily belong to Egypt given the numerous relationships between Palestine and Egypt (so already, Noth, HPT, 159–60; see Zenger, TRE 23:332). 609. Willi-Plein, VT 41 (1991): 117; see also Levin, Jahwist, 319; Zenger, TRE 23:333. 610. It is noteworthy in this context that one encounters etymologies for names only for Jacob’s sons (Genesis 29–30) and Moses (Exod 2:10). 611. Willi-Plein, VT 41 (1991): 116, 118. 612. Concerning the role of the Levites in Exodus, see especially Exod 32:26–28 (see Macchi, ETR 69 [1994]: 398). Note that other Levites in Exodus have Egyptian names (Hophni, Phineas, Merari). See Greenberg, Understanding Exodus, 44. This need not argue for Egyptian origin, for the relationships between Egypt and Palestine were so tight that influences in the giving of names must also be taken into account (see Soggin, GI, 93).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 144 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

144

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

Exodus 1 is a later interpretive element that understands the Moses story as the people’s story and interprets this people’s story substantively as liberation from existential oppression. Without the leading out of Egypt, Israel would have been annihilated by the slaughter of its newborn males in Egypt. The people’s story introduced an Exodus 1 corresponds reciprocally to the story of Genesis 12–50. As God called Israel into life by giving a son through Abraham, so God protects this life by delivering Moses and the newborn males of Israel from death in Egypt. Diachronically, the motif of infanticide in Exodus 1 appears to have arisen from a transferral of the danger to Moses onto that of the entire people.613 Thus, the oft noted tension between forced labor and infanticide in Exodus 1 finds an explanation.614 No “sane ruler” would attempt to “eradicate” his forced laborers, but “would be quite satisfied if they grew numerous.” 615 We will discuss Exodus 1 and its internal logic more extensively below, in §3.4.2 (pp. 216ff.).

2.4.4. Concerning Literary and Sociological Classification Who were the tradent groups of this independent, pre-Priestly Moses/Exodus narrative from Exodus *2 through 2 Kings? One ready but problematic answer comes from what some call the Yhwh-alone movement and others call the Deuteronomistic movement. Especially because there are clues that *Exodus–2 Kings once formed an independent work, one can suggest substituting this work for Noth’s “Deuteronomistic History,” which can no longer be seen as a meaningfully delimited entity (at least as far as its beginning in Deuteronomy 1–3 is concerned) because of the difficulty of verifying a pre-Deuteronomistic Tetrateuch. 616 This indicates all the more clearly that behind Exodus–2 Kings lies an author(s) who belongs to the intellectual framework of what is commonly characterized as “Deuteronomistic.” It is likely, however, that there were older preliminary stages of the Moses/Exodus narrative that reach back before the time in which deuteronomism was first conceivable. According to the classic view, this would have been the 7th century b.c.e. The identity of the group transmitting the Moses/Exodus narrative before the appearance of deuteronomism can no longer be stated with certainty. We are reminded of Noth’s speculation about the Northern origin of Deuteronomy, but the “pre-Deuteronomistic” roots of the exodus story also point relatively clearly to the former Northern Kingdom.617 In particular, the parallels shown by Albertz 618 between Moses in Exodus 2–5 and Jeroboam I suggest that the exo613. See Gressmann, Mose, 2–3; Meyer, Israeliten, 48; Noth, ATD 5 13; W. H. Schmidt, EdF 191 (1990), 23–24; Childs, JBL 84 (1965): 119; idem, OTL, 11; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 135. 614. Gressmann certainly sees that forced labor and infanticide impinge on one another (Gressmann, Mose, 4–5), but he offers an explanation for the persecution of Jesus construed on his birth story too, but without controls. “The Pharaoh does not fear the increase of the people, but only Moses. . . . Somehow he learned, whether from a dream or a prediction, that in the near future a Hebrew woman would have a boy who was determined to become the most dangerous opponent of the Pharaoh and to rob him of the throne” (Gressmann, Mose, 5). As with Gressmann, the midrash (see also Tg. Yerusalmi I to Exod 1:15) reflected in Wünsche, Lehrhallen 1, 61–62 (see p. 80), has Pharaoh being warned about Moses in a dream. 615. Meyer, Israeliten, 43; see W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 23–24. 616. See above, §1.3.1.c. 617. Alt, “Heimat.” 618. Albertz, History, 1:141–42.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 145 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Moses/Exodus Story as an Independent Text Complex

145

dus narrative represented a kind of legitimation document for the Northern Kingdom and that it was transmitted within official government circles in the Northern Kingdom.619 That Jeroboam I could call on Moses (the same Jeroboam I whose royal sanctuaries were later branded as the example of sin par excellence) shows, however, that the Moses/Exodus story has undergone a radical theological transformation that can be connected with the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 b.c.e. The Northern Kingdom traditions were then transferred into the South, and there were reinterpreted mono-Yahwistically. The national catastrophe made a theological reinterpretation unavoidable. Yhwh could no longer be conceived as just a part of the nationalism of the Northern Kingdom. Despite all the differences, the enduring common denominator of the Moses/Exodus story is: Yhwh is the God of Israel.

However, the designation Deuteronomistic is hardly more than a label. The identity of the Deuteronomists is today highly debated. Should one imagine Deuteronomism as a theological school, a people movement, an individual person, a long-lasting theological stream, or the attitude of the late exilic period? 620 The debate cannot be treated here, but this much is clear: the Moses/Exodus story is the tradition of Israel’s origins that proclaims Yhwh as the one and only God, and narrates the giving of the law 621 and the military conquest (it also contains the execution of the ban on the existing inhabitants of the land). It thus presents a theological program that classically has been described as deuteronomistic—a program that stands in sharp opposition to that of the ancestor story, which is particularly interesting for our discussion. The difference between the ancestor story and the Moses/Exodus story is so great that the two traditions of origins can be described as representative of diverse religio-historical types. 2.4.5. Religio-Historical Typology We have seen that the religiohistorical shaping of the ancestor story can be described as inclusive, irenical, and autochthonous. The identity of Israel in this context essentially derives from the corresponding genealogical contexts. In the Moses/Exodus story, we runs up against the stark opposite: an exclusive 622 concept of God and an aggressive politic of religion within an allochthonous concept of the whole. 623 Therefore, it is not due exclusively to Israel’s development as a people in the Hebrew Bible that one encounters the idea of Israel as the people of God (hwhy μ[) 619. If we try to inquire behind Jeroboam I, then we inevitably come to the problem of the historicity of the exodus. What events does the exodus story reflect? Was there even an exodus group, etc? It is almost self-evident that the foundation is simply too thin to make sustainable arguments. See above, pp. 137–138, nn. 553–65; and Schmid, Literaturgeschichte, 90–91. 620. See Lohfink, “Bewegung”; Albertz, EvT 57 (1997): 319–38, also with bibliography; Witte (ed.), Geschichtswerke; concerning the history of the problem, see also my Buchgestalten, 31–33. 621. But compare the limitations below in §3.6.2. 622. See Stolz, “Monotheismus Israel,” 41–45. 623. Albertz distinguishes these two concepts somewhat sloganistically as the “genealogical concept of the twelve tribe people and the theological concept of the people of God” (Albertz, TRE 16:376–77).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 146 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

146

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

only beginning with the book of Exodus. 624 Rather, the reason is that the conceptualizing of the origins in the Moses/Exodus story establishes the identity of Israel theologically only by the founding events of the exodus. Israel is Israel because Yhwh has taken Israel to himself and led them out of Egypt. It is no accident that the so-called covenant formula, “I will be your God, and you will be my people” (or the like), 625 appears especially in the context of the departure from Egypt. 626 Its only attestation in Genesis, 17:7–8, notably features only the first half, which also conforms fully to P theology, in which Yhwh will “become the God” of Abraham and his descendants. 627 The other concentration of the formula is in the context of prophetic promises that are textually connected to Exodus in proclaiming a new exodus for the future. 628

The same holds true for the recognition formula as for the covenant formula: “so that you know that I am Yhwh.” It is entirely lacking in Genesis but is prominent in Exodus; and in the subsequent historical books, it appears only in Deut 29:5; 1 Kgs 20:13, 28. 629 Particularly noteworthy is the narrative introduction of its negative formulation in the provocation of Pharaoh in Exod 5:2 in which recognition of Yhwh is rejected. Yet, it is precisely this recognition with which the exodus narrative is concerned, both for Israel and for Egypt (Exod 6:3, 7; 7:5, 17; 8:10, 22; 9:14, 29; 10:2; 11:7; 14:4, 8). Therefore, there must be confrontation between Yhwh and Egypt. The idea of Israel as the “people of God” is closely connected with the course of events of the exodus, and in the text’s current form the conquest is clearly described as the “holy war” of Yhwh and Israel. 630 Yhwh fights for Israel against the Egyptians and the inhabitants of the promised land. They are killed and Israel takes possession of the land and the cities. 631 As long as the Song of Miriam in Exod 624. See the collection of examples (359 passages) by Lohfink, Festschrift von Rad, 276 nn. 3–9 (including ym[, ˚m[, wm[, μyhla[h] μ[); concerning vwdq μ[ or hlgs μ[, see E. Lipinski, TDOT 4:192–93; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 57, 112–13. 625. See the collection of examples in Lohfink, Dt 26:17–19, 211; Smend, “Bundesformel,” 12– 14; Rendtorff, Bundesformel, 18–19. 626. In 14 passages, the covenant formula is connected with a reference to the leading out of Egypt (Lohfink, Dtn 26:17–19, 255; see H. H. Schmid, Festschrift Bornkamm, 2 n. 6; Rendtorff, Bundesformel, 48–49). By this recourse to a founding event, the content of the covenant formula is differentiated from the readily attested ancient Near Eastern genitive classifications of God’s possession of the city, place, and land (see ibid., 4–5). 627. Concerning larcy yhla la in Gen 33:20, see Smend, “Bundesformel,” 21–22; Köckert, Vätergott, 84–87. 628. See the examples in H. H. Schmid, Festschrift Bornkamm, 2 n. 5. 629. The chief focal point is in Ezekiel (see Zimmerli, “Erkenntnis”). Outside Exodus–2 Kings and Ezekiel, it is found only in Isa 45:3; 49:23; 60:16; Hos 2:22; Joel 2:27; 4:17. See Eslinger, “Exod 6:3,” 188; Vervenne, Festschrift Beuken. 630. See the bibliography in Lohfink, “Schichten,” 263 n. 26. Concerning the anchoring of the concept of the hwhy μ[ or μyhla μ[ in the religious war terminology, see Judg 5:11, 13; 20:2. Concerning the ancient Near Eastern background of “holy war,” compare the recent material in Younger, Conquest Accounts. See also Römer, ZAW 109 (1997): 2–3. 631. See an inventory of the terminology in von Rad, Krieg, 6–14; Stolz, Kriege, 17–28.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 147 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Moses/Exodus Story as an Independent Text Complex

147

15:21b was dated “relatively contemporary to the events,” we could even see the theory of “holy wars” in the oldest memories of the exodus: 632 the deliverance of Israel at the Sea of Reeds is the result of a war that Yhwh fought for his people (Exod 14:25, 30–31). 633 However, this appraisal has changed. But, even if the meaning of the exodus together with the conquest as “holy war” rests on literary revision and is not found in the oldest textual strata of Exodus (and following), 634 it is still clear that Exodus–Joshua should be fundamentally and substantially differentiated from the pacifistic presentation of Genesis with respect to “holy war.” 635 Two ideas belong to this “holy war” character of the text, which demonstrates the superiority of Yhwh over the foreign nations and their gods in the exodus story. On the one hand, the anchoring of the revelation of the divine name (Exod 3:14–15; 6:2) is coupled with the announcement of the giving of the land, which is in opposition to the other peoples (Exod 3:8, 17–18; 6:7–8). On the other hand is the insertion of the giving of the law that already provided the theme of segregation from the nations in its older passages (for example, Exod 23:32–33; 34:12, 15; compare with Deut 12:29–31; 16:21; 20:16–17; 25:19, etc.). 636 So, it is no accident that, in the tradition, the theological event of the origin of Israel, the founding of exclusivist monotheism as the religion of Israel through Moses is closely associated with the historical event of the origin of Israel, the exodus. 637 2.4.6. The Moses/Exodus Story as a Tradition of Israel’s Origin Like the independent ancestor story, the Moses/Exodus story should be classified form-critically as a “tradition of the origin” of Israel. Although it explains the identity of Israel in its land from its origins as well, it narrates a completely different story from Genesis *12–50: it does not narrate a story based on the divine promise to the ancestors of Israel already living in the land but based on divine leading; Israel receives its land as a possession. If the ancestor story and the Moses/Exodus story both establish the same thing for Israel, that is, two traditions of Israel—specifically the relationship of Israel to its land (its preexisting inhabitants and its neighbors), albeit in very different ways (the one autochthonous, inclusive, and pacifistic, and the other allochthonous, 632. So Smend, “Jahwekrieg,” 183; see Knauf, BN 86 (1997): 50. According to Smend, the idea of the Yhwh war does not “first” appear with the conquest but is already a given during the exodus. By contrast, see, among others, Stolz, Kriege, 9–10. 633. See Ska, VT 33 (1983): 454–67; Weimar, Meerwundererzählung, 80–83. 634. See the details in Stolz, Kriege, 90–99, with only rough distinctions between J and secondary versions of J, however. 635. The distinction between “pacifism” and “warring” shapes not only the sequence of Genesis– Exodus (and following), but also, in diachronic perspective, the relationship of P to the pre-Priestly layers—namely, the texts usually subsumed under D (see Lohfink, “Schichten”). The impression of a “pacifistically” fashioned Genesis appears largely because P primarily incorporated its perspective prominently in Genesis. 636. See Sarna, ABD 2:699. 637. See Stolz, Monotheismus, 84–91.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 148 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

148

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

exclusive, and aggressive)—then a fundamental tension between these two transmission complexes is to be expected. The Hebrew Bible allows one to recognize this tension clearly in many places. In particular, de Pury has shown in his work on Hosea 12 that a fundamental opposition exists between the ancestral tradition and the exodus tradition (see above §2.2.1.b, pp. 73ff.). 638 However, examination of other texts outside the Pentateuch shows comparable results: the ancestors and exodus stories not only appear to be separate from one another, they also appear to be competing traditions of origins. This means that who and what constitute “Israel” were not fully clear in the biblical period. Rather, Israel’s identity could be described in different, in fact, almost opposing manners. In the first place, the tradent groups of these two traditions of origin can be distinguished from one another sociologically. The ancestor story appears to have been transmitted by the ≈rah μ[, while the Moses/Exodus story appears to have been transmitted by the “Deuteronomistic” circles. In fact, they also have geographically and historically different roots. The ancestor story is, above all, at home in Southern, Judean territory (here one can reference especially the figure of Abraham, to whom the promise theme attaches in large part). The Moses/Exodus story, on the other hand, appears to be a transmission of the Northern Kingdom, and in fact, in a certain form may at one time have been used to legitimate the dynasty of Jeroboam I. That these two traditions of origin could appear together in competition at all arises from their fundamental closeness (despite all the differences). Specifically, they both are directed toward the land of Israel: on the one hand, represented by the promises, and on the other hand, represented by taking possession through a “holy war.” And both represent the relationship of Israel to Yhwh. These commonalities are precisely what highlight their competition, not really their differences. They are also why *Genesis and *Exodus (and following) can be connected with one another at all. Below, in §3.5 (pp. 224ff.) and §3.6 (pp. 259ff.), we will return in more detail to the logic of the redactional combination of the ancestral tradition and the Moses/Exodus story. 2.4.7. Summary If we exclude the Priestly texts and the explicit bridges to Genesis (Exodus *3– 4 and Joshua 24, as well as the references back to the sworn promises of land to the three ancestors in Exod 32:13; 33:1; Lev 26:42; Num 23:11; Deut 34:4; see 1 Kgs 18:36; 2 Kgs 13:23), then Exodus *2–2 Kings represents a self-enclosed narrative complex whose conceptualization is more unified without Genesis than with it. 639 638. See de Pury, “Osée 12”; and his work appearing in OBO, “L’ancêtre et le prophète”; see also Kratz, TRE 28:373; differently, Blum, “Hosea 12.” 639. What Staerk cited as the main evidence/proof for Genesis–2 Kings as a cohesive history is true for Exodus–2 Kings: “The edifying goal, which is sometimes more heavily and sometimes more lightly accented, a consistently executed religious pragmatism [italics original] that presents the whole history of Israel under the perspective of punishment for the hard-headedness and checkered nature of

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 149 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Moses/Exodus Story as an Independent Text Complex

149

Without *Genesis, Exodus *2 through 2 Kings is a large “judgment doxology” for the fall of Judah and Jerusalem. The exiling of the population corresponds reciprocally to the leading of Israel out of Egypt. The foreshadowing of *Genesis on the one hand creates a certain theological imprecision (albeit intentionally so, in all probability) between unconditional promise (*Genesis) and salvific promise conditionally coupled with observance of the law (Exodus and following); on the other hand, the theology of history in the historical books is completely changed by the current salvation-historical lines arising in Genesis–Joshua. The two part picture of salvation history (Genesis–Joshua) and judgment history ( Judges– 2 Kings) first arises with the placement of *Genesis before *Exodus (and following), while Exodus *2–2 Kings represents a story of the guilt of Israel and the (not unlimited) protection of Yhwh. Textually, the state of the Moses/Exodus narrative in its earliest stages, when still independent of Genesis, cannot be determined with certainty in many places. In basic outline, it may have contained the following material: Exodus *2; 640 *4; *7–*14; 641 *16–17 (*19–24; *32–34); 642 Num *10ff.; Deuteronomy *1–3; 643 31–34; Joshua *1–12; (*13–24); 644 *20–23; 645 ( Judges?); 646 1 Samuel *1 through 2 Kgs 25:26. Hence, it essentially encompasses the textual substance of the classic “Deuteronomistic Historian.” In contrast to the view dominant since Noth, this complex did not begin with Deuteronomy 1–3 but with Exodus *2. On the one hand, this delimitation is more plausible because material in Exodus– Joshua that manifestly belongs together is not thereby torn apart. On the other hand, the classic option of beginning with Deuteronomy 1–3 has become problematic especially in the late dating of the pre-Priestly Tetrateuch that is increasingly gaining ground. Deuteronomy 1–3 presupposes at least a knowledge of what is narrated in (Genesis,) Exodus–Numbers. 647 the people contrasted with the sedulous welfare of God and the salvific discipline of God” (Staerk, Entstehung, 12). This is the program of “Deuteronomism.” 640. Concerning Exodus *3–4, see below, §3.2.2 (pp. 172ff.). 641. Concerning Exodus 15, see below, §3.4.2.d (pp. ff.). 642. How the non-Priestly Sinai pericope should be classified is quite controversial. Specifically in Exodus 19–34 suggestions continue to multiply that significant portions of the material should be dated after P (for example, see Crüsemann, Tora, 55–57; Otto, BETL 126 [1996], 61–111; idem, TRu 60 [1995]: 163–91; Oswald, Israel, 256–62. Concerning the early dating of Exodus *34 that has recently come into practice, see Blum, BETL 126 [1996], 347–66). Which legal material in Exodus 19ff. the Moses/Exodus story contained must therefore remain open. See also the references below, in §3.6.2 (pp. 265ff.). 643. The question of the structure of Deuteronomy in the context of the historical books is debated. See the references in nn. 650–53 (pp. 150–151). 644. See Cortese, Josua 13–21 and the discussion in Kaiser, Grundriss, 1:106. 645. Concerning Joshua 24, see below, §3.3 (pp. 193ff.). 646. Concerning the problem of the connectivity of the so-called Deuteronomistic Judges pattern with the rest of the “Deuteronomistic” indicator passages in the Former Prophets, see below, §3.3.2.c (pp. 199ff.). 647. See above, §1.3.1.c (pp. 23ff.).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 150 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

150

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

A precise determination of the relationship of “deuteronomisms” in Exodus– Numbers on the one hand and Deuteronomy–2 Kings on the other hand must still be proven, specifically with the option in mind that the passages indicated as “Deuteronomistic” in the Former Prophets should be differentiated redactionhistorically. It is quite likely that in *Exodus–2 Kings, different tradition complexes (*Exodus–Numbers; *Deuteronomy–Joshua; *Kings, or *Samuel–Kings) have been inserted, each of which has been revised “Deuteronomistically” in ways that we may be able to determine more precisely. 648 What about Noth’s theory of a historical work extending from Deuteronomy through 2 Kings? Indeed, Deuteronomy–2 Kings does actually encompass material that belongs together. This can be seen largely by the inclusio extending from the motif of finding the book in 2 Kings 22–23 back to the “book” of Deuteronomy.649 However, the line of Deuteronomy–2 Kings should be redaction-historically arranged differently from what Noth determined. Deuteronomy–2 Kings seems not to be the delimitation of an originally independent historical work but a thematic division within a larger context, Exodus– 2 Kings or perhaps even Genesis–2 Kings. It appears to be related to the integration of the deuteronomic law in the course of the narrative books.650 This integration might be connected with the strands in Joshua–2 Kings described in the Göttingen model as DtrN. Only with the insertion of Deuteronomy *6–28651 (by means of Deuteronomy 1–3 652 648. See especially, Weippert, Bib 53 (1972): 301–39; Lohfink, Festschrift Wolff; Moenikes, ZAW 104 (1992): 333–48; and the extensive discussion in Witte et al., eds., Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke. 649. See the discussion in Donner, GAT 4/2 335. 650. See Wellhausen, Composition, 186–89; Wolff, “Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk,” 318–21; Steck, Israel, 66 n. 3, 139 n. 4; von Rad, ATD 8 33; Levenson, HTR 68 (1975): 203– 33; Preuss, Deuteronomium, 22, 84; Clifford, Deuteronomy, 1–3; Veijola, “Observations”; Gertz, “Deuteronomium 1–3.” For a different perspective, see Noth, DH, 16; Cortese, “Theories,” 185 n. 17; O’Brien, History, 56–57; Perlitt, BKAT 5 33–34; and cautiously, Smend, Entstehung, 73. In this context, one should also observe the Wiederaufnahme of Num 27:12–14 in Deut 32:48–52 which can only be satisfactorily explained by the deuteronomic law’s being placed in between later. 651. See the inclusio in 6:17 / 28:45 (Lohfink, TP 65 [1990]: 391). Concerning Deuteronomy 29, see K. Schmid, Bib 78 (1997): 95 n. 40. 652. See Gertz, “Deuteronomium 1–3.” Deuteronomy 4 presupposes and critically comments upon Deuteronomy 5 (see Otto, Deuteronomium 4, 209–12). Deut 4:1–40 is a literarily unified text that should be assigned to a post-P origin (ibid., 216, 218; see also Lohfink, “Deuteronomium und Pentateuch,” 36). This view runs contrary to Knapp, who interprets the chapter completely deuteronomically and divides it into three layers (Knapp, Deuteronomium 4). One should observe, above all, its chronological structure that continues both forward and backward. “In 4:1–40, admonitions to obey the law alternate with historical recollections that reach ever further into Israel’s past (3–4 Beth Peor; 10–14 Horeb theophany; 20 leading out of Egypt; 31 Yhwh’s oath to the patriarchs), with allusions to events that from the standpoint of the Mosaic speaker reach back from an ever later future (6–8 rulership of Solomon; 16b–19a conditions in the late monarchic period; 25–30 Babylonian Exile and the epoch of the restoration)” (Braulik, Deuteronomium 1–16:17, 39); see also Lohfink, Väter, 61–62; Römer, Väter, 136; concerning early positions in the research, see Knapp, Deuteronomium 4, 3–20. Verse 32 shows that Deuteronomy 4 even looks back to creation, literarily to Genesis 1, as does the orientation of Deut 4:16b– 19 to Gen 1:14–27 as shown by Fishbane (Biblical Interpretation, 321–22; Otto, Deuteronomium 4, 128). The perspective of Deut 4:1–40 that thus extends from the creation to the Exile and beyond points out that Deuteronomy 4 also literarily presupposes the the context of Genesis–2 Kings and attempts to edit it in a Decalogue and Priestly sense. If one follows Braulik, then this perspective is also articulated subsequently in 1 Kgs 8:52–53, 59–60 (Braulik, Bib 52 [1971]: 20–33). This is the perspective that enters 1 Kings 8 with the jls concept which cannot yet appear in Deuteronomy 4 because the temple is not

spread is 6 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 151 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Problem of the Primeval Story

151

and/or 5 and Deut 28:45ff. + 30:1ff.) into the context of the historical books, does something like a “Deuteronomistic History,” Deuteronomy–2 Kings, arise.653 These lines of Deuteronomy–2 Kings created by the structure of the deuteronomic law in particular reinterpret the story that follows. No longer does a generally conceived will of God (rvyh h[rh / hwhy yny[b) form the standard of the subsequent events. Rather, the standard is formed by the individual, concrete deuteronomic commands.654 Theologically, Deuteronomy 5 is particularly important in this transformation process. It presumably originated simultaneously with Deut 28:45ff. + 30:1ff. The characteristic concept of Deuteronomy 5 that the Decalogue was transmitted directly to all Israel while the law was only communicated to Moses takes into consideration the diaspora concept of Deuteronomy 30. In the diaspora, repentance is in fact not completely possible (Deuteronomy 12!) in the sense of observing the deuteronomic law. Therefore, the Decalogue appears in place of the law for the diaspora, for their situation in Exile. The process of incorporating Deuteronomy can accordingly be dated with the existence of the diaspora (30:3) in the Persian period. One may argue for a relatively early dating during the postexilic period because the exilic emphasis of the judgment against foreign nations in the prophetic books still appears in 30:7. This idea becomes more difficult to imagine, historically, with the continual consolidation of the Persian Empire.

2.5. The Problem of the Primeval Story It is not only the ancestor story and the exodus story that should be divided. A deep break also occurs between the primeval story and the ancestor story. The pre-Priestly primeval story (Genesis *2–11) 655 could once have been a literarily independent complex. This possibility has been discussed often in recent literature. 656 Witte, in particular, follows the preliminary work of Crüsemann (who yet at hand. The restoration perspective is brought to light in 4:25–31 (see especially Steck, Israel, 139–43) and references the entire context of Genesis–2 Kings. The restoration perspective is already indicated by Moses in advance of individual commands but perhaps according to the proclamation of the decisive second command of the Decalogue. The restoration perspective lets one show that 2 Kings 25 is not the end of Israel. Rather, God will neither “leave nor corrupt Israel and will not forget the covenant that he swore to your fathers” (4:31). That is clearly a correction of the “Deuteronomistic” theology in the Priestly sense (Otto, Deuteronomium 4, 221). 653. Thus, in a modified way, Würthwein (Studien) is correct when he comcludes that a comprehensive context for Deuteronomy–2 Kings occurred first on the level of DtrN. 654. See now Schmid, “Deuteronomium.” The incorporation of the deuteronomic law into the historical books (according to Smend, the concept of DtrN) rests materially and notably with a chief concern of P (“the growth of specific cultic institutions in history” [von Rad, Old Testament Theology 1:233]). Depending upon when one dates P, P may either have provided the intellectual blueprint for the placement of *Deuteronomy in the context of the historical books, or it may have been inspired by this interweaving. 655. The question of the end of the primeval story is controversial: on the one hand, see Rendtorff, KD 7 (1961): 69–78 (Gen 8:21); on the other hand, see Steck, Festschrift von Rad (Gen 12:1–3). Recently, Baumgart suggests Gen 9:29 as the conclusion (Baumgart, BN 82 [1996]: 27–58). See Witte, Urgeschichte, 49, 51. The question requires redaction-historical differentiation and, thus seen, can be answered differently; see Gertz, Festschrift Köckert. 656. See Rendtorff, Problem, 20–28; Crüsemann, Festschrift Wolff; Uehlinger, Weltreich, 336–43; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 359–60; idem, Pentateuch, 107–8; Köckert, Vätergott, 264–68; Kaiser, Grundriss, 1:64; Zenger, Einleitung AT, 114. See Pfeiffer, Introduction, 130, 142, who thinks J only begins with Genesis 12.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 152 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

152

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

builds on Kessler), opting for this position. 657 The missing cross-references from the primeval story and beyond (and the other way around from Genesis 12–50 back to the primeval story) form the fundamental argument, along with the supposed “structural and thematic inclusion of the ‘Yahwistic’ primeval story (2:4b– 8:22).” 658 Actually, connections between Genesis 1–11 and Genesis 12–50 are few, but they are not absent—the toledot structure; 659 the motifs of the great name in Gen 11:4 and 12:2; 660 the calling on Yhwh in Gen 4:26 and 12:8; and the terminological use of llq, which only appears in Gen 8:21 and 12:8. 661 One can also mention the garden of God in Gen 13:10, which refers back to Gen 2–3, and the theme of blessing for the nations (Gen 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; and 28:14 662), which connects the ancestor story contextually with the universal primeval story. In the so-called historical psalms, the primeval story seldom appears, and where it does (Pss 135; 136; compare Deut 32:8–9), 663 it is curiously placed immediately before the exodus event. The relatively few connections between Genesis 1–11 and Genesis 12–50 as well as the fact that the primeval story is understandable on its own are appealing reasons to consider its independence. However, recent works on the primeval story provide varied literary-historical appraisals, and evaluations of it carry considerable weight for the question of its original independence. The presence of a Priestly and non-Priestly layer in Genesis 1–11 is generally recognized, but scholarly unity does not extend much beyond this. Do the non-Priestly text components in Genesis 1–11 suggest a pre-Priestly narrative thread ( J), and if so, how far does it extend? 664 Or should the non-Priestly components be considered as expansions to P? 665 657. Kessler, Querverweise, 58, 340; Crüsemann, Festschrift Wolff; Witte, Urgeschichte, especially pp. 192–205; Gertz, Festschrift Schmitt; idem, Festschrift Köckert, 10–16. It is noteworthy that Genesis 1–11 has broad parallels in the ancient Near East with respect to form and content, in contrast to the case for Genesis 12–50 (see Wenham, Genesis 1–15, xxvii). 658. Witte, Urgeschichte, 192. 659. See §3.5.4.a and Hieke, Genealogien. 660. See Crüsemann, Festschrift Wolff, 17; Jenkins, JSOT 10 (1978): 41–57 (concerning him, see Blum, Vätergeschichte, 359 n. 3); Blum, Vätergeschichte, 359; idem, Pentateuch, 107 n. 31; Zenger, Einleitung AT, 114. 661. Compare to rra in Gen 27:29; Num 24:9 (see Crüsemann, Festschrift Wolff, 17; Köckert, Vätergott, 265). 662. See also Van Seters, Prologue, 191–92. 663. See Luyten, BETL 68 (1985), 341–47. 664. Thus, the classic position. 665. Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 54–56; idem, Festschrift Freedman, 1–15; Wenham, Genesis 1–15, xli–xlii (for Genesis 1–11 as a whole); Ska, EstBib 52 (1994): 37–62; Krüger, “Herz,” 74–81; Kratz, Composition, 256–59 (for Genesis 6–8); Otto, Festschrift Michel, 167–92; idem, BETL 126 (1996), 61– 111 (for Genesis 2–3). One should also note in this context that the designation μyhla hwhy, which Otto views as characteristic for his post-Priestly Pentateuch redactor, is apparently presupposed in the LXX version for the non-Priestly pieces in Genesis 1–11 as a whole (see kuvrioÍ oJ qeovÍ in: 2:8, 15–16, 18, 22; 3:1, 8, 13–14, 21, 23; 4:6, 15, 26; 5:29; 6:3, 5, 8; 7:1, 5, 16; 8:21; 10:9; 11:9). oJ qeovÍ appears

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 153 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Problem of the Primeval Story

153

If Blenkinsopp’s thesis is correct that Genesis 1–11 contains no pre-Priestly material, then we would have to proceed from the idea that the primeval story, in its Priestly and its non-Priestly parts (with P), never existed without the subsequent ancestor story and national story. Blenkinsopp also attempted to support this from the contents. He pointed out “that Genesis 1–11 contains a kind of preview or foreshadowing of the history of the nation as a whole.” 666 Thus, both the primeval story and the national story end in Mesopotamia (Gen 11:1–9; 2 Kgs 25:27–30), and specifically the paradise narrative of Gen 2:4b–3:24 appears to be a universal projection back to that which will follow in the historical books. The welfare of the people in the garden of Eden, like that of Israel in its land, depends upon obedience to God and his commandments; and “behind the snake with its seductive speech we detect the cults practiced by the inhabitants of the land and the role of the woman in Eden recalls the Deuteronomic concern about women as the occasion for adopting these cults (e.g., Deut 7:3–4; 1 Kgs 11:1–8).” 667 Does this mean that placing the primeval story at the beginning of Genesis 12 (and following) already presupposes the entire context of Genesis–2 Kings? The connections mentioned by Blenkinsopp are quite general and do not compellingly point to a literarily unified narrative. I remain skeptical in the face of such farreaching conclusions that do not find support in clear cross-references backward and forward. The diachronic classification of Gen 12:1–3 is more important than the observations (as Blenkinsopp has presented them) regarding the question of the joining of the primeval story with the context of the historical books. It is apparent that a redactional bracket exists with Gen 12:1–3 between the primeval story and the ancestor story. It is usually allocated to J, 668 but it is neither certain whether Gen 12:1–3 can be connected to the pre-Priestly compositional layer of Genesis 1– 11 669 (however one views this) nor whether Gen 12:1–3 should be assigned to a post-P layer. 670 outside P in 2:4, 5, 7, 9, 19, 21; 3:1, 3, 5, 22; 4:1, 4, 9–10, 16; 6:6–7 (LXXA reads kuvrioÍ in 2:4; 3:22); in 4:13, the singular oJ kuvrioÍ appears (see Hölscher, Geschichtsschreibung, 29–30, with n. 2; see Witte, Urgeschichte, 288–92). We can deduce that the double designation does not go back to the Greek translator from the fact that it was not consistently used throughout Genesis 1–11, as would be expected if that were the case. Also 1QIsaa appears to play on the corresponding appearance in Genesis 2–3 of the divine designation μyhla hwhy and in the creation statement in Isa 61:11. Concerning μyhla hwhy, see also Fritz, Festschrift Kaiser (1994), 115; Mafico, JNSL 22 (1996): 155–73; Smith, Pattern, 149 n. 30; Witte, Urgeschichte, 57–61, 232–37. 666. Blenkinsopp, Festschrift Freedman, 4. 667. Ibid. Within this perspective, the relationships between Exodus and Genesis 1–11 would also need to be considered, as noted in Kikawada, ABD 5:464; idem, ABD 4:1126–27, 1129; Ebach, “Schwester,” 133 (see also Weimar, BETL 126 [1996], 207). 668. See especially von Rad, Hexateuch, 65–68; Steck, Festschrift von Rad; Van Seters, Prologue, 252–57; Levin, Jahwist, 133–38. 669. See Köckert, Vätergott, 265–66; Crüsemann, Festschrift Wolff, 29; Baumgart, BN 82 (1996): 31–39, 49–55 (see the critique of Crüsemann by Blum, Vätergeschichte, 359 n. 2). 670. So Crüsemann, Festschrift Wolff, 29; Ska, Festschrift Brekelmans, 367–89.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 154 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

154

Chapter 2. Analytical Investigation

Stated briefly, the problem of Gen 12:1–3 is more readily assessed as postPriestly when viewed from the primeval story and as pre-Priestly when examined retrospectively from the ancestor story. Contrary to the forced interpretations of the source theory, 671 Gen 11:27–32 cannot be plausibly divided into two narrative strands. Rather, it should be credited to P in its entirety. Specifically, the connection between the pericope of Gen 11:27–32, stating that “every person belongs to a nation (ywg) and a tribe (hjpvm) and lives in a land (≈ra),” and the Priestly refrain of the table of nations (Gen 10:5, 20, 31–32) 672 means that Gen 12:1–3 probably presupposed P. On the other hand, seen specifically in light of Gen 12:7 and 13:14–17, 673 Gen 12:1–3 does not show any references that point beyond Genesis (see above, §2.1.1.e, pp. 58ff.). As a result, I hesitate to label Gen 12:1–3 as post-Priestly. Rather, I explain 12:1–3 in the context of an independent Genesis. 674 Regardless, §3.2.1 (pp. 158ff.) will show that in either case Genesis 15 presupposes the primal story as a prefix to the ancestor story. It is likely that the ancestor story already knew a primeval story as a prefix before it was connected to the exodus story but at the same time this cannot be determined with certainty. 675 Specifically, the lack of a clear pre-Priestly bridge between Genesis 1–11 and Genesis 12–50 creates significant uncertainty. Doing more than unfurling the possibilities at the present time appears neither possible nor meaningful. 676 Too little is known about the literary relationships in the primeval story and the historical classification of its texts for us to satisfactorily understand the development (perhaps occurring in stages) of its redactional connection to that which follows. In addition to the question of the connection between the primal story and the ancestor story, we should consider a second possibility that is not obvious but cannot be ruled out from the outset. Could the primeval story first have formed the prefix to the exodus story, as Römer suggested? 677 In this case, the ancestor story would have been inserted between the two. This speculation is not completely unfounded if one looks at texts such as Psalms 135, 136; Deut 4:32–40; and Jer 32:17–25, in which the exodus follows immediately after the creation. 678 Likewise, the situation of the universal scattering of humanity in Genesis 11 offers a good thematic point of departure for the presentation of the exodus of Israel from Egypt to Canaan. At any rate, it makes the Eisodos notice of Abraham in Gen 11:31 671. See the review by Berge, Zeit, 16 n. 27; and the recent work of Emerton, VT 42 (1992): 37–46; Seebass, Vätergeschichte I, 6–8. 672. See Crüsemann, Festschrift Wolff, 29. Crüsemann also points out the appearance of the expression tdlwm (“relatives”) in Gen 11:28 and 10:32, which is also found in Gen 12:1. See also the observations of Ska, Festschrift Brekelmans, 369–70. 673. See Köckert, Vätergott, 253; Blum, Pentateuch, 214 n. 35. 674. See above, §2.3.2. 675. Carr opts for this position, even though he is alone in it (Carr, Reading, 149–51); see also Clines, Theme, 84–85. 676. See also Uehlinger (Weltreich, 342–43), who refrains from making a decision. 677. Römer, “Récits Patriarcaux,” 221; the question is treated thematically by Perlitt, “Auslegung,” 167–68. 678. Ibid.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 155 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Problem of the Primeval Story

155

necessary in the current narrative context. Further, the connection of the exodus with Yhwh, the God of the “Hebrews” (Exod 3:18; 5:3; 7:16; 9:1, 13; 10:3), who apparently encompass more than Israel, 679 is joined to the primeval story in Gen 4:26 and 9:26, which also classifies a wider group than Israel as being Yhwh worshipers. 680 Finally, the structural correspondences between the primeval story and the Sinai narrative should be considered, as Rendtorff has pointed out. 681 At the same time, considering the ancestor story a secondary insertion between the creation and the exodus creates many difficulties. The literary relationships do not argue for it. We would have to develop a series of additional theories in order to postulate an original narrative connection between Exodus and Genesis 1–11. Thus, this theory can be abandoned. 679. See Koch, VT 19 (1969): 46, 49; Crüsemann, Festschrift Wolff, 26 n. 68. 680. See ibid., 26 (n. 68), 28. 681. Rendtorff, “Bund,” 131.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 156 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Chapter 3

Synthetic Reconstructions The Merger of the Ancestor Story with the Moses/Exodus Story and the Development of the Image of History in Genesis–2 Kings

3.1. The Ancestor Story as Preface to the Moses/Exodus Story In the preceding investigations, I have attempted to show that two literary but originally independent traditions of Israel’s origins exist that compete conceptually with one another. The textual research both in the historical books themselves and outside those books suggests this conclusion. The idea is certainly more likely than von Rad’s proposal that an existing, “ancient,” salvation-history tradition already bridged the hiatus between the ancestors and the exodus even before the historical traditions were put in written form. With the preceding analytical considerations, I have completed the first half of the work. It remains to ask: why, how, and when were the ancestor story and the Moses/Exodus story put together in their present order? I will not be able to answer these questions completely. They touch on a series of literary and historical problems that are currently still debated. These problems include, to mention only the most important problems: evaluating the nonPriestly material in the Pentateuch, the question of the origin of the canonical section known as the Torah, and the problem of a “Deuteronomistic History” and its redaction history. 1 For now, I can only hint at the main themes that are most important and recognizable—themes that characterize the unification of the foundational building blocks of the ancestor story and the Moses/Exodus story into the narrative of the history of Israel that is now constructed in the form of Genesis–2 Kings. As established in detail above in §1.3.1 (pp. 16ff.), this process is not to be viewed as a problem internal to the Pentateuch. It is by no means clear that the first connection between the ancestors and the exodus resulted from a redactional undertaking only 1. See above, §1.3.1.c, and the recent documentation in Gertz et al. (eds.), Abschied; Dozeman and Schmid (eds.), Farewell; Witte et al. (eds.), Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke; Römer and Schmid (eds.), Les dernières rédactions; Schmid, Literaturgeschichte.

156

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 157 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Ancestor Story as Preface to the Moses/Exodus Story

157

within the Pentateuch. 2 The subsequent historical books (and even the prophetic books following the book of Kings) must be kept in view. How should one move from analysis to synthesis in a meaningful way? By placing the results demonstrated by the separation of the ancestor story and the Moses/ Exodus story over against the current narrative sequence of Genesis–2 Kings, one can consider in principle the following possibilities. (1) The ancestor story and the Moses/Exodus story were attached to one another without redactional insertions. (2) The combination is reflected redactionally inside the ancestor story and/or the Moses/Exodus story; thus, one must decide further if these redactional additions (a) all belong to the same layer and (a) entered simultaneously with the ancestor story and the Moses/Exodus story or (b) entered in a subsequent step; or (b) there is a fundamental distinction within the redactional links, in which case the insertions of the ancestor story and the Moses/Exodus story happened during different redactional stages. How should one decide? The references backward and forward between Genesis and the subsequent books demonstrate that the ancestor story and the Moses/ Exodus story were quite likely connected together in their current forms with redactional insertions. If one also considers that these links appear in both the Priestly and non-Priestly sections, then this means that one must take into account the most complicated scenario, 2b: the literary combination of the ancestor story and the Moses/Exodus story may have occurred in several redactional stages. Within all the uncertainty in pentateuchal research, a fixed point appears: P knows the connection of the ancestors and the exodus. However, one cannot build too much upon this foundation. As long as there is doubt as to whether P is a written source or a non-independent redactional layer, independent ancestor and Moses/Exodus stories remain conceivable alongside an independent work P. 3 The development and time period of the connection is thus only visible through the redactional insertions that effect the combination. As stated, one should consider the problem of a possible internal distinction among these additions. One must still consider how these insertions relate to the comparative material in the Psalms and the prophetic books introduced in §2.2.1 above (pp. 70ff.), even though these books are themselves beset with significant dating problems. Thus, in the following I will treat the bridge texts between Genesis and Exodus 2. See Römer, Väter, 561–68; idem, Nachwort, 122–23. On the one hand, his argument rests on the patriarchal oath texts of Gen 50:24–Deut 34:4, and the inclusio in Deut 34:4 harking back to Gen 12:7 (Römer, Väter, 565–66). On the other hand, his argument rests on the idea “that the identification of the deuteronomic twba with the patriarchs no longer appears in Joshua–2 Kings” (p. 566). The question of the identification of the twba with the patriarchs is not congruent with the question of the flow between the ancestor story and the exodus story. The identification could occur but did not necessarily have to occur simultaneously with the placement of Genesis before Exodus. The programmatic text of Römer’s final redaction is Genesis 15 (Römer, Nachwort, 122; see also idem, DBAT 26 (1989–90): 32–47; idem, Transeu 7 (1994): 107–21. 3. See the references above in §1.3.3 (pp. 46ff.).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 158 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

158

that were shown in §2.1 (pp. 50ff.) to effect literary connections between these text blocks.

3.2. The God of the Ancestors as the God of the Exodus The analytical part of this work, §2.1, mentioned the texts that functioned as brackets between the ancestor story and the Moses/Exodus story. The most important texts are Genesis 15, Exodus 3–4, Joshua 24, and the transition texts in the seams of Genesis and Exodus (Gen 50:25–26 and Exodus 1). I should also mention the statements promising land to the three ancestors as an oath in Exodus– Numbers, which will be treated separately in §3.6.5. The following section returns to the bracketed texts that were only briefly treated in the context of the literary connections between Genesis and Exodus (Genesis 15, Exodus 3–4, Joshua 24, and Gen 50:25–26 and Exodus 1), examining them from a different perspective: How do they connect Genesis and Exodus (and the subsequent books)? What redactional logic stands behind them? How should they be classified redaction-historically? Is there a unified profile recognizable among these bracket texts with respect to the way they engage with their sources? Or, are they distinct in the ways they connect Genesis and Exodus (and the following books)? 3.2.1. Genesis 15 It is apparent that the current form of Genesis 15 connects Genesis and Exodus. Gen 15:13–16 contains a summary for Abram 4 of the coming slavery of his descendants in a foreign land as well as their return to Canaan. Still, how does Genesis 15 relate to its context? How is Genesis 15 anchored in Genesis (and following)? How old is Genesis 15? a. Recent Discussion of Genesis 15 Genesis 15, in its current form, has successfully defied classification in the framework of the Documentary Hypothesis. The idea frequently presented in the past, that Genesis 15 solemnly introduces E, 5 was never incontrovertible. Today it has largely been abandoned, even among the advocates of an E source, especially since only the Tetragrammaton and not μyhla appears in Genesis 15. Furthermore, the segmentation of J and E that has often been attempted has not been 4. μrba (consistently present in Genesis 15) will be called ‘Abraham’ in the following treatment. 5. See, for example, Wellhausen, Composition, 23–24; Holzinger, KHC 1 147; Noth, HPT, 35 (but see ibid., 28 n. 85). Among recent works, see those mentioned by Weimar, Festschrift Scharbert, 395 n. 121 and, in his own way, Seebass, Vätergeschichte I, 80. Weimar, himself, assigns the reconstructed foundational layer to an “Elohist” (Weimar, Festschrift Scharbert, 398 n. 395). This “Elohist,” however, “has little in common with the traditional ‘Elohist,’ with respect to the presupposed state of the text or even with the literary character (Weimar, Festschrift Scharbert, 125). Historically problematic and less helpful is the exposition of Nordheim concerning Genesis 15 (Selbstbehauptung, 27–42).

spread is 6 points short

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 159 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The God of the Ancestors as the God of the Exodus

159

convincing. 6 Thus, Gunkel maintained that Genesis 15 was “quite strange within the legend of the fathers.” 7 For von Rad, this chapter was “difficult to analyze source critically.” 8 Noth wrote: “Genesis 15 belongs to the passages in the Pentateuch whose composition was effected through such unusual circumstances that a convincing analysis using means proven in the rest of the Pentateuch will not succeed.” 9 Rendtorff noted in 1980: “The special place of Genesis 15 inside the ancestor story has long been confirmed.” 10 In short, it is not possible to classify Genesis 15 in the framework of the traditional source theories. The discipline has therefore been led in other directions to explain Genesis 15. Hoftijzer questions the division of the chapter (determined by the source model) into 15:1–6 on the one hand and 15:7–21 on the other. 11 In his wake, the chapter (largely) began to be treated as a literary unity. 12 However, 15:13–16 was still considered a literary addition because it sounded like P, albeit for dubious reasons, as we will see. The remaining foundational text was generally validated, with particular reference to Kaiser, 13 as a product of the exilic period or later. 14 A clear majority tended to see Genesis 15 “as a Deuteronomistic corpus separatum.” 15 This labeling, however, does not seem to solve the problem of the theological profile of Genesis 15. From the perspective of classical source criticism, whether we consider no “deuteronomisms” in the Tetrateuch or just a few, it remains unclear why such a massive “Deuteronomistic” addition would have been inserted 6. For the history of scholarship, see Kaiser, ZAW 70 (1958): 108 n. 4; Westermann, Genesis 12– 36, 214–16; Gross, Festschrift Kornfeld, 25–30; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 366–67; Mölle, Genesis 15, 14– 43; Weimar, Festschrift Scharbert, 361–62 n. 3; Ha, Genesis 15, 30–38; Hagelia, Numbering, 1–3; Pola, Priesterschrift, 333 n. 115. See also the synopsis in Köckert, Vätergott, 326–27; Ha, Genesis 15, 30–31. 7. Gunkel, HKAT 1/1 183; see also Caquot, Sem 12 (1962): 55. 8. Von Rad, ATD 2–4 140. 9. Noth, HPT, 28 n. 85 (see Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 69). Lohfink even believes that Wellhausen had “seen that his procedures could not cope with precisely the problems of Genesis 15” (Lohfink, Landverheissung, 25). 10. Rendtorff, Festschrift Westermann, 74. 11. Hoftijzer, Verheissungen, 23. 12. See below, §3.2.1.b (pp. 161ff.). 13. Kaiser, ZAW 70 (1958): 107–26 (for 15:1–6; 15:7–21, according to Kaiser [except for 15:11, 13–16, and 19–21], also belongs to J). Perlitt (Bundestheologie, 76–77) dates it to the seventh century. Lohfink suggests the opposite path. He sees the foundation of Genesis 15 as “the oldest text with the oath of the promise of land” (Lohfink, Landverheissung, 11). According to Lohfink, Genesis *15 (15:18) is older than Deut 12:1 (idem, Festschrift Scharbert; idem, “Deuteronomium und Pentateuch,” 37, with n. 82). Moberly also propounds a preexilic placement of Genesis 15 (without 15:6, 18a; VTSup 41 [1990], 128–29). 14. Van Seters, Abraham, 267–78; H. H. Schmid, Jahwist, 121–27; idem, EvT 40 (1980): 407; Rendtorff, Festschrift Westermann, 74–81; Römer, DBAT 26 (1989–90): 47; Ha, Genesis 15. 15. Talmon, Festschrift Rendtorff, 13. Already in 1865, J. W. Colenso considered Genesis 15 to be Deuteronomistic (see the reference to Blum in Rendtorff, Festschrift Westermann, 80–81 n. 33). Then, especially, see Kaiser, ZAW 70 (1958): 118. See the recent work of Noort (“Land,” 141) mentioned by Weimar, Festschrift Scharbert, 361 n. 1. Anbar limits himself to linguistic evidence to prove the Deuteronomistic origin of what he considers the originally independent narratives of 15:1–6 and 15:7–21 (Anbar, JBL 101 [1982]: 39–55).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 160 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

160

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

precisely in Genesis 15. If, with many newer treatments, we find a “Deuteronomistic” compositional layer in Genesis–Numbers, then the correctly noted peculiarity of Genesis 15 inside Genesis threatens to be lost. The particularity of Genesis 15, especially compared with the texts recently classified as D texts, eludes explanation. For Blum, Genesis 15 serves as something like a “base text” in the Pentateuch for the series of promises formulated as oaths, which Blum considers part of Kd. 16 However, God does not swear an oath in Genesis 15. 17 The scenery and vocabulary of Genesis 15 is peculiar within Kd. How likely is it that the programmatic text for a compositional layer like Kd, which is identifiable specifically by its phraseology, would not be aligned linguistically with its other redactional insertions? For other scholars as well, Genesis 15 stands as a central text in the Tetrateuch, as if it could be easily allocated to a specific layer of key texts in Genesis– Numbers (Deuteronomy). 18 The classification of Genesis 15 has been complicated by recent research that contests, and with good reason in my opinion, the “Deuteronomistic” character of this chapter. 19 The association of righteousness and faith in Gen 15:6 is quite “un-Deuteronomistic.” 20 The righteousness of Abraham through faith does not appear in any layer of “Deuteronomistic” theology. By contrast, Deut 6:25 (compare 24:13) illustrates well the “Deuteronomistic” understanding of righteousness: WnL:Ahy,h}TI hq; d;x}W taZoh" hw;x}MIh"AlK:Ata< t/c[“l" rmøv‘niAyKI WnyhEløa” hw;hy] ynep}lI WnW;xI rv≤a“K"

We will be righteous if we truly keep this entire commandment before Yhwh our God, as he commanded us

The covenant understanding in Gen 15:18 is also not “Deuteronomistic.” With its qualification of the promise of land as covenant, it stands much closer to P than to D. Finally, Römer, Ha, and Levin theorize that Genesis 15 represents a rereading of Genesis 17 (P) and that Genesis 15 should therefore be dated after P. 21 16. Blum, Pentateuch, 103; idem, Vätergeschichte, 376–83; but see the self-correction in Blum, “Verbindung.” 17. Concerning the argument of Blum that “oath” and “covenant” are interchangeable in the Deuteronomistic literature, see the critique below in §3.6.5.b. 18. See Van Seters, Abraham, 249–78; idem, Prologue, 248–51; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 122–24 (see the bibliography, 132 n. 21); Levin sees Genesis 15 as coming after the final redaction (Levin, Jahwist, 151). 19. See Ha, Genesis 15, 195; see also Carr, Reading, 165. 20. Concerning the debated understanding of Gen 15:6, see the remarks below, p. 170 n. 88. 21. See Römer, DBAT 26 (1989–1990): 38–41; idem, Transeu 7 (1994): 107–21; Ha, Genesis 15, 102–3, 216; Levin, Festschrift Kaiser (see also Schmitt, VT 32 [1982]: 182; Becker, Jesaja, 51 n. 128). Ha dates Genesis 15 as exilic (pp. 209, 216; contra Ha, see Gese, “Komposition,” 30 n. 9; Pola, Priesterschrift, 333 n. 115; Van Seters, BibOr 48 [1991]: 624–26; Soggin wavers: Genesis, 256). See also Schmitt, VT 32 (1982): 182; Levin, Festschrift Kaiser. Certain parts of Genesis 15 are dated after the Priestly source (RP ) by Weimar, in Festschrift Scharbert, 372 with n. 40; 389–90; 408: 15:1*a,bb, *2, 5ab,ba, 6b, 7–8,

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 161 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The God of the Ancestors as the God of the Exodus

161

Thus, the research on Genesis 15 is so diffuse that one must begin anew. The following discussion first turns to the question of the literary unity and the placement of Genesis 15 in its context. Then the literary networks inside the Hebrew Bible that Genesis 15 manifests will be investigated. b. The Literary Integrity of Genesis 15 Genesis 15 has been treated source-critically many times. 22 Two main approaches have been attempted. Some scholars divide 15:1–6 from 15:7–21, 23 while others see two parallel accounts as intertwined and running the length of the chapter. 24 Scholars using the latter model never reached a consensus, and their internal analyses remained diverse. This search for parallel accounts ends with the recognition that the problems of Genesis 15 will not be resolved source-critically. The search for doublets was in fact nurtured by the endeavor to find J and E again in Genesis 15. The longitudinal cross-section model led to a crisis after Lohfink recognized the substantial unity of the two parts of the chapter. In fact, Gen 15:1– 6, 7–21 is recognized to be a structure with strong parallels that cannot be divided into two sources, 25 because 15:6, with the “accounting of righteousness,” proceeds thematically from the promise of progeny to the promise of land. 26 Gen 15:1–6 1a 1b 2

Gen 15:7–21 7a 7b 8

4, 5a 5b

the word of Yhwh promise Abraham’s question hwhy ynda, vry sign (stars) foreseeing the descendants ([rz)

6

faith of Abraham

17–21

9–12 13–16

Yhwh speaks promise Abraham’s question hwhy ynda, vry sign (rite of circumcision) foreseeing salvation history for the descendants ([rz) sealing the covenant promise of land for the descendants ([rz)

9b, 10b, 11, 12*ab, 12*b, 14a*b, 15–16, 17ab, *20. This critical analysis (like that of H. Haag, Festschrift Scharbert) is far too minute to be capable of building a consensus. As for the proposal of Gertz, “Abraham,” see K. Schmid, “Gap,” 38 n. 34. On the classic position that Genesis 17 is later than Genesis 15, see McEvenue, Style, 152–53; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 422–23; Noort, “Land,” 141–42; Pola, Priesterschrift, 333–34. 22. See especially, Kilian, Abrahamsüberlieferungen, 36–73; Mölle, Genesis 15, 174–75; Levin, Verheissung, 245–50; ibid., Jahwist, 151; ibid., Festschrift Kaiser; Weimar, Festschrift Scharbert; Seebass, Vätergeschichte I, 80–81. 23. For example, see Kaiser, ZAW 70 (1958): 109; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 216; see further those mentioned by Blum, Vätergeschichte, 377 n. 107. 24. See the synopsis in Köckert, Vätergott, 325–27. 25. Concerning Kaiser, ZAW 70 (1958): 117–18, see Blum, Vätergeschichte, 380 n. 127. Concerning the old argument of the different times of day, see Köckert, Vätergott, 212–13. 26. See Lohfink, Landverheissung, 45–46, taken up by Blum, Vätergeschichte, 380. See also Van Seters, Abraham, 257–59. It is clear that the promise of land is not understood as a reward for belief in the promise of progeny, as clearly shown by its material anticipation in 15:2, 4 (see also Aurelius, Fürbitter, 99, with n. 37, in dialog with Blum, Vätergeschichte, 394–95).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 162 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

162

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

But if even short, obvious additions to the text in Genesis 15 cannot be excluded within this framework, the larger source-critical operations in this chapter are hardly supportable. This is not the majority opinion of scholars, however. 27 Rather, 15:13–16 are generally set aside as an addition. 28 These operations, however, do not stem from the text so much as from the theory. Gen 15:13–16 show clear echoes of P and are therefore removed from Genesis 15 in order to continue to assign the remaining text to a pre-Priestly origin. Yet, must Genesis 15 be prePriestly? In §3.2.1.e below (pp. 166ff.), I will bring together in detail the arguments that work against this source-critical procedure and the arguments that suggest one should classify all of Genesis 15 as a literarily unified text. If, however, Genesis 15 is a literary unity, then as Römer and Ha first proposed, we must examine more closely the post-Priestly classification of this chapter as a whole and not just 15:13–16. c. Genesis 15 in Its Context Although Genesis 15 may be evaluated as a special piece because of its content and language, the same cannot be said with respect to its literary anchoring in its context. 29 The introduction in Gen 15:1 (hlah μyrbdh rja) explicitly points back to the preceding. 30 The present connection of Genesis 15 with Genesis 14, which is often (and probably correctly) classified as very late, does not appear to have arisen by the redactional insertion of Genesis 14. 31 Rather, a connection with Genesis 14 is reflected in Genesis 15 itself. 32 There are several noteworthy catchword associations and assonances between the two chapters (ˆgm in 14:20 and 15:1; qvm in 14:15 33 and qvm and qvmd in 15:2; and μyapr in 14:5 and 15:20). Also,

27. See the review in Blum, Vätergeschichte, 377 n. 109; Köckert, Vätergott, 210 n. 213; Ha, Genesis 15, 33–36; see also Köckert’s own position in Vätergott, 227 n. 320; Van Seters, Prologue, 249. 28. See already Wellhausen, Composition, 22; Lohfink, Landverheissung, 26, 39–40; Seebass, WD 7 (1963): 136, with n. 27; Schmitt, VT 32 (1982): 182; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 379; Kreuzer, ZAW 98 (1986): 204 (with internal differentiations in 15:13–16); Talmon, Festschrift Rendtorff, 13–14; Weimar, Festschrift Scharbert, 371, with n. 36 (bibliography); Noort, “Land,” 143; see also the review by Blum, Vätergeschichte, 377, with nn. 111–12. 29. See especially Kessler, Querverweise, 73–74; Rendtorff, Problem, 37; Ha, Genesis 15, 216. 30. Concerning the discussion of the examples, see Anbar, JBL 101 (1982): 41; Weimar, Festschrift Scharbert, 363–64, with nn. 9–10. 31. Concerning Genesis 14, see Schatz, Genesis 14; Van Seters, Abraham, 296–308; Theophilus, Interpretation; Emerton, VT 21 (1971): 24–47; idem, “Some Problems”; Soggin, GI, 87–89; idem, Genesis, 222–36; Ha, Genesis 15, 202–4; Andersen, Festschrift Milgrom; Seebass, Vätergeschichte I, 42– 61. 32. See Jacob, Genesis, 391; Römer, DBAT 26 (1989/90): 40–41, 45, with nn. 85–86 (bibliography), 46 n. 91; Weimar, Festschrift Scharbert, 378–79, with n. 61 (bibliography); Wenham, WBC 2 325, 327. For a different approach, see Ha, Genesis 15, 216–17; Levin, Verheissung, 247; Levin, Jahwist, 151 (connection to 13:18, as in Wellhausen, Composition, 24). Kaiser connects Genesis 15 to Gen 12:7 without going into Genesis 14 (Kaiser, ZAW 70 [1958]: 123). 33. Concerning the translation, see Soggin, Genesis, 239–40.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 163 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The God of the Ancestors as the God of the Exodus

163

as already noted in the rabbinic and patristic expositions, 34 the numerical value of the names of “Eliezer” in 15:3 corresponds to the 318 servants of Abraham in Gen 14:15. 35 Further, the return of the descendants of Abraham 36 “here” (hnh wbwvy) only makes sense after Genesis 14. It thus means the return to Jerusalem (14:18). 37 However, Genesis 15, with its double promise theme (descendants, land), reaches back beyond Genesis 14 to Genesis 12–13 and takes up the redactional framework of Gen 12:1, 7 and 13:14–15. 38 This framework transforms Genesis 12–13 into a large promise unit. The catchword “to give” (ˆtn) from 12:7; 13:15, 17 is repeated right at the beginning (15:2) and is immediately problematized. Therefore, Genesis 15 can hardly be seen on the same redactional level as Genesis 12–13. Abraham asks: yl ˆtt hm “What will you give to me?” Yhwh first answers with the promise of a son and descendants in 15:4–5 followed by the promise of land in 15:18–21. Both promises in Genesis 15 rely upon the corresponding statements in Genesis 12–13. The promise of descendants is even introduced with a comparison (dust/stars 39) and the motif of the innumerability (hnm / rps). The promise of land in Gen 15:18 is formulated almost exactly like Gen 12:7 except for the distinctive change of the imperfect ˆta to the perfect yttn, which makes one think of the so-called “salvific perfect” in Isaiah 40–55. 40 34. See Stemberger, JBTh 12 (1998): 56. 35. See Römer, Transeu 7 (1994): 118; concerning the 318 in Gen 14:15, see Donner, GAT 4/1 96 n. 41 (bibliography). 36. At first glance, the “fourth generation” in 15:16 appears to be at odds with the “400 years” (15:13) of sojourn as slaves in a foreign land (Kreuzer, ZAW 98 [1986]: 199–210; Talmon, Festschrift Rendtorff ). The problem can be resolved (and 15:15 would not speak against this, contrary to Seebass, who excludes 15:13b as a gloss [Seebass, Vätergeschichte I, 77]) by seeing the 400 years only in relation to the sojourn itself and the four generations as referring to the length of the exodus (Römer, DBAT 26 [1989/90]: 34; Ha, Genesis 15, 53–54). The return of the fourth generation is perhaps a play on the Decalogue (Exod 20:5 and parallel; see already Gen 15:7 / Exod 20:2 and parallel; see Römer, Transeu 7 [1994]: 118–19 and immediately below). Also, the genealogies of Exod 6:16–20 and Num 26:57– 59 (see also Demetrios; see N. Walter, JSHRZ 3/2 289) consider Moses to be the great-grandson of Jacob (see Cogan, ABD 1:1004). B. Jacob has the 400 years begin with the birth of Isaac ( Jacob, Genesis, 398–99). Already the LXX and SamP read in Exod 12:40 (see the treatments in Koch, ZAW 95 [1983]: 416; Lührmann, ZAW 100 [1988]: 421): “The sojourn of the Israelites and their fathers in the land of Canaan and in Egypt lasted 430 years” (see further, Jacob, Exodus, 1033–43; see also the rabbinic explanations in Str-B 2:668–71). 37. See already Caquot, Sem 16 (1962): 63–65; Römer, DBAT 26 (1989/90): 41, 46; idem, Transeu 7 (1994): 118, 121. For a different opinion, see Kaiser, ZAW 70 (1958): 123. Concerning Jerusalem, see Baltzer, Festschrift Rendtorff, 5–8, 10; extensively Emerton, “Site.” 38. Gen 12:1, 4, and 13:14–15 are clearly related to one another. See the evidence and the synopsis in Köckert, Vätergott, 253, also taken up by Blum, Pentateuch, 214 n. 35. 39. In addition to Gen 13:16, one encounters rp[ “dust” as an image for the increase of Israel in Gen 28:14 (see Num 23:10[?]; 2 Chr 1:9). See L. Wächter, TDOT 11:261. In addition to Gen 15:5, the comparison with μybkwk “stars” is found in Gen 22:17; 26:4; Exod 32:13; Deut 1:10; 10:22; 28:62; 1 Chr 27:23; Neh 9:23 (see R. E. Clements, TDOT 7:82; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 364, with n. 15). In the course of Gen 13:16–22:17, Gen 15:5 thus mediates between these two promises terminologically. Outside Gen 13:16, hnm “to count” appears only in Num 23:10. The verb rps appears in the Qal in connection with μybkwk only in Gen 15:5; but see Job 28:27; 38:37. 40. Blum explains the meaning of the perfect as a “performative statement” (“here, I give . . .”). See Blum, Vätergeschichte, 381–82; see also the bibliography he lists on p. 90 n. 10.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 164 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

164

Gen 12:7: Gen 15:18:

tazh ≈rah ta ˆta [rzl tazh ≈rah ta yttn [rzl

But what is the meaning in Genesis 15 of this resumption of the promises from Genesis 12–13? It has been pointed out that the peculiarity of Genesis 15 consists in the fact that the promises (son + descendants, or exodus + land) are related to one another in such a way that the son/descendants promise leads to the land promise. 41 “As soon as a son is born to Abraham, this son eventuates in the claims of an heir.” 42 If we take into account the references in Genesis 12–13, then this function of Genesis 15 extends to Genesis 12–15 as a whole: the promises in these chapters are bundled with the promise of land in Gen 15:18–21. Seen in the context of the grand historical work of Genesis– 2 Kings, Genesis 15 thus formulates the central thematic guideline that appears to be decisive for all that follows: Genesis–Joshua narrates the possession of the promised land, and Judges–2 Kings narrates its loss. The eminent importance of the promise of land in Genesis 15 also results from the allusions in Genesis 15 back to the primeval story, made possible by the link between the Abraham story and the primeval story in Gen 11:27. 43 Thus, Gen 15:12 creates a parallel with Adam via the motif of the “deep sleep.” 44 The subsequent revelation of God’s salvation history with Israel in Gen 15:13–16 and the promise of land in Gen 15:18–21 is not inferior to the significance of the creation of the woman. In other words, the land promised to Abraham belongs, according to Gen 15:12, to Abraham just as much as Eve belonged to Adam. Genesis 12–15 thus expounds the revelation of a complex promise, with individual promises in different places amplifying diverse contents that are ultimately tied together in Genesis 15: in Haran, Abraham is promised descendants (12:1–3); in Schechem, 45 he is promised land (12:7); in Bethel, land and increase (13:14– 17). Finally, in Jerusalem he is again encouraged both concerning his childlessness and concerning the problem of the subsequent, lengthy stay in Egypt by a promise of land in Genesis 15. 12:1–3 Haran: Increase 12:7 Shechem: Land

13:14–17 Bethel: Land–Increase

15 Jerusalem: Increase–Land

41. See Rendtorff, Festschrift Westermann, 75–80; Köckert, Vätergott, 242–47; Weimar, Festschrift Scharbert, 368. 42. Jacob, Genesis, 401–2. 43. The rabbinic explanation sets Genesis 15 in Ur. See Sandmel, JBL 80 (1961): 117; and Fishbane, Interpretation, 376 with n. 144. Further, the promise of a long life and the “going” to his fathers (15:15) refers back to the ancestors and the primeval story. One should also note in this context the connection between Genesis 15 and the confession of Melchizedek and Abraham to God as “the creator of heaven and earth” (Gen 14:19, 22). 44. The word hmdrt appears in Genesis only in 2:21 and 15:12. Elsewhere it can be found in 1 Sam 26:12; Isa 29:10; Job 4:13; 33:15; Prov 19:15. 45. See H. H. Schmid, Jahwist, 141–42; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 299, 333; Berge, Zeit, 18–19.

spread is 12 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 165 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The God of the Ancestors as the God of the Exodus

165

In the following chapters of Genesis, chap. 15 naturally prepares the reader for the theme of the son treated in Genesis 16–22. Moreover, the covenant theme in 15:7–21 points forward to Genesis 17, especially through its focus on the promise of descendants in 15:1–6. 46 Genesis 15 is bound to Genesis 22 with the similarsounding introduction (15:1/22:1) but above all with the promise of 22:15–18, which points back to 15:4–5 and 12:2–3. 47 However, as the concentration on the promise and theme of land in Genesis 15 shows, the preparations undertaken in the flow of reading through Genesis 15 on the way to Genesis 22 regarding the theme of a son are of subordinate significance. The statements in Gen 15:13–21 have a significantly wider horizon at their disposal. The historical preview in 15:13–16, together with the concluding promise of 15:18–21, explicitly looks forward to the events that follow in the books Exodus–Joshua, and even into Samuel: the slavery of Israel in Egypt, being led out, the possession of the land in Canaan, and the taking of Jerusalem. In contrast to Römer and Ha, I should underscore that this horizon does not encompass the Pentateuch alone. 48 Rather, it extends well beyond the Pentateuch. In fact, Genesis 15 presumably even anticipates the contents of the historical and the (subsequent) prophetic books. As argued above in §1.3.1.a (pp. 16ff.), the Hexateuch, ending with Joshua 24 (with which Genesis 15 is closely connected intertextually 49), does not represent a self-contained entity. Rather, it refers forward to the subsequent history of judgment and then to the promise of a new salvation history in the prophetic books. Further, neither the promise of descendants nor the promise of land is fulfilled in the hyperbolized form of Genesis 15 anywhere in Israel’s story narrated within Genesis–2 Kings. 50 Here too it is likely that the horizon of Genesis 15 reaches beyond the context of the historical books into the prophetic books. d. Abraham as Prophet This supposition can be refined with another observation. Otto Kaiser has stressed the image of Abraham as a prophet in Genesis 15. 51 This is clearly recognizable in the so-called word event formula 52 (. . . la hwhy rbd hyh . . .) in 15:1,

46. See the detailed discussion in Römer, DBAT 26 (1989/90): 32–47. 47. On the course of Genesis 12–22, see Fischer, Erzeltern, 358–61; Zenger, Einleitung, 113–14. For the connections of Genesis 15–22, see Weimar, Festschrift Scharbert, 363 n. 9. 48. See Römer, DBAT 26 (1989/90): 32–47; idem, Nachwort, 122–23; idem, Transeu 7 (1994): 107–21; Ha, Genesis 15, 201, 216; see the charts on pp. 198–200; see also Weimar, Festschrift Scharbert, 368–69, 408–11; Blum, Pentateuch, 103, 107–11 (Kd). Römer has to interpret the historical overview in 15:13–16 somewhat forcibly as a preview to the “historical creeds” in the last book of the Pentateuch (Römer, DBAT 26 [1989/90]: 42). 49. Mölle, Genesis 15, 362–74 (however, with far-reaching literary-critical intervention both in Genesis 15 and in Joshua 24); see Anbar, Josué, 144. 50. See the discussion in Weinfeld, Land, 64–69. 51. Kaiser, ZAW 70 (1958): 110. See also H. H. Schmid, Jahwist, 122–23; Köckert, Vätergott, 207, 213–15. 52. The term comes from Zimmerli (see BKAT 13/1), 87–88.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 166 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

166

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

4a, which stems from the prophetic books, 53 and in the stylization of Genesis 15 as a “vision” (hzjm). 54 Note also the revelation of Yhwh’s judgment plan to Abraham in 15:13–16: the flow of salvation history is announced to Abraham in advance as Yhwh’s prophet (see Amos 3:7). The prophetic portrayal of Abraham has long been used to conclude that the time of the writing prophets is the terminus a quo for Genesis 15(:1–6). Yet, what are the theological reasons why Genesis 15 presents Abraham as a prophet? In my opinion, they lie in the literary horizon of Genesis 15, which reaches into the prophetic corpus. It will be shown that Genesis 15 was created literarily from this horizon (especially Isaiah 7). Genesis 15 makes Abraham the first prophet of Yhwh to whom, as later with the writing prophets, the entire plan of history has been revealed. The institution of prophecy is as old as Israel itself, and Israel has over and over been directed to its prophets if it wants to experience something about God’s plans with his people. It will be shown that also in Exodus 3–4 and Joshua 24, the other central interpretive texts that reflect the connection of Genesis and Exodus (and following), the protagonists Moses and Joshua are clearly characterized as “prophets.” Here, a comparable theology of history predominates. e. Genetic Aspects of the Text The prominent, extensive horizon of Genesis 15 suggests that the origins of this text are toward the end of the literary shaping of the Pentateuch rather than as an original building block. Further, the relative relationship of Genesis 15 to P can provide more specific information. Is Genesis 15 older than P or, as especially Römer and Ha have considered, later than P? How should the relationship between Genesis 15 and Genesis 17 be identified? These texts stand close to one another and narrate two “covenant sealings” with Abraham. Their coexistence did not arise in one step. In light of the confusion of assigning Genesis 15 to J, E, or JE, we must exclude the idea that the doublet of Genesis 15 and Genesis 17 can be explained source-critically. Assignment of Genesis 15 to P is not an option. Rather, the thematic and linguistic points of contact between the two texts must be explained redaction-historically. In this respect, we should start with Gen 15:13–16, which envisions the oppression and leading out of Egypt. It is widely agreed that this passage is created using P texts: vwkr (possession) in Gen 15:14 and hbwf hbyc (good old age) in Gen 15:15 are typical P expressions. 55 For this reason, however, many expositors 53. Illustrative passages and discussion can be found in the bibliography mentioned in my Buchgestalten, 51 n. 9. 54. See Köckert, Vätergott, 213–15; hzjmb appears elsewhere in the Pentateuch only in Num 24:4, 16; see Ezek 13:7. 55. In addition to Gen 15:14, vwkr appears in Gen 12:5; 13:6; 31:18; 46:6 (all P). Further, see Gen 14:11–12, 16, 21; Num 16:32; 35:5; Ezra 1:4, 6; 8:21; 10:8; 2 Chr 21:14, 17; and 32:29. In addition to Gen 15:15, hbwf hbyc is found in 25:8 (P; see further, Judg 8:32 and 1 Chr 29:28). See Ha, Genesis 15, 94–95.

spread is 9 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 167 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The God of the Ancestors as the God of the Exodus

167

define Gen 15:13–16 as an addition. 56 Yet, this problem cannot be solved sourcecritically. 57 Gen 15:13–16 continues on logically from 15:11. 58 Abraham’s driving away the birds of prey in 15:11 should be understood as nothing more than the secret anticipation of the events concerning the departure from Egypt. 59 Without 15:13–16, it is left unresolved. Gen 15:7 and 15:13 are connected to one another by their allusion to the Decalogue. 60 Also, 15:13 (“You shall know . . .”) picks up on Abraham’s question in 15:8 (“How shall I know . . . ?”). 61 Finally, the note in 15:7 about leading Abraham out from “Ur of the Chaldeans” 62 reaches back to 11:28 (P), and the sacrificial animals apparently presuppose the giving of the Priestly law (Leviticus 1), 63 so that removing 15:13–16 source-critically falls far short of removing all allusions to P from Genesis 15. Further support can be found for this argument. First, the giving of land in Gen 15:18 is classified as a covenant, which parallels the P texts of Gen 17:7–8 and Exod 6:4. 64 This suggests that Gen 15:18 was derived by reading the subsequent chapter of Genesis 17. Further, by comparing Abraham’s reactions to the promise of a son (faith in Gen 15:6; laughing in 17:17), one can see that Genesis 17 does not presuppose Genesis 15. Instead, Genesis 15 corrects Genesis 17 proleptically. 65 Genesis 15 anticipates Genesis 17, quite obviously with the goal of teaching Abraham, who trusts in God completely, like one of the prophets (see Amos 3:7). It instructs Abraham about the course of future events in which the promises are fulfilled. Gen 15:13–16, 18–21 names the oppression in Egypt, the exodus, and the conquest. Corresponding to its extensive horizon, far beyond Genesis, Genesis 15 seems to depend on other texts in subsequent books. The predication of Yhwh as shield in Gen 15:1 may be inspired by Deut 33:29. 66 Abraham receives, now directly from Yhwh, the same promise that Moses gives Israel: Yhwh 56. See above, this section, n. 28 (p. 162). 57. See Ha, Genesis 15, 52–55. 58. See Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 226; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 378, with n. 116 (bibliography); See Weimar, Festschrift Scharbert, 365–66 with n. 18 (Westermann takes into account a break after 15:11). Concerning the translation, see von Soden, “Abraham” (bwv in Hiphil rather than bvn). See Anbar, JBL 101 (1982): 47; Van Seters, Abraham, 258–59; Römer, DBAT 26 (1989/90): 36. See also Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 226. Kaiser excludes 15:11 and 15:13–16 from Gen 15:7–21 (Kaiser, ZAW 70 [1958]: 118), as does Blum, Vätergeschichte, 378. 59. See the discussion in Blum, Vätergeschichte, 378, and the bibliography in n. 116. 60. Römer, DBAT 26 (1989–90): 36–37. 61. Van Seters, Abraham, 259. 62. See Blum, Vätergeschichte, 379 n. 122. Blum considers the alternative, whether Kd could also have known a corresponding tradition. This, however, is a speculative, ad hoc hypothesis. 63. See Jacob, Genesis, 396; Römer, DBAT 26 (1989–90): 43; Soggin, Genesis, 250. 64. Weimar, Exodusgeschichte, 106–7. 65. Already Eerdmans in 1908 defined Gen 15:1–6 as a “correction of 17:17ff. where Abraham greeted the promise with unbelieving laughter” (Eerdmans, Studien, 39; noted by Römer, DBAT 26 [1989–90]: 41). Blum, on the other hand, interprets the transformation of Abraham’s faith in Genesis 15 as the decoupling of the turning of Yhwh [to Israel] and Israel’s action (Blum, Pentateuch, 236). Yhwh’s turning to Israel has no stipulations. 66. See Ha, Genesis 15, 96–99. With Levin (Verheissung, 248), one can recall also the Psalms.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 168 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

168

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

is its “shield.” The self-presentation of Yhwh in Gen 15:7 is taken from the opening of the Decalogue 67 but is presented to Abraham with a different place of origin (“Ur of the Chaldeans”): Gen 15:7: Exod 20:2/Deut 5:6:

μydck rwam ˚ytaxwh rca hwhy yna μyrxm ≈ram ˚ytaxwh rva ˚yhla hwhy ykna

The return after four generations in Gen 15:16 may have been motivated by the Decalogue. 68 Yhwh punishes the guilt of the fathers to the fourth generation (Exod 20:5/Deut 5:9) but shows grace to the thousandth generation. The population of the land thus implicitly gains the limitless promise of grace for a thousand generations. The formulation of Lev 25:38 is combined with that of the Decalogue:69 Gen 15:7: tazh ≈rah ta ˚l ttl μydvk rwam ˚ytaxwh rva hwhy yna Lev 25:38: ˆ[nk ≈rah ta μkl ttl μyrxm ≈ram μkta ytaxwh rva μkyhla hwhy yna The formulation of the sealing of the covenant with Abraham in Gen 15:18 (tyrb trk . . . ta with Yhwh as subject) points forward to Exod 34:27. 70 I will argue below that this setting of Gen 15:17–18 generally evokes associations with the Sinai pericope. The concluding, broad description of the promised land in Gen 15:18–21 is a unique form in the Hebrew Bible, but it takes up a series of stereotypical phrases.71 The expression trp rhn ldgh rhnh d[ μyrxm rhnm in Gen 15:18 (from the Nile to the Euphrates) reminds one of the description of the extent of the Solomonic kingdom in terms of content in 1 Kgs 5:1, 4 and in terms of language 72 in 2 Kgs 24:7. 73 The ten-member list of nations in Gen 15:19–21 has no parallel elsewhere. The first three nations74 mentioned (15:19) and the Rephaim 75 (15:20) appear only in Genesis 15. The remainder are known from the lists 76 in Exod 3:8, 17; 13:5; 23:23, 28; 33:2; 34:11; Num 13:29; Deut 7:1; 20:17; Josh 3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11; Judg 3:5; 1 Kgs 9:20.

67. See Fishbane, Interpretation, 375–76. 68. See Römer, Transeu 7 (1994): 118. 69. See, for example, Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 224; Ha, Genesis 15, 100–101. 70. See Zenger, BETL 126 (1996), 280–81. 71. See Kallai, IEJ 47 (1997): 69–82. Ps 72:8 is even more hyperbolized. Text critical refinements in Gen 15:18–21 are discussed and correctly rejected by Blum, Vätergeschichte, 382 n. 137. 72. However, μyrxm ljnm appears instead of μyrxm rhnm as in Gen 15:18. The textual transmission is clear in both cases. The phrase μyrxm ljn (the wadi of Egypt) means the Wadi el-ªAris that flows into the sea about 50 km south of Rafia and forms the natural border between Palestine and Egypt, while μyrxm rhn (the river of Egypt) describes the eastern arm of the Nile. In antiquity, it flowed by Sile and, seen from Palestine, even enclosed the wilderness of Sinai. Compare Aharoni, Land, 64–65, 72. 73. In 2 Kgs 24:7, the delineation from the Nile to the Euphrates conspicuously describes the land occupied by Egypt in Syria-Palestine that Nebuchadnezzar conquered. Is Gen 15:18 directed toward those deported according to 2 Kings 24? “The exiles must have felt that this involved the same territory that was given to the descendants of Abraham” (Gosse, Structuration, 101). 74. Concerning the problem of the Kenites and the Kenizzites, see the discussion in Blum, Vätergeschichte, 379 n. 125. 75. Concerning the Rephaim as inhabitants already in the land, see R. Liwak, TDOT 13:611–14; see Gen 14:5. 76. See the overview in Ishida, Bib 60 (1979): 461–62.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 169 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The God of the Ancestors as the God of the Exodus

169

Like Genesis 17, Genesis 15 anticipates Sinai, though by different means: 77 trk ta tyrb is a terminus technicus for the making of the covenant at Horeb/Sinai; 78 as with P, in Genesis 15 the pertinent covenant established with Israel is “borrowed backward” for Abraham; as in Exod 19:18, Gen 15:17 uses the theophany image of a smoking oven; 79 also, the theophany term rb[ appears (Gen 15:15; Exod 34:6). 80 Yhwh’s revelation to Abraham in Genesis 15 is no less significant than the revelation on Sinai. Therefore, the self-presentation of Yhwh in Gen 15:7 anticipates the beginning of the Decalogue in Exod 20:2; Deut 5:6. 81 Yhwh has already made known to Abraham who Yhwh is and what the purpose of his action is— namely, the giving of land (15:7b, 18–21). In Genesis 15, specific interplay with royal ideology leads to further literary adoptions of royal ideology that cannot merely be explained as tradition-historical influences. Gen 15:1–6 is shaped like a salvation oracle to a king. 82 What does this mean? The royal promises in Genesis 15 are issued to Abraham, the progenitor of Israel, just as in Isaiah 40ff. (see especially, 41:8ff.) they are issued to Jacob/Israel: no longer just the king, but now the people themselves are chosen by God. 83 The royal image of Abraham as receiver of a salvation oracle can be supported with the way the promise of descendants for Abraham echoes the dynasty promise to David in 2 Samuel 7. 84 Gen 15:4 “This man will not be your heir; the one who comes from your loins (rva ˚y[mm axy) will be your heir.”

2 Sam 7:12 “When your days are full and you lie with your fathers, then I will raise up your offspring after you who will come forth from your loins (˚y[mm axy rva).”

Genesis 15 appears to transfer the dynastic promise from David in 2 Samuel 7 to the offspring of Abraham: the promise of offspring is not a royal privilege but is already valid for the progenitor, Abraham. The borrowing of the royal tradition 77. Gese speaks of a “Sinai prolepsis” (Gese, Abrahamerzählung, 45–46); see also Römer, DBAT 26 (1989–90): 44; and earlier, Noth, HPT, 200. 78. See Exod 24:8; 34:10, 27; Deut 4:23; 5:2–3; 9:9; 28:69; 29:11, 13, 24; 31:16; see 1 Kgs 8:21; 2 Kgs 17:15; Jer 11:10; etc. (see Römer, DBAT 26 [1989–90]: 44). Specifically, the construction with ta connects Gen 15:18 with Exod 34:27 (Zenger, BETL 126 [1996], 280–81). 79. See Jeremias, Theophanie, 207; Zenger, BETL 126 (1996), 280. 80. Ibid. 81. Wenham, WBC 1 330–31; Römer, DBAT 26 (1989–90): 36–37; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 123. 82. See Kaiser, ZAW 70 (1958): 111–26; Van Seters, Abraham, 254, with n. 13 (bibliography), 268; H. H. Schmid, Jahwist 122–23, 134; Köckert, Vätergott, 220–21; and Herbert Donner and Wolfgang Röllig, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, 202, 13. 83. See Van Seters, Abraham, 267–68. 84. See also Gen 15:2 / 2 Sam 7:16. See Clements, Abraham and David; Wenham, WBC 1 335; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 124–25; an opposing view in Wagner, “Abraham,” 131–36; Van Seters, Abraham, 151–53; idem, Prologue, 249–50; concerning the problem, see Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 216.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 170 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

170

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

and the Davidic statements are presumably not neutral prefigurations, but the statements have a critical potential: Genesis 15 “democratizes” the royal tradition. Also, by critically taking up the royally fashioned promise of Gen 12:1–3, 85 Genesis 15 is, in terms of the narrative flow, the first text critical of kings in the Hebrew Bible. In this respect, Genesis 15 is connected with Joshua 24: even the presentation of the “choice of king” as Yhwh in Joshua 24 is a fundamental critique of (human) kings. The prophetic borrowing in Genesis 15 is also clear in this framework. As often suggested, Genesis 15 is decisively influenced by Isa 7:1–17 86 and Jer 34:18–20 87 (for the cutting scene in Gen 15:9–10). The adoption of Isaiah 7 (compare in Genesis 15, especially “faith” [Isa 7:9]; “Damascus” [7:8]; fire symbolism [7:4]; and the promise of a son [7:14]) is particularly noteworthy from the perspective of Genesis 15’s tendency to criticize the king. However, the faith demand in Isa 7:9 appears in the context of Isaiah’s warning to King Ahaz. Apparently Gen 15:6 88 85. See Steck, Festschrift von Rad, 551–52, with n. 70; H. H. Schmid, Jahwist, 133–34. 86. See Smend, ˆymah, 122–23; Ha, Genesis 15, 78–89; Becker, Jesaja, 51, with n. 128. 87. See Genesis 15, 71–78. 88. The traditional understanding of Gen 15:6 (see Jacob, Genesis, 393–94; von Rad, “Anrechnung”; H. H. Schmid, EvT 40 (1980): 396–420; Soggin, Genesis, 241–42, 252–54 [bibliography]; Behrens, ZAW 109 [1997]: 327–41; see also the review in Oeming, ZAW 110 [1998]: 20–21) appears to me to remain correct, despite opinions to the contrary (Oeming, ZAW 110 [1998]: 19–20). Oeming disagrees with von Rad (idem, ZAW 105 [1983]: 191–92; idem, ZAW 110 [1998]: 18–19). See already Gaston, Horizons in Biblical Theology 2 (1980): 39–68; and Mosis, Festschrift Scharbert; Weimar, Festschrift Scharbert, 364 n. 13; 381–82 (bibliography). Oeming relates the attribution of righteousness to Abraham as the subject and takes the promise of descendants as the object (“And Abraham believed God and counted this [i.e., the promise] to him [i.e., God] as righteousness”). Recently, however, Oeming recognizes the “ambiguity” of Gen 15:6 and no longer wants to focus “on a single meaning.” Opposing opinions come from Blum, Vätergeschichte, 369 n. 53; Köckert, Vätergott, 216–17, with n. 260; Behrens, ZAW 109 (1997): 330–31. After Oeming, Rottzoll does not want to see God’s promise of descendants as object but the faith act of Abraham (Rottzoll, ZAW 106 [1994]: 21–27): “And Abraham believed God and it [i.e., faith] was counted to him as righteousness” (critical of Rottzoll, see Oeming, ZAW 110 [1998]: 20). However, neither the interpretation of Oeming nor, in particular, the interpretation of Rottzoll fits the context well (15:6 transitions to 15:7ff.). Their interpretations do not take the influence of Isaiah 7 or Genesis 17 into account. Moreover, I agree that the criticized change of subject is not impossible and in fact is not even unusual (Ha, Genesis 15, 23– 24; Soggin, Genesis, 241–42; 330–31; contrary to Gaston and Oeming, see also Moberly, VTSup 41 (1990), 107–8; see also Pröbstl, Nehemiah 9, 53–55). However, the wéqatal form ˆymahw is difficult, especially since hbvjyw is once again narrative (see Joüon-Muraoka §119z; 4Q225 reads ˆymayw [see Oeming, ZAW 110 (1998): 29]). If one follows Spieckermann in seeing the wéqatal form and the wayyiqtol form as interchangeable (Spieckermann, Juda, 120–30; see the opposing view in Krüger, BN 62 [1992]: 32–37; Bartelmus, Einführung, 201–11; see also the discussion in Keulen, Manasseh, 162– 67), or follows Levin (Verheissung, 249) who sees 15:6 as an addition because of the wéqatal (see also Moberly, VTSup 41 [1990], 128–29), then the content of ˆymahw form can be explained. One can conceive of an iterative meaning with reference to both promises of 15:4 and 15:5, as conjectured by Lohfink (Landverheissung, 46) and Blum (Vätergeschichte, 368 n. 52). However, the semantics of ˆymahw argue against this interpretation. It remains uncertain whether there is an iterative “faith.” We must also consider whether one should treat ˚[rz from 15:5b as the subject so that the wéqatal continues the future yiqtol form hyhy. However, then the wayiqqtol form hbvjyw is difficult to interpret. Similar cases to Gen 15:7, in which a wéqatal interrupts a narrative chain, are found, for example, in Judg 3:23; 1 Kgs 20:21; 2 Kgs 14:14.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 171 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The God of the Ancestors as the God of the Exodus

171

conceptualizes the believing Abraham as a counter-image to the doubting Ahaz. 89 Abraham can also correspond to the image of Isaiah: Abraham’s reception of the prophetic word (“And the word of Yhwh came to Abraham in a vision [hzjm],” 15:1) is formed analogously to Isaiah, whose entire book is superscribed as a “vision” (ˆwzj in 1:1; see also Isaiah 6). Thus, the leading voice 90 of the corpus propheticum, Isaiah, already corresponds to the primal model, Abraham, in Genesis 15. Similar to the relationship of Genesis 15 to Isaiah 7, the covenant ritual in Gen 15:9–10 appears to have been conceived as a positive counterpart to Jer 34:18– 20. 91 Apparently, the scene of breaking the covenant in Jeremiah 34 was seen in Genesis 15 as a trigger moment for the judgment of Judah and Jerusalem reported subsequently in Jeremiah 37–44. Furthermore, just as this covenant broken in the time of Jeremiah led inevitably to complete ruin, the covenant sealed with Abraham in Genesis 15, in which God himself functioned as covenant partner sounds like the ruin the prophets announced, especially Isaiah. It should therefore not be surprising that, along with Isaiah 7 and Jeremiah 34, Genesis 15 shows a special affinity with Isaiah 40ff. The genre of the priestly salvation oracle 92 in Gen 15:1–6 in the form directed to the people in Isaiah belongs to this affinity, as does the return of Israel from Egypt to Jerusalem 93 in Gen 15:16, which prefigures the return from Babylon to Zion. Thus, the content and linguistic form of Genesis 15 are best explained when it is classified as originating after P. This means that the probability of the thesis considered by de Pury and Römer increases significantly; that is, the connection between the ancestors and the exodus was first undertaken by P, because the most important bridge text (Genesis 15) between the ancestors and the exodus in Genesis is later than P.

89. See Ha, Genesis 15, 87; Becker, Jesaja, 51 n. 128. 90. Steck, “Israel und Zion,” 205. 91. Especially, the apparently ancient character of this ceremony in Gen 15:9ff. (Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 73) has favored the early date of Genesis 15. In actuality, extrabiblical parallels for this rite do not go back beyond the eighth century (Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 73; Rendtorff, Festschrift Westermann, 78; Köckert, Vätergott, 229–31; Hasel, JSOT 19 [1981]: 230 n. 345; and Wenham, JSOT 22 [1982]: 134–37) and are of a completely different nature: “In the whole ancient Near Eastern comparative material, the rite is completed before the respective deity (see Sfire IA7; Jer 34:18) who functions as the guarantor and executor of the consequences of the curse. By contrast, Genesis 15 is completely unique in that the deity itself undertakes the rite. Tradition-historically, this process could not appear at the beginning. Rather, it represents a late phase, in which the covenant rite usually conducted between two humans had been transferred to God” (Köckert, Vätergott, 231; see also Levin, Verheissung, 249). Concerning the reconstruction of a God of the fathers as “the shield of Abraham” (μhrba ˆgm) from Genesis 15 by Alt (“Gott,” 66–67, with n. 5), see the considerations of Kaiser, ZAW 70 (1958): 107–15; Köckert, Vätergott, 204–47. 92. See Köckert, Vätergott, 220–23; Levin, Verheissung, 247–48. 93. Caquot sees the overthrow of Jerusalem by David as being anticipated in Genesis 15 (Caquot, Sem 12 [1962]: 51–65). In so doing, he figures 60 years for a generation (see AHw 1:164).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 172 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

172

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

3.2.2. Exodus 3–4 While Genesis 15 provides the strongest connection in Genesis, the call of Moses in Exodus 3–4 is the most prominent later literary connection between Genesis and Exodus (and following) in identifying the “God of the fathers” as “Yhwh,” the God of the exodus. After the parenthesis of Exod 1:6–8 has swept away the Joseph story at the beginning of the book of Exodus and a new pharaoh has appeared who will become the antagonist of Moses, Moses’ call narrative in Exod 3:1–4:18 reconnects the exodus story with the ancestor story. 94 Yhwh reveals himself to Moses on Sinai as the God who had previously appeared to the ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (3:6–7). I am the God of your father, 95 the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

Thus, the voice of God clarifies that the God now speaking to Moses is none other than the “God of the fathers” of Genesis. 96 Moses is commissioned by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to lead Israel out of Egypt (3:10). But why does Yhwh not address Moses with the words “I am Yhwh”? 97 According to Genesis, the patriarchs spoke of themselves as Yhwh-worshipers. 98 They knew the identity of Yhwh, who had also presented himself to them (see, for example, “I am Yhwh, your God” in Gen 15:7; 28:13). That Israel had forgotten this knowledge in Egypt about who its God was and what his name was is never stated in Exodus 3 or even implicitly suggested. In Exodus 3, however, neither Moses (3:6) nor Israel (3:13) recognizes the name Yhwh. 99 Earlier, scholars 94. Concerning the problem of delimitation, see Childs, OTL, 51–52. 95. Concerning ˚yba yhla (˚ytba in the SamP, LXX58, 72; see Acts 7:32), see W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 151; Moberly, Old Testament, 11–12 n. 11; Houtman, HCOT, 349–50; Berge, Reading, 114; Römer, “Exodus 3–4,” 74–75. A change to ˚twba is not necessary. The singular expression accents the continuity of the worship of God by the ancestors, by Moses’ father, and by Moses himself. 96. Levin also points to the similarity of Exod 3:7–8 to Gen 11:5; 16:11; 18:20–21, a similarity that he takes as an argument for the unity of his J (Levin, Jahwist, 49). 97. See also the haggadic explanation given in Jacob, Exodus, 48. 98. According to the note in Gen 4:26 (traditionally ascribed to J), people began to call on Yhwh in the time of Enosh. 99. Since Jacob, the opinion has continually been expressed that wmv hm (Exod 3:13) does not mean “what is his name?” but means “what does his name mean?” (Jacob, MGWJ 66 [1922]: 32; idem, Exodus, 59–60; see also Berge, Reading, 103–8; Kaiser, TheolAT, 2:95–96 [bibliography]). Otherwise, the question would have to be formulated with ym. However, already Gen 32:28 shows (see Berge on details, contra Jacob) that this explanation does not really hold up (see L. Schmidt, “Exegese,” 239–40; Kaiser, TheolAT, 2:96). Exod 3:13 asks about the name, not its meaning. Also, Blum contests whether a new name is being communicated in 3:13–15 (Kd). Rather, “In 3:13, Moses anticipates the people’s question, the response to which serves to legitimate him (as agent) and thereby receives the affirmation of the people” (Blum, Pentateuch, 12; idem, “Verbindung,” 124–27,” but see Römer’s criticism [Römer, “Exodus 3–4,” 69–70 and n. 23]). Yet, why would Kd, which presumably knew the name Yhwh in Genesis, have presented Yhwh as “God of the fathers” and not as “Yhwh”? Also, the assumption that we should interpret the people’s question anticipated by Moses (wmv hm) as a test question seems difficult. This necessity emerges only when one allocates Exodus 3– 4 to a J or JE-equivalent, for reasons dominated by traditional source-critical theory.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 173 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The God of the Ancestors as the God of the Exodus

173

had resolved this problem by accepting that 3:6, 13 should be assigned to E, which like P had a graduated theory of revelation. The ancestors were not yet entrusted with the name Yhwh, which was first made known to Moses. However, E as an independent source has become a highly problematic entity, especially across the gap between Genesis and Exodus, and it is no longer a viable solution. That Exodus 3 represents a traditional piece that was already given for the transition from Genesis to Exodus has long been conjectured but is not completely selfevident. It seems more likely that the connection between the ancestors and the exodus was first created here. Thus, one is completely justified in questioning the classic position of the source model, which presents the call episode as an integral component of one or more narrative strands that transcend Genesis and Exodus. a. Recent Discussion of Exodus 3–4 Within the traditional explanatory framework of the Documentary Hypothesis, it is generally accepted that a text like Exod 3:1–4:18, which is so important to the cohesion of the various tradition themes, must be considered part of both J and E. 100 The frequent change between hwhy and μyhla appears to support this conclusion (even though the designation of God with the definite article, μyhlah in 3:1, 6, 11, 12, 13, is not exactly identical and is either not noted or treated as insignificant). 101 W. H. Schmidt, for example, argues that “the analysis of Exod 3:1–17 (as with Genesis 6–9 or Exodus 14) counts as an almost paradigmatic example of literary criticism in general.” 102 In this narrow realm of the call of Moses, he assigns 3:*1aba, 2–4a, 5, *7–8, *16–17 to J and 3:1bb, *4b, 6, *9–15 to E. 103 L. Schmidt also uses Exodus 3–4 as a prime example to prove that the Documentary Hypothesis is fundamentally correct. 104 Weimar provides an extensive, even if arbitrary, literary-critical analysis of Exod 3:1–4:18 that essentially deals with J and E strands, while Kreuzer also proceeds from a J and E strand, although without detailed proof. 105

100. See Reichert, Jehowist, 10–11: “It is an undisputed presupposition that both J and E contained a report about an encounter [by Moses] with God in the wilderness.” 101. “The use of the article in God’s name regularly fluctuates with E” (W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 17). 102. Ibid., 107; see idem, Festschrift Würthwein; Richter, Berufungsberichte, 58–72; H. Schmid, Mose, 27–33; Childs, Exodus, 53; Sæbø, Festschrift Wolff, 45–46; Kohata, Jahwist, 27; Weimar, Berufung, 368–83; H.-C. Schmitt, VT 32 (1982): 185–86; Bartelmus, BN 78 (1995): 34–36. 103. W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 109; see Fohrer, Exodus, 30, 38; Sæbø, Festschrift Wolff, 45; Croatto, EvT 51 (1991): 40–41; McEvenue, Festschrift Lohfink, 225–31. 104. L. Schmidt, “Pentateuch,” 99; idem, “Exegese.” 105. Weimar, Berufung; see the synopsis, pp. 367–83. Kreuzer, Frühgeschichte, 97–117; see pp. 114– 15. See further the review of research in Houtman, HCOT, 327 n. 5. For older works, see Reichert, Jehowist, 7–10; Rose, Deuteronomist, 72. Also, Römer (Väter, 553, with n. 401) and Macchi (ETR 71 [1996]: 67–74) layer Exodus 3–4, though not in the same way as the Documentary Hypothesis. The removal of “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” from Exodus 3 as an addition by the pentateuchal redactor is less convincing (Römer, Transeu 13 [1997]: 61 n. 60).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 174 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

174

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

However, one can discern from the special position of Noth that things in Exodus 3–4 are not quite so simple and cannot be solved source-critically. Noth certainly recognized E pieces in 3:1–4:18. 106 However, he bracketed out the parts usually ascribed to J and saw them as “an addition to ‘J.’ ” 107 The reason is as simple as it is apparent: before Noth, Wellhausen and Rudolph had already seen that there is a close connection between 2:23aa and 4:19, 108 a connection that is interrupted by the P text of 2:23ab–25 109 and the Moses call in 3:1–4:18. Like 2:15–23aa, Exod 4:19 takes place in Midian and connects directly to 2:23aa. 110 The connection between 2:23aa and 4:19 is expressly accentuated in the LXX: the LXX repeats 2:23aa before 4:19. The intervening episode, 3:1–4:18, also stands out from its context in the designation of Moses’ father-in-law. In 3:1; 4:18, he is named Jethro, but he is called Reguel in 2:18. Further, the subsequent chapter, Exodus 5, does not seem to presuppose Exodus 3–4.111 The demand of Moses to the king of Egypt in Exod 5:3–4 stands out from Exodus 3–4 in many ways (“Yhwh, the God of the Hebrews, has met us. Let us go three days into the wilderness in order to present sacrifices to Yhwh, our God.”). (1) First, the plural formulation draws attention. Yhwh is encountered by us, while according to Exodus 3, Moses is alone on the mountain of God. (2) In Exod 5:3, Moses speaks strikingly about “Yhwh, the God of the Hebrews,” though since Exodus 3, he has known that Yhwh is the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” (3) Though it is not clear precisely where to locate the mountain of God according to Exodus 3, it is undoubtedly more than three-days’ journey away.

As Noth correctly concluded, Exod 3:1–4:18 is therefore neither integral nor necessary in the context of the foundational narrative strand of the exodus story. Rather, it is an insertion. In his Exodus commentary, however, Noth returns to the classic view. Though in his opinion, the call of Moses “hardly” appears to belong “to the oldest com106. Noth, HPT, 36. 107. Ibid., 31–32 n. 103. See also Rudolph, Elohist, 7; Smend, Entstehung, 65, 82; and those mentioned by W. H. Schmidt, Festschrift Würthwein, 125 n. 7. 108. Wellhausen, Composition, 71; Rudolph, Elohist, 6–7; Noth, HPT, 30, with n. 103. See morerecent treatments in Koch, VT 19 (1969): 56; Römer, Väter, 351; Blum, Pentateuch, 20; Bartelmus, BN 78 (1995): 29; Macchi, ETR 71 (1996): 73. For an opposing view, see Childs, OTL, 51. 109. Hoftijzer, Verheissungen, 34–35, adds 2:23ab–25 to 3:1–4:18. The call of Moses then stood from the beginning as a sign of the promise to the ancestors. However, 2:23ab–25 forms the necessary bridge in the P context between 1:13–14 and 6:2–8. These texts belong together originally (see W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 271 [bibliography]; differently, see the work of G. Fischer, BETL 126 [1996], 149–78; idem, ZKT 117 [1995]: 203–11). 110. McEvenue holds that this is “simply not true. 2:23 speaks of the death of the ‘king of Egypt’; 4:19 speaks of ‘all the men who are seeking your life’ ” (McEvenue, Festschrift Lohfink, 224). From this difference one can hardly construct a contradiction, and it does not disappear in the rest of the text if one leaves 2:23ab unchanged. The further objections against the character of 3:1–4:18 as an insertion are not strong. Kessler points to the difference between a son of Moses in 2:22 (compare 4:24–26; Kessler, Querverweise, 196) and “his sons” in 4:20. This is perhaps a redactional harmonization with 18:3–6 (see W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 210). 111. See Koch, VT 19 (1969): 55–56. But see now Gertz, Tradition, 335–45, who thinks that Exodus 5 is a post-Priestly addition.

spread is 6 points short

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 175 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The God of the Ancestors as the God of the Exodus

175

ponent of the transmission,” he states, “although it is tradition-historically relatively late, it still belongs to the old pentateuchal narrative material that has been fixed literarily,” and it was “represented in both ancient narrative layers, J and E.” 112 Thus, the pressure of the source-critical hypothesis prevailed over the textbased observations in Noth’s exposition of Exodus. We can observe similarities in the currently advocated models such as those of Blum, Levin, 113 and Van Seters. To be sure, Exod 3:1–4:18 is no longer divided into two parallel strands, but it continues to be allocated to the earliest tetrateuchal strands: Kd (Blum) or J (Levin, Van Seters). These “early” strands, in contrast to the classic model, are now dated as exilic (or early postexilic) but still pre-Priestly. In these recent models, Exod 3:1–4:18 (although determined to be “largely a kind of insertion” 114) belongs to the “foundational layer” in Exodus–Numbers, which simultaneously is supposed to have completed the connection of Exodus–Numbers with Genesis. Thus, it is admitted that Exod 3:1–4:18 interrupts its context in order to create a connection back to the ancestor story. However, because the fundamental compositional layer in *Exodus(–Numbers) must be identical with the fundamental layers in *Genesis, for this theory Exod 3:1–4:18 is defended as an integral component despite obvious signs that it is literarily secondary. In 1996, Otto argued that Exodus 3(–4) is a secondary insertion in front of Exodus 6 (P), which he attributes to his Pentateuch redactor. 115 Otto thus assumes that Exodus 3(–4) represents a post-Priestly insertion into Exodus. 116 This provokes discussion of whether Exodus 3–4 might have a corresponding function within Exodus to the function that Genesis 15 has inside Genesis. b. The Literary Integrity of Exodus 3–4 Willingness to deal source-critically with 3:1–4:18 has declined in recent research, all the more so because not even the reconstructed J and E parallel strands are satisfactorily coherent, especially in Exod 3:1–6. 117 Recently, Fischer, Blum in his Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, and Van Seters have suggested that Exod 112. Noth, ATD 5 21. 113. Levin, Jahwist, 326, differentiates, however, in 3:1–4:18 (as well as elsewhere) small sections belonging to J: 3:*1–2a, 3–4a, *7, 8aa, *16a, *17, 18, 21–22; 4:18. 114. Blum, Pentateuch, 22; see Levin, Jahwist, 324–25, 329. 115. Otto, BETL 126 (1996), 108–11; see also Kegler, Festschrift Crüsemann. Also for the classic J material, see H.-C. Schmitt, VT 32 (1982): 186. Further, see Carroll, JSOT 61 (1994): 42; Thompson, “Matrix,” 118; and the critical discussion in Römer, “Exodus 3–4.” 116. This appraisal is not new, especially for parts of Exodus 4. See the review by Van Seters, Life, 53 n. 55. For a different view, see Van Seters himself, who, with Schmitt (BKAT 2/1 193–95), advocates the priority of Exod 4:2–4 over Exodus 7 (P; Van Seters, Life, 53–54). See also Römer, “Exodus 3–4.” Kessler (Querverweise, 201) cautiously considers whether Exodus 3 and 4 “have first received their linguistic form in the final stage of the composition of the Pentateuch.” A redactionally differentiated position is held by Gertz, Tradition, 261–327; Kratz, Composition, 289–94; Blum, “Verbindung”; and Römer, “Exodus 3–4”—who all find pre- and post-Priestly material in Exodus 3–4. 117. See the critical observations in Ska, “Récit,” 136–40; Rose, Deuteronomist, 71–77.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 176 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

176

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

3:1–4:18 is a largely unified text. 118 Berge’s investigation takes into account the literary growth of Exodus 3–4; however, he sees no possibility of being able to reconstruct its earlier stages in detail. 119 Even if, with Berge, we must take into account textual growth in individual passages (see §3.2.2.e, pp. 182ff., concerning 3:15), the substantial literary unity of Exod 3:1–4:18 is still plausible. Concerning what is often evaluated sourcecritically as the “doubling” of 3:7 and 3:9, which we should term more neutrally as an inclusio surrounding the promise of land in 3:8, Blum cites 2 Sam 7:27–29 and Josh 14:10–12 as two examples of literarily unified texts that structurally exhibit (also with the use of ht[w) redundancy comparable with Exod 3:7–9. 120 Moreover, the chiastic recapitulation of Exod 3:7 in 3:9 shows that the two verses should not be assigned to two literarily independent sources. 121 The use of the phrase once more in 3:17 is not another repetition but a command to Moses about what he should say to the elders of Israel. Additionally, because of the text-critical uncertainty in Exodus 3–4, 122 the change of the divine name hwhy to the designation of God as μyhla cannot substantiate the source division for methodological reasons. 123 Specifically, the notable change of subject from Yhwh in 3:4a to μyhla in 3:4b cannot be explained adequately on the basis of a merging of two sources. It is already clear that 3:4b is indispensable to the continuation of the narrative; it cannot just be treated as a later addition to J by E. 124 Rather, the change of name should be explained on the one hand by the fact that hwhy in 3:4a creates an inclusio with hwhy ˚alm in 3:2a. 125 On 118. Fischer, Jahwe; Blum, Pentateuch, 22–28; but see his self-correction in “Verbindung.” Van Seters, Life, 35–63 (4:17 is an insertion); for 3:9–15, see also Bartelmus, HYH, 234–35. According to Blum, Exod 3:15 and 4:13–16 are secondary (Pentateuch, 23–24 n. 65, 27–28, 362); ibid., 22–28 (concerning the adoption of older traditions in Exodus 3–4, see pp. 40–42; see also Koch, VT 19 [1969]: 56); Fischer, Jahwe; Crüsemann, Torah, 36–37; Van Seters, Life, 35–63. Older writers, discussed in W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 107, include Rudolph, Cassuto, Mowinckel, Buber, and Besters; Rose, Deuteronomist, 72 n. 9; Van Seters, VT 22 (1972): 456 n. 2; Fischer, Jahwe, 3; see also Jacob, MGWJ 66 (1922): 11–33, 116–38, 180–200; Winnett, Mosaic Tradition, 24–26. Even Wellhausen had “the impression that 3:1–4:17 was a piece composed all at once,” even though he then divided this piece source-critically (Wellhausen, Composition, 71). 119. Berge, Reading, 152, 202; see Görg, Beziehungen, 148. 120. Differently: McEvenue, Festschrift Lohfink, 227, with n. 18; L. Schmidt, “Exegese,” 229. 121. See Blum, Pentateuch, 11, with n. 7. 122. See Rose, Deuteronomist, 75 n. 32. 123. See Blum, Vätergeschichte, 471–75 (however, see the discussion in Wynn-Williams, State, 233– 35); Blum, Pentateuch, 25; Ska, “Récit,” 138; Otto, BETL 126 (1996), 109, with n. 207. See also Richter, Berufungsberichte, 58–59, with n. 9; Whybray, Making, 63–72. According to L. Schmidt (“Exegese,” 29, with n. 25), J can occasionally use μyhla, which he explains with the adoption of existing transmitted material. 124. Ska, “Récit,” 137. 125. Because of the name hwhy, the construct hwhy ˚alm is always definite and, relatedly, cannot be construed without the article (DDD 98). (The report in Acts 7:35, however, speaks only of “one angel” who appeared to Moses.) The hwhy ˚alm first emerges in Genesis–2 Kings in Gen 16:7–11 and Exod 22:11, 15; after Exod 3:2 it appears in Num 22:22–35; Judg 2:1, 4; 5:23; 6:11–22; 13:3–21; 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Kgs 19:7; 2 Kgs 1:3, 15; and 19:35. S. A. Meier believes that the expression hwhy ˚alm

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 177 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The God of the Ancestors as the God of the Exodus

177

the other hand, μyhla in 3:4b creates an inclusio with 3:6. We can observe a particular rationale in that those passages that speak of “seeing” (har) or “appearing” (har Niphal) use the divine name hwhy (see Gen 17:1). This is the case in Exod 3:2, (4,) 7, 16; 4:1, 5. The reason for this usage may lie in the message of Moses that “Yhwh appeared to him.” Accordingly, hwhy is used in the formulation for “seeing” God or the “appearing” of God in Exod 3:1–7. Further, note that the announcement of the name Yhwh in Exod 3:(15 126), 16 in the current flow of the text of Exodus 3–4 represents a turning point. Before Exod 3:(15), 16, the designation of God with the definite article, μyhlah (meaning “the God”), dominates. Afterward, this designation does not appear. It is present in the passages where Moses appears, or could appear, in a relationship to the deity. In other words, it appears in the places where Moses fears to look at God (3:6) and where he speaks to God (3:11, 12, 13). 127 By contrast, where God speaks to Moses, one may find either μyhla (3:4, 14, 15) or hwhy (3:7) but not μyhlah. After Exod 3:(15), 16, one encounters μyhla only 128 in apposition to hwhy, where it always appears in the construct state (3:15, 16, 18; 4:1, 5): “Yhwh, your God” or “Yhwh, the God of your fathers,” or something similar. By contrast, this combination is not found at all before Exod 3:(15), 16. The differentiation in the use of the simple hwhy and the construct chain . . . yhla hwhy after 3:(15,) 16 appears to follow similar criteria to the distinction between μyhlah and μyhla/hwhy before 3:(15,) 16: where Israel appears in relationship to its God, one finds . . . yhla hwhy (3:18; 4:5 recapitulates 3:15), and where God appears in relationship with Moses, hwhy is used (4:1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13). 129 c. Exodus 3–4 in Its Context The call of Moses in Exodus 3–4 follows the report of the oppression of the Israelites in Exodus 1 and the events that led to Moses’ flight to Midian (Exodus 2). There Moses marries Zipporah, the daughter of the Midianite priest Reuel (2:18)/ Jethro (3:1), and she bears him a son. While herding sheep, Moses, apparently by was in many places created merely by the insertion of ˚alm before hwhy in order to avoid having humans see God (Gen 16:13; Exod 3:2; Judg 6:13) or other theological problems as in Exod 4:24 (S. A. Meier, DDD, 105–6; see, among others, the literary-critical work of Berge, Reading, 61–70). In several hwhy ˚alm passages, the versions presuppose only the name of God (as in the Vulgate of Exod 3:2). 126. Concerning Exod 3:15, see below, §3.2.2.e (pp. 182ff.). 127. See Jacob, Exodus, 46–49; Rendtorff, ZAW 106 (1994): 16; Berge, Reading, 131. 128. The only exception, but it is noteworthy, is 4:16. Moses shall be μyhlal to Aaron. This pointed assertion (Moses as μyhla) is only possible because God is now named hwhy, which is made clear in the flow of Exodus 3–4, and is no longer classified as μyhla. 129. Otto traces the change from hwhy/μyhla in Exodus 3–4 back to the specific interest of his “Pentateuch redaction,” which is active here smoothing out the difference encountered in P between the reader’s perspective and the level of the action, where “the name Yhwh is first revealed contingently in Egypt” (Otto, BETL 126 [1996], 111). This was done to make clear from the beginning the identity of hwhy and μyhla in the flow of reading. According to Otto, the designation μyhla hwhy is also contingent on this in the paradise narrative of Genesis 2–3 (see idem, Festschrift Michel), which marks the beginning of his “Pentateuch redaction” (idem, BETL 126 [1996], 108–11).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 178 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

178

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

accident, encounters the mountain of God (3:1), and he encounters the “messenger of Yhwh” (3:1)—a messenger who in this context can scarcely be envisaged as anyone other than Yhwh (3:4). 130 This encounter is connected syntactically and thematically to the immediately preceding verse, 2:25, 131 which has μyhla as a double subject: “And God saw the Israelites and God noticed them.” 132 Furthermore, Exod 3:1 begins with the dependent clause “but Moses was shepherding . . .” (h[r hyh hvmw). If we attend to the formulation, then the call of Moses in Exodus 3–4 also reaches back to the preceding passage in Exod 2:23–25. The “cry” 133 (hq[z) of Israel in Exod 3:7, 9 refers to the contents of Exodus 1–2, but the language specifically refers back to Exod 2:23ab (wq[zyw), which is the only explicit cry for help in Exodus 1–2. This reference backward is further supported by additional intertextual connections between Exod 3:7 and Exod 2:23ab–25 (har, [mv, [dy), especially by the mention of the ancestor trio in Exod 3:6, 15–16 and 4:5. This trio thematically points back to Genesis 12–50 but also appeared in the immediately preceding context of Exod 2:24. These connections between Exod 3:1–4:18 and the immediately preceding passage, 2:23ab–25, have generally gone untreated in the exegetical literature of this past century because Exod 2:23ab–25 has been identified, with good reason, as a P passage. However, Exod 3:1–4:18 according to the classic evaluation is a pre-Priestly JE text. As a consequence, the relationship of Exod 3:1, 7, 9 to a later (post-)Priestly section seemed impossible from the outset. Only more recent essays 134 describe the close material and literary connections between Exod 2:23ab–25 and Exod 3:1–4:18 without respect to the source theory, the fundamental acceptance of which run contrary to these connections. The results of carefully considering the placement of Exod 3:1–4:18

130. Concerning the relationship between the messenger of Yhwh and Yhwh, see W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 155–56; Houtman, HCOT, 336–37; DDD 96–108. Concerning the question of the determination of the hwhy ˚alm, see Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 101; Houtman, HCOT, 336–37 (GKC §127e); DDD 98–99. 131. Jacob, MGWJ 66 (1922): 16; Fischer, Jahwe, 26–28. The connection between Exod 3:1 and 2:23aa is discussed by Berge, the result of which is: “The linguistic evidence suggests a redactional growth in the ‘pre-priestly’ text on the border line between the chapters 2 and 3” (Berge, Reading, 191–93). The difficulty is resolved if one recognizes that the transition from 2:23aa to 3:1 is not a problem that can be treated on the level of pre-Priestly texts. 132. Verse 25b is difficult in the MT, but not impossible (see HALOT 1:391). Often μyhla [dyw (“and God knew”) is changed in the LXX (kaμ ejgn∫sqh auj to∂Í) to μhla [dwyw: “and he was made known to them.” However, the dependent construction in the following verse (3:1), designed to juxtapose the names of μyhla and hvm, argues for maintaining the MT. 133. Concerning q[z and q[x as orthographic variants, see Hasel, TDOT 4:114. 134. See Fischer, Jahwe, 27; Ska, “Remarques,” 119–20; Propp, VT 46 (1996): 468; see already Jacob, MGWJ 66 (1922): 16. Contrary to Römer, Exod 2:23–25 is not to be interpreted as a “Priestly prefix” to Exodus 3–4 (Römer, Väter, 546; but see now his “Exodus 3–4”). Rather, Exodus 3–4 was never attached to any text other than 2:23–25. See also Isbell, “Exodus 1–2,” 52. It occurred to Kessler (Querverweise, 183) that the “cry” of the Israelites in Exod 3:7, 9 “was not mentioned in an earlier passage,” but this is not missed because of Gen 18:20–21; 19:13. Since he limits himself to the nonPriestly and essentially to the pre-Priestly Pentateuch, he does not address Exod 2:23–25 at all.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 179 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The God of the Ancestors as the God of the Exodus

179

after P, however, have not yet been adequately explored, though it (with Otto) makes good sense. What is treated in the extensive conversation between Yhwh and Moses in Exodus 3–4 points in many respects to subsequent material (though such conversations are most strikingly known from Genesis). In Exod 3:7–8, the comprehensive act of salvation is announced to Moses right at the beginning of the conversation. Yhwh has “descended” 135 in order to “save” the Israelites and to lead them into the land of the Canaanites (etc.). Thus, Exod 3:7–8 previews the entire course of salvation history including the conquest. A more precise delineation follows this comprehensive announcement showing how this salvific act will play out. Moses, with the elders of Israel (3:18), shall go to Pharaoh and obtain permission from him to depart (3:10–12, 16–18), though Pharaoh will refuse (3:19). Thus, Yhwh will “smite” him with his “marvelous acts” (hkn [Hiphil] + ytalpnb) so that Pharaoh will be forced to let Israel go (3:19–20). The preview of the plagues is continued in Exodus 4 with the verification miracles, which recur later, in slightly modified form, in Exodus 7–12. Even the plundering of the Egyptians in 11:2–3 and 12:36 is announced in 3:21–22. Furthermore, the detail of 3:22ba (“and you shall put them [i.e., the jewelry and clothing] on your sons and daughters”) anticipates the affair of the golden calf (Exod 32:2). 136 The Sinai events even appear explicitly in 3:12: 137 I will be with you, and this will be the sign for you that I have sent you. When you lead the people out of Egypt, you will serve God on this mountain.

However, the Sinai event is already present in the background of Exodus 3–4 by its setting on the “mountain of God” (3:1). Von Rad wondered “how uncritically our otherwise discerning research has accepted that Moses in the time of his sojourn from Egypt had once been to the ‘mountain of God’ and had there experienced something decisive.” 138 Actually, the doubling of the Sinai revelation in Exodus 3–4 on the one hand and Exodus 19ff. on the other is noteworthy and needs to be investigated further. Finally, 3:8, 17 even mention the conquest. And I came down to save him [i.e., my people; see 3:7] from the hand of the Egyptians and to lead him up out of this land into a beautiful and broad land, into a land flowing with milk and honey, into the region of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (3:8). . . . And I said, I will 135. The SamP reads hdraw and thereby transfers the beginning of the salvific intervention of Yhwh further back, to the Sea of Reeds miracle. 136. See Blum, Pentateuch, 18–19, with n. 38; 54, with n. 38. 137. Concerning hzj rhh l[ μyhlah ta ˆwdb[t, see Kessler, Querverweise, 186–89. Apparently, Exod 3:12 previews the wilderness festival mentioned in 4:23; 7:16; 9:1, 13; 10:3; and 12:31 by means of db[ and identifies this redactionally with the Sinai events, where the verb db[ is missing. See Floss, Jahwe dienen, 227. 138. Von Rad, EvT 31 (1971): 584; see also Rendtorff, “Mose,” 164; Crüsemann, Torah, 37; Zenger, BETL 126 (1996), 274.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 180 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

180

lead you out of the suffering of Egypt in the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, into a land flowing with milk and honey (3:17).

Thus, above all, we must affirm that Exodus 3–4 is woven into a context that includes at least the Hexateuch, a context that traces lines from the ancestors’ promises through the exodus from Egypt and Sinai to the conquest. How does Exodus 3–4 arrange its context? Classic source theory saw doublets in Exodus 3–4 and Exodus 6 and defined the former text as the JE version of the call of Moses and the latter as the P version. Once the text was distributed among the different sources, scholars rarely asked about the redactional logic of the existing comprehensive context but were often content with the source-critical solution of the doubling of Exodus 3 and 6. However, Exodus 3–6 can be read smoothly: “After the interposition of Exodus 4–5, Exod *6:2–13 becomes a confirmation of Exodus 3, responding to the need and complaint in Egypt.” 139 According to Exod 3:10, 140 Moses will lead Israel out of Egypt, but according to Exodus 5 (as foreshadowed in Exod 3:18–22), Moses does not even succeed in getting Pharaoh to let the people go into the wilderness for three days. Therefore, God announces in Exod 6:6–8, that he, himself, will liberate Israel from Egypt and bring them into the land that he swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 141 The logic of this flow of events corresponds to a sharp contrast between Israel and Egypt. Inside the larger passage of Exod 2:23–7:13, we see a twofold division into an “Israel section” (2:23–4:31) and an “Egypt section” (5:1–7:13). The “Israel section” (2:23–4:31) is framed by 2:23–25, which speaks of the lament of the Israelites in Egypt, and the conclusion in 4:30–31, which comments on the “faith” of the Israelites in Yhwh’s salvation. The “Egypt section” (5:1–7:13) opens with the provocation of Pharaoh in 5:2 (“Who is Yhwh that I should listen to him and let Israel go free? I do not know Yhwh, and I will also not let Israel go!”). It closes with the hardening statement in 7:13 (“And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as Yhwh had said”). Exod 2:23–4:31: “Israel Section” Exod 2:23–25: Lament of the Israelites § Exod 4:31: Faith of the Israelites

Exod 5:1–7:13: “Egypt Section” Exod 5:2: Provocation of Pharaoh § Exod 7:13: Hardening of Pharaoh

139. Otto, BETL 126 (1996), 109–10; see Moberly, Old Testament, 7–8. The internal context of Exodus 3–6 can be observed in the details: The Egyptian “taskmasters” (μycgn) from Exod 3:7 had not appeared before, but are first mentioned again in 5:10, 13 (compare 5:6), and 3:18b anticipates Exod 5:3 “almost literally” (Blum, Pentateuch, 18; see Kessler, Querverweise, 191–92). 140. Exod 3:8 functions as a kind of general announcement to the commission in 3:10. God is here the subject of the exodus, corresponding to Exodus 6. 141. Johnstone observes “2:23–6:1 as largely uninterrupted Dtr composition” ( Johnstone, Festschrift Anderson, 177), though he places it diachronically before Exod 6:2–7:13 (P).

spread is 6 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 181 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The God of the Ancestors as the God of the Exodus

181

This double perspective corresponds to the double sending of Moses to Israel and to Pharaoh. In both parts, the signs of believing Moses and Aaron (who is introduced anew in each part) play an important role. In Israel, they lead to “faith,” but with Pharaoh, as already explained in 4:21, they lead to hardening. Thus, it seems that the contrast between Israel and Egypt defines the redactional logic of Exod 2:23–7:13, after which the reader is prepared for the plagues, which will bring even Pharaoh to the recognition of Yhwh (Exod 7:17; 8:6, 18; 9:14, 29; see the conclusion for Israel in 10:2). 142 Pharaoh also begins to ask Moses to intercede for him with Yhwh (8:4, 24; 9:28; 10:17), and he even confesses his guilt (9:27– 28; 10:16–17) in order to end the plagues. To be sure, Pharaoh and “his servants” do not yet “fear” Yhwh according to Exod 9:30. In his last speech, Pharaoh knows this much: blessing and curse depend on his behavior toward Israel (Exod 12:32; compare Gen 12:2–3). The deliverance at the Sea of Reeds forms an initial conclusion to this double exposition from Exod 2:23–7:13, with the central assertion of Exod 14:30–31 confirming the death of the Egyptians and verifying once again (compare Exod 4:31) the faith of Israel. 143 d. Moses as “Prophet” One specific characteristic of Exodus 3–4 is that Moses (like Abraham in Genesis 15 and Joshua in Joshua 24, as we shall see) is depicted as a “prophet.” 144 This is clearly recognizable in the threefold use of jlç in Exod 3:13–15, in the commissioning of Moses as God’s messenger in Exod 3:16–17, in the subsequent events being made known to Moses in 3:19–22 (see Amos 3:7), and also in the closeness of the setting in Exodus 3–4 to the so-called prophetic call narratives. 145 Specifically, a whole series of relationships to Jeremiah 1 146 can be detected (particularly noticeable is the reference to their own unsuitability for the task), but also to the call narratives of Isaiah and Ezekiel, with their theophanic motifs. It is hardly accidental that in Exodus 3–4 the liberation from Egypt must first be promised, along with the explicit announcement of the plagues (3:19–22), before it can occur (Exodus 7–14, [15]). Apparently, Exodus 3–4 first inserts the fundamental promise and fulfillment scheme into the narrative presentation of the book of Exodus and thus establishes in Genesis–Joshua a double correspondence of 142. It thus concerns the recognition of Yhwh as the creator God. This is P’s intention (see Exod 9:29 and the “dry ground” in Exod 14:16, 22 [see Gen 1:9–10]), which shapes Exodus 1–15 also on the redactional level of Exodus 3–4. 143. One cannot speak of a textual abutment to Exodus 3–4 (contra Fischer, BETL 126 [1996], 149–78). As we have seen, Exodus 3–4 looks forward, far beyond the Sea of Reeds events, to the conquest. 144. See the various views of Perlitt, EvT 31 (1971): 588–608; Childs, OTL, 55–56; Renaud, RB 93 (1986): 510–34; Schmitt, ZAW 104 (1992): 202–16; Van Seters, Life, 35–63; Macchi, ETR 71 (1996): 71–72. 145. See the discussion in Richter, Berufungsberichte. Today, one no longer speaks of a “call formula” (136–38) or its preprophetic origins, and I prefer to interpret the intertextual phenomena largely redaction-historically. 146. See Van Seters, Life, 58–60; Blum, Pentateuch, 33–34, with nn. 123, 127 (bibliography).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 182 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

182

promise and fulfillment: the promises to the ancestors in Genesis correspond to the conquest in Joshua, and the promises of the leading out of Egypt in Exodus 3– 4 correspond to their execution in Exodus 7–14, (15). Gen

Exod 3–4

Exod 7–14, (15)

Josh

The intention behind this structuring is clear. The salvation history of God does not simply emerge by itself. Rather, it has been revealed in advance to authoritative figures in order to make clear that the events are no accident but are linked to God’s history for the sake of his people. The patriarchs of Genesis already know of Israel’s future land occupation, and the deliverance from Egypt about which Abraham already had knowledge (Genesis 15) is revealed in advance to Moses in Exodus 3. This historical prophecy has particular relevance in the places where events have not yet been confirmed. That is especially true in the corpus propheticum toward which the context of Genesis–Joshua/Judges–Kings is directed. From the perspective of the prophetic books, Genesis and the beginning of Exodus function prefiguratively to a certain degree. The forefathers of Israel in the time of the ancestors, as well as the people in Egypt were made aware they should rely on the prophetic announcement of God rather than the historical evidence. Therefore, the concept of “faith” (ˆymah) plays an important role, with the difference being that Genesis 15 deals with the “faith” of Abraham and Exodus 4 with the “faith” of Israel. 147 This difference especially has to do with the fact that Israel exists as a people and is no longer (as in Genesis) represented or prefigured by individual figures. e. Aspects of the Text’s Genesis For the genesis of the text of Moses’ call in Exodus 3–4, the question of its relationship to P is particularly interesting. Observations on the juxtapositioning of Exodus 3–4 with 2:23–25 already demonstrated that the connections of the call of Moses to this classic P text must be forcefully swept aside if Exodus 3–4 is still to be classified as a literary precursor of P, as both the Documentary Hypothesis and most recent studies suppose. A comparison of Exod 3:1–4:18 and 6:2–8 brings further clarification on this question, in that the latter is assigned to P and closely associated thematically and linguistically with Exod 3:1–4:18. In its own way, the state of the problem is quite comparable to that of Genesis 15 / Genesis 17: a “nonPriestly” text stands in front of a very similar “Priestly” text. Quite strikingly, Exod 6:2–8 “transfers the reader/hearer back to the state of things in Exodus 3–4 without referring to any previous encounter with God.” 148 In fact, the idea “that the 147. See also Gross, Festschrift Eichrodt. 148. Blum, Pentateuch, 232; Otto, TRu 62 (1997): 10.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 183 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The God of the Ancestors as the God of the Exodus

183

text of Exod 6:2–8 itself does not contain even the trace of a reference to an already experienced revelation of God or the sending of Moses” is not really favorable to a literary-historical placement of Exodus 3–4 before Exodus 6 (P). 149 On the contrary, the impression is that P has “ignored” the narrative of Exodus 3–4. 150 This was not a major problem for the Documentary Hypothesis, because P in its classic form was thought to be literarily independent of JE. 151 Still, it would be necessary to ask, at the level of the merging of JE and P (Rp ), why Exodus 6 was not adjusted redactionally to Exodus 3–4. 152 The question becomes even more pressing if we look at the contents of Exod 3:1–4:18 and 6:2–8. The two narratives (the continuation of 6:2–8 in 6:9–13 must be considered as well) 153 share a series of similarities. 154 1. In both Exod 3:6, 15–16 and 6:2 God is envisaged as the God of the ancestors (“the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”) and identifies himself as Yhwh (hyha in 3:14; hwhy in 3:15–16; 6:2). 2. Both narratives include hearing the cry of Israel in Egypt (hq[x in 3:7, 9; hqan 155 in 6:5), the announcement of deliverance (lxn Hiphil in 3:8; 6:6), and of the exodus (hl[ Hiphil in 3:8, 17; axy Hiphil in 3:10–11; 6:6–7), and the conquest (≈ra in 3:8, 17; 6:8). 149. Blum, Pentateuch, 234. Blum himself makes a virtue out of this by deciding that this lack of relationship is a deliberate stylistic device corresponding to his comprehensive interpretation of Kp. Exodus 6 has “the undiminished compositional weight of a ‘first’ turning of Yhwh to Moses/Israel. . . . The contextual discontinuity of this paragraph is the expression (or the means of expression) of a competing claim over against the adopted transmission material (especially Exodus 3–4).” Blum believes he can even document this in the details: the failure of the people to listen in 6:9, 12 contrasts with the faith in Exodus 4, just as the laughing of Abraham in Genesis 17 contrasts with his faith in Genesis 15. Both times, Kp shows that God remains undisturbed by the doubt of the Israelites and Abraham. “Yhwh’s fundamental turning [to Israel] and ‘Israel’s’ action are strictly separated” (Blum, Pentateuch, 236; see also W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 278). The fact that “adopted transmission material” is available for Kp in both Genesis 15 and Exodus 3–4 and that Genesis 15 and Exodus 3–4 are pre-Priestly is the prevailing opinion, to be sure, but it should first be proven. 150. Noth, ATD 5, 21. 151. It is precisely Exod 6:2–8, however, that offers clues within the explanatory framework of the Documentary Hypothesis that P knew JE: twlbs in Exod 6:6 and lxn Hiphil in Exod 6:6 appear only here in P, but outside P they appear in Exod 1:11; 2:11; 5:4–5 (twlbs) and 3:8; 5:23 (lxn Hiphil). Thus, L. Schmidt, for example, thinks that the independent P “used the pre-Priestly version as a literary model” (L. Schmidt, Priesterschrift, 7), a view accepted by many (ibid., n. 23, bibliography; Streibert, Schöpfung, 46, 136 n. 276; but see also McEvenue, Style, throughout; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 256). 152. See Blum, Pentateuch, 234, with n. 23; Kohata, AJBI 14 (1988): 11. On the other side, see the attempted explainations in W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 273–74; L. Schmidt, Priesterschrift, 9; and Kohata, AJBI 14 (1988): 11–12. The idea that the Exodus *3–4 complex would once have formed a unified tradition, independent of its context (Kessler, Querverweise, 214, etc.) is less apparent. One can consider, at any rate, whether the scene of the burning bush had its own history as Blum (Vätergeschichte, 28 n. 85; idem, Pentateuch, 42), Albertz (History, 1:43 n. 12; 257), and Levin ( Jahwist, 329–30) have done. 153. For the way they belong together, see Blum, Vätergeschichte, 431–32 (see especially 6:12b/ 6:9). 154. See also the summary in W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 270–71. 155. Elsewhere in the Pentateuch, only Exod 2:24 (P).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 184 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

184

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

3. In both accounts Moses is commissioned to speak to the Israelites (rma larcy ynbl in 3:13; 6:6; see 3:16) as well as Pharaoh (h[rp; jlv; larcy ynb in 3:10; 6:11). 4. Both times Moses refuses the commissioning (3:11; 4:10; 6:12) because of his speech impediment, among other reasons (4:10; 6:12). 5. As in 4:14–16, in 6:13 the problem is resolved by commissioning Aaron as well. 6. In both texts the “hearing” of Israel is a theme. In 3:18 God says to Moses that Israel will listen (w[mvw) to him, while according to 6:9 (see 6:12), Israel did “not listen” (w[mv alw) to Moses. 156 It is only reasonable to suppose that these commonalities stem from literary contact. The idea that a common tradition underlies both texts, although it serves in the older model to explain P as independent of JE, is motivated by the demand of the theory more than by observations on the text. Recent proponents of the source model have rightly moved away from this position. Concerning the question of the literary relationship, the last point in the list (6) is particularly informative. In 3:1–4:17, God promises in advance that Israel will “listen” to him (3:18), and then Moses, nevertheless, expresses the fear that Israel will not “believe” him and will not “listen” to him (4:1), before he ever delivers his message. 157 However, Exod 6:2–9 is arranged more logically: God speaks to Moses (6:2–8) and Moses speaks to the Israelites (6:9a), but they do not listen to him (6:9b). 158 The impression is that Exodus 3–4 integrates into the call scene problems that only arose (according to Exodus 6) after Moses’ commissioning: “Moses said this to the Israelites, but they did not listen to Moses” (6:9). In Exod 4:1–17, Moses broaches the issue of Israel’s failure to hear without having yet spoken to the Israelites. In fact, God assures Moses in 3:18 explicitly that they will “listen to him.” Also, it is nowhere evident in the narrative flow before Exodus 3 that Moses will have to deal with refusal based upon similar experiences. The probability that Exodus 3–4 already presupposes and takes into account the Priestly call of Moses is strengthened by these observations. 159 156. W. H. Schmidt also points to the announcement of Pharaoh’s resistance in 5:1ff. (see 3:18ff.; 4:21) and 7:3–4 (Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 271). However, both stand outside 3:1–4:18 or 6:2–13. 157. See also ibid., 196 concerning Exod 4:1: “The Yahwistic call report hardly leads to Moses’ doubt in 4:1. Why would these thoughts come to him (i.e., Moses) after Yhwh’s promise and commission (3:7–8, 16–17a)?” Schmidt therefore ascribes 4:1–17 not to J but to JE. For Levin also, the motif of doubt in 4:1 appears “surprising” (Levin, Jahwist, 331). 158. The problem of Israel’s failure to listen in Exod 6:9a is not traced further, but serves only as a foundation for the a minori ad maius (from the minor to the major) conclusion of Moses in Exod 6:12ba: “See, the Israelites have not listened to me; how will the Pharaoh listen to me?” The problem of the authority of Moses appears to be resolved in the subsequent material by the genealogy in 6:14– 25. See Marx, VT 45 (1995): 318–36; Fischer, BETL 126 (1996), 154, with n. 24. This consideration may explain the much discussed problem why Moses is not introduced in P before Exodus 6. There is no need to take account of the loss of text within an independent P. 159. See already the remarks in Rudolph, Elohist, 11; Römer, Väter, 351–52.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 185 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The God of the Ancestors as the God of the Exodus

185

Another important difference that points in the direction of this thesis is the fact that Exodus 6 plays out in Egypt while the appearance of God in Exodus 3– 4 is localized on the mountain of God at Horeb (3:1b 160). 161 However, the name of the location in Exod 3:1b appears redundant, and the preposition la before μyhlah rh competes syntactically with the directive-h after brj. 162 Levin wants to resolve this competition source-critically and (contrary to the usual resolution of hbrj 163) sees μyhlah rh la as a secondary addition: originally, the scene of Exodus 3 played out in the desert (brj 164) and brj was transformed into the name of God’s mountain “by a particular accident,” namely when μyhlah rh la was inserted right before brj. 165 However, one should not overestimate the significance of this competition, because the directive-h can even be attached to one and the same word with a prefixed preposition.166 Furthermore, with Levin’s proposal, the sequence “in the seclusion of the wilderness beyond the steppe” (hbrj . . . rbdm rja; p. 329) is difficult. Also, Levin’s solution entails literarycritical consequences in Exod 3:12, 167 which destroy the profile of Exodus 3–4. The odd manner of expression hbrj μyhlah rh la 168 could also be explained by the fact that the Hebrew Bible nowhere else has brj in a construct relationship with rh, 169 even though brj can frequently be substituted in Deuteronomy by rhh. 170

Nevertheless, the location of “Horeb” remains just as noteworthy because the name of the subsequently mentioned bush (hns) 171 sounds conspicuously like ynys, though Exodus 3–4 never mentions “Sinai” anywhere. W. H. Schmidt suggests that “this wordplay hardly (forms) the reason for giving the thornbush this name; it is more likely that it later served as the cause for relocating the scene to Sinai.” 172 However, the impression is instead that Exod 3:2–4 supplies something like a secret etymology of the name Sinai but with a location on “Horeb,” 173 an etymology 160. Outside Exod 3:1, brj μyhla rh appears only in 1 Kgs 19:8. 161. Otto correctly determines the place-name in Exod 3:1 as a material mediation of the Tetrateuch and Deuteronomy (Otto, BETL 126 [1996], 107). 162. Levin, VT 35 (1985): 190–91; idem, Jahwist, 331; see the discussion in Blum, Pentateuch, 26 n. 85. Concerning the LXX text (< μyhlah), see Perlitt, Festschrift Zimmerli, 309 n. 15 (see p. 319); Houtman, HCOT, 335 n. 27. 163. Noth, DH, 27 n. 10; idem, ATD 5 20; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/2 137; Perlitt, Festschrift Zimmerli, 309; Renaud, RB 93 (1986): 523; L. Schmidt, “Pentateuch,” 99; see Maiberger, TDOT 10:218. 164. Zenger (BETL 126 [1996], 284, with n. 59), along with Jacob (Exodus, 1062–63), is skeptical whether “Horeb” (even in Deuteronomy) means the mountain of Sinai. 165. Levin, VT 35 (1985): 190–91. Before Levin, Perlitt argued against “accident” as a principle of explanation (Perlitt, Festschrift Zimmerli, 303). 166. See the examples in Bauer-Leander, §65r. See also Berge, Reading, 58–59. 167. Levin, Jahwist, 331. I am unable to see a problem between 3:12 (“on this mountain”) and 3:18 (in the wilderness). 168. For this purpose Blum also points to Gen 27:43b and 1 Kgs 19:8b (Pentateuch, 26 n. 85). 169. Concerning Exod 33:6, see Perlitt, Festschrift Zimmerli, 309, with n. 17. 170. See the examples, in P. Maiberger, TDOT 10:218. 171. Concerning the botanical information, see W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 156 (a kind of blackberry). See, already, Josephus, Ant. 2.12.1. See also the religio-historical considerations in M. C. A. Korpel, DDD, 1618–21. 172. W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 116. 173. Van Seters (Life, 40–41) and Robinson ( JSOT 75 [1997]: 119–21), as well as Wyatt (VT 36 [1986]: 363–64), consider whether the menorah was anchored in salvation history by the burning bush.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 186 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

186

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

that later plays an important role 174 in accentuating the identity of “Horeb” and “Sinai.” 175 The location of Exodus 6 in Egypt presents no problems for the reader. In fact, this setting is expected in the flow of the narrative. By means of the idea that Yhwh revealed his name in Egypt, P agrees with Ezek 20:5–44. 176 Situating the call of Moses at Horeb in Exodus 3 is a noteworthy contrast to this. It is hard to imagine that P would have later “profaned” an existing tradition in which the call of Moses took place on the holy mountain. 177 It seems likely that the location in Egypt by P is the more original. But why does Exodus 3–4 play out on the mountain of God and, in a certain sense, anticipate the events of Exodus 19ff.? First, following Otto: Placed before Exodus 6, Exodus 3–4 clearly corrects the Priestly revelation theory in which the Priestly revelation was reinterpreted as a secondary confirmation of the main revelation in Exodus 3. In contrast to “P,” Exodus 3 holds that there can only be a completely valid revelation from God on Sinai. 178

From this starting point, one may ask whether the call of Moses located on “Horeb,” the mountain of God, presents for the reader a specific perspective on the Sinai revelation in Exodus 19ff., which only comes later in the narrative. At any rate, what is revealed to Moses on his first sojourn to the mountain of God is by no means of secondary significance. Then he spoke [i.e., Yhwh (v. 4a)/God (v. 4b)]: I am the God of your father [sing.], the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses hid his face, for he feared looking at God. And Yhwh spoke: I have seen the suffering of my people in Egypt, and I have heard their cries about their overseers. Indeed, I know their pain. Therefore, I have come down 179 to free them from the power of the Egyptians and to lead them out of that land into a beautiful, broad land, into a land where milk and honey flow, to the places of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. And now the cry of the Israelites has reached me. I have seen the oppression with which the Egyptians oppress them. Now, go. I will send you to Pharaoh to lead my people, the Israelites, out of Egypt. (Exod 3:6–10) 174. For examples, see Maiberger, TDOT 10:218. 175. See also the later rabbinic interpretations in Str-B 3:572. Blum (Vätergeschichte, 28 n. 85) presupposes, by drawing on Perlitt (Festschrift Zimmerli), that the name Sinai in Exodus 3–4 was later suppressed by Horeb in Exodus 3–4 by the Dtn-Dtr shaping of Exodus 1–14. 176. See Pola, Priesterschrift, 185–86; Otto, BETL 126 (1996), 110. 177. See Koch, VT 19 (1969): 56. 178. Otto, TRu 62 (1997): 1–50, 10. 179. Thus, the MT (draw) and LXX (katevbhn); the SamP (hdraw) transfers the coming down of God into the future (see W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 104). The MT thus already understands the revelation of Exodus 3–4 as the deciding salvific event for Israel. The understanding of time in the MT and LXX should not be rejected but actually is the point of Exodus 3–4.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 187 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The God of the Ancestors as the God of the Exodus

187

In Exod 3:6–10 God (1) tells Moses of his intent to save Israel from Egypt and (2) announces the gift of land. “Yhwh’s historical plans” 180 are what God reveals to Moses, and this double promise of departure and the gift of land stands clearly and crisply at the beginning of Exodus 3–4. The remainder of the passage, 3:11– 4:17, is a reply to Moses’ questions and objections as to how he should deliver these messages to Israel so that they will believe him. However, not one word is mentioned in Exodus 3–4 about the subsequent giving of the law and the obligation associated with it that Israel will yet encounter. In fact, the incidents in Exodus 19–24 are relegated to the status of a “sign” (twa) from the perspective of Exod 3:12. Does Exodus 3–4 thereby seek to shift the burden so that the decisive element is not the conduct of Israel but Yhwh’s plan of history? Indeed, if we interpret Exodus 3–4 in chronological and theological terms as being post-P, this emphasis of Exodus 3–4 can be understood as the reception of the Priestly theory of the covenant of grace with Abraham (Genesis 17) that hovers over the entire subsequent history of Israel. Therefore, it is also no accident that the redactional context of Exodus 3–6 established by Exodus 3 is shaped in correspondence to the great revelation to Abraham in Gen 17:1 (see hwhy in Gen 17:1): Genesis 17:1

. . . μrba yhyw μrba la hwhy aryw wyla rmayw ydv la yna

Exodus 3:1 3:2 6:2

hyh hvmw wyla hwhy ˚alm aryw hvm la μyhla rbdyw wyla rmayw hwhy yna

Exodus 3 and 6 together establish a parallel between the Yhwh appearances and revelations to Abraham (Genesis 17) and Moses (Exodus 3–6). In so doing, the differences between Genesis 17 and Exodus 6 inside P are evened out redactionally.

Alongside the points made here–the connections between Exod 3:7 and 2:23 (P) and between Exod 3:1 and 2:25 (P), the treatment of the problem of the Israelites’ “not hearing,” and the differences in locality—there are other indicators of a post-Priestly origin of Exodus 3–4. The formulation of the speech beginning in Exod 3:4ba appears to presuppose Priestly material or material shaped by the Priestly source. The revelation in Exodus 3 also appears to parallel consciously the revelation at Sinai: hnsh ˚wtm μyhla wyla arqyw anticipates both Exod 19:3 181 (rhh ˆm hwhy wyla arqyw) and the opening of the procedures for sacrifice in Lev 1:1 (lham . . . hvm la arqyw). 182 180. See von Rad, Old Testament Theology 1:304; H. H. Schmid, Jahwist, 33. 181. See the discussion in Ska, Festschrift Lohfink, 307–14; idem, BETL 126 (1996), 289–317. 182. Jacob, MGWJ 66 (1922): 17.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 188 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

188

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

Moses’ commission in 3:10 183 is adjusted in Exodus 6. Moses must “lead” (axy Hiphil) Israel out of Egypt, but he does not even succeed in receiving permission for a three-day excursion into the wilderness. Thus, Exod 6:6 states that Yhwh himself will “lead” (axy Hiphil) Israel out of Egypt. To be sure, the statement that Moses led Israel out later appears in the mouths of the people (Exod 14:11), but from the narrator’s perspective it is clear that Yhwh “led” Israel out of Egypt (12:42, 51). Thus, the commissioning in 3:10 does not lead to the departure itself but to its first failure and, with that, the subsequent solemn promise in Exod 6:6: God himself, not Moses, will be the agent of the exodus (thus, Exod 3:8 must be understood as a general announcement). 184 The allusions to P in Exodus 4 are even clearer. As often noted, 185 the first and last of the three authenticating signs that Moses received from God in Exod 4:1– 9 anticipate structurally important elements of the plague cycle in its current form. The transformation of the staff (hfm)—when it is thrown (˚lv Hiphil) (on the ground) 186—into a serpent (vjn in Exod 4:1–5) is repeated before Pharaoh in Exod 7:8–13 (where the serpent is called ˆynt) 187 as a sign of authentication, 188 which the Egyptian magicians can imitate. Also, the transformation of Nile water into blood (4:9) prefigures the first plague in Exod 7:14–24. 189 The authenticating scene in Exod 7:8–13 is universally assigned to P. 190 Furthermore, the traditional source division of the first plague distinguishes between a Yahwist version, which speaks of fish dying in the Nile (Exod 7:18, 21a), and a Priestly version, which narrates the changing of the Nile water into blood (Exod 7:19, 21b). 191 Exod 4:1– 9 thus has close connections to the plague cycle in the form introduced and augmented by P. 192 These “close parallels in the Priestly plague cycle” 193 are generally recognized. Nevertheless, it is often contested that Exod 4:1–9 has been shaped on the basis of the P statements in Exodus 7. In order to maintain that Exodus 3–4 is pre-Priestly, Exodus 7 must be considered dependent upon Exodus 4 or their common motifs must be traced back to common tradition. Van Seters, for example, believes it is 183. Concerning the syntax, see Utzschneider, Atem, 25 n. 58. On Exod 3:10, see pp. 52–53. 184. In L. Schmidt, “Exegese,” 229, both of these perspectives (whether Moses or Yhwh leads Israel out of Egypt) are evaluated source-critically. The contextual sense does not come into view. 185. W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 192–93; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 139. See Houtman, HCOT, 531. Unfortunately, Blum, in his excursus on the literary unity of 3:1–4:18 (Kd), does not address these connections (Pentateuch, 22–27). But compare the remarks on p. 362 and the detailed exposition in Blum, “Verbindung.” Here, he accepts a post-Priestly origin of the relevant passages of Exodus 4. 186. So Exod 4:3 and 7:9 in the LXX. 187. HALOT 2:1764. For the problem, see the discussion in Otto, BETL 126 (1996), 105 n. 190. 188. Ibid., 105. 189. Ibid., 103–4 (where Otto also dialogues with W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 194). 190. See Noth, HPT, 18, 30; Lohfink, Priesterschrift, 222 n. 29; Blum, Pentateuch, 243. 191. Noth, HPT, 18, 30; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 194. 192. For the post-Priestly assignation of Exod 4:1–9, see H.-C. Schmitt, VT 32 (1982): 184; idem, Festschrift Kaiser (1989), 213. 193. W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 193.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 189 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The God of the Ancestors as the God of the Exodus

189

unlikely that the author of Exodus 4 (for him, J) would have chosen an Egyptian magician’s trick to narrate a divine authentication miracle for Moses. 194 For W. H. Schmidt, it is suggestive “that the staff of Moses is changed to a staff of Aaron.” 195 However, Van Seters’s argument delivers little, precisely because his model defines P not as a source but as a redactional layer. If this were the case, then P could have left out Exod 7:8–13 because the reader of Exodus 4–7 knows that the authentication miracle of Moses is also mastered by the Egyptian magicians. How should one decide? The connection between Exodus 4 and Exodus 7 establishes an antitypical correspondence. Moses’ authentication signs lead to faith for Israel (4:30–31) but to unbelief for Pharaoh (7:13). Thus, as the signs for Israel are connected with the messages of being led out of Egypt (Exod 3:17–22; 4:30), they model destruction in advance for the Egyptians. Aaron’s staff devours the staffs of the Egyptian magicians. 196 After the appointment of Aaron as speaker, it is only to be expected that in Exod 7:10–13 the staff of Aaron, and not Moses, is used for the miracle. Already with the first staff miracle for Israel in Exod 4:30 (unless one wants to deal with an awkward change of subject), 197 it is Aaron who acts, and this is also the case in Exod 7:10–13. Moses’ authentication signs have a concrete meaning behind them, however, related to possible unbelief in Israel. The middle sign of the momentary affliction of Moses’ hand with “leprosy like snow” in Exod 4:6 has an exact linguistic parallel in the punishment of Miriam in Num 12:10 (hnhw glvk t[rxm wdy in Exod 4:6; glvk t[rxm μyrm hnhw in Num 12:10) for her revolt against Moses. 198 The miracles granted to Moses in Exodus 4 thus form object lessons in advance for the Egyptians (Nile water into blood; see Exod 7:14–25) and for Israel (leprosy; see Num 12:10). The precise adaptation of the authentication signs to their context in Exodus 4 leaves no other explanation than that in this chapter subsequent material is being redactionally arranged. Therefore, these observations on Exod 4:1–9 provide further evidence for a post-Priestly setting of Exodus 3–4. Furthermore, this can be corroborated by the subsequent commission of Aaron as the “mouth” of Moses (Exod 4:1–17). 199 The connections to the P text in 7:1–2 194. Van Seters, Life, 54; idem, Festschrift Milgrom, 577–78. 195. W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 193; differently, see L. Schmidt, “Exegese,” 236–37 n. 51. 196. Houtman struggles against interpreting Exod 7:12 symbolically without giving reason (Houtman, HCOT, 394–95). 197. See the discussion in Houtman, HCOT, 452–53. However, Exod 4:30 stands in tension with 4:17. L. Schmidt offers a diachronic explanation (“Exegese,” 237–38). 198. One should also think, in terms of content, about the “ulcers” (t[b[ba) in Exod 9:9–10. Above all, the motif of Israel’s leprosy is central to the exodus narrative of Manetho. The Israelites were expelled from Egypt because of their leprosy (Jeremias, Altes Testament, 402–3; Stern, Authors, 78–83). 199. Valentin determines Exod 4:*10–17 to be post-Priestly (Aaron, 101–16; see also Albertz, History, 1:43 [4:13–16, 21–22, 27–30; 5:1, 4, 20]). Valentin points to the reception of Jer 1:6 and Ezek 3:5–6 in Exod 4:10 (Aaron, 103, 109), to statements from Isaiah 40ff. (see, for example, 45:21)

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 190 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

190

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

are obvious: 200 in a divine speech, Moses is defined as a “god” 201 (μyhla) for Aaron (4:16) or for Pharaoh (7:1), and Aaron is defined as the “mouth” (hp in 4:15–16) or the “prophet” (aybn in 7:1) of Moses. 202 Specifically, the situation in which Aaron is introduced (in Exod 4:14) as Moses’ “brother” is most readily explained by Exod 7:7 (P). It does not emerge anywhere else in Exodus 1–15 that Moses and Aaron are brothers. In fact, in Exod 15:20, Miriam is notably described as “Aaron’s sister” and not “Moses and Aaron’s sister.” Thus, Exod 4:14 does not appear to be an older text that is “on the way to Priestly presentation in 7:7.” 203 Rather, Exod 4:14 appears to prepare for Exod 7:7 redactionally and therefore to be post-Priestly. One last but equally important point of comparison must be addressed: the revelation of the name Yhwh in Exod 3:14–15 and in 6:2–3. In §2.2.3 above (pp. 81ff.), the discussion of 6:2–3 (P) concerning the period of the revelation of the divine name 204 raises doubts that the flow of Genesis–Exodus as a continuous history of Yhwh with the ancestors and the people of Israel was a common piece of tradition before P. Reading Exodus 3–4 raises further doubts. As Moberly has correctly observed, 205 Exodus 3–4 concurs with Exodus 6 in showing that the revelation of the name Yhwh to Moses is something new. The self-presentation of God to Moses in Exod 3:6a (“I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”) does not permit us to conclude that Yhwh was known to Moses and his generation as Yhwh. In my opinion, this surprising statement in Exod 3:13–16 should most clearly and most simply be explained redaction-historically with respect to Exodus 6 (P): Exod 3:13–16 redactionally accommodates itself to the graduated-revelation theory in Exod 6:2–3. In other words, in attempting to avoid a contradiction with Exodus 6, Exodus 3 creates a certain tension with Genesis. The mysterious sentence in 3:14a, hyha rva hyha, “I will be whoever I will be,” 206 also can be explained based on the perspective of Exodus 6. As has often been correctly emphasized, Exod 3:14a is neither an answer 207 to the preceding question of Moses 208 (the in Exod 4:11 (Aaron, 104), and a series of conspicuous linguistic elements that point to texts from the Persian period or later (compare Exod 4:11 with Isa 35:5–6). For a different perspective, see Kohata, Jahwist, 82–91. 200. See W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 194–95; Van Seters, Life, 54–55. 201. For discussion about this determination, see W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 204–5; Houtman, HCOT, 417–19, 525. 202. I agree with Valentin that it is more likely that the μyhla relationship between Moses and Pharaoh in 7:1 is more original with respect to Aaron in 4:16 (Aaron, 106). Valentin presupposes the same for ˚aybn hyhy in Exod 7:1 over against the more cautious hpl ˚l hyhy in Exod 4:16. 203. So W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 203. 204. See the literature in Sæbø, Festschrift Wolff, 43–44 n. 1; Houtman, HCOT, 99–100; DDD 1711–30. 205. Moberly, Old Testament, 5–35; see Berge, Reading, 116. 206. See the translation in Bartelmus, HYH, 232. 207. See Utzschneider, Atem, 59: “The divine answer of Exod 3:14 is really not a complete answer to the question of the name of God. . . . In the narrative flow of the existing exodus narrative, Exod 6:3ff., with its bare-faced human perception makes the name Yhwh known publicly to Moses

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 191 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The God of the Ancestors as the God of the Exodus

191

paronomasia hyha rça hyha is also not to be reported to the Israelites) 209 nor is it, as classically accepted, 210 the revelation of the name Yhwh, which first happens in Exodus 6. Rather, Exod 3:14a essentially takes up the promise from 3:12aa (“I will be with you,” ˚m[ hyha), 211 but transforms it peculiarly: hyha rça hyha. Thus, in his response to Moses’ demand for “operating instructions” for using his name Yhwh contests “belonging to a specific class”: Yhwh “is of a type that he cannot be assigned to a specific ‘class.’ ” 212 Only the second answer, in 3:14b, refers to Moses’ question. 213 Moses should say: “hyha has sent me to you” (3:14b). Thus, the first divine response, in 3:14a, indirectly activates the response; but the response harks back to 3:12. The name Yhwh then follows in 3:15, and precisely this verse must be suspected of being an addition. Exod 3:15 is even issued as an appended statement to 3:14 ([!]dw[ rmayw . . . μyhla). 214 For the redactor who inserted 3:15, it was apparently unacceptable that at the high point of the first revelation on the mountain of God, the correct form of the name had not been revealed to Moses. Rather, only a wordplay had been revealed in 3:14: hyha hyha rça. 215 Therefore, in a kind of midrash on 3:14b, the redactor added his “orthodox” interpretation in 3:15. The basic text components from 3:14b and 3:15 are identical: and the Israelites as a first response to this question. In the entire context of the narrative, it is finally answered in the end, where Yhwh shows himself to be the liberator and deliverer of Israel.” 208. Moberly draws attention to the fact that Exod 3:13–15 is formed according to the pattern of a child’s question (Old Testament, 19–20; see Exod 12:26–27; 13:14–15; Deut 6:20–25; Josh 4:6–7, 21ff.; see de Pury and Römer, “Mémoire”). Before the series of statements of children’s questions begins, they are prefigured, so to speak, by Moses himself. On the complex sequence of the speeches of God and Moses in Exodus 3–4, see the model in Fischer, Jahwe, 40. 209. The introduction rmat hk is missing. See Jacob, MGWJ 66 (1922): 128; Moberly, Old Testament, 14. This situation is neglected by Floss, who “expects the mention of a name in 14.b.bR” (Festschrift Richter, 76–77). 210. See, for example, W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 132. Correctly arguing against this, among others, are Bartelmus, HYH, 228; Sæbø, Festschrift Wolff, 47. Concerning the name Yhwh, see Albertz, History, 1:49–51; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 173–77 (bibliography, pp. 169–71); Floss, Festschrift Richter, 67–80 (bibliography, pp. 79–80); K. van der Toorn, DDD 1711–30; Berge, Reading, 116–18; Kaiser, TheolAT, 2:67–104, also with extensive bibliography. See further the reference to the parallels in the Instruction of Merikare in von Rad, Old Testament Theology 1:182 n. 16. 211. See Levin, Jahwist, 331; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 149; Carroll, JSOT 61 (1994): 48; Otto, BETL 126 (1996), 108; Siebert-Hommes, Festschrift Zuurmond, 67 n. 23; Fritz, Entstehung, 138–43. Concerning the paronomasia in the relative clauses, see Vriezen, Festschrift Bertholet, 498–512; Bartelmus, HYH, 229–31. The phrase hyha rva hyha in 3:14 corresponds notably with the statement of Moses, jlvt dyb an jlv in 4:13. Concerning hyha in Hos 1:9 (“I am not hyha for you.”), see Jeremias, ATD 24/1 33. 212. Bartelmus, HYH, 232–33. 213. That is seen by the taking up of the following: rma hm (3:13bb) / rmat hk (3:14ba); larcy ynb (3:13ba / 3:14ba); ynjlv (3:13ab / 3:14bb). 214. See Blum, Pentateuch, 23–24 (n. 65), 27. See W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 132; Kohata, Jahwist, 22–23; L. Schmidt, “Exegese,” 233–34. On the other side, Sæbø (in conjunction with the consideration in Noth, ATD 5 30) evaluates 3:14 as a secondary insertion before 3:15 (Festschrift Wolff, 43–55; falsely referenced in Berge, Reading, 87 n. 95). Gertz (Tradition, 292–98) treats 3:13–15 as a literary unified, post-Priestly addition. Similarly Kratz, Composition, 293, 298. 215. See Rudolph, Elohist, 9. Rudolph considers whether hwhy originally stood in 3:14 instead of hyha; Levin, Jahwist, 332.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 192 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

192

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

3:14b: μkyla ynjlv hyha 3:15: μkyla ynjlv . . . hwhy

larcy ynbl rmat hk rmayw larcy ynb la rmat hk hvm la μyhla dw[ rmayw

The expanded introduction (hvm la μyhla dw[ rmayw) is, with the addition of dw[, taken out of 3:14a. The most important difference is the replacement of hyha in 3:14b with hwhy in 3:15, whereby Exod 6:2–3 is reproduced in Exodus 3–4. The apposition to hwhy in 3:15a is borrowed literally from the first self-presentation of God in 3:6a, with precise attention given to the syndetic and asyndetic elements. 3:6: 3:15:

bq[y yhlaw qjxy yhla μhrba yhla ˚yba yhla ykna bq[y yhlaw qjxy yhla μhrba yhla ˚ytba yhla hwhy

The problem of the singular ˚yba in 3:6 is thus solved by the later narrative. Exod 3:15 uses the plural ˚ytba here and thereby understands the three ancestors as an apposition to ˚ytba. Exod 3:15b is primarily influenced by 6:3 (see ymv). God states explicitly that “his name” is Yhwh, but 3:15b also recalls Gen 21:33 and 1 Kgs 9:3.216 Actually, 3:15b is nothing more than almost a literal quotation from Ps 135:13. Exod 3:15b: rd 217 rdl yrkz hzw μl[l ymv hz Ps 135:13: rdw rdl ˚rkz hwhy μl[l ˚mv hwhy This borrowing of Ps 135:13 in Exod 3:15b is by no means accidental because 135:4–12 sings the hexateuchal salvation history of the ancestors (135:4) from the exodus out of Egypt (135:8–9) to the conquest (135:10–12), and then 135:13 acts as a doxology; the eternal name of Yhwh is bound to salvation history in Psalm 135 and Exodus 3 (3:6–8). The reception of Ps 135:13 is noteworthy in another respect. Psalm 135 appears in Book V of the Psalter, as divided by the five doxologies, which corresponds to the fivefold division of the history of Israel. 218 Book V (Psalms 107–50) treats the restoration after the Exile, and Psalm 135 takes on a special function within this redactional perspective. Psalm 135 concludes the middle of the three parts of Psalms 107–50, which have the following themes: “collection from all nations and salvation from all need (107–17), the path and entry into the sanctuary and pilgrimage (118–35), and the sustenance of the returnees and each of those who have been saved in the city within the framework of creation and preservation of the world (136–50).” 219 Within the historical actuality represented by the theocratic restitution program of the fivefold Psalter, Exod 3:15 stands in close proximity to the content of Joshua 24, but simultaneously, according to the placement of Psalm 135 in Book V of the Psalter, Exod 3:15 understands Exodus not simply as a one-time salvation-historical event but as an act of God that can be continually actualized.

God makes known the “operating instructions,” and thus the name Yhwh can be made known to Israel after Exod 3:14 (3:16). From 3:16 on, Yhwh also appears 216. See Isa 63:12. 217. The SamP reads rdw with Ps 135:13. 218. See Kratz, ZTK 89 (1992): 37 n. 106; idem, ZTK 93 (1996): 21–28; Steck, Abschluss, 157–66; idem, “Kanon,” 23–24, with n. 39; Krüger, Bib 75 (1994): 209–13, with nn. 79, 82–83; K. Schmid, Buchgestalten, 226. 219. Kratz, ZTK 93 (1996): 26.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 193 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Fulfillment of the Promises to the Fathers

193

outside of the narrative level (see 3:2, 4, 7). This is required narratively (and by the history of textual development) by Exodus 5, where the name Yhwh plays an important role (see especially 5:2). The role of Exodus 6 after Exodus 3–4, seen redactionally, does not lie in making known the “name Yhwh” but in explaining the theory of progressive revelation. In summary, all these observations point clearly to the idea that Exodus 3–4 must have originated in a similar time period as Genesis 15. Both texts were composed in the wake of P and are placed before a central P text that they receive and modify. Genesis 15 duplicates the Abrahamic covenant, and Exodus 3 duplicates the divine revelation to Moses from Exodus 6.

3.3. The Fulfillment of the Promises to the Fathers 3.3.1. Joshua 24 as Conclusion of the Hexateuch After Exodus 3, the explicit non-Priestly references back to Genesis inside the Pentateuch are limited to the sworn statement promising land to the ancestors in Exod 32:13, 33:1; Num 32:11; Deut 34:4; and to the mentioning of the patriarchs in Deuteronomy (1:8; 6:10; 9:5, 27; 29:12; 30:20; 34:4). For reasons that will be examined more extensively in §3.6.5, the oaths promising land form their own framework and can be set aside for now. The next important text reflecting the literary connection between Genesis and Exodus is Joshua 24. It presents what was previously called “legislative assembly at Shechem” (Landtag von Sichem), which (following Noth) 220 was ascribed a central function within the twelve-tribe amphictyony. Instead of speculating about what has generally receded into the background, that is, recollections of a premonarchic period in Joshua 24 that may still exist, the primary focus here is on the literary function of Joshua 24, the answer to which introduces the question of historical backgrounds. In its own way, Joshua 24 forms a connecting element between the ancestor story and the Moses/Exodus story. This can be readily recognized in the report on the succession of ancestors and the exodus in Josh 24:2–7 and on the burial of Joseph’s bones in 24:32. Both will be investigated in more detail, but first it is necessary to survey the book of Joshua as a whole, whose conclusion Joshua 24 forms. The book of Joshua reports the overthrow and division of the land by Joshua, whom Moses had installed as his successor. Thematically, the book Joshua stands in line with the preceding books, Exodus–Numbers/Deuteronomy. 221 The leading out of Egypt aims toward the conquest, and Joshua acts in close continuity with Moses. In the current context, the reader naturally gains the impression that the land possessed under Joshua is the land promised earlier to the ancestors in 220. Noth, The History of Israel, 91–94. 221. See Zobel, TRE 17:273–74; Zenger, Einleitung, 132 (H. Niehr).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 194 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

194

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

Genesis. However, this connection is stated explicitly in the book of Joshua only in Josh 24:2–4, which is the only reference to “Abraham,” “Isaac,” and “Jacob” in the book. 222 The remaining “fathers” passages in Joshua do not in themselves suggest the meaning of the ancestors of Genesis. 223 Only Joshua 24 clearly presupposes Genesis, with its promises to the ancestors as a prelude to the Moses/Exodus story (see Josh 24:2–13). The shaping of Joshua 24 still allows us to recognize that the connection of the ancestors and Exodus was not always presupposed. Rather, it was apparently created intentionally. Notably, Joshua announces the hexateuchal model of history as divine revelation, reaching from Abraham to the conquest. 224 Apparently, this model of history is not shared by the people in the scene in Joshua 24, since the people speak of Yhwh as the God who led Israel (“us and our fathers” in 24:16) out of Egypt (24:16–17) amid great signs. It only speaks of the exodus; it mentions not one word about the ancestors of Genesis. 225 Joshua argues as a prophet of Yhwh against his own people, who appear to neglect or not to recognize the theological relevance of the deeds of Yhwh for the patriarchs and who see their relationship to Yhwh as based only in the departure from Egypt. Along with the naming of the patriarchs (24:2–4) in the speech of Joshua, reference from Joshua 24 back to Genesis is found primarily in the concluding passage, Josh 24:29–32, which reports the death and burial of Joshua as well as the transfer 226 of the bones of Joseph. 227 Joshua, like Joseph, is 110 years old (see Josh 24:29 / Gen 50:26). 228 In addition, and more importantly, a thread that began in Gen 50:25–26 reaches a conclusion: 222. The apposition to μkytwba of “Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor” in Josh 24:2 is incorrect in terms of number agreement and may have been added later in order to exclude Abraham from the worship of idols (see Jubilees 11–12). See G. Schmitt, Landtag, 10; Römer, Väter, 320–21, and the review of scholarship there in n. 235; Fritz, HAT 1/7 249 (for a different perspective, see Koopmans, Joshua 24, 314–15). Also, Gen 31:21 (rhnh rb[!) shows that the Hebrew Bible itself had understood the foreign gods worshiped by the fathers to be the teraphim stolen by Rachel (see Blum, Vätergeschichte, 40–41), which Jacob freely eliminated in a kind of “general test for Joshua 24” in Gen 35:1ff. (Blum, Vätergeschichte, 41). 223. Concerning the remaining “fathers” passages in Joshua, specifically 1:6; 5:6; 18:3; 21:43–45; 22:28; and Joshua 23, see Römer, Väter, 286, 318, 338–39, 352–63, 390–94. 224. Notice the introductory messenger formula larcy yhla hwhy rma hk; see Brekelmans, VTSup 43 (1991), 1–9 (see also Josh 7:13). 225. See already Galling, Erwählungstraditionen, 61. 226. Concerning the literary and archaeological problems of Joshua’s grave, see Noort, Festschrift Metzger. 227. With Kessler, I should point out that Josh 24:29–33 transitions to Judges (Querverweise, 216); see also Blum, Festschrift Brekelmans. Thus, it not only presupposes the Hexateuch, but also the subsequent material (see Josh 24:29 / Judg 1:1). See also Brekelmans, VTSup 43 (1991), 5, 7. Constructing a “contradiction” between the commitment of Joshua and his house to Yhwh in Josh 24:15 and the report of his death in 24:28–31 (e.g., L’Hour, RB 69 [1962]: 18) is of no concern. How someone speaks about how he “feels about his imminent death” should not be a diachronic criterion for a theological text such as Joshua 24. 228. For the diachronic ordering, see the thoughts of Blum, Pentateuch, 364 n. 14 (“Jos 24–Bearbeitung”).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 195 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Fulfillment of the Promises to the Fathers

195

And Joseph made the sons of Israel swear an oath and said, “When God comes to your aid, take my bones up from here.” Then Joseph died. He was 110 years old, and they embalmed him and buried him in a coffin in Egypt.

The oath that Joseph made his brothers swear to him is presented again in Exod 13:19: Moses took the bones of Joseph with him, for Joseph had made the sons of Israel swear an oath and said: “When God comes to your aid, take my bones up from here.”

Add to this the report of the purchase of a piece of land by Jacob, in Gen 33:19, where Joseph will be buried according to Josh 24:32. It has no function in the Genesis narrative but appears only to have been acquired for the purpose of this burial, which is unmentioned there. In addition, note that land in Genesis is only purchased as grave sites, so a corresponding function for Gen 33:19 is suggested. 229 And, for a hundred qesitah, he [i.e., Jacob] bought the piece of ground from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem, ground upon which he had pitched his tent.

Thus, Gen 33:19–50:25–26—Exod 13:19—Josh 24:32 establishes a continuous line in the “Hexateuch” that must be recognized as belonging to a single literary layer on the basis of its references forward and backward. Earlier, this series of statements was deemed to belong to E. 230 Blum sees in this series a specific “Joshua 24 revision” that already presupposes the Priestly composition of the Pentateuch, 231 while Van Seters ascribes it to J. 232 In any case, the context of these statements clearly covers Genesis–Joshua. 233 With the Documentary Hypothesis and Van Seters, one can only expect that this redactional layer does not merely encompass the key passages (Gen 33:19; 50:24–25; Exod 13:19; Josh 24:32) 234 because it hardly makes sense to connect the Hexateuch only by means of the transmission of the bones of Joseph. Rather, corresponding to the hexateuchal orientation of 229. See Blum, Vätergeschichte, 44; idem, Festschrift Brekelmans, 202; Witte, Festschrift Schmitt. 230. See, for example, Wellhausen, Composition, 133; Holzinger, KHC 1 viii; idem, KHC 2; idem, KHC 6 xxi; Gunkel, HKAT 1/1 491; Noth, HPT, 35–36, 83; idem, HAT 1/7 141; concerning Noth, see also Blum, Vätergeschichte, 44). See also Weimar, Meerwundererzählung, 119. See especially, H.-C. Schmitt, Festschrift Brekelmans, 391–94. 231. Blum, Pentateuch, 363–65; idem, Vätergeschichte, 44–45; idem, Festschrift Brekelmans, 202. See Römer, Väter, 329; Levin, Jahwist, 316, 340 (“post–final redaction”). 232. Van Seters, Festschrift Ahlström; idem, Prologue, 323–24. For Van Seters, J runs from Genesis to Joshua and is responsible for almost all of the non-Priestly material in Genesis–Numbers. 233. It is entirely unsatisfactory to argue that Josh 24:32 is an addition that secondarily concludes the existing line of Gen 50:25 and Exod 13:19 (so Noth, HAT 1/7 141). It can only be explained by the endeavor to interpret away signs of lines in Genesis–Joshua that transcend the tetrateuchal hypothesis. 234. See also H.-C. Schmitt, Festschrift Brekelmans, 392. However, Schmitt follows Fritz in accepting a Dtr foundational layer in Joshua 24 (Fritz, HAT 1/7 233–34, 246–52) that has been revised from a post-Priestly hexateuchal horizon (pp. 394–95).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 196 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

196

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

Joshua 24 as a whole, one should at least attribute it to the same hand that formulated Joshua 24. But what exactly is the function of Joshua 24? Does it only reflect literarily on Genesis as a prelude to the history of the people that begins with Exodus? No, Joshua 24 really concludes a salvation history of Israel that begins with Genesis. In fact, it first and foremost establishes the salvation history, 235 which allows all the subsequent material to appear in a negative light (in a general sense), especially the monarchic period. Seen from this perspective, Judges–2 Kings narrate the history of judgment. The equation of the monarchic period with judgment history primarily arises from the portrayal of the choice of Yhwh as the God of Israel in Joshua 24 as a choice of royalty. 236 The image of “presenting oneself before God” (wbxyth 237 μyhlah ynpl) in Josh 24:1 belongs in the context of an enthronement ceremony. 238 Because Yhwh is really Israel’s king, any earthly king can only be in competition with King Yhwh. Thus, the monarchic period as such stands under a negative judgment. 239 The choice of Yhwh as king in Joshua 24 also establishes the location as Shechem. 240 According to 1 Kgs 12:1, Shechem is the classic location for choosing a king. 241 In 1 Kings 12, Shechem is also the place where Rehoboam is chosen, a choice that introduces the fateful division of Israel into two kingdoms. Joshua 24 stands as a positive counterpart to the scene in 1 Kings 12. The king over “all the tribes of Israel” ( Josh 24:1) is and shall always be Yhwh. 242 In addition, the location of “Shechem” refers back to the place of the first sanctuary in the land, established by Abraham (Gen 12:6, 8). 235. See also Römer, who points to Joshua 24 as a constitutive element of a Hexateuch (Römer, Väter, 328–29, 362). 236. See especially Levin, Verheissung, 114–19. 237. The determinative designation for God, μyhlah, separates Josh 24:1 from Exodus 3(–4), as does the change between hwhy and μyhla later. 238. See 1 Sam 10:19; 12:7; and the discussion in Koopmans, Joshua 24, 283. 239. The targeted kingship of God over Israel means that Israel’s relationship to God becomes defined primarily by the catchword db[ (“serve”). Does this preview the use of db[ in the judgments on the kings and corresponding statements in Kings (1 Kgs 9:6, 9; 16:31; 22:54; 2 Kgs 10:18ff.; 17:12, 16, 33, 35–36, 41; 21:3, 21)? See the discussion in Floss, Jahwe dienen, 408–22. 240. See the discussion with additional considerations in Blum, Festschrift Brekelmans, 204–5. Maybe Josh 24:1 wants to establish a link with the reference to Shechem in Gen 12:6. According to the LXX, Joshua 24 takes place in Shiloh (24:1, 25). It thus harmonizes with Josh 18:1. See Josh 18:8, 10; 19:37; 21:2; 22:9, 12. See the discussion in L’Hour, RB 69 (1962): 23 n. 95; Jaros, Sichem, 129– 30; Butler, WBC 7 263; Anbar, Josué, 30 n. 137, 117–20; Koopmans, Joshua 24, 259–60. Blum (Vätergeschichte, 58 n. 70), with Kippenberg (Garizim, 71) posits an anti-Samaritan tendency of the LXX. The rabbis declared the burial of Joseph to be in Shechem in Josh 24:32 because Joseph had been stolen from there (Gen 37:13–19); see StrB 2:675–76. 241. See Noth, BKAT 9/1 272–73; Jaros, Sichem, 86–98. 242. In this respect, one should agree with Blum, who is of the opinion “that the text wants to be understood as a ‘historically clothed’ (Perlitt) call to the Samarians concerning a religio-cultic decision for or against Yhwh, or relatedly, regarding the surrender of their religious syncretism” (Vätergeschichte, 58). Joshua 24 holds open and presents the “Northern tribes’ chances and stipulations for belonging to the people of God” (pp. 58–59).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 197 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Fulfillment of the Promises to the Fathers

197

Thus, the sequence of Genesis–Joshua as salvation history and Judges–2 Kings as judgment history arises by means of the caesura in Joshua 24, which so clearly fashions the existing context of the historical books. 3.3.2. Joshua 24 a. Recent Discussion of Joshua 24 Because several recent, extensive research reports exist, the history of scholarship on this chapter can be summarized briefly here. 243 The prominent position of Joshua 24 at the conclusion of the conquest—indeed at the end of the hexateuchal salvation history, 244 which is reviewed as a whole in Josh 24:2–13—has always correctly played an important role in the literary classification of the chapter. In the classic Pentateuch model, Joshua 24 marked the conclusion of E. 245 Anyone doubting the existence of E assigned the chapter to J as its conclusion. 246 Also popular was the conception of Joshua 24 as a mixture of these two sources (thus assigning it to JE), which ended the presentation of Israel’s salvation history programmatically with Joshua 24. 247 The evaluation of Joshua 24 changed dramatically when Noth’s thesis of a Deuteronomistic History reaching from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings began to take hold. The result for the study of Joshua is that its text can be explained without the pentateuchal sources. 248 But this change did not make the classification of Joshua 24 any easier. Rather, the problem of the relationship between the two farewell speeches in Joshua 23 and Joshua 24 moved to the foreground. If Joshua 23, as typically accepted, is Deuteronomistic and Joshua 24 has nothing to do with the pentateuchal sources J or E, then how does one classify Joshua 24? Noth himself was inconclusive on this point. He changed his mind several times concerning Joshua 24 without ever really successfully finding a convincing solution. 249 243. See the comprehensive work of Koopmans, Jos 24; or the shorter works of L’Hour, RB 69 (1962): 20–22; Jaros, Sichem, 131–32 n. 5; Floss, Jahwe dienen, 334–40; Mölle, Landtag, 14–19; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 53 n. 47; Bieberstein, Josua, 340–41; Anbar, Josué, 7–22; Noort, EdF 292 (1998), 205– 22 (see the bibliography, p. 253). See also Kratz, “Hexateuch”; Becker, “Vernetzungen.” 244. See L’Hour, RB 69 (1962): 19, recently accented by, for example, Van Seters, Search, 336– 37; idem, Festschrift Ahlström; Becker, Richterzeit, 71 n. 32; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 60; idem, Pentateuch, 363–64; Brekelmans, VTSup 43 (1991), 1–9. 245. For example, Steuernagel, Josua, 297–98; Holzinger, KHC 6 95; Wellhausen, Composition, 133; Smend, Hexateuch, 334–39; G. Schmitt, Landtag, 30. See further, the review of research by Koopmans, Joshua 24, 105–6. The linguistic indicators in Joshua 24 that argue for classifying it as E are also compiled by Koopmans, ibid., 106–7 (see Schmitt, Landtag, 30). 246. Rudolph, Elohist, 244–52. Van Seters has renewed this thesis for his J (Festschrift Ahlström; idem, Search, 336–37), although Van Seters’s thesis shares little more than the name Yahwist in common with Rudolph. 247. So Noth before DH in System der Zwölf Stämme, 67; see pp. 133–40. See also the review by Koopmans, Jos 24, 107–8, and 108–9 where he cites the classic reasons for source division. 248. Auerbach, “Überarbeitung,” 3; L’Hour, RB 69 (1962): 34–36; G. Schmitt, Landtag, 26; Perlitt, Bundestheologie; Floss, Jahwe dienen, 368–70; Fritz, HAT 1/7 237. 249. See Noth, HAT 17 101; idem, HAT 27 139; idem, DH, 8 n. 15.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 198 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

198

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

Noth’s uncertainty also shaped subsequent scholarship on Joshua 24. The classic solution—namely that Joshua 24 contained the oldest tradition material concerning the so-called legislative assembly at Shechem, the founding moment of the twelve tribe amphictyony—has certainly retreated into the background today. 250 Hardly any other text engenders such controversy as Joshua 24 with regard to its historical-critical classification. Does Joshua 24 belong in the monarchic period? 251 Did Joshua 24 arise in the circles of deuteronomism? 252 Or, is Joshua 24 an exilic or postexilic text? 253 Is it a special piece that more or less stands on its own, or does it belong to a prominent text layer that is recognizable elsewhere? b. The Literary Integrity of Joshua 24 Are there signs in Joshua 24 that the chapter requires source-critical treatment? 254 There is no reason to separate the narrative framework from the speeches, at any rate. 255 Also, the observations on word statistics used by Giblin raises skepticism concerning source-critical intrusion. 256 On the other side, the complicated textual transmission in the versions 257 shows that one must at least take into account the various isolated additions and changes. 258 Thus, it is possible to affirm with Römer “the principal compositional unity of Joshua 24,” 259 without excluding minor additions. 260 250. See idem, The History of Israel, 85–137; G. Schmitt, Landtag; Ringgren, Festschrift Schunck. 251. Sperling, HUCA 1987. Sperling thinks the Northern Kingdom, perhaps under Jeroboam II. 252. Perlitt, Bundestheologie (concerning him, see Blum, Festschrift Brekelmans, 197–98); Kreuzer, Frühgeschichte, 208–13 (concerning him, also see Blum, Festschrift Brekelmans, 201 n. 85). 253. Exilic: Hoffmann, Reform, 305–6; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 59–60; Van Seters, Festschrift Ahlström; Levin, Verheissung, 114–19; Becker, Richterzeit, 69; Fritz, HAT 1/7 239 (DtrH). Postexilic: L’Hour, RB 69 (1962): 5–36; Mayes, Story, 51; Anbar, Josué; Römer, Väter, 325–26. 254. The following perceive Joshua 24 to be a unified text: Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 239–47; Hoffmann, Reform, 300–306; Sperling, HUCA 1987. Minor divisions are found in Floss, Jahwe dienen, 340– 70; Mölle, Landtag; O’Brien, History, 77–78. 255. Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 241. 256. Giblin, CBQ 26 (1964): 50–69. 257. See the discussion in Koopmans, Joshua 24, 98–103; and the bibliography in Jaros, Sichem, 129 n. 1. Soggin offers a synoptic translation of the Greek and Hebrew form of Joshua 24 (Soggin, Joshua, 220–22). 258. For example, see “Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor” in 24:2, as well as “and in Egypt” in 24:14 (see Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 257 n. 1; Römer, Väter, 323 n. 246; for a contrasting opinion, see Blum, Festschrift Brekelmans, 198 n. 74). See also the observations in Blum, ibid., 194 n. 55, 210 n. 130). The source-critical conclusions that Fritz reaches (Fritz, HAT 1/7 238; see also G. Schmitt, Landtag; Soggin, Joshua, 218, 220–22; Rösel, BN 22 [1983]: 41–46; Görg, Josua, 105; Kaiser, Grundriss, 1:100) should largely be rejected: why the sending of Moses and Aaron in 24:5 (> LXX) should not “really belong in the historical outline” is unclear. The “repetitions” and “breaks” that Fritz criticizes in 24:5–7 can be supported because they perform the transition from the “fathers” to the people who are currently being addressed. The further dropping of “additions” is not plausible, such as the Balaam episode of 24:9–10, the list of nations in 24:11, or the expression μkynpm μdymvaw in 24:8. According to Fritz, no older transmission is used here. Rather, in his opinion, the piece was composed by DtrH (p. 237). 259. Römer, Väter, 325; see also Hoffmann, Reform, 302. 260. Similarly, see also Blum, Festschrift Brekelmans, 194, with n. 55.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 199 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Fulfillment of the Promises to the Fathers

199

Mölle has presented the most far reaching source-critical analysis of Joshua 24. He takes four layers into account, as well as later additions. Yet, neither the designations for God inspired by classic pentateuchal analysis nor the change of addressees can carry the load of his source-critical analysis. The use of both the divine name, hwhy, and the designation for God, μyhla, is not simply a tension. Rather, there are clear reasons (see, for example, Josh 24:19: “You cannot serve Yhwh, for he is an μyvdq μyhla”; and the subsequent anq la is a quotation from the Decalogue [Exod 20:5; Deut 5:9]). With respect to the change of person in 24:2–15, Giblin and Römer have shown that it is due to the change from the “fathers” to those addressed as “you.” Seeing a source-critically relevant doublet in the witness of both the people ( Josh 24:22) and the stone erected by Joshua (24:27) is unnecessary in light of the legal requirements of Num 35:30 and Deut 19:15–16.

c. Joshua 24 in Its Context For Soggin, 261 the book of Joshua can be divided into three parts. The conquest narratives ( Joshua 1–12) form the largest part. Next follows the dividing of the land ( Joshua 13–21). These two parts are anticipated in the commission of Joshua in 1:2–9 (see Deut 3:28; 31:6–8): Josh 1:2–3 / Joshua 1–12; and Josh 1:6 / Joshua 13–21. 262 Finally, the conclusion of the book ( Joshua 22–24) 263 also has a counterpart in 1:7–9. It is clear that the solemn conclusion of the book of Joshua occurs with the collections of Joshua 23 and 24, the two farewell speeches of Joshua. The logic of this conclusion by itself, however, is not readily seen in its narrative sequence. Joshua 23 and 24 are certainly closely related to one another. 264 Both concern a farewell speech in front of almost the same audience (see 23:2; 24:1). 265 At the same time, one is not dealing simply with doublets. In the present sequence, Joshua warns Israel first about obeying the law (23:6, 16) and he subsequently obligates (24:25) the people to Yhwh as their God: “The conclusion of the covenant mentioned in 23:16 is portrayed in 24.” 266 However, this sequence is not smooth. Specifically, Josh 23:16 shows that it is thinking of an alreadycompleted covenant (. . . μkta [perfect] hwx rva . . .) and not one that is yet to happen, as in Joshua 24. What covenant is in view in Josh 23:16? The phrase ‘command a covenant’ (tyrb hwx) is not very widely attested. Obviously, the “covenant” of 23:16 links back to the “book of the law of Moses” in 23:6 (see Josh 1:8), which plays on the scene in Deut 31:24–30. Thus, the “commanded covenant” refers to the Deuteronomic Law that must be maintained. This is particularly well illustrated in Josh 7:11. Achan’s thievery of the booty that should have fallen under the ban defied the stipulations of Deuteronomy 13. Therefore, Israel has “transgressed the covenant.” 261. Soggin, Joshua, 2–3. 262. See Bieberstein, Josua, 381–82 (with reference to Lohfink and Mayes). 263. One can also readily place Joshua 22 with Joshua 13–21, as does Kaiser, Grundriss, 1:103. Noth determines Joshua 21:43–24:33 as the concluding part (Noth, HAT 21/7 19). Fritz (HAT 1/7 14) and Nelson (OTL, 1) only divide Joshua 1–12 (conquest) and Joshua 13–24 (giving the land). 264. See the table in Butler, WBC 7 265–66. 265. Mayes, Story, 49. 266. Zenger, Einleitung AT, 134 (H. Niehr).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 200 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

200

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

Thus, Joshua 23 and 24 have not been conceived and written as a sequence. Rather, the current text sequence arose progressively. In my opinion, internal comparison of the texts does not decide the question of priority, 267 especially since small additions to the text exist in both chapters. Therefore, it is necessary to consider Joshua 23 and 24 in the context of the so-called Deuteronomistic interpretive texts in Joshua–2 Kings. For Joshua 23, the situation is relatively clear. Joshua 23 shows clear thematic and intertextual connections to the texts allocated to DtrN 268 in the Göttingen model—texts that should be seen as belonging to the same layer conceptually (without having to adopt the Göttingen model itself ). In Josh 23:6, the “Law Book of Moses” is named specifically. The line connecting Joshua 23 and the reflection on the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 2 Kings 17 is especially noticeable. “The author of Joshua 23 is the same as the author of 2 Kings 17. . . . What is formulated in Josh 23:16a as a warning is stated in 2 Kgs 17:15a as a negative fulfillment: the refusal (sam) and the transgression (rb[) of the tyrb.” 269 Joshua 23 thus formulates an alternative sermon in advance to provide a demand that is not obeyed. Precisely at this point, the fundamental difference with Joshua 24 emerges. Joshua warns the people in Joshua 24 that Israel cannot serve Yhwh (24:19). A “Deuteronomist” whose corpus always included Joshua would never have placed such a formulation in Joshua’s mouth because the conviction that Israel can keep the law if it wants to is constitutive for “the Deuteronomic perspective” in all its versions. Thus, it is not surprising that the allocation of Joshua 24 to the Deuteronomistic circle was never based on common sense and today finds even fewer proponents. Perlitt in 1969 could still state that the “Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic language of the chapter . . . is rarely disputed by anyone.” 270 In the current discussion, the opposite seems to be the case: 271 Mayes holds that the discontinuity in the narrative flow from Joshua 23 to 24 has no analogy in Deuteronomy–2 Kings. 272 He concludes from this that Joshua 24 cannot stem from a Deuteronomistic redactor. 273 O’Brien also does not consider Joshua 24 to be Deuteronomistic. The scene in Josh 24:14–15, where Israel can choose Yhwh as its God from among the gods, stands opposed to Deuteronomistic thought in all its nuances: Yhwh is Israel’s God. Further, the important role of Joshua is surprising because it contradicts his position in Deuteronomy 31 and Joshua 1: “Joshua was commissioned to complete the conquest initiated by Moses . . . , not to establish a new program on his own authority.”274 Finally, the starting point of the historical review in Josh 24:2–13, which looks back to the 267. Concerning the proposal of Kratz, Composition, 198–200, see Becker, “Vernetzungen.” It is methodologically unacceptable to maintain with Seebass that Joshua 24 is more difficult and therefore older than Joshua 23 (Seebass, TRev 87 [1991]: 102–5). Complexity of the text does not indicate “ancientness.” 268. So, for example, Smend, Entstehung, 115–25; O’Brien, History; Roth, TRE 8:546–47. See the function equivalent “RedD” in Fritz, HAT 1/7 229. Classic texts to mention here are Deut 31:9– 13, 24–29; Josh 1:8; 8:30–35; 23; Judg 3:7; 1 Sam 7:3–4; 12:14–15; 1 Kgs 2:3–4; 6:11–13; 9:1–9; 2 Kgs 22:13b. 269. Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 19. 270. Ibid., 240; see further, Römer, Väter, 325 n. 256. 271. See Jaros, Sichem, 138–39 (see also his discussion of Perlitt’s attempt regarding Joshua 24). 272. Some, therefore, have occasionally wanted to relocate Joshua 24 to another literary location. See the review by Soggin, Joshua, 241. 273. Mayes, Story, 51. 274. O’Brien, History, 78.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 201 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Fulfillment of the Promises to the Fathers

201

“fathers beyond the river” (rhnh rb[ 275)—that is, Genesis 11–12—is foreign to the Deuteronomistic perspective elsewhere. 276 The voices of Mayes, Blum, Becker, O’Brien, Anbar, and others, indicate the emergence of a new consensus with respect to the “postDeuteronomistic” classification of Joshua 24. 277

We can also recognize that Joshua 24 does use Deuteronomistic language, but deviates from fundamental Deuteronomistic convictions at key points. This means that, unless one were to introduce an ad hoc hypothesis of proto-Deuteronomistic linguistic orientation, one cannot account for “an origin before the Deuteronomic/ Deuteronomistic ‘movement’ in Joshua 24.” 278 Thus, there is a great deal that speaks in favor of placing Joshua 24 after Joshua 23 and not the other way around. In contrast to the opinion of scholars influenced by the hexateuchal hypothesis, Joshua 24 does not just have a concluding function with respect to the preceding material. Joshua 24 “does not just look back; it is even more interested in the future.” 279 Joshua 24 prepares for the subsequent period of the judges. Linguistically and theologically, Joshua 24 is closely associated with 1 Sam 12:8–12, 280 the 275. See the discussion in L. A. Snijders, TDOT 9:265. From the middle of the Persian period, Palestine belonged to the satrapy arhn rb[ (Abar Nahara: “Trans-Euphrates,” seen from Mesopotamia; see Ezra 4:10–11, 16–17, 20; 8:36; Neh 3:7; 7:9; see E. Stern, CHJ 1:78–79). The designation stems from the Assyrian period (Ebir-Nâri). Under Darius I, Abar Nahara still appears to be included in the satrapy of “Babylon.” The title piat Babili u Ebirnari is attested for Gubaru (Galling, Studien, 42). In the satrapy lists of DB (Behistun inscription), DNa (Darius’s tomb at Naqs-i Rustam), and DPe (inscription at Persepolis terrace), Abar Nahara does not yet appear. (However, the nomenclature is diverse. In the trilingual building inscription of Darius I from Susa [DS] Z 32 [Kent, Old Persian, 142–44; Galling, Studien, 42], the old Persian Altirya corresponds to the Akkadian Ebirnari. In Susa, the satrapy Aturya [“Assyria”] was equated with “Trans-Euphrates” [without discussion, Donner (GAT 4/2 398) equates the two; but see Galling, Studien, 42–44].) Already Ezra 5:3 (with Tattenai) presupposes that Abar Nahara has its own lieutenant governor who rules alongside the regular satrap (Ustani; Galling, Studien, 43). Apparently under Xerxes Abar Nahara had been established as its own satrapy (ibid., 46– 47; Stern, CHJ 1:78–79; Grabbe, Judaism, 1:84), perhaps after the rebellions in Babylon (see Hermisson, Festschrift Boecker). If the language of Josh 24:2, which distinctly uses rhnh rb[ as the Cis-Euphrates, presupposes that no independent province Abar Nahara (“Transeuphrates”) existed, then does that mean that Joshua 24 should be dated before Xerxes? Perlitt takes rhnh rb[ only for its semantic value: “From beyond the river Israel threatens mortal danger! Beyond the river, however, live the Assyrians, whose gods were constructed here and today in the midst of Israel for worship. Therefore, only one period comes into view: that of the seventh century” (Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 251). For Perlitt, however, the moment is very strongly accented: Joshua 24 represents “a proclamation of decision for the current listeners” (p. 246), and the idea that Joshua 24 is writing a theology of history (p. 252) is too quickly abandoned. On the other hand, he does not take into account the political and administrative connotations of rhnh rb[. Thus, it is by no means proven that Joshua 24 belongs in the seventh century. 276. See, for example, Van Seters, Festschrift Ahlström, 148 (compare Römer, Väter, 326). 277. Koopmans also emphasizes the non-Deuteronomistic character of Joshua 24 but (less convincingly) concludes that this supports a pre-Deuteronomistic date (Koopmans, Joshua 24, 410–13). 278. Blum, Vätergeschichte, 54 (see Becker, Richterzeit, 69 with n. 22). 279. Brekelmans, VTSup 43 (1991), 6. See also Hoffmann, Reform, 301; Kratz, “Hexateuch.” 280. Brekelmans, VTSup 43 (1991), 8–9. See Blum, Vätergeschichte, 49; Anbar, Joshué, 61, 110– 15. The indicators are not sufficient to conclude that there was an “Ephraimite history” extending from Joshua 24 to 1 Samuel 12 (Moenikes, Ablehnung, 155, with n. 8 in conjunction with Rofé, Festschrift Soggin). Joshua 24 never existed independently of Genesis–2 Kings.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 202 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

202

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

chapter that marks the end of the period of the judges. 281 Joshua 24 and 1 Samuel 12 thus frame the epoch of the judges. The conclusion of the book of Joshua differs considerably in the LXX and the MT. First, the LXX has a plus in Josh 24:30 that reports that the circumcision instruments Joshua used in Gilgal were buried with him. Then the LXX places Josh 24:31 after 24:28, and following Josh 24:33 in the LXX is a passage that reports on the ark, the high priest “Phineas” (fineeÍ / sjnp), the subsequent apostasy of Israel, and the rule of the Moabite king Eglon over Israel. 282 This last notice is particularly noteworthy because it segues into the events of Judg 3:12ff. Rofé therefore proposed that the long version of Joshua 24, to which the LXX attests, was originally followed directly by Judg 3:12ff. and that the entire text of Judg 1:1–3:11 was a later insertion. 283 The mention of Eglon at the end of Joshua 24 (LXX) is indeed noteworthy, and the introduction of Judges (1:1–3:6) together with the Othniel passage (3:7–11) hardly belongs to the oldest layers in Judges. However, several factors speak against Rofé’s solution. On the one hand, Judg 3:12 (LXX) cannot naturally be placed at the end of Joshua (LXX). The same is true for the transition of the conclusion of Joshua 24 (LXX), if moved back to Judg 3:12 (MT). On the other hand, the loss of text from the LXX plus, over against the MT at the end of Josh 24:33, must then be explained. Furthermore, Judg 2:6ff. is the opening of an integral component that interprets the revision of the judges’ history accordingly and is therefore hardly later than this.284 Finally, the lectio facilior of the LXX in Josh 24:31 (transposed after 24:28 [see Judg 2:7–8]),285 along with its midrashic plus in 24:30, does not appear to attest to an older text type than the MT. 286 Rather, the LXX in Joshua 24 appears to have attached an excerpt from Judges 1– 3 (see Judg 2:13; 3:14). Actually, the fact that there were different variations of the transition from Joshua to Judges is shown not only by Joshua 24 (LXX) but also in the muchdiscussed doublet of Josh 24:29–31/Judg 2:6–9. This decisive linking passage appears to have been revised a great deal, though its compositional history cannot be completely explained. 287

Just as the book of Joshua has a double ending in Joshua 23 and 24, the book of Judges has a double beginning in 1:1–2:5 and 2:6–3:6. With this in mind, we should note that the transition between Joshua and Judges represents one of the most significant transitions in Genesis–2 Kings. The generation schema in Judg 281. Mommer, Samuel, 122 (“Only in 1 Samuel 13 does Saul become active; until that point, he is only the chosen king”). 282. The Greek text with the suggestion of a Hebrew retroversion is found in Tov, Textual Criticism, 331. 283. Rofé, Hen 4 (1982): 17–36. See Tov, Textual Criticism, 331–32; Moenikes, Ablehnung, 154– 55. For a different perspective, see Rösel, VT 30 (1980): 348–49; Jericke, ZAW 108 (1996): 353; Blum, Festschrift Brekelmans, 211 n. 133 (bibliography). 284. Idem, Vätergeschichte, 55–56 n. 59. 285. Van Seters considers this text type to be original (Life, 18). 286. See also Nelson, OTL, 282. 287. See Becker, Richterzeit, 63–72. See Blum, Vätergeschichte, 56 n. 60; idem, Festschrift Brekelmans; Kratz, Composition, 197–200. Blum correctly points out that direct word comparisons of both passages primarily show something about the involvement of their context and not about the diachronic relationship of one to the other (Festschrift Brekelmans, 182, 184). Jericke maintains that Judg 2:6–9 has priority over Josh 24:29–31 ( Jericke, ZAW 108 [1996]: 357–61; see also Auld, VT 25 [1975]: 264). However, using minute source-critical criteria he works out a pre-Deuteronomistic transmission. Koopmans judges the opposite to be true ( Joshua 24, 363–69). Brettler sees Judg 1:1ab– 2:5 as originally an appendix to Joshua (Brettler, ZAW 101 [1989]: 433).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 203 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Fulfillment of the Promises to the Fathers

203

2:8, 10 (see Exod 1:6–8) illustrates this. One cannot be sure whether there was once an older transition from Joshua 23 to Judg 2:6ff. that was extended by Joshua 24/Judges 1, a theory that many accept. 288 Possibly, there were more complicated processes. 289 The problem need not be discussed here in detail. We should note the following, however: the beginning of the book of Judges in 1:1–2:5 290 and 2:6–3:6 connects conceptually and linguistically to Joshua 24, even though these agreements, at least in part, may have arisen with the inserting of Joshua 24. First, with regard to the so-called “negative catalog of occupation” in Judges 1,291 its theme—namely, the (partial) conquest of the land—actually belongs in the book of Joshua. However, one can easily explain that Judges 1 appears in Judges because Joshua is the end of the Hexateuchal salvation history; the conquest of the land must now be complete ( Josh 21:43–45; 23:14; 24:13). To speak of the lack of success of the conquest can only happen after Joshua. Therefore, Judges 1 plays out “after the death of Joshua” (1:1), where Josh 24:29–31 is explicitly presupposed. 292 The connections between Judg 2:6ff. and Joshua 24 are quite clear: the people “served Yhwh” as long as Joshua still lived (db[ in Judg 2:7; see Josh 24:14–20). Then, however, “they served the Baals” and “forsook Yhwh” (bz[ in Judg 2:11ff.; see Josh 24:20) so that Yhwh brought “judgment” on them (h[r in Judg 2:15; see [[r in Josh 24:20). Instead of “turning away from” (rws Hiphil in Josh 24:23) foreign gods, they “deviated” from the way of their fathers (rws in Judg 2:17). While in Joshua 24 fidelity was sacrosanctly sworn to Yhwh, in Judg 2:6–3:6 this fidelity is forgotten (see explicitly Judg 2:10). Israel did exactly the opposite of what they had obligated themselves to do.

In particular, the so-called Deuteronomistic schema of Judges can hardly be understood other than in conjunction with Joshua 24. 293 It has already been noted that the editing of Judges that is usually classified as “Deuteronomistic” cannot be connected directly with the editing of the other books of the Former Prophets. 294 Von Rad even recovered a cyclical model of history that he saw in “dangerous” competition with the linear (thereby meaning the specifically Israelite) theology of history in Kings. 295 The Judges schema really is noteworthy in the context of Joshua–2 Kings, but it conforms well to the theory that, in Joshua 24, the salvation 288. See Noth, DH, 77; Rösel, VT 30 (1980): 342–50 (for him, however, the transition of Joshua 23/Judg 2:6ff. is later) and the other authors mentioned by these two. See also Römer, Väter, 329. 289. See Becker, Richterzeit, 72; and the extensive work of Blum, Festschrift Brekelmans, where one should especially see “Prolegomena,” 182. 290. See Younger, JSOT 68 (1995): 75–92. Judg 2:1–5 is a piece unto itself. See the discussion in Blum, Pentateuch, 365–69; idem, Festschrift Brekelmans, 187–94. 291. See the discussion in Herrmann, Festschrift Boecker; Rake, Juda. For a traditional approach, see Rösel, “Besitzverzeichnis.” Recently, however, see especially the (diverse) analyses of Auld, VT 25 (1975): 261–85; and Blum, Festschrift Brekelmans, 206–9. 292. Van Seters sees in Josh 24:28–31 the original ending of Joshua 23 that was simply separated by the insertion of Josh 24:1–27 ( J) (Van Seters, Life, 18). 293. Kaiser, Grundriss, 1:108. 294. See von Rad, Old Testament Theology 1:346–47 (see von Rad, Königsbücher; Lohfink, Darstellungskunst, 44 n. 111; Steck, Israel, 66 n. 3; see Greenspahn, VT 36 [1986]: 385–96). 295. Von Rad, Old Testament Theology 1:346. Concerning the discussion, see Becker, Richterzeit, 91–92.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 204 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

204

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

history ends with the completed conquest and division of the land under Joshua. Then, according to the schema of Judges, Yhwh “allocates for every generation . . . his whole revelation of history in judgment and salvation.” 296 This is understandable if it is clear that after the generation of Joshua a new generation arose “that knew nothing of Yhwh, not even the deeds that he had performed for Israel” ( Judg 2:10). This means that the Deuteronomistic schema of Judges knows the end of the salvation history with Joshua, especially as Joshua 24 presents it, and every generation must learn this history in detail. Thus, the period of the Judges is qualified as a transitional period 297 that no longer belongs to the salvation history itself but repeats it in miniature. Then the judgment history begins with the monarchic period and ends with the loss of land. The independence of the schema of Judges, often supported in earlier scholarship, is to be affirmed. It is not Deuteronomistic but owes its schema theologically to the placement of Judges between the salvation history of the hexateuch and the judgment history of the monarchy presented in Samuel–Kings. This perspective, however, is not older than Joshua 24. d. The Structure and Profile of Statements in Joshua 24 Joshua 24 298 consists mainly of speeches, introduced by the sevenfold 299 [w]rmayw, but these speeches are incorporated into a narrative framework that reveals the elemental structure of this chapter (see outline, p. 205). Because of this framework, Joshua 24 should be characterized as a narrative, though of course, it is a narrative that essentially reports a conversation between Joshua and the people. The covenant setting in 24:1, 25 frames the dialogue portion of 24:2–24 and is held together by the reference to Shechem in 24:1, 25. The writing in the “book of the law of God” follows, as well as the last speech of Joshua, which is introduced like the first speech: “And Joshua spoke to all the people” (24:2a/27a). Afterward, the narrative of the death and burial of Joshua concludes the chapter (24:29–33). In the course of Joshua 24, the speeches become ever shorter and change more abruptly. Conversely, the narrative elements become increasingly more extensive. Proceeding from the sevenfold dialogue schema in 24:1–25, Giblin attempted to find additional “numerical patterns” in this section of Joshua 24.300 The most important of these 296. Von Rad, Old Testament Theology 1:332. 297. See now Guillaume, Waiting. In this context, it is also noteworthy that Judges offers the most examples of hwhy ˚alm of all the biblical books ( Judg 2:1, 4; 5:23; 6:11–22; 13:3–21). See S. A. Meier, DDD, 97: the time of the “mixed beings” stands between the salvation history shaped by divine actions and the judgment history, which is a time of God’s retreat from history. 298. Koopmans has presented a detailed structural analysis of Josh 24:1–28 ( Joshua 24, 165–270). It is oriented toward colometric perspectives and particularly illuminates the artful microstructure of the individual text units. However, it almost completely disregards the perspective of the content—the existing narrative framework in Joshua 24. It thus misses the primary macrostructure of the text. Spronk is also critical of Koopmans (“Structure,” 309; see the response by Koopmans in “Josh. 23 and 24”). 299. Giblin, CBQ 26 (1964): 52. 300. Ibid., 50–69; adopted mainly by Römer, Väter, 325–26.

spread is 12 points short

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 205 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Fulfillment of the Promises to the Fathers

24:1, 2a

205

And Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel at Shechem and called the elders of Israel, its leaders, judges, and officials. And when they had presented themselves before God, Joshua spoke to all the people . . . 1st speech of Joshua (therein: 24:2–13: divine speech)

24:16

and the people answered and said . . . 1st speech of the people

24:19

And Joshua spoke to the people . . . 2nd speech of Joshua

24:21

And the people spoke to Joshua . . .

24:22a

And Joshua spoke to the people . . .

2nd speech of the people 3rd speech of the Joshua 24:22b

—and they said 3rd speech of the people

24:23

—... Continuation of the 3rd speech of Joshua

24:24

And the people spoke to Joshua . . . 4th speech of the people

24:25–27a So Joshua made a covenant with the people on that day and gave them statutes and ordinances in Shechem. And Joshua wrote all this in the book of the law of God, and he took a large stone and erected it there under the oak tree that stands by the sanctuary of Yhwh. Joshua spoke to all the people . . . 24:27b

4th speech of Joshua

24:28–33

So Joshua sent the people away . . .

is the identification of the “fathers” who are addressed as “you,” with the people in 24:5– 7 in a sevenfold structure. Thus, the first part of the historical overview, which only speaks of the “fathers” (24:2–4) is connected with the third part (and subsequent parts), which speaks only of “you” (24:8–13, 14ff.).

The people’s confession of faith in the covenant-making scene is prominently spotlighted in 24:17–18. The words twba, μyrxm, db[, and ≈ra each appear seven times, and the seventh reference to each occurs in 24:17–18. 301

301. Giblin, CBQ 26 (1964): 65. See Römer, Väter, 326.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 206 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Look out! Hidden note, this page 206

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

The structure of the statements becomes clear if we pay attention to the antithesis between “serve (db[) Yhwh” and “forsake (bz[) Yhwh” or “serve (db[) other gods.” This antithesis functions as a leading motif throughout the speeches. 302 303

24:2 24:14 24:15

24:16 24:18 24:19 24:20 24:21 24:22a 24:22b 24:23 24:24

1st speech of Joshua (24:2b–15) Your ancestors served other gods. Serve Yhwh! Put away the gods that303 your fathers served and serve Yhwh. If you will not serve Yhwh, then choose today whom you will serve: the gods your ancestors served Beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites. . . . But as for me and my house, we will serve Yhwh. 1st speech of the people (24:16–18) Far be it from us to forsake Yhwh and serve other gods! We also will serve Yhwh. 2nd speech of Joshua (24:19–20) You are not able to serve Yhwh. If you forsake Yhwh and serve foreign gods, he will bring judgment on you. 2nd speech of the people (24:21) No! We will serve Yhwh. 3rd speech of Joshua (24:22a) You are witnesses that you have chosen to serve Yhwh. 3rd speech of the people (24:22b) We are witnesses. 4th speech of Joshua (24:23) Put away the foreign gods! 4th speech of the people (24:24) We will serve Yhwh.

The prominence of the phrase “serve Yhwh” supports the theme of rulership hinted at in the location in Shechem and Israel’s “presenting itself before” ( Josh 24:1). Explicitly said: Israel must serve its king, Yhwh (see also Ps 2:11; 100:2 [in the vein of Psalms 93–99]). The theme of serving Yhwh dominates this entire portion of the speech in Joshua 24, while it is entirely lacking in the historical 302. The concrete sequence of the statements “serve (db[) Yhwh”—“leave (bz[) Yhwh” or “serve (db[) other gods” is connected with a background meaning. At the command of Joshua to put away the foreign gods (24:23), the people answer: “We will serve Yhwh and listen to his voice” (24:24). Not one word having to do with putting away foreign gods is used in this response. The problem, according to Joshua 24, does not lie in the people’s not serving Yhwh; the problem lies in the fact that they did not serve Yhwh exclusively. The actual danger is not primarily forsaking Yhwh and then serving other gods. Rather, the problem is serving other gods and thus virtually forsaking Yhwh, a fact that is confirmed in 2 Kgs 17:29–41 (especially 17:35–36) in the reflection on the fall of the Northern Kingdom. 303. Josh 24:14–15 is difficult to translate because ta as a rule does not appear before indefinite nouns (see GKC §119d; Joüon-Muraoka §125f ). However, in 24:24–25 it appears twice before μyhla. The translation given above relies on G. Schmitt, Landtag, 37.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 207 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Fulfillment of the Promises to the Fathers

207

overview in 24:2b–13 except for the opening statement of the worship of foreign gods by Israel’s ancestors in Mesopotamia. This is highly significant for the content of the salvation history to which 24:2b–13 refers (where Yhwh only appears as the actor): it stands apart from the time before and afterward. As long as Yhwh acts directly on behalf of Israel, as was the case in the salvation history from Abraham to the conquest, the behavior of Israel is of subordinate significance. By its action, Israel could not restrain Yhwh from realizing his plan for history. Linguistically, this is expressed in Joshua 24 primarily by the almost exclusive use of the first-person verb forms for Yhwh. Theologically, it is expressed by the silence about all negative events (such as the affair of the golden calf or the murmuring of the people in the wilderness) and the strong accentuation of the bountiful character of the land in 24:13. Now, however, because Yhwh has fulfilled his promises, Israel is called to the responsibility of serving “Yhwh.” Certainly, Joshua 24 is not primarily parenesis (exhortation) but is a theology of history. Joshua in fact obligates Israel to Yhwh, though he knows that Israel cannot serve Yhwh (24:19). Thus, the warning of 24:20 can simultaneously be read as prophecy. Israel will forsake Yhwh and serve foreign gods. Therefore, Yhwh will punish Israel, just as he has acted with goodness up to this point. The difference between the history of salvation and judgment in Genesis– 2 Kings, appearing first in Joshua 24 in the narrative flow of the historical books, is thus clearly emphasized in Joshua 24 itself. Salvation history is characterized by only Yhwh acting toward Israel. By contrast, the behavior of Israel itself has no significance. It is quite different for the subsequent period. It is specifically the history of judgment because now Israel becomes the subject of the actions. Here the noteworthy line in Josh 24:26, which is treated only marginally 304 in scholarly discussion, should be considered. Joshua wrote “these words” (μyrbdh hlah) “in the book of the law of God” (μyhla trwt rpsb). According to Blum, because of the deixis hlah, the phrase hlah μyrbdh should not be related to 24:25 (“statutes and law”). 305 Rather, it apparently signifies the literary extension of the “book of the law of Moses” (see Exod 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Deut 27:3, 8; 31:9, 24) into a “book of the law of God” that also included the conquest in the book of Joshua, and thus could no longer be called the “book of the law of Moses.” The salvation history of God extending from Genesis to Joshua was eventually recorded by Joshua based on what Moses had already recorded. The hexateuchal salvation history thus differentiates itself from the judgment history not only because only God acts but also because of its written record in the μyhla trwt rps. Josh 24:26 seems to develop the notion of a literary Hexateuch recorded by Joshua. 306 The 304. Blum, Festschrift Brekelmans, 203. 305. Ibid., with nn. 98–99. 306. Besides Josh 24:26, the μyhla(h) trwt rps appears only in Ezra’s reading of the law during the Festival of Booths in Neh 8:8, 18. The fpvmw qj ( Josh 24:25; Ezra 7:10) also points to Ezra (elsewhere only in Exod 15:25; 1 Sam 30:25). If a redaction-historically intentional cross-reference exists

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 208 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

208

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

story line of a Hexateuch reaching from Genesis to Joshua is a thematic subdivision of Genesis to Kings, not a literary entity in and of itself. Joshua 24 is a post-Priestly text (see below, §3.3.2.f ) and cannot be the conclusion of a pre-Priestly “Hexateuch.” Furthermore, the notion of a salvation history in Genesis to Joshua seems to belong to its negative counterpart, the judgment history in ( Judges and) Samuel to Kings, from the outset. e. Joshua as “Prophet” As already mentioned, Joshua is characterized in Joshua 24 as a prophet in a double sense. For one thing, he communicates the salvation history of the Hexateuch to the tribes of Israel as the messenger of Yhwh: “Thus says Yhwh, the God of Israel” (24:2). For another thing, he prophesies the coming judgment to the people (24:19). Both statements are connected theologically to one another. The salvation history is characterized by the exclusive activity of God therein (there are no actors except for him). Judgment history is characterized by the activity of Israel. Joshua communicates the different quality of each of these eras of history to the people. As a prophet, Joshua possesses insight into Yhwh’s plan of history. In addition, Joshua must also be qualified as a prophet because he coauthored the “book of the Torah of God.” The Torah was thus recorded by the prophets Moses and Joshua, and because of its prophetic authorship, it can be validated as the “Torah of God.” Thus, another point should be mentioned. The Joshua of Joshua 24 shares the signs of a prophet not only with Moses, specifically in Exodus 3–4, but also with Abraham in Genesis 15. §3.5.1 (pp. 224ff.) will ask more precisely how this commonality should be evaluated theologically. f. Genetic Aspects of the Text Joshua 23 appears to have exerted an important influence on the shape of the text of Joshua 24. Other central texts in the subsequent historical books were also influential, such as 1 Samuel 8 and 12 and 1 Kings 12. Specifically, the following influences can be recognized. The introduction in Josh 24:1 relies closely on Josh 23:2, though it deviates in characteristic fashion. 307 First, Josh 23:2 states that Joshua called (arq) “all Israel,” between Josh 24:26 and Neh 8:18, then its direction of dependency cannot be decided with certainty. Either Joshua 24 should clarify that the law brought out by Ezra and read at the Festival of Booths was the Hexateuch completed by Joshua, or Nehemiah 8 wants to insist, contrary to Joshua 24, that the μyhla(h) trwt rps and the hvm (trwt) rps are one and the same. See the examples of hwhy trwt rps: Neh 9:3; 2 Chr 17:9; 34:14; of hvm trwt: Josh 8:32; 1 Kgs 2:3; 2 Kgs 23:25; Mal 3:22; Ezra 3:2, 6; 2 Chr 23:18; Dan 9:11, 13; of hvm trwt rps: Josh 8:31; 23:6; 2 Kgs 14:6; Neh 8:1; of hvm rps: Neh 13:1; 2 Chr 25:4; 35:12 (see Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 270). 307. As in Josh 23:2 and nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible, the group of four is accented in Josh 24:1: elders (μynqz), the heads (μyvar), judges (μyfpv), and officials (μyrfv). Concerning these officials, see Koopmans, Joshua 24, 274–83.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 209 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Fulfillment of the Promises to the Fathers

209

then Josh 24:1a states that Joshua “gathered all the tribes of Israel in Shechem.” Shortly thereafter the catchword arq appears. In Josh 24:1, special stress is thus placed on the “tribes.” Israel is seen as the people going back to the twelve sons of Jacob, which links the perspective back to Genesis. 308 Apparently, Joshua 24 places special weight on the idea that the internal order of Israel—the life of the tribes in the land—forms an integral component of the benefits from Israel’s God. This is of no small significance for the kingdom. Since the salvation history ends before the establishment of the kingdom, and Israel is perceived as a union of tribes and not as a monarchy, this again suggests that Joshua 24 is critical of the institution of kingship. 309 Presumably, herein lies the reason why Joshua 24 avoids royal terminology even for Yhwh and only suggests the theme in the background. According to Joshua 24, Yhwh is actually king of an Israel that is perceived as a union of tribes, but in order to avoid any misunderstandings, Yhwh is not called ˚lm in Joshua 24. Yhwh’s kingdom, as Joshua 24 intends it, is not really even a kingdom, in which Yhwh is king over Israel instead of an earthly ruler. Rather, it is a form of rulership unto itself.

Upon closer inspection, the process portrayed in Josh 24:1 also appears in its fulfillment of the statement in Deut 33:5 from the blessing of Moses: “And he [i.e., Yhwh] became king in Jeshurun with the gathering of the heads of the people (μ[ yvar) together with the tribes of Israel (larcy yfbv).” Read from the perspective of Josh 24:1, Deut 33:5 becomes a prophecy by Moses about the choice of Yhwh as king by Israel in Shechem under Joshua. The subsequent historical overview in Josh 24:2b–13 cannot simply be derived from the existing context of Genesis–Joshua. In part, it contains formulations that are without parallel in these books. 310 At the same time, there are some clear literary connections that are important to our theme. The relationship of Joshua 24 to P is of particular interest for its historical-critical ordering. Joshua 24 actually appears to know the linguistic usage of P. The ry[c rh as the abode of Esau ( Josh 24:4) is found in Genesis only in 36:8–9, a P text. 311 Also, the designation ≈ra ˆ[nk ( Josh 24:3) in Genesis is a Priestly term. 312 The accented reference to Aaron in Josh 24:5 (compare 24:33) is difficult to explain without the Priestly presentation of the Exodus. 313 However, even with these indicators it is not yet proven that Joshua 24 presupposes the incorporation of P. It could also be possible that 308. The “tribes of Israel” were addressed in the farewell speeches of both Jacob (Genesis 49) and Moses (Deuteronomy 33), the two central figures of the ancestor story and the Moses/Exodus story. Before Josh 24:1, the last time the expression “all the tribes of Israel” occurred was in Gen 49:28 (except for Deut 29:21 [MT 29:20]). 309. In this respect, see also the ideal rulership corresponding to the time of the judges in Sirach (discussion below, in §4.2.1). 310. See the material in Koopmans, Joshua 24, 346–48. 311. See Mölle, Landtag, 208. 312. See Vorländer, Entstehungszeit, 58; Anbar, Josué, 87. 313. See Valentin, Aaron, 36–45; Mommer, Samuel, 126.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 210 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

210

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

Joshua 24 was influenced by an independent P. But the presentation of the miracle of the sea in Josh 24:6–7 especially suggests that Exodus 14 was known to Joshua 24 in a version that was augmented by the P elements 314 (see πdr in Exod 14:4, 8– 9, 23 [P]; vrp/bkr in Exod 14:9, 17–18, 23, 26 [P]; hks in Exod 14:28 [P]). 315 Thus, Joshua 24 is close to the other literary bridge texts between Genesis and Exodus, specifically Genesis 15 and Exodus *3–4. The reflection on the combined ancestor story and the Moses/Exodus story at the end of Joshua in Joshua 24 appears to have arisen only after the Priestly source as well. The formulation “I afflicted Egypt by what I did in its midst” (ytyc[ rvak wbrqb; perfect) in Josh 24:5 points in the same direction. It clearly links back to the announcement in Exod 3:20 (wbrqb hc[a rva; imperfect) and verifies its fulfillment. 316 Thus, a clear intertextual connection is created between the call of Moses in Exodus 3 and Joshua 24, in which Exodus 3 serves to connect Genesis and Exodus (and following) and already knows P. Further, the statement in Josh 24:12b appears to reflect upon Genesis when it speaks about the expulsion of two 317 Amorite kings, “not with your sword and with your bow” (˚tvqb alw ˚brjb al). 318 This formulation clearly refers to the promise of Jacob to Joseph in Gen 48:22. 319 “And I have given you a ridge of land (μkv), in preference to your brothers, which I took from the hand of the Amorites with my sword (ybrjb) and with my bow (ytvqbw).” Josh 24:12 thus creates a clear reference back to a statement in Genesis that speaks in the perfect tense of a first possession of at least a part of Canaan (Shechem, the site of Joshua 24). It was already taken at the time of the ancestors—that is, by Jacob himself. The conquest under Joshua, according to Josh 24:12, is nothing more than the retaking of areas that the patriarchs had already acquired. Moreover, Josh 24:32 explicitly maintains that the grave site in Shechem was already legally purchased by Jacob. 320 In Gen 48:22, another meaning may be linked to the background of Josh 24:32. 314. See Blum, Festschrift Brekelmans, 197, with n. 68. 315. See Fritz, HAT 1/7 249 (for him, the corresponding parts of the text in Josh 24:6–7 are of course “additions” because his fundamental text stems from DtrH); Anbar, Josué 24, 98–99. Bieberstein finds in Josh 24:7, 11, although without further explanation, “only a general dependency on the so-called ‘Yahwistic’ version of Exodus 14” (Bieberstein, Josua, 399). 316. See Koopmans, Joshua 24, 322, 326. See also Ps 78:4. Concerning πgn, see Exod 7:27; 12:23, 27; also see Isa 19:22; Zech 14:18–19. 317. Concerning “twelve” in the LXX, see Edelman, VT 41 (1991): 281–82. The two Amorite kings in the current text are perhaps referring to Sihon and Og (see Deut 3:8; 4:47; Josh 2:10; 9:10). However, Edelman suggests yrmah yklm μyvn as the original text in Josh 24:12a (instead of yklm ynv yrmah). 318. The word hr[x is often translated “hornets” in Josh 24:12 but should perhaps be translated “dejection, discouragement” (HALOT 2:1056–57 [bibliography]) or “panic” (Edelman, VT 41 [1991]: 283, with n. 7). See also Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 254–55. 319. See Koopmans, Joshua 24, 333. 320. This theme in Joshua 24 was already revealed in the antithesis between Jacob and Esau in 24:4. Just as Yhwh gave (ˆtaw) Isaac, Jacob, and Esau, so he “gave” (ˆtaw) Esau the hill country of Seir as a “possession” (tvrl); “Jacob and his sons, however, moved to Egypt.” The line of possession for Jacob is thus still open, but it is closed for Esau.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 211 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Fulfillment of the Promises to the Fathers

211

In this way, the promise of Jacob to Joseph does not remain hanging in the air. Rather, it has a hidden fulfillment in the burial of Joseph in Shechem in Josh 24:32. This is the “preference” for Joseph over his brothers, who (we may infer from the presentation of Exodus–Numbers) all died on the way to Canaan and were not buried in the land. At this point, the interests of Joshua 24 appear as a miniature form of the promise-and-fulfillment theme that drives the combining of the ancestor story and the Moses/Exodus story in general. With Joshua’s conquest, the promises of land to the ancestors are fulfilled. Why does Sinai not appear in the historical overview of Josh 24:2–13? This is not simply a hypothetical problem 321 that we can wipe off the table by reference to the literary priority of Joshua 24 over the bulk of the Sinai texts in Exodus 19–34, as for example Perlitt did. In 1969, the assignment of Joshua 24 to the Assyrian period by Perlitt was indeed something of a “late dating” similar to the Pentateuch models discussed today. Nevertheless, Joshua 24, with its hexateuchal horizon, would be at least 100 years older than the oldest interpretive layer with themes spanning the Pentateuch according to Blum, Levin, Rose, or Van Seters. Unless one wants to follow Zenger 322 in hypothesizing a tetrateuchal history existing already in the 8th or 7th century, Perlitt’s solution can no longer be maintained, even if one holds the Sinai texts to be post-Priestly, because Joshua 24 belongs in a postPriestly setting as well. 323 Therefore, one must consider whether Joshua 24 is intentionally silent about the events on Sinai. At any rate, it is clear that the covenant in Josh 24:25a does not relate to anything other than the content treated in Josh 24:2–24.324 From the perspective of Joshua 24, it is the choice of 24:14–15, 22–24 that decides salvation or judgment for the future (24:19– 20): worshiping Yhwh alone or worshiping foreign gods. Therefore, the recording process in 24:26 appears only after the obligation scene, and the erected stone serves as a witness (not, of course, as a cult stela), “so that they do not repudiate God”325 (μyhlab ˆwvjkt ˆp). In Joshua 24, Joshua charges Israel in Shechem not only with the first commandment but also with statutes and laws (fpvm qj wl μvyw) as Moses had done earlier 326 in Kadesh (fpvmw qj wl μv μv). These notices are theologically charged. Both passages speak of (human!) promulgation of the law outside the Sinai context. Both Josh 24:25 and Exod 15:25 thereby appear in stark contrast to the Sinai formulation of law.327 Does one encounter a 321. Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 252; similarly, Fritz, HAT 1/7 241. Also for Römer, Joshua 24 and Nehemiah 9 cannot lie “all that far” apart without disregarding this problem (Römer, Väter, 327; see idem, ETR 61 [1986]: 15; idem, RTP 125 [1993]: 35; idem, “Historiographies,” 147–48). 322. Zenger, Einleitung AT, 112–19. 323. See Crüsemann, Torah, 46–57; largely also Otto, TRu 60 (1995): 163–91; idem, BETL 126 (1996), 61–111; idem, TRE 28:205. 324. See Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 263. 325. In Joshua, vjk appears elsewhere only in 7:11. The closest parallels are in Josh 24:27; Isa 59:13; and Job 31:28. See K.-D. Schunck, TDOT 4:144. 326. See Blum, Pentateuch, 364 n. 15. Crüsemann, Tora, 63, with n. 105. Concerning the intertextual connections from Joshua 24 to Exodus 19–24, see Koopmans, Joshua 24, 358–62. 327. See also Exodus 18. See the discussion below in §3.5.2. In the history of scholarship, a prolific number of speculations have attached themselves especially to Exod 15:25. Concerning the Kadesh hypothesis inaugurated by Wellhausen and Meyer, see von Rad, Hexateuch, 14–15; W. H. Schmidt, EdF 191 (31995), 106–9; Blum, Pentateuch, 144 n. 182; Blenkinsopp, Festschrift Coats, 109 n. 1 (bibliography); Kaiser, TheolAT, 2:83 n. 100. Concerning Exod 15:25, see Blum, Pentateuch, 144–46.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 212 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

212

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

concept in Exod 15:25 and Josh 24:25 (see Ezra 7:10) that propounds that the fpvmw qj of Israel were not communicated once and for all on Sinai but must be given anew from time to time?

The commitment scene that follows the historical overview in Josh 24:2b–13 was prompted by Joshua 23. And just as everything good has been fulfilled for you that Yhwh, your God, promised to you, so can evil come upon you until it wipes you off this beautiful land that Yhwh has given you, if you transgress the covenant of Yhwh, your God, which he commanded you, and you go and serve other gods, and worship them. Then the anger of Yhwh will burn against you, and you will soon be exterminated from this land that he has given you. ( Josh 23:15–16)

This warning is picked up again in Josh 24:20, although with a significant modification. If you forsake Yhwh and serve foreign (rkn) gods, then he will turn himself against you and do evil to you after having done good to you.

While the criterion for deciding whether Israel would remain in the land in the future was still the hwhy tyrb in Josh 23:16, in Josh 24:20 the criterion concentrates on the first commandment. The welfare of Israel depends upon the question of the worship of foreign gods, so that Josh 24:20 (see 24:23) 328 speaks poignantly of “foreign” (rkn) gods 329 and not merely of “other” gods (see 24:16 in the mouth of the people). Specifically, it speaks of the gods whom the “ancestors” served in Mesopotamia or the “gods of the Amorites” (24:15). Further, the commitment scene in Joshua 24 shows clear connections to 1 Samuel 8 and 12. There, Yhwh describes for Samuel what Joshua has already foreseen in Joshua 24: Israel has “forsaken” God (bz[ in 1 Sam 8:8; see Josh 24:16, 20). Furthermore, Israel had rejected (sam) Yhwh so that he would not “rule over them as king” (1 Sam 8:7; see 1 Sam 12:12). Here, human and divine kingship are explicitly compared with one another as incompatible entities, as was done implicitly in Joshua 24. Crüsemann, in particular, has emphasized concerning 1 Samuel 8 and 12, that the “designation of Yhwh as king nowhere else has a role in Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic language and theology. With a linguistic view of a type so broadly documented in the Hebrew Bible as it confronts us in the Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic passage, this kind of argument from silence carries considerable weight.”330 Thus, Crüsemann means that in the statements in which human kingship confronts divine kingship directly (1 Sam 8:7 and 12:12; see Judg 8:22–23), an existing tradition was being picked up.331 If we look from Joshua 24 to 1 Samuel 8 and 12, a redaction-historical explanation suggests itself: Judg 328. See further Gen 35:2, 4; Deut 31:16; Judg 10:16; 1 Sam 7:3; Jer 5:19. 329. See HALOT 1:700; Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 258. 330. Crüsemann, Widerstand, 74. 331. Ibid., 73–84.

spread is 12 points short

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 213 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Fulfillment of the Promises to the Fathers

213

8:22–23; 1 Samuel 8 and 12 belong conceptually in the wake332 of Joshua 24, and Judg 8:22–23 and 1 Samuel 8 333 are more closely aligned with Joshua 24, while 1 Samuel 12 with its parenesis, 334 coming between 1 Sam 11:15 and 13:1, appears to distance itself from both of these. Its parenesis opens possible salvific perspectives even for the monarchic period which, according to Joshua 24, belongs to the judgment history.335 According to 1 Samuel 12, there is still the possibility of behavior corresponding to salvation in the monarchic period. However, it is also possible that 1 Samuel 12 should be read with 1 Samuel 8 because it narratively transitions to the Davidic period, which is viewed positively.

Finally, the scene in 1 Kings 12 appears to have Joshua 24 in view—the fatal events surrounding the selection of Rehoboam as king that leads to the division of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. Just like Joshua 24, 1 Kings 12 plays out in Shechem. Still the two processes are diametrically opposed to one another. In Joshua 24, Yhwh cites his good deeds to Israel. Israel received a land that it had not cultivated, lived in cities that it had not built, and ate from vineyards and olive trees that it had not planted ( Josh 24:13). This led to the choice of Yhwh as king; however, Rehoboam tyrannically exacerbated the hard-labor demands of his father Solomon toward Israel (1 Kgs 12:11), which lead to the division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12:19). The critique of the institution of kingship in Joshua 24 thus sounds a special note: with Yhwh as king, the division of the kingdom would never have occurred. Taken together, one can affirm that the position in the context, the conceptualization, and the textual origin of Joshua 24 indicate that this chapter represents a programmatic text classified as post-Priestly. It has been shaped as the conclusion of the Hexateuch, but at the same time (though seen less frequently) it functions as the opening of the subsequent history of judgment. Below, §3.5.1 (pp. 224ff.) will look more closely at how Joshua 24 is related to the similarly assessed texts of Genesis 15 and Exodus 3–4, which also reflect the combination of Genesis and Exodus (and following). 332. It is questionable whether 1 Samuel 8 and 12 can be considered “Deuteronomistic.” Above all, the command of Yhwh to Samuel in 1 Sam 8:7, μ[h lwqb [mv (“listen to the voice of the people”), which is repeated in 8:7, 22, and 12:1, stands diametrically opposed to the understanding of “Deuteronomistic” prophets. The “Deuteronomistic” prophet usually has the task of instructing the people “to listen to the voice of Yhwh.” Here, Yhwh commands the prophet Samuel to do just the opposite, “to listen to the voice of the people.” Already from these statements in 1 Sam 8:7, 9, 22; and 12:1, but also from 1 Sam 8:7b (Yhwh has not rejected the people, but the people have rejected [sam] Yhwh), it is impossible to interpret this statement of Yhwh as accepting the wish of the people for a king as a legitimate wish. Rather, Yhwh is seen as the one in charge of the history of judgment. However, the perversion of the situation is placed clearly before the eyes of the reader. 333. See the discussion in Becker, Festschrift Gunneweg. For a different perspective, see Mommer, Samuel, 55–68; Moenikes, Ablehnung, 23–30; etc. 334. See the discussion in Veijola, Königtum, 91–92. Also, 1 Samuel 12 is often treated sourcecritically. See, for example, Moenikes, Ablehnung, 33–43. 335. See, for example, the imperfect hwhy ta wary in Josh 24:14/1 Sam 12:24. Concerning the connections between Joshua 24 and 1 Samuel 12, see especially Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 245–46, 256, etc.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 214 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

214

3.4. The Death of Joseph and the Oppression of Israel in Egypt as a Theological Link between Genesis and Exodus After having treated the compositional elements that are important to the merger of Genesis and Exodus in Genesis 15, Exodus 3–4, and Joshua 24, the passage at the current boundary between Genesis and Exodus must still be examined. Of particular interest is the textual transition between the end of the Joseph story and the beginning of the Moses/Exodus story in Gen 50:25–26 through Exodus 1. 3.4.1. Genesis 50:25–26 As seen above in §3.3.1 (pp. 193ff.), the burial of the bones of Joseph in Shechem reported in Josh 24:32 forms the end-point of a thread begun by Gen 50:25. This thread leads from Genesis, past the notice in Exod 13:19, and then to the end of Joshua in Josh 24:32. Therefore, Gen 50:25 has shown itself to be an important hexateuchal compositional element. Not only is Gen 50:25 the starting point of this thread, but together with the death notice for Joseph in 50:26, it also forms the boundary of the book of Genesis, these being the last two verses of Genesis. If the approach developed here is correct, then the transition from Genesis to Exodus forms a fundamental redactional link. If Genesis and Exodus (and following) remained literarily independent text complexes considerably longer than the classic Pentateuch investigations and morerecent investigations assumed, then the current form of Genesis 50–Exodus 1 cannot be older than the literary connection of Genesis and Exodus as a whole. One can also expect to be able to draw inferences from their formulation with regard to the theological profile of the redaction that unifies Genesis and Exodus (and following). The series of statements starting in Gen 50:25 regarding the carrying of the bones of Joseph (Gen 50:25–Exod 13:19–Josh 24:32) should be separated from the series of statements starting in the preceding verse (Gen 50:24) regarding the sworn promise of land to the patriarchs (Gen 50:25–Exod 32:13; 33:1–Num 32:11–Deut 34:4). At first sight, one might lean toward the view of Lohfink, Blum (in his position of 1984), and Schmitt,336 based upon an extensive chiastic structure. This structure suggests a literarily unified text. Gen 50:24: Gen 50:25:

A [bvn Eu ytmx[

B hl[hw Bu μtl[hw

C dqpy dqp Du μyhla

D μyhla Cu dqpy dqp

E tm ykna Au [bvyw

However, the structure of the two verses (as the presentation above shows) is not composed entirely in chiastic fashion. More important, Gen 50:24 and 50:25 open two different series of statements that cannot be seen as compatible with one another based upon their literary horizon and their theological profile. The statement in Gen 50:25, which 336. Lohfink, Landverheissung, 23 n. 43. Blum, Vätergeschichte, 256; but compare his self-corrections in idem, Pentateuch, 103 nn. 7 and 10; 364. Recently, Blum again argues for the literary unity of Gen 50:24–26 in “Connection,” 97. H.-C. Schmitt, Festschrift Brekelmans, 393; see also Gertz, Tradition, 358–70; idem, “Transition.”

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 215 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Death of Joseph and the Oppression of Israel in Egypt

215

finds its conclusion in Josh 24:32, aims toward the books of the Prophets because of the salvation-historical and judgment-historical image established in Joshua 24. By contrast, the statements of the sworn promise of land to the three patriarchs (see Exod 32:13; 33:1; Num 32:11; Deut 34:4) introduced in Gen 50:24 function as a kind of “prophetic remaking” of the Pentateuch. 337 These texts are strictly limited to the Pentateuch. Here, the accent lies on the Torah, not on the prophets (see the extensive discussion in §3.6.5). In my opinion, one must distinguish between Gen 50:24 and 50:25 in this way.338

It is indisputable that the series of statements about carrying Joseph’s bones has a hexateuchal horizon. But why, specifically, is it this motif that is the most obvious redactional bond in Genesis–Joshua? Where does one find the internal necessity for returning the bones of Joseph to Canaan? Of course, a grave in the homeland is to be preferred to a burial in a foreign land, but why is it Joseph’s bones that must return to the homeland? 339 The emphasis on the Joseph figure in the literary connection between Genesis and Exodus (and following) may have to do with the positive description of the Israelites’ stay in a foreign land in the Joseph story. If the initial connection between the ancestors and Exodus should be set in the postexilic period, then we could easily accept that this combination also responds to the needs of the diaspora. The string of statements concerning the carrying of Joseph’s bones could be reacting to a theological problem like the one in Psalm 90. 340 If the plight of the Exile lasted longer than the span of a human life, then individuals among the people had no prospect of experiencing a fundamental change. Joseph already met this fate, but he was granted a burial in his own land. Perhaps another thought is behind the return of Joseph’s bones. If one considers the goal of the history of salvation and judgment in Genesis to Joshua and Judges to 2 Kings to be providing a historical portrait for the corpus propheticum, then the great vision of the resurrection of the people of Israel in Ezekiel 37 stands out as an allusion to the bones of Joseph.341 Thus, one can ask, must the bones (twmx[) of Joseph be transported back to Canaan so that they may one day be brought back to life, as in Ezek 37:1–14? If this idea were in play, then the series of statements concerning the carrying of Joseph’s bones (Gen 50:25 / Exod 13:19 / Josh 24:32) may have read Ezek 37:1–14 along with the following text, Ezek 37:15–28. The resurrection of Israel is seen in Ezekiel 37 (as a whole) as the restitution of all Israel. “Joseph” (37:16, 19) and “Judah” (37:19) will again be united. This salvific goal for the future according to Ezekiel 37 is just as attractive for Joshua 24, the perspective of which also encompasses all Israel. Just as Joshua had gathered “all the tribes of Israel,” had warned them against idol worship, and had committed them to Yhwh, so Ezek 37:15–28 337. For its part, Gen 50:24 (μkta dqpy dqp μyhlaw) is oriented toward Exodus 3. See Exod 3:16 (μkta ytdqp dqp [see Kessler, Querverweise, 189–90; Blum, Pentateuch, 35]; see also hl[ Hiphil in Gen 50:24/Exod 3:17) in order to connect Exodus 3–4 intertextually in the framework of the sworn promise of land. 338. See also Weimar, Meerwundererzählung, 116–17 n. 18. Differently, Gertz, Tradition, 358–70; idem, “Transition”; Blum, “Verbindung”; idem, “Connection,” 97. 339. See, for example, the considerations of Rose, ZAW 89 (1977): 58–59; and especially Witte, Festschrift Schmitt. 340. See Krüger, Bib 75 (1994): 211–12. 341. Concerning Ezekiel 37, see the bibliography in Meinhold, Festschrift Seidel, 156 n. 9.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 216 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

216

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

sketches a picture of Israel’s salvation under David, “the servant of Yhwh” 342 (27:24–25), as a people no longer divided into two kingdoms (37:22)—a people that had been protected by Yhwh himself but had turned away from him (37:23; see earlier, 36:26–27). Then, Israel would again live in its land “forever” (μlw[ d[ in 37:25). Yhwh and Israel would then be associated with one another in “an eternal covenant of peace” (μwlv tyrb μlw[ tyrb) in 37:26; see the covenant formula in 37:23, 27). Seen from Joshua 24, Ezekiel 37 can function as an optimistic renewal of the covenant that was sealed in Joshua 24 between Yhwh and Israel. In Ezekiel 37, the outcome, which was fundamentally endangered in Joshua 24 by the future disobedience of the people, is determined with certainty. Ezekiel speaks of the “eternal” occupation of the land (37:25a), of an “eternal” kingdom of David (37:25b), and of an “eternal” sanctuary in the midst of Israel (37:28). Did Sirach recognize this connection between the carrying of Joseph’s bones and their resurrection in Ezekiel 37? 343 It is noteworthy that, first, Joseph is not treated in the passage where one would expect—that is, between Jacob and Moses in the laus patrum (Sirach 44– 50), which otherwise follows a chronological order. Rather, Joseph is treated at the end, in the context of the primal ancestors Enoch, Shem, Seth, Enosh, and Adam. Second, the only concrete report of Joseph is that “his bones were cared for” (hdqpn wtywg μgw in 49:15), which clearly plays on texts connected by the thread in Gen 50:25; Exod 13:19; and Josh 24:32. Similarly, it is affirmed of Shem, Seth, and Enosh that they were “cared for” (wdqpn in 49:16) and Enoch was “taken up alive” (μynp jqln in 49:14). Immediately adjacent to these statements appears the desire that “the bones of the twelve prophets may spring forth” (49:10). Joseph thus appears in the hymn of the fathers in an extraordinarily highlighted position in the context of figures who have been taken up or resurrected. It is not a great stretch, therefore, to accept that Sirach connected the carrying of the bones of Joseph with Ezekiel 37, although Ezekiel 37 was perhaps already understood in the sense of individual resurrection from the dead. 344

3.4.2. Exodus 1 a. Literary Classification As seen above in §2.1.2.a (pp. 62ff.), Exodus 1 contains no textual material that can be dated earlier than P. Exod 1:7, 13–14 belongs to P and perhaps also Exod 1:1–5(6), unless these verses were added in the course of dividing off Exodus as its own book. All that remains is Exod 1:(6,) 8–12, 15–22. Within this text is the midwife passage in 1:15–21, which is secondary, or at any rate cannot be older than 1:8–12, 22. 345 The text of 1:8–12, 22, encompassing forced labor and Pharaoh’s decision to kill the Hebrew boys, linguistically and materially presupposes the statement of increase in 1:7 (P) and thus needs to be dated after P. 342. The fact that Ezekiel 37 amounts to a reestablishment of the kingdom of David appears to contradict the ancient royal orientation of Joshua 24. However, because it would apparently be David himself who would rule over Israel again, this solution may also be congruent with Joshua 24. 343. The Palestinian prophetic targum introduces the narrative of Ezekiel 37 with the consideration that Ezekiel might provide ideas about “what happened to the dead who died in Exile” (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2:264). 344. See Bartelmus, ZAW 97 (1985): 366–89. 345. W. H. Schmidt (BKAT 2/1 18–21) and Levin ( Jahwist, 320–21) differentiate further sourcecritical levels in Exod 1:15–21.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 217 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Death of Joseph and the Oppression of Israel in Egypt

217

If Exodus 1 consists of Priestly and post-Priestly text segments, then it is also clear that Exodus 1 as a whole knows the connection between the ancestors and Exodus, because P certainly knew this connection. There is good reason to proceed from the idea that Exodus 1 was created above all to connect the ancestor story and the exodus story. b. The Life-Threatening Oppression of Israel in Egypt What can we recognize in Exodus 1 as elements of the theological profile of the merger of *Genesis and *Exodus (and following)? Exodus 1 presents the situation of Israel in Egypt as one of “oppression” and of “suffering” (hn[ II Piel 346 in Exod 1:11–12). Already these first hn[ statements in Exodus show a clandestine theological background: “But the more they [the Egyptians] oppressed (hn[) it [the people], the more it increased and expanded. And they feared the Israelites” (Exod 1:12). From the outset, the oppression leads not to the ruin of Israel but the opposite: Israel becomes great and strong. This is no accident; God in his providence is working behind the scenes, as the reader, at any rate, knows. Specifically, coming from Genesis, this theme of the increase of Israel is important theologically, because despite the oppression Israel still stands under the promise of increase given to the ancestors. There is also another respect in which Yhwh’s work in the background is revealed to the reader on behalf of the Israelites. The fear Pharaoh has of the growing population of Israel is that they could “fight” against Egypt (wnb wmjln) and “leave the land” (≈rah ˆm hl[w). 347 Precisely this scenario occurs later when Israel “leaves the land” (Exod 13:18), though to be sure, it is not Israel but Israel’s God Yhwh who “fights” against Egypt (Exod 14:14, 25). In his fear, Pharaoh unwittingly prophesies what would later happen. 348 For the reader, it is made perfectly clear that even the diametrically opposed plans and actions of Pharaoh cannot prevail against the will of Yhwh. This background, however, remains hidden to the Egyptians, and they once again dramatically heighten the situation of the “oppression” of the Israelites: Pharaoh orders the killing of all Hebrew males. Thus, Israel stands in danger of total annihilation. §2.4.3 (pp. 139ff.) argued that the danger to all Hebrew newborns may have arisen diachronically from a generalizing of the danger to Moses in Exodus 2. The interpretation of Israel’s stay in Egypt as “oppression” and “suffering” (hn[ II / yn[) in Exodus 1, however, is an independent concept that must be distinguished especially from the politically oriented perspective in Deuteronomy, where 346. On the semantics, see HALOT 1:853. On hn[ II as its own root alongside hn[ I, see E. S. Gerstenberger, TDOT 11:231–32. 347. On the alleged special meaning of the phrase ≈rah ˆm hl[ (“go up from / move from the land”) in Exod 1:10 as “to take possession of the land” (see HALOT 1:828; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 32), see earlier Rupprecht, ZAW 82 (1970): 442–47; and Utzschneider, Atem, 68 n. 120. 348. Ibid., 49–50.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 218 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

218

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

the Israelites have been “slaves” (μydb[) in Egypt 349 (Deut 5:15; 6:21; 15:15; 24:18). 350 These two perspectives can certainly be connected with one another theologically, but each has its own emphasis. The view of Israel as “slaves” in Egypt corresponds to the characterization of the exodus as “liberation” (hdp in Deut 7:8; 9:26; 13:6; 15:15). 351 Over against this understanding of Deuteronomy, the prefacing of Exodus 1 before Exodus 2–15 brings a new understanding with it: 352 Israel’s situation in Egypt is not only politically precarious but it is also an existential and life-threatening emergency that cries out for salvation and deliverance. Leading the people out of Egypt is no longer (as in Deuteronomy) seen primarily as the liberation of Israel from slavery but as deliverance from death. The prominent accentuation of the “oppression” motif in Exodus 1 plays an important role in connecting Genesis and Exodus (and following), especially in the fixed terminology of the hn[ II / yn[ concept. This is further proven by the fact that hn[ II / yn[ is used not only in the linking passage of Exodus 1 but also in Genesis 15 and Exodus 3–4 (see Gen 15:13; Exod 3:7, 17; 4:31). 353 Related terms such as q[z/x, hq[z/x, and lxn (Hiphil), which were already modeled in P, 354 are used prominently in the redactional connection of Genesis and Exodus as well. q[z/x and hq[z/x as the “cry” and “shout” of the Israelites are found first in Exod 2:23 (P) as well as in Exod 14:10 (P), and then in Exod 3:7, 9.355 The use of lxn (Hiphil) as an act of God’s salvation first appears in the Passover/Unleavened Bread tradition (Exod 12:17) and likewise in P (Exod 6:6). It is accented in Exod 3:8 and 5:23, which is a literary satellite of Exodus *3–4, as well as in Exod 18:4, 8–10,356 and Josh 24:7 (see Judg 6:9). 357 In this context, note also the close relationship between this interpretation of the exodus and the recurring model of interpretation in Judges, the so-called “Deuteronomistic scheme of the Judges” (see q[z/x in Judg 3:9, 15; 4:3; 6:6–7; 10:10, 12, 14; lxn [Hiphil] 349. For the Neo-Assyrian conceptual background, see the references in Redford, “Sojourn,” 66 n. 32. 350. See H. Ringgren, TDOT 10:390. This view is also found in Exodus where only the verb db[ is used: Exod 1:13; 5:18; 6:5; 14:5, 12. See also hvq hdb[ in Exod 1:14; 2:23; 5:11; 6:6. To P belong: 1:13–14; 2:23; 6:5–6. One should also note the reference to Egypt as the “house of slavery” in Exod 13:3, 14; 20:2; Deut 5:6; 6:12; 8:14; 13:11; Josh 24:17; Jer 34:13; see Mic 6:4 (see Floss, Jahwe dienen, 56–63). 351. See H. Cazelles, TDOT 11:486–87. 352. See above, §2.4.3. 353. See H. H. Schmid, Jahwist, 25–26. 354. P can also speak of lag (redeem) in Exod 6:6, which elsewhere only appears in Exod 15:13 (see also Gen 48:16). 355. See the discussion of the examples in H. H. Schmid, Jahwist, 26–27 (but see Blum, Pentateuch, 32, with n. 17). Contra Hasel, who considers Exod 3:7, 9 to be J or E (Hasel, TDOT 4:120– 21), the use of q[z/x in the context of the exodus event does not come at the beginning, but at the end of the literary history of Exodus. The same should be noted for lxn in Exod 3:8; 5:23; and 18:10a, contra F. L. Hossfeld and B. Kalthoff, TDOT 5:574. 356. On Exodus 18 as a post-Priestly insertion and the connections to Exodus 3–4, see Blum, Pentateuch, 153–63, and below, §3.5.2 (pp. 233ff.). Blum suggests, however, quite a hypothetical explanation for Exodus 3–4 and Exodus 18 in terms of diachrony because of the assignment of Exodus 3–4 to Kd (p. 156). He names the difficulties himself (p. 156 n. 243). See Crüsemann’s critique of Blum as well (Crüsemann, Torah, 85–86 n. 168). 357. See also H. H. Schmid, Jahwist, 28; with Blum, Pentateuch, 32 n. 117.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 219 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Death of Joseph and the Oppression of Israel in Egypt

219

in 8:34; 9:17; 10:15): Israel’s salvation from Egypt forms a model in advance for the theme of salvation from the enemies in Judges. That is no coincidence given that the “Deuteronomistic scheme of the Judges” is most closely associated with Joshua 24.358 The epoch of the judges is a time of transition—between the conclusion of the salvation history narrated in Genesis–Joshua, which was forgotten in Israel according to Judg 2:10, and the monarchic period presented in Samuel–Kings as judgment history.

This concise perspective of Israel’s life-threatening situation and its deliverance in Exodus is strongly reminiscent of corresponding statements in Psalms, as well as in the prophetic books. Yhwh helps the “oppressed” and “suffering” out of their life threatening situation. He “saves” those threatened by death. It is possible that the use of hn[ II / yn[, (h)q[z/x, and lxn (Hiphil) in Exodus 1 and other texts was inspired by and borrowed from these statements in Psalms as well as in the prophetic books. At any rate, through these intertextual connections, a continuous line of reading is enabled: Israel’s situation in Egypt as life-threatening “oppression,” according to Exodus 1, finds an answer (in addition to the flow of the material from Genesis–2 Kings to Isaiah–Zechariah/Malachi) in the corresponding salvation statements in the prophetic corpus 359 and in the Psalter. 360 Yhwh had already saved Israel from “oppression” and “suffering” in Egypt, just as the prophets are promising for the future. This line is particularly prominent in Isaiah 40ff. 361 The oppressed/suffering (μyyn[h) and the poor (μynwybahw) seek water but there is none there. Their tongues are dry from thirst. I, Yhwh, will answer them (μn[a). The God of Israel will not leave them (Isa 41:17).—Rejoice, heavens, and be happy, earth! The mountains will break forth in rejoicing, for Yhwh comforts his people, and he has compassion (μjry) on his oppressed/suffering (wyn[w; Isa 49:13).—The spirit of the Lord Yhwh is upon me, because Yhwh has anointed me. He has sent me to bring good news (rcbl) to the oppressed/ suffering (μywn[), to heal the broken hearted. . . . (Isa 61:1)

Thus, the new exodus from Babylon is also described in Isaiah 40ff. as the salvation from death and protection of life (see examples such as Isa 43:16–21; 48:20–21; 49:7–13). 362 358. See above §3.3.2.c (pp. 199ff.) and Guillaume, Waiting. 359. Especially for the book of Amos, see the work of Levin, ZTK 94 (1997): 407–36. Levin dates the “anawim” revision of Amos to the third and second century (b.c.e.). However, the “theology of the poor” in the Hebrew Bible is not simply early apocalyptic, and thus it should be dated differently. 360. Concerning lxn (Hiphil) in the Psalter, see Barth, Errettung, 124–25, 143. One can support the idea that perhaps the Psalter was also viewed as “prophetic” before the formation of the Ketubim especially because of 11QPsa 27:11 (Psalms as hawbn), as well as 4Q174. The extensive use in the New Testament of “the law/Moses and the prophets” to designate the Hebrew Bible probably points in the same direction and subsumes the Psalms under the “prophets” (see the discussion in Stegemann, “Mitte,” 162 n. 45, 181 n. 127; Steck, Abschluss, 162–63, with n. 378 (bibliography); and most decisively, Barton, Oracles, 35–95. 361. See further in E. S. Gerstenberger, TDOT 11:234–35, 251; Levin, ZTK 94 (1997): 412–13, with n. 27. 362. Concerning the redaction-historical differentiation, see Kratz, Kyros, 217.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 220 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

220

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

From the perspective of Exodus 1, Israel is thus the prototype of the oppressed/ suffering ones, 363 to whom the prophetic books (Isa 14:32; 41:17; 49:13; 61:1–7; Zeph 2:3) and Psalms (Pss 10:2, 9; 35:10; 37:14; 72:12; 82:3; 140:13; etc.) promise salvation. Two further aspects of the connection between Genesis and Exodus in Exodus 1 are provided from the following observations. (1) The noticeable designation of l[rcy ynb μ[ in Exod 1:9, which Exod 1:10–12 continues to use but with singular suffixes, is found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible only in Exod 3:10 and Exod 7:4 (P). 364 In Exod 1:9, it can be explained by the fact, first, that it mediates between the l[rcy ynb in Genesis 37–50 and μ[ in Exodus (and following). It appears thereafter only twice—once in the divine command to Moses in Exod 3:10 to lead Israel out of Egypt and once in Exod 7:4 with the promise that God himself will now lead Israel out of Egypt. The fact that precisely these two passages speak about l[rcy ynb μ[ is motivated by the need to provide a sequence between Genesis and Exodus: it is the “people” “of the sons of Israel” emerging from the twelve tribes of Israel who depart from Egypt. Exod 3:10 and 7:4 highlight this fact in two crucial passages: in the first commission of Moses in Exodus 3–4, who does not even achieve permission for a three-day excursion into the wilderness, and whose failure is then narrated in Exodus 5; and in the subsequent promise in Exodus 6–7 that God himself will lead them. These sections correspond exactly to the concept of Exodus 3–6 from the perspective of Exodus 3–4. (2) The paradoxical statement in Exod 1:12 that the Israelites become more numerous as their oppression increases is linked poorly to Israel’s situation portrayed in Exodus 2 and 5. Exodus 2 and 5 draw the image of an enslaved and oppressed people; Exod 1:12 emphasizes the marvelous leadership of God that allows Israel to prosper even in times of oppression. The theme of divine guidance in history, however, is one of the central statements of Genesis 15, Exodus 3–4, and Joshua 24 with their concept of a grand history of judgment and salvation in Genesis–2 Kings that is continued in the promises of the prophets in Isaiah– Malachi.

c. The Exodus as Salvation from Death This new understanding of the exodus event as salvation from a life-threatening situation does not appear only in Exodus 1. Rather, as Weimar in particular has shown, Exodus 1 accentuates the themes of life and death as an introduction to the book of Exodus. 365 Consider the fact that the life-death theme in Exodus 1 (and following) may have developed logically from the closing sentence of the Joseph story in Gen 50:20 (“in order to keep alive a great people [br μ[]) 366—Exod 363. The theological connection is observable between Israel’s situation in Egypt and the prophetic promises to the poor and suffering in the LXX as well, where the “oppression” (hn[ II / yn[) in Egypt is described with theologically loaded expressions, such as tapeinovw (Gen 15:13; Exod 1:12) and ql∂yiÍ (Exod 4:31) along with kakovw / kavkwsiÍ (Gen 1:13; Exod 1:11; 3:7, 7). 364. The versions correct the singular suffixes to plural suffixes according to the sense. 365. See especially Weimar, BETL 126 (1996), 189–208; also Wicke, JSOT 24 (1982): 101–2; Isbell, “Exodus 1–2”; Weber, BN 55 (1990): 47–76; Willi-Plein, VT 41 (1991): 110–18; SiebertHommes, VT 42 (1992): 398–404; Davies, Israel. 366. See Davies, Israel, 179. On 50:20, see von Rad, ATD 2/4 355; K. Seybold, TDOT 5:238. Gen 50:20 was also received in the prophetic transmission (see Jer 29:11 and the discussion in Schmid, Buchgestalten, 228–29).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 221 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Death of Joseph and the Oppression of Israel in Egypt

221

1:20ba (μ[h bryw) appears to have had this connection in view and made it explicit. 367 From the outset, the threat to Israel’s life by the Egyptians is turned against the Egyptians themselves, while the Israelites are wondrously protected (see Exod 1:12, 15–21, 22; 2:6): Moses slays an Egyptian overseer (2:12); then the pharaoh wants to kill Moses (2:15), though he himself soon dies (2:23; see 4:19). Moses thus receives a commission from Yhwh to demand permission from the new pharaoh for Israel’s departure. If Pharaoh does not comply, Yhwh will kill Pharaoh’s firstborn (4:23). At the same time, the drudgery of the Israelites is sharpened to a life-threatening degree (5:21). Thereafter, the plague cycle follows, a cycle culminating in the death of the firstborn of the Egyptians (Exod 12:29–30). The Egyptians, fearing death, then drive Israel from their land (Exod 12:33). Pharaoh pursues Israel immediately, but this undertaking ends with the death of the Egyptians at the Sea of Reeds (14:30). Thus, a paradox shows up in the course of the presentation of Exodus that is similar to the miraculous multiplication of the Israelites despite the oppression in Exod 1:12: the deadly threat against the Israelites by the Egyptians is increasingly turned against the Egyptians themselves and ultimately leads to their own death. d. The Prophetic Psalm, Exodus 15, as the Conclusion of the Presentation of Salvation From what has been said above, it is no surprise that Exodus 1–15 concludes with a “psalm” that echoes the statements in Psalms and Isaiah 40ff.: the so-called Song of the Sea of Reeds in Exodus 15. 368 It is the first psalm “sung” within the presentation of Israel’s history, and appears to be an explication of the faith statement in Exod 14:30–31 (see [vy Hiphil in 14:30 and h[vy in the opening of 15:2). According to Exodus 15, Moses and the Israelites—who for once do not stand against one another but alongside one another 369—are the first psalm-singers; they thank God for their salvation with the Song of the Sea of Reeds. Thus, they have proclaimed their “faith.” The Psalter is thus to a certain extent rooted in the exodus event via its “firstborn,” the Song of the Sea of Reeds in Exodus 15. The close relationship of Exodus 15 with Psalms and Isaiah 40ff. is shown throughout in its formulations. The introduction hwhy hryva (“I will sing of Yhwh”) in Exod 15:1 immediately suggests corresponding Psalms passages such as Pss 13:6; 27:6; and 144:9, which thank Yhwh for his salvation from hardship and from mortal danger; but it also reminds us 367. See W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 18. 368. See, for example, Gosse, Hen 22 (2000): 3–34; Bartelmus, Festschrift Jeremias. Concerning the history of scholarship, see Houtman, Exodus 2, 240–47 (bibliography, p. 240). On the much discussed relationship of the “Song of the Sea” in Exod 15:1b–18 and the “Song of Miriam” in Exod 15:21b, see Zenger, VTSup 32 (1980), 453–54; Spieckermann, Heilsgegenwart, 99–103; Brenner, Song; Houtman, Exodus, 2:240–47; Gosse, BZ 37 (1993): 264–71; Tournay, RB 102 (1995): 522–31; Smith, Pattern, 203–26. 369. See Jacob, Exodus, 428 (elsewhere only in Num 26:4; Deut 4:46).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 222 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

222

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

of Isa 5:1 and 42:10. 370 The closest parallels to Exod 15:2 are Ps 118:14 (see 118:28)371 and Isa 12:2 (Isaiah 12 is also closely linked to the exodus statements in Isa 11:16).372 The term “salvation” (h[wvy) in Exod 15:2, which links back to Exod 14:13, seems to allude in particular to Isa 56:1 and Ps 98:2–3. 373 The designation of Yhwh as “warrior” (hmjlm vya) has its closest counterpart in Isa 42:13. 374 Speech about Yhwh’s “right hand” (Exod 15:4) is found frequently in the Psalter but also in places such as Isa 41:10.“Majesty” (ˆag) is only directly associated with Yhwh (dnag/wnag) in Exod 15:7 and Isa 2:10, 19, 21. 375 The question in Exod 15:11, “Who is like you among the gods, O Yhwh?” recalls Ps 89:7. In addition to Exod 15:6, 11, the expression rda (“glorify”) is found only in Isa 42:21. The term hlht (“glorious deed”) in Exod 15:11 belongs to the typical vocabulary of Psalms but frequently appears in Isaiah 40ff. (Isa 42:8, 10, 12; 43:21; 48:9; 60:6, 18; 61:3, 11; 62:7; 63:7). The “holy dwelling” in Exod 15:13 is also found in Ps 79:7 (see also Isa 27:10; Jer 10:25, 23:3), 376 and the redemption saying in Exod 15:13 has numerous parallels in Psalms and Isaiah 40ff. Israel’s neighbors in Exod 15:14–15—Philistia, Edom, and Moab—appear only in Ps 60:10 = 108:10. 377 Exod 15:14, 18 is closest to Ps 99:1 in wording. Exod 15:13, and 16–17 show close connections to Ps 74:2. Finally, ˚lmy hwhy in Exod 15:18 references the Yhwh kingship Psalms (Pss 93:1; 96:10; 97:1, etc.; see also Isa 24:23; 52:7). Outside Exod 15:18, this use of the imperfect is found only in Ps 146:10.378 In particular, Psalm 146 (once again) prominently contains the themes of life, death, and salvation from oppression.

Exodus 15 forms the counterpart to the interpretation of the exodus as salvation (h[wvy in 15:2) 379 from existential need in Exodus 1, which might have been inserted there in the wake of the merger of Genesis and Exodus (and following). The closeness of Exodus 15 to Exodus 1 also shows that Exodus 15 knows the sequence of ancestors–Exodus and in fact appears to be structured so as to show the big picture of salvation history. 380 Exodus 15 (in the mouth of Moses) mentions the “God of my father,” which noticeably recalls the first self-presentation of Yhwh in Exod 3:6. 381 Exod 15:3–10 reports the miracle at the Sea of Reeds; 15:13–17 previews the wilderness wandering (15:13), the conquest (15:13–16), and even the temple in Jerusalem (15:17).

370. See the comparative material in Gosse, BZ 37 (1993): 265–66. 371. See Brenner, Song, 62; Spieckermann, Heilsgegenwart, 96–97 n. 2. 372. See Brenner, Song, 59. Spieckermann believes Exod 15:2 is cited in Isa 12:2b and Ps 118:14, 28 (Heilsgegenwart, 96–97), but this evaluation depends upon his early dating of Exodus 15 (“preIsaianic,” 113). 373. See Gosse, Structuration, 90–92. 374. Gosse, BZ 37 (1993): 267, with n. 13. 375. Ibid., 269. 376. See Childs, OTL, 243, 246. 377. Spieckermann, Heilsgegenwart, 105. 378. Ibid., 109–10. 379. See J. F. Sawyer, TDOT 6:450–63. 380. See also, von Rad, Hexateuch, 10–11. Spieckermann is skeptical (Heilsgegenwart, 102–3 n. 2). 381. Contra associating “God of my father” with the patriarchs (see Spieckermann, Heilsgegenwart, 96–97 n. 2, see 102–3), Spieckermann considers it more of a general use of the expression in Exod 15:2. However, if Exodus 15 is not old but is instead only using archaic language, the salvationhistorical interpretation is quite possible.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 223 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Death of Joseph and the Oppression of Israel in Egypt

223

In this context, we should also explain the noticeable yiqtol forms in Exodus 15. 382 Usually, they are interpreted as present tense verbs or even preterites.383 However, this is not plausible syntactically. Specifically, for the statements after 15:14, which preview the conquest, a future understanding of the yiqtol forms is preferable. At the Sea of Reeds, Moses prophesies the military conquest of Israel. 384 Should the yiqtol forms in 15:2, 5, 7, 12 385 also be understood as prophecy —forms that all treat the theme of the destruction of the enemy? As older interpreters already determined, it is clear that Moses functions as a prophet in Exodus 15 as well as in Exodus 3–4. 386

It cannot and need not be decided here whether Exodus 15 was first incorporated with Exodus 1 and the synchronization of Genesis and Exodus or whether it is older. At any rate, it is questionable whether Exodus 15 ever existed independently of its current context, because it shows close connections to Exodus 14— connections that are too striking to be seen only as being the reason for placing Exodus 15 in its current location. 387 The fact that Exodus 15 is formed as a psalm should by no means argue against accepting it as being written into the context of a presentation of history. In fact, there are good reasons why this is so. Already Moses and Israel thanked Yhwh for their deliverance from Egypt with a psalm. The connection between the ancestors and the Exodus (see 15:2) in Exodus 15 seems to be a presupposition. This also speaks in favor of its being a redactional text. Furthermore, the idea of leading Israel to Zion in Exodus 15 has a counterpart in the promise to Abraham in Gen 15:16 that he will return “here” (to Jerusalem). The statement that “Exodus 15 in no way presupposes knowledge of the Priestly writing” 388 is not very convincing, 389 given the similarity of the idea of the “accumulation” (μr[ Niphal) of the water into a “wall” (dn) in Exod 15:8 and the presentation of the miracle at the Sea of Reeds in P, which reckons with a wall (hmj) of water (Exod 14:22, 29), as well as the lag theme introduced in Exod 15:13 (see Exod 6:6 P). The precise date of Exodus 15 remains debated, however. 390 At any rate, no matter how one decides the matter, even if Exodus 15 did not arise at the 382. See the discussion in Houtman, Exodus, 2:244. 383. See Spieckermann, Heilsgegenwart, 98–99, 111–12. See also Cross, Song, 125. 384. The perfect forms in 15:16–17 pose no problems; however, the perfect and imperfect forms next to one another in 15:14–15 are difficult. 385. The imperfect forms in 15:9 are a quotation. 386. See Houtman, Exodus, 2:242. 387. See, for example, h[wvy (14:13; see [vy in 14:30; 15:2); hmjlm (14:14, 25 / 15:3); hsk (14:28 / 15:5, 10); jwr (14:21 / 15:8, 10); πdr (14:4, 8–9, 23 / 15:9); tbkrm (14:25 / 15:4); lyj (14:4 / 15:4); vylv (14:7 / 15:4). See Houtman, Exodus, 2:243. 388. Spieckermann, Heilsgegenwart, 112 n. 53; see Childs, OTL, 45. 389. See Schmidt, EdF 191 (1983), 66–67, with n. 94; Strauss, ZAW 97 (1985): 106, with n. 18. 390. Concerning the problem of dating, see the overview by Houtman, Exodus, 2:241–43. Spieckermann’s suggestion for dating (Heilsgegenwart, 113: “post-Solomonic and pre-Isaianic”; see also Williamson, Book, 124 n. 20) is, in all probability placed too early, as are the suggestions of Gosse, BZ 37 (1993): 271 (“preexilic dating”; see the critique of Fischer, Bib 77 [1996]: 40) and Smith, Pattern, 223 (“tenth- or ninth-century”; see also Cross, Song, 121–22). For rationales, see the connections to P in Van Seters, Life, 147 (“late postexilic composition”); Brenner, Song, 177 (after 444 b.c.e.); see also Zenger, VTSup 32 (1980), 456–58; Schmidt, EdF 191 (1983), 66 (after P); Tournay, RB 102 (1995): 531.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 224 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

224

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

same time as Exodus 1, this prophetic psalm forms a very appropriate conclusion to the presentation of the exodus from the perspective of Exodus 1. 391

3.5. Redaction-Historical Contours of the Literary Connection of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story 3.5.1. A Unified Redaction? At the beginning of chap. 3, we saw that the texts that create a redactional connection between the ancestors and the exodus, need not form a single literary layer. The existence of P (e.g., Exod 6:2–8) and non-P parenthetical passages (e.g., Exod 3:1–4:18) between these two texts shows clearly that we should consider multi-staged processes of connection regardless of whether P is considered independent or not. An exhaustive image of the connecting elements between Genesis and Exodus would amount to characterizing the entire post-Priestly redaction history of the Pentateuch (at least). This cannot and should not be done here. Therefore, I will investigate the connections between Genesis and Exodus that have appeared above (Genesis 15; Exod 3:1–4:18 [hereafter Exodus *3–4]; Joshua 24; and Gen 50:25– 26 through Exodus 1). How do they relate to one another, and how should they be classified historical-critically and theologically? The simplest classification of the three chief texts connecting Genesis and Exodus—that is, Genesis 15; Exodus *3–4; and Joshua 24—is presented by Van Seters, for whom they are all texts central to his exilic J. 392 For the context of Genesis 15 393 and Exodus *3–4, Blum’s Kd is comparable with Van Seters’ J. Joshua 24, however, is set later than Kd by Blum. 394 For Levin, Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, and Joshua 24 scarcely have anything to do with one another in terms of diachrony. For him, Genesis 15 is a post-Priestly text.395 Exod 3:1–4:18 is divided into small sections, 396 as is Joshua 24, although in its earliest form it “already” reaches into the sixth century.397 This conclusion, however, depends upon Levin’s specific redaction-historical image: apart from the Yahwist, there are hardly any overarching redactional layers in the Tetrateuch and beyond. The view of recent scholarship—that Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, and Joshua 24 are related textual units—has its counterpart in the older view of the Documentary Hypothesis. The 391. See also the relationship between Exodus 15 and Joshua 24 noted by Cross, even if he evaluates it quite differently (Cross, Song, 134). As with Exodus 15, the same is true of the Song of Hannah in 1 Sam 2:1–10, which is thematically closely related to Exodus 15 and is also concerned with life and death (2:6). Has this psalm been conceived as the introduction to the monarchic period, as Exodus 15 has been conceived as the conclusion of the exodus? 392. Concerning Joshua 24 as the conclusion of J, see Van Seters, Search, 336–37; idem, Festschrift Ahlström. 393. For Blum, Genesis 15 is, however, not literarily unified (Vätergeschichte, 378–79). He separates 15:9–11, 13–16, 19–21 as additions. 394. Blum, Vätergeschichte, 45–61; idem, Pentateuch, 363; idem, Festschrift Brekelmans, 197, 202 (later than the “Priestly edited Pentateuch narrative”); idem, “Connection.” 395. Levin, Jahwist, 151; idem, Festschrift Kaiser; but differently in idem, Verheissung, 247–48. 396. Idem, Jahwist, 326–33. 397. Idem, Verheissung, 116.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 225 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Literary Connection of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story

225

older view generally classified these texts as “Jehovistic.” Sometimes it also allocated them to J and/or E. The more recent discussion, however, has become increasingly reserved with respect to a source designation. Genesis 15 has emancipated itself as a separate “Deuteronomistic” piece of tradition. Noth and others saw Exod 3:1–4:18 as an “addition” to J. 398 Joshua 24, as a non-tetrateuchal text, was also no longer coordinated with the ancient source documents but with Deuteronomism in the aftermath of Noth. Thus, these texts show certain similarities to one another because Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, and Joshua 24 could not plausibly be classified within the classic sources. This suggests that Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, and Joshua 24 are not directly concerned with the constitution of their respective contexts.

Older and more recent treatments generally agree that Genesis 15, Exodus *3– 4, Joshua 24, and Gen 50:25–Exodus 1 (including the traditional P material in Exodus 1) should be identifed as pre-Priestly in historical terms. In my opinion, one needs to break with this consensus. As already presented in detail, these texts show clear signs of post-Priestly origins. 399 For Genesis 15, this can be shown primarily by its comparison with Genesis 17 (P). For Exodus *3–4, it is shown by comparison with Exod 6:2–8 (P) and 7:1–13 (P), as well as on the basis of the connection of Exodus 3 to Exod 2:23ab–25 (P). In Joshua 24, we can recognize the narrative of the miracle of the sea in Exodus 14, including its P components, as presupposed. 400 The framework of Exodus 1 presupposes the P statement in Exod 1:7. Therefore, it is not very convincing to postulate pre-Priestly elements in Exodus 1. However, post-Priestly origin is a vague marker of redactional proximity between Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, Joshua 24, and Gen 50:25–Exodus 1 and by no means indicates a literarily unified redactional layer. However, the evidence for commonalities between these texts can be substantiated further. (1) Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, and Joshua 24 each present a hexateuchal portrait of history. It is especially noteworthy that Genesis 15 and Joshua 24 both know and name the Mesopotamian origin of Abraham: 401

Genesis 15

Mesopotamia Ancestors

Egyptian Sojourn

Exodus

15:7

15:4–5

15:13

15:14,16

3:6,16

3:7,9,16–17

3:10,12,16

24:3a

24:3b,4

24:5–7

Exodus *3–4 Joshua 24

24:2

Sinai

Conquest 15:18–21

3:12401

3:17 24:8–13

398. Noth, HPT, 30 n. 103. 399. For Genesis 15, see Römer, DBAT 26 (1989/90): 32–47; idem, Transeu 7 (1994): 107–21; Ha, Genesis 15, 205–6. For Exodus 3, see Otto, TRu 62 (1997): 11. For Joshua 24, we should mention the suggestions of Mayes, Blum, Becker, O’Brien, Römer, Anbar, and others, all of whom see this chapter as post-Deuteronomistic. Since Joshua 24 does not appear in the Pentateuch, determining the relationship to P has generally not been done, but see the recent work of Blum, who places Joshua 24 after the incorporation of P into the Pentateuch (Festschrift Brekelmans, 196–97, 202). 400. See Josh 24:6–7 and its counterparts in Exod 14:4, 9–10, 17–18, 23, 26, 28. 401. See section (4) below (p. 229).

watch out for hidden note

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 226 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

226

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

Of course, there are other texts in Genesis–Joshua that present this view of history. In addition to the uncertain example of Exodus 15 (see above, §3.4.2.d, pp. 221ff.), one should mention Num 20:14–17 and Deut 26:5–9. But they can be skipped over because they include no central compositional function for the context of the historical books. The stations of history that are shown here, in part, also rely upon one another linguistically or in the details of the content. Contrary to Gen 11:31, the departure of Abraham and his family from Mesopotamia is interpreted as God’s act in Gen 15:7 and Josh 24:2. In Gen 11:31, Terah “took” (jqyw) Abraham and his relatives, and “they moved . . . from Ur of the Chaldeans” (μydck rwam μta 402 waxyw). By contrast, Yhwh “took” (jqaw) Abraham in Josh 24:2 403 or, in Gen 15:7, “led” him “out from Ur of the Chaldeans” (μydck rwam ˚ytaxwh). Genesis 15 and Joshua 24 also are close to one another in respect to the promise of progeny and its fulfillment. In Gen 15:3, Abraham laments that Yhwh has not “given” (httn al) him “seed” ([rz). He then receives a promise from Yhwh of a biological son, as well as numerous descendants (ˆ[rz; in 15:4, 5–6). The same combination of a son’s biological descendants and numerical increase is found in Josh 24:3b: Yhwh “increased” (bra) 404 Abraham’s seed (w[rz) and “gave” (ˆtaw) Isaac as a son. The oppression in Egypt is expressed in Gen 15:13 using db[ and hn[ II. In Exod 3:7, 17 (see Exod 4:31), we again encounter yn[, while Joshua 24 does not include the theme of the oppression. We have seen (§3.4.2) that hn[ II and yn[ are used with particular poignancy in Exodus 1 and that the exodus event is no longer understood (primarily) as political liberation from slavery (so Deuteronomy), but as salvation from a life-threatening situation. 405 Gen 15:14 portrays the “departure” from Egypt using axy (Qal) and bwv in Gen 15:16. Exod 3:10 and 12 use axy (Hiphil), while hl[ (Hiphil) appears in Exod 3:16; Josh 24:5b, 6a twice uses axy (Hiphil). Gen 15:14 also appears to allude to the plagues (ˆd), 406 which appear explicitly in Exod 3:20 and Josh 24:5. Also Gen 15:14b and Exod 3:21–22 know the motif of the robbing of the Egyptians. In addition, Josh 24:6–7 portrays the miracle of the sea and also mentions the wandering in the wilderness. In the delineation of the promised land, Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, and Joshua 24 all present lists of the previous inhabitants, but they are not entirely congruent. 407 402. Concerning the form, see BHS; Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 132–33. 403. So also in Gen 24:7 (see Koopmans, Joshua 24, 317). 404. Concerning the form, see GK §75gg. 405. The use of db[ and hn[ in Gen 15:13 does not argue against connecting Genesis 15 with Exodus 1 and 3. Rather, Gen 15:13 suggests that here the political perspective of Deuteronomy is also being prepared along with the perspective of Exodus 1. 406. It is suggested by Gen 15:4b (“afterwards, they will depart with many possessions”) that Gen 15:4a does not use ˆd for the miracle of the sea and the destruction of the Egyptians. 407. See the overview in Ishida, Bib 60 (1979): 461–90.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 227 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

hidden note call The Literary Connection of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story

ynyq Genesis 15

19

yznq ynmdq 19

19

ytj

yzrp μyapr

20

20

Exodus 3

8, 17

Joshua 24

11

20

ymra

yn[nk yvgrg

227

yswby

ywh

21

21

21

21

8, 17

8, 17

8, 17

[408]

8, 17

8, 17

11

8, 11, 11 12, 15, 18

11

11

11

408

The delineations in Exod 3:8 and 3:17 are identical. 409 The account of Josh 24:11 is closely related except for the element of the yvgrg and a different sequence, while the ten-member list of Genesis 15 is unique in the Hebrew Bible. 410 Joshua 24 differs from Genesis 15 (but see 15:16–discussion below) and from Exodus *3– 4 in that it designates the conquered land as the “land of the Amorites” ( Josh 24:8, 12; see 24:15, 18). Exodus *3–4 speaks specifically of a “good and spacious” (3:8) “land flowing with milk and honey” (3:8, 17), while the distinctiveness of Genesis 15 lies in the expanse of the promised land “from the river of Egypt 411 to the great river, the Euphrates.” The fact that there is not agreement here does not point to literary heterogeneity. Rather, the different descriptions of the land can be explained by the respective “salvation-historical stations” of the three texts. In Gen 15:18–21, the immense geographical size of the promised land is important because Abraham has just been promised innumerable descendants (15:5–6). Qualifying the land as “good and spacious” and “flowing with milk and honey” in Exod 3:8, 17 responds to the situation of oppression in Egypt. The designation “land of the Amorites” in Josh 24:8, 12 highlights the practical problems of its capture. The “Amorite” theme is foreshadowed in Genesis 15. Gen 15:16 establishes that the return to the land in the fourth generation is because “the guilt of the Amorites was not yet complete.” This means that the punishment of the Amorites of the land will first occur with the generation of the conquest. 412

(2) The respective protagonists Abraham, Moses, and Joshua are clearly characterized as prophets. The word from the Lord in Gen 15:14, the catchword hzjm (“vision”), and the disclosure of the future in 15:13–16 show Abraham to be a

408. The LXX also reads “and the Girgashites” in Exod 3:8, 17 and thus agrees not only with Deut 7:1 (Stemberger, Hermeneutik, 57) but also with Genesis 15; Josh 3:10, and 24:11. The LXX adds the Girgashites also in Exod 23:23; 33:2; 34:11; Deut 20:17; and Josh 9:1 (see Houtman, Exodus, 1:104). Concerning the Girgashites, see Görg, BN 28 (1985): 7–14. 409. Concerning Exod 3:8, 17, see the lists in Exod 23:23; 33:2; 34:11; Deut 20:17; Josh 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; Judg 3:5 (see Houtman, Exodus, 1:104). 410. See the discussion in Blum, Vätergeschichte, 379–80 n. 125. 411. There is no reason to change μyrxm rhn to μyrxm lhn (see the review in ibid., 382 n. 137). 412. See Ishida, Bib 60 (1979): 466–67 (bibliography, n. 8); Koopmans, Joshua 24, 444–49; Görg, NBL 1, 90–91; Houtman, Exodus, 1:104–5 (bibliography); see also Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 254–55; Van Seters, Abraham, 20–23. Contrary to the theory of a correlation of the “Amorites” with the amurru (Kreuzer, Frühgeschichte, 208–12), see Blum, Festschrift Brekelmans, 201 n. 85.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 228 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

228

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

prophet. 413 Quite similarly, the future is told to Moses in Exod 3:18–22. 414 Further, Exodus *3–4 shows notable parallels with the call of Jeremiah, in particular, but also those of Isaiah 415 and Ezekiel. And Moses’ commission is thoroughly prophetic in nature (see jlv in Exod 3:10, 12, 14; 3:19–22). 416 Finally, Joshua begins his review of history with the prophetic messenger formula: “Thus says Yhwh, the God of Israel. . . .” This commonality should be explained as follows. Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, and Joshua 24 serve as connectors between Genesis and Exodus (and following). Simultaneously, they establish a hexateuchal thread that presents the conquest in Joshua as a fulfillment of the promises to the ancestors in Genesis. Thus, Genesis–Joshua is set off from Judges–2 Kings as salvation history. As a whole, the history presented in Genesis–2 Kings moves toward an ending without salvation. This ending of the history of salvation and judgment is compensated by the corpus propheticum that follows in the canon. In the prophetic books, one can read about the future of the Israel of the historical books. For this reason, the central figures of Israel’s salvation history, Abraham, Moses, and Joshua, are described as prophets. 417 By borrowing from Isaiah 7, Genesis 15 connects Abraham with Isaiah especially. Additionally, the three ancestors and the twelve sons of Jacob in Genesis 15 correspond with the three major prophets and the twelve minor prophets. 418 In terms of content, the statements about salvation for the “oppressed”/ “suffering” (μynw[) in the prophetic books, especially as they appear in Second Isaiah, can be understood in the same context as texts such as Genesis 15, Exodus 1, and Exodus 3. This intertextual network states that Yhwh will save Israel in the same way that he once saved them from Egypt. In the context of the crafting of Abraham, Moses, and Joshua as prophets, we should also point out that Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, and Joshua 24 exhibit significant portions of direct speech. Early on, using the example of the Deuteronomistic History, scholars saw that redactional elements often are shaped as speeches and prayers.419 Recently, Hardmeier, in particular, has called attention to the significance of direct speech in the strategy of narratives. 420 By the addition of direct speech, narratives can be adjusted considerably in terms of content without having to change the structure of the action completely. Of course, the contents receive particular weight in these passages in Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, and Joshua 24 in that they are concerned with either a divine speech or a prophetic speech. 413. The only explicit mention of Abraham as “prophet” in Gen 20:7 does not appear in the context of a divine revelation to Abraham. Rather, Abraham is called “prophet” there because of his intercessory function. 414. Concerning the inner relationship of Exod 3:18–22 and Gen 15:13–16, see L. Schmidt, Exegese, 235–36, with n. 50 (for him, the “final redaction of the Pentateuch”). 415. This line is expanded further in the Midrash; see Wünsche, Lehrhallen I, 65–66. 416. Recall also the prophetic function of Moses in Exodus 15 (see above, §3.4.2.d). 417. Greenberg and Blum refer to Amos 3:7 for this prophetic understanding of Exod 3:18–22 (Greenberg, Exodus, 86; Blum, Pentateuch, 33). See also Ben Zvi, SJOT 12 (1998): 26–43. 418. See Blenkinsopp, Prophecy, 120–21; Steck, Abschluss, 134. 419. See paradigmatically, Plöger, “Reden.” 420. Hardmeier, Prophetie, 56–57; see Carr, Reading, 172–73.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 229 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Literary Connection of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story

229

(3) Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, and Joshua 24 coincide with one another in their critique of kingship. This is immediately recognizable in Exodus 1, but it is also particularly clear in Joshua 24. By shaping the choice of Yhwh as the God of Israel in the form of a choice of king, 421 the monarchic period that follows appears on the whole as history of judgment. However, Genesis 15 also provides a fundamental critique of kings. The Abrahamic covenant with its promise of descendants in 15:4 (˚y[mm axy rva) literally anticipates the dynastic promise to David in 2 Sam 7:12. 422 It thereby transfers the divine support for the Davidides to Abraham and his descendants. The ancestor Abraham thus appears in place of the king. In fact, he can be addressed in Genesis 15 exactly as a king would be addressed. 423 Additionally, Abraham the believer appears to be characterized in Genesis 15 as a positive counterpart to King Ahaz in Isaiah 7. Finally, as in Exodus 1–15 as a whole in its present form, Exodus *3–4 is oriented against the institution of kingship. Moses is deployed as the antagonist to Pharaoh, who for his part is characterized parallel to Solomon. The opening scene of the call of Moses shows notable parallels to Jeremiah 1—perhaps not accidentally, it is parallel to the call report of the prophet in whose book one finds the sharpest complaints against kings (see especially Jer 23:1–23:2) and accusations regarding forced labor and despotism (see Jer 22:13–19). 424 This perspective of Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, Joshua 24, and Exodus 1 is connected with the overall orientation of Genesis–2 Kings as already described. If the monarchic period as the monarchic period is to be judgment history, then it is only to be expected that advance negative references to it will be found in the central texts in Genesis–Joshua. And it is only to be expected that these texts will allude to corresponding critical statements in the prophetic books (e.g., Isaiah 7; Jeremiah 21–23). 425 (4) Genesis 15 and Exodus *3–4 agree in that both offer a “prolepsis of Sinai.” 426 In Genesis 15 the notions of theophany and covenant are used from the Sinai pericope. And Exodus *3–4 takes place on the mountain of God on which 421. Levin, Verheissung, 116. 422. Ibid., 253; and above, §3.2.1.e. 423. See as parallel, BºLSMYN’s address to King ZKR (see KAI 202, 13). 424. Is the concrete form of the messenger formula in Josh 24:2 (larcy yhla hwhy rma hk) borrowed from Jeremiah? Except for Isa 37:21, it is found in the prophetic books only in Jeremiah (11:3; 13:12; 21:4; 23:2; 24:5; 25:15; 30:2; 32:36; 34:2, 13; 37:7; 42:9; 45:2); see Koopmans, Joshua 24, 305 with nn. 190, 193. 425. A certain relativization of the royal critique for the coming period of salvation is provided if one treats the preview of Ezekiel in Gen 50:25 (considered above in §3.4.1, pp. 214ff.) as intentional. If it is true that the carrying of Joseph’s bones from Egypt to Palestine (Gen 50:25 / Exod 13:19 / Josh 24:32) has its rationale in the idea that the bones of Joseph will again be resurrected according to Ezekiel 37, in the sense of a restitution of all Israel (see §3.4.1), then by all appearances the promise to David is activated in Ezek 37:24–25. Nevertheless, Ezekiel 37 does not treat just any king but is concerned with the return of David himself. 426. See also the exclusivity of the formulation in Gen 15:18 / Josh 24:25, to which Anbar points (Anbar, BN 86 [1997]: 5).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 230 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

230

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

Moses receives, not the law (yet), but the revelation of salvation history, as it was already communicated to Abraham in Genesis 15. Exod 3:12 even refers explicitly in advance to the later sojourn of Israel at Sinai, although it states rather enigmatically that Israel “will serve (db[) God on (l[) this mountain.” 427 Above all, it is noteworthy that the events on Sinai have been downgraded in Exod 3:12 to a “sign” (twa). From all of this, we can deduce that Genesis 15 and Exodus *3–4 presuppose and accept the Sinai pericope, although in a somewhat distanced sense (is this why Sinai is missing in the historical review of Joshua 24?). It is ultimately not the giving of the law on Sinai that decides Israel’s relationship to God but God’s plan of history, which the prophets know. 428 Therefore, like the structuring of Genesis–2 Kings as a whole, Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, and Joshua 24 aim at and anticipate the corpus propheticum understood as a prophecy of world history. 429 This does not mean, however, that the redaction that connected Genesis and Exodus (and following) was critical of the law. On the contrary, note the prominent borrowing from the Decalogue, especially the first commandment, in Gen 15:7, and especially in Josh 24:2, 16, 19–20, and 23, 430 with their focus on foreign gods. Theologically, the orientation of these texts to the Decalogue is quite understandable if we recognize that the laws of both Sinai and Deuteronomy can only be observed to their full extent in the land: the laws of sacrifice and the command to centralize the cult presuppose Israel’s existence in its land. By contrast, Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, and Joshua 24 know of an expansive diaspora and recognize that the Decalogue can be observed wherever one sojourns. The fact that Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, and Joshua 24 address Israel in its diaspora existence conforms to some important salvific promises of the prophetic books, toward which the content of this history of salvation and judgment flows in Genesis– 2 Kings. These books likewise focus in many places on the Babylonian or Egyptian golah (for a selection, see Isa 11:11–16; 27:12–13; 35; 43:16–21; 48:20–21; 52:11–12; 60–62; Jer 3:12–18; 16:14–15; 23:3, 7–8; 24; 29:10–14; 30:10–11; 31:7–14; 32:37; Ezek 11:16–20; 33:24–28; 39:25–29; Amos 9:14–15; Zeph 3:14–20; Zech 8:7–8). (5) Genesis 15 and Exodus *3–4 are connected through the theme of “faith.” In Gen 15:6, Abraham believes Yhwh; in Exodus *3–4 the same theme is treated, 427. See Exod 4:23; 7:16, 26. “Surprisingly, the formulation does not allow one to trace any of the limitations that the Sinai pericope formulates. May Israel as a whole honor God ‘on’ the mountain?” (W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/2 130). Is Exod 3:12 focusing only on the Decalogue, which was announced to all Israel? 428. See Gen 15:13–16, Exod 3:18–22, and Amos 3:7. From here, we should once again consider the righteousness of Abraham, which in Gen 15:6 depends upon his “faith,” whereby Genesis 15 falls into line with Deut 6:25, 24:12–13. Here, righteousness is coupled with observance of the law. 429. See the discussion in my Buchgestalten, 356–60. 430. Compare “I am Yhwh, who led you out of Ur-Kasdim” in Gen 15:7 with Exod 20:2 and the parallel in Deut 5:6. Compare serving “other gods” in Josh 24:2, 16, and 23 with Exod 20:3 and the parallel in Deut 5:7. Compare “jealous God” (awnq la) and guilt ([vp; twafj) in Josh 24:19 with Exod 20:5 and the parallel in Deut 5:10 (anq la; ˆw[).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 231 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Literary Connection of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story

231

except with the change that Yhwh is no longer the God of individual ancestors of Israel but is the God of Israel, who communicates with his people through Moses. Therefore, in Exod 4:15 the problem of the “faith” of Israel appears with respect to Moses, a problem that is successfully resolved by response to the signs (see Exod 4:31). The theme is taken up again in the miracle at the sea (14:31) and at Sinai (19:9). The promises are fulfilled with the conquest, and the salvation history is concluded. Hence, it should not be surprising that the pentateuchal theme of “faith ” is continued in the books of the Former Prophets by the concept of “serving,” which takes center stage in Joshua 24, which prepares us for the subsequent material. Attestations of the verb db[ with the object hwhy (25x) are concentrated in (1) Joshua 24 (8x) and (2) Judges 2–1 Samuel 12 (9x). 431 After Yhwh fulfilled his promises in which Israel “believed,” it falls to Israel to “serve” him, but Joshua already knows ( Josh 24:19–20) that this will not succeed. So from Judges onward, the history of judgment runs its course. (6) In Gen 50:25–26 and Exodus 1, particularly, the theme of life and death goes along with the connection between Genesis and Exodus (and probably derived from the quintessential theme of the Joseph story in Gen 50:20). 432 Thus the exodus is seen as salvation from death. The life-threatening situation of the Israelites in Exodus 1 has its counterpart in the death of the firstborn in Egypt in 11:5 and in the destruction of the Egyptians in the crossing of the sea in 14:30. Yhwh’s action toward Israel is characterized as a saving of life that accompanies the destruction of the enemies. The perspective of life begun in Gen 50:25–26 + Exodus 1 extends even further. It not only concerns salvation from “oppression” (hn[ II / yn[) in Egypt but also points forward to the possible restitution of “Joseph” and “Judah” as all Israel in Ezekiel 37. 433 It also points forward to the salvation statements addressed to the “oppressed” that are frequently formulated as salvation from death in the prophetic books and Psalms. The special accent on life and death in Gen 50:25–26 + Exodus 1 is also present in Joshua 24 through the series of statements about the carrying of Joseph’s bones in Gen 50:25 / Exod 13:19 / Josh 24:32. In Genesis 15, the promise of a peaceful death (and burial) for Abraham in his old age (Gen 15:15) is stressed and the theme of descendants is highlighted. Like Joseph and Joshua, Abraham receives a special burial. (7) The self-presentation of God in Gen 15:7 and Exod 3:6 is shaped reciprocally. God presents himself in the ancestral story of Abraham as Yhwh, but to Moses he presents himself as “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” The divine name Yhwh in the Moses/Exodus Story 434 is thereby an431. See G. Schmitt, Landtag, 17; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 51. 432. See K. Seybold, TDOT 5:238. 433. See above, §3.4.1. 434. See Exod 3:13–15; 6:2–3. Within Genesis–Deuteronomy, the designation larcy yhla hwhy (“Yhwh, the God of Israel”) appears only in Exodus (5:1; 32:27; 34:23), but it appears often in Joshua–2 Kings (see Koopmans, Joshua 24, 310).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 232 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

232

chored in the ancestor story; and conversely, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” is thereby anchored in the Moses/Exodus story. Thus, the two programmatic texts of Genesis 15 and Exodus 3–4 together link the ancestor story and the Moses/Exodus story: Ancestor Story

Moses/Exodus Story

Gen 15:7

Exod 3:6

“I am Yhwh”

“I am the God of Abraham . . .”

(8) Both Gen 15:14 and Exod 3:21–22 contain the motif of the “robbing of the Egyptians,” which is later expanded narratively in Exod 11:2–3 and 12:35– 36. 435 The events in Exodus 32–34, which presuppose the possession of jewelry, are prepared for by the “robbing” of the Egyptians. 436 There may be more significance to the motif, however. Israel should not leave Egypt “with empty hands,” which was also true according to Deut 15:13 when a Hebrew slave was released. 437 The intervention of Yhwh for his people thus has a certain ambivalence. To be sure, Israel gains a certain degree of wealth, but this becomes a catastrophe for Israel. This ambivalence is repeated in a related manner in Joshua 24. Israel commits itself to Yhwh (with consequences), and this same commitment eventuates in Israel’s destruction. (9) The formulation wbrqb ytyc[ rvak in Josh 24:5 (which in this context means Yhwh striking Egypt) clearly refers back exclusively to Exod 3:20 (rva wbrqb hc[a). Exod 3:20 and Josh 24:5 are thus connected by way of promise and fulfillment. (10) In terms of composition technique, Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, and Joshua 24 exhibit comparable markers. All three texts are special elements in their immediate context. They all interrupt the reading context of the surrounding pieces and “duplicate” their respective scenes: the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 15 anticipates that of Genesis 17; the call of Moses in Exodus *3–4 anticipates that of Exodus 6; and Joshua’s departing speech in Joshua 24 repeats Joshua 23. All these clues suggest with high probability that Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, Joshua 24, and Gen 50:25–Exodus 1 are components of a single redactional layer, a layer that is focused on connecting Genesis and Exodus (and following). This 435. Contrary to Blum (Pentateuch, 18–19), Exod 3:21–22 should not be seen on the same literary level as Exod 11:2–3 and 12:35–36. Rather, the motif in Exod 11:2–3 is introduced as though Exod 3:21–22 is unknown. See also Gertz, Tradition, 394–96, but with another proposal. 436. See W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 181. In particular, Exod 3:22ba (> 11:2–3; 12:35–36) previews Exod 32:2 (see Blum, Pentateuch, 18–19 n. 38, 54 n. 38). 437. See Jacob, MGWJ 68 (1924): 285–86; Greenberg, Exodus, 86–87; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 181; Blum, Pentateuch, 33–34, with n. 124. Differently: Coats, VT 18 (1968): 452 n. 2.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 233 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Literary Connection of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story

233

connection establishes for the first time the current view of history in Genesis– 2 Kings by means of the sequence of salvation history and judgment history. 3.5.2. Other Textual Pieces Alongside the key texts of Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, and Joshua 24, and the literary bridge of Gen 50:25–26–Exodus 1 (including Gen 50:8b, 14, which remakes the Joseph story into an Eisodus tradition [see above, §2.1.1.a, pp. 50ff.]), other textual pieces are directly connected with Exod 3:1–4:18. These include Exod 4:21–23; 4:27–31; and 5:22–6:1, which essentially serve as links with and offsets for the subsequent plague cycle. This is easy to recognize from the details. Exod “4:21–23 apparently has the function of harmonizing the miracle that is mentioned in 4:1–9 with the miracles of the plague tradition.” 438 Schmidt refers to 4:21–23 as a “post-Priestly redaction.”439 It is even clearer that 4:27–31 is a redactional linking text that depends on Exod 3:1–4:18 in that it “connects two different realms together, the mountain of God and Egypt. It concludes the call narrative and transitions to the future events in another region.”440 Kessler remarks correctly: “4:27–31 is not an independent pericope. The verses are only understandable in light of the passages that they allude to (besides 3:16–18a, this means 4:1–9 and 4:13–16).” 441 3:16

˚l larcy ynqz ta tpsaw . . . trmaw 3:18 . . . ˚lql w[mvw 3:16 . . . μkta ytdqp dqp . . . 3:7 ym[ yn[ ta ytyar har 3:17 . . . μyrxm yn[m μkta hl[a . . .

4:29

ˆwrhaw hvm ˚lyw larcy ynb ynqz lk ta rpsayw 4:30 . . . ˆwrha rbdyw 4:31 w[mvw μ[h ˆmayw larvy ynb ta hwhy dqp yk μyn[ ta har ykw

Theologically, 4:31 is significant because it refers to the “faith” of the people. This stands in full accord with the intent of Exodus 3–4, which is to reveal the subsequent salvationhistorical events so that the rescue from Egypt is discernible as salvation history. Therefore, the faith of “Israel,” especially before Exodus 7–12, is a necessary complement to Exod 3:1–4:18. Finally, Exod 4:31, like Exodus 3–4, shows that knowledge of Genesis is presupposed. The word pair hwjtvhw ddq (to bow low and to prostrate oneself ) in 4:31bb 438. Kessler, Querverweise, 198. Exod 4:21–23 is shaped so that it corresponds linguistically to the plague narrative: hvm la hwhy rmayw 7:14, 26; 8:16; 9:1, 13; 10:1 h[rp la trmaw see 7:16, 26; 8:16; 9:(1,) 13 hwhy rma hk 7:17, 26; 8:16; 9:1, 13; 10:3 yndb[yw ynb ta jlv see 7:16, 26; 8:16; 9:1, 13; 10:3 See Kessler, Querverweise, 197; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 212; concerning the stereotypes in the plagues, see H. H. Schmid, Jahwist, 45. 439. W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 211–12. 440. Ibid., 235. 441. Kessler, Querverweise, 193; see also Blum, Pentateuch, 13.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 234 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

234

appeared last in Gen 43:28 442 in the encounter between Joseph and his brothers, so that the scenes in Genesis 43 and Exodus 4 act as the external brackets for the connection between Genesis 50 / Exodus 1. Another satellite to Exodus 3–4 is found in the conversation between Moses and Yhwh in Exod 5:22–6:1, after the failed negotiation with Pharaoh in Exodus 5. Here, central elements from Exodus 3 reappear. 443 5:22 5:23 6:1

yntjlv hz hml ˚m[ ta tlxh al lxhw hqzj dybw

3:10 3:8 3:19

h[rp la ˚jlva μyrxm dym (i.e., ym[) wlyxhl draw hqzj dyb alw

Exod 5:22–6:1 also serves as a connection with the subsequent material: 6:1

yxram μvrgy . . . μjlvy

11:1 hzm μkta vrgy vrg . . . μkta jlvy 12:39 μyrxmm wvrg yk

The incident in Exod 5:13–19 appears from the outset to have had nothing to do with either Exodus 3–4 or the plagues. Rather, Exod 5:22–6:1 functions as a bridge between these two neighboring blocks. 444

The transition from the primeval story to the ancestor story in Genesis 11–12 presents its own problems. §2.5 (pp. 151ff.) left the question open whether the independent ancestor story was already introduced by a prefaced primeval story or whether the prefacing of Genesis *12–50 with the primeval story already presupposed the literary connection between Genesis and Exodus. 445 The problem of the integration of the primeval story into the context of the historical books must remain unanswered at present given the controversial state of scholarly thinking on Genesis 1–11, especially with regard to Gen 12:1–3. 446 One cannot exclude the possibility that additional text material could be assigned to this redaction connecting Genesis and Exodus. In fact, it is probable.

442. Elsewhere, see Gen 24:26, 48; Exod 12:17; 34:8; Num 22:31; 1 Kgs 1:16, 31; etc. 443. See Kessler, Querverweise, 202–3; taken up by Blum, Pentateuch, 19 (see 13 n. 15); see also Utzschneider, Atem, 50, who refers to Exod 12:27 as the goal of the argument in 3:8–5:23 and the connection of 3:22 / 12:36 (lxn Piel). 444. See also Aurelius, Fürbitter, 165 (although, for 5:3–6:1 as a whole); differently Gertz, Tradition, 335–45. I am uncertain whether 5:23 is in tension with 4:21 (Utzschneider, Atem, 63). The failure of the mission in Exodus 5 is the hardened heart mentioned in 4:21, from the perspective of Moses, but God still has not “freed” his people. 445. It is not very likely that redaction uniting the ancestor story and the exodus story is simultaneously responsible for the prefacing of Genesis 12 with Genesis 1–11 because Josh 24:2 represents a separate tradition from Gen 11:27–32 with the ancestors’ worship of idols in Mesopotamia (concerning the apposition of “Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor,” see above §3.3.1, pp. 193ff.). If the redactor responsible for Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, and Joshua 24 also inserted the bridge of Gen 11:27–32 between the primeval story and the ancestor story, then one would hardly expect this kind of divergence between Gen 11:27–32 and Josh 24:2. 446. See the discussion in Ska, Festschrift Brekelmans.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 235 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Literary Connection of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story

235

Alongside texts such as Exodus 18, 447 Deuteronomy 4, and 1 Kings 8, 448 the difficult transition from the book of Joshua to the book of Judges should be investigated further. 449 §3.3.2.c (pp. 199ff.) showed that the scheme of Judges that is usually classified as Deuteronomistic should be conceptually connected to Joshua 24. Yhwh’s salvation-historical contribution to each individual generation in the period of Israel’s judges presupposes the end of the salvation history in Genesis through Joshua 24, as well as the forgetting of the great salvation history, as stated in Judg 2:8–10. The present form of Judges thus appears to derive from this literary setting between Genesis–Joshua as salvation history and the monarchic period reported in Samuel–Kings as judgment history. The period of the judges is “a time between times.” It comes after the end of the salvation history, but since Israel does not yet have a king, it is not yet judgment history. Thus, we must consider that the current form of Judges is directly linked to the literary connection between Genesis and Exodus (and following). 450 I end here, having addressed the essential programmatic texts (Genesis 15; Exodus *3–4; and Joshua 24) as well as the decisive literary bridge between Genesis 447. Exodus 18 shows close connections to Exodus 3–4 (“Jethro”; “the mountain of God”; Exodus as God’s act of goodness [hbwf; see Josh 24:20] and deliverance [lxn Hiphil]; the designation of God with the definite article [μyhlah]; see Blum, Pentateuch, 362). Exodus 18 summarizes Exodus 1– 17 and prepares for Exodus 19ff. (see Carpenter, Festschrift Coats, 91, 107–8). In terms of content, the particular contrast of Exodus 18 and the Sinai pericope beginning in Exodus 19 is notable. “Seen from Exodus 19:3ff., an event such as the one in Exodus 18 has no real place” (Blum, Pentateuch, 154). In this contrast, Exodus 18 agrees with the Sinai prolepses in Genesis 15 and Exodus 3, as well as Joshua 24’s silence about Sinai and Joshua’s giving of the law. In Josh 24:25, Joshua himself (like Moses in Exod 15:25) decrees a contemporary fpvmw qj, apparently as an addition to the Torah. Obviously, Exodus 18 is an attempt to define, and even limit, the realm of authority for the Torah. “They [i.e., the lyj yvna in 18:25] shall judge the people at all times; they shall bring difficult matters [hvqh rbdh] to Moses [= Torah]; they decide minor matters [ˆfqh rbdh] by themselves” (Exod 18:26). However, the exposition and source-historical classification of Exodus 18 is debated (on the one side, see Crüsemann, Torah, 83–90; and on the other side, see Blum, Pentateuch, 153–63; Niehr offers a mediating position [Niehr, Rechtsprechung, 93]; see also Rose, Deuteronomist, 224–57; Schäfer-Lichtenberger, DBAT 21 [1985]: 61–85; Van Seters, Life, 208–19; Carpenter, Festschrift Coats. Houtman offers an overview of the history of scholarship [Houtman, Exodus 2, 397–99]). 448. See the references above in §2.4.7 (pp. 148ff.). 449. Further, one should ask whether 1 Samuel 8 and 12 should be connected to the redaction treated here. They again strengthen the view of Joshua 24 that the monarchic period is a period of judgment. This is true even in light of statements such as 1 Sam 8:7, 9, 22; 12:1, which see the establishment of the kingdom taking place through Yhwh’s acquiescence. Here, the kingdom is not considered good. Rather, it is affirmed that, even in the period of judgment, Yhwh does not hand over control of history. Further, the relationship to what Blum calls the “malªak revision” needs additional clarification (Blum, Pentateuch, 365–77) since Joshua 24, in particular, shows considerable similarity to it (see idem, Vätergeschichte, 52–54; idem, Pentateuch, 365; idem, Festschrift Brekelmans). Still, this demands an investigation of its own. Finally, also in need of explanation is the extent to which Schmitt’s observations on Genesis 38 and 49:1–12 allow connections to the redactional layer described here (H.-C. Schmitt, Festschrift Brekelmans). 450. Note that the q[z/x terminology is prominent in Exodus 3 as well as in the Deuteronomistic scheme of Judges. See now Guillaume, Waiting.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 236 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

236

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

50 and Exodus 1, in order to shift to a more detailed discussion of the relationship to P. Afterward, we will consider the date and place of the redaction that connects Genesis and Exodus. 3.5.3. The Redaction-Historical Relationship to P Classifying Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, Joshua 24, and Exodus 1 as “postPriestly” requires more precision in several respects. Does “post-Priestly” mean written into the context of the historical books after the incorporation of P? Or, does “post-Priestly” mean later than the independent P? Or, should both understandings be taken together? Are these “post-Priestly” texts composed with knowledge of P, and have they simultaneously been incorporated into the historical books so that Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, Joshua 24, and Exodus 1 are precisely the programmatic texts that characterize the redactional merging of the P and non-P tradition? This redaction would then not only have connected Genesis and Exodus (and following) but also simultaneously have inserted P into the newly developed context. 451 In terms of the economy of the hypothesis, the third variant mentioned should be favored, although a final decision would require a more detailed investigation. P may indeed have entered Genesis–Exodus (and following) simultaneously with the combination of *Genesis and *Exodus (and following). Furthermore, against the idea that the texts assigned to this redaction were only incorporated into the context of the historical books in a second move after the integration of P is the observation that they quite obviously serve to connect, theologically and literarily, the ancestor story and the Moses/Exodus story to one another. This orientation of the texts would be largely superfluous (and could only be explained with difficulty) if P already contained the ancestors and Exodus as text components and the historical books were already in the sequence of the current Hexateuch. However, if there was a literary entity that encompassed only the brief P material in Genesis but that encompassed P material and older material in Exodus (and following), then form-critically it would be a highly disunified and very unsatisfactory thesis. Therefore it is considerably more likely that the redactional perspective treated here, working in light of and in knowledge of P, joined together the non-Priestly traditions of Genesis and Exodus (and following) with P. We can support this theory from the other direction through the redactional procedure, to the extent that it is recognizable. The programmatic texts, Genesis 15 and Exodus 3–4, are both placed before decisive P texts (Genesis 17 or Exodus 6) and clearly refer to them, so much so that classic source criticism even evaluates Genesis 15 / 17 and Exodus 3–4 / 6 as classic “doublets.” It is recognizable both from the context of Genesis 15 / 17 and from Exodus 3–4 / 6 that the “duplication” is quite intentional. Genesis 15–17 and Exodus 3–6 are intended to be un451. Concerning the introductory problems surrounding P, see above, §1.3.3.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 237 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Literary Connection of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story

237

derstood as redactional contexts in which the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 15) and the call of Moses (Exodus 3–4) first run into difficulties (Genesis 16 and Exodus 5), before being affirmed once again (Genesis 17 and Exodus 6). If it is true that P was incorporated into the context of the historical books simultaneously with the merger of Genesis and Exodus (and following), then in addition to the texts mentioned above, the notes (which are formulated in a Priestly style) about the assembly of the tent in Josh 18:1 + 19:51 should be ascribed to the redactional layer connecting Genesis and Exodus (and following). Contrary to the view of Lohfink and Blenkinsopp, who find here the end of an independent P that reaches into Joshua, it is better to follow Blum and Nelson. 452 These texts in all probability establish redactional connections that simply seek to identify (see 1 Sam 2:22) the “tent of meeting” with the temple in Shiloh in which the ark was found (1 Samuel 4–6). The ark was later (2 Samuel 6) transported to Jerusalem, and thus a continuing line of connection was established from the “tent of meeting” through the temple in Shiloh to the Jerusalem temple. It assures the identity of tent and temple. There are also conceptual reasons to argue against the suggestion of Lohfink and Blenkinsopp. The noteworthy lines of inclusion that actually extend from Josh 18:1 + 19:51 back to Gen 1:28 / 2:2 establish a hexateuchal horizon for P.453 However, this horizon is not consistent with the profile of P. If P really aims to write a “primeval story” of the fundamental settings of Israel, then the land that would again be lost could not play the role assigned to it in Josh 18:1 + 19:51 within an independent P. In addition, contrary to the classical tradition of scholarship, we must ask more generally whether a hexateuchal salvation history, like the one Lohfink and Blenkinsopp are prepared to accept for P, represents a conceptually plausible entity. Or, does it instead make sense within the context of a history of salvation and judgment of the enneateuch which previews the prophetic books, as proposed by this study?

3.5.4. The Prehistory of the Literary Connection of the Ancestors and the Exodus in P and Second Isaiah To this point, the deliberations have shown that the conventional perception should be corrected, at least for the sequence of the ancestors and the exodus, that P obtained its image of history from the pre-Priestly tradition. 454 P (but not the pre-Priestly Pentateuch tradition) appears to have been the first to present the period of the ancestors as an epoch before the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt and the exodus. Even the argument of Kaiser that the “abstract reduction of the salvationhistorical tradition” in P shows “that it is primarily later than this” does not refute this conclusion. 455 Namely, a pre-Priestly context of the individual blocks of tradition is not thereby proven. It is only probable that P was formed as a contrasting concept 452. Lohfink, “Priesterschrift,” 222–23 nn. 29–30; idem, “Schichten,” 285–86. See the discussion in Zenger, Gottes Bogen, 36–43; idem, Einleitung AT, 95–96; Blenkinsopp, CBQ 38 (1976): 275–92, 290–91; Blum, Pentateuch, 228; Nelson, OTL 9. 453. See vbk (take into possession) in Gen 1:28 / Josh 18:1 (Blenkinsopp, CBQ 38 [1976)]: 290; Lohfink, “Schichten,” 285; Zenger, Gottes Bogen, 37–38). See also hlk (to end) in Gen 2:2 / Josh 19:51 (Blenkinsopp, CBQ 38 [1976]: 290). 454. Contrary to Levin, Jahwist, 9; Pola, Priesterschrift, 44–50, 333–36. 455. Kaiser, Grundriss, 1:59.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 238 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

238

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

to D theology (speaking broadly), 456 yet this critical reception of D texts in no way presupposes a pre-Priestly work of Genesis–2 Kings revised by D. Thus, P is the innovator of the sequence of ancestors and exodus, 457 but this sequencing one after the other cannot be understood without Second Isaiah. P and Second Isaiah are the two most important stations in the history of theology before the merger of *Genesis and *Exodus (and following) that has been described. On the basis of the relationship between the ancestors and the exodus in P and Second Isaiah, basic tradition-historical indicators can be identified for the prehistory of the redactional profile of Genesis 15, Exodus 3–4, Joshua 24, and Exodus 1. a. P P’s presentation of history has been investigated and described many times. 458 Zimmerli formulates one of the most essential points of recognition for the content profile of P, 459 in his argument against Wellhausen’s characterization of the Priestly document as a “four-covenant book.” 460 Zimmerli shows that P knows only two covenants, not four: the covenants with Noah (Genesis 9) and Abraham (Genesis 17). These two covenant ceremonies correspond to a fundamental piece of the Priestly document in a universal sphere and in the sphere of Israel, as Steck has suggested. 461 Thus, just as the Noahic covenant in Genesis 9 signifies the central promise of God to the world, so the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 17 462 456. For example, see Steck, Abschluss, 17–18 n. 19. In this respect, see the D language picked up in Genesis 17 (see Seebass, Vätergeschichte I, 111, though he sees it as an argument for source-critical delimitation) that serves to transform Deuteronomistic theology of obligation into Priestly theology. 457. In Genesis 37–Exodus 1, the following texts are usually ascribed to P: Gen 37:1–2; 46:6–7 (8–26?); 47:27–28; 49:*1, *28–33; 50:12–13; (Exod 1:1–5); 1:7, 13–14 (see K. Schmid, “Gap,” 44). Thus, the “doublets” in Gen 46–47 / Exodus 1 remain debated. Notably, P narrates the transition from the ancestors to the exodus without a “Joseph story” (see Ruppert, Josephserzählung, 232–33; de Pury, VTSup 43 [1991], 81–82; Römer, “Joseph approche,” 79; Kebekus, Joseferzählung, 292. Differently: von Rad, Priesterschrift, 40: “We have only disconnected remnants of the Priestly version of the Joseph story. Here, the redactor has allowed the Yahwistic version to appear at the expense of the P version”). 458. See the thematic presentations of von Rad, ibid.; Elliger, ZTK 49 (1952): 121–43; Lohfink, “Priesterschrift”; Fritz, ZTK 84 (1987): 426–39. Further, see Zimmerli, “Sinaibund”; Brueggemann, ZAW 84 (1972): 397–413; Blenkinsopp, CBQ 38 (1976): 275–92; Klein, Festschrift Wolff; Weimar, BN 24 (1984): 138–62; Steck, Festschrift Koch, 305–8; L. Schmidt, Priesterschrift, 251–71; Pola, Priesterschrift, 343–49. See the summary in Zenger, TRE 27:440–43. Concerning P as an opposing position to Dtr/D, see Steck, Abschluss, 17–18 n. 19; Rose, RTP 118 (1986): 217–36, 232–33; idem, Deuteronomist, 328 n. 67; Römer, Väter, 546 with n. 351; Zenger, Einleitung AT, 75. 459. Zimmerli, “Sinaibund.” See the reference to Stade in Zimmerli, “Sinaibund,” 205. Additional precursors to Zimmerli include Valeton, Kraetzschmar, von Rad (Priesterschrift, 175), Noth (see Janowski, Sühne, 322), and Burrows (“Israel,” 124). 460. Wellhausen, Composition, 1. 461. Steck, Festschrift Koch, 305–8; followed by Zenger, Einleitung AT, 98; idem, TRE 27:440. See already, von Rad, Priesterschrift, 161, 171, 175 (see also Janowski, Sühne, 9), who develops a threefold distinction between the realms of the world, Noah, and Abraham. 462. See the discussion of Zimmerli in Lohfink, “Abwertung,” 71–72; Fritz, Tempel, 2, with n. 12; Gross, TTZ 87 (1987): 102; Janowski, Sühne, 322–24; Köckert, JBTh 4 (1989): 35–36 n. 27; Blum, Pentateuch, 294 with n. 26. Critically, see Walkenhorst, AJBI 6 (1980): 10–11; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 278. As a rule, including here, Genesis 17 is treated as a unified text (see the bibliographies in

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 239 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Literary Connection of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story

239

functions for Israel: “Israel stands within the Abrahamic covenant.” 463 “What happens during the time of Moses is also, at its core (in regard to the connectedness of Yhwh with his people), only the deliverance that had already been promised to Abraham.” 464 The covenant in Genesis 17 is for P the promise on which Israel stands and lives. The covenant concept in Genesis 17 is conceived and presented in a distinct way.465 It unfolds in five 466 divine speeches (17:1bb–2, 4–8, 9ab–14, 15ab–16, 19a–21) through which the term tyrb (covenant) extends to 17:15–16, 467 and which shows a concentric structure. 468 Between the first and the second, as well as the fourth and the fifth speeches of God, the reaction of Abraham is described. The renaming of Abram (17:5) and Sarai (17:15) provides a correspondence between the second and fourth speech.469 Gen 17:25– 27 rounds off the chapter in narrative fashion. Thus, the divine speech in 17:9ab–14 stands in the center and mediates between the first two and last two speeches: the general theme of the greatness of the descendants, their “nearness to God” and their land (17:2–8), as well as the specific problem of the sons of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, in 17:15–21. This tripartite context 470 is signaled by the three instances of μlw[ tyrb in 17:7, 13, 19. In terms of content, it points to a particular ideology: the perspective of the descendants of Abraham is narrowed to the Isaac line. 471

What is the content of the covenant of Genesis 17? The first divine speech in 17:1 accentuates the multiplying of descendants as the content of the tyrb between God and Abraham. In 17:4, correspondingly, the formulation as a nominal Blum, Vätergeschichte, 420 n. 4; Weimar, ZAW 100 [1988]: 23 n. 4. Weimar himself [ibid., 22–60] believes otherwise, as does Zenger, Gottes Bogen, 150; Köckert, JBTh 4 [1989]: 39; Seebass, Vätergeschichte I, 111–12 [even with relocations]. See also the references mentioned in ibid., 36 n. 31). 463. Zimmerli, “Sinaibund,” 213. 464. Ibid., 212; see Janowski, Sühne, 9. 465. Contrary to Gross (TTZ 87 [1987]: 109–11), Genesis 17 does not speak of two covenant ceremonies but instead defines more precisely “the content of the tyrb that progresses” (Blum, Vätergeschichte, 421). 466. The division of Genesis 17 into several divine speeches may be determined by P’s orientation on existing tradition. P reflects “in 17:1–3a a promise to Abraham . . . that it knows from the tradition, while the divine words clearly stand out from that in an interpretive and expanding manner” (Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 257, with reference to the correspondence of Gen 12:1ff. and 17:1ff.). See also Zenger, Gottes Bogen, 149 n. 40: “The promise of nations and kings in Gen 17:6 is the Priestly transformation of the Yahwistic promise to Abraham in Gen 12:1–3.” Concerning Abraham as the ancestral father of kings (Gen 17:6; 35:11), see Albertz, History, vol. 2: This promise is only fulfilled for Edom (Genesis 36), but P is essentially oriented against the monarchy (see also Koch, ZTK 55 [1958]: 40; Pola, Priesterschrift, 327). 467. Concerning the function of tyrb as a leading term, see Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 256. 468. See the structural observations in McEvenue, Style, 156–59; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 420–21; Wenham, WBC 2 17–18. 469. See the observations in Van Seters, Abraham, 286–87. 470. Only in the beginnings of the speeches in Gen 17:1b, 9, 15 does God speak “to (la) Abraham”: 17:1b wyla rmayw μrba la hwhy aryw 17:3b rmal μyhla wta rbdyw 17:9 μrba la μyhla rmayw 17:15 μrba la μyhla rmayw 17:19 μyhla rmayw 471. See Blum, Vätergeschichte, 422.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 240 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

240

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

sentence 472 with this focus becomes the content of the covenant. Hence one may interpret the renaming of Abram to Abraham in 17:5 to be completed simultaneously, since Abram is designated “Abraham” in 17:9. 473 What appears then in 17:7 is not a second tyrb. 474 Rather, it is a more precise defining of the same tyrb. It is set off from 17:1–2 (w-perfect!), because it is valid for Abraham and his descendants and thus presupposes the multiplying. The new contents that now appear are the promises of God to be God to Israel and the promise of land, which are now incorporated into a unity by repeating the covenant formula of 17:7ba in 17:8b. 475 The coupling of the land promise in Genesis 17 with the covenant promise does not mean (with Blum) “that less weight is placed on the promise of land in Genesis 17.”476 It may be that it does not represent an independent theme alongside the promise of God to be Israel’s God. Pointedly stated, the promise of land appears in P only to serve the interest of creating a dwelling for God among his people so that he can be their God (Exod 29:45–46).

Thematically, the covenant of God with Abraham in Genesis 17 appears in three parts: first, as a promise of increase (17:6); second, the promise to be Israel’s God (17:7); and third, the promise of land (17:8). These three aspects are chronologically arranged and point forward to the subsequent history of Israel. The promise of increase is already fulfilled, for P, in the notice of Exod 1:7, which is clearly formulated with reference back to the promise statements in Gen 17:20 (see also Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7). 477 And the Israelites were fruitful and prolific, and they multiplied and became exceedingly strong, so that the land was full of them (Exod 1:7).

Additional contents of the Genesis 17 promise appear in the subsequent narrative, but their fulfillment is not stated, and so they remain as promises. 478 Stated differently, the people of Israel owe their being to a fulfilled promise (Genesis 17 / Exod 1:7) on the one hand. On the other hand, they live with the additional, open promises regarding the presence of God and the giving of land. These themes are developed further and made more precise within P, especially in Exod 6:2–8 and in 29:45–46 (for the conclusion of the great divine speech in Exodus 25–29).

472. See the discussion in Gross, TTZ 87 (1987): 112 n. 29. 473. See ibid., 112. 474. Contrary to Gross, ibid. 475. See Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 262–63; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 421, with n. 11; Köckert, Festschrift Wagner, 152. 476. Blum, Vätergeschichte, 421 n. 11; see also Seebass, Vätergeschichte I, 105. 477. Already in Egypt, the fulfillment of the promise of increase shows that, for P, “Israel has also, without a king, reached the size that Yhwh had foreseen for this people” (L. Schmidt, Priesterschrift, 264). Concerning the function of Exod 1:7 in P as well as in the Pentateuch, see Weimar, BETL 126 (1996), 199–200, with n. 59. Concerning the textual origin of Exod 1:7, see the details in §2.1.2.a (bibliography). 478. Concerning the promise of nations and kings in Gen 17:4, 6 (35:11), see Gross, “Israels,” 89–98.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 241 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Literary Connection of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story

241

First, consider the divine speech in Exod 6:2–8 (P), 479 in which the name Yhwh is revealed to Moses. 480 It clearly refers back to Genesis 17 481 in that Exod 6:8 expressly picks up on Gen 17:8. Correspondingly, becoming a people in Exod 1:7 no longer refers to the increase of Israel in Exod 6:2–8. Rather, it refers to the covenant of Yhwh with Israel and the giving of the land. The introduction in Exod 6:2 is shaped like Gen 17:1b: 482 Gen 17:1b μrba la hwhy aryw wyla rmayw ydv la yna

Exod 6:2 hvm la μyjla rbdyw wyla rmayw hwhy yna

Lohfink believes that the revelation to Moses in Exodus 6 is “lower” than the revelation to Abraham. 483 In Genesis 17, God “appears” (har Niphal), while Exodus 6 does not mention an appearance of God. Rather, God just speaks to Moses. 484 Lohfink interprets this to mean that P attaches greater importance to the revelation of the name ydv la 485 than to the name of Yhwh. This is hardly tenable 486 since Exod 6:3 decrees specifically that to “make myself known to you” ([dy Niphal) was a higher mode of revelation than God’s “appearance,” but “knowledge” of God was still refused to the patriarchs! 487 Thus, Exodus 6 conceptualizes the difference between the revelation to the ancestors and to Moses or Israel as “not-knowing” (6:3b) and “knowing” (6:7b; see 16:6, 12; 29:46; and Ezek 20:5). 488 The first recognition of Yhwh as God granted to the people of Israel is coupled with the exodus event. 489 A decisive difference exists for the Egyptians’ 479. Concerning the attempt of Kohata to deny that Exod 6:8 belongs to P ( Jahwist, 29–31), see Römer, Väter, 546–47 n. 356; L. Schmidt, Priesterschrift, 185–86; Lust, BETL 126 (1996), 218–22. Exod 6:4 and 6:8 are related to one another and want to “connect the ancestor promises and the event of the ‘giving of the land’ with one another forward and backward” (Weimar, Exodusgeschichte, 109). With Römer (Väter, 546–47 n. 356), we must consider whether the wéqatal form μkl yttnw should be perceived in connection with ydy ta ytacn in 6:8ab (instead of in connection with ytabhw in 6:8aa) as perfect: “and (thus) I have (already) given it to you.” Source-critical divisions in Exod 6:2–8 do not seem very plausible, given the strict structure of the unit (see immediately below). 480. Ska emphasizes that one should not speak of a call report in Exod 6:2–8 (Ska, ZAW 94 [1982]: 530–48; idem, “Remarques”; see Lust, BETL 126 [1996], 212–13). 481. See, for example, Köckert, JBTh 4 (1989): 34–35. 482. See Weimar, Exodusgeschichte, 81. 483. Lohfink, “Abwertung,” 72. 484. Ibid., 74–75. 485. One may find a religio-historical theory about ydv la in Knauf, BZ 29 (1985): 97–103. See also the bibliography in Seebass, Vätergeschichte I, 100. 486. Others contrary to Lohfink are: Ska, ZAW 94 (1982): 548; Zenger, Gottes Bogen, 155; Blum, Pentateuch, 235–36. 487. See H. F. Fuhs, TDOT 13:236. 488. Concerning the relationship of Ezekiel 20 and Exodus 6, see W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 280; Pola, Priesterschrift, 175–89, 333–36; Gosse, Structuration, 94–95. 489. See W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 277 with reference to Walkenhorst, AJBI 6 (1980): 4. Kohata remarks appropriately: “Israel is first able to recognize when Yhwh announces himself ” ( Jahwist, 318).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 242 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

242

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

recognition. The Israelites needed to recognize that Yhwh was their God (6:7; 16:6, 12; 29:46), but the Egyptians needed to recognize that God is Yhwh (7:5; 14:4, 18). 490 This progressive theory of revelation in Exod 6:2bb, 3 is highly informative for the question about the connection between the ancestors and the Exodus in P. I am Yhwh, and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai, but my name is Yhwh. I have not made myself known to them. 491

Yhwh identifies himself here to Moses as the one whom the ancestors knew as El Shaddai and who did not appear to the ancestors as Yhwh. The statement in Exod 6:3, however, stands in striking contradiction to the Yahwistic shaping of the ancestor story, which usually, and in my opinion correctly, is seen as older than P. However, the fact that P still stresses as a central point that the revelation of the name of God occurred at a period between the ancestors and Moses makes it highly improbable that the thematic flow from ancestors to Exodus would have already been fixed centuries earlier with the forefathers of Israel and Israel itself. In fact, one can even ask literary-historically how old the “Yahwisticized” version of the ancestor story really is. 492 Furthermore, the characteristic P concentration on the Abrahamic covenant contrasts too much with the understanding of Exod 6:3 for Exod 6:3 to fit the theology of P. Contrary to its normal word choice elsewhere in Genesis–Exodus 6, it is hardly accidental in Gen 17:1 that P uses hwhy instead of μyhla. Thus, the late introduction of the name hwhy in Exod 6:3 apparently must be explained by the presupposed background knowledge that the ancestor story bears a completely different imprint from the Moses/Exodus story. As in Genesis 17, the land theme in Exod 6:2–8 is closely bound to the covenant statement. Exod 6:2bb–8 is structured concentrically around the covenant statements of 6:7a. The framing elements, each containing hwhy yna, 493 correspond to one another in pairs: 6:2bb, 3–4 (A) names the ancestor triad and the covenant that God has established with them by the giving of the land. Exod 6:5–6 (B) mentions the groaning of the Israelites in Egypt because of their forced labor and the promise of their liberation. Exod 6:7 (Bu) offers a recognition statement and again refers to the forced labor in Egypt, while 6:8 (Au) concludes by linking back to the ancestor triad and the oath of land.

490. Rendtorff, “Offenbarungsvorstellungen,” 55 n. 76; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 287. 491. Concerning the translation, see Garr, JBL 111 (1992): 385–408; Houtman, Exodus 1, 500. 492. See Wenham, Genesis 1–15, xli. See also Moberly, Old Testament; as well as the considerations in §2.2.3 above (pp. 81ff.). 493. Exod 6:2a, 6a, 8b. The structural observations of Auffret ( JSOT 27 [1983]: 48–49) appear too complicated because he does not count hwhy yna as a structuring element in 6:7b (on the distinction between hwhy yna in 6:2a, 6a, 8b [Elliger, “Herr,” 228: “formula of majesty”] and μkyhla hwhy yna in 7b [ibid.: “formula of favor”], see Weimar, Exodusgeschichte, 87–95; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1 286–87). See instead the observations of Magonet ( JSOT 27 [1983]: 58–59, 62–63), who further delineates the chiastic structure. See also the references in Blum, Pentateuch, 223 n. 20 (bibliography).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 243 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Literary Connection of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story

243

A

I am Yhwh, (6:3) and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as ydv la, but by my name hwhy I did not make myself known to them. 494 (6:4) Also (μgw) 495 I established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they sojourned as aliens.

B

(6:5) Also (μgw) I have heard the groaning of the Israelites who have been enslaved by the Egyptians, and I have remembered my covenant. (6:6) Therefore (ˆkl), say to the Israelites: I am Yhwh. I will lead you out of the forced labor of Egypt and will save you from slavery. I will redeem you with outstretched arm and by powerful acts of judgment.

C

(6:7) And I will accept you as my people and will be your God.

Bu

and you shall know that I am Yhwh your God, who led you out of forced labor in Egypt.

Au

(6:8) And I shall bring you into the land that I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 496 the land that I will give you as a possession. I am Yhwh.

We can see from this outline that the exodus message is included in addition to the merging of the land promise and the covenant promise from Genesis 17: the middle position of the covenant promise demonstrated that it constitutes the most important element of the themes in Genesis 17, under which everything else is subordinated. Precisely the same intention shaped the central assertion 497 of the Priestly Sinai pericope in Exod 29:45–46, which stands at the end of the grand divine speech in Exodus 25–29. 498 A

(29:45) And I will dwell in the midst of the Israelites, And I will be their God.

B

(29:46) And they will know that I am Yhwh, your God, who led them out of the land of Egypt

Au

in order to (l) dwell in their midst. I am Yhwh, their God.

494. Concerning Exod 6:3, see Garr, JBL 111 (1992): 385–408; Houtman, Exodus, 1:500. Exod 2:25, μyhla [dwyw (textual emendation based on the LXX; see, however, Fischer, Jahwe, 25–26), corresponds to Exod 6:3; see Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 150. 495. On μg as a particle of accentuation, see Weimar, Exodusgeschichte, 96 n. 46. 496. On the extended triad, see Weimar, Exodusgeschichte, 98–102. 497. See Koch, ZTK 55 (1958): 52–54; Janowski, Sühne, 322, 324; idem, JBTh 2 (1987): 184–86; idem, JBTh 5 (1990): 52–54; Pola, Priesterschrift, 337–38. See also the general thematic definitions of P in Köckert, JBTh 4 (1989): 29–61 (“Leben in Gottes Gegenwart,”); Blum, Pentateuch, 287–332 (“Gottesnähe”). Smith’s suggestion—that Exodus was organized based on P’s perspective, and thus, Exodus 15 came to appear in the middle of the book—is not convincing (Smith, CBQ 58 [1996]: 38–50). 498. On the comparison of Exod 29:45–46 with Deut 12:5 in the LXX, see Aejmelaeus, “Septuaginta,” 13.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 244 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

244

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

These verses explicitly state that Yhwh’s goal in leading Israel out of Egypt was “not the leading into the land of Canaan but the ‘dwelling’ of Yhwh in the midst of the Israelites.” 499 “The ‘abiding’ of God in the tent ‘toward which the encounter aimed’ has taken the place of the giving of the land in the pre-Priestly tradition, or the leading into the land.” 500 From here, one may approach the controversial problem of the significance of the land theme in P. Alongside the position taken, especially in the German-speaking world, that the land theme stands outside the work of P, 501 the exact opposite is often posited as well: with the taking possession of the land of Canaan, P reached its essential goal.502 Thus, P must have extended into Joshua. However, the search for evidence of P in Joshua can hardly be described as successful. 503 The intertwining of the promise of land and the promise of covenant in Genesis 17 and Exodus 6 as well as the interlinking of the exodus and covenant promises in Exod 29:45–46 suggest otherwise. The lack of a presentation of taking the land in P should not be compensated through new text assignations to P (especially in Joshua) but must have been for theological reasons. Yhwh led the Israelites out of Egypt in order to dwell in their midst. This central aspect does not exclude the taking of land, but it overshadows the taking of land. In addition, P does not speak of possession (hvrwm), but of property for use (hzja). 504 The idea that hzja means the right of usage and not ownership is indicated especially by Gen 47:11, 27. 505 For P, God is and remains the owner of the land.506 That is true for all the lands of the earth. For this reason also, the final verb vbk is missing in Gen 9:1 over against Gen 1:28. 507 According to P, the nations living in their respective lands, corresponding to the table of nations in Genesis 10, is the divinely intended result of the commission in Gen 1:28, through its modification by 9:1. 508 The exception in Exod 6:8, which speaks of 499. Janowski, JBTh 5 (1990): 54; idem, JBTh 2 (1987): 184–86; Köckert, Festschrift Wagner, 152– 53. 500. Köckert uses an expression that comes from Janowski, Sühne, 306 (“toward which the encounter aimed”; see Köckert, Festschrift Wagner, 153 n. 21). See also Crüsemann, Festschrift Rendtorff. 501. Noth, HPT, 9; see Köckert, Festschrift Wagner, 147 n. 1. 502. See the scholars mentioned in Köckert, Festschrift Wagner, 147 n. 2. See also the discussion in Albertz, History, 2:481 n. 97, 628–29; L. Schmidt, Priesterschrift, 254–71; Pola, Priesterschrift, 305–9. Pola’s belief that Genesis 23 should be seen as the fulfillment of the promise of land in Gen 17:7–8 is less likely. In order to interpret it this way, one must assign Genesis 23 to P (which is hardly possible; see Blum, Vätergeschichte, 441–46). In addition, the giving of land to Abraham in 28:4 is recorded with perfect verbs, as is the giving to Abraham and Isaac in Gen 35:12 (see even Pola, Priesterschrift, 307). This shows that P thinks that the relationship of the patriarchs to the land is more than the purchase of a piece of ground. According to Köckert, P appears to have “interpreted the existing promises of land as already fulfilled for the receivers of the promise” (Festschrift Wagner, 154–55, with n. 26). 503. See above, §1.3.3, §3.5.3. 504. Seebass suggests the translation “chattel” for tzja (Vätergeschichte I, 105). Outside Gen 17:8, μlw[ tzja is found only in Gen 48:4; Lev 25:34, 46 (μl[l hzja). See the discussion in Weimar, ZAW 100 (1988): 27–28 n. 26; Köckert, Festschrift Wagner, 155–56; Bauks, ZAW 116 (2004): 171– 88; idem, Transeu 30 (2005): 19–36. 505. See the discussion in Köckert, Festschrift Wagner, 155–56. 506. Therefore, the promise of land in Gen 17:7–8; 28:4; 35:12 (see 13:15; 26:3; Num 18:19) is expanded to include each of the patriarchs as well as his descendants. In the sense of the usage, the land was already “given” to the ancestors (see Gosse, RHPR 74 [1994]: 395–96). 507. Thus, the statement in Josh 19:51, which has been assigned to P in many works, does not fit conceptually with P material. 508. See Steck, Welt, 72; Köckert, Festschrift Wagner, 150–51, with n. 16.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 245 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Literary Connection of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story

245

hvrwm, is motivated by the claim of the population of the land formulated in Ezek 33:24, which is taken into account and is nullified by Exod 6:8.509 That P apparently does not narrate the conquest of the land can also be explained by additional considerations concerning the genre of P. P was a mythically conceived narrative of origins, 510 and the granting of a divine gift that was then stripped from Israel (as is the case with the land as historical experience had shown) would represent a problem for P, because the land does not belong to the goods given as endowment by God once and for all. Thus, the conceptualization of the land theme in the central portions of P does not require a literary representation of the conquest. For P the land is the fundamental content of the promise—however, it is still essentially a promise.

Because the covenant formula in Exod 29:45b (as the high point for the Priestly Sinai pericope) is already revealed in Gen 17:7–8, “the ancestral period and the period of Moses close ranks as closely as possible with one another. Israel’s present and future relationship with Yhwh is based upon Yhwh’s tyrb with Abraham.” 511 With Exod 29:45–46, the Priestly system of literary references to and from Genesis 17 ends. 512 Outside Exod 29:45–46, Blum considers Leviticus 26 to be “a necessary component” of P, “as the emphatic, fundamental idea that Israel, the community of God, is two sided, meaning it rests upon a responsive partnership. From the beginning, the structure shapes the Priestly conception.” 513 Blum here mentions the circumcision command to Abraham in Genesis 17 and the introductory imperative of Gen 17:1b. The linguistic connections between Leviticus 26 and Genesis 9; 17; Exodus 6; and 29 support Blum’s ideas.514 However, as Lohfink has shown, 515 Leviticus 26 clearly “deuteronomizes” contents of the Priestly promises by repeating and transforming them, and therefore it hardly fits into the P theology. Only the concluding section, 26:42–46, which Lohfink assigns to another hand, again speaks unconditionally of God’s covenant with the ancestors. For Blum, this side-by-side, interwoven character of the promise and its conditions as revealed in Lev 26:3, 9, 13–14, and Lev 26:42–45 is precisely the point of the Priestly conception. In fact, in light of the experience of the exile, Blum sees “no meaningful alternative”516 to this placing of Lev 26:3, 9, 13–14 and Lev 26:42–45 alongside one another. However, Blum’s acceptance of 509. See Gosse, RHPR 74 (1994): 245–47; idem, SJOT 11 (1997): 9. 510. So especially Lohfink, “Priesterschrift” (see already, Nöldeke, “Grundschrift,” 107–8); Janowski, “Tempel,” 64 (“According to the Priestly writing, the entire history of humanity, the patriarchs, and Israel after the Flood looks back on the horizon of the primeval period and at the same time achieves ‘a dimension of the primeval story’ ”); Knauf, Festschrift Steck; idem, “Priesterschrift.” See Janowski’s dispute with Lohfink in “Tempel,” 64–67. 511. Janowski, Sühne, 9 (see also p. 324). 512. Otto thus recently limits the scope of P to *Genesis 1–Exodus 29 (Otto, TRu 62 [1997]: 1– 50; idem, Deuteronomium 4, 217). By contrast, however, he says that Exodus 29 is closely related to Leviticus (1–7,) 8–9 (concerning the historical-critical analysis, see Janowski, Sühne, 194–95). To that extent, Zenger’s determination of the end of P in Lev 9:24 (see Janowski’s discussion of Lev 9:*22– 24 as a focal point in P in [Sühne, 315–16]) forms, in my opinion, a meaningful, minimal limitation (contrary also to Pola, Priesterschrift). 513. Blum, Pentateuch, 328; see also Köckert, Festschrift Wagner, 153–54. 514. Blum, Pentateuch, 325–26. 515. Lohfink, “Abänderung; see Blum’s explanation, in Pentateuch, 326–29. 516. Ibid., 327.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 246 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

watch for hidden note calls Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

246

the idea that Leviticus 26 is integral to the Priestly concept does not explain why the qualification should be positioned precisely here in the flow of reading. I cannot believe that Genesis 17 already implies this and then Leviticus 26 expresses it. The circumcision command of Genesis 17 does not adequately prepare thematically for Leviticus 26. The circumcision of Genesis 17 is not a condition of the promise but a sign (it is not carried out by someone, but is carried out on someone). 517 Even less can Gen 17:1b be cited, 518 for also this demand of Abraham “to walk before God” is inverted in Lev 26:12: “I [i.e., God] will walk in your midst.” 519 Perhaps one should consider whether (according to Blum) Lev 26:3, 9, and 13–14 belong to another level. In that case, one would need to observe the Priestly-Deuteronomistic mixed texts as a whole. However, it is not plausible to see P as being the original context of Leviticus 26.

P sees the epoch of the ancestors as the definitive foundational period. As evidence of this, one can point to the theological concentration of P on the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 17 and the clear reference back to Genesis in the programmatic texts of Exod 6:2–9 and 29:45–46. One can also mention the toledot structuring in P. 520 521 522 Primeval Story

Ancestor Story

2:4a 521

5:1

6:9

10:1

11:10

11:27

25:12

25:19

36:1,9

37:2

toledot heaven/ earth

toledot Adam

toledot Noah

toledot Shem, Ham, Japheth

toledot Shem

toledot Terah

toledot Ishmael

toledot Isaac

toledot Esau

toledot Jacob

9:28–29

25:7–8522 25:17

25:19

49:33

death of Noah

death of Abraham

death of Isaac

death of Jacob

death of Ishmael

517. See Blum himself, in Vätergeschichte, 422. 518. Blum is thus quite correct in placing parentheses around this (Pentateuch, 328). 519. See again Blum himself (ibid., 325–26). 520. Concerning the thesis of an earlier toledot book, see the discussion in Eissfeldt, “BIBLOS,” 460; Weimar, BZ 18 (1974): 85–86; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 438; Nauerth, Untersuchungen, 292–94; Koch, Festschrift Seebass; Hieke, Genealogien. One reckons either with an originally independent toledot book (see Gen 5:1) as a Vorlage of P (von Rad, Priesterschrift, 30–33; taken up by Noth, HPT, 10–11, with n. 20; see Blum, Vätergeschichte, 451–52 n. 29), or one defines the toledot formulas as an integral component of P (Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 340–41; Eissfeldt, “BIBLOS”). Some see them as individual insertions (see the bibliography provided in Blum, Vätergeschichte, 438 nn. 17–19). Blum sees the “toledot layer” as a revision of an existing ancestor story inside the “Priestly layer,” which itself perhaps grew in stages (Blum, Vätergeschichte, 440, 445, 450–51). For understanding the toledot formula (proper name + twdl[[w]t hla[w]), note that it introduces either a list of the descendants of the person named or the descendants’ story but not the story of the person named (Blum, Vätergeschichte, 433). 521. On the question of whether Gen 2:4a should be defined as a superscription to what follows or as a subscript to what preceded, see (on one side) Cross, “Priestly Work,” 302; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 451 n. 29, and the literature mentioned by Weimar, BZ 18 (1974): 74 n. 26. On the other side, see Steck, Schöpfungsbericht, 241–43, 290; Schreiner, TDOT 8:582; and the recent works of Stordalen, ZAW 104 (1992): 163–77; Otto, Festschrift Michel, 186–88. The last two opt for the literary integrity of 2:4 “intermediating Genesis 1 and Genesis 2–3” (Stordalen, ZAW 104 [1992]: 173; see Otto, Festschrift Michel, 188). 522. On the problem of the correspondence of the Terah toledot and the report of Abraham’s death, see Blum, Vätergeschichte, 434. Blum’s attempts at the source-critical reconstruction of a lost Abraham

spread is 6 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 247 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Literary Connection of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story

247

The toledot structure 523 overlays Genesis with a fivefold scheme 524 in both the primeval story and the ancestor story. 525 The introduction of proper name + twdl[(w)t hla(w) corresponds to the end of a toledot passage in which a narrative of the descendants of the “proper name” follows the toledot formula and not just its genealogical tree. 526 Immediately before the beginning of the next toledot, a notice about the life span, death, and burial of the respective ancestral father is given, 527 the shape of which, however, is not strictly fixed. The notice about the death of the ancestral father is accompanied by references to the dwelling place of the descendants (see Gen 25:11, 18; 36:5, 8; 37:1). “They also explain that the main heirs remain in the promised land while the subordinate lines possess other territories.” 528

Even though the toledot texts are limited to Genesis, this does not mean that the toledot structure does not look beyond Genesis. Perhaps Lohfink is correct that the final toledot notice in Gen 37:2 (“These are the generations of Jacob”) refers to the subsequent events in P, the Moses/Exodus-Sinai story in its entirety: “All this is the ‘fate of Jacob.’ ” 529 However, this again means that for P the Moses/Exodus story belongs to the ancestor story (as the basic founding period of Israel), and it does not form a large, self-contained section of the history of Israel. 530 Thus, with P, we encounter a concept of history decidedly oriented toward the patriarchs. For P, Israel was founded during the ancestral period—more precisely, toledot should be rejected (ibid., 439–40). Scharbert’s explanation is unacceptable; he wrongly expects an Abraham toledot formula after the death of Terah. If present at all, this must have stood, literarily speaking, before the story of Isaac in Genesis 21 (see Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 137; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 434). 523. In the Hebrew Bible twdlwt appears in: Gen 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 10:32; 11:10, 27; 25:12–13, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2; Exod 6:16, 19; 28:10; Num 1:20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 36, 38, 40, 42; 3:1; Ruth 4:18; 1 Chr 1:29; 5:7; 7:2, 4, 9; 8:28; 9:9, 34; 26:31. See the discussion in Eissfeldt, “BIBLOS”; Scharbert, Festschrift Eichrodt; Weimar, BZ 18 (1974): 65–93; HALOT 2:1699–1700; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 432–46; J. Schreiner, “twdlwt,” TDOT 8:582–88 and the literature provided there on pp. 571–72. On Num 3:1, see Lohfink, “Priesterschrift,” 229 n. 38; Weimar, BN 18 (1974): 89–90 n. 30. 524. See Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 59, 99. Scharbert distinguishes between Ausscheidungstoledot (“separating toledot”), generational lines (which cannot be tracked any further narratively; for example, Japhet, Ham, Ishmael, and Esau), and Verheissungstoledot (“toledot of promise”) that are developed further (Scharbert, Festschrift Eichrodt, 46). 525. To be sure, the toledot are picked up again with Moses and Aaron (Num 3:1), but this appears to be in a “somewhat half-hearted” manner (Blum, Vätergeschichte, 451). 526. This explains the lack of a corresponding death and burial notice for the toledot of Adam, Noah’s sons, Shem, and Esau. The conclusion of the Ishmael toledot is the only exception. With this explanation, the situation corresponds (again except for the Ishmael toledot) to what Scharbert called the separating toledot, where a death and burial conclusion are lacking. 527. See the table in Blum, Vätergeschichte, 436. 528. Ibid., 437. 529. Lohfink, “Priesterschrift,” 229 n. 38; see also Blum, Vätergeschichte, 451. If one takes into account an originally independent toledot book, then it is obvious that this book did not extend beyond the death of Jacob. In its reception by P, however, it is clear that the Jacob toledot section in Gen 37:2 introduces the events of Jacob’s descendants as a whole. 530. On the dispute between Weimar and Zenger, who see the most important section of P as being Exod 1:7, see Steck, Festschrift Koch, 306–7; but see Zenger, Einleitung AT, 98. Also for L. Schmidt, the ancestor period in P stands out “markedly” from the history of the Israelites (Priesterschrift, 262– 63). He refers to God’s change of name from ydv to hwhy, and the ancestor’s sojourn in an alien land.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 248 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

248

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

during the covenant with Abraham. The events of the Mosaic period were connected theologically as closely as possible to the ancestral period, while apparently also trying not to duplicate the foundational epoch of Israel. P appears to have found this twofold origin of Israel in the existing tradition of the ancestors and of the exodus. The progressive revelation theory of Exod 6:3 (Yhwh had not made himself known to the ancestors, but he does so now to Moses) suggests that, before P, the flow of the ancestors tradition and the exodus story as two sequential epochs of the prehistory of Israel was not common knowledge. This theology of revelation has special explanatory power because, as already mentioned, it basically runs counter to the concept of P, which is oriented toward the patriarchs, and did not rise out of a special interest of P. Rather, it shows that P seeks to harmonize two fundamentally different tradition blocks with one another. P joins the ancestors and the exodus together into a new history of the origin of Israel. This motivation for this joining is not explainable without looking at Second Isaiah (5.4.b) and determining the tradition-historical development between these two tradition complexes (5.4.c). b. Second Isaiah P did not create the idea of the sequence of ancestors and exodus from scratch. Rather, he reached back to intellectual predecessors who had already prepared this path. The most important is the salvation prophecy contained in Second Isaiah, the beginning of which should be placed historically in the time of the change from the Babylonian Empire to the Persian Empire. Second Isaiah in particular established a new interpretation of the historical traditions of Israel, which it received and processed in manifold ways. Asking about the concept of history in Second Isaiah, however, is doubly difficult. On the one hand, there are several uncertainties regarding the literaryhistorical questions of this block of text. 531 On the other hand, one must take into account that Second Isaiah, however one determines it in terms of genre, is neither a history book nor part of one. Second Isaiah is a section of the book of Isaiah and its logical relationship to the preceding material is not fully clear. Also, in its internal organization, Second Isaiah is by no means transparent but at first creates 531. For example, see the overview in Hermisson, BETL 81 (1989), 287–91; Kratz, Kyros, 1–15; Kaiser, Grundriss, 2:49–60. Alongside the classic solution, which understands Second Isaiah to be the originally independent witness of a salvation prophet working in the exile (a salvation prophetess according to McEvenue [Festschrift Beuken] or a prophetic group according to Michel [TRE 8:510–30]; see Hermisson’s response to Michel in VF 31 [1986], 66–67), there are also recent attempts to see Second Isaiah as a literary product from the outset. Some connect it to Isaiah *1–39: Clements, JSOT 31 (1985): 95–113; Albertz, Festschrift Rendtorff; Seitz, Destiny; see Rendtorff, VT 34 (1984): 295–320. Others connect it to Jeremiah: Bosshard, Rezeptionen, 450–64; Kratz, ZAW 106 (1994): 1–24; Steck, “Israel und Zion,” 197–98; see Schmid, Buchgestalten, 315–19. Williamson believes that Second Isaiah is primarily influenced by Isaiah 1–39 (Williamson, Book, 240–44), but he considers “Deutero-Isaiah” to be the main redactor and publisher of Isaiah (see also his overview of the research, pp. 1–18).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 249 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Literary Connection of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story

249

a confusing impression on its readers. The complexity and the apparent disparity of the text make it difficult to recognize the intent of the book’s composition. It is clear, however, that Second Isaiah argues theologically with the history of Israel. The writer of Second Isaiah knows and mentions the creation 532 (40:12, 21–26; 42:5; 43:18; 44:24; 45:7–8, 9–11, 18; 47:13; 49:8; 50:2–3; 51:13; 55:9– 10), the flood (54:9), the ancestors 533 (“Abraham” in 41:8–9; “Abraham/Sarah” in 51:2; “Jacob”/[“Israel”] in 40:27; 41:8, 14, 21; 42:24; 43:1, 22, 28; 44:1–2, 5, 21, 23; 45:4, 19; 46:3; 48:1, 12, 20; 49:5–6, 26), as well as the exodus, the miracle of the sea and the wilderness wandering 534 (43:16–21; 48:20–21; 51:9–10; 52:11– 12; 55:12–13). Even when an original layer is reconstructed source-critically in Second Isaiah, these themes are still generally attributed by scholarship to this original layer. 535 But how do they relate to one another? Do they allow us to recognize an overarching image of history? Do they only concern selective allusions? Or must we completely clear away modern ideas of a “notion of history” to understand the historical concept of Second Isaiah? 536 The answer to these questions naturally depends upon how one defines the thematic organization of Second Isaiah. 537 The suggestions offered are as numerous as the interpreters and depend largely on how they employ source criticism. We will limit ourselves here to the suggestion put forth by Kratz, because he goes furthest with respect to an image of history presented by Second Isaiah. For the foundational writing, as he has determined it—Isa 40:1–5* / 40:12–48:21 / 52:7–10—he has put forth the thesis that in conception and in structure this writing is determined according to both the classic “salvation history” and the “individual acts of the present salvation events.” 538 Nevertheless, Kratz himself indicates that “the acts of the current period (the time of Cyrus) corresponding to the individual stations of salvation history are not meaningfully” inserted “in the flow of history.” 539 He suggests that every earlier station in the historical course is pointing 532. See J. Jeremias, JBTh 5 (1990); 27–32, and the literature mentioned on p. 27 n. 33. 533. See C. Jeremias, Festschrift Zimmerli; Baltzer, Festschrift Scharbert; Römer, Väter, 535–38. 534. See Stuhlmueller, Redemption, 272; Kiesow, Exodustexte, 17–18 n. 35; concerning Spykerboer and Vincent, see idem, Exodustexte, 19–20. 535. See Kratz, Kyros; van Oorschot, Von Babel (see the treatment of both in Leene, TLZ 121 [1996]: 803–18). 536. See Steck, Deuterojesaja, 211 n. 8: “In Jerusalem theology of the preexilic period, which shaped Deutero-Isaiah, the history of Israel does not appear to be seen as a continuous, successive context of the salvific activity of Yhwh for a (i.e., his) people. Rather, it appears to be seen as a series of isolated manifestations of salvation in which the world king, Yhwh, dedicated his universal might to Zion or Israel in turn.” See also Koch, “Qädäm”; and Leene, Festschrift Beuken, who closely associate the idea of history in Second Isaiah with the idea of history in the Psalms. 537. See the overview of the research in Kiesow, Exodustexte, 10–17; Hermisson, VF 31 (1986), 53–84; idem, BETL 81 (1989), 287–312; Kratz, Kyros, 1–15. 538. Kratz, Kyros, 151; see the overview on p. 152. See the discussion, however, in Leene, TLZ 121 (1996): especially p. 818. 539. Kratz, Kyros, 153.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 250 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

250

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

to a corresponding station in the “now” and that this second chronological ordering is influencing the first. However, this must not automatically lead to the conclusion that the “earlier” events in a historical flow are presupposed. The text actually points in another direction. If Kratz’s subdivisions in Isaiah 40–52 based on the hymnic parts (42:10–13; 43:20–21; 44:23; 48:20–21) and the judgment speeches (41:1–4, 21–24; 43:9– 12; 44:6–7; 45:20–21; 46:9–13) are affirmed, then we get the impression that it is primarily this isolated movement from the “earlier” to the “new” upon which the current salvation events are grounded. This movement, which is different from the progression of the classic salvation history, does not begin first with “creation (40:12ff.),” then “the ancestors (41:8–9),” the “exodus (43:16–17),” the “sins leading to the exile (43:22–23),” or end with the “Babylonian Exile up to Cyrus.” Rather, it argues in a very fundamental way along the lines of creation theology, which does not perceive creation as the first station of salvation history. Instead, it connects creation and history with one another indissolubly: Yhwh’s acting in history is eo ipso an act of creation. 540 For this reason, the creation statements in Second Isaiah are spread across the entire writing (see 40:12, 21–26; 42:5; 43:18; 44:24; 45:7–8, 9–11, 18; 47:13; 49:8; 50:2–3; 51:13; 55:9–10) and are not just encountered at the beginning. The far-reaching conclusion by von Rad (which is foremost due to the history of modern theology in the 20th century) that the creation faith of Deutero-Isaiah has a subordinate role should be corrected by these observations.541 Perhaps one can say that the creation theology in Second Isaiah does not “appear independently”542 but in combination with other themes. However, this does not mean that the creation statements occupy a subordinate role. Rather, they stand as an argument for the idea that Yhwh’s activity is fundamentally qualified as creation activity. 543

For the themes of the ancestors and the exodus, we can recognize a very different conception in Second Isaiah, although they are both qualified in terms of creation theology. Among the exodus texts, some stand in close correspondence to the creation statements that decidedly relate to the historical, first exodus from Egypt (Isa 43:16–21; 51:9–10; and especially 52:11–12). In 43:16–21 and 51:9– 10, strictly speaking, it is not the exodus from Egypt itself that is the theme but the salvation act of crossing through the sea for which Yhwh is praised in the hymnic participial style. The miracle at the sea is an illustrative example of the divine power of creation. 544 The historical, first exodus from Egypt, however, is neither 540. See also Hermisson, VF 31 (1986): 74–75; Jeremias, JBTh 5 (1990): 27–32. Fishbane considers Isa 40:18, 25, 28; 45:7, 18; and 46:5 to be dogmatic corrections to Gen 1:1–2:4 (Interpretation, 325–26; against the existing creation material and the human likeness of God). 541. Von Rad, TB 8 139. See also the critical notes of Hermisson, VF 31 (1986): 74. 542. Von Rad, TB 8 139. 543. See Steck, Deuterojesaja, 214 with n. 13; Steck, Welt, 162–63. 544. Here, Second Isaiah coincides essentially with P. See Exod 14:22, 29 (“the dry ground”) with Gen 1:9–10.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 251 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Literary Connection of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story

251

a salvation event for Israel nor a particular act of God for which Yhwh should be praised. The exodus itself is hardly mentioned, 545 as is the case also with the conquest. The exodus as salvation event does not play a role anymore; it can no longer establish the election of Israel because it has been theologically annihilated by the experience of the loss of the land. The theme of the ancestors is considerably more present and more important in Second Isaiah. The people addressed in Second Isaiah are qualified as “Jacob/Israel,” and as the “seed of Abraham” (41:8–9). On the basis of the election of the ancestors, Israel still can be the people of God. 546 But now, Yhwh has spoken, your creator, O Jacob, and the one who formed you, O Israel. . . . (Isa 43:1)—Thus, Yhwh has spoken, your redeemer, and the one who formed you in your mother’s womb. (Isa 44:24)

Thus, the election of the ancestors is the only creation act of Yhwh that simultaneously represents a salvation-historical fact upon which the current Israel can rely. Furthermore, it is precisely in the extensive use of creation statements that one can compare the concept of Second Isaiah with the perspective of P, which also seeks to establish the identity of Israel in the ancestors. In contrast to P, Second Isaiah is not concerned with a merger of the epochs of the ancestors and the exodus into a foundational epoch of Israel. Rather, the foundational epoch of Israel is completely reduced to the ancestral period in Second Isaiah. However, under the decisive experience of the national catastrophe, both text complexes endeavor to treat anew Israel’s double tradition of origins. In both cases, there is decided concentration on the ancestor theme. 547 The late communal complaint in Isa 63:7–64:11, the literary origins of which belong in the Ptolemaic period, 548 shows a characteristically different perspective with reference to the ancestors and exodus compared with the one that dominates Second Isaiah.549 In Second Isaiah, there is a basic dividing line between the ancestor tradition and the exodus tradition. It is only the ancestor tradition with its unqualified promises that comes into play for Second Isaiah as an element bearing theological weight; the exodus tradition, bound to the law and possession of the land, is annulled as a salvation-historical foundation by the loss of the land of Israel caused by Israel’s guilt.550 Isa 63:7–64:11 appears to go a step further. The prayer in 63:16 is formulated as an address to God: “Truly, you are our father, for Abraham does not recognize us; Israel does not know us. You, Yhwh, are our father” 545. Relatedly, 52:11–12 solely as a negative background (ˆwzpjb “in anxious haste”; see Deut 16:3). 546. “For Deutero-Isaiah, the ancestor theme is not connected with the loaning of the land” (as would be expected if a salvation historical flow was presupposed: K.S.), “but with the constitution of Israel as a people” (Steck, Deuterojesaja, 213 n. 12). See further, Michel, TRE 8:518. Concerning the recourse to the patriarchs, see the references in Schmid, Buchgestalten, 115–16, with n. 278 (bibliography). 547. In a comparison of Second Isaiah with P, see the works of Eitz (Studien) and Streibert (Schöpfung), though they hardly exhaust the topic. 548. See the summary in Steck, Abschluss, 29–30, 91–99 (bibliography). 549. See Römer, Väter, 537. 550. Here, see Steck, Deuterojesaja, 211–13.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 252 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

252

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

(see 64:9). Neither Abraham nor Jacob is an identifying figure for the people (as was the case in Second Isaiah). Rather, Yhwh alone is Israel’s “father.” As a result, the affirmation of the “days of old” (μlw[ ymy in 63:11) begins with the time of Egypt. For the prayer of 63:7–64:11, the authoritative history of origins of Israel begins with Moses. In Isa 63:7– 64:11, the relationship of the ancestors and exodus found in Second Isaiah is reversed. Israel is based on Moses, not on Abraham and Jacob. Instead, Yhwh is its “father.” Now one must take into account the fact that the prayer in 63:7–64:11 does not stand alone in its current context but is closely connected with God’s response in Isaiah 65– 66. 551 It takes up aspects of the prayer but corrects the prayer in far-reaching ways. For my argument, it is especially important that the question of the ancestors or the exodus as the authoritative tradition of the founding is criticized in two ways. First, Israel will not be a complete entity that, as a whole, will experience salvation in the future. Rather, there will be a selection from Jacob (65:9): “Yhwh’s servants.” Second, the horizon of Yhwh’s further activity is nothing less than a “new heaven” and a “new earth” (65:17; 66:22). It is thus no longer this event or that event from Israel’s past salvation history that has authoritative character for what is coming. Rather, creation itself will be overhauled.552 This movement away from the historical traditions of origins to a “new heaven” and “new earth” that can be observed in 63:7–66:24 can be found again in a series of intertestamental texts that will be addressed more closely below, in §4.2 (pp. 282ff.).

c. Tradition-Historical Changes If one looks over the tradition-historical development from Second Isaiah to P and to the combination of Genesis and Exodus (and following), then we can recognize a continuing movement of an ever-closer merging of the ancestors and the exodus. In the exilic period, the ancestor tradition and the exodus story had existed essentially distinct from one another literarily and conceptually. Texts such as Hosea 12 and Ezek 33:24 as well as the extensive “silence of the patriarchs” in the “Deuteronomistically” shaped literature show that they may have stood in a competitive relationship to one another: 553 Israel was either based on the ancestors or on the exodus, but not on the two together. The separate coexistence of these two tradition complexes was fundamentally transformed by the experiences of the national catastrophe of Judah, and in particular, one can observe major shifts in the subsequent period. The exodus story no longer comes into play as an independent theological foundation, for with the exile, the nature of the leading of Israel out of Egypt as a salvific deed of Yhwh is revoked for his people. In Second Isaiah (and maybe also in the contemporary texts in Jeremiah *30–31), 554 the development of salvation perspectives after the catastrophe is thus based especially on the ancestor tradition, which was the only transmitted salvation tradition that still had theological validity. 555 Thus, Second 551. Steck, Tritojesaja, 34–44, 229–65; idem, Abschluss, 29–30. 552. On Isaiah 65–66 and Genesis 1–3, see the recent work of Steck, Festschrift Beuken. 553. See de Pury, “Osée 12”; idem, VTSup 43 (1991), 78–96; idem, “Erwägungen”; Kratz, TRE 28:373; and §2.4.6 above (pp. 147ff.). 554. See my Buchgestalten, 110–54. 555. See the discussion in Albertz, History, 2:404–6.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 253 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Literary Connection of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story

253

Isaiah (like Jeremiah *30–31) addresses Israel as a people of the ancestors and can even transfer royal imagery onto “Jacob/Israel.” P shares with Second Isaiah the characterization of Israel as a people founded on the ancestors, and P’s ideas are perhaps, to a certain extent, inspired by Second Isaiah. 556 However, P goes considerably further than Second Isaiah in closely connecting the time of Moses to the ancestral period as a subsequent epoch. It appears that here, for the first time, the idea arises that the ancestors and the exodus represent two sections of the prehistory of Israel that follow one after the other. The theological motivation of P has often been described. P is written in a historical situation in which the whole “Deuteronomistic” tradition still offers help for explaining the past but hardly for facing the future. 557 P therefore activates the promises in the ancestor tradition and declares them, like Second Isaiah, to be the theologically significant foundational element for the existence of Israel. Israel stands on the covenant of Abraham, which unconditionally guarantees its existence as a people, the nearness of God, and the giving of land. In contrast to Second Isaiah, however, P treats the Mosaic period theologically as closely as possible to the period of the ancestors. In its overall structure, P reveals a circle of the world (Genesis 1–9) and a circle of Israel (Genesis 11–Exodus 40 or Leviticus 9) that connect the ancestral period and the Mosaic period into a structured (see the caesura in Exod 1:7) theological unit. In contrast to Second Isaiah, P’s interest in the first exodus under Moses lies in the giving of the law at Sinai. Therefore, in order to be able to explain plausibly this process of the close merger of the ancestor period and Moses together in P, we should not limit Pg to a pure presentation of history and assign all legal material entirely to P s. 558 With the joining of Genesis and Exodus (and following) and with the incorporation of P into the narrative flow of the historical books, the theological significance of the sequence of the ancestors and Exodus changes again decisively. In P, the sequence of the ancestors and Exodus is a foundational and still open-ended epoch, if one sees the end of P as being the Sinai pericope. However, in the merger of Genesis and Exodus (and following) within the narrative presentation of the conquest of the land in the book of Joshua, this sequence is incorporated into the argument/narrative of Genesis–Joshua by promise and fulfillment. Thus, it narrates a salvation history that is no longer open but has a narrative end in the past. Another decisive modification is that, if the promises given to Abraham in the covenant underlie the history of Israel for P, then the promises to the ancestors are actually broken by the unification of Genesis and Exodus (and following). They 556. The relationship of P to Second Isaiah has not yet been treated exhaustively. In the meantime, see Eitz, Studien; Streibert, Schöpfung. 557. For the later expansion of the “Deuteronomistic” image of history into a perspective for the turning point of salvation, see Steck, Israel, 139–43; Schmid, Buchgestalten, 318–19. 558. So Grünwaldt, Exil, 3 (in conjunction with Elliger, “Sinn”). By contrast, but still correct, see von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:233. See Lohfink, “Priesterschrift,” 250–52.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 254 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

254

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

are historically fulfilled when Israel becomes a nation (in Exodus) and at the giving of the land (in Joshua), and thereafter are still only indirectly valid for current readers. The idea that their content continues to remain in force even for the distant future is provided primarily by the prophetic salvation sayings, which actualize the old promises to the ancestors. Just as God once promised the Genesis patriarchs descendants, well-being, blessing, and land, so the prophets announce to Israel the return from exile, the increase of the people, prosperity, and possession of the land. It is thus primarily the understanding of prophecy that distinguishes P from the literarily connected non-Priestly story of the ancestors and Moses/exodus. While P endeavors to accentuate the covenant with Abraham along with its adoption of Exod 6:2–8; 29:45–46 as a continuing promise, 559 the post-Priestly combination of the non-Priestly ancestor story and the non-Priestly exodus story creates a continuing validity of the promises to the ancestors in that the salvation and judgment lines in Genesis–2 Kings flow toward the corpus propheticum, without which it remains incomplete. The reason for the focus of Genesis–2 Kings on salvation prophecy is not difficult to imagine in light of the connection between judgment prophecy and the preexilic prophets. Judgment ends with the destruction of Jerusalem and the beginning of the exile as reported in 2 Kings 25. 3.5.5. Dating In relative terms, the redactional unification of Genesis and Exodus (and following) can be dated quite precisely: it is later than Second Isaiah and P and older than all texts and writings that already presume the merger of the historical books. One can point, here, especially to the so-called historical creed texts and the historical Psalms. However, the absolute dating of P is debated. Usually there is alternation between an exilic and an early postexilic assessment, but recently there are also those who argue for a preexilic date or an origin over a more lengthy span of time.560 The question is also complicated 559. As a consequence, apparently P takes pains to show prophetic judgment sayings, especially in Ezekiel, as having been fulfilled already in the early period of the history of Israel (see Ska, Bib 60 [1979]: 191–215; W. H. Schmidt, Festschrift Delcor; idem, BKAT 2/2 324–25; Kohata, Jahwist, 348–49; Lust, BETL 126 [1996], 209–24; but see the divergent views of Steck, Festschrift Koch, 304, and the bibliography there in pp. 300–301 n. 31). It can be observed quite clearly in the reception of Amos 8 and Ezekiel 7–9 in Gen 6:11–13 (see Smend, Festschrift Wolff; Steck, Festschrift Koch, 293–305. See also the observations in Gosse, EstBib 51 [1993]: 459–72; idem, RHPhR 74 [1994]: 241–47 [Exod 6:8/ Ezek 33:24]; idem, BN 86 [1997]: 31–35 [Exod 6:6/Ezek 30:19] and other passages from Ezekiel). 560. See the overview in Otto, TRu 62 (1997): 1–50; Zenger, Einleitung AT, 97–98; idem, TRE 27:435–46. Concerning the recent attempts at an early (preexilic) dating of the Priestly writing, see the listing in Kohata, Jahwist, 2 n. 5; Seebass, TRE 26:192; Carr, Reading, 133–34 n. 35; Zenger, TRE 27:439–40; as well as Zevit, ZAW 94 (1982): 481–511; Hurvitz, ZAW 100 (1988) supp: 88–100; Milgrom, ABD 5:458–59; Haran, JANESCU 22 (1993): 57; Staubli, NSK.AT 3, 29; Joosten, People, 203– 7 (concerning Leviticus 17–26). Rendtorff attempts a compromise (Rendtorff, “Origines”; idem, JSOT 60 [1993]: 80; see Carr, Reading, 134–35 [for whom, tradition historically, the legal material can be old while the narrative is late. The silver scrolls from Ketef Hinnom give a certain credibility to this position;

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 255 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Literary Connection of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story

255

by the idea that introductory studies have accepted that the points for dating P have also become uncertain: what is the literary extent of P? Is P a source or a redaction or neither? Also, with respect to dating the creed texts and the historical Psalms, there are disagreements in the research. To be sure, the “small historical creed” in Deut 26:5–9 is no longer believed to be ancient (as was the case with von Rad), even with respect to its content. Rather, it has been located in the circle of the “Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic” writings. However, this new consensus has failed as well: “Deuteronomism” can no longer be determinded as a theologically uniform way of thinking that is limited to the 6th century in ancient Israel. In recent scholarship, even early datings have once again been considered, however with little plausibility. 561 It is obvious that psalms can only be dated with difficulty, so we find little help here.

If we accept the usual dating proposals and take Second Isaiah and P as a terminus a quo and do not distance ourselves too much from this time period in light of the subsequent redaction history of the Pentateuch (which, above all, brought with it the formation of the Torah), 562 then a setting of the redactional combination of Genesis and Exodus (and following) in the first half of the fifth century is most likely. 563 Even the independent Moses/exodus story (especially in the plague cycle) in its latest form shows close material contacts to the concept in Jeremiah 25–29 and Second Isaiah that Yhwh is lord over all foreign rulers. This concept itself belongs in the early postexilic period. 564 The use of rhnh rb[ (Beyond the River) in Josh 24:2 points in this direction; it does not mean the “Trans-Euphrates” but the “Cis-Euphrates.” This use of rhnh rb[ does not appear to presume the establishment of the particular satrapy called Abar Nahara, probably by Xerxes. 565 This interpretation of the exodus as deliverance from life-threatening hardship, as it is seen in Exodus 1 and Exodus 3, can be easily imagined in this period even if no possibilities for limiting it more precisely result from this. Nehemiah 5 (see especially 5:3) shows that the theme was quite current then.566 Apparently, along with Nehemiah 5, the roughly they attest to an early form of the Aaronite blessing in Num 6:24–26; see Yardeni, VT 41 (1991): 176–85; Kaiser, Grundriss, 1:60; Carr, Reading, 134]). Concerning Y. Kaufmann and his followers, see Krapf, Priesterschrift, especially pp. 283–312. For a critical assessment of these suggestions for the early dating of P, see Blum, Vätergeschichte, 453–54 n. 35; Blenkinsopp, ZAW 108 (1996): 495–518. 561. Daniels, “Creed”; see instead, Gertz, “Stellung.” 562. See the extensive discussion in §3.6.5 (pp. 271ff.). 563. Blum (Vätergeschichte, 56–58) attempts to prove that the problem of the worship of foreign gods in Joshua 24 was introduced entirely in the postexilic period (he points to Ezekiel 8, 33; Isaiah 57, 65–66). However, Joshua 24 could also have been formulated fictively for its relationship to the time of the conquest, as one imagines it at the time of the composition of Joshua 24. The problem of the worship of foreign gods could be anchored in Joshua 24, in the sense of a historical etiology of the national destruction toward which Joshua 24 looks. Römer believes that the broadening of the Pentateuch (undertaken by Joshua 24) into a Hexateuch does not comport with the ideology of the Persian Empire (Römer, Transeu 13 [1997]: 63 n. 72). He thus dates it at the end of the Achaemenid period. However, I find it improbable that the Pentateuch is older than the Hexateuch (see below, §3.6.5, pp. 271ff.). 564. K. Schmid, Buchgestalten, 250–53. 565. See above, §3.3.2.c (pp. 199ff.). 566. For example, see Baltzer, Festschrift Cross; and recently Maier, Frau, 48–50, 53–54 (bibliography).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 256 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

256

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

contemporary Psalms 104, 145–47 (obviously formulated against the background of a similar problem) emphasize the divine provision of nourishment as a fundamental gift of salvation. 567 Finally, in support of the date mentioned, there is the pericope of the “God-fearing midwives” in Exod 1:15–21. This text was apparently inserted only after the unification of Genesis and Exodus (and following) achieved by the corresponding parts of the text in Genesis 50 and Exodus 1. It stands theologically close to the “diaspora oriented” layers in the prophetic books that may belong to the second half of the fifth century, so that we have a certain terminus ante quem with it. 568

If this historical placement of the unification of the ancestor story and the Moses/exodus story within a large historical work extending from Genesis to 2 Kings is correct, then it is necessary to highlight its chronological proximity to the grand Persian royal inscriptions, especially the Behistun Inscription of Darius I (DB). 569 Given this proximity, we should consider whether these inscriptions provided a model for the monumental “historiography” of the Hebrew Bible that now appears in Genesis–2 Kings. At any rate, it is plausible that the integration of the history of Israel into a universal history of the creation of the world onward, like that undertaken in Genesis–2 Kings, is more readily imaginable in the “worldwide” Persian rule of the time than before. Furthermore, the content as well as genre of the royal inscriptions may have played a role in the formation of Genesis–2 Kings. Specifically, the largely universal characterization of Israel’s and Judah’s own monarchic period as a time of judgment, which arose by prefacing Judges–2 Kings with Genesis–Joshua, can easily be understood in the context of Persian royal ideology. Thus, Persian-period Judah renounces its own royal past and declares its fundamental loyalty to the Persian ruling power (whereby the Persian king is seen as the representative of God’s kingship). On the other hand, the formation of Genesis–2 Kings is not free of Judah’s own political and religious interests. The narrative flow of Genesis–2 Kings into the corpus propheticum, which also contains a series of messianic statements, shows a careful balance between loyalty to the Persians and loyalty to Judah’s own sovereign interests. 567. See the possibilities for dating in Kratz, ZTK 89 (1992): 21 n. 68. 568. Schmid, Buchgestalten, 269–77 (additional bibliography there). 569. See R. Borger and W. Hinz, TUAT 1:419–50. The Persian king legitimates his power in DB, giving information about the rebellion he quelled and by means of which he stabilized his empire. It is thus likely that the Behistun Inscription was published throughout the whole Persian Empire, meaning also in Palestine, which we may assume because an Aramaic translation was found in Elephantine in Upper Egypt (see Greenfield and Porten, Inscriptions). Thus, the authorities in postexilic Judah may have known these texts, and that knowledge may have influenced the composition of Genesis–2 Kings. The scope of the historical work of Genesis–2 Kings is largely unparalleled in the ancient world. The only comparable works are the Egyptian Book of the Dead (see Koch, Ägyptischen Religion, 313–27) and Homer’s Epic. Some also point to the works of Herodotus (see nn. 182 [p. 187] and 573), Berossus, and Manetho (see the considerations of Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 43; and n. 248 [p. 197]). However, the royal inscriptions are most noticeably comparable with Genesis–2 Kings in their historiographical interests.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 257 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

The Literary Connection of the Ancestor Story and the Moses/Exodus Story

257

Alongside the Persian royal inscriptions as works comparable with Genesis–2 Kings, we should also consider the similar Greek works of Herodotus and Thucydides which are the closest chronologically. If dating suggestions here are correct, the grand historical work of Genesis–2 Kings would have appeared shortly before Herodotus (485–425) and Thucydides (460–395). Religion-historically, ancient Greece undoubtedly played a larger role for Israel, and vice versa, Israel undoubtedly played a greater role for Greece than has hitherto been recognized in scholarship. 570 Relationships between Greece and Israel are often discusssed only for late wisdom literature. However, contacts should be considered for a much earlier period. Greek ceramics are attested at a series of sites in Palestine,571 and the ostraca in Arad explicitly mention Greek soldiers.572 These contacts were not limited to the exchange of merchandise and the presence of soldiers. A monograph by Mandell and Freedman and another by Nielsen comparing Herodotus with Genesis–2 Kings (or Deuteronomy–2 Kings) have already been published (albeit with different introductory premises and conclusions). 573 They have not, however, exhausted their theme. These questions concerning such cultural contacts can only be treated briefly here.

In light of recent Pentateuch research, it is no longer revolutionary to conclude that the ancestor and exodus stories were not unified literarily until the beginning of the 5th century, meaning relatively late. Blum’s Kd and the J of Van Seters, Rose, and Levin (who all argued for this conclusion) have appeared in the last few decades. What distinguishes my redactional layer connecting Genesis and Exodus from Kd and the late dating of J is (1) primarily its placement after P, and (2) the fact that its main accomplishment literarily was the connection of the ancestor story and the Moses/exodus story; and theologically was the forming of the hexateuchal salvation history and the subsequent judgment history. Contrary to the classic view, this suggestion means that the Persian-period redaction work on the historical books was considerably more important to its current shape than previously thought. 574 Persian-period scribes in Judah did not limit themselves to selective expansions and reinterpretations of the texts transmitted to them. Rather, it was primarily these scribes who were responsible for the image of earlier history that we have considered very old—the image of the sequence of themes for the history of Israel so well known from the Pentateuch. 570. See Van Seters, Search (see discussion in Koch, Bib 67 [1986]: 109–17); Brown, Hellas; Witte and Alkier, Griechen und der Vordere Orient; eidem, Griechen und das antike Israel. 571. See Wenning, “Messad Óasavyahu,” 171–72 n. 7. See also Renz and Röllig, Handbuch, 1:354, with n. 1. 572. See the μytk (“Kittim”) in ostraca nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17 (see Renz and Röllig, ibid., 1:353–82). 573. Mandell and Freedman, Relationship; Nielsen, Tragedy. 574. For example, see Levin, Jahwist, 437: “Without the extensive similarity of form for the Yahwist and the Priestly writing, which means the close parallelism of the two presentations of history in the big picture and in the details, the source connections we have observed would not be possible.” In addition to the redactional processes inside the historical books that I have described in this work, other findings show how much more one should presume for biblical scribes in the postexilic period. For example: the incorporation of Second Isaiah in the Isaiah book, the relocation of the text sequence in Jeremiah (LXX), or the Maccabean-period interpretation of the Daniel narratives in Daniel *1–6.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 258 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

258

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

3.5.6. Place Determining the location of the redactional activity that connected the ancestor story and the exodus story is not easy, though the problem has fewer obstacles than dating. The orientation on the land which is accentuated by the lines of Genesis–Joshua (specifically also the lines of Gen 50:25 / Exod 13:19 / Josh 24:32) as well as the anticipated reference to the prophetic salvation statements, make it quite unlikely that the redaction uniting Genesis and Exodus (and following) took place outside Israel—in the Babylonian or Egyptian exile or in the diaspora. Rather, for two reasons it is more likely that the activity took place in the land itself, in fact, in Jerusalem. One, the first important programmatic text, Genesis 15, takes place in Jerusalem and promises to return “here” (hnh in Gen 15:16). Two, the revised complexes of Genesis, Exodus (and following), and P 575 would not have been available anywhere other than Jerusalem in light of the limited circulation of scrolls in the biblical period. 576 In addition, the merger of Genesis and Exodus (and following) conceptually meant that a considerable adaptation of the non-Priestly tradition of history to the Priestly was needed; thus, the author responsible would not have been situated all that far from the Priestly milieu that dominated Jerusalem in the Persian period. If this was the case, then we have even more reason to believe that, contemporary with the merger of Genesis and Exodus (and following), P was also incorporated into the context of the historical books. However, a special feature of Genesis and Exodus (and following) after they were combined into an epic historical work of salvation and judgment lies therein: it indirectly hightlights the subsequent prophetic books as its theological goal. Genesis–2 Kings theologically flows into the corpus propheticum so that prophetic interests appear to have been behind the redactional connecting of Genesis and Exodus (and following). It is precisely in the Persian period that the prophetic and Priestly tradents were probably not very far removed from one another, for the tradents of the prophetic books were most likely active in Jerusalem as well. 577 Interpretation of writings that were Priestly/ theocratic or prophetic/eschatological were probably closer to one another in the postexilic period from a socio-literary perspective than is commonly thought, because both cases involved professional work that presupposed “scribal scholarship.” 575. P has been accepted by many scholars as having arisen in Babylon (see, e.g., Pola, Priesterschrift, 349; Otto, ZAW 107 [1995]: 375), but it would have found its way to Jerusalem immediately and would have been known there in the early Persian period. Perhaps it was even the collecting of the received writings in the Second Temple that triggered the question of their relationship to one another and, as a result, their literary combination. What motivated this combination is a problem that has hardly been considered yet. Solving this problem might also provide hints to the inner logic of the development of the canon. In its own way, the canon represents nothing more than a “combination” of the existing writings of the time into a meaningful context. 576. See my Buchgestalten, 35–43. 577. Ibid., 41–43, with n. 204 (bibliography). On the question of the “master copies,” see also Oesch, Petucha, 108; Maier, JBTh 3 (1988): 139–40.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 259 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Theological Aspects of the Unified Ancestor and Moses/Exodus Story

259

With the circulation of biblical books in the biblical period still quite rare, this work can be plausibly imagined only in Jerusalem. Locating the setting in the land itself, perhaps in Jerusalem, does not mean that the conditions and needs of the diaspora were not taken into account. The Decalogue (prominently highlighted in Gen 15:7; Josh 24:2, 16, 19–20, 23; compare Exod 3:12) can be observed even in the diaspora. In addition, several items in the text were phrased to show that the theological profile of this redaction included the diaspora: the return to “here” in Gen 15:16 (meaning Jerusalem); the Mespotamian origin of Abraham highlighted in Gen 15:7 and Josh 24:2; the accent on Joseph and the transmission of his bones from foreign soil; and finally, also the flow of Genesis–Joshua, Judges–2 Kings toward the corpus propheticum, with its statements of return. The highlighted motif of the departure of Abraham from Mesopotamia (Gen 15:7; Josh 24:2) that made a wanderer out of the traditionally autochthonous figure of Abraham (see Ezek 33:24) could even imply that the ideological origin of this redaction that took place in Jerusalem was the Mesopotamian golah.

3.6. Theological Aspects of the Unified Ancestor and Moses/Exodus Story 3.6.1. Traditions of Origin and Salvation History a. Genesis–2 Kings: Between Tradition of Origins and Future Expectation The ancestor story and the Moses/exodus story have been shown above to be two different traditions of the origin of Israel (see above, §2.3.5 and §2.4.5). What happens in the merger of the ancestor narrative and the Moses/exodus narrative from a form-critical perspective? First, one should name a constant element. Genesis–2 Kings remains fundamentally a “tradition of origins.” For the Persian and the Hellenistic periods of Israel, it is this “founding period” (extending into the Babylonian Exile), which established its identity and existence in Palestine and in the diaspora. For Israel, the story presented in Genesis–2 Kings in its entirety is its foundational period. It had its own emphasis on the primal history, which is now a preface that speaks of the foundational acts of God for all humanity. 578 For Genesis–2 Kings, another, more important point should be added. If the independent ancestor story and the Moses/exodus story were directed toward a specific foundational goal—namely, the existence of Israel in its land—then the goal of the flow of the salvation and judgment history of Genesis– 2 Kings should now be seen differently. Perhaps Genesis–2 Kings primarily explains, with its concluding passages, why Israel is still a nation even without its own land. At the same time, a literary thread runs further, into the following corpus propheticum. Israel certainly 578. Concerning the mutual relationship between myth and history in the writing of history in ancient Israel and antiquity, see Müller, ZTK 80 (1983): 9; Van Seters, Jahwist, 91–92; idem, Prologue (see earlier, Noth, “Historisierung”; and further, the works named by Petersen in Mythos, 3 nn. 10– 11). Koch and Eliade express themselves more critically, calling the historical traditions of Israel “myth” but with a rough distinction between “myth” and “history” (Koch, TRE 12:575–76; Eliade, Mythos, 152).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 260 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

260

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

had lost its land, but this land is again promised to Israel in the prophetic books, in theological continuity with the promises to the ancestors. God himself will again gather his people and bring them into the land. The corpus propheticum predicts, when read from the perspective of Genesis–2 Kings, a “new salvation history,” 579 in which “God so changes the anthropomorphic and economic structure as the primal cause that a renewed overturning of the salvation period into an epoch of decline appears to be avoided.” 580 Thus, the historical and prophetic books form three stages: from an old salvation story (Genesis–Joshua), to a judgment story ( Judges– 2 Kings), to a new salvation story (Isaiah–Zechariah/Malachi). In terms of its chronological structure, therefore, Genesis–2 Kings cannot be understood merely in the framework of the difference between the early founding period and the present. By pointing ahead to the prophets, not only does the primeval time of the past have a foundational quality that explains the current categories of life, but it is also overtaken by the new time to come. 581 This new time also has a “foundational quality” for the present. The forming of Genesis–2 Kings, with its outlook on the prophets, thereby marks a decisive turning point in the biblical understanding of time. The fundamental “mythical” distinction between the primal period and the current period is expanded by elements that also affirm a foundational quality for what is to come. The present thus becomes a “time between the times.” It comes after the judgment that has taken place (seen literarily: after 2 Kings 25), but still before the coming restitution announced in the prophetic books. This double influence on the current period by both the primal period and the future has a significant role in the history of theology: structurally, basic elements are already prefigured that will later play a central role in Christian theology in its differentiation between (past) reconciliation and (future) redemption. b. The Place of the Salvation History in the History of Theology Since the time of Wellhausen, the acceptance of a salvation history extending from Genesis to Joshua has decidedly shaped the image of the theological history of Israel in the study of the Hebrew Bible. Von Rad’s concept has become especially influential. He placed the theology of the Hexateuch (the witness of Israel to its salvation history from creation to conquest) at the beginning of his Old Testament 579. Koch, TRE 12:579; Koch, “Qädäm,” 278; see also Ben Zvi, SJOT 12 (1998): 26–43. 580. Koch, “Qädäm,” 283 (see p. 275). From these considerations, the “simplistic” (Koch, Bib 67 [1986]: 115) thesis of Albrektson (History) loses its glimmer. Albrektson wants to prove that the image of God’s action in history was by no means unique to Israel. In the English-speaking world, Albrektson’s results have largely been seen as a refutation of the conceptualization of von Rad. Albrektson’s thesis is certainly not false, but it is trivial. That deities have a connection to historical reality is not the exception but the rule in the history of religion—at least in the ancient Near East and ancient Israel. However, the idea that a specific segment of history, such as the segment in Genesis–Joshua, would be interpreted under the horizon of an unconditional turning of Yhwh to his people is in fact something unique to Israel (see also the critique of Albrektson in Assmann, Gedächtnis, 248–51). 581. See Dalferth, “Gott und Zeit,” 245–47.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 261 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Theological Aspects of the Unified Ancestor and Moses/Exodus Story

261

theology. 582 He also saw in it, specifically in the Yahwistic History, the fundamental outline of ideas that rested on an “ancient” tradition of knowledge, toward which much of the later material was directed and by which it was measured. 583 However, the Hexateuch of von Rad, which (contrary to von Rad’s and Noth’s own perceptions) was never really compatible with Noth’s “Deuteronomistic History” has proven to be a phantom in two respects. The salvation history of Israel from creation to the conquest of the land, which von Rad thought to be quite old, is first of all much later, having first arisen in the Persian period. Second, it is presented only in the context of the subsequent judgment history of the critical period of the monarchy and downfall as well as in the wider context of the prophetic salvation expections for the future. There never was an independent Hexateuch of Genesis–Joshua—not in a Yahwistic form or in an Elohistic form or even in a “priestly” form, as has often been proposed in recent works. 584 At the same time, contrary to both older and more recent models, I stress that one should not simply do away with the Hexateuch. 585 Rather, we need to modify our redaction-historical assessment of it. There was no Hexateuch at the beginning of the intellectual history of Israel. Rather, the two traditions of origins in *Genesis and *Exodus (and following) formed the main historical traditions of Israel, even into the early postexilic period. The hexateuchal salvation history is an interpretive product brought about by the combination of *Genesis and *Exodus (and following). The originally open theology of promise in the ancestor narrative now found its fulfillment in the presentation of the conquest of the land in the Moses/exodus narrative. Even so, the literary realm of Genesis–Joshua was set off from the remaining story as an epoch of salvific divine activity toward Israel. Thus, the concept of a completed salvation history in the Hebrew Bible found in the theological outlook of Joshua 24 arose from and is qualitatively distanced from the subsequent judgment history of the monarchic period. The post-Deuteronomistic and post-Priestly developments of Genesis–2 Kings result in a text where Genesis– Joshua is shaped more like P (the history of Israel stands on the promises to the ancestors) while ( Judges,) Samuel–2 Kings are more influenced by D (Israel is called into obligation).

582. Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:129–306. Von Rad’s theology is based on his foundational thesis “that the faith of Israel is primarily founded upon a theology of history” (p. 106). 583. Von Rad, Hexateuch, 53, 74: “The form of the Hexateuch is already present with the Yahwist. The Elohist and the Priestly Writing bring no more changes in this respect. They are only modes of the current Yahwistic conception.” See also his Old Testament Theology, 1:105–28; and see the discussion in Köckert, ThV 14 (1985), 39–40. 584. See especially the proposals by Otto (e.g., Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 219), Achenbach (e.g., ZABR 11 [2005]: 122–54), and Römer (e.g., Römer and Brettler, JBL 119 [2000]: 401–19; Römer, ThZ 57 [2001]: 269–80); differently, and to my mind correctly, Kratz, “Hexateuch.” On the recent discussion of the literary extent of an independent P into the book of Joshua, see above, §1.3.3 (pp. 46ff.). 585. See Brekelmans, VTSup 43 (1991), 1–9; Blum, Festschrift Brekelmans, 204.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 262 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

262

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

What distinguishes “salvation history” over against other schemes of history is more clearly elucidated by differentiating the three ideal types of theology of history suggested by Assmann. 586 (1) The simplest theology of history, stated in broad terms, is viewing the flow of events as a steady continuum that can be interrupted by divine intervention (“charismatic events”). 587 This is the idea standing behind the divination culture that was widely propagated in Mesopotamia and is also found in various places in the Hebrew Bible, most clearly where Yhwh works signs and wonders. Examples are the Egyptian plagues (Exodus 7– 12), Yhwh’s deliverance at the Sea of Reeds (Exodus 14), the miracle of fire on Mt. Carmel (1 Kings 18), and the angel of Yhwh killing 185,000 Assyrians (2 Kings 19). 588 (2) A second stage of the theologizing of history occurs in places where history is explained as proceeding from the mutual obligation of king589 and God (in the ancient Near East) or people and God in the Hebrew Bible (“charismatic history”).590 Periods of salvation and judgment are correlated with human behavior and measured by specific cultic requirementss or divine laws. Salvation or judgment results. Only with this stage does “history” come into view as a coherent, meaningful continuum. In the ancient Near East, this type of interpretive history is found in the Weidner Chronicle591 or in the Demotic Chronicle in Egypt. In the Hebrew Bible, it is found most clearly in the “Deuteronomistic” interpretive passages of the historical books. (3) The third stage is the idea of history completely planned and controlled by God. It is distinguished from the preceding stages. Only now can one speak, for example, of “salvation history.” Examples of this type are found in apocalyptic speculations that readily see the history of the contemporary eon as running toward total catastrophe.592 Therefore, they are only “salvation history” in terms of their structure and not in their content unless they are turned toward the positive as found in the Christian conception of universal “salvation history.” These three stages do not, however, form a single, continuous development from older to later conceptions of intellectual history. Rather, they build upon one another. They exist alongside one another and within one another. If one were to ask how we should characterize the grand history of Genesis–2 Kings in terms of a theology of history, we would find that Genesis–2 Kings represents a mixed corpus (corpus permixtum), because Genesis– Joshua bears characteristics of a history in the sense of stage 3, while in Joshua 24, the historical flow is codetermined to a significant degree by Israel’s action, meaning it changes to stage 2, the “charismatic history.” Israel and Yhwh are associated with one another in a covenant relationship, the keeping or not keeping of which essentially determines the flow of history. Furthermore, one cannot exclude the idea that Yhwh can also intervene in history in exceptional ways (stage 1), as the miracle in the wilderness or the incidents surrounding Elijah and Elisha demonstrate. Diachronically, one may be able to explain this by the incorporation of older material, but it is clear that the current form of Genesis–2 Kings thoroughly mixes the conceptions of a theology of history. 586. Assmann, Gedächtnis, 249–50; see also my “Geschichtsbezug.” 587. Assmann, Gedächtnis, 249. 588. To be sure, these divine intrusions are not sacral elements within a profane history. The distinction between secular and sacred cannot yet be brought into consideration for the culture of ancient Israel. Rather, time and history are not explicitly considered frameworks for different operative powers. 589. For this distinction, see Cancik, “Geschichtsschreibung,” 815. 590. Assmann, Gedächtnis, 250. 591. See the references in my Buchgestalten, 362 n. 34. 592. See the example in Assmann, Gedächtnis, 250.

spread is 6 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 263 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Theological Aspects of the Unified Ancestor and Moses/Exodus Story

263

The theological significance of the salvation history that encompasses the Hexateuch in the Hebrew Bible must be more clearly specified over against von Rad’s classic outline. Salvation history in Genesis–Joshua is only part of a conception that as a whole encompasses the three-part salvation history / judgment history / new salvation history (corpus propheticum). As an independent entity, there was never a salvation history extending from Genesis to Joshua. The salvation history of Israel, even for the Hebrew Bible, lies primarily in the past and has no direct salvific relevance for the present. 593 Rather, it should be interpreted from the outset in its literary context of the subsequent historical and prophetic books, which bring into view Yhwh’s “salvation” activity for the future. c. The Role of Faith The category of faith plays an important role on the level of the redaction connecting *Genesis and *Exodus, though it is only a marginal concept elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. 594 Yhwh appears to the still-childless Abraham and promises him many descendants, and Abraham “believes” (Gen 15:6). The Israelites “believe” in Moses’ sign in their time of need in Egypt (Exod 4:31), and the “faith” of Israel again becomes the subject after the deliverance at the Sea of Reeds (Exod 14:31; see Ps 106:12). Clearly, for the religio-historical conception of salvation history as it appears in Genesis–Joshua on the level of the combination of *Genesis and *Exodus (and following), there can be no other adequate correspondence to the divine control of history than faith. Faith is continually confirmed by the experiences of help in times of need as well as by “signs and wonders,” though these can be denied. In the incident of the spies in Numbers 13–14, Israel murmurs against Moses and Aaron 595 and will not believe Yhwh, despite his “signs” (Num 14:11; see Ps 106:24). The result is that no one in the Exodus generation besides Joshua and Caleb reaches the promised land. 596 The story of the spies is a model in advance for what will later become the rule. “After the Exodus, one hears only of the unbelief of the people (Num 14:11; 20:12; Deut 1:32; 9:23; 2 Kgs 17:14).” 597 The exodus from Egypt thus appears to present a kind of dividing mark in the faith 593. See Neh 9:8 and below, §4.1.1 (pp. 282ff.). 594. In the redaction: See above, §3.5.1 (pp. 224ff.). This redaction-historical classification is especially clear in the “faith” passages in Gen 15:6 and Exod 4:31. However, Exod 14:31 should either be attributed to the redaction connecting *Genesis and *Exodus itself or be considered presupposed by it, because Exod 14:31 functions as an exposition of Exodus 15 (see the discussion in §3.4.2.d, pp. 221ff.). See also the discussion of the faith passages in H.-C. Schmitt, VT 32 (1982): 170–89; idem, Festschrift Würthwein; Blum, Pentateuch, 104–5, with n. 31; and also Otto, BETL 126 (1996), 61–111, 103; Krüger, ZAW 108 (1996): 529, with n. 41. Elsewhere in the HB: See A. Jepsen, TDOT 1:331–32; Becker, Jesaja, 51–52. 595. See Römer, Festschrift Smyth-Florentin. 596. In this respect, see the lament over the transitory nature of humanity in light of a collective threat that lasts longer than a lifetime, as described in the Prayer of Moses (Psalm 90). See the discussion in Krüger, Bib 75 (1994): 191–219. 597. Köckert, Vätergott, 218 (with reference to the similar finding in Psalm 106); see Rendtorff, Festschrift Westermann, 80.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 264 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

264

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

history of Israel. The miracle at the Sea of Reeds stands between the faith and the unbelief of Israel; thus, it is significant that in the historical books (except for 2 Kgs 17:14) all the examples of ˆymah with Yhwh as the object fall within the confines of Genesis–Joshua. This is no coincidence but coheres with the corresponding meaning of the epochs between Abraham and Joshua as salvation history. Faith and unbelief are offered as alternatives when the flow of events stands under the umbrella of a desired divine salvation history; at the same time, after Joshua 24 the option of faith (ˆymah) is replaced by serving (db[), corresponding to the charge in Joshua 24 (see §3.5.1.5, pp. 230ff.). However, a broader view of the historical books is required. The theme of faith/unbelief does not come to an end in the historical books. Rather, corresponding to the orientation of Genesis–2 Kings toward the subsequent prophetic corpus, it extends further toward the requirements of faith in the book of Isaiah (Isa 7:9; 28:16), which appear in the context of the expectation of a new “salvation history” (when read in light of Genesis–2 Kings). What is indicated by these observations regarding the biblical understanding of faith? First, with Becker, one should stress that the category of faith is a late one in terms of the history of theology. 598 Also, the most important examples of faith in the historical books (Gen 15:6; Exod 4:31; 14:31; Num 14:11; 20:12), contrary to Kaiser, do not belong in the circle of Deuteronomism 599 but should instead be considered post-Priestly. 600 We have already seen for Genesis 15 that its context of faith and righteousness cannot be deemed Deuteronomistic in light of passages such as Deut 6:25 and 24:13. Rather, faith in Genesis 15 appears in place of keeping (twc[l rmv) the commandments. The legitimation for this replacement lies in the prefixing of Genesis to Exodus (and following) and in the inclusion of P within the historical books. In so doing, the Deuteronomistic legal theology is relativized in favor of unconditional promises to the ancestors as the ultimate measure of Yhwh’s turning to Israel. Thus, faith in the Hebrew Bible becomes the decisive category within which Israel’s relationship with God is considered fundamentally theocentric (and not nomocentric), and such is the case in the “salvation history” encompassed by Genesis–Joshua. However, the possibility of “unbelief ” (see Num 14:11) and its catastrophic results shows that “salvation history” does not simply mean “salvation determinism,” even if Yhwh’s salvific will remains on the side of Israel: Yhwh brings Israel into its land despite the spy episode. 598. Becker, Jesaja, 52. Becker also considers these Isaiah passages (7:9; 28:16) to be postexilic. Seen from the historical books, Isa 7:9 at least appears, in source-critical terms, to lie behind Gen 15:6 (see above, §3.2.1.e, pp. 166ff.). 599. Kaiser, ATD 17 142. 600. So especially H.-C. Schmitt, VT 32 (1982): 181–85. Contrary to Schmitt (pp. 187–89), however, I think that the horizon of the faith passages is not limited to the Pentateuch. Rather, it is oriented to the three steps of Genesis–Joshua / Judges–2 Kings / Isaiah–Zechariah/Malachi. Therefore one is not dealing with the “final redaction” of the Pentateuch, although in Schmitt, the mixed character of the Torah as a merging of Priestly and Deuteronomistic theology should be underscored.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 265 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Theological Aspects of the Unified Ancestor and Moses/Exodus Story

265

3.6.2. Unconditional Promise and Obligation Perhaps one of the most important aspects of the ancestor tradition and the Moses/exodus story is the sequence of unconditional promise and the requirement to follow the will of God as a condition of the divine appropriation of salvation, 601 a concept with a Deuteronomistic prehistory. 602 The orientations of *Genesis on the one hand and *Exodus on the other do not simply differ from one another but run counter to one another. *Genesis presents an inclusive and irenic theology, while *Exodus (and following) presents an exclusive and aggressive theology. While a relationship with Israel’s God in *Genesis is determined by the promise, in *Exodus (and following) it depends on the orientation to the “will of God” that is required of Israel and its leaders. How to delineate textually this “will of God” on the level of the still-independent Moses/ exodus narrative and then within the grand historical work of Genesis–2 Kings must remain open at this point. When the Deuteronomic law (Deuteronomy *6–28) was incorporated into the context of the historical books603 is just as unclear as the age of the nonPriestly legal material of the Sinai pericope and the Decalogue604 in its literary context. In this respect, we need only compare the suggestions for the late dating of large portions of the text in Exodus 19–34 by Otto and Crüsemann.605 But even if one decides on a very late date of assimilation into the flow of the historical books for the giving of the law at Sinai, the “distinctive Priestly” 606 revision of the Exodus Decalogue, and the Deuteronomic law, at least the Book of the Covenant 607 would have been part of the Sinai pericope quite 601. It is quite similar for Van Seters’s exilic J (Van Seters, Prologue, 211, 239, 242–43; idem, Festschrift Kaiser [1994], 221–22). The idenfication of the fathers in Deuteronomy with the patriarchs of Genesis (for Van Seters, accomplished by J [Prologue, 227–45]), in my opinion, happened only later (see §3.6.5, pp. 271ff.). 602. This prehistory can be illustrated in Deuteronomy 6 by reading the conceptual difference between the older view in 6:17 (“You shall keep . . . the commands, so that . . . you come into possession of the beautiful land”) and the later perspective in 6:10, 12 (“When Yhwh, your God, brings you into the land that he swore to your fathers . . . to give to you” [Deut 6:10], then “take care not to forget Yhwh” [6:12]; see Perlitt, “Motive,” 55). This later perspective completes the turn from a theology of command ultimately directed toward salvation, to a command sermon motivated by Yhwh’s gift of salvation. See the overview in Perlitt, “Motive”; Van Seters, Prologue, 228–33, 237–38. 603. See the references above in §2.3.7 (pp. 116ff.); and Gertz, “Deuteronomium 1–3.” 604. For a classic explanation, see Wellhausen, Composition, 81–82; von Rad, Hexateuch, 54–56; a quite different approach can be found in Crüsemann, Torah, 27–28, 55–57. See the overview of scholarship in Otto, Ethik, 211; idem, “Perspektiven” (see idem, Festschrift Preuss); Zenger, BETL 126 (1996), 267–77. For Levin (VT 35 [1985]: 165–91; and Jahwist, 365), the Decalogue “in the history of origin is the prototype from which the development of Hebrew Bible theological law in the narrower sense is explained” (emphasis in the original). By contrast, see Blum, Pentateuch, 95–96 n. 221; as well as Kratz, VT 44 (1994): 205–38, who, conversely, understands the Decalogue as a redaction-historical excerpt from the Book of the Covenant. See also the discussion in Blum, Pentateuch, 93–97, with n. 224; Lohfink, “Deuteronomium und Pentateuch,” 25. 605. See Otto, BETL 126 (1996), 61–111; and, finally, idem, TRE 28:205 (earlier works given on p. 208). Crüsemann, Torah, 47–49. On the early dating of Exodus *34 by Crüsemann and Otto, see Blum, BETL 126 (1996), 347–66. See also my “Israel am Sinai.” 606. Blum, Pentateuch, 97–98 n. 224. 607. See Oswald, Israel, 110–13 (bibliography). For a different perspective, see Otto, TRev 91 (1995): 287. Van Seters opts for a late date for the Book of the Covenant after Deuteronomy (Van Seters, ZAW 108 [1996]: 534–46; idem, BETL 126 [1996], 319–45); but see Levinson, “Covenant Code.”

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 266 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

266

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

early, even if not originally. Thus, the thesis formulated by Perlitt (drawing upon von Rad), 608 that the laws, separately and as a group, were only secondarily connected with Sinai 609 is not to be recommended because the simple ordering of theophany (Exodus *19) and the revelation from God (Exodus *24) as a “foundation stone” of the Sinai pericope610 would be a literary and theological torso. Furthermore, in Joshua–2 Kings (see also the content of Jer 7:22–23) 611 a related image of the will of God appears, one that is not considered post-Priestly. Compliance with the will of God determines either salvation or judgment. Even if the textual boundary of the legal material contained in the still-independent Moses/exodus narrative remains uncertain, it is quite clear that this condition of compliance was presupposed for this redactional level.

When combined, both *Genesis and *Exodus (and following) are considerably modified theologically: the “Deuteronomistic” idea (which should of course be further differentiated) of a strict correlation between salvation and obedience in *Exodus (and following) is expanded by the attachment of the unconditional promise theology of *Genesis and supported by the incorporation of P. At least for the epochs of the ancestors up to the conquest, conditions are removed for the salvific will of God, especially in the articulation of the great promises to Abraham (Genesis 15 and 17). They are prefixed to the people’s history as a kind of gratia praeveniens. In this way, “faith” is given a central position inside the redaction connecting Genesis and Exodus (and following). During the time after the imparted gift of land and the life of Israel in the land the obligation of Israel to its God appears increasingly in the foreground ( Joshua 24), but the redactional perspective combining Genesis and Exodus (and following) does not simply address observance of the law. It was argued above (§3.5.1, pp. 224ff.) that the programmatic texts of the redaction connecting *Genesis and *Exodus (and following)—meaning Genesis 15; Exodus *3–4; and Joshua 24—exhibit a certain reservedness, in contrast to the giving of the law at Sinai, in favor of concentration on the first commandment, which is clearly manifest in Joshua 24 especially (with simultaneous promulgation of updated law outside the Sinai law [ Josh 24:25!]). The Sinai law is thus reduced to its core significance (accessible in the Decalogue) and also liberalized by the possibility of updated laws. Thus, in the combining of *Genesis and *Exodus, the promise theology did not simply win out over the Deuteronomistic conditioning of salvation. Rather, the two perspectives now exist alongside one another in Genesis–2 Kings, but intertwined. In the big picture, the “salvation-historical” epoch in Genesis–Joshua is placed under the sign of the promise. Yhwh fulfills his promises even for disobedient Israel and does not hold it guilty. He is “just” (see Nehemiah 9). 612 Afterward, however, in Judges–2 Kings, Israel must stand the test of Joshua 24, which 608. Von Rad, Problem, 27 (see Perlitt, Bundestheologie, 234). 609. Perlitt, ibid., 166. 610. Ibid. 611. See Levin, Verheissung, 79–82; idem, Jahwist, 365 (see discussion of this work in my Buchgestalten, 298–99). 612. See §4.1.1.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 267 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Theological Aspects of the Unified Ancestor and Moses/Exodus Story

267

it fails to do. The themes of promise and law also penetrate one another: in Genesis–Joshua, Israel is not any more free from obligation to God (Exodus 32–34; Numbers 13–14) than the promises to the ancestors fulfilled in Exodus + Joshua are invalid. The opposite is true, as is proven first by the incorporation of P. According to the concept of P, the Abrahamic Covenant is an eternal covenant (tyrb μlw[ in Gen 17:7). In addition, the greatly hyperbolized figure of the promise of descendants and land is also shown in Genesis 15, which is the central programmatic text in Genesis connecting Genesis and Exodus (and following). 613 It shows that the fulfillment has not yet appeared in history, but still lies in the future. This is further supported by the flow of Genesis–2 Kings toward the corpus propheticum, the salvific sayings of which could be seen as theologically concordant with the promises to the ancestors. The parallel nature of the ancestral promises and the prophets is obvious in the correspondence between the three patriarchs and twelve sons of Jacob and the three major and twelve minor prophets. 614 Thus, both in the case of the incorporation of P and in the programmatic text of Genesis 15, we see that the redaction connecting *Genesis and *Exodus has a great interest in the promise theme. Another item, which will be addressed in the following section, points to the stress on Abraham as the bearer of promise. 3.6.3. Abraham as a Figure of Compromise The combination of Genesis and Exodus (and following) did not result in an evenly weighted sequence of the ancestor narrative and the exodus narrative. It appears that, with the connection of Genesis and Exodus (and following), Abraham in particular becomes the founding figure for Israel, and his relationship to God is highlighted. As can be observed in the current form of the historical books and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, intertestamental writings, 615 and New Testament, 616 the presentation of Abraham as the prominent ancestor of Israel is, in all probability, older than the unification of the two origin traditions, the ancestor story and the Moses/ exodus story. It already plays a large role in P, 617 and even during the growth of the ancestor story, when it was still independent, we can observe a certain shift of significance onto Abraham. This significance may have been strengthened once again with the combination of Genesis and Exodus (and following). Neither Jacob

613. See §3.2.1. 614. See Blenkinsopp, Prophecy, 120–21; Steck, Abschluss, 134. 615. See the greatly expanded Egyptian episode of Abraham in 1QapGenar 19–22 (see J. Maier, Qumran-Essener, 1:271–25). 616. See the material below in §4.2.12. 617. This is shown not only in the prominent significance of the Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis 17, which is emphasized over the Sinai events theologically, but also in the renaming of Abram and Sarai to Abraham and Sarah in Gen 17:5, 15, an event that may have been inspired by Jacob/Israel in Gen 32:29.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 268 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

268

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

nor Moses is the authoritative figure of the origin. Rather, Abraham is the one tribal ancestor of Israel. 618 The transfer of elements from Jacob to Abraham in Genesis 12 should be explained in the framework of a still-independent ancestor story. 619 As often noted, “Abraham appears briefly at Jacob’s sites in Shechem and Bethel (Gen 12:6, 8).” 620 Thus, the essential stations of the Jacob story are anticipated earlier by Abraham in Genesis 12. 621 This is especially the case for Shechem and Bethel, sanctuaries that in the ancestor story were apparently originally founded by Jacob. In Gen 28:16–17, Jacob discovers the holiness of Bethel, although, in 12:8, Abraham had built an altar for Yhwh there and “called” on Yhwh (hwhy μvb arqyw). Genesis 28 evidences no knowledge of this. In Gen 35:6–7, Jacob erected an altar in Bethel (jbzm μv ˆbyw in 12:8 [+ hwhyl]; 35:7), but there is not a single reference to the altar already constructed by Abraham. The same is true for Jacob’s construction of an altar at Shechem (33:20: jbzm μv bxyw): 622 nothing in Genesis 33 refers to the altar erected there by Abraham (12:7: hwhyl jbzm μv ˆbyw). The notices in Gen 12:6, 8 are obviously anticipations that put Jacob in second place behind Abraham but also follow a certain “orthodox” tendency: in contrast to the altars constructed by Jacob, the altars of Abraham leave no doubt for the reader that these altars had been established “for Yhwh” (hwhyl in 12:7–8), while the older ones of Jacob were used in connection with the more ambiguous divine designation, larcy yhla la (33:20) or la tyb la (35:7). In the independent ancestor story, the endowment of the figure of Abraham with elements from Jacob was expanded through the combination of Genesis and Exodus (and following) with elements from the Moses story. In Genesis 15, as seen already by Noth, “the incident of the sealing of the covenant in which fire and smoke appears derives from the Sinai theophany,” demonstrating the presence of 618. Outside the Pentateuch, this emphasis on Abraham can be observed especially in Second Isaiah (compare the designation of Israel/Jacob as the “seed of Abraham, my friend” in 41:8) and also in passages such as Ps 105:6 and Neh 9:7. “The choice of Israel through Abraham comes into view” (Wildberger, “Neuinterpretation,” 204; see Köckert, Vätergott, 295–96). See also the recent discussion in Köckert, “Abrahamsüberlieferung.” 619. See de Pury, VTSup 43 (1991), 94: “Nevertheless, it may have been by the mediation of Abraham that the story of Jacob was adopted by the Judean ≈rah μ[.” 620. Noth, HPT, 199 (see Blum, Vätergeschichte, 336; Steingrimsson, Festschrift Scharbert). See also this statement by Noth (HPT, 199): “Above all, however, the transfer of the Aramean relationships of Jacob belong in the context of the story of Isaac and Abraham, which originating in southern Judah, had nothing to do with Arameans.” For a critical treatment of Noth and Blum, though less convincing, see Berge, Zeit, 37–38. 621. See also Ha, Genesis 15, 198–99. Isaac’s construction of an altar in Beer-sheba in Gen 26:25 is literally formulated almost identically to Gen 12:8bbg (together with hwhy μvb arqyw). However, it is nowhere prefigured by Abraham, a further indication of the oft-noted connecting function of Isaac between Abraham and Jacob. 622. Only here is the word bxn used for the establishment of an altar. Elsewhere, this is done using hnb or hc[. Some scholars consider whether an original hbxm has been changed to jbzm (see Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 529).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 269 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Theological Aspects of the Unified Ancestor and Moses/Exodus Story

269

God and apparently the idea of a covenant made between God and humanity. 623 In so doing, the central event of the Moses/exodus story is already anticipated by Abraham. 624 Particularly telling, however, is the self-presentation of Yhwh to Abraham in Gen 15:7: “I am Yhwh, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans.” As we have already seen in §3.2.1 (pp. 158ff.), it picks up the introductory formula from the Decalogue. Here, however, the decisive foundational act is no longer the leading of Israel out of Egypt but the leading of Abraham out of “Ur of the Chaldeans.” 625 There, contrary to Exodus (and following), the decisive exodus event is transferred onto Abraham. Simultaneously, and now contrary to Genesis 12–50 but agreeing with P (Gen 11:27–32[*?]), the traditionally autochthonous nature of the ancestor narrative (though, see Ezek 33:24) is eliminated. To this extent, Gen 15:7 is a classic compromise formulation: Abraham is certainly the central founding figure in the ancestor story, but in the Exodus story Israel is an allochthonous entity in its land. With Abraham, the various origin traditions of Israel are mediated with each other. 626 Finally, the displaced emphasis on Abraham can also be seen in Joshua 24. Of the three patriarchs in Josh 24:2–4, only Abraham receives the title “father.” The conception in Josh 24:4 appears to be consciously different from references to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as “fathers” in Deuteronomy (1:8; 6:10; 9:5, 27; 29:12; 30:20; see 34:4). The “father” of Israel ( Joshua emphasizes “your father”) is only Abraham, who is characterized in 24:3 (as in Gen 15:7) as an allochthonous figure. The reserving of the “father” title for Abraham in Joshua 24 highlights Abraham in a way that is reminiscent of the emphasis on him in Genesis 12 and 15 (see also Genesis 17). 627 3.6.4. God as Savior The combination of Genesis and Exodus (and following) results in a theology of lowliness that highlights the question when God will bring his promises to fruition. As we have seen, when it was still independent, the ancestor story presented an open-ended theology of promise: Yhwh will multiply Israel and give Israel land to possess; however, it gives no information about when this will happen. Doubtless, there were theological reasons and a correct recognition of Yhwh’s sovereignty. From the perspective of historical reconstruction, it is only likely that 623. Noth, HPT, 200. 624. Clearly, in the Egyptian episode of Gen 12:10–20, Abraham appears to be outfitted with elements from Moses. See above, §2.1.1.d. 625. See Van Seters, Abraham, 264–65. 626. See the discussion in Römer, Transeu 7 (1994): 107–21. 627. It still remains an issue in this passage that the interpretive movement from Jacob and Moses to Abraham continues in the intertestamental literature by moving beyond Abraham. As seen in the Apocalypse of Weeks and the Apocalypse of Animals (see below, §4.2.7), Noah stands at the center as the righteous one, while Abraham, as the “father” of the people of Israel (a unit no longer affirmed as an eschatological entity of salvation), loses significance in comparison with Noah.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 270 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

270

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

the promises specifically reflect the national catastrophes of 722 and 587 b.c.e. and that, to a certain degree, they compensate for the experience of the loss of land by the cultivation of promises of land. The timetable of the (renewed) possession of land is not terminably fixed in the promise texts. Obviously, the texts are wrestling with this problem in terms of generations that are given the land (“you,” “your descendants,” or “you and your descendants”). 628 In a combined Genesis and Exodus, Exodus 1 provides a clue to answer the problem of the delayed arrival of the promises. God turns to his people in a situation of the highest, most life-threatening disaster. In the places where God appears to be farthest away, he is really the closest. It is obvious that the concept of an ancient Near Eastern national religion has been left behind. God is not a state God but a savior God. This can be seen most clearly in the presentation of Israel as becoming a people in Exodus 1. The more the Egyptians oppress the Israelites, the more they multiply. The reader knows this is the grace of God. A command to kill the Hebrew boys that threatens the existence of Israel as a people has no effect. It does, however, turn against the Egyptians, who lose their firstborn and even their lives in the Sea of Reeds. God places himself on the side of the oppressed and turns against the oppressor, thus assuring the existence of Israel as a people. The redaction that unified Genesis and Exodus could rely on P for this theology of lowliness. P had already formulated a similar answer to this problem. Exod 2:23ab,b, 24 formulate the decisive turning point in the national story: “And the Israelites groaned because of their slavery, and their cry over their slavery rose up to God.629 And God heard their groaning and God remembered (rkzyw) his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” The use of the term rkz in Exod 2:24 has a striking parallel in Genesis. The recollection (rkz) of God has a similar function in emergencies, in Gen 8:1 (Noah), 19:29 (Abraham, Lot), and 30:22 (Rachel). 630 The only exception in Genesis where the “thought” (rkz) of God is not encountered in a situation of need is Gen 9:14–16. There, the “thought” of God promises future well-being for all living beings on the occasion of the rainbow in the clouds.

It has already been demonstrated that the theology of lowliness in Exodus 1 has its closest parallel in Second Isaiah and in the Psalter. Perhaps this theology also includes a view similar to the corresponding salvation statements regarding the “suffering” and the “oppressed” in these same texts (§3.4.2). The theological substance of the judgment prophecy has been completely received, but it has also been conquered. Yhwh is no longer seen as a triumphalist national God who guarantees the prosperity of the king, the state, and the ruling class. But he is also not seen as an uncompassionate judge. Rather, he is seen as a savior in a time of need.

628. See the compilation in Rendtorff, Problem, 42. 629. Oddly, μyhlah here has the definite article. Does the designation for God accomodate to the corresponding use in Exodus 3 (see the discussion in Rendtorff, ZAW 106 [1994]: 4–21)? 630. See Gosse, EstBib 51 (1993): 163–70, 169.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 271 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Theological Aspects of the Unified Ancestor and Moses/Exodus Story

271

3.6.5. The Promise of Land Sworn to the Three Ancestors and the Origin of the Pentateuch as Torah a. Hexateuch and Pentateuch How does the Hexateuch that developed from the combination of *Genesis and *Exodus (and following) relate to the current delimitation of Genesis–Deuteronomy as Torah? There are no indications that the division between the two parts of the canon (Torah and Nebiªim) that occurs between Deuteronomy and Joshua played any role in the combination of Genesis and Exodus (and following) into a grand historical work of (1) salvation history and (2) judgment history in Genesis–2 Kings. The separation of Genesis–Deuteronomy as Torah within Genesis–2 Kings resulted from a concept independent from that twofold division. Genesis–Malachi was not divided (more precisely, was no longer divided, as will be discussed in more detail shortly) into salvation history (Genesis–Joshua) / judgment history ( Judges–2 Kings) / and the announcement of a new salvation history (Isaiah–Malachi). Rather, it was divided into the Torah (Genesis–Deuteronomy) and the Prophets ( Joshua–Malachi). What was the rationale behind this grouping? In addition to the general historical background that led to the formation of the Torah, the immediate background of the Torah has been treated in recent times as well. Many scholars have dealt with what P. Frei calls the “Persian Imperial Authorization” of the Pentateuch as standing behind the formation of Genesis–Deuteronomy as Torah. 631 The discussion need not be rehearsed in full here, particularly since consensus has not been reached on the reasons, though perhaps in it is found the date of the separation of the Torah. As a rule, this is placed toward the end of the fourth century b.c.e. 632 This concrete historical setting excludes the possibility that the separation of the Torah from Genesis–2 Kings was already present in the theological understanding of Genesis–2 Kings when Genesis was added as a preface before Exodus. Rather, it is the case that the “Pentateuch” is later than the “Hexateuch.” In terms of its history of origin, dating the Pentateuch after the Hexateuch is not new. The 631. See Frei and Koch, Reichsidee; Frei, Transeu 3 (1990): 157–71. The Imperial Authorization model has been accepted in many places: see Crüsemann, “Vaterland”; idem, EvT 49 (1989): 250–67; Steck, Abschluss, 13–21; idem, “Kanon,” 16; Kratz, Translatio, 233–55; Blum, Pentateuch, 345–60; Albertz, History, 2:466–71; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 239–43; Zenger, Einleitung, 39–42; Seebass, TRE 26:189–90. However, it has not been without detractors: see Dohmen and Oeming, Kanon, 91 n. 3; Lohfink, “Bewegung,” 369–70; Otto, TRev 60 (1995): 169 n. 5; idem, BETL 126 (1996), 66–70; idem, ZAW 107 (1995): 375–76, with n. 14. Schmitt, “Suche,” 263–67; see the discussion in the articles by Wiesehöfer and Rüterswörden in ZABR 1 (1995); Watts, Persia; Schmid, “Authorization.” The biggest difficulty is that there is no parallel complex, extensive entity like the Pentateuch that was used as was the subject of a Persian Imperial Authorization. The explanation that the Torah portion of the canon was closed in the course of such a process is an extrapolation methodologically. On the alternative suggestion in Dohmen and Oeming (Kanon, 93–94), see my Buchgestalten, 328 n. 606. 632. Crüsemann, EvT 49 (1989): 250–67; Steck, “Kanon,” 16; idem, Abschluss, 13–21; K. Schmid, “Formation.”

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 272 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

272

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

hexateuchal hypotheses of Holzinger, Eissfeldt, and von Rad all dated the Hexateuch before the Pentateuch. However, their Hexateuch was originally independent and was a much older entity. These two conclusions have not proven sustainable. Genesis–Joshua is not independent because of its theological profile. The Hexateuch, especially if Joshua 24 is determined to be its ending, is directed toward a continuation. This context is also not old, even if one considers it to be from the monarchic period and not the period before the state because no indisputable pre-Priestly bridges between Genesis and Exodus can be shown. Thus, the Hexateuch and Pentateuch are closer to one another historically. They lay perhaps a century apart but not half a millennium, as the classic position asserts. Of course, the recent models of Rose, Blum, Van Seters, and Levin, who all see the Tetrateuch as a later preface to Deuteronomy–2 Kings, can hardly begin with a Hexateuch. For Rose and Levin, the Hexateuch plays no role. Blum theorizes a post-Priestly “revision of Joshua 24” that inserted the lines of Gen 50:25 / Exod 13:19 / Josh 24:32.633 Van Seters’s J, however, with its concluding text of Joshua 24, always formed a kind of hexateuchal compositional perspective within the historical books.634 The general abandonment of the Hexateuch in recent scholarship on Genesis–2 Kings primarily stems from the almost unanimous reception of the Deuteronomistic History. However, the current discussion insufficiently evaluates the salvation-historical and judgment-historical shaping of Genesis– 2 Kings. This theory requires its own explanation for the history of origin that the recent models barely address.

In the formation of Torah, why set a break specifically between Deuteronomy and Joshua? How would the exclusion of the Torah from the context of the historical books even be possible? 635 Would not Genesis–Deuteronomy alone appear to be nothing more than a torso? The promises of land in Genesis and the events around the departure begun in Exodus remain without an endpoint. 636 This, however, appears to be the precise reason for forming the Pentateuch. The rabbinic text b. Ned. 22b brings the theological problem connected with the openended nature of the Torah plainly into view. R. Ada, son of R. Hanina, says: “If Israel had not sinned, then it would only have had as scripture the Torah and the book of Joshua, wherein the division of the land is undertaken.” 637

The reality with which Israel had to live after 722 and 587 b.c.e. was as a nation without a land. Had the history of Israel only run its course as salvation history, 633. Blum, Pentateuch, 363–65; idem, Festschrift Brekelmans. 634. See Van Seters, Festschrift Ahlström. 635. See also the considerations in Lebram, VT 18 (1968): 177; Barton, HBOT, 1/1:80–81. 636. In the scene of the mountain overlook in Deuteronomy 34, the possession of land is already clearly in view (as it is also anticipated by the taking of land in the Transjordan, which Numbers reports). See Daube, Festschrift Eissfeldt, 35 (see Matt 4:8). 637. See Greenberg, Exodus, 13. This example once again shows, in its own way, that Genesis– 2 Kings was seen in conjunction with Isaiah–Malachi (and the Writings), because the canon does not merely narrate the taking of land but also the desire for land, and contains prophetic accusations and promises.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 273 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Theological Aspects of the Unified Ancestor and Moses/Exodus Story

273

then Genesis–Joshua would provide adequate information for Israel to succeed in the land. However, it happened differently. Israel lost its land because of its “sin.” The argument in b. Ned. 22b is just like the basic tenor of the Deuteronomistic interpretive texts in the historical books. Thus, regarding the relationship to its land, Israel does not live out the status of beati possidentes (blessedly possessing) but lives out the promise. Israel was promised a land. Israel conquered this land, then lost it. Nevertheless, the promise was not nullified, as we discover primarily in the prophetic books as well as in the Torah. The promises of land in the Torah are separated from the associated notices of fulfillment in Joshua and are again strengthened as promises. 638 Historically, the example of the Samaritans shows that it is quite possible for Genesis–Deuteronomy to survive as an independent entity. The separation of Genesis–Deuteronomy as Torah was enabled theologically by the following elements, which are evidence of the relative independence of Genesis–Deuteronomy. First, of course, the life-span of Moses binds together Exodus–Deuteronomy, with Genesis as prelude, into a certain unity. 639 In addition, Moses’ biography is connected to the reception (Exodus 20–Numbers 10) and the promulgation (Deuteronomy) of the law.640 After Moses, or after Deuteronomy, literarily speaking, Israel does not receive any new laws. Further, the flow of time places a clear break after Deuteronomy. At the end of Genesis– Deuteronomy, the narrative flow pauses in Deuteronomy. In contrast to the previous brief account of the 2,800 years since creation, the presentation of the very last day of Moses’ life occupies almost a fifth of the size of the Pentateuch. Finally, literary and thematic inclusios between Genesis–Deuteronomy should be mentioned. The promise of land in Gen 12:7 is picked up again word for word in Deut 34:4. 641 The statements of the corruption of the evil human heart from Gen 6:5 and 8:21 have a counterpart in the promise of the circumcision of the heart (Deut 30:6), where they find a degree of resolution. 642 Finally, when Deut 34:7–9 quite noticeably comments that Moses died at the age of 120 years, while still in excellent health, this report refers back to the limiting of human life to 120 years in Gen 6:3.643 Thus, Moses dies when he is 120 years old because this has been decreed by God in Gen 6:3. Genesis–Deuteronomy thus appears to be a redactional unit, even though these inclusios hardly prove that this unit represents a unified pentateuchal redaction. These links could also have arisen in stages, and some of them may be older than the separation of the Torah out of Genesis–2 Kings.

638. In many places the opinion is proposed that Joshua, because of its militaristic tenor, could not be attached to the Torah. The Persians, it is argued, would never have “authorized” such a nationalistic and bellicose text complex. Yet, Lohfink correctly points out that, in light of the militaristic conquest texts in Numbers (especially Numbers 31–34) which are like those in Joshua, it is not likely that Joshua is separated from Genesis–Deuteronomy because of its military actions. 639. Compare the discussion in Knierim, “Composition,” with the response in Blum, Pentateuch, 381 n. 77. 640. On the relationship between the giving of the law at Sinai and the giving of the law in the Transjordan, see Joosten, BN 84 (1996): 75–86; and 1Q22. 641. See Römer, Väter, 256; Schmid, “Formation.” 642. See Krüger, “Herz,” 73. 643. See Jacob, Genesis, 176–77; see the extensive discussion in my “Formation.”

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 274 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

274

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

b. The Theme of the Pentateuch D. J. A. Clines has suggested in a synchronic study of the Pentateuch that it is precisely the open-ended nature of the theme of land that shapes and (paradoxically) holds together Genesis–Deuteronomy. 644 He sees its theme to be the promise of land to the ancestors and its partial fulfillment. 645 Actually, the promise of land to the ancestors, given all the complexity of the Pentateuch, is the only prominent theologoumenon that can be attested consistently in all the books of Genesis–Deuteronomy. We can state it this way: the separation of the Joshua conquest narrative from Genesis–Deuteronomy is compensated by the intensification of the land promise in Genesis–Deuteronomy. 646 If we read the Pentateuch all the way through, then we also find passages outside Genesis (12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:7, 18; 17:8; 24:7; 28:4, 13; 35:12; 48:4; 50:24) in which the promise of land is attested and firmly anchored: in Exodus (13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:1); Leviticus (18:3; 19:23; 20:24; 23:10; 25:2, 38); Numbers (11:12; 14:16, 23; 32:11); and especially Deuteronomy (1:8, 35; 6:10, 18, 23; 7:13; 8:1; 10:11; 11:9, 21; 19:8; 26:3, 15; 28:11; 30:20; 31:7, 20–21; 34:4). In fact, the last divine speech in the Pentateuch contains the sworn promise of land to the ancestors (Deut 34:4) and refers once again in a clear line back to the beginning of the story (Gen 12:7). Reciprocally, we can demonstrate that there is no example from the book of Joshua onward that speaks of the promise of land to the patriarchs. The problem with the texts in the Pentateuch that speak of the promise of land as an oath and that are formed as allusions backward lies in the fact that it is not clear to what they are pointing. Indeed, there are promises of land to the patriarchs of Genesis (Abraham: Gen 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:18; 17:8; Isaac: 26:3–4; Jacob: 28:[4], 13–14; 35:12[; 48:4]). However, only the promises to Abraham in Gen 15:18 and 17:8 might be understood as oaths, but this assumption is not very convincing either, because the term [bvn is lacking. 647 To be sure, Gen 24:7 and 26:3 speak of Yhwh swearing, but that was in retrospect: Yhwh had already sworn ([bvn, perfect). 648 The only oath that God gave directly in the ancestor stories appears in Gen 22:16–18. However, there it relates to fertility and blessing, while the land is only alluded to: “Your offspring will possess the gate of their enemies.” This anticipates Gen 24:60. With Rendtorff, one may affirm: “The language of Yhwh’s swearing is not anchored very deeply in the ancestor story.”649 In light of the prominence of the theme in Exodus–Deuteronomy, this is an extraordinary discovery. Do the divine promises of land then hang in the air? Was this oath never really sworn? One should not be overly unsettled by the lack of reference back to oaths shaped as prom644. Clines, Theme. 645. On the definition of “theme,” see ibid., 17–23; but see also the 2nd edition, p. 132. 646. See Clines, Theme, 98: “The Pentateuch, even if it was composed after 539 b.c., is still an exilic work.” 647. See Skweres, Rückverweise, 98–99. 648. Gen 24:7 has a characteristically double expression: “Yhwh, who spoke the following to me and swore to me, ‘I will give this land to your descendants,’ . . .” Apparently, 24:7 has Gen 12:7 and 22:17 in mind and interprets 12:7 in light of 22:17 as an oath of a promise of land. 649. Rendtorff, Problem, 76. It is noteworthy that L. Schmidt considers Gen 22:15–18; 26:3b–5, 24, 25aa to be post-Priestly (L. Schmidt, “Pentateuch,” 107). See “lands” in 26:3.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 275 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Theological Aspects of the Unified Ancestor and Moses/Exodus Story

275

ises of land. The problem can be explained by the semantics of divine swearing.650 First, one must remember that, when God “swears by” (b) someone, he only “swears by” himself. 651 The verb [bv (Niphal) with God as the subject is thus used “without evoking any other guarantor.” 652 As a consequence, it is not surprising that divine swearing in itself presumes the giving of this oath and for this reason can remain unmentioned without additional information. Exod 13:11 serves as a decisive example of Yhwh’s bringing Israel into the land of the Canaanites: ˚ytbalw ˚l [bvn rvak (“just as he swore to you and your fathers”). Here, apparently the idea is that Yhwh has sworn an oath to the present generation as well as the previous generation, which he now makes known, though he had done it earlier. The promises of a dynasty to David provide another example in 1 Sam 25:30 and 2 Sam 3:9, etc.: 653 “The text continually refers back to the announcement of the divine will, without being able to give the passage that the author specifically has in mind.”654 This suggested explanation of the oath of the land promise contrasts with Blum’s suggestion. In his Komposition der Vätergeschichte, Blum considers Genesis 15 to be the referenced text for this series of statements about the oath regarding land in Gen 50:24 through Deut 34:4, and he sees in them the foundational framework of Kd in the Pentateuch. 655 Furthermore, the reference back to Gen 24:7 and 26:3, according to Blum, relates to Genesis 15. To be sure, Blum agrees that Genesis 15 nowhere speaks of God “swearing,” but it does speak of making a covenant, the content of which involves giving the land (tyrb trk in Gen 15:18). He also refers to Lohfink and others on the essential interchangeability of “oath” and “covenant” within the Deuteronomistic literature.656 According to Blum, Deut 4:31 (alongside Deut 7:12; 8:18; Judg 2:1) 657 is a primary example: tyrb ta jkvy alw μhl [bvn rva ˚ytwba. Blum explains the linguistic difference between exposition (Genesis 15) and the subsequent references backward based on Genesis 15 in this way: Genesis 15 was the “foundational text for the theme of the ‘promise of land’ in the D revision. . . . The self-obligation of God is reported scenically in an act of tyrb ttyrk and then also termed with just the important word tyrb. The formal reference backward (24:7, etc.), by contrast, is formulated, for linguistic reasons, much more simply with [bvn.” 658 650. See the monograph of Giesen, Wurzel [bv; I. Kottsieper, TDOT 14:311–36; Kreuzer, Festschrift Boecker (bibliography, 179 n. 1). Giesen correctly affirms that there is no primary example of the promise of land as divine oath. From that, he concludes that “this manner of speech (belongs) to an arena of interpretation which reinterprets a promise of Yhwh originally expressed without an oath into a promise strengthened by an oath” (Giesen, Wurzel [bv, 249). This, however, does not resolve the question of the inner logic of the current text, which lacks a reference point backward to divine swearing. 651. See Gen 22:16; Exod 32:13; Isa 45:23; Jer 22:5; 49:13; 51:14; Amos 6:8. See Amos 4:2; Ps 89:36; as well as Isa 62:8; Jer 44:26; Amos 8:7; Ps 89:50 (see the review in I. Kottsieper, TDOT 14:323). Heb 6:13 names the reason for this finding expressly: “When God made a promise to Abraham, he swore by himself, because he could not swear by any higher entity” (see Kreuzer, Festschrift Boecker, 180). 652. I. Kottsieper, TDOT 14:324. 653. These two passages serve as examples for Lohfink (Väter, 92, with qualifications [p. 97]) of references backward without a literary point of reference among four passages named by Römer (Väter, 229–30) in conjunction with Veijola (Dynastie, 79, 133 n. 41): 1 Sam 25:30; 2 Sam 3:9; 5:2; 7:25. 654. Veijola, Dynastie, 133; taken up by Römer, Väter, 229–30, 269. By contrast, see Lohfink Väter, 86–99. 655. Blum, Vätergeschichte, 363–82 (see also Westermann, BKAT 1/2 265; Rendtorff, Festschrift Westermann, 74; Gosse, EstBib 51 [1993]: 463). But see also the self-corrections of Blum, “Verbindung.” 656. Lohfink, Landverheissung, 101ff.; see further Blum, Vätergeschichte, 376 n. 101. 657. Ibid., 376. 658. Ibid., 377.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 276 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

276

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

Several elements of Blum’s suggestion are problematic. First is the relative age of the references (Deut 4:31; 7:12; 8:18; Judg 2:1) used to demonstrate the semantic equivalents of “oath” and “covenant.” At any rate, we cannot be so certain that these passages lie in the realm of the literary prehistory of Genesis 15. Specifically, Deuteronomy 4 should give reason to pause and, even according to Blum, Judg 2:1 is a post-Priestly text.659 The texts cited by Blum apparently owe their existence primarily to the opposite situation: Genesis 15 is receptionally the beginning of the sworn promises of land in Genesis–Deuteronomy. Furthermore, in Blum’s suggestion, the sworn promises of land to the “fathers” in Deuteronomy* and Joshua–2 Kings remain unexplained. Above all, it is likely that these oaths do not yet know Genesis 15. It also remains unclear (despite Gen 24:7; 26:3) why, despite Blum’s attempted explanation, the references speak of “swearing” instead of “covenant” and why they continually speak of the ancestor triad rather than Abraham alone. If one does not assume a pre-Priestly context between Genesis and Exodus (and following), which is the subject of the debate here, then one should prefer the semantic explanation of divine swearing (p. 275), especially in light of the oath texts of the fathers in Exodus– Judges, which show no connection to the patriarchal triad (see Exodus 13 again).

c. The Promise of Land as Oath and the Formation of the Torah The emphasis on the land promise in the Pentateuch is no accident in my opinion. Rather, it is intrinsically related to the formation of the Pentateuch. There were already statements about the promise of land in considerably earlier phases of the redaction of Genesis–Deuteronomy that also took on a comprehensive compositional function. However, the particular version as a sworn promise of land to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob first appears to have entered the text during the course of the formation of the Torah. 660 This process cannot be outlined in detail here, but the following observations point in this direction. An overview of the statements regarding the promise of land shows three notable elements: (1) The passages with the promise of land are concentrated in Genesis on the one hand and Deuteronomy on the other—in other words at the beginning and end of the Torah. (2) The specific reference to the promise of land as an oath ([bvn) is most at home in Deuteronomy (1:8, 35; 6:10, 18, 23; 7:13; 8:1; 9:5; 10:11; 11:9, 21; 19:8; 26:3, 15; 28:11; 30:20; 31:7, 20–21; 34:4; see also Josh 1:6; 5:6; 21:43–44; Judg 2:1). 661 This accumulation is significant: “. . . the formulation of the land promise to the fathers with sbº Niphal without any indication of that by which God swears should on the whole be

659. For Deuteronomy 4, see, for example, Otto, Deuteronomium 4 (post-Priestly) and above, §2.4.7. On Judg 2:1, see Blum, Festschrift Brekelmans, 187–94. 660. Along with its pentateuchal horizon instead of a hexateuchal horizon, one can deduce that the insertion of the promise of land to the patriarchs as an oath should not be connected with the redaction uniting Genesis and Exodus because the sworn promise of land is missing in Genesis 15; Exodus 3–4; and Joshua 24. Specifically, Exod 3:8 by itself might suggest characterizing the promised land as “the land sworn to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” but noticeably this concept does not appear (for Blum, this finding remains unexplained [Blum, Pentateuch, 19 n. 41; 103]; but in my opinion, this suggests that Blum’s Kd is not unified in Exodus). 661. See the discussion in Kottsieper, TDOT 14:325.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 277 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Theological Aspects of the Unified Ancestor and Moses/Exodus Story

277

viewed as a [Deuterononomic–Deuteronomistic] formulation.” 662 Of these Deuteronomy texts, only Deut 1:8; 6:10; 9:5; and 30:20 make it clear, by using an apposition, that the “fathers” mean “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Only in 34:4 do the three ancestral names appear without twba. (3) The series of statements on the promise of land to “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” as an oath (without twba) 663 are limited to Gen 50:24; Exod 32:13; 33:1; Num 32:11; Deut 34:4. 664 If we include the related statement of the patriarchal covenant in Lev 26:42, 665 which points toward the giving of the land (26:42–45), then we note that each book of the Pentateuch contains the (sworn) promise of land given to the three ancestors. Do Gen 50:24; Exod 32:13; 33:1; Num 32:11; and Deut 34:4 already know the fivefold division of the Pentateuch? Based on the evidence offered here about the literary division of the ancestors and Exodus, Römer (in conjunction with Van Seters) 666 proposes that the sworn promise of land directed to the “fathers” in Deuteronomy was originally concerned with the experience of the exodus generation and not the patriarchs of Genesis, when they are occasionally mentioned in Deut 1:8; 6:10; 9:5; and 30:20 (see 34:4). 667 If we grant this thesis, then the promises of land in Genesis and Deuteronomy should be distinguished from one another redaction-historically. They are directed to different recipients: to the autochthonous ancestors (Genesis) on the one hand, and to the allochthonous forefathers of the exodus generation on the other (Deuteronomy). Thus, the second series of statements in Deuteronomy is specifically shaped by the promise of land as oath. 668 The series of statements listed under (3) appears to connect both, along with the appositional identification 662. Ibid. Outside Deuteronomy (and Joshua, Judges), one encounters statements about the sworn promise of land 11 more times: Gen 24:7; 26:3; 50:24; Exod 13:5, 11; Num 11:12; 14:23; 32:11; Jer 11:5; 32:22. 663. On this series of statements, see Rendtorff, Pentateuch, 75–79; Skweres, Rückverweise, 206– 13; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 371–72; idem, Pentateuch, 172–76; Römer, Väter, 255 n. 1354; 554–66; Boorer, Promise; Kottsieper, TDOT 7:986–93. Among the promises, only the promise of land appears as an oath. See Westermann, Verheissungen, 104–5. 664. Römer considers Gen 22:15–18; 24:7; and 26:3–4 to be part of the “same redaction” (Römer, Väter, 562). Elsewhere, he adds Genesis 15 to these (idem, Nachwort, 122–23). 665. On the grammatical problem of tyrb + a name, see the discussion in Römer, Väter, 548 n. 367; and Joüon and Muraoka, §129a n. 4 (see Jer 33:20). 666. Van Seters, VT 22 (1972): 452. 667. Römer, Väter; see above, §2.1.3 (pp. 67ff.). 668. It is not easy to decide how the promises of land in Genesis and Deuteronomy are related to one another diachronically. Is the one dependent on a statement in the other, or did they arise independently of one another? Because of the material and linguistic proximity, the second option is not really viable. Rather, the impression is that the Deuteronomy statements pick up the statements promising land from Genesis for new addressees by promoting them to an “oath” (see de Pury, VTSup 43 [1991], 78–96). Considerations of the date pose no problems. Blum has already addressed this (Vätergeschichte, 289–97): the oldest ones arose from the ancestor story and were held together by promises (Vg1) after 721 b.c.e. In Pentateuch (214 n. 35), however, in conjunction with Köckert (Vätergott), Blum expresses skepticism about the existence of a Vg1 and is more inclined to divide the promises in Genesis into the exilic Vg2, Kd, and Kp. Vg2 is presumably older than the Deuteronomic framework in which the sworn promises of land appear.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 278 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

278

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

in Deut 1:8; 6:10; 9:5; and 30:20 (which consistently identify the “fathers” as the three ancestors of Genesis). “The idea that we are dealing with a redaction of the Penateuch is seen in the fact that the identification of the Deuteronomistic twba with the patriarchs does not appear again in Joshua–2 Kings.” 669 Redactionally, these insertions in which the “fathers” consistently appear in Exodus–Numbers/Deuteronomy as “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” are adroitly placed. The two key passages of the divinely sworn promise of land stand at the end of Genesis (50:24) and Deuteronomy (34:4), the first and last books of the Pentateuch. Deut 34:4, like Exod 33:1, quotes the content of the oath along with the addition of hnnta ˚[rzl rmal, thereby linking back to Gen 12:7 (+12:1–3), which is the beginning of the ancestor story. 670 Conceptually, this series of divinely sworn promises of land borrows from both the priestly and the Deuteronomistic streams of tradition. “The idea of the [bvn is adopted from the Deuteronomistic tradition while the reference to the patriarchs as the inducement for God’s activity comes from ‘P.’ ” 671 The texts dealing with the sworn promise of land to the three ancestors (Gen 50:24; Exod 32:13; 33:1; Num 32:11; Deut 34:4) together with the text of Lev 26:42 should probably be classified as post-Priestly. 672 Along with general considerations, the reason for this is suggested by the literary findings concerning the individual texts outlined here all too briefly. Gen 50:24 stands between Genesis and Exodus within the bridge text of Gen 50:22–26. It was argued above that this bridge is not older than P. Exod 32:13 is found in a passage (Exod 32:[7–8,] 9–14) unanimously deemed to be an addition to a chapter that is itself considered a late addition, Exodus 32. 673 Exod 33:1 is dependent on 32:13. 674 It is widely acknowledged that Lev 26:42 presupposes P.675 And, similarly, Num 32:11 appears 669. Römer, Väter, 566. 670. See also Deut 34:1 / Gen 13:10 (≈rah lk ta); Gen 34:3 / Gen 13:10 (rkk; r[x). The inclusio of Gen 12:7 / Deut 34:4 joins Genesis–Deuteronomy together as a redactional unit (Schmid, “Formation”). However, based on the reference of Deut 34:7 to Gen 6:3, it is unlikely that a kind of proto-Pentateuch was already formed without the primeval story (as in Blum’s Kd [Blum, Pentateuch, 107–11]). The Hexateuch established by Genesis 15, Exodus *3–4, and Joshua 24 already presupposes a primeval story because of the incorporation of P and also because of Josh 24:2. The idea that the inclusio of Deut 34:4 only reaches back to Gen 12:7 (and not to the primeval story) should perhaps be explained by the content. The theme of land for Israel does not appear in the primeval story, with its universal orientation. 671. Römer, Väter, 561. 672. Thus, ibid., 554–68; and agreeing with him, H.-C. Schmitt, Festschrift Brekelmans, 394. 673. For example, see Aurelius, Fürbitter, 91–100; Blum, Pentateuch, 73, with n. 124 (references). 674. See Blum, Pentateuch, 57. 675. See the discussion in Römer, Väter, 548. Boorer, in an extensive investigation of texts about the oath of land, is concerned with texts in the Pentateuch (Promise, 107: Exod 13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:1; Num 11:12; 14:23; 32:11). Her results are that Exod 13:5, 11; 32:13; and 33:1 are “pre-Deuteronomistic” texts (ibid., 190, 429; see similar conclusions in Skweres, Rückverweise, 206–13: “early Deuteronomistic”). She believes her conclusions are an authoritative support for the pentateuchal models that take into account a pre-Deuteronomistic context in the Tetrateuch (Promise, 427–50). This conclusion is reached, however, based on a highly uncertain allegation (ibid., 99–111): Boorer obtains her sourcecritical classifications, in essence, by comparing parallel texts in the opening framework of Deuteronomy. The age of these texts, however, is extremely unclear. At the very least, we might accept (though it is not compelling) her classification of Exod 13:5, 11 as pre-Deuteronomic (ibid., 190).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 279 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Theological Aspects of the Unified Ancestor and Moses/Exodus Story

279

within Num 32:6–15, a passage deemed post-Priestly since Wellhausen.676 It is difficult to prove a post-Priestly classification for Deut 34:4 based on the complex literary criticism of Deuteronomy 34 and the controversial question of P in Deuteronomy.677 However, it is quite obvious that the literary conclusion of the Torah in Deuteronomy 34 was shaped significantly during the course of its formation.

d. Reemphasizing Prophecy in the Pentateuch What theological change was accomplished by the separation of Genesis–Deuteronomy as Torah from the context of the historical books and by the emphasis on the promise of land to the patriarchs as an oath? If we accept that the Pentateuch has been shaped in contrast to Genesis–Joshua, Judges–Kings + Isaiah– Malachi, with its perspective of a sequence of salvation history § judgment history § salvation history, then the isolation of the Pentateuch as Torah achieves a reemphasis on prophecy in Genesis–Deuteronomy. In the Pentateuch as Torah, the presentation of history is not just past salvation history. Rather, the Pentateuch is an eminently prophetic substance with its oaths promising land, especially in the way that Deut 34:10 qualitatively orders all later “prophets” (those from Joshua to Malachi) under Moses: “Never since has there arisen [μwq Qal] a prophet in Israel like Moses whom Yhwh knew face to face.” 678 This prophetic shaping of the Pentateuch should be placed alongside and evaluated with its (continually visible) theocratic shaping, which is due in large part to its Priestly components. 679 The However, Exodus 13 speaks only in general terms about “fathers” and not specifically about the patriarchs in Genesis. Boorer’s decision about the redaction-historical relationship of Exodus 32–34 to Deuteronomy 9–10 is not convincing, particularly if one compares her analysis with the extensive study of Aurelius (Fürbitter, 8–126), with which she does not even interact. She also does not identify the point of reference for the land promise. Thus, Boorer cannot prove the existence of a preexilic literary context in Genesis–Numbers. See also the similar critique of Blum (Pentateuch, 172–76) on Skweres (Rückverweise, 206–13). 676. Wellhausen, Composition, 338, 352–53; Noth, HPT, 176–77; idem, ATD 7 205–6 (RPent+Dtr ); see the evidence in Blum, Pentateuch, 112. 677. However, see the observations about the relationship of Deut 32:52 and 34:4 (Römer, Väter, 253–54; see Lohfink, Väter, 45). 678. On Deut 34:10 as the conclusion of the Torah, see Blenkinsopp, Prophecy, 80–95; Gunneweg, ZAW 102 (1990): 179–80; Dohmen and Oeming, Kanon, 67–68; see Lux, ZTK 84 (1987): 395–425. The axiom in Deut 34:10 may have influenced the inclusio in Mal 3:22–24 and Josh 1:7, which creates the canonical section of the Nebiªim (see Steck, Abschluss, 134–35; Hengel, “Schriftauslegung,” 19) and again places the accent on Yhwh’s own activity. No longer will prophets teach Israel the Torah in the sense of instructors, along the lines of Joshua, as elsewhere in Joshua through Malachi. Rather, Yhwh himself will send Elijah back to Israel (as “Malachi” or “my messenger”? Concerning the identification of Elijah with Malachi, see already Tg. Malachi 1:1; b. Meg. 15a [see Zunz, Vorträge, 19 with note a]; see also Hengel, “Schriftauslegung,” 26, with n. 89; concerning Moses and Elijah, see also Schmid, Mose, 60–61; Seidl, BZ 37 [1993]: 1–25; Zenger, TRE 23:336–37). The identification of “Malachi” with Elijah can thus be understood as a constructive aid, which brings Nebiªim into a relationship with “Malachi” that is similar to the relationship between the Torah and Moses (see also Jacob, Genesis, 177). Through this theme of the immediacy of God accented at the end of the Torah and of Nebiªim (Moses; “Malachi/Elijah”), these two bodies of text can be addressed in a concrete sense as “Holy Scripture”—that is, as divine revelation. 679. Crüsemann only emphasizes one side (Crüsemann, Israel, 216: “The Pentateuch in its final form is [not only] unprophetic and uneschatological, but is in fact fundamentally anti-prophetic and

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 280 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

280

Chapter 3. Synthetic Reconstructions

Pentateuch as Torah is a compromise that is shaped and can be read from both a priestly perspective and a Deuteronomistic-“eschatological” perspective. 680 This reemphasizing of prophecy in Genesis–Deuteronomy is simultaneously a critique of some of the contents of the corpus propheticum. Far-reaching prophecies of world judgment (Isaiah 24–27; 34; Jer 25:27–31; 45:4–5; Joel 4; Obadiah 15–21; Mic 7:12–13; Zeph 3:8, 14–20) or of a new heaven and a new earth (Isa 65:17; 66:22) do not appear in the Torah. On the contrary, the stability of the heaven and earth (Gen 8:21–22) is a guarantee for the law, because heaven and earth function as witnesses in Deut 31:28 to Israel’s obligation to the law. The problem with which the future perspective in the Pentateuch concerns itself is essentially the relationship of Israel to the nations (Lev 26:42–45; Deuteronomy 4; 30; 32; 33). 681 The Pentateuch knows nothing of (pre-)apocalyptic perspectives on the future, and wants to know nothing of them. This may largely be the reason that the perspective of a new heaven and a new earth is incorporated into the Sinai revelation to Moses in Jub. 1:29. One could see quite clearly in the later period that the Pentateuch adopted a skeptical attitude in comparison with such far-reaching perspectives on the future. 682 Thus, if one wished to keep these perspectives, they needed to be connected to Moses, for how could something be revealed to “Isaiah,” the prophet, per se, about which the prophet “Moses” knew nothing?

These mixed texts with “Deuteronomistic” and “Priestly” perspectives in the Pentateuch, as presented in the sworn promises of land to the patriarchs, have appeared more and more clearly to scholars. 683 However, in recent times, scholars are quite prepared to see something like the final redaction of the Pentateuch in these texts. 684 This conclusion, however, is questionable. 685 The Maccabean orianti-eschatological”). In this respect, he can find support from a wide swath of older research which sees the final redaction of the Pentateuch as the incorporation of P (see the references in Rendtorff, Pentateuch, 163 n. 17). On Crüsemann, see the critique in H.-C. Schmitt, Festschrift Kaiser (1989), 199–202 (see also idem, Festschrift Würthwein; idem, VT 32 [1982]: 139–55; idem, Festschrift Kaiser [1994], 180–94). 680. See Blum, Pentateuch, 356–60; Steck, Abschluss, 18–19; Albertz, History, 2:469; Crüsemann, EvT 49 (1989): 250–67; idem, Torah, 330, 339–449. 681. On Deut 32:1–43, see especially the intertextual observations in Sanders, Provenance, 353– 426; Gosse, ZAW 107 (1995): 110–17. The suggestions of Sanders concerning the preexilic (or even premonarchic) dating are, however, less convincing (Provenance, 431–32, 435–36). On Deuteronomy 33, see Beyerle, Mosesegen, especially 288–90. 682. Even if, with H.-C. Schmitt, we determine Num 24:14–24 to be a “small apocalypse” and date it in the Hellenistic period (idem, Festschrift Kaiser [1994], 184–85), the text is quite reserved with respect to comparable prophetic statements. 683. Even the programmatic texts of the redaction combining Genesis and Exodus and following (Genesis 15; Exodus *3–4; Joshua 24; and Gen 50:25–26 / Exodus 1) belong here. They are, however, somewhat differently embedded and conceived. In this sense, they are also shaped in PriestlyDeuteronomistic fashion. It is notable, however, that they do not simply mix the Priestly and Deuteronomistic concepts. Rather, they organize them in a sequence. They interpret the sequence of events in Genesis–2 Kings predominantly as “Priestly” (Genesis–Joshua) and then predominantly as Deuteronomistic ([ Judges], Samuel–Kings). This is also the case in the reception of Nehemiah 9 (see §4.1.1, pp. 282ff.). 684. See H.-C. Schmitt, VT 32 (1982): 139–55; Römer, Väter, 561–66; see also Otto, who reclaims textual material for his own “Pentateuch redactor” (Otto, TRev 91 [1995]: 283–92; idem, BETL 126 [1996], 61–111; idem, TRev 62 [1997]: 1–50); and Gertz, Tradition; Witte, Urgeschichte. 685. By contrast, see especially Blum, VTSup 43 (1991), 46–57; idem, Pentateuch, 380: “Stated pointedly: there is no ‘final redaction.’ ” See also the discussion in my “Formation.”

page is 12 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 281 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Theological Aspects of the Unified Ancestor and Moses/Exodus Story

281

entation on the chronological system of the Pentateuch shows that textual alterations in Genesis–Deuteronomy were possible for quite a while after the close of the decisive shaping processes. A further problem lies in the fact that “final redaction” suggests several pentateuchal redactions, with the latest one being “the final redaction of the Pentateuch.” However, the Pentateuch as a literary entity was first established through a redaction focused on the theme of the promises of the land to the patriarchs portrayed in Genesis–Deuteronomy. Notably, these promises of the land do not appear in Joshua–2 Kings. In the source theory and also in recent prominent models, often no clear literary-historical position is provided for these Deuteronomistic and Priestly mixed texts. At best, they are treated as the unintended final product of the redactional and compilational work in the Pentateuch. I hope that in the future they will receive the attention they deserve, because they apparently belong to the most theologically reflective and differentiated texts in the Hebrew Bible. Modern theology, as we know, is concerned largely with the theological problem of the relationship between the indicative and the imperative—between gospel and law—a problem already addressed in these texts.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 282 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Chapter 4

Repercussions The Sequence of Ancestors and Exodus in Intertestamental and New Testament Reception

In what follows, the relationship between the ancestors and Exodus will be approached from the other direction. How have the Hebrew Bible outside Genesis– 2 Kings, the writings that arose in its immediate aftermath in the intertestamental period, and the New Testament received the portrait of the large historical work of Genesis–2 Kings? 1 Do they allow us to recognize the originally independent character of the ancestor story and the exodus story?

4.1. Reception within the Hebrew Bible 4.1.1. Nehemiah 9 The prayer of confession in Neh 9:5–37 2 holds a prominent place among the historical summaries of the Hebrew Bible because it is quite extensive and because it refers to all of the important landmarks of the salvation history: from creation (9:6) to the ancestors (9:7–8), the leading out of Egypt (9:9–11), the wilderness wandering—including Sinai (9:12–21), the conquest 3 on both sides of the Jordan (9:22 4–25), the period of the judges, and the monarchic period down to the exile (9:26–31). It also looks beyond them to the subject of the current situation of Israel 1. For the theme of the promise of land to the patriarchs, see Vair, Promise, 32–51. See further (especially for the figure of Abraham), Sandmel, Philo’s Place; Mayer, EvT 32 (1972): 118–27; Berger, TRE 1:372–82. For Moses: Hafemann, JSP 7 (1990): 79–104; Oberhänsli-Widmer, TRE 23:347–57. See also, Johnstone, ZAW 99 (1987): 16–37. However, Johnstone tends to operate methodologically in the direction of Tigay, JBL 94 (1975): 329–42; and idem, Empirical Models. What follows does not address the historical creed texts. For these, see on the one side, Kreuzer, Frühgeschichte (for the history of scholarship, see pp. 3–82); and on the other side, see Römer, RTP 125 (1993): 21–39. 2. In the MT, the Levites serve as speakers according to Neh 9:5, but Ezra is the speaker in the LXX after 9:6 (on this problem, see van Oorschot, ZAW 106 [1994]: 83). Concerning the poetic structure of Nehemiah 9, see Segert, Festschrift Soggin. On the structure of Nehemiah 9, see Pola, Priesterschrift, 202 n. 231. 3. Notably, Joshua is not mentioned, perhaps in order “to emphasize the idea of the land as a divine gift rather than the outcome of human effort” (Blenkinsopp, OTL, 306). 4. Rudolph presents 9:22 as secondary, though not convincingly (Rudolph, HAT 1/20 21).

282

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 283 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Reception within the Hebrew Bible

283

in its own land (9:32–37). 5 That Nehemiah 9 (as well as other texts) literarily presupposes and uses the presentation of history in Genesis–2 Kings is demonstrated, on the one hand, by numerous allusions, including literal quotations. 6 On the other hand, it is shown by the particular mix of Priestly and Deuteronomistic shaping of this text 7—a shaping that relies heavily on the material as well as the sequence of Genesis–2 Kings in its current form. This is the broad consensus of the research. 8 For the beginnings of the national story, Nehemiah 9 largely follows the events that also play an important role in the Pentateuch. The highlights include the Abrahamic Covenant (9:7–8) as well as the giving of the law at Sinai (9:13–14). These are the landmarks of the foundational story of Israel that are emblazoned in the Pentateuch, especially in P texts. In fact, Nehemiah 9 even follows P in specifying the relation between the Abrahamic Covenant and the giving of the law on Sinai. The giving of the law at Sinai (which is not described as a covenant) is “classified as a configuration of the previously founded relationship” in the Abrahamic Covenant. 9 Nehemiah 9’s handling of the sequence of ancestors and exodus is noteworthy in that the Joseph story is missing and the reversal of locations in 9:8 and 9:9 is unexplained 10 (elsewhere in Nehemiah 9, there may also be gaps in its recitational history of Israel) although perhaps it was so that the chronological order would be broken before the “fathers” in Egypt in 9:9. Neh 9:8b adds to the Abrahamic Covenant with its promise of land 11 in 9:8a that Yhwh fulfilled (μwq perfect) this 5. Von Rad interprets this in conjunction with the small historical creed: “Thus, however, one reaches the arena of the complete expansion of the genre because the historical review now encompasses the creation of the world, the ancestors, Egypt, exodus, Sinai, wilderness wandering, conquest, the period of the Judges, and the monarchy down to the postexilic period” (von Rad, “Problem,” 20). 6. See the compilation in Myers, AB 14 167–69. Concerning the connections with Ezekiel 20, see (though not always convincingly) Pola, Priesterschrift, 199–207; and Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 98–99. The “good commandments and statutes” in Neh 9:13 are especially noteworthy in comparison with Ezek 20:25 (see also 20:11). 7. See, for example, Römer: “As for Nehemiah 9, one gets the impression of a summary of the two grand literary collections. Up to the point of the conquest, the story is presented with a collection of phrases and expressions of the ‘Deuteronomistic’ type and the ‘Priestly’ type. After the conquest (because priestly texts are lacking here?), the author’s setting is the terminology of the Deuteronomistic History” (Römer, RTP 125 [1993]: 35 n. 50). 8. See Gunneweg, KAT 19/2 129; Williamson, WBC 16 316; Blenkinsopp, OTL, 303; Römer, Väter, 539; Mathys, Dichter, 19, with n. 50. Mathias, Mitteilungen 1995, 25; Pola, Priesterschrift, 205–6; extensively, Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 79–86, etc. On the dating of Nehemiah 9, the literature available can be found in Segert, Festschrift Soggin, 256 n. 6; and Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 103–5. 9. Steins, Chronik, 207 n. 144; see also Mathys, Dichter, 9. 10. See Römer, Väter, 540. 11. It is completely consistent that the giving of the land concerns the descendants of Abraham (w[rzl) in the conception of Nehemiah 9. Under Joshua, Israel takes possession of the land promised to Abraham. There is no cause to change it, as in the LXX, to w[rzlw wl (see also Gosse, Structuration, 100). The fact that only Abraham is mentioned and nothing is said about Isaac and Jacob can be explained according to Mathys by the idea that the “most extensive and most important promises of land” are directed to Abraham (Mathys, Dichter, 8). It is clear that Neh 9:8 is using Genesis 15 (“faith,” “covenant,” gift of land, list of nations) and also Genesis 17 (“Abram”–“Abraham”; “covenant”). See Blenkinsopp, OTL, 303–4.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 284 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

284

Chapter 4. Repercussions

promise (rbd) and then jumps forward to the conquest, which actually would be properly located chronologically in 9:22–25. In addition, the Genesis material (creation and ancestors) is framed by Yhwh pronouncements and is thus set off from the material that follows. 12 Already, Nehemiah 9 is overplaying (in a sense) the complicated detour in the resolution of the promise of land between the exodus and the renewed conquest. It stresses the close connection between the promise of land and the taking of land. It is noteworthy that the ancestor story’s theology of promise in Nehemiah 9 has a peculiar double relevance. On the one hand, it is perceived historically. Because the promises were fulfilled at the conquest, God owes Israel nothing. On the other hand, Neh 9:32 names God as the one who “keeps the covenant and mercy” (dsjhw tyrbh rmwv). “The covenant” is marked by the definite article here (as in 9:8); therefore, only the Abrahamic covenant in 9:8 can be meant. The Abrahamic covenant is thus a covenant of mercy that continues to be valid after the fulfillment of the promise of land. According to Gen 17:7, the promise that Yhwh will be Israel’s God is valid forever.

After the oppression in Egypt (9:9a), deliverance at the Sea of Reeds (9:9b–11), the events at Sinai (9:13–14), and the wilderness wandering (9:12, 15–21), Neh 9:22–25 reports the fulfillment of the promise of descendants and land. 13 In addition, Neh 9:22–25 reports the overwhelming abundance that God provided for Israel in its land. 14 This presentation stands in contrast to the summary notice in 9:26, which states that Israel disobeyed God’s law and his prophets. 15 This disobedience leads to the period of the judges (9:27–28) and the kings (9:29–31). 16 After the Priestly-shaped presentation of the prehistory of Israel from the ancestors to Joshua, Nehemiah 9 changes to a Deuteronomistic manner of thought for the period after the conquest (corresponding to the misplaced emphasis in the existing version of Genesis–2 Kings). At the end, Neh 9:30–31 describes the judgment on Israel that now occurs because of the disobedience of the people. The Abrahamic Covenant, the gift of land (together with the increase of the population), the giving of the law at Sinai, and the desire for land (together with the decimation of the population) are arranged in a relationship of correspondence: 12. Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 88–89. 13. Interestingly, the fulfillment of the promise of descendants is stated immediately before the entry into the land and not at the beginning of the exodus event. 14. The strong orientation of Nehemiah 9 toward Abraham and the land (see 9:36!) has led Williamson to the conclusion that Nehemiah 9 traces back to the descendants who remained in the land during the exile. They could have made such a liturgy (Williamson, “Structure,” 129–31; see also the different presentation of Rendsburg, Bib 72 [1991]: 348–66). Mathys, however, correctly points out that, because of its many scriptural references, Nehemiah could not have arisen in the sixth century (Mathys, Dichter, 20). It is questionable whether Mathys’s suggestion works, for the same reason (ibid., 21). He suggests that Nehemiah 9 is a prayer conceived for a service of confession. One has the impression that Nehemiah 9 is created as theological literature, not as a liturgical prayer (see Gunneweg, KAT 19/2 129; Römer, “Historiographies,” 147). 15. Neh 9:26 thus contrasts with 9:11: “As Yhwh once cast (˚lv Hiphil) the Egyptians into the deep in Exodus, Israel now casts (˚lv Hiphil) the Torah behind itself (Neh 9:26a)” (Pola, Priesterschrift, 200 n. 226). 16. On the logic of the series of statements in 9:22–31, see Steck, Israel, 61–62.

spread is 6 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 285 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Reception within the Hebrew Bible

Covenant with Abraham 9:7–9

Law at Sinai 9:13–14

285

Taking of the Land 9:22–25

Exile 9:30–31

This double correspondence is picked up again in the concluding petition in 9:32–37, where it provides the structure for this text: 17 Covenant 9:32–33

Law 9:34

Gift of the Land 9:35

Exile 9:36–37

Thus, Nehemiah 9 presents itself both in Priestly and in Deuteronomistic terms. 18 These conceptions find their common denominator in the idea of the righteousness of God. This idea frames 9:5b–37 as a whole. God is righteous (qydx in 9:8, 33). The statement in 9:33 corresponds to Israel’s confession of its own guilt ([vr Hiphil in 9:33b). 19 At this point in Nehemiah 9, the guilt of the fathers, introduced in the frame at 9:2 (“they confessed their sins and the guilt of their fathers”) and repeated in the rest of the chapter, is identified with “our” guilt. As a result, in the end it can speak about “our sins” (wnytwafj in 9:37). In the face of the guilt of the fathers and at those who are praying (seen as one), a future perspective for Israel arises only out of the knowledge that Yhwh is also gracious in judgment. 20 This concept is often emphasized in Nehemiah 9: (1) In the context of the affair of the golden calf, the declaration appears prominently in 9:17 that “You are a God of forgiveness, gracious and compassionate, long-suffering and abundant in steadfast love.” The expression “God of forgiveness” (twjyls hwla) is found only here in the Hebrew Bible, and the connected “grace formula,” so named by Spieckermann, is formulated without a qualifying clause. 21 (2) It is only due to the compassion of God that a remnant in Israel has survived the catastrophe of the exile (9:31). Here again, we find the “grace formula.” 17. It even appears that the fourfold divine title (“our God, the great God and mighty and awesome”) can be seen in conjunction with the decisive breaking point between the historical overview and the petition in 9:32: Covenant wnyhla “our God”

Law lwdgh lah “the great God”

Gift of the Land Exile rwbgh arwnhw “the mighty” “the awesome”

18. On the relationship to Chronicles, see Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 100. 19. On this use of [vr Hiphil, see HALOT 2:1295 and Ps 106:6; Job 34:12; Dan 9:5; 11:32; 12:10. 20. See Mathys, Dichter, 4: “In spite of the continuing disobedience of Israel, God’s fidelity and compassion [form] the central scope of this text.” 21. Spieckermann, ZAW 102 (1990): 1–18; Mathys, Dichter, 16.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 286 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

286

Chapter 4. Repercussions

(3) The petition in 9:32–37 begins with the statement that God is the one “who preserves the covenant” (dsjw tyrbh rmwv in 9:32). The “grace formula” is also echoed by this formulation.

Nehemiah 9 speaks (in a Deuteronomistic way) about Israel’s guilt but simultaneously relies (Priestly) on hymnic praise for the grace of God, which is based upon the covenant with Abraham especially according to 9:32. To summarize briefly, the reception of Genesis–2 Kings in Nehemiah 9 is closely oriented to the template in terms of content. We can see this particularly in the intertwining of Priestly and Deuteronomistic theology in this text—intertwining that is characteristic of Genesis–2 Kings as a whole. Apparently Nehemiah 9 offers the truest summary of the content of the current form of Genesis– 2 Kings according to both the Hebrew Bible and the intertestamental literature. For understanding the hiatus between the ancestors and Exodus, one should recognize in Nehemiah 9 that, between these two themes, the chronological sequence of the presentation is interrupted by the report of the giving of the land in 9:8b, and again in a different way in 9:22–25. For Nehemiah 9, the promises of Genesis and those of Exodus run their own courses toward the conquest. The reception of Genesis–Exodus (and following) in Nehemiah 9 thus still allows us to recognize the dual nature of the founding of the origins of Israel in the ancestors and in Exodus. 4.1.2. The Chronicler’s History The problem of the limits of the Chronicler’s History is also relevant to the reception of Genesis–2 Kings. 22 Should 1–2 Chronicles be treated by itself, or was it originally connected to Ezra–Nehemiah? 23 If one takes the Chronicler’s History as encompassing 1–2 Chronicles + Ezra–Nehemiah, then this work can be understood as the reception of Torah and Nebiªim (Genesis– Malachi). 24 That means that Genesis–2 Kings would be seen by this Chronicler’s History 22. Concerning the Chronicler as a “history,” see the recent collected work of Graham, Hoglund, and McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Historian; especially Hoglund, “Chronicler,” therein. 23. The belief that 1–2 Chronicles and Ezra originally belonged together goes back to Zunz and was quickly accepted (Zunz, Vorträge, 22). Only with Japhet does one again find critical voices against this position (Japhet, VT 18 [1968]: 332–72). For the recent discussion, see Im, Davidbild, 7 n. 1; Becker, 1 Chronik, 7–8; Oeming, Israel, 41–44; Kalimi, ZAW 105 (1993): 223–33; Kratz, “Suche,” 281 n. 6 (bibliography); Steins, Chronik, 49–81, 442–43; Kelly, Retribution, 14–26; Frei and Koch, Reichsidee, 220–23; Klein, ABD 5:993; Kratz, Composition, 87–93; Knoppers, AB 12 89. On the dating, see Im, Davidbild, 8 n. 2; Oeming, Israel, 44–45; Kalimi, ZAW 105 (1993): 223–33; Kratz, “Suche,” 282, with n. 7 (“second half of the fourth century [under Artaxerxes III]”). Kelly dates it somewhat earlier (Kelly, Retribution, 27: “some point in the fourth century b.c.e., perhaps the earlier half ”). See also Klein, ABD 5:994. Others date it later (“in the first half of the third century”), such as was already the case for Zunz, Vorträge, 34; also, Welten, Geschichte, 199–200; and in connection with him Dörrfuss, Mose, 13–14. Steins, Chronik, 494–98, dates it later still (the Maccabean period). For the problems of dating, see the extensive treatment by Steins, ZAW 109 (1997): 84–92. 24. Steck, Festschrift Beyerlin, 371–72. From here, the suggestion for dating by Steins should be considered again. See Steins, Chronik, 494–98; idem, ZAW 109 (1997): 84–92.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 287 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Reception within the Hebrew Bible

287

in close connection with the corpus propheticum (Isaiah–Malachi). Various factors suggest this conclusion—for example, the idea that the events in Ezra–Nehemiah have been presented as partial fulfillment of prophetic predictions.25 Under Ezra and Nehemiah, the salvific future of Israel announced by the prophets is realized. In addition, notable thematic correspondences can be cited (we only need to look at Nehemiah 13 and Malachi).26 Detaching 1–2 Chronicles from Ezra–Nehemiah does not necessarily make this connection impossible. In this case, however, it is first encountered at a secondary stage, during which the originally independent works of 1–2 Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah were brought into the same context. For the acceptance of a free-standing Chronicler’s History in 1–2 Chronicles, the reception process would be limited to Genesis–2 Kings, which had been expanded by the presentation of the time up to the edict of Cyrus (2 Chronicles 36).

It is widely recognized that 1–2 Chronicles presuppose and accept the existing context of Genesis–2 Kings, including the essentials and even the wording. 27 This even goes for the so-called “genealogical preface” 28 in 1 Chronicles 1–9, which is nothing more than an adoption (with its own particular emphasis) of the historical sequence of Genesis–1 Samuel. 29 Detailed investigations show, however, especially in comparison30 with 4QSama,b, that the Chronicler’s History does not simply have the Masoretic version in view.31 The relationships and the textual transmissions and reception are more complicated. However, the details need not be treated here for the thematic questions at hand.

The most important theological differences between the Chronicler’s History and its template, Genesis–2 Kings, are in the macrostructure of the Chronicler’s History. It summarizes the time before Saul in a genealogy (1 Chronicles 1–9), and after the episode with Saul (1 Chronicles 10), it gives more space and attention to the presentation of the kingdom of David (1 Chronicles 11–29) and Solomon (2 Chronicles 1–9). But that means that none of the epochs of the classic salvation history of Israel—the ancestors, the exodus, Sinai, the conquest—constitute the founding epoch of Israel. Rather, in the Chronicler’s view it is the time of David

25. See Koch, JSS 19 (1974): 184 (according to Koch, this even agrees with the understanding of Ezra himself ); McConville, VT 36 (1986): 222–24 (limited to Isaiah and Jeremiah). On prophecy in 1–2 Chronicles, see Schniedewind, “Prophets.” 26. Steck, Festschrift Beyerlin, 371–72. 27. See Japhet, JBL 98 (1979): 205–6; Becker, 1 Chronik, 5–6; Kaiser, TheolAT, 202; Kratz, “Suche,” 282–83; on the exegetical approach of the Chronicler, see Willi, Auslegung; Ackroyd, Chronicler, 311–43; Strübind, Tradition. 28. For this designation, see Oeming, Israel, 9 n. 1. 29. For 1 Chronicles 1–9, see Oeming, Israel; Braun, “Reconstruction”; Knoppers, AB 12. For a great deal of source criticism on 1 Chronicles 1–9, see Kartveit, Motive. For the context of 1 Chronicles 1–9 within the Chronicler’s work as a whole, see Oeming, Israel, 40–41. 30. See Cook, VT 44 (1994): 442, bibliography in n. 3. For a different perspective, see van der Woude (“Pluriformity”), for whom the form of 4QSama appears to depend on Chronicles. 31. See the discussion in McKenzie, Use, 119–58; Steins, Chronik, 45–48 (bibliographical references, p. 45 with n. 14); Knoppers, AB 12. For a different perspective, see van der Woude, “Pluriformity,” 166–67.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 288 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

288

Chapter 4. Repercussions

and Solomon that is the founding epoch of Israel. 32 The “genealogical preface” functions only as prehistory. The Chronicler’s History thus dates the essential founding period of Israel, contrary to its template, quite a bit later, relocating it to the beginning of the monarchic period. 33 Von Rad correctly explained this feature by pointing to the postexilic historical setting of Chronicles: The national history was called into question by the actual order of events, which resulted in the catastrophe of the Exile. Did the entire store of promises fail with this outcome of history? Against this objection, one finds that the severely discredited national history (i.e., through the genealogies) is most closely tied in with the time in which, because of the faith of Israel, God’s promises of blessing found their most characteristic expression. 34

This refers to the time of David and Solomon, which naturally is at the forefront in Chronicles because the temple cult was established and became authoritative for everything that follows. Chronicles thereby presents a starkly autochthonously shaped concept of the origin of Israel that closely connects the time of the united monarchy with the ancestor period. To be sure, the exodus and the conquest are not entirely missing, but they appear entirely in the background. 35 Outside 1 Chronicles 1–9, Moses appears in the following passages of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah: 1 Chr 15:15; 21:29; 22:13; 23:14–15; 26:24; 2 Chr 1:3; 5:10; 8:13; 23:18; 24:6, 9; 25:4; 30:16; 33:8; 34:14; 35:6, 12; Ezra 3:2; 7:6; Neh 1:7–8; 8:1; 9:14; 32. See von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:352; idem, Geschichtsbild, 120. Contrary to Noth’s appraisal, “For the Deuteronomist, it was primarily the systematic plan of the whole work that was made prominent in the sections which the author himself highlighted. Thus, by contrast, the Chronicler is foremost concerned with the details of the flow of history which he expands out of his own” (Noth, CH, 76; see p. 80). Instead, we should emphasize that precisely the diverse disposition of the material in the Chronicler’s History serves as a comprehensive new emphasis on the existing image of history in Genesis–2 Kings. Noth’s own thesis was that the Chronicler’s work “wanted to prove the Jerusalem cult community as genuine descendants of that ancient legitimate ‘Israel’” (Noth, CH, 100; italics in the original). This interest of the Chronicler must be seen as a new concept for the entirety of the history of Israel. 33. See Kelly, Retribution, 156–67; in fact, Ackroyd notes “the absence of the exodus,” but he does not want to see this as “a new updating of the Heilsgeschichte” but as a “dehistoricizing of what he sees as the essential elements in the community’s previous history” (Ackroyd, Chronicler, 264; see also pp. 271–72). On the anti-Samaritan hypothesis of Noth (CH, 101) and Rudolph (HAT 1/21 ix), see Steins, Chronik, 477–78. Steins himself remarks quite correctly that “the exodus was not perceived (or at least not primarily) as an event of the ‘primeval history’ but as a historical fact” (Steins, Chronik, 480). At the same time, Japhet (contrary to Steins, but essentially correctly) argues against this (“Contrary to the most established historical traditions of the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets, the Chronicler presents a concept of people and land which is autochthonic in its basic features” [Japhet, JBL 98 (1979): 218]). Even though the Chronicler’s work does not deny the exodus but knows it and uses it, the emphasis on the Davidic period does actually point to an autochthonous concept. Kegler presents the view “that the retreat of the exodus tradition in the books of Chronicles stands in direct connection with the accentuation of the salvific interpretation of the temple. The founding of the temple, with its role as a salvation event in the books of Chronicles, overshadows the salvation dimension of the liberation events in Egypt” (Kegler, Festschrift Westermann, 55). 34. Von Rad, Geschichtsbild, 66. 35. See Japhet, JBL 98 (1979): 205–18. This work is referred to positively in Lohfink, “Schichten,” 255–56. For a different accent, though only on the basis of 1 Chr 17:21, see Kaiser, Grundriss, 1:148.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 289 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Reception within the Hebrew Bible

289

10:29; 13:1. 36 However, there is nothing about his function as leader of the exodus. Rather, the references to Moses are exclusively as the lawgiver of Israel.37 In fact, Moses is abrogated by David in some respects (see tynbt in Exod 25:9, 40 / 1 Chr 28:11–12, 18– 19, as are the offerings in Exod 25:1–7; 35:4–9 / 1 Chr 29:3–4).38 The exodus itself is only mentioned six times in the books of Chronicles (1 Chr 17:5, 21; 2 Chr 5:10; 6:5; 7:22; 20:10). 39 The quotation of 1 Kgs 8:21 in 2 Chr 6:11 specifically omits it. The covenant of Yhwh in 8:21, made with the ancestors as he led them out of Egypt, is described in 2 Chr 6:11 as having been made solely with the people of Israel.40

The special significance of the ancestors in Chronicles is quite clear despite the relative paucity of their appearance, comparatively speaking. 41 Abraham, Isaac, and “Israel” (in the Chronicler’s History, Jacob is consistently called “Israel” 42 except for the quotations in 1 Chr 16:13; 1 Chr 29:10, 18; 2 Chr 30:6) only appear in quotations outside 1 Chronicles 1–9: Abraham appears in 1 Chr 16:16; 29:18; 2 Chr 20:7; 30:6(; Neh 9:7); Isaac appears in 1 Chr 16:16; 29:18; 2 Chr 30:6; and Jacob appears in 1 Chr 16:13. The covenant with the fathers is encountered only in 1 Chr 16:15–17, which is textually comparable with Ps 105:8–10.43

Regarding the passages that mention the ancestors, we should primarily note, with Williamson, that Jacob/Israel gains prominence in the Chronicler’s History in comparison with Abraham. 44 Replacing “Abraham” in Ps 105:6 with “Israel” in 1 Chr 16:13 is most notable in this respect. 45 The Chronicler’s History appears to reduce the patriarchs to Jacob/Israel, “probably because he was in an immediate sense the father of the children of Israel.” 46 The reception of Psalm 105 in 1 Chronicles 16 shows, however, a more important point for the discussion here. Psalm 105 offers an outline of history after the ancestors that has a summary of the Joseph story, of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt, the plagues, the exodus, and the conquest. 1 Chr 16:8–22 is a duplicate of Ps 105:1–15 (in connection with Ps 96:1–13 and 106:1, 36. See the overview and discussion of the texts in Dörrfuss, Mose, 1–2. 37. See von Rad, Geschichtsbild, 75. 38. See idem, Old Testament Theology, 1:351; Ackroyd, Chronicler, 268. For a different perspective, see Dörrfuss, Mose, 278–79, who (by means of a not very convincing source-critical analysis) traces the references to Moses to secondary additions, with the exception of 1 Chr 5:29. These essentially “aim toward a critique of the Davidic kingdom and temple. . . . The Moses revision [is then turned] against an attitude that, in the current cultic practice, sees an idealization realized as hope in the Davidides and the restoration of their dominion.” 39. Kegler, Festschrift Westermann, 55; Steins, Chronik, 451–54. 40. See already von Rad, Geschichtsbild, 65; Steins, Chronik, 451–54. However, Steins correctly draws attention to the idea that one cannot infer a denial of the exodus in Chronicles from the reception of 1 Kgs 8:21 in 2 Chr 6:11 because the exodus is mentioned immediately preceding, in 5:10 and 6:5. 41. On the examples of twba in Chronicles, see Römer, Väter, 344–52. 42. In 1 Chronicles 1–9, see 1 Chr 1:34; 2:1; 5:1, 3; 6:23; 7:29 (see von Rad, Geschichtsbild, 72, with n. 21). 43. See the discussion in Steins, Chronik, 450–51; Gosse, Transeu 15 (1998): 123–35. 44. Williamson, Israel, 62–64; see Japhet, JBL 98 (1979): 217. On Abraham in Chronicles, see von Rad, Geschichtsbild, 71–72. 45. See Mathys, Dichter, 211 n. 36. 46. Williamson, Israel, 62; see Mathys, Dichter, 211.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 290 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

290

Chapter 4. Repercussions

47–48). 47 However, the adopted material from Psalm 105 ends before the beginning of the Joseph story, and it contains a hymnic conclusion. This is extraordinarily significant in terms of the content. There is no break, not even any “history” between Jacob and salvation. The same historical plan is expressed in 1 Chronicles: There is a direct line from Israel the patriarch to Israel the people, and the line is one of natural growth and multiplication, taking place in the natural environment of the land of Israel. 48

Furthermore, one can trace this combination of the ancestor and the people “Israel” in the change of suffixes from μtwyhb in Ps 105:12 to μktwyhb 1 Chr 16:19: “The Chronicler consciously changes his source. He identifies the present generation with that of the fathers.” 49 To sum up, the Chronicler consciously uses the ancestors to serve his concept of the autochthonous origins of Israel. Israel’s founding epoch of the Davidic and Solomonic periods is, after all, associated with the founding of the temple, while the exodus and the conquest retreat noticeably. 50 Thus, in its own way, the Chronicler’s History uses the noteworthy feature that Israel in the ancestor story in Genesis–2 Kings is not aimed from the outset at a second conquest by the circuitous route through Egypt and the wilderness wandering. Rather, the text of Genesis justifies the autochthonous existence of Israel in its land. In its reception, Chronicles therefore replaces the hexateuchal context of Genesis–Joshua (to some extent) with a direct connection from Samuel–Kings to Genesis. Thus, it chooses between the two traditions of Israel’s origin: Chronicles connects to the ancestor tradition and places the exodus tradition in the background. 4.1.3. Psalm 105–6 The history of Israel is the subject of a number of Psalms (especially Psalms 78; 105–6; 135–36), and it has been the subject of numerous monographs. 51 I am limiting myself in the following discussion to Psalms 105–6 because, on the one hand, these two psalms clearly presuppose the existing presentation of the histori47. See Becker, 1 Chronik, 72; Mathys, Dichter, 203, with n. 6. On the logic of the sequence of the material it borrows, see Mathys, Dichter, 203: “After the ark is transferred to Jerusalem, the community looks back on the history to that point (Ps 105), praises Yhwh (Ps 96), and asks him to liberate them from their enemies (Ps 106).” 48. Japhet, JBL 98 (1979): 218. Her work is picked up in Mathys, Dichter, 210. He agrees that “the Psalm in 1 Chr 16:18ff. integrates (seamlessly) into the theology of the books of Chronicles” (Mathys, Dichter, 203; see pp. 214–15). 49. Ibid., 205. He correctly rejects text-critical harmonizations in 1 Chr 16:19. See also Ackroyd, Chronicler, 265; Kelly, Retribution, 177–82. 50. See also the reception and expansion of μywgh ˆm wnxbqw from Ps 106:47 to wnlyxhw wnxbqw μywgh ˆm in 1 Chr 16:35. Chronicles projects the diaspora situation of Israel in Psalm 106, which also represents the time of the author of Chronicles, into the situation of the origin of Israel in the Davidic period (see Mathys, Dichter, 204, 206). 51. See above, §2.2.1.b (pp. 73ff.), and Lauha, Geschichtsmotive; Kühlewein, Geschichte; Mathias, Geschichtstheologie; Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 106–204. On Psalm 78, see Schreiner, “Geschichte.”

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 291 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Reception within the Hebrew Bible

291

cal books of Israel. On the other hand, each psalm expounds a pointed concept, and in their current combination as a pair, this is a concept that is significant to their position at the end of Book IV. Psalms 105 and 106 are so-called “twin” psalms, meaning they are verbally and factually related psalms that stand alongside one another in the Psalter. 52 The relationship between Psalm 105 and 106, however, is not so close as to suppose that they were conceived by a single hand. Their chief commonalities lie in the fact that both are historical psalms. The combination of Psalms 105 and 106 has a redactional origin. 53 The placing of Psalms 105 and 106 alongside one another, however, is noteworthy in light of the factual differences between the two psalms. Apparently, Psalms 105 and 106 were placed alongside one another so that they could interpret one another reciprocally. In what follows, they will first be considered individually and then in their context. a. Psalm 105 The historical outline of Psalm 105 corresponds to the scope of the Hexateuch, which is obviously literarily presupposed and drawn upon. 54 The outline stretches from the ancestors (105:8–15; compare 105:42), across the Joseph story (105:16– 22), to the exodus and the plagues (105:23–38; 55 see 105:43), the wilderness wandering (105:39–41), and up to the conquest (105:44–45), where the psalm ends. Israel is consistently characterized in positive ways. 56 Neither the inglorious behavior of the brothers in selling Joseph nor the murmuring in the wilderness is ever mentioned. Rather, Israel serves as Yhwh’s people (see wm[ in 105:25, 36), who stand under Yhwh’s enduring protection and abiding care, just as God promised in the Abrahamic Covenant. 57 The “remembrance” of Yhwh and this covenant holds the introduction together thematically using imperatives (105:1–6[,7]; rkz in 52. Zimmerli, “Zwillingspsalmen,” 267–70. Auffret has put forward a structural analysis of both (Auffret, BNBeiheft 3 [1985]; idem, SEL 11 [1994]: 75–96). 53. Zimmerli, “Zwillingspsalmen,” 267. See the discussion in Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 124–26. 54. In historical outline, see also the presentation of Mathias, Geschichtstheologie, 134. Correspondence with the Hexateuch is the overwhelming opinion of scholars. See the review in Blum, Vätergeschichte, 410, 17; Römer, Väter, 541–42 n. 319, and the individual proofs for the plagues in L. Schmidt, Plagenerzählung, 90–94. Seybold discerns only a “foundational knowledge of the Pentateuch themes” and dates the text as exilic (Seybold, HAT 1/1 414–15). He notes, however, echoes of P (416). A terminus ad quem for Psalm 105 is 1 Chr 16:8–22, where Psalm 105 is quoted (in combination with Psalm 96 and 106:1, 46–47). 55. Mathias considers whether 105:28–36 represents a later expansion (Mathias, Geschichtstheologie, 112–20). The chiasm extending across 105:25–29 argues against this idea, which Clifford has shown (Clifford, Bib 60 [1979]: 420–27, 425; Ceresko, Bib 64 [1983]: finds two additional corresponding elements in 105:24 and 105:30). 56. See Clifford, Bib 60 (1979): 421: “Ps 105, however, does not mention Israel’s sins.” 57. The key words ≈ra, db[, and rbd appear throughout the psalm. See Clifford, Bib 60 (1979): 420–27; Ceresko, Bib 64 [1983]: 27. The word ≈ra is especially accented because it appears ten times (105:7, 11, 16, 23, 27, 30, 32, 35, 36, 44) and the frequent use of phonetically related words that echo ≈ra (Ceresko, Bib 64 [1983]: 28).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 292 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

292

Chapter 4. Repercussions

105:5) and holds together the historical outline, largely formulated using perfect tense (105:8–44; rkz in 105:8, 42). 58 Taken by itself, Psalm 105 is a classic example of a historical image of the ancestors as the theological foundation of Israel. According to Crüsemann, this is “perhaps in general agreement with the theology of the Priestly writing.” 59 Psalm 105 is unique in its concentration on the patriarchs (105:8–15, 16–22; see 105:42). 60 Here one finds “essentially the only text outside the Pentateuch that is exclusively oriented toward the patriarchs.” 61 In the context of the Psalter, this orientation of Psalm 105 is counterbalanced by the subsequent Psalm 106. b. Psalm 106 After Psalm 105, which encompasses the hexateuchal salvation history, comes Psalm 106, which describes an entirely different picture of the history of Israel. History is seen essentially as the backsliding from Yhwh ever since Egypt, which for Psalm 106 is the beginning. The historical summary of the psalm begins with the fathers in Egypt 62 (106:7). 63 The “fathers” here are the exodus generation and not the patriarchs, who are entirely missing in Psalm 106. It reports the miracle of the sea (106:7–11), which briefly awakened faith (ˆma Hiphil in 106:12–13). It then reports the events in the wilderness surrounding Dathan and Abiram (106:14–18), the golden calf (106:19–23), and the murmuring of the people (106:24–33). Here, the intercessions of Moses (106:23) and Phinehas (106:30) play a central role as saving moments corresponding to the earlier “for [Yhwh’s] name’s sake” and the salvation motif at the Sea of Reeds (106:8). The conquest and the monarchic period are subsequently referred to together as periods of apostasy from Yhwh (106:34–40). Israel mingled with the nations (106:34–35), served idols and demons ([ˆ[nk] ybx[; ydv in 106:36–37), and brought bloodguilt upon itself (μymd in 106:38). Therefore, judgment followed (106:40). Yhwh gave Israel over to foreign rule by the nations (106:41–43; see μywg in 106:41), but Yhwh let himself regret this judgment because of Israel’s cry (106:44–46; μjn Niphal in 106:45). 64 He shows compassion 58. See Crüsemann, Studien, 77. 59. Ibid., 76. See also the terminological contact points with P noted in Römer, Väter, 542 n. 322. 60. See Clifford, Bib 60 (1979): 422. On the patriarchs in the Psalter, see Lauha, Geschichtsmotive, 34–45; Kühlewein, Geschichte, 158. 61. Römer, Väter, 542. 62. So also the historical psalm, Psalm 78, esp. 78:12. Psalm 106 appears especially close to the historical outline of Ezekiel 20. See Römer, RTP 125 (1993): 34, with n. 46; Pola, Priesterschrift, 198–99. On Ezekiel 20, see Krüger, Geschichtskonzepte, 207–14; Van Seters, VT 22 (1972): 448–49; Römer, RTP 125 (1993): 28–30; Pola, Priesterschrift, 147–212. See also the discussion in Hossfeld, Festschrift Weimar. 63. On the beginning with 106:7, see Mathias, Geschichtstheologie, 157, with n. 1. 64. Ps 106:45 mentions Yhwh’s remembering of his covenant. It is not entirely clear what is meant by that. “Covenant” does not appear again in Psalm 106, so two possibilities remain. Either, corresponding to its template (Exodus 24 and 34), the events on Sinai are seen as a covenant (though against that idea no mention is made of the word “covenant” or its content in the corresponding passages within the outline of history); or, the reference is linked back to Ps 105:8–11, 42.

spread is 9 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 293 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Reception within the Hebrew Bible

293

on Israel because of its deportees (μymjrl ˆtn in 106:46). 65 The petition for a gathering from among the nations (μywg) joins this status quo in 106:47, and the psalm ends with a doxology in 106:48. 66 In contrast to Psalm 105, Israel’s activity, not Yhwh’s, stands in the forefront. 67 Also different from Psalm 105, the framework of the psalm consists of narrative forms rather than perfect forms. This “exodus” presentation of history completes a movement from the exodus to the conquest and the forfeiture of land. It ends with the situation of Israel in the diaspora. For this situation, Psalm 106 is a plausible history of origin. To a certain extent, it demonstrates a circle: Yhwh delivered Israel from Egypt, but Israel forgot Yhwh and went into captivity again. In its present situation of the diaspora, Israel is again instructed about the help of Yhwh, for which it asks in the last verse (106:47). c. Psalms 105 and 106 in Their Context The two most important differences between Psalms 105 and 106 can be summarized briefly. Psalm 105 presents an outline of history from the ancestors to the conquest, while the outline of Psalm 106 reaches from Egypt to the scattering of the diaspora. In Psalm 105, the people are consistently characterized positively, while in Psalm 106 they are constantly backsliding, although both psalms are hymns of praise to Yhwh (see 105:1–4 and 106:1–5). 68 Psalm 105 praises Yhwh because of his longstanding and effective devotion to Israel, while Psalm 106 praises Yhwh because he relented and had compassion after judgment. However, while Psalm 105 pushes the saving deeds of Yhwh into the foreground using perfect verbs, Psalm 106 (which Gunkel called a “ ‘general confession’ of Israel”) 69 recounts Israel’s faults using narratives, though for the greater glory of God. From a naïve historical understanding, one would be tempted to find the preexilic perspective in Psalm 105 and the postexilic perspective in Psalm 106. 70 However, the consistently positive tenor of Psalm 105 does not change the fact that this is a text that already essentially presupposes, literarily, the salvation history of the Hexateuch in its currently existing form in Genesis–Joshua, a fact that is widely accepted among scholars. 71 The same is true for Psalm 106, though even 65. Quotation from 1 Kgs 8:50 (Mathias, Geschichtstheologie, 173, 184). 66. On the question of v. 48’s original literary context as being this psalm, see the review in Mathias, Geschichtstheologie, 157 nn. 2–3 and 157–78. 67. The Israelites are the subject in Ps 106:7, 12–14, 16, 19–21, 24–25, 28–30, 32–39. See Crüsemann, Studien, 77 with n. 4. 68. Beyerlin in particular has accented this for Psalm 106 (Beyerlin, ZAW 86 [1974]: 50–64). 69. Gunkel, Psalmen, 464. 70. On a preexilic view in Psalm 105, see the researchers mentioned in Mathias, Geschichtstheologie, 121 n. 58. On a postexilic perspective in Psalm 106, see the review of scholarship in Mathias, Geschichtstheologie, 170–71 nn. 107–9. 71. See, for example, Kraus, BKAT 15/2 719, 722; Spieckermann, Heilsgegenwart, 161–62; Füglister, Festschrift Scharbert, 42. Older works appear in Mathias, Geschichtstheologie, 121 n. 59. There can be no doubt that Psalm 105 presupposes the Priestly writing. The clearest evidence is found in Ps 105:8– 11, 42, which picks up on Genesis 17 (see the details in Mathias, ibid., 122–23; as well as Norin, Meer,

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 294 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

294

Chapter 4. Repercussions

more boldly. 72 Psalm 105 (like Psalm 106) does not find itself in possession of the land. Rather, it expects to possess the land anew, with the gift of the land (106:8– 11, 42) being based on Yhwh’s “eternal” remembrance of his covenant. Thus, Psalms 105 and 106 both belong to a chronological situation in which Genesis–2 Kings was available. However, they select and emphasize two different concepts from it. Psalm 105 highlights the promise theology of Genesis especially with regard to possession of the land. Because of the eternal covenant with the ancestors, Israel will again possess the land. By contrast, Psalm 106 presents the Deuteronomistically shaped perspective. 73 The history of Israel is a history of continually falling away from Yhwh. Only intercession and distress can move Yhwh to remember his covenant and eventually to save. For our interests, the following should be emphasized with respect to Psalms 105 and 106: in these psalms, both of which presuppose the completed Pentateuch, we find two examples that show how different reception can emphasize two originally separate concepts in the historical books. It is particularly interesting that they have been placed next to one another in the Psalter. Thus, they reveal a tension with each other similar to the tension between the ancestor story and the exodus story in the Pentateuch. This placement alongside one another gains significance when we observe the literary positioning of Psalms 105/106 at the end of Book IV of the Psalter, with the concluding doxology in 106:47, which corresponds to the epoch of the exile, if we take into consideration the historical sequence of the fivefold division of the Psalter suggested by Kratz. 74 Book V follows, with its presentation of return and restoration. The redactional ensemble of Psalms 105/106 thus stands at the decisive turning point in the history of Israel. At the end of Book IV, we find a change in the fate of the exile. At this point, however, the existing Psalter offers not one but two theological arguments upon which Israel may base its hope for restitution. Psalm 105 invokes the covenant with the ancestors (105:9, 42); Psalm 106 names 134–35). Thus, P already seems to be worked together with the non-P text in Genesis–Joshua. The clearest hint to this appears in the reference to the Joseph story in 105:17–23, which is not a part of P (on P in Genesis 37–50, see my “Gap,” 41–48). Additionally, Psalm 105 shows several lexical and grammatical Aramaisms (Mathias, Geschichtstheologie, 124, with n. 81). The following writers attempt to prove an exilic date: Norin, Meer, 137; Holm-Nielsen, ASTI 11 (1978): 27; Clifford, Bib 60 (1979): 420–27 (6th century b.c.e.). 72. See Kraus, BKAT 15/2 729–32; Norin, Meer; Steck, Israel, 112, with n. 6; Beyerlin, ZAW 86 (1974): 54 n. 28; Mathias, Geschichtstheologie, 189–90, with nn. 223–24; 195, with n. 247; Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 132–69; Hossfeld, Festschrift Weimar. 73. Steck, Israel, 112. He differentiates in Psalm 106 between (1) the interpretation of history according to the so-called Deuteronomistic schema of Judges (in Judg 2:10ff.) for the time before the conquest; and (2) the Deuteronomistic view of history in 2 Kings 17 for the time in the land from the conquest to the exile (see the discussion in Mathias, Geschichtstheologie, 199–200; but see Ps 106:41– 44 and the careful distinctions in Pröbstl, Nehemia 9, 175–77. 74. Kratz, ZTK 89 (1992): 37 n. 106; idem, ZTK 93 (1996): 21–28. See Steck, Abschluss, 157– 66; idem, Kanon, 23–24, with n. 35; Krüger, Bib 75 (1994): 191–219, esp. 209–13, with nn. 79, 82– 88; Schmid, Buchgestalten, 325–26, with n. 594.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 295 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Later Receptions

295

the compassion of God, despite all the offenses of Israel (106:46–47). The catchword link of tyrb in Ps 105:9 and 106:45, which binds Psalms 105 and 106 together, reveals some preference for the first argument.

4.2. Later Receptions 4.2.1. Sirach 44–50 The deuterocanonical book of Sirach was apparently composed between 190 and 180 b.c.e. 75 This date of origin and the scribal shaping of Sirach leave no doubt that Sirach knows the historical presentation of Genesis–2 Kings and that Sirach has used and processed this material in its own way. Sirach is considered one of the wisdom writings, and it is characterized as an apology for the Torah. As in the slightly later book of Baruch, 76 Sirach acknowledges the identification of wisdom with the law (see Sirach 24 and Baruch 3–4). The most important difference between Sirach and Baruch is the fact that Baruch offers a completely Israel-oriented perspective (the law was given to Israel and only to Israel). 77 However, Sirach concerns itself with a universal interpretation of the law. 78 Sirach wants to show, in dialogue with Hellenism, that true wisdom lies in Jewish law. The law must not shy away from encountering Greek philosophy; in fact it proves itself worthy of consideration over against Greek philosophy. 79 One can illustrate the difference between Sirach and Baruch by comparing concrete identification statements in Sir 24:23 and Bar 4:1. Sir 24:23 identifies wisdom with Torah: tauÅta pavnta bÇbloÍ diaqhkhvÍ qeouÅ uJ yÇstou. In this nominal sentence, tauÅta pavnta is the subject, and bÇbloÍ diaqhkhvÍ qeouÅ uj yÇstou is the predicate noun. Baruch, however, proceeds from precisely the opposite direction and identifies the Torah with wisdom. In au§th hJ bÇbloÍ tΩn prostagmavtwn touÅ qeouÅ , the expression “hJ bÇbloÍ tΩn prostagmavtwn touÅ qeou” is the subject and “au§ th” is the predicate nominative. Thus, Sirach attempts to interpret the Torah as wisdom, 80 while Baruch wants to limit wisdom to the Torah. 75. See Kaiser, Grundriss, 3:100–101; Skehan and Di Lella, AB 39 10; Di Lella, ABD 6:932; J. Marböck, in Einleitung AT (ed. Zenger), 289; bibliographical references on p. 285. Sirach is the first book of Hebrew literature that provides the real name of its author (see Sir 50:27; and the discussion in Hengel, Jews, Greeks, and Barbarians, 121; idem, Judaism and Hellenism, 131). On the organization of the book, see Harvey, ZAW 105 (1993): 52–62; Marböck, in Einleitung AT, 287–88; idem, “Structure”; Collins, Wisdom, 44–46. On its reception in Judaism, see Beckwith, CRINT 2/1 68–73; Di Lella, ABD 6:934. On its milieu, see Wischmeyer, Kultur. 76. See the discussion below, in §4.2.3 (pp. 300ff.). The view that Baruch is older than Sirach has become increasingly rare. See Marböck, “Gesetz,” 66 n. 43. 77. See Steck, Festschrift Kaiser. 78. In my opinion, Hengel interprets too narrowly (see Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 289–90) when he comments on Sir 1:10 and 24:6–8: “The originally universal wisdom becomes the possession of a limited number of chosen ones, Israel or the pious ones given the law.” Wisdom’s dwelling place in Israel does not touch upon its general universality. 79. See Di Lella, ABD 6:933–34; Kaiser, “Anknüpfung,” 59. 80. See Marböck, “Geschichte Israels,” 123: “The Torah receives from wisdom a horizon that belongs to all humanity (see Sir 24:4–6; 17:1–10; 1:9–10; 18:13), without calling Israel’s election into question (see 24:7–8, 10ff., 23; 17:11–14; 42:15–43:33; 44–50).” See also idem, Weisheit im Wandel, 131–32.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 296 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

296

Chapter 4. Repercussions

The most important source for the relationship between the ancestors and Exodus in Sirach is the so-called Praise of the Fathers in Sirach 44–50. 81 It does not simply offer a historical outline but should be characterized as a hymn to the leading figures of the Hebrew Bible, ending pointedly with the presentation of the high priest Simon in Sirach 50. 82 Sirach 44–50 is arranged chronologically. The text follows the progression outlined in Genesis–2 Kings and expands it to include Zerubbabel, Joshua, and Nehemiah. 83 The prophetic figures of the prophetic books are arranged in their appropriate historical location: Isaiah with Hezekiah (Sir 49:20, 22); Jeremiah with Josiah (49:6–7); Ezekiel after Jeremiah (49:8); and the Twelve Prophets (49:10) between Job and Zerubbabel, who follow Ezekiel. The Twelve Prophets are taken as a unit corresponding to their presupposed combination in a single scroll. Only the concluding passage of the historical outline, after Nehemiah and before the transition to the praise of the high priest Simon, deviates from the historical sequence in that it once again links back to Enoch (Sir 49:14), with which the presentation had begun in Sir 44:16, after an introduction in 44:1–15. 84 Even so, Joseph is named outside of his historical position, appearing in the accented concluding passage (49:15). 85 Finally, Shem, Seth, and Enosh (49:16a) appear, as well as Adam (49:16b), who it says should be given the highest praise (trapt). 86 Whether this concluding passage in Sir 49:14–16 should be seen as secondary (as Mack thinks) is by no means certain. 87 Given the conceptualization of the Sirach book, it makes perfect sense to attach a universal expansion to the Jewish restoration with its leading figures of Zerubbabel, Joshua, and Nehemiah. The history of Israel according to Sirach flows not only toward national restoration but also toward the universal turning of the nations to 81. Literally, “Praise of the Fathers,” LXXB before 44:1 (see Skehan and Di Lella, AB 39 499). See the bibiliographical references in Marböck, “Geschichte Israels,” 104 n. 8. On the relationship with Sirach 42–43, see idem, “Structure,” 68. 82. See Janssen, Gottesvolk, 28–33; Mack, Wisdom, 38, 55–56; Skehan and Di Lella (AB 39 499) treat Sirach 50 as an “appendix” (although not according to content). The same is true for Di Lella, ABD 6:938. 83. It is noteworthy that Ezra is missing. The reason is debated and in my opinion not really understood. See the discussion in Janssen, Gottesvolk, 27–28; Lebram, VT 18 (1968): 181–82 n. 5, 189; idem, “Esragestalt,” 126–27; Höffken, ZAW 87 (1975): 195–98; Mack, Wisdom, 119; Begg, BN 42 (1988): 14–18; Marböck, “Geschichte Israels,” 118–19 n. 68; Collins, Wisdom, 105–6. 84. The first Enoch reference in 44:16 is missing in the Masada Fragments (see Skehan and Di Lella, AB 39 499). It should apparently be considered part of the original text, however (Marböck, “Henoch,” 134–35). On the Sirach manuscripts from Qumran and Masada, see Martone, “Manuscripts”; Muraoka and Elwolde (eds.), Sirach. The framing by means of the figure of Enoch (and not by Moses) is certainly no accident (see Stegemann, “Mitte,” 159 n. 33) and demonstrates Sirach’s universal orientation clearly. 85. The emphasis on Joseph recalls his role in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. 86. The LXX misreads the proper name vwna as ejn ajnqr∫poiÍ. Martin, who accepts a dual messianic expectation (see Marböck, “Geschichte Israels,” 115 n. 53), sees here a messianic Adam figure (with reference to 1 En. 89:37–38), although his evidence is weak (Martin, OTS 24 [1986], 117–19). Others see it differently: Caquot, Sem 16 (1971): 43–68; Marböck, BZ 25 (1981): 108. Marböck deals with the dynastic expectations of the Zadokite high priest, in Sirach (idem, “Davids Erbe,” 132). 87. Mack, Wisdom, 201–3 ( because of “lack of appropriateness to the themes and structure of the hymn as a whole”). Collins is skeptical of Mack (Collins, Wisdom, 106).

spread is 6 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 297 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Later Receptions

297

Israel. 88 Therefore, Adam (as a symbol of humanity as a whole) stands above all other figures in the Hymn of the Fathers. Adam even concludes it, contrary to the otherwise chronological arrangement.

Out of all the primeval characters and the ancestors, Sirach devotes the most space to Abraham. Sirach, quite consistent with his overall theology, emphasizes Abraham’s obedience. Similarly to Jubilees (see Jub. 19:8–9) and in a rudimentary way in Gen 22:15–18, the promises of descendants and possession of land are seen as a reward for Abraham’s obedience to the command and resistence to temptation (Sir 44:19–21). Isaac and Israel (Sirach here agrees with the linguistic usage of Chronicles) are, for Sirach, subordinate figures compared with Abraham. They merely receive what Abraham had earned (44:22, 23). 89 With Isaac, the second main point of Sirach’s theology, universalism, appears clearly. The covenant, which Isaac and “Israel” (= Jacob) inherit, was not only made with Abraham, according to 44:22b, but with “all predecessors” (ˆwvr lk tyrb)—above all, with Noah and Enoch. 90 The foundational promises of God thus pertain not only to Israel but to humanity in general. The hyperbolic version of the promise of land to Abraham (“from sea to sea, from the Ephrates to the ends of the earth,” in 44:21), 91 shows very clearly that in Sirach, the concept of turning to the life-saving law is not just open to Israel but also to the nations. The Abraham who was true to the law is explicitly introduced as the father of a multitude of nations. 92 The universal promise of land to Abraham is fulfilled neither in the conquest of Joshua nor in the expansion of Israel yet to come. Rather, it is fulfilled by the nations’ accepting that they are children of Abraham, by accepting the life-saving law. 93 The reflections on rulers and nations in Sirach 10 and the prayer in Sirach 36 (LXX: 33:1– 13a; 36:16b–22) 94 show that the Wisdom/Torah orientation of Sirach is also politically relevant outside Israel. World rule lies in God’s hands (10:4), and God allots it to different kings. Any who become proud as rulers and do not conduct themselves “wisely” will be overthrown by God (10:13–18). Thus, Sirach 36 proposes that, through the judgment of God (36:1), the nations succeed in coming to the knowledge of God (36:5). Even if existing traditions are being used in Sirach 36, 95 nothing contradicts this more-critical perspective on 88. See also rcb lk in 50:17 (discussion in Janssen, Gottesvolk, 29). 89. See also CD 3:2–4 in Maier, Qumran-Essener, 1:11. 90. See Janssen, Gottesvolk, 19. 91. The already comprehensive promise of land in Gen 15:18–21 is expanded considerably here. However, the textual witnesses vary. See the discussion in Skehan and Di Lella, AB 39 504. 92. See ˆwyl[ twxm rmv rva in 44:20. See μywg ˆwmh ba in 44:19. The expression is taken from Gen 17:4–5; regarding the wordplay there on ˆwmh ba/μhrba, see Knauf, BN 86 (1997): 49, with n. 4. 93. See also Sir 18:13; 36 (33):22; 50:17. Janssen’s conclusion appears to me to be somewhat overstated ( Janssen, Gottesvolk, 18): “The diaspora thereby appears not as punishment but as the realization of the blessing given to Abraham.” The scattering of Israel into all the world can hardly function as the gift of the world to Israel as an “inherited domain.” 94. On Sirach 36, see Marböck, “Gebet”; Argall, 1 Enoch and Sirach, 215–20. Collins believes that the prayer is a Maccabean insertion (Collins, Wisdom, 23, 109–11). 95. See the discussion in Hengel, Jews, Greeks, and Barbarians, 47–48, with n. 34. There, see also the discussion of the thesis by Middendorp that Sirach 36 was first inserted into Sirach in the Maccabean period.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 298 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

298

Chapter 4. Repercussions

the nations as a whole. Rather, it represents Sirach’s realpolitik. At the time of the composition of Sirach, the Seleucids ruled. This period provided little cause for a positive evaluation of the nations, and thus a critical tone dominates in Sirach 36. The framing of Sirach 36 with universal statements about God (“God of the universe” in 36:1; “eternal God” in 36:22), 96 however, reveals the underlying principles that reach beyond Israel. The lowliness idea, with reference to earthly rule in Sirach 10 and 36, is also reflected in the reference to the judges in the Hymn of the Fathers according to the LXX (though not LXXB). “May their bones spring up from their graves” (46:12).97 One gains a clue from this eschatological outlook (unusual for Sirach) that Sirach does not expect the restoration of the Davidic Dynasty. 98 Rather, he promotes a concept of rulership for the future that corresponds to the period of the Judges (48:10). This is also the case for Sirach 36: there is no Davidic rule but a universal rule of God by means of a figure (“judge”) endowed and led by the spirit. 99 This concept may have been offered by Sirach because it was not limited to Israel in principle.

The universally oriented argument underlying Sirach from the outset brings the law into play, or obedience to the law of God (see the presentation of Abraham!). This argument corresponds to the minimizing of the exodus topic, 100 the nationalistic shaping of which traditionally emphasized the discontinuity between Israel and the nations. Sir 44:23 goes directly from Jacob/Israel to Moses, without mentioning Joseph, who is himself first mentioned in 49:15. 101 Nowhere in the Moses passage of Sir 45:1–5 does it speak explicitly of the people being led out of Egypt. Rather, Moses is praised as the mediator of revelation and the one who gave the law. With Moses, again we see the universal orientation characteristic of Sirach. Moses is introduced with the statement: “Moses has found favor in the sight of all those who live” (yj lk in 45:1). 102 The stress on the law is also why Moses is not 96. See Hengel, Jews, Greeks, and Barbarians, 122–23. 97. This sentence is missing in the Hebrew text (therefore passed over by Janssen, Gottesvolk, 23 n. 27). The shorter text in Hebrew is not necessarily the more original text here. However, the longer text of the LXX may reflect a theological correction. The phrase appears both in the Hebrew text and the Greek text of Sir 49:10 regarding the Twelve prophets. “Since the Book of Judges shows an interest in the burial places of the individual Judges (cf. Judg 10:1–5; 12:8–15), and the Book of Joshua (24:30) in that of Joshua, it would seem Ben Sira developed this expression for the present context and applied it again in 49:10” (Skehan and Di Lella, AB 39 517). 98. In Sir 47:11–12 (on Sir 47:1–11, see Marböck, “Davids Erbe”), as well as 1 Chronicles 17, the dynasty promise to David concentrates on the sequence of David and Solomon (see the discussion of Kratz, Translatio, 172–75; on the question of whether Sirach knew Chronicles, see Steck, Israel, 146–47 n. 8; and Steins, Chronik; idem, ZAW 109 [1997]: 84–92). Sir 47:22 notes concerning the division of the kingdom (unfortunately, the Hebrew text is damaged here) that God “gave Jacob a remnant and David a root from him.” The Davidic descendants would certainly continue to exist, but afterward (with the exception of David, Hezekiah, and Josiah, 49:4), will reject the law of God (see Zerubbabel, Sir 49:11). The Northern kings are passed over in Sirach (as in Chronicles). The question of a messianic tendency is, however, not discussed. See Martin, OTS 24 (1986), 107–8; Skehan and Di Lella, AB 39 528; Collins, Wisdom, 109; and the review in Marböck, “Geschichte Israels,” 115 n. 53. Janssen finds a theocratic ideal in Sirach (see Sir 45:25–26; Janssen, Gottesvolk, 22; see also Janssen’s discussion of Sirach 47, on p. 25). 99. See discussion in Marböck, “Gebet.” 100. See idem, “Gesetz,” 62. 101. The significance is also noted in Skehan and Di Lella, AB 39 510. 102. On the textual transmission, see ibid., 509.

spread is 6 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 299 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Later Receptions

299

named by himself but as part of a triad that includes Aaron and Phinehas. 103 Praise for these two is included in the doxology of 45:25b, 26. On the one hand, they gave Israel the law that is so predominant in Sirach (see Sirach 24; Moses in 45:5; and Aaron in 45:17). 104 On the other hand, they caused Israel to sin (45:23 on Phinehas). Aaron and Phinehas also appear before David, as the first mention of David after God’s covenant with Phinehas shows. “David is placed in the cultic realm” and is thus subordinated to Moses and Aaron. 105 Along with the national symbol of the exodus, the figure of David is also diminished in Sirach. The same is true for the conquest. To be sure, the military conquest appears in the discussion of Joshua. 106 However, Joshua is primarily an example of holding fast to God (46:6, 10) as well as loyalty to Moses (46:7–8). For the reader of Sirach, loyalty to Moses means loyalty to the five books of Moses, to the law. In Sirach 44–50, as in Sirach as a whole, we find a tendency to limit the national inheritance of Israel (exodus, conquest, David) in order to achieve a theological position suitable for discussion in an encounter with Hellenism. 107 This position served a universalizing interpretation of the promises to the ancestors. This theological preference for the ancestors over the exodus tradition in Sirach at first seems somewhat surprising in light of the high esteem given the law; after all, the giving of the law belongs to the exodus tradition in terms of salvation history. However, it is easily explained by a preference for a universal interpretation of the law in wisdom circles (Sirach 24) over the law itself. One clearly recognizes in Sirach that the ancestor tradition and the exodus tradition are used for very different theological arguments, both of which point back to differences in the Hebrew Bible itself. 4.2.2. Sirach 51:12a–o 108 Along with the Praise of the Fathers in Sirach 44–50, a second, much shorter text appears, 51:12, that deals with the history of Israel. It is a hymn, apparently inserted later, that is missing in the LXX and the Peshitta, which is why it has no verse numbers. 109 If Sir 51:12a–o is later than Sirach, then it is even clearer that it presupposes the Torah and Nebiªim as a completed entity. 103. Sirach passes over Aaron’s son Eleazar and mentions him only as the father of Phinehas (44:23); see ibid., 510. 104. Sirach is remarkably reserved about the combining of Torah and covenant (see Marböck, “Geschichte Israels,” 119). The reason may be that the Torah is fundamentally open to all peoples. 105. Marböck, “Davids Erbe,” 126–27. 106. Zerubbabel (the high priest), Joshua, and Nehemiah are named with regard to the reconstruction of the temple and city. 107. The alternatives (whether Sirach offers Hellenistic or anti-Hellenistic positions) are inadequate (Hengel, Jews, Greeks, and Barbarians, 123). Sirach stands in a tradition of Judaism that is obedient to the Torah, but he offers this Judaism a universal interpretation from the wisdom tradition. It is unnecessary to conclude that the “Hellenisitic thought world” would have shaped him more “than he himself would have known” (Hengel, Jews, Greeks, and Barbarians, 123). 108. Numbering according to Sauer, JSHRZ 3/5. 109. See Middendorp, Stellung, 117–18; Skehan and Di Lella, AB 39 569. For the entire psalm, see Marmorstein, ZAW 29 (1909): 287–293; Vargha, Anton, 1935.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 300 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

300

Chapter 4. Repercussions

The interpolation’s positioning of the hymn after 51:12 is no accident. The hymn has been inserted there in order to demonstrate how Jesus ben Sirach prayed according to the declaration in 51:12. The hymn is closely related to Psalm 136. 110 The refrain wdsj μlw[l yk (which also appears in Psalm 136) appears in 14 of the 16 lines. The opening line is textually comparable with Ps 136:1 (as well as Pss 106:1; 107:1; 118:1, 29), and Sir 51:12a–o also offers a kind of historical summary. However, Sir 51:12a–o replaces the image of history in Psalm 136—which encompasses the stages of creation (136:5–9), the exodus (136:10–15), the wandering in the wilderness (136:16), and the conquest (136:17–21) 111—with another image that is quite different. Sir 51:12a–o presents an introit (51:12a–c), creation (51:12d), the redemption (lag) 112 of Israel (51:12e), the gathering of the dispersed people (51:12f ), the (re)construction of the city and temple (51:12g), the restitution of the Davidic Dynasty (51:12h), and the Zadokite priesthood (51:12i). The hymn concludes by praising Yhwh as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (51:12j–l), as the one who chose Zion (51:12m), as universal king (51:12n), and as God of his pious ones (51:12o). Two things are noteworthy in the changes made in 51:12a–o in comparison with the model in Psalm 136. First, Sir 51:12a–o appears to sing of the postexilic restoration of Judah as a new salvation history of Israel. The foundational events of the liberation of Israel from Egypt are not connected to creation. Rather, the Persian period follows creation (perhaps because of the Davidic Dynasty reference, as well as the Hasmonean period). No longer are the exodus from Egypt and the conquest the foundational data for the identity of Israel in history. Instead, it is the return from the diaspora and the reconstruction of Jerusalem. Second, Sir 51:12a– o understands the postexilic restoration apparently as the fulfillment of the promises to the ancestors (as their naming in 51:12j–l shows). Thus, Sir 51:12a–o, with all of its unique wording, stands close to the Chronicler’s understanding. This is evidenced by the reception of Psalm 105 in 1 Chronicles 16 and by the abbreviation of the canonical salvation history in 1 Chronicles 1–9, which emphasizes the periods of Cyrus and Darius as though they were on the same level as the epochs of David and Solomon in being the foundational period of Israel. 4.2.3. Baruch 1:15–3:8 Like Sirach, the book of Baruch is a Deuterocanonical writing. It appeared in the Maccabean period. 113 It is thus somewhat later than Sirach and already pre-

110. Crüsemann, Studien, 76; Skehan and Di Lella, AB 39 570. 111. Ps 136:23–24 speaks of the “lowliness” (lpv [elsewhere only in Qoh 10:6]) of Israel, whom Yhwh remembers and of the salvation from oppressors (it is [intentionally?] difficult to say whether one should here think of the period of the judges and their deliverance or of the exile and its turning point). Seybold sees later insertions in 136:23–25 (Seybold, HAT 1 15, 508). 112. See Isa 44:6; 49:7. 113. On the introductory questions, see specifically Steck, Baruchbuch, 245–313.

spread is 3 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 301 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Later Receptions

301

supposes the conclusion of the Torah and Nebiªim. 114 Israel’s extensive prayer of confession in Bar 1:15ab–3:8 is important, because it contains an outline of history. It forms the first part of the book of Baruch after the introduction (1:1– 15aa). It is followed by a warning speech (3:9–4:4) and a promise speech (4:5– 5:9). Contrary to earlier proposed divisions of these parts, one can proceed with the idea that together they form a single entity literarily and theologically and that they never existed alone. 115 The stylistic differences between the parts are explained not by a disparate literary origin but by the adoption and reworking of different traditions. The problem that occupies the book of Baruch is the continued dispersion of Israel. This problem can be corrected if Israel will accept “the reason (. . . ; i.e., 1:15ab–3:8), the task (. . . ; i.e., 3:9–4:4), and the assurance (. . . ; i.e., 4:5–5:9) which Baruch shows in this respect.” 116 Israel should thus realize its guilt (1:15ab–3:8) and return to God’s law (3:9–4:4, especially 4:1–2), so that it can attain salvation (4:5–5:9). In briefest summary form, this is the message of the book of Baruch. The image of history explained by the prayer of confession in 1:15ab–3:8 begins with the disobedience of Israel in the exodus from Egypt (1:19–20; see 2:11), then mentions the giving of the law to Moses with blessings and curses (1:20; see 2:10, 12, 28), the giving of the land (1:20), and the period of the judges and the monarchy (2:1). It leads to the judgment of 587 b.c.e. which happened because of Israel’s continuing sin, which began with the exodus from Egypt. 117 Baruch primarily highlights the exodus tradition as an authoritative tradition of origins of Israel. However, as in Psalm 106, the exodus tradition is used entirely negatively. Israel has been disobedient since the first events of the exodus from Egypt, and therefore its current situation is presented as follows in Baruch: Behold, we are today still in exile where you have scattered us for a reproach and a curse, because of the misdeeds of our fathers, who departed from the Lord our God (3:8). 118

However, the scattering of Israel according to Baruch does not represent the destination of the history of Israel. Baruch can cite the patriarchs as the basis for the future salvation of Israel. In 2:30b–35, the prayer of confession, 2:34 mentions the oath of the gift of land to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that Yhwh will keep and will make into an eternal covenant (2:35). The ancestors appear in 2:34 in a characteristic position. Bar 2:30b–35 presents the structure of the book in miniature: 119 2:30b–32 refers to the disobedience (see 1:15ab–3:8); 2:33 to the repentance (see 114. Baruch was apparently conceived as an appendix to the book of Jeremiah, but one which presents its own book (see Steck, Baruchbuch, 270–76). It is precisely this kind of shaping which shows that larger insertions into the books of the prophetic canon were no longer possible. 115. See ibid., 255–65. 116. Ibid., 265. 117. Ibid., 82–83. See also Maier, NEchtB Ergänzungsband 3 111. 118. Translation based upon Steck, Baruchbuch, 71. 119. See ibid., 256.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 302 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

302

Chapter 4. Repercussions

3:9–4:4); and 2:34–35 to the return of Israel (4:5–5:9). It is thus clear that Baruch puts all its weight on presenting the promises to the ancestors as fulfillable only after Israel’s realization of guilt and repentance. 120 This also explains why the central command in the book’s flow, at 4:2, 121 which demands return to the law, addresses Israel as “Jacob.” Thus, the promises to the ancestors are subordinated to the law. In fact, they are conditioned upon obedience to the law. Israel’s history of sin since the exodus from Egypt is responsible for the current situation. Under the condition that “Jacob” returns to the law (4:1–2), the promises to the ancestors will be fulfilled for the future Israel. Baruch thus does not adopt the portrayal of history in Genesis–2 Kings in a linear fashion but in correspondence with its Deuteronomistic shape. The story of Israel narrated after Exodus is primarily authoritative, because of its obligation to the law. The promises given in Genesis are also theologically subordinated to this obligation. In Baruch, one finds a conception contrasting with that in Chronicles (as well as P and Second Isaiah); it is not the ancestors but the exodus that is favored theologically. The change of emphasis can readily be explained by the different political and theological position of these writings. Chronicles, P, and Second Isaiah are Persian friendly texts. They see God’s solution to world politics in the rule of the Persians. Indeed, God himself rules through the Persians over the world he created. Therefore, God’s salvific “turning to” the world is by no means limited to Israel. Rather, it can extend to the nations. It is quite different for Baruch. Baruch strives for an autonomous Israel liberated from foreign rule. The border between Israel and the nations also represents a fundamental dividing line theologically. Without the law (and for Baruch, this simultaneously means outside of Israel), there is no salvation. 4.2.4. Jubilees The book of Jubilees, which probably appeared around 150 b.c.e., is a grand historical exhibition of Moses at Sinai. 122 From the introductory divine speech in Jubiliees 1 forward, the “angel of the presence” narrates history from creation ( Jubilees 2) to the delivery of the law ( Jubilees 50) as a large paraphrase (as “rewritten 120. Inside the prayer of confession, therefore, it is not the promises that are primary but the compassion of God, who alone is powerful and just (2:11–12; 2:27; 3:2, 5; see also Neh 9:8, 33). Notably, the giving of land in the summary of history (1:19–2:5) is not presented in connection with the promises to the fathers (1:20). These were not fulfilled under Joshua with the first conquest; their fulfillment lies in the future (2:34–35). 121. See also the discussion in Steck, Baruchbuch, 157 n. 203. 122. On the Ethiopian title and its counterpart that had already appeared in CD 16:1–4, see Hall, Revealed Histories, 36. On the 150 b.c.e. date, see Münchow, Ethik, 42, with n. 47 (bibliography); Nickelsburg, Literature, 78–79; idem, CRINT 2/2 101–3; VanderKam, Studies, 282–85; idem, ABD 3:1030–31 (there, also see important considerations concerning authorship); Berger, JSHRZ 2/3 298– 300; Endres, Interpretation, 13; Schürer, History, 3/1:311–13; Müller, SJOT 10 (1996): 242; Stemberger, Hermeneutik, 30. See the discussion in Schelbert, TRE 17:287–88; Steck, ZAW 107 (1995): 445–46 n. 2. On Davenport’s source-critical analysis of Jubilees (Davenport, Eschatology, 10–18), see Nickelsburg, CRINT 2/2 102, with n. 62; Schelbert, TRE 17:287.

spread is 6 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 303 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Later Receptions

303

Torah”) of Genesis 1–Exodus 14. 123 Its subject is the lives of the ancestors before Moses and how they were faithful to the law. The orientation closely follows the series of events in the template of Genesis–Exodus, although deviations in the narrative are quite noticeable. The intent of Jubilees is obvious. The law, first promulgated by Moses according to the Hebrew Bible, has been valid since the beginning of the world and in fact is from the heavenly sphere. 124 Jubilees thus faces the problem that the history of Israel did not begin with Moses and Sinai (which in Jubilees is the central event for Israel) in its own way. Israel already had its origins in the events reported in the biblical book of Genesis. Jubilees solves this problem as follows: Moses learns, by looking backward, that the law was already valid and was being observed before him. In the pre-Mosaic period, the ancestors maintained the law by means of the “tablet of heaven” (e.g., Jub. 3:10, 31; 6:17; 15:25; 16:28–29; etc.). 125 Noah offered a sacrifice that conformed with the law ( Jub. 7:3–5). He disregarded none of the commandments ( Jub. 5:5, 19; 10:17). And Abraham observed the festival calendar ( Jub. 16:21, 28). 126 The law was even observed by the heavenly beings in heaven. The Sabbath was being observed before creation ( Jub. 6:17–18), the Festival of Weeks began in heaven ( Jub. 6:17–18), and the angels complied with the circumcision command ( Jub. 15:27). Jubilees thus extends the Mosaic tradition back to the creation and into the heavenly realm (even before creation). Thus, the ancestors are incorporated into the Moses tradition. In this respect, Münchow speaks specifically of a “Mosaicizing” of the ancestor tradition in the book of Jubilees. 127 The ancestors do not lose significance, however. Jubilees presents the patriarchs as examples and ascribes far-reaching advice to them. 128 123. On the divine speech in Jubilees 1, see the extensive work of Steck, ZAW 107 (1995): 445– 65; idem, ZAW 108 (1996): 70–86. On the “rewritten Torah,” see Fishbane, CRINT 2/1 353; Swanson, “Covenant,” 273; Fröhlich, Time, 92–93, with n. 11 (bibliographical references; the term “rewritten Torah/Bible” stems from Vermes, Studies, 67–126; see VanderKam, Biblical Interpretation, 98 n. 6. See also Nickelsburg, CRINT 2/2 89–90). In the church fathers, Jubilees is often called “the little Genesis.” See Schürer, History 3/1:309; Müller, SJOT 10 (1996): 238. 124. Maier speculates whether the lost portions of 1QGenAp (see the text in J. Maier, QumranEssener, 1:211–25; idem, NEchtB Ergänzungsband 3 111) also extended the stipulations of the Torah back to the ancestor period. 125. See the discussion in Schürer, History, 3/1:310; Steck, ZAW 108 (1996): 71–76 (bibliographical references, 71 n. 3; 75 n. 4); Kraft, HBOT, 1/1:205–6, with n. 17. 126. See Münchow, Ethik, 49; Nickelsburg, Literature, 74. See additional examples in Schelbert, TRE 17:286; VanderKam, ABD 3:1032; Hall, Revealed Histories, 33; Fröhlich, Time, 101. Jub. 12:23– 27 observes that Abraham began to speak Hebrew, the “language of the covenant,” in Ur (see Fröhlich, Time, 98). 127. Münchow, Ethik, 48; see also Berger, JSHRZ 2/3 279 (“All authority of the ancestors and all revelation to them is incorporated in the authority of Moses and in the revelation of Sinai.”) However, Berger also points out that Jubilees draws selectively from the Moses tradition. The view that the patriarchs strictly observed the (oral) law afterward was the dominant view of Rabbinic Judaism (see Ta-Shma, EncJud 2:115–17). On Abraham in the works of Pseudo-Philo, see Bogaert, “Figure,” especially p. 51. 128. Münchow, Ethik, 50–53; Schelbert, TRE 17:286–87.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 304 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

304

Chapter 4. Repercussions

Notably, Jubilees does not transmit a farewell speech by Jacob, contrary to the model in Genesis (Genesis 49), but by Abraham, 129 Isaac, and their wives instead. However, it is only the Last Words of Jacob that appear to be missing. Jub. 45:14 notes that Jacob, before his death, foretold all the coming events up to the last days. To be sure, they were at first unrealized, but Jub. 45:16 then mentions that Jacob “gave all his writing and the writings of his ancestors to his son Levi, that he might protect them and that he might renew them for his sons up to the final days” (meaning to the revelation on Sinai). Jubilees thus presents the authoritative ancestor traditions as being collected by Jacob/Israel and passed on to Moses via Levi. 130

In Jubilees, the traditions that provide the ancestors with a theological relevance alongside, or even greater than Moses recede entirely. Primarily, this means the promises. Jubilees sees the promises of land as essentially being fulfilled in the time of the fathers themselves. Thus, for example, Jub. 13:3 (in contrast to Gen 12:7) inserts a promise of land to Abraham before the promise of land to the descendants of Abraham: “I will give this land to you and your seed.” Jub. 27:12 speaks in retrospect explicitly of the land that was already given to Abraham. Furthermore, the distinct covenants in the Pentateuch are leveled out in Jubilees. All covenants made before Moses, specifically the covenants made with Noah and Abraham that appear parallel ( Jub. 14:20), are essentially nothing more than models anticipating the Sinai Covenant, 131 with which they meld into one. The Noahic Covenant ( Jub. 6:10–11) is a prefiguring of Exod 24:7–8, and the Abrahamic Covenant is essentially a covenant promise ( Jub. 15:9). Jubilees also appears to have lengthened the lifespan of the primal ancestors and the ancient ancestors, compared with Genesis, with the purpose of establishing an unbroken system of blessing that is transmitted together with the covenant. 132 Thus, according to Jubilees, Moses is also the central figure for the time period before him, as revealed to him on Sinai. According to Jubilees, the story of Israel is Moses’ story. Even more consistently than Baruch, Jubilees favors the Moses/Exodus tradition from its source in Genesis–2 Kings as the authoritative tradition of origin. Above all, it attempts to solve the problem that Moses, who is plainly seen as the founding figure, does not appear at the beginning of the history of Israel. A theological complement to Jubilees 133 for the time period following the period presented in Jubilees is the so-called Temple Scroll (11QT). 134 11QT contains the revelation 129. On Abraham in Jubilees, see Balestier-Stengel, CBFV 29 (1990): 61–71; Müller, SJOT 10 (1996): 238–57. 130. See Stemberger, Hermeneutik, 31; Berger, JSHRZ 2/3 280. I am unable to see the tension between Moses and Levi that Berger mentions in Jub. 45:16. It is just the opposite. With the note “unto these days,” Jub. 45:16 limits the authority of Levi to the time period between the death of Jacob and the revelation to Moses on Sinai. 131. Endres, Interpretation, 226–27, 235. 132. See Fröhlich, Time, 99. 133. On the relationship of 11QT to Jubilees, see VanderKam, “Temple Scroll” (review of the literature, 212–13); Brin, JBL 112 (1993): 108–9. 11QT is often understood to have a pre-Qumran origin (B. A. Levine, L. A. Schiffman, H. Stegemann). See the literature in Schürer, History, 3/1:413, with nn. 11–13.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 305 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Later Receptions

305

of God to Moses that he received on Sinai subsequent to Exodus 34 (see Deuteronomy 7). 135 In essence, it presents legal material that runs parallel136 to Exodus 34–Deut 23:1. However, it regroups the laws, omits sections, and expands parts.137 The Temple Scroll is thus presented as God’s speech to Moses, which (as was perhaps thought) is referred to again in modified form in the existing form of Deuteronomy.138 In its emphasis on the Moses/Exodus tradition, the Temple Scroll coincides with Jubilees. God is characterized prominently as “the one who led you [i.e., Israel] out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery” (54:16–17; see 55:6; 61:14).139 11QT 29:10 is unique (compared with both Genesis and Jubilees) in its presentation of the patriarchs in that it construes a covenant with Jacob at Bethel.140 In Jacob’s Covenant, the future salvific will of God is already established. Did the author perceive Jacob’s Covenant as a deliberate degradation of the biblical Abrahamic Covenant?

4.2.5. 4QDibHam 4QDibHam (twramh yrbd—“words of the lights”) 141 is a collection of prayer fragments for individual days of the week. Several fragments have been ascribed to three scrolls (4Q504–6 = 4QDibHama–c). 142 Supposedly, 4QDibHam did not originate at Qumran but stemmed from a pre-Qumran tradition. 143 At the same time, as with the above-mentioned writings and texts, it is clear that 4QDibHam knows Genesis–2 Kings in its final form. Even though the contents cannot be reconstructed with great clarity because of its fragmentary transmission, the condition of the text nevertheless allows for the following observation: quite similarly to Baruch, 4QDibHam emphasizes that 134. See the overview of introductory questions in Schürer, History, 3/1:406–20. See also Brooke, ed., Temple Scroll Studies; Qimron (ed.), Temple Scroll. Apparently, as Stegemann contends, 11QT is a pre-Qumran work (Stegemann, Essener, 137–38; see also Stemberger, Hermeneutik, 42; Swanson, Temple Scroll, 239–41). 135. On the problem of the beginning of the Temple Scroll, see Wise, Study, 156–57. 136. It only quotes from Deuteronomy (cols. 51ff.); see ibid., 162–67. 137. See Swanson, Temple Scroll, 5–6. 138. See Maier, Tempelrolle, 13. According to Stemberger, the work should “perhaps be seen as a continuation of the Pentateuch, as an attempt to expand the Pentateuch to a sixth book, to harmonize its regulations, and to sharpen and modernize it” (Stemberger, Hermeneutik, 43). 11QT cannot be validated as a sixth book because it is apparently directed to Moses, whose death is narrated in Deuteronomy 34 (so also Stemberger, Hermeneutik, 43; he points out, however, that Moses is not named in the received text of 11QT). See also discussion of the problem in Stegemann, “Mitte,” 175–76. He remains undecided because of the destroyed portions of the framework of 11QT, as does Swanson, Temple Scroll, 232–35. 139. See also the passages in 56:12; 60:16, where the gift of land is not motivated by the oath to the fathers, but by the will of Yhwh. 140. In 11QT, Jacob appears elsewhere only in the phrase [b]wqy ynb in 23:7. The other patriarchs are not mentioned. In 11QT 29:10, Gen 28:13–29; 35:1–15; and Lev 26:42 are combined (Wise, Study, 158). Swanson sees in 11QT 29:10 a critique of Jer 31:31–34 (Swanson, “Covenant,” 280–81). 141. The title stems from 4Q504, fragment 8, verso. See Maier, Qumran-Essener, 1:605. On 4QDibHam in general, see van der Woude, TRu 55 (1990): 253–62 (bibliography). 142. DJD 7 137–68, pls. 49–53. Stegemann calculates a scroll of about 21 columns with at least 22 lines per column (Stegemann, “Methods,” 203). 143. Baillet, DJD 7 250; Steck, Israel, 117; Maier, Qumran-Essener, 1:606–7. See Chazon, “Prayer,” 17.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 306 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

306

Chapter 4. Repercussions

the origin of Israel was in the exodus and at Sinai. However, this origin is evaluated negatively, as clearly shown in 4Q504, frg. 1, col. ii, lines 7–8: 144 after the introductory petition, it speaks of the sins of the fathers, with whom God was enraged, and whom he wanted to eradicate. Here, the text is probably alluding to Deut 9:8, where the scene presented is Horeb (Deut 9:8). In 4Q505, frg. 124, 145 the ancestor triad is mentioned (“[ ] and for Isaac, and for Ja[cob]”). It thus appears that the covenant with the patriarchs as the motivation for leading Israel out of Egypt is valid. 146 Neverthelsss, this patriarchal covenant is later replaced and thus is conditioned by the giving of the law on Sinai, which is interpreted as making a covenant. 147 4QDibHam thus knows the ancestors but emphasizes one-sidedly that the exodus-Sinai tradition was the authoritative tradition of the origin of Israel. 148 Conceptually, 4QDibHam therefore stands quite close to Baruch, in which one can observe the corresponding element of Israel’s history as a history of falling away from God ever since the exodus from Egypt. Nevertheless, Israel’s prospects for a salvific future are protected by God because of the patriarchal promises, though they are oriented toward the law. Like Baruch, 4QDibHam illustrates attempts to subordinate the theological independence of the ancestor tradition to the central position of the law. 4.2.6. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is, in its current form, the Christian revision of an originally Jewish writing. 149 Its original form should probably be dated 144. In Maier, Qumran-Essener, 1:606; DJD 7 139, pl. 1. 145. In Maier, Qumran-Essener, 1:617; DJD 7 169, pl. 23. 146. Thus, explicitly in 4Q504, frg. 2, col. v, lines 9–10; in Maier, Qumran-Essener, 1:608 (“and you think of your covenant as you lead us out before the eyes of the nations . . .”); DJD 7 145–46, pl. 51. 147. 4Q504 frg. 3, col. ii, line 13 (“and you made a covenant with us at Horeb”). 148. It appears to act similarly to 4Q374 (“Discourse on the Exodus/Conquest Tradition”; see Newsom, “4Q374”; DJD 19 99–110), which is a text received in fragmentary form that also has a pre-Qumran origin (see Newsom, “4Q374,” 40; DJD 19 99). It deals with the themes of exodus and conquest. See also the Moses Aprocrypha 4Q375, 376 (DJD 19 110–19, 121–36) and the discussion in Strugnell, “Moses Pseudepigrapha”). It is different for 4Q464 (“Exposition on the Patriarchs”; see DJD 19 215–34). Here, Abraham and Jacob are specifically mentioned, but the contents can scarcely be recognized. However, Abraham is named in conjunction with Haran. 149. On the genre, see von Nordheim, Lehre, 1–114, especially 106; and Küchler, Weisheitstraditionen, 425–30. In general, see Jervell, “Interpolator”; Nickelsburg, Literature, 233–34; Collins, CRINT 2/2 342–43; Becker, Untersuchungen, 376–77; idem, JSHRZ 3/1 23–24; von Nordheim, Lehre, 106–7; Küchler, Weisheitstraditionen, 439; Schürer, History, 3/2:767–81. De Jonge believes that the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs was a Christian, literarily unified writing from the outset (de Jonge, Testaments, 117– 28; idem, “Main Issues,” 163; idem, Christian and Jewish; idem, “Paränese,” 279–80; de Jonge and Hollander, Testaments, 83–85; see also Bryan, Cosmos, 190–91; de Jonge is more cautious in ABD 5:183). On the history of scholarship, see Becker, Untersuchungen, 129–58; von Nordheim, Lehre, 1– 11; de Jonge, “Interpretation”; Slingerland, Testaments; Küchler, Weisheitstraditionen, 431–34; Ulrichsen, Grundschrift, 15–20. Fragments of individual testaments (TL; TN) that can be connected with the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs have been found at Qumran. However, the discussion about the relationship of the texts to one another is by no means finished (see Nickelsburg, Literature, 233–34; Collins, CRINT 2/2 332–33; Schürer, History, 3/2:769, 775–76).

spread is 6 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 307 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Later Receptions

307

to the first half of the second century b.c.e. 150 Thus, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs clearly belongs to the time after the closure of the Torah and Nebiªim. The individual testaments treat material from the Hebrew Bible’s historical books in multiple ways, though they show a similar structure: after the introduction, a farewell speech follows that primarily deals with the life history of the particular patriarch; it then presents ethical instructions that generally are connected with his life story; it concludes with a preview of the future (“sin-exile-return pattern”), 151 after which a second, briefer, admonition may still follow; the testaments close with a death report and burial notice. 152 From the historical books, it is primarily the events in Genesis from the ancestor period that are picked up and treated in the Testaments. However, additional material from the subsequent historical books is used in the previews of the future. The chief stress in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in their Hellenistic form lay on their parenesis. Detailed commandments do not stand in the foreground. 153 Rather, fundamental ethical instruction is the central topic that the patriarchs transmit through their testaments. 154 Sabbath observance and circumcision play no role in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Instead, the virtue of ajplovthÍ (‘simplicity’) 155 is emphasized. Simplicity can be achieved by the command to love God and neighbor. 156 Above all (especially because he withstood the temptation of Potiphar’s wife), Joseph enjoys a major role in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. 157 There is an important connection between the ethical orientation and the form of the departing speeches as the testaments of the patriarchs: the patriarchs are the figures who kept the Mosaic law that would come later, because they maintained “goodness.” 158 Thus, the dichotomy between the ancestors and Moses is 150. On the literary disunity of the Jewish Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, see Becker, Untersuchungen, 373–406; idem, JSHRZ 3/1 24, with nn. 5–11; Küchler, Weisheitstraditionen, 415–545. For an opposing view, see de Jonge, “Paränese,” 279–80 (somewhat differently in idem, ABD 5:183, 185). The problem of the original language is discussed extensively in Schürer, History, 3/2:772–78. See also (although one-sidedly opting for Greek) de Jonge, ABD 5:182. Collins, CRINT 2/2 43– 344; see Schürer, History, 3/2:774; and the bibliography in Marböck, “Gesetz,” 67 n. 44. 151. See de Jonge, ABD 5:185. 152. On this structure, see Becker, JSHRZ 3/1 28–29; Nickelsburg, Literature, 232; Küchler, Weisheitstraditionen, 436–37; Ulrichsen, Grundschrift, 49–54. 153. See the discussion in Collins, CRINT 2/2 337. 154. See Marböck, “Gesetz,” 67. Collins distinguishes three kinds of parenesis in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Collins, CRINT 2/2 334–37): “First, there is the exposition of a particular vice or virture, with the aid of biblical examples; second are lists of vices and/or virtues, and third are passages which put such lists in a dualistic context, e.g., by elaborating the contrast of the two ways.” 155. For example, see T. Iss. 5:1–2; de Jonge, ABD 5:184. 156. In addition to the double command of love in T. Iss. 5:1–2, see T. Iss. 7:6–7; T. Dan 5:2–3; T. Gad 4:1–2; T. Jos. 11:1; T. Benj. 3:1–5. Individually, see T. Levi 13:1; T. Zeb. 10:5; T. Dan 6:1; T. Gad 3:2; 5:2, 4–5; T. Benj. 10:10 (love of God); and T. Reu. 6:9; T. Sim. 4:7; T. Zeb. 8:5; T. Gad 6:1, 3; 7:7; T. Jos. 17:2 (love of neighbor). 157. See discussion in Hollander, Joseph; and Marböck, “Gesetz,” 67. 158. See Kee, NTS 24 (1978): 259–70; de Jonge, ABD 5:184. Niebuhr’s opinion deviates significantly. He argues that, of the 60–70 examples of novmoÍ and ejntolaÇ in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (the interpretation of Torah and its commandments, according to Niebuhr, cannot be excluded

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 308 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

308

Chapter 4. Repercussions

overcome in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs by uniting natural and revealed law. 159 In no small measure, it is these concepts that may have made the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs attractive to Christians. 160 As with the structure of the Testaments, 161 the contents of the eschatological pieces also highlight parenesis. The instructions of the patriarchs should be transmitted to future generations in order to warn them and to move them to repentance (T. Sim. 7:3; T. Levi 10:1–2; T. Dan 6:9; T. Naph. 8:1–2; T. Benj. 10:4–5). The descendants of the patriarchs will sin and therefore suffer calamity (T. Levi 10:2; T. Iss. 6:3; T. Naph. 4:1). Only when they obey the instruction of God and their fathers will they obtain a portion in future salvation (T. Dan 6:9; T. Naph. 8:2; T. Gad 8:1; T. Benj. 10:5). 162 Thus, the role of the patriarchal instruction in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs takes on a kind of conditional promise. Future salvation depends upon obedience to the instruction of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Similarly to Bar 4:1–2, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs make the promises of the ancestors conditional: differently from Baruch, they do not refer to the Mosaic Torah. 163 Rather, natural ethics take central place (though admittedly, this is to a large extent identical with the Mosaic Torah in the view of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs). The conclusions, which create an inclusio between the first and last patriarchal testaments, underscore as much: 164 I admonish you by the God of Heaven to practice truth each toward his neighbor and cherish love toward his brother” (T. Reu. 6:9).—“Now, do truth each toward his neighbor, and observe the law of the Lord and his commandments.” (T. Benj. 10:2)

Comparable with Sirach, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs use the ancestor tradition in order to achieve an interpretation of Jewish law that is also responsive to Hellenistic thought. At the same time, and in this respect comparable with Jubilees, it resolves the problem of the alleged “lawlessness” of Israel’s ancestors prior to Moses (albeit quite differently from Jubilees): they followed the law by their ethical behavior. in any of these), “the subject matter is not reflected in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; the admonition to obey the law takes place after the presupposed situation, in a time when the Mosaic giving of the law had not yet happened” (Niebuhr, Gesetz, 92 n. 97). For a critique, see de Jonge, “Paränese,” 286. In this context, one should also make note of the allusions to cultic law in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs demonstrated by Slingerland, JBL 105 (1986): 39–48. In their own way, they stress that the giving of the cultic law agrees with the law of nature (see discussion of this in de Jonge, ABD 5:185). 159. See also idem, “Pre-Mosaic Servants.” 160. In his own way, see de Jonge, “Paränese,” 287–88. 161. See also the table in von Nordheim, Lehre, 90. On the close connection of behavioral instruction and future promises, see Nordheim, Lehre, 95, 105–6. 162. See de Jonge, “Future,” 164–65. 163. In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Moses is only mentioned in T. Sim. 9:1. 164. See Becker, Untersuchungen, 381. For the attestation of this idea in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs as a whole, see ibid., 383–94. Concerning the inner-Israelite orientation of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, see ibid., 394–95 (exceptions, pp. 395–96).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 309 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Later Receptions

309

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs share with other textual witnesses of their time the perception of a close correspondence between “natural” and “revealed” law.165 A primary example appears in the Antiquities by the Jewish author Josephus, in which Josephus goes a step further than the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. He does not just emphasize the essential identity of the Mosaic law with “goodness.”166 He also believes that keeping the law provides a sound cause-and-effect context for history.167 The wisdom of the Mosaic law is at the heart of the meaning of history in Josephus; choosing to observe the law determines whether one leads a successful or unsuccessful life. The reason for this is that the Mosaic law (corresponding to the common contrast between qevsei and fuvsei), not only contains statutes but is natural law according to Josephus. Therefore, the Pentateuch contains not only laws but also “natural history.” 168 One might say that Josephus thinks in a Deuteronomistic fashion that incorporates creation theology and wisdom. The Mosaic law is compliant with the order of creation and leads those who follow it into a successful life.

4.2.7. The Animal Apocalypse and the Apocalypse of Weeks The Ethiopic Apocalypse of Enoch, as 1 Enoch was called before the Qumran finds, is not a homogenous composition. 169 Rather, it is a collection of several tractates. As a whole, in its current form it is divided into five parts, analogous to the Pentateuch. 170 At Qumran, to the extent that its component writings are attested, they appear to have originated as separate scrolls. 171 In its last two books, one finds two visions of history: the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90) and the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En. 93:1–10; 91:11–17). Because of their second-century b.c.e. date and their conspicuous scribal techniques, there can be no doubt that these two presentations of history knew and used the biblical presentation in Genesis–2 Kings. a. The Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90) The Animal Apocalypse appears in a larger context of two dream visions (1 Enoch 83–90). 172 The first vision describes the judgment of the flood (chaps. 165. See Bockmuehl, VT 45 (1995): 17–44. 166. Concerning the universalizing of Moses in Josephus, see Oberhänsli-Widmer, TRE 23:350–51. 167. Josephus, Ant. 1, preface 3. 168. Ibid., 4. 169. See Schürer, History, 3/1:250–68; Koch, “Anfänge”; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1; on the Aramaic fragments from Qumran, see García Martínez and Tigchelaar, RevQ 53 (1990): 130–46; García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 45–47 (bibliography). See also the general bibliography on Enoch in García Martínez and Tigchelaar, RevQ 53 (1990): 149–74. On the history of scholarship, see Tiller, Commentary, 4–13. 170. See Reese, Geschichte, 21; Dexinger, Zehnwochenapokalypse, 98–101 (for the fivefold division, see p. 98 n. 2 [bibliography]); Uhlig, JSHRZ 5/6 466–70. For another perspective, see Dimant, VT 33 (1983): 29, who contends that Enoch was structured according to a known Enoch biography. 171. Chapters 37–71 are completely missing at Qumran. See Schürer, History, 3/1:257; Koch, “Anfänge,” 8; Böttrich, “Konturen.” On the apparent use of separate scrolls for the Animal Apocalypse and the Apocalypse of Weeks, see Schürer, History, 3/1:254; Koch, “Anfänge,” 8. 172. On a date of between 165 and 161 b.c.e., see Steck, Israel, 154–55; Reese, Geschichte, 21; the recent work of García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 77–79; Klijn, “From Creation,” 147 n. 2 (bibliography); Schürer, History, 3/1:255; Fröhlich, RevQ 53 (1990): 629; Tiller, Commentary, 61–63; Hall, Revealed Histories, 62. See also the references in Steck, ZAW 107 (1995): 446 n. 4; and VanderKam,

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 310 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

310

Chapter 4. Repercussions

83–84). A prayer of Enoch follows the first vision, and then the Animal Apocalypse appears as the second vision and as a response to the prayer of Enoch. 173 The Animal Apocalypse contains animal allegories of the biblical story from Adam up to the onset of the messianic kingdom. 174 The Animal Apocalypse can be interpreted with correspondences to the biblical history at each point. For the time from Adam to Isaac, the chief masculine figures are presented as bulls, which are evaluated by color. Adam is white (and thus positively evaluated), and the lines of his descendants Cain and Ham are black (meaning negatively evaluated) until Abraham and Isaac, while Abel and Japheth are represented in red as neutral figures.175 Noah is especially emphasized. “He was born as a bull and became a man. He built a great vessel” (89:1). Noah thus mutated from an animal to a human; furthermore, angels are also described as human. 176 By contrast, the three patriarchs are not really emphasized. Rather, they are addressed essentially from a genealogical perspective. However, the white bull [Abraham] who was born to him sired a wild ass [Ishmael] and in addition a white bull [Isaac]. And the wild ass multiplied. And the white bull that he sired, sired a black wild boar [Edom] and a white sheep [ Jacob]. The wild boar sired many boars, but this sheep sired twelve sheep. (89:11–12)177 With Jacob and his sons, the animal metaphor changes from bulls to sheep.178 The Egyptians are presented as wolves, while Joseph is presented as a sheep among wolves. The sojourn in Egypt, the exodus, and the wilderness wandering are described more broadly and in more detail than the ancestral period. 179 As with Noah, the sheep that represents Moses becomes a human in 89:36 and thus an angel. The reason for this change into a heavenly being appears to stem from the idea that Moses built the sanctuary (89:36, 38), just as Noah had built the ark. 180 It is noteworthy that the revelation of the law on Sinai plays no role (see 89:32): Instead, the appearance of divine majesty stands at the center of the Sinai

Enoch, 72 n. 13. The framing plot is found in 83:1–3a and 91:1–10, 18–19 (Uhlig, JSHRZ 5/6 673– 74). See general treatments of chaps. 83–90 in Black, “Composition”; Reid, JSJ 16 (1985): 195–201. And on the Animal Apocalypse, see Müller, Studien, 58–64; Bryan, Cosmos; and Tiller, Commentary. 173. See Reese, Geschichte, 22. 174. Bryan shows that the images are not accidental (Bryan, Cosmos, 183–84). The Animal Apocalypse distinguishes between clean and unclean animals, thereby symbolizing the continual conflict between the cosmos and chaos (see Tiller, Commentary, 28–29). See also Fröhlich, RevQ 53 (1990): 632. She refers to the thoroughgoing dichotomy in the Animal Apocalypse (white–black; bulls–wild animals; sheep–wolves; sheep–shepherds). On parallels with haggadic material, see Klijn, “From Creation.” On the sources, see VanderKam, Growth, 163–64. 175. For the biblical background of the color metaphors, see Ps 51:9; Isa 1:18; Dan 7:9; etc. (VanderKam, Enoch, 73 n. 15). For the negative image of Ham, see Klijn, “From Creation,” 157–58. Fröhlich affirms, without rationale, that it means Ham and not Japheth (Fröhlich, RevQ 53 [1990]: 630). 176. See VanderKam, Biblical Interpretation, 114; see also García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 76; Klijn, “From Creation,” 147. 177. Translation based on Uhlig, JSHRZ 5/6 683. 178. The break after the series of generations from Adam to Isaac has a certain biblical precedent in 1 Chr 1:1–34, where the sons of Esau are mentioned first and then 1 Chronicles 2 subsequently mentions the sons of Jacob (“Israel”). 179. See the details in Reese, Geschichte, 33–35. The visionary Enoch is also described consistently as a human in the Apocalypse of Animals. 180. See García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 73. The use of the ark and the sanctuary in parallel can be found in the Hebrew Bible itself. See Jacob, Genesis, 222.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 311 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Later Receptions

311

event. Moses is not seen as the lawgiver but as the builder of the sanctuary and the founder of the cult. After the death of Moses (89:38), Joshua leads Israel into its land (89:40), and Israel becomes “full.” The period of Israel’s judges is characterized by the straying sheep, who are sometimes blind and sometimes not (89:41). The period of the early monarchy is characterized especially by victories over foreign nations (89:42: “dogs” represent the Philistines, “foxes” the Ammonites, “wild boars” the Amalekites) and the increase of Israel, and it culminates in Solomon’s construction of the temple (89:49–50). The epochs of David and Solomon, to a certain extent, anticipate the salvation of the end time. The eyes of the sheep are opened (89:41, 44). God is present in the temple, which afterward only happens again in the end time (90:29). Israel procures rest from the other nations. This condition, emphasizing the worship of the nations (90:30), also happens again only in the end time.181 With the division of the kingdom, interpreted as a portion of Israel leaving the temple (89:51, 54), the judgment history of Israel begins.182 The high point of this history occurs when God himself leaves the temple and abandons Israel to its enemies, the lions and all predatory animals (89:56). After the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem, Israel endures four epochs covering “seventy shepherds,” under whom the Lord delivers his sheep in anger. 183 The metaphor of the Animal Apocalypse clearly intends the “seventy shepherds” as heavenly beings. 184 They are the heavenly counterparts to the foreign powers who rule Israel after the exile. It is noteworthy that the time of the Second Temple is seen as completely negative. The table in the house of Yhwh (contrary to the time of Solomon) is stained and unclean (89:73). The eyes of the sheep are now blind instead of seeing (89:74). The people are now tortured and annihilated instead of increasing (89:74). The theocratic interpretation of the Persian period is radically rejected. The seventy shepherds determine the remainder of history up to the author’s time of the Maccabean period.185 At the final judgment, the seventy shepherds will be punished because they killed more sheep than they were commanded. The blinded sheep will be judged with them (90:17–27). Thereupon, the new Jerusalem will be established as a substitute for the temple (90:29), and the redeemed eschatological community whose eyes have been “opened” (90:35) will be formed (90:28–36). Finally, corresponding to the primeval period, a white bull (a messianic figure) will stand up (90:37). He has large horns like the first bull had, and in what follows, all animals are transformed into white bulls (90:38).186 181. See the discussion in Reese, Geschichte, 40. 182. 1 En. 89:54–56, however, is not easily interpreted. See Reese, Geschichte, 42. 183. 1 En. 89:65–71 (exile); 89:72–77 (Persian period); 90:2–5 (Alexander and the Diadochi period); 90:6–16 (the author’s time: the Maccabean period). The four epochs are dependent on Daniel 7. On the symbolism, see the bibliography in VanderKam, Biblical Interpretation, 114 n. 35; idem, Growth, 165–66; Tiller, Commentary, 51–60. The imagery is acquired especially from Jeremiah 23–25. 1 En. 89:59–63 emphasizes that the “70 shepherds” are entirely under the rule and command of God (see Reese, Geschichte, 44). It thus concerns powers commissioned by God, and not powers opposing God. 184. It is generally recognized that the 70 shepherds are heavenly beings. See Reese, Geschichte, 25, with n. 25; García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 74. 185. 1 En. 89:65–72 (until the return from exile); 89:72–77 (to Alexander the Great); 90:1–5 (to the Maccabees); 90:6–17 (to the messianic age). See García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 75. The author lives in the fourth epoch of the shepherds. He writes after the first victorious encounter of Judas Maccabeus and the Seleucids (90:12), which for the author represents the onset of the end time (90:13–19). See Müller, Studien, 59–60. 186. Müller stresses the orientation toward all Israel in the Animal Apocalypse (ibid., 63–64). He points out that the salvation of “all sheep” occurs (90:34); however, the situation of 90:34 is not yet the final salvation.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 312 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

312

Chapter 4. Repercussions

Of course, the notable primal/end time correspondence demonstrates that, in the Animal Apocalypse, the time of the primal ancestors (from Adam to Isaac, 187 primarily because of their long life-spans) represents the ideal epoch of humanity. Among these ancestors, the figure of Noah especially stands out, not Abraham. With Jacob and his sons, the two-part age of the sheep begins: first, Israel’s errant wandering from the monarchic period to 587 b.c.e., then their banishment to seventy shepherds from the Babylonian exile to the onset of the end time. Although Moses is compared with Noah, the epoch of the people of Israel (which is the reason for the gap in the metaphor of Jacob = Israel) must be distinguished qualitatively from the epoch of the ancestors prior to Jacob. The Animal Apocalypse appears to view the national existence of Israel as fundamentally problematic. Sheep either wander aimlessly or they are delivered over to their shepherds helplessly. However, the existence of humanity in general in various nations after the flood is also seen as fundamentally problematic: the siring of different kinds of animals provides an explanation: And they [the three bulls, meaning Shem, Ham, and Japheth] begin to sire wild animals and birds. This results in the rise of all kinds of forms: lions, panthers, dogs, wolves, hyenas, boars, griffins, hawks, eagles, and ravens. But also a white bull [Abraham] was born among them. And they began to bite one another. (89:10–11) 188

The devaluation of Israel as a people and the related emphasis on the individual as righteous or sinner may be the reason that the Animal Apocalypse does not allude to the ancestor story or the Moses story since both concepts of origins represent the people. Rather, it enacts the primeval story and the figure of Noah. However, in terms of macrostructure, it stretches the primeval story to the time of Isaac (the final white bull before the messiah and the apocatastasis). Here an underlying thread appears, which also shapes other writings. It is not the people but the individual that is the decisive theological category. 189 Thus, the Animal Apocalypse interprets history differently from the historical outlines already addressed. Only the story from Adam to Isaac functions positively as a myth of the origins of the world. It is a story of individuals, not a national story. In contrast to this story, the beginning of the national story with Jacob (the biblical parallel of “Jacob” and “Israel” is adopted) marks a decisive break that leads to the downfall and is only emphasized again at the end time.

187. The lifespans decrease significantly from Jacob (who was “only” 147 years old [Gen 47:28]) onward. Joseph dies at 110 (Gen 50:26); Moses at 120 (Deut 34:6). Earlier, Abraham was 175 (Gen 25:7) and Isaac 180 (Gen 35:28) when they died. See Bryan, Cosmos, 184–85. The change from bulls to sheep is fed by the antagonism, especially, against Egypt (“wolves”) but also by the biblical metaphor of God’s people (= “Jacob”; see also wild ass = Ishmael in Gen 16:12) as sheep. 188. Translation based on Uhlig, JSHRZ 5/6 684–85. 189. For example, see Vielhauer, Einleitung, 414.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 313 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Later Receptions

313

The inclusion of the primeval story, as Reese has observed, is a main difference between the Animal Apocalypse and the Deuteronomistic view of history, a view that decisively shapes also the Animal Apocalypse after the construction of the first temple. 190 Reese interprets the lengthening of the history of Israel backward to Adam as the result of a dispute between the Deuteronomistic-eschatological tradent groups of the Animal Apocalypse and theocratic circles, whose authoritative treatment of history, the Priestly writing, is decidedly based on creation and the primeval story. 191 Contrary to Reese, however, the pointed emphasis on the primeval story should be taken seriously in terms of content. It is not about lengthening the national story back to Adam but is about prefacing the national story with the primeval story, which is itself the authoritative foundational time.

b. The Apocalypse of Weeks (1 Enoch 93:1–10; 91:11–17) The Apocalypse of Weeks dates either to the Maccabean period or shortly before, 192 depending on which passages one assigns to the author of the ten-week schema. It treats the biblical history in six weeks, 193 perhaps including part of a seventh week. The remaining weeks depict various stages of the final judgment.194 The first week is the week of Enoch’s birth (93:3). The flood occurs in the second week (93:4), and Abraham appears in the third (93:5). The law on Sinai is promulgated in the fourth (93:6), and the temple is built in the fifth (93:7). In the sixth week, Elijah is taken to heaven, the temple is destroyed, and Israel is scattered (93:8). In the seventh week, an apostate generation appears, and the separation of the righteous and the sinners begins (93:9–10). The messiah appears in the eighth (93:12–13). Universal judgment becomes apparent in the ninth week (91:14).

190. Reese, Geschichte, 68. See Steck, Israel, 155–56. 191. Reese, Geschichte, 67–68. 192. Koch offers a German synoptic translation (Koch, “Sabbatstruktur,” 52–57). According to the majority of interpreters, the Apocalypse of Weeks was originally an independent text (see the review of Reese, Geschichte, 69 n. 6; García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 80–81; see also the bibliography in Steck, ZAW 107 [1995]: 446–47 n. 5). This text is now part of the complex of 1 Enoch 91–105 described as a “Letter of Enoch” according to the colophon of the Chester Beatty papyrus (for uncertainty regarding the boundary of the text, see García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 79 n. 104). Others judge the Apocalypse of Weeks to be an integral component of 1 Enoch 91–105 (Milik, Books of Enoch, 255–56; VanderKam, Growth, 161; and García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 82–83; see García Martínez and Tigchelaar, RevQ 53 [1990]: 141–43). Dexinger sees the Apocalypse of Weeks as the oldest Jewish apocalypse (Dexinger, Zehnwochenapokalypse, 14–16; followed by Reid, JSJ 16 [1985]: 189–90). The significance of this claim, however, depends largely on one’s definition of an apocalypse. For the arrangement of 93:1–10 and 91:11–17, which is now assured by 4QEng, see VanderKam, CBQ 46 (1984): 512, 518; idem, Enoch, 63–64; Black, “Fragments”; idem, VT 28 (1978): 464–69; García Martínez, Qumran and Apocalyptic, 79–96; Olson, JSP 11 (1993): 69–94; Leuenberger, BN 124 (2005): 57–102; idem, BN 126 (2005): 45–82. On the Maccabean date, see Dexinger, Zehnwochenapokalypse, 137–40. On a pre-Maccabean date, see Steck, Israel, 153; VanderKam, CBQ 46 (1984): 521–23; Schürer, History, 3/1:254–55. On the literary relationship of the Apocalypse of Weeks to the Animal Apocalypse, see Steck, Israel, 154 n. 1 (“model”) and the review of Reese, Geschichte, 85–86 n. 67. Reese himself sees the Apocalypse of Weeks as arising after the Animal Apocalypse because of the Weeks’ sectarian focus (Reese, Geschichte, 85–86 n. 67). 193. Koch concludes that the weeks are an “exponential jubilee year” with a length of 490 years (Koch, VT 28 (1978): 439–40). VanderKam sees it differently (Biblical Interpretation, 110). 194. Ibid.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 314 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Chapter 4. Repercussions

314

The eternal judgment 195 takes place in the tenth, and a new heaven and a new earth arise (91:16). 196

As a whole, the Apocalypse of Weeks is structured as a multiple inclusio: 197 Prol.

W.1

W.2

W.3

W.4

W.5

W.6

W.7

W.8

W.9 W.10 Epil.

The ten weeks of years correspond to one another chiastically by placement within 93:1– 3a and 91:17. The first and tenth weeks both mention the number seven (93:3b: Enoch was the seventh one born in the first week [see Gen 5:18]; 91:15: in the seventh part of the tenth week, the eternal judgment of the watchers takes place).198 In the second and ninth weeks, and only in these two weeks, a universal judgment takes place on sinful humanity (the flood is described as “the first end” in 93:4).199 The third and the eighth weeks are connected by the appearance of a central figure (Abraham and the Messiah)200 and an emphasis on the theme of “righteousness.” 201 The promulgation of the law in the fourth week corresponds to the severing of the sinners and wicked in the seventh week.202 Finally, the fifth and sixth weeks correlate with each other in the events of the temple construction and destruction. 203

For the Apocalypse of Weeks and the Animal Apocalypse, the period of Moses plays no role as a second foundational epoch that is distinct from the ancestral period. In contrast to the Animal Apocalypse, the Apocalypse of Weeks does not even mention the exodus. Rather, the giving of the law immediately follows Abraham. Here, the Apocalypse of Weeks is fundamentally different from the Animal Apocalypse, in which the Sinai law is never mentioned. 204 The time of the first temple (fifth and sixth weeks) is the turning point of the first world period, which as a whole encompasses ten apocalyptic weeks of years. Instead of being interested in crucial dates in the history of the people of Israel, the Apocalypse of Weeks is instead 195. On the three stages of the final judgment, see Müller, Studien, 79–80. On 91:15, see Sacchi, Apocalyptic, 140–49. 196. On the reception of Isa 65:17 at this point, see van Ruiten, BETL 81 (1989), 161–66: “The innovation of the earth is made of second importance to the innovation of heaven” (p. 166). 197. See VanderKam, Enoch, 63–70. See also the structural considerations in Reid, JSJ 16 (1985): 191–93. 198. See VanderKam, CBQ 46 (1984): 518–19; idem, Enoch, 65–66. 199. Ibid., 67. See the vision of the flood in 83:1–5, before the Animal Apocalypse 85–90. 200. This correspondence in the Apocalypse of Weeks agrees with the Animal Apocalypse, in which Abraham and the messiah are both presented as white bulls. On the relationship of the Apocalypse of Weeks and the Animal Apocalypse, see Steck, Israel, 155 n. 1. Reid, JSJ 16 (1985): 189–201; Nickelsburg, SBLSP (1986), 345. 201. VanderKam, CBQ 46 (1984): 520; idem, Enoch, 68. 202. Ibid. 203. Ibid., 68–69. 204. See Reese, Geschichte, 76. The idea that the law recedes in the Enoch transmission is perhaps bound to the fact that it has selected Enoch, a pre-Mosaic protagonist. As a result, the law, for narrative and fictive reasons, can only appear as a historical preview, like the Animal Apocalypse or the Apocalypse of Weeks. The choice of Enoch presumes a certain amount of distance from the law.

spread is 3 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 315 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Later Receptions

315

interested in heavenly contact, as seen especially in the heavenly journeys of Enoch and Elijah as well as in the vision of God to the 70 elders on Sinai (Exod 24:9–11). As in the Animal Apocalypse, the Apocalypse of Weeks demonstrates a receding of the national traditions in favor of a universal history and cosmic events on the one hand and individual figures on the other. 205 4.2.8. Fourth Ezra The book of 4 Ezra, so named by the Vulgate, is a Jewish Apocalypse 206 that places itself “in the thirtieth year after the destruction of the city of Babylon” (3:1), or 557 b.c.e. This is clearly literary fiction. What is generally accepted is that “the date points to thirty years after the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 c.e. . . . Accordingly, 4 Ezra may have arisen around 100 c.e.” 207 It was apparently written in Palestine, originally in a Semitic language, either Hebrew or Aramaic. 208 It is undoubtedly true that 4 Ezra presupposes the completed Hebrew Bible, not only because of the date of its origin, but because, in its concluding chapters, 4 Ezra explicitly addresses the canon of the Hebrew Bible and narrates the legends of its origins. The 24 writings of the Hebrew Bible that were destroyed with Jerusalem and the 70 books that had not been published but were reserved for the wise were redictated to Ezra. 209 Even more notable is the way that 4 Ezra uses the image of Israel’s history transmitted in the historical books. Based on the larger picture of Genesis– 2 Kings, the first historical summary, near the beginning of the book, 4 Ezra 3:4– 27, proceeds in broad strokes from Adam to the destruction of Jerusalem. The summary serves as Ezra’s argument for the general fate of human sinfulness since Adam’s fall: since Adam, humanity has had a cor malignum (evil heart), as is quite apparent from the history. Thus, the theme of 4 Ezra is stated. In the dialogue portion of the book (3:1–9:35), Ezra presents the position that humans have sinned and therefore are dependent on the grace of God (7:68; 8:17, 35–36), while the angel Uriel expresses the opposite view. There are righteous people, even if they are quite few in number (7:51, 59), and only they will enter the coming eon (7:50), based on their righteousness (7:104, 113–15). The argumentation of the book, specifically in the so-called Zion vision of 9:26–10:59, 210 pivots on the legal position of Uriel. In the concluding chapter of the book, Ezra speaks as Uriel did in the dialogue portion of 4 Ezra (3:1–9:35). 205. Reese sees the Animal Apocalypse and the Apocalypse of Weeks here as opponents in terms of content (Reese, Geschichte, 82–88). 206. In what follows, 4 Ezra refers to chaps. 3–14, which are literarily and materially secondary to the Christian chapters of 4 Ezra 1–2 (5 Ezra) and 15 (6 Ezra). For the problem of the literary genre of Apocalypse, see the thematic volume of Semeia 14 (1979) and Koch, “Visionsbericht.” 207. Schreiner, JSHRZ 5/4 301. See Hallbäck, SJOT 6 (1992): 263–92. 208. See the discussion in Schürer, History, 2/1:294–305; Klijn, Ezra-Apokalypse, xiii. 209. See Knibb, JSJ 13 (1982): 56–74; Macholz, Festschrift Rendtorff. 210. See especially, Harnisch, ZAW 95 (1983): 75–76; and my article in JSJ 29 (1998): 261–77.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 316 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

316

Chapter 4. Repercussions

In 14:29–33, leading into the concluding warning of 14:34–35, a second historical summary is presented that is noticeably distinct from the opening summary of 3:4–27. No more is said about the events and people of Genesis. Rather, it begins with the patriarch in Egypt and reaches to the scattering of Israel into the diaspora. This is the authoritative history of origins for Israel in the eyes of 4 Ezra: specifically, the Moses/exodus story, which provides the giving of the law central place (14:30) and not the history of Israel from the fall of Adam onward, which presents the theme of the fate of sin. Thus, in the course of the writing, the enneateuchal history of Genesis– 2 Kings articulated in 4 Ezra 3 is radically criticized in Ezra’s interpretation. Conversely, the Moses/exodus story is placed in the highlighted concluding position of 4 Ezra 14. It contains what 4 Ezra is most interested in: the law. 4.2.9. Second Baruch 53–74 The Syriac Baruch Apocalypse (2 Baruch) is closely related in content and structure to 4 Ezra. 211 Apparently, 2 Baruch is somewhat later than 4 Ezra. 212 Like 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch sees the observance of the law as the only way to endure the coming judgment. For my project, the vision of the cloud in 2 Baruch 53 and the related interpretation of the history of Israel by the angel Ramael (55:3) are important. In 2 Baruch 54, the prayer of Baruch appears, and in the subsequent chapter, an encounter with the angel takes place. In 2 Baruch 53, Baruch sees a large cloud arise from a very large sea, and the cloud is filled with white and black water (53:1). On its upper edge, one can see a large lightning bolt (53:1). Twelve times, the cloud alternates raining black and white water on the earth, and each time more black water falls on the earth than white (53:6). Finally, the cloud rains black water that is darker than all that has preceded. It is also mixed with fire (53:7). A violent lightning bolt becomes active, and it rules over the earth and the twelve streams that originate from the sea. The angel interprets the cloud vision as “the flow of the times” (56:2). The first (black) rain means the transgression of Adam, the mixing of the angels with human women (see Gen 6:1–4), and the flood (chap. 56). The second (white) rain is Abraham, for in his time, the (unwritten) law was already kept and the coming judgment and the promise of the coming life were already believed (57). The third (black) rain is related to the oppression of the “righteous” children in Egypt (58). The fourth (white) rain is the coming of Moses, Aaron, Miriam, and Joshua. Then Moses is given the law and insight into the cosmos and the coming judgment (59). The fifth (black) rain is the sins of the Amorites213 and Israel in the period of the Judges. The sixth (white) rain refers to the time of David and Solomon, the dedication of the sanctuary, and the sin-free life of the Israelites of the time (61). The 211. See the discussion on structure in Willett, Eschatology, 82. For chaps. 53–74, see Leuenberger, JSJ 36 (2005): 206–46. On the relationship between 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, see Berger, Synopse. 212. 2 Baruch apparently arose between 100 and 130 c.e. (see Klijn, JSHRZ 5/2 114; Charlesworth, ABD 1:620). Other views on the relationship between 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch are discussed in Schürer-Vermes, 3/2:753 n. 4. On the problem of the original language, see ibid., with n. 8. 213. See Gen 15:16 (and the discussion in Ha, Genesis 15, 170–74; Seebass, Vätergeschichte I, 76).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 317 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Later Receptions

317

seventh (black) rain stands for the sins of Jeroboam, the division of the kingdom, and the banning of the nine and a half tribes (62). The eighth (white) rain is the time of Hezekiah and the deliverance from Jerusalem (63). The ninth (black) rain is the evil of Manasseh (64–65). The tenth (white) rain relates to Josiah and his cult reforms (66). The eleventh (black) rain, which is the current time in the fiction of the apocalypse, is the catastrophe of Jerusalem (67). The twelfth (white) rain signifies the reconstruction of Zion and the restitution of the temple cult (68). The last (black) rain, darker than any before, relates to the whole earth (69:1). It stands for the judgment dividing the righteous and the wicked, together with the judgment of the nations by the messiah (69–71). However, this is not yet the complete course of the world. The angel narrates further the meaning of the cloud vision of Baruch. 214 Note that in the language of the vision, this vision is of white water—water that will still come after the final black water. This water refers to the messianic kingdom of peace, which is presented in broad terms (chaps. 72–74). The cloud vision thus arranges history into a total of thirteen epochs from creation to the final judgment, which will be followed by the coming messianic kingdom. The fact that this goal of history is not seen by Baruch but only appears in the interpretation of the angel may imply a certain critique of the apocalyptic vision of the new creation. God does not reveal in a vision to any visionary how the coming time of peace will look. Only in the interpretive words of the angel can one recognize something. Additionally, this literary procedure underscores the discontinuity between the present world and the world to come. Dividing all history up to the final judgment into thirteen segments shows a concentric structure centered around the seventh (black) water: the sins of Jeroboam and the banishment of the nine and a half tribes (chap. 62). The sixth (61, David and Solomon) and eighth (63, Hezekiah) white rains correspond to the establishment of the protection of Zion. The fifth (60, Amorites and the period of the judges) and ninth (64–65, Manasseh) black rains both name cultic sacrileges. The fourth (59, Moses) and the tenth (66, Josiah) white rains report the founding of the cult and its restoration. The third (58, Egyptians) and the eleventh (67, destruction of Jerusalem) black rains mention the subservience of Israel to foreign nations. The second (57, Abraham) and twelfth (68, second temple) white rains are related to healthy epochs in difficult circumstances. Abraham keeps the unwritten law, and the priests do service on the rebuilt temple. The first (56, Adam to the flood) and the last (69–71) black rains name universal processes that affect the entire world. The emphasis on the exile of the nine and a half tribes, in middle position, should not be surprising within 2 Baruch. The situation of Israel’s banning is also that of the author’s present time. Thus, 2 Baruch also ends with a departing letter from Baruch to the nine and a half tribes in 2 Baruch 78–87, a letter that is intended to be read at their gatherings.215 In the letter, Baruch writes of the coming final judgment and warns about keeping the law: “We no longer have anything except the (Al)mighty and his law” (85:3).

The image described in 2 Baruch 53–74 of creation and its history is noteworthy in several respects. First, the image of the clouds filled with black water and white water shows that 2 Baruch, in contrast to 4 Ezra, who is more reserved at this point, definitively characterizes creation as ambivalent. The evil displaying itself in the course of the history of the world was created by God from the beginning, just 214. See 2 Bar. 72:1: “Hear now about all the bright waters that will come, each after black waters.” According to 71:2: “This is now what you have seen, and this is its meaning.” 215. The emphasis on the banning of the nine and a half tribes in 2 Baruch 53–76 makes it very difficult to see 2 Baruch 78–87 as a later addition (see also Charlesworth, ABD 1:621 [bibliography]).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 318 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

318

Chapter 4. Repercussions

like the good. The same holds true for the final judgment. From the beginning of the cloud visions, Baruch sees the lightning appearing after the twelve rains. The image of the history of Israel described in 2 Baruch 53–74 is particularly noteworthy in that it does not flow linearly into decadence. Rather, it alternates between negative and positive events. Beginning with black water, not white, Adam accents once again 2 Baruch’s reservations in contrast to creation as God’s good work. Similar to Jubilees and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 2 Baruch views the patriarchs as adherents of the law even before Moses and thus evaluates their epochs positively as the first in the history of the world. In keeping the primeval story negative as a whole, 2 Baruch is distinguished from large portions of apocalyptic literature (although it clearly agrees with 4 Ezra at this point). 2 Baruch closely connects salvation with Israel. Salvation first appears in history with the patriarchs, because only Israel had the law. It is the law that determines salvation or judgment for every individual: Adam was the first to sin and as a result he brought premature death to all. Nevertheless, those who came from his seed prepared their own future punishment. Each and every one of these thus chose the future majesty for themselves. (59:15)

4.2.10. Judean and Samaritan Historians Alongside literary presentations of the history of Israel, there are also ancient examples of Judean and Samaritan historians who show their own perspectives on the same topic. They come from a time in which Genesis–2 Kings existed in final form, but they also draw from legendary material. Even in these, the dual origins of Israel in the ancestors and exodus can be detected (especially in their choosing either Abraham or Moses or both as the prΩtoi euj revtai, 216 the determinative founders of culture). a. Artapanus Selections from the historical presentation of the Jewish Hellenistic writer named Artapanus are transmitted by Eusebius. 217 Josephus may also have used Artapanus. 218 It appears mostly to be a novel about Moses but also mentions Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph as teachers, founders of culture, and even founders of the cult of Egypt and responsible for the entry (Eisodos) of the Israelites into Egypt. 219 216. See K. Thraede, RAC 5:1191–1278; Küchler, Weisheitstraditionen, 119 n. 17. On the Jewish tradition of Abraham, see the literature in Küchler, Weisheitstraditionen, 120 n. 20. 217. Artapanus may have written in Egypt. His work apparently stems from the first half of the second century b.c.e. (Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 167; Schürer, History, 3/1:523). Küchler dates him to around 100 b.c.e. (Küchler, Weisheitstraditionen, 123). For Eusebius, see Heinemann, PRE 31:365–67; text in N. Walter, JSHRZ 1/2 127–36. 218. See ibid., 121. 219. As Schürer-Vermes note, it is quite noteworthy that the Jewish writer Artapanus even describes the Egyptian cult of the gods as a foundation for the patriarchs and Moses (Schürer, History, 3/1:522–23). One would probably have to explain this in such a way that the forefathers of Israel were described as universal bringers of culture. Even the other religions stem from them.

sperad is 12 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 319 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Later Receptions

319

According to Artapanus, Moses was raised by Merris, the wife of Chenephres, king of Memphis. She had accepted Moses as a Hebrew child because she herself was barren. Moses then became the teacher of Orpheus, invented machines and philosophy, divided the state into various districts and assigned them different gods, in order to strengthen the power of the king of Memphis. Moses was considered equal to god by the priests (because of the “interpretation [eJrmeneÇa] of the hieroglyphics”) and compared with Hermes-Thor.220 However, Chenephres envied Moses and arranged first for Moses to die in battle with the Ethiopians, and then ordered him to be murdered, but Moses killed the murderer. Then he visited the Arabian Prince Raguelus (compare with Reuel in Exod 2:16ff.) and received the divine commission to liberate his people who had endured in Egypt since the time of Abraham (9.18.1). Moses returned to Egypt, communicated his commission to King Chenephres and was subsequently jailed. By a miracle, Moses was released from prison. He performed additional miracles before Chenephres, to whom he also made known the name of God when commanded. Moses brought down plagues on Egypt and then left with the Israelites through the sea, which was made possible by observance of the tides. It is not possible from the quotation in Eusebius to know how far this narrative continued.

Artapanus’s presentation is clearly an apology for Moses, who in the wake of Abraham is, first, endowed with signs of the prΩtoÍ euj revthÍ, meaning he is characterized as the one who introduced the cult. Second, the miracular elements of the biblical presentation are concentrated in Moses. Moses, not God, performed the miracles in Egypt. Indeed, Moses was the one who initiated salvation at the Sea of Reeds by his own cleverness. The relationship between the ancestors and the exodus cannot be determined clearly in Artapanus. He concentrates largely on the Moses material but still mentions Abraham, though relegating him to a lower position. However, Moses by no means functions as the exclusive prΩtoÍ euJrevthÍ according to Artapanus. However, the fact that he divides the corresponding achievements of these two who introduced the cult is clear evidence of the duality of the founding figures of Israel– Abraham and Moses. b. Pseudo-Eupolemus Among the ancient historical reports on the origins of Judaism, the fragments of a history (Praep. ev. 9.17.2–9; 18.2) transmitted by Eusebius from an anonymous Samaritan (apparently stemming from the first half of the second century b.c.e.) 220. Artapanus reverses Moses with Musaeus of the Orpheus School. See Walter, JSHRZ 1/2 123. On MousaÇoÍ as a form of “Moses,” see Schürer, History, 3/1:522 n. 49. Along with the idea that Moses instructed the Egyptians, the opposite is also common. See Ezekiel the Tragedian 37; Acts 7:22. On the magic arts of Egypt, see the material in Str-B 2:678–79. The sign (inventing machines) of Moses as the founder is a response to the following objection by Josephus: the Jews had “created no invention of importance to life” ( Josephus, Ag. Ap. 2.148; see Hengel, Jews, Greeks, and Barbarians, 79–80, with nn. 46–47). Moses is then also deemed to be the primal magi; see Hengel, Jews, Greeks, and Barbarians, 100, with n. 51). In a fragment transmitted by Eusebius (Praep. ev. IX 26:1) concerning Eupolemos (second century b.c.e.) Moses is honored as the first sage and the founder of the alphabet (see J. Jeremias, TDNT 4:850 n. 7; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:92; text in N. Walter, JSHRZ 1/2 99). See other examples in Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:90 n. 251, p. 2:61; 1:92 n. 266, p. 2:95; Küchler, Weisheitstraditionen, 122 n. 25 (bibliography). On Hermes-Thor, see Eusebius, Praep. ev. 9.17.6 ( JSHRZ 1/2 130). See Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 167 n. 254; Küchler, Weisheitstraditionen, 124.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 320 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

320

Chapter 4. Repercussions

occupy a special place. 221 Alexander Polyhistor apparently attributed them falsely to Eupolemus, who is known from other fragments. 222 As far as can be determined, this work deals exclusively with material from Genesis, namely the primeval story and Abraham, which are connected to Babylonian and Greek mythology; 223 Moses does not appear. Here, we see the specific emphasis of the Samaritan perception of the Pentateuch. In Genesis–Deuteronomy, the patriarchs and their relationship to Shechem are important. Moses recedes in light of this emphasis. In Pseudo-Eupolemus, as with Artapanus, Abraham, who exceeded all in “nobility and wisdom,” appears as the founder (prΩtoÍ euJ revthÍ) of astronomy (which is traced back even further, to Enoch, for greater antiquity 224) and the “Chaldean art” (which probably meant arithmetic). 225 For the Samaritan Anonymous, Babylon serves as the city of giants saved from the flood. Abraham descends from them, being either in the tenth or the thirteenth generation. 226 He was born in the Babylonian city of Kamarine, which was also called Ourie. At God’s behest, he moved from there to Phoenicia (here equated with Canaan). 227 He instructed the Phoenicians and then the Egyptians in the various sciences and arts. 228 Apparently, this presentation of history relates to a genealogy of the culture. The sciences stem from Babylon, specifically from Enoch and Abraham, and then appear in Phoenicia and Egypt. One may then deduce that these two areas gave Greece its knowledge. The relationship between the motifs referring to Abraham as prΩtoÍ euJ revthÍ in contrast to allusions to both Abraham and Moses in Artapanus possibly is due to the need for a Samaritan apologetic. It is not Abraham and Moses but Abraham alone who brings culture. Moses has nothing to do with this. 221. The “anonymous Samaritan” clearly shows his geographical origin by the transferral of the setting in Gen 14:17–20 to Mt. Gerazim and the translation of ArgarizÇn with o§roÍ uJyÇstou (Praep. ev. 9.17.5 [ JSHRZ 1/2 142]; see also Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 162 n. 232 [bibliography]). For Pseudo-Eupholemus and these texts, see ibid., 1:88 n. 238, p. 2:59; N. Walter, JSHRZ 1/2 140. 222. On Alexander Polyhistor and Eupolemus, see the discussion in Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:92–95; N. Walter, JSHRZ 1/2 93–108; Küchler, Weisheitstraditionen, 121–22; Schürer, History, 3/1: 517–21. On other Eupolemus fragments, see Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:88 n. 238, p. 2:59; N. Walter, JSHRZ 1/2 137–38; Küchler, Weisheitstraditionen, 119, with n. 15. 223. See Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:88–95. 224. Praep. ev. 9.17.8: “Abraham, however, lived in Heliopolis with the Egyptian priests, and taught them many things correctly. And he introduced them to astrology and so on, although he said that “the Babylonians and he himself discovered this. The (original) invention, however, he traced back to Enoch, and Enoch (not the Egyptians) was the first to discover astrology” (Walter, JSHRZ 1/2 142). 225. See ibid., 141. This coincides with the information from Pseudo-Hecataeus II in Josephus, Ant. 1:167 (N. Walter, JSHRZ 1/2 159). Hengel presupposes that the “Chaldean arts” refer to mantics and seeing the future (Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 165 n. 245). 226. On the two contradictory declarations, see N. Walter, JSHRZ 1/2 141. 227. On the parallel between Canaan and Phoenicia, see Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:90–92, 1:293–94 n. 233, p. 2: 195. The LXX identifies the “Canaanites” with the “Phoenicans” in Exod 6:15; Josh 5:1, 12; Job 40:30. For the Samaritans, the self-designation of Sidonians is also attested. 228. In the Samaritan Anonymous, in contrast to the biblical presentation, the encounter with Melchizedek when Abraham allied with the Phoenicians against the Armenians (as Genesis 14 is here paraphrased) placed prior to Abraham’s travel to Egypt. The motif of Abraham as teaching astronomy to the Egyptians also appears in Artapanus ( JSHRZ 1/2 127; additional references listed there).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 321 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Later Receptions

321

c. Pseudo-Hecataeus II Two works are cited by Josephus and Clement of Alexendria as being written by Hecataeus, though neither one can be traced back directly to Hecataeus himself. Together, they can, however, be attributed to the same author and may be referred to as Pseudo-Hecataeus I and II. 229 They are the work of a Jewish-Hellenistic author. The writing that is of interest here, Pseudo-Hecataeus II, is entitled “On Abraham and the Egyptians” by Clement 230 and is very difficult to date. The only thing certain is that it is older than Josephus’s writings. It maintains that Abraham, because of his flight from famine (see Gen 12:10–20), brought arithmetic and astronomy to the Egyptians. He had learned them directly from the Chaldeans, though he revised them for monotheism. The conception of the history of culture that influenced Pseudo-Hecataeus II can be stated briefly: “If Abraham was the source of all true wisdom, then Egypt was its point of transfer.” 231 One does not recognize a specific Samaritan orientation in Pseudo-Hecataeus II. Like Artapanus, Pseudo-Hecataeus II does not consider Abraham as prΩtoÍ euJ revthÍ in contrast to Moses. 4.2.11. Non-Jewish Historians The presentation of Israel’s history, as it appears in Genesis–2 Kings, is not frequently engaged in antiquity outside Judaism. We do have reports by several authors (often colored with legendary elements) about the origins of Judaism. In some cases, it is impossible to decide where the authors obtained their information and which selection they used. They may not always have had direct access to the text of the Hebrew Bible because the statements are imprecise and diverge a great deal from the biblical presentation. When written sources were lacking, stories may have been known through a series of traditions transmitted orally. In the cultures surrounding Israel, the biblical image of Genesis–2 Kings describing the history of Israel was apparently well known neither in detail nor in its overall narrative organization. Rather, the origin of Israel was seen almost exclusively as being rooted in the exodus from Egypt. a. Hecataeus of Abdera The oldest non-Jewish presentation of the origins of Israel appears in the work of Hecataeus of Abdera, a contemporary of Alexander the Great and Ptolemy I. 232 229. So Walter, ibid., 144–60. See Schürer, History, 3/1:671–74. 230. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 5.113. 231. Walter, JSHRZ 1/2 150. 232. Transmitted by Diodorus Siculus 40.3. The text (Greek and English) is readily accessible in Stern, Authors, 26–27. See also A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament, 402. On the historical background, see Mendels, ZAW 95 (1983): 97, bibliographical refs. in nn. 8–11. Supposedly, Hecataeus borrowed from Manetho, as did Josephus (see Bietak, “Comments,” 166). Further extrabiblical attestations of the exodus are found in Loewenstamm, Evolution, 273–92. See the overview in Assmann, Ägypten, 440–46. On the date of Hecataeus, see Stern, Authors, 20.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 322 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

322

Chapter 4. Repercussions

It thus stems from a time when the historical books of Genesis–2 Kings were already largely completed. 233 Hecataeus reports a plague that befell Egypt and that Egypt interpreted it as a punishment from the gods because the Egyptian cult had deteriorated. Thus, the Egyptians drove out all foreigners, and the largest portion of them left under Moses for Judah, which was uninhabited at that time. Moses founded Jerusalem and established a temple there.234 He gave his people laws and cultic regulations, and he divided them into twelve tribes. The worship was without images. As communicated by Hecataeus, God had no human form according to Moses. Rather, God should be compared to the heavens that surround the earth and rule the earth. Moses also installed priests who functioned as judges, and a high priest. On the basis of these statutes, the Judahites never had a king. They kept their own customs and practices. Only under Persian rule and under Alexander did they mix their customs with other peoples’.

One quickly sees how greatly the report of Hecataeus deviates from the biblical report. There is no mention of the ancestors and their origins in Mesopotamia. Hecataeus sets the origin of the Jews exclusively in Egypt. He considers the exodus from Egypt (interpreted by him as expulsion) to be the decisive event to which Israel owes its existence. Regarding Judaism, only Moses is seen as the political and religious founder. The founding of Jerusalem, temple construction, worship, laws, cultic regulations, and even the division into tribes all go back to Moses. These processes are attributed in the Hebrew Bible to multiple founders, specifically, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon. Hecataeus knows nothing of a military conquest (Palestine was uninhabited before Moses and his group), a monarchic period (for him the present, priestly condition of Israel without a king originated with Moses), or the history of Israel’s own sin as interpreted by itself. b. Manetho A similar image can be seen in Manetho, who worked somewhat later, and was a priest in Ptolemaic Egypt. His work is transmitted by Josephus (among others). 235 Manetho also reports an expulsion from Egypt. For him, the expulsion was caused by leprosy and the reaction of a king named Amenophis. ( Josephus is striving to refute Manetho; therefore, he claims in his review that King Amenophis never existed.)236 The king required all lepers and those with impurities to gather together, including several priests stricken with leprosy. He then placed them in the quarry east of the Nile, where they were forced to perform drudge labor. 237 Manetho cited as the reason for these mea233. On the sources of Hecataeus, see Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, Septante, 51. 234. Contrary to Numbers and Deuteronomy (where Moses never enters the land west of the Jordan), the Greeks and Romans were generally of the opinion that Moses was the founder of the state, Jerusalem, and the temple (see Heinemann, PRE 31:368). 235. Especially, Ag. Ap. 1:228–52 (Stern, Authors, 78–83; see A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament, 402– 3). See the discussion in Van Seters, Search, 136–38; Assmann, Ägypten, 256–58; 444–46. Concerning Manetho, see the overview in Verbrugghe and Wickersham, Berossus, 95–120 (where, in 121–211 one finds a compilation of ancient sources about Josephus concerning Manetho). 236. Ag. Ap. 1.230 (Stern, Authors, 78, 81). 237. Ag. Ap. 1.232 (Stern, Authors, 78).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 323 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Later Receptions

323

sures that Amenophis had a desire to “see the gods.”238 A wise prognosticator, who was also called Amenophis, demanded that the lepers and the sick be removed from the land. However, the mistreatment of the priests among the deportees elicited the wrath of the gods. The seer Amenophis (bearing the same name as the king) recognized this. He predicted that the lepers and those associated with them would rule Egypt for 13 years. He then took his own life. At their request, the lepers were then settled in the abandoned Hyksos city of Avaris. 239 There, they made a priest from Heliopolis by the name of Osarsiph their leader and they swore unconditional allegiance to him. He was named after the God Osiris, but then he changed his name to Moses. He commanded the lepers to slaughter the animals that were deemed holy by the Egyptians as well as all others, and he forbade them to marry outside their own group. Further, he decreed a series of laws that completely contradicted Egyptian laws. He then fortified the city of Avaris and armed it for battle against the king. In so doing, he allied himself with the Hyksos in Jerusalem, who had already been driven from Egypt, and they sent 200,000 men to help him. Amenophis sent his son, Ramesses, who had just turned 15 to Ethiopia in secret, and then he confronted the rebels with an army of 300,000 men. He did not dare to go into battle, remembering the prophecy of the seer Amenophis, but he went to Memphis, and then he himself retreated to Ethiopia. Thus, Egypt was given into the hands of the rebellious lepers and the Hyksos, who rampaged for 13 years and destroyed everything that was holy to the Egyptians. Later, Amenophis returned to Egypt with his son and drove the rebels to the border of Syria.

In the version cited by Josephus, Manetho’s report is fashioned in anti-Jewish terms, but the substance of it is comparable to the text of Hecataeus of Abdera. 240 Israel arose in Egypt and received its religious and political ordinances from Moses. There is not a single word about the patriarchs. What is notable, however, is the alliance between the rebellious lepers and the Hyksos in Jerusalem. In its own way, this reproduces the biblical connection of the ancestors in the land with Israel in Egypt. An important difference from Hecataeus is that Osarsiph/Moses is an Egyptian in Manetho, whereas in Hecataeus he is a foreigner. Moreover, the Israelites in Manetho were originally leprous Egyptians, but in Hecataeus they were foreigners in Egypt. Assmann has shown that the exodus narrative in Manethos essentially processes an innerEgyptian trauma in the Amarna period (the reported cultic misdeeds of Osarsiph/Moses committed by Echnaton) related to memories of the Hyksos period.241 Therefore, it is only logical, and in fact quite an appropriate idea that the Israelites of the time, according to Manetho, were Egyptians. In one way, Manetho’s presentation marks the starting point 238. This sounds remarkably similar to the use of har “to see,” as the leading motif in Exodus 3– 4, and 33 (see §3.2.2). 239. On Auaris/Avaris as the capital city of the Hyksos, see Redford and Weinstein, ABD 3:341. The Hyksos are called “shepherds” by Manetho, as explained by Josephus in Ag. Ap. 1.91 (Stern, Authors, 68–69). Catastini (Hen 17 [1995]: 279–300) considers whether the Joseph story might have influenced Manetho: “Osarsiph” might correspond to “Joseph,” and the term “shepherds” recalls the profession of Joseph’s brothers. 240. One can accept the view that Josephus did not read the original text of Manetho but another version that had been reworked in an anti-Jewish manner. See I. Heinemann, PRE Supplement 5 26– 27; Walter, JSHRZ 1/2 125 n. 20. 241. Assmann, Ägypten, 256–57, 441.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 324 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

324

Chapter 4. Repercussions

of anti-Semitism. 242 However, its background has considerably more to do with Egyptian history than with Jewish history.

c. Lysimachus of Alexandria In Josephus, there are additional narrative variations in the report of Manetho. 243 In particular, we should mention the reference to Lysimachus of Alexandria, as well as to Apion, the chief opponent of Josephus. Lysimachus contends that the Israelites consisted of the lepers and the sick who were begging in Egyptian temples. In the time of King Bokchoris, and by command of the god Amon, some of the lepers were drowned in the sea and some were driven into the wilderness. The latter group, under the leadership of Moses, succeeded in finding their way to Judah, and there they founded the city of Jerusalem. Like Manetho, Lysimachus located the origins of Israel entirely in Egypt. Note, in particular, that Lysimachus uses not only the exodus negatively but also the events at the Sea of Reeds and in the wilderness. The sick and the lepers who are driven out are not saved at the Sea of Reeds and the wilderness but meet their destruction there. d. Apion Apion was a Greek teacher of Egyptian origin who worked in Rome, like Josephus, and he is the man at whom the work Against Apion by Josephus was specifically directed. Similarly to Manetho, Apion knows the version of the exodus that claims that Moses was a priest from Heliopolis who led 110,000 lepers, lame, blind, and others who were sick to Judea in six days. 244 Apion appears to know several remarkable details. First, he ascribes to Moses the invention of the sundial. 245 Second, he knows about Moses’ 40-day stay on Mount Sinai and his receipt of the law. 246 Interestingly, Apion dates the exodus very late, specifically, in the first year of the seventh olympiad, meaning 752 b.c.e. 247 Apion says no more about the ancestors than Manetho or Lysimachus. e. Berossus Berossus was a Babylonian priest of Bel who lived in the time of Antiochus I (281/80–262/61 b.c.e.). In his history of Babylon extending from creation to his own time (summarized in particular by Josephus), 248 Berossus narrates the flood and Noah’s salvation. He then apparently offers a genealogy from Noah to the Babylonian king Nabopolassar (625–605 b.c.e.). It appears that Berossus com242. See de Lange and Thoma, TRE 3:116–17. 243. Ag. Ap. 1.304–411 (see Stern, Authors, 382–88; A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament, 403–4). 244. Ag. Ap. 2.20 (see Stern, Authors, 395–96; A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament, 404). 245. Ag. Ap. 2.11 (see Stern, Authors, 393–94). 246. Ag. Ap. 2.25 (see Stern, Authors, 396–97). 247. Ag. Ap. 2.17 (see Stern, Authors, 395–96; A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament, 404). 248. Ag. Ap. 1.130–41 (see Stern, Authors, 55–59). The entire ancient witnesses of Berossus is compiled in Verbrugghe and Wickersham, Berossus, 35–91. On Berossus, see Schnabel, Berossus; Burstein, Babyloniaca; Kuhrt, “Berossus’ Babyloniaka,” 33–36; Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 342; Verbrugghe and Wickersham, Berossus, 13–34.

spread is 12 points long

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 325 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Later Receptions

325

bined different sources and authored his history based on these sources with the goal of contrasting and refuting the history of Ctesias from an indigenous perspective. If Josephus is correct that Berossus explicitly mentions Noah as the hero of the flood account, then perhaps he knew the texts of the Hebrew Bible. 249 However, the work of Berossus during the time of Nabopolassar consisted only of genealogies and dates, and he never mentions the history of Israel in the preexilic period. Nevertheless, his citation of the biblical flood story shows that this presentation enjoyed esteem in Mesopotamia outside the local Jewish community. We cannot deduce what else Berossus knew of the Hebrew Bible. The absence of allusions to the ancestors or the exodus story in Berossus can be explained by his decision to present the history of Babylon, for which the story of the history of Israel from Genesis 12 forward would have been uninteresting. Even if Berossus did have access to Genesis–2 Kings, we would not expect him to have recounted material outside Genesis 1–11. f. Summary The preceding overview (distinguishing between Jewish [or Samaritan] and non-Jewish authors) shows clearly an absence of reference to the patriarchs among non-Jewish authors. The dual origin of Israel in the ancestors and the exodus was hardly known outside Judaism. Thus the fundamental, conceptual independence of the ancestor story from the Moses/exodus story is again recognizable. Despite all the differences in detail, in the Hellenistic period a relatively unified image of the origin of Israel in Egypt was circulating, a story of origins that emerged without the entry (Eisodos) story. The various non-Jewish reports thus agree in setting the origin of Israel in Egypt and in seeing Moses (frequently defined as having originally been an Egyptian priest) as the man who established a religion, founded a state, and gave the law. 250 If one probes deeper than I have here, several small reminiscences from Genesis can be detected. Sometimes Moses can be traced back to Abraham, in that Joseph is defined as the grandfather of Moses—meaning that Abraham was his great-great-grandfather.251 However, Abraham remains considerably less significant than in the biblical interpretation, and the decisive becoming of a nation, and thus the founding of Israel, essentially falls to the Mosaic period. 252 Geographically, the origin of Israel is situated in Egypt.

Unfortunately, one cannot deduce from Berossus the extent to which this image (which was obviously common in Palestine, Egypt, and Greece) was known in Babylon as well. 249. Apparently, Berossus names the Armenian Mountains as the place where the ark landed (Ag. Ap. 1:131). See Gen 8:4 (frra) and discussion about this in HALOT 1:91. 250. There are also isolated narratives that report the origin of the Jews as being Crete, Ethiopia, or Assyria (see Heinemann, PRE 31:361, 359–75) or that do not connect Moses with Egypt (Heinemann, PRE 31:362). 251. As in Apollonius Molon (see Stern, Authors, 150; Siker, JSJ 18 [1987]: 197). 252. See Siker, ibid.; see the examples in 197–201.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 326 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

326

Chapter 4. Repercussions

If one compares the Jewish reports of Artapanus, Pseudo-Eupolemus, and Pseudo-Hecataeus II with the non-Jewish authors Hecataeus, Lysimachus, Manetho, Apion, and Berossus, a completely different image emerges. For the Jewish writers, the ancestors (especially Abraham) play an essential role. Abraham also appears with the Roman Moses of Artapanus. Thus from the standpoint of proJewish apologetics in intercultural engagements with Hellenism, it was helpful to draw on Abraham. Jewish historians such as Artapanus, Pseudo-Eupolemus, and Pseudo-Hecataeus II, when engaging other cultures are thus oriented to decide the question of the prΩtoÍ euJ revthÍ in favor of Jewish entities. The sage wisdom of Egypt, to which Greek philosophers are indebted, did not originate with the Egyptians themselves. Rather, it is presented as having been imported through the ancestors of Israel, who (contrary to the non-Jewish historians) neither lived originally in Egypt nor were themselves Egyptians. Rather, borrowing from Gen 12:10–20, they say that it was Abraham, the ancestor of the Jews, who taught Egypt its wisdom and its arts. 4.2.12. Acts 7 The speech of Stephen in Acts 7 is not only the longest speech in Acts, it is also the most extensive presentation of the history of Israel in the New Testament. 253 It offers an outline of history 254 that incorporates Abraham (7:2–8), Isaac and Jacob (7:8), the events of the story of Joseph (7:9–16), Israel’s becoming a people, its oppression, and the infanticide (7:17–19), the birth and call of Moses (7:20–35), his rejection (7:27, 35, 39, 41), his leading the Israelites out of Egypt (7:36–37), the giving of the law on Sinai (7:38) along with the affair of the golden calf (7:39–43), the tabernacle (7:44), the conquest (7:45), the period up to David and Solomon (7:46–50), and the temple construction, which Stephen represents as false worship by Israel.255 In the concluding statement, he argues that Israel has always been disobedient and has killed all the prophets, including recently killing the “righteous one,” who was announced by them (7:51–53).

Basically, the theme of Acts 7 is determined by the concluding statement (7:51–53): “Israel’s consistent rebellion against God.” 256 On closer inspection, however, we notice a fundamental dividing line within the history of Israel recited in Acts 7. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still depicted idealistically. Only with the twelve patriarchs, as the twelve sons of Jacob are termed, and the circumstances of the Joseph story does the judgment history of Israel begin (7:9). This judgment history, largely characterized along the lines of the Deuteronomistic History, con253. Bibliographical references on this topic appear in Stemberger, “Stephanusrede,” 230 n. 2; Pesch, EKKNT 5/1 241–42. For recent monographs, see Légasse, Stephanos; Jeska, Geschichte. For a source-critical treatment of Acts 7, see Steck, Israel, 266 n. 6 (older material is mentioned there); Stemberger, “Stephanusrede,” 245–47; Weiser, ÖTK 5/1 180–82. For the motif in Acts 7:22, see Hilhorst, Festschrift Luttikhuizen. 254. On the differences in details when compared with the Hebrew Bible’s presentation, see Stemberger, “Stephanusrede,” 230–45. See also the material in Str-B 2:666–84. 255. See Roloff, NTD 5 124. 256. Ibid., 118; discussed in Pesch, EKKNT 5/1 245.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 327 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Later Receptions

327

tains a certain bias. 257 Israel is placed in contrast to individuals ( Joseph and Moses) within the community (7:9, 26, 39–42), and Joseph and Moses are assisted by God (7:10, 35). In effect, Israel places itself in opposition to God. The fact that the speech uses the most space for Joseph and Moses suggests that their rejection by Israel was, according to Acts 7, seen as a prototype for their rejection of Jesus. 258 Jesus was killed (7:52–53) like the prophets who proclaimed him. For my discussion, the fundamental division in Acts 7 is noteworthy; it is a division between the three ancestors and the subsequent circumstances of the Joseph story that are characterized as being Israel’s rebellion against God. “Abraham, our father” (7:2–8) 259 stands as an unbroken symbol of the unity of Israel, to which Stephen appeals. Stephen also speaks of “our fathers” (7:2, 11–12, 19, 39, 44–46) in his historical outline, but in the closing passage (7:51–53), which describes the killing of Jesus, he changes to the formulation “your fathers.” Thus, the division between Jews and Christians is complete, but the call to the common father, Abraham, remains. Consequently, even Acts 7 distinguishes theologically between the ancestors of Israel and the history of Israel’s exodus (where, interestingly, the Joseph story is treated as the prelude to the exodus). Acts 7 evaluates the first story positively and the second story negatively. In the New Testament, Acts 7 is not alone in this conceptualization of Abraham. The New Testament writings relatively consistently reclaimed the election of Abraham for early Christianity. 260 A corresponding reception of Moses, the founder of Israel’s religion and its law, was not possible or was possible only with certain reinterpretations.261 The New Testament thus separated the two interwoven traditions of Israel that had predominated since the development of the Pentateuch, by favoring the Abraham tradition (understood in spiritualized and expanded terms). 262 The Moses tradition, conversely, is either evaluated negatively, as in Acts 7, or its validity is limited chronologically only up to the appearance of Jesus, who now appears in Moses’ place (for example, see the antitheses 257. See Steck, Israel, 266–67, with n. 9. 258. See Roloff, NTD 5 121; Siffer-Wiederhold, “Joseph.” 259. Römer points out that in the New Testament, apart from the quotation of Exod 3:6 in Mark 12:8 (and parallels), one finds the phrase “God of the fathers” exclusively in Acts (3:13; 5:30; 7:32; 22:14) in the mission sermons addressed to the Jews (Römer, Väter, 350 n. 391). On the reception of Abraham and Moses in the Koran, see Clark, Festschrift Coats. 260. On the controversy between Wilckens and Klein on the Pauline image of Abraham (in Wilckens, Festschrift von Rad; idem, EvT 24 [1964]: 586–610; Klein, EvT 23 [1963]: 424–47), see Berger TRE 1:374–75 and also Wilckens again in EKKNT 6/1 280–85. Baumbach presents a historical overview of the Abrahamic interpretations in the New Testament (Baumbach, ThV 16 [1986]: 37–56). 261. See Saito, Mosevorstellungen, 135–36. 262. In early Christianity, the idea that Israel was a child of Abraham was not generally contested (Matt 8:11; Mark 12:26 [and parallels]; Luke 16:22ff.; 19:9, etc). However, there were sometimes considered to be stipulations (see John 8:33–34; Matt 3:9 [and parallels]). Paul goes so far as to speak “also of those who do not descend from Abraham as being children of Abraham” (Berger, TRE 1:380). Despite the high esteem for Abraham in the New Testament, there are also critical and limiting ideas: Jesus is over Abraham ( John 8:52–59); Abraham cannot save his children from Hades (Luke 16:26); and even the installation of Peter as a rock (Matt 16:18) may have been directed critically against a tradition of Abraham as rock of Isa 51:1 (see Str-B 1:733; Luz, EKKNT 1/2 462; J. Jeremias, TDNT 1:9 n. 7).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 328 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

328

Chapter 4. Repercussions

in the Sermon on the Mount: Mark 10:1–12; 14:24; John 1:17; Acts 3:22–23; 7:37; Heb 3:1–6; 11:26). 263

4.3. Summary In its own way, the received history of Israel presented in Genesis–2 Kings mirrors the noteworthy break between the ancestors and Exodus in the Hebrew Bible itself. If we pay attention to the individual decisions regarding the origin of Israel in these writings and texts, then we find two paradigms (among other perspectives) that are clearly prominent. These can be described as conceptions oriented around (1) the ancestors and (2) the exodus. There are bodies of texts in, alongside, and after the Hebrew Bible that pick up on the familiar image of the history of Israel from the existing context of the historical books along with the presentation in Genesis. They see the formative beginning consisting of the patriarchs of Genesis with the promises to them or the covenants made with them. Alongside these, however, appears a series of literary documents in which the figures and circumstances of the ancestors play no role, or virtually no role, in the presentation of the history of Israel. Instead, Israel is Israel essentially from Egypt onward. The divine promises in these texts are not the theological foundation of Israel at the beginning of its history. Rather the leading of the people out of Egypt and the law given on Sinai serve as the theological foundation. These alternatives, ancestors or exodus, naturally do not yet constitute the full range of variety available for reception into the canon. We can also observe (3) mixed or alternative concepts, which quite obviously (specifically with texts described as apocalyptic, such as the Animal Apocalypse and the Apocalypse of Weeks) reach back beyond the origins of the national history. These consider the onset of the Primeval Story to be the only formative traditions of origins. It is noteworthy in any case that the reception of these works was highly selective and concentrated on specific lines of thought within the source material. The perspectives of the history of Israel developed in the narrative books of the Hebrew Bible were not used in their entirety. Rather, as a rule, one particular line was picked up and treated. 264 4.3.1. Conceptions Oriented toward the Ancestors Israel’s authoritative time of origin was considered to be in the ancestral period above all by Chronicles and Psalm 105. This is also the position of P and Second 263. See the discussion in the monograph of Saito, Mosevorstellungen; Sänger, TRE 23:342–46; and Sänger, KD 41 (1996): 112–36; TDNT 4:867–73. 264. The text of Nehemiah 9 provides a certain exception with its orientation so closely related to its source in Genesis–2 Kings. However, by bringing out the conquest in 9:8 over against 9:22–25 this text clearly emphasizes the dual nature of Israel’s founding in its land by presenting the promise to the ancestors on the one side and the exodus events on the other.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 329 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Summary

329

Isaiah (see §3.5.4), which chronologically precede the combination of Genesis and Exodus. In addition, note Sirach, Acts 7, and a series of Abrahamic interpretations in the New Testament. Other indicators that the beginning point of the history of Israel was Abraham are the introduction of Abraham as prΩtoÍ euJ revthÍ in Pseudo-Eupolemus and Pseudo-Hecataeus II and, with limitations, Artapanus. To use catchwords, one can confirm that it was apparently because of “theocratically” 265 oriented objections that P and Chronicles did not think that the formative foundation of Israel harked back to the time of Moses, Exodus, and Sinai and its regulations. Rather, they preferred the Abrahamic Covenant (P) or the epoch of David and Solomon (Chronicles) attached immediately following the ancestral period (thus the unique perspective of Chronicles, as already shown above). It is not that the epoch of the Moses generation had lost its significance in these concepts (the cult was founded in this epoch) but precisely because the cult had such imminent significance that Israel had to be founded theologically in a way that its existence would not be endangered by cult that was not practiced properly. Therefore, these conceptions activate the promise theology and the covenant theology of Genesis as the theological foundation of Israel. Israel stands under the covenant of Abraham, who guaranteed its existence and who is even relevant to the nations in Sirach and in the New Testament. With the perspective slanted toward the ancestors, a close but characteristic connection to the land of Israel inheres along with a theocratic orientation. The land promised to Israel, in which it lives or wants to live appears at the beginning of its history. It also represents its theological aim. Thus the situation of the patriarchs as “foreigners” in the land of Canaan, as P describes it, in a certain sense reflects the political relationship of the present time of the author. Although Israel, to be sure, lived in its own land during the Persian period, it lived under foreign rule. 266 This political form of organization is presupposed in Chronicles and in Psalm 105, as well as in P and Second Isaiah, but it is evaluated in completely positive terms. Through the Persians, Yhwh rules the world and thus Israel as well. For a concept such as this, which is loyal to the authorities, the ancestor stories will have a supporting and foundational function when considered in their fictive context: politically, they will be conciliatory to their neighbors and their rulers. The reactivating of the patriarchs in P, Second Isaiah, Chronicles, and Psalm 105 is not a unique phenomenon. Rather, it is integrated into a strand of theological thought, one that would shape the biblical production of literature in the 265. See the classic work of Plöger, Theokratie; Steck, EvT 28 (1968): 457–58 (with differentiations; see also Crüsemann, Israel; Kratz, Translatio, 281–86; Schmid, Literaturgeschichte, 144–46). Dörrfuss recently offered an extensive history of the problem of the concept of theocracy in the field of Hebrew Bible (Dörrfuss, Mose, 3–118). 266. For the problem of P that apparently arose in Babylon and the interests of the Golah that it represents, the state of affairs is complicated further by the fact that P does not describe the ancestor Abraham as an indigenous figure (see especially Ezek 33:24) but has him coming from Ur of the Chaldeans (Gen 11:27–32).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 330 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

330

Chapter 4. Repercussions

Persian period, and elsewhere (for example the corpus propheticum). 267 The primary theological motif of reactivating the patriarchs is similar in the various writings. Israel’s future is decided in these concepts not based on a history of guilt but based on the unconditional promises of God, under which it has existed and lived since the beginning. From Israel’s viewpoint, these promises cannot be repudiated. The junction between salvation and observance of the law, which is an exclusively Deuteronomistic concept, is conquered in favor of an unconditional turning of God back to the promise of salvation for his people; this salvation was then also received by later redactional stages in the theological development of Deuteronomism. 268 4.3.2. Conceptions Oriented toward the Exodus The period of Moses/exodus is emphasized by the following writings and texts as the authoritative epoch of origins: Psalm 106, Baruch, Jubilees, 4QDibHam, 4 Ezra, and also ancient non-Jewish writers such as Hecataeus, Manethos, Lysimachus, and Apion. While the patriarchs of Genesis are mentioned throughout these writings, their epoch receives no formative theological relevance. It is seen only as a prelude to the special history of the founding of Israel in the period of Moses. Most notably this is accomplished in Jubilees, where the Mosaic period is lengthened by retrojecting a revelation into the previous period. The patriarchs, primeval ancestors, and even the angels in heaven are presented as followers of the law, which is known to them through the “tablets of heaven,” and they are thus “Mosaicized.” The writers of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Syriac Baruch Apocalypse (2 Baruch) similarly present the patriarchs as observant of the law, based on their natural ethical completeness or on their observance of the unwritten law. The conclusion that Jubilees reaches by a supernatural path with regard to the “tablets of heaven,” the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Syriac Baruch Apocalypse (2 Baruch) reach by their identification of Torah with natural ethics. With regard to the theological classification of texts and writings such as Psalm 106, Baruch, Jubilees, 4QDibHam, 4 Ezra, and the Syriac Baruch Apocalypse, one idea stands out clearly. The concepts are classically assigned to Deuteronomism and the group responsible for it, because they are especially interested in a high valuation of the law. The law decides the salvation or judgment, the existence or nonexistence of Israel. In Baruch, the ancestor story is clearly limited to introducing the law as a possible salvific future for Israel (4:1–2). Baruch (like 4 Ezra, two hundred years later) stresses the opposite of the ancestor tradition: only by obedience 267. See the discussion in C. Jeremias, Festschrift Zimmerli; Hardmeier, WD 16 (1981): 27–47; Odashima, Heilsworte, 300; K. Schmid, Buchgestalten, 115–16. See the overview in Albertz, History, 2:404–6. 268. In my opinion, the conceptual connection, and perhaps the original literary connection of Second Isaiah to Jeremiah, plays a decisive role for the development of the so-called Deuteronomistic image of history (see the discussion in Steck, Israel, 122–24, 141–42). See the specific treatment in Kratz, ZAW 106 (1994): 243–61; and my Buchgestalten, 311–19.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 331 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Summary

331

to the law will Israel exist. The emphasis on the law is common to Baruch and Sirach. However, Sirach’s universalizing interpretation of the law is intertwined with a corresponding expansion of the Moses figure (see Sir 45:1) and a minimizing of the exodus theme in favor of the ancestors. It is thus no accident that the classic “Deuteronomistic image of history” does not appear in Sirach. 269 The theme of land forms a common denominator for those conceptions slanted toward the ancestors and those toward the exodus, though the content of its contour is shaped quite differently. In writings such as P, Second Isaiah, Chronicles, and Psalm 105, it is possible to find oneself existing in one’s own land under foreign rule. In fact, this existence is even theologically legitimated. This can be argued for in the exodus-oriented texts only in a very conditional form. Baruch quite clearly appears in line with the thinking of traditional and nationalistic Deuteronomism: Children [i.e., of Zion], bear patiently the wrath that has come upon you from God! Your enemy has overtaken you, but you will soon see their destruction and will tread upon their necks. (Bar 4:25; see also 4:31–33) 270

Abraham’s farewell speech in Jub. 23:30 views the end time similarly. And God will heal his servants, and they will raise themselves up, and will see a deep peace. And they expel their enemies. And the righteous will behold, and will be thankful, and will rejoice into all eternity. And they will see fulfilled their judgment and their curse on their enemies.

4 Ezra has also not given up hope for national restoration according to the Zion vision in 9:26–10:59; the messianic statements that concentrate on the salvation of the individual cannot be part of the final purpose of the divine plan for Israel. Rather, in the opinion of these passages, the history of Israel progresses toward a renewed, sovereign existence in the people’s own state. Only in this sense can the massive enemy statements in these texts be explained. At the end of this image of history, we do not find the inclusive incorporation of all the nations but just the opposite: we find their exclusion. 4.3.3. Mediated and Alternative Positions With regard to determining the origins of Israel, perhaps a third way appears between the ancestor-oriented positions and the exodus-oriented ones. It is unlikely that in the Second Temple period there were only exclusively Priestly or exclusively Deuteronomistic positions. Rather, we find a series of mediating and different solutions, such as in the existing form of Genesis–2 Kings as a whole. 271 Typical mixed positions can be seen in Nehemiah 9, the juxtaposing of Psalm 105

269. See Steck, Israel, 146–47. 270. Translation based on idem, Baruchbuch, 166. 271. On the character of the Torah as a compromise and on the religio-political background, see §3.6.5 (pp. 271ff.).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 332 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

332

Chapter 4. Repercussions

and 106 in the Psalter, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. These texts do not choose between the ancestors or the Moses epoch. Rather, they place the promises and the law alongside one another. We can observe, however, that the pendulum tends to swing either to one side or the other. Nehemiah 9, seen as a whole, negates the emphasis on the already fulfilled promises of the conquest under Joshua (“Yhwh is righteous”). Instead, it prefers an exodus-oriented conception, although it is overarched by the covenant of God with Israel (9:32). The ensemble of Psalms 105 and 106, however, ultimately leans in the direction of the patriarchal covenant (Pss 105:9, 42; 106:45). Similar things could be said of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, as seen in the selection of the main persons. Apocalyptic texts such as the Animal Apocalypse and the Apocalypse of Weeks go in yet another direction (here we should also mention the outline of history presented by Ezra in 4 Ezra 3). These texts see a foundation neither in the ancestral period nor the Mosaic period. Nor do they present a “mixed” view. Rather, they relocate the authoritative date of the origin of Israel back to the primeval story, which is then universalized. What goes for humanity as a whole is valid for Israel and vice versa. The people of Israel have no theological quality by virtue of being a people. Rather, the focus is on the individual and the individual’s behavior. The concept of Sir 51:12a–o is unique. It presents the time of the postexilic restoration as the authoritative, foundational epoch of Israel. As in Chronicles, the foundational period of Israel is not projected back into the primeval story but is transposed to a setting after Israel attains statehood. The fact that Sir 51:12a–o remained a special case is perhaps due to its minimal temporal distance between the foundational epoch and the time of the author. 4.3.4. The Themes of the Ancestors and Exodus as Diverse, Fundamental, Theological Arguments The late Hebrew Bible and postbiblical receptions of the image of history in Genesis–2 Kings allow us to recognize a fundamental theological alternative between the themes of the ancestors and the exodus for determining the theologically significant origins of Israel. Is the decisive event of Israel’s origins based on the ancestors and the promises given to them or on the covenant made with Israel or on the leading of the Israelites out of Egypt? Neither the Hebrew Bible itself nor the ancient receptions that followed and used it provide a clear answer. Rather, at this point, the received texts reflected the Hebrew Bible itself, which provides a theologically ambiguous relationship between the two foundings of Israel’s origins in Genesis and Exodus. In later texts and books, which without exception already presuppose the flow of Genesis–Exodus (and following), as shown above, the original differences between Genesis and Exodus continue to be exploited. The Moses/Exodus story is Israel’s myth of origins for the thinking biased toward the law as the entity with which Israel must stand or fall. Thus, the patriarchs of Genesis should not be si-

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 333 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Summary

333

lenced, but the promises given to them must be subordinated theologically to obedience to the law. When Israel’s existence is fundamentally guaranteed by the promises given to the ancestors, then they are weighted differently. The epochs of the exodus from Egypt and the conquest are only the fulfillment of what was promised to the ancestors. It looks like this: the ancestors and the exodus not only mark two sequential stations for the beginnings of Israel’s history (as the Bible reports), they also stand for two different theological perspectives showing how Israel interpreted its bond with God. One could still call on each of these contrasting perspectives in the late period of the Hebrew Bible and subsequently—long after Genesis and Exodus (and following) had been joined together literarily.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 334 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Chapter 5

Conclusion Position in the History of Research

5.1. Summary Proceeding from observations about the narrative flow between Genesis and Exodus and the question that has arisen again in recent discussions about the relationship between the ancestors and the exodus (§1), this work has found evidence of only a very loose literary (§2.1) or even conceptual (§2.2) connection between the themes of the ancestors and the exodus. The tradition complex of the ancestor story on the one hand (§2.3) and that of the Moses/exodus story on the other hand (§2.4) were originally independent traditions of Israel’s origins. They were first joined together (§3.1) by a redaction that occurred chronologically after P (or perhaps while incorporating P [§3.4]). Apart from the passages that created direct links (Gen 50:25–26; Exodus 1), the most important texts that establish and reflect this connection are in Genesis 15; Exodus 3–4; and Joshua 24 (§§3.2–4). All of these show in miniature the Hexateuch’s view of history. This view of history arose on a grand scale when Exodus (and following) was prefaced with Genesis, but it was meant to be understood within the framework of Genesis–2 Kings (in fact, in connection with Genesis–2 Kings and the corpus propheticum). To a great extent, the protagonists in these three texts (Abraham, Moses, and Joshua) are characterized as prophets and are portentous of the “latter prophets.” The origin of Israel understood within Genesis–2 Kings as the ancestors and the exodus can still be recognized in the New Testament and intertestamental writings (§4). We see in these writings that the particular slant of each later text favors either the promise theology of the ancestor story, the legal theology of the Moses/exodus story, or a mixture of both. The outline of a hexateuchal salvation history that the historical books of the Hebrew Bible present is thus the result of a late combination of the two most important, originally competing traditions of the origins of Israel, the ancestor story and the Moses/exodus story. Thus this complex should not be dated at the beginning of the historicizing process, as has been widely accepted ever since von Rad, 1 1. See above, §1.2.2.a (pp. 7ff.).

334

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 335 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Models for the History of the Literary Development of Genesis–2 Kings

335

or to go further, “It has been widely accepted since J. Wellhausen that the fundamental outline of the pentateuchal narrative arose before the Priestly Writing.” 2 In my opinion, this idea, so broadly accepted among scholars should be modified. Perhaps there were comprehensive presentations of history before P, but one cannot confirm that the ancestor complex and the Moses/exodus complex were already connected literarily or conceptually before P. 3 Rather, for the connection between the ancestors and the exodus, it appears that the non-Priestly transmission was inspired by P (which was itself inspired by a loose connection of the two themes in Second Isaiah) to formulate the flow from the ancestors to the exodus. 4 How should this late dating of the redactional combination of the ancestor story and the exodus story be situated within the discussion of research on Genesis– 2 Kings?

5.2. Models for the History of the Literary Development of Genesis–2 Kings 5.2.1. The Source Theory Hebrew Bible research in the 20th century generally answered the question of the development of Genesis–2 Kings 5 with the simple formula J + E + D + P (where D is conceived as not only Deuteronomy but also the Deuteronomistic History of Deuteronomy–2 Kings as a whole). Four sources ( J, E, D, P) were edited together by three redactors (Rje, Rd(tr), and Rp ), 6 the redactor who united JE 2. Zenger, Einleitung AT, 108. 3. On Second Isaiah, see §3.5.4.a above. The problem of the primeval story is difficult to decide. The conceptual divergence between Josh 24:2 and Gen 11:27–32 suggests that the connection of the primeval story to the ancestor story was not accomplished simultaneously with the connection of the ancestor story to the Moses/exodus story. On the other hand, Genesis 15 (see §3.2.1 above) specifically appears to presuppose a primeval period. See the discussion of the problem in §2.5 above. 4. See de Pury, VTSup 43 (1991), 78–96; Römer, Väter, 574–75. On Römer’s acceptance of an “assimilation of the national piety by the Priestly theology,” see Cazelles, Comm 16 (1987): 394–95. 5. One must largely distinguish in overviews of the history of scholarship for Genesis–2 Kings between the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History. On older outlines that, prior to Noth, reckoned with historical works encompassing Genesis–Samuel/Kings, see especially Jenni, TRu 27 (1961): 1–32, 97–146. For a monograph on Genesis–Deuteronomy, see Houtman, Pentateuch. See also Van Seters, JAOS 99 (1979): 663–73; Zenger, BZ 24 (1980): 101–16; idem, TRev 78 (1982): 353–62; Gunneweg, TRu 48 (1983): 227–53; idem, TRu 50 (1985): 107–31; Cryer, BN 29 (1985): 58–74; Whybray, Making, 17–219; W. H. Schmidt, Einleitung und Theologie, 23–38; de Pury and Römer, “Pentateuque” (see discussion in Seebass, TRev 88 [1992]: 178–81); Haudebert, Pentateuque; Levin, Jahwist, 9–35; Seidel, ZAW 106 (1994): 476–85; L. Schmidt, VF 40 (1995): 3–28; idem, “Pentateuch”; Otto, VF 22 (1977): 82–98; idem, TRu 60 (1995): 163–91; idem, TRu 61 (1996): 332–41; D. L. Petersen, Festschrift Tucker, 31–41; Moberly, Old Testament, 176–202; Ska, Bib 77 (1996): 245– 65; Seebass, TRE 26:185–209; K. Grünwaldt, in Seebass, Genesis, 1:14–32; Wynn-Williams, State. See also the essays mentioned in Blum, Pentateuch, 1 n. 1; and Ska, Bib 77 (1996): 248 n. 10. Older works include: Holzinger, Hexateuch, 25–70. For Deuteronomy/Joshua, see Jenni, TRu 27 (1961): 1– 32, 97–146; Radjawane, TRu 38 (1974): 177–216; Weippert, TRu 50 (1985): 213–49; Preuss, TRu 58 (1993): 229–64, 341–95; Römer and de Pury, “Historiographie”; van Keulen, Manasseh, 4–52; Noort, EdF 292 (1998), 36–42. 6. Nomenclature according to W. H. Schmidt, Einführung, 47–48; Zenger, Einleitung AT, 68–69.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 336 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

336

Chapter 5. Conclusion

and D essentially limited himself to replacing JE’s old presentation of the conquest account with Numbers connected to the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy–2 Kings). Thus, the first redaction to arise was an extensive historical work, consisting of Genesis 2 through 2 Kings 25, formed from JE and the Deuteronomistic History. In another step, this work was completed in its current form, Genesis 1–2 Kings 25, by the incorporation of P. Scholars did not therefore reckon with redactional layers extending throughout Genesis–2 Kings as a whole because, on the one hand, J, E, and P were generally not traced past Joshua, and on the other hand, D or Deuteronomistic elements in Genesis–Numbers were either debated or perceived as being only isolated additions. 7 Along with the primary sequence of J + E + D + P, scholars occasionally also considered the variant J + E + P + D. In particular, Noth and Kaiser8 argued for the latter on the basis of the literary finding that Deuteronomy 34 (which is D and not, as expected, P) forms the foundational text. Both Noth and Kaiser consider the end of P to be this chapter. They argue that JE was first joined with P and after that with D.9 Regardless of whether one accepts the sequence J + E + D + P, or J + E + P + D, various explanations exist to explain why J 10 and E are only present in the Tetrateuch. If JE + D were combined before the incorporation of P, then the D presentation of the conquest in Joshua forms a kind of substitute for the original conclusion of JE that must no longer be extant. If we proceed from the idea that JE was first combined with P, which extended to the death of Moses (Deuteronomy 34), then the original ending of JE must be lost without having been replaced. Both explanations are problematic because they must account for extensive text loss. Largely because of this problem, Rose and Van Seters, but also Blum maintain that one should abandon the theory of a literarily independent Tetrateuch. For them, Genesis– Numbers should be considered a secondary extension of Deuteronomy–2 Kings from Moses back to creation.

5.2.2. Current Positions The classic image of the development of Genesis–2 Kings that originated in pentateuchal studies, using the source theory, has by no means been completely abandoned in the current discussion. 11 There are primarily two constants that have 7. Thus, Noth proceeded from the idea that, “In the books of Genesis–Numbers, . . . it is generally recognized that there is no trace of a ‘Deuteronomistic redaction.’ ” Thus, it follows that “the books of Genesis–Numbers, or their older pre-Priestly form, could not have belonged to the work of the ‘Deuteronomist’ ” (Noth, DH, 13). He concedes the existence of individual insertions “in the Deuteronomistic style,” which, however, “no one believes to be a sign of a thoroughgoing ‘redaction’ ” (ibid., 13 n. 1). Seebass recently expressed similar ideas: that in Genesis and Numbers “only a very few really Deuteronomistic notes” have been discovered, and that only in Exodus does one find “massive Deuteronomistic revisions” (Seebass, TRE 26:186). See also Davies, Festschrift Brekelmans, 407–20. 8. Noth, CH, 143–47; Kaiser, Theologie AT, 1:159; idem, Grundriss, 1:51, 55. 9. See the comparison of models in Zenger, Einleitung AT, 69. See also the discussion of the problem in García López, Festschrift Labuschagne, 47–61. 10. For example, Steck, “Kanon,” 15–16 n. 16. For other, more far-reaching determinations of J, see the synopsis of research in Köckert, ThV 14 (1985): 44–45. 11. See Gunneweg, TRu 48 (1983): 227; Seebass, EvT 37 (1977): 210–29; idem, TRE 26:185–209; idem, Genesis, vol. 1; W. H. Schmidt, BKAT 2/1; idem, BZ 25 (1981): 82–102; idem, EdF 191 (1983); idem, “Einleitung und Theologie,” 37; idem, “Erwägungen”; Berge, Zeit; Kohata, Jahwist; Klein, ABD

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 337 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Models for the History of the Literary Development of Genesis–2 Kings

337

also been retained by alternative models. P has remained largely undisputed, even though several uncertainties obtain. 12 Along with the question of the distinction between Pg and Ps (and their delimitation), scholars primarily discuss whether P was originally an independent source document or a redactional layer. Nevertheless, because of the specific linguistic shaping and the clear theological concept of P, at least in Genesis–Exodus, the identification and historical classification of P remain relatively problem free and continue to be agreed upon by many scholars. 13 Furthermore, many researchers continue to accept the notion of a Deuteronomistic History consisting of Deuteronomy–2 Kings. It is considered, perhaps even more clearly than P, a constant in attempts to explain the literary development of Genesis–2 Kings. 14 Questions about the Deuteronomistic History relate almost exclusively to its internal differentiation. The parameters of Deuteronomy–2 Kings is rarely treated as a problem.15 The traditional thesis of Noth that the Deuteronomistic History is the work of “one man” still finds proponents today. 16 More commonly, however, the contents of Deuteronomy– 2 Kings are distinguished redactionally. This is true whether one differentiates based on the Göttingen model (which distinguishes three strata, DtrH, DtrP, and DtrN) or based on the model introduced by F. M. Cross (who distinguishes a first edition, Dtr 1 [dated in the time of Josiah, reaching only to 2 Kings 23], from a second edition, Dtr 2 [which extends to 2 Kings 25], but he also includes a series of expansions).17 Some scholars also think that the 6:618; Friedman, ABD 6:605–22; McEvenue, ZAW 106 (1994): 375–89; L. Schmidt, VF 40 (1995): 3–28, 6; Otto, TRu 60 (1995): 163, 191; idem, VF 22 (1977): 97; Wynn-Williams, State, 247–52; Soggin, Genesis; Friedman, Who Wrote; idem, Hidden Book; idem; Commentary; idem, Bible with Sources; Propp, AB 2; Campbell and O’Brien, Sources; Collins, Introduction; see the literature in Smith, Pattern, 146 n. 13. 12. For example, see Carr, Reading, 43; Seebass, TRE 26:190. Recently, however, see Houtman, Pentateuch 395, 431 n. 20 (see also Whybray, Introduction, 26–27); see the discussion of Houtman in Otto, TRu 61 (1996): 337–41; Fischer, ZKT 117 (1995): 203–11; idem, BETL 126 (1996), 149–78. 13. See above, §1.3.3 (pp. 46ff.). 14. Just to mention one example, in one of the latest and most extensive outlines of the origin of the Pentateuch, an essay by Blum, we find only one footnote about the Deuteronomistic History. It reads: “The expansive discussion about a gradual redaction process within the ‘Deuteronomistic History’ cannot be and need not be taken up here. In the end, even conjectures about diverse layers that appeared after Noth, or the block models, were describing an entity that more or less agrees with Noth’s History. Here, we speak of that work” (Blum, Pentateuch, 109 n. 35 [see also idem, Vätergeschichte, 48 n. 12]). See the references in Lohfink, “Deutéronome,” 37; idem, “Deuteronomium und Pentateuch,” 15 n. 5; idem, Väter, 105 n. 18. On the consistency with regard to the Deuteronomistic History, see also de Pury, “Tradition patriarcale,” 259–60; Römer, ZAW 109 (1997): 2. For recent discussions, see Römer, So-Called Deuteronomistic History; Witte et al. (eds.), Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke; Schmid, Literaturgeschichte, 80–85, 120–22. 15. In this respect, see Rose, Deuteronomist, 16–19; idem, RTP 118 (1986): 224–25; Van Seters, Search, 227–48; idem, Life, 457–58, 464; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 399; idem, Pentateuch, 109 n. 35; Levin, Jahwist, 433. 16. Noth, CH, 75. Hoffmann, Reform; Van Seters, Search; idem, Or 50 (1981): 137–85; McKenzie, Trouble; idem, ABD 2:167; idem, “Royauté”; see also Albertz, Festschrift Westermann, 39–40; idem, History, 2:387–88; idem, EvT 57 (1997): 319–38; Blum, Vätergeschichte, 48 n. 12; idem, Pentateuch, 109 n. 35; Lang, NBL 2:442 (who suggests identifying D with Hilkiah [2 Kgs 22:4, 8]). 17. On the Göttingen model, see Smend, Festschrift von Rad; Dietrich, Prophetie; idem, “Histoire”; Veijola, Dynastie; idem, Königtum; Würthwein, ATD 11/2; Spieckermann, Juda; Levin, Sturz; Becker, Richterzeit; Roth, TRE 8:543–52; Ben Zvi, ZAW 103 (1991): 355–74. Van Keulen is cautious about

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 338 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

338

Chapter 5. Conclusion

‘Deuteronomistic History’ in Deuteronomy–2 Kings incorporated various smaller ‘Deuteronomistic’ collections. 18 Recently, however, voices have been raised in rejection of the thesis of a Deuteronomistic History in Genesis–2 Kings, especially because of its lack of inner coherence. 19 It has also become increasingly clear that Deuternomistic language does not always refer to Deuteronomistic theology. 20

In view of the fact that scholars have largely remained stable in their views on P and D 21 (or the Deuteronomistic History), one should currently regard the non-Priestly text material of the Tetrateuch forms as the most debated point of discussion. In recent German scholarship, alongside the works of Kaiser, L. Schmidt, and W. H. Schmidt, there are comprehensive presentations of the Pentateuch by Seebass, and Zenger, 22 who argue not only for a pre-Priestly tetrateuchal context but the Göttingen model, in Manasseh, 200–203. See also the bibliographical references in Römer and de Pury, “Historiographie,” 54–55. Some scholars offer solutions that combine ideas from Cross and Smend: O’Brien, History; Moenikes, ZAW 104 (1992): 333–48. DtrN is seen as requiring further distinctions (see Smend, Einleitung AT, 115; Kaiser, Grundriss, 1:85, 129; Lohfink, “Bewegung,” 359 with n. 15). Würthwein has spoken against the comprehensiveness of DtrH (Würthwein, “Erwägungen”). On Dtr1 and Dtr2, see Cross, “Themes”; Nelson, Double Redaction; Friedman, Exile; idem, Festschrift Cross, 167–92; idem, Festschrift Freedman, 70–80; Levenson, HTR 68 (1975): 203–33; Mayes, Story; Vanoni, BETL 73 (1985), 357–62. See also Stipp, Bib 76 (1995): 494. See the review in Römer and de Pury, “Historiographie,” 47–50. 18. See Lohfink, Festschrift Wolff, 87–100; Würthwein, “Erwägungen.” Several scholars postulate stages of expansion back in the preexilic period: Weippert, Bib 53 (1972): 301–39; Lemaire, ZAW 98 (1986): 221–36; Provan, Hezekiah; Halpern and Vanderhooft, HUCA 62 (1991): 179–244; Moenikes, ZAW 104 (1992): 333–48. See the discussion in Witte et al. (eds.), Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke; Schmid, Literaturgeschichte, 80–85. 19. Fohrer, Einleitung AT, 209–11; Mittmann, Deuteronomium 1:1–6:3, 178; Würthwein, “Erwägungen” (for DtrH); Westermann, Geschichtsbücher; Knauf, “Historiographie.” See also the references in Römer and de Pury, “Historiographie,” 85 n. 341. 20. See Lohfink, NBL 1:413–14; Schmid, Buchgestalten, 31–33; idem, Bib 78 (1997): 87–99. 21. Of the authors who contest either P (Fischer, ZKT 117 [1995]: 203–11; idem, BETL 126 (1996), 149–78; Houtman, Pentateuch, 421–55; Whybray, Introduction, 26–27) or the Deuteronomistic History (Fohrer, Einleitung AT, 209–12; Westermann, Geschichtsbücher; Knauf, “Historiographie”), none has developed an outline for the origin of Genesis–2 Kings. Fohrer presents a short sketch (Fohrer, Einleitung AT, 211–12). Knauf apparently thinks in terms of a “discourse model” (Knauf, “Historiographie,” 414 n. 18; see 411–12) in which the Pentateuch “was the result of a long theological (and political) discussion among the principle schools of the ‘loyal sacerdotal milieus regarding the Persians’ (P) and the ‘Deuteronomistic nationalists (D)’ ” (ibid., 414; see idem, NSKAT 29 175). According to Knauf, sources or layers are impossible to identify (idem, “Historiographie,” 414). Houtman is somewhat more confident with regard to our ability to reconstruct the developmental process of the basic lines of Genesis–2 Kings (Houtman, Pentateuch, 421–55), but his thoughts remain quite general. The same holds true for Westermann’s “interpretive texts” in the historical books (Westermann, Geschichtsbücher, 119–21). Whybray (Making) and Rendsburg (Redaction) propound redaction-historically minimalist positions that only consider a redactor of Genesis or the Pentateuch who created the current text by using existing material. Rendsburg situates his redactor in the Davidic and Solomonic period, while Whybray argues for the postexilic period. Arguments against these models include the fact that the interpretive texts connecting pericopes in Genesis–Deuteronomy are verbally and theologically disparate, meaning they cannot be identified as belonging to a single literary layer. 22. See, for example, Kaiser, Theologie AT; idem, Grundriss, vol. 1. A selection of L. Schmidt’s works includes: EvT 37 (1977): 230–47; Josephsgeschichte; Beobachtungen; ZAW 104 (1992): 1–27; Priesterschrift; “Pentateuch”; VF 40 (1995), 3–28. Select works by W. H. Schmidt include: BZ 25 (1981): 82–102;

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 339 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Models for the History of the Literary Development of Genesis–2 Kings

339

also for a pre-Deuteronomistic tetrateuchal context. Thus, these writers maintain the essential, fundamental convictions of the classic source model. Although Seebass still affirms an independent J and E (both of which he dates in the eighth century b.c.e.), Zenger, because of the fragmentary nature of E, hypothesizes a preexilic history (“Jerusalemite History”)—a JE counterpart that he dates to the beginning of the seventh century b.c.e. 23 We have already seen, however, that both of these suggestions are problematic (see above, §1.2.2, pp. 7ff.). Where alternatives to the Documentary Hypothesis have been formulated, they generally concern new distinctions in the classic J and E material. This is quite understandable in light of the history of scholarship, specifically because for over twenty years the problems with the early dating of J and the fragmentary character of E have been leading up to a so-called Pentateuch Crisis. 24 The new proposals are essentially unified among themselves in that they explain the coming into being of JE redaction-historically, not source-critically. The pre-Priestly composition in the Tetrateuch arose not by reworking parallel narrative threads but by the successive collection and redactional shaping of different tradition pieces and blocks. In other words, increasingly the documentary model has been expanded or even replaced by elements of a fragment or expansion model (conceived redaction-historically). 25 “Doublets” are no longer immediately evaluated as parallel strands of formerly independent sources. This pathway usually proceeded in the past by subdividing J further (see L, N, J1) or dividing P into two narrative threads. 26 Today, scholars tend to ask about redactional reinterpretations of existing text material instead. Thus, scholars are beginning to adopt a similar image of literary development for the Pentateuch as for Joshua–2 Kings. 27 An immediate consequence of this

BKAT 2/1; VTSup 43 (1991), 22–45; EdF 191 (3rd ed., 1995); Einführung AT. Seebass, TRE 26: 195–209. Zenger, Einführung AT, 34–123 (the section on pp. 76–88 comes from G. Braulik). 23. Zenger, TRE 26:194–95; idem, Einführung AT, 112–13. See the criticism of Kratz, “Hexateuch.” 24. On the fragmentary nature of E, see Van Seters, Abraham; H. H. Schmid, Jahwist; Diebner and Schult, “Argumenta”; Rendtorff, VTSup 28 (1976); idem, Pentateuch; Vorländer, Entstehungzeit; and the thematic issue of JSOT 3 (1977). To be sure, there were doubts about the propriety of the source theory earlier. For example, see Baumgartner, TRu 2 (1930): 299, 302; Winnett, JBL 84 (1965): 1– 19; and the voices quoted by Vervenne (BETL 126 [1996], 39–40 n. 58). On the catchword crisis, see Zenger, TRev 78 (1982): 355; idem, Einleitung AT, 69; Schmid, Jahwist, 9–10; idem, VTSup 32 (1981), 375–76; Gunneweg, TRu 48 (1983): 227–53; Köckert, ThV 14 (1985), 39–64; W. H. Schmidt, “Einleitung und Theologie,” 25; idem, BZ 25 (1981): 82; idem, VTSup 61 (1995), 289–314; L. Schmidt, VF 40 (1995), 27; Schmitt, ZAW 97 (1995): 161; Wenham, WBC 1 xxxv; de Pury and Römer, “Pentateuque,” 9; Seebass, TRev 88 (1992): 181; Blum, Pentateuch, 1; Albertz, History, 1:3; Utzschneider, ZAW 106 (1994): 198; Thompson, JSOT 68 (1995): 58; Bieberstein, Josua, 42–47. 25. See also Kratz, TRE 28:372. Thus, the traditional distinction between “author” and “redactor” becomes obsolete (see Kratz, TRE 28:370). 26. See Eissfeldt, Introduction, 191–99; Fohrer, Einleitung, 173–79; von Rad, Priesterschrift. 27. See Rendtorff, Problem, 168; idem, JSOT 3 (1977): 45; idem, Hen 6 (1984): 1–15; H. H. Schmid, JSOT 3 (1977): 37–38; H.-C. Schmitt, VT 32 (1982), 172–73; Blum, Pentateuch, 164–88, 213; Van Seters, Prologue, xi. In fact, it appears that newer research on the development of the Pentateuch has

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 340 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

340

Chapter 5. Conclusion

alternative model is the acceptance of post-Priestly redactional layers. They exhibit their own mixed conceptualization, often defined as Priestly-Deuteronomistic. Portions of authoritative texts, especially passages earlier deemed to belong to J, are allocated to these layers. 28 Contrary to the classical model, scholars are not satisfied with an individual compiler, known as Rp , who harmonized his source materials. 29 There is almost a new consensus 30 (at least among those who contest the Documentary Hypothesis) that the oldest compositional layer that can be seen running throughout the Tetrateuch should be dated after the Deuteronomistic History ( J for Rose and Van Seters, Kd for Blum, or D for Johnstone and Blenkinsopp). 31 decided to retrace the path from von Rad back to Gunkel. Gunkel did not trace the source writings to personalities of individual writers, or “theologians” (see the review in Rendtorff, VTSup 28 [1975], 158–66). Rather, he considered the source writings to be the product of a lengthy process of growth (see Gunkel, Genesis, lxxxiv, quoted by Rendtorff, VTSup 28 [1975], 158; see also Budde, KHC 7 xiv). Similarly to Gunkel, Holzinger considered J also to be largely without “theological accomplishment” (Holzinger, KHC 1 xvi). E was more “theologically progressive” than J (ibid., xix), but P harked back to “intensive theological work” (ibid., xxii; Holzinger’s evaluation of the source writings, however, is directly related to the degree of his own theological reflection). Of all the newer researchers, Van Seters in particular understands J to be a clearly defined writer (see Van Seters, JSOT 3 [1977]: 15–19; idem, Prologue; idem, Life; idem, Festschrift Kaiser, 219–28). 28. See the overview provided by Otto, TRu 67 (2002): 125–55, and Wenham, “Religion”; idem, WBC 1 xxxviii–xlii, 264 (for classical J texts in Genesis); Alexander, JSOT 25 (1983): 17–22 (for Genesis 22); Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch; idem, Festschrift Freedman, 1–15 (for J in Genesis 1–11); Ska, EstBib 52 (1994): 37–62; Krüger, “Herz,” 74–81; Gosse, Structuration, 104–8 (for J in Genesis *6–8); Otto, Festschrift Michel, 167–92 (for Genesis 2–3); idem, TRu 60 (1995): 179–80; idem, ZAW 107 (1995): 373–92; idem, BETL 126 (1996), 61–111 (for large parts of Exodus 3–4, 19–34; idem, TRu 62 [1997]: 1–50; idem, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch; see the reference in idem, TRu 60 [1995]: 180 to Lohfink, “Bundestheologie,” 355; see also Lohfink, “Arzt”; idem, “Schichten,” 302–12); see Otto, Deuteronomium 4, 216–22; Crüsemann, Torah, 55–57 (for the Sinai pericope); Ahuis, Exodus 11:1–13:16, 67–76, 102–26 (for parts of Exod 11:1–13:16; see also the reference on p. 10 n. 9 to E. Ruprecht); Rabe, Gerücht (for Numbers 13–14); Fabry, BETL 68 (1985), 351–56 (for Joshua 4:21ff.; see also p. 356 n. 37); Gertz, Tradition (for parts of Exodus 1–15); Kratz, Composition (for text portions throughout Genesis–2 Kings); see also the discussion in Blum, Pentateuch, 361–77. 29. See Donner, “Redaktor.” 30. See Blum (although with qualifications), Pentateuch, 209. 31. See Rose, RTP 118 (1986): 217–36 (in conjunction with his Deuteronomist). Rose proceeds from what is essentially a two-layered Deuteronomistic History (RTP 118 [1986]: 225) in which the “later Deuteronomistic layer” is possibly identical to the Yahwist (ibid., 230, with n. 44). This history extends from Deuteronomy 1 through 2 Kings 25 and has integrated a series of earlier materials (ibid., 225–29). In the next step, this entity was expanded backward by J (p. 230) into the realm of Genesis– Numbers, again by using preexisting material (p. 232) in the sense of a “theology of ‘grace alone’ ” (p. 232, with n. 50). Subsequently, P turned against the theology of J in Genesis–Numbers and corrected it from a cultic perspective. Van Seters describes his Yahwist as a secondary preface before the Deuteronomistic History (Van Seters, Abraham; Search; Prologue; Life; Festschrift Kaiser). He also takes into account a later Priestly redaction. His own portion of the theory primarily describes the Yahwist, like the Deuteronomist, as a writer who largely shaped material freely, in accordance with ancient historiography. For Van Seters, almost all of the non-Priestly material in Genesis–Numbers belonged to J, just as in Deuteronomy– 2 Kings the greatest portion goes back to the Deuteronomist. On Van Seters, see Blum, Pentateuch,

spread is 12 points short

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 341 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Models for the History of the Literary Development of Genesis–2 Kings

341

This layer should be described as the preface to the Deuteronomistic History. 32 This is an attempt on the one hand to take the Deuteronomistic texts of Genesis– Numbers into account and on the other hand to resolve the problem of the openended nature of the Tetrateuch: the conclusion of the Tetrateuch is the Deuteronomistic History. However, this solution generates new difficulties. 33 The positions currently propounded regarding the development of Genesis– 2 Kings thus cover a considerable breadth of possibilities. Their explanatory potentials vary greatly, and a solution capable of building consensus has not yet appeared. Despite presentations of new beginnings or even new syntheses, some very traditional exegetical convictions seem to continue to play a decisive role in the new approaches. In particular, attempting to solve the problems of the source model by dating the Tetrateuch’s pre-Priestly compositional strands later is not a real solution. It runs up against the most basic structural indicators in the historical books. Because of these indicators, I advise against finding a thoroughgoing prePriestly “basic layer” in Genesis–Numbers on the one hand, or on the other hand, of fundamentally isolating Genesis–Numbers from (Deuteronomy–)Joshua (and following). In this discipline, the “tetrateuchal eggshells” still appear too numerous for piecing together an alternative understanding of the composition of Genesis– 2 Kings that is not determined by some of the main presuppositions of existing theories. Rather, future research should be oriented toward thematic breaks in the text itself. It will not suffice to reclassify the traditional building blocks of J, D, and P. Rather, we should evaluate critically these building blocks themselves. Specifically, accepting J a priori as an element of a Tetrateuch and accepting a priori the thesis of a Deuteronomistic History that extends from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings as the oldest history of ancient Israelite literature have not proven to be safe starting points. Eventually, J and the Deuteronomistic History may be validated by exegetical investigation, but we can no longer presume this to be the case. This does not mean that the models used to this point should be completely abandoned but that they should be modified considerably. 211–13; Dozeman, “Setting” (on Dozeman, see Van Seters, “Observations”). For the context in the history of scholarship, see Gunneweg, TRu 48 (1983): 252–53. In the pre-Priestly composition that Blum postulates (Kd), the Pentateuch is a preface to the Deuteronomistic History (Blum, Pentateuch, 164). A Priestly composition follows it (Kp). Blum’s contribution lies in reckoning with the specific notion of compositions (Blum, Pentateuch, 213). On Blum, see the review in Ska, Bib 72 (1991): 253–63; Van Seters, JBL 105 (1986): 706–8; idem, JBL 111 (1992): 122–24. Johnstone, OTG (1990); idem, Festschrift Anderson, 166–85. Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch; idem, Festschrift Freedman, 1–15. 32. Rose, Deuteronomist; idem, RTP 118 [1986]: 217–36; Van Seters, Prologue; idem, Life; and Blum, Pentateuch. See the compilation in ibid., 208–9. Levin, however, argues that the tetrateuchal extension of his postdeuteronomic but pre-Deuteronomistic J is sufficient (Levin, Jahwist, 50; see already Wolff, “Kerygma des Jahwisten” 347, 355, 369). On Levin, see Otto, TRu 60 (1995): 182; Blum, TLZ 120 (1995): 786–90; Seebass, TRE 26:194. 33. See above, §1.3.1.c (pp. 29ff.).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 342 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

342

Chapter 5. Conclusion

5.3. Continuity and Discontinuity with Other Models If one puts the above ideas about the literary division between the ancestors and the exodus into the framework of the current discussion on the Pentateuch, certain elements of both continuity and discontinuity with traditional and more recent positions appear. In what follows, I shall discuss these in five points: (1) the methodological question from which literary horizon should pentateuchal research proceed; (2) the meaning of the literary gap between Genesis and Exodus; (3) the change from the source model to a redaction-historical fragment and expansion model; (4) P as an independent source; and (5) the question of postPriestly redactional activity. Finally, I shall address (6) questions that remain open. 5.3.1. Pentateuchal Research in the Framework of Genesis–2 Kings Pentateuchal questions can no longer be addressed without discussing Joshua– 2 Kings. Rather, they must be treated within the framework of Genesis–2 Kings. Obviously, the fundamental developmental processes of the Pentateuch did not take place completely independently from the development of Joshua–2 Kings, because the Pentateuch is not an entity unto itself that grew only in the framework of Genesis–Deuteronomy. Rather, the Pentateuch was only secondarily separated from a larger narrative work that comprised Genesis–2 Kings. 34 It is also insupportable and invalid for the classic theory or the newer syntheses to presuppose a Tetrateuch and a Deuteronomistic History. In recent research, the task of doing pentateuchal research within the framework of Genesis–2 Kings has sometimes been challenged. 35 However, this challenge is not convincing. One would have to prove that there are no structures and thematic lines overarching Genesis–2 Kings, or at least, that these lines were added to Genesis–2 Kings after the formation of the Torah. Regarding the first point, the opposite appears to be the case. 36 As for the second point, one must remember that the arguments for dating an individual biblical text or redactional portion are not convincing before textual analysis has been performed. 5.3.2. The Fundamental Gap between Genesis and Exodus Contrary to both older and newer tetrateuchal theories that divide the text between Numbers and Deuteronomy, the gap between Genesis and Exodus (and following) is more fundamental, both thematically and literarily. In terms of the Documentary Hypothesis or more-recent suggestions about the history of the Pentateuch, we must discard theories of the unity of J (or the “Jerusalem history”

34. See the references in §3.6.5 (pp. 271ff.). 35. Seebass, TRE 26:185–209; and Lohfink, TP 71 (1996): 484. 36. See the discussion in §1.3.1.a (pp. 16ff.).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 343 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Continuity and Discontinuity with Other Models

343

or Kd). 37 Stated negatively: a pre-Priestly layer running (at least) through Genesis–Numbers (which essentially is meant by the J) cannot be proven literarily. 38 We know that a hiatus exists between Numbers and Deuteronomy, but it is very doubtful that this is the most elementary literary gap in the historical books from which every explanation of the text’s genesis must begin. Increasingly, 39 scholars have realized that a deeper gap lies between Genesis and Exodus. However, its significance for the literary development of Genesis–2 Kings has not really been evaluated until now. Either the conceptual combination of ancestors and exodus has been shifted into the oral prehistory of the most important literary processes in the Pentateuch (Noth), or the connection of Genesis and Exodus is allocated to the literary entity ( J or its equivalent) that is responsible for the initial compilation of the tetrateuchal narrative strand as well (Galling, Van Seters, Blum, Levin). By these strategies, however, the gap between Genesis and Exodus was interpreted redaction-historically in the same way as bridges between the Jacob narrative and the Joseph narrative (between Genesis 36 and 37) or between the exodus tradition and the wilderness tradition (between Exodus 15 and 16). 40 By contrast, one should ask: Is it likely that the smoothly flowing narrative progress in Genesis and Exodus (and following), taken by themselves, was created by the same author who combined Genesis and Exodus very loosely? As I mentioned in §2 (p. 52), we should compare the discrepancies in the sketch of the Israelites and Pharaoh in the Joseph story on the one hand, and in Exodus 1–15 on the other, as well as the chronological contradiction between Exod 12:40–41 and the sequence of generations in Exodus 1–2. Would it not then be expected that the transition from Genesis to Exodus (and following) would also be shaped as fluidly as the transitions in Genesis and Exodus (and following)? Instead, the literary relationships within the historical books and the indicators in the rest of the Hebrew Bible point in the direction we have pursued. The combination of Genesis and Exodus (and following) was accomplished only after the ancestor story (*Genesis) and the Moses/exodus story (*Exodus–2 Kings) had each been constructed. 37. Zenger, Einleitung AT, 112–19; Blum, Pentateuch (see now his Verbindung, which limits Kd to Exodus–Deuteronomy). 38. See the definition of the “Yahwist” in H. H. Schmid, Jahwist, 17; and Levin, Jahwist, 10. To some extent, I think the fundamental thesis of Rendtorff is correct that divides up the “larger units” in the Pentateuch (Rendtorff, Pentateuch). Contrary to Rendtorff (who stands rather closely to Noth, HPT ), however, I think that we must more stringently differentiate the “larger entities.” They do not all have the same level of independence and also were not connected together redactionally at the same time. The main “themes” (using Noth’s terms) of the exodus to the conquest belong closely together, while the ancestor narratives form an entity unto themselves. 39. Galling, Erwählungstraditionen; Noth, HPT. Van Seters, VT 22 (1972): 448–59; idem, Prologue; Rendtorff, Problem; Blum, Vätergeschichte; Westermann, Geschichtsbücher; Römer, Väter; de Pury, VTSup 43 (1991), 78–96; idem, “Osée 12.” See the detailed presentation above, §1.2.2 (pp. 7ff.). 40. In this equivalence, Rendtorff ’s claim for dividing the “larger units” in the Pentateuch, to a certain extent, agrees structurally with the Documentary Hypothesis. In both cases, the question of the cohesion of the transmission complexes is not satisfactorily differentiated.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 344 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

344

Chapter 5. Conclusion

The suggested redaction-historical division of Genesis and Exodus may be introduced as a differentiating factor (which is, naturally, also corrective) in various models suggested to this point. What have long been recognized as compositional markers in Genesis and Exodus (and following) remain open for discussion with respect to the internal composition of Genesis on the one hand and Exodus on the other. Fundamentally, however, one should distinguish between internal networks in Genesis or Exodus (and following) and networks overarching Genesis–Exodus (and following). In the post-Priestly connection of Genesis and Exodus (and following), Genesis and Exodus (and following) were essentially revised at the “edges” of the books (Gen 50:25–26; Exodus 1). A programmatic text was also incorporated into each block (Genesis 15; Exodus *3–4; see Joshua 24). In the theoretical world of the source model, the suggestion offered here means that J should be divided in two: J in Genesis and J in Exodus (and following) do not form a continuous layer. 41 A certain surprising convergence results between the texts recognized here as literary bridges between Genesis and Exodus and the classic E texts: Genesis 15 has long been seen as a capstone of E; the series of statements in Gen 50:25 / Exod 13:19 / Josh 24:32 has as a rule been allocated to E, along with broad portions of Exodus 1; and E was at least heavily involved with Exodus *3–4 and Joshua 24. Thus, the special position of at least a portion of the E fragments within the Pentateuch is “confirmed” but in a very different way. They are not components of a tetrateuchal, pre-Priestly source strand. Rather, they serve as a post-Priestly combination of Genesis and Exodus (and following), and in so doing they help constitute a large salvation/judgment history in Genesis–2 Kings. What is true for J in the source model is true for Kd in Blum’s model, at least in his publications before 2002. This stratum is not literarily unified, as Blum himself now admits. Kd must be differentiated between texts creating internal networks and bridges within Genesis 42 on the one hand and Exodus–Numbers on the other. Contrary to what Blum wrote, a whole series of observations shows that Genesis 15 is not Deuteronomistic. The transference of the formula of guidance from the Decalogue prologue to the calling out of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldeans (Gen 15:7) is quite un-Deuteronomistically conceived. The same is true for the pronouncement of Abraham as righteous by faith (15:6; by contrast, see Deut 6:25). In Exodus–Numbers, most Kd texts can be understood as compositional elements within a Moses/exodus story that were not introduced by Genesis.43 The connection with Genesis (conceded by Blum as “the widest gap in the composition”)44 is provided only by Exod 1:6, 8; *3:1–4:18 (+ 4:30–31; 5:22–6:1 as satellites); 32:7–14; and 33:1. Specifically, we must contest Blum’s reclaiming of Exodus *3–4 for Kd. Inside Exodus (and following), Exodus *3–4 plays no specific compositional function. Rather, this text, as Blum himself clearly emphasizes, interrupts the narrative flow between Exod 2:23a and 41. See Kratz, TRE 28:373. 42. The internal networking in Genesis is performed primarily by non-Kd material. In Genesis, one should mention the texts labeled “Ancestor Story 2” by Blum. In Exodus–Numbers, Blum largely wavers about the literary shape of the “pre-Deuteronomistic” Moses narrative postulated by him (Pentateuch, 216). See the new outline of his position in Blum, “Verbindung.” 43. Blum assigns the following texts to Kd in Exodus–Deuteronomy: Exod 1:6, 8; *3:1–4:18; 4:30–31; 5:22–6:1; 7:15, 17, 20; 10:2a; 11:1–3; 12:21–27; 13:5–16; 14:13–14, 30–31; 19:3b–9; 20:22; 24:3–8, 12–15a, 18b; 32:7–14; 33:1, 5, 11, 13, 16–17; 34:9–10; Numbers *11; *12; 14:11– 25; 25:1–5(?); Deut 31:14–15, 23; 34:10(–12). 44. Idem, Pentateuch, 103.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 345 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Continuity and Discontinuity with Other Models

345

4:19. Exodus *3–4 does not contribute to the narrative context of the Moses/exodus story. Rather, it serves the connecting of Exodus (and following) with Genesis. If, with Blum (but see now his corrections in “Verbindung”), we renounce source-critical operations in this portion, then dividing Exodus *3–4 from the remaining Deuteronomistic compositional elements in Exodus–Numbers also becomes plausible because Exodus *3–4 as a whole seems to presuppose P. 45 With regard to the Kd sections in Genesis, the same is true for Genesis 15 as for Exodus *3–4 in Exodus (and following): Genesis 15 is a post-Priestly text that primarily unites Genesis and Exodus (and following). Thus, source-critical operations become unnecessary in Genesis 15, specifically, Blum’s exclusion of 15:13–16.46 Concerning Van Seters’s proposal, several similarities exist but also quite a few differences. The redactional layer connecting Genesis and Exodus that I here propose is very similar to Van Seters’s J in its redactional horizon (Genesis–2 Kings), its literary field of activity and corresponding chief texts (Genesis 15; Exodus 3–4; and Joshua 24), and especially its conceptualization. What Van Seters describes as the “theology of the Yahwist” largely covers the perspective of the redaction treated here, which shaped the existing text material.47 However, this is also the decisive difference between us. The combination of Genesis and Exodus (and following) is ascribed here to redactional activity that connected two transmission complexes that were already literarily fixed and had already experienced multiple stages of growth. In my view, this redaction did not simultaneously create both a cohesive ancestor story and a Moses/exodus story, as is the case with the J of Van Seters. Additionally, Van Seters’s hypothesis that Deuteronomy–2 Kings represents the oldest historical work in Israel is less plausible because of its narrative beginning in Deuteronomy 1–3, which presupposes knowledge by the reader (which, according to the traditional assumptions of Hebrew Bible scholarship, was possible because of a pre-Deuteronomistic Tetrateuch or Hexateuch, but both of these are [correctly] contested by Van Seters). Levin’s Yahwist is fundamentally distinguished from Van Seters’s J by the perspective of the cohesion of Genesis–Exodus (and following). While Van Seters’s J essentially corresponds to the view of the historical books already included, Levin’s Yahwist in Genesis as well as Exodus–Numbers, is closer to the respective traditions of origin. As a consequence, the cohesion of the ancestors and Exodus in Levin’s Yahwist is weakly supported. Neither in Exodus *3–4 nor elsewhere in Exodus–Numbers are the ancestors mentioned in Levin’s delimitation of the Yahwist. 48 Similarly, in Genesis, Levin’s Yahwist provides no explicit anticipatory reference to Exodus (and following). Thus, Levin’s Yahwist breaks apart from two directions. Additionally, its conclusion in Numbers 22–24 does not seem very plausible.

Proceeding from a fundamental break between Genesis and Exodus, we must also modify Noth’s Deuteronomistic History that extends from Deuteronomy 45. See §3.2.2.e (pp. 182ff.) and the recent discussion in Römer, “Exodus 3–4.” 46. On what Blum calls the D promises in Genesis, see §2.3.2.a (pp. 97ff.). On Gen 50:24, see §3.6.5 (pp. 271ff.). 47. Van Seters, Festschrift Kaiser, 219–28; also his Prologue, 238–41; and Life, 457–68. See §3.6 (pp. 259ff.). 48. The linguistic points of contact mentioned by Levin between Exodus 3 and Genesis texts are on the one hand less specific and on the other hand redaction-historically ambiguous (see Levin, Jahwist, 49). Because of the completely different formulations of Gen 12:2 and Exod 1:9, 12, one cannot say that the Yahwist in Exodus 1 “fulfills the promise once made to Abraham that Yhwh would make Israel a great people (Gen 12:2)” (ibid., 313).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 346 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

346

Chapter 5. Conclusion

through 2 Kings. It is no longer certain that such a unit ever existed, specifically in light of the trend in recent scholarship to date the context of Genesis–Numbers (which appears to be condensed again in Deuteronomy 1–3) later than Deuteronomy–2 Kings. If, as suggested here, one considers the most fundamental break in Genesis–2 Kings not to be between Numbers and Deuteronomy but between Genesis and Exodus, then it is more appropriate to delimit Exodus–2 Kings (not Deuteronomy–2 Kings) as a large Deuteronomistic narrative work. 49 To be sure, a work of this sort most likely incorporated several Deuteronomistically shaped stages of growth. This proposal of a Deuteronomistic narrative work extending from Exodus through 2 Kings not only resolves the difficult problem of the recap at the beginning of Deuteronomy 1–3 but also explains the numerous references back to Exodus in Joshua–2 Kings. The delineation of Deuteronomy–2 Kings is not the boundary of a once independent history but results from an internal thematic narrative thread that was perhaps introduced at the time of the incorporation of the Deuteronomic law into the flow of the historical books. 5.3.3. Documentary Hypothesis or Redactional Linking of Separate Blocks Unlike the assumption of longitudinal literary cuts central to the Documentary Hypothesis, literary-critical latitudinal cross-references between larger blocks that once existed separately from each other also can be seen as bridges across the fundamental break between Genesis and Exodus (and following). These larger blocks should not be treated only on the level of earlier (oral or written) material now incorporated into the J and E sources. The relative independence of what Rendtorff calls the “larger units” should be explained redaction-historically, not traditionhistorically. The essential syntheses did not take place in the preliminary oral stage in the realm of literary development. Evaluating signs of the literary division of the ancestor story and the exodus story forces the conclusion that the Pentateuch does not have a special place opposite the historical books in the realm of the literary growth of the Former Prophets. Over and against the Documentary Hypothesis, I do not consider Genesis–Numbers/Deuteronomy to point to continuous parallel strands that have been combined next to one another. Rather, two blocks (each literarily developed) have been redactionally attached to one another. This undertaking inserted new redactional programmatic texts (especially Genesis 15 and Exodus *3–4) into both of these blocks. The literary development of Genesis–2 Kings may thus be interpreted within a methodologically uniform explanatory model and not divided into a source-critical starting point for Genesis–Numbers (Deuteronomy) and a redaction-critical starting point for (Deuteronomy) Joshua–2 Kings. 50 49. See §2.4.7 above (pp. 148ff.). 50. One constant element in comparing the redaction-critical model with the source model is the acceptance of an independent P (see §5.3.4) alongside *Genesis and *Exodus–2 Kings. Thus, the gap

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 347 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Continuity and Discontinuity with Other Models

347

5.3.4. P as an Originally Independent Written Source Covering Creation to Sinai The model of an originally independent P running from creation to Sinai, but not reaching to the death of Moses in (Deuteronomy 34) or to the conquest ( Joshua) is easily compatible with other models. The indicators gathered here point to a post-Priestly combination of the ancestor story and the Moses/exodus story. They also provide evidence that P should be defined as a source rather than as a redaction. The most important connecting texts between Genesis and Exodus (and following) are Genesis 15 and Exodus 3–4, which are each fashioned after corresponding P texts (Genesis 17 and Exodus 6). However, Genesis 17 and Exodus 6 only connect the Priestly ancestor story and the Priestly exodus story. If the non-Priestly bridge texts of Genesis 15 and Exodus 3–4 are later than the Priestly texts of Genesis 17 and Exodus 6, this means that P, with its own sequence of ancestors and exodus can only be meaningfully imagined as an originally independent source; and if there was no thoroughgoing context of *Genesis and *Exodus (and following) before P, then P could also not be a redaction that was inserted into this context. 5.3.5. Post-Priestly Redactional Activity Finally, I have shown that there were major literary expansions and redactional insertions used to shape Genesis–2 Kings that post-dated P and that gave this grand history its characteristic look of a sequence of salvation history (Genesis– Joshua) and judgment history ( Judges–2 Kings). Joshua 24, in particular, plays an important role as a linking passage between the salvation history and the judgment history. Moreover, significant texts in the Pentateuch such as Genesis 15, Exodus 1, and Exodus 3–4 presupposed P and could only have arisen after it. The recognition of post-Priestly redactional activity in the Pentateuch is an important new result of current research. Furthermore, the post-Priestly classifications that I have suggested here for Genesis 15, Exodus 1, and Exodus 3–4 are no longer my theories alone. In particular, the works of Otto have clearly shown that the Pentateuch was by no means finished with the incorporation of P. 51 Many other recent contributions point in this very direction for other texts in the Pentateuch. 52 In light of recent scholarship that increasingly determines the literary extent of P as between recent outlines (such as those proposed by Rose, Blum, Van Seters, and Levin) and the Documentary Hypothesis is even greater. Of the original three narrative strands ( J, E, P) running parallel to one another, not two ( J and P) but only one remains (P). No redactional layer before P knows of a narrative bridge between the ancestors and Exodus. 51. Otto, TRu 60 (1995): 163–91; TRu 62 [1997]: 1–50; BETL 126 (1996), 61–111; Deuteronomium im Pentateuch; TRu 67 (2002): 125–55. 52. For example, see Wenham, Genesis 1–15; Blum, Pentateuch, 364; Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch; idem, Festschrift Freedman, 1–15; Gross, “Rezeption,” 6; Krüger, “Herz,” 74–81; Witte, Urgeschichte; Gertz, Tradition; Kratz, Composition; idem, “Hexateuch”; Schmid, Literaturgeschichte; see also the extensive references in §2.1.3 above (pp. 67ff.).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 348 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

348

Chapter 5. Conclusion

being from creation to Sinai, and in light of the debate about Priestly portions in Deuteronomy, alternatives must be found for the delimitation of the Torah as Genesis 1–Deuteronomy 34 other than the source model, which has the same scope as P (Genesis 1–Deuteronomy 34). The formation of the Torah cannot be explained without post-Priestly redactional activity. This is also true for the view of an uninterrupted flow from the ancestors to the exodus and the idea related to it of a hexateuchal salvation history. Over and against the idea of a source theory or the ideas of the newer syntheses, the image of the history of Israel in the period of the Hebrew Bible again becomes considerably more fluid. The currently existing order of the themes in the historical books, specifically the sequence of the ancestors and the exodus, does not stem from ancient “creed” formulations in the monarchic period. 53 Neither does it stem from the exile. It originated as a Persian period creation, first prepared by Second Isaiah and P, and then developed further during the non-Priestly transmission. 5.3.6. Open Questions It is obvious that the ideas presented here on the relationship of Genesis and Exodus (and following) are only preliminary ideas. I have consciously avoided presenting a comprehensive model for the development of Genesis–2 Kings that would have been burdened with multiple assumptions and separate issues. Rather, I seek to convince readers of specific but foundational concepts that up to now have been interpreted away at great cost. Specifically, the basic concept is that a source-critically relevant gap lies between the ancestor story and the Exodus story. This gap shows that the narrative sequence of Genesis and Exodus (and following) is not original. Rather, Genesis and Exodus (and following) were two literarily independent traditions of Israel’s origin before they were first combined in the early Persian period into the well-known hexateuchal outline of history. This history flows from the ancestors through the exodus and the wilderness wandering to the conquest and the periods of the judges and the monarchy. Many open questions remain that require further treatment, but they can and should only be addressed briefly here. First are problems within the academic discipline of Hebrew Bible in connection with a history of Hebrew Bible literature (§5.3.6.a). The literary division between the ancestors and the exodus suggested here also raises questions that extend across the discipline of the Hebrew Bible and have wide-ranging theological relevance. These will be addressed very briefly in the second section below (§5.3.6.b). a. Resulting Problems for the History of Literature First, we need to determine how the ancestor story and the Moses/exodus story should be described separately and in their older developmental stages. In particu53. See the discussion in §1.2.2.a.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 349 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Continuity and Discontinuity with Other Models

349

lar, this question remains: how should the transmission complex of *Exodus– 2 Kings fit into the multifaceted debate about the development and background of the Deuteronomistic History? At this point, the source-critical relevance of the second main break in Genesis–2 Kings, the break between Joshua and Judges also needs to be investigated more closely. Did an exodus–conquest narrative ever exist that comprised *Exodus–Joshua? Is there evidence of an originally independent work behind *Samuel–2 Kings 23 that, as Cross suggests, was structured by the dual themes of the dynastic promise to David and the sins of Jeroboam? 54 We also need to determine more carefully how the legal corpora relate and how they were embedded into the flow of history: the giving of the law on Sinai on the one hand and the giving of the law in Deuteronomy on the other. In the present study, only a few brief suggestions could be made (see §2.4.7, pp. 148ff.; §3.6.2, pp. 265ff.). Further progress will only be made if the theories about the history of ancient Israel’s law can be correlated with the theories about the development of ancient Israel’s literature. Additionally, the problem of redaction texts must be defined more precisely, especially in Joshua–2 Kings, which reflect the literary connection of Genesis and Exodus (and following). Above all, one should recall the Priestly insertions in 1 Kings 8 that certainly cannot be dated before P. Rather, these may already presuppose the connection of Genesis and Exodus (and following), including the incorporation of P. We should also expect to identify other texts in Genesis–2 Kings that were part of the redaction that connected Genesis and Exodus (and following). Simultaneously, however, its theological profile runs the risk of being attenuated. Therefore, a careful and deliberate rationale is necessary in assigning other texts in Genesis–2 Kings to this redaction. An important result of this work has been the identification of the intellectual context of the salvation-historical and judgment-historical image of history in Genesis–2 Kings with the corpus propheticum that follows. Another open question is how the writings of the later portion of the canon, the Ketubim, relate to this “canonical” line of reading. Were these writings also considered “prophecy,” as was the Psalter according to 11QPsa 27:11? 55 Or, did the Ketubim relate to Torah and Nebiªim, as Thompson has suggested, fundamentally as the hermeneutic of tradition? 56 The date of the redactional connection of the ancestors and the exodus remains unclear. The current uncertainties in the discipline do not allow for finer distinctions. A more precise picture of the redaction connecting Genesis and Exodus (and following) would perhaps allow additional conclusions. 54. Cross, “Themes”; see my “Deuteronomium”; idem, “Hatte Wellhausen recht?”; Römer, SoCalled Deuteronomistic History. 55. See Stegemann, “Mitte,” 162, with n. 45; 181 n. 127; Steck, Abschluss, 162–63, with n. 378. 56. Thompson, “Matrix,” 113. With regard to this view, the innerbiblical processes of interpretation in the Torah and Nebiªim themselves need to be considered.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 350 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

350

Chapter 5. Conclusion

Finally, we must await further developments in the discussion of P, which has recently been put in flux, to see whether they lead to the changes in the relationship between Priestly and non-Priestly tradition that I have proposed here. b. History, Interpretation, and Faith If the ancient Israelite history of literature is corrected as I have suggested, by dividing *Genesis and *Exodus (and following), this will also have implications for the discipline of theology beyond the Hebrew Bible. Several suggestions were made above, in §3.6 (pp. 259ff.). At this point, only one problem can be considered in a preliminary sense: what does a glance into the main generative factors of the image of biblical history in Genesis–2 Kings mean to the fundamental question of the relationship between history and faith? In light of the breadth of the problem and its treatment, I can only start an inquiry in an attempt to draw out some of the lines of this investigation. It is one of the incontrovertible foundations of Christian theology that the Christian faith has an intimate relationship with history. It relies on the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth. It is not an overstatement to maintain that confessing Jesus as Christ could not be formulated without the historical and theological foundation of the Hebrew Bible. Only based on the intellectual constructs of the Hebrew Bible, according to which various historical instances turned God to the world and to Israel, could the idea arise that God revealed himself in a specific historical time and in a specific historical person. 57 In the field of Hebrew Bible in the 20th century, the theological foundation of faith was developed especially by von Rad. In a certain sense, however, it was pointedly one-sided. The difficulties in interpreting the Hebrew Bible only within the horizon of the theme of history 58 that arose in the aftermath of von Rad are today quite well known. 59 In fact, von Rad himself warned of them. 60 The current discussion should at least pay attention to the following: in the history of religion, one cannot really prove that Israel in the preexilic period could be fundamentally distinguished from its neighboring 57. The pregnant thesis of Offenbarung als Geschichte created a heated debate at the beginning of the 1960s (see Pannenberg, Revelation; see the discussion in Oeming, Theologien, 139–62 [bibliography, 141 n. 5]; Diebner, Heilsgeschichte; on the older controversy around Cullmann and his successors, see K. G. Steck, ThSt 56 [1959]). Today, however, it seems to have run its course. One should not underestimate its significance, however, because the Offenbarung als Geschichte essay in the volume edited by W. Pannenberg was the first essay in 20th-century theology that did not arise from kerygmatic theology (for a scholarly review of the genesis, see more specifically Pannenberg, KD Beiheft 1 [2nd ed., 1963], 132; Rendtorff, “Offenbarung und Geschichte,” 37; critically, see Barr, Int 17 [1963]: 193–205; idem, IDBSup, 746–49). In fact, the essay openly opposed kerygmatic theology. The present pluralistic and even diffuse situation in (systematic) theology largely has its roots in this break. It is helpful for understanding diffuse situations to inquire about their origins. 58. History itself is not a biblical concept. See Albrektson, History, 68–97; Smend, Geschichtsdenkens; R. Schmitt, Abschied, 103–6; Krüger, Geschichtskonzepte, 11–61; Koch, “Qädäm,” 248–54; Cancik, “Geschichte,” 809; K. Schmid, Buchgestalten, 365 n. 37 (bibliography). 59. See, for example, Perlitt, “Auslegung,” 160–66; H. H. Schmid, Jahwist, 175–83. 60. See von Rad, EvT 24 (1964): 57.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 351 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Continuity and Discontinuity with Other Models

351

nations by a special historical consciousness, 61 nor is it theologically legitimate to marginalize themes of the Hebrew Bible in Old Testament theology such as creation and wisdom in comparison with the theme of history. The ideas presented here regarding the literary history of ancient Israel necessitate further comments regarding the relationship of history to the faith of Israel. From a historical-critical perspective, the problem cannot simply be solved by treating a biblical theology of history as essentially referring to a history of events and thus (because they arose in a nonsecular culture) believing that God either acts directly in history or works in the background. Theology of history (even viewed biblically) is not a naïve combination of history and God as its subject. Rather, the interaction between historical experience and a formulated theology of history is considerably broader, and its interaction is more complicated than a simple conception of God and history together. The theological interpretation of history is not just a question of its subject. Rather, it is a decisive change to the very image of history. A hexateuchal sequence that could have been reinterpreted theologically never existed, and the literary image of a salvation history stretching from Genesis to Joshua (held together by the ideas of divine promise and fulfillment) only arose out of a theological construction in a time that was a good 700 years removed from the content that it was reporting. Essentially, the image of history in Genesis–2 Kings was generated by a literarily productive engagement with tradition, and it does not even appear, at least for the early history of Israel, to have stood at a linear, if very distant, position relative to the history itself. It arose with the coupling of two theologically divergent traditions of origins that had their own ways of explaining the identity of “Israel.” Thus, it is only in a considerably modified sense that we can say that the “faith of Israel was theologically based on history,” rather than in the way that von Rad intended in his Old Testament theology. 62 Our literary study of the relationship of the ancestors and the exodus much more readily suggests for Genesis–2 Kings that the foundation of the faith of Israel (which, to be sure, is articulated historically in a particular manner) should be seen as continual interpretation of its narrative traditions. It appears that in ancient Israel available traditions and theological conceptions played a substantively greater role than actual events for generating the images of history. 63 Stated pointedly, whether and how God acted in history was (already) determined for the Bible much more by “Scripture” (or its form at the time) than by history itself. The biblical image of history thus must be categorized as fiction, at least for the early epochs that it presents, but it must not be dismissed as fiction. One must differentiate the issues. Historically, it is only probable that the Hebrew Bible itself did not suppose its 61. See, for example, Müller, UF 26 (1994): 373–74 (bibliography). 62. See von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:106. 63. By contrast, see von Rad: “Apparently, Israel proceeds, from beginning to end, from the absolute theological precedence of the event before the ‘word’ ” (ibid., 1:116).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 352 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

352

Chapter 5. Conclusion

historical traditions to be fictional. 64 They were “history.” Its own theological constructions were legitimate processes of development in the intellectual world of the past.65 If the connection of ancestors and exodus was the work of P, which shifted these epochs into the realm of the “primeval history” 66 of Israel, it is understandable that the non-Priestly tradition was rearranged in a similar way after P. From the perspective of the biblical writers, this new synthesis was just a legitimate reconstruction of the history of Israel with the means available at the time. From a theological perspective, the righteousness of God is raised to a new level by the combination of the ancestor story and the exodus story, a level not possible without this construction. God’s promises (Genesis) are arranged as narrative fulfillments (Exodus; Joshua). These show that God’s word does not remain “empty.” Rather, God’s word “accomplishes” what God decides (see Isa 55:11). However, it enables the breaking forth of the Deuteronomistic presentation of Israel’s history (oriented at first exclusively toward the past) into the future promised in the prophetic books. At their narrative ending, the salvation/judgment lines in Genesis–2 Kings are open to the corpus propheticum that follows literarily. Statements such as Isa 55:11 courageously emphasize the salvific will of God for the future, which has already been documented for the past in Genesis–Joshua. Genesis– 2 Kings thus goes beyond the historical, factual elements but reveals dimensions of meaning in what had been that are relevant for the future. These dimensions of meaning, however, could not be recovered merely by historical description.67

We may be disappointed that history and faith continue to recede from one another. Von Rad even lamented the splitting apart of history and the biblical view of history as one of the “heaviest burdens, under which biblical studies today stands.” 68 However, we must consider this: if the biblical image of history is essentially the result of the interpretation (and not of the mere description) of history, is this not of fundamental significance for the question of the current relevance of historically conceived faith? Ebeling, in particular, has clearly shown that the “category of interpretation . . . is the only appropriate” category that does justice to the historicity of faith. 69 Interpretation “structurally comprehends the historicity of the envisioning of the revelatory event.” 70 Where biblicistic or mystical approaches are in danger of leaving the origins of the faith out of the discussion, thus subordinating faith’s foundation in “reality” to (supposed) heavenly truths, the process of interpretation must con64. On the problem of fiction, see Oeming, EvT 44 (1984): 254–66 (bibliography, 262 n. 36); Schäfer-Lichtenberger, DBAT 21 (1985): 77–79; Weder, Hermeneutik, 342–61; Niehr, Rechtsprechung, 13–17, 118–27; Knauf, “From History,” 37–53. 65. In this respect, see Van Seters, Search; Yahwist. Basically comparable with this perspective is the problem of pseudepigraphy in the Hebrew Bible (that Deuteronomy does not stem from “Moses,” or Isaiah from “Isaiah,” etc.). One cannot simply set this problem aside by exposing it as a pious fraud, either historically or theologically. 66. See the discussion in Lohfink, “Priesterschrift.” 67. See also the characterization of “fictions” in Oeming, EvT 44 (1984): 262. 68. Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:108. See also the out-of-print foreword by von Rad in the 1st edition of his Old Testament Theology, 2:7–13; and the bibliographical references mentioned in W. H. Schmidt, “Einleitung und Theologie,” 78–79; Oeming, EvT 44 (1984): 255–56 n. 5. 69. Ebeling, “Bedeutung,” 24–25. 70. Ibid., 25.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 353 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Continuity and Discontinuity with Other Models

353

stantly function as a reminder to us of the distance between the historical original event and our own (also) historical point of view. The opposite is also true. Where interpretation no longer plays a role in the Christian faith (where faith itself has no interpretive structure), we must suppose that faith’s relationship to the world has been forgotten and that its truth is at stake. However, the Christian faith has existed from the beginning not to propagate esoteric secrets but to make this world a subject. Thus, we observe that ancient Christianity had a stronger affinity to philosophy than to other religions. Note also that the emergence of “theology” is a unique phenomenon in the history of religions. Investigation into the historical tradition of the Hebrew Bible in Genesis– 2 Kings makes clear that this tradition already opted for interpretation, not biblicism. The Hebrew Bible did not preserve a historical faith ( fides historica) of the origins of Israel. Rather, it continually reinterpreted its historical traditions, meaning that it did so in theologically innovative and literarily productive ways. The continuum of the biblical history of faith did not result in a specific confession (such as the “little historical creed”) or a dogmatic body of doctrine. Rather, the Hebrew Bible witnessed a process of continuing reinterpretation of the writings of Israel, and this conclusion is not only historically but also theologically significant. It is not history itself but the continual interpretation of its contemporary meaning that allows it to make any sense in relation to God. Thus, one must inquire critically into the conception and into the interpretive, generative factors of the view of history from creation to the ancestors, the exodus, the wilderness wandering, the conquest, the period of the judges, and the monarchic period, to the exile in Genesis–2 Kings. This is an unavoidable inquiry within theology, for God cannot be conceived timelessly in universally historical outlines even if the Bible itself has formulated them.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 354 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography The abbreviations used in this book follow The SBL Handbook of Style for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (ed. Patrick H. Alexander et al.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999). Additionally, the following abbreviations are used:

HBOT HBS HCOT NBL NSKAT VWGTh

Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. Edited by M. Sæbø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996– Herders biblische Studien Historical Commentary on the Old Testament Neues Bibel-Lexikon Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar: Altes Testament Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie

Achenbach, R., “Pentateuch, Hexateuch und Enneateuch: Eine Verhältnisbestimmung.” ZABR 11 (2005): 122–54. Ackroyd, P. R. The Chronicler in His Age. JSOTSup 101. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. ______. “Hosea and Jacob.” VT 13 (1963): 245–59. Aejmelaeus, A. Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Rendering of the Hebrew Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch. AASF 31. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982. ______. “Die Septuaginta des Deuteronomiums.” Pages 1–22 in Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen. Edited by T. Veijola. Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 62. Helsinki: Finnische Exegetische Gesellschaft, 1996. ______. “Septuagintal Translation Techniques: A Solution to the Problem of the Tabernacle Account.” (1992) Pages 116–30 in A. Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translator: Collected Essays. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993. ______. “What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint?” Pages 77–115 in A. Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993. Aharoni, Y. Das Land der Bibel: Eine historische Geographie. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984. Ahuis, F. Exodus 11,1–13,16 und die Bedeutung der Trägergruppen für das Verständnis des Passa. FRLANT 168. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Albertz, R. “Das Deuterojesaja-Buch als Fortschreibung der Jesaja-Prophetie.” Pages 241–56 in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift R. Rendtorff. Edited by R. Albertz et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. ______. “Die Intentionen und Träger des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks.” Pages 37–53 in Schöpfung und Befreiung: Festschrift C. Westermann. Edited by R. Albertz et al. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1989. ______. “Israel I: Altes Testament.” TRE 16:369–79. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987. ______. Persönliche Frömmigkeit und offizielle Religion: Religionsinterner Pluralismus in Israel und Babylon. Calwer theologische Monographien 9. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1978. ______. Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit. GAT 8/1–2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992 (A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. 2 vols. Translated by J. Bowden: OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox / London: SCM, 1994).

354

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 355 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

355

______. “Wer waren die Deuteronomisten? Das historische Rätsel einer literarischen Hypothese.” EvT 57 (1997): 319–38. Albrektson, B. History and the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events as Divine Manifestations in the Ancient Near East and in Israel. ConBOT 1. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1967. ______. “Reflections on the Emergence of a Standard Text of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 49–65 in Congress Volume: Göttingen, 1977. Edited by J. A. Emerton et al. VTSup 29. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Albright, W. F. “Northwest Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century b.c.” JAOS 74 (1954): 222–23. Alexander, T. D. “Gen 22 and the Covenant of Circumcision.” JSOT 25 (1983): 17–22. Alt, A. “Der Gott der Väter.” (1929) Pages 1–78 in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel I. Edited by A. Alt. Munich: Beck, 1959 (“The God of the Fathers.” Pages 1–66 in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Translated by R. A. Wilson. The Biblical Seminar. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989). ______. “Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums.” (1953) Pages 250–75 in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel II. Edited by A. Alt. Munich: Beck, 1959. Anbar, M. “Addendum à Josué et l’alliance de Sichem ( Josué 24:1–28).” BN 86 (1997): 5–6. ______. “Genesis 15: A Conflation of Two Deuteronomic Narratives.” JBL 101 (1982): 39–55. ______. Josué et l’Alliance de Sichem ( Josué 24:1–28). BBET 25. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1992. Andersen, F. I. “Genesis 14: An Enigma.” Pages 509–24 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by D. P. Wright et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Andersen, F. I., and Freedman, D. N. Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24. New York: Doubleday, 1980. Andersen, K. T. “Der Gott meines Vaters.” ST 16 (1962): 170–88. Anderson, R. T. “Samaritans.” ABD 5:941–43. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Andrei, O. “The 430 Years of Ex. 12:40, from Demetrius to Julius Africanus: A Study in Jewish and Christian Chronography.” Hen 18 (1996): 9–67. Argall, R. A. 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgment. SBLEJL 8. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Assmann, J. Ägypten: Eine Sinngeschichte. Munich: Hanser, 1996. ______. Das kulturelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen. Munich: Beck, 1992. Auerbach, E. “Die grosse Überarbeitung der biblischen Bücher.” Pages 1–10 in Conress Volume: Copenhagen, 1953. Edited by A. Bentzen. VTSup 1. Leiden: Brill, 1953. ______. Moses. Amsterdam: Ruys, 1953. Auffret, P. “Afin que nous rendions grâce à ton nom: Étude structurelle du Psaume 106.” SEL 11 (1994): 75–96. ______. Essai sur la Structure littéraire du Psaume 105. Biblische Notizen Beiheft 3. Munich: Institut für biblische Exegese, 1985. ______. “The Literary Structure of Exodus 6.2–8.” JSOT 27 (1983): 46–54. Auld, A. G. Joshua, Moses and the Land: Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-Hexateuch in a Generation since 1938. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1980. ______. “Joshua: The Hebrew and Greek Texts.” Pages 1–14 in Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1979. ______. “Judges 1 and History: A Reconsideration.” VT 25 (1975): 261–85. ______. “Textual and Literary Studies in the Book of Joshua.” ZAW 90 (1978): 412–17. Aurelius, E. Der Fürbitter Israels: Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament. ConBOT 27. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1988. Ausín, S. “La tradición de Jacob en Oseas XII.” EstBib 49 (1991): 5–23. Bach, R. Die Erwählung Israels in der Wüste. Diss. (masch.), Bonn, 1952.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 356 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

356

Bibliography

Baentsch, B. Exodus, Leviticus und Numeri. HKAT 1/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903. Baillet, M. “Les divers états du Pentateuque Samaritain.” RevQ 13 [49–52] (1988): 531–46. ______. Qumrân Grotte 4: III (4Q482–4Q520). Edited by M. Baillet. DJD 7. Oxford: Clarendon, 1982. ______. “Samaritains.” DBSup 11:773–1047. Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1991. Balestier-Stengel, G. “Un aperçu sur les Jubilés: Le personnage d’Abram.” Cahier biblique, Foi et Vie 29 (1990): 61–71. Baltzer, K. “Jerusalem in den Erzväter-Geschichten der Genesis? Traditionsgeschichtliche Erwägungen zu Gen 14 und 22.” Pages 3–12 in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift R. Rendtorff. Edited by E. Blum et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. ______. “Liberation from Debt Slavery after the Exile in Second Isaiah and Nehemiah.” Pages 477–84 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Festschrift F. M. Cross. Edited by P. D. Miller et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. ______. “Schriftauslegung bei Deuterojesaja? Jes 43,22–28 als Beispiel.” Pages 11–16 in Die Väter Israels: Beiträge zur Theologie der Patriarchenüberlieferung im Alten Testament. Festschrift J. Scharbert. Edited by M. Görg. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. Barr, J. “Revelation in History.” IDBSup 746–49. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976. ______. “Revelation through History in the Old Testament and in Modern Theology.” Int 17 (1963): 193–205. ______. “Story and History in Biblical Theology.” JR 56 (1976): 1–17. Barstad, H. M. “After the ‘Myth of the Empty Land’: Major Challenges in the Study of NeoBabylonian Judah.” Pages 3–20 in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Edited by O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003. ______. The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah during the ‘Exilic’ Period. Symbolae Osloenses Supplementum 28. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996. Bartelmus, R. “Begegnung in der Fremde: Anmerkungen zur theologischen Relevanz der topographischen Verortung der Berufungsvisionen des Mose und des Ezechiel (Ex 3,1–4,17 bzw. Ez 1,1–3,15).” BN 78 (1995): 21–38. ______. Einführung in das Biblische Hebräisch: Mit einem Anhang Biblisches Aramäisch. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1994. ______. “Ez 37,1–14, die Verbform weqatal und die Anfänge der Auferstehungshoffnung.” ZAW 97 (1985): 366–89. ______. HYH: Bedeutung und Funktion eines hebräischen “Allerweltswortes”—Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Frage des hebräischen Tempussystems. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im alten Testament 17. St. Ottilien: EOS, 1982. ______. “ ‘Schriftprophetie’ ausserhalb des corpus propheticum—eine unmögliche Möglichkeit? Das Mose-Lied (Ex 15,1–21) als deuterojesajanisch geprägtes ‘eschatologisches Loblied.’ ” Pages 55–82 in Schriftprophetie: Festschrift für Jörg Jeremias zum 65. Geburtstag, Edited by F. Hartenstein et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004. Barth, C. Die Errettung vom Tode in den individuellen Klage- und Dankliedern des Alten Testaments. Zollikon: Evangelische Verlag, 1947. Barthélemy, D. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 1: Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdars, Néhémie, Esther. OBO 50/1. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. ______. Les devanciers d’Aquila: Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton trouvés dans le désert de Juda, précédée d’une étude sur les traductions et recensions grecques de la bible réalisées au premier siècle de notre ère sous l’influence du rabbinat palestinien. VTSup 10. Leiden: Brill, 1963.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 357 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

357

______. “Histoire du texte hébraïque de l’Ancien Testament.” (1976) Pages 341–64 in idem, Études d’histoire du texte de l’Ancien Testament. OBO 21. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Barton, J. Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile. London: Darton Longman & Todd, 1986. ______. “The Significance of a Fixed Canon.” Pages 67–83 in HBOT 1/1. Edited by M. Sæbø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Bauks, M. “Die Begriffe hzwja und hvrwm in Pg: Überlegungen zur Landkonzeption der Priestergrundschrift.” ZAW 116 (2004): 171–88. ______. “Les notions de ‘peuple’ et de ‘terre’ dans l’oeuvre sacerdotale (Pg).” Transeu 30 (2005): 19–36. Baumbach, G. “Abraham unser Vater: Der Prozess der Vereinnahmung Abrahams durch das frühe Christentum.” Theologische Versuche 16 (1986): 37–56. Baumgart, N. C. “Das Ende der biblischen Urgeschichte in Gen 9,29.” BN 82 (1996): 27–58. Baumgartner, W. “Wellhausen und der heutige Stand der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft.” TRu 2 (1930): 287–307. Becker, J. 1 Chronik. NEchtB. Würzburg: Echter, 1986; 2 Chronik. NEchtB. Würzburg: Echter, 1988. ______. Die Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen. JSHRZ 3/1. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1974. ______. Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen. AGJU 8. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Becker, U. “Endredaktionelle Vernetzungen des Josuabuches.” Pages 143–65 in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten. Edited by M. Witte et al. BZAW 365. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. ______. “Der innere Widerspruch der deuteronomistischen Beurteilung des Königtums (am Beispiel von 1Sam 8).” Pages 246–70 in Altes Testament und christliche Verkündigung: Festschrift A. H. J. Gunneweg. Edited by M. Oeming and A. Graupner. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1987. ______. Jesaja: Von der Botschaft zum Buch. FRLANT 178. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. ______. Richterzeit und Königtum: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Richterbuch. BZAW 192. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Becking, B. “Jehojachin’s Amnesty, Salvation for Israel? Notes on II Kings 25,27–30.” Pages 283–93 in Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the XIIIth IOSOT Congress, Leuven, 1989. Edited by C. Brekelmans and J. Lust. BETL 94. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Beckwith, R. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986 / London: SPCK, 1985. Beegle, D. M. “Moses.” ABD 4:909–18. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Begg, C. T. “Ben Sira’s Non-mention of Ezra.” BN 42 (1988): 14–18. ______. “The Significance of Jehojachin’s Release: A New Proposal.” JSOT 36 (1986): 49–56. Behrens, A. “Gen 15,6 und das Vorverständnis des Paulus.” ZAW 109 (1997): 327–41. Ben-Hayyim, Z. “The Tenth Commandment in the Samaritan Pentateuch.” Pages 488–92 in New Samaritan Studies of the Société d’études samaritaines, volumes 3 and 4: Festschrift G. D. Sixdenier. Edited by A. D. Crown and L. Davey. Studies in Judaica 5. Sydney: Mandelbaum Pub. and The University of Sydney, 1995. Benoit, P., Milik, J. T., and de Vaux, R. Les grottes de Murabbaºat. DJD 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. Bentzen, A. Introduction to the Old Testament. Copenhagen: Gad, 1958. Benzinger, I. Die Bücher der Könige. KHC 9. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1899. ______. Jahwist und Elohist in den Königsbüchern. BWAT 2. Berlin: Kohlhammer, 1921.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 358 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

358

Bibliography

Ben Zvi, E. “The Account of the Reign of Manasseh in II Reg 21,1–18 and the Redactional History of the Book of Kings.” ZAW 103 (1991): 355–74. ______. “The Closing Words of the Pentateuchal Books: A Clue for the Historical Status of the Book of Genesis within the Pentateuch.” BN 62 (1992): 7–11. ______. “The Dialog between Abraham and YHWH in Genesis 18:23–32: A HistoricalCritical Analysis.” JSOT 53 (1992): 27–46. ______. “Looking at the Primary (Hi)story and the Prophetic Books as Literary/Theological Units within the Frame of the Early Second Temple: Some Considerations.” SJOT 12 (1998): 26–43. Berge, K. Reading Sources in a Text: Coherence and Literary Criticism in the Call of Moses. Models– Methods–Micro-Analysis. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im alten Testament 54. St. Ottilien: EOS, 1997. ______. Die Zeit des Jahwisten: Ein Beitrag zur Datierung jahwistischer Vätertexte. BZAW 186. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Berger, K. “Abraham II: Im Frühjudentum und Neuen Testament.” TRE 1:372–82. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977. ______. Das Buch der Jubiläen. JSHRZ 2/3. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981. ______. Synopse des Vierten Buches Esra und der Syrischen Baruch-Apokalypse. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 8. Tübingen: Francke, 1992. Berlejung, A., and Janowski, B., eds. Tod und Jenseits im alten Israel und in seiner Umwelt: Theologische, religionsgeschichtliche, archäologische, und ikonographische Aspekte. FAT 64. Tübingen: Mohr, 2009. Berlinerblau, J. “The ‘Popular Religion’ Paradigm in Old Testament Research: A Sociological Critique.” JSOT 60 (1993): 3–26. Beyerle, S. Der Mosesegen im Deuteronomium: Eine text-, kompositions- und formkritische Studie zu Deuteronomium 33. BZAW 250. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Beyerlin, W. “Der nervus rerum in Psalm 106.” ZAW 86 (1974): 50–64. Bieberstein, K. Josua–Jordan–Jericho: Archäologie, Geschichte und Theologie der Landnahmeerzählungen Jos 1–6. OBO 143. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. ______. Lukian und Theodotion im Josuabuch: Mit einem Beitrag zu den Josuarollen von HirbetQumran. Biblische Notizen Beiheft 7. Munich: Institut für biblische Exegese, 1994. Bietak, M. “Canaanites in the Eastern Nile Delta.” Pages 51–56 in Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period. Edited by A. F. Rainey. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1987. ______. “Comments on the ‘Exodus’.” Pages 163–71 in Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period. Edited by A. F. Rainey. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1987. ______. “Ramsesstadt.” LÄ 5:128–46. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1984. Bimson, J. J. “Archaeological Data and the Dating of the Patriarchs.” Pages 59–92 in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives. Edited by A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1980. ______. Redating the Exodus and Conquest. JSOTSup 5. Sheffield: Dept. of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, 1978. Black, M. “The Apocalypse of Weeks in the Light of 4QEng.” VT 28 (1978): 464–69. ______. “The Composition, Character and Date of the ‘Second Vision’ of Enoch.” Pages 19– 30 in Text, Wort, Glaube. Edited by M. Brecht. Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 50. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980. ______. “The Fragments of the Aramaic Enoch from Qumran.” Pages 15–28 in La littérature juive entre Tenach et Mischna: Quelques problèmes. Edited by W. C. van Unnik. RechBib 9. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Blau, L. Studien zum althebräischen Buchwesen und zur biblischen Litteraturgeschichte. Strassburg: Trübner, 1902.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 359 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

359

Blenkinsopp, J. “An Assessment of the Alleged Pre-exilic Date of the Priestly Material in the Pentateuch.” ZAW 108 (1996): 495–518. ______. Ezra–Nehemiah: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster / London: SCM, 1989. ______. “P and J in Genesis 1:1–11:26: An Alternative Hypothesis.” Pages 1–15 in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Festschrift D. N. Freedman. Edited by A. B. Beck et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. ______. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ______. Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977. ______. “Structure and Meaning in the Sinai-Horeb Narrative (Exodus 19–34).” Pages 109–25 in A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content—Festschrift G. W. Coats. Edited by E. Carpenter. JSOTSup 240. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. ______. “The Structure of P.” CBQ 38 (1976): 275–92. Bloch-Smith, E. Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead. JSOTSup 123. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Blum, E. “Gibt es die Endgestalt des Pentateuch?” Pages 46–57 in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991. ______. “Hosea 12 und die Pentateuch überlieferungen.” Pages 291–321 in Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition: Festschrift für Matthias Köckert. Edited by A. C. Hagedorn and H. Pfeiffer. BZAW 400. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. ______. “Israël à la montagne de Dieu: Remarques sur Ex 19–24; 32–34 et sur le contexte littéraire et historique de sa composition.” Pages 271–95 in Le pentateuque en question. Edited by A. de Pury. MdB [19]. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1989. ______. Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte. WMANT 57. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984. ______. “Der kompositionelle Knoten am Übergang von Josua zu Richter: Ein Entflechtungsvorschlag.” Pages 181–212 in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans. Edited by M. Vervenne and J. Lust. BETL 133. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. ______. “Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen.” Pages 119–56 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Edited by J. C. Gertz et al. BZAW 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. ______. “The Literary Connection between the Books of Genesis and Exodus and the End of the Book of Joshua.” Pages 89–106 in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Edited by T. B. Dozeman and K. Schmid. SBLSymS 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. ______. “Rez. zu Christoph Levin, Der Jahwist.” TLZ 120 (1995): 786–90. ______. “Das sog: ‘Privilegrecht’ in Exodus 34,11–26—Ein Fixpunkt der Komposition des Exodusbuches?” Pages 347–66 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction–Reception–Interpretation. Edited by M. Vervenne. BETL 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. ______. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. BZAW 189. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Bockmuehl, M. “Natural Law in Second Temple Judaism.” VT 45 (1995): 17–44. Bodine, W. R. The Greek Text of Judges: Recensional Developments. HSM 23. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980. Boecker, H. J. “Überlegungen zur Josephsgeschichte.” Pages 35–46 in Alttestamentlicher Glaube und Biblische Theologie: Festschrift H.-D. Preuss. Edited by J. Hausmann and H.-J. Zobel. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992. Boecker, H. J.; Hermisson, H.-J.; Schmidt, J. M.; and Schmidt, L. Altes Testament. Neukirchener Arbeitsbücher. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 51996.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 360 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

360

Bibliography

Bogaert, P.-M. “La figure d’Abraham dans les Antiquités Bibliques du Pseudo-Philon.” Pages 40–55 in Abraham dans la Bible et dans la tradition juive. Publications de l’Institutum Iudaicum Bruxelles 2. Edited by P.-M. Bogaert. Brussels: Institutum Iudaicum, 1977. ______. “L’importance de la Septante et du ‘Monacensis’ de la Vetus Latina pour l’exégèse du livre de l’Exode (chap. 35–40).” Pages 399–428 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction– Reception–Interpretation. Edited by M. Vervenne. BETL 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. Bóid. R. “Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Samaritan Tradition.” Pages 595–633 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by M. J. Mulder. CRINT 2/1. Assen: Van Gorcum / Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Boorer, S. “The Importance of a Diachronic Approach: The Case of Genesis–Kings.” CBQ 51 (1989): 195–208. ______. The Promise of the Land as Oath: A Key to the Formation of the Pentateuch. BZAW 205. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992. Bosshard-Nepustil, E. “Hadad, der Edomiter: 1 Kön 11,14–22 zwischen literarischem Kontext und Verfassergegenwart.” Pages 95–109 in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift: Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by R. G. Kratz, T. Krüger, and K. Schmid. BZAW 300. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. ______. Rezeptionen von Jes 1–39 im Zwölfprophetenbuch: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Verbindung von Prophetenbüchern in babylonischer und persischer Zeit. OBO 154. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Botterweck, G. J.; Ringgren H.; and Fabry, H.-J., eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vols. 1–14. Translated by D. W. Stott and D. E. Green et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2004. Böttrich, C. “Konturen des ‘Menschensohnes’ in äthHen 37–71.” Pages 53–90 in Gottessohn und Menschensohn: Exegetische Studien zu zwei Paradigmen biblischer Intertextualität. Edited by D. Sänger. Biblisch-theologische Studien 67. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004. Bousset, W. “Das chronologische System der biblischen Geschichtsbücher.” ZAW 20 (1900): 136–47. Boyce, M. “Persian Religion in the Achaemenid Age.” CHJ 1:279–307. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984 (repr. 1991). Brandt, P. Endgestalten des Kanons: Das Arrangement der Schriften Israels in der jüdischen und christlichen Bibel. BBB 131. Berlin: Philo, 2001. Braulik, G. Deuteronomium 1–16,17. NechtB. Würzburg: Echter, 1986; Deuteronomium II: 16,18–34,12. NEchtB. Würzburg: Echter, 1992. ______. “Die Funktion von Siebenergruppierungen im Endtext des Deuteronomiums.” Pages 37–50 in Ein Gott, eine Offenbarung: Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese, Theologie und Spiritualität: Festschrift N. Füglister. Edited by F. V. Reiterer. Würzburg: Echter, 1991. ______. “Spuren einer Neubearbeitung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks in 1Kön 8,52–53.59–60.” Bib 52 (1971): 20–33 = pp. 39–52 in Studien zur Theologie des Deuteronomiums. SBAB 2. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. ______. “Zur deuteronomistischen Konzeption von Freiheit und Frieden.” Pages 29–39 in Congress Volume: Salamanca 1983. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 36. Leiden: Brill, 1985. = pp. 219–30 in Studien zur Theologie des Deuteronomiums. SBAB 2. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. Braun, R. L. “1 Chronicles 1–9 and the Reconstruction of the History of Israel: Thoughts on the Use of Genealogical Data in Chronicles in the Reconstruction of the History of Israel.” Pages 92–105 in The Chronicler as Historian. Edited by M. P. Graham, K. G. Hoglund, and S. L. McKenzie. JSOTSup 238. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Brekelmans, C. “Joshua xxiv: its place and function.” Pages 1–9 in Congress Volume: Leuven 1989. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 361 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

361

______. “Die sogenannten deuteronomischen Elemente in Gen.–Num: Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte des Deuteronomiums.” Pages 90–96 in Congress Volume: Genève 1965. Edited by G. W. Anderson et al. VTSup 15. Leiden: Brill, 1966. Brekelmans, C., and Lust, J. Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the XIIIth IOSOT Congress Leuven 1989. Edited by C. Brekelmans and J. Lust. BETL 94. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Brenner, M. L. The Song of the Sea: Ex 15:1–21. BZAW 195. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991. Brettler, M. Z. “Jud 1,1–2,10: From Appendix to Prologue.” ZAW 101 (1989): 433–35. ______. “The Promise of the Land of Israel to the Patriarchs in the Pentateuch.” Shnaton 5–6 (1978–79): vii–xxiv. Brin, G. “Regarding the Connection Between the Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees.” JBL 112 (1993): 108–9. Brooke, G. J. Temple Scroll Studies: Papers presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll. Edited by G. J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Brown, J. P. Israel and Hellas. BZAW 231. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995. ______. “The Textual Tradition of the Temple Scroll and Recently Published Manuscripts of the Pentateuch.” Pages 261–82 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport. Leiden: Brill / Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992. Brueggemann, W. “The Kerygma of the Priestly Writers.” ZAW 84 (1972): 397–413. Bryan, D. Cosmos, Chaos and the Kosher Mentality. JSPSup 12. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Büchner, D. L. “Exegetical Variants in the LXX of Exodus: An Evaluation.” JNSL 22 (1996): 35–58. Budde, K. Das Buch der Richter. KHC 7. Freiburg, Leipzig, and Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1897. ______. Die Bücher Richter und Samuel: Ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbau. Giessen: Ricker, 1890. ______. Die Bücher Samuel. KHC 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1902. ______. Geschichte der althebräischen Litteratur: Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen von Alfred Bertholet. Leipzig: Amelang, 1909. Bultmann, C. Der Fremde im antiken Juda: Eine Untersuchung zum sozialen Typenbegriff ‘ger’ und seinem Bedeutungswandel in der alttestamentlichen Gesetzgebung. FRLANT 153. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Burkert, W. “Mythos, Mythologie, I: Antike.” HWP 6:281–83. Basel: Schwabe, 1984. Burrows, M. “Ancient Israel.” Pages 99–131 in The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East. Edited by R. Dentan. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 21983. Burstein, S. The Babyloniaca of Berossus. Malibu, CA: Undena, 1978. Butler, T. C. Joshua. WBC 7. Waco, TX: Word, 1983. Campbell, A. F. Of Prophets and Kings: A Late Ninth-Century Document (1Samuel 1–2Kings 10). CBQMS 17. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1986. ______. “The Priestly Text: Redaction or Source?” Pages 32–47 in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Festschrift N. Lohfink. Edited by G. Braulik et al. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. Campbell, A. F., O’Brien, M. A. Sources of the Pentateuch: Texts, Introductions, Annotations. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Campbell, E. F. Jr. “Moses and the Foundations of Israel.” Int 39 (1975): 141–54. Cancik, H. “Geschichte.” NBL 1:809–13. Zurich: Benziger, 1991. ______. “Geschichtsschreibung.” NBL 1:813–22. Zurich: Benziger, 1991. ______. Mythische und historische Wahrheit: Interpretationen zu Texten der hethitischen, biblischen und griechischen Historiographie. SBS 48. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1970. Caquot, A. “L’alliance avec Abram (Genèse 15).” Sem 12 (1962): 51–66. ______. “Ben Sira et le Messianisme.” Sem 16 (1971): 43–68. Carmichael, C. “A New View of the Origin of the Deuteronomic Credo.” VT 19 (1969): 273– 89.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 362 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

362

Bibliography

Carpenter, E. “Exodus 18: Its Structure, Style, Motifs and Function in the Book of Exodus.” Pages 91–108 in A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content— Festschrift G. W. Coats. Edited by E. Carpenter. JSOTSup 240. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Carr, D. “Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives.” Pages 273–95 in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History. Edited by André Wénin. BETL 155. Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 2001. ______. “Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11-26 and Its Parallels.” Pages 107–40 in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32-34 und Dtn 9-10. Edited by E. Blum and M. Köckert. VWGTh 18. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser, 2001. ______. Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. ______. “What Is Required to Identify Pre-Priestly Narrative Connections between Genesis and Exodus? Some General Reflections and Specific Cases.” Pages 159–80 in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Edited by T. B. Dozeman and K. Schmid. SBLSymS 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Carroll, R. P. “Strange Fire: Abstract of Presence Absent in the Text: Meditations on Exodus 3.” JSOT 61 (1994): 39–58. Cassuto, U. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Jerusalem: Magnes, repr. 1974. Catastini, A. “Le testimonianze di Manetone e la ‘Storia di Giuseppe’ (Genesis 37–50).” Hen 17 (1995): 279–300. Cazelles, H. “Die biblische Geschichtsschreibung im Licht der altorientalischen Geschichtsschreibung.” Pages 38–49 in XXIII. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 16. bis 20. September 1985 in Würzburg: Ausgewählte Vorträge. Edited by E. von Schuler. ZDMGSup 7. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1989. ______. “Rédactions et Traditions dans l’Exode.” Pages 37–58 in Studien zum Pentateuch: Festschrift W. Kornfeld. Edited by G. Braulik. Vienna: Herder, 1977. ______. “Volksfrömmigkeit und Volkstheologie in der Bibel.” Comm 16 (1987): 385–95. Ceresko, A. R. “A Poetic Analysis of Ps 105, with Attention to Its Use of Irony.” Bib 64 (1983): 20–47. Charlesworth, J. H. “Baruch, Book of 2 (Syriac).” ABD 1:620–21. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Chazon, E. G. “Is Divrei Ha-Meªorot a Sectarian Prayer?” Pages 3–17 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport. Leiden: Brill / Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992. Childs, B. S. “The Birth of Moses.” JBL 84 (1965): 109–22. ______. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 31976. Christensen, D. L. “New Evidence for the Priestly Redaction of Deuteronomy.” ZAW 104 (1992): 197–202. Clark, M. “Biblical and Early Islamic Moses.” Pages 20–38 in A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content: Festschrift G. W. Coats. Edited by E. Carpenter. JSOTSup 240. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Clements, R. E. Abraham and David: Genesis XV and Its Meaning for Israelite Tradition. London: SCM, 1967. ______. “Beyond Tradition History: Deutero-Isaianic Development of First Isaiah’s Themes.” JSOT 31 (1985): 95–113. Clifford, R. Deuteronomy: With an Excursus on Covenent and Law. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1982. ______. “Style and Purpose in Psalm 105.” Bib 60 (1979): 420–27. Clines, D. J. A. The Theme of the Pentateuch. JSOTSup 10. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, (1978) 21997. Coats, G. W. “The Book of Joshua: Heroic Saga or Conquest Theme?” JSOT 38 (1987): 15–32.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 363 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

363

______. “The Curse in God’s Blessing: Gen 12,1–4a in the Structure and Theology of the Yahwist.” Pages 31–41 in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift H. W. Wolff. Edited by J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. ______. “Despoiling the Egyptians.” VT 18 (1968): 450–57. ______. “An Exposition for the Conquest Theme.” CBQ 47 (1985): 47–54. ______. From Canaan to Egypt: Structural and Theological Context for the Joseph Story. CBQMS 4. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1976. ______. Moses: Heroic Man, Man of God. JSOTSup 57. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. ______. “A Structural Transition in Exodus.” VT 22 (1972): 129–42. Cogan, M. “Chronology: Hebrew Bible.” ABD 1:1002–11. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Cohen, C. “The Legend of Sargon and the Birth of Moses.” JANESCU 4 (1972): 46–51. Cohen, J. The Origins and Evolution of the Moses Nativity Story. SHR 58. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Collin, M. “Une tradition ancienne dans le cycle d’Abraham? Don de la terre et promesse dans Gn 12–13.” Pages 209–28 in Le Pentateuque: Débats et recherches. Edited by P. Haudebert. LD 151. Paris: Cerf, 1992. Collins, J. J. Introduction to the Hebrew Bible with CD-ROM. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. ______. Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. ______. “Testaments.” Pages 325–55 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by M. Stone. CRINT 2/ 2. Assen: Van Gorcum / Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Collins, N. L. “Evidence in the Septuagint of a Tradition in Which the Israelites Left Egypt without Pharaoh’s Consent.” CBQ 56 (1994): 443–48. Cook, E. M. “1 Samuel XX 26–XXI 5 according to 4Qsamb.” VT 44 (1994): 442–54. Coote, R. B. “Hosea XII.” VT 21 (1971): 389–402. Cornelius, F. “Moses urkundlich.” ZAW 78 (1966): 75–78. Cornill, C. H. “Ein elohistischer Bericht über die Entstehung des israelitischen Königthums in I Samuelis 1–15 aufgezeig.” ZWKL 6 (1885): 113–41. ______. “Noch einmal Sauls Königswahl und Verwerfung.” ZAW 10 (1890): 96–109. ______. “Zur Quellenkritik der Bücher Samuelis.” Königsberger Studien 1 (1887): 25–89. Cortese, E. Josua 13–21: Ein priesterschriftlicher Abschnitt im Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. OBO 94. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. ______. “Theories concerning Dtr: A Possible Rapprochement.” Pages 179–90 in Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the XIIIth IOSOT Congress Leuven 1989. Edited by C. Brekelmans and J. Lust. BETL 94. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Croatto, J. S. “Die relecture des Jahwe-Namens: Hermeneutische Überlegungen zu Ex 3,1–15 und 6,2–13*.” EvT 51 (1991): 39–49. Cross, F. M. “The Priestly Work.” Pages 293–325 in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Edited by F. M. Cross. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. ______. “The Song of the Sea and Canaanite Myth.” Pages 112–44 in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Edited by F. M. Cross. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. ______. “The Themes of the Book of Kings and the Structure of the Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 274–89 in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Edited by F. M. Cross. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Cross, F. M., and Talmon, S. Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by F. M. Cross and S. Talmon. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975. Crown, A. D. “Another Look at Samaritan Origins.” Pages 134–55 in New Samaritan Studies of the Société d’études samaritaines. Volumes 3 and 4: Festschrift G. D. Sixdenier. Edited by A. D. Crown and L. Davey. Studies in Judaica 5. Sydney: Mandelbaum Pub. and The University of Sydney, 1995. ______. “The Date and Authenticity of the Samaritan Hebrew Book of Joshua as Seen in Its Territorial Allotments.” PEQ 96 (1964): 79–97.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 364 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

364

Bibliography

______. “Redating the Schism between the Judaeans and the Samaritans” JQR 82 (1991): 17– 50. Crown, A. D., ed. The Samaritans. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Crüsemann, F. “Die Eigenständigkeit der Urgeschichte: Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion um den ‘Jahwisten’.” Pages 11–29 in Die Botschaft und die Boten. Edited by J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. ______. “Der Exodus als Heiligung: Zur rechtsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung des Heiligkeitsgesetzes.” Pages 117–29 in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift R. Rendtorff. Edited by E. Blum et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. ______. “Israel in der Perserzeit.” Pages 205–32 in Max Webers Sicht des antiken Christentums. Edited by W. Schluchter. Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft 548. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1985. ______. “Die Macht der kleinen Kinder: Ein Versuch, Psalm 8,2b.3 zu verstehen.” Pages 48–60 in Was ist der Mensch . . . ?: Festschrift H. W. Wolff. Edited by F. Crüsemann, C. Hardmeier, and R. Kessler. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1992. ______. “Der Pentateuch als Tora: Prolegomena zur Interpretation seiner Endgestalt.” EvT 49 (1989): 250–67. ______. “Das ‘portative’ Vaterland.” Pages 63–79 in Kanon und Zensur: Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation II. Edited by A. and J. Assmann. Munich: Fink, 1987. ______. Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel. WMANT 32. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. ______. Die Tora: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1992 (The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law. Translated by A. W. Mahnke. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996). ______. Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum: Die antiköniglichen Texte des Alten Testamentes und der Kampf um den frühen israelitischen Staat. WMANT 49. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. Cryer, F. H. “On the Relationship between the Yahwistic and Deuteronomistic Histories.” BN 29 (1985): 58–74. Dahlberg, B. T. “On Recognizing the Unity of Genesis.” TD 24 (1977): 360–67. Daiches, D. The Quest for the Historical Moses: Robert Waley Cohen Memorial Lecture 1974. London: Council of Christians and Jews, 1974. Dalferth, I. U. “Gott und Zeit (1994).” Pages 232–67 in Gedeutete Gegenwart: Zur Wahrnehmung Gottes in den Erfahrungen der Zeit. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. ______. Jenseits von Mythos und Logos: Die christologische Transformation der Theologie. QD 142. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. Daniels, D. R. “The Creed of Deuteronomy XXVI Revisited.” Pages 231–42 in Studies in the Pentateuch. Edited by J. A. Emerton et al. VTSup 41. Leiden: Brill, 1990. ______. Hosea and Salvation History: The Early Traditions in the Prophecy of Hosea. BZAW 191. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. Daube, D. “Rechtsgedanken in den Erzählungen des Pentateuchs.” Pages 32–41 in Von Ugarit nach Qumran: Festschrift O. Eissfeldt. Edited by J. Hempel and L. Rost. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1958. Davenport, G. L. The Eschatology of the Book of Jubilees. StPB 20. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Davies, G. F. Israel in Egypt: Reading Exodus 1–2. JSOTSup 135. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Davies, G. I. “KD in Exodus: An Assessment of E. Blum’s Proposal.” Pages 407–20 in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans. Edited by M. Vervenne and J. Lust. BETL 133. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. Davies, P. R. Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures. Library of Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998. Davila, J. R. “Text-Type and Terminology: Genesis and Exodus as Test Cases.” RevQ 61 [16] (1993): 3–37.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 365 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

365

Deist, F. E. “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose: Yahweh and the Editor of the Exodus Story: An Historico-Aesthetic Interpretation of Exodus 1–12.” OTE 2/3 (1989): 36–52. Dentan, R. The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East. Edited by R. Dentan. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 21983. Dever, W. G. and Clark, W. M. “The Patriarchal Traditions.” Pages 70–148 in Israelite and Judean History. Edited by J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller. London: SCM, 1977. Dexinger, F. “Das Garizimgebot im Dekalog der Samaritaner.” Pages 111–33 in Studien zum Pentateuch: Festschrift W. Kornfeld. Edited by G. Braulik. Vienna: Herder, 1977. ______. Henochs Zehnwochenapokalypse und offene Probleme der Apokalyptikforschung. StPB 29. Leiden: Brill, 1977. ______. “Samaritan Origins and the Qumran Texts.” Pages 169–84 in New Samaritan Studies of the Société d’études samaritaines, volumes 3 and 4: Festschrift G. D. Sixdenier. Edited by A. D. Crown and L. Davey. Studies in Judaica 5. Sydney: Mandelbaum Pub. and The University of Sydney, 1995. Dexinger, F., and Pummer, R., eds. Die Samaritaner. Wege der Forschung 604. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1992. Di Lella, A. A. “Wisdom of Ben-Sira.” ABD 6:931–45. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Diebner, B. J. “Erwägungen zum Thema ‘Exodus’.” Pages 595–630 in Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur, vol. 11: Festschrift W. Helck. Edited by H. Altenmüller and D. Wildung. Hamburg: Buske, 1984. ______. “Heilsgeschichte.” NBL 1:104–8. Zurich: Benziger, 1991. ______. “Le roman de Joseph, ou Israël en Égypt: Un midrash post-exilique de la Tora.” Pages 55–71 in Le livre de traverse de l’exégèse biblique à l’anthropologie: Préface par M. Detienne. Edited by O. Abel and F. Smyth. Paris: Cerf, 1992. Diebner, B. J., and Schult, H. “Argumenta e silentio: Das Grosse Schweigen als Folge der Frühdatierung der ‘alten Pentateuchquellen’.” Pages 24–35 in πrwfdnr rps: Festschrift R. Rendtorff. Edited by K. Rupprecht. DBAT Beiheft 1. Dielheim: Published by the editors, 1975. Diedrich, F. Die Anspielungen auf die Jakob-Tradition in Hosea 12,1–13,3: Ein literaturwissenschaftlicher Beitrag zur Exegese früher Prophetentexte. FB 27. Würzburg: Echter, 1977. Dietrich, W. “Das harte Joch (1Kön 12,4): Fronarbeit in der Salomo-Überlieferung.” BN 34 (1986): 7–16. ______. “Histoire et Loi: Historiographie deutéronomiste et Loi deutéronomique à l’exemple du passage de l’époque des Juges à l’époque royale.” Pages 297–323 in Israël construit son histoire: L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes. Edited by A. de Pury, T. Römer, and J.-D. Macchi. MdB 34. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996. ______. Die Josephserzählung als Novelle und Geschichtsschreibung: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Pentateuchfrage. Biblisch-theologische Studien 14. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989. ______. Prophetie und Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. FRLANT 108. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972. Dimant, D. “The Biography of Enoch and the Books of Enoch.” VT 33 (1983): 14–29. Dogniez, C. Bibliography of the Septuagint: Bibliographie de la Septante. 1970–1993. VTSup 60. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Dohmen, C., and Oeming, M. Biblischer Kanon warum und wozu? Eine Kanontheologie. QD 137. Freiburg: Herder, 1992. Dohmen, C., and Stemberger, G. Hermeneutik der Jüdischen Bibel und des Alten Testaments. Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1/2. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1996. Donner, H. “Art und Herkunft des Amtes der Königinmutter im Alten Testament (1959).” Pages 1–25 in idem, Aufsätze zum Alten Testament aus vier Jahrzehnten. BZAW 224. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. ______. Geschichte des Volkes Israel und seiner Nachbarn in Grundzügen. GAT 4/1–2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21995.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 366 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

366

Bibliography

______. Die literarische Gestalt der alttestamentlichen Josephsgeschichte. SHAW 2. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1976. ______. “Der Redaktor: Überlegungen zum vorkritischen Umgang mit der Heiligen Schrift.” (1980) Pages 259–85 in idem, Aufsätze zum Alten Testament aus vier Jahrzehnten. BZAW 224. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. Dorival, G.; Harl, M.; and Munnich, O. La Bible grecque des Septante: Du Judaïsme héllenistique au Christianisme ancien. Paris: Cerf, 1988. Dörrfuss, E. M. Mose in den Chronikbüchern: Garant theokratischer Zukunftserwartung. BZAW 219. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. Douglas, M. Leviticus as Literature. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1999. Dozeman, T. B. “The Institutional Setting of the Late Formation of the Pentateuch in the Work of John Van Seters.” Pages 253–63 in Society of Biblical Literature 1991 Seminar Papers. Edited by E. H. Lovering, Jr. SBLSP 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. ______. God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology and Canon in Exodus 19–24. SBLMS 37. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Dozeman, T. B., and Schmid, K., eds. A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. SBLSymS 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Drenkhahn, R. Die Elephantine-Stele des Sethnacht und ihr historischer Hintergrund. ÄgAbh 36. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1980. Droge, A. J. “The Interpretation of the History of Culture in Hellenistic-Jewish Historiography.” Pages 135–59 in Society of Biblical Literature 1984 Seminar Papers. Edited by K. H. Richards. SBLSP 23. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1984. Dumermuth, F. “Folkloristisches in der Erzählung von den ägyptischen Plagen.” ZAW 76 (1964): 323–25. Durham, J. I. Exodus. WBC 3. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. Dyk, P. J. van, “The Function of So-Called Etiological Elements in Narratives.” ZAW 102 (1990): 19–33. Ebach, J. “Die Schwester des Mose: Anmerkungen zu einem ‘Widerspruch’ in Ex 2,1–10.” Pages 130–44 in idem, Hiobs Post: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Hiobbuch, zu Themen biblischer Theologie und zur Methodik der Exegese. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996. Ebach, J., and Rüterswörden, U. “Unterweltsbeschwörung im Alten Testament: Untersuchungen zur Begriffs- und Religionsgeschichte des 'ob.” 1, UF 9 (1977): 56–70; 2, UF 12 (1980): 205–20. Ebeling, G. “Die Bedeutung der historisch-kritischen Methode für die protestantische Theologie und Kirche.” ZTK 47 (1950): 1–46 = pp. 1–49 in Wort und Glaube (I). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1960. Edelman, D. V. “Are the Kings of the Amorites ‘Swept Away’ in Joshua XXIV 12?” VT 41 (1991): 279–86. ______. The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel’s Past. Edited by D. V. Edelman. JSOTSup 127. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Eerdmans, B. D. Alttestamentliche Studien I: Die Komposition der Genesis. Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1908. Ego, B. “Abraham als Urbild der Toratreue Israels: Traditionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zu einem Aspekt des biblischen Abrahambildes.” Pages 25–40 in Bund und Tora: Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition. Edited by F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger. WUNT 92. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Eissfeldt, O. “BIBLOS GENESEOS.” (1958) Pages 458–70 in idem, Kleine Schriften, vol. 3. Edited by R. Sellheim and F. Maass. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1963. ______. Einleitung in das Alte Testament unter Einschluss der Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen sowie der apokryphen und pseudepigraphenartigen Qumran-Schriften: Entstehungsgeschichte des Alten Testaments. Neue theologische Grundrisse. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 31964 (The Old Testament: An Introduction. Translated by P. R. Ackroyd. Oxford: Blackwell, 1974).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 367 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

367

______. Hexateuch-Synopse: Die Erzählung der fünf Bücher Mose und des Buches Josua mit dem Anfange des Richterbuches in ihre vier Quellen zerlegt und in deutscher Übersetzung dargeboten. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922. ______. “Die Komposition von Exodus 1–12: Eine Rettung des Elohisten.” (1939) Pages 160– 70 in idem, Kleine Schriften, vol. 2. Edited by R. Sellheim and F. Maass. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1963. ______. “Mose.” (1953) Pages 240–55 in idem, Kleine Schriften, vol. 3. Edited by R. Sellheim and F. Maass. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1963. ______. Die Quellen des Richterbuches in synoptischer Anordnung ins Deutsche übertragen samt einer in Einleitung und Noten gegebenen Begründung. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1925. ______. “Die Schichten des Hexateuch als vornehmste Quelle für den Aufriss einer israelitisch jüdischen Kulturgeschichte.” (1919) Pages 33–43 in idem, Kleine Schriften, vol. 1. Edited by R. Sellheim and F. Maass. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1962. ______. “Stammessage und Novelle in den Geschichten von Jakob und seinen Söhnen.” (1923) Pages 84–104 in idem, Kleine Schriften, vol. 1. Edited by R. Sellheim and F. Maass. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1962. Eitz, A. Studien zum Verhältnis von Priesterschrift und Deuterojesaja. Diss. (masch.), Heidelberg, 1969. Eliade, M. Das Heilige und das Profane: Vom Wesen des Religiösen. Hamburg: Rowolth, 1957 (The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Translated by W. R. Trask. New York: Harper, 1961). ______. Der Mythos der ewigen Wiederkehr. Düsseldorf: Diederichs, 1953 (The Myth of the Eternal Return: Or, Cosmos and History. Translated by W. R. Trask. Bollingen Series 46. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971). Elliger K. “Gerar.” BHH 1:547–48. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. ______. “Ich bin der Herr–euer Gott.” (1954) = pp. 211–31 in Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament. Edited by H. Gese and O. Kaiser. TB 32. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1966. ______. “Sinn und Ursprung der priesterlichen Geschichtserzählung.” ZTK 49 (1952): 121–43 = pp. 174–98 in Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament. Edited by H. Gese and O. Kaiser. TB 32. Munich: Chr. Kaiser 1966. Elliott, J. K. “Manuscripts, the Codex and the Canon.” JSNT 63 (1996): 105–23. Emerton, J. A. “The Origin of the Promises to the Patriarchs in the Older Sources of the Book of Genesis.” VT 32 (1982): 14–32. ______. “The Priestly Writer in Genesis.” JTS 39 (1988): 381–400. ______. “The Site of Salem, the City of Melchizedek (Genesis xiv 18).” Pages 45–71 in Studies in the Pentateuch. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 41. Leiden: Brill, 1990. ______. “Some False Clues in the Study of Genesis XIV.” VT 21 (1971): 24–47. ______. “Some Problems in Genesis xiv.” Pages 73–102 in Studies in the Pentateuch. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 41. Leiden: Brill, 1990. ______. “The Source Analysis of Genesis XI 27–32.” VT 42 (1992): 37–46. Endres, J. C. Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees. CBQMS 18. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1987. Engel, H. Die Vorfahren Israels in Ägypten: Forschungsgeschichtlicher Überblick über die Darstellungen seit R. Lepsius. Frankfurter theologische Studien 27. Frankfurt a.M.: Knecht, 1979. Erichsen, W. Papyrus Harris I: Hieroglyphische Transkription. Baeg 5. Brussels: Ed. de la Fond Égyptolog, 1933. Eslinger, L. “Freedom or Knowledge? Perspective and Purpose in the Exodus Narrative (Exodus 1–15).” Pages 186–202 in The Pentateuch: A Sheffield Reader. Edited by J. W. Rogerson. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. ______. “Hosea 12:5a and Genesis 32:29. A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis.” JSOT 18 (1980): 91–99.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 368 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

368

Bibliography

______. “Knowing Yahweh: Exod 6:3 in the Context of Genesis 1–Exodus 15.” Pages 188–98 in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by L. J. de Regt et al. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996. Fabry, H.-J. “Spuren des Pentateuchredaktors in Jos 4,21ff: Anmerkungen zur Deuteronomismus-Rezeption.” Pages 351–56 in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. Edited by N. Lohfink. BETL 68. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985. Feldmeier, R. “Weise hinter ‘eisernen Mauern’: Tora und jüdisches Selbstverständnis zwischen Akkulturation und Absonderung im Aristeasbrief.” Pages 20–37 in Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum. Edited by M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer. WUNT 72. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Fensham, F. C. “Covenant, Promise and Expectation in the Bible.” TZ 23 (1967): 305–22. Fernández Marcos, N. Scribes and Translators: Septuagint and Old Latin in the Book of Kings. VTSup 54. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Fischer, G. “Exodus 1–15: Eine Erzählung.” Pages 149–78 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction–Reception–Interpretation. Edited by M. Vervenne. BETL 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. ______. Jahwe unser Gott: Sprache, Aufbau und Erzähltechnik in der Berufung des Mose. OBO 91. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. ______. “Keine Priesterschrift in Ex 1–15?” ZKT 117 (1995): 203–11. ______. “Das Schilfmeerlied Exodus 15 in seinem Kontext.” Bib 77 (1996): 32–47. Fischer, I. Die Erzeltern Israels: Feministisch-theologische Studien zu Genesis 12–36. BZAW 222. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. ______. Rut. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2001. ______. Wo ist Jahwe? Das Volksklagelied Jes 63,7–64,11 als Ausdruck des Ringens um eine gebrochene Beziehung. SBB 19. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985 (repr. 1991). ______. “Composition and Structure in the Jacob Cycle (Gen 25:19–35,22).” JJS 26 (1975): 15–38. ______. “Use, Authority, and Interpretation of Mikra in Qumran.” Pages 339–77 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by M. J. Mulder. CRINT 2/1. Assen: Van Gorcum / Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Fisher, L. “The Patriarchal Cycles.” Pages 59–65 in Orient and Occident: Festschrift C. H. Gordon. Edited by H. A. Hoffner, Jr. AOAT 22. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker and NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973. Floss, J. P. “ ‘Ich bin mein Name’: Die Identität von Gottes Ich und Gottes Namen nach Ex 3,14.” Pages 67–80 in Text, Methode und Grammatik: Festschrift W. Richter. Edited by W. Gross et al. St. Ottilien: EOS, 1991. ______. Jahwe dienen–Göttern dienen: Terminologische, literarische und semantische Untersuchung einer theologischen Aussage zum Gottesverhältnis im Alten Testament. BBB 45. Cologne: Hanstein, 1975. Fohrer, G. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 101965 (Introduction to the Old Testament. Translated by D. Green. London: S.P.C.K., 1970). ______. Überlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus: Eine Analyse von Ex 1–15. BZAW 91. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1964. Fraenkel, D. “Die Quellen der asterisierten Zusätze im zweiten Tabernakelbericht Exod 35–40.” Pages 140–86 in Studien zur Septuaginta–Robert Hanhart zu Ehren: Aus Anlass seines 65. Geburtstages. Edited by idem, U. Quast, and J. W. Wevers. Mitteilungen des SeptuagintaUnternehmens 20. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen: Philologisch-Historische Klasse 3/190. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Freedman, D. N. “The Law and the Prophets.” Pages 250–65 in Congress Volume: Bonn 1962. Edited by G. W. Anderson et al. VTSup 9. Leiden: Brill, 1963. ______. “Pentateuch.” IBD 3:711–27. New York: Abingdon, 1962.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 369 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

369

Freedman, D. N., and Geoghegan, J. C. “Martin Noth: Retrospect and Prospect.” Pages 129–52 in The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth. Edited by S. L. McKenzie and M. P. Graham. JSOTSup 182. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Frei, P. “Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie im achämenidischen Kleinasien.” Transeu 3 (1990): 157–71. Frei, P., and Koch, K. Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich. OBO 55. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21996. Frerichs, E. S., and Lesko, L. H., eds. Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Frevel, C. Das Buch Rut. NSKAT 6. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1992. ______. Mit dem Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern: Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift. Herders Biblische Studien 23. Freiburg: Herder, 2000. Friedman, R. E. The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses. San Francisco: Harper, 2003. ______. Commentary on the Torah with a New English Translation. San Francisco: Harper, 2001. ______. “The Deuteronomistic School.” Pages 70–80 in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Festschrift D. N. Freedman. Edited by A. B. Beck et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. ______. The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and the Priestly Codes. HSM 22. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. ______. “From Egypt to Egypt: Dtr1 and Dtr2.” Pages 167–92 in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faiths—Festschrift F. M. Cross. Edited by B. Halpern and J. D. Levenson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991. ______. The Hidden Book in the Bible. San Francisco: Harper, 1999. ______. “Torah (Pentateuch).” ABD 6:605–22. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ______. Who Wrote the Bible? San Francisco: Harper, 1987. Fritz, V. “Die Bedeutung der vorpriesterschriftlichen Vätererzählungen für die Religionsgeschichte der Königszeit.” Pages 403–11 in Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. Edited by W. Dietrich and M. A. Klopfenstein. OBO 139. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. ______. Das Buch Josua. HAT 1/7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. ______. Die Entstehung Israels im 12. und 11. Jahrhundert v.Chr. Biblische Enzyklopädie 2. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1996. ______. “Das Geschichtsverständnis der Priesterschrift.” ZTK 84 (1987): 426–39. ______. Israel in der Wüste: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Wüstenüberlieferung des Jahwisten. Marburger theologische Studien 7. Marburg: Elwert, 1970. ______. “Jahwe und El in den vorpriesterschriftlichen Geschichtswerken.” Pages 111–26 in “Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern?”: Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels—Festschrift O. Kaiser. Edited by I. Kottsieper et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. ______. Tempel und Zelt: Studien zum Tempelbau in Israel und zu dem Zeltheiligtum der Priesterschrift. WMANT 47. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977. Fröhlich, I. “The Symbolical Language of the Animal Apocalypse of Enoch (1 Enoch 85–90).” RevQ 53 (1990): 629–36. ______. ‘Time and Times and Half a Time’: Historical Consciousness in the Jewish Literature of the Persian and Hellenistic Eras. JSPSup 19. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Füglister, N. “Psalm 105 und die Väterverheissung.” Pages 41–59 in Die Väter Israels: Beiträge zur Theologie der Patriarchenüberlieferungen im Alten Testament. Edited by M. Görg. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. Fuller, R. “The Form and Formation of the Book of the Twelve: The Evidence from the Judean Desert.” Pages 86–101 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts. Edited by J. W. Watts and P. R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 370 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

370

Bibliography

Fuss, W. Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion in Exodus 3–17. BZAW 126. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972. Galling, K. Die Erwählungstraditionen Israels. Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1928. ______. Studien zur Geschichte Israels im persischen Zeitalter. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964. Garbini, G. History and Ideology in Ancient Israel. London: SCM, 1988. García López, F. “Deut 34, Dtr History and the Pentateuch.” Pages 47–61 in Studies in Deuteronomy: Festschrift C. J. Labuschagne. Edited by F. García Martínez et al. VTSup 53. Leiden: Brill, 1994. García Martínez, F. Qumran and Apocalyptic: Studies on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran. STDJ 9. Leiden: Brill, 1992. García Martínez, F., and Tigchelaar, E. J. C. “The Books of Enoch (1 Enoch) and the Aramaic Fragments from Qumran.” RevQ 53 (1990): 130–46. ______. “1 Enoch and the Figure of Enoch: A Bibliography of Studies 1970–1988.” RevQ 53 (1990): 149–74. Garr, W. R. “The Grammar and Interpretation of Exodus 6:3.” JBL 111 (1992): 385–408. Gaster, M. “Das Buch Josua in hebräisch-samaritanischer Rezension.” ZDMG 62 (1908): 209– 79, 494–549. Gaster, T. G. Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament: A Comparative Study with Chapters from Sir James G. Frazer’s Folklore in the Old Testament, vol. 1/2. London: Duckworth / New York: Harper & Row, 1969. Gaston, L. “Abraham and the Righteousness of God.” HBT 2 (1980): 39–68. Gertz, J. C. “Abraham, Mose und der Exodus: Beobachtungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte von Gen 15.” Pages 63–81 in Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Edited by J. C. Gertz et al. BZAW 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. ______. “Babel im Rücken und das Land vor Augen: Anmerkungen zum Abschluss der Urgeschichte und zum Anfang der Erzählungen von den Erzeltern Israels.” Pages 9–34 in Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition: Festschrift Matthias Köckert. Edited by A. C. Hagedorn and H. Pfeiffer. BZAW 400. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. ______. “Beobachtungen zum literarischen Charakter und zum geistesgeschichtlichen Ort der nichtpriesterschriftlichen Sintfluterzählung.” Pages 41–57 in Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt: Festschrift Hans-Christoph Schmitt. Edited by U. Schorn and M. Beck. BZAW 370. Berlin: de Grutyer, 2006. ______. “Kompositorische Funktion und literarhistorischer Ort von Deuteronomium 1–3.” Pages 107–28 in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke. Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus“-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten. Edited by M. Witte, K. Schmid, D. Prechel, and J. C. Gertz. BZAW 365. Berlin, 2006. ______. “Mose und die Ursprünge der jüdischen Religion.” ZTK 99 (2002): 3–20. ______. “Die Stellung des kleinen geschichtlichen Credos in der Redaktionsgeschichte von Deuteronomium und Pentateuch.” Pages 30–45 in Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium: Festschrift L. Perlitt. Edited by R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann. FRLANT 190. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. ______. Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung. FRLANT 186. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. ______. “The Transition between the Books of Genesis and Exodus.” Pages 73–87 in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Edited by T. B. Dozeman and K. Schmid. SBLSymS 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Gertz, J. C., ed. Grundinformation Altes Testament. Eine Einführung in Literatur, Religion und Geschichte des Alten Testaments. Uni-Taschenbücher 2745. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. Gertz, J. C.; Schmid, K.; and Witte, M., eds. Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. BZAW 215. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 371 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

371

Gese, H. “Die dreifache Gestaltwerdung des Alten Testaments.” Pages 299–328 in Mitte der Schrift? Ein jüdisch-christliches Gespräch: Texte des Berner Symposions vom 6.–12. Januar 1985. Edited by M. Klopfenstein et al. JudChr 11. Bern: Peter Lang, 1987. ______. “Geschichtliches Denken im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament.” ZTK 55 (1958): 127–45 = pp. 81–98 in Vom Sinai zum Zion: Alttestamentliche Beiträge zur biblischen Theologie. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 21984. ______. “Jakob und Mose: Hosea 12,3–14 als einheitlicher Text (1986).” Pages, 84–93 in idem, Alttestamentliche Studien. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. ______. “Die Komposition der Abrahamserzählung.” Pages 29–51 in idem, Alttestamentliche Studien. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. ______. “Das Problem von Amos 9,7.” Pages 33–38 in Textgemäss: Aufsätze und Beiträge zur Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments: Festschrift E. Würthwein. Edited by A. H. J. Gunneweg and O. Kaiser. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck Ruprecht, 1979 = pp. 116–21 in Alttestamentliche Studien. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Giblin, C. H. “Structural Patterns in Joshua 24:1–25.” CBQ 26 (1964): 50–69. Giesen, G. Die Wurzel [bv “schwören”: Eine semasiologische Studie zum Eid im Alten Testament. BBB 56. Bonn: Hanstein, 1981. Gilbert, M. “La place de la Loi dans la prière de Néhémie 9.” Pages 307–16 in De la Tôrah au Messie: Festschrift H. Cazelles. Edited by J. Doré et al. Paris: Descléé, 1981. Ginsberg, H. L. “Hosea’s Ephraim, More Fool Than Knave: A New Interpretation of Hosea 12:1–14.” JBL 80 (1961): 339–47. Giron Blanc, L.-F. Pentateuco Hebreo-Samaritano: Genesis. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1976. Glessmer, U. “Liste der biblischen Texte aus Qumran.” RevQ 62 [16] (1993): 153–92. Goldingay, J. “The Patriarchs in Scripture and History.” Pages 11–42 in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives. Edited by A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1980. Golka, F. W. “Die theologischen Erzählungen im Abraham-Kreis.” ZAW 90 (1978): 186–95. Good, E. M. “Hosea and the Jacob Tradition.” VT 16 (1966): 137–51. Görg, M. “Amoriter.” NBL 1:90–92. Zurich: Benziger, 1991. ______. “Ausweisung oder Befreiung? Neue Perspektiven zum sogenannten Exodus.” Kairós 20 (1978): 272–80. ______. Die Beziehungen zwischen dem Alten Israel und Ägypten: Von den Anfängen bis zum Exil. EdF 290. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1997. ______. “Dor, die Teukrer und die Girgasiter.” BN 28 (1985): 7–14. ______. “Exodus.” NBL Lfg. 4:631–36. Zurich: Benziger, 1990. ______. Josua. NEchtB. Würzburg: Echter, 1991. Gosse, B. “L’Alliance avec Abraham et les relectures de l’histoire d’Israël en Ne 9, Ps 105–106, 135–136 et 1Ch 16.” Transeu 15 (1998): 123–35. ______. “Deutéronome 32,1–43 et les rédactions des livres d’Ezéchiel et d’Isaïe” ZAW 107 (1995): 110–17. ______. “Le don de la terre dans le livre de Genèse en rapport aux rédactions deutéronomiste et sacerdotal du Pentateuque.” EstBib 52 (1994): 289–301. ______. “Exode 6,8 comme réponse à Ézéchiel 33,24.” RHPR 74 (1994): 241–47. ______. “Genèse 13,15 et le don de la terre à Abraham.” RHPR 74 (1994): 395–97. ______. “L’influence du livre du prophète Isaïe (ysºyhw) sur la présentation du ‘salut (yswºh)’ par les cantiques et récits bibliques, et la chute de Jérusalem comme archétype des catastrophes des origines.” Hen. 22 (2000): 3–34. ______. “Moïse entre l’alliance des patriarches et celle du Sinaï.” SJOT 11 (1997): 3–15. ______. “Les premiers chapitres du livre d’Exode et l’unification du Pentateuque.” BN 86 (1997): 31–35. ______. “Le souvenir de l’alliance avec Abraham, Isaac et Jacob et le serment du don de la terre dans la rédaction du Pentateuque.” EstBib 51 (1993): 459–72. ______. “Le texte d’Exode 15,1–21 dans la rédaction biblique.” BZ 37 (1993): 264–71.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 372 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

372

Bibliography

______. “Transitions rédactionelles de l’histoire des clans à l’histoire des peuples en Ex 1,7; 2,24b.” EstBib 51 (1993): 163–70. ______. Structuration des grands ensembles bibliques et intertextualité à l’époque perse: De la rédaction sacerdotale du livre d’Isaïe à la contestation de la Sagesse. BZAW 246. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Grabbe, L. L. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian, vol. 1: The Persian and Greek Periods. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Graham, M. P., Hoglund, K. G., and McKenzie, S. L., eds. The Chronicler as Historian. JSOTSup 238. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Graupner, A. Der Elohist: Gegenwart und Wirksamkeit des transzendenten Gottes in der Geschichte. WMANT 97. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002. Grayson, A. K. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Locust Valley, NY: Augustin, 1975. Greenberg, M. “The Stabilization of the Text of the Hebrew Bible Reviewed in the Light of the Biblical Materials from the Judean Deserert.” JAOS 76 (1956): 157–67. ______. Understanding Exodus. New York: Behrman, 1969. Greenfield, J. C., and Porten, B. The Bisitun Inscriptions of Darius the Great: Aramaic Version, Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum: Part I Inscriptions of Ancient Iran, vol. 5: The Aramaic Versions of the Achaemenian Inscriptions. Texts 1. London: Lund Humphries, 1982. Greenspahn, F. E. “The Theology of the Framework of Judges.” VT 36 (1986): 385–96. Greenspoon, L. J. Textual Studies in the Book of Joshua. HSM 28. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Gressmann, H. Mose und seine Zeit: Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-Sagen. FRLANT 18. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913. ______. “Mythen und Mythologie I: Religionsgeschichtlich.” RGG1 4:618–21. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1913. Griffiths, J. G. “The Egyptian Derivation of the Name Moses.” JNES 12 (1953): 225–31. Gross, H. “Der Glaube an Mose nach Exodus (4,14.19).” Pages 57–65 in Wort–Gebot–Glaube: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments: Festschrift W. Eichrodt. Edited by H. J. Stoebe et al. ATANT 59. Zurich: Zwingli, 1970. ______. “Glaube und Bund: Theologische Bemerkungen zu Genesis 15.” Pages 25–35 in Studien zum Pentateuch: Festschrift W. Kornfeld. Edited by G. Braulik. Vienna: Herder, 1977. Gross, W. “Bundeszeichen und Bundesschluss in der Priesterschrift.” TTZ 87 (1987): 98–115. ______. “Die Herausführungsformel: Zum Verhältnis von Formel und Syntax.” ZAW 86 (1974): 425–53. ______. “Israels Hoffnung auf die Erneuerung des Staates.” Pages 87–122 in Unterwegs zur Kirche: Alttestamentliche Konzeptionen. Edited by J. Schreiner. QD 110. Freiburg: Herder, 1987. ______. Die Pendenskonstruktion im biblischen Hebräisch. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im alten Testament 27. St. Ottilien: EOS, 1987. ______. “ ‘Rezeption’ in Ex 31,12–17 und Lev 26,39–45.” Pages 45–64 in Rezeption und Auslegung im Alten Testament und in seinem Umfeld: Ein Symposium aus Anlass des 60. Geburtstags von Odil Hannes Steck. Edited by T. Krüger and R. G. Kratz. OBO 153. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. ______. “Syntaktische Erscheinungen am Anfang althebräischer Erzählungen: Hintergrund und Vordergrund.” Pages 131–45 in Congress Volume: Vienna 1980. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 32. Leiden: Brill, 1981. ______. “Die Wolkensäule und die Feuersäule in Ex 13 + 14. Literarkritische, redaktionsgeschichtliche und quellenkritische Erwägungen.” Pages 142–65 in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Festschrift N. Lohfink. Edited by G. Braulik, W. Gross, and S. McEvenue. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. Grünwaldt, K. Exil und Identität: Beschneidung, Passa und Sabbat in der Priesterschrift. BBB 85. Frankfurt a.M.: Hain, 1992. Guillaume, P. Waiting for Josiah: The Judges. JSOTSup 385. London: T. & T. Clark, 2004.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 373 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

373

Gunkel, H. Genesis. HKAT 1/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 61964 (Genesis: Translated and Interpreted by Hermann Gunkel. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Mercer Library of Biblical Studies. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997). Gunn, D. M. “The ‘Hardening of Pharaoh’s Heart’: Plot, Character and Theology in Exodus 1– 14.” Pages 72–96 in Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature. Edited by D. J. A. Clines et al. JSOTSup 19. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1982. Gunneweg, A. H. J. “Anmerkungen und Anfragen zur neueren Pentateuchforschung.” TRu 48 (1983): 227–53; TRu 50 (1985): 107–31. ______. “Das Gesetz und die Propheten: Eine Auslegung von Ex 33,7–11; Num 11,4–12,8; Dtn 31,14f.; 34,10.” ZAW 102 (1990): 169–80. ______. “Mose in Midian.” ZTK 61 (1964): 1–9. ______. Nehemia: Mit einer Zeittafel von Alfred Jepsen und einem Exkurs zur Topographie und Archäologie Jerusalems von Manfred Oeming. KAT 19/2. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1987. ______. “≈rah μ[: Vollbürger–Laien–Heiden.” Pages 29–36 in Sola Scriptura, vol. 2: Aufsätze zu alttestamentlichen Texten und Themen. Edited by P. Höffken. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Güterbock, H. G. “Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestaltung bei Babyloniern und Hethitern bis 1200.” ZA 42 (1934): 1–91; ZA 44 (1938): 45–145. Ha, J. Genesis 15: A Theological Compendium of Pentateuchal History. BZAW 181. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. Haag, E. “Die Abrahamtradition in Gen 15.” Pages 83–106 in Die Väter Israels: Beiträge zur Theologie der Patriarchenüberlieferung im Alten Testament: Festschrift J. Scharbert. Edited by M. Görg. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. Hafemann, S. J. “Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Survey.” JSP 7 (1990): 79– 104. Hagelia, H. Numbering the Stars: A Phraseological Analysis of Genesis 15. ConBOT 39. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994. Haglund, E. Historical Motifs in the Psalms. ConBOT 23. Lund: CWK Gleerup. 1984. Hahn, J. Das “Goldene Kalb.” Die Jahwe-Verehrung bei Stierbildern in der Geschichte Israels. Europäische Hochschulschriften Series 23, Theology 154. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 21987. Hall, R. G. Revealed Histories: Techniques for Ancient Jewish and Christian Historiography. JSPSup 6. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Hallbäck, G. “The Fall of Zion and the Revelation of the Law: An Interpretation of 4 Ezra.” SJOT 6 (1992): 263–92. Halpern, B. and Vanderhooft, D. S. “The Editions of Kings in the 7th–6th Centuries b.c.e.” HUCA 62 (1991): 179–244. Hanhart, R. “Textgeschichtliche Probleme der LXX von ihrer Entstehung bis Origenes.” Pages 1–19 in Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum. Edited by M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer. WUNT 72. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Haran, M. “Archives, Libraries, and the Order of the Biblical Books.” JANESCU 22 (1993): 51– 61. ______. “Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-exilic Times.” JJS 33 (1982): 161–73. ______. “Book-Size and the Device of Catch-Lines in the Biblical Canon.” JJS 36 (1985): 1–11. ______. “Book-Size and the Thematic Cycles in the Pentateuch.” Pages 165–76 in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift R. Rendtorff. Edited by E. Blum et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. ______. “The Religion of the Patriarchs.” ASTI 4 (1965): 30–55. Hardmeier, C. “Erzählen–Erzählung–Erzählgemeinschaft: Zur Rezeption von Abrahamserzählungen in der Exilsprophetie.” WD 16 (1981): 27–47. ______. Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas: Erzählkommunikative Studien zur Entstehungssituation der Jesaja- und Jeremiaerzählungen in II Reg 18–20 und Jer 37–40. BZAW 187. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 374 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

374

Bibliography

Harnisch, W. “Die Ironie der Offenbarung: Exegetische Erwägungen zur Zionvision im 4. Buch Esra.” ZAW 95 (1983): 75–95. Hartenstein, F. “Religionsgeschichte Israels–ein Überblick über die Forschung seit 1990.” VF 48 (2003): 2–28. Hartlich, C. and Sachs, W. Der Ursprung des Mythosbegriffs in der modernen Bibelwissenschaft. SSEA 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1952. Harvey, J. D. “Toward a Degree of Order in Ben Sira’s Book.” ZAW 105 (1993): 52–62. Hasel, G. F. “The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15.” JSOT 19 (1981): 61–78. Haudebert, P., ed. Le pentateuque: Débats et recherches. LD 151. Paris: Cerf, 1992. Hausmann, J. “jls.” ThWAT 5:859–67. Stuttgart: Kohhammer, 1986. Heinemann, I. “Moses.” Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft 31:359–75. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1933. Helck, W. TKW und die Ramses-Stadt. VT 15 (1965): 35–48. Hendel, R. S. The Epic of the Patriarch: The Jacob Cycle and the Narrative Traditions of Canaan and Israel. HSM 42. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Hengel, M. Juden, Christen und Barbaren: Aspekte der Hellenisierung des Judentums in vorchristlicher Zeit. SBS 76. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1976 ( Jews, Greeks, and Barbarians: Aspects of the Hellenization of Judaism in the pre-Christian Period. Translated by J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980). ______. Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2.Jh.s v. Chr. WUNT 10. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 31988 ( Judaism and Hellenism. Translated by J. Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1974). ______. “ ‘Schriftauslegung’ und ‘Schriftwerdung’ in der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels.” Pages 1– 71 in Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum. Edited by id. and H. Löhr. WUNT 73. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. ______. “Die Septuaginta als ‘christliche Schriftensammlung,’ ihre Vorgeschichte und das Problem ihres Kanons.” Pages 34–127 in Verbindliches Zeugnis I: Kanon–Schrift–Tradition. Edited by W. Pannenberg and Th. Schneider. DiKi 7. Freiburg: Herder and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992 = pp. 182–284 in Die Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum. Edited by M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer. WUNT 72. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Hermisson, H.-J. “Die babylonischen Aufstände am Anfang der Regierung des Xerxes und ihre Ahndung nach alter und neuer Geschichtsschreibung.” Pages 71–92 in Gottes Recht als Lebensraum: Festschrift H. J. Boecker. Edited by P. Mommer et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993. ______. “Deuterojesaja-Probleme: Ein kritischer Literaturbericht.” VF 31 (1986): 53–84. ______. “Einheit und Komplexität Deuterojesajas: Probleme der Redaktionsgeschichte von Jes 40–55.” Pages 287–312 in The Book of Isaiah—Le Livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures: Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage. Edited by J. Vermeylen. BETL 81. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989. Herrmann, S. “Die Abwertung des Alten Testaments als Geschichtsquelle: Bemerkungen zu einem geistesgeschichtlichen Problem.” Pages 156–65 in Sola Scriptura: Das reformatorische Schriftprinzip in der säkularen Welt. Edited by H. H. Schmid and J. Mehlhausen. VWGTh [5]. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1991. ______. “Geschichte Israels.” TRE 12:698–740. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984. ______. Israels Aufenthalt in Ägypten. SBS 40. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1970. ______. “Mose.” EvT 28 (1968): 301–28 = pp. 47–75 in Gesammelte Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten Testaments. TB 75. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1986. ______. “ ‘Negatives Besitzverzeichnis’–eine mündliche Tradition?” Pages 93–100 in Gottes Recht als Lebensraum: Festschrift H. J. Boecker. Edited by P. Mommer et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993. Hieke, T. Genealogien der Genesis. HBS 39. Freiburg: Herder, 2003.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 375 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

375

Hilhorst, T. “ ‘And Moses Was Instructed in All the Wisdom of the Egyptians’ (Acts 7.22).” Pages 153–76 in The Wisdom of Egypt: Jewish, Early Christian and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen. Edited by T. Hilhorst and G. H. van Kooten. AGJU 59. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Himbaza, I. “Dt 32,8: Une correction tardive des scribes. Essai d’interprétation et de datation.” Bib 83 (2002): 527–48. Hitzig, F. Die zwölf kleinen Propheten. Leipzig: Weidmann, 1838. Höffken, P. “Warum schwieg Jesus Sirach über Esra?” ZAW 87 (1975): 195–98. Hoffmann, H.-D. Reform und Reformen: Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung. ATANT 66. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1980. Hoftijzer, J. Die Verheissungen an die drei Erzväter. Leiden: Brill, 1956. Hoglund, K. G. “The Achaemenid Context.” Pages 54–72 in Second Temple Studies. 1. Persian Period. Edited by P. R. Davies. JSOTSup 117. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. ______. “The Chronicler as Historian: A Comparativist Perspective.” Pages 19–29 in The Chronicler as Historian. Edited by M. P. Graham, K. G. Hoglund, and S. L. McKenzie JSOTSup 238. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Hollander, H. W. Joseph as an Ethical Model in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. SVTP 6. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Holm-Nielsen, S. “The Exodus Traditions in Ps 105.” ASTI 11 (1978): 22–30. Hölscher, G. “Das Buch der Könige, seine Quellen und seine Redaktion.” Pages 158–213 in EUCARISTHRION, Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments: Festschrift H. Gunkel. Edited by H. Schmidt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923. ______. Geschichte der israelitischen und jüdischen Religion. Sammlung Töpelmann 1. Gruppe: Die Theologie im Abriss 7. Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1922. ______. Geschichtsschreibung in Israel: Untersuchungen zum Jahvisten und Elohisten. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1952. Holzinger, H. Das Buch Josua. KHC 6. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1901. ______. Einleitung in den Hexateuch. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1893. ______. Exodus. KHC 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1901. ______. Genesis. KHC 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1898. ______. Numeri. KHC 4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1903. Hornung, E. Grundzüge der ägyptischen Geschichte. Grundzüge 3. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1978. Hossfeld, F.-L. “Ps 106 und die priesterliche Überlieferung des Pentateuch.” Pages 255–66 in Textarbeit. Studien zu Texten und ihrer Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels: Festschrift für Peter Weimar zur Vollendung seines 60. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen. Edited by K. Kiesow and T. Meurer. AOAT 294. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2003 ______. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches. FB 20. Würzburg: Echter, 1977. Houtman, C. Exodus. HCOT 1–2. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993–96. ______. “Moses.” DDD1 1113–22. Leiden: Brill, 1995. ______. Der Pentateuch: Die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung. CBET 9. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994. Hübner, K. Die Wahrheit des Mythos. Munich: Beck, 1985. Hughes, J. Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology. JSOTSup 66. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Huppenbauer, M. Mythos und Subjektivität: Aspekte neutestamentlicher Entmythologisierung im Anschluss an Rudolf Bultmann und Georg Picht. HUT 31. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Hurvitz, A. “Dating the Priestly Source in the Light of the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew A Century after Wellhausen.” ZAW 100 Suppl. (1988): 88–100. Hutter, M. Religionen in der Umwelt des Alten Testaments I: Babylonier, Syrer, Perser. Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 4/1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1996.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 376 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

376

Bibliography

Hyatt, J. P. “Were There an Ancient Historical Credo in Israel and an Independent Sinai Tradition?” Pages 152–70 in Translating and Unterstanding the Old Testament: Festschrift H. G. May. Edited by H. T. Frank and W. L. Reed. Nashville: Abingdon, 1970. Ihromi, “Die Königinmutter und der ºAmm Haªarez im Reich Juda.” VT 24 (1974): 421–29. Im, Tae-Soo. Das Davidbild in den Chronikbüchern: David als Idealbild des theokratischen Messianismus für den Chronisten. Europäische Hochschulschriften Série 23, Théologie 263. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1985. Isbell, C. “Exodus 1–2 in the Context of Exodus 1–14: Story Lines and Key Words.” Pages 37– 61 in Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature. Edited by D. J. A. Clines et al. JSOTSup 19. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1982. Ishida, T. “The Structure and Historical Implications of the List of Pre-Israelite Nations.” Bib 60 (1979): 461–90. Jacob, B. Das erste Buch der Tora: Genesis (Translated with an introduction by B. Jacob. New York: Ktav, 1974). ______. “Gott und Pharao.” MGWJ 68 (1924): 1: 118–26; 2: 202–11; 3: 268–89. ______. “Mose am Dornbusch: Die beiden Hauptbeweisstellen der Quellenscheidung im Pentateuch, Ex 3 und 6, aufs Neue exegetisch geprüft.” MGWJ 66 (1922): 1: 11–33; 2: 116– 38; 3: 180–200. ______. “Der Prophet Hosea und die Geschichte.” EvT 24 (1964): 281–90. ______. The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus. Translated with an introduction by Walter Jacob in association with Yaakov Elman. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1992 (= Das Buch Exodus. Edited by S. Mayer, J. Hahn, and A. Jürgensen. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1997). Jamieson-Drake, D. W. Scribes and Schools in Monarchic Judah: A Socio-archaeological Approach. JSOTSup 109 / SWBA 9. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Janowski, B. “ ‘Ich will in eurer Mitte wohnen’: Struktur und Genese der exilischen SchekinaTheologie.” Pages 165–93 in Der eine Gott der beiden Testamente. Edited by I. Baldermann et al. Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1987 (= pp. 119–47 in Gottes Gegenwart in Israel. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993). ______. “Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen. Bemerkungen zu einem neuen Gesamtentwurf.” ZTK 86 (1989): 389–454 (= pp. 148–213 in Gottes Gegenwart in Israel. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993). ______. Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zur Sühnetheologie der Priesterschrift und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. WMANT 55. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982. ______. “Tempel und Schöpfung: Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption.” Pages 37–69 in Schöpfung und Neuschöpfung. Edited by I. Baldermann et al. Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 5. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990 (= pp. 214–46 in Gottes Gegenwart in Israel. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993). Janssen, E. Das Gottesvolk und seine Geschichte: Geschichtsbild und Selbstverständnis im palästinensischen Schrifttum von Jesus Sirach bis Jehuda ha-Nasi. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971. ______. Juda in der Exilszeit: Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Entstehung des Judentums. FRLANT 69. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956. Janzen, J. G. “The ‘Wandering Aramean’ Reconsidered.” VT 44 (1994): 359–75. Japhet, S. “Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles.” JBL 98 (1979): 205–18. ______. I & II Chronicles: A Commentary. OTL. London: SCM, 1993. ______. “The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra: Nehemiah Investigated Anew.” VT 18 (1968): 332–72. Jaros, K. Sichem: Eine archäologische und religionsgeschichtliche Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Jos 24. OBO 11. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 377 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

377

______. Die Stellung des Elohisten zur kanaanäischen Religion. OBO 4. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. Jenkins, A. K. “A Great Name: Genesis 12:2 and the Editing of the Pentateuch.” JSOT 10 (1978): 41–57. Jenni, E. “Zwei Jahrzehnte Forschung an den Büchern Josua bis Könige.” TRu 27 (1961): 1–32, 97–146. Jenni, E., and Westermann, C. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. 3 vols. Translated by M. E. Biddle. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997. Jepsen, A. “Zur Chronologie des Priesterkodex.” ZAW 47 (1929): 251–55. ______. “Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Vätergestalten.” Pages 46–75 in Der Herr ist Gott: Aufsätze zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1978. Jeremias, A. Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients: Handbuch zur biblisch-orientalischen Altertumskunde. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 21906. Jeremias, C. “Die Erzväter in der Verkündigung der Propheten.” Pages 206–22 in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift W. Zimmerli. Edited by H. Donner et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Jeremias, J. Hosea und Amos: Studien zu den Anfängen des Dodekapropheton. FAT 13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. ______. “The Interrelationship between Amos and Hosea.” Pages 171–86 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts. Edited by J. W. Watts and P. R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. ______. “Jakob im Amosbuch.” Pages 139–54 in Die Väter Israels: Beiträge zur Theologie der Patriarchenüberlieferung im Alten Testament. Festschrift J. Scharbert. Edited by M. Görg. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. ______. Das Königtum Gottes in den Psalmen: Israels Begegnung mit dem kanaanäischen Mythos in den Jahwe-König-Psalmen. FRLANT 141. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987. ______. Der Prophet Amos. ATD 24/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995 (Amos. Translated by D. W. Stott. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998). ______. Der Prophet Hosea. ATD 24/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. ______. Die Reue Gottes: Aspekte alttestamentlicher Gottesvorstellung. BibS(N) 65. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975. ______. “Schöpfung in Poesie und Prosa des Alten Testaments. Gen 1–3 im Vergleich mit anderen Schöpfungstexten des Alten Testaments.” Pages 11–36 in Schöpfung und Neuschöpfung. Edited by I. Baldermann et al. Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 5. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. ______. Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung. WMANT 10. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 21977. Jericke, D. “Die Geburt Isaaks–Gen 21,1–8.” BN 88 (1997): 31–37. ______. “Josuas Tod und Josuas Grab: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie.” ZAW 108 (1996): 347–61. Jervell, J. “Ein Interpolator interpretiert: Zu der christlichen Bearbeitung der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen.” Pages 30–61 in Studien zu den Testamenten der Zwölf Patriarchen. Drei Aufsätze herausgegeben von Walter Eltester. Edited by C. Burchard, J. Jerwell, and J. Thomas. BZNW 36. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1969. Jeska, J. Die Geschichte Israels in der Sicht des Lukas. Apg 7,2b–53 und 13,17–25 im Kontext antikjüdischer Summarien der Geschichte Israels. FRLANT 195. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Jirku, A. Die älteste Geschichte Israels im Rahmen lehrhafter Darstellungen. Leipzig: Deichert, 1917. Johnson, M. D. The Purpose of Biblical Geneaologies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus. SNTSMS 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Johnstone, W. “The Deuteronomistic Cycles of ‘Signs’ and ‘Wonders’ in Exodus 1–13.” Pages 166–85 in Understanding Poets and Prophet: Festschrift G. W. Anderson. Edited by A. G. Auld. JSOTSup 152. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 378 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

378

Bibliography

______. Exodus. OTG. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. ______. “Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy in Pentateuchal Studies.” ZAW 99 (1987): 16– 37. Jonge, M. de. “Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 193–246 in idem, editor, Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation. SVTP 3. Leiden: Brill, 1975. ______. “The Future of Israel in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 164–79 in idem, Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. NovTSup 43. Leiden: Brill 1991. ______. “The Interpretation of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in Recent Years.” Pages 183–92 in Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation. SVTP 3. Leiden: Brill, 1975. ______. “The Main Issue in the Study of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 147– 63 in idem, Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. NovTSup 43. Leiden: Brill 1991. ______. “Die Paränese in den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und in den Testamenten der Zwölf Patriarchen: Einige Überlegungen.” Pages 277–89 in idem, Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. NovTSup 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991. ______. “Patriarchs, Testaments of the Twelve.” ABD 5:180–86. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ______. “The Pre-Mosaic Servants of God in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and in the Writings of Justin and Irenaeus.” Pages 262–76 in idem, Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. NovTSup 43, Leiden: Brill, 1991. ______. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarch: A Study of Their Text, Composition and Origin. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953. ______. “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Christian and Jewish.” Pages 233–43 in idem, Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. NovTSup 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Jonge, M. de, and Hollander, H. W. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary. SVTP 8. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Joosten, J. “Moïse a-t-il recelé le Code de la Sainteté.” BN 84 (1996): 75–86. ______. People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26. VTSup 67. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Joüon, P., and Muraoka, T. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 1–2. SubBi 14/1–2. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991. Kaestli, J.-D., and Wermelinger, O. Le Canon de l’Ancien Testament: Sa formation et son histoire. Edited by J.-D. Kaestli and O. Wermelinger. MdB [10]. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1984. Kaiser, O. “Anknüpfung und Widerspruch: Die Antwort der jüdischen Weisheit auf die Herausforderung durch den Hellenismus.” Pages 54–69 in Pluralismus und Identität. Edited by J. Mehlhausen. VWGTh 8. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1995. ______. “Biblische Literaturgeschichte I.” TRE 21:306–37. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991. ______. Das Buch des Propheten Jesaja: Kapitel 1–12. ATD 17. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 51981. ______. Der Gott des Alten Testaments: Theologie des AT 1: Grundlegung. Uni-Taschenbücher 1747. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993 (cited as TheolAT 1); Der Gott des Alten Testaments: Wesen und Wirken: Theologie des AT 2: Jahwe, der Gott Israels, Schöpfer der Welt und des Menschen. Uni-Taschenbücher 2024. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. ______. Grundriss der Einleitung in die kanonischen und deuterokanonischen Schriften des Alten Testaments, vol. 1: Die erzählenden Werke. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1992. Vol. 2: Die prophetischen Werke. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1994. Vol. 3: Die poetischen und weisheitlichen Werke. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1994. ______. “Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Genesis 15.” ZAW 70 (1958): 107–26.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 379 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

379

Kalimi, I. “Die Abfassungszeit der Chronik–Forschungsstand und Perspektiven.” ZAW 105 (1993): 223–33. ______. Zur Geschichtsschreibung des Chronisten: Literarisch-historiographische Abweichungen der Chronik von ihren Paralleltexten in den Samuel- und Königsbüchern. BZAW 226. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995. Kallai, Z. “The Patriarchal Boundaries, Canaan and the Land of Israel.” IEJ 47 (1997): 69–82. Kartveit, M. Motive und Schichten in der Landtheologie in I Chronik 1–9. ConBOT 28. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1989. Katz, P. “The Old Testament Canon in Palestine and Alexandria.” ZNW 47 (1956): 191–217. Kearney, P. J. “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 25–40.” ZAW 89 (1977): 375–87. Kebekus, N. Die Joseferzählung: Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Gen 37–50. Münster: Waxmann, 1990. Kee, H. C. “Appropriating the History of God’s People: A Survey of Interpretations of the History of Israel in the Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha and the New Testament.” Pages 44–64 in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth and C. A. Evans. JSPSup 14 and SSEJC 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. ______. “The Ethical Dimensions in the Testaments of the XII as a Clue to Provenance.” NTS 24 (1978): 259–70. Keel, O., and Uehlinger, C. Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole: Neue Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ikonographischer Quellen. QD 134. Freiburg: Herder, 21993 (Gods, Goddesses, and Images of Gods in Ancient Israel. Translated by T. H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998). Keel, O.; Küchler, M.; and Uehlinger, C. Orte und Landschaften der Bibel: Ein Handbuch und Studien-Reiseführer zum Heiligen Land. Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1982ff. Kegler, J. “Die Berufung des Mose als Befreier Israels. Zur Einheitlichkeit des Berufungsberichts in Exodus 3–4.” Pages 162–88 in Freiheit und Recht: Festschrift Frank Crüsemann. Edited by C. Hardmeier et al. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 2003. ______. “Zu Komposition und Theologie der Plagenerzählungen.” Pages 55–74 in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift R. Rendtorff. Edited by E. Blum et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. ______. “Das Zurücktreten der Exodustradition in den Chronikbüchern.” Pages 54–66 in Schöpfung und Befreiung: Festschrift C. Westermann. Edited by R. Albertz et al. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1989. Kelly, B. E. Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles. JSOTSup 211. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Kent, R. G. Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 21961. Kessler, R. Die Querverweise im Pentateuch: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der expliziten Querverbindungen innerhalb des vorpriesterlichen Pentateuchs. Diss. (masch.), Heidelberg, 1972. ______. Staat und Gesellschaft im vorexilischen Juda: vom 8. Jahrhundert bis zum Exil. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Keulen, P. van. Manasseh through the Eyes of the Deuteronomists: The Manasseh Account (2 Kings 21:1–18) and the Final Chapters of the Deuteronomistic History. OtSt 38. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Kiesow, K. Exodustexte im Jesajabuch: Literarkritische und motivgeschichtliche Analysen. OBO 24. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Kikawada, I. M. “Noah and the Ark.” ABD 4:1123–31. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ______. “Primeval History.” ABD 5:461–66. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Kilian, R. “Nachtrag und Neuorientierung: Anmerkungen zum Jahwisten in den Abrahamserzählungen.” Pages 155–67 in Die Väter Israel: Beiträge zur Theologie der Patriarchenüberlieferung im Alten Testament: Festschrift J. Scharbert. Edited by M. Görg. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. ______. Die vorpriesterlichen Abrahamsüberlieferungen literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht. BBB 24. Bonn: Hanstein, 1966.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 380 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

380

Bibliography

Kippenberg, H. G. Garizim und Synagoge: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur samaritanischen Religion der aramäischen Periode. Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 30. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971. Kissling, P. J. Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha. JSOTSup 224. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Kitchen, K. A. “Exodus.” ABD 2:700–708. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Kittel, R. Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. 1: Palästina in der Urzeit: Das Werden des Volkes: Geschichte der Zeit bis zum Tode Josuas. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 71932. ______. “Die pentateuchischen Urkunden in den Büchern Richter und Samuel.” TSK 65 (1892): 44–71. ______. “Zeitrechung, biblische.” RE 21:639–50. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 31908. Klein, G. “Römer 4 und die Idee der Heilsgeschichte.” EvT 23 (1963): 424–47 (= pp. 145–69 in Rekonstruktion und Interpretation: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament. BEvT 50. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1969). Klein, H. “Ort und Zeit des Elohisten.” EvT 37 (1977): 247–60. Klein, R. W. “Chronicles, Book of 1–2.” ABD 5:992–1002. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ______. “The Message of P.” Pages 57–66 in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift H. W. Wolff. Edited by J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. Klijn, A. F. J. Die Esra-Apokalypse (IV: Esra). Nach dem lateinischen Text unter Benutzung der anderen Versionen übersetzt und herausgegeben. Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte. Berlin: Akademie, 1992. ______. “From Creation to Noah in the Second Dream-Vision of the Ethiopic Henoch.” Pages 147–59 in vol. 1 of Miscellanea Neotestamentica. Edited by T. Baarda et al. NovTSup 41. Leiden: Brill, 1978. ______. “A Library of Scriptures in Jerusalem?” Pages 265–72 in Studia Codicologica. Edited by K. Treu. TU 124. Berlin: Akademie, 1977. Klostermann, A. “Das chronologische System des Pentateuchs.” Pages 1–41 in idem, Der Pentateuch: Beiträge zu seinem Verständnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte. Leipzig: Deichert, 1907. Knapp, D. Deuteronomium 4: Literarische Analyse und theologische Interpretation. GTA 35. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Knauf, E. A. “Der Exodus zwischen Mythos und Geschichte: Zur priesterschriftlichen Rezeption der Schilfmeer-Geschichte in Ex 14.” Pages 73–84 in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift: Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by R. G. Kratz et al. BZAW 300. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. ______. “From History to Interpretation.” Pages 26–64 in The Fabric of History: Text, Artifact and Israel’s Past. Edited by D. V. Edelman. JSOTSup 127. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. ______. “L’‘Historiographie Deutéronomiste’ (DtrG) existe-t-elle?” Pages 409–18 in Israël construit son histoire: L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes. Edited by A. de Pury, T. Römer, and J.-D. Macchi. MdB 34. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996. ______. Ismael: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens im 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. ADPV. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1985. ______. Midian: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Palästinas und Nordarabiens am Ende des 2. Jt. v.Chr. ADPV. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1988. ______. “Die Mitte des Alten Testaments.” Pages 79–86 in Meilenstein: Festschrift H. Donner. Edited by M. Weippert and S. Timm. Ägypten und Altes Testament 30. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995. ______. “Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichten die Deuteronomisten.” Pages 101–18 in The Future of the Deuteronomistic History. Edited by T. Römer. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000. ______. “El Saddai: Der Gott Abrahams?” BZ 29 (1985): 97–103. ______. “Supplementa Ismaelitica.” BN 86 (1997): 49–50. ______. Die Umwelt des Alten Testaments. NSKAT 29. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1994.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 381 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

381

______. “Zum Verhältnis von Esra 1,1 zu 2Chronik 36,20–23.” BN 78 (1995): 16f. Knibb, M. A. “Apocalyptic and Wisdom in 4 Ezra.” JSJ 13 (1982): 56–74. Knierim, R. P. “The Composition of the Pentateuch.” (1985) Pages 351–79 in idem, The Task of Old Testament Theology: Substance, Method, and Cases. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Knoppers, G. N. “Aaron’s Calf and Jeroboam’s Calves.” Pages 92–104 in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Festschrift D. N. Freedman. Edited by A. B. Beck et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. ______. 1 Chronicles 1–9. AB 12. New York: Doubleday, 2003. ______. “ ‘There Was None like Him’: Incomparability in the Book of Kings.” CBQ 54 (1992): 411–31. Koch, K. “Die Anfänge der Apokalyptik in Israel und die Rolle des astronomischen Henochbuchs.” Pages 3–39 in idem, Vor der Wende der Zeiten: Beiträge zur apokalyptischen Literatur. Gesammelte Aufsätze 3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996. ______. “Auf der Suche nach der Geschichte.” Bib 67 (1986): 109–17. ______. “Die Eigenart der priesterschriftlichen Sinaigesetzgebung.” ZTK 55 (1958): 36–51. ______. “Ezra and the Origins of Judaism.” JSS 19 (1974): 173–94. ______. Geschichte der ägyptischen Religion: Von den Pyramiden bis zu den Mysterien der Isis. Stuttgart: Kohhammer, 1993. ______. “Geschichte/Geschichtsschreibung/Geschichtsphilosophie II: Altes Testament.” TRE 12:569–86. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984. ______. “Die Götter, denen die Väter dienten.” Pages 9–31 in idem, Studien zur alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte: Zum 60. Geburtstag von Klaus Koch. Edited by E. Otto, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. ______. “Die Hebräer vom Auszug aus Ägypten bis zum Grossreich Davids.” VT 19 (1969): 37–81. ______. “Die mysteriösen Zahlen der judäischen Könige und die apokalyptischen Jahrwochen.” VT 28 (1978): 433–41. ______. “P–kein Redaktor! Erinnerung an zwei Eckdaten der Quellenscheidung.” VT 37 (1987): 446–67. ______. Die Priesterschrift von Exodus 25 bis Leviticus 16: Eine überlieferungsgeschichtliche und literarkritische Untersuchung. FRLANT 71. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959. ______. “Qädäm: Heilsgeschichte als mythische Urzeit im Alten (und Neuen) Testament.” Pages 253–88 in Vernunft des Glaubens: Wissenschaftliche Theologie und kirchliche Lehre: Festschrift W. Pannenberg. Edited by J. Rohls and G. Wenz. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988 (= pp. 248–80 in Spuren des hebräischen Denkens: Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie. Gesammelte Aufsätze 1. Edited by B. Janowski and M. Krause. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991). ______. “Sabbatstruktur der Geschichte: Die sogenannte Zehn-Wochen-Apokalypse (IHen 93,1–10 91,11–17) und das Ringen um die alttestamentlichen Chronologien im späten Israelitentum.” ZAW 95 (1983): 403–30 (= pp. 45–76 in Von der Wende der Zeiten: Beiträge zur apokalyptischen Literatur. Gesammelte Aufsätze 3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996). ______. “Sühne und Sündenvergebung um die Wende von der exilischen zur nachexilischen Zeit.” EvT 26 (1966): 217–39 (= pp. 184–205 in Spuren des hebräischen Denkens: Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie. Gesammelte Aufsätze 1. Edited by B. Janowski and M. Krause. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991). ______. “Vom profetischen zum apokalyptischen Visionsbericht.” Pages 414–46 in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East. Edited by D. Hellholm. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 21989 (= pp. 143–78 in Vor der Wende der Zeiten: Beiträge zur apokalyptischen Literatur. Gesammelte Aufsätze 3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996). ______. “Der Tod des Religionsstifters: Erwägungen über das Verhältnis Israels zur Geschichte der altorientalischen Religionen.” KD 8 (1962): 100–23 (= pp. 32–60 in Studien zur alttestamentlichen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte: Zum 60. Geburtstag von Klaus Koch. Edited by E. Otto. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 382 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

382

Bibliography

______. “Die Toledot-Formeln als Strukturprinzip des Buches Genesis. Pages 183–191.” Pages 183–91 in Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament—Gestalt und Wirkung: Festschrift Horst Seebass. Edited by S. Beyerle et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1999. ______. “Weltordnung und Reichsidee im alten Iran.” Pages 45–119 in Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich. OBO 55. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. ______. “Weltordnung und Reichsidee im alten Iran und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Provinz Jehud.” Pages 137–337 in Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich. Edited by P. Frei and K. Koch. OBO 55. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21996. Koch, T. “Erwählung IV: Dogmatisch.” TRE 10:197–205. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982. Köckert, M. “Auf der Suche nach dem Jahwisten: Aporien in der Begründung einer Grundthese alttestamentlicher Exegese.” ThViat 14 (1985): 39–64. ______. “Die Geschichte der Abrahamserzählung.” Pages 103–28 in Congress Volume: Leiden 2004. Edited by A. Lemaire. VTSup 109. Leiden: Brill, 2006. ______. “Das Land in der priesterlichen Komposition des Pentateuch.” Pages 147–62 in Von Gott reden: Beiträge zur Theologie und Exegese des Alten Testaments—Festschrift S. Wagner. Edited by D. Vieweger and E.-J. Waschke. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995. ______. “Leben in Gottes Gegenwart: Zum Verständnis des Gesetzes in der priesterschriftlichen Literatur.” Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 4 (1989): 29–61. ______. Vätergott und Väterverheissungen: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Albrecht Alt und seinen Erben. FRLANT 142. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. Kohata, F. “Die Endredaktion (RP) der Meerwundererzählung.” AJBI 14 (1988): 10–37. ______. Jahwist und Priesterschrift in Exodus 3–14. BZAW 166. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986. Köhler, L., and Baumgartner, W. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. Fascicles 1–5, 1967–95; Sup, 1996. Leiden: Brill. Köhler, L.; Baumgartner, W.; and Stamm, J. J. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 2 volumes. Translated by M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Koichi, N. “Reconsideration of the Twelve-Tribe System of Israel.” AJBI 2 (1976): 29–59. Koopmans, W. T. “Josh. 23 and 24 Again: A Response to Klaas Spronk.” Pages 261–63 in Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose. Edited by J. C. de Moor and W. G. E. Watson. AOAT 1. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993. ______. Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative. JSOTSup 93. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. ______. “The Poetic Prose of Joshua 23.” Pages 83–118 in The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry. Edited by W. van der Meer and J. C. de Moor. JSOTSup 74. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. Köppel, U. Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk und seine Quellen: Die Absicht der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsdarstellung aufgrund des Vergleichs zwischen Num 21,21–35 und Dtn 2,26–3,3. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23. Theologie 122. Bern: Peter Lang, 1979. Kraft, R. A. “Scripture and Canon in Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” Pages 199–235 in HBOT 1/1. Edited by M. Sæbø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Krapf, T. M. Die Priesterschrift in vorexilischer Zeit: Yehezkel Kaufmanns vernachlässigter Beitrag zur Geschichte der biblischen Religion. OBO 119. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Krasovec, J. “Unifying Themes in Ex 7,8–11,10.” Pages 47–66 in Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the XIIIth IOSOT Congress, Leuven 1989. Edited by C. Brekelmans and J. Lust. BETL 94. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Kratz, R. G. “Der Anfang des Zweiten Jesaja in Jes 40,1f und das Jeremiabuch.” ZAW 106 (1994): 243–61. ______. “Der Dekalog im Exodusbuch.” VT 44 (1994): 205–38. ______. “Erkenntnis Gottes im Hoseabuch.” ZTK 94 (1997): 1–24. ______. “Die Gnade des täglichen Brots: Späte Psalmen auf dem Weg zum Vaterunser.” ZTK 89 (1992): 1–40.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 383 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

383

______. Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments. Uni-Taschenbücher 2157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000 (The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament.Translated by John Bowden. London: T. & T. Clark, 2005). ______. Kyros im Deuterojesaja-Buch: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Entstehung und Theologie von Jes 40–55. FAT 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. ______. “Mose und die Propheten. Zur Interpretation von 4QMMT c.” Pages 151–176 in From 4QMMT to Resurrection: Mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Émile Puech. Edited by F. Garcia Martínez et al. STDJ 61. Leiden: Brill, 2006. ______. “Redaktionsgeschichte/Redaktionskritik I: Altes Testament.” TRE 28:367–78. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. ______. “Die Suche nach Identität in der nachexilischen Theologiegeschichte: Zur Hermeneutik des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes und ihrer Bedeutung für das Verständnis des Alten Testaments.” Pages 279–303 in Pluralismus und Identität. Edited by J. Mehlhausen. VWGTh 8. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1995. ______. “Die Tora Davids: Psalm 1 und die doxologische Fünfteilung des Psalters.” ZTK 93 (1996): 1–34. ______. Translatio imperii: Untersuchungen zu den aramäischen Danielerzählungen und ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld. WMANT 63. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991. ______. “Der vor- und der nachpriesterschriftliche Hexateuch.” Pages 295–323 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Edited by J. C. Gertz et al. BZAW 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Kraus, H.-J. Psalmen. Vol. 2. BKAT 15/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960. Kreuzer, S. “Die Exodustradition im Deuteronomium.” Pages 81–106 in Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen. Edited by T. Veijola. Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 62. Helsinki: Finnische Exegetische Gesellschaft, 1996. ______. “430 Jahre, 400 Jahre oder 4 Generationen: Zu den Zeitangaben über den Ägyptenaufenthalt der ‘Israeliten’.” ZAW 98 (1986): 199–210. ______. Die Frühgeschichte Israels in Bekenntnis und Verkündigung des Alten Testaments. BZAW 178. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. ______. “Identität in den Anfängen: Die alttestamentlichen Bekenntnisse zur Frühgeschichte Israels.” Pages 134–48 in Mythos und Rationalität. Edited by H. H. Schmid. VWGTh [5]. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1988. ______. “Jirkus Beitrag zum ‘formgeschichtlichen Problem’ des Tetrateuch.” AfO 33 (1986): 65–76. ______. “ ‘So wahr ich lebe . . .’: Schwurformel und Gottesschwur in der prophetischen Verkündigung.” Pages 179–96 in Gottes Recht als Lebensraum: Festschrift H. J. Boecker. Edited by P. Mommer et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993. ______. “Zur Priorität und Auslegungsgeschichte von Ex 12,40 MT: Die chronologische Interpretation des Ägyptenaufenthalts in der judäischen, samaritanischen und alexandrinischen Exegese.” ZAW 103 (1991): 252–58. Krüger, T. “Belegt das Ostrakon KAI 200 einen narrativen Gebrauch der Verbform w eqatal im Althebräischen?” BN 62 (1992): 32–37. ______. “Erwägungen zur Redaktion der Meerwundererzählung (Exodus 13,17–14,31).” ZAW 108 (1996): 519–33. ______. “Genesis 38: Ein ‘Lehrstück’ alttestamentlicher Ethik.” Pages 205–26 in Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte: Festschrift K. Baltzer. Edited by R. Bartelmus et al. OBO 126. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993 (= pp. 1–22 in Kritische Weisheit: Studien zur weisheitlichen Traditionskritik im Alten Testament. Zurich: Pano, 1997). ______. Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch. BZAW 180. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. ______. “Das menschliche Herz und die Weisung Gottes: Elemente einer Diskussion über Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Tora-Rezeption im Alten Testament.” Pages 65–92 in Rezeption und Auslegung im Alten Testament und in seinem Umfeld: Ein Symposium aus Anlass

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 384 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

384

Bibliography

des 60. Geburtstags von Odil Hannes Steck. Edited by T. Krüger and R. G. Kratz. OBO 153. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. ______. “Psalm 90 und die ‘Vergänglichkeit des Menschen’.” Bib 75 (1994): 191–219 (= pp. 67– 89 in Kritische Weisheit: Studien zur weisheitlichen Traditionskritik im Alten Testament. Zurich: Pano, 1997). Küchler, M. Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen: Zum Fortgang weisheitlichen Denkens im Bereich des frühjüdischen Jahweglaubens. OBO 26. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Kühlewein, J. Geschichte in den Psalmen. Calwer theologische Monographien 2. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1973. Kuhrt, A. “Berossus’ Babyloniaka and Seleucid Rule in Babylonia.” Pages 32–56 in Hellenism in the East: The Interaction of Greek and Non-Greek Civilizations from Syria to Central Asia after Alexander. Edited by A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White. London: Duckworth, 1987. Lang, B., and [Hofrichter, P.]. “Kanon.” NBL 2:440–50. Zurich: Benziger, 1992. Lange, A., and Lichtenberger, H. “Qumran.” TRE 28:45–79. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Lange, N. R. M. de, and Thoma, C. “Antisemitismus I. Begriff/Vorchristlicher Antisemitismus.” TRE 3:113–19. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978. Larsson, G. “The Chronology of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the MT and LXX.” JBL 102 (1983): 401–9. Lauha, A. Die Geschichtsmotive in den alttestamentlichen Psalmen. AASF Beiheft 16/1. Helsinki: Finnnische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1945. Lebram, J. C. H. “Aspekte der alttestamentlichen Kanonbildung.” VT 18 (1968): 173–89. ______. “Die Traditionsgeschichte der Esragestalt und die Frage nach dem historischen Esra.” Pages 103–38 in Achaemenid History I: Sources, Structures and Synthesis: Proceedings of the Groningen 1983 Achaemenid History Workshop. Edited by H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg. Leiden: Nederlands Inst. voor het Nabije Oosten, 1987. Lee, J. A. L. A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch. SBLSCS 14. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. Leene, H. “Auf der Suche nach einem redaktionskritischen Modell für Jesaja 40–55.” TLZ 121 (1996): 803–18. ______. “History and Eschatology in Deutero-Isaiah.” Pages 223–49 in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift W. A. M. Beuken. Edited by J. van Ruiten and M. Vervenne. BETL 132. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. Légasse, S. Stephanos: Histoire et discours d’Etienne dans les Actes des Apôtres. LD 147. Paris: Cerf, 1992. Leiman, S. Z. The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence. New Haven: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 21991. Leineweber, W. Die Patriarchen im Licht der archäologischen Entdeckungen: Die kritische Darstellung einer Forschungsrichtung. Europäische Hochschulschriften 13. Theologie 127. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1980. Lemaire, A. “Cycle primitif d’Abraham et contexte géographique-historique.” Pages 62–75 in History and Traditions of Early Israels: Festschrift E. Nielsen. Edited by A. Lemaire and B. Otzen. Leiden: Brill, 1993. ______. “La haute Mésopotamie et l’origine des benê Jacob.” VT 34 (1984): 95–101. ______. “Vers L’histoire de la Rédaction des Livres des Rois.” ZAW 98 (1986): 221–36. Lemche, N. P. Ancient Israel: A New History of Israelite Society. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988. ______. Die Vorgeschichte Israels: Von den Anfängen bis zum Ausgang des 13. Jahrhunderts v.Chr. Biblische Enzyklopädie 1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1996. Leuenberger, M. “Ort und Funktion der Wolkenvision und ihrer Deutung in der syrischen Baruchapokalypse. Eine These zu deren thematischer Entfaltung.” JSJ 36 (2005): 206–46. ______. “Die 10-Siebent-Apokalypse im Henochbuch. Ihre Stellung im material rekonstruierten Manuskript 4QEng und Implikationen für die Redaktions- und Kompositions-

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 385 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

385

geschichte der Traumvisionen (83–91) und des paränetischen Briefs (92–105). Teil 1.” BN 124 (2005): 57–102; Teil 2: BN 126 (2005): 45–82. Levenson, J. D. “The Last Four Verses in Kings.” JBL 103 (1984): 353–61. ______. “Who Inserted the Book of Torah?” HTR 68 (1975): 203–33. Levin, C. “Das Amosbuch der Anawim.” ZTK 94 (1997): 407–36. ______. “Der Dekalog am Sinai.” VT 35 (1985): 165–91. ______. “Das Gebetbuch der Gerechten: Literargeschichtliche Beobachtungen am Psalter.” ZTK 90 (1993): 355–81. ______. “Jahwe und Abraham im Dialog: Genesis 15.” Pages 237–257 in Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift Otto Kaiser. BZAW 345/1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. ______. Der Jahwist. FRLANT 157. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. ______. Der Sturz der Königin Atalja: Ein Kapitel zur Geschichte Judas im 9. Jahrhundert v.Chr. SBS 105. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1982. ______. Die Verheissung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt. FRLANT 137. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985. Levinson, B. M. “Is the Covenant Code an Exilic Composition? A Response to John Van Seters.” Pages 276–330 in “The Right Chorale”: Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation. FAT 54. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Lévi-Strauss, C. Das wilde Denken. Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft 14. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1973. Lewis, B. The Legend of Sargon: A Study of the Akkadian Text and the Tale of the Hero Who Was Exposed at Birth. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1980. Lewis, T. J. Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit. HSM 39. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. L’Hour, J. “L’alliance de Sichem.” RB 69 (1962): 5–36, 161–84, 350–68. Licht, J. “Biblical Historicism.” Pages 107–20 in History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures. Edited by H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983 (Leiden: Brill, 1984 reprint). Liverani, M. “Le ‘origini’ d’Israele: Progetto irrealizzabile di ricerca etnogenetica.” RivB 28 (1980): 9–32. Loewenstamm, S. E. “The Divine Grants of Land to the Patriarchs.” JAOS 91 (1971): 509–10. ______. The Evolution of the Exodus Tradition. Translated by Baruch J. Schwartz. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992. Lohfink, N. “Die Abänderung der Theologie des priesterlichen Geschichtswerks im Segen des Heiligkeitsgesetzes: Zu Lev. 26,9.11–13.” Pages 129–36 in Wort und Geschichte: Festschrift K. Elliger. Edited by H. Gese and H. P. Rüger. AOAT 18. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag 1973 (= pp. 157–68 in Studien zum Pentateuch. SBAB 4. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988). ______. “Der Begriff des Gottesreichs vom Alten Testament her gesehen.” Pages 33–86 in Unterwegs zur Kirche: Alttestamentliche Konzeptionen. Edited by J. Schreiner. QD 110. Freiburg: Herder, 1987. ______. “Beobachtungen zur Geschichte des Ausdrucks hwhy μ[.” Pages 275–305 in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Festschrift G. von Rad. Edited by H. W. Wolff. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971. ______. “Bundestheologie im Alten Testament: Zum gleichnamigen Buch von Lothar Perlitt” (1973). Pages 325–61 in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur I. Edited by N. Lohfink. SBAB 8. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990. ______. “Darstellungskunst und Theologie in Dtn 1,6–3,29.” Bib 41 (1960): 105–34 (= pp. 15–44 in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur I. SBAB 8. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990). ______. “Deutéronome et Pentateuque: État de la recherche.” Pages 35–64 in Le Pentateuque: Débats et recherches. Edited by P. Haudebert. LD 151. Paris: Cerf, 1992 (= “Deuteronomium und Pentateuch.” Pages 13–38 in idem, Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur III. SBAB 20. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 386 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

386

Bibliography

______. “Deuteronomistisch.” NBL 1:413–14. Zurich: Benziger, 1991. ______. “Das Deuteronomium: Jahwegesetz oder Mosegesetz?” TP 65 (1990): 387–91 (= pp. 157–65 in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur III. SBAB 20. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995). ______. “Dtn 12,1 und Gen 15,18: Das dem Samen Abrahams geschenkte Land als der Geltungsbereich der deuteronomischen Gesetze.” Pages 183–210 in Die Väter Israels: Beiträge zur Theologie der Patriarchenüberlieferung im Alten Testament: Festschrift J. Scharbert. Edited by M. Görg. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989 (= pp. 257–85 in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur II. SBAB 12. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991). ______. “Dt 26,17–19 und die ‘Bundesformel’.” ZKT 91 (1969): 517–53 (= pp. 211–61 in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur I. SBAB 8. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990). ______. “Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?” Pages 313–82 in Jeremia und die ‘deuteronomistische Bewegung’. Edited by W. Gross. BBB 98. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995 (= pp. 65–142 in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur III. SBAB 20. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995). ______. “Genesis 2f als ‘geschichtliche Ätiologie’: Gedanken zu einem neuen hermeneutischen Begriff.” (1963) Pages 29–45 in Studien zum Pentateuch. Edited by N. Lohfink. SBAB 4. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. ______. Das Hauptgebot: Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn 5–11. AnBib 20. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963. ______. “ ‘Ich bin Jahwe, dein Arzt’ (Ex 15,26): Gott, Gesellschaft und menschliche Gesundheit in einer nachexilischen Pentateuchbearbeitung (Ex 15,25b.26) (1981).” Pages 91–155 in Studien zum Pentateuch. Edited by N. Lohfink. SBAB 4. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. ______. “Kerygmata des Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks.” Pages 87–100 in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift H. W. Wolff. Edited by J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. ______. Die Landverheissung als Eid: Eine Studie zu Gn 15. SBS 28. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967. ______. “Moses Tod, die Tora und die alttestamentliche Sonntagslesung.” TP 71 (1996): 481– 94. ______. “Die priesterschriftliche Abwertung der Tradition von der Offenbarung des Jahwenamens an Mose.” Bib 49 (1968): 1–8 = pp. 71–78 in Studien zum Pentateuch. SBAB 4. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. ______. “Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichte.” Pages 183–225 in Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 29. Leiden: Brill, 1978 (= pp. 213–53 in Studien zum Pentateuch. SBAB 4. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. ______. “Die Schichten des Pentateuch und der Krieg.” Pages 51–110 in E. Haag et al., Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit im Alten Testament. Edited by N. Lohfink. QD 96. Freiburg: Herder, 1983 (= pp. 255–315 in Studien zum Pentateuch. SBAB 4. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988). ______. “2Kön 23,3 und Dtn 6,17.” Bib 71 (1990): 34–42. ______. “Die Ursünden in der priesterlichen Geschichtserzählung.” Pages 38–57 in Die Zeit Jesu: Festschrift H. Schlier. Edited by G. Bornkamm and K. Rahner. Freiburg: Herder, 1970 (= pp. 169–89 in Studien zum Pentateuch. SBAB 4. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988). ______. Die Väter Israels im Deuteronomium: Mit einer Stellungnahme von Thomas Römer. OBO 111. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. ______. “Zum ‘kleinen geschichtlichen Credo’ Dtn 26,5–9.” TP 46 (1971): 19–39 (= pp. 263– 90 in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur I. SBAB 8. Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelwerk, 1990).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 387 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

387

______. “Zur neueren Diskussion über 2Kön 22–23.” Pages 24–48 in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. Edited by N. Lohfink. BETL 68. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985 (= pp. 179–208 in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur II. SBAB 12. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991). Long, B. O. “Recent Field Studies in Oral Literature and Their Bearing on Old Testament Criticism.” VT 26 (1976): 187–98. Loretz, O. “Das ‘Ahnen- und Götterstatuen-Verbot’ im Dekalog und die Einzigkeit Jahwes: Zum Begriff des Göttlichen in altorientalischen und alttestamentlichen Quellen.” Pages 491–527 in Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. Edited by W. Dietrich and M. A. Klopfenstein. OBO 139. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. ______. “Vom kanaanäischen Totenkult zur jüdischen Patriarchen- und Elternehrung: Historische und tiefenpsychologische Grundprobleme der Entstehung des biblischen Geschichtsbildes und der jüdischen Ethik.” Jahrbuch für Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte 3 (1978): 149–201. Loza, J. “Les catéchèses étiologiques dans l’Ancien Testament.” RB 78 (1971): 481–500. Lubsczyk, H. Der Auszug aus Ägypten: Seine theologiegeschichtliche Bedeutung in prophetischer und priesterlicher Überlieferung. ETS 14. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1963. Lührmann, D. “Die 430 Jahre zwischen den Verheissungen und dem Gesetz (Gal 3,17).” ZAW 100 (1988): 420–23. Lust, J. “Exodus 6,2–8 and Ezekiel.” Pages 209–24 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction– Reception–Interpretation. Edited by M. Vervenne. BETL 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. ______. “Freud, Hosea, and the Murder of Moses: Hos 12.” ETL 65 (1989): 81–93. ______. “On Wizards and Prophets.” Pages 133–42 in Studies on Prophecy. VTSup 26. Leiden: Brill, 1974. ______. “Septuagint and Messianism, with a Special Emphasis on the Pentateuch.” Pages 26–45 in Theologische Probleme der Septuaginta und der hellenistischen Hermeneutik. Edited by H. Graf Reventlow. VWGTh 11. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1997. Lux, R. “Der Tod des Mose als ‘besprochene und erzählte Welt’.” ZTK 84 (1987): 395–425. ______. Die Väterverheissungen: Literarische, soziologische und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Verheissungen von Nachkommenschaft und Landbesitz an die Erzväter in Israel. Ph.D. Diss., University of Leipzig, 1977. Luyten, J. “Primeval and Eschatological Overtones in the Song of Moses (Dtn 32,1–43).” Pages 341–47 in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. Edited by N. Lohfink. BETL 68. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985. Luz, U. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus: Mt 1–7. EKKNT 1/1. Zurich: Benziger / NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985; Mt 8–17. EKKNT 1/2. Zurich: Benziger / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 21996. Maag, V. “Der Hirte Israels.” (1958) Pages 111–44 in idem, Kultur, Kulturkontakt und Religion: Gesammelte Studien zur allgemeinen und alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte. Edited by H. H. Schmid and O. H. Steck. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. ______. “Malkût Jhwh.” Pages 129–53 in Congress Volume: Oxford 1959. Edited by G. W. Anderson and P. A. H. de Boer et al. VTSup 7. Leiden: Brill, 1960. ______. “Sichembund und Vätergötter.” (1967) Pages 300–13 in idem, Kultur, Kulturkontakt und Religion: Gesammelte Studien zur allgemeinen und alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte. Edited by H. H. Schmid and O. H. Steck. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. Macchi, J.-D. “Exode et Vocation (Exode 3/1–12).” ETR 71 (1996): 67–74. ______. Israël et ses tribus selon Genèse 49. OBO 171. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht / Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1999. ______. “La naissance de Moïse (Ex 2/1–10).” ETR 69 (1994): 397–403.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 388 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

388

Bibliography

Macdonald, J. The Samaritan Chronicle No. II (or: Sepher Ha-Yamim): From Joshua to Nebuchadnezzar. BZAW 107. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969. Macholz, C. “Die Entstehung des hebräischen Bibelkanons nach 4 Esra 14.” Pages 379–391 in Die hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Erhard Blum. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1990. Mack, B. L. “Under the Shadow of Moses: Authorship and Authority in Hellenistic Judaism.” Pages 299–318 in SBL 1982: Seminar Papers. SBLSP 21. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1982. ______. Wisdom and the Hebrew Epic: Ben Sira’s Hymn in Praise of the Fathers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. Macuch, R. “Hermeneutical Divergencies Between the Samaritan and Jewish Versions of the Blessings on the Patriarchs (Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33).” Pages 365–79 in New Samaritan Studies of the Société d’études samaritaines, volumes 3 and 4: Festschrift G. D. Sixdenier. Edited by A. D. Crown and L. Davey. Studies in Judaica 5. Sydney: Mandelbaum Pub., The University of Sydney, 1995. ______. “The Importance of Samaritan Tradition for the Hermeneutics of the Pentateuch.” Pages 13–31 in Proceedings of the First International Congress of the Société d’Études samaritaines, Tel-Aviv, April 11–13, 1988. Edited by A. Tal and M. Florentin. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1991. Mafico, T. L. J. “The Divine Compound Name μyhla hwhy and Israel’s Monotheistic Polytheism.” JNSL 22 (1996): 155–73. Magonet, J. “The Rhetoric of God: Exodus 6.2–8.” JSOT 27 (1983): 56–67. Maier, C. Die “fremde Frau” in Proverbien 1–9: Eine exegetische und sozialgeschichtliche Studie. OBO 144. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. Maier, J. Die Qumran-Essener: Die Texte vom Toten Meer, vol. 1: Die Texte der Höhlen 1–3 und 5– 11. Uni-Taschenbücher 1862; vol. 2: Die Texte der Höhle 4. Uni-Taschenbücher 1863. Munich: Reinhardt, 1995; vol. 3: Einführung, Zeitrechnung, Register und Bibliographie. Munich: Reinhardt, 1996. ______. Die Tempelrolle vom Toten Meer. Uni-Taschenbücher 829. Munich: Reinhardt, 1978. ______. “Zur Frage des biblischen Kanons im Frühjudentum im Licht der Qumranfunde.” Pages 135–46 in Zum Problem des biblischen Kanons. Edited by I. Baldermann et al. Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988. ______. Zwischen den Testamenten: Geschichte und Religion in der Zeit des Zweiten Tempels. NEchtB Ergänzungsband 3. Würzburg: Echter, 1990. Malamat, A. “The Exodus: Egyptian Analogies.” Pages 15–26 in Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence. Edited by E. S. Frerichs and L. H. Lesko. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Malinowski, B. Sex, Culture, and Myth. London: Hart-Davis, 1963. Mandell, S., and Freedman, D. N. The Relationship between Herodotus’ History and Primary History. South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 60. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Marböck, J. “Davids Erbe in gewandelter Zeit (Sir 47,1–11).” Pages in 124–32 in idem, Gottes Weisheit unter uns: Zur Theologie des Buches Sirach. Edited by I. Fischer. HBS 6. Freiburg: Herder, 1995. ______. “Das Gebet um die Rettung Zions Sir 36,1–22 (G: 33,1–13a; 36,16b–22) im Zusammenhang der Geschichtsschau Ben Siras.” Pages 93–115 in Memoria Jerusalem: Festschrift F. Sauer. Edited by J. B. Bauer and J. Marböck. Graz: Akademische, 1977 (= pp. 149–66 in Gottes Weisheit unter uns: Zur Theologie des Buches Sirach. Edited by I. Fischer. HBS 6. Freiburg: Herder, 1995). ______. “Die ‘Geschichte Israels’ als ‘Bundesgeschichte’ nach dem Sirachbuch.” Pages 177–97 in Der Neue Bund im Alten: Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente. Edited by E. Zenger. QD 146. Freiburg: Herder, 1993 (= pp. 103–23 in Gottes Weisheit unter uns: Zur Theologie des Buches Sirach. Edited by I. Fischer. HBS 6. Freiburg: Herder, 1995). ______. “Gesetz und Weisheit: Zum Verständnis des Gesetzes bei Jesus Ben Sira.” BZ 20 (1976): 1–21 (= pp. 52–72 in Gottes Weisheit unter uns: Zur Theologie des Buches Sirach. Edited by I. Fischer. HBS 6. Freiburg: Herder, 1995).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 389 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

389

______. “Henoch–Adam–der Thronwagen: Zu frühjüdischen pseudepigraphischen Traditionen bei Ben Sira.” BZ 25 (1981): 103–11 (= pp. 133–43 in Gottes Weisheit unter uns: Zur Theologie des Buches Sirach. Edited by I. Fischer. HBS 6. Freiburg: Herder, 1995). ______. “Structure and Redaction History in the Book of Ben Sira: Review and Prospects.” Pages 61–79 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28–31 July 1996 Soesterberg, Netherlands. Edited by P. C. Beentjes. BZAW 255. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. ______. Weisheit im Wandel: Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie bei Ben Sira. BBB 37. Bonn: Hanstein, 1971. Margain, J. “Le Pentateuque samaritain.” Pages 231–40 in Le Pentateuque: Débats et recherches. Edited by P. Haudebert. LD 151. Paris: Cerf, 1992. ______. “Samaritain (Pentateuque).” DBSup 11:762–73. Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 1991. Marmorstein, A. “Jesus Sirach 51,12ff.” ZAW 29 (1909): 287–93. Martin, J. B. “Ben Sira’s Hymn to the Fathers: A Messianic Perspective.” OTS 24 (1986): 107– 23. Martone, C. “Ben Sira Manuscripts from Qumran and Masada.” Pages 81–94 in The Book of Ben Sira in Modern Research: Proceedings of the First International Ben Sira Conference 28–31 July 1996 Soesterberg, Netherlands. Edited by P. C. Beentjes. BZAW 255. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Marx, A. “La généalogie d’Exode vi 14–25.” VT 45 (1995): 318–36. Mathias, D. Die Geschichtstheologie der Geschichtssummarien in den Psalmen. BEATAJ 35. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1993. ______. “Nachexilische Geschichtsrezeption am Beispiel von Nehemia 9,6–31.” Pages 3–25 in Mitteilungen und Beiträge. Forschungsstelle Judentum Theologische Fakultät Leipzig 9. Leipzig, 1995. Mathys, H.-P. Dichter und Beter: Theologen aus spätalttestamentlicher Zeit. OBO 132. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. Mayer, G. “Aspekte des Abrahambildes in der hellenistisch-jüdischen Literatur.” EvT 32 (1972): 118–27. Mayes, A. D. H. The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile: A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History. London: SCM, 1983. McBride, S. D. jr. “Perspective and Content in the Study of Pentateuchal Legislation.” Pages 47– 59 in Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present and Future: Festschrift G. M. Tucker. Edited by J. L. Mays et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995. McConville, J. G. “Ezra–Nehemia and the Fulfilment of Prophecy.” VT 36 (1986): 205–24. McEvenue, S. “The Elohist at Work.” ZAW 96 (1984): 315–32. ______. The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer. AnBib 50. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971. ______. “A Return to Sources in Genesis 28,10–22?” ZAW 106 (1994): 375–89. ______. “The Speaker(s) in Ex 1–15.” Pages 220–36 in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Festschrift N. Lohfink. Edited by G. Braulik, W. Gross, and S. McEvenue. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. ______. “Who Was Second Isaiah?” Pages 213–22 in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift W. A. M. Beuken. Edited by J. van Ruiten and M. Vervenne. BETL 132. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. McKane, W. Studies in the Patriarchal Narratives. Edinburgh: Handsel, 1979. McKenzie, S. L. “The Books of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 281–307 in The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth. Edited by S. L. McKenzie and M. P. Graham. JSOTSup 182. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. ______. “Cette royauté qui fait problème.” Pages 267–95 in Israël construit son histoire. L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes. Edited by A. de Pury, T. Römer, and J.-D. Macchi. MdB 34. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 390 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

390

Bibliography

______. The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History. HSM 33. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. ______. “Deuteronomistic History.” ABD 2:160–68. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ______. “The Jacob Tradition in Hosea XII 4–5.” VT 36 (1986): 311–22. ______. The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. VTSup 42. Leiden: Brill, 1991. McKenzie, S. L., and Graham, M. P., eds. The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth. JSOTSup 182. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Meinhold, A. “Die Gattung der Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle I.” ZAW 87 (1975): 306–24. ______. “Ein ‘totes’ Volk wird lebendig: Zeitbedingte Anmerkungen zu Ezechiel 37.” Pages 153–63 in Gottes Ehre erzählen: Festschrift H. Seidel. Edited by M. Albani and T. Arndt. Leipzig: Thomas, 1994. Mendels, D. “Hecataeus of Abdera and a Jewish ‘patrios politeia’ of the Persian Period (Diodorus Siculus XL, 3).” ZAW 95 (1983): 96–110. Meyer, E. Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme: Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen. Mit Beiträgen von B. Luther. Halle a.d. Saale, 1906 (= Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967). Meyer, R. Hebräische Grammatik. 3 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1966–72 (3rd ed., 1992). Michel, D. “Deuterojesaja.” TRE 8:510–30. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1981. Middendorp, T. Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Milgrom, J. “Priestly (‘P’) Source.” ABD 5:454–61. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Miller, J. M., and Hayes, J. H. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Milik, J. T. (and Black, M.). The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon, 1976. Miscall, P. D. “The Jacob and Joseph Stories as Analogies.” JSOT 6 (1978): 28–40. Mittmann, S. Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3 literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht. BZAW 139. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975. Moberly, R. W. L. “Abraham’s Righteousness (Genesis xv 6).” Pages 103–30 in Studies in the Pentateuch. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 41. Leiden: Brill, 1990. ______. Genesis 12–50. OTG. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. ______. The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. ______. “ ‘Yahwe Is One’: The Translation of the Shema.” Pages 209–15 in Studies in the Pentateuch. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 41. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Moenikes, A. Die grundsätzliche Ablehnung des Königtums in der Hebräischen Bibel: Ein Beitrag zur Religionsgeschichte des Alten Israel. BBB 99. Weinheim: Athenäum, 1995. ______. “Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des sogenannten Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks.” ZAW 104 (1992): 333–48. Mölle, H. Genesis 15: Eine Erzählung von den Anfängen Israels. FB 62. Würzburg: Echter, 1988. ______. Der sogenannte Landtag zu Sichem. FB 42. Würzburg: Echter, 1980. Mommer, P. Samuel: Geschichte und Überlieferung. WMANT 65. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991. Montgomery, J. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. Edited by H. S. Gehman. ICC 9. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951. Moor, J. C. de. “Egypt, Ugarit and Exodus.” Pages 213–47 in Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, Religion and Culture, Edinburgh, July 1994: Festschrift J. C. L. Gibson. Edited by N. Wyatt at al. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996. ______. The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism. BETL 91. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. ______. “Standing Stones and Ancestor Worship.” UF 27 (1995): 1–20. Morrison, M. A. “The Jacob and Laban Narrative in the Light of Near Eastern Sources.” BA 46 (1983): 155–64.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 391 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

391

Mosis, R. Erwägungen zur Pentateuchquellenfrage. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1964. Mowinckel, S. “ ‘Glauben’ und ‘Gerechtigkeit’—zu Gen 15,6.” Pages 225–57 in Die Väter Israels: Beiträge zur Theologie der Patriarchenüberlieferung im Alten Testament—Festschrift J. Scharbert. Edited by M. Görg. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. ______. “Hat es ein israelitisches Nationalepos gegeben?” ZAW 53 (1935): 130–52. ______. Tetrateuch–Pentateuch–Hexateuch: Die Berichte über die Landnahme in den drei altisraelitischen Geschichtswerken. BZAW 90. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1964. Müller, A. R. “Die Mehrungsverheissung und ihre vielfältige Formulierung.” Pages 259–66 in Die Väter Israels: Beiträge zur Theologie der Patriarchenüberlieferung im Alten Testament: Festschrift J. Scharbert. Edited by M. Görg. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. Müller, H.-P. Jenseits der Entmythologisierung: Orientierungen am Alten Testament. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 21979. ______. “König Mesa' von Moab und der Gott der Geschichte.” UF 26 (1994): 373–95. ______. “Mythos–Anpassung–Wahrheit: Vom Recht mythischer Rede und deren Auf hebung.” ZTK 80 (1983): 1–25. ______. Ursprünge und Struktur der alttestamentlichen Eschatologie. BZAW 109. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969. ______. “Die weisheitliche Lehrerzählung im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt.” WO 9 (1977/78): 77–98. Müller, K. Studien zur frühjüdischen Apokalyptik. SBB 11. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991. Müller, M. “Die Abraham-Gestalt im Jubiläenbuch: Versuch einer Interpretation.” SJOT 10 (1996): 238–57. Münchow, C. Ethik und Eschatologie: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der frühjüdischen Apokalyptik mit einem Ausblick auf das Neue Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. Muraoka, T., and Elwolde, J. F., eds. Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of a Second International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and Mishnah, Held at Leiden University, 15-17 December 1997. STDJ 33. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Murtonen, A. “On the Chronology of the Old Testament.” ST 8 (1955): 133–37. Myers, J. M. Ezra–Nehemia. AB 14. New York: Doubleday, 1965. Naªaman, N. “The Temple Library of Jerusalem and the Composition of the Book of Kings.” Pages 129–52 in Congress Volume: Leiden 2004. Edited by A. Lemaire. VTSup 109. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Nauerth, T. Untersuchungen zur Komposition der Jakoberzählungen: Auf der Suche nach der Endgestalt des Genesisbuches. BEATAJ 27. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1995. Neef, H.-D. Die Heilstraditionen Israels in der Verkündigung des Propheten Hosea. BZAW 169. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987. Nelson, R. D. Joshua: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. ______. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 18. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981. Newsom, C. A. “4Q374: A Discourse of the Exodus/Conquest Tradition.” Pages 40–52 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport. Leiden: Brill / Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992. Nicholson, E. W. “P as an Originally Independent Source in the Pentateuch.” IBS 10 (1988): 192–206. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “The Bible Rewritten and Expanded.” Pages 89–156 in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus. Edited by M. Stone. CRINT 2/2. Assen: Van Gorcum / Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. ______. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 1–36; 81–108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. ______. “1 Enoch and Qumran Origins: The State of the Question and Some Prospects for Answers.” Pages 341–60 in Society of Biblical Literature 1986 Seminar Papers. Edited by K. H. Richard. SBLSP 25. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 392 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

392

Bibliography

______. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishna: A Historical and Literary Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. Niebuhr, K.-W. Gesetz und Paränese: Katechismusartige Weisungsreihen in der frühjüdischen Literatur. WUNT 2/28. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987. Niehr, H. Rechtsprechung in Israel: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Gerichtsorganisation im Alten Testament. SBS 130. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1987. Nielsen, E. Deuteronomium. HAT 1/6. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Nielsen, F. A. J. The Tragedy in History: Herodotus and the Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 251. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Nobile, M. “Le ‘benedizioni’ a Giuda e a Giuseppe in Gen 49,8–12.22–26 e in Dt 33,7.13–17 nel quadro della redazione Gen–2Re.” Anton 64 (1989): 501–17. ______. “Un contributo alla lettura sincronica della redazione Gen–2Re, sulla base del filo narrativo offerto da 2Re 25,27–30.” Anton 61 (1986): 207–24. ______. “Les quatre pâques dans le cadre de la rédaction finale de Gen–2Rois.” Pages 179–90 in Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the XIIth IOSOT Congress Leuven 1989. Edited by C. Brekelmans and J. Lust. BETL 94. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Nogalski, J. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993. ______. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993. Nöldeke, T. “Die s.g. Grundschrift des Pentateuchs.” Pages 1–144 in idem, Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments. Kiel: Schwer, 1869. Noort, E. Das Buch Josua: Forschungsgeschichte und Problemfelder. EdF 292. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998. ______. “Josua 24,28–31, Richter 2,6–9 und das Josuagrab: Gedanken zu einem Strassenschild.” Pages 109–30 in Biblische Welten: Festschrift M. Metzger. Edited by W. Zwickel. OBO 123. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. ______. “Josua und seine Aufgabe: Bemerkungen zu Jos 1:1–4.” Pages 69–87 in Nachdenken über Israel, Bibel und Theologie: Festschrift K.-D. Schunck. Edited by H. M. Niemann et al. BEATAJ 37. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1994. ______. “ ‘Land’ in the Deuteronomistic Tradition. Genesis 15: The Historical and Theological Necessity of a Diachronic Approach.” Pages 129–44 in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. Edited by J. C. de Moor. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Nordheim, E. von. Die Lehre der Alten. I: Das Testament als Literaturgattung im Judentum der hellenistisch-römischen Zeit. ALGHJ 13. Leiden: Brill, 1980; II: Das Testament als Literaturgattung im Alten Testament und im Alten Vorderen Orient. ALGHJ 13. Leiden: Brill, 1985. ______. Die Selbstbehauptung Israels in der Welt des Alten Orients. OBO 115. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992. Norin, S. I. L. Er spaltete das Meer: Die Auszugsüberlieferung in Psalmen und Kult des Alten Israel. ConBOT 9. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1977. Noth, M. Das Buch Josua. HAT 1/7. Tübingen (1938): Mohr Siebeck, 21953. ______. Geschichte Israels. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 91981. English translation: The History of Israel. London: A. & C. Black, 1960. ______. “Geschichtsschreibung im AT.” RGG 2:1498–501. Tübingen: Mohr, 31958. ______. “Die Historisierung des Mythus im Alten Testament.” (1927) Pages 29–47 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament II. Edited by H. W. Wolff. TB 39. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1969. ______. Könige. Vol. 1. BKAT 9/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968. ______. Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930. ______. Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (1948). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 21960. English translation: A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (= HPT in this volume). Translated by B. W. Anderson. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. ______. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (1943). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 21957. English Trans-

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 393 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

393

lation: The Deuteronomistic History (= DH in this volume). JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: JSOT and the University of Sheffield, 1981; and The Chronicler’s History (= CH in this volume). Translated by H. G. M. Williamson. JSOTSup 50. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. ______. Das vierte Buch Mose: Numeri. ATD 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 31977. ______. “Die Wege der Pharaonenheere in Palästina und Syrien.” ZDPV 60 (1937): 183–239. ______. Das zweite Buch Mose: Exodus. ATD 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959. Oberhänsli-Widmer, G. “Mose/Moselied/Mosesegen/Moseschriften III: Apokalyptische und jüdisch-hellenistische Literatur.” TRE 23:347–57. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. O’Brien, M. A. The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment. OBO 92. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. ______. “Judges and the Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 235–59 in The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth. Edited by S. L. McKenzie and M. P. Graham. JSOTSup 182. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. ______. “The Story of Abraham and the Debate over the Source Hypothesis.” ABR 38 (1990): 1–17. Odashima, T. Heilsworte im Jeremiabuch: Untersuchungen zu ihrer vordeuteronomistischen Bearbeitung. BWANT 125. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1989. Oden, R. A. “Jacob as Father, Husband and Nephew: Kinship Studies and the Patriarchal Narratives.” JBL 102 (1983): 189–205. ______. “Myth and Mythology (OT).” ABD 4:946–56. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Oeming, M. “Bedeutung und Funktion von ‘Fiktionen’ in der alttestamentlichen Geschichtsschreibung.” EvT 44 (1984): 254–66. ______. Gesamtbiblische Theologien der Gegenwart: Das Verhältnis von AT und NT in der hermeneutischen Diskussion seit Gerhard von Rad. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1985. ______. “Der Glaube Abrahams: Zur Rezeptionsgeschichte von Gen 15,6 in der Zeit des zweiten Tempels.” ZAW 110 (1998): 16–33. ______. “Ist Genesis 15,6 ein Beleg für die Anrechnung des Glaubens zur Gerechtigkeit?” ZAW 95 (1983): 182–97. ______. “Sünde als Verhängnis: Gen 6,1–4 im Rahmen der Urgeschichte des Jahwisten.” TTZ 102 (1993): 34–50. ______. Das wahre Israel: Die “geneaologische Vorhalle” 1 Chronik 1–9. BWANT 128. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1990. Oesch, J. Petucha und Setuma: Untersuchungen zu einer überlieferten Gliederung im hebräischen Text des Alten Testaments. OBO 27. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. Olson, D. C. “Recovering the Original Sequence of 1 Enoch 91–93.” JSP 11 (1993): 69–94. Olson, D. T. The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch. BJS. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985. Oorschot, J. van. “Nachkultische Psalmen und spätbiblische Rollendichtung.” ZAW 106 (1994): 69–86. ______. Von Babel zum Zion: Eine literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. BZAW 206. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993. Orlinsky, H. M. “The Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint of the Book of Joshua.” Pages 187–95 in Congress Volume: Rome 1968. Edited by G. W. Anderson et al. VTSup 17 Leiden: Brill, 1969. Östborn, G. Cult and Canon: A Study in the Canonization of the Old Testament. UUA 10. Uppsala: Lundequist / Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1950. Oswald, W. Israel am Gottesberg: Eine Untersuchung zur Literargeschichte der vorderen Sinaiperikope Ex 19–24 und deren historischen Hintergrund. OBO 159. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Otto, E. “Alte und neue Perspektiven in der Dekalogforschung.” Pages 286–92 in idem, Kontinuum und Proprium: Studien zur Sozial- und Rechtsgeschichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments. Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 8. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 394 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

394

Bibliography

______. “Biblische Rechtsgeschichte: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung.” TRev 91 (1995): 283–92. ______. “Der Dekalog als Brennspiegel israelitischer Rechtsgeschichte.” Pages 59–68 in Alttestamentlicher Glaube und Biblische Theologie: Festschrift H. D. Preuss. Edited by J. Hausmann and H.-J. Zobel. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992 (= pp. 293–303 in Kontinuum und Proprium: Studien zur Sozial- und Rechtsgeschichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments. Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 8. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996). ______. “Das Deuteronomium als archimedischer Punkt der Pentateuchkritik: Auf dem Wege zu einer Neubegründung der de Wette’schen Hypothese.” Pages 321–39 in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans. Edited by M. Vervenne and J. Lust. BETL 133. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. ______. “Deuteronomium 4: ‘Die Pentateuchredaktion im Deuteronomiumsrahmen’.” Pages 196–222 in Das Deuteronomium und seine Querbeziehungen. Edited by T. Veijola. Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 62. Helsinki and Göttingen: Finnische Exegetische Gesellschaft, 1996. ______. Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und im Hexateuch. FAT 30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. ______. Das Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform in Juda und Assyrien. BZAW 284. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. ______. “Erwägungen zum überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Ursprung und ‘Sitz im Leben’ des jahwistischen Plagenzyklus.” VT 26 (1976): 3–27. ______. “Forschungen zum nachpriesterschriftlichen Pentateuch.” TRu 67 (2002): 125–155 ______. “Forschungen zur Priesterschrift.” TRu 62 (1997): 1–50. ______. “Gesetzesfortschreibung und Pentateuchredaktion.” ZAW 107 (1995): 373–92. ______. “Kritik der Pentateuchkomposition.” TRu 60 (1995): 163–91. ______. Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal. BWANT 107. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1975. ______. “Mose und das Gesetz: Die Mose-Figur als Gegenentwurf politischer Theologie zur neuassyrischen Königsideologie im 7. Jh. v. Chr.” Pages 43–83 in Mose: Ägypten und das Alte Testament. SBS 189. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000. ______. Mose: Geschichte und Legende. Munich: Beck, 2006. ______. “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus.” Pages 61–111 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction–Reception–Interpretation. Edited by M. Vervenne. BETL 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. ______. “Neuere Einleitungen in den Pentateuch.” TRu 61 (1996): 332–41. ______. “Die Paradieserzählung Gen 2–3: Eine nachpriesterschriftliche Lehrerzählung in ihrem religionshistorischen Kontext.” Pages 167–92 in “Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit . . .” Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit: Festschrift D. Michel. Edited by A. A. Diesel et al. BZAW 241. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996. ______. “Recht/Rechtstheologie/Rechtsphilosophie I.” TRE 28:197–209. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. ______. “Stehen wir vor einem Umbruch in der Pentateuchkritik?” VF 22 (1977): 82–98. ______. Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments. Theologische Wissenschaft 3/2. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1994. ______. “Vom Bundesbuch zum Deuteronomium: Die deuteronomische Redaktion in Dtn 12–26.” Pages 260–78 in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Festschrift N. Lohfink. Edited by G. Braulik, W. Gross, and S. McEvenue. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. ______. “Von der Gerichtsordnung zum Verfassungsentwurf: Deuteronomische Gestaltung und deuteronomistische Interpretation im ‘Ämtergesetz’ Dtn 16,18–18,22.” Pages 142–55 in “Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern?”: Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels: Festschrift O. Kaiser. Edited by I. Kottsieper et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 395 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

395

Paap, C. Die Josephsgeschichte Gen 37–50: Bestimmungen ihrer literarischen Gattung in der zweiten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23. Theologie 534. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1997. Pannenberg, W. Christentum und Mythos: Späthorizonte des Mythos in biblischer und christlicher Überlieferung. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1972. ______. “Späthorizonte des Mythos in biblischer und christlicher Überlieferung.” Pages 473– 525 in Terror und Spiel: Probleme der Mythenrezeption. Edited by M. Fuhrmann. Poetik und Hermeneutik 4. Munich: Fink, 1971 (= pp. 13–65 in Christentum und Mythos: Späthorizonte des Mythos in biblischer und christlicher Überlieferung. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1972 = pp. 13–65 in vol. 2 of Grundfragen systematischer Theologie: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Basic Questions in Theology. 2 vols. Translated by G. H. Kehm. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1983). ______. Systematische Theologie. Vol. 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. ______. “Die weltbegründende Funktion des Mythos und der christliche Offenbarungsglaube.” Pages 108–23 in Mythos und Rationalität. Edited by H. H. Schmid. VWGTh [5]. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1988. Pannenberg, W., ed. Offenbarung als Geschichte: Mit Beiträgen von W. Pannenberg, R. Rendtorff, T. Rendtorff und U. Wilckens. Kerygma und Dogma Beiheft 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961 (Revelation as History: In Association with Rolf Rendtorff, Trutz Rendtorff, and Ulrich Wilkens. Translated by David Granskou. New York: Macmillan, 1968). Patrick, D. “Election: Old Testament.” ABD 2:434–41. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Patton, C. “ ‘I Myself Gave Them Laws That Were Not Good’: Ezekiel 20 and the Exodus Traditions.” JSOT 69 (1996): 73–90. Pedersen, J. Israel: Its Life and Culture. 4 vols. in 2. London: Oxford University Press, 1963–64. ______. “Passahfest und Passahlegende.” ZAW 52 (1934): 161–75. Perlitt, L. “Auslegung der Schrift–Auslegung der Welt.” (1980) Pages 146–88 in idem, Allein mit dem Wort: Theologische Studien. Edited by H. Spieckermann. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. ______. Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. WMANT 36. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969. ______. Deuteronomium. BKAT 5. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990ff. ______. “Deuteronomium 6,20–25: Eine Ermutigung zu Bekenntnis und Lehre.” (1989) Pages 144–56 in idem, Deuteronomium-Studien. FAT 8. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. ______. “Mose als Prophet.” EvT 31 (1971): 588–608. ______. “Motive und Schichten der Landtheologie im Deuteronomium.” Pages 46–58 in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit. Edited by G. Stecker. GTA 25. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. ______. “Priesterschrift im Deuteronomium?” ZAW 100 Suppl. (1988): 65–87. ______. “Sinai und Horeb.” Pages 302–22 in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift W. Zimmerli. Edited by H. Donner et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. Person, R. F. Jr. The Kings-Isaiah and Kings-Jeremiah Recensions. BZAW 252. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Pesch, R. Die Apostelgeschichte (Apg 1–12). EKKNT 5/1. Zurich: Benziger / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986. Petersen, C. Mythos im Alten Testament: Bestimmung des Mythosbegriffs und Untersuchung der mythischen Elemente in den Psalmen. BZAW 157. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982. Petersen, D. L. “The Formation of the Pentateuch.” Pages 31–45 in Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present and Future: Festschrift G. M. Tucker. Edited by J. L. Mays et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995. Peterson, J. “Priestly Materials in Joshua 13–22: A Return to the Hexateuch?” HAR 4 (1980): 131–45. Pfeiffer, R. Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: Harper, 1941.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 396 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

396

Bibliography

Pisano, S. Additions or Omissions in the Books of Samuel: The Significant Pluses and Minuses in the Massoreti. LXX and Qumran Texts. OBO 57. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Pitts, C. A., Jr. A Critical Analysis and Evaluation of Gerhard von Rad’s “Short Historical Creed.” Th.D. diss., New Orleans, 1989. Plautz, W. “Die Form der Eheschliessung im Alten Testament.” ZAW 76 (1964): 298–318. Pleins, J. D. “Murderous Fathers, Manipulative Mothers, and Rivalrous Siblings: Rethinking the Architecture of Genesis–Kings.” Pages 121–36 in Fortunate the Eyes That See: Festschrift D. N. Freedman. Edited by A. B. Beck et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Plöger, O. “Reden und Gebete im deuteronomistischen und chronistischen Geschichtswerk.” (1957) Pages 50–66 in idem, Aus der Spätzeit des Alten Testaments: Studien—Zu seinem 60. Geburtstag am 27.11.1960, herausgegeben von Freunden und Schülern. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. ______. Theokratie und Eschatologie. WMANT 2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 21962. Podella, T. “Nekromantie.” TQ 177 (1997): 121–33. Pola, T. Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift: Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von P g. WMANT 70. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995. Preuss, H. D. Deuteronomium. EdF 164. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982. ______. Theologie des Alten Testaments, vol. 1: JHWHs erwählendes und verpflichtendes Handeln. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1991; vol. 2: Israels Weg mit JHWH. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992 (Old Testament Theology. 2 vols. Translated by L. Perdue. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996). ______. “Zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk.” TRu 58 (1993): 229–64, 341–95. Pröbstl, V. Nehemia 9, Psalm 106 und Psalm 136 und die Rezeption des Pentateuchs. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997. Propp, W. H. C. Exodus 1-18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 2. New York: Doubleday, 1999. ______. “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact?” VT 46 (1996): 458–78. Provan, I. W. Hezekiah and the Book of Kings. BZAW 172. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988. Pummer, R. “The Present State of Samaritan Studies.” 1: JSS 21 (1976): 39–61; 2: JSS 22 (1977): 27–47. Purvis, J. D. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect. HSM 2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968. Pury, A. de. “Le choix de l’ancêtre.” TZ 57 (2001): 105–14. ______. “Le cycle de Jacob comme légende autonome des origines d’Israël.” Pages 78–96 in Congress Volume: Leuven 1989. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991. ______. “Las dos leyendas sobre el origen de Israel ( Jacob Y Moisés) y la elaboración del Pentateuco.” EstBib 52 (1994): 95–131. ______. “Erwägungen zu einem vorexilischen Stämmejahwismus: Hos 12 und die Auseinandersetzung um die Identität Israels und seines Gottes.” Pages 413–39 in Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. Edited by W. Dietrich and M. A. Klopfenstein. OBO 139. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. ______. “L’image du désert dans l’Ancien Testament.” Pages 115–26 in Le désert: Image et réalit. Actes du Colloque de Cartigny 1983. Les Cahiers du CEPOA 3. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. ______. “Osée 12 et ses implications pour le débat actuel sur le Pentateuque.” Pages 175–207 in Le Pentateuque: Débats et recherches. Edited by P. Haudebert. LD 151. Paris: Cerf, 1992. ______. Le pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes. Edited by A. de Pury. MdB [19]. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1989. ______. Promesse divine et légende cultuelle dans le cycle de Jacob: Genèse 28 et les traditions patriarcales. Paris: Gabalda, 1975.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 397 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

397

______. “La promesse patriarcale: Origines, interpretations et actualisations.” ETR 51 (1976): 351–66. ______. “La tradition patriarcale en Genèse 12–35.” Pages 259–70 in Le pentateuque en question. Edited by A. de Pury. MdB [19]. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1989. Pury, A. de, and Römer, T. “Mémoire et catéchisme dans l’Ancien Testament.” Pages 81–92 in Histoire et conscience historique dans les Civilisations du Proche-Orient Ancien: Actes du Colloque de Cartigny 1986. Les cahiers du CEPOA 5. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. ______. “Le Pentateuque en question: Position du problème et brève histoire de la recherche.” Pages 9–80 in Le Pentateuque en question. Edited by A. de Pury. MdB [19]. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1989. Pury, A. de; Römer, T.; and Macchi, J.-D., eds. Israël construit son histoire: L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes. MdB 34. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996 (Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research. JSOTSup 306. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000). Qimron, E., editor. The Temple Scroll: A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions. JDS. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1996. Rabe, N. Vom Gerücht zum Gericht: Revidierte Text- und Literarkritik der Kundschaftererzählung Num 13; 14 als Neuansatz in der Pentateuchforschung. Textwissenschaft, Theologie, Hermeneutik, Linguistik, Literaturanalyse, Informatik 8. Tübingen: Francke, 1994. Rad, G. von. “Die Anrechnung des Glaubens zur Gerechtigkeit.” (1951) Pages 130–58 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. von Rad. TB 8. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1958. ______. “Beobachtungen an der Moseerzählung Exodus 1–14.” EvT 31 (1971): 579–88 (= pp. 189–98 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Edited by R. Smend. TB 48. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1973). ______. “Die deuteronomistische Geschichtstheologie in den Königsbüchern.” (1947) Pages 189–204 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. von Rad. TB 8. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1958. ______. Das erste Buch Mose: Genesis. ATD 2–4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 91972. ______. “Es ist noch Ruhe vorhanden dem Volke Gottes: Eine biblische Begriffsuntersuchung.” (1933) Pages 101–8 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. von Rad. TB 8. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1958. ______. “Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch” (1938). Pages 9–86 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. von Rad. TB 8. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1958. ______. Das Geschichtsbild des chronistischen Werkes. BWANT 54. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1930. ______. Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 41965. ______. “Hexateuch oder Pentateuch?” VF (1947–48): 52–56. ______. “Die Josephsgeschichte” (1954). Pages 22–41 in idem, Gottes Wirken in Israel: Vorträge zum Alten Testament. Edited by O. H. Steck. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974. ______. “Josephsgeschichte und ältere Chokma” (1953). Pages 272–80 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. von Rad. TB 8. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1958. ______. “Das theologische Problem des alttestamentlichen Schöpfungsglaubens” (1936). Pages 136–47 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. von Rad. TB 8. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1958. ______. “Offene Fragen im Umkreis einer Theologie des Alten Testaments” (1963). Pages 289–312 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Edited by R. Smend. TB 48. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1973. ______. Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch: Literarisch untersucht und theologisch gewertet. BWANT 65. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1934. ______. The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Translated by T. Dicken. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 398 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

398

Bibliography

______. Theologie des Alten Testaments, vol. 1: Die geschichtlichen Überlieferungen Israels. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 21958 (cited as TheolAT, vol. 1). Old Testament Theology. 2 vols. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. New York: Harper & Row, 1962–65. ______. “Verheissenes Land und Jahwes Land im Hexateuch.” (1943) Pages 87–100 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. von Rad. TB 8. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1958. Radday, Y. T. “The Spoils of Egypt.” ASTI 12 (1983): 127–47. Radjawane, A. N. “Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk: Ein Forschungsbericht.” TRu 38 (1974): 177–216. Rake, M. “Juda wird aufsteigen!”: Untersuchungen zum ersten Kapitel des Richterbuches. BZAW 367. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Redford, D. B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. ______. “An Egyptological Perspective on the Exodus Narrative.” Pages 137–61 in Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period. Edited by A. F. Rainey. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1987. ______. “Exodus I 11.” VT 13 (1963): 401–18. ______. “The Literary Motif of the Exposed Child (cf. Ex. ii 1–10).” Numen 14 (1967): 209– 28. ______. “Observations on the Sojourn of the Bene-Israel.” Pages 57–66 in Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence. Edited by E. S. Frerichs and L. H. Lesko. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. ______. “Pithom.” LÄ 4:1054–58. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1982. ______. A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 37–50). VTSup 20. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Redford, D. B., and Weinstein, J. M. “Hyksos.” ABD 3:341–48. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Reese, G. Die Geschichte Israels in der Auffassung des frühen Judentums: Eine Untersuchung der Tiervision und der Zehnwochenapokalypse des äthiopischen Henochbuchs, der Geschichtsdarstellung der Assumptio Mosis und der des 4. Esrabuches. Ph.D. Diss., University of Heidelberg, 1967. Reichert, A. Der Jehowist und die sogenannten deuteronomistischen Erweiterungen im Buch Exodus. Diss. (masch.), Tübingen, 1972. Reid, S. B. “The Structure of the Ten Week Apocalypse and the Book of Dream Visions.” JSJ 16 (1985): 189–201. Renaud, B. “La figure prophétique de Moïse en Exode 3,1–4,17.” RB 93 (1986): 510–34. Rendsburg, G. A. “The Northern Origin of Nehemiah 9*.” Bib 72 (1991): 348–66. ______. The Redaction of Genesis. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1986. Rendtorff, R. Das Alte Testament: Eine Einführung. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983 (The Old Testament: An Introduction. Translated by J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991). ______. “ ‘Bund’ als Strukturkonzept in Genesis und Exodus.” Pages 123–31 in idem, Kanon und Theologie: Vorarbeiten zu einer Theologie des Alten Testaments. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991. ______. Die “Bundesformel”: Eine exegetisch-theologische Untersuchung. SBS 160. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995. ______. “ ‘El als israelitische Gottesbezeichnung: Mit einem Appendix: Beobachtungen zum Gebrauch von μyhlah.” ZAW 106 (1994): 4–21. ______. “The Future of Pentateuchal Criticism.” Hen 6 (1984): 1–15. ______. “Genesis 8,21 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten.” KD 7 (1961): 69–78 (= pp. 188– 97 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. TB 57. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1975). ______. “Genesis 15 im Rahmen der theologischen Bearbeitung der Vätergeschichten.” Pages 74–81 in Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments: Festschrift C. Westermann. Edited by R. Albertz et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. ______. “Die Herausführungsformel in ihrem literarischen und theologischen Kontext.” Pages 501–27 in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans. Edited by M. Vervenne and J. Lust. BETL 133. Leuven: Peeters, 1997.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 399 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

399

______. “L’histoire biblique des origines (Gen 1–11) dans le contexte de la rédaction ‘sacerdotale’ du Pentateuque.” Pages 83–94 in Le Pentateuque en question. Edited by A. de Pury. MdB [19]. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1989. ______. Israel und sein Land: Theologische Überlegungen zu einem politischen Problem. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1975. ______. “Is It Possible to Read Leviticus as a Separate Book?” Pages 22–37 in Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas. Edited by J. F. A. Sawyer. JSOTSup 227. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. ______. “Der ‘Jahwist’ als Theologe? Zum Dilemma der Pentateuchkritik.” Pages 158–66 in Congress Volume: Edinburgh 1974. Edited by G. W. Anderson et al. VTSup 28. Leiden: Brill, 1975. ______. “Mose als Religionsstifter?” (1968). Pages 152–71 in idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. TB 57. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1975. ______. “Offenbarung und Geschichte: Partikularismus und Universalismus im Offenbarungsverständnis Israels.” Pages 37–49 in Offenbarung im jüdischen und christlichen Glaubensverständnis. Edited by J. J. Petuchowski and W. Strolz. QD 92. Freiburg: Herder, 1981 (= pp. 113–22 in Kanon und Theologie: Vorarbeiten zu einer Theologie des Alten Testaments. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991). ______. “Die Offenbarungsvorstellungen im Alten Israel.” (1961) Pages 39–59 in idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. TB 57. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1975. ______. “Some Reflections on the Canonical Moses: Moses and Abraham.” Pages 11–19 in A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content—Festschrift G. W. Coats. Edited by E. Carpenter. JSOTSup 240. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. ______. “Two Kinds of P? Some Reflections on the Occasion of the Publishing of Jacob Milgrom’s Commentary on Leviticus 1–16.” JSOT 60 (1993): 75–81. ______. Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch. BZAW 147. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977. ______. “The ‘Yahwist’ as Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism.” JSOT 3 (1977): 2–10. ______. “Zur Komposition des Buches Jesaja.” VT 34 (1984): 295–320. Rendtorff, R., and Kugler, R. A., eds. The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception. VTSup 93. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Renz, J., and Röllig, W. Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik, vol. 1: Text und Kommentar. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1997. Resenhöfft, W. Die Quellenberichte im Josef-Sinai-Komplex (Gen 37 bis Ex 24 mit 32–34). Europäische Hochschulschriften 23. Theologie 199. Bern: Peter Lang, 1983. Reuter, E. Kultzentralisation: Entstehung und Theologie von Dtn 12. BBB 87. Frankfurt a.M.: Hain, 1993. Reventlow, H. G. Hauptprobleme der alttestamentlichen Theologie im 20. Jahrhundert. EdF 173. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982 (Problems of Biblical Theology in the Twentieth Century. Translated by J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). ______. “ ‘Internationalismus’ in den Patriarchenüberlieferungen.” Pages 354–70 in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift W. Zimmerli. Edited by H. Donner et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1977. Richter, W. Die Bearbeitungen des “Retterbuches” in der deuteronomischen Epoche. BBB 21. Bonn: Hanstein, 1964. ______. Die sogenannten vorprophetischen Berufungsberichte: Eine literaturwissenschaftliche Studie zu 1Sam 9,1–10, Ex 3f. und Ri 6,11b–17. FRLANT 101. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. ______. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch. BBB 18. Bonn: Hanstein, 21966. Ringgren, H. “Der Landtag in Sichem.” Pages 89–91 in Nachdenken über Israel, Bibel und Theologie: Festschrift K.-D. Schunck. Edited by H. M. Niemann et al. BEATAJ 37. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1994.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 400 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

400

Bibliography

Robinson, B. P. “Moses at the Burning Bush.” JSOT 75 (1997): 93–106. Rofé, A. “The Editing of the Book of Joshua in the Light of 4Q Joshua.” Pages 73–80 in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992. STDJ 15. Edited by G. J. Brooke and F. García Martínez, Leiden: Brill, 1992. ______. “The End of the Book of Joshua according to the Septuagint.” Hen 4 (1982): 17–36. ______. “Ephraimite versus Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 221–35 in Storia e tradizioni di Israele: Festschrift J. A. Soggin. Edited by D. Garrone and F. Israel. Brescia: Paideia, 1991. ______. “Joshua 20: Historico-Literary Criticism Illustrated.” Pages 131–47 in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Edited by J. H. Tigay. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Rogerson, J. W. Myth in Old Testament Interpretation. BZAW 134. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974. Roloff, J. Die Apostelgeschichte. NTD 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 181988. Römer, T. “L’Ancien Testament: Une littérature de crise.” RTP 127 (1995): 321–38. ______. “De l’archaïque au subversif: Le cas d’Exode 4/24–26.” ETR 69 (1994): 1–12. ______. “The Book of Deuteronomy.” Pages 178–212 in The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth. Edited by S. L. McKenzie and M. P. Graham. JSOTSup 182. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. ______. “Le Deutéronome à la quête des origines.” Pages 65–98 in Le Pentateuque: Débats et recherches. Edited by P. Haudebert. LD 151. Paris: Cerf, 1992. ______. “The Elusive Yahwist: A Short History of Research.” Pages 9–27 in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Edited by T. B. Dozeman and K. Schmid. SBLSymS 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. ______. “Exode et Anti-Exode: La nostalgie de l’Egypte dans les traditions du désert.” Pages 155–72 in Lectio difficilior probabilior? L’exégèse comme expérience de décloisonnement: Festschrift F. Smyth-Florentin. Edited by T. Römer. DBAT Beiheft 12. Heidelberg: Wissen.-theol. Seminar, 1991. ______. “Exodus 3–4 und die aktuelle Pentateuchdiskussion.” Pages 65–79 in The Interpretation of Exodus: Festschrift C. Houtman. Edited by Riemer Roukema in collaboration with B. J. L. Peerbolte, K. Spronk, and J.-W. Wesselius. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. ______. “La fin de l’historiographie deutéronomiste et le retour de l’Hexateuque?” TZ 57 (2001): 269–280. ______. “Gen 15 und Gen 17: Beobachtungen und Anfragen zu einem Dogma der ‘neueren’ und ‘neuesten’ Pentateuchkritik.” DBAT 26 (1989–90): 32–47. ______. “Genèse 15 et les tensions de la communauté juive postexilique dans le cycle d’Abraham.” Transeu 7 (1994): 107–21. ______. “Historiographies et mythes d’origines dans l’Ancien Testament.” Pages 142–48, 236– 37, 256–58 in Transcrire les mythologies: Tradition, écriture, historicité. Edited by M. Detienne. Paris: Michel, 1994. ______. “Israël et son histoire d’après l’historiographie deutéronomiste.” ETR 61 (1986): 1–19. ______. Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition. OBO 99. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. ______. “Joseph approche: Source du cycle, corpus, unité.” Pages 73–85 in Le livre de traverse: De l’exégèse biblique à l’anthropologie. Edited by O. Abel and F. Smyth. Paris: Cerf, 1992. ______. “Le jugement de Dieu et la chute d’Israël selon Exode 32.” Cahier biblique, Foie et Vie 31 (1992): 3–14. ______. Nachwort zu: N. Lohfink. Pages 111–23 in Die Väter Israels im Deuteronomium: Mit einer Stellungnahme von Thomas Römer. OBO 111. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. ______. “Pentateuque, Hexateuque et historiographie deutéronomiste: Le problème du debut et de la fin du livre de Josué.” Transeu 16 (1998): 71–86.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 401 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

401

______. “Les récits patriarcaux contre la vénération des ancêtres; une hypothese concernant les ‘origines’ d’Israël.” Pages 213–25 in Le livre de traverse: De l’exégèse biblique à l’anthropologie. Edited by O. Abel and F. Smyth. Paris: Cerf, 1992. ______. “Résumer l’histoire en l’inventant: Formes et fonctions des ‘sommaires historiques’ de l’Ancien Testament.” RTP 125 (1993): 21–39. ______. “Les Sages-Femmes du Pharaon et la ‘Crainte de Dieu’ (Exode 1,15–22).” Pages 183– 90 in “Dort ziehen Schiffe dahin . . .”: Collected Communications to the XIVth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of Old Testament, Paris 1992. Edited by M. Augustin and K.-D. Schunck. BEATAJ 28. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1996. ______. “Les sages-femmes du Pharaon (Exode 1/15–22).” ETR 69 (1994): 265–70. ______. The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Literary and Historical Introduction. London: T. & T. Clark, 2005. ______. “Transformations dans l’historiographie juive de la fin du VIIe s. av. notre ère jusqu’à l’époque perse.” Transeu 13 (1997): 41–63. ______. “Transformations in Deuteronomic and Biblical Historiography: On ‘Book-Finding’ and Other Literary Strategies.” ZAW 109 (1997): 1–11. Römer, T., and Brettler, M. Z. “Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch.” JBL 119 (2000): 401–19. Römer, T., and de Pury, A. “L’historiographie deutéronomiste (HD): Histoire de la recherche et enjeux du débat.” Pages 9–120 in Israël construit son histoire: L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes. Edited by A. de Pury, T. Römer, and J.-D. Macchi. MdB 34. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996 (Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research. JSOTSup 306. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000). Rose, M. “Bemerkungen zum historischen Fundament des Josia-Bildes in II Reg 22f.” ZAW 89 (1977): 50–63. ______. “La croissance du corpus historiographique de la bible: Une proposition.” RTP 118 (1986): 217–36. ______. Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke. ATANT 67. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981. ______. “Empoigner le Pentateuque par sa fin! L’investiture de Josué et la mort de Moïse.” Pages 129–47 in Le pentateuque en question. Edited by A. de Pury. MdB [19]. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1989. ______. “ ‘Entmilitarisierung des Kriegs?’ Erwägungen zu den Patriarchen-Erzählungen der Genesis.” BZ 20 (1976): 197–211. ______. 5. Mose, part 1: 5. Mose 12–25: Einführung und Gesetze; part 2: 5. Mose 1–11 und 26– 34: Rahmenstücke zum Gesetzeskorpus. ZBK 5. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1994. ______. “Idéologie deutéronomiste et Théologie de l’Ancien Testament.” Pages 445–76 in Israël construit son histoire: L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes. Edited by A. de Pury, T. Römer, and J.-D. Macchi. MdB 34. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996. Rösel, H. “Das ‘Negative Besitzverzeichnis’: Traditionsgeschichtliche und historische Überlegungen.” Pages 121–35 in “Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden”: Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986. Edited by M. Augustin and K.-D. Schunck. BEATAJ 13. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1988. Rösel, H. “Erwägungen zu Tradition und Geschichte in Jos 24–ein Versuch.” BN 22 (1983): 41–46. ______. “Die Überleitungen vom Josua- ins Richterbuch.” VT 30 (1980): 342–50. Rösel, M. Übersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung: Studien zur Genesis-Septuaginta. BZAW 223. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. Rost, L. “Das kleine geschichtliche Credo.” Pages 11–25 in idem, Das kleine Credo und andere Studien zum Alten Testament. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1965. Roth, W. “Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk/Deuteronomistische Schule.” TRE 8:543–52. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1981.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 402 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

402

Bibliography

Rottzoll, D. “Gen 15,6: Ein Beleg für den Glauben als Werkgerechtigkeit.” ZAW 106 (1994): 21–27. Rudolph, W. Chronikbücher. HAT 1/21. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1955. ______. Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Josua. BZAW 68. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1938. ______. Esra und Nehemia samt 3.Esra. HAT 1/20. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1949. Ruiten, J. van, “The Influence and Development of Is 65,17 in 1 En 91,16.” Pages 161–66 in The Book of Isaiah / Le Livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures—Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage. Edited by J. Vermeylen. BETL 81. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989. Ruppert, L. “Die Aporie der gegenwärtigen Pentateuchdiskussion und die Josefserzählung der Genesis.” BZ 29 (1985): 31–48. ______. “Herkunft und Bedeutung der Jakob-Tradition bei Hosea.” Bib 52 (1971): 488–504. ______. Die Josephserzählung der Genesis: Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der Pentateuchquellen. SANT 11. Munich: Kösel, 1965. ______. “Zur Offenbarung des Gottes des Vaters (Gen 46,1–5): Traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen.” Pages 271–86 in Die Väter Israels: Beiträge zur Theologie der Patriarchenüberlieferungen im Alten Testament: Festschrift J. Scharbert. Edited by M. Görg. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. Rupprecht, K. “≈rah ˆm hl[ (Ex 1,10 Hos 2,2): ‘Sich des Landes bemächtigen’?” ZAW 82 (1970): 442–47. Ryle, H. Philo and Holy Scripture, or, the Quotations of Philo from the Books of the Old Testament with Introduction and Notes. London: Macmillan, 1895. Sacchi, P. Jewish Apocalyptic and Its History. JSPSup 20. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Sacks, K. S. “Rhetorical Approaches to Greek History Writing in the Hellenistic Period.” Pages 123–33 in Society of Biblical Literature: 1984 Seminar Papers. Edited by K. H. Richards. SBLSP 23. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1984. Sæbø, M. “Offenbarung oder Verhüllung? Bemerkungen zum Charakter des Gottesnamens in Ex 3,13–15.” Pages 43–55 in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift H. W. Wolff. Edited by J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. ______. “Priestertheologie und Priesterschrift: Zur Eigenart der priesterlichen Schicht im Pentateuch.” Pages 357–74 in Congress Volume: Vienna 1980. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 32. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Sailhamer, J. H. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. Saito, T. Die Mosevorstellungen im Neuen Testament. Europäische Hochschulschriften: Reihe 23. Theologie 100. Bern: Peter Lang, 1977. Sanders, J. A. “Canon.” ABD 1:837–52. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Sanders, P. The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32. OtSt 37. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Sanderson, J. E. An Exodus Scroll from Qumran: 4QpaleoExodm and the Samaritan Tradition. HSS 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. Sandmel, S. “The Haggada within Scripture.” JBL 80 (1961): 105–22. ______. Philo’s Place in Judaism: A Study of Conceptions of Abraham in Jewish Literature. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1956. Sänger, D. “Mose/Moselied/Mosesegen/Moseschriften II: Neues Testament.” TRE 23:342–46. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. ______. “ ‘Von mir hat er geschrieben’ ( Joh 5,46): Zur Funktion und Bedeutung Mose im Neuen Testament.” KD 41 (1996): 112–35. Sarna, N. M. Ancient Libraries and the Ordering of the Biblical Books: A Lecture Presented at the Library of Congress, March 6, 1989. The Center for the Book Viewpoint Series 25. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1989. ______. “Exodus, Book of.” ABD 2:689–700. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ______. Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel. New York: Schocken, 1986. ______. “The Order of the Books.” Pages 407–13 in Studies in Jewish Bibliography: Festschrift I. E. Kiev. Edited by C. Berlin. New York: Ktav, 1971.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 403 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

403

Sasson, J. M. “On Choosing Models for Recreating Israelite Premonarchic History.” JSOT 21 (1981): 3–24. Sauer, G. “Die chronologischen Angaben in den Büchern Deut. bis 2.Kön.” TZ 24 (1968): 1– 14. ______. Jesus Sirach. JSHRZ 3/5. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981. Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C. “Exodus 18–Zur Begründung der königlichen Gerichtsbarkeit in Israel–Juda.” DBAT 21 (1985): 61–85. Schaper, J. “Die religionsgeschichtlichen Wurzeln des frühisraelitischen Stämmebundes.” VT 46 (1996): 361–74. Scharbert, J. “Josef als Sklave.” BN 37 (1987): 104–28. ______. “Die Landverheissung als ‘Urgestein’ der Patriarchentradition.” Pages 359–68 in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor. Edited by A. Caquot et al. AOAT 215. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985. ______. “Die Landverheissung an die Väter als einfache Zusage, als Eid und als ‘Bund’.” Pages 337–54 in Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte: Festschrift K. Baltzer. Edited by R. Bartelmus et al. OBO 126. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. ______. “Patriarchentradition und Patriarchenreligion.” VF 19 (1974): 2–22. ______. “Der Sinn der Toledot-Formel in der Priesterschrift.” Pages 45–56 in Wort–Gebot– Glaube: Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments: Festschrift W. Eichrodt. Edited by H. J. Stoebe et al. ATANT 59. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1970. Schart, A. Mose und Israel im Konflikt: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Wüstenerzählungen. OBO 98. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Schatz, W. Genesis 14: Eine Untersuchung. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23. Theologie 2. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1972. Schelbert, G. “Jubiläenbuch.” TRE 17:285–89. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988. Schenker, A. “Jéroboam et la division du royaume dans la Septante ancienne: LXX 1R 12,24a–z, TM 11–12; 14 et l’histoire deutéronomiste.” Pages 193–236 in Israël construit son histoire: L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes. Edited by A. de Pury, T. Römer, and J.-D. Macchi. MdB 34. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996. Schmid, H. “Die Gestalt Abrahams und das Volk des Landes.” Jud 36 (1980): 73–87. ______. Die Gestalt des Mose: Probleme alttestamentlicher Forschung unter Berücksichtigung der Pentateuchkrise. EdF 237. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1986. ______. Mose: Überlieferung und Geschichte. BZAW 110. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1968. Schmid, H. H. “Auf der Suche nach neuen Perspektiven für die Pentateuchforschung.” Pages 375–94 in Congress Volume: Vienna 1980. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 32. Leiden: Brill, 1981. ______. “Gerechtigkeit und Glaube: Gen 15,1–6 und sein biblisch-theologischer Kontext.” EvT 40 (1980): 396–420. ______. “Ich will euer Gott sein, und ihr sollt mein Volk sein.” Pages 1–25 in Kirche: Festschrift G. Bornkamm. Edited by D. Lührmann and G. Strecker. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. ______. “In Search of New Approaches in Pentateuchal Research.” JSOT 3 (1977): 33–42. ______. Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976. ______. “Vers une théologie du Pentateuque.” Pages 361–86 in Le pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes. Edited by A. de Pury. MdB 19. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1989. Schmid, K. Buchgestalten des Jeremiabuches: Untersuchungen zur Redaktions- und Rezeptionsgeschichte von Jer 30–33 im Kontext des Buches. WMANT 72. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996. ______. “Das Deuteronomium innerhalb der ‘deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke’ in Gen– 2Kön.” Pages 193–211 in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und deuteronomistischem

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 404 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

404

Bibliography

Geschichtswerk. Edited by E. Otto and R. Achenbach. FRLANT 206. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. ______. “Esras Begegnung mit Zion. Die Deutung der Zerstörung Jerusalems im 4. Esrabuch und das Problem des ‘bösen Herzens.’ ” JSJ 29 (1998): 261–77. ______. “Der Geschichtsbezug des christlichen Glaubens.” Pages 71–90 in Das ist christlich: Nachdenken über das Wesen des Christentums. Edited by W. Härle, H. Schmidt, and M. Welker. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser, 2000. ______. “Hatte Wellhausen recht? Das Problem der literarhistorischen Anfänge des Deuteronomismus in den Königsbücher.” Pages 23–47 in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke. Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten. Edited by M. Witte et al. BZAW 365, Berlin: 2006. ______. “Innerbiblische Schriftauslegung: Aspekte der Forschungsgeschichte.” Pages 1–22 in Schriftauslegung in der Schrift: Festschrift Odil Hannes Steck. Edited by R. G. Kratz, T. Krüger, and K. Schmid. BZAW 300. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000. ______. “Israel am Sinai. Etappen der Forschungsgeschichte zu Ex 32-34 in seinen Kontexten.” Pages 9–40 in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32-34 und Dtn 9-10. Edited by E. Blum and M. Köckert. VWGTh 18. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser, 2001. ______. “Die Josephsgeschichte im Pentateuch.” Pages 83–118 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Edited by J. C. Gertz, K. Schmid, and M. Witte. BZAW 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. ______. “The Late Persian Formation of the Torah: Observations on Deuteronomy 34.” Pages 237–51 in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century b.c.e. Edited by O. Lipschits, G. Knoppers, and R. Albertz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. ______. Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments: Eine Einführung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2008. ______. “Manasse und der Untergang Judas: ‘Golaorientierte’ Theologie in den Königsbüchern?” Bib 78 (1997): 87–99. ______. “The Persian Imperial Authorization as Historical Problem and as Biblical Construct: A Plea for Distinctions in the Current Debate.” Pages 22–38 in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by G. N. Knoppers and B. M. Levinson. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007. ______. “Die Rückgabe der Verheissungsgabe: Der ‘heilsgeschichtliche’ Sinn von Genesis 22 im Horizont innerbiblischer Exegese.” Pages 271–300 in Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag, vol. 1. Edited by M. Witte. BZAW 345/1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. ______. “The So-Called Yahwist and the Literary Gap between Genesis and Exodus.” Pages 29–50 in A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Edited by T. B. Dozeman and K. Schmid. SBLSymS 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. Schmid, W., and Stählin, O. Geschichte der griechischen Literatur. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 7/1–2. Munich: Beck, 1934. Schmidt, B. B. Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition. FAT 11. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994 (Repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996). Schmidt, L. Beobachtungen zu der Plagenerzählung in Exodus VII,14–XI,10. StudBib 4. Leiden: Brill, 1990. ______. “Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk.” Pages 127–41 in Altes Testament. Edited by H.-J. Boecker et al. Neukirchener Arbeitsbücher. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag (1983, 101–13) 51996. ______. “Diachrone und synchrone Exegese am Beispiel von Exodus 3–4.” Pages 224–50 in idem, Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Pentateuch. BZAW 263. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998. ______. “El und die Landverheissung in Bet-El (Die Erzählung von Jakob in Bet-El: Gen 28,11–22).” Pages 156–68 in “Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern?”: Studien zur Theologie

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 405 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

405

und Religionsgeschichte Israels: Festschrift O. Kaiser. Edited by I. Kottsieper et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. ______. “Israel ein Segen für die Völker?” ThViat 12 (1975): 135–51. ______. “Josephnovelle.” TRE 17:255–58. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988. ______. “Literarische Probleme der Josephsgeschichte und ihre Lösung: Ein kritischer Überblick.” Pages 127–297 in Literarische Studien zur Josephsgeschichte. BZAW 167. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986. ______. “Pentateuch.” Pages 88–109 in Altes Testament. Neukirchener Arbeitsbücher. Edited by H.-J. Boecker et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 51996. ______. Studien zur Priesterschrift. BZAW 214. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993. ______. “Überlegungen zum Jahwisten.” EvT 37 (1977): 230–47. ______. “Väterverheissungen und Pentateuchfrage.” ZAW 104 (1992): 1–27. ______. “Weisheit und Geschichte beim Elohisten.” Pages 209–25 in “Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit . . .”: Studien zur israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit—Festschrift D. Michel. Edited by A. A. Diesel et al. BZAW 241. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996. ______. “Zur Entstehung des Pentateuch: Ein kritischer Literaturbericht.” VF 40 (1995): 3–28. Schmidt, W. H. Einführung in das Alte Testament. Berlin: de Gruyter, 51995 (Old Testament Introduction. Translated by M. J. O’Connell with David J. Reimer. Berlin: de Gruyter / Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 21999). ______. “Einleitung und Theologie.” Pages 9–88 in Altes Testament. Edited by W. H. Schmidt, W. Thiel, and R. Hanhart. Grundkurs Theologie 1. Urban-Taschenbücher 421. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1989. ______. “Elementare Erwägungen zur Quellenscheidung im Pentateuch.” Pages 22–45 in Congress Volume: Leuven 1989. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991. ______. Exodus, 1. Teilband: Exodus 1–6. BKAT 2/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988; BKAT 2/2 Lfg. 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995. ______. Exodus, Sinai und Mose: Erwägungen zu Ex 1–19 und 24. EdF 191. Darmstadt (1983): Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 21990 = 31995. ______. “Die Intention der beiden Plagenerzählungen (Exodus 7–10) in ihrem Kontext.” Pages 225–43 in Studies in the Book of Exodus. Redaction–Reception–Interpretation. Edited by M. Vervenne. BETL 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. ______. “Jahwe in Ägypten.” Kairós 18 (1976): 42–54. ______. “Der Jahwename und Ex 3,14.” Pages 123–38 in Textgemäss: Aufsätze und Beiträge zur Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments: Festschrift E. Würthwein. Edited by A. H. J. Gunneweg and O. Kaiser. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. ______. “Nachwirkungen prophetischer Botschaft in der Priesterschrift.” Pages 369–77 in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor: Festschrift M. Delcor. Edited by A. Caquot et al. AOAT 215. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985. ______. “Pentateuch und Prophetie.” Pages 196–216 in Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift O. Kaiser. Edited by V. Fritz et al. BZAW 185. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. ______. “Ein Theologie in salomonischer Zeit? Plädoyer für den Jahwisten.” BZ 25 (1981): 82–102. Schmitt, G. Der Landtag von Sichem. AzTh 1/15. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1964. ______. Du sollst keinen Frieden schliessen mit den Bewohnern des Landes: Die Weisungen gegen die Kanaanäer in Israels Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung. BWANT 91. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970. Schmitt, H.-C. “Die Erzählung von der Versuchung Abrahams Gen 22,1–19* und das Problem einer Theologie der elohistischen Pentateuchtexte.” BN 34 (1986): 82–109. ______. “Die Geschichte vom Sieg über die Amalekiter Ex 17,8–16 als theologische Lehrerzählung.” ZAW 102 (1990): 335–44. ______. “Der heidnische Mantiker als eschatologischer Jahweprophet: Zum Verständnis Bileams in der Endgestalt von Num 22–24.” Pages 180–98 in “Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 406 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

406

Bibliography

den Göttern?”: Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels—Festschrift O. Kaiser. Edited by I. Kottsieper et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. ______. “Die Hintergründe der ‘neuesten Pentateuchkritik’ und der literarische Befund der Josefsgeschichte Gen 37–50.” ZAW 97 (1985): 161–79. ______. “Die Josephsgeschichte und das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk: Genesis 38 und 48–50.” Pages 391–405 in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans. Edited by M. Vervenne and J. Lust. BETL 133. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. ______. Die nichtpriesterliche Josephsgeschichte: Ein Beitrag zur neuesten Pentateuchkritik. BZAW 154. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980. ______. “ ‘Priesterliches’ und ‘prophetisches’ Geschichtsverständnis in der Meerwundererzählung Ex 13,17–14,31: Beobachtungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch.” Pages 139–55 in Textgemäss: Aufsätze und Beiträge zur Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments: Festschrift E. Würthwein. Edited by A. H. J. Gunneweg and O. Kaiser. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. ______. “Redaktion des Pentateuch im Geiste der Prophetie: Beobachtungen zur Bedeutung der ‘Glaubens’-Thematik innerhalb der Theologie des Pentateuch.” VT 32 (1982): 170–89. ______. “Das sogenannte vorprophetische Berufungsschema: Zur ‘geistigen Heimat’ des Berufungsformulars von Ex 3,9–12; Jdc 6,11–24 und I Sam 9,1–10,16.” ZAW 104 (1992): 202–16. ______. “Das spätdeuteronomistische Geschichtswerk Gen I–2Regum XXV und seine theologische Intention.” Pages 261–79 in Congress Volume: Cambridge 1995. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 66. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ______. “Die Suche nach der Identität des Jahweglaubens im nachexilischen Israel: Bemerkungen zur theologischen Intention der Endredaktion des Pentateuch.” Pages 259–78 in Pluralismus und Identität. Edited by J. Mehlhausen. VWGTh 8. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1995. ______. “Tradition der Prophetenbücher in den Schichten der Plagenerzählung Ex 7,1–11,10.” Pages 196–216 in Prophet und Prophetenbuch: Festschrift O. Kaiser. Edited by V. Fritz et al. BZAW 185. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. Schmitt, R. Abschied von der Heilsgeschichte?: Untersuchungen zum Verständnis der Geschichte im Alten Testament. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23. Theologie 195. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1982. ______. Exodus und Passa: Ihr Zusammenhang im Alten Testament. OBO 7. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21982. Schnabel, P. Berossus und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur. Leipzig: Teubner, 1923. Schneider, T. “Die semitischen und ägyptischen Namen der syrischen Sklaven des Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 verso.” UF 19 (1987): 255–82. Schneider, W. “Und es begab sich . . . Anfänge von Erzählungen im Biblischen Hebräisch.” BN 70 (1993): 62–87. Schniedewind, W. M. How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. ______. “Prophets and Prophecy in the Books of Chronicles.” Pages 204–24 in The Chronicler as Historian. Edited by M. P. Graham, K. G. Hoglund, and S. L. McKenzie. JSOTSup 238. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Schnutenhaus, F. Die Entstehung der Mosetraditionen. Th.D. Diss., Heidelberg, 1958. Schöpflin, K. “Jakob segnet seinen Sohn. Genesis 49,1-28 im Kontext von Josefs- und Vätergeschichte.” ZAW 115 (2003): 501–23. Schorn, U. Ruben und das System der zwölf Stämme Israels: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des Erstgeborenen Jakobs. BZAW 248. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Schottroff, W. ‘Gedenken’ im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament: Die Wurzel zakar im semitischen Sprachkreis. WMANT 15. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964. Schreiner, J. “Abraham, Isaak und Jakob: Israels Deutung der Väterzeit.” Pages 73–86 in idem, Wort und Botschaft des Alten Testaments. Würzburg: Echter, 21969.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 407 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

407

______. Das 4. Buch Esra. JSHRZ 5/4. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981. ______. “Geschichte als Wegweisung: Psalm 78.” (1990) Pages 356–78 in idem, Leben nach der Weisung Gottes: Gesammelte Schriften zur Theologie des Alten Testaments II. Würzburg: Echter, 1992. ______. “Segen für die Völker in der Verheissung an die Väter.” BZ 6 (1962): 1–31 (= pp. 196– 226 in Segen für die Völker: Gesammelte Schriften zur Entstehung und Theologie des Alten Testaments. Würzburg: Echter, 1987). ______. “Zur Theologie der Patriarchenerzählungen in Genesis 12–36.” Pages 20–34 in Alttestamentlicher Glaube und Biblische Theologie: Festschrift H.-D. Preuss. Edited by J. Hausmann and H.-J. Zobel. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992 (= pp. 237–54 in Leben nach der Weisung Gottes: Gesammelte Schriften zur Theologie des Alten Testaments II. Würzburg: Echter, 1992). Schur, N. History of the Samaritans. BEATAJ 18. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1989. Schürer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 b.c.–135 a.d.). 3 vols. Edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–87. Schwarz, E. Identität durch Abgrenzung: Abgrenzungsprozesse in Israel im 2. vorchristlichen Jahrhundert und ihre traditionsgeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Erforschung des Jubiläenbuchs. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23. Theologie 162. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1982. Schwenk-Bressler, U. 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, 1993. Scullion, J. J. “ ‘Die Genesis ist eine Sammlung von Sagen’ (Hermann Gunkel)–Independent Stories and Redactional Unitiy in Genesis 12–36.” Pages 243–47 in “Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden”: Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986. Edited by M. Augustin and K.-D. Schunck. BEATAJ 13. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1988. Seebass, H. “Gehörten Verheissungen zum ältesten Bestand der Vätererzählungen?” Bib 64 (1983): 189–210. ______. Genesis I: Urgeschichte (1,1–11,26). Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996; Genesis II/1: Vätergeschichte I (11,27–22,24). Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1997. ______. Geschichtliche Zeit und theonome Tradition in der Joseph-Erzählung. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1978. ______. “Joseph, sein Vater Israel und das pharaonische Ägypten.” Pages 11–25 in Nachdenken über Israel, Bibel und Theologie: Festschrift K.-D. Schunck. Edited by H. M. Niemann et al. BEATAJ 37. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1994. ______. “Landverheissungen an die Väter.” EvT 37 (1977): 210–29. ______. “Pentateuch.” TRE 26/1:185–209. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996. ______. “Que reste-t-il du Yahwiste et de l’Elohiste?” Pages 199–214 in Le pentateuque en question. Edited by A. de Pury. MdB [19]. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1989. ______. “Rez. zu E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch.” TRev 88 (1992): 17–21. ______. “Rez. zu Th. Römer, Israels Väter.” TRev 87 (1991): 102–5. ______. “Vor einer neuen Pentateuchkritik?” TRev 88 (1992): 177–86. ______. “Zu Genesis 15.” WD n.s. 7 (1963): 132–49. Segert, S. “History and Poetry: Poetic Patterns in Nehemiah 9:5–37.” Pages 255–65 in Storia e Tradizioni di Israele: Festschrift J. A. Soggin. Edited by S. Moscati. Brescia: Paideia, 1991. Seidel, B. “Entwicklungslinien der neueren Pentateuchforschung im 20. Jahrhundert.” ZAW 106 (1994): 476–85. Seidl, T. “Mose und Elija am Gottesberg: Überlegungen zu Krise und Konversion der Propheten.” BZ 37 (1993): 1–25. Seitz, C. R. “The Literary Structure of Leviticus.” JSOT 70 (1996): 17–32. ______. Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah. BZAW 176. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 408 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

408

Bibliography

______. Zion’s Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah: A Reassessment of Isaiah 36– 39. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Selman, M. J. “Comparative customs in the Patriarchal Age.” Pages 93–138 in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives. Edited by A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1980. Seybold, K. Introducing the Psalms. Translated by R. G. Dunphy. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1990. ______. Die Psalmen. HAT 1/15. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Shaw, C. S. “The Sins of Rehoboam: The Purpose of 3Kingdoms 12.24a–z.” JSOT 73 (1997): 55–64. Shenkel, J. D. Chronology and Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings. HSM 1. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968. Siebert-Hommes, J. “Die Geburtsgeschichte des Erzählzusammenhangs von Exodus i und ii.” VT 42 (1992): 398–404. ______. “ ‘Ich werde sein’ oder ‘Ich werde da sein’: Eine Untersuchung zu Exodus 3,14.” Pages 59–67 in Yhwh–Kyrios–Antitheism: Festschrift R. Zuurmond. Edited by K. A. Deurloo and B. J. Diebner. DBAT Beiheft 14. Heidelberg: Wissen.-theol. Seminar, 1996. Siffer-Wiederhold, N. “La figure de Joseph dans le discours d’Étienne en Ac 7,9-16: amorce d’une typologie christologique.” Pages 141–63 in Typologie biblique: De quelques figures vives. Edited by R. Kuntzmann. Paris: Cerf, 2002. Sigal, P. “Manifestations of Hellenistic Historiography in Select Judaic Literature.” Pages 161–85 in Society of Biblical Literature 1984 Seminar Papers. Edited by K. H. Richards. SBLSP 23. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1984. Siker, J. S. “Abraham in Graeco-Roman Paganism.” JSJ 18 (1987): 188–208. Simpson, C. A. Composition of the Book of Judges. Oxford: Blackwell, 1957. Ska, J. L. “L’appel d’Abraham et l’acte de naissance d’Israël.” Pages 367–89 in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans. Edited by M. Vervenne and J. Lust. BETL 133. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. ______. “De la relative indépendance de l’écrit sacerdotale.” Bib 76 (1995): 396–415. ______. “El relato del diluvio: Un relato sacerdotal y algunos fragmentos posteriores.” EstBib 52 (1994): 37–62. ______. “Ex 19,3–8 et les parénèses deutéronomiques.” Pages 307–14 in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Festschrift N. Lohfink. Edited by G. Braulik, W. Gross, and S. McEvenue. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. ______. “Exode xiv contient-il un récit de ‘guerre sainte’ de style deutéronomistique?” VT 33 (1983): 454–67. ______. “Exode 19,3b–6 et l’identité de l’Israël postexilique.” Pages 289–317 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction–Reception–Interpretation. BETL 126. Edited by M. Vervenne. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. ______. “Un nouveau Wellhausen?” Bib 72 (1991): 253–63. ______. “Le Pentateuque: état de la recherche à partir de quelques récentes ‘Introductions’.” Bib 77 (1996): 245–65. ______. “La place d’Ex 6,2–8 dans la narration de l’exode.” ZAW 94 (1982): 530–48. ______. “Les plaies d’Égypte dans le récit sacerdotal (PG).” Bib 60 (1979): 23–35. ______. “Quelques remarques sur Pg et la dernière rédaction du Pentateuque.” Pages 95–125 in Le pentateuque en question. Edited by A. de Pury. MdB [19]. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1989. ______. “Récit et récit métadiégétique en Ex 1–15: Remarques critiques et essai d’interpretation.” Pages 135–71 in Le Pentateuque: Débats et recherches. Edited by P. Haudebert. LD 151. Paris: Cerf, 1992. ______. “La sortie d’Égypte (Ex 7–14) dans le récit sacerdotal (PG) et la tradition prophétique.” Bib 60 (1979): 191–215. Skehan, P., and Di Lella, A. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Skinner, J. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. ICC 1. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 409 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

409

Skweres, D. E. Die Rückverweise im Buch Deuteronomium. AnBib 79. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1979. Slingerland, H. D. “The Nature of Nomos (Law) within the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” JBL 105 (1986): 39–48. ______. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical History of Research. SBLMS 21. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977. Smelik, K. A. D. “The Use of the Hebrew Bible as a Historical Source: An Introduction.” Pages 1–34 in idem, Converting the Past: Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography. OtSt 28. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Smend, R., Jr. “Der Auszug aus Ägypten: Bekenntnis und Geschichte.” (1967) Pages 27–44 in idem, Zur ältesten Geschichte Israels. Gesammelte Studien 2. BEvT 100. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1987. ______. “Die Bundesformel.” (1963) Pages 11–39 in idem, Die Mitte des Alten Testaments. Gesammelte Studien 1. BEvT 99. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1986. ______. Elemente alttestamentlichen Geschichtsdenkens. Theologische Studiën Beiheft 95. Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1968 (= pp. 160–85 in Die Mitte des Alten Testaments. Gesammelte Studien 1. BEvT 99. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1986). ______. “ ‘Das Ende ist gekommen’: Ein Amoswort in der Priesterschrift.” Pages 67–72 in Die Botschaft und die Boten: Festschrift H. W. Wolff. Edited by J. Jeremias and L. Perlitt. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. ______. Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments. Theologische Wissenschaft 1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 41991. ______. “Das Gesetz und die Völker.” Pages 494–509 in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Festschrift G. von Rad. Edited by H. W. Wolff. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971 (= pp. 124–37 in Die Mitte des Alten Testaments. Gesammelte Studien 1. BEvT 99. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1986). ______. “Jahwekrieg und Stämmebund: Erwägungen zur ältesten Geschichte Israels.” (21966) Pages 116–99 in idem, Zur ältesten Geschichte Israels. Gesammelte Studien 2. BEvT 100. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1987 (Yahweh War and Tribal Confederation: Reflections upon Israel’s Earliest History. Translated by M. G. Rogers. Nashville: Abingdon, 1970). ______. “Die Methoden der Moseforschung” (1959). Pages 45–115 in idem, Zur ältesten Geschichte Israels. Gesammelte Studien vol. 2. BEvT 100. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1987. ______. “Mose als geschichtliche Gestalt.” Historische Zeitschrift 260 (1995): 1–19. ______. “Überlieferung und Geschichte: Aspekte ihres Verhältnisses.” Pages 9–26 in Zu Tradition und Theologie im Alten Testament. Edited by O. H. Steck. Biblisch-theologische Studien 2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. ______. “Das uneroberte Land.” Pages 91–102 in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit. Edited by G. Strecker. GTA 25. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983 (= pp. 217–28 in Zur ältesten Geschichte Israels. Gesammelte Studien 2. BEvT 100. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1987). ______. “Zur Geschichte von ˆymah.” (1976) Pages 118–23 in idem, Die Mitte des Alten Testaments. Gesammelte Studien vol. 1. BEvT 99. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1986. Smend, R., Sr. “JE in den geschichtlichen Büchern des AT.” ZAW 39 (1921): 181–217. ______. Die Erzählung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht. Berlin: Reimer, 1912. Smith, M. S. “The Literary Arrangement of the Priestly Redaction of Exodus: A Preliminary Investigation.” CBQ 58 (1996): 25–50. ______. The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus, with Contributions by E. M. Bloch-Smith. JSOTSup 239. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Smyth-Florentin, F. “Modèles de récits d’origine et structures du pouvoir.” Pages 41–47 in Histoire et conscience historique dans les Civilisations du Proche-Orient Ancien: Actes du Colloque de Cartigny 1986. Les cahiers du Centre d’Étude du Proche-Orient Ancien 5. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. Soden, W. von. “Abraham treibt Geier zurück: Was soll Gen 15,11 besagen?” Pages 213–18 in Bibel und Alter Orient: Altorientalische Beiträge zum Alten Testament von Wolfram von Soden. Edited by H.-P. Müller. BZAW 162. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1985.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 410 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

410

Bibliography

______. “Mottoverse zu Beginn babylonischer und antiker Epen: Mottosätze in der Bibel.” UF 14 (1982): 235–39. Soggin, J. A. “Abraham hadert mit Gott: Beobachtungen zu Genesis 18,16–32.” Pages 214–18 in Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern? Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels: Festschrift O. Kaiser. Edited by I. Kottsieper et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. ______. Das Buch Genesis: Kommentar. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1997. ______. Einführung in die Geschichte Israels und Judas: Von den Ursprüngen bis zum Aufstand Bar Kochbas. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1991 (abbreviated GI in this volume); An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah. Translated by J. Bowden. London: SCM, 21993. ______. “Geschichte als Glaubensbekenntnis–Geschichte als Gegenstand wissenschaftlicher Forschung: Zu einem Grundproblem der Geschichte Israels.” Pages 1–14 in Isaac Leo Seeligmann Volume: Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World, vol. 3. Edited by A. Rofé and Y. Zakovitch. Jerusalem: Rubinstein’s, 1983. ______. Joshua. OTL. London: SCM, 1972. ______. “Kultätiologische Sagen und Katechese im Hexateuch.” VT 10 (1960): 341–47. ______. “Notes on the Joseph Story.” Pages 336–49 in Understanding Poets and Prophets: Festschrift G. W. Anderson. Edited by A. G. Auld. JSOTSup 152. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Soisalon-Soininen, I. Die Textformen der Septuaginta-Übersetzung des Richterbuches. Helsinki: Pekka Katara, 1951. Sperling, D. S. “Joshua 24 Re-examined.” HUCA 58 (1987): 119–36. Spieckermann, H. “ ‘Barmherzig und gnädig ist der Herr . . .’.” ZAW 102 (1990): 1–18. ______. Heilsgegenwart: Eine Theologie der Psalmen. FRLANT 148. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. ______. Juda unter Assur in der Sargonidenzeit. FRLANT 129. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Spottorno, V. “Some Remarks on Josephus’ Biblical Text for 1–2 Kings.” Pages 277–85 in VIth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Jerusalem 1986. Edited by C. E. Cox. SBLSCS 23. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Spreafico, A. Esodo: Memoria e promessa. RivB 14. Bologna: EDB, 1985. Spronk, K. Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. AOAT 219. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986. ______. “The Structure of Josh. 23 and 24: An Evaluation of William Koopmans’ Search for Poetic Prose.” Pages 251–61 in Verse in Ancient Near Eastern Prose. Edited by J. C. de Moor and W. G. E. Watson. AOAT 1. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,1993. Staerk, W. Die Entstehung des Alten Testamentes. Sammlung Göschen 272. Berlin: Göschen, 1918. ______. Studien zur Religions- und Sprachgeschichte des Alten Testaments. 1. und 2. Heft. Berlin: Reimer, 1899. Staubli, T. Die Bücher Leviticus Numeri. NSKAT 3. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996. Steck, K. G. Die Idee der Heilsgeschichte. ThSt(B) 56. Zollikon: Evangelischer Verlag, 1959. Steck, O. H. Der Abschluss der Prophetie im Alten Testament: Ein Versuch zur Frage der Vorgeschichte des Kanons. Biblisch-theologische Studien 17. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991. ______. “Auf bauprobleme in der Priesterschrift.” Pages 287–308 in Ernten, was man sät: Festschrift K. Koch. Edited by D. R. Daniels, U. Glessmer, and M. Rösel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991. ______. Das apokryphe Baruchbuch: Studien zur Rezeption und Konzentration “kanonischer” Überlieferung. FRLANT 160. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 411 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

411

______. “Deuterojesaja als theologischer Denker.” KD 15 (1969): 280–93 (= pp. 204–20 in Wahrnehmungen Gottes im Alten Testament: Gesammelte Studien. TB 70. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1982). ______. “Genesis 12,1–3 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten.” Pages 525–54 in Probleme biblischer Theologie: Festschrift G. von Rad. Edited by H. W. Wolff. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1971 (= pp. 117–48 in Wahrnehmungen Gottes im Alten Testament: Gesammelte Studien. TB 70. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1982). ______. “Die getöteten ‘Zeugen’ und die verfolgten ‘Tora-Sucher’ in Jub 1,12: Ein Beitrag zur Zeugnis-Terminologie des Jubiläenbuchs (I).” ZAW 107 (1995): 445–65; (II), ZAW 108 (1996): 70–86. ______. “Die Gottesknechts-Texte und ihre redaktionelle Rezeption im Zweiten Jesaja.” Pages 149–72 in idem, Gottesknecht und Zion: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Deuterojesaja. FAT 4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. ______. Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum. WMANT 23. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967. ______. “Israel und Zion: Zum Problem konzeptioneller Einheit und literarischer Schichtung in Deuterojesaja.” Pages 173–207 in idem, Gottesknecht und Zion: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Deuterojesaja. FAT 4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. ______. “Der Kanon des hebräischen Alten Testaments: Historische Materialien für eine ökumenische Perspektive.” Pages 11–33 in Verbindliches Zeugnis: I. Kanon–Schrift–Tradition. Edited by W. Pannenberg and T. Schneider. Dialog der Kirchen 7. Freiburg: Herder / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992 (originally, pp. 231–52 in Vernunft des Glaubens: Wissenschaftliche Theologie und kirchliche Lehre: Festschrift W. Pannenberg. Edited by J. Rohls and G. Wenz. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988). ______. “Der neue Himmel und die neue Erde: Beobachtungen zur Rezeption von Gen 1–3 in Jes 65,16b–25.” Pages 349–65 in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift W. A. M. Beuken. Edited by J. van Ruiten and M. Vervenne. BETL 132. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. ______. Die Paradieserzählung: Eine Auslegung von Genesis 2,4b–3,24. BibS(N) 60. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970 (= pp. 9–116 in Wahrnehmungen Gottes im Alten Testament: Gesammelte Studien. TB 70. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1982). ______. “Das Problem theologischer Strömungen in nachexilischer Zeit.” EvT 28 (1968): 445– 58. ______. Die Prophetenbücher und ihr theologisches Zeugnis: Wege der Nachfrage und Fährten zur Antwort. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. ______. Der Schöpfungsbericht der Priesterschrift: Studien zur literarkritischen und überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Problematik von Genesis 1,1–2,4a. FRLANT 115. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21981. ______. “Strömungen theologischer Tradition im Alten Israel.” Pages 27–56 in idem, editor, Zu Tradition und Theologie im Alten Testament. Biblisch-theologische Studien 2. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978 (= pp. 291–317 in idem, Wahrnehmungen Gottes im Alten Testament: Gesammelte Studien. TB 70. Munich: Beck, 1982). ______. “Tritojesaja im Jesajabuch.” Pages 361–406 in The Book of Isaiah: Le Livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures: Unité et complexité de l’ouvrage. Edited by J. Vermeylen. BETL 81. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989 (= pp. 3–45 in Studien zu Tritojesaja. BZAW 203. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991). ______. Welt und Umwelt. BiKon. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1978. ______. “Zion als Gelände und Gestalt: Überlegungen zur Wahrnehmung Jerusalems als Stadt und Frau im Alten Testament.” ZTK 86 (1989): 261–81 (= pp. 126–45 in Gottesknecht und Zion: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Deuterojesaja. FAT 4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992). ______. “Zions Tröstung: Beobachtungen und Fragen zu Jes 51,1–11.” Pages 257–76 in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift R. Rendtorff. Edited by E. Blum et

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 412 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

412

Bibliography

al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990 (= pp. 126–45 in Gottesknecht und Zion: Gesammelte Aufsätze zu Deuterojesaja. FAT 4. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992). ______. “Zu jüngsten Untersuchungen von Jes 56,1–8; 63,7–66,24.” Pages 229–65 in idem, Studien zu Tritojesaja. BZAW 203. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991. ______. “Zukunft des einzelnen—Zukunft des Gottesvolkes: Beobachtungen zur Annäherung von weisheitlichen und eschatologischen Lebensperspektiven im Israel der hellenistischen Zeit.” Pages 471–82 in Text, Methode und Grammatik: Festschrift W. Richter. Edited by W. Gross et al. St. Ottilien: EOS, 1991. ______. “Zur Abfolge Maleachi–Jona in 4Q76 (4QXIIa).” ZAW 108 (1996): 249–53. ______. “Zur Rezeption des Psalters im apokryphen Baruchbuch.” Pages 361–80 in Neue Wege der Psalmenforschung: Festschrift W. Beyerlin. Edited by K. Seybold and E. Zenger. HBS 1. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. Stegemann, H. Die Essener, Qumran, Johannes der Täufer und Jesus: Ein Sachbuch. Freiburg: Herder, 41994. ______. “Methods for the Reconstruction of Scrolls from Scattered Fragments.” Pages 189–220 in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin. Edited by L. H. Schiffman. JSPSup 8. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. ______. “Die ‘Mitte der Schrift’ aus der Sicht der Gemeinde von Qumran.” Pages 149–84 in Mitte der Schrift? Ein jüdisch-christliches Gespräch: Texte des Berner Symposiums vom 6.–12. Januar 1985. Edited by M. Klopfenstein et al. Bern: Peter Lang, 1987. ______. “The Qumran Essenes: Local Members of the Main Jewish Union in Late Second Temple Times.” Pages 83–166 in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid 18–21 March, 1991. Edited by J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montane. STDJ 11/1. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Steingrimsson, S. Ö. “Abram in Kana'an: Einige literaturwissenschaftliche Beobachtungen zu den Wanderungsberichten in Gen 12–13.” Pages 327–41 in Die Väter Israels: Beiträge zur Theologie der Patriarchenüberlieferung im Alten Testament: Festschrift J. Scharbert. Edited by M. Görg. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. ______. Vom Zeichen zur Geschichte: Eine literar- und formkritische Untersuchung von Ex 6,28– 11,10. ConBOT 14. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1979. Steins, G. Die Chronik als kanonisches Abschlussphänomen: Studien zur Entstehung und Theologie von 1/2 Chronik. BBB 93. Weinheim: Athenäum, 1995. ______. “Zur Datierung der Chronik–Ein neuer methodischer Ansatz.” ZAW 109 (1997): 84–92. Stemberger, G. Hermeneutik der Jüdischen Bibel. Pages 23–132 in Dohmen, C., and Stemberger, G. Hermeneutik der Jüdischen Bibel und des Alten Testaments. Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1,2. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1996. ______. Pharisäer, Sadduzäer, Essener. SBS 144. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991 ( Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes. Translated by A. W. Mahnke. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995). ______. “Die Stephanusrede (Apg 7) und die jüdische Tradition” (1976). Pages 229–50 in Studien zum rabbinischen Judentum. Edited by G. Stemberger. SBAB 10. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990. ______. “Vollkommener Text in vollkommener Sprache: Zum rabbinischen Schriftverständnis.” Pages 53–65 in Biblische Hermeneutik. Edited by I. Baldermann et al. Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 12. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1998. Stenhouse, P. “Samaritan Chronology.” Pages 173–87 in Proceedings of the First International Congress of the Société d’Études samaritaines, Tel-Aviv, April 11–13, 1988. Edited by A. Tal and M. Florentin. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1991. Stern, E. “The Persian Empire and the Political and Social History of Palestine in the Persian Period.” Pages 70–87 in The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol. 1: Introduction: The Persian Pe-

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 413 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

413

riod. Edited by W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Stern, M., ed. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, (1974) 41992. Steuernagel, C. Das Buch Josua. HKAT 1/3 (2). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 21923. Stiegler, S. Die nachexilische JHWH-Gemeinde in Jerusalem: Ein Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen Ekklesiologie. BEATAJ 34. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1994. Stipp, H.-J. “Ahabs Busse und die Komposition des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks.” Bib 76 (1995): 471–97. ______. “Das Verhältnis von Textkritik und Literarkritik in neueren alttestamentlichen Veröffentlichungen.” BZ 34 (1990): 16–37. Stoellger, P. “Deuteronomium 34 ohne Priesterschrift.” ZAW 105 (1993): 26–51. Stolz, F. Einführung in den biblischen Monotheismus. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1996. ______. Jahwes und Israels Kriege: Kriegstheorien und Kriegserfahrungen im Glauben des alten Israels. ATANT 60. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972. ______. “Der Monotheismus Israels im Kontext der altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte–Tendenzen neuerer Forschung.” Pages 33–50 in Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. Edited by W. Dietrich and M. A. Klopfenstein. OBO 139. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. ______. “Der mythische Umgang mit der Rationalität und der rationale Umgang mit dem Mythos.” Pages 81–107 in Mythos und Rationalität. Edited by H. H. Schmid. VWGTh [5]. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1988. ______. “Religionsgeschichte Israels.” TRE 28: 585–603. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. ______. “Zeichen und Wunder: Die prophetische Legitimation und ihre Geschichte.” ZTK 69 (1972): 125–44. Stordalen, T. “Genesis 2,4: Restudying a locus classicus.” ZAW 104 (1992): 163–77. Strauss, H. “Das Meerlied des Mose–ein ‘Siegeslied’ Israels? Bemerkungen zur theologischen Exegese von Ex 15,1–19,20f.” ZAW 97 (1985): 103–9. Streibert, C. Schöpfung bei Deuterojesaja und in der Priesterschrift: Eine vergleichende Untersuchung zu Inhalt und Funktion schöpfungstheologischer Aussagen in exilisch-nachexilischer Zeit. BEATAJ 8. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1993. Strübind, K. Tradition als Interpretation in der Chronik: König Josaphat als Paradigma chronistischer Hermeneutik und Theologie. BZAW 209. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991. Strugnell, J. “Moses-Pseudepigrapha at Qumran: 4Q375, 4Q376, and Similar Works.” Pages 221–56 in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls: The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin. Edited by L. H. Schiffman. JSPSup 8. JSOT/ASOR Monographs 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. ______. “Quelques inscriptions samaritaines.” RB 74 (1967): 555–80. Stuhlmueller, C. Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah. AnBib 43. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970. Sundberg, A. C. “The ‘Old Testament’: A Christian Canon.” CBQ 30 (1968): 143–55. ______. The Old Testament of the Early Church. HTS 20. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964. ______. “The Protestant Old Testament Canon: Should It Be Re-examined?” CBQ 28 (1966): 194–203. Swanson, D. D. “ ‘A Covenant Just like Jacob’s’: The Covenant of 11QT29 and Jeremiah’s New Covenant.” Pages 272–86 in New Qumran Text Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992. Edited by G. J. Brooke. STDJ 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ______. The Temple Scroll and the Bible: The Methodology of 11QT. STDJ 14. Leiden: Brill, 1995.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 414 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

414

Bibliography

Swete, H. B. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Revised by R. R. Ottley, with an Appendix Containing the Letter of Aristeas Edited by H. St. J. Thackeray. Cambridge (1900) 21914 (repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989). Tal, A. “The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch.” Pages 189–216 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by M. J. Mulder. CRINT 2/1. Assen: Van Gorcum / Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Talmon, S. “Did There Exist a Biblical National Epic?” Pages 41–6 in Proceedings of the Seventh World Congress of Jewish Studies: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East held at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 7–14 August 1977 under the Auspices of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish studies, 1981. ______. “ ‘400 Jahre’ oder ‘vier Generationen’ (Gen 15,13–15): Geschichtliche Zeitangaben oder literarische Motive.” Pages 13–25 in Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift R. Rendtorff. Edited by E. Blum et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. ______. “Hebrew Written Fragments from Masada.” DSD 3 (1996): 168–77. ______. “ ‘In jenen Tagen gab es keinen ˚lm in Israel’ (Ri 18–21).” Pages 44–55 in idem, Gesellschaft und Literatur in der Hebräischen Bibel. Gesammelte Aufsätze 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988. ______. “Der judäische ≈rah μ[ in historischer Perspektive.” Pages 80–91 in idem, Gesellschaft und Literatur in der Hebräischen Bibel. Gesammelte Aufsätze 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988. Talshir, Z. The Alternative Story of the Division of the Kingdom: 3Kingdoms 12,24a–z. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 6. Jerusalem: Simor, 1993. Talstra, E. Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings 8,14–61. CBET 3. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993. Ta-Shma, I. M. “Abraham: In the Aggadah.” EncJud 2:115–17. Jerusalem: Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971. Tengström, S. Die Hexateucherzählung: Eine literaturgeschichtliche Studie. ConBOT 7. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1976. ______. Die Toledotformel und die literarische Struktur der priesterlichen Erweiterungsschicht im Pentateuch. ConBOT 17. Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1981. Thackeray, H. St. J. “The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings.” JTS 8 (1907): 262–78. ______. The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins. The Schweich Lectures, 1920. London: Oxford University Press, 21920. Theophilus, P. The Interpretation of Genesis 14:17–24: A Historical, Methodological, and Exegetical Study. Ph.D. Diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1979. Thiel, W. “Geschichtliche und soziale Probleme der Erzväter-Überlieferungen in der Genesis.” Theologische Versuche 14 (1985): 11–27. ______. Die soziale Entwicklung Israels in vorstaatlicher Zeit. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1980. Thompson, T. L. The Early History of the Israelite People. SHANE 4. Leiden: Brill, 21994. ______. The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham. BZAW 133. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974. ______. “Historiography (Israelite).” ABD 3:206–12. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ______. “How Yahweh Became God: Exodus 3 and 6 and the Heart of the Pentateuch.” JSOT 68 (1995): 57–74. ______. “The Intellectual Matrix of Early Biblical Narrative: Inclusive Monotheism in Persian Period Palestine.” Pages 107–24 in The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms. Edited by D. V. Edelman. CBET 13. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1995. ______. The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel: I. The Literary Formation of Genesis and Exodus 1– 23. JSOTSup 55. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987. Thompson, T. L., and Irvin, D. “The Joseph and Moses Narratives.” Pages 149–212 in Israelite and Judean History. Edited by J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller. London: SCM, 1977.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 415 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

415

Tigay, J. H. “Conflation as a Redactional Technique.” Pages 53–95 in idem, editor, Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. ______. “An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis.” JBL 94 (1975): 329–42. Tigay, J. H., ed. Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Tiller, P. A. A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of I Enoch. SBLEJL 4. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Tilly, M. Einführung in die Septuaginta, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2005. Toorn, K. van der. Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life. SHANE 7. Leiden: Brill, 1996. ______. “Funerary Rituals and Beatific Afterlife in Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible.” BO 48 (1991): 40–66. ______. “Gods and Ancestors in Emar and Nuzi.” ZA 84 (1994): 38–59. ______. “Ein verborgenes Erbe: Totenkult im frühen Israel.” TQ 177 (1997): 105–20. Tournay, R. J. “Le chant de victoire d’Exode 15.” RB 102 (1995): 522–31. ______. “Genèse de la triade ‘Abraham–Isaac–Jacob’.” RB 103 (1996): 321–36. Tov, E. “Glosses, Interpolations, and Other Types of Scribal Additions in the Text of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 40–66 in Language, Theology, and The Bible: Festschrift J. Barr. Edited by S. E. Balentine and J. Barton. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. ______. “Groups of Biblical Texts Found at Qumran.” Pages 85–102 in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990. Edited by D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman. STDJ 16. Leiden: Brill, 1995. ______. “Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from the Judaean Desert: Their Contribution to Textual Criticism.” JJS 39 (1988): 5–37. ______. “The History and Significance of a Standard Text of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 49–66 in HBOT 1/1. Edited by M. Sæbø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. ______. “The Impact of the LXX Translation of the Pentateuch on the Translation of the Other Books.” Pages 577–92 in Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy: Études bibliques offertes à l’occassion de son 60e Anniversaire. Edited by P. Casetti, O. Keel, and A. Schenker. OBO 38. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. ______. “The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts.” JSOT 31 (1985): 3–29. ______. “A New Understanding of the Samaritan Pentateuch in the Wake of the Discovery of Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 293–303 in Proceedings of the First International Congress of the Société d’Études samaritaines, Tel-Aviv, April 11–13, 1988. Edited by A. Tal and M. Florentin. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1991. ______. “The Original Shape of the Biblical Text.” Pages 345–59 in Congress Volume: Leuven 1989. Edited by J. A. Emerton. Leiden: Brill, 1991. ______. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. STDJ 54. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ______. “The Textual Base of the Corrections in the Biblical Texts Found at Qumran.” Pages 299–314 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport. Leiden: Brill / Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992. ______. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Jerusalem Biblical Studies 3. Jerusalem: Simor, 1981. ______. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress / Assen: Van Gorcum, 1992. Tov, E.; with Kraft, R. A.; and Parsons, P. J. The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Na˙al Óever (8ÓevXIIgr) (The Seiyâl Collection I). DJD 8. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Trebolle Barrera, J. “Édition préliminaire de 4Q Jugesb: Contribution des manuscrits qumrâniennes des Juges à l’étude textuelle et littéraire du livre.” RevQ 15 (57–58) 1991: 79–99.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 416 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

416

Bibliography

______. “Light from 4Q Judga and 4QKgs on the Text of Judges and Kings.” Pages 315–24 in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport. Leiden: Brill / Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992. ______. “The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in the Book of Kings.” Pages 285–99 in VIIth Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies Leuven 1989. Edited by C. E. Cox. SBLSCS 31. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. Trever, J. C. “The Isaiah Scroll.” Pages xiii–xviii in The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery, vol. 1: The Isaiah Manuscript and the Habbakuk Commentary. Edited by M. Burrows. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1950. Tropper, J. Nekromantie: Totenbefragung im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. AOAT 223. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989. Uehlinger, C. “Gab es eine joschijanische Kultreform?” Pages 57–89 in Jeremia und die “deuteronomistische Bewegung.” Edited by W. Gross. BBB 98. Weinheim: Athenäum, 1995. ______. Weltreich und “eine Rede”: Eine neue Deutung der sogenannten Turmbauerzählung (Gen 11,1–9). OBO 101. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Uhlig, S. Das Äthiopische Henchbuch. JSHRZ 5/6. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1984. Ulrich, E. “The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism and Latter Stages in the Composition of the Bible.” Pages 267–91 in “Shaºarei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Edited by M. Fishbane and E. Tov. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. ______. “The Greek Manuscripts of the Pentateuch from Qumrân, Including Newly-Identified Fragments of Deuteronomy (4QLXXDeut).” Pages 71–82 in De Septuaginta: Festschrift J. W. Wevers. Edited by A. Pietersma and C. Cox. Mississauga, ON: Benben, 1984. ______. “An Index of the Passages in the Biblical Manuscripts from the Judean Desert: Genesis–Kings.” DSD 1 (1994): 113–29; Part 2: “Isaiah–Chronicles.” DSD 2 (1995): 86–107. ______. “The Palaeo-Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts from Qumran Cave 4.” Pages 103–29 in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990. Edited by D. Dimant and L. H. Schiffman. STDJ 16. Leiden: Brill, 1995. ______. “Pluriformity in the Biblical Text, Text Groups, and Questions of Canon.” Pages 23– 41 in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18–21 March 1991, vol. 1. Edited by J. Trebolle Barrera and L. Vegas Montaner. STDJ 11/1. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Ulrichsen, J. H. Die Grundschrift der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen: Eine Untersuchung zu Umfang, Inhalt und Eigenart der ursprünglichen Schrift. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Historia Religionum 10. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1991. Utzschneider, H. Gottes langer Atem: Die Exoduserzählung (Ex 1–14) in ästhetischer und historischer Sicht. SBS 166. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1996. ______. Das Heiligtum und das Gesetz: Studien zur Bedeutung der sinaitischen Heiligtumstexte (Ex 25–40; Lev 8–9). OBO 77. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988. ______. “Die Renaissance der alttestamentlichen Literaturwissenschaft und das Buch Exodus.” ZAW 106 (1994): 197–223. Vair, R. J. The Old Testament Promise of the Land as Reinterpreted in the First and Second Century Christian Literature. Ph.D. Diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1979. Valentin, H. Aaron: Eine Studie zur vor-priesterschriftlichen Aaron-Überlieferung. OBO 18. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. VanderKam, J. “Biblical Interpretation in 1 Enoch and Jubilees.” Pages 96–125 in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation. Edited by J. H. Charlesworth and C. A. Evans. JSPSup 14/SSEJC 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. ______. “Das chronologische Konzept des Jubiläenbuchs.” ZAW 107 (1995): 80–100.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 417 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

417

______. Enoch: A Man for All Generations. Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1995. ______. Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. CBQMS 16. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984. ______. “Jubilees and Hebrew Texts of Genesis-Exodus.” Textus 14 (1988): 71–85. ______. “Jubilees, Book of.” ABD 3:1030–32. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ______. “Studies in the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 Enoch 93,1–10; 91,11–17).” CBQ 46 (1984): 511–23. ______. “The Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees.” Pages 211–36 in Temple Scroll Studies: Papers Presented at the International Symposium on the Temple Scroll. Edited by G. J. Brooke. JSPSup 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. ______. Textual and Historical Studies in the Book of Jubilees. HSM 14. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977. Vanoni, G. “Beobachtungen zur deuteronomistischen Terminologie in 2Kön 23,25–25,30.” Pages 357–62 in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft. Edited by N. Lohfink. BETL 73. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985. Van Seters, J. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975. ______. “Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period.” VT 22 (1972): 448–59. ______. “A Contest of Magicians? The Plague Stories in P.” Pages 569–79 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by D. P. Wright et al. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. ______. “Cultic Laws in the Covenant Code (Exodus 20,22–23,33) and Their Relationship to Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code.” Pages 319–45 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction–Reception–Interpretation. Edited by M. Vervenne. BETL 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. ______. “The Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch: The Case against It.” Pages 301– 19 in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans. Edited by M. Vervenne and J. Lust. BETL 133. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. ______. “From Faithful Prophet to Villain: Observations on the Tradition History of the Balaam Story.” Pages 126–32 in A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content: Festschrift G. W. Coats. Edited by E. Carpenter. JSOTSup 240. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. ______. “Histories and Historians of the Ancient Near East: The Israelites.” Or 50 (1981): 137– 85. ______. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. ______. Der Jahwist als Historiker. Edited and translated by H. H. Schmid. Theologische Studien 134. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987. ______. “Josh 24 and the Problem of Tradition in the Old Testament.” Pages 139–58 in In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G. W. Ahlström. Edited by W. B. Barrick and J. R. Spencer. JSOTSup 31. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. ______. “The Law of the Hebrew Slave.” ZAW 108 (1996): 534–46. ______. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. ______. “Myth and History: the Problem of Origins.” Pages 49–61 in Histoire et conscience historique dans les Civilisations du Proche-Orient Ancien: Actes du Colloque de Cartigny 1986. Les cahiers du Centre d’Étude du Proche-Orient Ancien 5. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. ______. “The Plagues of Egypt: Ancient Tradition or Literary Invention?” ZAW 98 (1986): 31–39. ______. Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992. ______. “Recent Studies on the Pentateuch: A Crisis in Method.” JAOS 99 (1979): 663–73. ______. “The Religion of the Patriarchs in Genesis.” Bib 61 (1980): 220–33.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 418 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

418

Bibliography

______. Review of E. Blum.” Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte. JBL 105 (1986): 706–8. ______. Review of E. Blum.” Die Komposition des Pentateuch. JBL 111 (1992): 122–24. ______. Review of J. Ha, Genesis 15: A Theological Compendium of Pentateuchal History. BO 48 (1991): 624–26. ______. “The So-Called Deuteronomistic Redaction of the Pentateuch.” Pages 58–77 in Congress Volume: Leuven 1989. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991. ______. “Some Observations on ‘The Institutional Setting’ by T. Dozeman.” Page 264 in Society of Biblical Literature 1991: Seminar Papers. Edited by E. H. Lovering, Jr. SBLSP 30. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991. ______. “The Theology of the Jahwist: A Preliminary Sketch.” Pages 219–28 in “Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern?”: Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels: Festschrift O. Kaiser. Edited by I. Kottsieper et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. ______. “Tradition and History: History as National Tradition.” Pages 63–74 in Histoire et conscience historique dans les Civilisations du Proche-Orient Ancien: Actes du Colloque de Cartigny 1986. Les cahiers du CEPOA 5. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. ______. “The Yahwist as Theologian? A Response.” JSOT 3 (1977): 15–19. Van Zyl, A. H. “Chronological Deuteronomic History.” Pages 12–26 in Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies: The Hebrew University Mount Scopus–Givat Ram, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 3–11 August 1969. Edited by P. Peli. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1969. Vargha, T. “De Psalmo hebraico Ecclesiastici c. 51.” Antonianum 10 (1935): 3–10. Veijola, T. Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung. AASF Beiheft 193. Helsinki: Finnische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1975. ______. Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. AASF Beiheft 198. Helsinki: Finnische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1977. ______. “Das Opfer des Abraham–Paradigma des Glaubens aus dem nachexilischen Zeitalter.” ZTK 85 (1988): 129–64. ______. “Principal Observations on the Basic Story in Deuteronomy 1–3.” Pages 249–59 in “Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden”: Collected Communications to the XIIth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Jerusalem 1986. Edited by M. Augustin and K.-D. Schunck. BEATAJ 13. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1988. ______. Verheissung in der Krise: Studien zur Literatur und Theologie der Exilszeit anhand des 89. Psalms. AASF Beiheft 220. Helsinki: Finnische Akademie de Wissenschaften, 1982. Verbrugghe G. P., and Wickersham J. M. Berossus and Manetho, Introduced and Translated. Native Traditions in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996. Vergote, J. Joseph en Égypte: Genèse chap. 37–50 à la lumière des études égyptologiques récentes. Orientalia et Biblica Lovaniensia 3. Leuven: Publications Universitaires, 1959. Vermes, G. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. Studia Postbiblica 4. Leiden: Brill, 21983. Vermeylen, J. “L’affaire du veau d’or (Ex 32–34). Une clé pour la ‘question deutéronomiste’?” ZAW 97 (1985): 1–23. ______. Le Dieu de la promesse et le Dieu de l’alliance. LD 126. Paris: Cerf, 1986. ______. “Les premières étapes littéraires de la formation du Pentateuque.” Pages 150–97 in Le pentateuque en question. Edited by A. de Pury. MdB [19]. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1989. Vervenne, M. “Current Tendencies and Developments in the Study of the Book of Exodus.” Pages 21–59 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction–Reception–Interpretation. Edited by M. Vervenne. BETL 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. ______. “Exodus Expulsion and Exodus Flight: The Interpretation of a Crux Critically Reassessed.” JNSL 22 (1996): 45–58. ______. “The ‘P’ Tradition in the Pentateuch: Document and/or Redaction? The ‘Sea Narrative’ Ex 13,17–14,31 as a Test Case.” Pages 67–90 in Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies. Edited by C. Brekelmans and J. Lust. BETL 94. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 419 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

419

______. “The Phraseology of ‘Knowing YHWH’ in the Hebrew Bible: A Preliminary Study of Its Syntax and Function.” Pages 467–92 in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift W. A. M. Beuken. Edited by J. van Ruiten and M. Vervenne. BETL 132. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997. ______. “The Question of ‘Deuteronomic’ Elements in Genesis to Numbers.” Pages 243–68 in Studies in Deuteronomy: Festschrift C. J. Labuschagne. Edited by F. García Martínez et al. VTSup 53. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ______. “Le récit de la mer (Exode XIII 17–XIV 31) reflète-t-il une rédaction de type deutéronomique? Quelques remarques sur le problème de l’identification des éléments deutéronomiques contenus dans le tétrateuque.” Pages 365–80 in Congress Volume: Cambridge 1995. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 66. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Vielhauer, P. “Einleitung zu C. Apokalypsen und Verwandtes.” Pages 407–21 in Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung. 2. Band. Apostolisches: Apokalypsen und Verwandtes. Edited by E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 31964. Vollmer, J. Geschichtliche Rückblicke und Motive in der Prophetie des Amos, Hosea und Jesaja. BZAW 119. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971. Volz, P. Mose und sein Werk. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 21932 (= revised edition, idem, Mose: Ein Beitrag zur Untersuchung über die Ursprünge der israelitischen Religion. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1907). Volz, P., and Rudolph, W. Der Elohist als Erzähler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? An der Genesis erläutert. BZAW 63. Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann, 1933. Vorländer, H. Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23. Theologie 109. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1978. ______. Mein Gott: Die Vorstellungen vom persönlichen Gott im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. AOAT 23. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975. Vriezen, T. C. “ªEhje ªaser ªehje.” Pages 498–512 in Festschrift für A. Bertholet zum 80. Geburtstag. Edited by W. Baumgartner et al. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1950. ______. “Exodusstudien Exodus 1.” VT 17 (1967): 334–53. ______. “La tradition de Jacob en Osée XII.” OTS 1 (1942): 64–78. Vuilleumier, R. “Les traditions d’Israël et la liberté du prophète: Osée.” RHPR 59 (1979): 491– 98. Wagner, N. E. “Abraham and David?” Pages 117–40 in Studies on the Ancient Palestinian World. Edited by J. W. Wevers and D. B. Redford. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972. Wahl, H. M. Die Jakobserzählungen: Studien zu ihrer mündlichen Überlieferung, Verschriftung und Historizität. BZAW 258. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Wahl, O. “Die Flucht eines Berufenen (Gen 12,10–20): Gedanken zu einer stets aktuellen Geschichte.” Pages 343–59 in Die Väter Israels: Beiträge zur Theologie der Patriarchenüberlieferung im Alten Testament: Festschrift J. Scharbert. Edited by M. Görg. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerrk, 1989. Walkenhorst, K. H. “Gotteserfahrung und Gotteserkenntnis: Im Sinne der priesterschriftlichen Redaktion von Ex 7–14.” Pages 373–95 in Ein Gott, eine Offenbarung: Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese, Theologie und Spiritualität: Festschrift N. Füglister. Edited by F. V. Reiterer. Würzburg: Echter, 1991. ______. “Hochwertung der Namenserkenntnis und Gottverbundenheit in der Höhenlinie der priesterlichen Geschichtserzählung.” AJBI 6 (1980): 3–28. Wallis, G. “Die Tradition von den drei Ahnvätern.” ZAW 81 (1969): 18–40. Walter, N. Fragmente jüdisch-hellenistischer Historiker. JSHRZ 1/2. Gütersloh: Mohn, 21980. Waltke, B. K. “Samaritan Pentateuch.” ABD 5:932–40. New York: Doubelday, 1992. Walton, J. H. Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 21990. Wassermann, G. “Das kleine geschichtliche Credo (Deut 26,5ff.) und seine deuteronomische Übermalung.” Theologische Versuche 2 (1970): 27–46.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 420 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

420

Bibliography

Watts, J. W. “Rhetorical Strategy in the Composition of the Pentateuch.” JSOT 68 (1995): 3–22. Watts, J. W., ed. Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch. SBLSymS 17. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2001. Weber, B. “ ‘. . . jede Tochter aber sollt ihr am Leben lassen!’ Beobachtungen zu Ex 1,15–2,10 und seinem Kontext aus literaturwissenschaftlicher Perspektive.” BN 55 (1990): 47–76. ______. Psalm 77 und sein Umfeld: Eine poetologische Studie. BBB 103. Weinheim: Athenäum, 1995. Weder, H. Das Kreuz Jesu bei Paulus: Ein Versuch, über den Geschichtsbezug des christlichen Glaubens nachzudenken. FRLANT 125. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981. ______. Neutestamentliche Hermeneutik. Zürcher Grundrisse zur Bibel. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1986. Weider, A. Ehemetaphorik in prophetischer Verkündigung: Hos 1–3 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte im Jeremiabuch: Ein Beitrag zum alttestamentlichen Gottes-Bild. FB 71. Würzburg: Echter, 1993. Weidmann, H. Die Patriarchen und ihre Religion im Licht der Forschung seit Julius Wellhausen. FRLANT 94. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. Weimar, P. “Auf bau und Struktur der priesterschriftlichen Jakobsgeschichte.” ZAW 86 (1974): 174–203. ______. Die Berufung des Mose: Literaturwissenschaftliche Analyse von Exodus 2,23–5,5. OBO 32. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. ______. “Exodusbuch.” NBL 1:636–48. Zurich: Benziger, 1991. ______. “Exodus 1,1–2,10 als Eröffnungskomposition des Exodusbuches.” Pages 179–208 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction–Reception–Interpretation. Edited by M. Vervenne. BETL 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. ______. “Genesisbuch.” NBL 1:783–90. Zurich: Benziger, 1991. ______. “Genesis 15: Ein redaktionskritischer Versuch.” Pages 361–411 in Die Väter Israels: Beiträge zur Theologie der Patriarchenüberlieferung im Alten Testament: Festschrift J. Scharbert. Edited by M. Görg. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989. ______. “Gen 17 und die priesterschriftliche Abrahamsgeschichte.” ZAW 100 (1988): 22–60. ______. “Das Goldene Kalb: Redaktionskritische Erwägungen zu Ex 32.” BN 38/39 (1987): 117–60. ______. Die Meerwundererzählung: Eine redaktionskritische Analyse von Ex 13,17–14,31. Ägypten und Altes Testament 9. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1985. ______. “Sinai und Schöpfung: Komposition und Theologie der priesterlichen Sinaigeschichte.” RB 95 (1988): 337–85. ______. “Struktur und Komposition der priesterschriftlichen Geschichtsdarstellung.” BN 23 (1984): 81–134; BN 24 (1984): 138–62. ______. “Die Toledot-Formel in der priesterschriftlichen Geschichtsdarstellung.” BZ 18 (1974): 65–93. ______. Untersuchungen zur priesterschriftlichen Exodusgeschichte. FB 9. Würzburg Echter, 1973. ______. Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch. BZAW 146. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977. Weimar, P., and Zenger, E. Exodus: Geschichten und Geschichte der Befreiung Israels. SBS 75. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975. Weinberg, J. Der Chronist in seiner Mitwelt. BZAW 239. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996. Weinfeld, M. “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East.” JAOS 90 (1970): 184–203. ______. “Pentateuch.” EncJud 13:231–61. Jerusalem: Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971. ______. The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. ______. “The Promises to the Patriarchs and Its Realization: An Analysis of Foundation Stories.” Pages 353–69 in Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500–1000 b.c.): Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the University of Haifa from the 28th of April to the 2nd of May 1985. Edited by M. Heltzer and E. Lipinski. OLA 23. Leuven: Peeters 1988.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 421 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

421

Weippert, H. “Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk: Sein Ziel und Ende in der neueren Forschung.” TRu 50 (1985): 213–49. ______. “Die ‘deuteronomistischen’ Beurteilungen der Könige von Israel und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der Königsbücher.” Bib 53 (1972): 301–39. ______. “Geschichten und Geschichte: Verheissung und Erfüllung im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk.” Pages 116–31 in Congress Volume: Leuven 1989. Edited by J. A. Emerton. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Weippert, M. “Abraham der Hebräer?” Bib 52 (1971): 407–32. ______. “The Balaam Text from Deir ºAlla and the Study of Old Testament.” Pages 151–84 in The Balaam Text from Deir ºAlla Re-evaluated: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Leiden, 21–24 August 1989. Edited by J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij. Leiden: Brill, 1991. ______. “Fragen des israelitischen Geschichtsbewusstseins.” VT 23 (1973): 415–42. ______. “Geschichte Israels am Scheideweg.” TRu 58 (1993): 71–103. ______. Die Landnahme der israelitischen Stämme in der neueren wissenschaftlichen Diskussion: Ein kritischer Bericht. FRLANT 92. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967. ______. “Synkretismus und Monotheismus: Religionsinterne Konfliktbewältigung im alten Israel.” (1990) Pages 1–24 in idem, Jahwe und die anderen Götter: Studien zur Religionsgeschichte des antiken Israel in ihrem syrisch-palästinischen Kontext. FAT 18. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Weiser, A. Die Apostelgeschichte. Kapitel 1–12. ÖTK 5/1. Gütersloh: Mohn / Würzburg: Echter, 1981. Weisman, Z. “The Interrelationship between J and E in Jacob’s Narrative: Theological Criteria.” ZAW 104 (1992): 177–97. ______. “National Consciousness in the Patriarchal Promises.” JSOT 31 (1985): 55–73. Weiss, H.-F. “Pharisäer I. Judentum.” TRE 26:473–81. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996. Wellhausen, J. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. Berlin: Reimer, 31899. ______. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. Berlin: Reimer, 41895. Welten, P. “Buch/Buchwesen II. Altes Testament.” TRE 7:272–75. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1981. ______. Geschichte und Geschichtsdarstellung in den Chronikbüchern. WMANT 42. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973. Wenham, G. J. Genesis 1–15. WBC 1. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. ______. Genesis 16–50. WBC 2. Waco, TX: Word, 1994. ______. “The Religion of the Patriarchs.” Pages 157–88 in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives. Edited by A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1980. ______. “The Symbolism of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15: A Response to G. F. Hasel.” JSOT 19 (1981): 61–78; JSOT 22 (1982): 134–37. Wenning, R. “Bestattungen im königszeitlichen Juda.” TQ 177 (1997): 82–93. ______. “Messad Óasavyahu: Ein Stützpunkt des Jojakim?” Pages 169–96 in Vom Sinai zum Horeb: Stationen alttestamentlicher Glaubensgeschichte. Edited by F.-L. Hossfeld. Würzburg: Echter, 1989. ______. “ ‘. . . und begruben ihn im Grab seines Vaters.’ Zur Bedeutung von Bestattungen im Alten Israel.” Bibel und Kirche 61 (2006): 8–15. Westermann, C. “Arten der Erzählung in der Genesis.” Pages 9–91 in idem, Forschung am Alten Testament: Gesammelte Studien. TB 24. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1964. ______. Genesis, 1. Teilband: Genesis 1–11. BKAT 1/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974 (Genesis 1–11. Continental Commentary. Translated by J. J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994). 2. Teilband: Genesis 12–36. BKAT 1/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981 (Genesis 12–36. Continental Commentary. Translated by J. J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995). 3. Teilband: Genesis 37–50. BKAT 1/3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982 (Genesis 37–50. Continental Commentary. Translated by J. J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1996).

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 422 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

422

Bibliography

______. Genesis 1–11. EdF 7. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 21976. ______. Genesis 12–50. EdF 48. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1975. ______. Die Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments: Gab es ein deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk? TB 87. Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser, 1994. ______. Die Verheissungen an die Väter: Studien zur Vätergeschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. Wevers, J. W. Exodus. Vol. 2/1 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graece Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. ______. “The Interpretative Character and Significance of the Septuagint Version.” Pages 84– 107 in HBOT 1/1. Edited by M. Sæbø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. White, H. C. “The Divine Oath in Genesis.” JBL 92 (1973): 165–79. Whitt, W. D. “The Jacob Traditions in Hosea and Their Relation to Genesis.” ZAW 103 (1991): 18–43. Whybray, R. N. Introduction to the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. ______. “The Joseph Story and Pentateuchal Criticism.” VT 18 (1968): 522–28. ______. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. JSOTSup 53. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987 repr. 1994. Wicke, D. W. “The Literary Structure of Exodus 1:2–2:10.” JSOT 24 (1982): 99–107. Wilcke, C. “Die Anfänge der akkadischen Epen.” ZA 67 (1977): 153–216. Wilckens, U. Der Brief an die Römer. 1. Teilband: Röm 1–5. EKKNT 6/1. Zurich: Benziger / Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. ______. “Die Rechtfertigung Abrahams nach Röm 4.” Pages 111–27 in Studien zur Theologie der alttestamentlichen Überlieferungen: Festschrift G. von Rad. Edited by R. Rendtorff and K. Koch. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961. ______. “Zu Röm 3,21–4,25.” EvT 24 (1964): 586–610. Wildberger, H. “Die Neuinterpretation des Erwählungsglaubens Israels in der Krise der Exilszeit: Überlegungen zum Gebrauch von rjb (1970).” Pages 192–209 in idem, Jahwe und sein Volk: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament: Zu seinem 70. Geburtstag am 2. Januar 1980. Edited by H. H. Schmid and O. H. Steck. TB 66. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1979. Willett, T. W. Eschatology in the Theodicies of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra. JSPSup 4. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Willi, T. Die Chronik als Auslegung: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Gestaltung der historischen Überlieferung Israels. FRLANT 106. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972. ______. Juda–Jehud–Israel: Studien zum Selbstverständnis des Judentums in persischer Zeit. FAT 12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Williamson, H. G. M. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition and Redaction. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. ______. Ezra–Nehemia. WBC 16. Waco, TX: Word, 1985. ______. Israel in the Book of Chronicles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. ______. “Structure and Historiography in Nehemia 9.” Pages 117–31 in The Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 4–12, 1985. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1988. Willi-Plein, I. “Historiographische Aspekte der Josefserzählung.” Hen 1 (1979): 305–31. ______. “Ort und literarische Funktion der Geburtsgeschichte des Mose.” VT 41 (1991): 110– 18. ______. Vorformen der Schriftexegese innerhalb des Alten Testaments: Untersuchungen zum literarischen Werden der auf Amos, Hosea und Micha zurückgehenden Bücher im hebräischen Zwölfprophetenbuch. BZAW 123. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971. Wilson, R. R. “The Former Prophets: Reading the Books of Kings.” Pages 83–96 in Old Testament Interpretation: Past, Present and Future: Festschrift G. M. Tucker. Edited by J. L. Mays et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995. Winkelmann, F. “Historiographie.” RAC 15:724–65. Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1991. Winnett, F. V. The Mosaic Tradition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1949.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 423 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

423

______. “Re-Examining the Foundations.” JBL 84 (1965): 1–19. Wischmeyer, O. Die Kultur des Buches Jesus Sirach. BZNW 77. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995. Wise, M. O. A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11. SAOC 49. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1990. Wiseman, D. J. “Abraham Reassessed.” Pages 139–56 in Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives. Edited by A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1980. Witte, M. Die biblische Urgeschichte: Redaktions- und theologiegeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Genesis 1,1–11,26. BZAW 265. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998. ______. “Die Gebeine Josefs.” Pages 139–56 in Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt von Genesis bis II Regum: Festschrift Hans-Christoph Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag. BZAW 370. Edited by U. Schorn and M. Beck. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. ______. “Der Segen Bileams: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Problemanzeige zum ‘Jahwisten’ in Num 22–24.” Pages 191–213 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Edited by J. C. Gertz et al. BZAW 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. Witte M., and Alkier, S. Die Griechen und das antike Israel: Interdisziplinäre Studien zur Religionsund Kulturgeschichte des Heiligen Landes. OBO 201. Fribourg: Academic Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. ______. Die Griechen und der Vordere Orient: Studien zum Kulturkontakt zwischen Orient und Okzident im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. OBO 191. Fribourg: Academic Press / Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Witte, M.; Schmid, K.; Prechel, D.; and Gertz J., eds. Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten. BZAW 365. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Wolff, H. W. Dodekapropheton I: Hosea. BKAT 14/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 41990 (Hosea. Translated by G. Stansell. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974). ______. Dodekapropheton IV: Micha. BKAT 14/4. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982 (Micah. Translated by G. Stansell. Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1990). ______. “Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks.” ZAW 73 (1961): 171–86 (= pp. 308–24 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. TB 22. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1964). ______. “Das Kerygma des Jahwisten.” EvT 24 (1964): 73–98 = pp. 345–74 in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. TB 22. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1964. ______. Micah the Prophet. Translated by R. D. Gehrke. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. ______. “Zur Thematik der elohistischen Fragmente im Pentateuch.” EvT 29 (1969): 59–72. Worschech, U. Abraham: Eine sozialgeschichtliche Studie. Europäische Hochschulschriften 23. Theologie 225. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1983. Woude, A. S. van der. “Fünfzehn Jahre Qumranforschung (1974–1988).” TRu 54 (1989): 221– 61; TRu 55 (1990): 245–307; TRu 57 (1992): 1–57, 225–53. ______. “Pluriformity and Uniformity: Reflections on the Transmission of the Text of the Old Testament.” Pages 151–69 in Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of A. S. van der Woude. Edited by J. N. Bremmer and F. García Martínez. CBET 5. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992. Wünsche, A. Aus Israels Lehrhallen I: Kleine Midraschim zur späteren legendarischen Literatur des Alten Testaments. Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1907. Reprinted, Hildesheim: Olms, 1967. Würthwein, E. Der ºam haªarez im Alten Testament. BWANT 4/17. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1936. ______. Die Bücher der Könige: 1Kön 17–2Kön 25. ATD 11/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. ______. “Erwägungen zum sog. deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk: Eine Skizze.” Pages 1– 11 in idem, Studien zum Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. BZAW 227. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 424 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

424

Bibliography

______. Der Text des Alten Testaments: Eine Einführung in die Biblia Hebraica. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt und Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 41973 (The Text of the Old Testament. Translated by E. F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 21995). Wyatt, N. “The Problem of the ‘God of the Fathers’.” ZAW 90 (1978): 101–4. ______. “The Significance of the Burning Bush.” VT 36 (1986): 361–64. Wynn-Williams, D. J. The State of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the Approaches of M. Noth and E. Blum. BZAW 249. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. Yadin, Y. “The Excavation of Masada–1963/1964. Preliminary Report.” IEJ 15 (1965): 1–120. Yardeni, A. “Remarks on the Priestly Blessing on Two Ancient Amulets from Jerusalem.” VT 41 (1991): 176–85. Yee, G. A. Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea: A Redaction Critical Investigation. SBLDS 102. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Younger, K. L. Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writings. JSOTSup 98. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. ______. “The Configuring of Judicial Preliminaries: Judges 1.1–2.5 and Its Dependence on the Book of Joshua.” JSOT 68 (1995): 75–92. Zangenberg, J. SAMAREIA: Antike Quellen zur Geschichte und Kultur der Samaritaner in deutscher Übersetzung. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 15. Tübingen: Francke, 1994. Zenger, E. “Auf der Suche nach einem Weg aus der Pentateuchkrise.” Theologische Revue 78 (1982): 353–62. ______. Das Buch Ruth. ZBKAT 8. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 21992. ______. “Die deuteronomistische Interpretation der Rehabilitierung Jojachins.” BZ 12 (1968): 16–30. ______. “ ‘Durch Menschen zog ich sie . . .’ (Hos 11,4): Beobachtungen zum Verständnis des prophetischen Amtes im Hoseabuch.” Pages 183–201 in Künder des Wortes: Beiträge zur Theologie der Propheten: Josef Schreiner zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by L. Ruppert, P. Weimar, and E. Zenger. Würzburg: Echter, 1982. ______. Gottes Bogen in den Wolken: Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Urgeschichte. SBS 112. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1983. ______. “Mose/Moselied/Mosesegen/Moseschriften I.” TRE 23:330–41. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994. ______. “Priesterschrift.” TRE 27:435–46. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997. ______. Die Sinaitheophanie: Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen und elohistischen Geschichtswerk. FB 3. Würzburg: Echter, 1971. ______. “Le thème de la ‘sortie d’Égypte’ et la naissance du Pentateuque.” Pages 301–31 in Le pentateuque en question. Edited by A. de Pury. MdB [19]. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1989. ______. “Tradition und Interpretation in Ex xv 1–21.” Pages 452–83 in Congress Volume: Vienna 1980. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 32. Leiden: Brill, 1981. ______. “Wie und wozu die Tora zum Sinai kam: Literarische und theologische Beobachtungen zu Exodus 19–34.” Pages 265–88 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction–Reception– Interpretation. Edited by M. Vervenne. BETL 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. ______. “Wo steht die Pentateuchforschung heute?” BZ 24 (1980): 101–16. Zenger, E., et al. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Studienbücher Theologie 1/1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1995. Zevit, Z. “Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P.” ZAW 94 (1982): 481–511. ______. “Deuteronomistic Historiography in 1K 12–2K 17 and the Reinvestiture of the Israelite Cult.” JSOT 32 (1985): 57–73. Zimmerli, W. “Erkenntnis Gottes nach dem Buch Ezechiel (1954).” Pages 41–119 in idem, Gottes Offenbarung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament. TB 19. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1963.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 425 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Bibliography

425

______. Ezechiel. 1. Teilband: Ezechiel 1–24. BKAT 13/1. 2. Teilband: Ezechiel 25–48. BKAT 13/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969 (Ezekiel. 2 vols. Translated by R. E. Clements. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979–83). ______. Grundriss der alttestamentlichen Theologie. Theologische Wissenschaft 3. Stuttgart: Kohlhamer, 1972 (Old Testament Theology in Outline. Translated by D. E. Green. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978). ______. “Die kritische Infragestellung der Tradition durch die Prophetie.” Pages 57–86 in H. Gese et al., Zu Tradition und Theologie im Alten Testament. Edited by O. H. Steck. Biblisch-theologische Studien 2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. ______. “Der ‘Prophet’ im Pentateuch.” Pages 197–211 in Studien zum Pentateuch: Festschrift W. Kornfeld. Edited by G. Braulik. Vienna: Herder, 1977. ______. “Sinaibund und Abrahambund: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Priesterschrift.” TZ 16 (1960): 268–80 (= pp. 205–17 in Gottes Offenbarung: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum Alten Testament. TB 19. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1963). ______. “Zwillingspsalmen.” Pages 105–13 in Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch: Beiträge zu Psalmen und Propheten—Festschrift J. Ziegler. Edited by J. Schreiner. Würzburg: Echter, 1972 (= pp. 261–71 in Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie und Prophetie: Gesammelte Aufsätze, vol. 2. TB 5. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1974). Zivie, A.-P. “Tell el-Jahudija.” LÄ 6:331–32. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1986. Zobel, H.-J. “ ‘Israel’ in Ägypten?” Pages 109–17 in Zur Aktualität des Alten Testaments: Festschrift G. Sauer. Edited by S. Kreuzer and K. Lüthi. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1992. ______. “Jakob/Jakobsegen I. Altes Testament.” TRE 16:461–66. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987. ______. “Josua/Josuabuch.” TRE 17:269–78. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988. ______. Stammesspruch und Geschichte: Die Angaben der Stammessprüche von Gen 49, Dtn 33 und Jdc 5 über die politischen und kultischen Zustände im damaligen ‘Israel’. BZAW 95. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1965. Zunz, L. Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, historisch entwickelt: Ein Beitrag zur Alterthumskunde und biblischen Kritik, zur Literatur- und Religionsgeschichte. Edited by N. Brüll. Frankfurt a.M.: Kauffmann, 1892. Zwickel, W. “Der Altarbau Abrahams zwischen Bethel und Ai (Gen 12f ): Ein Beitrag zur Datierung des Jahwisten.” BZ 36 (1992): 207–19.

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 426 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 427 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Index of Authors Achenbach, R. 261 Ackroyd, P. R. 30, 74, 287–290 Aejmelaeus, A. 36–38, 45, 243 Aharoni, Y. 168 Ahuis, F. 31, 340 Albertz, R. 8, 12, 52, 106, 110, 113, 121, 123, 126–128, 130–131, 133, 136–139, 144–145, 183, 189, 191, 239, 244, 248, 252, 271, 280, 330, 337, 339 Albrektson, B. 36, 260, 350 Albright, W. F. 123 Alexander, T. D. 117, 340 Alkier, S. 257 Alt, A. 7, 83, 97–98, 102, 104–105, 110–111, 114, 144, 171 Anbar, M. 159, 162, 165, 167, 196–198, 201, 209–210, 225, 229 Andersen, F. I. 141, 162 Andersen, K. T. 104 Anderson, R. T. 40 Andrei, O. 18, 89, 125 Argall, R. A. 297 Assmann, J. 137, 260, 262, 322–324 Auerbach, E. 120, 137, 197 Auffret, P. 242, 291 Auld, A. G. 27, 38, 202–203 Aurelius, E. 33, 47, 126, 129, 161, 234, 278– 279 Ausín, S. 74 Bach, R. 122 Baentsch, B. 19, 90–91, 141 Baillet, M. 40, 306 Balestier-Stengel, G. 304 Baltzer, K. 163, 249, 255 Barr, J. 2, 350 Barstad, H. M. 108 Bartelmus, R. 170, 173–174, 176, 190–191, 216, 221 Barth, C. 219 Barthélemy, D. 27, 36, 38–39 Barton, J. 45, 219, 272 Bauer, H. 185 Bauks, M. 244 Baumbach, G. 328

427

Baumgart, N. C. 151, 153 Baumgartner, W. 339 Becker, J. 286–287, 290, 307, 309 Becker, U. 27, 88, 109, 160, 170–171, 197– 198, 200–203, 213, 225, 263–264, 337 Becking, B. 44 Beckwith, R. 23, 25, 40–43, 45, 113, 295 Begg, C. T. 43–44, 296 Behrens, A. 170 Ben-Hayyim, Z. 40 Bentzen, A. 81 Benzinger, I. 30 Ben Zvi, E. 26, 29, 117, 228, 260, 337 Berge, K. 11, 54, 59, 82, 94–96, 101, 140, 154, 164, 172, 176–178, 185, 190–191, 268, 336 Berger, K. 282, 303–304, 316, 328 Berlejung, A. 107 Berlinerblau, J. 106 Besters, A. 176 Beyerle, S. 85, 280 Beyerlin, W. 142, 293–294 Bieberstein, K. 10, 15, 20, 30, 35, 38–39, 127, 197, 199, 210, 339 Bietak, M. 123, 137, 322 Bimson, J. J. 98, 137 Black, M. 310, 314 Blau, L. 25, 43 Blenkinsopp, J. 18, 22, 29–30, 48, 54, 60, 62, 68, 92, 94, 96, 98, 120, 135, 144, 152–153, 160, 169, 188, 191, 211, 228, 237–238, 243, 247, 255–256, 267, 271, 279, 282–283, 340–341, 347 Bloch-Smith, E. 107 Blum, E. 10, 12–13, 22, 25–27, 31–35, 38, 47–49, 51, 53–58, 61–68, 74, 82, 84, 87, 91, 94–103, 106, 117–122, 124, 130–131, 133– 135, 139, 141, 148–149, 151–154, 159–165, 167–168, 170, 172, 174–176, 179–183, 185–186, 188, 191, 194–198, 201–203, 207, 210–211, 214–215, 218, 224–225, 227–228, 231–235, 237–247, 255, 257, 261, 263, 265, 268, 271–273, 275–280, 291, 335–337, 339–341, 343–345, 347 Bockmuehl, M. 309

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 428 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

428

Index of Authors

Bodine, W. R. 38 Boecker, H. J. 50, 54, 126 Bogaert, P.-M. 38, 304 Bóid, R. 40 Boorer, S. 30, 66, 277–279 Borger, R. 115, 256 Bosshard-Nepustil, E. 128, 248 Böttrich, C. 310 Bousset, W. 17–18 Boyce, M. 132 Braulik, G. 15, 68, 87–88, 150, 339 Brekelmans, C. 20, 33, 194, 197, 201, 261 Brenner, M. L. 221–223 Brettler, M. Z. 97, 202, 261 Brin, G. 305 Brooke, G. J. 35–36, 305 Brown, J. P. 257 Brueggemann, W. 238 Bryan, D. 307, 310, 312 Buber, M. 176 Büchner, D. L. 38 Budde, K. 11, 20, 30, 340 Bultmann, C. 84 Burkert, W. 115 Burrows, M. 81, 238 Burstein, S. 325 Butler, T. C. 196, 199 Campbell, A. F. 14, 27, 48, 137, 337 Cancik, H. 2, 30, 262, 350 Caquot, A. 159, 163, 171, 297 Carmichael, C. 9 Carpenter, E. 235 Carr, D. 16, 24, 47–48, 56, 96, 103, 122, 139, 154, 160, 228, 254–255, 337 Carroll, R. P. 175, 191 Cassuto, U. 63, 176 Catastini, A. 323 Cazelles, H. 2, 137–138, 218, 335 Ceresko, A. R. 291 Charlesworth, J. H. 316, 318 Chazon, E. G. 306 Childs, B. S. 138, 140, 142, 144, 172–174, 181, 222–223 Christensen, D. L. 48 Clark, M. 327 Clark, W. M. 125 Clements, R. E. 106, 163, 169, 248 Clifford, R. 150, 291–292, 294 Clines, D. J. A. 22, 26, 52, 58, 97, 154, 274 Coats, G. W. 30, 34, 51, 54, 59, 64, 124, 137, 140, 232 Cogan, M. 17, 163

Cohen, J. 140, 142 Colenso, J. W. 159 Collin, M. 96 Collins, J. J. 14, 295–298, 307–308, 337 Collins, N. L. 38 Cook, E. M. 287 Coote, R. B. 74 Cornelius, F. 137 Cornill, C. H. 30 Cortese, E. 48, 149–150 Cross, F. M. 15, 23, 35, 48, 223–224, 246, 337–338, 349 Crown, A. D. 40–41 Crüsemann, F. 47–48, 52, 94–95, 127–129, 149, 151–155, 176, 179, 211–212, 218, 235, 244, 265, 271, 279–280, 292–293, 300, 329, 340 Cryer, F. H. 30, 335 Dahlberg, B. T. 52 Daiches, D. 137 Dalferth, I. U. 115, 260 Daniels, D. R. 9, 74, 255 Daube, D. 102, 272 Davenport, G. L. 303 Davies, G. F. 62, 141–143, 220 Davies, G. I. 336 Davies, P. R. 13, 18 Davila, J. R. 23 Deist, F. E. 121 Dentan, R. 2 Dever, W. G. 98, 125 Dexinger, F. 40–41, 310, 314 Diebner, B. J. 11, 13, 54, 137, 339, 350 Diedrich, F. 74 Dietrich, W. 51–54, 85, 337 Di Lella, A. 295–300 Dogniez, C. 37 Dohmen, C. 49, 131, 271, 279 Donner, H. 18, 50–52, 54, 96, 98, 109–112, 118, 123, 137, 150, 163, 169, 201, 340 Dorival, G. 45, 322 Dörrfuss, E. M. 286, 289, 329 Douglas, M. 28 Dozeman, T. B. 13, 32, 156, 341 Drenkhahn, R. 137–138 Droge, A. J. 2 Dumermuth, F. 133 Durham, J. I. 117, 137 Dyk, P. J. van 81 Ebach, J. 107, 140–141, 153 Ebeling, G. 350, 352

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 429 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Index of Authors

Edelman, D. V. 2–3, 210 Eerdmans, B. D. 167 Ego, B. 60 Eissfeldt, O. 23–24, 30, 54, 95, 137, 246–247, 272, 339 Eitz, A. 251, 253 Eliade, M. 116, 259 Elliger, K. 48, 84, 134, 238, 242, 253 Elwolde, J. F. 296 Emerton, J. A. 48, 94, 97–98, 154, 162–163 Endres, J. C. 303–304 Engel, H. 123 Engnell, I. 30 Erichsen, W. 138 Eslinger, L. 13, 74–75, 113, 117, 131, 146 Fabry, H.-J. 61, 340 Feldmeier, R. 37 Fensham, F. C. 98 Fernández Marcos, N. 39 Fischer, G. 62, 121–122, 141, 174–176, 178, 181, 184, 191, 223, 243, 337–338 Fischer, I. 27, 42, 48, 165 Fishbane, M. 74–75, 77–78, 96, 150, 164, 168, 250, 303 Fisher, L. 98 Floss, J. P. 179, 191, 196–198, 218 Fohrer, G. 30, 120–121, 133–134, 173, 338– 339 Fraenkel, D. 38 Freedman, D. N. 2, 29–30, 123, 141, 257 Frei, P. 286 Frerichs, E. S. 137 Frevel, C. 27, 48–49 Friedman, R. E. 14, 141, 337–338 Fritz, V. 32, 47–48, 54, 105, 110–111, 119– 120, 153, 191, 194–195, 197–200, 210–211, 238 Fröhlich, I. 303, 305, 310 Fuhs, H. F. 241 Fuller, R. 23, 43 Fuss, W. 32 Gall, von, A. F. 40 Galling, K. 7–8, 10, 114–115, 118, 194, 201, 343 Garbini, G. 2 García López, F. 336 García Martínez, F. 309–312, 314 Garr, W. R. 242–243 Gaster, M. 40 Gaster, T. G. 134, 142 Gaston, L. 170

429

Gehman, H. S. 27 Geoghegan, J. C. 2, 30 Gerstenberger, E. S. 217, 219 Gertz, J. C. 9, 13, 32, 48, 53, 56, 63–64, 91, 122, 126, 133–136, 139, 150–152, 156, 161, 174–175, 191, 214–215, 232, 234, 255, 265, 280, 340, 347 Gese, H. 74, 76, 102, 105, 115, 160, 169 Giblin, C. H. 198–199, 204–205 Gieselmann, B. 15 Giesen, G. 97–98, 275 Ginsberg, H. L. 74 Giron Blanc, L.-F. 40 Glessmer, U. 23–24, 39 Goldingay, J. 105 Golka, F. W. 96 Good, E. M. 74 Görg, M. 54, 58, 130, 137–138, 143, 176, 198, 227 Gosse, B. 54, 63, 68, 73, 99, 139, 168, 221– 223, 241, 244–245, 254, 270, 275, 280, 283, 289, 340 Grabbe, L. L. 201 Graham, M. P. 286 Graupner, A. 54 Greenberg, M. 36, 140, 143, 228, 232, 272 Greenfield, J. C. 256 Greenspahn, F. E. 203 Greenspoon, L. J. 38 Gressmann, H. 83, 116, 119–121, 137, 140, 142, 144 Griffiths, J. G. 143 Gross, W. 1, 48, 95, 117, 159, 182, 238–240, 347 Grünwaldt, K. 253, 335 Guillaume, P. 43, 109, 204, 219, 235 Gunkel, H. 47, 55–56, 93–99, 110, 115, 159, 195, 293, 340 Gunn, D. M. 121, 131 Gunneweg, A. H. J. 30, 47, 91, 108, 117, 119, 279, 283–284, 335–336, 339, 341 Gutbrod, W. 123 Güterbock, H. G. 142 Ha, J. 57, 159–160, 162–163, 165–168, 170– 171, 225, 268, 317 Haag, H. 161 Hafemann, S. J. 282 Hagelia, H. 159 Hall, R. G. 303, 310 Hallbäck, G. 315 Haran, M. 24–26, 28, 37, 42, 104, 254 Hardmeier, C. 73, 106, 228, 330

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 430 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

430

Index of Authors

Harl, M. 45, 322 Harnisch, W. 316 Hartlich, C. 115 Harvey, J. D. 295 Hasel, G. F. 171, 178, 218 Haudebert, P. 335 Hayes, J. H. 2, 30, 98, 109, 137 Heinemann, I. 319, 322, 324, 326 Helck, W. 143 Hendel, R. S. 16, 129 Hengel, M. 2, 45, 279, 295, 298–299, 319– 321 Hermisson, H.-J. 201, 248–250 Herrmann, S. 3, 8, 124, 126, 137, 143, 203 Hesse, F. 131 Hieke, T. 152, 246 Hilhorst, T. 327 Hinz, W. 256 Hitzig, F. 77 Höffken, P. 296 Hoffmann, H.-D. 198, 201, 337 Hoffner, H. A. 53, 107 Hoftijzer, J. 9, 97–98, 159, 174 Hoglund, K. G. 286 Hollander, H. W. 307–308 Holm-Nielsen, S. 294 Hölscher, G. 11, 30, 125–126, 153 Holzinger, H. 19, 23, 28, 32, 41, 90–91, 158, 195, 197, 272, 335, 340 Hornung, E. 138 Hossfeld, F.-L. 79, 218, 292, 294 Houtman, C. 11, 26, 30, 40, 62, 122, 133, 140–143, 172–173, 178, 185, 188–190, 221, 223, 227, 235, 242–243, 335, 337–338 Hübner, K. 116 Hughes, J. 17–18, 89 Huppenbauer, M. 115 Hurvitz, A. 254 Hutter, M. 107, 142 Hyatt, J. P. 9 Ihromi 109 Im, T.-S. 286 Irvin, D. 81, 137 Isbell, C. 121, 140, 178, 220 Ishida, T. 168, 226–227 Jacob, B. 17, 58, 62–63, 74, 89–90, 131–132, 137, 142, 162–164, 167, 170, 172, 176–178, 185, 191, 221, 232, 273, 279, 311 Jamieson-Drake, D. W. 3 Janowski, B. 48, 107, 116, 238–239, 243–245 Janssen, E. 296–298

Janzen, J. G. 9 Japhet, S. 286–290 Jaros, K. 40, 54, 196–198, 200 Jenkins, A. K. 152 Jenni, E. 30, 335 Jepsen, A. 18, 263 Jeremias, A. 112, 189, 322–325 Jeremias, C. 73, 249, 330 Jeremias, J. 74–77, 116, 141, 169, 191, 249– 250, 319, 328 Jericke, D. 96, 202 Jervell, J. 307 Jeska, J. 327 Jirku, A. 72 Johnson, M. D. 18 Johnstone, W. 18, 32, 127–128, 180, 282, 340–341 Jonge, M. de 307–308 Joosten, J. 254, 273 Joüon, P. 170, 206, 277 Kaestli, J.-D. 45 Kaiser, O. 2, 14, 18–19, 25, 30, 32, 54, 61, 65, 133, 135, 149, 151, 159, 161–163, 165, 167, 169, 171–172, 191, 198–199, 203, 211, 237, 248, 255, 264, 287–288, 295, 336, 338 Kalimi, I. 286 Kallai, Z. 168 Kalthoff, B. 218 Kartveit, M. 287 Katz, P. 45 Kaufmann, Y. 255 Kearney, P. J. 48 Kebekus, N. 54, 238 Kee, H. C. 308 Keel, O. 81–82 Kegler, J. 130, 175, 288–289 Kellermann, D. 84 Kelly, B. E. 286, 288, 290 Kent, R. G. 201 Kessler, R. 10, 55–56, 67, 108, 136–137, 152, 162, 174–175, 178–180, 183, 194, 215, 233–234 Keulen, P. van 107, 170, 335, 337 Kiesow, K. 249 Kikawada, I. M. 153 Kilian, R. 94, 96, 161 Kippenberg, H. G. 40–41, 196 Kissling, P. J. 2, 30 Kitchen, K. A. 117, 137 Kittel, R. 17–18, 27, 30 Klein, G. 48, 328 Klein, H. 54

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 431 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Index of Authors

Klein, R. W. 48, 238, 286, 336 Klijn, A. F. J. 37, 310, 315–316 Knapp, D. 150 Knauf, E. A. 1, 3, 18, 48, 50, 70, 106, 121, 136–139, 143, 147, 241, 245, 297, 338, 352 Knibb, M. A. 316 Knierim, R. P. 13, 30, 86, 89, 273 Knoppers, G. N. 286–287 Koch, K. 2, 18, 48, 62, 90, 104, 106, 115–116, 123–124, 126, 132, 139, 155, 163, 174, 176, 186, 239, 243, 246, 249, 256–257, 260, 271, 286–287, 309–310, 314–315, 350 Koch, T. 18, 30, 114, 117–118, 259–260 Köckert, M. 9, 13, 47–48, 59, 77, 83–84, 92, 94–97, 99, 101–102, 104–106, 110–111, 114, 146, 151–154, 159, 161–166, 169–171, 238–241, 243–245, 261, 263, 268, 277, 336, 339 Kohata, F. 134, 173, 183, 190–191, 241, 254, 336 Koichi, N. 112 Koopmans, W. T. 112, 194, 196–198, 201– 202, 204, 208–211, 226–227, 229, 231 Korpel, M. C. A. 185 Kosmala, H. 109 Kottsieper, I. 275–277 Kraetzschmar, R. 238 Kraft, R. A. 303 Krapf, T. M. 255 Krasovec, J. 133 Kratz, R. G. 2, 13–14, 28, 42, 47–48, 52, 57, 71–72, 76, 94, 96, 109–110, 122, 132, 135, 140, 148, 152, 175, 191–192, 197, 200–202, 219, 248–250, 252, 256, 261, 265, 271, 286–287, 294, 298, 329–330, 339–340, 344, 347 Kraus, H.-J. 293–294 Kreuzer, S. 9, 18, 68–69, 90, 117, 125, 162– 163, 173, 198, 227, 275, 282 Krüger, T. 48, 71, 79, 92, 117, 135, 152, 170, 192, 215, 263, 273, 292, 294, 340, 347, 350 Küchler, M. 81, 307, 319–320 Kugler, R. A. 28 Kühlewein, J. 71, 73, 290, 292 Kuhrt, A. 325 Lang, B. 30, 337 Lange, A. 17, 35, 324 Larsson, G. 17 Lauha, A. 72–73, 106, 290, 292 Leander, P. 185 Lebram, J. C. H. 42, 272, 296

431

Lee, J. A. L. 38 Leene, H. 249 Légasse, S. 327 Leiman, S. Z. 19, 23, 25, 41–42, 45 Leineweber, W. 98 Lemaire, A. 96, 112, 338 Lemche, N. P. 2, 114, 137 Lesko, L. H. 137 Leuenberger, M. 314, 316 Levenson, J. D. 44, 150, 338 Levin, C. 6, 9–10, 12, 14, 21–22, 26, 31–33, 51, 57–60, 62–63, 65–66, 71, 96, 108, 111– 112, 117, 121, 133–134, 136–137, 139–140, 142–143, 153, 160–162, 167, 170–172, 175, 183–185, 191, 195–196, 198, 211, 216, 219, 224, 229, 237, 257, 265–266, 272, 335, 337, 341, 343, 345, 347 Levine, B. A. 305 Levinson, B. M. 265 Lewis, B. 142 Lewis, T. J. 107 L’Hour, J. 194, 196–198 Licht, J. 2 Lichtenberger, H. 17, 35 Lipinski, E. 98, 102, 108, 146 Liverani, M. 2 Liwak, R. 107, 168 Locher, C. 53 Loewenstamm, S. E. 98, 117, 322 Lohfink, N. 9, 13, 15, 17–18, 32, 37, 42, 45, 48, 56, 61–65, 67–70, 78, 81–83, 86, 88, 134, 145–147, 150, 159, 161–162, 170, 188, 199, 203, 214, 237–238, 241, 245, 247, 253, 265, 271, 273, 275, 279, 288, 337–338, 340, 342, 352 Long, B. O. 104 Loretz, O. 106–107 Loza, J. 61 Lubsczyk, H. 73, 117 Lührmann, D. 90, 125, 163 Lust, J. 37–38, 74–75, 107, 241, 254 Lux, R. 96, 279 Luyten, J. 152 Luz, U. 328 Maag, V. 104–105, 112 Macchi, J.-D. 85, 141–143, 173–174, 181 Macdonald, J. 40 Macholz, C. 10, 316 Mack, B. L. 24, 296–297 Mafico, T. L. J. 153 Magonet, J. 242 Maiberger, P. 185–186

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 432 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

432

Index of Authors

Maier, J. 17, 23–25, 36, 39, 41–42, 255, 258, 267, 297, 301, 303, 305–306 Malamat, M. 138 Malinowski, B. 116 Mandell, S. 2, 29–30, 257 Marböck, J. 295–299, 307–308 Margain, J. 40–41 Marmorstein, A. 300 Martin, J. B. 297–298 Martin-Achard, R. 84 Martone, C. 296 Marx, A. 184 Mathias, D. 283, 290–294 Mathys, H.-P. 283–285, 289–290 Mayes, A. D. H. 87–88, 198–201, 225, 338 McConville, J. G. 287 McEvenue, S. 48, 54, 161, 173–174, 176, 183, 239, 248, 337 McKane, W. 97 McKenzie, S. L. 74, 286–287, 337 Meier, S. A. 176–177, 204 Meinhold, A. 54, 215 Mendels, D. 322 Meyer, E. 96, 120, 126, 133, 137, 140, 144, 211 Meyer, R. 1 Michel, D. 248, 251 Middendorp, T. 298, 300 Milgrom, J. 48, 254 Milik, J. T. 24, 314 Miller, J. M. 2, 30, 98, 109, 137 Miscall, P. D. 53 Mittmann, S. 32, 69–70, 338 Moberly, R.W. L. 13, 82, 113–114, 159, 170, 172, 180, 190–191, 242, 335 Moenikes, A. 87, 130, 150, 201–202, 213, 338 Mölle, H. 159, 161, 165, 197–199, 209 Mommer, P. 202, 209, 213 Montgomery, J. A. 27 Moor, J. C. de 106, 123, 137–138 Mor, M. 40 Mosis, R. 170 Mowinckel, S. 48, 54, 129, 176 Müller, H.-P. 2, 30, 52, 58–59, 115–116, 259, 303–304, 310, 312, 314, 351 Münchow, C. 303–304 Munnich, O. 45, 322 Muraoka, T. 170, 206, 277, 296 Murtonen, A. 18 Myers, J. M. 283 Nauerth, T. 96, 246 Neef, H.-D. 74

Nelson, R. D. 88, 199, 202, 237, 338 Newsom, C. A. 306 Nicholson, E. W. 48 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 303, 307, 309, 315 Niebuhr, K.-W. 308 Niehr, H. 193, 199, 235, 352 Nielsen, E. 69 Nielsen, F. A. J. 257 Nobile, M. 30, 85 Nogalski, J. 26 Nöldeke, T. 18, 48, 51, 245 Noort, E. 38, 48, 159, 161–162, 194, 197, 335 Nordheim, E. von 137, 158, 307–308 Norin, S. I. L. 73, 117, 294 Noth, M. 7–11, 15, 17–18, 30–32, 43–44, 47–48, 51, 56–57, 60–62, 64, 88–89, 91, 94, 96–97, 101, 105, 112, 117–120, 126, 130– 131, 133–136, 138–141, 143–144, 149–150, 158–159, 169, 174–175, 183, 185, 188, 191, 193, 195–199, 203, 225, 238, 244, 246, 259, 261, 268–269, 279, 288, 335–337, 343, 345 Oberhänsli-Widmer, G. 282, 309 O’Brien, M. A. 14, 17, 87–88, 96–97, 130, 150, 198, 200–201, 225, 337–338 Odashima, T. 330 Oden, R. A. 106, 115 Oeming, M. 22, 49, 170, 271, 279, 286–287, 350, 352 Oesch, J. 23–25, 258 Olson, D. C. 314 Olson, D. T. 23, 26, 28 Oorschot, J. van 249, 282 Orlinsky, H. M. 38 Östborn, G. 9, 30, 42 Oswald, W. 149, 265 Otto, E. 11, 13, 22, 30, 47–48, 66, 68, 92, 96, 121–122, 129, 134, 140, 142, 149–152, 175–177, 179–180, 182, 185–186, 188, 191, 211, 225, 245–246, 254, 258, 261, 263, 265, 271, 276, 280, 335, 337, 340–341, 347 Paap, C. 50–51 Pannenberg, W. 116, 350 Patrick, D. 114 Pedersen, J. 9, 54, 102, 104, 109, 121 Perlitt, L. 2, 15, 23, 26, 49, 69, 89, 120, 129, 146, 150, 154, 159, 171, 181, 185–186, 196–198, 200–201, 208, 210–213, 227, 265–266, 350 Person, R. F., Jr. 39 Pesch, R. 140, 327 Petersen, C. 115–116, 259

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 433 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Index of Authors

Petersen, D. L. 335 Peterson, J. 48 Pisano, S. 38 Pitts, C. A., Jr. 9 Plautz, W. 141 Pleins, J. D. 30 Plöger, O. 228, 329 Podella, T. 107 Pola, T. 18, 26, 47–49, 62, 79, 84, 159–161, 186, 237–239, 241, 243–245, 258, 282–284, 292 Porten, B. 256 Preuss, H. D. 10, 150, 335 Pröbstl, V. 170, 283–285, 290–291, 294 Propp, W. H. C. 14, 48, 178, 337 Provan, I. W. 338 Pummer, R. 40 Purvis, J. D. 40 Pury, A. de 3–4, 11, 13, 16, 27, 33, 37, 60–61, 69, 74–75, 86, 94, 96–97, 99, 104, 106–107, 110, 114, 122–123, 148, 171, 191, 238, 252, 268, 277, 335, 337–339, 343 Qimron, E.

305

Rad, G. von 3, 8–9, 15, 20, 30–31, 43, 51, 54, 56, 67, 83–84, 87, 91, 94–95, 97–99, 105, 114, 117–119, 121, 146, 150–151, 153, 156, 159, 170, 179, 187, 191, 203–204, 211, 220, 222, 238, 246, 250, 253, 255, 260–261, 263, 265–266, 272, 283, 288–289, 334, 339–340, 350–352 Radday, Y. T. 137 Radjawane, A. N. 9, 335 Rake, M. 203 Redford, D. B. 53–56, 117, 137–138, 142– 143, 218, 323 Reese, G. 310–315 Reichert, A. 173 Reid, S. B. 310, 314–315 Renaud, B. 181, 185 Rendsburg, G. A. 284, 338 Rendtorff, R. 6, 10–13, 28, 30, 47–48, 60–61, 88, 96–99, 103, 117–119, 121, 126, 140, 146, 151, 155, 159, 162, 164, 171, 177, 179, 242, 248, 254, 263, 270, 274–275, 277, 280, 339–340, 343, 346, 350 Renz, J. 257 Reuter, E. 86 Reventlow, H. G. 2, 98 Richter, W. 9, 109, 173, 176, 181 Ringgren, H. 71, 198, 218 Robinson, B. P. 185

433

Rofé, A. 27, 38, 87, 201–202 Rogerson, J. W. 115 Röllig, W. 169, 257 Roloff, J. 327 Römer, T. 3–4, 7, 10–11, 13, 16, 19, 22, 27, 33, 37, 44, 48, 52, 54, 61–62, 65–71, 77, 79–80, 86–88, 96, 99–100, 102, 106–107, 114, 120–123, 130, 135, 146, 150, 154, 156–157, 159–160, 162–163, 165–169, 171–175, 178, 184, 191, 194–196, 198–201, 203–205, 211, 225, 238, 241, 249, 251, 255, 261, 263, 269, 273, 275, 277–280, 282–284, 289, 291–292, 327, 335, 337–339, 343, 345, 349 Rose, M. 2, 15–16, 30–33, 66, 83, 85–86, 100, 111, 173, 175–176, 211, 215, 235, 238, 257, 272, 336–337, 340–341, 347 Rösel, H. 38, 198, 202–203 Rost, L. 9 Roth, W. 200, 337 Rottzoll, D. 170 Rudolph, W. 51, 54, 174, 176, 184, 191, 197, 282, 288 Ruiten, J. van 314 Ruppert, L. 51, 54–55, 74, 238 Rupprecht, K. 122, 217 Ruprecht, E. 31, 340 Rüterswörden, U. 107, 271 Ryle, H. 23 Sacchi, P. 314 Sachs, W. 115 Sacks, K. S. 2 Sæbø, M. 173, 190–191 Saito, T. 328 Sanders, J. A. 44 Sanders, P. 38, 280 Sanderson, J. E. 41 Sandmel, S. 164, 282 Sänger, D. 328 Sarna, N. M. 42, 123, 137, 142, 147 Sasson, J. M. 46 Sauer, G. 17, 300 Sawyer, J. F. 222 Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C. 235, 352 Schaper, J. 112 Scharbert, J. 50, 98, 101, 247 Schart, A. 29, 120 Schatz, W. 162 Schelbert, G. 303–304 Schenker, A. 39 Schiffman, L. A. 305 Schmid, H. 19, 106–107, 120, 130, 137, 173

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 434 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

434

Index of Authors

Schmid, H. H. 9, 11, 15–16, 18, 25, 33, 37, 47, 50–51, 85, 101, 103, 108, 130–131, 135–136, 141, 145–146, 151, 156, 159, 164–165, 169–170, 187, 218, 233, 271, 279, 329, 337–339, 343, 347, 350 Schmid, K. 13, 76, 80, 96, 100, 108, 117, 132, 150, 156, 161, 166, 192, 220, 230, 238, 248, 251–253, 255–256, 258, 262, 265–266, 271, 273, 278, 280, 294, 330, 338, 349–350 Schmid, W. 80 Schmidt, B. B. 107 Schmidt, L. 9, 11, 13, 44, 48–49, 51, 54, 73, 82, 133–135, 172–173, 176, 183, 185, 188– 189, 191, 228, 238, 240–241, 244, 247, 274, 291, 335, 337–339 Schmidt, W. H. 22, 32, 48, 58–60, 62–65, 73, 91, 115, 123, 126–127, 133–134, 137–138, 140, 143–144, 172–174, 176, 178, 183–186, 188–191, 211, 216–217, 221, 223, 230, 232–233, 238, 241–242, 254, 335–336, 338–339, 352 Schmitt, G. 81, 194, 197–198, 206, 231 Schmitt, H.-C. 2, 11, 17–18, 30–31, 51–54, 61, 63–64, 73, 85, 88, 127, 131–132, 134, 160, 162, 173, 175, 181, 188, 195, 214, 235, 263–264, 271, 278, 280, 339 Schmitt, R. 117, 350 Schnabel, P. 325 Schneider, T. 123 Schneider, W. 1, 140 Schniedewind, W. M. 287 Schnutenhaus, F. 126 Schöpflin, K. 85 Schorn, U. 85, 112–113 Schreiner, J. 246–247, 290, 315 Schult, H. 11, 339 Schunck, K.-D. 211 Schur, N. 40 Schürer, E. 303, 305, 307, 309–310, 314–316, 319–321 Scullion, J. J. 93 Seebass, H. 8, 13–14, 17, 29, 32, 48, 51, 54, 60, 68, 74, 82, 91, 94, 97, 115, 141, 154, 158, 161–163, 200, 238–241, 244, 254, 271, 317, 335–339, 341–342 Segert, S. 282–283 Seidel, B. 335 Seitz, C. R. 29, 108, 248 Selman, M. J. 98 Seybold, K. 95, 220, 231, 291, 300 Shaw, C. S. 39 Shenkel, J. D. 17, 27, 39

spread is 1 line short

Siebert-Hommes, J. 140, 191, 220 Siffer-Wiederhold, N. 327 Sigal, P. 2 Siker, J. S. 326 Simpson, C. A. 30 Ska, J. L. 12, 48, 92, 95, 103, 125, 131, 133– 135, 147, 152–154, 175–176, 178, 187, 234, 241, 254, 335, 340–341 Skehan, P. 295–300 Skinner, J. 38 Skweres, D. E. 66–68, 274, 277–279 Slingerland, H. D. 307–308 Smelik, K. A. D. 3 Smend, R., Jr. 2, 8, 14, 27, 30–33, 81, 87–88, 117, 119, 126, 137, 146–147, 150–151, 170, 174, 197, 200, 254, 337–338, 350 Smith, M. S. 29, 48, 54, 127, 134, 153, 221, 223, 243, 337 Smyth-Florentin, F. 46 Snijders, L. A. 201 Soden, W. von 25, 167 Soggin, J. A. 39, 50–51, 54, 61, 98, 101, 104, 115, 117, 122–123, 137, 143, 160, 162, 167, 170, 198–200, 337 Soisalon-Soisinen, I. 38 Sperling, D. S. 198 Spieckermann, H. 170, 221–223, 285, 294, 337 Spottorno, V. 39 Spreafico, A. 73 Spronk, K. 107, 204 Spykerboer, H. C. 249 Stade, B. 238 Staerk, W. 7, 30, 148–149 Stählin, O. 80 Stamm, J. J. 71 Staubli, T. 254 Steck, K. G. 329, 350 Steck, O. H. 20, 22–23, 29, 38, 42–43, 48, 51, 58, 63, 94, 101, 107–108, 132, 150–151, 153, 170–171, 192, 203, 219, 228, 238, 244, 246–254, 267, 271, 279–280, 284, 286–287, 294–295, 298, 301–303, 306, 310, 313–315, 327, 330–331, 336, 349 Stegemann, H. 17, 24, 219, 296, 305–306, 349 Steins, G. 283, 286–289, 298 Stemberger, G. 36, 38, 62, 163, 227, 303–305, 327 Stenhouse, P. 17, 40 Stenmans, P. 131 Stern, E. 201 Stern, M. 123, 189, 322–326

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 435 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Index of Authors

Steuernagel, C. 197 Stiegler, S. 108 Stipp, H.-J. 25, 35, 338 Stoellger, P. 49 Stolz, F. 107, 110, 115–116, 130, 137–138, 145–147 Stordalen, T. 246 Strauss, H. 223 Streibert, C. 48, 183, 251, 253 Strübind, K. 287 Strugnell, J. 40, 306 Stuhlmueller, C. 249 Sundberg, A. C. 45 Swanson, D. D. 303, 305 Swete, H. B. 23, 37–38, 41, 45–46 Tal, A. 41 Talmon, S. 27, 35–36, 108, 125, 129, 159, 162–163 Talshir, Z. 39 Ta-Shma, I. M. 304 Tengström, S. 30, 48 Thackeray, H. St. J. 27 Theophilus, P. 162 Thiel, W. 98, 110 Thoma, C. 324 Thompson, T. L. 2–4, 11, 18, 81, 98, 114, 132, 137, 175, 339, 349 Thraede, K. 319 Tigay, J. H. 40, 282 Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 309, 314 Tiller, P. A. 309–310, 312 Tilly, M. 23 Toorn, K. van der 74, 106–107, 128, 191 Tournay, R. J. 102, 221, 223 Tov, E. 17–18, 23–25, 35–41, 45, 202 Trebolle Barrera, J. 38–39 Trever, J. C. 24 Tropper, J. 107 Uehlinger, C. 3, 15, 81–82, 121, 151, 154 Uhlig, S. 310–311, 313 Ulrich, E. 23–24, 35, 38–39 Ulrichsen, J. H. 306–307 Utzschneider, H. 47–48, 121–124, 130–131, 135, 138, 188, 190, 217, 234, 339 Vair, R. J. 282 Valentin, H. 189–190, 209 Valeton, J. J. P. 238 VanderKam, J. 17, 36, 303, 305, 310, 312, 314–315

435

Vanoni, G. 338 Van Seters, J. 2, 4, 10–11, 16, 22, 30–34, 47– 48, 56, 58, 60, 62–66, 68–69, 78–80, 94, 96, 98–99, 104–105, 111–112, 114, 116, 120, 124, 127–128, 131, 133–136, 139–142, 152–153, 159–162, 167, 169, 175–176, 181, 185, 188–190, 195, 197–198, 201–203, 211, 223–224, 227, 235, 239, 257, 259, 265, 269, 272, 277, 292, 323, 335–337, 339–341, 343, 345, 347, 352 Van Zyl, A. H. 17 Vargha, T. 300 Vaux, R. de 138 Veijola, T. 117, 150, 213, 275, 337 Verbrugghe, G. P. 323, 325 Vergote, J. 54 Vermes, G. 303, 316, 319 Vermeylen, J. 30 Vervenne, M. 33, 35, 48, 130, 132, 135, 139, 146, 339 Vielhauer, P. 313 Vincent, J. M. 249 Vollmer, J. 74 Volz, P. 51, 54, 137 Vorländer, H. 11, 73, 106, 209, 339 Vriezen, T. C. 34, 63, 74, 124, 191 Vuilleumier, R. 74 Wächter, L. 163 Wagner, N. E. 169 Wahl, H. M. 96–97, 106, 110 Walkenhorst, K. H. 238, 241 Wallis, G. 96 Walter, N. 17, 126, 163, 319–321, 324 Waltke, B. K. 40–41 Walton, J. H. 2 Wassermann, G. 9 Watts, J. W. 271 Weber, B. 71, 139–140, 220 Weber, M. 108 Weder, H. 350, 352 Weider, A. 141 Weidmann, H. 98 Weimar, P. 26, 48, 52, 62–64, 82, 97, 108, 120–121, 124, 130, 139–141, 147, 153, 158–162, 164–165, 167, 170, 173, 195, 215, 220, 238–244, 246–247 Weinberg, J. 2 Weinfeld, M. 26, 98, 114, 165 Weinstein, J. M. 137, 323 Weippert, H. 335 Weippert, M. 3, 20, 51–52, 115, 124, 150, 338

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 436 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

436

Index of Authors

Weiser, A. 327 Weisman, Z. 82, 96, 111 Weiss, H.-F. 36 Wellhausen, J. 16, 18–19, 50, 54, 90, 110, 134, 150, 158–159, 162, 174, 176, 195, 197, 211, 238, 246, 260, 265, 279, 335 Welten, P. 286 Wenham, G. J. 17, 98, 152, 162, 169, 171, 239, 242, 339–340, 347 Wenning, R. 107, 257 Wermelinger, O. 45 Westermann, C. 6, 22, 51, 53–54, 56, 58–59, 70, 82, 94–99, 101–103, 105–106, 112, 159, 161, 167–169, 183, 226, 239–240, 247, 268, 275, 277, 325, 338, 343 Wevers, J. W. 23, 37–39 White, H. C. 99 Whitt, W. D. 74–75 Whybray, R. N. 30, 51, 54, 176, 335, 337–338 Wicke, D. W. 140, 220 Wickersham, J. M. 323, 325 Wiesehöfer, J. 271 Wilcke, C. 123 Wilckens, U. 328 Wildberger, H. 115, 268 Willett, T. W. 316 Willi, T. 108–109, 287 Williamson, H. G. M. 223, 248, 283–284, 289 Willi-Plein, I. 51, 74, 140, 143, 220 Willoughby, B. E. 123 Wilson, R. R. 131 Winkelmann, F. 2 Winnett, F. V. 9–11, 13, 120, 139, 176, 339

Wischmeyer, O. 295 Wise, M. O. 305 Wiseman, D. J. 98 Witte, M. 15, 18–19, 59, 61, 145, 150–153, 156, 195, 215, 257, 280, 337–338, 347 Wolff, H. W. 32, 54, 59, 75, 77, 105, 122, 141, 150, 341 Worschech, U. 106 Woude, A. S. van der 36–37, 41, 287, 306 Wünsche, A. 112, 144, 228 Würthwein, E. 38, 44, 108, 151, 337–338 Wyatt, N. 68, 185 Wynn-Williams, D. J. 12, 59, 95–97, 176, 335, 337 Yadin, Y. 36 Yardeni, A. 255 Yee, G. A. 74 Younger, K. L. 146, 203 Zangenberg, J. 40–41 Zenger, E. 15–16, 27, 36, 42, 44, 47–49, 71, 76, 82, 86, 91, 97, 116, 120–125, 130, 137– 139, 142–143, 151–152, 165, 168–169, 179, 185, 193, 199, 211, 221, 223, 237–239, 241, 245, 247, 254, 265, 271, 279, 295, 335–336, 338–339, 343 Zevit, Z. 254 Zimmerli, W. 10, 73, 79–80, 131, 135, 146, 165, 216, 238–239, 291 Zobel, H.-J. 8, 75, 85, 111–112, 124, 193 Zunz, L. 279, 286 Zwickel, W. 96, 108

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 437 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Index of Scripture Genesis 1 11, 38, 142, 150, 245– 246, 303, 336, 348 1–3 252 1–9 253 1–11 4, 22, 52, 90, 93–95, 119, 152–155, 234, 325, 340 1:1 27 1:1–2:4 250 1:9–10 181, 250 1:13 220 1:14–27 150 1:28 63, 237, 240, 244 1:29 63 2 10, 336 2–3 22, 129, 152–153, 177, 246, 340 2–11 151 2:2 237 2:4 153, 246–247 2:4–3:24 153 2:5 153 2:7 153 2:8 152 2:9 153 2:15–16 152 2:18 152 2:19 153 2:21 153, 164 2:22 152 3 22 3:1 152–153 3:3 153 3:5 153 3:6 22 3:8 152 3:13–14 152 3:17 22 3:21 152 3:22 153 3:23 152 4 22 4:1 153 4:4 153

Genesis (cont.) 4:6 152 4:7 21 4:8 38 4:9–10 153 4:13 153 4:15 152 4:16 153 4:19 141 4:26 81–82, 152, 155, 172 5–11 17 5:1 246–247 5:18 314 5:29 22, 152 6–9 22, 173 6:1–4 22 6:2 141 6:3 152, 273, 278 6:5 152, 273 6:6–7 127, 153 6:8 152 6:9 246–247 6:11–13 254 7:1 152 7:5 152 7:16 152 8:1 270 8:4 325 8:21 151–152, 273 8:21–22 22, 280 9 63, 238, 245 9:1 63, 240, 244 9:7 63, 240 9:14–16 270 9:28–29 246 9:29 151 10 62–63, 132, 244 10:1 246–247 10:5 154 10:9 152 10:20 154 10:24 124 10:31–32 154 10:32 154, 247 11 121, 125, 253

437

Genesis (cont.) 11–12 201, 234 11:1–9 22, 94, 153 11:4 152 11:5 172 11:8 94 11:9 152 11:10 246–247 11:13 96 11:26–32 94–95 11:27 30, 94, 164, 246– 247 11:27–32 93–94, 112, 154, 234, 269, 330, 335 11:28 112, 154, 167 11:28–30 94 11:28–31 94 11:29 141 11:31 13, 154, 226 12 4, 21, 59, 93, 96, 151, 153, 234, 268–269, 325 12–13 59, 96, 102, 116, 163–164 12–15 164 12–22 165 12–36 5, 51, 53, 81, 83, 90, 92–93, 107–108, 124 12–50 11, 55–57, 60, 82, 93–95, 98, 107, 110, 119, 125, 144, 147, 152, 154, 178, 269 12:1 94–95, 99, 101–102, 154, 163, 239 12:1–2 56, 103–104 12:1–3 58–59, 61, 95, 99, 101–103, 108, 151, 153–154, 164, 170, 234, 239, 278 12:1–4 94–95, 99, 104 12:1–5 93–94 12:2 6, 56, 58–59, 99, 103, 152, 345 12:2–3 58, 99, 101, 165, 181

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 438 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

438

Genesis (cont.) 12:3 59, 77, 152 12:4 93–94, 163 12:4–5 96 12:5 93–94, 96, 166 12:6 21, 101, 196, 268 12:7 59, 99, 101–103, 154, 157, 162–164, 268, 273–274, 278, 304 12:7–8 7, 81, 268 12:8 57, 152, 196, 268 12:10 84 12:10–20 57–58, 96, 117, 135, 269, 321, 326 12:16 21, 52 12:17 57 13 81, 96 13:1 117 13:2 96 13:3 102 13:3–4 57 13:5 96 13:5–6 96 13:6 166 13:7 96 13:8 96 13:8–9 96 13:10 94, 96, 152, 278 13:10–13 96 13:12 96 13:14–15 59, 102, 163 13:14–17 59, 99, 102– 103, 154, 164 13:15 6, 99, 101, 163, 244, 274 13:16 163 13:16–22:17 163 13:17 59, 102, 163, 274 13:18 96, 99, 162 14 83, 111, 124, 135, 162– 163, 321 14:5 162, 168 14:11–12 166 14:13 123–124 14:15 162–163 14:16 166 14:17–20 320 14:18 163 14:19 164 14:20 162 14:21 166 14:22 164

Index of Scripture

Genesis (cont.) 15 9, 57, 59, 61, 66, 82, 85, 92, 95, 98–99, 101, 116, 154, 157–172, 175, 181–183, 193, 208, 210, 213–214, 218, 220, 224–238, 258, 264, 266–269, 275–278, 280, 283, 334–335, 344–347 15–17 236 15–22 165 15:1 85, 160, 162, 165, 167, 171 15:1–6 159, 161, 165, 167, 169, 171 15:2 160–163, 169 15:3 163, 226 15:4 161, 169–170, 226, 229 15:4–5 163, 165, 225 15:5 160, 163, 170 15:5–6 226–227 15:6 127, 159–161, 167, 170, 230, 263–264, 344 15:7 7, 81–82, 112–113, 163, 167–170, 172, 225–226, 230–232, 259, 269, 274, 344 15:7–8 160 15:7–21 159, 161, 165, 167 15:8 167 15:9 161, 171 15:9–10 170–171 15:10 161 15:11 159, 161, 167 15:12 161, 164 15:13 57, 125, 163, 167, 218, 220, 225–226 15:13–16 5, 57, 60, 94, 99, 158–159, 162, 164– 167, 227–228, 230 15:13–21 165 15:14 57, 161, 166, 225– 227, 232 15:15 163–164, 166, 169, 231 15:15–16 161 15:16 57, 163, 168, 171, 223, 225–227, 258–259, 317 15:17 161, 169 15:17–18 168

Genesis (cont.) 15:18 101, 159–160, 163– 164, 167–169, 229, 274–275 15:18–21 163–165, 167– 169, 225, 227, 297 15:19 52, 168 15:19–21 168 15:20 161–162, 168 16 81, 116, 237 16–22 165 16:7–11 176 16:10 99–100 16:11 98, 172 16:12 312 16:13 177 17 6, 9, 57, 66, 160–161, 165–167, 169–170, 182–183, 187, 225, 232, 236–246, 266, 269, 283, 294, 347 17:1 82, 177, 187, 239, 241–242, 245–246 17:1–2 239–240 17:1–3 239 17:2 59, 63 17:2–8 239 17:3 239 17:4 239–240 17:4–5 297 17:4–8 239 17:5 82, 239–240, 267 17:6 63, 239–240 17:7 239–240, 267, 284 17:7–8 146, 167, 244–245 17:8 84, 101, 240–241, 244, 274 17:9 239–240 17:9–14 239 17:13 239 17:15 82, 239, 267 17:15–16 239 17:15–21 239 17:17 167 17:19 239 17:19–21 239 17:20 56, 59, 63, 240 17:25–27 239 18 96, 98, 102, 106 18–19 96, 98, 116 18:1 96 18:6–8 52 18:17–19 117

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 439 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Index of Scripture

Genesis (cont.) 18:18 56, 64, 152 18:20–21 172, 178 19 81, 96, 98 19:7 21 19:9 21, 84 19:13 178 19:29 270 19:30–38 81, 98 20 58, 135–136 20–22 54 20:1 84 20:2–3 141 20:3 58 20:6 58 20:7 135, 228 20:11 58, 135 20:13 41 20:14 52, 58, 135 20:17 135 20:17–18 58, 135 21 117, 247 21:1 82 21:18 56 21:23 84 21:27 52 21:33 192 22 117, 165, 340 22:1 165 22:15 60 22:15–18 99–100, 165, 274, 277, 297 22:16 275 22:16–18 274 22:17 100, 163, 274 22:18 60, 152 23 84, 107, 244 23–24 45 23:4 84 23:12–13 108 24 100 24:3–4 141 24:7 99–101, 226, 274– 277 24:10 52 24:26 234 24:48 234 24:60 274 24:67 141 25 81, 96 25–33 12, 96 25:7 312 25:7–8 246

Genesis (cont.) 25:8 166 25:9–10 107 25:11 247 25:12 246 25:12–13 247 25:12–19 100 25:17 246 25:18 247 25:19 117, 246–247 25:23 96 26 117, 135 26:2 99, 102 26:2–3 56, 99, 103–104 26:2–4 58 26:3 6, 84, 99–100, 102– 103, 244, 274–277 26:3–4 101, 103, 274, 277 26:3–5 99, 274 26:4 100, 163 26:5 60, 102–103 26:12 52 26:14 52 26:24 99–100, 274 26:25 268, 274 26:26–33 81 27 81, 96 27–33 117 27:9 52 27:27–29 85, 103 27:27–39 96 27:28 52 27:29 59, 152 27:37 52 27:39–40 96 27:43 185 28 268 28:4 6, 84, 101, 244, 274 28:10–22 81 28:13 6–7, 81–82, 101, 103, 113, 172, 274 28:13–14 99, 103, 274 28:13–29 305 28:14 77, 152, 163 28:15 99–100 28:16–17 268 29 60 29–30 112, 143 29–31 81, 96 29:31–30:24 112 30:22 270 30:28–43 52 30:36 40

439

Genesis (cont.) 31:3 99–100, 103–104 31:5 100 31:7 21 31:11 56, 58, 99 31:11–13 40 31:13 56, 58, 82, 99, 103– 104 31:17 52 31:18 166 31:19–20 41 31:21 194 31:22–25 139 31:53 41 32 83 32–33 96 32–35 24 32:5 84 32:6 52 32:8 52 32:10 21 32:10–13 21 32:13 21 32:15 52 32:23 60 32:23–33 81 32:28 172 32:29 267 33 268 33:17 96 33:19 107, 195 33:19–50:25–26 195 33:20 146, 268 34 83, 117 34:3 278 35 117 35:1 194 35:1–5 99–100 35:1–15 305 35:2 212 35:6–7 268 35:7 41, 268 35:11 239–240 35:12 6, 101, 244, 274 35:16–20 112 35:22–26 26 35:27 84 35:28 312 35:29 107 36 239, 343 36:1 246–247 36:5 247 36:7 84

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 440 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

440

Genesis (cont.) 36:8 247 36:8–9 209 36:9 246–247 37 51, 55, 117, 238, 343 37–45 54 37–50 5, 50–55, 57, 90, 96, 125, 135, 220, 294 37:1 84, 247 37:1–2 238 37:2 246–247 37:13–19 196 37:14 124 37:17 124 38 117, 235 38:1–2 141 39–45 117 39:14 123 39:17 123 40:15 123–124 41:8 268 41:12 123–124 41:37–46 6 41:56–57 54 42:6 108 42:19 54 42:33 54 43 234 43:1 54 43:6 21 43:28 234 43:32 123–124 44:5 21, 41 45–50 62 45:5–7 54 45:6–7 54 45:7 54 45:10 53 46–47 238 46–50 56 46:1–5 55–58, 60, 99 46:2–4 53, 55 46:3 56 46:3–4 56, 99, 103–104 46:5–7 56 46:6 166 46:6–7 238 46:8 62 46:8–27 26, 62 46:20–29 53 46:26 62 46:27 62

Index of Scripture

Genesis (cont.) 46:28 63, 117 46:29 53 46:32–34 52 46:34 53 47 117 47:1 53 47:3–6 52 47:4 53, 84 47:6 53 47:11 244 47:27 53, 56, 62, 244 47:27–28 238 47:28 312 47:29–31 53 48 55 48:4 101, 244, 274 48:15–16 85 48:16 218 48:21 55, 94–95, 116 48:22 210 49 53–54, 84–85, 112, 117, 209, 304 49:1 238 49:1–12 85, 235 49:7 41 49:10 54 49:16 54 49:28 84, 209 49:28–33 238 49:29 54 49:29–32 53 49:33 54, 246 50 51, 56, 93, 117, 139, 214, 234, 236, 256 50:1–10 64 50:2–3 107 50:5 53, 55, 60, 94 50:7 53 50:7–10 56 50:7–13 53, 56 50:8 53, 55, 60, 94, 117, 233 50:10 64 50:10–11 107 50:11 53, 64 50:12–13 238 50:13 56 50:13–14 107 50:14 53, 55, 60, 64, 94, 117, 233 50:15 53 50:15–26 26, 64

Genesis (cont.) 50:20 54, 64, 90, 95, 136, 220, 231 50:22 55 50:22–26 55, 60, 94–95, 117, 278 50:23 41 50:24 5, 11, 28, 52, 55, 64, 66, 77, 95, 99, 101, 139, 157, 214–215, 274–275, 277–278, 345 50:24–25 55, 93, 95, 99– 100, 116, 121, 195 50:24–26 214 50:25 55, 93, 95, 99, 195, 214–216, 225, 229, 231–232, 258, 272, 344 50:25–26 158, 194, 214, 224, 231, 233, 280, 334, 344 50:26 26, 55, 62, 107, 194, 214, 312 Exodus 1 5–6, 14, 54–55, 59, 61, 63–67, 99, 105, 121, 127, 138–140, 142, 144, 158, 177, 214, 216–220, 222–226, 228–229, 231–234, 236, 238, 255–256, 270, 280, 334, 344–345, 347 1–2 140, 178, 343 1–3 140 1–4 23 1–14 120, 186 1–15 13, 52–53, 121–122, 125, 136, 181, 190, 221, 229, 340, 343 1–17 235 1–18 86 1–23 11 1:1 1, 61–62 1:1–4 26 1:1–5 26, 216, 238 1:1–6 24, 26, 62, 136 1:1–7 62, 65 1:1–8 62, 139 1:1–14 140 1:5 26, 61–63 1:6 26, 34, 62–65, 125, 139, 216, 344

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 441 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Index of Scripture

Exodus (cont.) 1:6–8 6, 34, 52, 57, 63– 64, 95, 124, 172, 203 1:7 6, 26, 59, 62–65, 67, 105, 139, 216, 225, 238, 240–241, 247, 253 1:7–8 63 1:8 34, 64, 125, 139, 344 1:8–9 139 1:8–12 65, 216 1:8–22 64 1:9 6, 56, 58–59, 63–65, 139, 220, 345 1:9–10 105, 139 1:9–12 121 1:10 122, 217 1:10–12 220 1:11 127, 137–139, 143, 183, 220 1:11–12 217 1:12 58–59, 64, 105, 217, 220–221, 345 1:13 138, 218 1:13–14 174, 216, 218, 238 1:14 218 1:15 139, 144 1:15–2:23 121 1:15–2:10 140 1:15–16 123–124 1:15–20 64 1:15–21 65, 216, 221, 256 1:15–22 128, 140, 216 1:16 138 1:17 58, 135 1:19 65, 123–124, 138 1:20 21, 64, 221 1:21 58, 135 1:22 65, 123, 140, 216, 221 2 5, 12, 122, 128, 140, 143, 148–149, 177, 217, 220 2–5 128–129, 144 2–15 218 2:1 5, 90, 140–143 2:1–2 141 2:1–3 141 2:1–10 128, 138, 140, 143 2:1–23 121 2:2 142 2:2–3 142 2:2–5 128

Exodus (cont.) 2:4 141 2:5–7 123 2:6 140, 142, 221 2:6–7 124, 138 2:6–10 142 2:10 138, 143 2:11 123–124, 138, 183 2:11–15 128 2:12 221 2:13 123–124, 138 2:15 60, 128, 140, 221 2:15–23 174 2:16 319 2:18 174, 177 2:19 123, 143 2:22 174 2:23 62, 65, 128, 174, 178, 187, 218, 221, 270, 344 2:23–4:18 136 2:23–4:31 180 2:23–7:13 180–181 2:23–25 62, 136, 174, 178, 180, 182, 225 2:24 61–62, 65, 67, 178, 183, 270 2:25 178, 187, 243 3 6, 81, 172–175, 180, 182, 184–187, 190, 192–193, 210, 215, 225–226, 228, 234–235, 255, 270, 345 3–4 5, 7, 66, 92, 114, 139, 148–149, 158, 166, 172–193, 196, 210, 213–215, 218, 220, 223–230, 232–238, 266, 276, 280, 323, 334, 340, 344–347 3–6 180, 187, 220, 236 3–7 136 3:1 139, 173–174, 177– 179, 185, 187 3:1–2 175 3:1–4:17 176, 184 3:1–4:18 62, 66–67, 172– 176, 178, 182–184, 188, 224–225, 233, 344 3:1–6 175 3:1–7 177 3:1–17 173 3:2 24, 67, 176–177, 187, 193

441

Exodus (cont.) 3:2–4 173, 185 3:3–4 175 3:4 173, 176–178, 187, 193 3:5 173 3:6 7, 24, 61–62, 67, 82, 172–173, 177–178, 183, 190, 192, 222, 225, 231– 232, 327 3:6–7 172 3:6–8 66, 192 3:6–10 186–187 3:7 175–180, 183, 187, 193, 218, 220, 225–226, 233 3:7–8 172–173, 179, 184 3:7–9 176 3:8 67, 147, 168, 175–176, 179–180, 183, 188, 218, 227, 234, 276 3:8–5:23 234 3:9 176, 178, 183, 218, 225 3:9–15 173, 176 3:10 172, 180, 184, 188, 220, 225–226, 228, 234 3:10–11 183 3:10–12 179 3:11 173, 177, 184 3:11–4:17 187 3:12 122, 173, 177, 179, 185, 187, 191, 225–226, 228, 230, 259 3:13 7, 81, 172–173, 177, 184, 191 3:13–15 81–82, 172, 181, 191, 231 3:13–16 190 3:14 177, 183, 190–192, 228 3:14–15 147, 190 3:15 176–177, 191–192 3:15–16 61–62, 67, 178, 183 3:16 175, 177, 184, 192, 215, 225–226, 233 3:16–17 173, 181, 184, 225 3:16–18 179, 233 3:17 66–67, 168, 175– 176, 179–180, 183, 215, 218, 225–227, 233

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 442 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

442

Exodus (cont.) 3:17–18 147 3:17–22 189 3:18 123, 155, 175, 177, 179–180, 184–185, 233 3:18–20 136 3:18–22 180, 228, 230 3:19 179, 234 3:19–20 179 3:19–22 181, 228 3:20 133, 210, 226, 232 3:21 38 3:21–22 175, 179, 226, 232 3:22 179, 232, 234 4 149, 175, 179, 182–183, 188–189, 234 4–5 180 4–6 24 4–7 189 4:1 127, 177, 184 4:1–5 188 4:1–9 136, 188–189, 233 4:1–17 184, 189 4:2 177 4:2–4 134, 175 4:3 188 4:4 177 4:5 61–62, 67, 127, 177– 178 4:6 177, 189 4:9 188 4:10 177, 184, 189 4:10–17 189 4:11 177, 190 4:13 177, 191 4:13–16 176, 233 4:14 190 4:14–16 184 4:15 231 4:15–26 190 4:16 177, 190 4:17 133, 176, 189 4:18 174–175 4:19 62, 174, 221, 345 4:19–20 121, 128 4:20 121, 174 4:21 131, 133, 136, 181, 184, 234 4:21–23 136, 233 4:22 130 4:23 179, 221, 230 4:24 60, 177

Index of Scripture

Exodus (cont.) 4:24–26 121–122, 174 4:27–31 233 4:28 133 4:29 233 4:30 189, 233 4:30–31 180, 189, 344 4:31 127, 180–181, 218, 220, 226, 231, 233, 263– 264 5 5, 136, 140, 174, 180, 193, 220, 234 5–11 57 5:1 130, 184, 231 5:1–2 121, 132 5:1–7:13 180 5:2 131, 136, 146, 180, 193 5:3 123, 155, 174, 180 5:3–4 124, 174 5:3–19 121, 126, 128, 136 5:3–6:1 126, 234 5:4–5 183 5:6 180 5:10 180 5:11 218 5:13 180 5:13–19 234 5:16 123, 127 5:18 218 5:20–21 121 5:20–6:1 136 5:21 221 5:22 21, 234 5:22–6:1 233–234, 344 5:22–23 21 5:23 21, 183, 218, 234 6 7, 11, 79, 81, 114, 140, 175, 180, 183–188, 190–191, 193, 232, 236–237, 241–242, 244–245, 347 6–7 220 6:1 234 6:2 147, 183, 187, 241– 242 6:2–3 81–82, 190, 192, 231 6:2–8 65, 136, 174, 182– 184, 224–225, 240–242, 254 6:2–9 61, 184, 246

Exodus (cont.) 6:2–13 180, 184 6:2–7:13 180 6:3 61–62, 65, 67, 82, 146, 190, 192, 241–243, 248 6:3–4 242 6:4 84, 167, 241, 243 6:5 183, 218, 243 6:5–6 218, 242 6:6 71, 183–184, 188, 218, 223, 243, 254 6:6–7 183 6:6–8 180 6:7 146, 241–243 6:7–8 147 6:8 61–62, 67, 183, 241– 245, 254 6:9 183–184 6:9–13 183 6:11 184 6:12 183–184 6:13 184 6:14–25 184 6:15 321 6:16 247 6:16–20 90, 125, 163 6:19 247 6:20 5, 141 7 175, 188–189 7–11 130, 132–134 7–12 5, 90, 136, 179, 233, 262 7–14 149, 181–182 7:1 190 7:1–2 189 7:1–13 133–134, 225 7:3 131, 133–134, 136 7:3–4 184 7:4 220 7:5 146 7:7 190 7:8–13 134, 188–189 7:9 133, 188 7:10–13 189 7:12 189 7:13 134, 180, 189 7:14 131, 233 7:14–16 136 7:14–24 188 7:14–25 134, 189 7:14–12:39 121 7:15 133, 344

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 443 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Index of Scripture

Exodus (cont.) 7:16 123–124, 155, 179, 230, 233 7:17 130–131, 133, 146, 181, 233, 344 7:18 135, 188 7:19 188 7:19–20 134 7:19–22 134 7:20 133, 135, 344 7:21 134, 188 7:22 134 7:25 242 7:26 130, 230, 233 7:26–29 135 7:26–8:11 134 7:27 210 7:29 135 8–12 23 8:1–3 134 8:2 135 8:2–15 133 8:3 134 8:4 135, 181 8:6 131, 181 8:10 146 8:11 131, 134 8:11–15 134 8:14 134 8:15 134 8:16 131, 233 8:16–28 134 8:18 53, 131, 181 8:19 130, 133 8:22 146 8:24 181 8:28 131 9:1 123, 131, 133, 155, 179, 233 9:1–7 134 9:7 63, 131 9:8–12 133–134 9:9–10 189 9:11 134 9:12 131, 134 9:13 123, 131, 155, 179, 233 9:13–35 134 9:14 131, 146, 181 9:22–23 134 9:26 53, 155 9:27–28 181 9:28 181

Exodus (cont.) 9:29 131, 146, 181 9:30 131, 181 9:34 131 9:35 134 10 140 10:1 131, 136, 233 10:1–2 130–131 10:1–29 134 10:2 131, 133, 146, 181, 344 10:3 123, 131, 155, 179, 233 10:12–13 134 10:16–17 181 10:17 181 10:20 131 10:20–22 134 10:27 131, 134 11:1 57, 133, 234 11:1–3 344 11:1–13:16 340 11:2 137 11:2–3 38, 179, 232 11:3 136 11:4 131 11:4–8 134 11:5 231 11:7 146 11:9 131 11:9–10 133–134 11:10 131, 134, 136 12 130 12:2 6 12:11 139 12:13 133 12:17 218, 234 12:21–27 344 12:23 210 12:26 61 12:26–27 191 12:27 118, 210, 234 12:29 134 12:29–30 221 12:31 179 12:32 57, 59, 181 12:33 137, 221 12:35–36 232 12:36 137, 179, 234 12:38 124 12:39 234 12:40 18, 90, 125, 163

443

Exodus (cont.) 12:40–41 5, 18–19, 90, 130, 343 12:40–42 89 12:42 188 12:51 188 13 276, 279 13–14 90 13–15 5 13:3 218 13:5 11, 61, 66, 168, 274, 277–278 13:5–16 344 13:8 118 13:11 11, 40, 61, 66–67, 274–275, 277–278 13:14 61, 117–118, 218 13:14–15 191 13:15–19:21–22 121 13:16 6 13:18 122, 217 13:19 52, 55, 93, 95, 121– 122, 136, 195, 214–216, 229, 231, 258, 272, 344 14 121, 127, 131, 173, 210, 223, 225, 262, 303 14:4 131, 136, 146, 210, 223, 225, 242 14:5 121, 138–140, 218 14:7 223 14:8 146 14:8–9 210, 223 14:9 210 14:9–10 225 14:10 218 14:11 188 14:12 218 14:13 222–223, 231 14:13–14 344 14:14 122, 217, 223 14:16 181 14:17 131, 136 14:17–18 210, 225 14:18 242 14:19 67 14:21 223 14:22 181, 223, 250 14:23 210, 223, 225 14:25 122, 147, 217, 223 14:26 210, 225 14:28 210, 223, 225 14:29 223, 250 14:30 131, 221, 223, 231

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 444 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

444

Exodus (cont.) 14:30–31 122, 147, 181, 221, 344 14:31 127, 131, 263–264 15 71, 122, 149, 221–224, 226, 228, 263, 343 15:1 121, 221 15:1–18 221 15:2 221–223 15:3 223 15:3–10 222 15:4 222–223 15:5 223 15:6 222 15:7 222–223 15:8 223 15:9 223 15:10 223 15:11 222 15:12 223 15:13 71, 218, 222–223 15:13–16 222, 345 15:13–17 222 15:14 222–223 15:14–15 222–223 15:16–17 222–223 15:17 222 15:18 222 15:20 190 15:20–21 121 15:21 147, 221 15:25 207, 211–212, 235 16 343 16–17 149 16–20 23 16:6 241–242 16:12 241–242 17:14 207 18 33, 211, 218, 235 18:3–6 174 18:4 218 18:8–10 218 18:10 218 18:25 235 18:26 235 19 33, 86, 186, 235, 266 19–24 149, 187, 211 19–34 120, 149, 211, 265, 340 19:3 38, 61, 187, 235 19:3–9 344 19:9 127, 231 19:18 169

Index of Scripture

Exodus (cont.) 20 40, 273 20:2 117, 163, 168–169, 218, 230 20:2–3 10 20:3 230 20:5 163, 168, 199, 230 20:17 40 20:18–19 40 20:22 344 21:1–6 124 21:6 124 21:12 123 22 23 22:3 59 22:8 41 22:11 176 23:20 67 23:23 67, 168, 227 23:28 168 23:32–33 147 24 22, 266, 292 24:3–8 344 24:4 207 24:7–8 304 24:8 169 24:9–11 315 24:10 38 24:12–15 344 24:18 344 25–28 23 25–29 240, 243 25:1–7 289 25:9 289 25:40 289 26:35 40 28:10 247 29 245 29:42–46 48 29:45 243, 245 29:45–46 240, 243–246, 254 29:46 117, 241–243 30:1–10 40 30:7 21 32 22–23, 129–130, 278 32–34 149, 232, 267, 279 32:2 179, 232 32:4 23, 117, 129 32:7–14 129, 344 32:8 129 32:9–14 129, 135, 278 32:10 56

Exodus (cont.) 32:12 61, 127 32:13 11, 28, 55, 61–62, 66–67, 95, 100, 148, 163, 193, 214–215, 274–275, 277–278 32:14 127 32:26–28 143 32:27 130, 231 32:34 22 33 323 33:1 28, 55, 61–62, 66– 67, 95, 100, 148, 193, 214–215, 274, 277–278, 344 33:1–3 11 33:2 67, 168, 227 33:5 344 33:6 185 33:11 344 33:13 344 33:16–17 344 34 122, 265, 292, 305 34:6 169 34:6–7 78 34:8 234 34:9–10 344 34:10 169 34:11 168, 227 34:12 111, 147 34:15 111, 147 34:15–16 101 34:23 231 34:27 168–169, 207 35–40 38 35:4–9 289 36 23 40 23, 253 40:16 47 40:34–35 26 40:34–38 26 40:36–38 26 Leviticus 1 167 1:1 1, 187 1:1–2 26 5:4 21 9 253 9:24 47, 245 17–26 254 18:3 274 19:23 274

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 445 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Index of Scripture

Leviticus (cont.) 19:26 41 19:36 117 20:24 274 22:33 117 23:10 274 23:43 118 25:2 274 25:34 244 25:38 117, 168, 274 25:46 244 25:55 117 26 245–246 26:3 245–246 26:9 245–246 26:12 246 26:13 117 26:13–14 245–246 26:42 28, 61–62, 65–67, 148, 277–278, 305 26:42–45 44, 245, 277, 280 26:42–46 245 27:34 26 Numbers 1–3 26 1:1 1 1:1–2 26 1:5–15 113 1:20 247 1:22 247 1:24 247 1:26 247 1:28 247 1:30 247 1:32 247 1:36 247 1:38 247 1:40 247 1:42 247 2:3–31 113 3:1 247 4:12 56 5–7 45 6:24–26 255 10 33, 86, 149, 273 10–36 86 10:10 33, 86 10:11 33 10:11–36:13 86 10:14–29 113 10:29 21

Numbers (cont.) 10:32 21 11 344 11:11 21 11:12 11, 61, 66–67, 274, 277–278 12 344 12:10 189 13–14 22, 263, 267, 340 13:29 168 14:9 108 14:11 127, 263–264 14:11–25 344 14:16 61, 66–67, 274 14:23 11, 61, 66, 274, 277–278 14:24 127 14:36–37 22 14:38 22 16:15 21 16:32 166 17:12–83 113 18:19 244 20 47 20:1 121 20:12 127, 263–264 20:13 40 20:14–16 61, 67 20:14–17 226 20:15 21, 67, 122 20:16 67 20:22–29 121 22 59 22–24 18, 59–61, 345 22:1 26 22:3 59 22:6 59 22:22–35 176 22:31 234 23:7 61 23:10 61, 163 23:11 148 23:21 42, 61 23:23 61 24 32, 59 24:4 166 24:5 61 24:8 117 24:9 59, 152 24:14–24 280 24:16 166 24:17 61 24:19 61

445

Numbers (cont.) 24:24 123 25:1–5 32, 344 26:3 26 26:4 221 26:5–51 113 26:57–59 163 26:59 141 26:63 26 27:12–14 150 27:12–23 120 31–34 273 31:8 60 31:12 26 31:16 60 32:6–15 279 32:11 11, 28, 55, 61–62, 66–67, 95, 100, 193, 214–215, 274, 277–278 32:11–12 127 33:48–50 26 33:52 111 33:55 111 34:36 24 35:1 26 35:5 166 35:30 199 36 33 36:13 26 Deuteronomy 1 15, 33, 340 1–3 15–16, 32, 70, 144, 149–150, 345–346 1–11 16 1:1 25 1:1–5 26 1:1–17 24 1:8 68–70, 88, 193, 269, 274, 276–278 1:10 163 1:11 69 1:21 69 1:32 127, 263 1:34–35 88 1:35 69, 88, 102, 274, 276 1:36 127 2:3–6 40 2:4–8:22 152 3:8 210 3:20 88 3:24–28 40 3:28 199

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 446 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

446

Deuteronomy (cont.) 4 150, 235, 276, 280 4:1 69 4:1–40 150 4:6 56 4:7 56 4:8 56 4:16–19 150 4:23 169 4:25–31 151 4:29–31 44 4:31 69, 151, 275–276 4:32–40 154 4:34 133 4:35 131 4:37 69 4:38 56, 69 4:39 131 4:46 221 4:47 210 5 15–16, 150–151 5–11 89 5:2–3 169 5:6 117, 168–169, 218, 230 5:6–7 10 5:7 230 5:9 168, 199 5:10 230 5:15 218 5:18 40 5:28 21 6 265 6–26 86 6–28 150, 265 6:3 69 6:5 130 6:10 68–70, 88, 102, 193, 265, 269, 274, 276–278 6:12 218, 265 6:12–13 122 6:17 150, 265 6:18 69, 88, 102, 274, 276 6:18–19 68 6:20 61 6:20–23 86 6:20–24 117 6:20–25 191 6:21 218 6:21–23 122 6:22 133 6:23 69, 88, 102, 123, 274, 276

Index of Scripture

Deuteronomy (cont.) 6:25 160, 230, 264, 344 7 305 7:1 168, 227 7:3–4 101, 153 7:8 69, 88, 218 7:12 69, 275–276 7:12–13 88 7:13 69, 100, 274, 276 7:15 133, 136 7:19 133 8:1 69, 88, 102, 274, 276 8:8 69 8:14 218 8:16 21 8:18 88, 275–276 9–10 15–16, 279 9:1 56 9:3–6 68 9:5 68–70, 88, 193, 269, 276–278 9:8 306 9:9 169 9:14 64 9:21 21 9:23 127, 263 9:26 218 9:27 68–70, 193, 269 10:11 69, 88, 102, 274, 276 10:15 69 10:22 122, 163 11:1 60 11:2–3 133 11:9 69, 88, 102, 274, 276 11:21 69, 88, 102, 274, 276 11:23 56 11:25 68 11:29 40 11:30 40 12 89, 111 12–26 86 12:1 69, 159 12:5 243 12:10 88 12:29–31 147 13 199 13:6 218 13:11 218 13:15 21 13:18 69, 100 15:12 123–124

Deuteronomy (cont.) 15:12–18 124 15:13 232 15:15 218 16:3 118, 251 16:12 118 16:21 147 17:4 21 17:14–20 128 18:17 21 19:8 69, 88, 102, 274, 276 19:15–16 199 19:18 21 20:14–16 68 20:16–17 147 20:17 168, 227 21:15–18 132 23:1 305 23:5 60 23:5–6 60 24:12–13 230 24:13 160, 264 24:18 218 25:19 147 26:3 69, 88, 102, 274, 276 26:5 56, 64, 86, 122 26:5–9 8, 68, 226, 255 26:5–10 68 26:6 21 26:8 133 26:15 69, 88, 102, 274, 276 27:2–3 40 27:2–7 40 27:3 69, 207 27:4 40 27:4–7 40 27:8 21, 207 28:1 60 28:11 69, 88, 102, 274, 276 28:25 45 28:45 150–151 28:46 133 28:60 133, 136 28:62 163 28:63 21 28:69 169 29:2 133 29:5 146 29:11 169 29:12 68–70, 88, 193, 269 29:13 169

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 447 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Index of Scripture

Deuteronomy (cont.) 29:21 209 29:22 42 29:24 169 30 151, 280 30:1 151 30:1–10 44 30:3 151 30:5 21 30:6 273 30:7 151 30:20 68–70, 88, 193, 269, 274, 276–278 31 89, 200 31–34 149 31:6 100 31:6–8 199 31:7 69, 88, 102, 274, 276 31:8 100 31:9 207 31:9–13 200 31:14–15 344 31:16 169, 212 31:20 69 31:20–21 88, 102, 274, 276 31:23 88, 344 31:24 207 31:24–29 200 31:24–30 199 31:28 280 32 38, 280 32:1–43 44, 280 32:8–9 152 32:10 122 32:48 120 32:48–52 150 32:52 279 33 84–85, 113, 209 33:1 84 33:4 85 33:5 85, 209 33:28 85 33:29 85, 167 34 47, 49, 99, 120, 272, 279, 336, 347–348 34:1 26, 278 34:4 28, 55, 66, 68–70, 88, 95, 100, 148, 157, 193, 214–215, 269, 273–279 34:5–6 122 34:6 312

Deuteronomy (cont.) 34:7 278 34:7–8 26 34:7–9 273 34:8 26 34:9 26 34:10 279 34:10–12 26, 344 Joshua 1 200 1–11 15, 30 1–12 149, 199 1:1 1, 27, 203 1:1–2 26 1:1–2:5 202 1:2–3 199 1:2–9 199 1:5 100 1:6 66, 194, 199, 276 1:7 42, 100, 279 1:7–9 199 1:8 199–200 1:9 100 2–3 122 2:6–3:6 202 2:8–11 70, 127 2:10 210 2:14 77 3–4 127 3:10 168, 227 4:6–7 61, 191 4:21 61, 191, 340 4:24 38 5:1 70, 127, 321 5:2 39 5:6 66, 194, 276 5:12 321 7:11 199, 211 7:13 194 8:29 39 8:30–35 39, 200 8:31 208 8:32 208 9:1 168, 227 9:2 39 9:9 70, 127 9:10 210 11:3 168, 227 12 122 12:8 168, 227 13–21 199 13–24 149, 199

447

Joshua (cont.) 13:22 60 13:32 26 14:8–9 127 14:10–12 176 14:14 127 16:10 38 18:1 49, 196, 237 18:3 194 18:8 196 18:10 196 19:4–48 38 19:37 196 19:51 49, 237, 244 20–23 149 21:2 196 21:42 38, 87 21:43 66, 87–88 21:43–44 276 21:43–45 21, 87–89, 194, 203 21:43–24:33 199 21:44 87 21:45 87 22 199 22–24 199 22:9 196 22:12 196 22:28 194 23 87–89, 194, 197, 199– 203, 208, 212, 232 23:1 87 23:2 199, 208 23:2–8 87 23:6 199–200, 208 23:6–8 87 23:9 56, 87 23:9–13 87 23:11 43 23:12–13 101 23:14 87, 203 23:14–15 21 23:14–16 87 23:15–16 212 23:16 199–200, 212 24 10, 20–21, 30, 44, 85, 87, 89, 93, 148–149, 158, 165–166, 170, 181, 192–204, 206–216, 219–220, 224–236, 238, 255, 261–262, 264, 266, 269, 272, 276, 278, 280, 334, 344–345, 347

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 448 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

448

Joshua (cont.) 24:1 85, 196, 199, 204– 206, 208–209 24:1–25 204 24:1–27 203 24:1–28 204 24:2 89, 194, 198, 201, 204–206, 208, 225–226, 229–230, 234, 255, 259, 278, 335 24:2–4 87, 194, 205, 269 24:2–7 193 24:2–8 70, 127 24:2–12 89 24:2–13 8, 20, 194, 197, 200, 205, 207, 209, 211– 212 24:2–15 199, 206 24:2–24 204, 211 24:3 70, 209, 225–226, 269 24:4 69, 122, 127, 209– 210, 225, 269 24:5 198, 209–210, 226, 232 24:5–7 198, 205, 225 24:6 226 24:6–7 210, 225–226 24:7 210, 218 24:8 198, 227 24:8–13 205, 225 24:9 60 24:9–10 198 24:11 168, 198, 210, 227 24:12 210, 227 24:13 203, 207, 213 24:14 20, 198, 205–206, 213 24:14–15 200, 206, 211 24:14–20 203 24:15 194, 206, 212, 227 24:16 194, 205–206, 212, 230, 259 24:16–17 194 24:16–18 206 24:17 218 24:17–18 205 24:18 206, 227 24:19 20, 87, 199–200, 205–208, 230 24:19–20 206, 211, 230– 231, 259

Index of Scripture

Joshua (cont.) 24:20 21, 203, 206–207, 212, 235 24:21 205–206 24:22 199, 205–206 24:22–24 211 24:23 203, 205–206, 212, 230, 259 24:24 205–206 24:24–25 206 24:25 196, 199, 204, 207, 211–212, 229, 235, 266 24:25–27 205 24:26 207–208, 211 24:27 39, 199, 204–205, 211 24:28 39, 202 24:28–31 27, 194, 203 24:28–33 205 24:29 194 24:29–31 202–203 24:29–32 194 24:29–33 194, 204 24:30 38, 202, 298 24:30–31 27 24:31 87, 202 24:32 52, 55, 93, 95, 107, 121, 193, 195–196, 210–211, 214–216, 229, 231, 258, 272, 344 24:33 38, 202, 209 Judges 1 203 1:1 1, 27, 194 1:1–18 27 1:1–2:5 27, 202–203 1:1–3:6 202 1:1–3:11 38, 202 2 231 2:1 66, 70, 127, 176, 204, 275–276 2:1–5 67, 203 2:2 111 2:4 176, 204 2:6 202–203 2:6–9 27, 202 2:6–3:6 203 2:7 203 2:7–8 202 2:8 34, 63, 203 2:8–10 34, 124, 235

Judges (cont.) 2:10 34, 203–204, 219, 294 2:11 70, 127, 203 2:13 202 2:15 203 2:17 203 3:5 168, 227 3:5–6 101 3:7 200 3:7–11 202 3:9 218 3:12 38, 202 3:14 202 3:15 218 3:23 170 4:3 218 5:11 146 5:13 146 5:23 176, 204 6:6–7 218 6:8–9 70, 127 6:9 218 6:11–22 176, 204 6:13 177 8:22 213 8:22–23 212–213 8:32 166 8:34 219 9:17 219 10:1–5 298 10:10 218 10:11 70, 127 10:12 218 10:14 218 10:15 219 10:16 212 11:13 70, 127 12:8–15 298 13:3–21 176, 204 17:6 27 17:13 21 18:1 27 19:1 27 19:22 21 19:23 21 19:30 70, 117, 127 20:2 146 21:25 27 Ruth 1:1 95 1:21 21

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 449 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Index of Scripture

Ruth (cont.) 3:10 21 4:18 247 4:18–22 125 1 Samuel 1 27, 149 1:1 1, 27, 34, 95 2:1–10 224 2:22 237 2:32 21 4–6 237 4:6 123 4:8 70, 127 4:9 123 6:6 70, 127 7:3 212 7:3–4 200 8 208, 212–213, 235 8:7 212–213, 235 8:8 70, 117, 127, 212 8:9 213, 235 8:22 213, 235 10:18 70, 127 10:19 196 11:15 213 12 201–202, 208, 212– 213, 231, 235 12:1 213, 235 12:6 70, 127 12:7 196 12:8 70, 122, 127 12:8–9 8 12:8–12 201 12:12 212 12:14–15 200 12:24 213 12:25 21 13 202 13:1 213 13:3 123 13:7 123 13:19 123 14:11 123 14:21 123 15:2 70, 127 15:11 127 15:35 127 16–18 38 16:17 21 20:13 21 25:30 275 25:31 21

1 Samuel (cont.) 25:34 21 26:12 164 26:21 21 29:3 123 30:25 207 2 Samuel 1:1 1 3:9 275 5:2 275 6 237 7 169 7:6 70, 117, 127 7:9 100 7:12 169, 229 7:16 169 7:25 275 7:27–29 176 8:6 100 8:14 100 11:4 141 23:1 70, 127 24:16 176 24:16–17 127 1 Kings 1 29 1:1 1, 24 1:16 234 1:31 234 1:47 21 2 29 2:3 60, 208 2:3–4 200 2:11 18, 27 2:12 27 3:1 143 3:16–28 128 5:1 168 5:4 168 5:29 127 6:1 18–19 6:11–13 200 6:13 100 7:8 143 8 150, 235, 349 8:16 70, 127 8:21 169, 289 8:34 100 8:46–53 44 8:50 293 8:51 70, 127

449

1 Kings (cont.) 8:52–53 150 8:57 100 8:60 131 9:1–9 200 9:3 192 9:6 196 9:9 70, 127, 196 9:15 127 9:20 168 9:20–22 52 11–12 128 11:1 143 11:1–8 153 11:2 101 11:6 127 11:14–22 128 11:26 128 11:26–28 128 11:28 127 11:40 128 11:42 18 12 22–23, 129–130, 196, 208, 213 12:1 196 12:2 128 12:3–15 128 12:11 213 12:19 213 12:28 23, 117, 128–129 14:9 21 14:16 129 14:21 19 15:2 19 15:9 19 15:26 129 15:30 129 15:34 129 16:2 129 16:19 129 16:25 21 16:26 129 16:31 196 17:20 21 18 262 18:36 69, 127, 148 19:7 176 19:8 185 20:13 146 20:21 170 20:28 146 22:42 19 22:53 129

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 450 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

450

1 Kings (cont.) 22:54 196 2 Kings 1:1 1 1:3 176 1:15 176 3:3 129 8:16–24 109 8:17 19 8:26 19 9:30 21 10 27 10:18 196 10:29 129 10:31 129 11:3 19 11:18 21, 108 11:20 108 12:2 19 13:2 129 13:11 129 13:23 69, 127, 148 14:6 208 14:14 170 14:22 19 14:24 129 15:2 19 15:9 129 15:33 19 16 109 16:2 19 17 23, 200, 294 17:7 70, 127 17:12 196 17:14 127, 263–264 17:15 169, 200 17:16 23, 196 17:18 23 17:21 129 17:21–22 23 17:23 130 17:29–41 206 17:33 196 17:35–36 196, 206 17:36 70, 127 17:41 196 18–20 39 18:22 19 18:24 129 18:28 129 19 262 19:19 131

Index of Scripture

2 Kings (cont.) 19:35 176 21:1 19 21:3 196 21:11 21 21:12 21 21:15 117 21:19 19 21:21 196 22–23 15, 150 22:1 19 22:4 337 22:8 337 22:13 200 23 15, 130, 349 23:15 129 23:22 47 23:22–23 130 23:25 130, 208 23:31 19 23:36 19 24:7 168 24:8 19 24:14 108 24:18 19 25 30, 39, 44, 151, 254, 260, 336, 340 25:2 18 25:19 108 25:21 130 25:26 149 25:27–30 43–44, 130, 153 1 Chronicles 1–9 72, 287–289, 301 1:1–34 311 1:29 247 1:34 289 2 311 2:1 289 5:1 289 5:3 289 5:7 247 5:29 289 6:23 289 7:2 247 7:4 247 7:9 247 7:29 289 8:28 247 9–19 45 9:9 247 9:34 247

1 Chronicles (cont.) 10 287 11–29 72, 287 15:15 288 16 289, 300 16:8–22 291 16:13 289 16:15–17 289 16:16 289 16:18 290 16:18–22 289 16:19 290 16:35 290 17 298 17:5 289 17:21 288–289 21:29 288 22:13 288 23:14–15 288 24:27 123 26:24 288 26:31 247 27:23 163 28:11–12 289 28:18–19 289 29:3–4 289 29:10 289 29:18 289 29:28 166 2 Chronicles 1–9 72, 287 1:3 288 1:9 163 5:10 288–289 6:5 289 6:11 289 7:22 289 8:13 288 8:21 289 10–36 72 17:9 208 20:7 289 20:10 289 21:14 166 21:17 166 23:17 108 23:18 208, 288 23:21 108 24:6 288 24:9 288 25:4 24, 208, 288 30:6 289

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 451 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Index of Scripture

2 Chronicles (cont.) 30:16 288 32:29 166 33:8 288 34:14 208, 288 35:6 288 35:12 24, 208, 288 36 42, 72, 287 36:15–16 67 36:23 42 Ezra 1–6 72 1:4 166 1:6 166 3:2 208, 288 3:3 108 3:6 208 4:1–5 40 4:4 108 4:10–11 201 4:16–17 201 4:20 201 5:3 201 7:6 288 7:10 207, 212 8:21 166 8:36 201 9–10 101 9:1 108 9:1–2 108 9:11 108 10:2 108 10:8 166 10:11 108 Nehemiah 1:7–8 288 3:7 201 5 255 5:3 255 7:9 201 8 208 8:1 24, 208, 288 8:8 207 8:18 208 9 42, 211, 266, 280, 282– 286, 329, 332 9–10 101 9:2 285 9:3 208 9:5 282 9:5–37 282, 285

Nehemiah (cont.) 9:6 282 9:7 268, 289 9:7–8 282–283 9:7–9 285 9:8 263, 283–286, 302, 329 9:9 45, 283–284 9:9–11 282, 284 9:11 284 9:12 284 9:12–21 282 9:13 283 9:13–14 283–285 9:14 288 9:15–21 284 9:17 285 9:22 282 9:22–25 282, 284–286, 329 9:22–31 284 9:23 163 9:25–31 282 9:26 284 9:27–28 284 9:29–31 284 9:30 108 9:30–31 284–285 9:31 285 9:32 284–286, 332 9:32–33 285 9:32–37 283, 285–286 9:33 285, 302 9:34 285 9:35 285 9:36 284 9:36–37 285 9:37 285 10:29 108, 289 10:31–32 108 13 287 13:1 24, 208, 289 13:2 60 13:23 108 Esther 1:1 1 Job 1:1 95 4:13 164 28:27 163 31:28 211

451

Job (cont.) 33:15 34:12 38:37 40:30

164 285 163 321

Psalms 1 71–72 1:1–2 42 2–41 71 2:11 206 10:2 220 10:9 220 13:6 221 14:7 71 20:2 71 22:24 71 22:28 77 24:6 71 27:6 221 35:10 220 37:14 220 42–72 71 44:2 116 44:5 71 46:8 71 46:12 71 47:5 71 47:10 71 51:9 310 53:7 71 59:14 71 60:10 222 72:8 168 72:12 220 73–89 71 74:2 71, 116, 222 75:10 71 76:7 71 77 70 77:12 116 77:16 71 77:16–21 71 78 70, 72–73, 136, 290, 292 78:2 116 78:4 210 78:5 71 78:12 71, 122, 292 78:21 71 78:35 71 78:43–62 71 78:67 71

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 452 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

452

Psalms (cont.) 78:71 71 79:7 71, 222 80:2 71 80:9–12 73 81:2 71 81:5 71 81:6 71 82:3 220 84:9 71 85:2 71 87:2 71 89:7 222 89:36 275 89:50 275 90 71, 215, 263 93–99 206 93:1 222 94:7 71 96 290–291 96:1–13 289 96:7 77 96:10 222 97:1 222 98:2–3 222 99:1 222 99:4 71 100:2 206 104 256 105 42, 70–73, 80, 136, 289–295, 300, 329–332 105–6 290 105:1–4 293 105:1–6 291 105:1–15 289 105:5 292 105:6 71, 268, 289 105:7 291 105:8 292 105:8–10 289 105:8–11 292, 294 105:8–15 291–292 105:8–44 292 105:9 71, 295, 332 105:10 71 105:11 291 105:12 290 105:16 291 105:16–22 291–292 105:17 71 105:17–23 294 105:18–23 122 105:23 71, 291

Index of Scripture

Psalms (cont.) 105:23–38 291 105:24 291 105:25 291 105:25–29 291 105:27 291 105:28–36 291 105:30 291 105:32 291 105:35 291 105:36 291 105:39–41 291 105:42 291–292, 294, 295, 332 105:43 291 105:44 291 105:44–45 291 106 70, 73, 263, 290–295, 301, 331–332 106:1 289, 291, 300 106:1–5 293 106:6 285 106:6–7 71 106:6–8 122 106:7 292–293 106:7–11 292 106:8 292 106:8–11 293 106:10 71 106:12 263 106:12–13 292 106:12–14 293 106:14–18 292 106:16 293 106:19–21 293 106:19–23 292 106:23 292 106:24 263 106:24–25 293 106:24–33 292 106:28–30 293 106:30 292 106:32–39 293 106:34–40 292 106:35–35 292 106:36–37 292 106:38 292 106:40 292 106:41 292 106:41–43 292 106:41–44 294 106:42 293 106:44–46 292

Psalms (cont.) 106:45 292, 295, 332 106:46 293 106:46–47 291, 295 106:47 71, 290, 293–294 106:48 293 107–17 71 107–50 71, 192 107:1 300 108:10 222 114:1 71 114:7 71 118:1 300 118:14 222 118:28 222 118:29 300 132:2 71 132:5 71 135 70, 152, 154, 192 135–36 290 135:4 71, 192 135:4–12 192 135:8–9 71, 192 135:8–12 73 135:10–12 192 135:13 192 136 70, 72–73, 152, 154, 300 136:1 300 136:5–9 300 136:10–12 71 136:10–15 122, 300 136:16 300 136:17–21 300 136:23–24 300 136:23–25 300 137–50 71 140:13 220 144:9 221 145–47 256 146 222 146:5 71 146:10 222 147:19 71 Proverbs 19:15

164

Qoheleth 10:6 300 Song of Songs 7:13 77

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 453 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Index of Scripture

Isaiah 1–39 248 1:1 171 1:2 42 1:18 310 2:10 222 2:19 222 2:21 222 5:1 222 6 171 7 166, 170–171, 228–229 7:1–17 170 7:4 170 7:8 170 7:9 170, 264 7:14 170 11:11–16 230 11:16 222 12 222 12:2 222 14:32 220 19:22 210 24–27 280 24:23 222 27:10 222 27:12–13 230 28:16 264 29:10 164 34 280 35 230 35:5–6 190 36–39 39 37:21 229 40 169, 171, 189, 219, 221 40–52 250 40–55 13, 57, 115, 132, 163 40–62 80 40–66 44 40:1–5 249 40:12 249–250 40:12–48:21 249 40:18 250 40:21–26 249–250 40:25 250 40:27 249 40:28 250 41:1–4 250 41:8 169, 249 41:8–9 249–251 41:10 222 41:14 249 41:17 219–220

Isaiah (cont.) 41:21 249 41:21–24 250 42:5 249–250 42:8 222 42:10 222 42:10–13 250 42:12 222 42:13 222 42:21 222 42:24 249 43:1 249, 251 43:9–12 250 43:16–17 250 43:16–19 117 43:16–21 219, 230, 249– 250 43:18 249–250 43:20–21 250 43:21 222 43:22 249 43:22–23 250 43:28 249 44:1–2 249 44:5 249 44:6 300 44:6–7 250 44:21 249 44:23 249–250 44:24 249–251 44:26 67 44:28 131 45:1 131 45:3 132, 146 45:4 249 45:7 250 45:7–8 249–250 45:9–11 249–250 45:13 131–132 45:18 249–250 45:19 249 45:20–21 250 45:21 189 45:23 275 46:3 249 46:5 250 46:9–13 250 47:13 249–250 48:1 249 48:9 222 48:12 249 48:14 131 48:20 249

453

Isaiah (cont.) 48:20–21 219, 230, 249– 250 49:5–6 249 49:7 300 49:7–13 219 49:8 249–250 49:13 219–220 49:23 146 49:26 249 50:2–3 249–250 51:1 328 51:2 249 51:9 116 51:9–10 249–250 51:13 249–250 52:7 222 52:7–10 249 52:11–12 230, 249–251 54:9 249 55:9–10 249–250 55:11 352 55:12–13 249 56:1 222 57 255 59:13 211 60–62 230 60:6 222 60:16 146 60:18 222 61:1 219 61:1–7 220 61:3 222 61:11 153, 222 62:7 222 62:8 275 63:7 222 63:7–64:11 251–252 63:7–66:24 252 63:11 252 63:11–14 117 63:12 192 63:16 251 64:9 252 65–66 252, 255 65:9 252 65:17 252, 280, 314 66:22 252, 280 Jeremiah 1 229 1:6 189 1:15 77

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 454 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

454

Jeremiah (cont.) 2 78 2:2 80, 122 2:4 77 2:4–5 80 2:4–6 78, 117 3 76 3:12–18 230 5:19 212 6:22 56 7:22–23 266 9:3 75, 80 10:25 222 11 78–80 11:3 229 11:3–5 78–80 11:5 277 11:10 169 13:1–11 94 13:12 229 16:14–15 117, 230 16:15 100 18:1–6 94 21:4 229 22:5 275 22:13–19 229 23–25 312 23:1–23:2 229 23:2 229 23:3 222, 230 23:7–8 117, 230 24 230 24:5 229 24:9 100 25–29 255 25:9 77, 132 25:15 229 25:27–31 280 27:6 132 29:10 100 29:10–14 230 29:11 220 29:14 100 30–31 80, 253 30:2 229 30:10–11 230 31 76 31:7–14 230 31:31–34 305 32:17–25 154 32:20–21 133 32:21 117 32:22 66, 277

Index of Scripture

Jeremiah (cont.) 32:36 229 32:37 230 33:20 277 34 171 34:2 229 34:9 123–124 34:13 218, 229 34:14 123–124 34:18 171 34:18–20 170–171 37–44 171 37:7 229 42:9 229 43:10 132 44:26 275 45:2 229 45:4–5 280 49:13 275 50:9 56 50:41 56 51:14 275 52 39 Ezekiel 3:5–6 189 7–9 254 8 255 11:16–20 230 11:17–18 79 13:7 166 16:1 122 20 79, 241, 283, 292 20:5 122, 241 20:5–6 79–80 20:5–44 186 20:11 283 20:25 283 20:32 77 20:34–35 79 20:41–42 79 27:24–25 216 28:25 79–80 29:13 79 30:19 254 33 255 33:24 79–80, 245, 252, 254, 259, 269, 330 33:24–28 230 34:13 79 36:24 79 36:26–27 216 37 215–216, 229, 231

Ezekiel (cont.) 37:1–14 215 37:12 79 37:15–28 215 37:16 215 37:19 215 37:21 79 37:22 216 37:23 216 37:24–25 229 37:25 79–80, 216 37:26 216 37:27 216 37:28 79, 216 39:25 79 39:25–29 230 39:27 79 39:29 79 48 113 Daniel 1–6 257 1:9 77 2–4 132 7 46, 312 7:9 310 9:5 285 9:11 208 9:13 208 9:15 117 11:32 285 12:10 285 Hosea 1–3 76 1:2 141 1:2–3 141 1:3 142 1:9 191 2:17 122 2:22 146 4–11 75–76 4:15 76 5:8 76 8:13 75 9:3 75 9:10 122 10:5 76 10:11 122 11 76 11:1 75–76, 80, 122 11:1–2 117 11:4 76

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 455 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

Index of Scripture

Hosea (cont.) 11:8–11 76 12 4, 74–76, 78–80, 148, 252 12–14 76 12:1 76 12:10 75, 80, 117, 122 12:13 75 12:13–14 74–75 12:14 75, 122 12:15 76 13:4 75, 80, 117, 122 13:5 122 14:2–3 76 Joel 2:27 146 4 280 4:17 146 Amos 2:10 76, 80, 122 3:1 76 3:1–2 76–77, 79, 117

Amos (cont.) 3:7 166–167, 181, 228, 230 4:2 275 6:8 275 8 254 8:7 275 9:7 76, 80, 117, 125 9:14–15 230 Obadiah 15–21

280

455

Micah (cont.) 7:18–20 78 7:20 77–78, 116 Habakkuk 1:13 67 2:4 108 Zephaniah 2:3 220 3:8 280 3:14–20 230, 280

Jonah 1:1–3 94–95 1:9 123 3:3 94

Zechariah 7:5 108 8:7–8 230 14:18–19 210

Micah 6:4 218 6:5 60 6:8 78 7:15 77–78 7:12–13 280

Malachi 1–3 29 1:1 67 3:22 208 3:22–24 42, 279

New Testament Matthew 3:9 328 4:8 272 8:11 328 16:18 328 Mark 10:1–12 328 12:8 327 12:26 24, 328 14:24 328 Luke 16:22 328 16:26 328 19:9 328 24:44 42 John 1:17 328 8:33–34 328 8:52–59 328

Acts 3:13 327 3:22–23 328 5:30 327 7 327–329 7:2 327 7:2–8 327 7:8 327 7:9 327 7:9–16 327 7:10 327 7:11–12 327 7:14 62 7:17–19 327 7:19 140, 327 7:20–35 327 7:22 319, 327 7:26 327 7:27 327 7:32 172, 327 7:35 176, 327

Acts (cont.) 7:36–37 327 7:37 328 7:38 327 7:39 327 7:39–42 327 7:39–43 327 7:41 327 7:44 327 7:44–46 327 7:45 327 7:46–50 327 7:51–53 327–328 7:52–53 327 22:14 327 Hebrews 3:1–6 328 6:13 275 11:26 328

00-Schmid-Genesis.book Page 456 Friday, March 5, 2010 11:14 AM

456

Index of Scripture

Deuterocanonical Literature Baruch 1:15–3 ix, 300 3–4 295 4:1 295 4:1–2 308 4:25 331 53–74 316 Sirach 1:10 295 10 297, 298 18:13 297 24 295, 299

Sirach (cont.) 24:4–6 295 24:23 295 36 297, 298 42–43 296 44–50 ix, 295, 296, 299 44:16 296 44:19–21 297 44:23 298 45:1 331 45:1–5 298 45:25–26 298

Sirach (cont.) 47 298 47:1–11 298 47:11–12 298 47:22 298 49:10 23, 298 49:11 298 49:14 296 49:14–16 296 49:20 296 50 296 50:27 295