The Exodus-Conquest Narrative: The Composition of the Non-Priestly Narratives in Exodus-Joshua (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament) 9783161555183, 316155518X

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament Herausgegeben von Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (Princeton) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

115

Stephen Germany

The Exodus-Conquest Narrative The Composition of the Non-Priestly Narratives in Exodus–Joshua

Mohr Siebeck

Stephen Germany, born 1985; 2016 PhD in Hebrew Bible from Emory University.

ISBN 978-3-16-155518-3 ISSN 0940-4155 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbiblio­ graphie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2017  by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic s­ ystems. The book was printed by Gulde Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany

for Lisa

Preface The present study, which is a significantly revised and expanded version of my 2016 Emory University doctoral dissertation, would not have been possible without the support of the teachers who have shaped my development as a scholar of the Hebrew Bible, the institutions that facilitated my research, and the friends and colleagues who have supported me along the way. I am indebted to Profs. Peter Machinist, Jon D. Levenson, and D. Andrew Teeter of Harvard Divinity School, who profoundly influenced my approach to the study of the Hebrew Bible and continue to serve as exemplary models of scholarly rigor. I am equally indebted to my teachers at Emory University, particularly my doctoral advisor Prof. Jacob Wright, who encouraged me to confront the big-picture questions that continually drew my interest, as well as Profs. Carol A. Newsom and William K. Gilders, who provided a helpfully critical perspective as members of my dissertation committee. I am especially grateful to Prof. Reinhard G. Kratz of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, who served as a member of my dissertation committee and generously gave of his time in supervising my research while I was in Göttingen in 2014–2015. I also wish to thank Profs. Konrad Schmid, Mark S. Smith, and Hermann Spieckermann for accepting the present study into the series Forschungen zum Alten Testament as well as Dr. Henning Ziebritzki, Klaus Hermannstädter, and Matthias Spitzner of the Mohr Siebeck Verlag for their guidance throughout the publication process. A number of institutions facilitated and enriched the research behind this study: Emory’s Pitts Theology Library and Tam Institute of Jewish Studies; the Theological Faculty of the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, which, through the help of Prof. Bernd U. Schipper, facilitated access to research resources during a short stay in Berlin in early 2014; the German-American Fulbright Commission and the Theological Faculty of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, which supported my work during a research fellowship in 2014–2015; and the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, which provided access to its library resources during the completion of the manuscript. I would also like to thank here the many friends and colleagues who have supported me throughout the writing process: my longtime friend Sam Bradford; fellow Emory students Christopher Holmes and Devin White; Prof. Sonja Ammann (Basel), who welcomed me into the academic community at the

VIII

Preface

Humboldt-Universität while I was living in Berlin; Joachim Krause, who graciously hosted me during a brief visit to Tübingen to discuss my work with him; and Angela Roskop Erisman, who provided valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Special thanks go to several Hebrew Bible/ Qumran colleagues from Göttingen, all of whom generously gave of their time to read and discuss portions of my work with me and who greatly enriched my experience there: Prof. Shani Tzoref (Potsdam), who provided constant encouragement and practical advice during the writing process; Christoph Berner, who dedicated nearly two full days to discussing my work with me; and especially Harald Samuel, with whom I shared many stimulating discussions on a variety of subjects, biblical and otherwise. Finally, and above all, I wish to thank my wife, Lisa, who has constantly supported my aspirations and work, and it is to her that I dedicate this book. San Francisco, July 2017

Stephen Germany

Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................ 1 1. Contextualization of the Problem ................................................................ 1 2. Methodology ............................................................................................... 6

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12) ................................................ 11 1. Pharaoh’s Oppression of the Israelites (Exod 1) ........................................ 11 1.1. Literary-critical analysis .................................................................... 11 1.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................... 13 1.3. Synthesis ............................................................................................ 16 2. Moses’ Birth and Flight from Egypt (Exod 2:1-15abα) ............................. 17 2.1. Literary-critical analysis .................................................................... 17 2.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................... 18 2.3. Synthesis ............................................................................................ 20 3. Moses in Midian (Exod 2:15bβ–4:31) ....................................................... 21 3.1. Literary-critical analysis .................................................................... 21 3.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................... 28 3.3. Synthesis ............................................................................................ 33 4. The First Encounter with Pharaoh (Exod 5:1–6:1) .................................... 36 4.1. Literary-critical analysis .................................................................... 36 4.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................... 37 4.3. Synthesis ............................................................................................ 38 5. A Second Commissioning of Moses (Exod 6:2–7:7) ................................. 39 5.1. Literary-critical analysis .................................................................... 39 5.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................... 39 5.3. Synthesis ............................................................................................ 42 6. The Plagues and the Departure from Egypt (Exod 7:8–12:51) .................. 43 6.1. Literary-critical analysis .................................................................... 43 6.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................... 55 6.3. Synthesis ............................................................................................ 63 7. Result ........................................................................................................ 69

X

Table of Contents

Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18).................................. 71 1. The Itinerary Notices in Exodus and Numbers .......................................... 71 2. The Miracle at the Sea (Exod 13:17–14:31) .............................................. 76 2.1. Literary-critical analysis .................................................................... 76 2.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................... 81 2.3. Synthesis ............................................................................................ 88 3. The Song at the Sea and the Song of Miriam (Exod 15:1-21) ................... 91 3.1. Literary-critical analysis .................................................................... 91 3.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................... 91 3.3. Synthesis ............................................................................................ 94 4. Marah and Elim (Exod 15:22-27) .............................................................. 95 4.1. Literary-critical analysis .................................................................... 95 4.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................... 96 4.3. Synthesis ............................................................................................ 97 5. Quails and Manna (Exod 16) ..................................................................... 98 5.1. Literary-critical analysis .................................................................... 98 5.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................... 99 5.3. Synthesis .......................................................................................... 102 6. Water from a Rock (Exod 17:1βb-7) ....................................................... 103 6.1. Literary-critical analysis .................................................................. 103 6.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................. 104 6.3. Synthesis .......................................................................................... 105 7. The War with Amalek (Exod 17:8-16) .................................................... 106 7.1. Literary-critical analysis .................................................................. 106 7.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................. 106 7.3. Synthesis .......................................................................................... 108 8. Jethro (Exod 18) ...................................................................................... 108 8.1. Literary-critical analysis .................................................................. 108 8.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................. 110 8.3. Synthesis .......................................................................................... 111 9. Result ...................................................................................................... 112

Chapter 4: The Revelation of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19–24 // Deut 5:1–6:3) ............................................................. 113 1. Exod 19–24 ............................................................................................. 113 1.1. Literary-critical analysis .................................................................. 113 1.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................. 121 1.2.1. The theophany texts ...................................................................... 121 1.2.2. The narratives relating to the law .................................................. 126

Table of Contents

XI

1.2.3. The theophany without the law (Scenario 1) ................................. 129 1.2.4. The law without the theophany (Scenario 2) ................................. 130 1.2.5. Law and theophany together (Scenario 3) ..................................... 132 1.3. Synthesis .......................................................................................... 135 2. Deut 5:1–6:3 ............................................................................................ 139 2.1. Literary-critical analysis .................................................................. 139 2.2. Synthesis .......................................................................................... 143 3. Comparison of Exod 19–24 and Deut 5:1–6:3 ......................................... 144 4. Result ...................................................................................................... 147

Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and Its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) ........................................................ 149 1. Exod 32–34 ............................................................................................. 150 1.1. Literary-critical analysis .................................................................. 150 1.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................. 164 1.3. Synthesis .......................................................................................... 175 2. Deut 9:7–10:11 ........................................................................................ 180 2.1. Literary-critical analysis .................................................................. 180 2.2. Synthesis .......................................................................................... 184 3. Comparison of Exod 32–34 and Deut 9:7–10:11 .................................... 186 4. Result ..................................................................................................... 193

Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19) ........................... 194 1. The People’s Departure (Num 10:29-36)................................................ 194 1.1. Literary-critical analysis ................................................................. 194 1.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................ 195 1.3. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 197 2. Further Complaints in the Wilderness (Num 11) .................................... 197 2.1. Literary-critical analysis ................................................................. 197 2.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................ 200 2.3. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 202 3. The Complaint of Miriam and Aaron against Moses (Num 12) .............. 204 3.1. Literary-critical analysis ................................................................. 204 3.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................ 204 3.3. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 205 4. The Story of the Spies (Num 13–14) ...................................................... 206 4.1. Literary-critical analysis of Num 13–14 ......................................... 207 4.2. Macrocontextual analysis of Num 13–14 ........................................ 211 4.3. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 213

XII

Table of Contents

4.4. Literary-critical analysis of Deut 1:19-46 ....................................... 216 4.5. Comparison of Num 13–14 and Deut 1:19-46 ................................ 218 4.6. Result .............................................................................................. 223 5. Dathan, Abiram, the 250 Men, and Korah (Num 16–17) ........................ 224 5.1. Literary-critical analysis ................................................................. 224 5.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................ 231 5.3. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 233 6. Result ..................................................................................................... 235

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3) .................................................................... 236 1. Priestly Material in Num 20–21 ............................................................. 236 2. Israel’s Detour around Edom (Num 20:14-21) ....................................... 238 2.1. Literary-critical analysis ................................................................. 238 2.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................ 240 2.3. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 241 3. The Defeat of Sihon and Og (Num 21:21-35) ........................................ 241 3.1. Literary-critical analysis ................................................................. 241 3.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................ 243 3.3. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 245 4. The Mosaic Retrospective in Deut 1–3* ................................................. 246 4.1. Literary-critical analysis ................................................................. 246 4.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................ 257 4.3. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 258 5. Jephthah’s Speech in Judg 11:12-28 ....................................................... 262 6. The Relationship among the Parallel Accounts ...................................... 264 6.1. Comparison of individual motifs .................................................... 265 6.2. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 272 7. The Itinerary Reports (Num 20:1, 22; 21:4a, 10-20; 22:1) ..................... 277 7.1. Literary-critical analysis ................................................................. 277 7.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................ 281 7.3. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 285 8. Result ..................................................................................................... 288

Chapter 8: Balaam (Num 22–24) ...................................................... 289 1. Literary-Critical Analysis ....................................................................... 289 2. Macrocontextual Analysis ...................................................................... 296 2.1. The first oracle (Num 23:7-10) ....................................................... 297 2.2. The second oracle (Num 23:18b-24) ............................................... 297

Table of Contents

XIII

2.3. The third oracle (Num 24:3-9) ........................................................ 300 2.4. The fourth through seventh oracles (Num 24:15-24) ...................... 304 2.5. The prose narrative ......................................................................... 304 3. Synthesis ................................................................................................ 310

Chapter 9: Preparations for Conquest (Josh 1–5) ........................ 314 1. Instructions prior to Entering the Land (Josh 1) ..................................... 314 1.1. Literary-critical analysis ................................................................. 314 1.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................ 315 1.3. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 317 2. Rahab and the Spies (Josh 2) .................................................................. 318 2.1. Literary-critical analysis ................................................................. 318 2.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................ 319 2.3. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 321 3. The Crossing of the Jordan (Josh 3–4) ................................................... 322 3.1. Literary-critical analysis ................................................................. 322 3.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................ 328 3.3. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 333 4. A Bookend to the Exodus (Josh 5) ......................................................... 338 4.1. Literary-critical analysis ................................................................. 338 4.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................ 339 4.3. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 343 5. Result ..................................................................................................... 345

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8) ........... 346 1. The Conquest of Jericho (Josh 6) ........................................................... 346 1.1. Literary-critical analysis ................................................................. 346 1.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................ 354 1.3. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 362 2. Achan’s Sin (Josh 7) ............................................................................... 365 2.1. Literary-critical analysis ................................................................. 365 2.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................ 370 2.3. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 375 3. The Conquest of Ai (Josh 8) ................................................................... 378 3.1. Literary-critical analysis of Josh 8 .................................................. 378 Excursus: The manuscript evidence for Josh 8:10-13 ............................ 383 3.2. Macrocontextual analysis of Josh 8 ................................................ 392 3.3. Literary-critical analysis of Judg 20 ................................................ 397 3.4. Comparison of Josh 8 and Judg 20.................................................. 403

XIV

Table of Contents

3.5. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 407 4. Result ..................................................................................................... 411

Chapter 11: The Conquest of the Remainder of the Land (Josh 9–12) ............................................................................................. 412 1. The Gibeonite Accord (Josh 9) ............................................................... 412 1.1. Literary-critical analysis ................................................................. 412 1.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................ 416 1.3. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 419 2. The Conquest of the South (Josh 10) ...................................................... 421 2.1. Literary-critical analysis ................................................................. 421 2.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................ 430 2.3. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 432 3. The Conquest of the North (Josh 11) ...................................................... 435 3.1. Literary-critical analysis ................................................................. 435 3.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................ 437 3.3. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 440 4. The List of Conquered Cities (Josh 12) .................................................. 441 4.1. Literary-critical analysis ................................................................. 441 4.2. Macrocontextual analysis ................................................................ 441 4.3. Synthesis ......................................................................................... 443 5. Result ..................................................................................................... 444

Chapter 12: Conclusion ....................................................................... 447 1. The Theoretical Problem and a Proposed Solution ................................. 447 2. Synthesis and Evaluation of the Results ................................................. 448 2.1. The earliest exodus-conquest narrative ........................................... 448 2.2. Pre-priestly expansions to the exodus-conquest narrative ............... 452 3. Implications for the Formation of the Hexateuch ................................... 454 Bibliography ............................................................................................... 457 Index of Ancient Sources ........................................................................... 487 Index of Modern Authors ........................................................................... 504 Subject Index .............................................................................................. 511 Index of Geographical Names .................................................................... 514

Chapter 1

Introduction “[T]here is reason to believe that the pre-Priestly Moses story, starting with the exodus, did not end at the Mountain of God but included – given the push of the narrative flow towards this goal – an account of the conquest of the land. … At this time, however, it is not possible to present a sufficiently well-founded hypothesis of the assignment of specific texts to particular sources for such a pre-Priestly account that includes both the exodus from Egypt and the conquest of the land.”1

This statement by Konrad Schmid reflects two views of a growing number of scholars of the Hebrew Bible: (1) prior to the integration of priestly literature within the Pentateuch and the demarcation of the Pentateuch as a canonical unit, there existed a narrative that extended at least from the exodus from Egypt to the conquest of the land, and (2) the precise literary shape of this narrative remains unclarified at present. The present study seeks to address both of these observations, evaluating the theory of a pre-priestly exodusconquest narrative through a comprehensive reappraisal of the non-priestly narratives in the books of Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua.

1. Contextualization of the Problem The notion that the narrative arc that begins with the exodus from Egypt finds its conclusion only in the book of Joshua is not new and indeed is almost unavoidable when the Pentateuch is read in its received form.2 Yet since the books of Genesis through Deuteronomy form a distinct canonical unit, critical scholarship has often investigated their formation independently of that of the book of Joshua. Already in the late eighteenth century, however, some critical scholars began to consider whether the narrative sources found in the Pentateuch in fact continue into the book of Joshua.3 This notion gained momentum throughout the nineteenth century4 and was eventually given lexical

























































1

K. SCHMID, “Exodus,” 45–46. Notably, the church fathers already used the term “Hexateuch” to speak of the books of Genesis through Joshua as a literary unit; see AULD, Joshua, Moses and the Land, 3 n. 8. 3 This idea seems to have first appeared in GEDDES, Holy Bible, 1:xxi. 4 On the implicit assumption of a Hexateuch as a discrete literary work prior to Wellhausen, see BLEEK, “Einige aphoristische Bemerkungen,” 44; EWALD, “Review,” 602; 2

2

Chapter 1: Introduction

expression in a series of articles by Julius Wellhausen from 1876–1877 entitled “Die Composition des Hexateuchs.”5 Wellhausen’s use of the term “Hexateuch” was quickly adopted by other scholars,6 and the tendency to find the continuation of the Pentateuchal sources in the book of Joshua continued well into the twentieth century.7 This trend continued apace until the mid-twentieth century, when Martin Noth began a sustained critique of the notion of the Hexateuch that would exert a profound influence on Pentateuchal scholarship up to the present. In his 1938 commentary on the book of Joshua, Noth made two primary arguments against the continuation of the classical Pentateuchal sources in the book of Joshua: (1) the material in Josh 13:1–21:42 has its own literary prehistory that is independent of both the remainder of the book of Joshua and the Pentateuchal narratives; and (2) even in the other parts of Joshua, the literary evidence differs from that found in Genesis (the classical case study for source-critical analyses).8 Noth echoed this skepticism about a Hexateuch in subsequent studies in the 1940s,9 yet he also found it difficult to abandon the notion that the “old sources of the Pentateuch” originally contained a conquest narrative.10 In the second edition of his Joshua commentary from 1953, Noth reaffirmed his view that the old sources of the Pentateuch do not



























































































































IDEM,

Geschichte, 1:75–164 and 2:225–70; STÄHELIN, “Beiträge,” 472; DE WETTE, Lehrbuch; KNOBEL, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 357–488, 547–59; KUENEN, Historisch-kritisch onderzoek1, 181–83; and COLENSO, Pentateuch, 6:112–29. 5 Surprisingly, although Wellhausen’s articles seem to have been the first to use the term “Hexateuch” in the realm of critical scholarship (RAKE, Juda, 8), Wellhausen provides no explicit justification for the shift from “Pentateuch” to “Hexateuch.” Wellhausen’s analyses were further developed in WELLHAUSEN, Skizzen; IDEM, Composition. 6 E.g., KUENEN, Historisch-kritisch onderzoek2 and its English and German translations. 7 DILLMANN, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua; ALBERS, Quellenberichte; DRIVER, Introduction; ADDIS, Documents; J. E. CARPENTER, Composition, 303–59; STEUERNAGEL, Deuteronomium und Josua; HOLZINGER, Josua; SMEND (SR.), Erzählung; COOKE, Book of Joshua; EISSFELDT, Hexateuch-Synopse; BERTHOLET, “Josua,” 384–85; NOTH, System, 270; cf. MOWINCKEL, Erwägungen, 59–118; VON RAD, Priesterschrift; and RUDOLPH, Elohist. 8 NOTH, Josua1, viii. Notably, however, Noth’s denial of narrative continuity between the book of Joshua and the preceding books is based on only two examples: (1) differences in the representation of the miracle at the sea in Exod 14 and in Josh 2:10; 4:23 and (2) divergences between the description of certain events as narrated in the Pentateuch and the review of those events in Josh 24:2b-13 (ibid., xiii; IDEM, Josua2, 16). 9 IDEM, ÜSt. According to Noth, “Einen Hexateuch in dem üblichen Sinn, daß die überlieferten Bücher Gen.-Josua im wesentlichen in dem vorliegenden Bestande einmal eine literarische Einheit gebildet hätten, hat es nie gegeben” (ibid., 253). 10 “Das kann…nicht zweifelhaft sein, daß sie (d. h. die alten Pentateuchquellen) eine – wie auch immer gestaltete – Landnahmeerzählung gehabt haben” (IDEM, ÜSt, 210); cf. IDEM, ÜP, 16, 54–58, 77–79. For this view, see already G OFF, “Lost Jahwistic Account,” 241–49 and more recently CARR, “Moses Story,” 31–32. See also RÖMER, “Mose,” 204–5, who speaks of an alternate tradition rather than a concrete narrative.

1. Contextualization of the Problem

3

appear in the book of Joshua, which he now defended through his hypothesis of a Deuteronomistic History (DtrH) spanning from Deuteronomy to Kings.11 Noth’s reliance upon his own Deuteronomistic History hypothesis in challenging the existence of a Hexateuch sets his argument on unstable ground: once this hypothesis is questioned, Noth’s denial of a Hexateuch is left without a firm foundation. As Noth’s Deuteronomistic History hypothesis became more influential,12 the notion that the book of Joshua formed part of a Hexateuch gradually receded into the background, although it did not disappear completely from scholarly discussions. In fact, a steady stream of studies continued to employ the notion of a Hexateuch, some of which explicitly defended this notion over against the Deuteronomistic History hypothesis13 while others sought to harmonize the two competing theories.14 In 1977, the publication of Rolf Rendtorff’s study Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch set off a scholarly discussion that would radically alter the nature of Pentateuchal criticism up to the present. Rather than taking for granted the existence of continuous, parallel sources in the Pentateuch, Rendtorff advocated investigating the growth of the Pentateuchal narratives from smaller cycles into larger units without assuming that every Pentateuchal text necessarily formed part of a larger “source.”15 In the wake of Rendtorff’s study, a number of scholars began developing a variety of alternative models for understanding the formation of the Pentateuch,16 including new iterations of the Hexateuch hypothesis. One of the most significant modifications to the classical theory of the Hexateuch is the theory of an exodus-conquest narrative as a narrative work that was originally independent of the narratives in the book of Genesis.17 The concept of an exodus-conquest narrative was first proposed by Klaus

























































11

“Man wird daher die Frage des Auftretens einer der alten Pentateuch-‘Quellen’ in Jos verneinen müssen, und zwar auf Grund des literarischen Sachverhaltes in Jos. Daß dem so ist, ist um so begreiflicher, als das Josuabuch in den großen literarischen Zusammenhang des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes gehört, das völlig unabhängig von dem großen Traditionswerk des Pentateuch entstanden ist” (NOTH, Josua2, 16, emphasis added). 12 See, e.g., SOGGIN, Joshua, 3–7; MILLER, “Book of Joshua,” 493; BOLING / WRIGHT, Joshua, 57; and FRITZ, Josua, 7. 13 E.g., EISSFELDT, “Deuteronomium,” 39 (repr. 258). 14 E.g., MOWINCKEL, Tetrateuch; FOHRER / SELLIN, Einleitung; and TENGSTRÖM, Hexateucherzählung. 15 RENDTORFF, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem, 154–58 (ET 181–89). 16 This shift in Pentateuchal research has been discussed in a number of studies. For two contrasting presentations, see NICHOLSON, Pentateuch, 95–221 and ZENGER, “Theorien,” 74–123. 17 For a review of literature on the original separation of Genesis and Exodus, see K. SCHMID, Erzväter, 56–102 (ET 50–92).

4

Chapter 1: Introduction

Bieberstein in 1995 and since then has been taken up by a number of other scholars.18 There is little agreement, however, over its beginning and ending,19 and very few scholars have attempted to delineate the internal contents of this hypothetical narrative. Thus far, the only comprehensive identification of the contents of an early exodus-conquest narrative has been provided by Reinhard Kratz. According to Kratz’s reconstruction, an early Grundschrift of an exodus-conquest narrative20 existed at a pre-priestly and pre-Deuteronomistic stage of composition and possibly underwent some expansion at this stage.21 This pre-priestly and pre-Deuteronomistic Hexateuch (Exodus through Joshua) was subsequently expanded to form an Enneateuch (Exodus through Kings), which was then prefaced with non-priestly materials in Genesis prior to the composition of the Priestly narrative and its insertion into the non-priestly Enneateuch.22 While Kratz’s reconstruction convincingly demonstrates the minimum preDeuteronomistic and pre-priestly narrative connection between the exodus and the conquest, Kratz does not always differentiate between pre-priestly and post-priestly material in the later additions to the Grundschrift,23 raising

























































18

Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 336–41; KRATZ, Komposition, 286–304 (ET 279–95); BECK“Endredaktionelle Kontextvernetzungen,” 152; KNAUF, Josua, 17; K. SCHMID, Literaturgeschichte, 89 (ET 79); ZENGER, “Theorien,” 101; GERTZ (ed.), Grundinformation, 289; GERTZ et al., T&T Clark Handbook, 356–60; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 430–31; FREVEL, “Wiederkehr,” 29; and NIHAN, “Literary Relationship,” 108. 19 Cf., e.g., the various positions in BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 341, 431; KRATZ, Komposition, 293–94 (ET 292); KNAUF, Josua, 17; K. SCHMID, Literaturgeschichte, 86–89 (ET 79–83); GERTZ (ed.), Grundinformation, 289; GERTZ et al., T&T Clark Handbook, 357–58; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 49. 20 This narrative is denoted by the siglum EG , with “E” now signifying “Exodus” rather than “Elohist”: Exod 2:1-22; 3:1-6, 7-8, 21-22; 4:18, 20a; 12:35-36; 14:5-6, 13-14, 21, 27, 30b; 15:20-22a; Num 20:1*; 22:1; 25:1a; Deut 34:5-6; Josh 2:1-7, 15-16, 22-23; 3:1, 14a, 16; 4:19b; 6–8; and 12:1a, 9-24 (K RATZ, Komposition, 293–94 [ET 292]). 21 These additions are denoted by the siglum ES: Exod 15:22b-25a, 27; 16:1aα; 19:2, 3; 24:18b; Num 20:1aβb, 14-21; 21:21-24a; 22–24 (ibid). 22 KRATZ, Komposition, 304 (ET 295). For Kratz, there is no evidence for the existence of a post-priestly Hexateuch from a literary-critical perspective; rather, such a work is only a “literarische Fiktion”; IDEM, “Der vor- und der nachpriesterschriftliche Hexateuch,” 322. 23 E.g., Kratz states that “[i]n substance the Sinai pericope [i.e., Exod 19–24; 32–34] is pre-Priestly and pre-Deuteronomic, and therefore pre-Deuteronomistic. But it is not a literary unity and also contains a series of later expansions influenced by Deuteronomy, the Deuteronomists and the Priestly writing” (KRATZ, Komposition, 139 [quote from ET 134]). Yet in his analysis of the narrative materials in Exod 19–24, Kratz is unclear about which materials may belong to a pre-priestly stage of composition and which are post-priestly (ibid., 142–45 with the table on 149–50 [ET 136–40 with Table B.I.3 on 143]). Moreover, Kratz rules out the possibility that Exod 32–34 could be post-priestly in their entirety (ibid., 140 [ET 135]) but does not provide a detailed reconstruction of a pre-priestly version of Exod 32–34 to support this claim. ER,

1. Contextualization of the Problem

5

the question of the precise extent of further pre-priestly narrative material in Exodus through Joshua. Alongside the recent theory of an independent, pre-priestly and preDeuteronomistic exodus-conquest narrative spanning from Exodus to Joshua, a number of other scholars have sought to explain the literary connection between the exodus and the conquest through the redactional joining of narrative material in Exodus and Numbers with some sort of Deuteronomistic literary work. These scholars can be subdivided into two major groups: the proponents of the so-called “late Yahwist” theory and the proponents of a redactional Hexateuch/Enneateuch. According to the late Yahwist theory, the pre-priestly narratives in Genesis through Numbers were composed from the outset with the Deuteronomistic History in view.24 According to the redactional Hexateuch/Enneateuch theory, the pre-priestly narratives in Genesis through Numbers had their own literary prehistory but were combined with the conquest narratives in the book of Joshua only after the latter had already been integrated into a larger Deuteronomistic literary work, whether DtrL (Deuteronomistische Landnahmeerzählung: Deut 1–30 + Josh 1–23*)25 or DtrH. While some scholars have argued that this redactional joining first occurred at a pre-priestly stage of composition,26 others have argued that it incorporated priestly literature from the outset.27

























































24

This theory has an important forerunner in H. H. SCHMID, Der sogenannte Jahwist, although he denied that the literary relationship between the “so-called Yahwist” and Deuteronomistic literature can be determined precisely (169). The first scholars to argue that the Yahwist was literarily dependent on DtrH were VAN SETERS, “Confessional Reformulation,” 454, 459; IDEM, In Search of History, 361; and ROSE, Deuteronomist, 323– 28; cf. IDEM, “La croissance,” 230–32. Van Seters later systematically applied this compositional model in VAN SETERS, Prologue and Life. 25 For the theory of an independent Deuteronomistic conquest narrative in Deuteronomy through Joshua as a literary precursor to DtrH, see LOHFINK, “Kerygmata.” More recent advocates of an independent DtrL (albeit with differences from Lohfink’s understanding) include OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 130–55; MOENIKES, “Beziehungssysteme,” 71–77; RÖMER, “Das doppelte Ende,” 534 (tentatively); OSWALD, Staatstheorie, 96; BRAULIK, “Die deuteronomistische Landeroberungserzählung”; and CARR, Formation, 256–57, 278; see also BIEBERSTEIN, “Buch Josua,” 165–67, who argues that Deuteronomy and Joshua once constituted an independent literary work, albeit one that is secondary to an earlier exodus-conquest narrative. 26 BLUM, Studien, 109; JOHNSTONE, “Use of the Reminiscences,” 247–48; IDEM, “Recounting,” 226–31; CARR, Formation, 278; IDEM, “Scribal Processes,” 75; and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 406–13. 27 H.-C. SCHMITT, “Das spätdeuteronomistische Geschichtswerk”; SCHORN, Ruben, 137–222, esp. 195–222; OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 17–86, 103–9, 130–35, 175–80, 243–62; IDEM, “Pentateuch,” 29; ACHENBACH, “Pentateuch,” 138; RÖMER / BRETTLER, “Deuteronomy 34,” 401–19, esp. 408–16; and RÖMER, So-Called Deuteronomistic History, 178–83; IDEM, “Das doppelte Ende,” 535; IDEM, “Israel’s Sojourn,” 426; IDEM, “How Many Books?,” 30.

6

Chapter 1: Introduction

The proponents of both the late Yahwist theory and the redactional Hexateuch/Enneateuch theory assume that DtrL and/or DtrH once existed as independent literary works, yet this only compounds the hypothetical nature of such models. Even if it were granted that DtrL/DtrH was at one time conceived of as an independent literary work, that work must have already presupposed a narrative connection between the exodus and the conquest, since (1) the Israelites’ journey through the wilderness (presupposed in Deut 1–3) is intelligible only in light of their subsequent entry into the land, and (2) the people’s entry into the land from the outside as recounted in the book of Joshua is intelligible only in light of the exodus from Egypt. Thus, every model for the literary joining of the exodus and conquest that takes DtrL or DtrH as its starting point is forced to reckon either with the loss of the original conclusion to the exodus narrative28 or with the secondary separation of the conquest narratives in Joshua from a preexisting narrative arc spanning from the exodus to the conquest.29 In short, there is good reason, prima facie, to hypothesize the existence of a continuous pre-priestly and pre-Deuteronomistic narrative in Exodus through Joshua.

2. Methodology In order to evaluate the hypothesis of a pre-priestly and pre-Deuteronomistic exodus-conquest narrative, it is necessary to identify the pre-priestly and preDeuteronomistic narrative material in the books of Exodus through Joshua and then to evaluate whether this narrative material is coherent and complete. Within the framework of the classical Documentary Hypothesis, this material (at least within the Pentateuch) has usually been assumed to comprise the sources J and E, which, since the time of de Wette, have been regarded as pre-priestly and pre-Deuteronomistic by definition. With the breakdown of the classical Documentary Hypothesis, a number of scholars have begun to speak of “non-priestly” narrative material in the Pentateuch rather than the sources J and E. Nevertheless, the view persists in many quarters that the priestly (and Holiness) materials in the Pentateuch belong to the last major stage in its formation – a view which derives directly from the classical order established for the Pentateuchal documents J–E–D–



























































28 This was noted explicitly by Noth in the second edition of his Joshua commentary: “Eine Frage für sich, die mit der literarischen Analyse des Josuabuches nicht verquickt werden darf, ist die, was aus der Landnahmeerzählung geworden sein mag, auf die die alten Pentateucherzählungsquellen einmal hinausgelaufen sein müssen” (NOTH, Josua2, 16). Many of Noth’s intellectual descendants, however, fail to address this as a problem. 29 For a similar critique of the presupposition of DtrL/DtrH as a starting point of the analysis of the Pentateuch, see KRATZ, “Pentateuch,” 57.

2. Methodology

7

P.30 As long as this assumption is maintained, it implies that most of the nonpriestly narrative material in the Pentateuch is also pre-priestly.31 If this assumption is abandoned, however, then the relative chronology of the various narrative materials that do not show clear indications of priestly or Deuteronomistic provenance can no longer be taken for granted. As Kratz has observed, “non-Priestly or non-Deuteronomic texts can always be both: Preand post-Priestly or pre- and post-Deuteronomic.”32 Or, in the words of Thomas Römer, “Die Unterscheidung von priesterlichen und nichtpriesterlichen Texten bedeutet nicht (mehr), dass das Gros der nichtpriesterlichen Texte zeitlich vor P anzusetzen sei.”33 This observation is in fact not new. From a relatively early stage in the critical study of the Pentateuch, scholars have suggested that some texts are the work of the so-called “Pentateuch redactor” (RP) who, by definition, was familiar with both the priestly and the non-priestly materials in the Pentateuch.34 In more recent scholarship, the major difference is that the stage of composition previously associated with the Pentateuch redactor has been expanded to include not only the addition of small-scale stitches joining the preexisting fabric of the Pentateuch but rather entire patches of new fabric that are the work of several different hands.35 Such materials are sometimes termed endredaktionell or nachendredaktionell, although in my view such terms should be avoided for two reasons. First, they assume that the pre-priestly and priestly narratives in the Pentateuch once existed as separate documents, although this itself is a hypothesis that remains debated.36 Moreover, it implies that the texts that presuppose the integration of priestly material in the Pentateuch were all composed very near to the end of the Pentateuch’s formation, which runs the risk of flattening a



























































30 Here I agree with Baden’s critique of the notion of a fixed chronological order J–E– D–P and the related notion that P constitutes the latest material in the Pentateuch (BADEN, J, E, 307–8). I cannot agree, however, with Baden’s alternative, namely, that P is completely independent of J and E and thus that its diachronic relationship to the non-priestly narratives in the Pentateuch cannot be determined further. 31 Cf. the critique of the term “non-P” by LEVIN, “Priesterschrift,” 24 n. 49. 32 KRATZ, “Pentateuch,” 47; cf. IDEM, Komposition, 251 (ET 250). 33 RÖMER, “Provisorische Überlegungen,” 128. 34 E.g., WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 89, 93 attributed some of the material in the Sinai pericope to the “letzten Redaktor des Pent…der Q und JE verbunden hat.” 35 Examples of the systematic application of this approach include LEVIN, Jahwist and GERTZ, Tradition. 36 For the view that the priestly narratives in the Pentateuch were never literarily independent from the pre-priestly narratives, see GRAF, “Die s.g. Grundschrift,” 474; KLOSTERMANN, Pentateuch, 10; LÖHR, Untersuchungen, 1; VOLZ, “Anhang,” 135; CROSS, “Priestly Work,” 324–25; RENDTORFF, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem, 141–42 (ET 169– 70); BLUM, Komposition, 426–27; VAN SETERS, Pentateuch, 164; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 435; IDEM, “Der literarische Charakter,” 131–33; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 21.

8

Chapter 1: Introduction

theologically diverse – and potentially long and productive – stage in the Pentateuch’s formation to a single layer of literature.37 Thus, in order to avoid these assumptions that accompany the terms “final redactional” and “postfinal redactional,” here I will use the term post-priestly to refer to any text that presupposes the integration of priestly literature within the Pentateuch. Although this term is itself still quite broad, it is sufficient for the purposes of this study, since the primary goal here is not to reconstruct overarching literary strata within the priestly and post-priestly material in the books of Exodus through Joshua but instead to identify potentially pre-priestly narrative material through the process of bracketing out priestly and post-priestly material.38 Following a broad consensus held since the time of Theodor Nöldeke’s 1869 study Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments, the following texts in the books of Exodus through Numbers can be regarded, broadly speaking, as “priestly,” leaving aside the question of whether they constitute an originally independent source, a redactional layer or layers, or some combination of both: Exod 1:1-5, 7, 13-14; 2:23-25; 6:2-9, 10-13, (14-15), 29-30; 7:1-7, 8-13, 19-20a*, 22; 8:1-3, 11-15; 9:8-12; 11:9-10; 12:1-23 (24-27), 28, 37a, 40-51; 13:1-2, 20; 14:1-4, 8-9, 10*, 15-18, 21*, 22-23, 26, 27*, 28-29; 15:27; 16; 17:1; 19:2a; 24:15-18b; 25–31; 35–40; Lev 1–27; Num 1:1–10:28; 13:1-17a, 21, 25, 32*; 14:1-10, 26-38; 15; 16:3-11, 16-24, 35; 17–19; 20:611, 22-29; 21:10-11; 22:1; 25–27 (28–29); 30; 31; 32:2-6*, 16-32; 33:1-49; 34–36.39 Within the book of Joshua, chapters 13–22 are also widely regarded as an insertion that has links to priestly literature.40 If the aforementioned materials are bracketed out, then any pre-priestly material in the books of Exodus through Joshua must be sought within Exod 1–12; 13–18; 19–24; 32– 34; Num 10–14; 16; 20–24; Deut 1–34; and Josh 1–12; 23–24. As noted above, however, it cannot simply be assumed that all of the non-priestly materials in these chapters are also pre-priestly. Ideally, the identification of a non-priestly narrative text as post-priestly should be based upon the demonstration that the non-priestly text presupposes a lexical term, narrative event, or theological concept that is attested elsewhere exclusively in an indisputably priestly text. Nevertheless, such clear



























































37 For a similar objection to the notion of an Endredaktion, see BLUM, Studien, 380 and LEVIN, “Priesterschrift,” 30–31. 38 For this approach, see KRATZ, “Pentateuch,” 55 with n. 77. 39 NÖLDEKE, Untersuchungen, 35–93. On the consensus that these materials can broadly be labeled as priestly, see CARR, “Moses Story,” 9 and KRATZ, “Analysis,” 540. More recently, Nöldeke’s attribution of Exod 16 in its entirety to his Grundschrift (i.e., P) has been challenged (for further literature, see Chapter 3, §5.2), raising the question of whether this chapter may contain some pre-priestly material. 40 Cf. VAN SETERS, In Search of History, 331–37; CORTESE, Josua 13–21, 49–85; and RÖMER, So-Called Deuteronomistic History, 82.

2. Methodology

9

knowledge of priestly literature by a non-priestly text is not always evident.41 Moreover, the assumption that any text that postdates the integration of priestly literature within the Pentateuch must reflect priestly language or concepts is logically flawed. Indeed, it is quite plausible that a post-priestly text could forego the use of specifically priestly terms or concepts if these were not relevant to the rhetorical aims of that text. This means that lexical and conceptual affinities to priestly literature – while undoubtedly important – cannot be the only criteria for identifying post-priestly material within the texts in question.42 In order to overcome this problem, a different approach is needed to evaluate whether a non-priestly text predates or postdates the integration of priestly literature within the books of Exodus through Joshua. Such an approach must take as its starting point an independent evaluation of the relative chronology of the materials within individual narrative units before turning to the question of whether a particular verse, group of verses, or narrative strand is pre-priestly or post-priestly. In this way, the internal stratification of a given narrative unit can serve as the basis for the subsequent evaluation of how each respective layer in that unit relates to priestly literature. Thus, in this study, each narrative unit under consideration will be analyzed in two discrete steps. The first step consists of a literary-critical analysis in which different literary strata are identified as far as possible on the basis of internal criteria such as narrative tensions, contradictions, or repetitions; inconsistencies in terminology or grammar; or unusual or problematic syntax. The second step consists of a macrocontextual analysis in which the various literary strata identified in the literary-critical analysis are evaluated in terms of their relationships to other texts outside the unit, including to priestly and post-priestly texts.43 The results of this two-step process will then be presented together in a synthesis of the literary growth of each unit. Proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis may object that the method employed here unduly favors a supplementary or fragmentary approach over against a documentary approach and assumes that the most basic narrative thread (or Grundbestand) identifiable in the received text on the basis of the literary-critical analysis also represents the oldest version of the narrative tout court. While such objections are legitimate and indeed caution against categorically ruling out the possibility that parallel accounts of the same events have been interwoven at points in the present text of Exodus through Joshua,

























































41

If it were, the notion that P is the latest of the Pentateuchal sources would hardly have become so deeply entrenched in the scholarly discussion, and the debate over the pre- or post-priestly nature of many non-priestly texts in the Pentateuch would not be so contentious. 42 Cf. KRATZ, “Pentateuch,” 47–49. 43 For a plea in favor of such an approach, see K RATZ, “Analysis,” 539.

10

Chapter 1: Introduction

they do not justify the assumption of multiple parallel, complete, and originally independent narrative sources from the outset. Indeed, the most frequently cited ancient example of the joining of parallel narrative sources – Tatian’s Diatessaron – suggests that even if parallel accounts were combined, they were hardly independent from each other in any absolute sense, given that the separate sources of the Diatessaron (i.e., the Gospels) are themselves literarily dependent upon each other and stand in a particular diachronic relationship.44 Therefore, the literary-critical analysis of the narratives in Exodus through Joshua cannot stop at the separation of literary strata but must also attempt to determine the diachronic relationship of those strata based – crucially – on the internal evidence of each narrative unit.



























































44 Thus, as KRATZ, “Analysis,” 537 has noted, “[T]he analogy of the Diatessaron reveals that the documentary hypothesis is a particular variant of the combined fragmentary and supplementary hypotheses and cannot do without these other two methodological approaches.”

Chapter 2

Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12) 1. Pharaoh’s Oppression of the Israelites (Exod 1) 1.1. Literary-critical analysis The death of Joseph (Exod 1:1-9). The first indication of possible literary growth in Exod 1 is found in 1:5b (‫)ויוסף היה במצרים‬, which is something of a non sequitur following 1:1-5a but prepares the ground for 1:6 by shifting the focus to Joseph, who is not mentioned in 1:1-5a.1 Another possible literarycritical break is created by 1:7, which interrupts the focus on Joseph in 1:6 and 1:8. Within 1:9, the phrase ‫ עם בני ישראל‬is slightly awkward syntactically, and the fact that the remainder of the verse uses singular suffixes with reference to ‫ עם בני ישראל‬is somewhat surprising, since in 1:1, 7 ‫בני ישראל‬ clearly takes plural grammatical forms.2 The oppression of the Israelites (Exod 1:10-14). The clause ‫ועלה מן הארץ‬ at the end of Exod 1:10 contradicts Pharaoh’s plans to control the Israelite population, since the Israelites’ departure from Egypt would resolve Pharaoh’s concern without the need for further intervention.3 Rather, Pharaoh’s concern that the Israelites might “go up from Egypt” is better understood in light of the motif of the Israelites’ bondage (1:11a) and thus comes too early in the sequence of the narrative, suggesting that ‫ ועלה מן הארץ‬is a later addition.4 The statement in 1:11b that the people built store-cities for Pharaoh

























































1

On Exod 1:5b as a later addition, see BLUM, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 151; IDEM, “Zwischen Literarkritik und Stilkritik,” 511 n. 70. 2 This tension was clearly felt in the later versions (𝔊, 𝔖, 𝔗), which either partially or completely replaced the singular grammatical forms in Exod 1:10 with plural forms. GERTZ, “Zusammenhang,” 247 n. 51 holds that the phrase ‫ עם בני ישראל‬was intentionally formulated as such from the outset but downplays the tension that ‫ בני ישראל‬creates with the singular grammatical forms in 1:10. 3 Cf. GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 35 n. 35, although he resolves this problem not by means of literary criticism but by interpreting ‫ ועלה מן הארץ‬as “to inundate the land” (“das Land überschwemmen”). 4 BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 24 argues that Exod 1:10b* (from ‫ )והיה‬as a whole is a later addition, although I see no reason to remove the reference to the threat of war in 1:10b* from the most basic narrative on the basis of a literary-critical analysis alone. In contrast, a number of other commentators assume the unity of Exod 1:8-12; cf., e.g., CHILDS, Exodus,

12

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

creates a degree of syntactic tension, since it shifts the subject from the Egyptians to the Israelites without naming the Israelites explicitly as the subject, and 1:12 does not reintroduce the Egyptians as the subject. Thus, it seems possible that 1:11a once connected directly to 1:12.5 Within 1:12-14, it is noteworthy that 1:12a refers to the people using singular grammatical forms, while 1:12b-14 refer to the people as “the Israelites” (‫ )בני ישראל‬and use plural grammatical forms. This suggests that 1:12b-14 may not belong to the same compositional level as 1:8-10*, 11a, 12a. The midwives episode (Exod 1:15-22). This unit is not a compositional unity, as it contains two different versions of Pharaoh’s command to kill male Israelite infants, one directed specifically at the midwives in Exod 1:15-16 and one directed at “all his people” in 1:22. Since the more general command in 1:22 can hardly be understood as a later addition to the midwives episode in 1:15-21, this verse must be the more original of the two versions, indicating that the midwives episode in 1:15-21 does not belong to the most basic material in Exod 1.6 Within the midwives episode itself, the reference to the midwives by name in 1:15b is an even later addition, indicated by the Wiederaufnahme of ‫ ויאמר‬in 1:16.7 Likewise, the reference to God making “houses” (i.e., posterity) for the midwives in 1:21 comes too late after the reference to the multiplication of the people in 1:20b and can be interpreted as a later addition that clarifies specifically how God “dealt well” with the midwives (1:20a).8 Once 1:21 is bracketed out as a later addition within 1:15-21, the statement ‫ וירב העם ויעצמו מאד‬in 1:20b can be interpreted as a Wiederaufnahme of the basic issue raised by Pharaoh in 1:9, thus forming a new transition to Pharaoh’s original command to kill male Israelite infants following the insertion of the midwives episode.9 Interim result. On the basis of a literary-critical analysis of Exod 1, several distinct narrative strata can be identified in this chapter. Whereas 1:1-5a, 7, 13-14 refer to the people as ‫ בני ישראל‬and attribute the oppression of the Israelites to the Egyptians as a whole, 1:6*, 8, 9*, 10*, 11a, 12a refer to the people using the term ‫ עם‬and attribute their oppression to Pharaoh. Since it is difficult to determine the relative chronology of these narrative strata on the basis of 1:1-14 alone, it is necessary to consider the relationship of both strata



























































































































7 (with reference to earlier literature); PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 126; DOZEMAN, Exodus, 61; GERTZ, Tradition, 365–69; BADEN, “From Joseph,” 136; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 47. 5 On Exod 1:11b as a later addition, see REDFORD, “Exodus I 11,” 414–15; LEVIN, Jahwist, 314; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 30–31, 434. 6 Cf. GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 38–43 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 25. 7 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 27. 8 Cf. NOTH, Exodus, 13 (ET 24); W. H. SCHMIDT, Ex 1–6, 19; GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 44; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 29. GERTZ, Tradition, 373 regards Exod 1:20b-21a as an insertion between 1:20a and 1:21b. 9 Cf. GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 46.

1. Pharaoh’s Oppression of the Israelites (Exod 1)

13

to 1:15-22. As noted above, 1:22 is earlier than 1:15-21, and it also forms the necessary transition to Exod 2. Thus, either 1:1-5a, 7, 13-14 or 1:6*, 8, 9*, 10*, 11a, 12a must have once connected directly to 1:22. There are two major problems with a direct connection between 1:1-5a, 7, 13-14 and 1:22. First, 1:1-5a, 7, 13-14 – unlike 1:22 – do not mention Pharaoh at all and also do not refer to the Egyptians as a “people” (‫)עם‬. Moreover, a direct connection between 1:13-14 and 1:22 fails to explain why the oppression of the Israelites shifts from servitude and forced labor (1:13-14) to a decree to kill newborn Israelite males (1:22). In contrast, a direct connection between 1:6*, 8, 9*, 10*, 11a, 12a and 1:22 is more plausible in both respects. Pharaoh is already introduced in 1:8, and 1:9 refers to the Egyptians as Pharaoh’s “people” (‫)עמו‬. Moreover, Pharaoh’s decree to kill Israelite males in 1:22 fits well with both the initial concern raised by the king in 1:9*-10* (i.e., a perceived military threat) and with the failure of the oppressive measures described in 1:11a, 12a, which were presumably intended to decimate the adult population (and possibly also reduce the rate of reproduction) through forced labor. Thus, it can be concluded that 1:6*, 8, 9*, 10*, 11a, 12a are the original counterpart to 1:22 and belong to the most basic compositional level within Exod 1.10 Within these materials, it is notable that two different schemes are described for controlling the Israelite population, namely, the imposition of forced labor in 1:11a, 12a and the command to kill newborn Israelite males in 1:22. Since either scheme would be effective on its own, it is possible that one of these two motifs is secondary to the other. Considering that the killing of newborn males is closely linked to the story of Moses’ birth in Exod 2, while the motif of forced labor is not, 1:22 cannot be removed from the most basic material in Exod 1, while 1:11a, 12a can. 11 1.2. Macrocontextual analysis In its present form, Exod 1 cannot constitute an independent introduction to the exodus narrative but instead presupposes the preceding ancestral narratives in the book of Genesis.12 By extension, this observation raises two heavily debated issues: (1) the relative date of the first literary connection between

























































10

Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 26; similarly GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 47. Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 24, who argues that the motif of forced labor in Exod 1:11-12* does not belong to the most basic material in Exod 1 and is even later than the midwives episode in 1:15-21. 12 Cf. W. H. SCHMIDT, Ex 1–6, 7; KRATZ, Komposition, 288 (ET 281); and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 11. The only way to identify the beginning of an independent exodus narrative in Exod 1 that does not connect to the preceding ancestral narratives is to postulate that an earlier introduction has been suppressed by the present one; for this view, cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 379 (prior to Exod 1:11) and ALBERTZ, “Beginn,” 235–36; IDEM, Ex 1– 18, 43 (prior to 1:9). 11

14

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

the ancestral narratives and the exodus narrative13 and (2) the relative date of the Joseph story.14 Although these questions cannot be treated exhaustively here, the analysis of Exod 1 can indirectly shed light on them. Exod 1:1-9. As discussed in §1.1, the references to Joseph’s death in Exod 1:6* and 1:8 belong to the most basic narrative thread in Exod 1, while 1:1-5 and 1:7 do not. There is a broad consensus that both 1:1-5 and 1:7 belong to a priestly or post-priestly stage of composition.15 In contrast, 1:6*, 8 may preserve a pre-priestly narrative thread, although the latter must be limited to the basic notice ‫ וימת יוסף‬in 1:6*,16 since the phrase ‫ וכל אחיו‬presupposes the (post-)priestly reference to Jacob’s sons in 1:1-5a,17 while the phrase ‫וכל הדור‬ ‫ ההוא‬is a blind motif that presupposes the death of Joshua and his generation in Judg 2:8-10,18 which also likely belongs to a post-priestly stage of compo-



























































13 For the view that the ancestral narratives and the exodus narrative were first joined at a priestly or post-priestly stage of composition, see RÖMER, Israels Väter, 567, 574; DE PURY, “Le cycle de Jacob,” 78–96; K. SCHMID, Erzväter, 69–72, 241–54 (ET 62–65, 224– 37); IDEM, “Transition,” 73–87; GERTZ, Tradition, 357–66; IDEM, “Zusammenhang,” 239– 45; BLUM, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 119–56; and ALBERTZ, “Beginn,” 232–36; IDEM, Ex 1–18, 44–46. For the view that Exod 1 may preserve a pre-priestly transition between the ancestral narratives and the exodus narrative, see KRATZ, Komposition, 287–88 (ET 280–81); VAN SETERS, “Patriarchs,” 1–15; LEVIN, “Yahwist,” 133; CARR, “What is Required?,” 164–75; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 17–26; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Erzvätergeschichte,” 241–66; and L. SCHMIDT, “Die vorpriesterliche Verbindung.” See also the discussion of the problem in RÖMER, “Zwischen Urkunden, Fragmenten und Ergänzungen,” 9–14. 14 On this issue, see RÖMER, “Zwischen Urkunden, Fragmenten und Ergänzungen,” 14 n. 57 and IDEM, “Joseph Story.” 15 On Exod 1:1-5, see CHILDS, Exodus, 2 (P); PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 125 (RP); GERTZ, Tradition, 354–57 (post-priestly); BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 38–40; IDEM, “Der literarische Charakter,” 96 (post-priestly); DOZEMAN, Exodus, 61 (P History); and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 22, 25 (a first P redaction and a Hexateuchal redaction). On 1:7, see LEVIN, Jahwist, 315; GERTZ, Tradition, 352–53; KRATZ, Komposition, 243 (ET 241); CARR, “What is Required?,” 173; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 15–16, 38–41; IDEM, “Der literarische Charakter,” 96–97. As has often been noted, 1:7 forms a connection with the priestly creation account in Gen 1 through the use of the verbs ‫פרה‬, ‫שרץ‬, and ‫( מלא‬see, e.g., GERTZ, “Zusammenhang,” 240). 16 For documentary approaches that adopt this solution, see VRIEZEN, “Exodusstudien,” 334–35; H.-C. SCHMITT, Die nichtpriesterliche Josephsgeschichte, 126–27; and W. H. SCHMIDT, Ex 1–6, 31–32. For non-documentary approaches, see LEVIN, Jahwist, 313; KRATZ, Komposition, 287 (ET 280); CARR, “What is Required?,” 175; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 20–21. 17 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 362; IDEM, “Zusammenhang,” 248; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 20; and ALBERTZ, “Beginn,” 233; IDEM, Ex 1–18, 43. 18 Against W. H. SCHMIDT, Ex 1–6, 10 and GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 64–65, who argue that the two passages may not reflect direct literary dependence.

1. Pharaoh’s Oppression of the Israelites (Exod 1)

15

sition.19 Thus, Exod 1:8 likely served as the source for Judg 2:10, upon which the expanded form of Exod 1:6 (‫ )וכל הדור ההוא‬subsequently drew.20 It has often been argued that Pharaoh’s comment about the Israelites’ great numbers in 1:9* presupposes 1:7,21 yet it should also be noted that the long chain of verbs in 1:7 seems to combine the shorter phrase ‫ רב ועצום‬from 1:9* with language from the priestly creation account and thus is likely later than 1:9*.22 Moreover, if the primary purpose of Exod 1 is to create a transition from the Joseph story to the story of Moses, then 1:9* does not require 1:7 in order to form a coherent narrative, since Pharaoh’s observation is merely a pretext for the command to kill newborn Israelite males (1:22) in order to prepare the ground for the narrative of Moses’ birth in Exod 2.23 Exod 1:10-14. As was noted in §1.1, Exod 1:13-14 are repetitive in light of 1:11a, 12a and bear lexical connections with 1:1-5, 7. It is thus not surprising that these verses, like 1:1-5, 7, are widely attributed to priestly authorship.24 In contrast, there are no clear indications that 1:11a, 12a presuppose priestly literature.25 The reference to the store cities of Pithom and Raamses in 1:11b, which was evaluated as a later addition, can hardly be taken as an ancient historical memory from the premonarchic period but instead most likely reflects the historical circumstances of the seventh century B.C.E.26 Exod 1:15-22. It was concluded in §1.1 that this unit once consisted solely of Pharaoh’s command to kill all male Israelite infants in 1:22, which was later supplemented with the midwives episode in 1:15a(b), 16-20, (21). This episode does not show any clear connection to priestly literature and thus may belong to a pre-priestly stage in the formation of Exod 1.27



























































19 Judg 2:10 states that “all that generation was gathered to its ancestors,” which seems to presuppose the priestly motif of being “gathered to one’s ancestors” in Gen 49:29, 33. 20 In contrast, GERTZ, “Zusammenhang,” 246 argues that Exod 1:6, 8 were written by the same (post-priestly) author who created the transition between the books of Joshua and Judges in Judg 2:8-10. 21 E.g., GERTZ, Tradition, 365; IDEM, “Zusammenhang,” 247. 22 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 315; KRATZ, Komposition, 243; CARR, “What is Required?,” 173; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 15–16. 23 Cf. CARR, “What is Required?,” 175; GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 63; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 22–23. On the close connection between Exod 1:22 and Exod 2, see GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 30–31. 24 Cf. CHILDS, Exodus, 7; PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 126–27; GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 50–51; DOZEMAN, Exodus, 61; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 22. GERTZ, Tradition, 353– 54 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 10 further note that Exod 1:13-14 use the verbal root ‫עבד‬, which appears elsewhere in the priestly version of the commissioning of Moses (6:5). 25 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 31–33, who regards Exod 1:11-12* as a pre-priestly expansion that is already presupposed in the (post-)priestly additions in 1:13-14. 26 REDFORD, “Exodus I 11,” 416 and SCHIPPER, “Raamses,” esp. 276–82. 27 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 44–48. See also GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 70, who regards the midwives episode as a fragment of E.

16

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

1.3. Synthesis I

The most basic narrative thread in Exod 1 consists of 1:6* (only ‫וימת‬ ‫)יוסף‬, 8, 9* (without ‫)בני ישראל‬, 10* (without ‫)ועלה מן הארץ‬, 22. This narrative thread forms the earliest literary connection with the Joseph story in the book of Genesis28 and can be evaluated as pre-priestly.29

I+

At a possibly pre-priestly stage of composition, Pharaoh’s decree to kill newborn Israelite males in Exod 1:22 was prefaced with a report of the (unsuccessful) imposition of heavy labor in 1:11a, 12a.

II

Exod 1:6*, 8, 9*, 10*, (11a, 12a), 22 were expanded with a basic version of the midwives episode in 1:15a, 16-20, which shows no connection to priestly literature. The reference to Pithom and Raamses in 1:11b could also have been added at a pre-priestly stage of composition.

II+

The midwives episode was subsequently expanded in 1:15b, 21.

III

Exod 1 was further expanded through a series of priestly and postpriestly additions in 1:1-5, 6*, 7, 9*, 10*, 12b, 13-14. III

II

I

‫ ראובן שמעון לוי ויהודה‬2 ‫ ואלה שמות בני ישראל הבאים מצרימה את יעקב איש וביתו באו‬1:1 ‫ ויהי כל נפש יצאי ירך יעקב שבעים נפש ויוסף היה‬5 ‫ דן ונפתלי גד ואשר‬4 ‫ יששכר זבולן ובנימן‬3 ‫במצרים‬ ‫ וימת יוסף‬6 ‫ ובני ישראל פרו וישרצו וירבו ויעצמו במאד מאד ותמלא הארץ‬7 ‫וכל אחיו וכל הדור ההוא‬ ‫אתם‬ ‫ ויאמר אל עמו הנה עם ]בני ישראל[ רב ועצום‬9 ‫ ויקם מלך חדש על מצרים אשר לא ידע את יוסף‬8 ‫ הבה נתחכמה לו ]פן ירבה[ והיה כי תקראנה מלחמה ונוסף גם הוא על שנאינו ונלחם בנו‬10 ‫ממנו‬ [‫]ועלה מן הארץ‬ [‫ ]וישימו עליו שרי מסים למען ענתו בסבלתם‬11 ‫ויבן ערי מסכנות לפרעה את פתם ואת רעמסס‬ [‫ ]וכאשר יענו אתו כן ירבה וכן יפרץ‬12

























































28

The relative date of the composition of the Joseph story and of its integration into the book of Genesis remains a separate problem. Although this issue cannot be treated in detail here, the burden of proof lies with commentators who argue that the Joseph story was written and/or integrated into the book of Genesis at a post-priestly stage of composition (e.g., RÖMER, “Joseph Story,” 200–201). 29 A major problem with the theory that the priestly portions of Exod 1 constitute the most basic material in the chapter is the fact that the priestly descriptions of forced labor in 1:13-14 do not adequately prepare for the story of Moses’ birth in Exod 2.

17

2. Moses’ Birth and Flight from Egypt (Exod 2:1-15abα) III 14

II

I

13

‫ויקצו מפני בני ישראל ויעבדו מצרים את בני ישראל בפרך וימררו את חייהם בעבדה‬ ‫קשה בחמר ובלבנים ובכל עבדה בשדה את כל עבדתם אשר עבדו בהם בפרך‬ ‫ ויאמר‬16 [‫ ויאמר מלך מצרים למילדת העברית ]אשר שם האחת שפרה ושם השנית פועה‬15 ‫ ותיראן‬17 ‫בילדכן את העבריות וראיתן על האבנים אם בן הוא והמתן אתו ואם בת הוא וחיה‬ ‫ ויקרא מלך‬18 ‫המילדת את האלהים ולא עשו כאשר דבר אליהן מלך מצרים ותחיין את הילדים‬ ‫ ותאמרן המילדת אל‬19 ‫מצרים למילדת ויאמר להן מדוע עשיתן הדבר הזה ותחיין את הילדים‬ ‫ וייטב‬20 ‫פרעה כי לא כנשים המצרית העברית כי חיות הנה בטרם תבוא אלהן המילדת וילדו‬ [‫ ויהי כי יראו המילדת את האלהים ויעש להם בתים‬21] ‫אלהים למילדת וירב העם ויעצמו מאד‬ ‫ ויצו פרעה לכל עמו לאמר כל הבן הילוד היארה תשליכהו וכל הבת תחיון‬22

2. Moses’ Birth and Flight from Egypt (Exod 2:1-15abα) 2.1. Literary-critical analysis Moses’ birth (Exod 2:1-10). Within this unit, the sudden appearance of the infant’s sister in Exod 2:4, 7-10aα interrupts the connection between Pharaoh’s daughter finding the child and having compassion on him (2:6abα) and her taking him as her own and naming him (2:10aβb).30 The entrance of the child’s sister onto the scene undermines the need for Pharaoh’s daughter to adopt the boy in the first place, and it seems unlikely that she would have named him only after he had been weaned and brought back to her.31 Regardless of whether the child’s mother sent him down the Nile primarily because he was illegitimate32 or because he was in danger of being killed,33 the fact that his mother took him back to be weaned is clearly illogical, as it reopens the same problem that she sought to resolve in the first place, whatever that may be. Thus, there are good grounds for regarding 2:4, 7-10aα as later additions34 that possibly served the apologetic function of portraying Moses’ earliest upbringing as among “Hebrews” and not among Egyptians.35

























































30

Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 318. Moreover, as H.-C. SCHMITT, “Die Josefs- und die ExodusGeschichte,” 182 has noted, the reference to Moses’ (older) sister contradicts Exod 2:1, where Moses is (at least implicitly) depicted as the firstborn child of his parents. 31 Cf. GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 47 and H.-C. SCHMITT, “Die Josefs- und die Exodus-Geschichte,” 182–83. 32 K. SCHMID, Erzväter, 154–55 (ET 141–42); KRATZ, Komposition, 288 (ET 281); OTTO, “Mose,” 49–50; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 50. 33 CHILDS, Exodus, 18 assumes such a motivation to be original. 34 Cf. WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 69; NOTH, Exodus, 14 (ET 25); W. H. SCHMIDT, Ex 1–6, 52–53; GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 47–49; and GERTZ, Tradition, 376 against CHILDS, Exodus, 18–19 and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 55–56. 35 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 320; GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 48; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 52; and H.-C. SCHMITT, “Die Josefs- und die Exodus-Geschichte,” 183. This

18

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

Yet even apart from the appearance of the child’s sister on the scene, there are other indications that a more basic narrative of Pharaoh’s daughter finding the boy has been supplemented with small details. For example, the statement that the boy’s mother was afraid for him may be secondary, as suggested by the repetitive statement ‫ ולא יכלה עוד הצפינו‬in Exod 2:3aα.36 Likewise, the report of Pharaoh’s daughter finding the child seems to have undergone a degree of narrative embellishment, such as in the references to the maidservants of Pharaoh’s daughter in 2:5aβ, 5bβ.37 Much of 2:6 may also be the result of later expansion (with the most basic material consisting of ‫)ותפתח ותראהו‬, since the 3ms pronominal suffix of ‫ ותראהו‬stands in tension with the phrase ‫את הילד‬.38 Moses’ flight from Egypt (Exod 2:11-15abα). In Exod 2:11, ‫ וירא בסבלתם‬is likely a later addition, as it is repetitive immediately prior to the statement ‫וירא איש מצרי מכה איש עברי‬. Moses’ encounter with two fellow Hebrews the following day in 2:13-14 is also likely a later addition, as it interrupts the connection made by the phrase ‫ הדבר הזה‬in 2:15aα to Moses’ killing the Egyptian in 2:12.39 2.2. Macrocontextual analysis Based on the foregoing literary-critical analysis, the most basic narrative thread in Exod 2:1-15abα can be identified in 2:1-2a, 3*, 5aα, 5bα, 6, 10aβb, 11aα, 11b-12, 15abα. Strictly speaking, these materials do not necessarily presuppose Pharaoh’s decree in 1:22 to kill newborn Israelite males, particularly if one interprets the placing of Moses in the river as a response to his illegitimacy rather than Pharaoh’s decree, which is certainly possible in light of comparison with the Akkadian Sargon legend.40 In contrast, some of the



























































































































function speaks in favor of supplementation and against the assumption by GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 50 that these passages were taken from an independent source. 36 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 317–18 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 50. 37 Exod 2:5aβ uses different terminology for the shore of the Nile, while 2:5bβ creates tension with the verb ‫ ותפתח‬in 2:6aα, since Pharaoh’s daughter is likely the subject of the latter verse but is not explicitly reintroduced; cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 51–53. 38 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 318; GERTZ, Tradition, 375; KRATZ, Komposition, 289 n. 73 (ET 282 n. 47); and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 51. 39 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 324–25; KRATZ, Komposition, 289 n. 74 (ET 282 n. 48); and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 54–55. Notably, the only other biblical text in which Moses is associated with the verbal root ‫ שׂרר‬is Num 16:13, a post-priestly text (see Chapter 6, §5.2). The possibility that Exod 2:13-14 are later than Num 16:13 is suggested by the fact that Exod 2:13-14 also incorporate the notion of Moses’ role as judge, which is developed in other late texts in the books of Exodus and Numbers (cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 55). 40 Cf. K. SCHMID, Erzväter, 156 (ET 142–43); KRATZ, Komposition, 288 (ET 281); OTTO, “Mose,” 49–50; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 50. On other possible motivations for abandoning a child attested in ancient Near Eastern birth narratives, see REDFORD, “Liter-

2. Moses’ Birth and Flight from Egypt (Exod 2:1-15abα)

19

materials identified as possibly later additions do seem to presuppose Pharaoh’s decree in Exod 1:22, such as the statement in 2:2b-3aα* that the boy’s mother was afraid for him and hid him for three months. Similarly, the likely secondary notice ‫ וירא בסבלתם‬in 2:11 presupposes the motif of forced labor in 1:11a, which was evaluated as a secondary, but possibly still pre-priestly, addition to Exod 1.41 As for the appearance of Moses’ sister on the scene in 2:4, 7-10 and Moses’ encounter with the two Hebrew men in 2:13-14, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether these verses presuppose materials in Exod 1. In any event, none of the materials in Exod 2:1-15abα show awareness of priestly literature, suggesting that both the most basic material and the later additions within this unit are pre-priestly.42 Relationship to the book of Genesis. Rolf Rendtorff and Konrad Schmid have convincingly argued that the ancestral narratives in the book of Genesis and the exodus narrative were originally independent and were joined literarily only at a later stage of composition.43 This means that the opening chapters of the book of Exodus should preserve the exposition of an exodus narrative that does not presuppose a literary connection with the book of Genesis. Two main hypotheses have been proposed: either (1) the original exposition of the exodus narrative has been lost due to editorial reworking but can be identified beginning in Exod 1:8*;44 1:9;45 or 1:1146 or (2) the original exodus narrative began in Exod 2:1.47 Both hypotheses have certain weaknesses. For the for-



























































































































ary Motif,” 211. For a detailed discussion of the relationship between Exod 1–2 and the Sargon legend, see GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 149–240, esp. 234–40. In contrast, BADEN, “From Joseph,” 140 n. 20 argues that Exod 2 cannot be read without Exod 1, although he concedes that “it may be tradition-historically independent.” 41 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 53 with n. 16. 42 In contrast, UTZSCHNEIDER / OSWALD, Exodus 1–15, 89 (ET 85) and H.-C. SCHMITT, “Die Josefs- und die Exodus-Geschichte,” 182–83 evaluate Exod 2:4, 7-10aα as postpriestly. 43 Cf. RENDTORFF, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem, 65–70 (ET 84–89) and K. SCHMID, Erzväter, 56–164 (ET 50–150); IDEM, “Genesis and Exodus,” 187–208. In contrast, GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 105–14 has recently argued that the exodus narrative was never independent of the narratives in Genesis, although this raises a significant problem regarding the date of the earliest exodus narrative if one accepts the growing consensus that the Joseph story is a “Diaspora novella” written during the Persian period (on this, see RÖMER, “Joseph Story,” 192–95). 44 BLUM, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 145–48; IDEM, “Zwischen Literarkritik und Stilkritik,” 513. 45 ALBERTZ, “Beginn,” 230; IDEM, Ex 1–18, 46. 46 GERTZ, Tradition, 370–72, 381; IDEM, “Zusammenhang,” 249 and UTZSCHNEIDER / OSWALD, Exodus 1–15, 72 (ET 70–71). 47 LEVIN, Jahwist, 318; KRATZ, Komposition, 288 (ET 281); OTTO, “Mose,” 49–51; CARR, “Genesis,” 293–94; K. SCHMID, Erzväter, 152–57 (ET 139–44); IDEM, “Exodus,” 44–45; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 10–11.

20

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

mer, the most significant problem is that one is forced to reckon with the existence of narrative material for which there is no textual evidence. For the latter, one is forced to assume that Pharaoh’s decree to kill newborn Israelite males in 1:22 was not the original motivation for placing Moses in the Nile; rather, he was placed there because of his illegitimate status. Yet in light of other correspondences between Exod 2 and the Sargon legend, the possibility of interpreting Moses’ birth as illegitimate has at least some evidence in its favor, while the hypothesis that 1:9 or 1:11 originally connected to material that is no longer preserved has no concrete evidence in its favor. Thus, I am more inclined to regard Exod 2:1 as the original beginning of the exodus narrative prior to its literary connection with the ancestral narratives in the book of Genesis. The date of the narrative. If the story of Moses’ birth indeed drew on the Akkadian Sargon legend, then the most basic narrative thread in Exod 2 cannot be earlier than the reign of Sargon II (r. 722–705 B.C.E.). Moreover, if Eckart Otto and Meik Gerhards are correct in concluding that the earliest version of the Moses narrative functioned as a counternarrative to the neoAssyrian propaganda of Esarhaddon (r. 681–669 B.C.E.),48 then the terminus post quem for the narrative must be down-dated even further, to the second quarter of the seventh century B.C.E. On the other hand, the Assyrian presence in the southern Levant was relatively short-lived, coming to an end with the death of Ashurbanipal in 627 B.C.E.49 Thus, if Exod 2 was written during the period of Assyrian hegemony over the southern Levant (rather than in a later period), then its date of composition can be situated around the middle of the seventh century B.C.E.50 2.3. Synthesis I

The most basic narrative thread in Exod 2:1-15abα can be identified in 2:1-2a, 3*, 5aα, 5bα, 6, 10aβb, 11aα, 11b-12, 15abα. These verses likely reflect the original exposition of the exodus narrative prior to its literary connection to the ancestral narratives in the book of Genesis, and they show no awareness of priestly literature.

II

This basic narrative thread was subsequently expanded in Exod 2:2b3aα*, 4, 5aβ, 5bβ, 7-10aα(β?), 11aβ, 13-14, which also show no awareness of priestly literature.

























































48

OTTO, “Mose,” 47–67; IDEM, Tora, 11–33 and GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 149–240. 49 Cf. E. STERN, Archaeology, 4. 50 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, “Buch Josua,” 159, who proposes a date of composition between 673 and 645 B.C.E.

21

3. Moses in Midian (Exod 2:15bβ–4:31) ΙΙ 2

Ι 2:1

‫וילך איש מבית לוי ויקח את בת לוי ותהר האשה ותלד בן ]ותרא אתו כי טוב הוא ותצפנהו שלשה‬ ‫ ולא יכלה עוד הצפינו[ ותקח לו תבת גמא ותחמרה בחמר ובזפת ותשם בה את הילד ותשם‬3 ‫ירחים‬ ‫בסוף על שפת היאר‬ ‫ ותתצב אחתו מרחק לדעה מה יעשה לו‬4 ‫ ותרד בת פרעה לרחץ על היאר ]ונערתיה הלכת על יד היאר[ ותרא את התבה בתוך הסוף ]ותשלח‬5 ‫ ותפתח ותראהו את הילד והנה נער בכה ותחמל עליו ותאמר מילדי העברים זה‬6 [‫את אמתה ותקחה‬ ‫ ותאמר אחתו אל בת פרעה האלך וקראתי לך אשה מינקת מן העברית ותינק לך את הילד‬7 ‫ ותאמר לה בת פרעה היליכי את‬9 ‫ ותאמר לה בת פרעה לכי ותלך העלמה ותקרא את אם הילד‬8 ‫ ויגדל הילד ותבאהו לבת‬10 ‫הילד הזה והינקהו לי ואני אתן את שכרך ותקח האשה הילד ותניקהו‬ ‫פרעה‬ ‫ ויהי בימים ההם ויגדל משה ויצא אל‬11 ‫]ויהי לה לבן[ ותקרא שמו משה ותאמר כי מן המים משיתהו‬ ‫ ויפן כה וכה וירא כי אין איש ויך את‬12 ‫אחיו ]וירא בסבלתם[ וירא איש מצרי מכה איש עברי מאחיו‬ ‫המצרי ויטמנהו בחול‬ ‫ ויאמר מי שמך‬14 ‫ ויצא ביום השני והנה שני אנשים עברים נצים ויאמר לרשע למה תכה רעך‬13 ‫לאיש שר ושפט עלינו הלהרגני אתה אמר כאשר הרגת את המצרי ויירא משה ויאמר אכן נודע‬ ‫הדבר‬ ‫ וישמע פרעה את הדבר הזה ויבקש להרג את משה ויברח משה מפני פרעה‬15abα

3. Moses in Midian (Exod 2:15bβ–4:31) 3.1. Literary-critical analysis In Exod 2:15bβ, the scene shifts to Midian, where three main episodes take place: Moses’ marriage to a daughter of the priest of Midian (2:15bβ-25), Yhwh’s commissioning of Moses (3:1–4:17), and Moses’ return to Egypt (4:18-31). Moses’ marriage (Exod 2:15bβ-25). Since the received form of Exod 3:1– 4:17 as well of 4:18-31 presupposes Moses’ marriage while in Midian (3:1a; 4:18-20), it seems upon first glance that 2:16-22* must belong to the most basic narrative thread within 2:15bβ–4:31. Yet the double use of the verb ‫ישב‬ in 2:15bβ creates a narrative tension, suggesting that the text is not a unity here. Since the reference to Moses “sitting” by the well in 2:15bβ2 cannot stand alone without the reference to Moses “dwelling” in the land of Midian, then 2:15bβ2 – and, by extension, the entire narrative in 2:16-22 – may be secondary to 2:15bβ1.51



























































51 Cf. NOTH, Exodus, 21 (ET 32); LEVIN, Jahwist, 323; KRATZ, Komposition, 293 (ET 284–85); and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 56 against attempts to resolve the problem textcritically (see the reconstructions of AEJMELAEUS, “What Can We Know?,” 80 and GERTZ, Tradition, 377–78, based on 𝔊 and 𝔖). Within this unit, the reference to the priest by name

22

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

Within Exod 2:23-25, the statements about God’s recognition of the Israelites’ plight in 2:23aβb-25 do not follow logically from the report of the death of the king of Egypt in 2:23aα and thus may belong to a different compositional level from the latter. From a strictly syntactic perspective, it is possible to connect 2:23aα directly to Yhwh’s command to Moses to return to Egypt in 4:19, as has been proposed by a number of commentators.52 Such a connection seems unlikely, however, in light of subsequent events in the narrative, since Moses’ actions upon his return to Egypt clearly presuppose that he has been charged by Yhwh with a particular task.53 Yet a direct connection between 2:23aα and the commissioning scene beginning in 3:1 is equally problematic in terms of narrative logic.54 Thus, it must be considered whether 2:23aα was written to connect to 2:23aβb-25 from the outset. From this perspective, 2:23aα can be interpreted as a transitional element accompanying the insertion of 2:15bβ2-22 before 2:23aβb-25, whereby the use of the phrase ‫ בימים הרבים ההם‬in 2:23aα fits well with the amount of time required for Zipporah to give birth to a son (2:22). Thus, contrary to the view of most prior scholarship, both 2:15bβ2-22 and 2:23aα can be evaluated as later – not earlier – than 2:23aβb-25.55 The commissioning of Moses (Exod 3:1–4:17). It has long been observed that Exod 3:1–4:17 are not a compositional unity.56 The first sign of a composite text comes already in Exod 3:1 with the overloaded reference to “Jethro, his father-in-law, the priest of Midian.” Here the phrase ‫ יתרו חתנו‬cannot belong to the most basic material in 2:15bβ–4:31, as it presupposes the insertion in 2:15bβ2-23aα.57 In light of the discrepancy between the names Reuel in 2:18 and Jethro in 3:1, it is unlikely that the phrase ‫ יתרו חתנו‬was added by the same hand that inserted the episode in 2:15bβ2-23aα. The phrase ‫ חרבה‬at the end of 3:1 also creates an overloaded text following ‫אל הר האלהים‬, although determining which element is more original is difficult, since here



























































































































(Reuel) in Exod 2:18 comes too late and is likely a further addition; cf. NOTH, ÜP, 201; W. H. SCHMIDT, Ex 1–6, 86; and GERTZ, Tradition, 378. For a different view, see BLUM, Studien, 21. 52 RUDOLPH, Elohist, 6–7; NOTH, ÜP, 31 with n. 103 (ET 30 with n. 103); BLUM, Studien, 20–22; LEVIN, Jahwist, 327–29; GERTZ, Tradition, 245–56; RÖMER, “Exodus 3– 4,” 77; ALBERTZ, “Beginn,” 238–48; IDEM, Ex 1–18, 72; and JEON, Call, 146–47. 53 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 59. 54 Cf. BERNER, “Der literarische Charakter,” 100. 55 Cf. ibid., 100–101. 56 For a useful overview of earlier studies, see JEON, Call, 77–93. 57 Since Exod 3:1 is the necessary exposition to the commissioning of Moses but the narrative of Moses’ marriage in 2:15bβ2-22 is secondary, the phrase ‫ יתרו חתנו‬in 3:1 must be evaluated as a later addition, which means that the basic narrative only spoke of Moses tending the flocks of the priest of Midian; cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 59–60.

3. Moses in Midian (Exod 2:15bβ–4:31)

23

‫ חרבה‬might simply mean “into the wasteland” rather than refer to the name of the mountain.58 Within the description of Yhwh’s self-revelation to Moses in Exod 3:2-6, several elements are slightly disturbing. First, the statement in 3:2a that the ‫ מלאך ה׳‬appeared to Moses stands in some tension with the subsequent description of the burning bush, which Moses does not immediately interpret as a theophanic sign (3:3). The fact that 3:2a spoils the suspense created in the rest of the scene59 and the fact that the ‫ מלאך‬subsequently disappears from the picture suggest that this half-verse is a later addition.60 Moses’ rumination in 3:3b is also likely the product of a later hand, as reflected by the incongruence between the verbs in 3:2b and 3:3b: Whereas 3:2b states that the bush was burning but was not consumed, in 3:3b Moses wonders why the bush was not burning.61 Exod 3:4b stands in tension with 3:4a and 3:5a insofar as it uses a different name for the deity and also interrupts the conceptual connection between Yhwh’s observation that Moses has turned aside and Yhwh’s command to Moses not to approach further. Thus, 3:4b can be evaluated as a later addition.62 The divine command that Moses take off his sandals in 3:5b is likely also secondary, since (1) the statement that the place where Moses is already standing is holy does not align exactly with the command not to approach, and (2) the command goes unfulfilled: In 3:6b, Moses hides his face, but no reference is made to his footwear.63 Finally, Moses’ act of hiding his face in 3:6b is hardly a logical response to the deity’s self-revelation as “the god of your father” in 3:6a but is a logical response to the deity’s warning in 3:5a, suggesting that 3:6a is also an insertion.64 Thus, the most basic material in 3:2-6 likely consists of 3:2b-3a, 4a, 5a, and 6b.65

























































58

For discussions of this problem, see GERTZ, Tradition, 263–66 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 71, 75 with references to arguments on both sides. Berner makes a compelling case for regarding ‫( חרבה‬as a generic noun) as more original: “Mit Gottesberg und Dornbusch stehen in Ex 3,1-6 zwei Offenbarungsorte unausgeglichen nebeneinander, von denen nur einer ursprünglich sein kann” (75). 59 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 71–72: “[M]it 3,2a sind alle Fragen im voraus beantwortet.” 60 Cf. WEIMAR, Berufung, 33–34; W. H. SCHMIDT, Ex 1–6, 112; GERTZ, Tradition, 267; KRATZ, Komposition, 289 n. 76 (ET 282 n. 50); RÖMER, “Exodus 3–4,” 74; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 71–72. 61 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 327 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 72–73. In contrast, JEON, Call, 139 prefers to assume that Exod 3:3 is a unity. 62 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 73. 63 Cf. JEON, Call, 142. 64 Cf. WEIMAR, Berufung, 39–40 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 73–74. The possibility that Exod 3:6a is more original than 3:6b (JEON, Call, 144) is unlikely, since the explicit reference to Yhwh as the subject in 3:7a is necessitated only by the shift to Moses as the subject in 3:6b. In other words, 3:7a cannot connect directly to 3:6a. 65 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 74.

24

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

Exod 3:7-9 are also rather overloaded with details and repetitions. Yhwh first announces that he has seen the affliction of his people in Egypt (3:7a) and then adds that he has heard their cry from before their taskmasters and knows their suffering (3:7b). Whereas 3:7a presupposes only that the people are afflicted socially and/or economically, 3:7b presupposes that the Egyptians also placed taskmasters over them, suggesting that 3:7b – like 1:11a – is a later addition.66 The statement in 3:8aβ that Yhwh will bring his people “to a land flowing with milk and honey” is also not completely necessary following the phrase “to a good and expansive land” in 3:8aα.67 Finally, Yhwh’s statement in 3:9 that he has heard the cry of the Israelites and has seen their oppression by the Egyptians is redundant in light of 3:7a and comes too late following 3:8, thus, it cannot belong to the same compositional level as 3:78*.68 Thus, the earliest literary stratum within 3:7-9 is likely to be found in 3:7a, 8aα, while the remainder of the material in these verses is secondary.69 Following the deity’s introductory speech, the actual commissioning of Moses occurs in Exod 3:10, 16-18. The deity’s command to Moses to go to Pharaoh in 3:10 has a doublet in 3:16-18, in which the deity tells Moses to assemble the elders of Israel and to ask the king of Egypt to let them make a three-day journey to sacrifice to Yhwh.70 These verses cannot belong to the same compositional level, since in 3:10 the deity implies that Moses will confront Pharaoh alone, while according to 3:16-18 Moses and the elders of Israel will confront the king of Egypt.71 Of the two versions, 3:10 is likely earlier for several reasons: (1) It takes up the phrase “my people” (‫ )עמי‬from 3:7a; (2) the use of ‫ ועתה‬is fitting here as part of a commissioning scene, whereas it is absent in 3:16;72 and (3) 3:16-18 presuppose the motif of the ancestors, which is absent from the most basic material within 3:1-9.73 Thus,

























































66

Cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 289 n. 77 (ET 282 n 51); GERTZ, Tradition, 284; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 139. In contrast, JEON, Call, 120–21 regards Exod 3:7 as a compositional unity. 67 For a different view, see JEON, Call, 121–22, who regards Exod 3:8 as a unity. 68 Cf. JEON, Call, 93–105, with detailed arguments against the view of Blum, Otto, K. Schmid, and Dozeman that Exod 3:7-9 are a compositional unity. 69 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 326–29; GERTZ, Tradition, 281–305; KRATZ, Komposition, 289 n. 77 (ET 282 n. 51); and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 68–69. 70 Cf. WEIMAR, Berufung, 49. 71 Cf. JEON, Call, 124; against RÖMER, “Exodus 3–4,” 76. 72 ALBERTZ, “Beginn,” 243 argues that ‫ ועתה‬in Exod 3:9 originally connected directly to 3:16, but this is quite unlikely, since 3:9 was evaluated as a later addition within 3:7-9. 73 Even if the reference to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Exod 3:16aβ is an addition, the phrase ‫ אלהי אבתיכם‬in 3:16aα is integral to the verse; cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 69.

3. Moses in Midian (Exod 2:15bβ–4:31)

25

there are multiple grounds for interpreting 3:16-18 as a later modification of the commissioning of Moses in 3:10.74 Situated between the two versions of Moses’ commissioning in Exod 3:10 and 3:16-18 is a series of two objections by Moses and responses by the deity (3:11-12, 13-15). The fact that 3:11 and 3:13 both begin with ‫ויאמר משה אל‬ ‫ האלהים‬suggests that one of Moses’ objections was added later on the model of the other.75 Of the two objections, the second does not connect well to the basic narrative thread identified so far, since in 3:13 Moses assumes that his task is to announce to the Israelites that “the god of your ancestors sent me to you,” although this notion appears only in 3:6aβ, which was identified as a later addition. Furthermore, the repetition of divine statements to Moses in 3:14 and 3:15 suggests that these verses do not belong to the same compositional level. On the one hand, the introductory statement ‫ויאמר עוד אלהים אל‬ ‫ משה‬in 3:15 suggests that this verse is later than 3:14; on the other hand, 3:14 does not fully answer Moses’ question in 3:13, while 3:15 does.76 Regardless of the precise diachronic relationship between 3:14 and 3:15, it can be concluded that Moses’ objection and the deity’s response in 3:11-12 constitute the earliest material within 3:11-15. Whether these verses belonged to the same compositional level as 3:10 is difficult to determine. If ‫ואשלחך אל פרעה‬ in 3:10aβ is secondary,77 this would suggest that 3:11-12 are also later than 3:10*.78 Following the deity’s instructions to Moses in Exod 3:10-18, in 3:19-22 the deity foretells to Moses some of the events leading up to the people’s departure from Egypt. These verses cannot be earlier than the (secondary) commissioning of Moses and the elders in 3:16-18,79 since in 3:19 the deity tells Moses that the “king of Egypt” will not allow “you” (pl.) to “go” (‫לא יתן‬ ‫)אתכם מלך מצרים להלך‬, which draws on language from 3:18 in multiple ways.80 Since 3:20 is conceptually inseparable from 3:19, it also cannot be

























































74

On the secondary nature of these verses, see KRATZ, Komposition, 289 n. 77 (ET 282 n. 51); H.-C. SCHMITT, “Altesten,” 59–61; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 69. In contrast, GERTZ, Tradition, 346–47 and ALBERTZ, “Beginn,” 243 assign parts of Exod 3:16-17 to the most basic narrative. 75 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 294 with n. 276 against JEON, Call, 110. 76 This leads JEON, Call, 111–13 to conclude that Exod 3:14 was modeled on 3:15* (without ‫)עוד‬. 77 BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 77. 78 JEON, Call, 106 claims that Exod 3:11 cannot be “literary-critically separated from vv. 9-10,” although strictly speaking it simply cannot be earlier than 3:9-10. 79 Cf. JEON, Call, 125. 80 Cf. the reference to the “king of Egypt,” the assumption that Moses is acting as the leader of a larger group, and the use of the verb ‫הלך‬.

26

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

earlier than 3:16-18. Likewise, 3:21-22 build on the details about the people’s departure in 3:19-20 and thus cannot be earlier than those verses. 81 In Exod 4:1-17, Moses has a series of exchanges with Yhwh over concerns with his mission. First, Moses raises a concern that the people will doubt that Yhwh appeared to him and thus will not follow his instructions. In response, Yhwh provides Moses with three signs demonstrating his legitimacy (4:1-9). Moses then protests that he is “not a man of words,” to which Yhwh responds that he will guide Moses’ speech (4:10-12). Following this initial exchange, Moses still resists, so Yhwh appoints Aaron as Moses’ spokesperson (4:1316). The unit concludes with a reference to Moses’ staff in 4:17. Within Exod 4:1-9, 4:5 emerges as a later addition, since it creates a syntactic and conceptual break between 4:4 and 4:6.82 Likewise, there are reasons to suspect that the third sign in 4:9 is a later addition, as suggested by the binary nature of 4:8.83 Within 4:10-16, there are good reasons for suspecting that 4:13-16 are secondary to 4:10-12. Moses’ initial protest is successfully resolved by Yhwh’s provision of divine guidance, and Yhwh’s instruction for Moses to go (‫ )לך‬in 4:12 connects well with 4:18, forming a transition into the next scene (‫)וילך משה וישב אל יתר חתנו‬. Moreover, the repetition of the phrase ‫ בי אדני‬in 4:13 is somewhat redundant when compared to 4:10; this Wiederaufnahme seems to serve as a means of introducing a second objection by Moses, even after Yhwh has settled the matter in 4:10-12.84 From a narrative perspective, Moses’ objection in Exod 4:10 does not follow logically from 4:1-9*, which thematize Moses’ legitimacy through visual signs, not speech. Thus, it is likely that 4:1-9* and 4:10-12 also do not belong to the same compositional level.85 Although each unit can theoretically stand alone without the other, I am inclined to regard 4:1-9* as more original and 4:10-12 as a later expansion.86 In any event, neither unit can be connected directly to 3:10; rather, both units presuppose 3:16-18, in which Yhwh instructs Moses to speak to the elders as well as to the king of Egypt. Thus, the most basic material in Exod 4:1-17 is later than that in Exod 3. 87 In sum, the most basic narrative of Moses’ commissioning in Exod 3:1– 4:17 likely consists of Exod 3:1* (without ‫ יתרו חתנו‬and ‫)הר האלהים‬, 2b-3a,



























































81 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 101 and JEON, Call, 127. In contrast, KRATZ, Komposition, 293 (ET 285) regards these verses as part of the most basic material in Exod 3. 82 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 111 and JEON, Call, 131. 83 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 108 and JEON, Call, 131–32. 84 NOTH, Exodus, 33 (ET 46) already observed that Exod 4:13-16 are a later addition serving to integrate Aaron into the narrative context of Exod 4. 85 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 111 and JEON, Call, 129. 86 For further arguments in favor of such a conclusion, see BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 108. 87 Cf. JEON, Call, 129–30.

3. Moses in Midian (Exod 2:15bβ–4:31)

27

4a, 5a, 6b-7a, 10aαb* (without ‫)בני ישראל‬.88 This episode was then expanded in several stages. The earliest additions were perhaps made in the burning bush scene in 3:2-6*, in Yhwh’s statement that he will send Moses to Pharaoh in 3:10aβ, and in Moses’ objection in 3:11-12. Following these additions, a series of further expansions were made in 3:13-14, 15, and 16-18. The remainder of the materials in Exod 3 (3:19-20, 21-22) presuppose 3:16-18, as do 4:1-17, which possibly developed in a more or less linear fashion, beginning with 4:1-9*; then 4:10-12 and 4:13-16; and finally 4:17. Moses’ return to Egypt (Exod 4:18-31). Given that Moses’ marriage to Zipporah in Exod 2:15bβ2-22 is secondary, Moses’ interaction with Jether in 4:18* and the reference to Moses’ wife and children in 4:20aα cannot belong to the most basic narrative thread in 4:18-31. At the same time, at least some of the material within Exod 4:18aα* (only ‫)וילך משה‬, 19, 20aβb must belong to the most basic narrative thread, since the continuation of the narrative depends upon Moses’ return to Egypt. Although 4:19 does not mention Moses’ family, there is reason to suspect that this verse does not belong to the basic narrative thread. Here, the motif of Moses’ personal safety connects back to the report of Moses’ flight after killing the Egyptian in 2:11-15*.89 Yet while 2:11-15* state that Pharaoh sought to kill Moses, 4:19 states that certain “men” sought to kill him, suggesting that 4:19 presupposes Moses’ confrontation with the two Hebrew men in 2:13-14.90 Since the latter verses were evaluated as a later addition to the narrative, this suggests that 4:19 does not belong to the most basic report of Moses’ return to Egypt. If this verse is bracketed out as a later addition, then a more basic sequence of events emerges in 4:18aα*, 20aβ (‫)וילך משה…וישב ארצה מצרים‬.91 Neither the reference to Moses’ staff in 4:20b nor Yhwh’s instructions to Moses in 4:21-23 can belong to this basic report, since both presuppose the later addition in 4:1-9.92 From a purely literary-critical perspective, the “bridegroom of blood” episode in Exod 4:24-26 does not show awareness of 3:1–4:17, which has led some commentators to regard it as part of an earlier story of Moses’ flight that also included 2:11-23a; 4:19-20a.93 Yet such a reconstruction is problematic, since Moses’ marriage to Zipporah in 2:15bβ2-23aα does not belong to the most basic material in 2:15bβ–4:31, which rules out 4:24-26 as well.

























































88

For a similar reconstruction of the basic narrative thread, see BERNER, Exoduserzählung 103. On the secondary nature of ‫ בני ישראל‬in Exod 3:10, see ibid., 70. 89 Cf. JEON, Call, 139, 146. 90 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 57. 91 Cf. ibid., 59. The likelihood that the references to Moses’ family are secondary receives further support from the fact that the remainder of Exod 4:18 uses the same verb (‫ )וישב‬as 4:20bβ, which suggests that this verb served as a starting point for the insertion. 92 Cf. ibid., 127–29. 93 JEON, Call, 151.

28

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

Moreover, the possibility that a narrative including a number of details about Moses’ family in 2:15bβ-23a; 4:19-20a, 24-26 is more original than the commissioning of Moses in Exod 3* seems unlikely from the perspective of the events that follow, where Moses’ particular mission is presupposed, while his family plays no further role. Finally, Aaron’s performance of signs before the people in Exod 4:27-31 is dependent on several later additions within 2:15bβ–4:31. The fact that Yhwh gives Aaron instructions to meet Moses would be incomprehensible without the dialogue between Moses and Yhwh in 4:13-16, which provides necessary background information on Aaron’s character.94 Moreover, 4:27-31 presuppose Yhwh’s giving “signs” to Moses and the motif of the people’s belief found in 4:1-9.95 Interim result. Based on the foregoing analysis, the most basic narrative thread within Exod 2:15bβ–4:31 can be identified in 2:15bβ1; 3:1*, 2b-3a, 4a, 5a, 6b-7a, 10aαb*; 4:18aα*, 20aβ. This brief report of the commissioning of Moses was subsequently expanded in 2:23aβb-25; 3:1–4:17*; 4:21-23, 27-31 and was also supplemented with materials relating to Moses’ family in 2:15bβ1-23aα; 4:18-20*, 24-26. 3.2. Macrocontextual analysis Exod 2:15bβ-25. Although the narrative of Moses’ marriage to Zipporah in Exod 2:15bβ*-23aα has generally been assumed to be pre-priestly,96 its prepriestly provenance is severely undermined by the fact that 2:23aα cannot be convincingly connected to any other material besides 2:23aβb-25, which are almost universally regarded as a priestly unit.97 A direct connection to 3:1 is not possible from a narrative standpoint, while a direct connection to 4:1820* would leave out the commissioning of Moses altogether, which creates problems for the beginning of the plagues narrative. Thus, as already indicated in §3.1, 2:15bβ*-23aα must be evaluated as later than 2:23aβ-25 and therefore also as post-priestly.98

























































94

Cf. ibid. Cf. ibid., 152, who proposes that Exod 4:29-31 originally referred to Moses, not Aaron, and are earlier than 4:27-28. 96 Cf. NOTH, Exodus, 14 (ET 25); CHILDS, Exodus, 7; W. H. SCHMIDT, Ex 1–6, 51–55; VAN SETERS, Life, 28–33; PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 145, 162; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 53–55. 97 Cf. WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 62; NOTH, Exodus, 22 (ET 34); CHILDS, Exodus, 28; PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 178; GERTZ, Tradition, 239; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 62–65; IDEM, “Der literarische Charakter,” 99–100; DOZEMAN, Exodus, 61; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 22. 98 Cf. BERNER, “Der literarische Charakter,” 100–101. 95

3. Moses in Midian (Exod 2:15bβ–4:31)

29

Exod 3:1–4:17. Source critics have traditionally divided Exod 3:1–4:17 between J and E narrative strands.99 Gradually, however, the difficulties presented by a facile division of sources within the unit led to a breakdown in the assumption that all of the material in these chapters belongs to the socalled old sources,100 and many commentators began to argue that at least parts of Exod 4:1-17 belong to a post-priestly stage of composition.101 More recently, several scholars have adopted the view that Exod 3:1–4:17 as a whole is post-priestly, thereby inverting the long-held view that this unit was the source for the priestly version of the commissioning of Moses in Exod 6:2-12.102 These widely divergent analyses must be addressed in the following discussion. The foregoing literary-critical analysis concluded that the most basic material within Exod 3:1–4:17 consists of 3:1*, 2b-3a, 4a, 5a, 6b-7a, 10aαb*. This isolation of a more basic narrative thread within 3:1-10 undermines one of the arguments for regarding 3:1–4:17 as a whole as post-priestly. According to Konrad Schmid, “It is improbable that P would have secondarily profaned the place of Moses’ commissioning,” namely, by relocating it from the mountain of God to Egypt.103 Yet in light of the foregoing analysis, it is likely that both the reference to the mountain of God in 3:1 and the reference to holy ground in 3:5b are later additions that may not have been present in the form of Exod 3 presupposed by the priestly commissioning scene in Exod 6:2-12.

























































99

WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 70 is ambivalent here, assigning the base text in Exod 3:1-15; 4:19, 21-23 to E and the base text in 3:16–4:17, 27-31 to J but also suggesting that the “Jehovist” combined these sources rather freely. CHILDS, Exodus, 52–53 summarizes the traditional source-critical analysis as follows: J = 3:2-4a, 5, 7, 8, 16-22; 4:1-16; E = 3:1, 4b, 6, 9-15; 4:17. 100 For a harbinger of this shift, see CHILDS, Exodus, 52, who argues that the appearance of Aaron in Exod 4:13-16 is secondary to the most basic narrative thread, and W. H. SCHMIDT, Ex 1–6, 106–10, who identifies J and E materials in Exod 3:1-17 but attributes the rest of the unit to late redactional work. But see also BLUM, Studien, 20–28, who regards most of Exod 3:1–4:17 (apart from 4:13-16) as a unity; VAN SETERS, Life, 35–63, who assigns Exod 3–4 in its entirety to his post-D, pre-priestly Yahwist; and LEVIN, Jahwist, 327–29. For a recent return to a version of the documentary approach, see DOZEMAN, Exodus, 31–35. 101 VALENTIN, Aaron, 50–107, esp. 101–7; WEIMAR, Berufung, 16–86, 349–57; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Redaktion,” 184; AHUIS, Der klagende Gerichtsprophet, 43–54; GERTZ, Tradition, 245–56; BLUM, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 135; HAARMANN, JHWH-Verehrer, 86; RÖMER, “Exodus 3–4,” 65–79; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 67–122; CARR, Formation, 118–19, 123, 140–43, 269–70, 276; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 67–99. 102 OTTO, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 101–11; K. SCHMID, Erzväter, 186–209 (ET 172–93); IDEM, “Exodus,” 56–57; KEGLER, “Berufung,” 162–88; and now also BERNER, “Der literarische Charakter,” 106, 131. 103 K. SCHMID, “Exodus,” 56–57.

30

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

In Exod 3:4bβ, the deity calls Moses’ name twice, and Moses responds with the expression ‫הנני‬. Both of these elements form a connection with the deity’s self-revelation to Jacob in Gen 46:2 as well as to Samuel in 1 Sam 3:4.104 In light of the statement ‫ אנכי אלהי אביך‬in Exod 3:6a, it is likely that the theophany in Gen 46:1-4 in particular is in view here.105 In Exod 3:5b, the deity’s instructions to Moses to take off his sandals has a parallel in the appearance of the “commander of the army of Yhwh” in Josh 5:13-15, although the direction of dependence between these two passages is difficult to determine.106 The reference to “a land flowing with milk and honey” followed by a list of six indigenous peoples in Exod 3:8aβb is a typical Deuteronomistic expression and thus cannot belong to a pre-Deuteronomistic stage of composition.107 The references to the suffering of the Israelites in 3:7b, 9 quite possibly presuppose the priestly report of the people’s suffering in 2:23aβb-25.108 Admittedly, such a conclusion is tempered somewhat by the fact that 3:7b, 9 use the verb ‫ צעק‬while 2:23aβb-25 do not;109 nevertheless, the use of ‫בני‬ ‫ ישראל‬in 3:7b, 9 provides further support for the possibly (post-)priestly provenance of these verses. Although the divine name “Yhwh” has already appeared in Exod 3:7a, which is part of the most basic material in the chapter, 3:11-12 seem to purposefully avoid using the name Yhwh, suggesting that these verses presuppose the priestly version of Yhwh’s self-revelation to Moses in Exod 6:2-9. A further indication that 3:11-12 are post-priestly is the fact that Yhwh’s statement that the people will worship God “on this mountain” finds its fulfillment



























































104 Notably, the circumstances of this call are exceptional in comparison to the other two cases, which both occur while Jacob and Samuel, respectively, are sleeping, suggesting that the use of the motif here likely drew on one or both of the other texts and was not a source for them. Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 237–54, who attributes Exod 3:4b to a postpriestly Pentateuch redactor, and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 83–84, who regards 3:4b and 3:6a as additions that seek to place the burning bush episode in parallel with the theophanies in Gen 26:24; 28:13; and 46:3. 105 The literary place of these verses is debated; for a brief review of literature, see EBACH, Genesis 37–50, 419–20. 106 DOZEMAN, Exodus, 121 notes the connection but does not argue for a particular direction of dependence. ROSE, Deuteronomist, 71–90; VAN SETERS, Life, 37–38; and JEON, Call, 141–42 argue that Exod 3:5 is literarily dependent on Josh 5:13-15. In contrast, KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 395 concludes that Josh 5:13-15 presuppose Exod 3:5. 107 DOZEMAN, Exodus, 129 notes that this same six-nation list occurs elsewhere in Exod 3:17; 23:23; 33:2; 34:11; Deut 20:17; Josh 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; Judg 3:5; Neh 9:8. 108 OTTO, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 107. 109 Cf. RÖMER, “Exodus 3–4,” 69 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 77–80, who question the view that Exod 3:7b, 9 presuppose 2:23aβb-25.

3. Moses in Midian (Exod 2:15bβ–4:31)

31

in the post-priestly covenant ritual in Exod 24:4-8.110 Assuming that 3:13-14 and 3:15 are not earlier than 3:11-12, these verses must also be post-priestly. Exod 3:17 reflects Deuteronomistic language, although there is no immediate evidence for determining whether this addition is pre- or post-priestly. If one looks beyond Exod 3, however, the reference to the elders in 3:16-18 connects to the fulfillment notice in 4:27-31 as well as to Exod 12:21, both of which prove to be post-priestly.111 Exod 3:19-20 presuppose the motif of Pharaoh’s refusal to let the people go and the notion of Yhwh’s “wonders” (‫ )נפלאת‬in the plagues cycle, the latter of which is post-priestly.112 The phrase ‫ ולא ביד חזקה‬in 3:19b, which does not fit smoothly with the syntax of the rest of the verse and seems to be an even later insertion, foreshadows the use of the phrase ‫ ביד חזקה‬in 6:1 and 13:9, both of which are likely post-priestly texts.113 Finally, the foreshadowing of the Israelites’ despoiling of the Egyptians in 3:21-22 prepares the ground for the fulfillment reports in Exod 11:23a; 12:35-36 and ultimately for the construction of the tabernacle in Exod 25– 31; 35–40 and/or the (post-priestly) episode of the golden calf in Exod 32.114 Thus, the motif of the despoiling of the Egyptians cannot be pre-priestly. 115 In Exod 4:1-9, the motif of belief represents a further reflection on Yhwh’s statement in 3:18a that the elders will heed Moses’ voice116 and simultaneously anticipates the people’s unwillingness to listen to Moses in 6:9, neither of which is pre-priestly.117 The post-priestly nature of this unit is further demonstrated by the fact that all three signs that Yhwh shows Moses (Moses’ staff becoming a snake, Moses’ hand being affected by a skin disease, and the Nile turning into blood) have close connections to the priestly additions to the



























































110 On the post-priestly provenance of Exod 24:4-8, see Chapter 4, §1.2. Here I disagree with BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 82, who regards 24:4-8 as pre-priestly and thus considers that 3:12* may also be pre-priestly. More recently, however, Berner has also concluded that Exod 24:4-8 are post-priestly (private communication). 111 Cf. H.-C. SCHMITT, “Ältesten,” 57–72 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 88–89. 112 On the plagues cycle, see §6. On the evaluation of Exod 3:19-20 as post-priestly, see RÖMER, “Exodus 3–4,” 76 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 88. 113 On the dependence of Exod 3:19b on Exod 6:1, see BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 98– 99; on the post-priestly nature of Exod 6:1, see ibid., 143. 114 On Exod 32, see Chapter 5, §1.2. 115 The literary place of Exod 3:21-22 is heavily debated. For the view that these verses belong to a pre-priestly narrative thread, see LEVIN, Jahwist, 329; GERTZ, Tradition, 304; and KRATZ, Komposition, 293 (ET 285). For the view that they are post-priestly, see OTTO, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 107; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Ältesten,” 59; WEIMAR, Berufung, 55–59; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 99–102. 116 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 106–7, who notes that the wording of Exod 4:1 draws on Deut 9:23; on the post-priestly nature of the latter, see Chapter 5, §2. 117 Cf. K. SCHMID, “Exodus,” 56–57. I disagree, however, with Schmid’s conclusion that Exod 3–4 as a whole are post-priestly, which is based on the assumption that these chapters are basically a compositional unity.

32

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

plagues narrative or otherwise show signs of priestly concepts.118 Although there are indeed some differences from the priestly plagues,119 these differences hardly constitute evidence for a pre-priestly dating of 4:1-9. For example, the first sign applies the miracle of Aaron’s staff in 7:8-13 to Moses,120 while the second sign involving the skin disease on Moses’ hand has close connections to the priestly ritual texts concerning skin disease in Lev 13–14 as well as to the post-priestly text of Num 12.121 Since the reference to Moses’ staff in Exod 4:17 cannot stand alone without 4:1-9, this verse must also be post-priestly.122 Since Moses’ objection in Exod 4:10-12 that he is not “a man of words” presupposes Yhwh’s instructions to Moses to speak to the Israelite elders in 3:16-18, these verses must be evaluated as post-priestly. Moreover, since 4:13-16 cannot stand without 4:10-12, they must also be post-priestly. This conclusion is supported by the fact that 4:13-16 presuppose Aaron’s involvement in the plagues narrative, extending such involvement to Moses’ initial encounter with the people even before the confrontation with Pharaoh.123 Exod 4:18-31. Given that Exod 2:15bβ2-23aα belong to a later stage of composition than the priestly text of 2:23aβb-25, the corresponding references to Moses’ family in 4:18*, 20aα, and 24-26 must also be evaluated as post-priestly.124 Furthermore, since 4:27-31 depend on 4:1-9 and 4:13-16,

























































118

For the view that Exod 4:1-9 are post-priestly, see WEIMAR, Berufung, 349–57; OT“Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 103–6; K. SCHMID, Erzväter, 203– 5 (ET 188–89); GERTZ, Tradition, 313–15; and BLUM, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 134. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 104 notes the arguments for a post-priestly date for this unit yet still assigns it to his Non-P History. JEON, Call, 130 emphasizes the Deuteronomistic nature of 4:1-8 but does not discuss their connections to the priestly version of the plagues narrative. 119 E.g., the snake in Exod 4:3 is referred to as a ‫נחש‬, while the snake in 7:8-13 is referred to as a ‫ ;תנין‬the miracles in 4:1-9 are called ‫אתות‬, while those in the priestly plagues are called ‫ ;מפתים‬and the sign of Moses’ hand being healed from a skin disease is not part of the plagues narrative at all; cf. NOTH, Exodus, 32 (ET 45–46); W. H. SCHMIDT, Ex 1–6, 195–96; VAN SETERS, Life, 55–58; and DOZEMAN, Exodus, 104–5, 139–41. 120 On Exod 7:8-13 as the literary Vorlage for 4:2-4, see GERTZ, Tradition, 312–14 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 109. 121 On Num 12, see Chapter 6, §3.2. 122 For a detailed discussion of the role of Moses’ staff in later stages of the composition of the exodus narrative, see BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 119–22. On the post-priestly nature of Exod 4:17, see also JEON, Call, 136. 123 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 116–17. 124 Further evidence that Exod 4:24-26 are post-priestly has been offered by BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 129–31, who argues that Yhwh sought to kill Moses’ son rather than Moses himself, given that the death of the firstborn is the theme of the immediately preceding passage in 4:21-23. According to this reading, Zipporah’s circumcision of her son and smearing the blood on his genitals can be interpreted as an apotropaic measure that TO,

3. Moses in Midian (Exod 2:15bβ–4:31)

33

these verses are also post-priestly. Thus, the only potentially pre-priestly materials within Exod 4:18-31 are 4:18aα*, 20aβ. 3.3. Synthesis I

The most basic narrative thread within Exod 2:15bβ–4:31 consists of 2:15bβ1; 3:1*, 2b-3a, 4a, 5a, 6b-7a, 10*; 4:18aα*, 20aβ. This narrative recounts Yhwh’s commissioning of Moses and gives no indication of presupposing priestly literature.125

II

The priestly text of Exod 2:23aβb-25 was added at a relatively early stage in the composition of 2:15bβ–4:31, as it predates all of the passages relating to Moses’ family (2:15bβ2-23aα; 4:18*, 20aα, 24-26) and at least some of the additions to the commissioning of Moses in Exod 3 (e.g., 3:7b, 9).

III

The commissioning of Moses in Exod 3:1-10* was significantly expanded through a variety of additions in 3:1*, 2a, 3b, 4b, 5b, 7b-9, 10*, 11-22; 4:1-17, 20b, 21-23, 27-31, which are not all the product of a single hand but are all likely post-priestly.

IV

The passages relating to Moses’ family in Exod 2:15bβ2-23aα; 4:18*, 20aα, 24-26 are perhaps among the latest texts in 2:15bβ–4:31 and are in any event no earlier than the priestly text of 2:23aβb-25.

IV+ Yhwh’s command to Moses to return to Egypt in 4:19 is quite possibly later than Moses’ interaction with Jether in 4:18*, 20aα, as it interrupts a direct narrative connection between the latter two texts.



























































































































parallels the smearing of blood on the doorposts in 12:22. Since both 4:21-23 and 12:22 are (post-)priestly texts, 4:24-26 is also post-priestly; see also OSWALD, Staatstheorie, 225. Zipporah’s use of a stone tool to perform the circumcision also places this episode in parallel with Joshua’s circumcision of the Israelites in Josh 5:2-9; on this, see BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 131–32; BLUM, “Beschneidung,” 310 (repr. 238); and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 313–16. On Josh 5:2-9, see also Chapter 9, §4. 125 This reconstruction is similar to that of BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 103–5, 133–36, although it differs from Berner’s assignment of Exod 3:9, 11-12 to a pre-priestly stage of composition. The conclusion that the basic commissioning of Moses in Exod 3* is earlier than the priestly version of Moses’ commissioning in Exod 6 is logical, since it is difficult to conceive of a pre-priestly exodus narrative without this key episode. As Berner has rightly observed, “Wer den literarischen Grundbestand von Ex 3,1–4,18 für nachpriesterschriftlich hält, müßte konsequenterweise auch annehmen, daß die älteste Exoduserzählung aus der Feder von P stammt!” (ibid., 68). More recently, however, BERNER, “Der literarische Charakter,” 131 has adopted the view that Exod 3–4 are post-priestly in their entirety, arguing that the pre-priestly exodus narrative originally moved directly from Exod 2:1-10*, 11a to Exod 7:14–8:11*, (12-28*); 12:29-33*, 37a; 13:20; 15:22aβ.

‫)‪Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12‬‬ ‫‪III‬‬

‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪2:15bβ‬‬

‫וישב בארץ מדין‬

‫‪34‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪16‬‬

‫ולכהן מדין שבע בנות ותבאנה ותדלנה ותמלאנה את הרהטים‬ ‫וישב על הבאר‬ ‫להשקות צאן אביהן ‪ 17‬ויבאו הרעים ויגרשום ויקם משה ויושען וישק את צאנם‬ ‫‪ 18‬ותבאנה אל רעואל אביהן ויאמר מדוע מהרתן בא היום ‪ 19‬ותאמרן איש מצרי‬ ‫הצילנו מיד הרעים וגם דלה דלה לנו וישק את הצאן ‪ 20‬ויאמר אל בנתיו ואיו למה זה‬ ‫עזבתן את האיש קראן לו ויאכל לחם ‪ 21‬ויואל משה לשבת את האיש ויתן את צפרה‬ ‫בתו למשה ‪ 22‬ותלד בן ויקרא את שמו גרשם כי אמר גר הייתי בארץ נכריה ‪ 23aα‬ויהי‬ ‫בימים הרבים ההם וימת מלך מצרים‬ ‫‪ 23aβb‬ויאנחו בני ישראל מן העבדה ויזעקו ותעל שועתם אל האלהים מן העבדה ‪ 24‬וישמע אלהים‬ ‫את נאקתם ויזכר אלהים את בריתו את אברהם את יצחק ואת יעקב ‪ 25‬וירא אלהים את בני‬ ‫ישראל וידע אלהים‬ ‫‪ 3:1‬ומשה היה רעה את צאן ]יתרו חתנו[ כהן מדין וינהג את הצאן אחר המדבר ויבא אל ]הר האלהים[‬ ‫חרבה‬ ‫‪ 2‬וירא מלאך ה׳ אליו בלבת אש מתוך הסנה‬ ‫וירא והנה הסנה בער באש והסנה איננו אכל ‪ 3‬ויאמר משה אסרה נא ואראה את המראה הגדל הזה‬ ‫מדוע לא יבער הסנה‬ ‫‪ 4‬וירא ה׳ כי סר לראות‬ ‫ויקרא אליו אלהים מתוך הסנה ויאמר משה משה ויאמר הנני‬ ‫‪ 5‬ויאמר אל תקרב הלם‬ ‫של נעליך מעל רגליך כי המקום אשר אתה עומד עליו אדמת קדש הוא ‪ 6‬ויאמר אנכי אלהי‬ ‫אביך אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב‬ ‫ויסתר משה פניו כי ירא מהביט אל האלהים ‪ 7‬ויאמר ה׳ ראה ראיתי את עני עמי אשר במצרים‬ ‫ואת צעקתם שמעתי מפני נגשיו כי ידעתי את מכאביו ‪ 8‬וארד להצילו מיד מצרים ולהעלתו‬ ‫מן הארץ ההוא אל ארץ טובה ורחבה ]אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש אל מקום הכנעני והחתי‬ ‫והאמרי והפרזי והחוי והיבוסי[ ‪ 9‬ועתה הנה צעקת בני ישראל באה אלי וגם ראיתי את‬ ‫הלחץ אשר מצרים לחצים אתם‬ ‫‪ 10‬ועתה לכה ואשלחך אל פרעה והוצא את עמי ]בני ישראל[ ממצרים‬ ‫‪12‬‬

‫‪ 11‬ויאמר משה אל האלהים מי אנכי כי אלך אל פרעה וכי אוציא את בני ישראל ממצרים‬ ‫ויאמר כי אהיה עמך וזה לך האות כי אנכי שלחתיך בהוציאך את העם ממצרים תעבדון את‬ ‫האלהים על ההר הזה ‪ 13‬ויאמר משה אל האלהים הנה אנכי בא אל בני ישראל ואמרתי‬ ‫להם אלהי אבותיכם שלחני אליכם ואמרו לי מה שמו מה אמר אלהם ‪ 14‬ויאמר אלהים אל‬ ‫משה אהיה אשר אהיה ויאמר כה תאמר לבני ישראל אהיה שלחני אליכם ‪ 15‬ויאמר עוד‬ ‫אלהים אל משה כה תאמר אל בני ישראל ה׳ אלהי אבתיכם אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק‬ ‫ואלהי יעקב שלחני אליכם זה שמי לעלם וזה זכרי לדר דר ‪ 16‬לך ואספת את זקני ישראל‬ ‫ואמרת אלהם ה׳ אלהי אבתיכם נראה אלי אלהי אברהם יצחק ויעקב לאמר פקד פקדתי‬ ‫אתכם ואת העשוי לכם במצרים ‪ 17‬ואמר אעלה אתכם מעני מצרים אל ארץ הכנעני והחתי‬ ‫והאמרי והפרזי והחוי והיבוסי אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש ‪ 18‬ושמעו לקלך ובאת אתה וזקני‬ ‫ישראל אל‬

‫‪35‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫)‪3. Moses in Midian (Exod 2:15bβ–4:31‬‬ ‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫מלך מצרים ואמרתם אליו ה׳ אלהי העבריים נקרה עלינו ועתה נלכה נא דרך שלשת ימים‬ ‫במדבר ונזבחה לה׳ אלהינו ‪ 19‬ואני ידעתי כי לא יתן אתכם מלך מצרים להלך ולא ביד חזקה‬ ‫‪ 20‬ושלחתי את ידי והכיתי את מצרים בכל נפלאתי אשר אעשה בקרבו ואחרי כן ישלח‬ ‫אתכם ‪ 21‬ונתתי את חן העם הזה בעיני מצרים והיה כי תלכון לא תלכו ריקם ‪ 22‬ושאלה אשה‬ ‫משכנתה ומגרת ביתה כלי כסף וכלי זהב ושמלת ושמתם על בניכם ועל בנתיכם ונצלתם‬ ‫את מצרים ‪ 4:1‬ויען משה ויאמר והן לא יאמינו לי ולא ישמעו בקלי כי יאמרו לא נראה אליך‬ ‫ה׳ ‪ 2‬ויאמר אליו ה׳ מזה בידך ויאמר מטה ‪ 3‬ויאמר השליכהו ארצה וישלכהו ארצה ויהי‬ ‫לנחש וינס משה מפניו ‪ 4‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה שלח ידך ואחז בזנבו וישלח ידו ויחזק בו ויהי‬ ‫למטה בכפו ‪ 5‬למען יאמינו כי נראה אליך ה׳ אלהי אבתם אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי‬ ‫יעקב ‪ 6‬ויאמר ה׳ לו עוד הבא נא ידך בחיקך ויבא ידו בחיקו ויוצאה והנה ידו מצרעת כשלג‬ ‫‪ 7‬ויאמר השב ידך אל חיקך וישב ידו אל חיקו ויוצאה מחיקו והנה שבה כבשרו ‪ 8‬והיה אם‬ ‫לא יאמינו לך ולא ישמעו לקל האת הראשון והאמינו לקל האת האחרון ‪ 9‬והיה אם לא‬ ‫יאמינו גם לשני האתות האלה ולא ישמעון לקלך ולקחת ממימי היאר ושפכת היבשה והיו‬ ‫המים אשר תקח מן היאר והיו לדם ביבשת ‪ 10‬ויאמר משה אל ה׳ בי אדני לא איש דברים‬ ‫אנכי גם מתמול גם משלשם גם מאז דברך אל עבדך כי כבד פה וכבד לשון אנכי ‪ 11‬ויאמר‬ ‫ה׳ אליו מי שם פה לאדם או מי ישום אלם או חרש או פקח או עור הלא אנכי ה׳ ‪ 12‬ועתה‬ ‫לך ואנכי אהיה עם פיך והוריתיך אשר תדבר ‪ 13‬ויאמר בי אדני שלח נא ביד תשלח ‪ 14‬ויחר‬ ‫אף ה׳ במשה ויאמר הלא אהרן אחיך הלוי ידעתי כי דבר ידבר הוא וגם הנה הוא יצא‬ ‫לקראתך וראך ושמח בלבו ‪ 15‬ודברת אליו ושמת את הדברים בפיו ואנכי אהיה עם פיך ועם‬ ‫פיהו והוריתי אתכם את אשר תעשון ‪ 16‬ודבר הוא לך אל העם והיה הוא יהיה לך לפה‬ ‫ואתה תהיה לו לאלהים ‪ 17‬ואת המטה הזה תקח בידך אשר תעשה בו את האתת‬ ‫‪ 18‬וילך משה‬ ‫וישב אל יתר חתנו ויאמר לו אלכה נא ואשובה אל אחי אשר במצרים ואראה העודם‬ ‫חיים ויאמר יתרו למשה לך לשלום ]‪ 19‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה במדין לך שב מצרים כי‬ ‫מתו כל האנשים המבקשים את נפשך[ ‪ 20‬ויקח משה את אשתו ואת בניו וירכבם על‬ ‫החמר‬ ‫וישב ארצה מצרים‬ ‫‪21‬‬

‫ויקח משה את מטה האלהים בידו ויאמר ה׳ אל משה בלכתך לשוב מצרימה ראה כל‬ ‫המפתים אשר שמתי בידך ועשיתם לפני פרעה ואני אחזק את לבו ולא ישלח את העם‬ ‫‪ 22‬ואמרת אל פרעה כה אמר ה׳ בני בכרי ישראל ‪ 23‬ואמר אליך שלח את בני ויעבדני ותמאן‬ ‫לשלחו הנה אנכי הרג את בנך בכרך‬ ‫‪ 24‬ויהי בדרך במלון ויפגשהו ה׳ ויבקש המיתו ‪ 25‬ותקח צפרה צר ותכרת את ערלת‬ ‫בנה ותגע לרגליו ותאמר כי חתן דמים אתה לי ‪ 26‬וירף ממנו אז אמרה חתן דמים‬ ‫למולת‬ ‫‪ 27‬ויאמר ה׳ אל אהרן לך לקראת משה המדברה וילך ויפגשהו בהר האלהים וישק לו ‪ 28‬ויגד‬ ‫משה לאהרן את כל דברי ה׳ אשר שלחו ואת כל האתת אשר צוהו ‪ 29‬וילך משה ואהרן‬ ‫ויאספו את כל זקני בני ישראל ‪ 30‬וידבר אהרן את כל הדברים אשר דבר ה׳ אל משה ויעש‬ ‫האתת לעיני העם ‪ 31‬ויאמן העם וישמעו כי פקד ה׳ את בני ישראל וכי ראה את ענים ויקדו‬ ‫וישתחוו‬

36

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

4. The First Encounter with Pharaoh (Exod 5:1–6:1) 4.1. Literary-critical analysis Exod 5:1–6:1 narrate the failure of the first audience of Moses and Aaron with Pharaoh and the intensification of the Israelites’ forced labor. In 5:1-2, Moses and Aaron present a divine message in prophetic speech, demanding that Pharaoh let the people go in order to celebrate a festival to Yhwh in the wilderness. Pharaoh responds by stating that he does not know Yhwh and will not let the people go. Following this initial exchange, Moses and Aaron reply that the “god of the Hebrews” has appeared to them, and they make a similar request to go to the wilderness in order to sacrifice to their deity. In light of the repetition of similar content in 5:1-2 and 5:3, it is possible that these verses do not belong to the same compositional level. 126 Since 5:3 does not provide the narrative setting of the scene and does not state the subjects of the verb ‫ ויאמרו‬explicitly, this verse cannot be earlier than 5:1-2.127 The request to let the people go in 5:3 finds a response only in 5:4, indicating that 5:3-4 were likely composed together. The use of the term ‫ מלך מצרים‬in 5:4 differs from the use of the term ‫ פרעה‬in 5:1-2, lending further support to the possibility that 5:3-4 are later than 5:1-2. Exod 5:5–6:1 return to using the term ‫פרעה‬, which upon first glance might suggest that these verses do not belong to the same compositional level as 5:3-4 but instead originally connected directly to 5:1-2. Nevertheless, such a scenario is quite unlikely, since Pharaoh’s commands to intensify the people’s labor in 5:8 and 5:17 presuppose the request of Moses and Aaron that the people be allowed to go in order to sacrifice to their deity in 5:3. Within 5:5–6:1, it is likely that 5:14-21 are a later expansion,128 since in these verses the overseers are referred to as the “overseers of the Israelites” (‫שטרי בני‬ ‫)ישראל‬, whereas in 5:5-13 the overseers are mentioned as something of an afterthought following the references to the taskmasters (5:6, 10)129 and without the use of the term ‫בני ישראל‬. Moreover, it is noteworthy that Pharaoh’s assertion in 5:17 that the people are lazy corresponds very closely to 5:8 and is rather redundant in light of the latter verse. The purpose of this addition in 5:14-21 seems to have been to portray the opposition to the task assigned to Moses and Aaron even among the Israelites themselves. The evaluation of 5:14-21 as a later expansion of 5:5-13 finds further support in the fact that



























































126 On the literary disunity of Exod 5:1-2 and 5:3, see GERTZ, Tradition, 335–45; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 137; and JEON, Call, 208. 127 Cf. AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 170 and GERTZ, Tradition, 338 against ALBERTZ, “Beginn,” 253–54, who argues that Exod 5:3-4 have literary priority over 5:1-2. 128 On Exod 5:14-21 as an expansion of 5:5-13, see B ERNER, Exoduserzählung, 138–39. 129 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 138, who concludes that the references to the overseers in Exod 5:6, 10 are secondary.

4. The First Encounter with Pharaoh (Exod 5:1–6:1)

37

Moses’ response to Yhwh in 5:22-23 does not show any awareness of the overseers’ indictment of Moses and Aaron in 5:14-21. Rather, 5:22-23 (as well as 6:1) can be connected directly to 5:13.130 In sum, the literary-critical analysis of Exod 5:1–6:1 suggests that an earlier narrative thread was expanded in multiple stages.131 The most basic narrative thread is to be found in Exod 5:1-2, which reports the request by Moses and Aaron to let the people go and Pharaoh’s refusal. This report was subsequently expanded in 5:3-4; then in 5:5-13, 22-23 and 6:1; and finally in 5:1421.132 4.2. Macrocontextual analysis Taking the foregoing analysis as a starting point, it can be concluded that none of the material in Exod 5:1–6:1 belongs to a pre-priestly stage of composition.133 The earliest literary stratum, which can be identified in 5:1-2, already presupposes priestly or post-priestly texts in its reference to Aaron (who first appears in 4:14-16, 27-31) as well as its reference to “celebrating a festival” (‫ )חג״ג‬to Yhwh (cf. Exod 12:14; 23:15; 32:5; 34:22, 25; Lev 23:29, 34).134 Although ‫ ויחגו לי במדבר‬in 5:1bγ can potentially be removed without disturbing the narrative coherence of the verse,135 the figure of Aaron cannot be removed without postulating an earlier form of the verse that has been overwritten.136 The (post-)priestly nature of the subsequent stages of composition is also supported by a variety of observations. For example, 5:3 is the fulfillment notice for 3:18, a post-priestly text.137 The (post-)priestly nature of 5:5-13, 21-22; 6:1 is indicated by the motif of brickmaking, which appears prior to this unit only in the priestly text of Exod 1:13-14.138 Moreover, the statement that Moses “returned” to Yhwh in 5:22a seems to place Moses back

























































130

Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 139. Here I disagree with PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 249–51 and DOZEMAN, Exodus, 110, who treat Exod 5:1–6:1 as a compositional unity. 132 For a similar reconstruction, see BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 137–52. 133 For the view that most of the material in Exod 5:1–6:1 is post-priestly, cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 330; GERTZ, Tradition, 335–45; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 137–52 against NOTH, Exodus, 37–41 (ET 51–56); CHILDS, Exodus, 94; PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 249–51; DOZEMAN, Exodus, 110; and ALBERTZ, “Beginn,” 248–58; IDEM, Ex 1–18, 100–106, who regard most of 5:1–6:1 as implicitly pre-priestly. 134 On the post-priestly nature of Exod 32–34, see Chapter 5, §1.2. 135 BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 137 n. 4. 136 For further discussion of this problem, see §6.2. 137 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 339. Admittedly, Yhwh’s instruction in Exod 3:18 is for Moses and the elders, not Moses and Aaron, which led WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 72 to postulate that 5:1-4 originally referred to Moses and the elders rather than Moses and Aaron. 138 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 139. 131

38

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

in the wilderness, which may reflect an effort to create a topological parallelism between the pre-priestly version of Moses’ commissioning in 3:1-10* and the priestly version in 6:2-9.139 If 5:5-13, 22-23; 6:1 indeed postdate the second commissioning of Moses in 6:2-9, they may have been written in order to recast the latter passage as a renewal of Yhwh’s promise after it had been jeopardized by the intensification of the Israelites’ labor.140 Finally, the post-priestly nature of 5:14-21 is confirmed not only by this unit’s dependence upon the earlier literary layers in 5:1–6:1 but also by the role of Aaron in 5:20-21. 4.3. Synthesis I

The most basic material in Exod 5:1–6:1 consists of 5:1-2, which in its current form reflects priestly provenance.141

II

Exod 5:1-2 were perhaps first expanded in 5:3-4, which also show signs of post-priestly composition.

III

Exod 5:1-4 were subsequently expanded in 5:5-13, 22-23; 6:1, which connect to the motif of brickmaking from 1:13-14 and may also presuppose the second commissioning of Moses in 6:2-9.

IV

Exod 5:5-13, 22-23; 6:1 underwent further expansion in 5:14-21, which thematize the opposition to the task assigned to Moses and Aaron not only on the part of Pharaoh but also the Israelites themselves. IV

III

II

I 5:1

‫ואחר באו משה ואהרן ויאמרו אל פרעה כה אמר ה׳ אלהי ישראל שלח את עמי ויחגו לי במדבר‬ ‫ ויאמר פרעה מי ה׳ אשר אשמע בקלו לשלח את ישראל לא ידעתי את ה׳ וגם את ישראל לא אשלח‬2 ‫ ויאמרו אלהי העברים נקרא עלינו נלכה נא דרך שלשת ימים במדבר ונזבחה לה׳ אלהינו פן‬3 ‫ ויאמר אלהם מלך מצרים למה משה ואהרן תפריעו את העם ממעשיו‬4 ‫יפגענו בדבר או בחרב‬ ‫לכו לסבלתיכם‬ ‫ ויצו פרעה ביום ההוא‬6 ‫ ויאמר פרעה הן רבים עתה עם הארץ והשבתם אתם מסבלתם‬5 ‫ לא תאספון לתת תבן לעם ללבן הלבנים כתמול‬7 ‫את הנגשים בעם ואת שטריו לאמר‬ ‫ ואת מתכנת הלבנים אשר הם עשים תמול שלשם תשימו‬8 ‫שלשם הם ילכו וקששו להם תבן‬ ‫ תכבד‬9 ‫עליהם לא תגרעו ממנו כי נרפים הם על כן הם צעקים לאמר נלכה נזבחה לאלהינו‬ ‫ ויצאו נגשי העם ושטריו ויאמרו אל‬10 ‫העבדה על האנשים ויעשו בה ואל ישעו בדברי שקר‬ ‫ אתם לכו קחו לכם תבן מאשר תמצאו כי‬11 ‫העם לאמר כה אמר פרעה אינני נתן לכם תבן‬

























































139

Cf. ibid., 143. Cf. ibid., 140–41; see also AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 174 and GERTZ, Tradition, 345, who attribute this function to Exod 5:3–6:1 as a whole. 141 In §6.2, I will qualify this conclusion, arguing that it is necessary to reckon with a pre-priestly form of Exod 5:1-2* that has been reworked. 140

39

5. A Second Commissioning of Moses (Exod 6:2–7:7) IV ‫והנגשים אצים‬

13

III

II

I

12

‫אין נגרע מעבדתכם דבר ויפץ העם בכל ארץ מצרים לקשש קש לתבן‬ ‫לאמר כלו מעשיכם דבר יום ביומו כאשר בהיות התבן‬

‫ ויכו שטרי בני ישראל אשר שמו עלהם נגשי פרעה לאמר מדוע לא כליתם חקכם‬14 ‫ ויבאו שטרי בני ישראל ויצעקו אל פרעה‬15 ‫ללבן כתמול שלשם גם תמול גם היום‬ ‫ תבן אין נתן לעבדיך ולבנים אמרים לנו עשו והנה‬16 ‫לאמר למה תעשה כה לעבדיך‬ ‫ ויאמר נרפים אתם נרפים על כן אתם אמרים נלכה‬17 ‫עבדיך מכים וחטאת עמך‬ ‫ ויראו שטרי בני‬19 ‫ ועתה לכו עבדו ותבן לא ינתן לכם ותכן לבנים תתנו‬18 ‫נזבחה לה׳‬ ‫ ויפגעו את משה ואת‬20 ‫ישראל אתם ברע לאמר לא תגרעו מלבניכם דבר יום ביומו‬ ‫ ויאמרו אלהם ירא ה׳ עליכם וישפט‬21 ‫אהרן נצבים לקראתם בצאתם מאת פרעה‬ ‫אשר הבאשתם את ריחנו בעיני פרעה ובעיני עבדיו לתת חרב בידם להרגנו‬ ‫ ומאז באתי אל‬23 ‫ וישב משה אל ה׳ ויאמר אדני למה הרעתה לעם הזה למה זה שלחתני‬22 ‫ ויאמר ה׳ אל משה עתה‬6:1 ‫פרעה לדבר בשמך הרע לעם הזה והצל לא הצלת את עמך‬ ‫תראה אשר אעשה לפרעה כי ביד חזקה ישלחם וביד חזקה יגרשם מארצו‬

5. A Second Commissioning of Moses (Exod 6:2–7:7) 5.1. Literary-critical analysis Exod 6:2–7:7 can be divided into three main parts: 6:2-12; 6:13-30; and 7:17. While 6:2-12 and 7:1-7 are both narrative in nature, 6:13-30 is an extensive list that is not directly related to the progression of the narrative action. Considering that Moses’ complaint to Yhwh in 6:12 is repeated in 6:30 with only slight variation, the latter verse can be interpreted as a Wiederaufnahme accompanying the insertion of the list after 6:12. Thus, it can be concluded that 6:13-30 belong to a later stage of composition than 6:2-12.142 Once 6:13-30 are bracketed out as a later addition, 6:12 can be connected directly to 7:1-7, where Yhwh addresses Moses’ doubts that the people will listen to him. From a purely literary-critical perspective, there is little indication of literary growth within 6:2-12; 7:1-7 apart from the possibly later addition of the phrase ‫ את צבאתי‬in 7:4 and the ages of Moses and Aaron in 7:7. 5.2. Macrocontextual analysis There is a consensus within pentateuchal research that Yhwh’s (second) selfrevelation and commissioning of Moses in Exod 6:2-12; 7:1-7 reflects priestly provenance.143 Precisely how this unit fits into the overall composition

























































142

Cf. WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 62; NOTH, Exodus, 42–43 (ET 58–59); CHILDS, Exodus, 111; PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 267; GERTZ, Tradition, 251; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 153; IDEM, “Der literarische Charakter,” 103; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 116–17. 143 WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 62; SMEND (SR.), Erzählung, 124–25; NOTH, Exodus, 42 (ET 58); CHILDS, Exodus, 111; W. H. SCHMIDT, Ex 1–6, 270–73; GERTZ, Tradition,

40

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

history of the exodus narrative, however, remains debated. The two most significant questions at issue are (1) whether 6:2-12; 7:1-7 originally belonged to an independent priestly source and (2) the literary relationship between 6:2-12; 7:1-7 and Exod 3–4. (1) It is often argued that Exod 6:2-12; 7:1-7 originally connected directly to the priestly passages in 1:13-14 and 2:23aβb-25 and thus belonged to an independent priestly source, although this hypothesis faces several problems. The most well-known problem is the fact that the figure of Moses is not introduced in 1:13-14 or 2:23aβb-25, such that the reference to Moses in 6:2 is quite abrupt. One way around this problem is to postulate that the original presentation of the figure of Moses in the priestly source was lost when this source was combined with non-priestly materials,144 although such a hypothesis has no textual evidence to support it.145 Moreover, the combination of the terms ‫ סבלת‬and ‫ עבדה‬in 6:6 almost certainly presupposes 1:11-12* and 1:1314 in their present sequence rather than as part of two independent narratives.146 Another possibility is to hypothesize that the authors of the priestly narrative assumed that their audience was familiar with a non-priestly Moses story and thus did not feel compelled to introduce the figure of Moses, although such a view in fact undermines the notion of P as an independent source. Thus, the possibility that the priestly passages in the exodus narrative were composed from the outset as supplements to a pre-priestly narrative must be taken seriously. If one adopts such a supplementary analysis, then it is no longer necessary – albeit still possible147 – to postulate a direct connection between 2:23aβb-25 and 6:2-12; 7:1-7. (2) The nature of Exod 6:2-12; 7:1-7 as a part of a series of priestly supplements to a pre-priestly narrative has important consequences for evaluating the literary relationship of these passages to Exod 3–4. One of the arguments against the notion of P as a redaction is the claim that 6:2-8 is formulated as Yhwh’s initial self-revelation to Moses, which comes too late in its present context following Yhwh’s revelation of his name to Moses in 3:1315.148 Two objections may be made to this argument. First, the foregoing analysis of Exod 2:15bβ–4:31 concluded that 3:13-15 do not belong to a prepriestly stage of composition; thus, it is possible that 3:13-15 did not yet exist



























































































































237–54; PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 266–68; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 153–67; IDEM, “Der literarische Charakter,” 103; DOZEMAN, Exodus, 103–4; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 116–22. 144 E.g., GERTZ, Tradition, 250–51. 145 Cf. the critiques made by BLUM, Studien, 240–41 and BERNER, “Der literarische Charakter,” 104. 146 Cf. BLUM, Studien, 233 and BERNER, “Der literarische Charakter,” 105. 147 BERNER, “Der literarische Charakter,” 106–7. 148 KOCH, “P – kein Redaktor!,” 462–67.

5. A Second Commissioning of Moses (Exod 6:2–7:7)

41

when 6:2-12 were written.149 Second, it is questionable whether Yhwh’s selfrevelation to Moses is in fact the main concern of 6:2-12. Rather, the unit culminates in the people’s rejection of Yhwh’s message that he will deliver them from their bondage in Egypt. In other words, Yhwh’s declaration ‫אני ה׳‬ in 6:2 is not directed at Moses as an initial divine revelation but is instead directed at the people as an expression of Yhwh’s absolute sovereignty. In this respect, the evaluation of 6:2-12; 7:1-7 as part of a priestly layer of supplementation rather than as part of an independent priestly source does not undermine the evaluation of Yhwh’s commissioning of Moses in 3:1-10* as part of a pre-priestly exodus narrative.150 If Exod 3:1-10* indeed preceded 6:2-12 from the outset, then a direct connection between 2:23aβb-25 and 6:2-12 must be ruled out,151 raising the question of the literary connection between the end of the Midian episode in 4:20aβ and 6:2-12. Although a direct connection between 4:20aβ and 6:2-12 is possible syntactically, it seems unlikely in terms of narrative logic. Rather, there is reason to suspect that the people’s “broken spirit” described in 6:9 presupposes the intensification of their labor in Exod 5.152 Considering that Exod 5 itself consists of multiple (post-)priestly literary layers, this would suggest that 6:2-12 do not belong to the earliest priestly stratum within the exodus narrative. Although this goes against a longstanding consensus that the “commissioning” of Moses in 6:2-12 belongs to the most basic priestly narrative or layer of reworking, such a view is not without problems, such as the fact that, as Jaeyoung Jeon has recently noted, “the problem of the people’s inattentiveness is mentioned only in this passage and is left untreated in the rest of the P text.”153 Efforts to identify later additions to 6:2-12 in 6:68154 are also unconvincing, since Yhwh’s speech would then be left incomplete.155

























































149

Cf. OTTO, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 109; GERTZ, Tradition, 294–98; and BERNER, “Der literarische Charakter,” 106. 150 Here I disagree with BERNER, “Der literarische Charakter,” 105–8, whose view of Exod 6:2-12 as an “Erstoffenbarung” seems to have influenced his shift toward viewing 3:1-10* as post-priestly rather than pre-priestly and his resulting conclusion that the prepriestly exodus narrative originally moved directly from 2:11a to 7:14. 151 Against ibid., 106. 152 Cf. JEON, Call, 204. 153 Ibid., 203. 154 OTTO, “Forschungen,” 10 n. 45. 155 In this respect, Berner’s most recent diachronic evaluation of the unit is rather ambivalent. On the one hand, BERNER, “Der literarische Charakter,” 103 agrees with the consensus that “Ex 6,2–7,7* einen integralen Bestandteil des ältesten priesterschriftlichen Textstratums bilden”; on the other hand, he concedes that the language and theology of 6:6-8 – which cannot easily be extracted from their surrounding context – are “für P untypisch” (ibid., 105).

‫‪42‬‬

‫)‪Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12‬‬

‫‪5.3. Synthesis‬‬ ‫‪The most basic material in Exod 6:2–7:7 consists of 6:2-12; 7:1-6, which‬‬ ‫‪ in‬את צבאתי ‪appear to be a compositional unity apart from the phrase‬‬ ‫‪7:4. These verses cannot be pre-priestly, although they also cannot be‬‬ ‫‪connected directly to 2:23aβb-25, thus undermining the theory of an‬‬ ‫‪originally independent priestly source.‬‬

‫‪I‬‬

‫‪ in Exod 7:4 and the ages of Moses and Aaron in‬את צבאתי ‪I+ The phrase‬‬ ‫‪7:7 are likely later additions to 6:2-12; 7:1-6.‬‬ ‫‪Exod 6:2-12; 7:1-7 were subsequently supplemented with the genealogy‬‬ ‫‪and its literary frame in 6:13-30.‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪ 6:2‬וידבר אלהים אל משה ויאמר אליו אני ה׳ ‪ 3‬וארא אל אברהם אל יצחק ואל יעקב באל שדי ושמי ה׳‬ ‫לא נודעתי להם ‪ 4‬וגם הקמתי את בריתי אתם לתת להם את ארץ כנען את ארץ מגריהם אשר גרו בה‬ ‫‪ 5‬וגם אני שמעתי את נאקת בני ישראל אשר מצרים מעבדים אתם ואזכר את בריתי ‪ 6‬לכן אמר לבני‬ ‫ישראל אני ה׳ והוצאתי אתכם מתחת סבלת מצרים והצלתי אתכם מעבדתם וגאלתי אתכם בזרוע‬ ‫נטויה ובשפטים גדלים ‪ 7‬ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם והייתי לכם לאלהים וידעתם כי אני ה׳ אלהיכם המוציא‬ ‫אתכם מתחת סבלות מצרים ‪ 8‬והבאתי אתכם אל הארץ אשר נשאתי את ידי לתת אתה לאברהם‬ ‫ליצחק וליעקב ונתתי אתה לכם מורשה אני ה׳ ‪ 9‬וידבר משה כן אל בני ישראל ולא שמעו אל משה‬ ‫מקצר רוח ומעבדה קשה ‪ 10‬וידבר ה׳ אל משה לאמר ‪ 11‬בא דבר אל פרעה מלך מצרים וישלח את בני‬ ‫ישראל מארצו ‪ 12‬וידבר משה לפני ה׳ לאמר הן בני ישראל לא שמעו אלי ואיך ישמעני פרעה ואני ערל‬ ‫שפתים‬ ‫‪ 13‬וידבר ה׳ אל משה ואל אהרן ויצום אל בני ישראל ואל פרעה מלך מצרים להוציא את בני‬ ‫ישראל מארץ מצרים ‪ 14‬אלה ראשי בית אבתם בני ראובן בכר ישראל חנוך ופלוא חצרן וכרמי‬ ‫אלה משפחת ראובן ‪ 15‬ובני שמעון ימואל וימין ואהד ויכין וצחר ושאול בן הכנענית אלה משפחת‬ ‫שמעון ‪ 16‬ואלה שמות בני לוי לתלדתם גרשון וקהת ומררי ושני חיי לוי שבע ושלשים ומאת שנה‬ ‫‪ 17‬בני גרשון לבני ושמעי למשפחתם ‪ 18‬ובני קהת עמרם ויצהר וחברון ועזיאל ושני חיי קהת שלש‬ ‫ושלשים ומאת שנה ‪ 19‬ובני מררי מחלי ומושי אלה משפחת הלוי לתלדתם ‪ 20‬ויקח עמרם את‬ ‫‪21‬‬ ‫יוכבד דדתו לו לאשה ותלד לו את אהרן ואת משה ושני חיי עמרם שבע ושלשים ומאת שנה‬ ‫ובני יצהר קרח ונפג וזכרי ‪ 22‬ובני עזיאל מישאל ואלצפן וסתרי ‪ 23‬ויקח אהרן את אלישבע בת‬ ‫עמינדב אחות נחשון לו לאשה ותלד לו את נדב ואת אביהוא את אלעזר ואת איתמר ‪ 24‬ובני קרח‬ ‫אסיר ואלקנה ואביאסף אלה משפחת הקרחי ‪ 25‬ואלעזר בן אהרן לקח לו מבנות פוטיאל לו‬ ‫לאשה ותלד לו את פינחס אלה ראשי אבות הלוים למשפחתם ‪ 26‬הוא אהרן ומשה אשר אמר ה׳‬ ‫להם הוציאו את בני ישראל מארץ מצרים על צבאתם ‪ 27‬הם המדברים אל פרעה מלך מצרים‬ ‫‪29‬‬ ‫להוציא את בני ישראל ממצרים הוא משה ואהרן ‪ 28‬ויהי ביום דבר ה׳ אל משה בארץ מצרים‬ ‫וידבר ה׳ אל משה לאמר אני ה׳ דבר אל פרעה מלך מצרים את כל אשר אני דבר אליך ‪ 30‬ויאמר‬ ‫משה לפני ה׳ הן אני ערל שפתים ואיך ישמע אלי פרעה‬ ‫‪ 7:1‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה ראה נתתיך אלהים לפרעה ואהרן אחיך יהיה נביאך ‪ 2‬אתה תדבר את כל אשר‬ ‫אצוך ואהרן אחיך ידבר אל פרעה ושלח את בני ישראל מארצו ‪ 3‬ואני אקשה את לב פרעה והרביתי‬ ‫את אתתי ואת מופתי בארץ מצרים ‪ 4‬ולא ישמע אלכם פרעה ונתתי את ידי במצרים והוצאתי ]את‬ ‫צבאתי[ את עמי בני ישראל מארץ מצרים בשפטים גדלים ‪ 5‬וידעו מצרים כי אני ה׳ בנטתי את ידי על‬ ‫מצרים והוצאתי את בני ישראל מתוכם ‪ 6‬ויעש משה ואהרן כאשר צוה ה׳ אתם כן עשו ]‪ 7‬ומשה בן‬ ‫שמנים שנה ואהרן בן שלש ושמנים שנה בדברם אל פרעה[‬

6. The Plagues and the Departure from Egypt (Exod 7:8–12:51)

43

6. The Plagues and the Departure from Egypt (Exod 7:8–12:51) 6.1. Literary-critical analysis The miracle of Aaron’s staff (Exod 7:8-13). Although Exod 7:8-13 do not contain a plague report, these verses are closely connected to the present form of the plague cycle, as they thematize the competition of Pharaoh’s sorcerers with Moses and Aaron. This episode is largely a compositional unity; the only literary-critical break in the unit is created by the phrase ‫ חרטמי מצרים‬in 7:11b, which is superfluous following the phrase ‫ גם הם‬and thus seems to be a later gloss. The pollution of the Nile (Exod 7:14-25). The narrative of the pollution of the Nile contains a number of literary discontinuities with the miracle of Aaron’s staff in Exod 7:8-13. Whereas in 7:13 Pharaoh’s heart was “strong,” in 7:14 Pharaoh’s heart is “heavy.” Moreover, in 7:8-13 Moses and Aaron never explicitly ask Pharaoh to let the people go, which stands in some tension with Yhwh’s statement to Moses in 7:14. This suggests that 7:8-13 and 7:14 do not belong to the same compositional level. Considering that 7:15-25 cannot stand without 7:14, the most basic version of the pollution of the Nile in 7:14-25 cannot belong to the same compositional level as the miracle of Aaron’s staff. In Exod 7:14-18, Yhwh tells Moses that Pharaoh has refused to let the people go and instructs Moses to confront Pharaoh the next day, foretelling a plague on the fish in the Nile. Within this unit, the references to Moses’ staff in 7:15b and 7:17 disturb the flow of the narrative.156 Considering that Yhwh’s command that Moses stand on the shore of the Nile in 7:15aβ sets the stage for Moses’ striking the Nile with his staff, this quarter verse also belongs with 7:15b. The statement in 7:16 that Pharaoh has “thus far not listened” to Yhwh (‫ )והנה לא שמעת עד כה‬seems to presuppose Pharaoh’s failure to “listen” following the miracle of Aaron’s staff in 7:13a (‫ויחזק לב פרעה ולא‬ ‫)שמע אלהם‬, which suggests that most of 7:16* (except ‫ )ואמרת אליו‬cannot be earlier than 7:8-13. Since it is possible to connect ‫ ואמרת אליו‬in 7:16* directly to ‫ כה אמר ה׳‬in 7:17a, the remainder of 7:16* could be a later addition. Exod 7:19 presents another literary break: Yhwh addresses Moses a second time, now with instructions for Aaron, who was not mentioned in 7:1418. Rather than Moses striking the water of the Nile with his staff, as is suggested in the received form of 7:17, now Aaron is appointed as the one who

























































156

In Exod 7:15b, ‫ והמטה אשר נהפך לנחש תקח בידך‬appears as a superfluous comment in the middle of Yhwh’s instructions for Moses to confront Pharaoh, and the reference to Moses’ staff in 7:17 (‫ )במטה אשר בידי‬does not fit well with the divine message that Yhwh instructs Moses to convey to Pharaoh, since the broader context of that message implies that Yhwh will strike the water of the Nile. On the secondary nature of these references, see BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 172–73 and JEON, Call, 175–77.

44

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

will strike “the waters of Egypt” – rivers, canals, lakes, and pools – with his staff (7:19). Despite the reference to Moses and Aaron at the beginning of 7:20aα (‫)ויעשו כן משה ואהרן כאשר צוה ה׳‬, the statement ‫ויך את המים אשר ביאר‬ that follows points back to 7:17 (with Yhwh as the agent) and not to 7:19, since here there is no mention of the rivers, canals, lakes, and pools. This suggests that 7:19-20aα* (up to and including ‫ )וירם במטה‬is a secondary insertion that interrupts an earlier report in 7:18 and 7:20* (from ‫)ויך את המים‬ that Yhwh struck the water of the Nile.157 If Exod 7:19-20aα* (up to and including ‫ )וירם במטה‬are a later addition, the statement in 7:21b that “the blood was in all the land of Egypt” must also be secondary, since the notion that the plague affects not only the Nile but indeed every body of water in Egypt is found only in 7:19-20aα*.158 By extension, if the fulfillment report regarding the blood in 7:21b is evaluated as secondary, the reference to the water becoming blood at the end of 7:17 must be secondary as well. In 7:22a, the response of the Egyptian magicians makes sense only in light of the “sign” of Aaron turning the water into blood and must therefore also be secondary. Likewise, 7:22b, which states that Pharaoh did not listen “to them,” presupposes Aaron’s role and thus also belongs to the emerging layer of additions.159 These observations are further supported by the fact that 7:22b does not form the conclusion to the narrative of the pollution of the Nile; rather, the narrative continues in 7:24, which reports that the Egyptians dug all around the Nile in search of potable water. This verse connects smoothly with the narrative thread in 7:14-18*, 20*, 21a, which focuses exclusively on Yhwh’s act of striking the Nile and does not mention blood or other bodies of water.160 The statement in Exod 7:23 that Pharaoh went back inside his house and did not take to heart what had transpired interrupts the connection between 7:21a and 7:24 and is therefore also secondary to the most basic narrative thread. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the statement ‫ולא שת לבו‬

























































157

Cf. NOTH, Exodus, 55–56 (ET 73) and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 175. GERTZ, Tradition, 102 assigns Exod 7:20 as a whole to a later stage of composition. 158 On the motif of blood as secondary, cf. NOTH, Exodus, 55–57 (ET 73–74); GERTZ, Tradition, 98–113; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 173 against VAN SETERS, Life, 77 and DOZEMAN, Exodus, 189–91, who regard the motif of blood as original. 159 The use of the verb ‫ חזק‬in this half verse also suggests a connection to Exod 7:8-13, which likewise features Aaron. 160 Here I disagree with the conclusion of BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 174 that both of the statements that the Egyptians could not drink the water of the Nile (Exod 7:21aβ, 24b) are secondary to the earliest narrative thread, since this would result in a prediction in 7:18b without a corresponding fulfillment notice. Of the two notices, 7:21aβ is likely more original, since it fits the pattern established in Yhwh’s foretelling of the plague in 7:18, while 7:24b does not.

6. The Plagues and the Departure from Egypt (Exod 7:8–12:51)

45

‫ גם לזאת‬most likely presupposes the miracle of Aaron’s staff in 7:8-13,161 which is closely connected to the later additions within the report on the pollution of the Nile. In sum, the most basic narrative of the pollution of the Nile can be identified in Exod 7:14-15aα, 16* (only ‫)ואמרת אליו‬, 17* (without ‫במטה אשר בידי‬ ‫ על‬or ‫)ונהפכו לדם‬, 18, 20aα* (only ‫)ויך את המים אשר ביאר‬, 21a, 24.162 Frogs (Exod 7:26–8:11). The report on the plague of frogs is not a compositional unity. There is reason to suspect that Exod 7:28 is secondary to 7:29, since both verses report that the frogs will “go up” against Pharaoh, his servants, and the people, while 7:28 provides more concrete details about the places that the frogs will invade.163 Moreover, the contest between the Egyptian magicians and Moses and Aaron in 8:1-11 stands in tension with Yhwh’s speech to Moses in the preceding unit. Whereas in 7:26-27, 29 Yhwh is portrayed as the sole initiator of the plague and Aaron is not mentioned, in 8:12a Aaron plays a central role in initiating the plague. Like in the plague on the Nile, the “magicians of Egypt” appear rather unexpectedly in 8:3 (cf. 7:22). Aaron’s presence is also presupposed in Pharaoh’s request for intercession in 8:4, and Pharaoh’s claim that he will let the people go presupposes the notion that the journey is to offer sacrifices (‫ )זבח‬to Yhwh instead of to “serve” Yhwh as stated in 7:26. Nevertheless, 8:1-11 as a whole cannot be secondary to 7:26-27, 29, since in that case Yhwh’s ultimatum to Pharaoh would lack a conclusion. This conclusion is found in 8:2b, which provides a concise report of the plague’s fulfillment.164 In sum, the most basic narrative of the plague of frogs consists of Exod 7:26-27, 29; 8:2b. Gnats (Exod 8:12-15). The plague of gnats shares several similarities with the miracle of Aaron’s staff (Exod 7:8-13), the scenes involving Aaron in the pollution of the Nile (7:19-20*, 21b-23), and the later material within the plague of frogs (8:1-2a, 3-8, 9*, 11), including verbatim correspondences between 8:1 and 8:12 (‫ )ויאמר ה׳ אל משה אמר אל אהרן נטה את ]ידך ב[מטה‬as well as between 7:13 and 8:15b (‫)ויחזק לב פרעה ולא שמע אלהם כאשר דבר ה׳‬. The reference to Pharaoh’s failure to “listen” to Moses and Aaron in 8:15b lacks a corresponding report that Moses and Aaron ever addressed Pharaoh in the first place, suggesting that it was borrowed directly from 7:13 and was not fully coordinated with its new narrative context. The brevity of the episode in comparison with the preceding plague reports suggests that the plague of the gnats is a pastiche based on other texts that thematize Aaron’s role as a

























































161

In contrast, BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 175 argues that this statement connects to Exod 5:1-2*. 162 For a similar reconstruction, see ibid., 171–75. 163 In contrast, BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 177 regards Exod 7:29 as later than 7:28b. 164 Cf. VAN SETERS, Life, 107 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 177–78.

46

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

staff-wielding wonder worker. Since these texts are later than the most basic version of the two preceding plague episodes, the plague of gnats cannot have been part of the earliest version of the plagues narrative. Flies (Exod 8:16-28). Like the pollution of the Nile and the plague of frogs, the plague of flies exhibits tensions indicating literary growth. One such tension is found in the chain of prepositional phrases ‫בך ובעבדיך ובעמך‬ ‫ ובבתיך‬in Exod 8:17a. Whereas ‫ בך‬is essential to the narrative, the reference to Pharaoh’s “servants” is a blind motif, and the reference to Pharaoh’s “houses” comes too early in light of the ‫ בתי מצרים‬in 8:17b. This suggests that the phrase ‫ ובית עבדיו‬in 8:20aβ is also secondary.165 A more significant break occurs in Exod 8:18-19, in which Yhwh states that he will distinguish the land of Goshen from the rest of Egypt. The isolated position of these verses is reinforced by the highly laconic fulfillment report of the Israelites’ exemption from the plague in 8:20aα. The possibility that 8:18-20aα constitute a later addition to the plague of flies is supported by comparison with the preceding narratives of the pollution of the Nile and the plague of frogs, which make no reference to the exemption of the Israelites from these plagues or to their separate location within Egypt.166 In Exod 8:21-24a, Pharaoh addresses both Moses and Aaron, even though Aaron does not appear in 8:16-20. In 8:24b, Pharaoh asks Moses and Aaron to intercede for him, a request that is thematically unrelated to Moses’ negotiations with him in 8:21-24a.167 Rather, this request connects back to the fulfillment of the plague of flies in 8:20. The beginning of Pharaoh’s request is missing in 8:24b, suggesting that it has either been lost or is found somewhere within 8:21-24a. Indeed, 8:21a (plus ‫ ויאמר‬in 8:21bα) functions well as an introduction to 8:24b (‫)ויקרא פרעה אל משה ולאהרן ויאמר…העטירו בעדי‬.168 Thus, it is possible that 8:21b-24a* are a later insertion within Pharaoh’s request for intercession in 8:21abα*, 24b-27.169 This request for intercession cannot belong to the most basic plagues narrative, since it draws upon the later text of Pharaoh’s request for intercession in the plague of frogs (8:4-9a) as a literary model.170 If this intercession scene is bracketed out, then the



























































165 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 124 (although he regards only the phrase ‫ ובבתיך‬as secondary) and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 179–80. 166 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 124–26 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 180–81, 203–4. 167 Cf. JEON, Call, 213, although he assumes the incorporation of “a literary tradition at the final redactor’s disposal.” 168 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 200. 169 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 337. In contrast, GERTZ, Tradition, 128–29 argues that the abrupt shift between Exod 8:24a and 8:24b should not be interpreted as a sign of literary growth but as a rhetorical device. 170 The dependence of Exod 8:21abα*, 24b-27 on 8:4-9a can be seen, e.g., in the fact that the keyword ‫ מחר‬is a blind motif in 8:25 while it is integral to 8:4-9a. On the dependence of 8:21abα*, 24b-27 on 8:4-9a, cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 198.

6. The Plagues and the Departure from Egypt (Exod 7:8–12:51)

47

statement in 8:28 that Pharaoh made his heart heavy (‫ כבד‬hiphil) connects directly to Yhwh’s fulfillment of the plague of flies in 8:20. In sum, the most basic material in the plague of flies consists of Exod 8:16-17*, 20, 28.171 The plague on cattle (Exod 9:1-7). The plague on cattle, which is largely a compositional unity172 (with the possible exception of the list of animals affected by the plague in Exod 9:3aβγ173), thematizes the motifs of the exemption of the land of Goshen from the plague (cf. 8:18) as well as the “distinction” (‫ )פדת‬between Yhwh’s people and Pharaoh’s people (cf. 8:19; 9:4; 11:7).174 Although this episode closely follows the pattern found in the most basic narrative thread of the pollution of the Nile, the plague of frogs, and the plague of flies, its terminology differs in several respects,175 which has long led commentators to conclude that it is secondary to the earliest plagues narrative.176 Boils (Exod 9:8-12). In terms of its structure, the plague of boils is quite similar to the plague of gnats (Exod 8:12-15). Thus, considering that the plague of gnats is a later addition to the plagues narrative, the plague of boils is likely also a later addition. Hail (Exod 9:13-35). The plague of hail shows signs of compositional growth at a number of points. For example, whereas Exod 9:17 states that Pharaoh continues to “exalt himself” (‫ )מסתולל‬against Yhwh’s people, 9:16 states that Yhwh has caused Pharaoh to be recalcitrant (‫ )העמדתיך‬in order to show him Yhwh’s power and in order to make Yhwh’s name known throughout the land. It is likely that 9:16 is secondary to 9:17, since 9:16 is more expansive and also attributes Pharaoh’s resistance to divine providence, a notion that is absent in the most basic form of the plagues narrative encountered thus far but is found in the (likely later) plague of boils (cf. 9:12). Exod 9:14-15 share similar themes and phrases with 9:16, particularly the motif of Yhwh using the plague to demonstrate his power and to make himself known “in all the land” (‫)בכל הארץ‬, suggesting that 9:14-16 belong to a

























































171

Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 129 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 178–81. Cf. RUDOLPH, Elohist, 19; NOTH, Exodus, 60–61 (ET 79); CHILDS, Exodus, 131; L. SCHMIDT, Beobachtungen, 20; GERTZ, Tradition, 131; DOZEMAN, Exodus, 190; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 202–3; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 152–56. 173 On Exod 9:3aβγ as a later gloss, see L. SCHMIDT, Beobachtungen, 20 and GERTZ, Tradition, 129–30. 174 The statement in Exod 9:5 that Yhwh set an appointed time (‫ )מועד‬for the following day (‫ )מחר יעשה ה׳ הדבר הזה‬constitutes a further connection to 8:19 (‫)למחר יהיה האות הזה‬. 175 See, e.g., the use of the verb ‫ דבר‬instead of ‫ אמר‬in Exod 9:1 and the delivery of the divine ultimatum in the third person rather than the first person. For further discussion of these differences, see GERTZ, Tradition, 130 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 202, 207–8. 176 E.g., NOTH, Exodus, 60–61 (ET 79) and more recently GERTZ, Tradition, 131. 172

48

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

single compositional level.177 If this is the case, then the divine ultimatum in 9:13 would have originally connected directly to 9:17-18.178 Within 9:18, the phrase ‫ כעת מחר‬is possibly a later addition, as it disrupts the connection between the verb ‫ ממטיר‬and its direct object ‫ברד‬. In Exod 9:19-21, an unidentified speaker179 tells Pharaoh to have the people and livestock in the fields take shelter indoors, for whoever does not do so will die in the hailstorm. This provision stands in tension with the basic purpose of the plague and serves a subsidiary function in the narrative, namely, to allow a way out of the plague for those who “fear the word of Yhwh.” It thus seems possible that this text is secondary to the basic narrative thread identified so far in 9:13, 17-18.180 In Exod 9:22-23a, Yhwh’s instructions to Moses to stretch out his hand toward heaven in order to initiate the hailstorm diverge from the literary strand identified in 9:13, 17-18 as well as from the subsequent fulfillment report in 9:23b. In contrast to 9:18 and 9:23b, in which Yhwh alone is responsible for bringing about the hail, in 9:22-23a Moses also plays a role in enacting the plague. Furthermore, unlike 9:18 and 9:23b, which speak only of hail, 9:22-23a include thunder and celestial fire, thus elaborating on the literary strand in 9:13, 17-18, 23b.181 The reference to “fire in the midst of the hail” (‫ )ואש מתלקחת בתוך הברד‬in 9:24aβ is also an obvious insertion into an earlier fulfillment report (‫)*ויהי הברד כבד מאד‬.182 Yet even the more basic contents of 9:24 are not essential to the narrative, as 9:25a connects quite smoothly to 9:23b.183 Likewise, the fact that the verb ‫ הכה‬is repeated in 9:25bα immediately after its use in 9:25a suggests that the reference to the destruction of the grass – as well as the destruction of the trees in 9:25bβ, which follows the same syntactic pattern – is a later addition.184 Thus, 9:2223a, 24, and 25b emerge as insertions into an earlier narrative thread. The

























































177

The view that Exod 9:15-16 are a later addition forms a broad consensus; see the references in GERTZ, Tradition, 148 n. 272. For the view that this addition includes 9:14, see NOTH, Exodus, 61–62 (ET 80); WEIMAR, Berufung, 345; and L. SCHMIDT, Plagenerzählung, 25–26. For a critique of this view, see GERTZ, Tradition, 149. 178 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 218–19. 179 In light of the foregoing context the speaker is most likely Yhwh, although NOTH, Exodus, 61–62 (ET 80) assumes that Moses is speaking here. 180 KOHATA, Jahwist, 115–17 and similarly LEVIN, Jahwist, 338. In contrast, GERTZ, Tradition, 151–52 assigns Exod 9:19-21 to the most basic material in the unit, while BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 219–21 assigns only 9:19 to the most basic material. 181 Cf. KOHATA, Jahwist, 99–100; L. SCHMIDT, Beobachtungen, 136; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 224. 182 Cf. the use of a definite article in ⅏ and 𝔊. On the secondary nature of Exod 9:24aβ, cf. KOHATA, Jahwist, 100 (with further literature) and GERTZ, Tradition, 137. 183 In contrast, GERTZ, Tradition, 138 identifies the most basic fulfillment report in Exod 9:23aα2*, 24*. 184 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 223–24.

6. The Plagues and the Departure from Egypt (Exod 7:8–12:51)

49

notice in 9:26 that there was no hail in the land of Goshen is possibly also an insertion, as suggested by its laconic phrasing and its introduction through the word ‫רק‬.185 Pharaoh’s request in Exod 9:27-34 that Moses and Aaron intercede with Yhwh on his behalf presents narrative problems similar to those found in his request for intercession in the wake of the plague of locusts (8:21-28): Pharaoh summons both Moses and Aaron and asks both of them to intercede with Yhwh (9:27-28aα), although Aaron subsequently disappears from the scene, and it is Moses alone who intercedes on behalf of Pharaoh (9:29, 33). As in the earlier intercession scenes, this may not reflect different stages of composition but rather Moses’ exclusive role as intercessor. Nevertheless, there are other indications of compositional growth within the intercession scene. Exod 9:30 introduces the theme of fearing Yhwh, corresponding to the instructions for Pharaoh to have his servants bring their slaves and livestock to safety indoors (9:19-21). Moreover, the statement in 9:31-32 that the late-ripening crops of wheat and emmer were not devastated by the hail stands in direct contradiction to the report in 9:25 that the hail destroyed “all the vegetation of the field.” These two verses make sense only in light of the subsequent plague, in which locusts consume the crops that have survived after the plague of hail.186 Another narrative tension is found in the duplicate description of Pharaoh’s recalcitrance at the end of the scene. Whereas 9:34b states that Pharaoh “made his heart heavy” (‫ כבד‬hiphil), 9:35a states that his heart became “strong” (‫ חזק‬qal). There are several indications that 9:34b forms an integral conclusion to the intercession scene in 9:27-34. The statement ‫ויכבד‬ ‫ לבו‬cannot stand on its own, since the 3ms pronominal suffix requires an antecedent, which is found in 9:34a* (‫)וירא פרעה כי חדל המטר והברד והקלת‬. This half verse, in turn, presupposes Moses’ intercession in 9:33, which results in the cessation of the thunder, hail, and rain, using the same verb ‫חדל‬ “to cease” (‫)ויחדלו הקלות והברד ומטר‬. Considering that the intercession scene may not belong to the most basic narrative of the plague of hail,187 9:35a could have constituted an earlier conclusion to the episode that once connected directly to the fulfillment report in 9:25a.188 It is likely that 9:35b is a later addition to 9:35a, since Yhwh does not in fact foretell that Pharaoh’s heart will become hardened earlier in the episode.189

























































185

Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 151. Their secondary insertion into the hail episode may suggest that the plague of locusts as a whole is later than the plague of hail. 187 This is suggested by the sudden appearance of Aaron in Exod 9:27 as well as the fact that Moses’ intercession stops not only the hail but also the thunder and rain, which are not integral to the fulfillment report in 9:22-25*. 188 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 146 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 226–27. 189 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 145 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 226–27. 186

50

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

In sum, the most basic narrative thread in the plague of hail likely consisted of Exod 9:13, 17-18, 23b, (24aα, b), 25a, 35a. Locusts (Exod 10:1-20). Like many of the other plague episodes, the plague of locusts shows signs of compositional growth, although here it is particularly difficult to identify the most basic narrative thread. The divine command to Moses to go to Pharaoh in Exod 10:1 – including the statement in 10:1b that Yhwh has made Pharaoh’s heart heavy190 – must belong to this narrative thread. In contrast, 10:2 has a wider implied audience, addressing the world in front of the text rather than Moses within the world of the text, and is thus likely secondary.191 The most basic narrative thread continues in 10:3, which is the necessary result of Yhwh’s instructions to Moses in 10:1.192 Notably, there are no narrative or text-critical grounds for removing the figure of Aaron from this verse.193 It is difficult to determine whether the exchange between Pharaoh and his servants in 10:7-11 belongs to the most basic report of the plague of locusts. Considering that it is possible to connect 10:6 directly to the fulfillment report in 10:12-15, 10:7-11 may be a later addition to the episode.194 Exod 10:12-15 contain several repetitions, although it is difficult to identify the most basic narrative thread within these verses on internal grounds alone. At the very least, ‫ויעל הארבה על כל ארץ‬ ‫ מצרים‬in 10:14aα, as well as a statement of the locusts’ devastating effect such as ‫ ויאכל את כל עשב הארץ‬in 10:15a*, must belong to the most basic narrative.195 The statement about Pharaoh’s recalcitrance in 10:20 must also belong to the most basic report, since it is his refusal to let the people go that drives the narrative forward. In sum, the most basic report of the plague of locusts likely consisted of Exod 10:1, 3-6, 12-15*, 20. Considering that the figure of Aaron forms an integral part of this report, it can be concluded that the plague of locusts did not belong to the earliest version of the plagues narrative, which does not seem to have included the figure of Aaron.196

























































190

Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 157–59 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 232 against the conclusion that Exod 10:1a connected directly to 10:3 (KOHATA, Jahwist, 126 and W. H. SCHMIDT, Ex 1–6, 418–21). Without 10:1b, Yhwh’s command in 10:1a would be merely a fragment. 191 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 338 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 231 against GERTZ, Tradition, 157, who regards Exod 10:1-2 as a unity. It is possible that 10:2b is later than 10:2a. 192 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 232. 193 It is also noteworthy that, unlike many of the preceding plague reports, here the divine ultimatum to Pharaoh is not revealed to the reader in advance of Moses’ audience with Pharaoh but during the confrontation of Moses and Aaron with Pharaoh. 194 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 234. 195 Cf. ibid., 240. 196 See the analysis of the pollution of the Nile and the plague of frogs above.

6. The Plagues and the Departure from Egypt (Exod 7:8–12:51)

51

Darkness (Exod 10:21-29). The plague of darkness is somewhat exceptional insofar as it is relatively undeveloped and, unlike the preceding plagues, is not destructive in nature.197 It does not involve a divine ultimatum or a request by Pharaoh that Moses intercede with Yhwh to stop the plague, nor does it involve Aaron or the “magicians of Egypt.” There is some indication that this episode is not a compositional unity, although it is difficult to isolate the most basic material with certainty. The clearest indication of a literary-critical break is found between Exod 10:27 and 10:28. The latter verse refers to Moses with the prepositional phrase ‫לו‬, resulting in tension with 10:27, which does not refer to Moses at all. This suggests that either 10:27 or 10:28-29 do not belong to the most basic material in the unit. Considering that the motif of Pharaoh’s recalcitrance in 10:27 is unlikely to be a later addition, then 10:28-29 are likely a later addition.198 It is also conceivable that the dialogue between Pharaoh and Moses over the taking of livestock in 10:24-26 is a later insertion between 10:23 and 10:27, since the issue of livestock is not directly related to the plague of darkness.199 In sum, the most basic report of the plague of darkness in Exod 10:21-29 may have originally consisted of only 10:21-23, 27, although it is equally possible that 10:24-26 were also part of this report from the outset. In any event, it is likely that the final retort between Pharaoh and Moses in 10:28-29 is a later addition to this episode. The announcement of the death of the firstborn (Exod 11). Within Exod 11:1-10, 11:1b is likely secondary to 11:1a, reinterpreting Pharaoh’s release of the people (‫ שלח‬piel) as an expulsion (‫ גרש‬piel).200 It is also possible that the reference to Moses’ greatness in 11:3b is a later addition,201 as is suggested by the use of ‫ גם‬as well as the fact that 11:3a is a verbal clause while 11:3b is a nominal clause. Yet even after 11:1b and 11:3b are bracketed out, Yhwh’s speech to Moses in 11:1a, 2-3a still appears to be secondary to 11:4-8*, since it interrupts Moses’ encounter with Pharaoh, which must have once connected to 10:28-29.202 Considering that Moses’ retort to Pharaoh in the latter verses seems to conclude the encounter, it is likely that Moses’ angry departure in 11:8b once connected directly to 10:28-29, indicating that his announcement of the death of the firstborn in 11:4-8a is itself likely a

























































197

Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 163–66 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 242. In contrast, BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 266 assigns Exod 10:28-29 to the most basic report of the plague of darkness. 199 On Exod 10:24-26 as a later addition, see BLUM, Studien, 246. In contrast, BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 242; IDEM, “Der literarische Charakter,” 116 argues that the plague of darkness was created specifically as a pretext for Moses’ negotiations with Pharaoh in 10:24-26. 200 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 167–68, 176–77 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 259. 201 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 260. 202 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 171–72 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 251, 259. 198

52

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

later insertion.203 Within 11:4-8a, the statement that the Israelites and their livestock will be exempt from the death of the firstborn in 11:7 appears to be an even later addition, since it interrupts the thematic connection between the death of the Egyptian firstborn in 11:6 and the Egyptians’ response in 11:8a.204 The reference to the firstborn of Egypt’s livestock (‫)וכל בכור בהמה‬ in 11:5b seems to presuppose the exemption motif, suggesting that it is also a later addition witin 11:4-8a.205 Finally, the sudden appearance of Aaron in 11:10 and the implicit inclusion of Aaron in Yhwh’s statement ‫לא ישמע אליכם‬ in 11:9 suggest that neither of these verses belong to the most basic material in 11:1-10. In sum, the most basic material in Exod 11:1-10 is limited to 11:8b, which originally connected directly to 10:28-29. Considering that the latter verses are a later addition within the report of the plague of darkness, every compositional level within Exod 11 must be later than 10:21-23, (24-26), 27. The death of the firstborn and the people’s departure (Exod 12). The received text of Exod 12 begins with detailed instructions for the observance of Passover, whereby the blood of the Passover lamb placed on the Israelites’ houses serves to protect them from the death of the firstborn (12:1-28). There are several indications that a more basic version of the instructions for Passover has been expanded with additional legislative material. (1) The association of Passover with the first month of the year in 12:2 stands in syntactic tension with the imperative verb ‫ דברו‬in 12:3, which instead connects smoothly to 12:1. Thus, 12:2 can be evaluated as a later addition.206 (2) The phrase ‫ לאמר בעשר לחדש הזה‬in 12:3 does not fit well with the jussive verb ‫ ויקחו‬that follows and, like 12:2, shows a special interest in calendrical matters. If this phrase is bracketed out, the command ‫ דברו אל כל עדת ישראל‬in 12:3aα* connects smoothly to the jussive verb ‫ ויקחו‬in 12:3b.207 (3) The detailed regulations in 12:4-6a interrupt the connection between the pronoun ‫ אתו‬in 12:6b and its antecedent (‫ )שה‬in 12:3b, indicating that 12:4-6a are a later insertion.208 (4) In 12:7, the phrase ‫על שתי המזוזת ועל המשקוף על הבתים‬

























































203

Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 251. The secondary nature of Exod 11:4-8a is further supported by the fact that Moses foretelling the reaction of Pharaoh’s servants to the death of the firstborn in 11:8a does not correspond to the Egyptians’ reaction in 12:33, where there is no mention of Pharaoh’s servants bowing down to Moses. 204 Cf. ibid., 257, who evaluates Exod 11:7 as a whole as secondary, against GERTZ, Tradition, 180 (with further references in n. 404), who regards only the phrase ‫למאיש עד‬ ‫ בהמה‬as secondary. 205 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 180–81. In contrast, BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 256 assigns Exod 11:5 as a whole to the most basic material in 11:4-8*. 206 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 35 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 278. 207 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 278–79. 208 Cf. ibid., 279–80, who also notes that the repetition of ‫ כל קהל עדת ישראל‬in Exod 12:6b is a later addition that was necessitated by the insertion of 12:4-6a.

6. The Plagues and the Departure from Egypt (Exod 7:8–12:51)

53

is syntactically awkward, since the preposition ‫ על‬is not very appropriate for describing the spatial relationship of the doorposts and the lintel to the house. This problem is resolved, however, if the phrase ‫ על שתי המזוזת ועל המשקוף‬is bracketed out as a later addition, suggesting that the original instructions simply called for placing the blood “on the houses.”209 (5) The detailed instructions on the preparation and eating of the Passover lamb in 12:9-11abα can be evaluated as a later addition, as they shift from using 3mp jussive verbs to 2mp imperfect verbs.210 (6) The reference to Yhwh’s “judgments” upon the gods of Egypt in 12:12b interrupts the thematic connection between Yhwh’s killing the Egyptian firstborn in 12:12aα(β) and Yhwh’s “passing over” the Israelites in 12:13.211 (7) The regulations concerning Maṣṣot in 12:14-20 can be evaluated as a later addition insofar as they – unlike the instructions for Passover in 12:3, 6b-8, 11bβ-12a, 13 or the subsequent reports in 12:34 and 12:39 that the Israelites left Egypt with unleavened dough – are not tailored to the narrative context of the death of the firstborn and the people’s departure from Egypt.212 (8) Moses’ instructions to the Israelite elders regarding the observance of Passover in 12:21-27 are not a simple repetition of Yhwh’s instructions to Moses and Aaron in 12:1, 3, 6b-8, 11bβ12a, 13 but instead contain details not found in the latter, suggesting that 12:21-27 are later than 12:1-13*. Since 12:21-27 do not show any awareness of the regulations for Maṣṣot in 12:14-20, it is quite possible that 12:14-20 are even later than 12:21-27.213 (9) If 12:21-27 and 12:14-20 are bracketed out as later additions, then 12:28 can be connected directly to 12:13. 214 In sum, the most basic material in Exod 12:1-28 consists of 12:1, 3, 6b-8, 11bβ-12a, 13, 28. In light of the integral role of Aaron in these verses, there is reason to suspect that they do not belong to the most basic narrative thread in the plagues cycle but are instead either contemporaneous with or later than the reworking of the pollution of the Nile, the plague of frogs, and the plague of flies as well as the addition of the plagues of gnats and boils. Like the Passover materials in Exod 12:1-28, the Passover legislation in 12:(42), 43-51 is also secondary to the most basic narrative thread in Exod 7:8–12:51, as is indicated by the Wiederaufnahme of the departure report from 12:41 in 12:51.215 Moreover, the legislation comes too late at this point in the narrative, since the death of the firstborn – and with it the occasion for the inaugural Passover – has already taken place, suggesting that 12:(42), 43-

























































209

Cf. ibid., 280. Cf. ibid., 281. 211 Cf. ibid., 281–82. 212 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 31–32 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 276. 213 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 277. 214 Cf. ibid., 283. 215 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 58 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 331. 210

54

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

51 are also later than the basic instructions regarding Passover in 12:1-13*, 28.216 Since neither Exod 12:1-28 nor 12:42-51 belong to the most basic material in 7:8–12:51, a potentially earlier report of the death of the firstborn must be sought within 12:29-41. The reference to the firstborn of the cattle in 12:29b is likely a later addition to 12:29a, as it does not fit with the binary merism found there (‫)מבכר פרעה הישב על כסאו עד בכור השבי אשר בבית הבור‬.217 Within 12:31-33, Pharaoh’s command that the people go in 12:31-32 forms a doublet with the Egyptians’ urging the people to go in 12:33. From a narrative perspective, only one of the two reports is necessary. The possibility that 12:31-32 do not belong to the most basic narrative thread in the plagues cycle is suggested by the fact that Pharaoh addresses both Moses and Aaron in his command for the people to leave Egypt.218 Considering that 12:33 refers only to the Egyptians and not to Pharaoh, the reference to Pharaoh and his servants in 12:30aα may also be a later addition. The literary stratification of Exod 12:34-42 is particularly difficult, since the subject matter within this unit shifts frequently from one verse to the next. Exod 12:34 and 12:39 relate to the origins of the festival of Maṣṣot and may thus belong to a single compositional layer. Considering that 12:39 seems somewhat out of place between 12:37-38 and 12:40-41, it is possible that this verse, as well as 12:34, postdate 12:37-38, 40-41. The latter verses, in turn, may be later than 12:33, since 12:33 refers to the people as ‫ העם‬while 12:3738, 40-41 use the term ‫בני ישראל‬. Finally, considering that 12:35 contains the fulfillment report for the people’s taking of silver and gold vessels from the Egyptians as commanded by Yhwh in 11:2 (part of a later addition within 11:1-10), then 12:35 cannot belong to the most basic narrative thread within 12:34-42. Whether 12:35 is earlier or later than 12:34 and 12:39 is difficult to determine. In sum, the most basic narrative thread in Exod 12:29-41 possibly consisted of only 12:29a, 30aβb, 33.219 The earliest additions to this narrative thread possibly consisted of 12:37-38, 40-41. Subsequent additions are found in 12:29b, 30aβ, 31-32, 34, 35, and 39. These additions likely do not all stem from a single hand, although their precise relative chronology is difficult to determine.

























































216

Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 31–37 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 276. Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 184 and L. SCHMIDT, “Die vorpriesterliche Darstellung,” 172. 218 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 268–69. 219 Cf. ibid., 269. 217

6. The Plagues and the Departure from Egypt (Exod 7:8–12:51)

55

6.2. Macrocontextual analysis The miracle of Aaron’s staff (Exod 7:8-13). Above it was concluded on literary-critical grounds that this episode did not belong to the earliest version of the plagues narrative. In light of the fact that the figure of Aaron has not played a role in the pre-priestly narrative thread up to this point, the mention of Aaron here further suggests that this unit cannot be pre-priestly.220 The pollution of the Nile (Exod 7:14-25). Above it was concluded that the most basic report of the pollution of the Nile consists of Exod 7:14-15aα, 16* (only ‫)ואמרת אליו‬, 17* (without ‫ במטה אשר בידי על‬or ‫)ונהפכו לדם‬, 18, 20aα* (only ‫)ויך את המים אשר ביאר‬, 21a, 24, while the remainder of the material in this unit constitutes later expansions. Among these expansions, 7:19, 20*, 21b-22 presuppose Aaron’s role as a wonder worker in 7:8-13 and thus cannot be pre-priestly. Likewise, the references to Moses striking the water of the Nile with his staff in 7:15aβ, 17* cannot be earlier than 7:8-13, since Yhwh explicitly describes Moses’ staff as ‫המטה אשר נהפך לנחש‬. Moreover, since 7:23 reports that Pharaoh “did not give heed also to this” (‫ולא שת לבו גם‬ ‫)לזאת‬, this verse also presupposes the preceding demonstration of power in 7:8-13 and cannot be pre-priestly. Finally, the report in 7:25 that seven days passed after Yhwh struck the Nile is reminiscent of priestly ritual laws that specify seven days as the duration of ritual impurity associated with contact with the dead (cf. Num 19:11-20, which, however, only address contact with human corpses).221 Thus, all of the later additions to Exod 7:14-25 show signs of priestly provenance. In contrast, the most basic narrative thread in 7:14-15aα, 16*, 17*, 18, 20aα*, 21a, 24 does not show signs of priestly provenance, indicating that this material could belong to a pre-priestly exodus narrative. Identifying the preceding pre-priestly point of contact for 7:14-24*, however, poses a particular challenge. Earlier commentators who followed the classical Documentary Hypothesis tended to assign 5:1–6:1 as a whole to J and thus – at least implicitly – held that 6:1 once connected directly to 7:14.222 Yet a direct connection between 6:1 and 7:14 is highly unlikely, since both verses begin with ‫ויאמר ה׳ אל משה‬. More recently, several commentators have proposed that 7:14 once connected directly to 5:1-2* at a pre-priestly stage of composition, which requires the additional assumption that an originally pre-priestly form of 5:1-2* has been reworked at a priestly or post-priestly stage of com-



























































220 This passage is widely regarded as priestly or post-priestly; cf. NOTH, Exodus, 54–55 (ET 71–72); CHILDS, Exodus, 131; PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 310, 348; GERTZ, Tradition, 82; KRATZ, Komposition, 244 (ET 242); DOZEMAN, Exodus, 190; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 182–85; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 122. 221 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 174–75. In contrast, W. H. SCHMIDT, Ex 1–6, 382 and GERTZ, Tradition, 112 regard Exod 7:25 as part of a pre-priestly narrative thread. 222 E.g., WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 72 and NOTH, Exodus, 56 (ET 73).

56

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

position to include the figure of Aaron.223 In light of this problematic assumption, Christoph Berner has recently proposed (in contrast to his earlier position) that 7:14 once connected directly to 2:11a,224 although elsewhere Berner himself points to the problems involved in this alternative: Es lässt sich diskutieren, ob der Text noch als vollständige Erzählung durchgehen kann. Im Zweifelsfall wird man sich von der Prämisse der lückenlosen Rekonstruierbarkeit der ältesten Textstrata verabschieden und partiellen Textverlust einräumen müssen.225

In other words, both Berner’s earlier and more recent solutions to identifying the pre-priestly text that originally preceded 7:14 involve the problem of textual loss, albeit in different degrees. In the case of a direct connection between 2:11a and 7:14, determining the contents of the lost text can be nothing more than speculation. In contrast, in the case of a direct connection between 5:1-2* and 7:14, the contents of the lost text in 5:1-2* can be reconstructed with some degree of confidence simply by removing the figure of Aaron, changing the relevant verbs from plural to singular, and eliminating the reference to celebrating a festival to Yhwh in 5:1bβ. Thus, although hypothesizing a pre-priestly version of 5:1-2* is not ideal methodologically, such a hypothesis still seems preferable to the more radical solution proposed most recently by Berner. Frogs (Exod 7:26–8:11). Above it was concluded that the most basic report of the plague of frogs consists of Exod 7:26-27, 29; 8:2b. While these verses show no signs of priestly composition, the additions in 7:28 and 8:1-11* bear several connections to priestly literature.226 The verb ‫ שרץ‬in 7:28 appears elsewhere in the priestly creation account (cf. Gen 1:20) as well as in several priestly ritual laws in the book of Leviticus (Lev 5:2; 11:10, 23, 29, 31, 41; 22:5), suggesting that 7:28 is of priestly or post-priestly provenance. This receives further support in the reference to the frogs invading Egyptian ovens and kneading troughs, which implies that Egyptian cooking facilities were rendered ritually impure.227 Other signs of (post-)priestly composition in 8:1-11* include the Israelites’ intention to offer sacrifices to Yhwh in 8:4 (cf. 5:3) and the role of Aaron in 8:1, 2a, 4. Gnats (Exod 8:12-15). Above it was concluded that the plague of gnats in Exod 8:12-15 was not part of the earliest plagues narrative, since this plague features Aaron and his staff – a motif that is secondary to both the pollution of the Nile and the plague of frogs – from the outset. Since these later additions involving Aaron in 7:14-25 and 7:26–8:11 were evaluated as priestly or

























































223

LEVIN, Jahwist, 336; GERTZ, Tradition, 104–6; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 169. BERNER, “Der literarische Charakter,” 131. 225 BERNER, “Gab es einen vorpriesterschriftlichen Meerwunderbericht?,” 25 n. 84. 226 For a similar conclusion, see BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 176–78, 210; IDEM, “Der literarische Charakter,” 112. 227 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 177. 224

6. The Plagues and the Departure from Egypt (Exod 7:8–12:51)

57

post-priestly, the plague of gnats in 8:12-15 must likewise be evaluated as priestly at the earliest.228 Flies (Exod 8:16-28). Above it was concluded that the most basic report of the plague of flies consists of Exod 8:16-17*, 20, 28, while 8:18-19 and 8:21-27 are later additions. The reference to the land of Goshen in 8:18 is the first such reference in the plagues cycle and indeed in the book of Exodus as a whole (the only other occurrence is in 9:26), and it comes quite unexpectedly unless one has the Joseph story in view, where it occurs eight times.229 Thus, it is quite possible that 8:18 presupposes the Joseph story in its present context, in which case this verse cannot have been part of an independent exodus narrative prior to the literary connection between the books of Genesis and Exodus. In 8:19b, the reference to the plague of flies as a “sign” (‫)אות‬ forms a lexical connection to priestly or post-priestly texts in the foregoing chapters (cf. Exod 3:12; 4:8-9, 17, 28, 30; 7:3), suggesting that this half verse cannot be pre-priestly. Since it is possible that 8:19b once connected directly to the announcement of the plague in 8:17,230 this would suggest that 8:18-19a are also post-priestly.231 There are also indications that the additions in Exod 8:21-27 cannot be pre-priestly. Exod 8:21-24a introduce the motif of offering sacrifices to Yhwh, which repeatedly appears in the priestly and post-priestly narrative units that include Aaron. The priestly or post-priestly provenance of 8:21-24a is further supported by Moses’ statement in 8:23 that that the Israelites will offer sacrifices to Yhwh “just as he will tell us” (‫)כאשר יאמר אלינו‬,232 which anticipates the revelation of the priestly ritual laws later in Exodus and Leviticus.233 Likewise, Pharaoh’s request for intercession in 8:24b-27 cannot be pre-priestly, since it is literarily dependent on his request for intercession in the plague of frogs (8:4-8a), which was evaluated as (post-)priestly. Thus, the only potentially pre-priestly material in the plague of flies is the most basic narrative thread in Exod 8:16-17*, 20, 28. Considering that 8:28

























































228

The priestly provenance of the plague of gnats is widely acknowledged; cf. NOTH, Exodus, 58–59 (ET 76–77); CHILDS, Exodus, 131; GERTZ, Tradition, 82; DOZEMAN, Exodus, 190; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 188–91; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 136–42. 229 Gen 45:10; 46:28, 34; 47:1, 4, 6, 27; 50:8. 230 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 204, where the reference to a direct connection with Exod 8:16 seems to be a typographical error. 231 Cf. ibid., 180–81, 203–4. 232 This statement cannot be removed from its surrounding context in Exod 8:21-24a since, without Moses’ proposal to make a three-day journey into the wilderness and to offer sacrifices there (cf. Exod 5:3), Moses’ objection to offering sacrifices “in the land” lacks a solution, and Pharaoh’s acquiescence to let the people go to offer sacrifices in the wilderness lacks a motivation. 233 On the (post-)priestly nature of Exod 8:21-24a, see BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 200– 202.

58

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

refers to Pharaoh’s recalcitrance using the verbal root ‫כב״ד‬, this narrative corresponds lexically with the most basic accounts of the pollution of the Nile and the plague of frogs, which were also evaluated as potentially prepriestly. The plague on cattle (Exod 9:1-7). Above it was concluded that the plague on cattle, which is largely a compositional unity, was not part of the earliest plagues narrative. The fact that this episode thematizes the motif of the land of Goshen and Yhwh’s making a “distinction” between the Israelites and the Egyptians indicates that it presupposes the juxtaposition of both motifs in Exod 8:18 and 8:19a. Since the latter were evaluated as (post-)priestly, the plague on cattle as a whole must also be a late, post-priestly addition to the plagues cycle.234 Boils (Exod 9:8-12). Above it was concluded that the plague of boils in Exod 9:8-12 was most likely not part of the earliest plagues narrative. There has long been a consensus in assigning this entire unit to priestly or postpriestly authorship.235 A further indication of the priestly provenance of this episode is the use of the verb ‫ זרק‬to describe the flinging of ash into the air. This verb occurs only eight times in the Hebrew Bible, and six of these occurrences are in (post-)priestly texts pertaining to blood manipulation rituals (Exod 24:6;236 Lev 7:14; 17:6; Ezek 43:18) or purification rituals (Num 19:13, 20).237 The fact that Moses is the sole actor here (in contrast to the previous priestly plagues) can perhaps be explained by the fact that Aaron has not yet been ordained as a priest (see Exod 28–29) and thus cannot engage in explicitly ritual activity.238 Hail (Exod 9:13-35). Above it was concluded that the most basic report of the plague of hail likely consists of Exod 9:13, 17-18, 23b, (24aα, b), 25a, 35a. The post-priestly provenance of this material is indicated by the fact that

























































234

Cf. H.-C. SCHMITT, “Tradition,” 207 n. 51, 214 n. 91 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 202–9; IDEM, “Der literarische Charakter,” 113. LEVIN, Jahwist, 337 attempts to identify a pre-priestly base text by removing the motifs of the land of Goshen and the “distinction” between the Israelites and the Egyptians, but this leaves a less than coherent narrative; cf. the critique of Levin’s reconstruction in BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 203 n. 100. A late dating of this episode also resolves the problem that “all of the cattle of the Egyptians” are wiped out in Exod 9:6, while the Egyptians are instructed to bring their cattle to safety before the onslaught of the plague of hail in 9:19; cf. B ERNER, Exoduserzählung, 207. 235 Cf. NOTH, Exodus, 61 (ET 79–80); CHILDS, Exodus, 131; PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 331– 32; GERTZ, Tradition, 81–82; DOZEMAN, Exodus, 190; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 191–94. 236 On the evaluation of Exod 24:4-8 as post-priestly, see Chapter 4, §1.2. 237 The only other occurrence not connected to blood manipulation rituals or purification rituals is in Ezek 10:2. 238 For alternative explanations, see PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 331–32 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 192.

6. The Plagues and the Departure from Egypt (Exod 7:8–12:51)

59

the report of Pharaoh’s recalcitrance in 9:35a uses the expression ‫ויחזק לב‬ ‫פרעה‬, which is found elsewhere only in the (post-)priestly plagues (7:13, 22; 8:15; 9:2, 12).239 Locusts (Exod 10:1-20). Above it was concluded that the most basic report of the plague of locusts likely consists of Exod 10:1, 3-6, 12-15*, 20 and does not belong to the earliest version of the plagues narrative. As with the plague of hail, both the most basic narrative and its later additions show signs of post-priestly composition.240 (1) Yhwh’s command to confront Pharaoh uses the verb ‫( בוא‬10:1), which is not used in the pre-priestly plagues but is used in the (post-)priestly plagues. (2) The figure of Aaron – who appears elsewhere only in the (post-)priestly plague episodes – cannot be removed from 10:3 on narrative or text-critical grounds. (3) As in 10:3, the figure of Aaron is integral to the later dialogue with Pharaoh in 10:7-11. (4) Within the fulfillment report in 10:12-15, Moses’ special role in bringing about the plague (10:12-13) is closely related to his role in the plague of hail.241 (5) The statement that there has never been a plague of locusts like this one (10:14bβ) resembles similar statements regarding the hail in 9:18b and 9:24. (6) The intercession scene in 10:16-19 shows signs of (post-)priestly composition in its reference to Aaron in 10:16. (7) The report of Pharaoh’s recalcitrance in 10:20 uses the verbal root ‫חז״ק‬, which is used elsewhere in the priestly plague episodes.242 Darkness (Exod 10:21-29). Above it was concluded that the most basic report of the plague of darkness consists of Exod 10:21-23, (24-26), 27. There are several indications that this report is a (post-)priestly composition from the outset.243 The most significant of these is the role of Moses as a divine intermediary in bringing about the plague rather than Yhwh acting alone (cf. the plagues of hail and locusts).244 Moses’ negotiation with Pharaoh over the issue of livestock (10:24aβ-26) contains clearly priestly motifs (such as the



























































239 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 226. For further discussion of the post-priestly nature of the plague of hail from the outset, see LEVIN, Jahwist, 337–38; GERTZ, Tradition, 132– 52; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 215–29; IDEM, “Der literarische Charakter,” 114–15. 240 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 152–63 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 229–41; IDEM, “Der literarische Charakter,” 115 against the common view that Exod 10:1-20 preserve a prepriestly narrative thread as argued, e.g., by NOTH, Exodus, 63–64 (ET 81–83); CHILDS, Exodus, 131; VAN SETERS, Life, 77; PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 311–12; DOZEMAN, Exodus, 190; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 163–74. 241 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 234–35. 242 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 159–60. 243 For this evaluation, cf. KOHATA, Jahwist, 103–15; GERTZ, Tradition, 163–66; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 242–50 against the view that the plague of darkness is (at least in part) pre-priestly as argued, e.g., by NOTH, Exodus, 64–65 (ET 83–84); CHILDS, Exodus, 131; VAN SETERS, Life, 107–8; DOZEMAN, Exodus, 190; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 163–74. 244 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 245.

60

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

reference to ‫)זבחים ועלות‬, and Moses’ statement that the people will not know in what way they should “serve” Yhwh until they reach their destination seems to presuppose the revelation of priestly cultic laws at Sinai.245 The statement that Yhwh made Pharaoh’s heart “strong” in 10:27 also conforms to the priestly depiction of Pharaoh’s stubbornness elsewhere in the plagues cycle. Since Pharaoh’s ultimatum to Moses in 10:28-29 presupposes that Moses is still in his presence, these verses must also belong to the plague of darkness and cannot form the continuation of a pre-priestly narrative thread.246 The announcement of the death of the firstborn (Exod 11). Above it was concluded that the most basic material in Exod 11:1-10 is limited to 11:8b. Since this half verse cannot stand without 10:28-29, Exod 11 as a whole is later than 10:21-23, (24-26), 27 and therefore post-priestly.247 The death of the firstborn and the people’s departure (Exod 12). Above it was concluded that the most basic material in Exod 12:1-28 consists of 12:1, 3, 6b-8*, 11bβ-12a, 13, 28. There is a broad consensus that this material is of priestly provenance.248 By extension, the later additions within 12:1-13* as well as the larger insertions in 12:14-20, 21-27 cannot belong to a pre-priestly stage of composition.249 Since the further regulations relating to Passover in 12:43-51 cannot stand without the priestly material in 12:1-13*, 28, the former cannot belong to a pre-priestly narrative.250

























































245

This exchange is also closely connected to Exod 10:7-11, which are a later addition to the post-priestly plague of locusts; see GERTZ, Tradition, 163. 246 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 249. 247 Cf. ibid., 250–61. 248 NOTH, Exodus, 73–76 (ET 94–97); CHILDS, Exodus, 184; L. SCHMIDT, “Die vorpriesterliche Darstellung,” 171; DOZEMAN, Exodus, 190; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 278; IDEM, “Der literarische Charakter,” 118; and A LBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 188–202. 249 The compositional place of Exod 12:21-27 (and 13:1-16) has long engendered uncertainty. E.g., WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 74–75 was unsure whether 12:21-27 should be regarded as an addition to JE or to Q (= P). While a number of source critics have regarded much or all of 12:21-27 (and 13:1-16) as pre-priestly (e.g., NOTH, Exodus, 76–80 [ET 97–102]; CHILDS, Exodus, 184; PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 375–80; and DOZEMAN, Exodus, 190), other commentators have assigned these materials to a priestly or post-priestly stage of composition. On 12:21-27, see MAY, “Relation,” 70–72; WAMBACQ, “Les origines,” 316–19; VAN SETERS, “Place of the Yahwist,” 173–75; IDEM, Life, 113–27; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 278–93; IDEM, “Der literarische Charakter,” 118–19. On 13:1-16, see W. H. SCHMIDT, Exodus, Sinai und Mose, 55–56; KOHATA, Jahwist, 267–69; BAR-ON, “Zur literarkritischen Analyse”; GESUNDHEIT, Three Times a Year, 58–89, 167–222; AHUIS, Exodus 11,1–13,16, 67–74; GERTZ, Tradition, 29–73; ZAHN, “Empirical Models”; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 276–339. 250 For further discussion of the (post-)priestly provenance of Exod 12:42, 43-51, see LEVIN, Jahwist, 339 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 331–34.

6. The Plagues and the Departure from Egypt (Exod 7:8–12:51)

61

Within Exod 12:29-42, the most basic report of the death of the firstborn consists of 12:29a, 30aβb, 33. Whereas this basic narrative thread does not show signs of priestly provenance, the later additions to this report bear connections to a variety of priestly or post-priestly texts. (1) The reference to the firstborn of the cattle in 12:29b seems to be an alignment with the (post-) priestly reframing of the death of the firstborn as an etiology of Passover in 12:12.251 (2) The presence of Aaron in 12:31 presupposes Aaron’s role in the priestly and post-priestly reworkings of the plague cycle.252 (3) Pharaoh’s command in 12:32a to “take your flocks and cattle, just as you said, and go” presupposes the audience of Moses and Aaron with Pharaoh in 10:7-11, a later addition within the post-priestly narrative of the locusts. (4) Pharaoh’s request to be blessed in 12:32b presupposes Aaron’s presence from 12:31-32a and also has thematic affinities with his request for intercession in 9:28 and 10:17.253 The conclusion that the most basic report of the death of the firstborn in Exod 12:29a, 30aβb, 33 is earlier than its announcement in 11:4-8a is confirmed by closer comparison of the two units, which indicates that the author of the announcement in 11:4-8a used 12:29-33* as a literary Vorlage. (1) Rather than using the precise phrase ‫ בחצי הלילה‬as in 12:29, the announcement in 11:4 uses the vague phrase ‫כחצת הלילה‬.254 (2) Yhwh’s statement that he will “go out into the midst of Egypt” in 11:4 has no counterpart in the report of Yhwh’s attack, which simply states that Yhwh “struck down” (‫)הכה‬ every firstborn in the land of Egypt. Rather, the closest analogue to this statement is found in the priestly reframing of the death of the firstborn as the etiology of Passover in 12:12 (‫ועברתי בארץ מצרים בלילה הזה והכיתי כל בכור‬ ‫)בארץ מצרים‬.255 (3) The motif of the incomparable severity of the event within Egypt’s history in 11:6b is found elsewhere only in the post-priestly plagues of hail and locusts,256 where it is more fitting in its description of natural phenomena. (4) Moses’ statement in 11:8a that Pharaoh’s servants will bow down before Moses and urge him and the people to “go out” (‫יצא‬ qal) is much more specific than the report in 12:33, which refers only to the Egyptians’ sending the people away (‫ שלח‬piel). The events surrounding the people’s departure in Exod 12:34-42 also show numerous signs of (post-)priestly composition. (1) The reference to the peo-

























































251

See also Exod 9:25, where a similar concept is found in the plague of hail. On the evaluation of 12:29b as post-priestly, see GERTZ, Tradition, 67, 180 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 268. 252 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 183–84; L. SCHMIDT, “Die vorpriesterliche Darstellung,” 172; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 269. 253 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 270–71. 254 Cf. ibid., 253. 255 Cf. ibid. 256 Cf. ibid., 257.

62

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

ple taking their dough before it had risen in 12:34 retrojects the origins of the festival of Maṣṣot onto the exodus event and thus reflects broadly priestly interests. Moreover, 12:39 presupposes 12:34 and cannot be earlier than that verse.257 (2) The fulfillment of Moses’ instructions to the people to ask for vessels of silver and gold in 12:35-36 (cf. 11:2-3) serves as a narrative precursor to the construction of the tabernacle during the wilderness period and thus cannot be pre-priestly.258 (3) The compositional place of 12:37a is more difficult to evaluate. On the one hand, the departure notice seems to be necessary in order to drive the narrative forward; on the other hand, there are indications that it does not belong to the most basic exodus narrative identified so far. As was noted in the literary-critical analysis, 12:37a refers to the people as ‫ בני ישראל‬while 12:33 refers to the people as ‫העם‬, suggesting that these verses were not composed by the same hand. Moreover, the place-name ‫ רעמסס‬in 12:37a occurs elsewhere only in 1:11b, which likely did not belong to the earliest exodus narrative. (4) The reference to the 600,000 men in 12:37b is possibly later than the departure notice in 12:37a, although determining whether this half verse is pre-priestly or post-priestly depends upon the evaluation of 12:37a.259 (5) The reference to the “mixed multitude” (‫ערב‬ ‫ )רב‬in 12:38a finds its closest analogue in Lev 24:10, which suggests a postpriestly provenance for this half verse.260 (6) The reference to the large numbers of livestock in 12:38b seems to be connected to the motif of sacrificing to Yhwh in the wilderness (cf. 3:18; 5:3, 8, 17; 8:4, 21-25; 10:25) and thus cannot be pre-priestly. In sum, the only potentially pre-priestly material in 12:34-42 is to be found in 12:37a(b), although even this verse seems to be secondary to the most basic exodus narrative, and its pre-priestly provenance is hardly certain.261

























































257

Cf. ibid., 274. On the post-priestly nature of Exod 12:35-36, see BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 274 and GERTZ, Tradition, 396, although elsewhere Gertz suggests that these verses may reflect an older tradition (303–4). 259 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 381, who argues that Exod 12:37b could be a prepriestly addition. In contrast, COATS, “Wilderness Itinerary,” 143 argues that “the kind of information in [12:37b-38] would more readily be expected of P.” 260 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 273 with n. 19. 261 The attribution of the itinerary notice in Exod 12:37 to a non-priestly narrative strand is debated among commentators. For the view that this verse is pre-priestly, see, e.g., GERTZ, Tradition, 203 n. 62 and DOZEMAN, “Priestly Wilderness Itineraries,” 262, 264. In contrast, for the view that 12:37a is priestly, see WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 72 and ROSKOP, Wilderness Itineraries, 217; see also COATS, “Wilderness Itinerary,” 146, who questions the attribution of Exod 12:37 to J. 258

6. The Plagues and the Departure from Egypt (Exod 7:8–12:51)

63

6.3. Synthesis I

The most basic narrative of the plagues only contained three plagues in the realm of nature (the pollution of the Nile, the plague of frogs, and the plague of flies) followed by the death of the Egyptian firstborn. This narrative consisted of Exod 7:14-18*, 20*, 21a, 24a, 26-27, 29; 8:2b, 16-17*, 20, 28; 12:29a, 30aβb, 33, (37?) and shows no signs of priestly provenance.

II

In a second major phase of composition, the triad of pre-priestly nature plagues received a priestly reworking in Exod 7:19, 21b-23, 24b-25, 28; 8:1-2a, 3-11, 18-19, 21-27 and was expanded into a pentad through the addition of the plagues of gnats in 8:12-15 and the plague of boils in 9:8-12. The report of the death of the firstborn and the departure from Egypt was also expanded with priestly or post-priestly additions in 12:30aα, 31-32, 34, 38, 39, 42. The two larger insertions of festival legislation in 12:1-28 and 12:43-51 cannot predate the priestly reworking of the plagues narrative and the departure from Egypt, although it is beyond the scope of this study to evaluate their relative chronology more precisely.

III

At a post-priestly stage of composition, the pentad of plagues created by the priestly reworking was expanded through the addition of the plague on cattle (Exod 9:1-7) and the plagues of hail (9:13, 17-18, 22-25a, 35a), locusts (10:1, 3-6, 12-15, 20), and darkness (10:21-27).262

IV

The plagues of hail, locusts, and darkness were further expanded in Exod 9:14-16, 19-21, 25b-34, 35b; 10:2, 7-11, 16-19, 28-29; 11:8b.

V

A basic form of the announcement of the death of the firstborn was added in Exod 11:4-8a, 9-10.

VI

The announcement of the death of the firstborn was subsequently expanded in Exod 11:1-3. Since 11:2-3 are presupposed by 12:35-36, the latter must also be assigned to this level of composition.

























































262

For similar reconstructions of the development of the plagues cycle, see LEVIN, Jahwist, 337; GERTZ, Tradition, 186–87; and esp. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 168; IDEM, “Der literarische Charakter,” 117–18.

‫‪64‬‬

‫)‪Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪V‬‬

‫‪VI‬‬ ‫‪7:8‬‬

‫‪9‬‬

‫]‪ [The miracle of Aaron’s staff‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה ואל אהרן לאמר כי ידבר אלכם פרעה‬ ‫לאמר תנו לכם מופת ואמרת אל אהרן קח את מטך והשלך לפני פרעה יהי לתנין ‪ 10‬ויבא משה‬ ‫ואהרן אל פרעה ויעשו כן כאשר צוה ה׳ וישלך אהרן את מטהו לפני פרעה ולפני עבדיו ויהי לתנין‬ ‫‪ 11‬ויקרא גם פרעה לחכמים ולמכשפים ויעשו גם הם חרטמי מצרים בלהטיהם כן ‪ 12‬וישליכו איש‬ ‫מטהו ויהיו לתנינם ויבלע מטה אהרן את מטתם ‪ 13‬ויחזק לב פרעה ולא שמע אלהם כאשר דבר‬ ‫ה׳‬ ‫]‪ 7:14 [The pollution of the Nile‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה כבד לב פרעה מאן לשלח העם ‪ 15‬לך אל פרעה‬ ‫בבקר הנה יצא המימה ונצבת לקראתו על שפת היאר והמטה אשר נהפך לנחש תקח בידך ‪ 16‬ואמרת‬ ‫אליו ה׳ אלהי העברים שלחני אליך לאמר שלח את עמי ויעבדני במדבר והנה לא שמעת עד כה ‪ 17‬כה‬ ‫אמר ה׳ בזאת תדע כי אני ה׳ הנה אנכי מכה במטה אשר בידי על המים אשר ביאר ונהפכו לדם‬ ‫‪ 18‬והדגה אשר ביאר תמות ובאש היאר ונלאו מצרים לשתות מים מן היאר‬ ‫‪ 19‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה אמר אל אהרן קח מטך ונטה ידך על מימי מצרים על נהרתם על יאריהם‬ ‫ועל אגמיהם ועל כל מקוה מימיהם ויהיו דם והיה דם בכל ארץ מצרים ובעצים ובאבנים‬ ‫‪ 20‬ויעשו כן משה ואהרן כאשר צוה ה׳ וירם במטה ויך את המים אשר ביאר לעיני פרעה ולעיני עבדיו‬ ‫ויהפכו כל המים אשר ביאר לדם ‪ 21‬והדגה אשר ביאר מתה ויבאש היאר ולא יכלו מצרים לשתות מים‬ ‫מן היאר‬ ‫ויהי הדם בכל ארץ מצרים ‪ 22‬ויעשו כן חרטמי מצרים בלטיהם ויחזק לב פרעה ולא שמע אלהם‬ ‫כאשר דבר ה׳ ‪ 23‬ויפן פרעה ויבא אל ביתו ולא שת לבו גם לזאת‬ ‫‪ 24‬ויחפרו כל מצרים סביבת היאר מים לשתות‬ ‫כי לא יכלו לשתת ממימי היאר ‪ 25‬וימלא שבעת ימים אחרי הכות ה׳ את היאר‬ ‫]‪ 7:26 [Frogs‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה בא אל פרעה ואמרת אליו כה אמר ה׳ שלח את עמי ויעבדני‬ ‫מאן אתה לשלח הנה אנכי נגף את כל גבולך בצפרדעים‬

‫‪27‬‬

‫ואם‬

‫‪ 28‬ושרץ היאר צפרדעים ועלו ובאו בביתך ובחדר משכבך ועל מטתך ובבית עבדיך ובעמך‬ ‫ובתנוריך ובמשארותיך‬ ‫‪ 29‬ובכה ובעמך ובכל עבדיך יעלו הצפרדעים‬ ‫‪ 8:1‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה אמר אל אהרן נטה את ידך במטך על הנהרת על היארים ועל האגמים‬ ‫והעל את הצפרדעים על ארץ מצרים ‪ 2a‬ויט אהרן את ידו על מימי מצרים‬ ‫‪ 2b‬ותעל הצפרדע ותכס את ארץ מצרים‬ ‫‪ 3‬ויעשו כן החרטמים בלטיהם ויעלו את הצפרדעים על ארץ מצרים ‪ 4‬ויקרא פרעה למשה ולאהרן‬ ‫ויאמר העתירו אל ה׳ ויסר הצפרדעים ממני ומעמי ואשלחה את העם ויזבחו לה׳ ‪ 5‬ויאמר משה‬ ‫לפרעה התפאר עלי למתי אעתיר לך ולעבדיך ולעמך להכרית הצפרדעים ממך ומבתיך רק ביאר‬ ‫תשארנה ‪ 6‬ויאמר למחר ויאמר כדברך למען תדע כי אין כה׳ אלהינו ‪ 7‬וסרו הצפרדעים ממך‬ ‫ומבתיך ומעבדיך ומעמך רק ביאר תשארנה ‪ 8‬ויצא משה ואהרן מעם פרעה ויצעק משה אל ה׳ על‬ ‫דבר הצפרדעים אשר שם לפרעה ‪ 9‬ויעש ה׳ כדבר משה וימתו הצפרדעים מן הבתים מן החצרת‬ ‫ומן השדת ‪ 10‬ויצברו אתם חמרם חמרם ותבאש הארץ ‪ 11‬וירא פרעה כי היתה הרוחה והכבד את‬ ‫לבו ולא שמע אלהם כאשר דבר ה׳‬

‫‪65‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫)‪6. The Plagues and the Departure from Egypt (Exod 7:8–12:51‬‬ ‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪V‬‬

‫‪VI‬‬

‫‪8: 12‬‬

‫ויאמר ה׳ אל משה אמר אל אהרן נטה את מטך והך את עפר הארץ והיה לכנם בכל‬ ‫]‪[Gnats‬‬ ‫ארץ מצרים ‪ 13‬ויעשו כן ויט אהרן את ידו במטהו ויך את עפר הארץ ותהי הכנם באדם ובבהמה‬ ‫כל עפר הארץ היה כנים בכל ארץ מצרים ‪ 14‬ויעשו כן החרטמים בלטיהם להוציא את הכנים ולא‬ ‫יכלו ותהי הכנם באדם ובבהמה ‪ 15‬ויאמרו החרטמם אל פרעה אצבע אלהים הוא ויחזק לב פרעה‬ ‫ולא שמע אלהם כאשר דבר ה׳‬ ‫]‪ 8:16 [Flies‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה השכם בבקר והתיצב לפני פרעה הנה יוצא המימה ואמרת אליו כה‬ ‫אמר ה׳ שלח עמי ויעבדני ‪ 17‬כי אם אינך משלח את עמי הנני משליח בך ובעבדיך ובעמך ובבתיך את‬ ‫הערב ומלאו בתי מצרים את הערב וגם האדמה אשר הם עליה‬ ‫‪ 18‬והפליתי ביום ההוא את ארץ גשן אשר עמי עמד עליה לבלתי היות שם ערב למען תדע כי אני‬ ‫ה׳ בקרב הארץ ‪ 19‬ושמתי פדת בין עמי ובין עמך למחר יהיה האת הזה‬ ‫‪ 20‬ויעש ה׳ כן ויבא ערב כבד ביתה פרעה ובית עבדיו ובכל ארץ מצרים תשחת הארץ מפני הערב‬ ‫‪ 21‬ויקרא פרעה אל משה ולאהרן ויאמר לכו זבחו לאלהיכם בארץ ‪ 22‬ויאמר משה לא נכון לעשות‬ ‫כן כי תועבת מצרים נזבח לה׳ אלהינו הן נזבח את תועבת מצרים לעיניהם ולא יסקלנו ‪ 23‬דרך‬ ‫שלשת ימים נלך במדבר וזבחנו לה׳ אלהינו כאשר יאמר אלינו ‪ 24‬ויאמר פרעה אנכי אשלח‬ ‫אתכם וזבחתם לה׳ אלהיכם במדבר רק הרחק לא תרחיקו ללכת העתירו בעדי ‪ 25‬ויאמר משה‬ ‫הנה אנכי יוצא מעמך והעתרתי אל ה׳ וסר הערב מפרעה מעבדיו ומעמו מחר רק אל יסף פרעה‬ ‫התל לבלתי שלח את העם לזבח לה׳ ‪ 26‬ויצא משה מעם פרעה ויעתר אל ה׳ ‪ 27‬ויעש ה׳ כדבר‬ ‫משה ויסר הערב מפרעה מעבדיו ומעמו לא נשאר אחד‬ ‫‪ 28‬ויכבד פרעה את לבו גם בפעם הזאת ולא שלח את העם‬ ‫]‪ 9:1 [The plague on cattle‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה בא אל פרעה ודברת אליו כה אמר ה׳ אלהי‬ ‫העברים שלח את עמי ויעבדני ‪ 2‬כי אם מאן אתה לשלח ועודך מחזיק בם ‪ 3‬הנה יד ה׳ הויה‬ ‫במקנך אשר בשדה בסוסים בחמרים בגמלים בבקר ובצאן דבר כבד מאד ‪ 4‬והפלה ה׳ בין‬ ‫מקנה ישראל ובין מקנה מצרים ולא ימות מכל לבני ישראל דבר ‪ 5‬וישם ה׳ מועד לאמר‬ ‫מחר יעשה ה׳ הדבר הזה בארץ ‪ 6‬ויעש ה׳ את הדבר הזה ממחרת וימת כל מקנה מצרים‬ ‫וממקנה בני ישראל לא מת אחד ‪ 7‬וישלח פרעה והנה לא מת ממקנה ישראל עד אחד‬ ‫ויכבד לב פרעה ולא שלח את העם‬ ‫]‪ 9:8 [Boils‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה ואל אהרן קחו לכם מלא חפניכם פיח כבשן וזרקו משה השמימה‬ ‫לעיני פרעה ‪ 9‬והיה לאבק על כל ארץ מצרים והיה על האדם ועל הבהמה לשחין פרח אבעבעת‬ ‫בכל ארץ מצרים ‪ 10‬ויקחו את פיח הכבשן ויעמדו לפני פרעה ויזרק אתו משה השמימה ויהי שחין‬ ‫אבעבעת פרח באדם ובבהמה ‪ 11‬ולא יכלו החרטמים לעמד לפני משה מפני השחין כי היה השחין‬ ‫בחרטמם ובכל מצרים ‪ 12‬ויחזק ה׳ את לב פרעה ולא שמע אלהם כאשר דבר ה׳ אל משה‬ ‫]‪ 9:13 [Hail‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה השכם בבקר והתיצב לפני פרעה ואמרת אליו כה אמר ה׳‬ ‫אלהי העברים שלח את עמי ויעבדני‬ ‫‪ 14‬כי בפעם הזאת אני שלח את כל מגפתי אל לבך ובעבדיך ובעמך בעבור תדע כי אין‬ ‫כמני בכל הארץ ‪ 15‬כי עתה שלחתי את ידי ואך אותך ואת עמך בדבר ותכחד מן‬ ‫הארץ ‪ 16‬ואולם בעבור זאת העמדתיך בעבור הראתך את כחי ולמען ספר שמי בכל‬ ‫הארץ‬ ‫‪ 17‬עודך מסתולל בעמי לבלתי שלחם ‪ 18‬הנני ממטיר כעת מחר ברד כבד מאד אשר לא היה‬ ‫כמהו במצרים למן היום הוסדה ועד עתה‬

‫)‪Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪V‬‬

‫‪66‬‬

‫‪VI‬‬

‫‪19‬‬

‫ועתה שלח העז את מקנך ואת כל אשר לך בשדה כל האדם והבהמה אשר ימצא‬ ‫בשדה ולא יאסף הביתה וירד עלהם הברד ומתו ‪ 20‬הירא את דבר ה׳ מעבדי פרעה‬ ‫הניס את עבדיו ואת מקנהו אל הבתים ‪ 21‬ואשר לא שם לבו אל דבר ה׳ ויעזב את‬ ‫עבדיו ואת מקנהו בשדה‬ ‫‪ 22‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה נטה את ידך על השמים ויהי ברד בכל ארץ מצרים על האדם ועל‬ ‫הבהמה ועל כל עשב השדה בארץ מצרים ‪ 23‬ויט משה את מטהו על השמים וה׳ נתן קלת‬ ‫וברד ]ותהלך אש ארצה[ וימטר ה׳ ברד על ארץ מצרים ‪ 24‬ויהי ברד ואש מתלקחת בתוך‬ ‫הברד כבד מאד אשר לא היה כמהו ב]כל ארץ[ מצרים מאז היתה לגוי ‪ 25‬ויך הברד בכל‬ ‫ארץ מצרים את כל אשר בשדה מאדם ועד בהמה‬ ‫ואת כל עשב השדה הכה הברד ואת כל עץ השדה שבר ‪ 26‬רק בארץ גשן אשר שם‬ ‫בני ישראל לא היה ברד ‪ 27‬וישלח פרעה ויקרא למשה ולאהרן ויאמר אלהם חטאתי‬ ‫הפעם ה׳ הצדיק ואני ועמי הרשעים ‪ 28‬העתירו אל ה׳ ורב מהית קלת אלהים וברד‬ ‫ואשלחה אתכם ולא תספון לעמד ‪ 29‬ויאמר אליו משה כצאתי את העיר אפרש את‬ ‫כפי אל ה׳ הקלות יחדלון והברד לא יהיה עוד למען תדע כי לה׳ הארץ ‪ 30‬ואתה‬ ‫ועבדיך ידעתי כי טרם תיראון מפני ה׳ אלהים ‪ 31‬והפשתה והשערה נכתה כי השערה‬ ‫אביב והפשתה גבעל ‪ 32‬והחטה והכסמת לא נכו כי אפילת הנה ‪ 33‬ויצא משה מעם‬ ‫פרעה את העיר ויפרש כפיו אל ה׳ ויחדלו הקלות והברד ומטר לא נתך ארצה ‪ 34‬וירא‬ ‫פרעה כי חדל המטר והברד והקלת ויסף לחטא ויכבד לבו הוא ועבדיו‬ ‫‪ 35‬ויחזק לב פרעה ולא שלח את בני ישראל ]כאשר דבר ה׳ ביד משה[‬ ‫]‪ 10:1 [Locusts‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה בא אל פרעה כי אני הכבדתי את לבו ואת לב עבדיו‬ ‫למען שתי אתתי אלה בקרבו‬ ‫‪ 2‬ולמען תספר באזני בנך ובן בנך את אשר התעללתי במצרים ואת אתתי אשר שמתי‬ ‫בם וידעתם כי אני ה׳‬ ‫‪ 3‬ויבא משה ואהרן אל פרעה ויאמרו אליו כה אמר ה׳ אלהי העברים עד מתי מאנת לענת‬ ‫מפני שלח עמי ויעבדני ‪ 4‬כי אם מאן אתה לשלח את עמי הנני מביא מחר ארבה בגבלך‬ ‫‪ 5‬וכסה את עין הארץ ולא יוכל לראת את הארץ ואכל את יתר הפלטה הנשארת לכם מן‬ ‫הברד ואכל את כל העץ הצמח לכם מן השדה ‪ 6‬ומלאו בתיך ובתי כל עבדיך ובתי כל‬ ‫מצרים אשר לא ראו אבתיך ואבות אבתיך מיום היותם על האדמה עד היום הזה ויפן ויצא‬ ‫מעם פרעה‬ ‫‪ 7‬ויאמרו עבדי פרעה אליו עד מתי יהיה זה לנו למוקש שלח את האנשים ויעבדו את‬ ‫ה׳ אלהיהם הטרם תדע כי אבדה מצרים ‪ 8‬ויושב את משה ואת אהרן אל פרעה ויאמר‬ ‫אלהם לכו עבדו את ה׳ אלהיכם מי ומי ההלכים ‪ 9‬ויאמר משה בנערינו ובזקנינו נלך‬ ‫בבנינו ובבנותנו בצאננו ובבקרנו נלך כי חג ה׳ לנו ‪ 10‬ויאמר אלהם יהי כן ה׳ עמכם‬ ‫כאשר אשלח אתכם ואת טפכם ראו כי רעה נגד פניכם ‪ 11‬לא כן לכו נא הגברים‬ ‫ועבדו את ה׳ כי אתה אתם מבקשים ויגרש אתם מאת פני פרעה‬

‫‪67‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫)‪6. The Plagues and the Departure from Egypt (Exod 7:8–12:51‬‬ ‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪V‬‬

‫‪VI‬‬

‫‪12‬‬

‫ויאמר ה׳ אל משה נטה ידך על ארץ מצרים בארבה ויעל על ארץ מצרים ויאכל את כל‬ ‫עשב הארץ את כל אשר השאיר הברד ‪ 13‬ויט משה את מטהו על ארץ מצרים וה׳ נהג רוח‬ ‫קדים בארץ כל היום ההוא וכל הלילה הבקר היה ורוח הקדים נשא את הארבה ‪ 14‬ויעל‬ ‫הארבה על כל ארץ מצרים וינח בכל גבול מצרים כבד מאד לפניו לא היה כן ארבה כמהו‬ ‫ואחריו לא יהיה כן ‪ 15‬ויכס את עין כל הארץ ותחשך הארץ ויאכל את כל עשב הארץ ואת‬ ‫כל פרי העץ אשר הותיר הברד ולא נותר כל ירק בעץ ובעשב השדה בכל ארץ מצרים‬ ‫‪ 16‬וימהר פרעה לקרא למשה ולאהרן ויאמר חטאתי לה׳ אלהיכם ולכם ‪ 17‬ועתה שא‬ ‫נא חטאתי אך הפעם והעתירו לה׳ אלהיכם ויסר מעלי רק את המות הזה ‪ 18‬ויצא מעם‬ ‫פרעה ויעתר אל ה׳ ‪ 19‬ויהפך ה׳ רוח ים חזק מאד וישא את הארבה ויתקעהו ימה סוף‬ ‫לא נשאר ארבה אחד בכל גבול מצרים‬ ‫‪ 20‬ויחזק ה׳ את לב פרעה ולא שלח את בני ישראל‬ ‫]‪ 10:21 [Darkness‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה נטה ידך על השמים ויהי חשך על ארץ מצרים וימש‬ ‫חשך ‪ 22‬ויט משה את ידו על השמים ויהי חשך אפלה בכל ארץ מצרים שלשת ימים ‪ 23‬לא‬ ‫ראו איש את אחיו ולא קמו איש מתחתיו שלשת ימים ולכל בני ישראל היה אור במושבתם‬ ‫]‪ 24‬ויקרא פרעה אל משה ויאמר לכו עבדו את ה׳ רק צאנכם ובקרכם יצג גם טפכם ילך‬ ‫עמכם ‪ 25‬ויאמר משה גם אתה תתן בידנו זבחים ועלת ועשינו לה׳ אלהינו ‪ 26‬וגם מקננו ילך‬ ‫עמנו לא תשאר פרסה כי ממנו נקח לעבד את ה׳ אלהינו ואנחנו לא נדע מה נעבד את ה׳‬ ‫עד באנו שמה ‪ 27‬ויחזק ה׳ את לב פרעה ולא אבה לשלחם[‬ ‫‪ 28‬ויאמר לו פרעה לך מעלי השמר לך אל תסף ראות פני כי ביום ראתך פני תמות‬ ‫‪ 29‬ויאמר משה כן דברת לא אסף עוד ראות פניך‬ ‫]‪ 11:1 [The announcement of the death of the firstborn‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה‬ ‫עוד נגע אחד אביא על פרעה ועל מצרים אחרי כן ישלח אתכם מזה ]כשלחו‬ ‫כלה גרש יגרש אתכם מזה[ ‪ 2‬דבר נא באזני העם וישאלו איש מאת רעהו ואשה‬ ‫מאת רעותה כלי כסף וכלי זהב ‪ 3‬ויתן ה׳ את חן העם בעיני מצרים ]גם האיש‬ ‫משה גדול מאד בארץ מצרים בעיני עבדי פרעה ובעיני העם[ ‪ 4‬ויאמר משה כה‬ ‫אמר ה׳ כחצת הלילה אני יוצא בתוך מצרים ‪ 5‬ומת כל בכור בארץ מצרים‬ ‫מבכור פרעה הישב על כסאו עד בכור השפחה אשר אחר הרחים ]וכל בכור‬ ‫בהמה[ ‪ 6‬והיתה צעקה גדלה בכל ארץ מצרים אשר כמהו לא נהיתה וכמהו לא‬ ‫תסף ]‪ 7‬ולכל בני ישראל לא יחרץ כלב לשנו למאיש ועד בהמה למען תדעון‬ ‫אשר יפלה ה׳ בין מצרים ובין ישראל[ ‪ 8a‬וירדו כל עבדיך אלה אלי והשתחוו לי‬ ‫לאמר צא אתה וכל העם אשר ברגליך ואחרי כן אצא‬ ‫‪ 8b‬ויצא מעם פרעה בחרי אף‬ ‫‪ 9‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה לא ישמע אליכם פרעה למען רבות מופתי בארץ מצרים‬ ‫‪ 10‬ומשה ואהרן עשו את כל המפתים האלה לפני פרעה ויחזק ה׳ את לב פרעה‬ ‫ולא שלח את בני ישראל מארצו‬

‫‪68‬‬

‫)‪Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪V‬‬

‫‪VI‬‬

‫]‪[The death of the firstborn and the departure from Egypt‬‬ ‫אהרן ]בארץ מצרים[ לאמר‬

‫‪12:1‬‬

‫ויאמר ה׳ אל משה ואל‬

‫‪ 2‬החדש הזה לכם ראש חדשים ראשון הוא לכם לחדשי השנה‬ ‫‪ 3‬דברו אל כל עדת ישראל ]לאמר בעשר לחדש הזה[ ויקחו להם איש שה לבית אבת שה לבית‬ ‫‪ 4‬ואם ימעט הבית מהיות משה ולקח הוא ושכנו הקרב אל ביתו במכסת נפשת איש לפי‬ ‫אכלו תכסו על השה ‪ 5‬שה תמים זכר בן שנה יהיה לכם מן הכבשים ומן העזים תקחו ‪ 6‬והיה‬ ‫לכם למשמרת עד ארבעה עשר יום לחדש הזה‬ ‫ושחטו אתו ]כל קהל עדת ישראל[ בין הערבים ‪ 7‬ולקחו מן הדם ונתנו ]על שתי המזוזת ועל‬ ‫המשקוף[ על הבתים אשר יאכלו אתו בהם ‪ 8‬ואכלו את הבשר בלילה הזה צלי אש ]ומצות[ על‬ ‫מררים יאכלהו‬ ‫‪ 9‬אל תאכלו ממנו נא ובשל מבשל במים כי אם צלי אש ראשו על כרעיו ועל קרבו ‪ 10‬ולא‬ ‫תותירו ממנו עד בקר והנתר ממנו עד בקר באש תשרפו ‪ 11‬וככה תאכלו אתו מתניכם‬ ‫חגרים נעליכם ברגליכם ומקלכם בידכם ואכלתם אתו בחפזון‬ ‫פסח הוא לה׳ ‪ 12‬ועברתי בארץ מצרים בלילה הזה והכיתי כל בכור בארץ מצרים ]מאדם ועד‬ ‫בהמה[ ]ובכל אלהי מצרים אעשה שפטים אני ה׳[ ‪ 13‬והיה הדם לכם לאת על הבתים אשר אתם‬ ‫שם וראיתי את הדם ופסחתי עלכם ולא יהיה בכם נגף למשחית בהכתי בארץ מצרים‬ ‫‪ 14‬והיה היום הזה לכם לזכרון וחגתם אתו חג לה׳ לדרתיכם חקת עולם תחגהו‬ ‫‪ 15‬שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו אך ביום הראשון תשביתו שאר מבתיכם כי כל אכל חמץ‬ ‫ונכרתה הנפש ההוא מישראל מיום הראשן עד יום השבעי ‪ 16‬וביום הראשון מקרא‬ ‫קדש וביום השביעי מקרא קדש יהיה לכם כל מלאכה לא יעשה בהם אך אשר יאכל‬ ‫לכל נפש הוא לבדו יעשה לכם ‪ 17‬ושמרתם את המצות כי בעצם היום הזה הוצאתי‬ ‫את צבאותיכם מארץ מצרים ושמרתם את היום הזה לדרתיכם חקת עולם ‪ 18‬בראשן‬ ‫‪19‬‬ ‫בארבעה עשר יום לחדש בערב תאכלו מצת עד יום האחד ועשרים לחדש בערב‬ ‫שבעת ימים שאר לא ימצא בבתיכם כי כל אכל מחמצת ונכרתה הנפש ההוא מעדת‬ ‫ישראל בגר ובאזרח הארץ ‪ 20‬כל מחמצת לא תאכלו בכל מושבתיכם תאכלו מצות‬ ‫‪ 21‬ויקרא משה לכל זקני ישראל ויאמר אלהם משכו וקחו לכם צאן למשפחתיכם ושחטו‬ ‫הפסח ‪ 22‬ולקחתם אגדת אזוב וטבלתם בדם אשר בסף והגעתם אל המשקוף ואל שתי‬ ‫המזוזת מן הדם אשר בסף ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר ‪ 23‬ועבר ה׳ לנגף את‬ ‫מצרים וראה את הדם על המשקוף ועל שתי המזוזת ופסח ה׳ על הפתח ולא יתן המשחית‬ ‫לבא אל בתיכם לנגף ‪ 24‬ושמרתם את הדבר הזה לחק לך ולבניך עד עולם ‪ 25‬והיה כי תבאו‬ ‫אל הארץ אשר יתן ה׳ לכם כאשר דבר ושמרתם את העבדה הזאת ‪ 26‬והיה כי יאמרו אליכם‬ ‫בניכם מה העבדה הזאת לכם ‪ 27‬ואמרתם זבח פסח הוא לה׳ אשר פסח על בתי בני ישראל‬ ‫במצרים בנגפו את מצרים ואת בתינו הציל ויקד העם וישתחוו‬ ‫‪ 28‬וילכו ויעשו בני ישראל כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה ואהרן כן עשו‬ ‫‪ 29‬ויהי בחצי הלילה וה׳ הכה כל בכור בארץ מצרים מבכר פרעה הישב על כסאו עד בכור השבי אשר‬ ‫בבית הבור ]וכל בכור בהמה[‬ ‫‪ 30aα‬ויקם פרעה לילה הוא וכל עבדיו וכל מצרים‬

‫‪69‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪30aβb‬‬

‫‪7. Result‬‬ ‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪V‬‬

‫‪VI‬‬

‫ותהי צעקה גדלה במצרים כי אין בית אשר אין שם מת‬ ‫‪ 31‬ויקרא למשה ולאהרן לילה ויאמר קומו צאו מתוך עמי גם אתם גם בני ישראל ולכו עבדו את‬ ‫ה׳ כדברכם ]‪ 32‬גם צאנכם גם בקרכם קחו כאשר דברתם ולכו וברכתם גם אתי[‬

‫‪ 33‬ותחזק מצרים על העם למהר לשלחם מן הארץ כי אמרו כלנו מתים‬ ‫‪ 34‬וישא העם את בצקו טרם יחמץ משארתם צררת בשמלתם על שכמם‬ ‫‪ 35‬ובני ישראל עשו כדבר משה וישאלו ממצרים כלי כסף וכלי זהב ושמלת‬ ‫‪ 36‬וה׳ נתן את חן העם בעיני מצרים וישאלום וינצלו את מצרים‬ ‫‪ 37‬ויסעו בני ישראל מרעמסס סכתה ]כשש מאות אלף רגלי הגברים לבד מטף[‬ ‫‪ 38‬וגם ערב רב עלה אתם ]וצאן ובקר מקנה כבד מאד[‬ ‫‪ 39‬ויאפו את הבצק אשר הוציאו ממצרים עגת מצות כי לא חמץ כי גרשו ממצרים ולא יכלו‬ ‫להתמהמה וגם צדה לא עשו להם‬ ‫‪ 40‬ומושב בני ישראל אשר ישבו במצרים שלשים שנה וארבע מאות שנה ‪ 41‬ויהי מקץ‬ ‫שלשים שנה וארבע מאות שנה ויהי בעצם היום הזה יצאו כל צבאות ה׳ מארץ מצרים‬ ‫‪ 42‬ליל שמרים הוא לה׳ להוציאם מארץ מצרים הוא הלילה הזה לה׳ שמרים לכל בני ישראל‬ ‫לדרתם ‪ 43‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה ואהרן זאת חקת הפסח כל בן נכר לא יאכל בו ‪ 44‬וכל עבד‬ ‫איש מקנת כסף ומלתה אתו אז יאכל בו ‪ 45‬תושב ושכיר לא יאכל בו ‪ 46‬בבית אחד יאכל לא‬ ‫תוציא מן הבית מן הבשר חוצה ועצם לא תשברו בו ‪ 47‬כל עדת ישראל יעשו אתו ‪ 48‬וכי יגור‬ ‫אתך גר ועשה פסח לה׳ המול לו כל זכר ואז יקרב לעשתו והיה כאזרח הארץ וכל ערל לא‬ ‫יאכל בו ‪ 49‬תורה אחת יהיה לאזרח ולגר הגר בתוככם ‪ 50‬ויעשו כל בני ישראל כאשר צוה‬ ‫ה׳ את משה ואת אהרן כן עשו ‪ 51‬ויהי בעצם היום הזה הוציא ה׳ את בני ישראל מארץ‬ ‫מצרים על צבאתם‬

‫‪7. Result‬‬ ‫‪The foregoing analysis of Exod 1–12 has concluded that the most basic pre‬‬‫‪priestly narrative thread in these chapters consists of Exod 2:1-2a, 3*, 5aα,‬‬ ‫‪5bα, 6, 10aβb, 11aα, 11b-12, 15*; 3:1*, 2b-3a, 4a, 5a, 6b-7a, 10*; 4:18aα*,‬‬ ‫;‪20aβ; 5:1-2*; 7:14-18*, 20*, 21a, 24a, 26-27, 29; 8:2b, 16-17*, 20, 28‬‬ ‫’‪12:29a, 30aβb, 33, (37?). In light of the parallels between the story of Moses‬‬ ‫‪birth in Exod 2 and the Akkadian Sargon legend, Exod 2:1 can be regarded as‬‬ ‫‪the beginning of an independent narrative and need not have connected to a‬‬ ‫‪preceding narrative thread in Exod 1 or in the book of Genesis from the out‬‬‫‪set. In contrast, 12:33 is not a very satisfactory conclusion to the exodus nar‬‬‫‪rative (and 12:37 – provided that it belongs to the most basic narrative thread‬‬ ‫‪– is not at all satisfactory), indicating that the most basic narrative thread that‬‬ ‫‪begins in Exod 2 must have continued beyond Exod 12. Assuming that this‬‬ ‫‪narrative was familiar with the Sargon legend, it cannot be earlier than the‬‬

70

Chapter 2: Out of Egypt (Exod 1–12)

late eighth century B.C.E. but more likely dates to the middle of the seventh century. This basic pre-priestly narrative received several further additions at a prepriestly stage of composition. The earliest of these additions likely consists of Exod 1:6aα*, 8, 9* (without ‫)בני ישראל‬, 10* (without ‫)ועלה מן הארץ‬, 22, which serve to create a literary bridge with the Joseph story in the book of Genesis. In light of the growing consensus that the Joseph story is a product of the Persian period, then the earliest material in Exod 1 is likely not earlier than the late sixth century B.C.E. Exod 1–12 were further expanded at a potentially pre-priestly stage of composition in 1:11a(b), 12a, 15-21; 2:2b-3aα*, 4, 5aβ, 5bβ, 7-10aα(β?), 11aβ, 13-14. In contrast, all subsequent stages of composition in Exod 1–12 were shown to be either priestly or post-priestly. Based on the preserved literary evidence, the priestly texts in these chapters cannot be reconstructed to form an independent narrative but instead are more easily explained as supplements to the pre-priestly narrative thread.

Chapter 3

Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18) 1. The Itinerary Notices in Exodus and Numbers Beginning in Exod 12:37, the narrative of the people’s journey out of Egypt is interspersed with travel notices that serve to situate the individual narrative episodes within a particular geographical setting as well as to bring the people from Egypt (Exod 12:37) up to the eastern bank of the Jordan River (Num 22:1). These itinerary notices have played a crucial role in theories for the formation of the Pentateuch, and their compositional place remains debated. Thus, before engaging in a literary-critical analysis of the wilderness narratives themselves, it is necessary to discuss the general problems posed by the itinerary notices, particularly the problem of choosing an appropriate criterion for determining whether individual notices are pre-priestly or (post-) priestly. Between Exod 12:37 and Num 22:1, itinerary notices appear in Exod 12:37; 13:18, 20; 14:2; 15:22-23, 27; 16:1; 17:1; 19:1-2; Num 10:12, 33; 11:35; 12:16; 14:25; 20:1, 22; 21:4, 10-13, 16-20, 33; 22:1.1 Even a cursory comparison of these texts reveals a number of narrative tensions and stylistic differences that suggest a history of composition.2 On a narrative level, the problem arises that not all of the itinerary notices link up with each other in serial fashion. This is most evident at the following points: (1) Exod 12:37 states that the Israelites departed from Raamses towards Sukkot, then 13:18 states that God turned the people in the direction of the “Wilderness of the Sea of Reeds.” In 13:20, however, the people depart from Sukkot, which was their destination before God rerouted them in 13:18. (2) Exod 19:1 interrupts the narrative connection between 17:1, which reports the people’s arrival at Rephidim, and 19:2, which reports their departure from there. (3) Num 10:12 reports that the people set out from the “Wilderness of Sinai” before the report of their departure from the mountain of Yhwh in 10:33. (4) In Num 11:35, there is a departure notice from Kibroth-hatta’avah, although there is no corresponding report of the people’s arrival there.3

























































1

Cf. COATS, “Wilderness Itinerary,” 135. On the literary disunity of these itinerary notices, see already CAZELLES, “Les localisations de l’exode,” 360–64. 3 Cf. COATS, “Wilderness Itinerary,” 135, 139. The inverse cases in Exod 15:23 and 27, where there are no departure notices in the travel reports to Marah and Elim, are easier to 2

72

Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18)

(5) Num 13:26 places the people at Kadesh, although the notice of their arrival there first occurs in Num 20:1.4 (6) Num 21:4 narrates the people’s departure from Mount Hor while 21:10 narrates another departure, despite the fact that 21:5-9 do not state that the people actually arrived anywhere. (7) Num 21:18 can be read, confusingly, both as the end of a poem and as an itinerary notice. (8) Num 22:1a contains a similar problem to 21:10: There is a departure notice, but it does not explicitly state from where the people departed.5 On a stylistic level, the itinerary notices also display lexical and syntactic variety, which may (but need not) be an indicator of different stages of composition. The most common form of departure notice is the use of the verb ‫ נסע‬in the 3mp waw-consecutive (12x).6 Nevertheless, the possibility that these notices all belong to a single compositional level is highly doubtful, as the narrative tensions between Num 10:12 and 10:33; Num 21:4 and 21:10; and within Num 22:1 suggest. In addition to these 3mp waw-consecutive forms, the verb ‫ נסע‬also appears four times in a 3mp perfect form7 as well as once in a 3ms hiphil waw-consecutive form (Exod 15:22). The arrival notices also show similar variation: the verb ‫ חנה‬in the 3mp waw-consecutive is the most common (11x),8 while the verb ‫ בוא‬in the 3mp waw-consecutive also appears frequently (6x).9 While the verb ‫ חנה‬is always preceded by a departure notice, the verb ‫ בוא‬sometimes stands alone.10 Two of the occurrences of ‫ בוא‬are followed by toponyms with a locative he,11 while the remainder are not and, in the majority of cases, refer to entering a larger expanse of land (such as a desert) rather than a particular locality.12 Finally, there is variation in the subject of the verbs used in the departure and arrival notices: While many notices do not have an explicit subject, others use a variety of different subjects such as ‫העם‬, ‫ישראל‬, ‫בני ישראל‬, ‫כל עדת בני ישראל‬, and ‫בני ישראל כל‬ ‫העדה‬.13



























































































































explain, since both toponyms have a locative he, suggesting that here the verb ‫ בוא‬describes the action of the entire journey and not only the arrival. 4 Cf. ROSKOP, Wilderness Itineraries, 139. 5 Cf. COATS, “Wilderness Itinerary,” 136. 6 Exod 12:37; 13:20; 16:1; 17:1; 19:2; Num 10:12, 33; 20:22; 21:4; 21:10, 11; 22:1. 7 Num 11:35; 12:16; 21:12, 13. 8 Exod 13:20; 14:2; 15:27; 17:1; 19:2; Num 12:16; 21:10, 11, 12, 13; 22:1. 9 Exod 15:23, 27; 16:1; 19:2; Num 20:1, 22; plus a 3mp perfect in Exod 19:1. 10 Exod 15:23, 27; 19:1; Num 20:1; cf. COATS, “Wilderness Itinerary,” 137. 11 Exod 15:23, 27. 12 Exod 16:1; 19:2; Num 20:1; cf. 20:22. 13 ‫העם‬: Num 11:35; 12:16; ‫ישראל‬: Exod 15:22; ‫בני ישראל‬: Exod 12:37; 14:2; Num 21:10; 22:1; ‫כל עדת בני ישראל‬: Exod 16:1; 17:1; ‫בני ישראל כל העדה‬: Num 20:1, 22. Cf. COATS, “Wilderness Itinerary,” 136–37. Surprisingly, although Coats observes many of these narrative tensions and stylistic differences, he nevertheless concludes that the itinerary chain is “basically unified” (ibid., 142).

1. The Itinerary Notices in Exodus and Numbers

73

In short, a literary-critical analysis of the itinerary notices in Exodus and Numbers conducted on the basis of narrative and stylistic observations strongly resists a neat separation into a clearly distinguishable literary strands.14 Thus, while the verbs ‫ ויסעו‬and ‫ ויחנו‬both occur relatively frequently (12x and 11x, respectively), they are used together in only half of these cases.15 Yet even in the six instances in which the verbs ‫ ויסעו‬and ‫ ויחנו‬overlap, other inconsistencies remain. For example, whereas Exod 13:20; 19:2; and Num 21:11 contain no explicit subject, the subject in Exod 17:1 is ‫כל עדת‬ ‫בני ישראל‬, while that in Num 21:10 and 22:1 is simply ‫בני ישראל‬. Moreover, the arrival notice in Exod 19:2 uses two different verbs (‫ויבאו מדבר סיני ויחנו‬ ‫)במדבר‬, which is unique to this verse.16 Since the internal analysis of the itinerary notices in Exodus and Numbers leads to inconclusive results, interpreters have often turned to comparing these notices with the itinerary in Num 33:1-49, which overlaps in part with the itinerary notices in Exod 12–Num 22*, particularly in Num 33:1-15, 37-49. The problem inherent in such a comparison, of course, is determining the direction of dependence between the two groups of texts. Attempts to determine the relationship between the itinerary notices in Exod 12–Num 22* and Num 33:1-49 can be grouped into three main models. (1) A number of commentators have argued that Num 33:1-49 reflect an independent document that served as a source for the itinerary notices in Exod 12–Num 22.17 This model has two significant weaknesses. First, it implies that “the link between the itinerary-notes and the individual episodes is secondary”18 but does not consider whether the narratives in Exod 12–Num 22 can retain their coherence without the itinerary notices. Second, whereas Num 33:1-49 are logically coherent and highly unified in form, the itinerary notices in Exod 12–Num 22 contain several narrative tensions and are formally and lexically diverse.19 (2) In contrast, other commentators have regarded Num 33:1-



























































14 The difficulty of separating the itinerary notices into discrete literary strands is evident in WALSH, “From Egypt,” whose identification of general patterns in the itinerary notices does not always align with his source-critical differentiation. For a similar critique, see ROSKOP, Wilderness Itineraries, 187–88. 15 Exod 13:20; 17:1; 19:2; Num 21:10, 11; 22:1. 16 COATS, “Wilderness Itinerary,” 139 notes this problem but argues that the repetition in Exod 19:2 serves to “heighten the emphasis” on the arrival at Sinai. 17 DILLMANN, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 202; CROSS, “Priestly Work,” 308–9; DAVIES, “Wilderness Itineraries: A Comparative Study,” 47; IDEM, Way of the Wilderness, 59–60; IDEM, “Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch,” 6–11; and MILLER, “Israelite Journey,” 580. 18 DAVIES, Way of the Wilderness, 59–60; cf. IDEM, “Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch,” 8–9 and FRITZ, Israel, 116–17. 19 Cf. ROSKOP, Wilderness Itineraries, 137: “If an Israelite redactor did use Num 33:149, he introduced a number of formal and geographical problems into the wilderness narra-

74

Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18)

49 as a later epitome of the itinerary notices in Exod 12–Num 22.20 (3) Several scholars have attempted to navigate between the two models described above by proposing that Num 33:1-49 represent a late compilation that draws in part on the itinerary notices in Exod 12–Num 22 but also incorporated one or more independent pilgrimage itineraries.21 In light of this diversity of views and the problems inherent in models (1) and (3), Num 33:1-49 cannot form a reliable starting point for the literary-critical differentiation of the itinerary notices within Exod 12–Num 22. Another approach to the literary-critical analysis of the itinerary notices within Exod 12–Num 22 is to compare these with travel reports in ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian texts.22 This approach is particularly illuminating in light of the formal diversity of ancient Near Eastern itineraries. Several examples illustrate this diversity: (1) a letter of Shamshi-Adad I of Assyria (d. ca. 1780 B.C.E.) from Mari (ARM 1.26) uses only the prepositions ištu and ana and duplicates each toponym.23 (2) A Middle Assyrian (thirteenth to mideleventh centuries B.C.E.) itinerary from Dur-Katlimmu reporting the movement of troops uses a combination of different prepositions and verbs of movement: the troops’ initial departure is reported using the preposition ištu (“from”) and the verb nasāhu (“to set out”); the next five waypoints are described using the preposition ina (“in”) and the verb biātum (“to spend the night”) for the arrival and the preposition ištu plus the logogram idKI.MIN (“ditto”) for the departure; finally, the last travel notice uses the preposition ana (“to, towards”) and the verb alāku (“to go”) rather than biātum.24 (3) The



























































































































tive that are not present in his source document.” For a further critique of models giving priority to Num 33:1-49, see ibid., 139–43. 20 See already A. KAISER, Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte, 97–99 and more recently KALLAI, “Wandering-Traditions,” 183–84. Proponents of the view that Num 33:1-49 are a secondary compilation have tended to evaluate this unit as priestly or post-priestly; cf. WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 181; DE VAUX, “L’itinéraire,” 334–40; LEVINE, Numbers 21–36, 511; L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 203; ROSKOP, Wilderness Itineraries, 224; and BADEN, “Narratives,” 641. 21 Cf. NOTH, “Wallfahrtsweg”; IDEM, ÜP, 238; IDEM, Numeri, 210–13 (ET 242–46); and ZWICKEL, “Durchzug.” Zwickel concludes that Num 33:1-49 combine three different itineraries: an excerpt from the Pentateuchal wilderness narratives (33:1-15), a pilgrimage route from Ezion-Geber to Sinai (33:16-36), and a pilgrimage route from Jerusalem to Mount Hor (33:37-49). Thus, for Zwickel, the itinerary notices in Exod 12–19 have literary priority over their parallels in Num 33:1-15, while those in Num 10–22 are secondary to the list in Num 33:37-49. Zwickel’s model has several weaknesses, including the hypothetical nature of both pilgrimage routes and the implication that the first connection between Kadesh and the plains of Moab was made in a list and not in the main narrative. 22 For this approach, see COATS, “Wilderness Itinerary,” 147; DAVIES, “Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch”; and esp. ROSKOP, Wilderness Itineraries. 23 DAVIES, “Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch,” 71. 24 ROSKOP, Wilderness Itineraries, 63.

1. The Itinerary Notices in Exodus and Numbers

75

Neo-Assyrian annals of Tukulti-Ninurta II (r. 890–884 B.C.E.) and Ashurnasirpal II (r. 883–859 B.C.E.) use the following formula: ištu āl A at-tu-muš ina āl B a-sa-ka-an be-dak (“From city A I departed; in city B I spent the night”).25 Itineraries are also found in narrative texts, such as in the Assyrian annals genre and in Egyptian narratives of military campaigns.26 Thus, comparison with ancient Near Eastern texts provides clues to the types and variety of formal patterns that are conceivable for the biblical itinerary notices as well as the possible compositional relationships between itinerary notices and the narratives connected to them. However, comparison with ancient Near Eastern literature should not form the starting point for reconstructing the compositional history of the itinerary notices in Exod 12–Num 22, since doing so runs the risk of forcing the biblical evidence into an ideal type derived from outside the text. The preceding considerations provide several methodological parameters for approaching the itinerary notices in Exod 12–Num 22. On the one hand, the topological discontinuities (and perhaps also the formal variety) among the itinerary notices suggest that they do not belong to a single compositional level. On the other hand, it has been argued here that neither the itinerary in Num 33:1-49 nor the ancient Near Eastern comparative evidence can be used as the starting point for reconstructing the compositional growth of the itinerary notices in Exod 12–Num 22.27 Rather, the process of reconstructing the development of the wilderness itinerary – and particularly of differentiating between pre-priestly and (post-)priestly travel notices – must begin with the diachronic evaluation of the wilderness narratives themselves rather than with a formal and lexical analysis of the itinerary notices, although the latter certainly remains important.28 In other words, if a particular itinerary notice seems only to serve the purpose of providing a transition into and out of a (post-)priestly narrative episode, then the likelihood that the travel notice is also (post-)priestly becomes higher.29

























































25

Ibid., 57–60 with references to further literature. For a detailed discussion, see ibid., 83–135, who notes that certain details found in the travel reports of Assyrian annals, including the itinerary itself, may have been drawn from independent sources (ibid., 100–111) and that Egyptian scribes used administrative daybooks as a source for narratives of military campaigns, “building a whole narrative around the selected entries” (ibid., 124). 27 The possibility that Num 33:1-49 later influenced some texts in Exod 12–Num 22 cannot be excluded, yet such a direction of dependence must be demonstrated on a caseby-case basis. 28 For a useful discussion of the itinerary notices themselves, see DOZEMAN, “Priestly Wilderness Itineraries.” 29 It is also necessary to consider whether such a travel notice could have existed independently before a (post-)priestly narrative episode was attached to it. 26

76

Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18)

2. The Miracle at the Sea (Exod 13:17–14:31) 2.1. Literary-critical analysis The people’s departure (Exod 13:17-22). Within this unit, the first trace of possible compositional growth is found in Exod 13:17 (after ‫ויהי בשלח פרעה‬ ‫)את העם‬, which explains that God did not lead the people up through the land of Philistia (the shortest route between Egypt and the land of Israel) in order to prevent them from turning back at the sight of war. Strictly speaking, this part of the verse is not essential to the flow of the narrative, such that the beginning of 13:17* (‫ )ויהי בשלח פרעה את העם‬may have once connected directly to 13:18a. In any event, 13:18b does not belong to the same compositional level as 13:17-18a, since 13:18b refers to the people as ‫ בני ישראל‬while 13:17-18a use the term ‫העם‬.30 Likewise, the abrupt shift in subject matter in 13:19 (Joseph’s bones) suggests that this verse does not belong to the same compositional level as 13:17-18. Considering that 13:19 presupposes the people’s movement in 13:17-18, it must be later than those verses. 31 A further literary-critical break is found between Exod 13:17-19 and the itinerary notice in 13:20, which does not connect smoothly to the preceding verses, since the people (who are clearly the implied subject of the verbs ‫ויסעו‬ and ‫ )ויחנו‬are not named as the subject anywhere in 13:17-19. The possibility that 13:20 entered the unit later than 13:17-19 seems unlikely since, if that were the case, the people should be named explicitly as the subject in 13:20. This suggests that 13:20 originally connected directly to some point before 13:17-19 and, by extension, that 13:17-19 are later than 13:20.32 Following this itinerary notice in Exod 13:20 is a statement that Yhwh went before the people in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night (13:21), both of which maintained a constant presence before the people (13:22). Although 13:21 can theoretically stand alone without 13:22 in terms of narrative logic, there is no clear evidence for a compositional break between 13:21 and 13:22. In contrast, the report of Yhwh’s movement before the people in 13:21-22 stands in some tension with the itinerary report in 13:20, which concludes with a notice of the people’s encampment. Thus, it is possible that 13:21-22 are later than 13:20. When the foregoing observations are combined, the itinerary notice in Exod 13:20 emerges as the earliest material within 13:17-22. This notice was then supplemented with several different additions in 13:17-18a, 18b, 19, and 21-22. The order in which these additions were made is difficult to determine



























































30 On the literary break between Exod 13:17-18a and 13:18b, cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 366. 31 Cf. ibid., 371. 32 For further discussion, see §2.2.

2. The Miracle at the Sea (Exod 13:17–14:31)

77

precisely. On the one hand, the reference to the people as ‫ העם‬in 13:17-18a, 21-22 may suggest that these verses are earlier than 13:18b-19, which refer to the people as ‫ בני ישראל‬and cannot stand alone without 13:17-18a. On the other hand, the use of the divine name Elohim in 13:17-18a stands in tension with the use of the divine name Yhwh in 13:21, suggesting that 13:17-18a and 13:21-22 were not written by the same hand.33 The command to turn back (Exod 14:1-4). In Exod 14:1-2, Yhwh tells Moses to instruct the people to “return” to Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea. According to Yhwh’s plan, this will give Pharaoh reason to believe that the Israelites have lost their way, then Yhwh will make Pharaoh’s heart “strong” (‫ חזק‬piel), causing him to pursue the people and ultimately resulting in Yhwh’s glorification and the Egyptians’ recognition of Yhwh (14:3-4a). In 14:4b, the fulfillment report (‫ )ויעשו כן‬connects much better to 14:1-2 than to 14:3-4a,34 which suggests that the latter verses may be a later addition. The Egyptian pursuit (Exod 14:5-9). In Exod 14:5, the inconsistency between the terms ‫( מלך מצרים‬14:5a) and ‫( פרעה‬14:5b) as well as between ‫העם‬ (14:5abα) and ‫( ישראל‬14:5bβγ) suggests that this verse is not a compositional unity. Since the implied subject of the verb ‫ ויאסר‬in 14:6 is Pharaoh alone, while the subject of 14:5b is both Pharaoh and his officials, the most plausible means of resolving these inconsistencies is to identify 14:5b as a later addition, in which case 14:5a connects smoothly to 14:6.35 Considering that 14:6 already narrates Pharaoh’s mustering of his army, the further statement of Pharaoh’s mustering 600 chariots in 14:7* is probably a later addition,36 and the reference to “all the chariots of Egypt” in 14:7aβ is likely later still, as it seeks to further amplify the depiction of the Egyptian army.37 Exod 14:8 cannot belong to the same compositional level as 14:5b, since both verses report the “turning” (14:5b) or “hardening” (14:8) of Pharaoh’s heart. Yet even if 14:5b is bracketed out as a later addition, 14:5a, 6-7 and 14:8 still cannot belong to the same compositional level: The terms for the people differ (‫ העם‬in 14:5a and ‫ בני ישראל‬in 14:8), and the report that the king of Egypt mustered his military forces in 14:6-7 comes too early in relation to 14:8. Rather, the statement that Yhwh made Pharaoh’s heart “strong” in 14:8 indicates that this verse is closely associated with 14:1-4*. Within 14:8 itself, it is possible that 14:8b is later than 14:8a, since the back-to-back references to ‫ בני ישראל‬in the two halves of the verse are somewhat disturbing syntacti-

























































33

Exod 13:21 𝔊 reads ὁ δὲ θεός, although 𝔐 has the lectio difficilior. Cf. WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 75 and LEVIN, “Source Criticism,” 53. 35 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 214–15 and LEVIN, “Source Criticism,” 47. 36 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 344; IDEM, “Source Criticism,” 46; GERTZ, Tradition, 215; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 345, 380. 37 Cf. RUDOLPH, Elohist, 29; WEIMAR, Meerwundererzählung, 37; LEVIN, Jahwist, 344; IDEM, “Source Criticism,” 46; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 345. 34

78

Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18)

cally (one would rather expect ‫ הם‬in 14:8b).38 There is also reason to suspect that 14:9 is not a compositional unity. The reference to “all of Pharaoh’s horses, chariots, riders, and army” in 14:9aβγ interrupts the appositional relationship between 14:9b (‫ )על פי החירת לפני בעל צפן‬and 14:9aα (‫ )על הים‬and is thus likely a later addition to the verse.39 Yet 14:9b may itself be an addition to 14:9aα, since the geographical information in 14:9b is not essential to the progression of the narrative. There are several indications that Exod 14:5a(b), 6-7 do not belong to the same compositional level as 14:1-2, (3-4a), 4b. First, the people are referred to as ‫ העם‬in 14:5abα and as ‫ ישראל‬in 14:5bβ, while in 14:2 and 14:3 they are referred to as ‫בני ישראל‬. Moreover, 14:5a uses the term ‫מלך מצרים‬, while 14:3-4a use the term ‫פרעה‬. Although 15:5b uses the term ‫פרעה‬, this half verse cannot be connected directly to 14:1-4, as the “turning” of Pharaoh’s heart presupposes that the king of Egypt has been informed of the people’s flight in 14:5a. Exod 14:9aα presupposes Yhwh’s instructions in 14:2 that the people should (re)turn from their encampment “at the edge of the wilderness” (13:20) and instead encamp by the sea.40 By extension, since 14:1-2 and 14:8 are inextricably connected, no part of 14:9 can be earlier than 14:8. 41 The people’s response (Exod 14:10-14). Exod 14:10 is closely connected to 14:8 through the use of the terms ‫ פרעה‬and ‫בני ישראל‬. While it is possible that 14:10 once followed directly upon 14:8, from a strictly literary-critical perspective it cannot be ruled out that 14:9aα stood between these two verses from the outset, particularly since both 14:9aα and 14:10 refer to the approach of the Egyptians (‫)מצרים‬. Within 14:10 itself, the explicit repetition of the subject ‫ בני ישראל‬in 14:10bβ is redundant, suggesting that this part of the verse is a later addition.42 The people’s complaint to Moses in 14:11-12 cannot be earlier than 14:10*, since 14:11-12 presuppose the people’s realization of the imminent Egyptian onslaught reported in 14:10. Likewise, 14:13-14 presuppose the statement of the people’s “seeing” the Egyptians approach and their resulting fear in 14:10 and may have once connected directly to the latter, since Moses’ instructions to the people not to fear in 14:13 seem to ignore the people’s accusation in 14:11-12.43 Even if this is the case, the use of ‫ בני ישראל‬in 14:10 and of ‫ העם‬in 14:13 suggests that 14:10 and 14:13-14 were not written by the same hand; rather, 14:13-14 are likely later than

























































38

Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 215 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 345. Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 346. 40 Even if one assumes that Exod 14:9aα originally connected to 14:5-7*, the fact that 13:20 locates the people at the edge of the wilderness while 14:9aα locates them by the sea remains a significant geographical problem. 41 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 345–46. 42 Cf. LEVIN, “Source Criticism,” 56. 43 Cf. WEIMAR, Meerwundererzählung, 51–52; GERTZ, Tradition, 216–17; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 346. 39

2. The Miracle at the Sea (Exod 13:17–14:31)

79

14:10. Within 14:13-14 themselves, the statement in 14:13b* that the people will never see Egypt again interrupts the primary focus on Yhwh’s action in 14:13a, 14, and the introduction of the clause with ‫ כי אשר‬is also syntactically awkward. This may indicate that the ‫ כי‬at the beginning of 14:13a once connected directly to 14:14 and that the remainder of 14:13b is a later insertion.44 Setting the stage for the encounter (Exod 14:15-20). Within Exod 14:15, Yhwh’s question ‫ מה תצעק אלי‬seems to presuppose the people’s crying out in 14:10bβ, although here Yhwh attributes the complaint to Moses, not the people.45 Considering that this question does not directly relate to the divine instructions that follow, it is quite possibly a later addition to the verse.46 Within 14:16, the command ‫ הרם את מטך‬and the conjunctive waw that follows also likely constitute a later addition, since the corresponding fulfillment reports in 14:21, 26-27 refer only to Moses’ hand and not Moses’ staff.47 It is noteworthy that 14:17-18 repeat the themes of Yhwh’s glorification and Egypt’s recognition of Yhwh, both of which previously occur in 14:4a. If the latter verse is indeed part of a later addition within Yhwh’s instructions to Moses in 14:1-4, then 14:17-18 may similarly be a later addition to Yhwh’s instructions to Moses in 14:15-18. Within Exod 14:19-20, the role of the ‫ מלאך ה׳‬in 14:19a stands in tension with that of the pillar of cloud in 14:19b-20. Considering that the pillar of cloud reappears in 14:24 but the ‫ מלאך ה׳‬plays no further role in the narrative, 14:19a is almost certainly later than 14:19b-20.48 There is strong evidence that 14:19b-20 cannot be earlier than Yhwh’s instructions to Moses in 14:15-16, since the departure (‫ )נס״ע‬of the pillar of cloud makes sense only in light of the people’s departure (‫ )נס״ע‬as commanded by Yhwh in 14:15. The fact that 14:19b-20 presuppose 13:21-22 – part of a later addition within 13:17-22 – also indirectly supports the conclusion that they do not belong to the earliest narrative thread in Exod 14. Yhwh’s defeat of the Egyptians (Exod 14:21-31). In Exod 14:21, the statement that Yhwh dried up the sea through an easterly wind (14:21aα2β) stands in tension with the statement that the waters of the sea were parted through Moses’ act of extending his hand (14:21aα1, 21b), indicating that

























































44

Even if one follows ⅏, 𝔊, 𝔖, and 𝔗Mss in reading ‫*כאשר‬, such a reading hardly alleviates the syntactic problems created by Exod 14:13b. 45 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 358. 46 Cf. WEIMAR, Meerwundererzählung, 55–56 and LEVIN, Jahwist, 345–46; IDEM, “Source Criticism,” 51. For a different approach, see BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 359, who regards Exod 14:15 as a unity that presupposes Moses’ speech to the people in 14:13a, 14. 47 Cf. RUDOLPH, Elohist, 30; GERTZ, Tradition, 198; KOHATA, Jahwist, 232–33; LEVIN, “Source Criticism,” 53–54; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 359. 48 Cf. WEIMAR, Meerwundererzählung, 46–47; LEVIN, Jahwist, 345; KRÜGER, “Erwägungen,” 529; GERTZ, Tradition, 219–20; BLUM, “Feuersäule,” 133 (repr. 151); BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 347; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 226.

80

Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18)

these two statements cannot belong to the same compositional level. In 14:22, the statement that the Israelites entered the midst of the sea, which depicts the water as a “wall” on both sides of the people, clearly fits better with the depiction of Moses’ parting of the waters in 14:21aα1, 21b than with Yhwh’s drying up the sea in 14:21aα2β. The statement in 14:23 that the Egyptians pursued the Israelites into the midst of the sea likewise presupposes 14:21aα1, 21b. Within this verse, the phrase ‫( כל סוס פרעה רכבו ופרשיו‬14:23aβ) may be a later addition, as it interrupts the syntactic connection between ‫ויבאו אחריהם‬ and ‫אל תוך הים‬. Within Exod 14:24-25, the report that Yhwh “removed” (𝔐) or “bound” (⅏, 𝔊) the wheels of Pharaoh’s chariots in 14:25a interrupts the logical connection between the Egyptians’ confusion in 14:24b and their decision to flee from Israel in 14:25b and thus may be a later addition.49 These verses presuppose the role of the pillar of cloud in 14:19b-20. The latter verses, in turn, presuppose Yhwh’s instructions that Moses part the sea and that the people enter the dry seabed in 14:15-16, which find their fulfillment in 14:21aα1, 21b, 22, 23*. Thus, 14:24-25 cannot stand without 14:15-16, 21aα1, 21b, 22, 23*. Exod 14:26 continues the narrative thread identified thus far in 14:15-16, 21aα1, 21b, 22, 23*. Considering that the previous references to Pharaoh’s chariots and riders in 14:9, 17-18, 23, and 25 emerged as likely later additions to a more basic narrative thread, it is possible that the phrase ‫על רכבו ועל‬ ‫ פרשיו‬in 14:26bβ is also a later addition, although there is no clear literarycritical evidence for such an evaluation within 14:26 itself. Within 14:27-29, there is a doublet similar to that found in 14:21. After Moses stretches out his hand over the sea (14:27aα1), there are two statements of the drowning of the Egyptians. In 14:27aα2βb, as the water returns to its normal position, Yhwh “shakes off” the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. In 14:28-29, the water “covers” Pharaoh’s forces, while the Israelites are able to continue passing through the sea on dry ground. Considering that 14:21aα2β, 24-25 cannot stand independently of 14:15-16, 21aα1, 21b, 22, 23*, it must be concluded that 14:27aα2βb likewise cannot stand independently of the narrative thread in 14:26, 27aα1, 28-29. Following the report of the Israelites’ safe passage through the sea in Exod 14:29, the narrative concludes with two summary reports in 14:30 and 14:31. The repetition of ‫ וירא ישראל‬in both 14:30 and 14:31 suggests that one of these texts is secondary in relation to the other. Whereas 14:30 is related to the announcement of Yhwh’s defeat of the Egyptians in 14:13-14*,50 14:31 is more abstract, focusing on the “great power” (‫ )היד הגדלה‬that Yhwh exerted over Egypt. This suggests that 14:31 may be later than 14:30. In terms of

























































49 50

Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 348. Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 221.

2. The Miracle at the Sea (Exod 13:17–14:31)

81

their connection to Exod 14 more broadly, the use of the terms ‫ ישראל‬and ‫ העם‬in 14:30 and 14:31 suggests that these verses do not belong to the same compositional level as 14:29. In light of the evaluation of 14:21aα2β, 24-25, 27aα2βb as texts that cannot stand independently of the narrative thread that surrounds them, the same conclusion must also be made regarding 14:30-31, indicating that these verses cannot be earlier than the narrative thread in 14:15-16, 21aα1, 21b, 22, 23*, 26, 27aα1, 28-29. Interim result. The most basic material in Exod 13:17-22 consists of 13:20, while the most basic narrative thread in Exod 14 consists of 14:1-2, 4b, 8a, (9aα?), 10abα, 15aα, 15b, 16* (without -‫)הרם את מטך ו‬, 21aα1, 21b, 22, 23aα, 23b, 26aα(b?), 27aα1, 28-29. This narrative consistently refers to the people as ‫ בני ישראל‬and describes how the Israelites were rescued from their Egyptian pursuers by crossing through the parted waters of the sea, while the Egyptians were inundated when they followed the Israelites into the sea. Considering that the itinerary notice in 13:20 does not seem to have been written with a view to the narrative of the miracle at the sea (in 14:2, Yhwh has to tell Moses to bring the people back from the “edge of the wilderness” to a location by the sea), it can be concluded that Exod 14* is later than the itinerary notice in 13:20.51 2.2. Macrocontextual analysis The foregoing analysis concluded that the most basic narrative thread in Exod 14 is found in 14:1-2, 4b, 8a, (9aα?), 10abα, 15aα, 15b, 16* (without ‫הרם את‬ -‫)מטך ו‬, 21aα1, 21b, 22, 23aα, 23b, 26aα(b?), 27aα1, 28-29, while the itinerary notice in 13:20 is most likely earlier than this narrative. As has long been recognized, this narrative thread in Exod 14 represents a priestly account of the miracle at the sea.52 At the same time, as was shown in §2.1, it is not possible to reconstruct an independent, parallel narrative from the remaining material in the chapter. This suggests – despite an almost universal consensus to the contrary – that the priestly account of the miracle at the sea is the earli-



























































51 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 349; MÜLLER, “Jahwekrieg,” 271 n. 32; and BERNER, “Gab es einen vorpriesterschriftlichen Meerwunderbericht?,” 16. 52 Cf., e.g., NOTH, Exodus, 83 (ET 105) (Exod 14:1-4, 8, 9aβb, 10a, 10bβ, 15-18, 21aα, 21b, 22-23, 26, 27aα, 28-29); CHILDS, Exodus, 220 (14:1-4, 8, 9aβb, 15-18, 21aα, 21b, 2223, 26, 27a, 28-29); GERTZ, Tradition, 198 (14:1, 2abα, 3-4, 8a, 10a, 10bβ, 15, 16*, 17abα[β], 18a[b], 21aα1, 21b, 22-23aα[βγb], 26-27aα1, 28a, 29); KRATZ, Komposition, 244 n. 24 (ET 242 n. 24) (14:1-4, 8-9, 15-18, 21aα1, 21b, 22-23, 26-27aα1, 28-29); DOZEMAN, Exodus, 190 (14:1-4, 8b, 9b, 16aβ, 17-18, 19b, 20aβb, 21b, 22b, 24aβ, 29b); LEVIN, “Source Criticism,” 50 (14:1-2, 4, 8a, 9, 15-17, 21aα1, 21b, 22-23, 26-27aα1, 28-29); ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 232 (14:1-4, 8, 9aβb, 10a, 10bβ, 15*-18, 21aα1 , b, 26-27aα1 , 28-29); and BERNER, “Gab es einen vorpriesterschriftlichen Meerwunderbericht?,” 7 (14:1-4, 8-10a, 10bβ, 15-18, 21aα1, 21b, 22-23, 26-27aα1, 28-29).

82

Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18)

est version of the narrative and that the non-priestly portions of Exod 14 constitute post-priestly additions to the narrative.53 The following discussion will evaluate this conclusion by investigating the broader intertextual connections of the non-priestly materials in Exod 13:17–14:31. Exod 13:17-22. There are several indications that Exod 13:17-19 are postpriestly. In 13:17, the reference to Pharaoh (as opposed to the Egyptians as a whole) sending the people away presupposes 12:31, which was evaluated as a (post-)priestly text.54 Moreover, the notion that the people would want to return to Egypt upon “seeing war” is a blind motif here and finds its primary parallel in the (priestly and post-priestly) story of the spies in Num 13–14, where it is part of the people’s response to hearing the negative report from the spies (Num 14:3).55 Exod 13:18a is connected conceptually and lexically to 13:17 and cannot stand without the latter. Since 13:18b cannot stand without 13:18a, this half verse must also be (post-)priestly, a conclusion that is further supported by the correspondence of the concept of (military) units of fifty with the census of the people in Num 1–10.56 Given that 13:17-18a(b) can hardly belong to the same compositional level as 14:1-2, where Yhwh instructs Moses to turn the people around, these verses must be evaluated as a post-priestly expansion within 13:17–14:31. Likewise, since 13:19 cannot stand alone without 13:17-18a(b), this verse must also be evaluated as postpriestly, a conclusion that has been reached by other commentators based on its literary connections with Gen 50:25 and Josh 24:32.57 Thus, 13:17-19 as a whole constitute post-priestly material.58 By extension, 13:20 represents the first possible pre-priestly continuation of the people’s departure from Egypt. This itinerary notice, which reports that the people departed (‫ )ויסעו‬from Sukkot and encamped (‫ )ויחנו‬at Etam, connects well with the statement in 12:37a that the Israelites set out from Raamses towards Sukkot, and the lack of a

























































53

For this conclusion, see also BERNER, “Gab es einen vorpriesterschriftlichen Meerwunderbericht?” 54 Chapter 2, §6.2; cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 208 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 366–68. 55 On the compositional place of the story of the spies, see Chapter 6, §4.2. 56 On Exod 13:17-18 as (post-)priestly, cf. LAMBERTY-ZIELINSKI, Schilfmeer, 228; GERTZ, Tradition, 207–9; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 266–68; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 236–37 against the common view that 13:17-18 are pre-priestly, as argued by NOTH, Exodus, 84–85 (ET 106–8); CHILDS, Exodus, 220; KOHATA, Jahwist, 278; VAN SETERS, Life, 128; BLUM, “Feuersäule,” 131 (repr. 149); and DOZEMAN, Exodus, 190. 57 BLUM, Komposition, 60 (implicitly); IDEM, “Der kompositionelle Knoten,” 202; IDEM, “Literary Connection,” 97–100; RÖMER / BRETTLER, “Deuteronomy 34,” 410; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 43; and H.-C. SCHMITT, “Wie deuteronomistisch ist der nichtpriesterliche Meerwunderbericht?,” 28. 58 For this conclusion, see also GERTZ, Tradition, 207–9; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 43, 400–403; and H.-C. SCHMITT, “Wie deuteronomistisch ist der nichtpriesterliche Meerwunderbericht?,” 28.

2. The Miracle at the Sea (Exod 13:17–14:31)

83

subject in 13:20 lends weight to the possibility that 13:20 originally connected directly to 12:37a.59 Following the analysis of Walter Gross, several commentators have attempted to excise the references to the pillar of fire in Exod 13:21-22 in order to recover a pre-priestly reference to the pillar of cloud here and in 14:20, 24.60 Nevertheless, there is no compelling evidence that 13:21-22 underwent compositional growth.61 Yet even if it is granted for the sake of argument that the pillar of fire is secondary within 13:21-22, there are still reasons to doubt that the remaining material in these verses is pre-priestly. Notably, the notion of the constant presence of Yhwh (𝔊: ὁ θεός) as a guide in these verses is closely connected to the depiction of God “leading” (‫ )נח״ה‬the people in 13:17-18a(b), which were evaluated as post-priestly.62 Moreover, apart from Exod 14, the few subsequent references to the pillar of cloud in the Pentateuch appear only in priestly or post-priestly contexts (Exod 33:9-10; Num 10:5, 12, 34; Num 14:14 // Deut 1:33; Deut 31:15).63 Beyond these references, most of the remaining occurrences of the term ‫ ענן‬in the Pentateuch relate to Yhwh’s presence at Sinai or at the Tent of Meeting and belong to priestly or post-priestly texts.64 In light of these considerations, it is more reasonable to conclude that the references to the pillar of cloud (and fire) in Exod 13–14, like the rest of the references to Yhwh’s presence in the form of a cloud in the Pentateuch, do not antedate the incorporation of priestly literature in the Pentateuch. Exod 14:5-9. It was concluded in §2.1 that the most basic material in Exod 14:5-7 likely consists of 14:5a, 6, while 14:5b, 7 are later additions. Exod 14:5b must be evaluated as a post-priestly text, since the motif of the Israelites’ servitude connects with the deliberations between Pharaoh and his serv-

























































59

Cf. RUDOLPH, Elohist, 28; WALSH, “From Egypt,” 22; LEVIN, Jahwist, 335; KRATZ, Komposition, 292 (ET 284); GERTZ, Tradition, 207–9; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 343; DOZEMAN, “Priestly Wilderness Itineraries,” 262–63; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 233. 60 GROSS, “Wolkensäule,” 149–57, followed by GERTZ, Tradition, 209–14 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 371–74. 61 On the literary unity of the motifs of the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire, see BLUM, “Feuersäule,” 121–22 (repr. 141); BERNER, “Gab es einen vorpriesterschriftlichen Meerwunderbericht?,” 17 (in contrast to IDEM, Exoduserzählung, 371–74); and H.-C. SCHMITT, “Wie deuteronomistisch ist der nichtpriesterliche Meerwunderbericht?,” 32. 62 For the same line of reasoning, see H.-C. SCHMITT, “Wie deuteronomistisch ist der nichtpriesterliche Meerwunderbericht?,” 31. 63 Cf. H.-C. SCHMITT, “Wie deuteronomistisch ist der nichtpriesterliche Meerwunderbericht?,” 33. On Exod 33:9-10, see Chapter 5, §1.2; on Num 10:34, see Chapter 6, §1; on Num 14:14 // Deut 1:33, see Chapter 6, §4. 64 Exod 24:15-16, 18 (which serve as a transition to Exod 25); 33:9-10; 34:5; 40:34-38; Lev 16:2, 13; Num 9:15-22; 10:11-12, 34; 11:25; 12:10; 17:7. Exceptions are Exod 19:9; Deut 4:11; and Deut 5:22, yet all of these verses presuppose Exod 19:16.

84

Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18)

ants on letting the people go in 10:7-11.65 There are no clear signs that 14:5a, 6, or 7 presuppose priestly or post-priestly literature;66 thus, the evaluation of the literary place of these verses depends on the evaluation of other nonpriestly materials in Exod 14. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the statement that the people fled (‫ )ברח‬in 14:5a does not connect well to the prepriestly narrative thread in Exod 1–13* identified so far, which does not depict the people’s departure in terms of flight.67 It was concluded in §2.1 that the most basic material in Exod 14:8-9 consists of 14:8a, (9aα?). There is widespread agreement that 14:8a(b) belongs to the priestly narrative of the miracle at the sea,68 while the literary place of 14:9aα is debated. Although some commentators regard 14:9aα as the continuation of a pre-priestly narrative in 14:5a, 6,69 such a reconstruction requires the assumption that the latter verses can reasonably be connected backwards to a pre-priestly narrative thread in Exod 1–13* and forwards to other prepriestly materials in Exod 14 itself. Thus, like 14:5a, 6, the literary place of 14:9aα depends on the broader evaluation of the non-priestly materials in Exod 14. Exod 14:10-14. It was concluded in §2.1 that both Exod 14:11-12 and 14:13-14 presuppose the people’s realization of the Egyptians’ approach in 14:10abα. Although a number of commentators have suggested that 14:10bα is part of a pre-priestly narrative,70 such a view is challenged by the reference to the people as ‫בני ישראל‬, which is otherwise typical of the priestly narrative of the miracle at the sea. (The term ‫ בני ישראל‬is also used in 14:10bβ, which is widely assigned to a priestly or post-priestly stage of composition.71) By extension, this raises the possibility that 14:11-12 and 14:13-14 are not prepriestly. Indeed, there are other grounds for evaluating 14:11-12 as post-



























































65 On the post-priestly nature of Exod 10:7-11, see Chapter 2, §6.2. On the evaluation of 14:5b as post-priestly, see GERTZ, Tradition, 230; LEVIN, “Source Criticism,” 43–44; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 345, 366; IDEM, “Gab es einen vorpriesterschriftlichen Meerwunderbericht?,” 8. 66 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 345. 67 Cf. BERNER, “Gab es einen vorpriesterschriftlichen Meerwunderbericht?,” 15. 68 Cf. NOTH, Exodus, 83 (ET 105); CHILDS, Exodus, 220; GERTZ, Tradition, 198; KRATZ, Komposition, 244 n. 24 (ET 242 n. 24); LEVIN, “Source Criticism,” 50; ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 232; and BERNER, “Gab es einen vorpriesterschriftlichen Meerwunderbericht?,” 7 against DOZEMAN, Exodus, 190, who assigns 14:8a to his Non-P History. 69 NOTH, Exodus, 83 (ET 105); CHILDS, Exodus, 220; GERTZ, Tradition, 215 (only 14:9aα2); DOZEMAN, Exodus, 190; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 232. 70 E.g., NOTH, Exodus, 84 (ET 106 [erroneously printed as 14:10bb]); CHILDS, Exodus, 220; GERTZ, Tradition, 231; KRATZ, Komposition, 290 n. 80 (ET 282 n. 54); DOZEMAN, Exodus, 190; LEVIN, “Source Criticism,” 55, 57; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 233. 71 Cf. NOTH, Exodus, 89 (ET 112); WEIMAR, Meerwundererzählung, 166; GERTZ, Tradition, 198; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 346, 358; IDEM, “Gab es einen vorpriesterschriftlichen Meerwunderbericht?,” 7; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 225.

2. The Miracle at the Sea (Exod 13:17–14:31)

85

priestly, since these verses employ the so-called “murmuring motif,” which is found elsewhere only in post-priestly Pentateuchal texts.72 Moreover, in 14:13b* the motif of the Israelites never seeing the Egyptians again (‫לא תסיפו‬ ‫ )לראתם עוד עד עולם‬has close connections to the description of the plagues of hail, locusts, and the death of the firstborn as historically unparalleled (cf. 9:18, 24; 10:6, 14; and 11:6) as well as to Moses’ audience with Pharaoh following the plague of darkness (10:28-29). 73 Exod 14:15-20. There is a broad consensus that much or all of Exod 14:15-18 belong to a priestly or post-priestly stage of composition.74 There is also good reason to conclude that 14:19a – a later addition to 14:19b-20 – is post-priestly, since the other references to the ‫ מלאך ה׳‬in the book of Exodus (Exod 23:20-33; 33:2-4; 34:11-27; cf. Judg 2:1-5) are post-priestly texts.75 The compositional place of the pillars of cloud and fire in 14:19b-20 requires more extensive discussion. Many commentators assign 14:19b-20 in their entirety to a pre-priestly narrative of the miracle at the sea,76 while others have followed Gross’s proposal that the reference to the pillar of fire is the work of a post-priestly redactor who attempted to resolve the tension between the Israelites’ (presumably) daytime crossing of the sea in the priestly narrative and the overnight setting of the non-priestly narrative.77 In order to maintain that the pillar of cloud in 14:19b-20 belongs to a pre-priestly narrative, those who hold this view are also required to assume that 13:21-22 preserve at least some pre-priestly material, since the determined state of the phrase

























































72

On the post-priestly nature of Exod 14:11-12, see LEVIN, Jahwist, 346; IDEM, “Source Criticism,” 43–45; L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 24, 32–33; IDEM, “Priesterschrift,” 489; GERTZ, Tradition, 225; KRATZ, Komposition, 290 n. 80 (ET 282 n. 54); BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 385–89; IDEM, “Gab es einen vorpriesterschriftlichen Meerwunderbericht?,” 8; and H.-C. SCHMITT, “Wie deuteronomistisch ist der nichtpriesterliche Meerwunderbericht?,” 30–31. See also WEIMAR, Meerwundererzählung, 121–27, who attempts to identify a basic prepriestly report in 14:11* but assigns the remainder of 14:11-12 to RP. 73 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 386. 74 E.g., NOTH, Exodus, 83 (ET 105); CHILDS, Exodus, 220; GERTZ, Tradition, 198; KRATZ, Komposition, 244 n. 24 (ET 242 n. 24); LEVIN, “Source Criticism,” 50–54; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 347; IDEM, “Gab es einen vorpriesterschriftlichen Meerwunderbericht?,” 7; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 232. 75 Cf. H.-C. SCHMITT, “Suche,” 261–62; GERTZ, Tradition, 219–20; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 401; IDEM, “Gab es einen vorpriesterschriftlichen Meerwunderbericht?,” 8. Blum, “Der kompositionelle Knoten,” 189–90 is more reserved, identifying the ‫ מלאך‬texts as postexilic but not explicitly as post-priestly. On Exod 33 and 34, see also Chapter 5, §1.2. 76 NOTH, Exodus, 84 (ET 106); CHILDS, Exodus, 220; KRATZ, Komposition, 290 n. 80 (ET 282 n. 54); BLUM, “Feuersäule,” 154–55; LEVIN, “Source Criticism,” 55; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 226. 77 GROSS, “Wolkensäule,” 149; GERTZ, Tradition, 212; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 347.

86

Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18)

‫ עמוד הענן‬in 14:19b presupposes the prior reference to the ‫ עמוד ענן‬in 13:21. Yet there is reason to doubt that 13:21-22 – even without the pillar of fire – go back to a pre-priestly stage of composition, since the motif of the pillar of cloud is also likely post-priestly. Thus, regardless of whether the references to the pillar of fire are later additions, 14:19b-20 as a whole can be evaluated as post-priestly.78 Exod 14:21-31. Within this unit, commentators have traditionally isolated a pre-priestly narrative in Exod 14:21a* (from ‫)ויולך‬, 24, 25(a)b, 27aα2βb, 3031.79 More recently, several scholars have assigned 14:25a and 14:31 to a post-priestly stage of composition, and with good reason: 14:25a presupposes that the Egyptians have pursued the Israelites into the middle of the sea,80 while 14:31 is a counterpart to the people’s complaint in 14:11-12, which was evaluated as post-priestly.81 The statement that the people believed in Moses in 14:31bβ further supports this evaluation, since it is only in the priestly version of the miracle at the sea that Moses plays an active role as a wonder worker.82 Nevertheless, most commentators still assign 14:21a*, 24, 25b, 27aα2βb, 30 to a pre-priestly narrative thread or source. Such a reconstructed text, however, poses significant narrative problems. Even if one assumes for the sake of argument that the reference to the pillar of cloud in 14:19b-20 belongs to a pre-priestly narrative, it is difficult to conceive of the Egyptians remaining in place throughout the night, since then it is unclear how they managed to find themselves on the dried-up seabed – which first appears in 14:21 – if the pillar of cloud is imagined as forming a barrier between two stationary camps in 14:20.83 Moreover, if it is granted that the reference to the pillar of cloud in 14:19b-20 is post-priestly, the possibility that 14:21aα2β, 24, 25b, 27aα2βb, 30 reflect a pre-priestly narrative that does not depict the people as crossing the sea is undermined even further, since it is only in light

























































78

Cf. BERNER, “Gab es einen vorpriesterschriftlichen Meerwunderbericht?,” 11 and H.-C. SCHMITT, “Wie deuteronomistisch ist der nichtpriesterliche Meerwunderbericht?,” 33. 79 E.g., NOTH, Exodus, 84 (ET 106) and CHILDS, Exodus, 220, both of whom regard Exod 14:25a as a fragment of E. 80 Cf. KRÜGER, “Erwägungen,” 526; GERTZ, Tradition, 221; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 348. 81 Cf. KRÜGER, “Erwägungen,” 527–29; GERTZ, Tradition, 222–26; KRATZ, Komposition, 290 n. 80 (ET 282 n. 54); LEVIN, “Source Criticism,” 43–44; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 382, 387 (who argues that Exod 14:31aα is even later than 14:31aβ); ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 226–27, 234; and H.-C. SCHMITT, “Wie deuteronomistisch ist der nichtpriesterliche Meerwunderbericht?,” 29–30. 82 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 226. 83 Cf. BERNER, “Gab es einen vorpriesterschriftlichen Meerwunderbericht?,” 12: “Das verbreitete Bild, demzufolge beide Gruppen ihr Lager am Ufer des Meeres aufgeschlagen haben, das sie die gesamte Nacht über nicht verlassen, lässt sich am Text nicht erhärten.”

2. The Miracle at the Sea (Exod 13:17–14:31)

87

of the reference to the “camp of Egypt” and the “camp of Israel” in 14:20 that such a narrative is conceivable in the first place. In light of the problems posed by the theory that Exod 14:19b-20, 21aα2β, 24, 25b, 27aα2βb, 30 constitute the conclusion to an independent, pre-priestly narrative of the miracle at the sea, an alternative scenario – namely, that these verses are later supplements to the priestly narrative – should now be considered. Indeed, if one sets aside the common assumption that the term ‫ מחנה‬in 14:20 must refer to a stationary encampment, then 14:19b-20, 21aα2β, 24-25, 27aα2βb, 30 can easily be interpreted as depicting the Israelites as on the move during the entire sequence of the narrative. (1) As noted above, the use of the verb ‫ נס״ע‬in 14:19b would be out of place in a narrative that does not depict the Israelites as on the move. (2) In 14:20, the function of the pillar of cloud fits quite well – if not better – with the people’s crossing of the sea, serving as a “rear guard” for the Israelites as they pass through the parted waters (cf. ‫ וילך מאחריהם‬in 14:19b). (3) In 14:25b and 14:27aβ, the Egyptians’ decision to “flee” from Israel fits well with the depiction of the Egyptians as actively pursuing the Israelites into the midst of the sea. (4) The reference to Yhwh “shaking off” the Egyptians “in the midst of the sea” (‫בתוך‬ ‫ )הים‬fits well with the statement that the Israelites “entered the midst of the sea” (‫ )ויבאו בני ישראל בתוך הים‬in 14:22. (5) The statement that Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the shore of the sea in 14:30 is no more difficult to explain in light of the Egyptians’ pursuit of the Israelites into the sea than if one assumes that the Egyptians had encamped by the sea since, in either case, the Egyptians would have drowned in the water and subsequently washed up on the shore. Considering that the non-priestly materials in Exod 14:19b-20, 21aα2β, 24, 25b, 27aα2βb, 30 can be understood conceptually as supplements to the priestly narrative of the miracle at the sea, the last significant challenge to a supplementary approach to these verses is the problem of narrative coherence posed by the doublets within 14:21 and 14:27-28. Yet these doublets can perhaps be explained by the particular theological perspective of the nonpriestly materials in 14:21aα2β and 14:27aα2βb, which emphasize Yhwh’s defeat of the Egyptians in his role as divine warrior (cf. 14:25b).84 In other words, these doublets may have arisen in part because the author of the nonpriestly materials sought to emphasize Yhwh’s direct intervention over against Yhwh’s indirect intervention through Moses, even at the cost of nar-

























































84

On Yhwh’s role as divine warrior in the non-priestly portions of Exod 14, see MÜL“Jahwekrieg,” 268–72. Although Müller’s monarchic-period dating of the Yhwh war theme may be correct, this is not in itself evidence that the appearance of this theme in Exod 14 is earlier than the priestly narrative (against H.-C. SCHMITT, “Wie deuteronomistisch ist der nichtpriesterliche Meerwunderbericht?,” 38). LER,

88

Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18)

rative coherence.85 Such narrative tensions may also be explained by the close correspondence between Yhwh’s drying up the sea with an easterly wind and the plague of locusts in Exod 10:1-20. Given that the non-priestly portions of Exod 14 are post-priestly, the possibility emerges that 14:21aα2β and 14:27aα2βb were modeled on the post-priestly plague of locusts.86 Result. In light of the foregoing analysis, the maximum extent of potentially pre-priestly material in Exod 13:17–14:31 is limited to 13:20; 14:5a, 6-7, 13a, 14, 21aα2β, 24* (without ‫)בעמוד אש וענן‬, 25b, 27aα2βb, 30.87 This material does not constitute a complete, self-contained narrative,88 which requires either the assumption that parts of a pre-priestly narrative have been lost in the process of their combination with the priestly narrative of the miracle at the sea or the assumption that the priestly narrative is the original version, in which case 14:5a, 6-7, 13a, 14, 21aα2β, 24, 25b, 27aα2βb, 30 belong to a postpriestly reworking of the narrative that never stood independently of the priestly version. While both assumptions pose certain problems, the problems that arise from the former are in my view more difficult to overcome than those that arise from the latter. Thus, given that there was no pre-priestly account of the miracle at the sea, the only pre-priestly material that remains in Exod 13:17–14:31 is the itinerary notice in 13:20. With its statement that the people encamped “at the edge of the wilderness,” this notice hardly sets the stage for the miracle at the sea but instead must have originally connected directly to some point in Exod 15 or thereafter.89 2.3. Synthesis I

The most basic material in Exod 13:17–14:31 consists of the itinerary notice in 13:20, which narrates the people’s journey out of Egypt and up to “the edge of the wilderness.”

II

The most basic narrative of the miracle at the sea is found in Exod 14:1-2, 4b, 8a* (without ‫)מלך מצרים‬, 9aα, 9b, 10abα, 15aα, 15b, 16* (without -‫)הרם את מטך ו‬, 21aα1, 21b, 22, 23aα, 23b, 26aα(b?), 27aα1, 28-29 and is the work of a priestly author. This narrative goes against the grain of the itinerary notice in 13:20 by turning the people back from their encampment “at the edge of the wilderness” in order to re-

























































85

Cf. BERNER, “Gab es einen vorpriesterschriftlichen Meerwunderbericht?,” 20–21. Cf. ibid., 22–23. 87 Cf. H.-C. SCHMITT, “Wie deuteronomistisch ist der nichtpriesterliche Meerwunderbericht?,” 28–33, whose identification of post-priestly material in Exod 13:17–14:31 implicitly results in a similar group of texts. 88 This is conceded by ibid., 42. 89 Cf. BERNER, “Gab es einen vorpriesterschriftlichen Meerwunderbericht?,” 16. 86

2. The Miracle at the Sea (Exod 13:17–14:31)

89

count the people’s crossing of the sea and the death of their Egyptian pursuers.90 II+

The priestly narrative of the miracle at the sea was supplemented in Exod 14:3-4a, 8b, 9aβγ, 10bβ, 16a* (-‫)הרם את מטך ו‬, 17-18, 23aβγ, 26bβ, 28aαβ* (-‫)הרכב ואת הפרשים ל‬. Many of these additions focus on Egypt’s military might through the references to Egypt’s horses, chariots, and riders.

III

The narrative of the miracle at the sea underwent a significant reworking through the addition of Exod 13:17-18; 14:5a, 6, 13a, 14, 21aα2β, 24aαβ, 24b, 25b, 27aα2βb, 30, which emphasized Yhwh’s direct role as divine warrior in defeating the Egyptians. This narrative cannot stand independently of the priestly narrative of the miracle at the sea, and the depiction of Yhwh drying up the sea with a strong easterly wind seems to presuppose the post-priestly episode of the plague of locusts.

IV

The post-priestly references to Yhwh’s guidance of the people by means of the pillars of cloud and fire in Exod 13:21-22; 14:19b-20, 24aγ may be even later than the Yhwh-war reworking in Level III, whereby the notion that the people’s crossing continued into the night was likely triggered by the reference to the nighttime wind in 14:21aα2β.

IV+ Although Exod 13:17-18a are closely connected to 13:21-22 thematically through the theme of divine guidance, their use of the divine name Elohim rather than Yhwh suggests that they may be later than 13:21-22. Exod 13:18b-19 can be evaluated as later than 13:17-18a. Likewise, the reference to the ‫ מלאך ה׳‬in 14:19a is later than 14:19b-20. V

The people’s complaint in Exod 14:11-12 interrupts the connection between 14:10 and 14:13-14 and must therefore be later than the Yhwhwar reworking in Level III. The notice about the people’s faith in Yhwh in 14:31aα, 31b is connected thematically to 14:11-12 and was likely written at the same time as the latter verses.

V+

The statement that the people “feared” Yhwh in Exod 14:31aβ is likely a later addition within 14:31.



























































90 This narrative was possibly conceived as a parallel to the report of the crossing of the Jordan in Josh 3–4*. If this is indeed the case, it would suggest that the priestly author who composed this narrative already presupposed a narrative connection between the exodus from Egypt and the entry into the land.

‫)‪Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪90‬‬

‫‪V‬‬

‫‪13:17‬‬

‫]‬ ‫ויהי בשלח פרעה את העם ולא נחם אלהים דרך ארץ פלשתים כי קרוב הוא כי‬ ‫אמר אלהים פן ינחם העם בראתם מלחמה ושבו מצרימה ‪ 18‬ויסב אלהים את העם‬ ‫דרך המדבר ים סוף וחמשים עלו בני ישראל מארץ מצרים ‪ 19‬ויקח משה את עצמות‬ ‫יוסף עמו כי השבע השביע את בני ישראל לאמר פקד יפקד אלהים אתכם והעליתם‬ ‫את עצמתי מזה אתכם[‬ ‫‪ 20‬ויסעו מסכת ויחנו באתם בקצה המדבר‬ ‫‪ 21‬וה׳ הלך לפניהם יומם בעמוד ענן לנחתם הדרך ולילה בעמוד אש להאיר להם‬ ‫ללכת יומם ולילה ‪ 22‬לא ימיש עמוד הענן יומם ועמוד האש לילה לפני העם‬ ‫‪ 14:1‬וידבר ה׳ אל משה לאמר ‪ 2‬דבר אל בני ישראל וישבו ויחנו לפני פי החירת בין מגדל ובין הים‬ ‫לפני בעל צפן נכחו תחנו על הים ]‪ 3‬ואמר פרעה לבני ישראל נבכים הם בארץ סגר עליהם‬ ‫המדבר ‪ 4‬וחזקתי את לב פרעה ורדף אחריהם ואכבדה בפרעה ובכל חילו וידעו מצרים כי אני ה׳[‬ ‫ויעשו כן‬ ‫‪ 5‬ויגד למלך מצרים כי ברח העם ]ויהפך לבב פרעה ועבדיו אל העם ויאמרו מה זאת עשינו‬ ‫כי שלחנו את ישראל מעבדנו[ ‪ 6‬ויאסר את רכבו ואת עמו לקח עמו ‪ 7‬ויקח שש מאות רכב‬ ‫בחור וכל רכב מצרים ושלשם על כלו‬ ‫‪ 8‬ויחזק ה׳ את לב פרעה ]מלך מצרים[ וירדף אחרי בני ישראל ]ובני ישראל יצאים ביד רמה[‬ ‫‪ 9‬וירדפו מצרים אחריהם וישיגו אותם חנים על הים ]כל סוס רכב פרעה ופרשיו וחילו[ על פי‬ ‫החירת לפני בעל צפן ‪ 10‬ופרעה הקריב וישאו בני ישראל את עיניהם והנה מצרים נסע אחריהם‬ ‫]וייראו מאד[ ]ויצעקו בני ישראל אל ה׳[‬ ‫‪ 11‬ויאמרו אל משה המבלי אין קברים במצרים לקחתנו למות במדבר מה זאת‬ ‫עשית לנו להוציאנו ממצרים ‪ 12‬הלא זה הדבר אשר דברנו אליך במצרים לאמר‬ ‫חדל ממנו ונעבדה את מצרים כי טוב לנו עבד את מצרים ממתנו במדבר‬ ‫‪ 13‬ויאמר משה אל העם אל תיראו התיצבו וראו את ישועת ה׳ אשר יעשה לכם היום כי‬ ‫אשר ראיתם את מצרים היום לא תספו לראתם עוד עד עולם ‪ 14‬ה׳ ילחם לכם ואתם‬ ‫תחרשון‬ ‫‪ 15‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה ]מה תצעק אלי[ דבר אל בני ישראל ויסעו ‪ 16‬ואתה ]הרם את מטך ו[נטה‬ ‫את ידך על הים ובקעהו ויבאו בני ישראל בתוך הים ביבשה ]‪ 17‬ואני הנני מחזק את לב מצרים‬ ‫ויבאו אחריהם ואכבדה בפרעה ובכל חילו ]ברכבו ובפרשיו[ ‪ 18‬וידעו מצרים כי אני ה׳ בהכבדי‬ ‫בפרעה ברכבו ובפרשיו[‬ ‫‪] 19‬ויסע מלאך האלהים ההלך לפני מחנה ישראל וילך מאחריהם[ ויסע עמוד הענן‬ ‫מפניהם ויעמד מאחריהם ‪ 20‬ויבא בין מחנה מצרים ובין מחנה ישראל ויהי הענן‬ ‫והחשך ויאר את הלילה ולא קרב זה אל זה כל הלילה‬ ‫‪ 21‬ויט משה את ידו על הים‬ ‫ויולך ה׳ את הים ברוח קדים עזה כל הלילה וישם את הים לחרבה‬ ‫ויבקעו המים ‪ 22‬ויבאו בני ישראל בתוך הים ביבשה והמים להם חומה מימינם ומשמאלם‬ ‫וירדפו מצרים ויבאו אחריהם ]כל סוס פרעה רכבו ופרשיו[ אל תוך הים‬

‫‪23‬‬

‫‪ 24‬ויהי באשמרת הבקר וישקף ה׳ אל מחנה מצרים ]בעמוד אש וענן[ ויהם את מחנה‬ ‫מצרים ‪] 25‬ויסר את אפן מרכבתיו וינהגהו בכבדת[ ויאמר מצרים אנוסה מפני ישראל כי ה׳‬ ‫נלחם להם במצרים‬

91

3. The Song at the Sea and the Song of Miriam (Exod 15:1-21) V ‫ויט‬

27

IV

III

II

I

26

[‫ויאמר ה׳ אל משה נטה את ידך על הים וישבו המים על מצרים ]על רכבו ועל פרשיו‬ ‫משה את ידו על הים‬ ‫וישב הים לפנות בקר לאיתנו ומצרים נסים לקראתו וינער ה׳ את מצרים בתוך הים‬

‫ וישבו המים ויכסו את ]הרכב ואת הפרשים ל[כל חיל פרעה הבאים אחריהם בים לא נשאר‬28 ‫ ובני ישראל הלכו ביבשה בתוך הים והמים להם חמה מימינם ומשמאלם‬29 ‫בהם עד אחד‬ ‫ ויושע ה׳ ביום ההוא את ישראל מיד מצרים וירא ישראל את מצרים מת על שפת הים‬30 ‫ וירא ישראל את היד הגדלה אשר עשה ה׳ במצרים וייראו העם את ה׳‬31 ‫ויאמינו בה׳ ובמשה עבדו‬

3. The Song at the Sea and the Song of Miriam (Exod 15:1-21) 3.1. Literary-critical analysis Following the narrative of the miracle at the sea are two songs, the first sung by Moses (Exod 15:1-18) and the second sung by Miriam (15:20-21). Between these two units is a prose ‫ כי‬clause repeating events from the miracle at the sea. This clause does not connect smoothly to 15:18 in terms of content, suggesting that the ‫ כי‬in 15:19 does not introduce a causal clause related to 15:18 but rather a temporal clause related to 15:20-21 (although one would normally expect ‫ ויהי‬prior to ‫ כי‬in a temporal clause).91 In light of the rough syntactic connection between 15:18 and 15:19, it seems likely that 15:1-18 and 15:19-21 do not belong to the same compositional level. Reconstructing the internal literary growth of the Song at the Sea in 15:1-18 relies heavily upon comparison with other biblical texts and will thus be treated below. 3.2. Macrocontextual analysis The first concrete connection between the Song at the Sea and Exod 14 is found in Exod 15:4. The statement in 15:4a that Yhwh has cast Pharaoh’s chariots and army into the sea (‫ )מרכבת פרעה וחילו ירה בים‬draws on the term ‫ מרכבת‬from 14:25a and the term ‫ חיל‬from 14:4, 17bα, 28, all of which are priestly texts.92 Moreover, the reference to the Sea of Reeds in 15:4b connects to the references to the Sea of Reeds in 13:18a and 15:22aα, both of which are likely (post-)priestly.93 Given that 15:4 as a whole is (post-)priestly, then 15:5 must be as well, since both of the verbs in 15:5 have their antecedents in



























































91 On ‫ כי‬in causal and temporal clauses, see JOÜON-MURAOKA, Grammar, §170d and §166o, respectively. 92 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 394. 93 On the post-priestly provenance of Exod 15:22aα, see §4.

92

Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18)

15:4. Another clear connection to Exod 14 is found in 15:8, which describes how water was dammed up from the wind of Yhwh’s nostrils (‫וברוח אפיך‬ ‫)נערמו מים‬, how it stood up as a “heap” or “dam” (‫)נצבו כמו נד נזלים‬, and how the depths “congealed” in the midst of the sea (‫)קפאו תהמת בלב ים‬. Here, too, the influence of the priestly version of the miracle of the sea is palpable. Both of the verbs employed in 15:8a to describe the movement of the water suggest a vertical movement (‫ ערם‬niphal, ‫ יצב‬niphal), as does the use of the term ‫נד‬.94 Moreover, the reference to the congealing of the depths (‫)קפאו תהמת‬ uses the same term (‫ )תהום‬that occurs in the priestly creation account (Gen 1:2). A final connection between the Song at the Sea and the priestly narrative of the miracle at the sea is found in Exod 15:10, which describes how the divine wind caused the sea to “cover” the enemy (‫ ;נשפת ברוחך כסמו ים‬cf. the use of ‫ כסה‬piel in 14:28a).95 In Exod 15:12-18, the subject matter changes, alluding to (future) events in Israel’s Heilsgeschichte beyond the immediate context of the miracle at the sea, including the entry into the land and the establishment of a temple to Yhwh. Considering that these verses are out of place in terms of the sequence of the narrative and do not relate directly to the miracle at the sea, it is possible that they are a later addition to the Song.96 Since the reference to these events would hardly be fitting without the post-priestly references to the miracle at the sea in 15:4-5, 8, 10, Exod 15:12-18 cannot be pre-priestly. Thus, if a pre-priestly version of the Song at the Sea were to have existed, it would have consisted at most of a short hymn celebrating Yhwh’s victory over a cavalry force in Exod 15:1 and a longer hymn of praise celebrating Yhwh’s prowess against his enemies in 15:2-3, 6-7, 9, 11. These two units do not fit well together, since the former celebrates a specific event, while the latter is very general. Even if it is assumed that 15:2-3, 6-7, 9, 11 were drawn from an older hymnic source that originally had nothing to do with the miracle at the sea, it is unlikely that this hypothetical source would have been inserted into its present literary context without the post-priestly elements discussed here, since by themselves they do not fit well with 15:1. Based on the preceding observations, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the pre-priestly extent of the Song at the Sea within its present narrative context is limited to Exod 15:1 at the most. However, when this verse is compared with its parallel in 15:20-21, the possibility that 15:1 once stood by itself without 15:2-18 becomes unlikely, since 15:1b is likely secondary to

























































94

Notably, the intertextual connection formed by the use of the term ‫ נד‬evokes the notion of crossing of a body of water (cf. Josh 3:13, 16). The similarity with the imagery of the priestly verse Exod 14:22 was already noted by BAENTSCH, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, 133; see also LEVIN, Jahwist, 347 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 395. 95 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 395–96. 96 Cf. ZENGER, “Tradition,” 468–69 and DOZEMAN, “Song of the Sea,” 96–101.

3. The Song at the Sea and the Song of Miriam (Exod 15:1-21)

93

15:20-21.97 Several arguments support this view. (1) It is easier to conceive of the Song at the Sea as expanding on a shorter Vorlage than it is to imagine Miriam singing an abbreviated version of a longer song.98 (2) Whereas plural imperatives (such as in 15:21b) introduce victory songs (e.g., Ps 98:1), singular cohortatives (such as in 15:1b) introduce thanksgiving hymns (e.g., Ps 13:6; 104:33).99 (3) The Song of Miriam makes more sense as an immediate response to the defeat of the Egyptians than does the Song at the Sea, since the latter significantly transcends its immediate narrative context.100 (4) It seems more plausible to imagine Moses stealing the spotlight from Miriam than vice versa.101 Thus, since 15:1 never existed independently of 15:2-18, then 15:1-18 as a whole can be evaluated as post-priestly.102 Significantly, this conclusion applies regardless of whether one evaluates the non-priestly narrative of the miracle at the sea in Exod 14 as pre-priestly (the majority view) or post-priestly (as argued in §2.2). This leaves the Song of Miriam and its narrative framework in Exod 15:(19), 20-21 to be evaluated. The circumstantial clause in 15:19 presupposes the priestly version of the miracle at the sea in its reference to Pharaoh’s forces pursuing the Israelites into the middle of the sea, while the reference to Miriam as Aaron’s kinswoman/sister in 15:20 presupposes the role of Aaron in the priestly version of the exodus narrative.103 Thus, if one assumes that the non-priestly material in Exod 14 is pre-priestly, then the maximum extent of potentially pre-priestly material in Exod 15 would be limited to 15:20* (without ‫)אחות אהרן‬, 21.104 In contrast, if the priestly narrative of the miracle at the sea in Exod 14 constitutes the most basic material in the chapter, even the Song of Miriam in 15:20-21 cannot be pre-priestly, in which case it is unnecessary to excise the phrase ‫ אחות אהרן‬from 15:20.105

























































97

For this conclusion, see RUDOLPH, Elohist, 31–32; NOTH, Exodus, 98 (ET 123); FOHÜberlieferung, 110–16; CRÜSEMANN, Studien, 19; HERRMANN, Israels Aufenthalt, 84; W. H. SCHMIDT, Exodus, Sinai und Mose, 60–70; LEVIN, Jahwist, 347; KRATZ, Komposition, 290 (ET 282); and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 389. For the opposing view that the Song of Miriam is in fact an incipit or refrain of the Song at the Sea, see MOWINCKEL, Psalmenstudien II, 11; cf. CROSS / FREEDMAN, “Song of Miriam,” 237. 98 Here I disagree with CROSS / FREEDMAN, Studies, repr. 31, who argue that “vs. 21 is not a different or shorter or the original version of the song, but simply the title of the song, taken from a different cycle of traditions.” 99 LEVIN, Jahwist, 347. 100 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 389. 101 Cf. CROSS / FREEDMAN, Studies, repr. 31 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 389. 102 Cf. BRENNER, Song of the Sea, 187; LEVIN, Jahwist, 347; K. SCHMID, Erzväter, 238– 41 (ET 221–24); and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 393–400. 103 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 390. 104 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 341–42; KRATZ, Komposition, 301–2 (ET 292–93); and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 392. 105 Cf. BERNER, “Gab es einen vorpriesterschriftlichen Meerwunderbericht?,” 18–19. RER,

94

Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18)

3.3. Synthesis I

The Song of Miriam in Exod 15:20-21 likely represents the earliest material in Exod 15. In light of the foregoing evaluation of the priestly account of the miracle at the sea in Exod 14 as earlier than the nonpriestly materials in that chapter, the Song of Miriam cannot belong to a pre-priestly stage of composition.

I+

The temporal clause in Exod 15:19 was possibly added after 15:20-21.

II

The Song at the Sea in Exod 15:1-18* seems to have been modeled on the Song of Miriam in 15:20-21. Although it cannot be ruled out that the author of Exod 15:1-18* drew on older hymnic material, the earliest reconstructible form of the Song at the Sea in its present literary context presupposes the priestly account of the miracle at the sea in Exod 14.

II+

On the one hand, considering that Exod 15:12-18 have a literary horizon extending well beyond the miracle at the sea, these verses may represent a later expansion to the Song at the Sea. On the other hand, given the late relative dating of 15:1-11, it cannot be ruled out that 15:1-18 stem from a single author who sought to set the Song within a broad literary horizon from the outset. II

I

15:1

‫אז ישיר משה ובני ישראל את השירה הזאת לה׳ ויאמרו לאמר אשירה לה׳ כי גאה גאה סוס‬ ‫ורכבו רמה בים‬ ‫ עזי וזמרת יה ויהי לי לישועה זה אלי ואנוהו אלהי אבי וארממנהו‬2 ‫ ה׳ איש מלחמה ה׳ שמו‬3 ‫ מרכבת פרעה וחילו ירה בים ומבחר שלשיו טבעו בים סוף‬4 ‫ תהמת יכסימו ירדו במצולת כמו אבן‬5 ‫ ימינך ה׳ נאדרי בכח ימינך ה׳ תרעץ אויב‬6 ‫ וברב גאונך תהרס קמיך תשלח חרנך יאכלמו כקש‬7 ‫ וברוח אפיך נערמו מים נצבו כמו נד נזלים קפאו תהמת בלב ים‬8 ‫ אמר אויב ארדף אשיג אחלק שלל תמלאמו נפשי אריק חרבי תורישמו ידי‬9 ‫ נשפת ברוחך כסמו ים צללו כעופרת במים אדירים‬10 ‫ מי כמכה באלם ה׳ מי כמכה נאדר בקדש נורא תהלת עשה פלא‬11 ‫ נטית ימינך תבלעמו ארץ‬12] ‫ נחית בחסדך עם זו גאלת נהלת בעזך אל נוה קדשך‬13 ‫ שמעו עמים ירגזון חיל אחז ישבי פלשת‬14 ‫ אז נבהלו אלופי אדום אילי מואב יאחזמו רעד נמגו כל ישבי כנען‬15 ‫ תפל עליהם אימתה ופחד בגדל זרועך ידמו כאבן עד יעבר עמך ה׳ עד יעבר עם זו קנית‬16 ‫ תבאמו ותטעמו בהר נחלתך מכון לשבתך פעלת ה׳ מקדש אדני כוננו ידיך‬17 [‫ ה׳ ימלך לעלם ועד‬18 ‫ כי בא סוס פרעה ברכבו ובפרשיו בים וישב ה׳ עלהם את מי הים ובני ישראל הלכו ביבשה בתוך‬19] ‫ ותקח מרים הנביאה אחות אהרן את התף בידה ותצאן כל הנשים אחריה בתפים ובמחלת‬20 [‫הים‬ ‫ ותען להם מרים שירו לה׳ כי גאה גאה סוס ורכבו רמה בים‬21

4. Marah and Elim (Exod 15:22-27)

95

4. Marah and Elim (Exod 15:22-27) 4.1. Literary-critical analysis Following the miracle at the sea, in Exod 15:22a, Moses causes Israel to set out (‫ נסע‬hiphil) from the Sea of Reeds (15:22aα), and the people go out (‫יצא‬ qal) towards the Wilderness of Shur (15:22aβ). The fact that the itinerary notice in 15:22a contains two verbs of departure – the only such case in Exodus or Numbers – suggests that 15:22aα and 15:22aβ do not belong to the same compositional level.106 Considering that 15:22aβ cannot stand alone without 15:22aα (unless it originally connected to some point prior to Exod 15), then 15:22aα must be evaluated as the more basic notice. In Exod 15:22b-27, the people travel for three days without finding water and eventually come to Marah, where they are not able to drink the water on account of its bitterness (15:22b-23). The people complain to Moses, who makes the water drinkable with Yhwh’s help (15:24-25a). Following these events, Moses107 gives a “statute and an ordinance” (‫ )חק ומשפט‬and exhorts the people to obey Yhwh (15:25b-26). Finally, the people arrive in Elim, where there are twelve springs and seventy palm trees (15:27). The abrupt transition between Exod 15:25a and 15:25b-26 has long led commentators to see different hands at work in 15:24-25a and 15:25b-26.108 While the water miracle in 15:24-25a can stand alone without 15:25b-26, the reverse is not possible, since in that case the motif of “testing” (‫ נסה‬piel) and the description of Yhwh as the people’s healer (‫ )אני ה׳ רפאך‬would lack a narrative context. Yet even 15:24-25a seem to be secondary to a more basic narrative thread that originally connected directly from 15:23a(b) to 15:27 and represents the simplest resolution to the lack of drinkable water: In Elim, the people find water in abundance.109 The evaluation of 15:24-25a, (25b-26) as secondary to an earlier connection between 15:23a(b) and 15:27 finds further support in the placement of the etiology in 15:23b: If 15:24-25a, (25b26) belonged to the Marah episode from the outset, one would expect to find the etiology at the end of 15:25a or 15:26, not in 15:23b.110 In sum, the most basic material in Exod 15:22-27 can be identified in 15:22aα, 22b-23a(b), 27.

























































106

COATS, “Wilderness Itinerary,” 149 attempts to resolve this problem by denying that Exod 15:22aβ is a departure notice at all. 107 The subject of the verbs in Exod 15:25b is unclear and could also be interpreted as Yhwh, who indeed speaks in the first person beginning in 15:26b. However, Yhwh is referred to in the third person in 15:26a, suggesting that Moses is the subject in 15:25b. 108 E.g., NOTH, Exodus, 101 (ET 127). 109 Cf. WALSH, “From Egypt,” 21; AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 154–58; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 351 n. 32. 110 Cf. AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 154.

96

Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18)

4.2. Macrocontextual analysis The itinerary notice in Exod 15:22a is of particular significance in reconstructing the earliest continuation of the exodus narrative. The reference to ‫ים‬ ‫ סוף‬in 15:22aα clearly presupposes the detour towards the Wilderness of the Sea of Reeds in 13:18, indicating that at least this phrase – and most likely 15:22aα as a whole – is (post-)priestly.111 By extension, 15:22aβ, which cannot stand without 15:22aα, must also be (post-)priestly.112 The likelihood that 15:22aβ does not belong to the most basic chain of itinerary notices in the book of Exodus is further suggested by the fact that the use of the verb ‫ יצא‬is exceptional for an itinerary notice as well as the fact that the explicit reference to the Wilderness of Shur does not seem to reflect the same hand as 13:20, which only refers to “the wilderness.” The reference to the people “going out” into the Wilderness of Shur is quite understandable as a postpriestly text, since it serves to bring the people back to the wilderness following the detour described in the priestly narrative of the miracle at the sea (14:2). In sum, provided that the phrase ‫ מים סוף‬is not a later gloss, then 15:22a as a whole must be regarded as (post-)priestly. 113 Thus, the continuation of a pre-priestly narrative thread following the itinerary notice in Exod 13:20 must be sought in 15:22b or thereafter. A direct connection between 13:20 and 15:22b is possible syntactically, and the fact that 15:22b-23, 27 show no signs of priestly provenance reinforces the possibility of such a connection. In contrast, there are several indications that 15:24-25a, (25b-26) belong to a post-priestly stage of composition.114 The miracle in 15:24-25a portrays Moses as a wonder worker with special access to divine power and thus resembles the (post-)priestly additions to the plague cycle (cf. 7:19-20; 9:22-23a). It also includes a reference to the people’s complaining using the verb ‫לון‬, a verb that appears elsewhere only in Exod 16:2, 8; 17:3; Num 14:27, 36; 16:2, 7-8; 17:3; and Josh 9:18, all of which can



























































111 It is unlikely that Exod 15:22aα ever existed without the reference to ‫( ים סוף‬against KRATZ, Komposition, 290 n. 82 [ET 282 n. 56] and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 351, who regard the phrase ‫ ים סוף‬as an insertion), since most other itinerary notices using the verb ‫ נסע‬state the point of departure preceded by ‫ ;מן‬cf. Exod 16:1; 17:1; 19:2; Num 10:12, 33; 11:35; 12:16; 20:22; 21:4, 11-13. The only other exceptions to this pattern are Num 14:25; 21:10; and 22:1, which present their own literary problems (on these verses, see Chapters 6 and 7). 112 Against BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 350, who argues that Exod 15:22aβ connects seamlessly to 13:20b. 113 Here I disagree with the widespread view that Exod 15:22a belongs to a pre-priestly narrative thread; see, e.g., WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 77–78; AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 153; KRATZ, Komposition, 153 (ET 147); and DOZEMAN, “Priestly Wilderness Itineraries,” 268. 114 Several commentators have argued for the post-priestly nature of Exod 15:25b-26 on other grounds (cf. AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 153; LEVIN, Jahwist, 350; and RÖMER, “Israel’s Sojourn,” 433), although many continue to assign 15:24-25a to a pre-priestly narrative.

97 be evaluated as (post-)priestly texts on other grounds.115 Since 15:25b-26 cannot stand without 15:24-25a, these verses must also be post-priestly. 4.3. Synthesis I

The most basic narrative thread in Exod 15:22-27 is limited to 15:22b23a(b), 27. This material shows no signs of priestly provenance and originally connected directly to the itinerary notice in 13:20.

II

Following the insertion of the priestly narrative of the miracle at the sea in Exod 14*, the itinerary notice in 15:22aα(β) was added in order to bring the people back from the Sea of Reeds to the wilderness setting in 15:22b-23a(b), 27. The report of the people’s complaint and the miraculous sweetening of the water by Moses in 15:24-25a also reflects priestly provenance and cannot be earlier than 15:22aα(β).

III Moses’ exhortation to the people in Exod 15:25b-26 is later than 15:2425a and must therefore be evaluated as (post-)priestly. III

II

I

[‫ ויסע משה את ישראל מים סוף ]ויצאו אל מדבר שור‬15:22a ‫ויבאו מרתה ולא יכלו לשתת מים ממרה כי מרים הם‬ ‫ויצעק אל ה׳ ויורהו ה׳ עץ וישלך אל המים וימתקו‬

23

25

‫ וילכו שלשת ימים במדבר ולא מצאו מים‬22b ‫על כן קרא שמה מרה‬

‫ וילנו העם על משה לאמר מה נשתה‬24 ‫המים‬

‫ ויאמר אם שמוע תשמע לקול ה׳ אלהיך והישר בעיניו‬26 ‫שם שם לו חק ומשפט ושם נסהו‬ ‫תעשה והאזנת למצותיו ושמרת כל חקיו כל המחלה אשר שמתי במצרים לא אשים עליך כי‬ ‫אני ה׳ רפאך‬ ‫ ויבאו אילמה ושם שתים עשרה עינת מים ושבעים תמרים ויחנו שם על המים‬27



























































115 Cf. JOHNSTONE, “From the Sea,” 250 (repr. 247) as well as the analyses of these passages in the present study (on Exod 16:2, 8, see §5.2; on Exod 17:3, see §6.2; on Num 14:27, 36, see Chapter 6, §4.2; on Num 16:2, 7-8 and 17:3, see Chapter 6, §5.2; on Josh 9:18, see Chapter 11, §1.2).

98

Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18)

5. Quails and Manna (Exod 16) 5.1. Literary-critical analysis There are a number of indications that Exod 16 has undergone compositional growth: (1) In Exod 16:1aαβ, the fact that the subject ‫ כל עדת בני ישראל‬comes after the second verb in the verse rather than the first verb is unusual syntactically, which suggests that this part of the verse is not a compositional unity. From an internal literary-critical perspective, three scenarios for the development of 16:1aαβ seem possible: (a) 16:1aα is later than 16:1aβ; (b) 16:1aβ is later than 16:1aα; or (c) ‫ כל עדת בני ישראל‬is a later addition within 16:1aβ, which otherwise belongs to the same level as 16:1aα. (2) In the received form of Exod 16, the statement in 16:11-12 that Yhwh has heard the complaints of the people is separated from the statement of the people’s complaint in 16:2-3 by a significant amount of intervening material, suggesting that 16:4-10 may be a later insertion between 16:3 and 16:11. This possibility is supported by several additional observations. First, the divine speech in 16:4-5 cannot belong to the same compositional level as that in 16:11-12, since in 16:4 Yhwh speaks of raining down bread from heaven while 16:14 reports that a layer of dew arose, presumably from the ground. Moreover, the statement of Moses and Aaron to the people in 16:6-7 (“In the evening you will know that Yhwh brought you out of the land of Egypt, and in the morning you will see the glory of Yhwh…”) cannot stand without 16:13, which narrates the arrival of the quails in the evening and the layer of dew in the morning. The same is true of Moses’ statement in 16:8, which presupposes that Yhwh will provide meat to the people in the evening. Finally, Moses’ instructions to Aaron to assemble the people for the appearance of Yhwh’s glory (‫ )כבוד‬in 16:9-10 seem to presuppose Moses’ statement in 16:7 that the people will see Yhwh’s glory but reinterpret that statement by dissociating it from Yhwh’s act of providing sustenance “in the morning.” Thus, 16:4-5, 6-7, 8, and 9-10 are all later additions that interrupt an earlier connection between 16:2-3 and 16:11-12. (3) The statement ‫ וילקטו אתו בבקר בבקר‬in Exod 16:21 does not connect smoothly to 16:20 but seems to have originally connected to 16:15, since 16:16-20 do not contain any suitable antecedents for the pronoun ‫ אתו‬in 16:21. This suggests that 16:16-20 are an insertion between 16:15 and 16:21. If this is indeed the case, then 16:22-30 must also be later than the most basic narrative thread, since these verses presuppose the Sabbath etiology in 16:1620 (as well as in 16:4-5). (4) Once Exod 16:16-20, 22-30 are identified as later additions to the most basic narrative thread in Exod 16, the possibility arises that 16:31 once connected directly to 16:21. Yet this raises another problem, namely, that both

5. Quails and Manna (Exod 16)

99

16:15 and 16:31 state that the Israelites called the dew “manna,” resulting in an unnecessary repetition. Considering that 16:13 – which almost certainly belongs to the most basic narrative thread – describes the manna as “dew,” the description of the manna as similar to coriander seed is somewhat surprising, suggesting that 16:31 is not the original report about the naming of the manna. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that 16:31 fits well with the instructions in 16:32-34 to set aside some of the manna as a “remembrance.” The description of this “remembrance” as being “before Yhwh” suggests that the manna is understood as an offering to the deity, whereby the description of the manna as “like white coriander seed, and its taste was like a honeyed cake” is quite fitting. Thus, 16:31-34 cannot belong to the most basic quails-and-manna narrative.116 (5) Given that both Exod 16:16-20, 22-30 and 16:31-34 are later additions, then 16:35 may have once connected directly to 16:21 or to 16:15. A direct connection between 16:35 and 16:21 is unlikely from a syntactic point of view, since in that case there would be no need to state the subject ‫בני ישראל‬ explicitly in 16:35. In contrast, a direct connection to 16:15 is quite possible, since Moses is the subject in 16:15b, and the report of the Israelites’ eating manna during the wilderness period in 16:35 fits well with 16:15 lexically (‫ )אכ״ל‬and thematically (Yhwh’s provision of food in a desert region). Within 16:35 itself, 16:35b is redundant in light of 16:35a and is also more specific, as it creates not simply a general contrast between uninhabitable and inhabited land but rather a specific contrast between the wilderness and the land of Canaan. Thus, 16:35b can be evaluated as a later addition to 16:35a. 117 (6) The notice about the volume of an omer in Exod 16:36 cannot have been written prior to 16:16-30 and thus cannot belong to the most basic narrative thread. In light of the foregoing observations, the most basic narrative thread in Exod 16 seems to have consisted of 16:1*, 2-3, 11-15, 35a.118 This narrative recounts the people’s complaint about the lack of food and Yhwh’s response by providing meat (quails) and so-called “bread” (manna), the latter of which continued to be provided throughout the wilderness period. 5.2. Macrocontextual analysis There are several indications that the most basic quails-and-manna narrative in Exod 16:1*, 2-3, 11-15, 35a cannot be pre-priestly. First, the figure of Aaron is integral to 16:2-3. Moreover, the phrase ‫ בין הערבים‬in 16:12 is found

























































116

Cf. RUPRECHT, “Stellung,” 274. Cf. ibid., 278–79. 118 For a similar reconstruction, see ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 232, who identifies the most basic narrative thread in Exod 16:3a, 11-15. 117

100

Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18)

elsewhere only in priestly texts.119 Given that the most basic narrative cannot be pre-priestly, none of the other material in the quails-and-manna narrative can be pre-priestly either.120 The (post-)priestly nature of the later additions in 16:4-5, 16-20, 22-30 is confirmed by their concern with the prohibition from gathering manna on the Sabbath.121 Finally, 16:35a presupposes the Israelites’ forty-year sojourn in the wilderness, which itself is a priestly concept at the earliest.122 Although some commentators have recently proposed the existence of a pre-priestly narrative thread in Exod 16:1*, (4a), 13b-15*, 21, 31,123 several arguments can be made against such a hypothesis. (1) Without 16:2-3, Yhwh’s announcement that he will “cause bread to rain down from heaven” in 16:4a is completely unmotivated.124 (2) The only other text in the book of Exodus in which Yhwh announces that he will cause something to “rain down” (‫ מטר‬hiphil) upon the earth is Exod 9:18, part of the post-priestly plague of hail.125 (3) There are no strong arguments for regarding 16:13 as a

























































119

Cf. Exod 12:6; 29:39, 41; 30:8; Lev 23:5; Num 9:3, 5, 11; 28:4, 8. Cf. GRAF, Die geschichtlichen Bücher, 94; NÖLDEKE, Untersuchungen, 48; COLENSO, Pentateuch, 6:144–45; KUENEN, “Bijdragen VII”; RUPRECHT, “Stellung,” 271–91; L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 36–45; IDEM, “Priesterschrift,” 483–98; ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 256–78; and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 353. See also BERNER, “Sabbat,” 563–71, who characterizes the most basic narrative thread in Exod 16 as non-priestly but also post-priestly. A number of other scholars, however, have argued that the chapter preserves traces of a prepriestly narrative thread; cf. A. KAISER, Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte, 50–54; WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 78, 325–29; NOTH, Exodus, 104–5 (ET 131–33); CHILDS, Exodus, 275; LEVIN, Jahwist, 352–55; VAN SETERS, Life, 181–91; KRATZ, Komposition, 246–47 (ET 244); WAGENAAR, “Cessation of Manna,” 196; FRANKEL, Murmuring Stories, 73–81; RÖMER, “Israel’s Sojourn,” 419–45; BADEN, “Original Place,” 492; and DOZEMAN, Exodus, 378–87; IDEM, “Priestly Wilderness Itineraries,” 271. 121 Against NOTH, Exodus, 105 (ET 132), who claims that Exod 16:28-30 “lack the linguistic and stylistic characteristics of P which otherwise appear throughout.” 122 On this, see Chapter 6, §4 and Chapter 7. 123 See esp. LEVIN, Jahwist, 352–55, who assigns Exod 16:1a*, 13b-14bα, 15a, 21, 31 to a “pre-Yahwistic source” that was incorporated by a “Yahwistic redaction” in 16:4a, 15b; KRATZ, Komposition, 246–47 (ET 244), who identifies a pre-priestly core in 16:(4a), 13b15, 21, 31; and RÖMER, “Israel’s Sojourn,” 431, who attributes 16:1*, 4a, 13b-14bα, 15, 21, 31 to a non-priestly “manna etiology.” See also the slightly more expansive reconstructions of CHILDS, Exodus, 275 and DOZEMAN, Exodus, 378–87; IDEM, “Priestly Wilderness Itineraries,” 271, both of whom assign 16:4-5, 13b-15, 21b, 27-31, 35a to a pre-priestly narrative thread. 124 Cf. L. SCHMIDT, “Priesterschrift,” 484. This led classical source critics to assume that a pre-priestly report of the people’s complaint has been suppressed by the priestly version in Exod 16:2-3; see, e.g., NOTH, Exodus, 106 (ET 133). 125 The verb ‫ מטר‬hiphil also appears in Gen 7:4, although whether this verse is pre- or post-priestly is a matter of debate. For a post-priestly dating, see SKA, “El relato,” 56–57 and KRATZ, Komposition, 259–62 (ET 256–58), although this remains a minority view. 120

5. Quails and Manna (Exod 16)

101

composite text, suggesting that this verse has its original place in a basic priestly narrative of the people’s complaint about food and Yhwh’s provision of quails and manna in 16:1aβγb-3, 11-15.126 (4) The notice in 16:21 that the people collected the manna each morning “according to what they could eat” (‫ )וילקטו אתו בבקר בבקר איש כפי אכלו‬is extraneous as part of a hypothetical, pre-priestly “manna etiology” and makes much more sense as a counterpart to the statement in 16:22 that on the sixth day the people collected a double portion. (5) Finally, the notion that Exod 16 preserves a pre-priestly manna narrative does not fit well with the priestly report of the people’s arrival in the Wilderness of Sin,127 which created an additional station within an existing itinerary chain.128 Thus, if a pre-priestly quails-and-manna episode were to exist, it would need to be attached to one of the Israelites’ earlier stops, most likely Elim, which would generate further literary problems.129



























































126 Here I fundamentally agree with the analysis of L. SCHMIDT, “Priesterschrift,” 487, although I disagree with his conclusion that Exod 16:9-10 also belong to the most basic narrative, since Moses’ statement in 16:9b that “Yhwh has heard your murmurings” is clearly a Vorwegnahme of 16:11, and the subject matter in 16:9-10 is tangential to the basic narrative. 127 The priestly nature of the reference to the Wilderness of Sin forms a broad consensus of scholarship; cf. CROSS, “Priestly Work,” 310–11; SMITH, Pilgrimage Pattern, 227; JOHNSTONE, “From the Sea,” 253 (repr. 250–51); KRATZ, Komposition, 153 (ET 147); DOZEMAN, “Priestly Wilderness Itineraries,” 267. This identification is further supported by the departure notice in Exod 17:1a, which contains several indications of priestly composition, including the reference to the “congregation” as well as the phrases ‫ למסעיהם‬and ‫על פי ה׳‬, which also appear in the priestly itinerary report in Num 12:11-13 (cf. DOZEMAN, “Priestly Wilderness Itineraries,” 268). 128 The secondary nature of the stop in the Wilderness of Sin is suggested by the statement in Exod 16:1aβ that the Wilderness of Sin is “between Elim and Sinai.” Significantly, this detail uses the same pattern as the priestly relocation of the miracle at the sea in 14:2. 129 This tension is addressed in various ways by commentators who posit the existence of a pre-priestly manna narrative. E.g., KRATZ, Komposition, 246–47 (ET 244) suggests that a pre-priestly manna episode has been inserted “on the way from Elim into the wilderness,” yet in my view a direct transition from Exod 16:1aα to 16:4a or 16:13b is difficult to imagine. In contrast, DOZEMAN, “Priestly Wilderness Itineraries,” 270–71 situates a nonpriestly version of the story of manna and quails at Elim itself. This seems unlikely, however, since Elim is described as a place of twelve springs and seventy date palms (15:27) and is thus hardly fitting as the setting for an additional story about the provision of food. Dozeman attempts to address this problem by arguing that “the plot of the Non-P version of manna requires such a lush setting,” since in this version “manna is a test of the Israelite people to recognize divine food in the midst of the abundance of Elim (Exod 15:27) rather than taking it for granted” (ibid., 272–73). Yet as RÖMER, “Israel’s Sojourn,” 432 has noted, the motif of Yhwh testing the people in Exod 16:4bβ “is probably a late attempt to harmonise this story with the deuteronomistic conception of the manna” (cf. Deut 8:3, 16) and is thus a weak basis for Dozeman’s theory.

102

Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18)

5.3. Synthesis Ι

The only possibly pre-priestly material in Exod 16 is the notice of the people’s departure from Elim in 16:1aα, which does not belong to the same compositional level as 16:1aβγ and its continuation in 16:2-3, 1115, 35a.

II

Τhe most basic quails-and-manna narrative in Exod 16:1aβγ, 2-3, 1115, 35a reflects priestly provenance130 and may have drawn on the shorter report about the bitter waters at Marah (15:23a) as a model. 131

II+

The gloss-like additions in Exod 16:1b and 16:35b cannot be earlier than the most basic priestly narrative thread, although it is difficult to determine their compositional place more precisely.

ΙΙI

The connection with the Sabbath in Exod 16:4-10, 16-30 likely postdates the composition of the most basic priestly quails-and-manna narrative.132

III+ The reference to the size of an omer in Exod 16:36 cannot be earlier than the Sabbath layer in 16:4-10, 16-30. ΙV

The prescriptions for the cultic memorialization of the manna in Exod 16:31-34 likely constitute the latest additions to the chapter. IV

III

II

‫ויסעו מאילם‬

I 16:1

‫ויבאו כל עדת בני ישראל אל מדבר סין אשר בין אילם ובין סיני ]בחמשה עשר יום לחדש השני‬ ‫ ויאמרו אלהם בני‬3 ‫ וילינו כל עדת בני ישראל על משה ועל אהרן במדבר‬2 [‫לצאתם מארץ מצרים‬ ‫ישראל מי יתן מותנו ביד ה׳ בארץ מצרים בשבתנו על סיר הבשר באכלנו לחם לשבע כי הוצאתם‬ ‫אתנו אל המדבר הזה להמית את כל הקהל הזה ברעב‬ ‫ ויאמר ה׳ אל משה הנני ממטיר לכם לחם מן השמים ויצא העם ולקטו דבר יום ביומו למען‬4 ‫ והיה ביום הששי והכינו את אשר יביאו והיה משנה על אשר‬5 ‫אנסנו הילך בתורתי אם לא‬ ‫ ויאמר משה ]ואהרן[ אל כל בני ישראל ערב וידעתם כי ה׳ הוציא אתכם‬6 ‫ילקטו יום יום‬ ‫ ובקר וראיתם את כבוד ה׳ בשמעו את תלנתיכם על ה׳ ונחנו מה כי תלונו‬7 ‫מארץ מצרים‬ ‫ ויאמר משה בתת ה׳ לכם בערב בשר לאכל ולחם בבקר לשבע בשמע ה׳ את‬8 ‫עלינו‬ ‫ ויאמר משה אל‬9 ‫תלנתיכם אשר אתם מלינם עליו ונחנו מה לא עלינו תלנתיכם כי על ה׳‬



























































130 For the conclusion that Exod 16 does not preserve a pre-priestly quails-and-manna narrative, see also RUPRECHT, “Stellung,” 302; L. SCHMIDT, “Priesterschrift,” 497–98; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 256–65. 131 Cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 247 (ET 244), although he considers that this may have occurred at a pre-priestly stage of composition. 132 In contrast, L. SCHMIDT, “Priesterschrift,” 497 and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18 assign the Sabbath etiology to the most basic priestly narrative.

‫‪103‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫)‪6. Water from a Rock (Exod 17:1bβ-7‬‬ ‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫אהרן אמר אל כל עדת בני ישראל קרבו לפני ה׳ כי שמע את תלנתיכם‬ ‫אל כל עדת בני ישראל ויפנו אל המדבר והנה כבוד ה׳ נראה בענן‬

‫‪10‬‬

‫ויהי כדבר אהרן‬

‫‪ 11‬וידבר ה׳ אל משה לאמר ‪ 12‬שמעתי את תלונת בני ישראל דבר אלהם לאמר בין הערבים‬ ‫תאכלו בשר ובבקר תשבעו לחם וידעתם כי אני ה׳ אלהיכם ‪ 13‬ויהי בערב ותעל השלו ותכס את‬ ‫המחנה ובבקר היתה שכבת הטל סביב למחנה ‪ 14‬ותעל שכבת הטל והנה על פני המדבר דק‬ ‫מחספס דק ככפר על הארץ ‪ 15‬ויראו בני ישראל ויאמרו איש אל אחיו מן הוא כי לא ידעו מה‬ ‫הוא ויאמר משה אלהם הוא הלחם אשר נתן ה׳ לכם לאכלה‬ ‫‪ 16‬זה הדבר אשר צוה ה׳ לקטו ממנו איש לפי אכלו עמר לגלגלת מספר נפשתיכם איש‬ ‫לאשר באהלו תקחו ‪ 17‬ויעשו כן בני ישראל וילקטו המרבה והממעיט ‪ 18‬וימדו בעמר ולא‬ ‫העדיף המרבה והממעיט לא החסיר איש לפי אכלו לקטו ‪ 19‬ויאמר משה אלהם איש אל‬ ‫יותר ממנו עד בקר ‪ 20‬ולא שמעו אל משה ויותרו אנשים ממנו עד בקר וירם תולעים ויבאש‬ ‫ויקצף עלהם משה ‪ 21‬וילקטו אתו בבקר בבקר איש כפי אכלו וחם השמש ונמס ‪ 22‬ויהי ביום‬ ‫הששי לקטו לחם משנה שני העמר לאחד ויבאו כל נשיאי העדה ויגידו למשה ‪ 23‬ויאמר‬ ‫אלהם הוא אשר דבר ה׳ שבתון שבת קדש לה׳ מחר את אשר תאפו אפו ואת אשר תבשלו‬ ‫בשלו ואת כל העדף הניחו לכם למשמרת עד הבקר ‪ 24‬ויניחו אתו עד הבקר כאשר צוה‬ ‫משה ולא הבאיש ורמה לא היתה בו ‪ 25‬ויאמר משה אכלהו היום כי שבת היום לה׳ היום לא‬ ‫תמצאהו בשדה ‪ 26‬ששת ימים תלקטהו וביום השביעי שבת לא יהיה בו ‪ 27‬ויהי ביום השביעי‬ ‫יצאו מן העם ללקט ולא מצאו ‪ 28‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה עד אנה מאנתם לשמר מצותי ותורתי‬ ‫‪ 29‬ראו כי ה׳ נתן לכם השבת על כן הוא נתן לכם ביום הששי לחם יומים שבו איש תחתיו‬ ‫אל יצא איש ממקמו ביום השביעי ‪ 30‬וישבתו העם ביום השבעי‬ ‫‪ 31‬ויקראו בית ישראל את שמו מן והוא כזרע גד לבן וטעמו כצפיחת בדבש ‪ 32‬ויאמר‬ ‫משה זה הדבר אשר צוה ה׳ מלא העמר ממנו למשמרת לדרתיכם למען יראו את‬ ‫הלחם אשר האכלתי אתכם במדבר בהוציאי אתכם מארץ מצרים ‪ 33‬ויאמר משה אל‬ ‫אהרן קח צנצנת אחת ותן שמה מלא העמר מן והנח אתו לפני ה׳ למשמרת לדרתיכם‬ ‫‪ 34‬כאשר צוה ה׳ אל משה ויניחהו אהרן לפני העדת למשמרת‬ ‫‪ 35‬ובני ישראל אכלו את המן ארבעים שנה עד באם אל ארץ נושבת ]את המן אכלו עד באם אל‬ ‫קצה ארץ כנען[‬ ‫]‪ 36‬והעמר עשרית האיפה הוא[‬

‫)‪6. Water from a Rock (Exod 17:1bβ-7‬‬ ‫‪6.1. Literary-critical analysis‬‬ ‫‪Both Exod 17:2 and 17:3 contain statements of complaint against Moses,‬‬ ‫‪albeit in slightly different language: While 17:2 states that “the people quar‬‬‫‪), 17:3 states that “the people murmured‬וירב העם עם משה( ”‪reled with Moses‬‬ ‫‪). Traditionally, 17:2 has been regarded as‬וילן העם על משה( ”‪against Moses‬‬ ‫‪more fundamental to the narrative than 17:3,133 although 17:2 seems to inter‬‬‫‪ in‬שם ‪rupt an earlier connection between 17:1 and 17:3, since the pronoun‬‬

‫























































‬ ‫‪Cf. NOTH, Exodus, 110–11 (ET 138–39) and FRITZ, Israel, 11.‬‬

‫‪133‬‬

104

Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18)

17:3 must have Rephidim in 17:1 as its antecedent.134 The likelihood that 17:3 belongs to the most basic narrative thread is further supported by the fact that the people’s “quarreling” with Moses in 17:2a already finds a (partial) response in 17:2b, while 17:3 only finds a response in 17:4. If Exod 17:2 does not belong to the most basic narrative, then 17:7 must also be removed, since the names Massah and Meribah form a play on the verbs ‫ ריב‬qal and ‫ נסה‬piel in 17:2.135 This reconstruction is supported by the fact that the people’s testing Yhwh and questioning whether he is in their midst (17:7b) is not mentioned anywhere else in the episode. Within Exod 17:5-6, the reference to Moses’ staff cannot be removed from the most basic narrative, since Yhwh’s command to Moses to strike the rock in 17:6 hardly makes sense without the prior reference to Moses’ staff.136 Nevertheless, it is possible that the reference back to the pollution of the Nile in 17:5bα* is a later addition, since this ‫ אשר‬clause separates the direct object ‫ מטך‬from the imperative verb ‫קח‬.137 It is also possible that the phrase ‫ בחרב‬in 17:6 is a later addition, as it is not essential to the flow of the narrative.138 In sum, the most basic material in Exod 17:1bβ-7 consists of 17:1bβ, 3-4, 5aα, 5b* (perhaps without ‫)אשר הכית בו את היאר‬, 6abα* (without ‫)בחרב‬.139 6.2. Macrocontextual analysis There are several indications that the most basic material in Exod 17:1bβ-7 cannot be pre-priestly.140 (1) Moses’ insinuation in 17:4 that this is not the first time that the people have complained against him (‫ )עוד מעט וסקלני‬indi-



























































134 Cf. FRITZ, Israel, 11, although he ultimately takes a source-critical approach. See also ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 284 and BERNER, “Wasserwunder,” 200–201, who argues for an earlier connection between Exod 17:1bα and 17:3aβb. 135 Cf. LEHMING, “Massa und Meriba,” 71; RUPRECHT, “Stellung,” 302–4; SCHART, Mose, 167–69. 136 Against BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 121, but see now IDEM, “Wasserwunder,” 198, where Berner no longer regards the reference to Moses’ staff as a later addition. 137 Cf. ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 283. In contrast, BERNER, “Wasserwunder,” 200 regards Exod 17:5 as a compositional unity. 138 On the secondary nature of this phrase, see NOTH, Exodus, 112 (ET 140) and FRITZ, Israel, 49. For a different view, see BERNER, “Wasserwunder,” 199. 139 Cf. RÖMER, “Israel’s Sojourn,” 433, who identifies the most basic narrative thread in Exod 17:1, 3aα, 5-6* but is unclear as to whether this basic story is pre-priestly. 140 FRITZ, Israel, 11 began to approach this conclusion in his evaluation of Exod 17:3 as a P text, although his presupposition that the basic narrative was pre-priestly led him to identify this verse as an insertion and not as an essential part of the narrative. For a more recent evaluation of 17:1bβ-7 as (post-)priestly from the outset, see BERNER, “Wasserwunder,” 195–201 and JEON, Call, 182–86.

6. Water from a Rock (Exod 17:1bβ-7)

105

cates that this unit presupposes the people’s murmuring in 15:24-25a,141 which is likely a post-priestly addition to the stopover at Marah.142 (2) Even without the explicit reference to the pollution of the Nile in 17:5aα*, the central place of Moses’ staff and Moses’ general role as a wonder worker links back to the post-priestly reworking of the plagues cycle.143 (3) The use of the construction ‫ הנני‬+ participle in 17:6 occurs exclusively in priestly and post-priestly narratives up to this point in the book of Exodus (cf. Exod 8:21; 9:18; 10:4; 14:17; 16:4). The foregoing analysis also helps to elucidate the literary relationship between Exod 17:1bβ-7 and its (priestly) counterpart in Num 20:2-13, which mentions only Meribah and not Massah. Rather than assuming that the reference to Massah in the ostensibly pre-priestly episode in Exod 17:1bβ-7 was “suppressed” in the priestly version in Num 20:2-13,144 a more likely explanation is that Num 20:2-13 drew on Exod 17:1bβ-7 prior to the addition of 17:2 and 17:7 and that the latter verses presuppose the Meribah etiology in Num 20:13.145 6.3. Synthesis I

The most basic narrative thread in Exod 17:1-7 is to be found in 17:1, 3-4, 5aα, 5b* (perhaps without ‫)אשר הכית בו את היאר‬, 6abα* (without ‫ )בחרב‬and presupposes the integration of priestly literature into the book of Exodus.

I+

The clause ‫ אשר הכית בו את היאר‬in Exod 17:5b and the phrase ‫ בחרב‬in 17:6a may be later additions to this narrative.



























































141 In contrast, BERNER, “Wasserwunder,” 207–8 argues that the people’s murmuring at Marah in Exod 15:23-25a “noch keinen erkennbaren Einfluss auf den Grundbestand der Rephidim-Erzählung in 17,1-6* hatte” and is a later text that presupposes 17:1-6* and was composed by the same author who added 17:2, 7. 142 See §4. 143 The connection to the plagues cycle has long been noted, although many earlier commentators regarded at least some of the passages involving Moses’ staff as prepriestly; cf. NOTH, Exodus, 111 (ET 139); FRITZ, Israel, 48; and VAN SETERS, Life, 194. See also ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 283, who notes that “Der Stab des Mose ist in Ex 17,5-6 – anders als in den Texten zuvor – fest verankert.” Although Albertz clearly implies by this that the motif of Moses’ staff has its original place in Exod 17:1-7*, his observation cuts both ways, since the fact that Moses’ staff is “firmly anchored” in Exod 17:1-7* could also suggest that this narrative had the post-priestly version of the plagues cycle as a Vorlage. 144 FRITZ, Israel, 52–53. 145 In contrast, OSWALD, Staatstheorie, 225 argues that Exod 17:1-7* as a whole postdate the Meribah episode in Num 20:2-13. Yet if Exod 17:1-7 are indeed dependent on Num 20:2-13, one would expect Exod 17:2, 7 to belong to the most basic material in the unit, although this is not the case.

106 II

Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18)

This narrative was further expanded in Exod 17:2 and 17:7 with the etiology for Massah and Meribah using a wordplay with the roots ‫נס״ה‬ and ‫רי״ב‬. II ‫ויסעו כל עדת בני ישראל ממדבר סין למסעיהם על פי ה׳ ויחנו ברפידים ואין מים לשתת העם‬

I 17:1

‫ וירב העם עם משה ויאמרו תנו לנו מים ונשתה ויאמר להם משה מה תריבון עמדי מה תנסון‬2 ‫את ה׳‬ ‫ ויצמא שם העם למים וילן העם על משה ויאמר למה זה העליתנו ממצרים להמית אתי ואת בני ואת‬3 ‫ ויאמר ה׳ אל משה עבר‬5 ‫ ויצעק משה אל ה׳ לאמר מה אעשה לעם הזה עוד מעט וסקלני‬4 ‫מקני בצמא‬ ‫ הנני עמד לפניך‬6 ‫לפני העם וקח אתך מזקני ישראל ומטך ]אשר הכית בו את היאר[ קח בידך והלכת‬ ‫שם על הצור ]בחרב[ והכית בצור ויצאו ממנו מים ושתה העם ויעש כן משה לעיני זקני ישראל‬ ‫ ויקרא שם המקום מסה ומריבה על ריב בני ישראל ועל נסתם את ה׳ לאמר היש ה׳ בקרבנו אם‬7 ‫אין‬

7. The War with Amalek (Exod 17:8-16) 7.1. Literary-critical analysis Within this episode, Exod 17:8-13 are largely a compositional unity (apart from the reference to “the staff of God” in 17:9bβ146), while the materials in 17:14-16 are not essential to the narrative.147 Within the latter verses, the report in 17:15 that Moses built an altar comes unexpectedly after Yhwh’s instructions to write down the event in a book, which suggests that 17:14 and 17:15-16 do not belong to the same compositional level. 7.2. Macrocontextual analysis Regarding the relationship of Exod 17:8-16 to priestly literature, two observations are of particular significance. (1) The figures of Aaron and Hur cannot be removed from 17:8-13 without disrupting the basic coherence of the narrative, since the decisive act in Joshua’s victory is Moses’ ability to keep his hands raised with the help of Aaron and Hur.148 Prior to this point in the narrative, Aaron has appeared only in priestly and post-priestly texts, while



























































146 Cf. NOTH, Exodus, 113 (ET 142); CHILDS, Exodus, 313; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 121, 447; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 283. 147 For the view that Exod 17:14-16 are a later addition (or additions), see NOTH, Exodus, 114–15 (ET 143–44); COATS, “Moses versus Amalek,” 30; and VALENTIN, Aaron, 146. 148 This is a shortcoming the reconstruction of a JE narrative in Exod 17:8*, 9-10a, 11, 13* offered by ZENGER, Israel, 76–77.

7. The War with Amalek (Exod 17:8-16)

107

Hur’s priestly connections are suggested by the fact that he appears elsewhere as the grandfather of Bezalel, who plays a key role in the construction of the tabernacle (Exod 31:2; 35:30; 38:22).149 (2) The episode depicts Moses as a wonder worker and thus closely resembles the (post-)priestly plague episodes, the additions to the episode at Marah, and the rock-water episode in 17:1-7*. While attempts to identify a pre-priestly narrative core in this unit either downplay the unit’s connections to priestly and post-priestly literature150 or identify such connections but reconstruct an implausible base narrative,151 a simpler solution is to evaluate the most basic material in the unit as post-priestly from the outset.152 In the preceding analysis of Exod 17:1bβ-7, the question of whether the arrival notice in Rephidim in 17:1bα is pre-priestly or (post-)priestly was left open and must be taken up here. If the arrival notice in 17:1bα is pre-priestly, then it must have originally connected directly to the notice of the people’s departure from Elim in 16:1aα, since the earliest version of the quails-andmanna episode in Exod 16 is already priestly. Moreover, since neither 17:1bβ-7 nor 17:8-16 contain any pre-priestly material, then a pre-priestly notice of the people’s arrival in Rephidim in 17:1bα would have been followed directly by the notice of the people’s departure from Rephidim in 19:2*. Thus, if the report of the people’s encampment at Rephidim belonged to a pre-priestly narrative, it would have served simply to fill in a geographical gap between Elim and Sinai, with nothing of note taking place there.153 Although the existence of such a pre-priestly itinerary notice in 17:1bα is conceivable, it still faces one major problem: If the people’s stop in Rephidim was part of a pre-priestly narrative thread, why does the priestly notice of the people’s arrival in the Wilderness of Sin in 16:1aβ specify that the latter was located between Elim and Sinai rather than between Elim and Rephidim? In other words, 16:1aβ seems to presuppose that the people’s sojourn in the Wilderness of Sin was followed directly by their arrival in the Wilderness of Sinai, which suggests that the (priestly) notice of the people’s departure from the Wilderness of Sin in 17:1a* once connected directly to the notice of their arrival in the Wilderness of Sinai in 19:2a*. If this is indeed the case, then the notice of the people’s arrival in Rephidim in 17:1bα – as well as the notice of their departure from Rephidim in 19:2aα1 – cannot be pre-priestly.154

























































149

Cf. NOORT, “Josua und Amalek,” 169–70. Cf. BLUM, Studien, 152–53; R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige Krieg,” 84; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 292. 151 Cf. ZENGER, Israel, 76–77. 152 Cf. NOORT, “Josua und Amalek,” 170 and KRATZ, Komposition, 246–47 (ET 244). 153 This is the view of BERNER, “Wasserwunder,” 209. 154 Exod 17:1bα has long been evaluated as priestly on form-critical grounds; see, e.g., NOTH, Exodus, 110–11 (ET 138) and KRATZ, Komposition, 246–47 (ET 244). 150

108

Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18)

7.3. Synthesis I

The most basic narrative in Exod 17:8-16 consists of 17:8-13* (without the reference to “the staff of God” in 17:9bβ) and must be evaluated as post-priestly from the outset.

I+ The reference to “the staff of God” in Exod 17:9bβ is a later gloss-like addition. II

This narrative was later expanded in Exod 17:14-16. II

I

‫ ויאמר משה אל יהושע בחר לנו אנשים וצא הלחם בעמלק‬9 ‫ ויבא עמלק וילחם עם ישראל ברפידם‬17:8 ‫ ויעש יהושע כאשר אמר לו משה להלחם‬10 [‫מחר אנכי נצב על ראש הגבעה ]ומטה האלהים בידי‬ ‫ והיה כאשר ירים משה ידו וגבר ישראל וכאשר יניח ידו‬11 ‫בעמלק ומשה אהרן וחור עלו ראש הגבעה‬ ‫ וידי משה כבדים ויקחו אבן וישימו תחתיו וישב עליה ואהרן וחור תמכו בידיו מזה אחד‬12 ‫וגבר עמלק‬ ‫ ויחלש יהושע את עמלק ואת עמו לפי חרב‬13 ‫ומזה אחד ויהי ידיו אמונה עד בא השמש‬ ‫ ויאמר ה׳ אל משה כתב זאת זכרון בספר ושים באזני יהושע כי מחה אמחה את זכר עמלק‬14 ‫ ויאמר כי יד על כס יה מלחמה לה׳‬16 ‫ ויבן משה מזבח ויקרא שמו ה׳ נסי‬15 ‫מתחת השמים‬ ‫בעמלק מדר דר‬

8. Jethro (Exod 18) 8.1. Literary-critical analysis Although many commentators have argued for (or assumed) the basic unity of Exod 18,155 there are several indications that this chapter is not the product of a single hand. The most significant indication is the fact that the subject matter in 18:13-26 has little to do with that of 18:1-12 and, in 18:13-26, Jethro is no longer mentioned by name but simply as Moses’ father-in-law. These observations suggest that the two episodes were not written at the same time. Since 18:13-26 presuppose the appearance of Moses’ father-in-law in 18:112, these verses must be secondary to 18:1-12, 27. 156 Within Exod 18:1-12, there are indications that these verses are themselves composite. (1) The ‫ כי‬clause in 18:1b does not follow smoothly upon



























































155 WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 80; RUDOLPH, Elohist, 37–38; CHILDS, Exodus, 321; KNIERIM, “Exodus 18,” 154; VAN SETERS, Life, 209; E. CARPENTER, “Exodus 18,” 92; PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 627; BADEN, J, E, 189; DOZEMAN, Exodus, 360; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1– 18, 299. 156 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 361; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 406; and RÖMER, “Provisorische Überlegungen,” 146. This possibility is also intimated by HAARMANN, JHWH-Verehrer, 72.

8. Jethro (Exod 18)

109

18:1aβ.157 Since both clauses connect smoothly to 18:1aα, their relative compositional place cannot be determined on the basis of 18:1 alone. However, in light of the fact that Moses tells Jethro “everything that Yhwh did to Pharaoh and Egypt on behalf of Israel” in 18:8a, it is likely that 18:1aβ is a later addition that anticipates 18:8a. (2) Considering that Moses’ wife and children appear only in 18:2-4, 5* and do not play a role in the remainder of the chapter, it is possible that these verses are later additions to the most basic narrative in Exod 18.158 (3) The phrase ‫ הר האלהים‬in 18:5b does not fit well syntactically with the preceding statement that Jethro came to the wilderness where Moses was encamped and may be a later addition.159 (4) The fact that Jethro speaks to Moses in 18:6 before Moses goes out to meet him in 18:7 presents a narrative tension,160 not to mention the fact that, according to 𝔐, Jethro introduces himself as if Moses did not know him. Yet 18:6 cannot be removed as a later addition, since it would then be unclear how Moses knows that his father-in-law is coming in the first place. This problem is resolved, however, if one reads ‫ ויאמר‬in 18:6 as a niphal rather than a qal verb and reads ‫ הנה‬with 𝔊, ⅏, and 𝔖 rather than ‫אני‬, indicating that someone else announced Jethro’s arrival to Moses.161 (5) Moses’ statement to Jethro in 18:8b about “all the hardship” (‫ )כל התלאה‬that the people encountered does not connect smoothly to 18:8a and also has no counterpart in Jethro’s confes-

























































157

Cf. FREVEL, “Jetzt,” 7–9, who argues that Exod 18:1b is later than 18:1a, and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 413, who argues that 18:1aβ is an insertion between 18:1aα and 18:1b. 158 Cf. RÖMER, “Provisorische Überlegungen,” 147. 159 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 360. See also BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 407–8, who considers the possibility that the phrase ‫ הר האלהים‬does not belong to the “Minimalbestand des Verses” (407) but nevertheless concludes that “Das Lager in der Wüste ist das Lager am Fuße des Sinai, das die Israeliten dort in 19,2 aufschlagen” (408). It is rather surprising that few scholars consider the possibility that ‫ הר האלהים‬is secondary, since it resolves in a single stroke the oft-noted problem that Exod 18:5b places the scene at the mountain of God despite the fact that the chapter never reports that the people have left Rephidim and that the departure from Rephidim is only first reported in 19:2aα1. The setting at the mountain of God has led to far-reaching compositional reconstructions, including the theory (based also on comparison of the chapter as a whole with Deut 1:9-18) that the chapter has been moved from its original place after the revelation at Sinai (BAENTSCH, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, 163; VAN SETERS, “Etiology,” 355; IDEM, Life, 208–19; JOHNSTONE, “From the Mountain,” 266; and SCHWARTZ, “Visit of Jethro,” 29–48) as well as the theory that the references to Rephidim were inserted later in order to secondarily dissociate Exod 17–18 from an original setting at the mountain of God (SMITH, Pilgrimage Pattern, 189, 230, 234; ALBERTZ, History, 1:53; and ROSKOP, Wilderness Itineraries, 182–83). 160 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 360. 161 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 408–9.

110

Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18)

sion in 18:10-11, suggesting that it is a later addition.162 Likewise, Jethro’s rejoicing over “all the good things that Yhwh has done for Israel” in 18:9a has no counterpart in his confession in 18:10-11 and may be secondary (along with 18:9b, which cannot stand alone without 18:9a).163 (6) The repetition of two very similar relative clauses within Jethro’s praise to Yhwh in 18:10aβ and 18:10b suggests that one of these does not belong to the most basic composition. Considering that the dyad “Pharaoh and Egypt” occurs in 18:8a, which belongs to the most basic material in the chapter, it seems most likely that 18:10aβ, which also contains this dyad, is more original than 18:10b.164 (7) ‫ כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם‬in 18:11b is a fragmentary clause and is likely a later addition that took up the ‫ כי‬from 18:11aβ.165 (8) There are several indications that Jethro’s sacrifice in 18:12 may be secondary to the most basic narrative in 18:1-12. First, the description of Jethro as ‫ יתרו חתן משה‬seems unnecessary and strikes one as the beginning of a new topic, not the conclusion to Jethro’s confession.166 Moreover, here Jethro makes an offering to Elohim, despite the fact that Jethro refers to Yhwh in his confession in the preceding verse.167 Finally, Jethro’s act of sharing a cultic meal with Aaron and the elders of Israel implies a setting at the mountain of God (cf. Exod 24:9-10), although it is possible that this setting was applied to the scene only secondarily.168 In light of the foregoing observations, the most basic narrative material in Exod 18 likely consisted of 18:1aα, 1b, 5* (without ‫)הר האלהים‬, 6a* (with ‫ הנה‬instead of ‫)אני‬, 7, 8a, 10a, 11a, 27.169 8.2. Macrocontextual analysis The most basic narrative thread in Exod 18 identified above has a number of intertextual connections with Exod 2–4. (1) Jethro’s statement to Moses in 4:18 to return to Egypt in peace (‫ )לך לשלום‬finds a counterpart in 18:7, where Moses and Jethro inquire of each other’s well-being (‫וישאלו איש לרעהו‬ ‫)לשלום‬, and Moses’ (future) father-in-law’s hospitality in 2:20 is reciprocated

























































162

Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 360; FREVEL, “Jetzt,” 8; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 419; and RÖMER, “Provisorische Überlegungen,” 146. 163 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 360; FREVEL, “Jetzt,” 10; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 420. 164 Cf. FREVEL, “Jetzt,” 8 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 420–22. In contrast, LEVIN, Jahwist, 360 regards Exod 18:10aβ as secondary to 18:10b. 165 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 360 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 422–23. 166 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 360. 167 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 414. 168 See the discussion of Exod 18:5 above. 169 For similar reconstructions, see LEVIN, Jahwist, 359 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 415.

8. Jethro (Exod 18)

111

by Moses in 18:7.170 (2) The motif of Yhwh rescuing the people in 3:8 reappears in Jethro’s praise to Yhwh in 18:10.171 (3) Moses’ encounter with Aaron in 4:27-31 is paralleled in 18:1-12*, 27.172 Whereas the episode in 4:27-31 leads to the Israelites’ belief and obedience (4:31), Moses’ encounter with Jethro in 18:1-11*, 27 results in a non-Israelite’s confession of the greatness of Yhwh.173 When these intertextual observations are taken into account, it becomes clear that even the most basic material within Moses’ encounter with Jethro in 18:1-11*, 27 is post-priestly.174 Further indications of post-priestly composition are also found in the later additions within 18:112*175 as well as in 18:13-26.176 8.3. Synthesis I

The most basic narrative thread in Exod 18 likely consisted of 18:1aα, 1b, 5* (without ‫)הר האלהים‬, 6a* (with ‫ הנה‬instead of ‫)אני‬, 7, 8a, 10a, 11a, 27 and can be evaluated as post-priestly.

I+

A variety of small-scale additions were made to this narrative in Exod 18:1aβ, 6b, 8b-9, 10b, 11b.

II

The basic narrative thread in Exod 18:1-11*, 27 – which perhaps already included some of the later small-scale additions – was further expanded through larger insertions in 18:2-4 and 18:12, 13-26.

























































170

Cf. E. CARPENTER, “Exodus 18,” 100 and RÖMER, “Provisorische Überlegungen,”

146.

171

Cf. HAARMANN, JHWH-Verehrer, 75 and RÖMER, “Provisorische Überlegungen,”

146.

172

In Exod 4:27, Aaron goes out to meet Moses at the mountain of God in the wilderness and greets him with a kiss, and Moses informs Aaron of Yhwh’s instructions. On this parallelism, see W. H. SCHMIDT, Ex 1–6, 236; BLUM, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 137; HAARMANN, JHWH-Verehrer, 76; and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 410–11. 173 Cf. HAARMANN, JHWH-Verehrer, 77. 174 Cf. BLUM, Studien, 155; IDEM, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 137; KRATZ, Komposition, 246 (ET 244); HAARMANN, JHWH-Verehrer, 86–88; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 426; and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18. 175 Cf. HAARMANN, JHWH-Verehrer, 87 and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 406–23. 176 Cf. OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 131 and RÖMER, “Provisorische Überlegungen,” 150 n. 124; see also Chapter 6, §1.

‫)‪Chapter 3: Into the Wilderness (Exod 13–18‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪112‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪18:1‬‬

‫וישמע יתרו כהן מדין חתן משה ]את כל אשר עשה אלהים למשה ולישראל עמו[ כי הוציא ה׳ את‬ ‫ישראל ממצרים‬ ‫‪ 2‬ויקח יתרו חתן משה את צפרה אשת משה אחר שלוחיה ‪ 3‬ואת שני בניה אשר שם האחד‬ ‫גרשם כי אמר גר הייתי בארץ נכריה ‪ 4‬ושם האחד אליעזר כי אלהי אבי בעזרי ויצלני מחרב‬ ‫פרעה‬ ‫‪ 5‬ויבא יתרו חתן משה ובניו ואשתו אל משה אל המדבר אשר הוא חנה שם הר האלהים ‪ 6‬ויאמר אל‬ ‫משה אני חתנך יתרו בא אליך ]ואשתך ושני בניה עמה[ ‪ 7‬ויצא משה לקראת חתנו וישתחו וישק לו‬ ‫וישאלו איש לרעהו לשלום ויבאו האהלה ‪ 8‬ויספר משה לחתנו את כל אשר עשה ה׳ לפרעה ולמצרים‬ ‫על אודת ישראל ]את כל התלאה אשר מצאתם בדרך ויצלם ה׳ ‪ 9‬ויחד יתרו על כל הטובה אשר עשה‬ ‫ה׳ לישראל אשר הצילו מיד מצרים[ ‪ 10‬ויאמר יתרו ברוך ה׳ אשר הציל אתכם מיד מצרים ומיד פרעה‬ ‫]אשר הציל את העם מתחת יד מצרים[ ‪ 11‬עתה ידעתי כי גדול ה׳ מכל האלהים ]כי בדבר אשר זדו‬ ‫עליהם[‬ ‫‪ 12‬ויקח יתרו חתן משה עלה וזבחים לאלהים ויבא אהרן וכל זקני ישראל לאכל לחם עם חתן‬ ‫משה לפני האלהים ‪ 13‬ויהי ממחרת וישב משה לשפט את העם ויעמד העם על משה מן הבקר עד‬ ‫הערב ‪ 14‬וירא חתן משה את כל אשר הוא עשה לעם ויאמר מה הדבר הזה אשר אתה עשה לעם‬ ‫מדוע אתה יושב לבדך וכל העם נצב עליך מן בקר עד ערב ‪ 15‬ויאמר משה לחתנו כי יבא אלי‬ ‫העם לדרש אלהים ‪ 16‬כי יהיה להם דבר בא אלי ושפטתי בין איש ובין רעהו והודעתי את חקי‬ ‫האלהים ואת תורתיו ‪ 17‬ויאמר חתן משה אליו לא טוב הדבר אשר אתה עשה ‪ 18‬נבל תבל גם‬ ‫אתה גם העם הזה אשר עמך כי כבד ממך הדבר לא תוכל עשהו לבדך ‪ 19‬עתה שמע בקלי איעצך‬ ‫ויהי אלהים עמך היה אתה לעם מול האלהים והבאת אתה את הדברים אל האלהים ‪ 20‬והזהרתה‬ ‫אתהם את החקים ואת התורת והודעת להם את הדרך ילכו בה ואת המעשה אשר יעשון ‪ 21‬ואתה‬ ‫תחזה מכל העם אנשי חיל יראי אלהים אנשי אמת שנאי בצע ושמת עלהם שרי אלפים שרי‬ ‫מאות שרי חמשים ושרי עשרת ‪ 22‬ושפטו את העם בכל עת והיה כל הדבר הגדל יביאו אליך וכל‬ ‫הדבר הקטן ישפטו הם והקל מעליך ונשאו אתך ‪ 23‬אם את הדבר הזה תעשה וצוך אלהים ויכלת‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫עמד וגם כל העם הזה על מקמו יבא בשלום ‪ 24‬וישמע משה לקול חתנו ויעש כל אשר אמר‬ ‫ויבחר משה אנשי חיל מכל ישראל ויתן אתם ראשים על העם שרי אלפים שרי מאות שרי חמשים‬ ‫ושרי עשרת ‪ 26‬ושפטו את העם בכל עת את הדבר הקשה יביאון אל משה וכל הדבר הקטן‬ ‫ישפוטו הם‬ ‫‪ 27‬וישלח משה את חתנו וילך לו אל ארצו‬

‫‪9. Result‬‬ ‫‪The foregoing analysis of Exod 13–18 has concluded that the extent of pre‬‬‫‪priestly material in these chapters is very limited, consisting only of Exod‬‬ ‫‪13:20; 15:22b-23a(b), 27; and 16:1aα. In essence, these materials constitute a‬‬ ‫‪chain of itinerary notices plus the brief etiology of the place-name Marah in‬‬ ‫‪15:22b-23a(b). Since these materials do not constitute a satisfactory conclu‬‬‫‪sion to a pre-priestly exodus narrative, such a conclusion must be sought‬‬ ‫‪beyond Exod 18.‬‬

Chapter 4

The Revelation of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19–24 // Deut 5:1–6:3) Although much of Exod 19–24 consists of legal material that itself has a complex history of development, the present analysis of Exod 19–24 will focus on the narrative passages in 19:1-24; 20:1, 18-22; and 24:1-18. Following the analysis of these narratives (§1), this chapter will investigate the literary growth of the corresponding Mosaic retrospective in Deut 5:1–6:3 (§2) and will then evaluate the literary relationship between the two units (§3).

1. Exod 19–24 1.1. Literary-critical analysis The arrival in Sinai (Exod 19:1-2). Exod 19 begins with a notice of the Israelites’ arrival in the Wilderness of Sinai exactly three months after their departure from Egypt (19:1). This arrival notice is followed by an additional itinerary notice stating that the people departed from Rephidim (19:2aα1), entered the Wilderness of Sinai (19:2aα2), camped in the wilderness (19:2aβ), and “camped there, opposite the mountain” (19:2b). Already within these verses there are three significant narrative tensions: the people’s arrival in the Wilderness of Sinai is reported twice (19:1 and 19:2aα2), their encampment is also reported twice (19:2aβ and 19:2b), and the people’s departure in 19:2aα 1 comes too late after 19:1. This suggests that at least three different compositional levels should be identified within these verses: 19:1, 19:2a, and 19:2b. The relative chronology of these levels cannot be determined on the basis of 19:1-2 alone and will be reconsidered in §2.2 below. Moses’ first interaction with God (Exod 19:3-9). Within this unit, a slight tension is created by the juxtaposition of the divine name Elohim in Exod 19:3a and Yhwh in 19:3b.1 Exod 19:3b cannot stand independently of 19:3a,

























































1

Although some manuscript witnesses read “God” instead of “Yhwh” in Exod 19:3a and 19:8, there are no variant readings for “Yhwh” in 19:7, suggesting that it is not productive to seek a completely consistent use of divine names within 19:3-9. For a critique of the use of divine names as a literary-critical criterion in Exod 19–24, see OSWALD, Staatstheorie, 89.

114

Chapter 4: The Revelation of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19–24 // Deut 5:1–6:3)

since the antecedent of ‫ אליו‬is found only in 19:3a. Exod 19:3b-5 form a tight unit: 19:5 cannot stand without 19:4, since ‫ ועתה‬at the beginning of 19:5 requires the preceding historical retrospective. In contrast, the appearance of a second apodosis in 19:6a after the ‫ כי‬clause in 19:5bβ comes too late, suggesting that 19:6a may be secondary. This possibility receives further support from the use of the 2mp personal pronoun in 19:6a, which would not have been necessary if this half verse had formed the continuation of the apodosis in 19:5aα from the outset. Based on comparison with other biblical texts, the statement “these are the words that you will speak to the Israelites” in 19:6b is slightly surprising as a conclusion to the divine speech,2 although when read in the context of 19:3b-5, (6a) it does not create any clear narrative tension. Exod 19:7-8 are conceptually connected to the divine speech in 19:4-5, (6a), (6b), since the people’s commitment fits with the fact that the divine speech calls for such a response.3 At the same time, there is a narrative tension within 19:7-8 themselves, since in 19:7aβ Moses summons the elders of the people and places Yhwh’s words before them, while in 19:8 the entire people respond. Indeed, 19:6-8 read more smoothly if 19:7aβ is bracketed out.4 Exod 19:9 contains a narrative tension insofar as 19:9b states for a second time that Moses reported the people’s words to Yhwh despite the fact that the people have not spoken again since 19:8b. Thus, 19:9b can be interpreted as a Wiederaufnahme of 19:8b.5 It is also noteworthy that in 19:8b Moses returns the people’s words to Yhwh, whereas in 19:9b Moses simply tells the people’s words to Yhwh. Exod 19:8b fits better with the pattern of Moses’ movement established in the preceding verses, while 19:9b assumes that Moses is already in the presence of the deity, thus presupposing 19:9a. Thus, 19:9 as a whole can be identified as secondary to 19:3b-8.6 In sum, the major compositional seams in Exod 19:3-9 occur between 19:3a and 19:3b-8*, between 19:3b-8* and 19:9, and in 19:7aβ. Moses’ second and third interactions with God (Exod 19:10-19). Within this unit, the announcement that Yhwh will descend onto the mountain on the third day in Exod 19:11b stands in tension with 19:3a, which implies that



























































2 Contrast with Deut 1:1 and 4:44-45, which use phrases such as ‫אלה הדברים‬, ‫זאת‬ ‫התורה‬, and ‫ אלה העדת והחקים והמשפטים‬as introductions to material that follows. 3 Cf. PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 143. 4 Cf. OSWALD, Israel, 94, 167. 5 As already argued by WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 91. 6 According to OSWALD, Israel, 9–10, most commentators recognize this problem but are not in agreement whether Exod 19:9 is earlier or later than 19:3-6. Oswald also notes that 19:9 has a different epistemology from 19:3-6: While 19:5 assumes that the people can “hear the voice of Yhwh,” 19:9 states that the people can (only) hear Yhwh speaking with Moses (ibid., 71). On 19:9 as secondary to 19:3b-8, cf. IDEM, Staatstheorie, 80.

1. Exod 19–24

115

Yhwh is already on the mountain, and Yhwh’s reference to himself in the third person in 19:11b is hardly what one would expect from a divine speech (cf. the use of the first person in 19:4-6, 9).7 Considering that 19:10-19* presuppose that Moses has “gone up to God” in 19:3a (see the notice of Moses’ descent in 19:14a),8 then the reference to Yhwh’s descent in 19:11b must be secondary to the notion of Yhwh’s presence on the mountain and thus does not belong to the most basic material in 19:10-19.9 Exod 19:12-13a and 19:13b stand in direct contradiction to each other: whereas 19:13b assumes that the people should ascend the mountain, 19:1213a rule this out with the strongest of threats. In 19:13b, the instrument associated with the theophany on the third day is called a ‫יבל‬, while in 19:16 and 19:19 it is called a ‫שפר‬, suggesting that these verses belong to different compositional levels. There is reason to suspect that ‫ וקל שפר חזק מאד‬is secondary within 19:16, since it seems to come too late within the sequence of theophanic signs. It would make more sense immediately after ‫קלת וברקים‬, which are auditory signs, rather than after ‫וענן בכד על ההר‬, a more visual sign. Moreover, unlike the thunder, lightning, and cloud, ‫ קל שפר‬is not a natural phenomenon, further suggesting that it is somewhat out of place. This suggests that the references to the shofar blast in 19:16aβ and 19:1910 do not belong to the most basic narrative thread in 19:10-19. It does not necessarily follow from this, however, that the reference to the ‫ יבל‬in 19:13b is earlier than the references to the ‫ שפר‬in 19:16aβ, 19. In fact, there is some indication that 19:13b is a relatively late addition, since Yhwh’s instructions that the people should ascend the mountain are nowhere fulfilled in Exod 19–24.11 The description of the smoking mountain in Exod 19:18 shares the concept of Yhwh’s descent with the secondary texts of 19:11b and 19:20-25 (on the latter unit, see immediately below). The statement that “the entire mountain trembled greatly” (‫ )ויחרד כל ההר מאד‬is also similar in diction to the statement that “all the people in the camp trembled” (‫ )ויחרד כל העם אשר במחנה‬in 19:16b. When combined, these observations strongly suggest that 19:18 is a later addition that draws on materials from other parts of 19:10-19 (including secondary material) as well as from 19:20-25.12

























































7

Cf. OSWALD, Israel, 81. Since Moses returns to the same location in Exod 19:8b that he reached in 19:3a, it cannot be ruled out that 19:3b-8, (9) are a later insertion between 19:3a and 19:10-19*. 9 Cf. L. SCHMIDT, “Dekalog,” 583, albeit on different grounds. 10 The phrase ‫ קול השפר‬in Exod 19:19a presupposes the reference to the shofar in 19:16aβ. 11 Cf. OSWALD, Israel, 81–82 and L. SCHMIDT, “Dekalog,” 583. For further arguments that Exod 19:13b is a late addition, see §3. I am grateful to Reinhard Kratz and Christoph Berner for discussing this half verse with me in considerable detail. 12 Cf. DOZEMAN, God, 101–2. 8

116

Chapter 4: The Revelation of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19–24 // Deut 5:1–6:3)

Exod 19:19 also poses problems. The fact that the contents of Moses’ and God’s interaction in 19:19b are not reported is strange, as is the fact that, unlike in 19:10-13 and 19:20-25, Moses now speaks with God without having to ascend the mountain. Thematically, the dialogue connects closely with the secondary verse 19:9,13 which suggests that 19:19 belongs to a later stage of composition within 19:10-19. In sum, Exod 19:11b, 13b, 16aβ, 18, and 19 emerge as likely later additions to a more basic narrative thread in 19:10-18*. Moses’ fourth interaction with God (Exod 19:20-25). Within this unit, Exod 19:20 stands in tension with 19:19, which implies that Moses can speak with Yhwh without the need to go up the mountain. 14 More significantly, the report of Yhwh’s descent in 19:20a stands in tension with the most basic narrative thread in 19:3a, (3b-9), 10-18*, which assumes that Yhwh is already on the mountian and interacts with Moses there. Thus, 19:20a cannot belong to the most basic narrative thread in Exod 19. Furthermore, it is unlikely that 19:20b-25 once stood independently of 19:20a. Exod 19:21 is redundant in light of 19:12-13a, where Yhwh has already instructed Moses to warn the people of the fatal consequences of coming too close, and is thus likely later than these verses.15 Yhwh’s specification in 19:22 that the priests should sanctify themselves before approaching Yhwh presupposes 19:21 and indicates that the priests can approach but must meet certain criteria in order to do so safely. Exod 19:23-24, however, contradict this view: Moses reminds Yhwh about the divine warning in 19:12-13a, which causes Yhwh to issue revised instructions permitting only Aaron to go up with Moses and restricting both the priests and the people from ascending. Notably, 19:24 repeats ‫פן‬ ‫ יפרץ ב]ה[ם‬from 19:22b. The statement ‫ ויאמר אלהם‬in 19:25b is problematic from a grammatical perspective, since it does not connect smoothly to 20:1 and is equally unusual if interpreted simply as “and he told them [Yhwh’s words].” When combined, these observations suggest that the most basic material in Exod 19:20-25 consisted of 19:20-22, 25 and was later expanded in 19:23-24. Yet even 19:20-22, 25 cannot belong to the earliest material in Exod 19–24 for several reasons: (1) the concept of Yhwh’s descent in 19:20a is later than the concept of Yhwh’s presence on the mountain; (2) 19:21 is secondary to 19:12-13a; and (3) 19:25 is an ill-suited transition to the revelation of the Decalogue in 20:1-17.16

























































13

Cf. OSWALD, Israel, 98. Cf. ibid., 72. 15 Notably, in Exod 19:21 Yhwh refers to himself in the third person, just as in 19:11b; cf. OSWALD, Israel, 82. 16 On Exod 19:20-25 as a later addition, see MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 149– 50; RENAUD, La théophanie, 95; and L. SCHMIDT, “Dekalog,” 580–81. 14

1. Exod 19–24

117

The Decalogue (Exod 20:1-17). There is a strong narrative discontinuity between Exod 19:25 and 20:1, since 20:1 contains divine speech, while 19:25 leads the reader to expect Mosaic speech in what follows, unless ‫ויאמר אלהם‬ is to be interpreted as referring to the contents of Moses’ dialogue with Yhwh in 19:21-24.17 The people’s interaction with Moses (Exod 20:18-21). Within this unit, ‫ ויעמד העם מרחק‬in Exod 20:21a is a Wiederaufnahme of 20:18b, indicating that 20:19-21a are a later insertion between 20:18 and 20:21b.18 This insertion may itself be composite: The people’s request in 20:19 that Moses serve as an intermediary between them and God reflects the same concerns that are found in 19:12-13a, (23-24), while Moses’ response to the people in 20:20 completely ignores their request and focuses instead on their fear mentioned in 20:18.19 Yet even 20:18, 21b cannot belong to the most basic narrative thread in Exod 19–24, since 20:18 presupposes secondary materials within the description of the theophany in 19:16-18:20 Exod 19:16-18

‫ויהי ביום השלישי בהית הבקר ויהי קלת וברקים וענן כבד על ההר ]וקל שפר‬ ‫ ויוצא משה את העם לקראת‬17 ‫חזק מאד[ ויחרד כל העם אשר במחנה‬ ‫ והר סיני עשן כלו מפני אשר ירד‬18] ‫האלהים מן המחנה ויתיצבו בתחתית ההר‬ [‫עליו ה׳ באש ויעל עשנו כעשן הכבשן ויחרד כל ההר מאד‬

Exod 20:18

‫וכל העם ראים את הקולת ואת הלפידם ואת קול השפר ואת ההר עשן וירא‬ ‫העם ויעמדו מרחק‬

It is also notable that, in contrast to 19:17 which depicts the people as relatively close to the deity (as suggested by the phrases ‫ לקראת האלהים‬and ‫)בתחתית ההר‬, 20:18 situates the people further away from the deity during the events that follow. Moses’ fifth interaction with God (Exod 20:22-26 + 21–23). The narrative portion of this unit (Exod 20:22-26) contains several inconsistencies. First, the form of address shifts from 2mp in 20:22b-23 to 2ms in 20:24-25. Although the divine speech addressing a 2mp audience is embedded within divine speech to Moses (20:22aβ), the transition from 20:22b-23 to 20:24-25 is still quite rough on a thematic level, since no clear connection is made between the prohibition against making “gods of silver and gods of gold” and the instructions for building an altar. The portrayal of Yhwh speaking from heaven in 20:22-23 differs sharply from 19:11 and 20:18, where the people’s experience of the deity is sensory rather than verbal.21 It is possible that

























































17

Cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 144 (ET 139). Cf. KÖCKERT, “Wie kam das Gesetz an den Sinai?,” 20 and BERNER, “Redaction History,” 382. 19 Cf. OSWALD, Israel, 230, 258 and BERNER, “Redaction History,” 381. 20 Cf. OSWALD, Israel, 213. 21 Cf. ibid., 73. 18

118

Chapter 4: The Revelation of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19–24 // Deut 5:1–6:3)

20:22b serves to (re)interpret the Decalogue in 20:1-17 as divine speech from heaven.22 Such an interpretation is left open by the lack of a concrete narrative context in 20:1, which simply states that “God spoke all these words” but does not state from where or to whom. The likelihood that 20:22b-23 presuppose the Decalogue receives further support from the thematic connection between making “gods of silver and gods of gold” in 20:23 and the Decalogue’s prohibitions against having other gods besides Yhwh (20:3) and making graven images (20:4-6). Moses and others worship Yhwh on the mountain (Exod 24:1-2). Following the Covenant Code, the narrative resumes in Exod 24:1-2, where Yhwh tells Moses to “go up to Yhwh” (thus referring to himself in the third person as in 19:11b, 21)23 along with Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel and to prostrate themselves from afar.24 Within these verses, there is a tension between the second-person form of address used in 24:1 and the third-person description in 24:2. Since the third-person verbs in 24:2 are prescriptive rather than a report of completed actions, it must be assumed that they reflect a continuation of the divine speech in 24:1 and not a shift to the voice of the narrator.25 Thus, since both 24:1 and 24:2 report divine speech but from different perspectives, it seems likely that these two verses do not belong to the same compositional level.26 Since 24:1 can stand without 24:2 but the opposite is not the case, 24:2 must be secondary to 24:1. 27 The people twice affirm their obedience to the law (Exod 24:3-8). Within this unit, several aspects are slightly disturbing in terms of narrative continuity. First, Exod 24:3 states that Moses “came” to the people but does not state that he went down from the mountain, creating narrative tension with 24:12.28 Second, the people state twice that they will do everything that Yhwh has spoken – once in 24:3 and again in 24:7. This raises the question of whether

























































22

Ibid., 68. Cf. ibid., 83. 24 The 2mp verb ‫ והשתחויתם‬in 𝔐 implies that even Moses is to keep his distance with the rest of the group, while the 3mp verb προσκυνήσουσιν in 𝔊 implies that Moses is not included in the larger group. 25 Cf. RUPRECHT, “Exodus 24:9-11,” 138. DOZEMAN, God, 108 also notes this shift but nevertheless groups Exod 24:1b with 24:2 despite the fact that 24:1b, like 24:1a, uses a second-person form of address. 26 NOTH, Exodus, 159–60 (ET 196–97) also notes the problem that this unit “has not been appropriately formulated” but concludes that it “has largely been worked over in a redactional way” (ET 197). 27 Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 152. In contrast, OSWALD, Israel, 84 regards Exod 24:1-2 as a unity, while DOZEMAN, God, 108 finds a break between 24:1a and 24:1b2 rather than between 24:1 and 24:2. 28 Cf. LEVIN, “Dekalog,” 178 and OSWALD, Israel, 68. 23

1. Exod 19–24

119

one of these two affirmations of obedience might be secondary.29 In its present form, 24:3 presupposes both the Decalogue and the Covenant Code in the preceding chapters: ‫ כל דברי ה׳‬corresponds to ‫ כל הדברים האלה‬in 20:1 and ‫ כל המשפטים‬corresponds to ‫ ואלה המשפטים‬in 21:1.30 Notably, 24:3 forms a coherent conclusion from a narrative point of view and does not require 24:48 in order to make sense.31 The latter verses, in turn, form a tight narrative unit.32 The fact that Moses sets aside half of the blood from the sacrifices in 24:6 indicates that this verse already presupposes the people’s commitment to obey Yhwh’s commands in 24:7 and the blood ritual over the people in 24:8, since otherwise such an action would lack a clear purpose.33 This strongly suggests that 24:4-8 (with the possible exception of 24:4b) are a compositional unity that is likely secondary to 24:3, as suggested by the duplication of the people’s commitment in 24:3 and 24:7.34 Moses and others behold God (Exod 24:9-11). Following the people’s double affirmation of their obedience to the law in Exod 24:3-8, the narrative action in 24:9-11 picks up thematically where 24:1-2 left off. Although this passage has most of the same actors as 24:1-2, the two passages are in tension regarding who has access to the encounter with God. Whereas 24:9-10 imply that Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders are close enough to see the place where the deity stands in detail, 24:1 states that they should “bow down from afar,” which may reflect a revision of 24:9-10. Exod 24:2 carries this revision further, stating that only Moses may approach Yhwh. Finally, 24:11 may be a reaction against the notion of Moses’ exclusive access to the deity in 24:2, stating that God did not restrict the other elites from taking part in the theophany.35 In sum, not only are 24:1-2 secondary in relation to 24:9-10,36

























































29

Cf. LEVIN, “Dekalog,” 182; BLUM, Studien, 91 n. 204; OSWALD, Israel, 91–92; and KONKEL, Sünde, 261. Blum argues that Exod 24:3-8 are a literary unity and explains the duplication as a narrative device, while Levin and Oswald argue that 24:3 once stood independently of 24:4-8. Oswald also notes that 24:3 does not use the key word ‫ברית‬. 30 Cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 143–44 (ET 138). 31 In contrast, since Exod 24:4 does not report any further movement on the part of Moses, the only way to imagine these verses without 24:3 is to assume that Moses has never left the presence of the people at the foot of the mountain, since that is clearly the setting of 24:4-8. 32 Against PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 195–202; MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 152; AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 71; ZENGER, Sinaitheophanie, 177; DOZEMAN, God, 28, 53, 110– 13; IDEM, Exodus, 425; and KONKEL, Sünde, 261, all of whom divide 24:4-8 into multiple compositional layers. 33 Cf. NICHOLSON, “Covenant Ritual,” 80; LEVIN, “Dekalog,” 182 n. 32; OTTO, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 79; and OSWALD, Israel, 93–94. 34 Cf. LEVIN, “Dekalog,” 181–82; OSWALD, Israel, 91–92; KÖCKERT, “Wie kam das Gesetz an den Sinai?,” 21; and (hesitantly) RÖMER, “Provisorische Überlegungen,” 142, 152. 35 Based on comparison with Gen 22:12, the expression ‫ שלח יד אל‬seems to have a negative valence, which would suggest that here God did not prohibit the eminent ones from

120

Chapter 4: The Revelation of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19–24 // Deut 5:1–6:3)

but 24:11 is also secondary in relation to 24:1-2, thus reflecting a dialectical process of composition within 24:1-2, 9-11 as a whole. Moses (and Joshua) ascend the mountain (Exod 24:12-15a). This unit stands in narrative tension with Exod 24:9-11. Whereas the latter state that Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the elders “went up” and then beheld the deity, in 24:12 Yhwh tells Moses to go up (again!) – and, what is more, to go up to Yhwh. Even if one were to suppose that Moses, Aaron, and the others had only gone part of the way up the mountain in 24:9, the problem remains that 24:10-11 and 24:12 locate the deity in two different places: In 24:10-11, Moses and the others are already in the presence of God, while in 24:12 Moses has to ascend in order to reach Yhwh, unless one is to assume that everyone has come down from the mountain in the meantime.37 Exod 24:12-15a also contain internal narrative tensions that suggest that they are not a compositional unity. The first indication of this is the double reference to Moses’ (and in some 𝔊 manuscripts also Joshua’s) ascent in 24:13b and 24:15a. The second indication is the sudden appearance and disappearance of Joshua in 24:13-15, who is mentioned nowhere else in Exod 19–24, including in Yhwh’s instruction to Moses to ascend the mountain in 24:12.38 When these observations are combined, it can be concluded that 24:13-14 are a later insertion between 24:12 and 24:15a that depicts Joshua as ascending the mountain with Moses. It is possible that 24:13 𝔊 (καὶ ἀναστὰς Μωυσῆς καὶ Ἰησοῦς ὁ παρεστηκώς αὐτῷ ἀνέβησαν εἰς τὸ ὄρος τοῦ θεοῦ) reflects a more original phrasing of this insertion, especially considering that in 24:14 Moses’ statement to the elders implies that Joshua will accompany him (‫)עד אשר נשוב אליכם‬. If this is the case, 24:13b 𝔐 can be interpreted as a later revision emphasizing Moses’ unique access to the deity. Conversely, 𝔐 likely reflects a more original phrasing in 24:15a (‫)ויעל משה אל ההר‬, which would have once connected directly to 24:12. The reading of 𝔊* in 24:15a (καὶ ἀνέβη Μωυσῆς καὶ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὸ ὄρος) thus seems to be a secondary coordination with the insertion in 24:13-14. The arrival of Yhwh’s ‫ כבוד‬and Moses’ ascent (Exod 24:15b-18). This unit displays a slight internal tension insofar as it contains two statements of the cloud’s covering the mountain (Exod 24:15b, 16a). More significantly, it stands in tension with 24:12-15a insofar as 24:18a states that Moses ascends the mountain, despite the fact that 24:15a had already narrated Moses’ as-



























































































































the events taking place. Cf. 𝔊, which gives a similar sense: καὶ τῶν ἐπιλέκτων τοῦ Ισραηλ οὐ διεφώνησεν οὐδὲ εἶς “and of the chosen ones of Israel there was not even one missing.” 36 See already HÖLSCHER, Geschichtsschreibung, 315 and more recently OSWALD, Israel, 85, although both regard Exod 24:9-11 as a unity. 37 This tension is also noted by MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 154; LEVIN, “Dekalog,” 179; and OSWALD, Israel, 69. 38 Cf. OSWALD, Israel, 169 and DOHMEN, Exodus 19–40, 207.

1. Exod 19–24

121

cent.39 It is possible that ‫ ויעל אל ההר‬in 24:18a* is a Wiederaufnahme of 24:15a, in which case 24:15b-18a would be a later insertion between 24:15a and 24:18b. Interim Result. The foregoing literary-critical analysis of Exod 19–24 has identified Exod 19:7aβ, 9, 11b, 13b, 16aβ, 18, 19, 20-25; 20:18-21; 24:1-2, 48, 11, 13-14, 15b-18a as additions to an earlier narrative thread. Some of these additions themselves underwent further expansion, such as in 19:23-24; 20:19-21a; and 24:4b. When these materials are bracketed out, Exod 19:1/2, 3a, 3b-8*, 10-11a, 12-13a, 14-16aα, 16b-17; 20:1-17*, 22-26; 21–23*; 24:3, 9-10, 12, 15a, 18b remain as possibly belonging to the most basic narrative thread. Considering that the “vision of God” in 24:9-10 is thematically quite distinct from – and in topological tension with – this group of texts, it is likely that this episode does not belong to the most basic narrative thread. Further differentiation is not possible on the basis of a literary-critical analysis alone and requires comparison with materials outside of Exod 19–24. 1.2. Macrocontextual analysis Broadly speaking, two different types of narrative material can be identified in Exod 19–24: those associated with theophany (19:3a, 10-19, 20-25; 20:1821; 24:1-2, 9-11) and those associated with the giving of the law (19:3b-9, 20:22; 24:3-8, 12-14). These two groups of materials must now be investigated in further detail, including an evaluation of whether the most basic narrative thread in Exod 19–24 contained (1) only texts relating to the theophany, (2) only texts associated with law and covenant, or (3) a combination of both from the beginning.40 The extent of potentially pre-priestly compositional activity within Exod 19–24 also remains to be determined. 1.2.1. The theophany texts The theophany texts in Exod 19–24 can be subdivided into two major groups: a series of nature-theophany materials in 19:3a, 10-19, 20-25; 20:18-21 and a group of vision-of-God texts in 24:1-2, 9-11. Exod 24:1-2, 9-11. Although the vision-of-God texts – which are themselves not a unity – have long been assigned to one of the old sources of the



























































39 According to the classical Documentary Hypothesis, this repetition is explained by the assumption that the two reports originally belonged to two separate documents; see, e.g., NOTH, Exodus, 162–63 (ET 200–201); VAN SETERS, Life, 292–93; and DOZEMAN, Exodus, 577. 40 This question has formed the starting point for numerous analyses of the Sinai pericope; for two overviews of previous studies, see OSWALD, Israel, 102–12 and KÖCKERT, “Wie kam das Gesetz an den Sinai?,” 13–27, esp. 15–19.

122

Chapter 4: The Revelation of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19–24 // Deut 5:1–6:3)

Pentateuch,41 a growing number of scholars have acknowledged that these verses form links with (post-)priestly texts elsewhere in Exod 19–2442 as well as with priestly literature more broadly. For example, Thomas Dozeman has argued that Exod 24:9-11 forms a frame with Lev 9 around the priestly legislation in Exod 25–Lev 9,43 while Erhard Blum and Thomas Römer have argued that the appearance of Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu points to priestly compositional activity.44 A further argument for the (post-)priestly provenance of Exod 24:1-2, 9-11 has been made by Wolfgang Oswald, who has observed that 24:9-11 react to the demotion of Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10:15.45 Based on these observations, it can be concluded that the vision-of-God texts in Exod 24:1-2, 9-11 do not belong to a pre-priestly stage in the formation of Exod 19–24. This leaves the nature-theophany texts in 19:3a, 1019, 20-25; 20:18-21 to be considered. Exod 19:10-19. The cultic overtones present in this unit have long been noted, although surprisingly little attention has been given to their possible relationship to priestly literature in the Pentateuch. Indeed, most commentators assume that at least some of the cultic elements within this unit are part of a pre-priestly narrative.46 Several of these elements, however, deserve further investigation: the use of the verb ‫ קדש‬piel (Exod 19:10a, 14bα), the motif of washing one’s garments (19:10b, 14bβ), the description of the mountain as covered in cloud (19:16), and the shofar blast (19:16). Yhwh’s instructions to Moses to consecrate the people (‫לך אל העם וקדשתם‬ ‫ )היום‬in Exod 19:10a and Moses’ fulfillment of those instructions in 19:14bα have close connections to a number of other priestly and post-priestly texts. The verb ‫ קדש‬piel occurs 75 times in the Hebrew Bible, with approximately half of the attestations occurring in Exodus (22x) and Leviticus (15x) alone.47



























































41 See, e.g., WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 89; NOTH, Exodus, 159–60 (ET 196–97); PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 148; and BADEN, J, E, 160 n. 153. 42 E.g., DOHMEN, Exodus 19–40, 205–6 argues that these verses presuppose the notion of the “priestly kingdom” expressed in Exod 19:6a. 43 See DOZEMAN, God, 107–10, 113–16, who nevertheless regards Exod 24:1a, 9-11 as “an independent tradition of theophany” that has been incorporated here by priestly redactors; see also IDEM, Exodus, 425. 44 BLUM, Studien, 89 n. 196 and RÖMER, “Provisorische Überlegungen,” 143. 45 OSWALD, Israel, 192–95. I disagree, however, with Oswald’s view that although Exod 24:9-11 presuppose priestly texts, they were composed as part of a “great Deuteronomistic History” prior to the integration of priestly literature (ibid., 190). 46 Cf. WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 88 (E); RENAUD, La théophanie, (Exod 19:10-11a, 13b-17, 19 = preexilic narrative; 19:11b, 18 = Dtr; 19:13a = P); BLENKINSOPP, Pentateuch, 183–97 (Dtr); VAN SETERS, Life, 251 (J); OSWALD, Israel, 113 (“Exodus-Mountain of God Narrative”); PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 101–2 (J); and DOZEMAN, God, 19 (“Mountain of God tradition”); IDEM, Exodus, 425 (“Non-P History”). 47 Other occurrences: Numbers: 3x; Deuteronomy: 2x; Joshua: 1x; Samuel: 2x; Kings: 2x; Jeremiah: 7x; Ezekiel: 7x; Joel: 4x; Micah: 1x; Job: 1x; Nehemiah: 3x; Chronicles: 4x.

1. Exod 19–24

123

Within the book of Exodus, all other attestations of ‫ קדש‬piel apart from the two verses currently under investigation (with the possible exception of Exod 20:8)48 occur within indisputably priestly or post-priestly contexts.49 Moreover, every other case in the Hebrew Bible in which the verb ‫ קדש‬piel has Moses as its subject and a human direct object occurs within priestly or postpriestly literature.50 Finally, every other text using the verb ‫ קדש‬piel with reference to the entire people occurs within the Holiness Code.51 When one adds to this the consideration that the nearest reference to the holiness of the people in the Sinai pericope (Exod 19:3b-8) is a post-priestly text (see §1.2.2 below), it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Yhwh’s instructions to Moses to consecrate the people in 19:10a and their fulfillment in 19:14bα belong to a post-priestly stage of composition. This conclusion receives further support from the use of the verb ‫ כבס‬piel in Exod 19:10b and 19:14bβ, which also occurs with particular frequency in priestly literature,52 usually in combination with the term ‫ בגד‬and in the context of reattaining ritual purity after coming into contact with an impure object.53 Here, however, the direct object of the verb ‫ כבס‬piel is ‫“ שמלה‬cloak.” While at first glance this seems to be an argument against the priestly nature of these verses,54 other considerations may explain why a post-priestly author would have used the word ‫ שמלה‬instead of ‫ בגד‬here. First, the term ‫שמלה‬ appears within the Covenant Code (22:26), which a post-priestly author of 19:10b and 19:14bβ would have likely presupposed. Moreover, this term connects to the theme of despoiling the Egyptians in Exod 3:22 and 12:34-35, which themselves belong to post-priestly levels of composition. 55 An additional argument in favor of the post-priestly composition of Exod 19:10 and 19:14b is the fact that the combination of the theme of consecration (‫ קדש‬piel) and the concept of washing one’s clothes (‫ כבס‬piel) brings together two concepts that are not directly connected within priestly ritual

























































48

OSWALD, Staatstheorie, 89 regards Exod 20:8-11 as also (post-)priestly. Exod 13:2; 19:23; 20:(8), 11; 28:3, 41; 29:1, 27, 33, 36-37, 44; 30:29-30; 31:13; 40:9-11, 13. 50 Exod 28:41; 29:1, 36-37; 30:29-30; 40:13; Lev 8:12, 30; cf. Josh 7:13 (with Joshua as the subject). DOZEMAN, Exodus, 453 acknowledges this, noting that “[t]he form of the verb ‘to consecrate’ means that the people must be in a holy state requiring purification.… Such language is usually reserved for the priests (Exodus 28–29; Leviticus 8).” 51 Lev 20:8; 21:8; 21:15, 23; 22:9, 16, 32. 52 Leviticus: 27x (esp. Lev 11; 13–17); Numbers: 8x. Other occurrences: Genesis: 1x; Exodus: 2x (19:10, 14); Samuel: 1x; Jeremiah: 2x; Malachi: 1x; Psalms: 2x. 53 This connection is also noted by DOZEMAN, Exodus, 453. 54 Cf. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 453, where this conclusion is implicit, and OSWALD, Israel, 113 n. 95, where it is more explicit. 55 See Chapter 2, §§3.2 and 6.2 as well as BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 99–102, 105, 297–301, 341 and OSWALD, Staatstheorie, 79. 49

124

Chapter 4: The Revelation of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19–24 // Deut 5:1–6:3)

texts: the consecration of the priests (Exod 28–30; Lev 8) and the prescriptions for restoring ritual purity (Lev 11; 13–17). The alternative – namely, that Exod 19:10 and 19:14b are pre-priestly – seems much less likely insofar as one would then have to reckon not only with a priestly bifurcation of two concepts that were once connected but also with a shift from the holiness of the people to the holiness of (only) the priests, which would stand in significant tension with the religio-historical development attested by the so-called “Holiness” texts. After Moses instructs the people to be prepared for the third day, Exod 19:16 states that on the third day there was thunder and lightning, and a heavy cloud (‫ )ענן‬covered the mountain. Apart from its use at the end of the priestly flood narrative (Gen 9:13-14, 16) and its function in guiding the Israelites through the wilderness (Exod 13:21; 14:19-20, 24; Num 10:12, 34; Num 14:14; Deut 1:33), most of the remaining occurrences of the term ‫ ענן‬in the Pentateuch56 relate to Yhwh’s presence in the desert sanctuary57 and thus implicitly to the temple cult in Jerusalem. Indeed, the appearance of the cloud in Exod 19:16 may have been intended to evoke the smoke from the sacrificial offerings at the temple.58 Following the reference to the thunder, lightning, and cloud on the mountain, Exod 19:16aβ states that there was a “very loud shofar blast.” Although the text does not explicitly state where the shofar blast came from, it is unlikely that it came from the midst of the people, since 19:16b describes the people’s fear in response to the blast. Thus, it seems most logical to assume that the blast came from the mountain itself. Although the term ‫ ש)ו(פר‬is used in diverse contexts in the Hebrew Bible and is hardly limited to priestly literature, in certain passages it is used in connection to events at the temple (Lev 25:9; Joel 2:1, 15; Ps 81:3), thus strengthening the allusion to the temple created by Exod 19:10-19 more broadly.59 As noted in §1.1, 19:16aβ seems to be secondary on literary-critical grounds, which raises the possibility that the

























































56

With the exception of Exod 19:9; Deut 4:11; and Deut 5:22, all of which presuppose Exod 19:16 and cannot be earlier than this verse. 57 Exod 24:15-16, 18 (which serve as a transition to Exod 25); 33:9-10; 34:5; 40:34-38; Lev 16:2, 13; Num 9:15-22; 10:11-12, 34; 11:25; 12:10; 17:7. 58 Cf. SMITH, Pilgrimage Pattern, 240: “Out of prior material the priestly redaction creates a narrative experience of the divine mountain as sanctuary.” Smith, however, does not clearly identify the extent of this redaction within Exod 19:10-19. 59 Also interesting in this regard is the fact that the next reference to the shofar in a narrative context is in the conquest of Jericho in Josh 6, where the term is repeatedly associated with priests and belongs to a (post-)priestly redaction of that chapter (see Chapter 10, §1.2 as well as SCHWIENHORST, Eroberung, 127–29). Nevertheless, since there is no clear evidence that Exod 19:16aβ presupposes this later redaction of Josh 6, this observation cannot be used as a decisive criterion for evaluating Exod 19:16aβ as post-priestly.

1. Exod 19–24

125

reference to the shofar blast was added at the same time as the other priestly additions in 19:10-19. In sum, it can be concluded that at least some of the materials in Exod 19:10-19 presuppose priestly literature, with the two most compelling cases being the use of the verbs ‫ קדש‬piel and ‫ כבס‬piel in 19:10aβb, 14b. The conclusion that these verses are (post-)priestly has significant implications for the identification of a potentially pre-priestly narrative thread in 19:10-19. Without 19:10aβb (or 19:11b, which was evaluated as secondary on literarycritical grounds), Yhwh’s instructions for the people to prepare for the third day in 19:11a are left without any concrete motive. This suggests that 19:10aβb is a fundamental element within 19:10-15* and, by extension, that 19:10-15* must be (post-)priestly from the outset.60 Thus, if a pre-priestly narrative thread is to be found in 19:10-19, it is likely limited to 19:16aα, 16b-17.61 Exod 19:20-25. Two considerations indicate that already the most basic material in this unit (Exod 19:20-22, 25) presupposes priestly literature. First, Yhwh’s instructions to Moses in 19:21 to warn the people lest they “break through” to see Yhwh is closely related to the (post-)priestly vision-of-God texts in 24:1-2, 9-11.62 Moreover, Yhwh’s instructions in 19:22 that the priests consecrate themselves (‫ קדש‬hithpael) clearly reflect priestly concerns (cf. the use of ‫ קדש‬piel in 19:10a, 14bα).63 Interim result. The literary-critical analysis in §1.1 concluded that the most basic material in Exod 19:10-19 must be sought within 19:10-11a, 1213a, 14-16aα, 16b-17. In light of the foregoing macrocontextual analysis, only a portion of this material is potentially pre-priestly, namely, 19:16aα, 16b-17. This, in turn, implies two possibilities for the relative dating of the nature-theophany materials in Exod 19–20: Either the priestly elements are later additions to a pre-priestly description of the theophany, or they are integral to the most basic narrative, which would imply that the nature-theophany texts in Exod 19–20 are post-priestly from the outset. This question can be answered fully only once the other materials in Exod 19–24 have been evaluated; for now, it should be noted that a coherent description of the theophany in Exod 19–20 remains even after these (post-)priestly elements are removed.



























































60 This conclusion differs somewhat from other analyses that identify (post-)priestly material within Exod 19:10-19; cf., e.g., DOZEMAN, God, 98 (19:11b, 12aβ-13, 15b, 16aα, 18 = priestly redaction); OSWALD, Israel, 256–57 (19:11b-13a, 15b, 18abα = RP; 19:19b = later than RP); and RÖMER, “Provisorische Überlegungen,” 145 (19:10-11, 14-16, 18 = P). 61 Similarly, RÖMER, “Provisorische Überlegungen,” 151 identifies Exod 19:16*, 17, 19 as potentially pre-priestly. 62 Cf. ibid., 144. 63 On the evaluation of Exod 19:20-25 as (post-)priestly, see RUDOLPH, Elohist, 44; DOZEMAN, God, 103–6; OSWALD, Israel, 212; IDEM, Staatstheorie, 89; RÖMER, “Provisorische Überlegungen,” 143–44; and L. SCHMIDT, “Dekalog,” 581.

126

Chapter 4: The Revelation of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19–24 // Deut 5:1–6:3)

1.2.2. The narratives relating to the law In their present literary shape, Exod 19–24 are framed by two scenes in which the people commit to obeying Yhwh’s covenant, the first in 19:3b-8 and the second in 24:3-8. Since the people’s commitment to Yhwh’s covenant in 19:3b-8 is a proleptic anticipation of 24:3-8 and cannot stand independently without the latter,64 the present discussion will begin with 24:3-8 and will then turn to 19:3b-8. Exod 24:3-8. In the literary-critical analysis of Exod 24:3-8, it was noted that this unit contains two statements of the people’s commitment to obey the law, once in 24:3 and again in 24:7. This observation, combined with the observation that 24:4-8 form a largely unified episode (except 24:4b), strongly suggests that the covenant ceremony in 24:4-8 belongs to a later stage of composition than 24:3, in which the people already commit to do all that Yhwh has spoken. The question thus arises as to when the covenant ceremony in 24:4-8 was added to the earlier version in 24:3. The sacrificial aspects of 24:4-8 are striking, and the specific language that is used is particularly illuminating when read in light of the instructions for the ordination of the priests in Exod 29 and Lev 8. The similarity between these elements and priestly literature has not been lost on commentators,65 although critical scholarship has generally been hesitant to draw the corresponding diachronic conclusions from them. Since the covenant ceremony in Exod 24:4-8 has traditionally been assumed to belong to one of the old sources66 or at least to a pre-priestly level of composition within Exod 19–24,67 the possibility that it presupposes priestly texts has generally been excluded.68 More recently, several commentators have reckoned with post-priestly compositional activity in this unit, although it is not always clear whether they regard Exod 24:4-8 as post-priestly in their entirety or whether they maintain that these verses contain a pre-priestly core that underwent rework-



























































64 Cf. NOTH, Exodus, 124 (ET 154); PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 168; BLUM, Studien, 88– 89, 169–72; and OSWALD, Israel, 154; IDEM, Staatstheorie, 126. 65 Cf. RUPRECHT, “Exodus 24:9-11,” 167; BLUM, Studien, 52; SKA, “Exode 19,3b-6,” 307 n. 69; OSWALD, Israel, 198; PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 309; and KONKEL, Sünde, 272–73. 66 E.g., WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 88 attributes the passage to J. NOTH, Exodus, 161 (ET 198–99) concedes that the source attribution here is difficult and rules out assigning the unit to J but still assumes that “the narrative is evidently quite old.” For more recent views along these lines, see GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 37 n. 18, 39, who notes that Exod 24:48 and Exod 29; Lev 8 “appear in different pentateuchal sources,” and STACKERT, Prophet, 75, who assigns Exod 24:3-8 as a whole to E. 67 OSWALD, Israel, 154–57; IDEM, Staatstheorie, 126; and DOHMEN, Exodus 19–40, 201–5. 68 Exceptions are OTTO, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 79 and L. SCHMIDT, “Dekalog,” 588, who argue that Exod 24:8 presupposes Exod 29:20-21; Lev 8:23-24, 30.

1. Exod 19–24

127

ing in light of priestly literature.69 Two possibilities have been proposed in the recent scholarly discussion: Either 24:4-8 are regarded as basically a compositional unity and the apparently priestly elements are explained away,70 or the text is assumed to have priestly additions but its basic unity is not taken seriously. However, if the literary-critical analysis of 24:4-8 is taken as the starting point instead of traditio-historical criteria, a different picture emerges. Considering that 24:4-8 are a compositional unity (with the possible exception of 24:4b) and that these verses also seem to presuppose the priestly ritual of the ordination of the priests in Exod 29 and/or Lev 8, then it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that 24:4-8 are post-priestly in their entirety.71

























































69

Most references to (post-)priestly compositional activity in Exod 24:4-8 are rather vague; cf. CRÜSEMANN, Tora, 63–65 (ET 47–49); SKA, “Exode 19,3b-6,” 307 n. 69; OTTO, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 78–79, 83; and ACHENBACH, “Grundlinien,” 59–60. An exception is Dozeman, who assigns 24:4aβ-5a to the most basic narrative; 24:3-4aα, 7 to a Dtr redaction; and 24:5b-6, 8 to a priestly redaction (DOZEMAN, God, 28, 53, 110–13; cf. IDEM, Exodus, 425). This relative stratification poses certain problems. First, without the blood manipulation ritual in 24:6 and 8, the reference to the sacrifice in 24:5a is left hanging in the air (this problem is also overlooked by KONKEL, Sünde, 272). Moreover, 24:3 and 24:4aα, 7 cannot belong to the same compositional level, since these verses twice report the people’s commitment to obey Yhwh’s words. Finally, Dozeman’s relative dating of the text’s layers is not based on internal literary-critical observations but rather on the assumption that the earliest Sinai narrative contained a theophany that concluded with sacrificial offerings as well as the assumption that a Deuteronomistic and a priestly redaction must have occurred in distinct stages (and in that order). 70 KONKEL, Sünde, 273 notes that the verbs used for the application of blood on the priests in Exod 29 and Lev 8 (‫ נתן‬and ‫ )נזה‬differ from the verb used in Exod 24:8 (‫ )זרק‬and concludes from this that the blood ritual in 24:8 cannot be a reference to the consecration of the priests in Exod 29 and Lev 8. In doing so he is forced to downplay the fact that the verb ‫ זרק‬still appears in Exod 29 and Lev 8, only in connection to the altar and not to human actors. However, as GILDERS, Blood Ritual, 41 has shown, the repetition of the same blood manipulation (and thereby the repetition of the verb ‫ )זרק‬on both the altar and the people creates an indexical relationship between the two and thus can be interpreted as an intentional choice, even if the author of Exod 24:8 knew that different verbs are used in Exod 29 and Lev 8. Moreover, from a practical point of view, the verb ‫ זרק‬fits the scene much better than ‫ נתן‬or ‫נזה‬, since the latter two verbs are not suitable for an application of blood on the people as a collective entity. 71 Cf. BERNER, “Redaction History,” 400; RÖMER, “Provisorische Überlegungen,” 141– 42; and H.-C. SCHMITT, “Gesetz,” 162. Several other scholars have also begun moving in this direction of interpretation but express reticence in one way or another to conclude that Exod 24:4-8 were composed after the joining of priestly and non-priestly materials in the Pentateuch. For example, both OTTO, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 83 and SKA, “Exode 19,3b-6,” 307 n. 69 speak of post-priestly compositional activity in these verses, although neither takes a clear stance on whether 24:4-8 are post-priestly in their entirety or whether they simply underwent a reworking in light of priestly literature. Somewhat differently, OSWALD, Israel, 163, 198 implicitly concludes that 24:4-8 (which

128

Chapter 4: The Revelation of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19–24 // Deut 5:1–6:3)

Exod 19:3b-8. The main obstacle to the attribution of Exod 19:3b-8 as a whole to one of the old sources or some other ancient tradition72 or even to a Deuteronomistic but still pre-priestly composition73 is the reference to the people becoming a “priestly kingdom/kingdom of priests” (‫)ממלכת כהנים‬74 and a “holy people” (‫ )גוי קדוש‬if they observe Yhwh’s covenant (19:5-6), which has clear links to priestly literature,75 including the Holiness Code and related texts (cf. Lev. 19:2; 20:7; 20:24, 26; Num 16:3).76 Particularly significant in this regard is the connection between divine election and the requirement to be holy (cf. Lev 20:24-26 and 22:33; see also 11:45) as well as the association of the exodus with divine election (cf. Lev 19:26; 23:43; 25:38, 45, 55; 26:13, 46).77 In short, the notion that Exod 19:3b-8 as a whole contain no priestly influence is highly questionable. Another possibility is that Exod 19:3b-8 contain a pre-priestly core that was later supplemented by a priestly



























































































































he regards as a unity) are compositionally pre-priestly but traditio-historically postpriestly, conceding that Exod 24:4-8 presuppose priestly texts but only as part of a separate document. Oswald’s reticence to regard 24:4-8 as post-priestly is also reflected in his more recent work, in which he identifies these verses simply as a Deuteronomistic insertion and makes no reference at all to their links with priestly texts (OSWALD, Staatstheorie, 126; IDEM, “Lawgiving,” 181). 72 NOTH, Exodus, 126 (ET 157–58); VON RAD, Das formgeschichtliche Problem, 36–37 with n. 47 (ET 39–40 with n. 53); JENKS, Elohist, 48; CROSS, “Epic Traditions,” 21–22; MCCARTHY, Treaty, 270–72; WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1–11, 367; and STACKERT, Prophet, 75. 73 ZIMMERLI, “Erwägungen,” 176; CHILDS, Exodus, 361; HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 190; BLUM, “Israel,” 281; IDEM, Studien, 51–52, 88–99; RENAUD, La théophanie, 48–51, 154– 55; and OSWALD, “Lawgiving,” 181. 74 For a concise discussion of the possible interpretations of this phrase and references to further literature, see SKA, “Exode 19,3b-6,” 298–304. 75 Although the phrase ‫ גוי קדוש‬has connections with several texts in Deuteronomy (cf. Deut 7:6; 14:2, 21; 26:19; 28:9), the language in Exod 19:5-6 is atypical: while the passages in Deuteronomy use the phrases ‫( עם סגלה‬Deut 7:6; 14:2; 26:18) and ‫( עם קדוש‬Deut 7:6; 14:2, 21; 26:19), Exod 19:5-6 use ‫ סגלה‬alone and ‫גוי קדוש‬. Earlier commentators such as VON RAD, Das formgeschichtliche Problem, 36 n. 47 (ET 40 n. 53) and WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1–11, 367 took this distinctive language as an indication that 19:3b-8 are preDeuteronomic. Yet as SMITH, Pilgrimage Pattern, 238–39 has argued, “it may be suspected that the expression ‫ גוי קדושׁ‬represents a priestly conflation of the two expressions, ‫עם קדושׁ‬ and ‫גוי גדול‬.” 76 On the notion of the entire people as holy in H texts cf. KNOHL, Sanctuary, 180–86. For the theory that Exod 19:3b-8 has connections to H texts, see already STAERK, “Zur alttestamentlichen Erwählungsglauben,” 8–10 and more recently SKA, “Exode 19,3b-6,” 295, 307–10; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 56; IDEM, “Grundlinien,” 63; RÖMER, “Provisorische Überlegungen,” 133–34; and H.-C. SCHMITT, “Gesetz,” 157–59. 77 Cf. SKA, “Exode 19,3b-6,” 308. On the association between the exodus and divine election in H texts, see CRÜSEMANN, “Exodus,” 120, 129.

1. Exod 19–24

129

redaction.78 Nevertheless, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the most basic material in this unit is post-priestly, since it presupposes and anticipates the covenant ceremony in 24:4-8 (cf. the use of the term ‫ ברית‬in 19:5a and in 24:7).79 Now that the theophany texts and the covenant texts have been analyzed in further detail, it is possible to return to the questions posed above regarding the compositional growth of Exod 19–24. In what follows, the various scenarios for the relationship between theophany and law will be reevaluated in light of the observations made above. 1.2.3. The theophany without the law (Scenario 1) A number of commentators have attempted to isolate a theophany narrative without any reference to the law as the most basic material in Exod 19–24.80 Nevertheless, their reconstructions of such a narrative often create more problems than they resolve and are not supported by the literary-critical analysis of the theophany materials in Exod 19–20.81 Moreover, from a rhetorical

























































78

DOZEMAN, God, 39–45 and SMITH, Pilgrimage Pattern, 236–39. For the notion that Exod 19:3b-8 are an anticipation of 24:4-8, see BLUM, “Israel,” 273–74, 281; IDEM, Studien, 92, 98; DOHMEN, “Sinaibund,” 57–58, 69–73; SCHENKER, “Les sacrifices,” 488; SKA, “Exode 19,3b-6,” 291, 307; and KONKEL, Sünde, 262, 272. On the evaluation of 19:3b-8 as a whole as post-priestly, see CAZELLES, “Royaume”; IDEM, “Alliance”; FOHRER, “Priesterliches Königtum,” 362; KRAUS, “Das Heilige Volk,” 59; PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 175; LOHFINK, “Bundestheologie,” 355–57; SKA, “Exode 19,3b-6,” 291; OTTO, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 76–77; ACHENBACH, “Grundlinien,” 62–63; and GROSS, Zukunft, 131–32. Cf. also OSWALD, Israel, 163; IDEM, Staatstheorie, 126. 80 ZENGER, Israel, 156–57; PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 237; MITTMANN; Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 154; JEREMIAS, Theophanie, 205; SMEND, Entstehung, 68; DOZEMAN, God, 19; KÖCKERT, “Wie kam das Gesetz an den Sinai?,” 14–15; and L. SCHMIDT, “Dekalog,” 592. 81 E.g., MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 154 identifies the Grundschicht of Exod 19–24 in 19:2b-3a, 14a, 15, 16*, 17, 19; 20:18bα, 19-20a, 21; 24:4aβ-6, 9, but this reconstruction produces an incoherent narrative. Exod 19:14a can hardly form the direct continuation of 19:3a, since such a sequence would depict Moses as ascending and descending the mountain without any apparent purpose. Moreover, the people’s requesting that Moses speak with God on their behalf and Moses’ approaching the “dark cloud” in 20:18-21 hardly make sense within the context of a theophany without the communication of the law, since otherwise the reason for Moses’ speaking with God remains unexplained. Mittmann also breaks apart the ritual in 24:4-8, leaving Moses’ act of setting aside half of the blood of the sacrifice without any narrative function. Similarly, DOZEMAN, God, 19 identifies an independent “Mountain of God Tradition” in 19:2b-3a; 19:10aβ-11a, 12aα, 13b-15a, 16aβ-17; 24:4aβ-5 centering on a theophany on the mountain of God and a subsequent sacrificial ritual, yet there are several weaknesses in this proposed basic narrative. (1) The identification of 19:10aβ (from ‫ )וקדשתם‬as the beginning of the earliest material in 19:10-19 creates a narrative fragment. (2) Dozeman includes 19:15a (in which Moses tells the people to be prepared for the third day) in his basic narrative but removes the report of 79

130

Chapter 4: The Revelation of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19–24 // Deut 5:1–6:3)

point of view it must be asked what function a theophany and sacrifice would have served without the giving of the law.82 In light of these problems, the possibility that the theophany materials alone constituted the most basic narrative in Exod 19–24 must be ruled out.83 Rather, the theophany texts formed an introduction to the giving of the law from the outset. This conclusion leads to two further questions: (1) Did the earliest narrative in Exod 19–24 combine the theophany motif with the giving of the law from the beginning, or was the giving of the law originally narrated without any connection to the theophany motif? and (2) Which set of laws – the Decalogue, the Covenant Code, or both – did the theophany materials originally introduce? 1.2.4. The law without the theophany (Scenario 2) If a basic narrative in Exod 19–24 containing only the law/covenant materials and lacking the theophany were to exist, the exposition of such a narrative would have to be sought in 19:2, followed directly by either 19:3a or 19:20b (Moses’ ascent) and then 20:1 or 20:22aα (the beginning of the divine communication of the law).84 This immediately raises the question of whether the Decalogue and the Covenant Code were both part of the most basic material in Exod 19–24 or whether only one of these units was initially present. (Scenario 2a) Decalogue and Covenant Code. In this scenario, the most basic material in Exod 19–24 would have consisted of 19:2*, 3a; 20:1, 2-17*; 20:22aα, 24; 21–23*; and 24:3 or 24:18b.85 Here, 20:22aβb-23 would need to be excluded, since the statement that the people saw that Yhwh spoke with them from heaven would have no precedent in the narrative. Likewise, since 20:18-21 cannot stand alone without the preceding theophany materials in 19:10-19, in this scenario the altar law in 20:22aα, 24-26 and the remaining laws in Exod 21–23* would have followed directly upon the Decalogue in 20:1-17*, with a narrative conclusion in either 24:3 or 24:18b. If Exod 24:18b is indeed the original conclusion to the giving of the law in Exod 19–24, then the question of whether the Decalogue and the Covenant Code entered the narrative at the same time or in succession cannot be answered on the basis of the narrative framework, since 19:3a and 24:18b alone provide no clues in this regard. Their relative order of insertion into Exod 19–



























































































































the third day’s arrival in 19:16aα. (3) Exod 19:17 is an unlikely ending to an early tradition “culminating in a theophany on the mountain” (ibid.); rather, it seems to set the scene for some event to follow. (4) Exod 24:4aβ-5 cannot stand without the remainder of 24:4-8. 82 Cf. LEVIN, “Dekalog,” 185; OSWALD, Israel, 94, 104–9, esp. 109; and KRATZ, Komposition, 145 (ET 139). 83 LEVIN, “Dekalog,” 177–78, 180 and OSWALD, Israel, 112. 84 KRATZ, Komposition, 150 (ET 144). 85 Kratz regards Exod 24:18b as the earliest conclusion to Exod 19–24 (private communication).

1. Exod 19–24

131

24 would have to be evaluated on other grounds, such as the observation that the Covenant Code served as a literary Vorlage to the Decalogue.86 Although this may point to the literary priority of the Covenant Code within Exod 19– 24,87 it hardly rules out the possibility that the Decalogue and the Covenant Code entered the narrative framework at the same time or even that the Decalogue predates the insertion of the Covenant Code into the narrative framework of Exod 19–24. In my view, however, there are reasons to doubt that 24:18b once formed the earliest conclusion to Exod 19–24. According to Reinhard Kratz, Exod 19–24 may have originally consisted of a direct connection between 19:3a and 24:18b, which would have simply reported on Moses’ forty-day stint on the mountain of God without providing any details about what happened there.88 An argument against this view is the fact that in the received form of the text, Moses’ forty-day stint on the mountain is closely connected to the episode of the golden calf (Exod 32:1), which presupposes the presence of the Decalogue in Exod 19–24.89 Thus, I am more inclined to regard Exod 24:3 as the earliest narrative conclusion to Exod 19–24.90 (Scenario 2b) The Covenant Code alone. Assuming that Exod 24:3 formed the original conclusion to Exod 19–24, the only way that this verse can be understood as not presupposing both the Decalogue and the Covenant Code is to interpret ‫ כל דברי ה׳‬as the Covenant Code alone.91 This would also likely require removing the phrase ‫ ואת כל המשפטים‬from this verse92 as well as the corresponding reference to the ‫ משפטים‬in 21:1; otherwise, ‫ כל דברי ה׳‬would have to be understood as the altar law alone, or ‫כל דברי ה׳ ואת כל המשפטים‬ would have to be taken as a hendiadys. In this scenario, the original introduction to the Covenant Code would have consisted of 20:22aα,93 and the most basic narrative would have consisted of 19:2*, 3a; 20:22aα; 20:24-26; 21– 23*; 24:3* (or, less likely, 24:18b).

























































86

On this, see esp. KRATZ, “Dekalog,” 222–30. KRATZ, Komposition, 145 (ET 140). 88 KRATZ, private communication. 89 On this, see Chapter 3. 90 Cf. LEVIN, “Dekalog,” 177–78, 180 and OSWALD, Staatstheorie, 86. 91 MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 156. LEVIN, “Dekalog,” 181 critiques Mittmann’s interpretation, noting that the beginning of the Covenant Code has a redactional connection to the Decalogue in Exod 20:22b. Levin’s objection is not completely decisive, however, since it is possible to regard 20:22(aβ)b-23 as a later addition. 92 For this line of reasoning, see NOTH, Exodus, 160 (ET 198); PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 194; ZENGER, Sinaitheophanie, 74; HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 190; KONKEL, Sünde, 262–63; and SMITH, Pilgrimage Pattern, 234. 93 Exod 20:22(aβ)b-23 presuppose the Decalogue in 20:1-17 and thus would have to be bracketed out. KRATZ, Komposition, 150 (ET 144) considers that either 20:1 or 20:22a could have formed the original introduction to the Covenant Code. 87

132

Chapter 4: The Revelation of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19–24 // Deut 5:1–6:3)

(Scenario 2c) The Decalogue alone. Similar considerations apply to a hypothetical situation in which the Decalogue alone belonged to the most basic version of Exod 19–24. Considering that the giving of the law must have been followed by some sort of concluding narrative frame, which at its minimum would have consisted of 24:3* (without ‫)ואת כל המשפטים‬94 or (less likely) 24:18b and that both of these verses presuppose Moses’ separation from the people when he received Yhwh’s words, a “Decalogue-alone” scenario would also require Moses’ ascent in 19:3a. Thus, in this scenario, the most basic material would have consisted of 19:2*, 3a; 20:1, 2-17*; 24:3*.95 Interim Result. As far as the narrative framework of the giving of the law is concerned, all three of the scenarios just discussed are possible; thus, a different criterion is required in order to evaluate the compositional priority of one unit over the other within Exod 19–24. One such criterion is the Decalogue’s literary dependence on some version of the Covenant Code.96 Although such a view is, prima facie, simpler than its alternative – namely, that the Decalogue presupposes the Covenant Code as an independent source but has literary priority over the latter within Exod 19–24 – it cannot be taken for granted from the outset and must be checked against the evidence of the remaining narrative materials in Exod 19–24. 1.2.5. Law and theophany together (Scenario 3) So far, it has been ruled out that the theophany alone could have constituted the most basic narrative in Exod 19–24 (Scenario 1). In contrast, the notion that the giving of the law alone (whether the Covenant Code, the Decalogue, or both) constituted the most basic narrative in Exod 19–24 (Scenario 2) seems possible but can neither be demonstrated positively nor falsified in any of its iterations. It remains to be seen whether Scenario 3 might provide a more compelling model than Scenario 2. Like Scenario 2, Scenario 3 has three variations that must be explored in turn. (Scenario 3a) Theophany + Decalogue + Covenant Code. According to the foregoing analysis of the theophany texts and the covenant texts, a prepriestly version of Exod 19–24 that included the most basic theophany materials as well as the communication of both the Decalogue and the Covenant Code would have consisted of Exod 19:2*, (3a?), 16aα, 17a(b?), 18bβ; 20:117*, (18b?), 21(a?)b, 22aα, 24-26; 21–23*; 24:3. If it is assumed that the report of the people’s standing at a distance in 20:18b (or 20:21a) belongs to the most basic theophany materials, then the possibility that the theophany, Decalogue, and Covenant Code all belong to a single stage of composition

























































94

Cf. LEVIN, “Dekalog,” 180. This is very similar to the Grundbestand proposed by ibid., 187. 96 On this, see KRATZ, “Dekalog,” 222–30; IDEM, Komposition, 148–49 (ET 142–43). 95

1. Exod 19–24

133

can be ruled out rather easily, since the Wiederaufnahme in 20:18a of the theophanic phenomena from 19:16-18 either implies that everything that comes between 19:16-18 and 20:18b is secondary to the most basic narrative or that 20:18a introduces supplementary materials following the Decalogue in 20:1-17. (Scenario 3b) Theophany + Covenant Code alone. A pre-priestly version of Exod 19–24 that included the most basic theophany materials as well as the communication of the Covenant Code alone would have consisted of Exod 19:2*, (3a?), 16aα, 17a(b?), (18bβ); 20:18b/21a, 21b, 22aα, 24-26; 21– 23*; 24:3* (without ‫)ואת כל המשפטים‬. However, this reconstruction encounters several problems in 24:3, the necessary conclusion to the narrative. In fact, the only way to interpret the narrative transition following the giving of the law in 24:3 as referring solely to the Covenant Code and not to the Decalogue is to read against the grain of the verse’s specific vocabulary and/or to excise 24:3b from the most basic form of the verse. Regarding the verse’s vocabulary, it is noteworthy that Moses is said to have “enumerated” Yhwh’s words to the people (‫)ויספר לעם את כל דברי ה׳‬. Although this verb could theoretically refer to Moses’ repetition of the contents of the Covenant Code, the use of this particular verb, which can be associated with the notion of counting, is more understandable with regard to the Decalogue, which consists of a limited number of divine commands.97 Moreover, if one assumes a Covenant Code-alone scenario and that ‫את כל‬ ‫ דברי ה׳ ואת כל המשפטים‬is not a hendiadys, then ‫ כל המשפטים‬must be regarded as secondary,98 and ‫ כל דברי ה׳‬must be interpreted as the Covenant Code. Such a solution is hardly straightforward, however, since the narrative framing of the Covenant Code does not use the root ‫ דב״ר‬but rather the root ‫אמ״ר‬ (Exod 20:22aα), while the present narrative framing of the Decalogue does use the root ‫( דב״ר‬Exod 20:1). Thus, the use of the verb ‫ דבר‬piel in 20:1 provides an additional argument in favor of regarding the Decalogue as the referent of ‫ את כל דברי ה׳‬in 24:3. In addition to these lexical considerations, there is an even more decisive indication that the earliest form of Exod 24:3 refers to the Decalogue, namely, the people’s commitment to obey Yhwh’s words (‫כל הדברים אשר דבר ה׳‬ ‫)נעשה‬. This commitment makes little sense as a response to the promulgation of the Covenant Code, which in its core consists of case law. In contrast, it makes perfect sense as a response to the Decalogue, which stipulates actions that can either be carried out or violated in a binary fashion. In other words, the commandments in the Decalogue call for obedience, while the laws in the Covenant Code are not framed in terms of obedience versus disobedience.

























































97

Cf. LEVIN, “Dekalog,” 182–83. The phrase ‫ כל המשפטים‬cannot be more original than ‫כל דברי ה׳‬, since in Exod 24:3b the people refer only to ‫ כל הדברים אשר דבר ה׳‬and make no reference to the ‫משפטים‬. 98

134

Chapter 4: The Revelation of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19–24 // Deut 5:1–6:3)

The cumulative weight of these observations on Exod 24:3 poses a major challenge to the Theophany + Covenant Code alone scenario for the most basic version of Exod 19–24. Rather, the most basic theophany materials and the Decalogue are intrinsically connected. This leaves two remaining possibilities: Either the Decalogue and the Covenant Code both accompanied the theophany from the outset, or the Decalogue alone belonged to the most basic narrative in Exod 19–24 and the Covenant Code was incorporated only secondarily. Unfortunately, both of these alternatives also present certain problems. Above, a tension was noted in the Theophany + Decalogue + Covenant Code model (Scenario 3a), since in the received form of the text the Decalogue interrupts the narrative connection between the theophanic phenomena in 19:16-17* and Moses’ spatial separation from the people in 20:18b/21a. Moreover, the present narrative setting of the Decalogue does not fit well with 24:3, since the latter verse implies that the people did not hear the contents of the law. Likewise, the Theophany + Decalogue alone scenario has its own problems, which will be discussed below. (Scenario 3c) Theophany + Decalogue alone. The possibility that the most basic narrative in Exod 19–24 combining theophany and law contained only the Decalogue finds some support in the relative chronology of Exod 24:38.99 Several striking observations can be made regarding the connections that 24:3* and 24:4-8 bear to the Decalogue and the Covenant Code, respectively: (1) Whereas the people’s commitment to obey Yhwh’s “words” in 24:3 occurs completely at the level of speech, 24:4-8 emphasize the written aspects of the law: in 24:4 Moses writes Yhwh’s words, and in 24:7 Moses takes the “book/scroll of the covenant” and reads it to the people. (2) The people’s response in 24:7 that they will “do and obey” (‫ )נעשה ונשמע‬is an amplification of 24:3, where the people merely state that they will “obey” (‫)נשמע‬. Combined with the observation that 24:3-8 contain two distinct stages of composition, this shift in the people’s use of a single verb in their commitment in 24:3 to two verbs in their commitment in 24:7 may further indicate a literary development from a single revelation of the law to a double revelation. (3) The correspondence between the altar law in 20:24-26 and Moses’ construction of an altar in preparation for the blood manipulation ritual in Exod 24:4-8 is striking. Regardless of whether the altar law was once part of an independent Covenant Code prior to its incorporation into its present narrative context or whether it is a redactional pendant to the ritual in 24:4-8, the motif of the altar in 24:4-8 constitutes a further connection of 24:4-8 with the Covenant Code rather than with the Decalogue. In light of the basic observation that Exod 24:4-8 are secondary to 24:3 in literary-critical terms, the particular connections between 24:3 and the Decalogue on the one hand and between 24:4-8 and the Covenant Code on the

























































99

Cf. LEVIN, “Dekalog,” 182–83.

1. Exod 19–24

135

other fit well with the possibility that the Covenant Code – albeit undoubtedly the literary Vorlage to the Decalogue – is secondary to the Decalogue within its present literary framework.100 1.3. Synthesis I

The most basic prerequisite for the narratives in Exod 19–24 is the itinerary notice in Exod 19:2aα(β), which could be earlier than the remainder of the materials in these chapters.

II

The next stage in the development of Exod 19–24 (if it was indeed distinct from Level I) introduced the mountain of God as the setting for a theophany that culminated in the revelation of the Decalogue and the people’s commitment to obey the law. This narrative possibly consisted of Exod 19:2b, (3a?), 16aα, 16b, 17; 20:1-17*; 24:3a* (without ‫ואת כל‬ ‫ )המשפטים‬and could have been inserted at a pre-priestly stage of composition. A notable narrative tension that remains within these verses is the fact that in 24:3* Moses is depicted as returning to the people, implying that the people did not hear the revelation of the Decalogue directly, despite the fact that Exod 19:16-17* do not describe Moses’ separation from the people prior to the revelation of the Decalogue. This leaves several interpretive possibilities. (1) Perhaps 19:16* originally connected directly to 20:1. (2) Perhaps the people did hear, and the reference to Moses’ repetition of the words serves to emphasize Moses’ role as the leader of the people (cf. 19:17).101 (3) Perhaps the people were present at the revelation of the Decalogue, but only Moses was able to understand the divine speech and had to relate it to the people.102 (4) Perhaps the people’s response to the Decalogue originally consisted of only 24:3b. These possibilities will be revisited in §3.

III

The insertion of the laws in Exod 21–23* was probably the next major stage in the growth of Exod 19–24. At the very least, this stage would have consisted of Exod 20:22aα, 24-26; 21–23* and the addition of the phrase ‫ ואת כל המשפטים‬in 24:3, in which case the laws in Exod 21–23* could have been inserted at a pre-priestly stage of composition.103 It is also possible, however, that Exod 21–23* were accompanied from the

























































100

90.

101

Cf. ibid., 181; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Gesetz,” 162–63; and L. SCHMIDT, “Dekalog,” 589–

Cf. Deut 5:4, which makes the notion that the people heard the Decalogue directly even more explicit by stating that Yhwh spoke with them “face to face” (‫)פנים בפנים‬. 102 Cf. Deut 5:5, although this verse implies that the people were not even present at the revelation, since they “were afraid because of the fire and did not go up the mountain.” 103 Strictly speaking, the term “Covenant Code” is a misnomer prior to the insertion of Exod 24:4-8.

136

Chapter 4: The Revelation of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19–24 // Deut 5:1–6:3)

outset by the covenant ceremony in 24:4-8,104 in which case the insertion of the laws in Exod 21–23* would have taken place at a postpriestly stage of composition. Indeed, the latter possibility is strongly supported by the analysis of the narrative transition from the Decalogue to the Covenant Code in 20:18, 21b, which constitutes a paraphrastic Wiederaufnahme of 19:16-17 that presupposes (post-)priestly elements in 19:16 (the shofar blast) and 19:18 (the smoking mountain). III+ Sometime after the addition of Exod 24:4-8, the people’s commitment to obey Yhwh’s covenant in 19:3b-8* (perhaps without 19:6a) was added as a proleptic frame. The most basic materials in the narrative transition to Exod 25–31 – namely, 24:12, 13b – also likely belong to this stage, as these verses can hardly have been composed later than 24:9-11 in light of the problem regarding Moses’ location on the mountain. IV

Exod 19–24 were supplemented with a number of texts that strengthened the parallelism between the mountain of God and the temple and which presuppose priestly literature. These texts include the priestly itinerary notice (19:1), supplementary ritual details associated with the nature theophany involving the entire people (19:10aβb, 11aβb-13a, 14b, 15b, 16aβb, 18abα, 19-22, 25, 20:18), and the description of a cultic theophany reserved for Moses, the priests, and the elite laity (24:1, 9-10).

IV+ This group of temple texts underwent ongoing revisions, as indicated by the insertion of Exod 19:23-24 between 19:21-22 and 19:25, the addition of 24:2 as a revision of 24:1 emphasizing the unique role of Moses, and the addition of 24:11 as a further correction to 24:1. Perhaps around the same time, the end of Exod 24 was supplemented with several elements that anticipate the episode of the golden calf and its aftermath in Exod 32–34. These include 24:13a, 14-15a, which serve to distance the figure of Joshua from any involvement in the sin of the golden calf, and the reference to Moses’ forty-day stint on the mountain in 24:18b, which serves as a pretext for the people’s decision to make the calf in Exod 32. V

Probably at a late stage in the composition of Exod 19–24, a series of additions were made – most likely not all by the same hand – which emphasize Moses’ special role as the mediator of the law as well as the people’s ability to perceive Yhwh’s revelation of the law (i.e., the Decalogue) to Moses but their inability to discern the contents of that revelation (19:9; 20:19-20, 22aβb-23).

























































104

Probably without Exod 24:4b.

‫‪137‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪1. Exod 19–24‬‬ ‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬ ‫‪19:1‬‬

‫‪V‬‬ ‫בחדש השלישי לצאת בני ישראל מארץ מצרים ביום הזה באו מדבר סיני‬

‫‪ 2‬ויסעו מרפידים ויבאו מדבר סיני ויחנו במדבר‬ ‫ויחן שם ישראל נגד ההר‬ ‫‪ 3‬ומשה עלה אל האלהים‬ ‫]ויקרא אליו ה׳ מן ההר לאמר כה תאמר לבית יעקב ותגיד לבני ישראל ‪ 4‬אתם ראיתם אשר‬ ‫עשיתי למצרים ואשא אתכם על כנפי נשרים ואבא אתכם אלי ‪ 5‬ועתה אם שמוע תשמעו‬ ‫בקלי ושמרתם את בריתי והייתם לי סגלה מכל העמים כי לי כל הארץ ‪ 6‬ואתם תהיו לי‬ ‫ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש אלה הדברים אשר תדבר אל בני ישראל ‪ 7‬ויבא משה ויקרא לזקני‬ ‫העם וישם לפניהם את כל הדברים האלה אשר צוהו ה׳ ‪ 8‬ויענו כל העם יחדו ויאמרו כל‬ ‫אשר דבר ה׳ נעשה וישב משה את דברי העם אל ה׳[‬ ‫‪ 9‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה הנה אנכי בא אליך בעב הענן בעבור ישמע העם בדברי‬ ‫עמך וגם בך יאמינו לעולם ויגד משה את דברי העם אל ה׳‬ ‫‪ 10‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה לך אל העם וקדשתם היום ומחר וכבסו שמלתם‬ ‫ליום השלישי‬

‫‪11‬‬

‫והיו נכנים‬

‫]כי ביום השלשי ירד ה׳ לעיני כל העם על הר סיני ‪ 12‬והגבלת את העם סביב לאמר‬ ‫השמרו לכם עלות בהר ונגע בקצהו כל הנגע בהר מות יומת ‪ 13‬לא תגע בו יד כי סקול‬ ‫יסקל או ירה יירה אם בהמה אם איש לא יחיה[‬ ‫במשך היבל המה יעלו בהר‬ ‫‪ 14‬וירד משה מן ההר ]אל העם[ ויקדש את העם ויכבסו שמלתם‬ ‫היו נכנים לשלשת ימים ]אל תגשו אל אשה[‬

‫‪15‬‬

‫ויאמר אל העם‬

‫‪ 16‬ויהי ביום השלישי בהית הבקר ויהי קלת וברקים וענן כבד על ההר‬ ‫וקל שפר חזק מאד‬ ‫ויחרד כל העם אשר במחנה‬ ‫בתחתית ההר‬

‫‪17‬‬

‫ויוצא משה את העם לקראת האלהים מן המחנה ויתיצבו‬

‫‪ 18‬והר סיני עשן כלו מפני אשר ירד עליו ה׳ באש ויעל עשנו כעשן הכבשן ויחרד כל‬ ‫ההר מאד ‪ 19‬ויהי קול השפר הולך וחזק מאד משה ידבר והאלהים יעננו בקול ‪ 20‬וירד‬ ‫ה׳ על הר סיני אל ראש ההר ויקרא ה׳ למשה אל ראש ההר ויעל משה ‪ 21‬ויאמר ה׳‬ ‫אל משה רד העד בעם פן יהרסו אל ה׳ לראות ונפל ממנו רב ‪ 22‬וגם הכהנים הנגשים‬ ‫אל ה׳ יתקדשו פן יפרץ בהם ה׳ ]‪ 23‬ויאמר משה אל ה׳ לא יוכל העם לעלת אל הר‬ ‫סיני כי אתה העדתה בנו לאמר הגבל את ההר וקדשתו ‪ 24‬ויאמר אליו ה׳ לך רד‬ ‫ועלית אתה ואהרן עמך והכהנים והעם אל יהרסו לעלת אל ה׳ פן יפרץ בם[ ‪ 25‬וירד‬ ‫משה אל העם ויאמר אלהם‬

‫)‪Chapter 4: The Revelation of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19–24 // Deut 5:1–6:3‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬ ‫‪20:1‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪138‬‬

‫‪V‬‬

‫וידבר אלהים את כל הדברים האלה לאמר… ]‪[Decalogue‬‬ ‫‪ 20:18‬וכל העם ראים את הקולת ואת הלפידם ואת קול השפר ואת ההר עשן וירא העם וינעו‬ ‫ויעמדו מרחק‬ ‫‪ 19‬ויאמרו אל משה דבר אתה עמנו ונשמעה ואל ידבר עמנו אלהים פן נמות‬ ‫‪ 20‬ויאמר משה אל העם אל תיראו כי לבעבור נסות אתכם בא האלהים ובעבור‬ ‫תהיה יראתו על פניכם לבלתי תחטאו ‪ 21‬ויעמד העם מרחק‬ ‫ומשה נגש אל הערפל אשר שם האלהים ‪ 22‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה‬ ‫כה תאמר אל בני ישראל אתם ראיתם כי מן השמים דברתי עמכם‬ ‫אתי אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב לא תעשו לכם‬

‫‪23‬‬

‫לא תעשון‬

‫‪ 24‬מזבח אדמה תעשה לי וזבחת עליו את עלתיך ואת שלמיך את צאנך ואת בקרך בכל‬ ‫המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי אבוא אליך וברכתיך ‪ 25‬ואם מזבח אבנים תעשה לי לא תבנה‬ ‫אתהן גזית כי חרבך הנפת עליה ותחללה ‪ 26‬ולא תעלה במעלת על מזבחי אשר לא תגלה‬ ‫ערותך עליו ‪ 21:1‬ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם… ]‪[Covenant Code‬‬ ‫‪ 24:1‬ואל משה אמר עלה אל ה׳ אתה ואהרן נדב ואביהוא ושבעים מזקני ישראל‬ ‫והשתחויתם מרחק ‪] 2‬ונגש משה לבדו אל ה׳ והם לא יגשו והעם לא יעלו עמו[‬ ‫]‪ 3‬ויבא משה ויספר לעם את כל דברי ה׳ ואת כל המשפטים[‬ ‫ויען כל העם קול אחד ויאמרו כל הדברים אשר דבר ה׳ נעשה‬ ‫‪ 4‬ויכתב משה את כל דברי ה׳ וישכם בבקר ויבן מזבח תחת ההר ]ושתים עשרה מצבה‬ ‫לשנים עשר שבטי ישראל[ ‪ 5‬וישלח את נערי בני ישראל ויעלו עלת ויזבחו זבחים שלמים‬ ‫לה׳ פרים ‪ 6‬ויקח משה חצי הדם וישם באגנת וחצי הדם זרק על המזבח ‪ 7‬ויקח ספר הברית‬ ‫ויקרא באזני העם ויאמרו כל אשר דבר ה׳ נעשה ונשמע ‪ 8‬ויקח משה את הדם ויזרק על‬ ‫העם ויאמר הנה דם הברית אשר כרת ה׳ עמכם על כל הדברים האלה‬ ‫‪ 9‬ויעל משה ואהרן נדב ואביהוא ושבעים מזקני ישראל ‪ 10‬ויראו את אלהי ישראל‬ ‫ותחת רגליו כמעשה לבנת הספיר וכעצם השמים לטהר ‪] 11‬ואל אצילי בני ישראל לא‬ ‫שלח ידו ויחזו את האלהים ויאכלו וישתו[‬ ‫]‪ 12‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה עלה אלי ההרה והיה שם ואתנה לך את לחת האבן והתורה והמצוה‬ ‫אשר כתבתי להורתם[‬ ‫]‪ 13‬ויקם משה ויהושע משרתו[‬ ‫]ויעל משה אל הר האלהים[‬ ‫]‪ 14‬ואל הזקנים אמר שבו לנו בזה עד אשר נשוב אליכם והנה אהרן וחור עמכם מי‬ ‫בעל דברים יגש אלהם ‪ 15‬ויעל משה אל ההר[‬ ‫ויכס הענן את ההר ‪ 16‬וישכן כבוד ה׳ על הר סיני ויכסהו הענן ששת ימים ויקרא אל‬ ‫משה ביום השביעי מתוך הענן ‪ 17‬ומראה כבוד ה׳ כאש אכלת בראש ההר לעיני בני‬ ‫ישראל ‪ 18‬ויבא משה בתוך הענן ויעל אל ההר‬ ‫ויהי משה בהר ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה‬

2. Deut 5:1–6:3

139

2. Deut 5:1–6:3 2.1. Literary-critical analysis Before the narratives in Deut 5:1–6:3 and Exod 19–24 can be compared, the literary growth of the narrative material in Deut 5:1-5, 22-33; 6:1-3 should first be investigated independently as far as possible. This material contains a Mosaic retrospective of the events surrounding the revelation of the law at the mountain of God and forms a frame around the text of the Decalogue (5:6-21). The opening frame (Deut 5:1-5). Between Deut 5:1 and 5:2 there is a shift in both implied audience and in subject matter, suggesting that these verses are not a compositional unity. When Moses begins speaking to the people in 5:1aα2βb, he addresses them using 2mp grammatical forms; in contrast, 5:2 uses 1cp grammatical forms, thereby including Moses as part of the implied audience. Moses’ exhortation in 5:1aα2βb to hear the ‫ חקים‬and ‫ משפטים‬is rather out of place in this opening framework to the Decalogue, since elsewhere these terms point to the Deuteronomic law (cf. 4:45; 6:1). Thus, it is likely that 5:1aα2βb does not belong to the most basic compositional layer within 5:1-5*.105 It is also likely that Deut 5:2 and 5:3 are not the product of a single hand, since 5:2 uses the preposition ‫ עם‬whereas 5:3 twice uses the preposition ‫את‬ to describe the party with whom Yhwh made a covenant. Considering that 5:3 cannot stand without 5:2 since the phrase ‫ הברית הזאת‬in 5:3 presupposes the reference to the ‫ ברית‬in 5:2, 5:3 would be later than 5:2.106 Provided that 5:3 is a later addition, 5:2 would have once been followed directly by 5:4. Yet there is some reason to suspect that 5:2 and 5:4 also do not go back to the same compositional level, since 5:2 uses 1cp grammatical forms while 5:4 uses 2mp forms, and since it would be unusual for a single author to have named Yhwh explicitly as the subject in both 5:2 and 5:4.107 In any event, 5:4

























































105

Cf. MAYES, Deuteronomy, 165, although he seems to assign Deut 5:1 in its entirety to a later compositional level; VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 141; PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 414; and L. SCHMIDT, “Dekalog,” 585 against OTTO, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 674, 676, who regards 5:1aβb as part of the most basic compositional level in Deut 5. 106 Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 133; HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 224; NELSON, Deuteronomy, 77 n. 1; and VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 141 against WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1–11, 237, who treats Deut 5:2-3 together as “an explanatory gloss” as well as against OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 121 n. 56; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44– 11,32, 674 and PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 81; IDEM, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 416, who assign 5:3 to the most basic compositional level. 107 For the view that Deut 5:4 is later than 5:2, see PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 81 n. 1; IDEM, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 415 and M AYES, Deuteronomy, 166. For the view that 5:2 and

140

Chapter 4: The Revelation of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19–24 // Deut 5:1–6:3)

cannot be earlier than 5:2: Whereas 5:2 is concerned with what happened at Horeb (namely, Yhwh’s making a covenant with the people), 5:4 is primarily concerned with how Yhwh communicated with the people and thus seems to presuppose the general setting of the events described in 5:2.108 Finally, Deut 5:4 and 5:5 are not a compositional unity. Syntactically, 5:5 interrupts the connection between the introduction of divine speech in 5:4 and the word ‫ לאמר‬at the end of 5:5, suggesting that 5:5* (except ‫ )לאמר‬is later than 5:4. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that 5:5* contradicts the perspective of 5:4: Whereas in 5:4 Moses states that Yhwh spoke with the people face to face (‫ )פנים בפנים‬at/on the mountain, in 5:5* Moses states that he stood between the people and Yhwh, relaying Yhwh’s message to the people, since the people were afraid on account of the fire and did not ascend the mountain.109 When the foregoing observations are combined, the most basic material in the opening framework to the Decalogue can be identified in Deut 5:1aα1, 2, (4), 5* (only ‫)לאמר‬. This framework was later supplemented by 5:1aα2βb, 3, and 5*, although it is unclear in which order these additions entered the text. Whether this introduction to the Decalogue formed the earliest continuation of Moses’ act of summoning of the people in 5:1aα1 is another question. Indeed, it is possible that 5:1aα1 was once followed not by the ‫ שמע ישראל‬in 5:1aα2 but rather by the ‫ שמע ישראל‬in 6:4.110 If this is the case, then even the most basic text of Moses’ retrospective in Deut 5:1–6:3* would postdate the earliest literary integration of the Deuteronomic law within a broader narrative framework. The closing frame (Deut 5:22–6:3). Following the citation of the Decalogue in Deut 5:6-21, the remainder of Moses’ retrospective in 5:22–6:3 is concerned primarily with the question of what the people did and did not hear during the revelation of the law at the mountain of God. Since the Shema (6:4) is unlikely to have followed directly upon the text of the Decalogue in 5:6-21 without a narrative transition, some version of the etiology of the two-



























































































































5:4 belong to the same compositional level, see MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 132– 33; HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 224; and VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 134. 108 In this respect, VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 133 n. 56 is certainly correct in concluding that “Vers 2 kann auf keinen Fall eine sekundäre Zutat sein.” 109 The conclusion that Deut 5:5* is later than 5:4 forms a consensus among commentators; see PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 81 n. 1; MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 132; MAYES, Deuteronomy, 166; HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 225–26; WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1–11, 240–41; OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 116; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 674; NELSON, Deuteronomy, 77 n. 1; VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 135, 146; FINSTERBUSCH, Deuteronomium, 79; and L. SCHMIDT, “Dekalog,” 585. 110 Cf. KRATZ, “Der literarische Ort,” 118; IDEM, Komposition, 129 (ET 124–25); IDEM, “Headings,” 44.

2. Deut 5:1–6:3

141

tiered revelation of the law in 5:22–6:3 must have accompanied the insertion of the Decalogue from the outset.111 There are several indications that Deut 5:22-31 are not a compositional unity: (1) Deut 5:22 clearly depicts Yhwh as revealing the specific content of the Decalogue to the people (‫)את הדברים האלה דבר ה׳ אל כל קהלכם‬. At the same time, this verse emphasizes that this is all that Yhwh revealed to the people (‫)ולא יסף‬. Although some commentators have argued that ‫ ולא יסף‬at the end of 5:22a, as well as 5:22b, is a later addition,112 this is questionable, particularly for the statement ‫ ולא יסף‬in 5:22a, which goes hand in hand with the etiology of the two-tiered revelation of the law developed in 5:23-31*. Thus, it seems possible that 5:22 as a whole belongs to the most basic material in 5:22–6:3. (2) In Deut 5:23bβ, the reference to the tribal leaders and elders stands in tension with the 2mp implied audience in the surrounding verses and is widely agreed to be a later addition.113 (3) Within Deut 5:24, there is a slight syntactic tension between 5:24a and 5:24b. In terms of content, 5:24b also stands in tension with the people’s subsequent request in 5:25b, 27 that Moses act as an intermediary on account of their fear of dying if they continue to hear Yhwh’s voice. In light of these observations, it seems possible that 5:24b is a later addition.114 (4) The fact that Deut 5:25 contains two different reasons for the people’s fear of death suggests that this verse underwent compositional growth. Considering that the reason given in 5:25b – namely, that the people will die if they continue to hear Yhwh’s voice – is integrally connected to the people’s subsequent request that Moses act as an intermediary, this half verse must belong to the most basic material in 5:22–6:3. This suggests that 5:25a* (except ‫ )ועתה‬is a later addition.115 Such an addition was perhaps motivated by the insertion of 5:24b (which states that humans can hear divine speech and live), providing an alternative reason for the people’s fear of death.116

























































111

These considerations lend some weight to the possibility that Deut 5:4 belongs to most basic compositional level in 5:1-5*. 112 MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 137; HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 228; and VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 140. See also OTTO, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 668, 677, who regards only ‫ ויתנם אלי‬in Deut 5:22bβ as a later addition. 113 MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 137–38; MAYES, Deuteronomy, 172; PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 425; and L. SCHMIDT, “Dekalog,” 585. 114 Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 138; HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 229; and VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 146. In contrast, PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 428–29 is inclined to regard Deut 5:24 as a whole as part of the most basic material in 5:22-31. 115 Cf. HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 230. 116 Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 138–39.

142

Chapter 4: The Revelation of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19–24 // Deut 5:1–6:3)

(5) Deut 5:26 interrupts the people’s statement of their fear of death in 5:25* and their resulting request that Moses act as intermediator between Yhwh and the people in 5:27. Considering that this verse constitutes a digression from the main etiological purpose of 5:22–6:3, it is quite possibly a later addition.117 (6) The same can be said of Deut 5:29, which interrupts Yhwh’s approval of the people’s proposal in 5:28 and the resulting instructions to Moses in 5:30-31.118 (7) The 2mp form of address in Deut 5:32-33 does not connect smoothly with 5:31, in which Yhwh addresses Moses and refers to the people in the third person.119 The conclusion that 5:32-33 are later than 5:31 is supported by the absence of these verses in the text of Deut 5 from three Qumran phylacteries (4QPhyl A, B, J).120 In contrast to the Decalogue, which Deut 5:1-5, 22-31* (with the exception of 5:5*) regard as having been heard directly by the people, 6:1 implies that the “commandment and the statutes and the ordinances” were not revealed to the people and that Moses must teach these laws to the people. In other words, 6:1 presupposes the etiology of the two levels of revelation developed in 5:1-5, 22-31*. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that 6:1 was formulated specifically as a fulfillment of 5:31, since both verses use the phrase ‫ המצוה והחקים והמשפטים‬as well as the verb ‫ למד‬piel. Considering that 6:1 cannot stand without 5:1-5, 23-31* and that 5:31 does not connect smoothly to the Shema in 6:4, it seems likely that 6:1 once connected directly to 5:31.121 In contrast, 6:2-3 shift to a 2ms form of address and are widely regarded as later than 6:1.122

























































117

Cf. MAYES, Deuteronomy, 173; HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 231; OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 116; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 675; NELSON, Deuteronomy, 77 n. 1; VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 146; PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 430–31; and L. SCHMIDT, “Dekalog,” 585 against MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 138–39, who seems to regard Deut 5:26 as part of the most basic compositional layer. 118 MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 139; MAYES, Deuteronomy, 173; HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 231; VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 144; and BERNER, “Redaction History,” 387. In contrast, PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 434 regards the attribution of this verse to a different compositional level as “keineswegs zwingend.” 119 MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 139; HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 234–36; OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 141; VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 145; PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 438; and L. SCHMIDT, “Dekalog,” 585. 120 ROFÉ, “Deuteronomy 5:28–6:1” and TOV, Textual Criticism2, 345. 121 Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 139; MAYES, Deuteronomy, 174; and VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 138. 122 Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 140; MAYES, Deuteronomy, 174; VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 145–46; and PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 441–44.

143

2. Deut 5:1–6:3

2.2. Synthesis I

It is possible that Deut 5:1aα1 originally connected directly to the beginning of the Shema in 6:4 and to the Deuteronomic law prior to the insertion of the Mosaic retrospective in Deut 5:1–6:3*. If this is indeed the case, it indicates that the earliest embedding of the Deuteronomic law within its present narrative context did not originally claim that the latter was revealed at the mountain of God.

II

In the next stage of composition, a large amount of material was inserted between Deut 5:1aα1 and 6:4 – perhaps consisting in its most basic form of 5:2, (4?), 5* (only ‫)לאמר‬, 6-21*, 22-23abα, 24a, 25a* (only ‫)ועתה‬, 25b, 27-28, 30-31; 6:1123 – and served to situate the original revelation of the Deuteronomic law to Moses at the mountain of God. In order to explain why this law – unlike the Decalogue – was not revealed to the people at that time, an etiology was developed whereby the people request that Moses serve as their intermediary.124

III In a subsequent stage of composition, a variety of smaller additions were made in Deut 5:1aα2βb, 3, 5*, 29, 32-33; 6:2-3. Whereas 5:29, 32-33 and 6:2-3 primarily reinforce the call to obey the Deuteronomic law that is already implicit in 5:31 and 6:1, the additions in 5:3 and 5:5 are more radical, as they revise two fundamental notions about the nature of the revelation at the mountain of God, namely, who was party to the covenant there (5:3) and whether the people heard the Decalogue (5:5*). III

II

‫ויקרא משה אל כל ישראל ויאמר אלהם‬

I 5:1

‫שמע ישראל‬ ‫את החקים ואת המשפטים אשר אנכי דבר באזניכם היום ולמדתם אתם ושמרתם לעשתם‬ ‫ ה׳ אלהינו כרת עמנו ברית בחרב‬2 ‫ לא את אבתינו כרת ה׳ את הברית הזאת כי אתנו אנחנו אלה פה היום כלנו חיים‬3 ‫ פנים בפנים דבר ה׳ עמכם בהר מתוך האש‬4 ‫ אנכי עמד בין ה׳ וביניכם בעת ההוא להגיד לכם את דבר ה׳ כי יראתם מפני האש ולא‬5 ‫עליתם בהר‬ [Decalogue: 5:6-21] ‫לאמר‬ ‫ את הדברים האלה דבר ה׳ אל כל קהלכם בהר מתוך האש הענן והערפל קול גדול ולא יסף‬22 ‫ ויהי כשמעכם את הקול מתוך החשך וההר בער באש‬23 ‫ויכתבם על שני לחת אבנים ויתנם אלי‬



























































123 Here I agree in large part with the reconstruction of VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1– 16,17, 131, although I regard Deut 5:1aα1 as earlier than the rest of the unit. 124 This etiological function of Deut 5:1–6:3* is widely acknowledged; see, e.g., NELSON, Deuteronomy, 77 and KRATZ, “Höre Israel,” 80.

‫)‪Chapter 4: The Revelation of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19–24 // Deut 5:1–6:3‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪144‬‬

‫‪III‬‬ ‫‪III‬‬

‫‪24‬‬

‫ותקרבון אלי ] כל ראשי שבטיכם וזקניכם[ ותאמרו הן הראנו ה׳ אלהינו את כבדו ואת גדלו‬ ‫ואת קלו שמענו מתוך האש ]‪ III‬היום הזה ראינו כי ידבר אלהים את האדם וחי[ ‪ 25‬ועתה ]‪ III‬למה‬ ‫נמות כי תאכלנו האש הגדלה הזאת[ אם יספים אנחנו לשמע את קול ה׳ אלהינו עוד ומתנו‬ ‫‪ 26‬כי מי כל בשר אשר שמע קול אלהים חיים מדבר מתוך האש כמנו ויחי‬ ‫‪ 27‬קרב אתה ושמע את כל אשר יאמר ה׳ אלהינו ואת תדבר אלינו את כל אשר ידבר ה׳ אלהינו‬ ‫אליך ושמענו ועשינו ‪ 28‬וישמע ה׳ את קול דבריכם בדברכם אלי ויאמר ה׳ אלי שמעתי את קול‬ ‫דברי העם הזה אשר דברו אליך היטיבו כל אשר דברו‬ ‫‪ 29‬מי יתן והיה לבבם זה להם ליראה אתי ולשמר את כל מצותי כל הימים למען ייטב להם‬ ‫ולבניהם לעלם‬ ‫‪ 30‬לך אמר להם שובו לכם לאהליכם ‪ 31‬ואתה פה עמד עמדי ואדברה אליך את כל המצוה‬ ‫והחקים והמשפטים אשר תלמדם ועשו בארץ אשר אנכי נתן להם לרשתה‬ ‫‪ 32‬ושמרתם לעשות כאשר צוה ה׳ אלהיכם אתכם לא תסרו ימין ושמאל ‪ 33‬בכל הדרך אשר‬ ‫צוה ה׳ אלהיכם אתכם תלכו למען תחיון וטוב לכם והארכתם ימים בארץ אשר תירשון‬ ‫‪ 6:1‬וזאת המצוה החקים והמשפטים אשר צוה ה׳ אלהיכם ללמד אתכם לעשות בארץ אשר אתם‬ ‫עברים שמה לרשתה‬ ‫‪ 2‬למען תירא את ה׳ אלהיך לשמר את כל חקתיו ומצותיו אשר אנכי מצוך אתה ובנך ובן‬ ‫בנך כל ימי חייך ולמען יארכן ימיך ‪ 3‬ושמעת ישראל ושמרת לעשות אשר ייטב לך ואשר‬ ‫תרבון מאד כאשר דבר ה׳ אלהי אבתיך לך ארץ זבת חלב ודבש‬ ‫‪ 4‬שמע ישראל ה׳ אלהינו ה׳ אחד…‬

‫‪3. Comparison of Exod 19–24 and Deut 5:1–6:3‬‬ ‫‪Comparison of Deut 5:1–6:3 with Exod 19–24 (as well as with other Penta‬‬‫‪teuchal texts) strongly suggests that the insertion of the Decalogue in Deut‬‬ ‫‪),‬לאמר ‪5:6-21* and its most basic narrative frame in Deut 5:2, (4?), 5* (only‬‬ ‫‪), 25b, 27-28, 30-31; 6:1 presuppose a version‬ועתה ‪22-23abα, 24a, 25a* (only‬‬ ‫‪of Exod 19–24 that had already reached a post-priestly stage of composition.‬‬ ‫‪ in Deut 5:2 indicates that this verse presupposes‬ברית ‪(1) The reference to the‬‬ ‫‪the covenant ceremony in Exod 24:4-8,125 which was evaluated as a post‬‬‫‪priestly text (see §1.2). (2) The statement in Deut 5:22 that Yhwh spoke to‬‬ ‫‪, which oc‬קהל ‪) employs the term‬אל כל קהלכם( ”‪“your entire congregation‬‬‫‪curs in (post-)priestly texts in the books of Genesis through Numbers126 and‬‬ ‫‪in other late contexts elsewhere in the book of Deuteronomy.127 (3) Deut 5:4,‬‬

‫























































‬ ‫‪125‬‬

‫‪Cf. VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 133 against AURELIUS, “Ursprung,” 17,‬‬ ‫‪who argues that Deut 5:2 has literary priority over Exod 24:4-8.‬‬ ‫‪126‬‬ ‫;‪Gen 28:3; 35:11; 48:4; 49:6; Exod 12:6; 16:3; Lev 4:13, 21; 16:17, 33; Num 10:7‬‬ ‫‪14:5; 15:15; 16:3, 33; 17:12; 19:20; 20:4, 6, 10, 12; 22:4.‬‬ ‫‪127‬‬ ‫‪Deut 9:10; 10:4; 18:16; 23:1-3, 8; 31:30. On the post-priestly nature of Deut 9:10‬‬ ‫‪and 10:4, see Chapter 5, §3.‬‬

3. Comparison of Exod 19–24 and Deut 5:1–6:3

145

22a seem to presuppose the description of the burning mountain in Exod 19:18. (4) The people’s statement in Deut 5:24a that Yhwh revealed his glory (‫ )כבוד‬to them has its only parallel in Exod 24:17 (‫ומראה כבוד ה׳ כאש אכלת‬ ‫)בראש ההר לעיני בני ישראל‬, part of a unit that is widely regarded as priestly (Exod 24:15b-18a).128 Although Deut 5:1–6:3 – including the text of the Decalogue129 – originally drew upon some form of Exod 19–24 as a literary Vorlage, Exod 19–24 also shows signs of later compositional activity that reacts to Deut 5:1–6:3. For example, texts in Exod 19 that explicitly prohibit the people from ascending the mountain (e.g., Exod 19:12-13a, 23-24) may constitute a reaction against the notion that the people are “on” or “at” the mountain (‫ )בהר‬in Deut 5:4 and 5:22.130 Yhwh’s statement in Exod 19:13b that the people should ascend the mountain at the sound of the ‫ יבל‬also seems to presuppose the notion of the people “on” or “at” the mountain in Deut 5:4 and 5:22, although this half verse seems to support the view of Deut 5:4 and 5:22 rather than challenge it.131 Considering that Exod 19:13b is likely later than 19:12-13a,132 this revision of a revision suggests that the author of Exod 19:13b was primarily concerned to coordinate Exod 19–24 with Deut 5:1–6:3, even at the expense of contradicting Exod 19:12-13a. Another significant case in which Exod 19–24 was likely revised in light of Deut 5:1–6:3 is found in Exod 20:19-21a, in which the people ask Moses to speak to them rather than God lest they die, and Moses responds by telling them not to fear, since this is only a test by God. This unit has close conceptual and lexical connections with Deut 5:23-27*: Exod 20:19-21

‫ויאמרו אל משה דבר אתה עמנו ונשמעה ואל ידבר עמנו אלהים פן נמות‬ ‫ ויאמר משה אל העם אל תיראו כי לבעבור נסות אתכם בא האלהים ובעבור‬20 …‫ ויעמד העם מרחק‬21 ‫תהיה יראתו על פניכם לבלתי תחטאו‬

Deut 5:23-27

[…] ‫ויהי כשמעכם את הקול מתוך החשך וההר בער באש ותקרבון אלי‬ ‫ ותאמרו הן הראנו ה׳ אלהינו את כבדו ואת גדלו ואת קלו שמענו מתוך האש‬24 […] ‫ ועתה ]…[ אם יספים אנחנו לשמע את קול ה׳ אלהינו עוד ומתנו‬25 […] ‫ קרב אתה ושמע את כל אשר יאמר ה׳ אלהינו ואת תדבר אלינו את כל אשר‬27 ‫ידבר ה׳ אלהינו אליך ושמענו ועשינו‬

























































128

Cf. PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 427. Here I cannot agree with the view of HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 283–84 that the Decalogue has its original literary setting in Deut 5 rather than in Exod 20. 130 Cf. OSWALD, Staatstheorie, 89, who regards Exod 19:11b-13a, 20-25 as later than Deut 5:4, 22-23. 131 Cf. OSWALD, Israel, 170. 132 Here I disagree with OSWALD, Staatstheorie, 89, who regards Exod 19:11b-13a (P) as later than Exod 19:13b (DtrG). Oswald seems forced into this conclusion by his assumption that Deut 5:1–6:3* is pre-priestly (DtrG). 129

146

Chapter 4: The Revelation of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19–24 // Deut 5:1–6:3)

Significantly, whereas the people’s request in Deut 5:24-27* that Moses act as an intermediary is fundamental to the etiology of the two-tiered revelation in Deut 5:1–6:3, in Exod 20:19 this request is not fundamental to the communication of the Covenant Code that follows;133 indeed, it is part of an insertion that was assigned on literary-critical grounds to one of the latest stages in the formation of Exod 19–24 (see §1). This suggests that Deut 5:23-27* was the Vorlage of Exod 20:19-21a and not vice versa. Such a direction of dependence finds further support in Exod 20:20, in which Moses states that God has come “in order that his fear may be upon your face(s) so that you do not go astray” (‫)בעבור תהיה יראתו על פניכם לבלתי תחטאו‬. This may be an idiosyncratic rephrasing of Deut 6:2 (‫למען תירא את ה׳ אלהיך לשמר את כל חקתיו‬ ‫)ומצותיו…ולמען יארכן ימיך‬, part of a later, parenetic addition to Deut 5:1– 6:3.134 Whether Exod 20:18, 21b-22a also already presuppose Deut 5 is more difficult to determine. What is clear is that these verses form a necessary narrative transition to the laws in Exod 20:24-26; 21–23* and, like Deut 5, have a conception of a two-tiered revelation at the mountain of God. If Exod 20:18, 21b-22a have literary priority over Deut 5, this would indicate that the etiology of the two-tiered revelation was originally conceived not in order to retroject the revelation of the Deuteronomic law to the mountain of God but rather in order to differentiate the modes by which the Decalogue and the Covenant Code were revealed. This differentiation serves a clear purpose in Deut 5, whereas in Exod 19–24* its purpose is not so clear, particularly since Moses ultimately communicates the contents of the Covenant Code to the people in 24:3. This suggests that even Exod 20:18, 21b-22a may already presuppose Deut 5 and its historical claims.135 If this is the case, it has far-reaching consequences for the insertion of the Covenant Code into its present narrative setting, suggesting that this occurred only after the integration of the Deuteronomic law within a broader narrative framework and at a post-priestly stage of composition.

























































133

Cf. BERNER, “Redaction History,” 383: “[O]ne cannot avoid the impression that the people’s request is only loosely integrated into its immediate context.” 134 For the view that at least some of the material within Exod 20:18-21a is dependent on Deut 5:1–6:3, see HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 173; PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 426; and BERNER, “Redaction History,” 386–87. See also OTTO, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 674– 75, who argues that Exod 20:18-21 as a whole are later than Deut 5:4 and that Deut 5:5, 22*, 26 reflect an even later attempt to harmonize Deut 5 with Exod 20:18-21. 135 Cf. BERNER, “Redaction History,” 385, who observes that Exod 20:18a assumes that the Decalogue was revealed to Moses alone, although I disagree with Berner’s conclusion that 20:18a is later than 20:18b, since the people’s fear makes sense only in light of 20:18a.

4. Result

147

4. Result The foregoing analysis has concluded that the most basic material within Exod 19–24 may have consisted solely of the arrival in the Wilderness of Sinai in 19:2aα2 (‫)ויבאו מדבר סיני‬, which could have connected directly to the departure from Elim in 16:1aα. The next stage in the formation of the Sinai pericope – if it is indeed to be separated from the itinerary notice in 19:2aα2 – introduced the mountain of God as the setting for the revelation of the Decalogue and the people’s commitment to obey the law (19:2b, [3a?], 16aα, 16b17; 20:1-17*; 24:3[a?]b). While there is no evidence that these initial stages of composition presuppose priestly literature, all subsequent stages are likely (post-)priestly. The first stage of post-priestly composition likely consisted of a basic version of Moses’ interaction with Yhwh in Exod 19:3a, 10-11, 14-15, 18-19a as well as the covenant ceremony in 24:4-8. These materials are presupposed by the most basic narrative thread in Deut 5:1–6:3, indicating that the latter unit – with the possible exception of 5:1aα1 – is a post-priestly composition from the outset. Considering that the etiology of the two-tiered revelation of the law is most likely more original to Deut 5:1–6:3 than to Exod 20:18, 21b22aα, this suggests that the integration of the Covenant Code in Exod 20:2426; 21–23* cannot have occurred prior to the composition of Deut 5:1–6:3 and, by extension, cannot have occurred at a pre-priestly (or preDeuteronomistic) stage of composition. The post-priestly insertion of Exod 20:24-26; 21–23* is further supported by the analysis of 20:18, 21b, which presuppose priestly elements in the theophany narrative in Exod 19. A number of other texts in Exod 19–24 also likely presuppose Deut 5:1– 6:3 and therefore the integration of the Deuteronomic law within a broader narrative context. These include Yhwh’s instructions to Moses in Exod 19:12-13a and 19:23-24, which react to the notion that the people were “on” or “at” the mountain found in Deut 5:4, 22.136 At a later stage of composition, a further addition was made in Exod 19:13b that coordinated the scene with Deut 5:1–6:3, despite the tension that this created with Exod 19:12-13a. Finally, at perhaps one of the latest stages in the growth of Exod 19–24 and Deut 5:1–6:3, Deut 5:5 was inserted in order to imply that even the Decalogue was mediated to the people via Moses, a notion which is at odds with the most basic material in both Exod 19–24 and Deut 5:1–6:3. This notion may have its origin in the insertion of the laws in Exod 20:18, 21b-22aα, 2426; 21–23*; 24:3a, which, notably, never state that the people heard the con-



























































136 The warning in Exod 19:21 against the people breaking through to see (‫פן יהרסו‬ ‫ )לראות‬may also be reacting to Deut 5:24, where the people state that Yhwh showed them his glory, although this verse may connect primarily to the “vision of God” texts in Exod 24:1-2, 9-11.

148

Chapter 4: The Revelation of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19–24 // Deut 5:1–6:3)

tents of the Decalogue. Indeed, 24:3a implies that Moses reported both the Decalogue and the ‫ משפטים‬to the people. In this respect, Deut 5:5 coordinates with a later stratum in Exod 19–24 that is itself reinterpreting Deut 5:4.137



























































137 Cf. BERNER, “Redaction History,” 384–85, although he argues that Exod 20:18a, 19 presuppose Deut 5:5 and not vice versa.

Chapter 5

The Golden Calf and Its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) According to the classical Documentary Hypothesis as well as most recent non-documentary models for the formation of the Pentateuch, the most basic narrative materials in Exod 32–34 are typically regarded as the continuation of a pre-priestly narrative thread (or threads) in Exod 19–24.1 While some commentators have noted post-priestly compositional activity in Exod 32–34 (beyond Exod 34:29-35, which has long been regarded as priestly),2 only a handful have argued that these chapters presuppose priestly literature from the outset.3 Some of the events in this unit are taken up in the historical retrospective in Deut 9:7–10:11, which has often been used to reconstruct the literary prehistory of Exod 32–34. Although such comparison may be rele-

























































1

Cf. WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 83–86, 91–98; NOTH, ÜP, 14, 33 (ET 15, 31); IDEM, Exodus, 202, 214 (ET 245–46, 260); LEHMING, “Versuch”; PERLITT; Bundestheologie, 211; ZENGER, Sinaitheophanie, 119–163, esp. 164–65; IDEM, Israel, 155; LOZA, “Exode xxxii”; CHILDS, Exodus, 558–61, 584, 607–9; MOBERLY, At the Mountain of God, 185–86; VAN SETERS, Life, 290–360; HAHN, Das “Goldene Kalb,” 101–43, esp. 140; VERMEYLEN, “L’affaire”; WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 146–48; AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 74–77, 126; DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 126–27; CRÜSEMANN, Tora, 67; SMITH, Pilgrimage Pattern, 256– 57; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Erzählung,” 314; PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 148–53; CHUNG, Sin, 30–46; BADEN, J, E, 160–72; BLUM, Studien, 73–75; KONKEL, Sünde, 254; DOZEMAN, Exodus, 577; OSWALD, Staatstheorie, 126–29; and STACKERT, Prophet, 82–92. For a history of research on Exod 32–34, see K. SCHMID, “Israel.” 2 E.g., DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 90–100 assigns Exod 32:1bα, 5aα, 5b, 6bα, 15aβb, 1618, 22bβ, 25aβ, 25bβ, 26-29, 32, 33b, 34aα*β, 35bα to RP; WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 155–56 assigns 32:1a, 2aγ, 3aβ*, 15aβ, 16-18a*, 21-29, 31bβ, 34aβ to RP; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Erzählung,” 323–24 assigns the bulk of Exod 32–34 apart from 32:1-6, 15a*, 19-24, 3034* to a post-priestly, “late Deuteronomistic” redaction; and KONKEL, Sünde, 266 assigns 32:4b-5aα, 7-14, 16-18, 19*, 21-29, 34b, 35*; 33:1-6, 10-11, 18-23; 34:1*, 4*, 5*, 6*, 8-9, 10*-11, 28-35 to a post-Deuteronomistic and post-priestly stage of composition. On the priestly provenance of Exod 34:29-35, see the overview of earlier positions in ZENGER, Sinaitheophanie, 230–31. 3 HUROWITZ, “Golden Calf,” esp. 53–55; OTTO, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 84–101, who attributes the basic shaping of Exod 32–34 to a post-priestly “Pentateuch redactor” but considers that this redactor made use of a non-priestly narrative in Exod 34; and BERLEJUNG, Theologie, 355–56 with n. 1761. This possibility is also intimated by H.-C. SCHMITT, “Erzählung,” 314.

150 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) vant for diachronic analysis, it is methodologically unsound to take the retrospective in Deuteronomy as the starting point for the literary criticism of Exod 32–34.4 Rather, Exod 32–34 should first be analyzed in terms of their narrative continuities and discontinuities as well as their more immediate intertextual and conceptual linkages before being compared with the Mosaic retrospective in Deuteronomy.5

1. Exod 32–34 1.1. Literary-critical analysis The making of the golden calf (Exod 32:1-8). Within Exod 32:1, ‫ העם‬is named explicitly as the subject in both 32:1a and 32:1b, which creates a slight redundancy.6 The people’s observation that Moses was delayed in coming down from the mountain in 32:1a serves as the motivation for their request that Aaron make ‫ אלהים‬for them in 32:1b. This motivation is expressed again in 32:1bβ, which suggests that 32:1b may have once stood without 32:1a.7 In any event, it is not possible to remove Aaron from the received narrative in 32:1-6, since there is no report in these verses that the people made the calf.8 Exod 32:4-5 contain a series of interconnected narrative tensions. In 32:4a, Aaron is clearly the implied subject of the verbs ‫ויצר‬, ‫ויקח‬, and ‫ויעשהו‬, while 32:4b shifts to a plural verb but does not explicitly name its subject.9 Although it can be inferred from the context that the subject of the verb ‫ ויאמרו‬is the people, the lack of an explicit reference to the people is noteworthy, since elsewhere in this unit the shift in subject is marked explicitly.10 In 32:5, Aaron is named twice as the subject, which is surprising in light of the fact that there is no shift in subject between ‫ וירא אהרן‬in 32:5a and ‫ ויקרא אהרן‬in

























































4

Against the method employed in ACHENBACH, Israel, 346–78; IDEM, “Grundlinien,” 60; RENAUD, “La formation,” 111–33; and BADEN, J, E, 160–72. KONKEL, Sünde, 9 also critiques the use of Deut 9:7–10:11 as a starting point for the diachronic analysis of Exod 32–34. 5 For a similar procedure, see BOORER, Promise, 203 (although in practice Boorer uses the evaluation of texts in Exod 32 as “Dtr” as a literary-critical criterion from the outset); H.-C. SCHMITT, “Erzählung,” 312; and KONKEL, Sünde, 10. 6 Cf. DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 67 and WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 118. 7 Cf. WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 118–19. 8 Cf. BOORER, Promise, 246 and KONKEL, Sünde, 106 against NOTH, Exodus, 203 (ET 247); LEHMING, “Versuch,” 50; and ACHENBACH, “Grundlinien,” 69–71, who argue that Aaron was not originally part of this narrative. 9 Cf. DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 74 and KONKEL, Sünde, 107. 10 Cf. the transitions between Exod 32:1-2 and 32:2-3.

1. Exod 32–34

151

32:5b.11 Moreover, the pronominal suffix in the clause ‫ ויבן מזבח לפניו‬in 32:5aβ is separated from its antecedent in 32:4a (‫ )ויעשהו עגל מסכה‬by two intervening actions: the people’s declaration in 32:4b and the rather cryptic statement that Aaron “saw” in 32:5aα. These tensions within 32:4-5 strongly suggest that a more basic narrative thread within these verses underwent expansion and revision.12 The fact that the 3ms pronominal suffix in 32:5aβ (‫ )ויבן מזבח לפניו‬is found at quite a distance from its antecedent (‫ )עגל מסכה‬in the received form of the text raises the possibility that an earlier connection between Aaron’s making the calf and building an altar in front of it (‫ויעשהו‬ ‫ )עגל מסכה…ויבן מזבח לפניו‬has been interrupted by the insertion of additional material in 32:4b-5aα.13 This reconstruction also resolves the other narrative tensions observed here. If 32:4b is an insertion, this helps to explain the shift in subject between 32:4a and 32:4b without any explicit reference to the people in 32:4b. Moreover, it explains the double reference to Aaron in 32:5 and the enigmatic use of the verb ‫ ראה‬in 32:5aα. Assuming that 32:4b is an insertion that changes the subject from Aaron to the people, then 32:5aα can be explained as a dummy notice that facilitates the resumption of the earlier narrative thread (‫ )ויבן מזבח לפניו‬by shifting the subject back to Aaron.14 There is a slight stylistic tension within Exod 32:6, where the people (‫)העם‬ are named explicitly as the subject in 32:6b despite the fact that they are already the implied subject in 32:6a. There is also a text-critical problem in 32:6a: 𝔐 uses plural verbs, while 𝔊 consistently uses singular verbs. The reading of 𝔊 is certainly smoother from a narrative perspective, as it resolves the tension created by the lack of an explicit reference to the people in 32:6a as well as the redundancy created by the reference to the people in 32:6b following the plural verbs in 32:6a 𝔐.15 The notion that Aaron may have originally been the subject of the verbs ‫ שכם‬hiphil, ‫עלה‬, and ‫ נגש‬piel in 32:6a is also quite conceivable in light of Aaron’s leading role in the preceding verses as well as in light of his priestly status. Although the plural verbs in 𝔐 constitute the lectio difficilior, 𝔊 may nevertheless reflect a more original phrasing, since the shift from singular to plural verbs (i.e., from Aaron to the

























































11

Cf. DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 75. Against CHILDS, Exodus, 558–59 and CHUNG, Sin, who regard Exod 32:1-6 as a unity. 13 Cf. ZENGER, Sinaitheophanie, 81; DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 74; WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 120; and KONKEL, Sünde, 107. 14 Cf. DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 75, 104 and WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 122. Similarly, KONKEL, Sünde, 107 argues that Exod 32:4b-5aα are an insertion in light of the double reference to Aaron in 32:5. 15 The use of the singular verb ‫ וישב‬in Exod 32:6bα and the plural verb ‫ ויקמו‬in 32:6bβ may also point to different compositional levels, although from a narrative perspective such a shift does not create as much tension as that which exists between 32:6a and 32:6bα. On 32:6bβ as a later addition, see DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 107 and WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 123–24. 12

152 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) people) can be explained as a later harmonization with the divine speech in 32:7-8, in which Yhwh places all of the responsibility on the people despite Aaron’s clear involvement in the events of 32:1-6.16 Within the divine speech to Moses in Exod 32:7-8, the clause ‫סרו מהר מן‬ ‫ הדרך אשר צויתם‬in 32:8aα creates a slight delay in the argumentation, since the precise way in which the people have “acted corruptly” (‫ שחת‬piel, 32:7b) is specified only in 32:8aβγ (‫)עשו להם עגל מסכה‬, while 32:8aα represents a more general comment. The fact that 32:8aα is not essential to the divine speech thus at least raises the possibility that it is a later insertion. It is also striking that the order of events reported in 32:8 differs from the order in which they occur in 32:4-6. In 32:4-6, the people’s declaration, “These are your gods, Israel…” occurs prior to the offering of sacrifices, while in 32:8 it comes after the report that the people bowed down to the calf and offered sacrifices to it. Although the different order of events might simply be explained as a stylistic device (i.e., chiasm), the conclusion that 32:4b-5aα are secondary to the most basic narrative in 32:1-6 points to a different explanation for this divergence: 32:8bβγ (from ‫ )ויאמרו‬is a supplement that was added to the end of the verse following the insertion of 32:4b-5aα into 32:1-6. In sum, the preceding analysis suggests that the most basic narrative thread in Exod 32:1-8 likely consists of 32:1-4a, 5aβ-7, (8aα?), 8aβbα. Moses’ first intercession with Yhwh (Exod 32:9-14). Several observations suggest that this unit is later than Exod 32:7-8 and is itself not a compositional unity.17 Exod 32:9 is redundant in light of 32:7-8, presenting a second divine speech that follows directly upon the one in 32:7-8 without any intervening narrative or response on the part of Moses.18 The absence of 32:9 in 𝔊

























































16

For a different solution to this problem, see DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 76–77 and WEI“Das Goldene Kalb,” 122–23, who propose that the implied subject of Exod 32:6a is the people together with Aaron, while in 32:6b it is the people alone. 17 Many commentators assign Exod 32:7-8 to the same compositional level as 32:9-14; see HAHN, Das “Goldene Kalb,” 107 n. 39 (with reference to earlier literature); ZENGER, Sinaitheophanie, 82–83; WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 124; AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 68; BOORER, Promise, 203–20 (rather ambivalently); and H.-C. SCHMITT, “Erzählung,” 313. Whereas 32:9-14 undoubtedly build upon elements found in 32:7-8, I find no textual support for Boorer’s conclusion that 32:7-8 “foreshadow” the intercession scene in 32:9-14 (BOORER, Promise, 216). On 32:7-8 as compositionally distinct from 32:9-14, see WELL3 HAUSEN, Composition , 94; NOTH, Exodus, 200, 204 (ET 244, 248); LEHMING, “Versuch,” 24–25; CHILDS, Exodus, 559 (with some ambivalence); VAN SETERS, Life, 293; KRATZ, Komposition, 140 with n. 42 (ET 135 with n. 43); and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 273. 18 DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 77, 90 and BOORER, Promise, 207–8 note this redundancy but conclude that Exod 32:7-14 belong to a single compositional level. BOORER, Promise, 207–8 argues that “[i]ndications of a unity and coherence of argument in 32:7-14 are found in the subtle play on the exodus motif,” yet 32:7 and 32:11 in fact deploy the exodus motif very differently: In 32:7, Yhwh states that Moses has brought the people up (‫ )העלית‬from MAR,

1. Exod 32–34

153

further supports the possibility that this verse is secondary.19 Although 32:1014 could connect directly to 32:7-8, Yhwh’s speech is rather surprising immediately following the command to Moses to descend.20 Moreover, Moses’ intercession has no further effect on the subsequent narrative action in the remainder of the chapter. These observations suggest that 32:10-14 are also an addition. Within these verses, 32:13 may be even later, as it comes too late following Moses’ request that Yhwh turn away from his wrath in 32:12b and interrupts the lexical links between 32:12b (‫ )והנחם על הרעה לעמך‬and 32:14 (‫)וינחם ה׳ על הרעה אשר דבר לעשות לעמו‬.21 In sum, Moses’ intercession with Yhwh in 32:9-14* cannot belong to the most basic narrative thread in Exod 32,22 and it is possible that 32:9 and 32:13 are even later additions within this unit. Moses’ descent and reaction (Exod 32:15-20). Within this unit, the verb ‫ ויפן‬in Exod 32:15 serves as a transition from the intercession scene in 32:914 back to the main action of the narrative and thus may have been added to 32:15 at the same time that 32:9-14 were inserted into the narrative.23 More significantly, the lack of a subject in 32:19 stands in some tension with 32:17-18, which introduce the figure of Joshua into the narrative. Thus, the fact that Moses is not explicitly reintroduced in 32:19 may suggest that 32:17-18 are a later insertion into the report of Moses’ descent from the mountain.24 A similar observation can be made regarding the detailed de-



























































































































Egypt, while in 32:11 Moses states that Yhwh has brought the people out (‫ )הוצאת‬of Egypt; this is noted by Boorer herself (208) as well as by S AMUEL, Von Priestern, 274. 19 Based on the fact that Exod 32:9 is lacking in 𝔊, it has long been suggested that this verse is an addition that was likely derived from Deut 9:13; see already HOLZINGER, Exodus, 108 and more recently AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 94 n. 14; GERTZ, “Beobachtungen,” 96; and KONKEL, Sünde, 109. On the relationship between Exod 32:9 and Deut 9:13, see §3. 20 Cf. SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 273. 21 Cf. WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 125 and GERTZ, “Beobachtungen,” 96. 22 This has long been a consensus of scholarship; see HAHN, Das “Goldene Kalb,” 107– 8 nn. 39–40 (with reference to older literature); WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 124; AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 68; BLUM, Studien, 73; BOORER, Promise, 203–20; H.-C. S CHMITT, “Erzählung,” 313; and GERTZ, “Beobachtungen,” 96. The arguments by HAYES, “Golden Calf Stories,” 55–56 that Exod 32:9-14 are an integral part of Exod 32 are not convincing from a diachronic perspective. 23 Cf. DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 78; WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 125 (with reservations); and KONKEL, Sünde, 110. I am grateful to Christoph Berner for bringing this observation to my attention. 24 Cf. DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 78–79 and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 275. See also GERTZ, “Beobachtungen,” 97 and KONKEL, Sünde, 111, who argue for the secondary nature of 32:17-18 based on the claim that 32:17-18 presuppose 32:7-14, pointing particularly to the correspondence between ‫ ברעה‬in 32:12 and 32:17. Based on the Masoretic pointing as well as the sense required by the larger context, however, such correspondence is only graphic

154 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) scription of the tablets in 32:15b-16, which also interrupts the flow of the narrative.25 Finally, the use of ‫ בני ישראל‬in 32:20bβ is inconsistent with the preceding material in the chapter, which refers to the people as ‫העם‬.26 Since the reference to Moses strewing the calf-dust on the water in 32:20bα makes sense only as preparation for his making the Israelites drink in 32:20bβ, 32:20b must be regarded as a coherent unit that is likely later than the most basic narrative. In sum, the most basic material in Exod 32:15-20 likely consists of 32:15a*, 19-20a.27 Moses’ dialogue with Aaron (Exod 32:21-24). Within this unit, there is little to suggest that the text is composite.28 At the same time, there is reason to conclude that it does not belong to the earliest compositional level in Exod 32. Aaron’s statement to Moses in 32:22, “You know the people, that they are bent on evil” (‫)אתה ידעת את העם כי ברע הוא‬, almost certainly presupposes Yhwh’s statement to Moses in 32:9 regarding the people’s stubbornness (‫)ראיתי את העם הזה והנה עם קשה ערף הוא‬, as indicated by the fact that the remainder of Aaron’s speech to Moses in 32:23-24 is a recapitulation of prior material within the immediate context of Exod 32.29 Thus, 32:21-24 cannot be earlier than the intercession scene in 32:9-14.30 The ordination of the Levites (Exod 32:25-29). Within this unit, the first indication of a possibly composite text is the use of two ‫ כי‬clauses within Exod 32:25, which is stylistically redundant. Of the two clauses, the second (32:25b) is a further specification of the first (32:25aβ) and has a particular interest in implicating Aaron in the people’s wrongdoing. Thus, if one of the two ‫ כי‬clauses is secondary, it is much more likely that 32:25b is the secondary text, since 32:25aβ hardly makes sense as a later insertion between



























































































































and not lexical: In 32:12, ‫ ברעה‬means “with evil intent,” while in 32:17 it means “in their [i.e., the people’s] shouting.” 25 Cf. PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 209–10; HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 146–47 with n. 523; DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 78; IDEM; “Was stand auf den Tafeln?,” 19–20; and WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 126. For further discussion of the reference to the tablets, see §1.2. 26 Cf. SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 276. 27 For similar reconstructions, see PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 207; KONKEL, Sünde, 111; and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 276. 28 Cf. WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 131–32. DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 81 argues that ‫כי‬ ‫ ברע הוא‬in Exod 32:22 is a later gloss. However, if this clause is removed, the preceding clause ‫ אתה ידעת את העם‬seems overly vague. 29 Cf. KONKEL, Sünde, 113. 30 Cf. HOLZINGER, Exodus, 108; NOTH, Exodus, 200–201 (ET 244–45); BEYERLIN, Origins, 20; ZENGER, Sinaitheophanie, 85; WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 131–32; GERTZ, “Beobachtungen,” 95; and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 277 (on different grounds) against CHILDS, Exodus, 561–62; AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 65–66; BOORER, Promise, 246; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Erzählung,” 312; and CHUNG, Sin, 43, who consider it possible that this unit belongs to the most basic material in Exod 32 but overlook the connection with 32:9.

1. Exod 32–34

155

32:25aα and 32:25b.31 A further tension is found in 32:29aβ, which does not present a complete thought, interrupts the immediate syntactic context, and seems to add to Moses’ command to kill “brother, friend, and neighbor” the notion that even the Levites’ sons were not exempt from the slaughter. Thus, 32:29aβ should be regarded as a later insertion.32 As for the relative chronology of 32:25-29 within Exod 32 as a whole, there are several indications that this unit does not belong to the most basic narrative thread. In terms of narrative logic, the slaying of the people is redundant as a punishment for the making of the calf, since Moses’ response to the making of the calf was already reported in 32:20,33 although this observation would admittedly not apply if 32:20b, which is likely an addition, were later than 32:25-29.34 In terms of its rhetorical aims, this unit is clearly more concerned with the legitimization of the Levites than with the punishment of the people per se, as is indicated by the fact that the climax of the episode is Moses’ ordination of the Levites (32:25) and not the punishment of the people. Thus, I am inclined to conclude that 32:25-29 do not belong to the earliest narrative thread in Exod 32 but are instead a later, self-contained addition with a distinct etiological intent.35 Moses’ second intercession with Yhwh (Exod 32:30-35). Within this unit, Exod 32:34 and 32:35 have very different conceptions about the punishment of the people: While 32:34 indicates that Yhwh will bring retribution upon the people for their sins only at some point in the future, 32:35 indicates that the people were punished immediately for making the golden calf. Thus, these verses likely do not belong to the same compositional level.36 From a lexical perspective, 32:34 fits well with 32:30-33, which deal with the issue of the people’s sin (‫)חט״א‬. In contrast, the notion of the people’s sin does not appear in 32:35, making an original connection between 32:33 and 32:35



























































31 For older literature in favor of this view, see HAHN, Das “Goldene Kalb,” 128 n. 196. Here I disagree with DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 83–84, who argues that Exod 32:25b connects more easily to the main clause in 32:25aα and that ‫ כי פרע הוא‬in 32:25aβ is secondary, and WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 132, who argues that 32:25 is a compositional unity. 32 Cf. WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 133. 33 Cf. NOTH, Exodus, 201 (ET 245). 34 Cf. SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 278–79. 35 Cf. NOTH, Exodus, 201 (ET 245); WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 133; and KONKEL, Sünde, 114. See also CHUNG, Sin, 43–45, who notes that Exod 32:26-29 “are an independent portion, which is unrelated to the calf narrative.” AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 66–67 remains undecided about whether this unit belongs to the most basic narrative thread or is a later addition. In contrast, SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 278–79 argues that there are no strong literary-critical grounds for regarding 32:25-29 as a later insertion and thus proposes to retain this unit within the most basic material in the chapter. 36 Cf. HAHN, Das “Goldene Kalb,” 134 (with reference to older literature); DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 125; BOORER, Promise, 247; and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 279–80 against MOBERLY, At the Mountain of God, 57–59; CHILDS, Exodus, 559; and HAYES, “Golden Calf Stories,” 67, who regard Exod 32:30-35 as a unity.

156 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) unlikely. This suggests that 32:30-34 are a compositional unity37 that was written either before or after 32:35. Exod 32:35 itself is likely composite, since it attributes the making of the calf to both the people and Aaron. If this verse originally intended to portray the people as making the calf, ‫ אשר עשה אהרן‬in 32:35bβ would be secondary;38 in contrast, if the reference to Aaron is original to the verse, ‫אשר אשו‬ ‫ את העגל‬must be removed from 32:35bα. In my view, the attribution of the making of the calf to the people is likely more original, since this fits more easily with the verse’s concern with Yhwh’s punishment of the people, not Aaron. There is some indication that Exod 32:35 is later than 32:30-34,39 since it is difficult to connect 32:35 directly to any other verse in Exod 32 besides 32:34. The best alternative would be to connect 32:35 directly to 32:20,40 although this is also problematic, since in 32:20 Moses enacts the punishment, while in 32:35 it is Yhwh who does so.41 Moreover, the verb ‫ נגף‬in 32:35 implies that the divine punishment resulted in the death of a portion of the people, which is in line with the motif of Yhwh wiping certain people out of his book in 32:33. In light of these considerations, it seems most likely that 32:35 is a later addition to 32:30-3442 that modifies the notion of delayed retribution by stating that Yhwh also enacted immediate retribution for the sin of the golden calf.43 Whether Exod 32:30-34 belong to the most basic narrative thread in Exod 32 cannot be determined by the literary-critical analysis of Exod 32 alone.44 Comparison with the beginning of Exod 33 suggests that 32:30-34 cannot be earlier than 33:1-6.45 The clearest indication of this is the fact that, in 32:34, Yhwh tells Moses to “lead the people to [the place] that I spoke to you” (‫לך‬ ‫)נחה את העם אל אשר דברתי לך‬. Strikingly, the only point at which Yhwh tells

























































37

In contrast, VALENTIN, Aaron, 258–63 and DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 86–90 regard Exod 32:30-34 as composite. 38 Cf. the earlier literature in HAHN, Das “Goldene Kalb,” 138 n. 283 and WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 135. 39 See also RUDOLPH, “Aufbau,” 45. 40 WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 91–92; NOTH, Exodus, 206–7 (ET 251–52); and HYATT, Exodus, 300. 41 Another alternative would be to connect Exod 32:35 directly to the end of the Levites episode, but this connection is also rather rough; cf. SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 279. 42 Cf. SMEND (SR.), Erzählung, 169–70; NOTH, ÜP, 33, 159 n. 415 (ET 144 n. 415); AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 67; and H.-C. SCHMITT, “Erzählung,” 312. For a review of other positions, see HAHN, Das “Goldene Kalb,” 137–40. 43 Cf. NOTH, ÜP, 159 n. 415 (ET 144 n. 415). 44 Cf. SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 279–80, who argues for the secondary nature of these verses based on their intertextual connections and not on narrative or syntactic grounds. 45 Against NOTH, Exodus, 208 (ET 253); MOBERLY, At the Mountain of God, 57; and BOORER, Promise, 248.

1. Exod 32–34

157

Moses where to lead the people in the immediate narrative context is found in 33:1. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine 33:1 being composed as the immediate continuation of 32:34, since 33:1 seems to be unaware of the fact that Yhwh has already told Moses to lead the people, and the juxtaposition of the two verses results in a striking redundancy.46 Thus, it seems likely that 32:3034 (as well as 32:35) were composed after 33:1-6.47 This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that 32:30-34 cannot connect directly to Exod 34, since 32:30-34 concludes with Moses on the mountain, while Exod 34 begins with Moses at the foot of the mountain. Two messages concerning divine presence (Exod 33:1-6). There are several indications that these verses are not a compositional unity. The first major narrative problem is found in the phrase ‫ אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש‬in Exod 33:3a, which does not connect smoothly to the immediately preceding statement in 33:2b that Yhwh will drive out the nations of the land or to the statement that Yhwh will send his ‫ מלאך‬in 33:2a. In contrast, it connects quite well to 33:1, in which Yhwh tells Moses to go with the people to the land promised to the ancestors. This may suggest that 33:2 as a whole is an insertion into a more original connection between 33:1 and 33:3. This possibility, however, leads to another narrative problem: Without the reference to Yhwh’s ‫ מלאך‬in 33:2, the statement in 33:3b that Yhwh will not go in the midst of the people is difficult to understand,48 and the ‫ כי‬in 33:3b would have to be taken as an adversative ‫כי‬: “go up from here…but I will not go up in your midst.” Although this reading is possible from a narrative point of view, the thematic connection between the sending of the ‫ מלאך‬and Yhwh’s absence is so strong that it seems unlikely that 33:3b ever stood without 33:2a, in which case 33:3a would have to be interpreted as an ill-placed gloss.49 The statement about Yhwh’s absence in 33:3bα1 is essential to 33:1-4 as a whole, which

























































46

Cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 141 (ET 136), who notes that “the command to set out and the postponement of the punishment to later (2 Kgs 17) is more easily understood in Exod. 32.34 in the framework of Moses’ intercession in 32.30-34 as an anticipation of 33.1a than vice versa.” 47 For the view that Exod 32:30-34 do not belong to the most basic material in Exod 32, cf. NOTH, Exodus, 206–7 (ET 251–52); WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 138–39 and KRATZ, Komposition, 141 (ET 135–36) against CHILDS, Exodus, 559; AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 68; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Erzählung,” 312; and KONKEL, Sünde, 115. 48 Here I agree with NOTH, Exodus, 208–9 (ET 253), who concludes that the reference to the angel here was originally negative (i.e., as a substitute for direct divine accompaniment, which would have endangered the people) and disagree with the view that Exod 33:1-3a were originally positive (e.g., WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 96; RUDOLPH, “Aufbau,” 45–46; and ZENGER, Sinaitheophanie, 87–88). For further discussion, see BOORER, Promise, 223–28, who concludes that it is not possible to decide with certainty between these two interpretations. 49 NOTH, Exodus, 208–9 (ET 253–54) regards Exod 33:3a as a later insertion.

158 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) reach their climax in the people’s mourning upon hearing this news in 33:4. In contrast, ‫ כי עם קשה ערף אתה‬in 33:3bα2 interrupts the main idea of the motive clause and is possibly an insertion.50 There are several further signs that 33:5-6 do not belong to the same compositional level as the most basic material in 33:1-4. These verses are essentially a doublet of 33:3-4, repeating the motifs of the “stiff-necked people,” the threat that Yhwh would destroy the people if he went in their midst, and the people’s refraining from wearing ornaments.51 Exod 33:6, however, contains an element not found in 33:1-4: the reference to the mountain as ‫הר חרב‬. Regarding the relative chronology of the two units, one narrative observation that may indicate the priority of 33:1-4* is the fact that in 33:4 the people’s removal of their ornaments is a logical consequence of their hearing the news that Yhwh will not go with them, while in 33:5-6 the two motifs are disconnected, and Yhwh has to instruct the people to take off their ornaments, albeit for no apparent reason when 33:5-6 are read on their own. In sum, the most basic material in Exod 33:1-6 should be sought in 33:12a, 3abαβ, 4. The Tent of Meeting (Exod 33:7-11). There are few signs that this unit is composite.52 In terms of its content, the unit is quite isolated within its immediate narrative context. In terms of its theology, however, it connects to the notion of divine absence in Exod 33:5-6. Whereas in 33:3 the notion of divine presence/absence focuses on Yhwh’s potential for destroying the people during their journey, the same notion is expressed in absolute terms in 33:5: “if for a single moment I should go up in your midst, I would consume you” (‫)רגע אחד אעלה בקרבך וכליתיך‬. Moses’ placement of the tent outside the camp in 33:7-11 provides a solution to the conception of divine presence/absence in 33:5: Moses pitches the tent – the site of Yhwh’s presence – “outside the camp, far off from the camp” (‫)מחוץ למחנה הרחק מן המחנה‬. Thus, despite the sudden appearance of the motif of the tent in 33:7, there are thematic grounds for considering that 33:7-11 may belong to the same compositional level as 33:5-6. This possibility also finds support on narrative grounds, since the statement ‫ ואדעה מה אעשה לך‬in 33:5 seems to anticipate a solution to the danger of Yhwh’s presence amidst the people, which is given in 33:7-11.53



























































50 The possibility that Exod 33:3bα2 is an insertion raises some problems for Aurelius’s view that Exod 33 as a whole already presupposes 32:7-14 (or better: 32:9-14) (AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 59 with n. 11). 51 Cf. CHILDS, Exodus, 589 and AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 101. 52 A possible exception is the reference to Joshua remaining in the tent in Exod 33:11bβγ, although even this statement does not present any major syntactic problems. Here I disagree with KONKEL, Sünde, 120, 173, who assigns 33:8-9 and 33:10-11 to two different compositional levels; for a critique of Konkel’s arguments, see ALBERTZ, “Ex 33,7-11,” 16–17. 53 Cf. AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 101.

1. Exod 32–34

159

Moses’ third intercession with Yhwh (Exod 33:12-17). This unit bristles with a variety of narrative problems. In Exod 33:12, Moses’ statement contradicts Yhwh’s explicit provision of a ‫ מלאך‬in 33:2,54 and Moses’ reminder of Yhwh’s statements that Yhwh knows Moses by name and that Moses has found favor in Yhwh’s sight is out of place in terms of narrative sequence, since Yhwh makes these statements only in 33:17. Within 33:13, the repeated use of the expression “to find favor in your sight” creates a rather overloaded text, particularly after 33:12, which also uses this expression. Within 33:1415, the introductions to the direct speech are somewhat exceptional, using ‫ ויאמר‬without naming the subject explicitly.55 When considered together, these narrative problems can be partially resolved as follows: (1) ‫ ואתה אמרת ידעתיך בשם וגם מצאת חן בעיני‬in Exod 33:12b is likely secondary, as it uses 33:17b as a proof text before the reader has even encountered the latter. (2) It is possible that ‫ למען אמצא חן בעיניך‬in 33:13aγ is also secondary, as it is hardly fitting as a result of Moses’ request to see Yhwh’s “ways” in 33:13aαβ. (3) Moses’ question in 33:16aα is out of place, as Moses seems to know that he has found favor in Yhwh’s sight even before Yhwh states this in 33:17b. This suggests that 33:16aα is a later addition, which also explains the redundancy of the phrase ‫ אני ועמך‬in 33:16aα and 33:16bα. All of these elements that disturb the logic of the dialogue revolve around the notion of Moses finding favor in Yhwh’s sight. If they are removed, a coherent dialogue remains that focuses on the question of divine accompaniment. This fits well with the fact that Moses’ initial request is a reaction to Yhwh’s statement that he will not go up with the people in 33:1-3. In sum, it seems likely that an earlier core to the dialogue in Exod 33:12a, 13aα(β?), 14-15, 16aβb, 17 was later expanded with a series of additions that brought the theme of Moses’ favor in Yhwh’s sight further into the foreground. The cleft of the rock (Exod 33:18-23). The composite nature of this unit is indicated by the triple introduction of divine speech using ‫ ויאמר‬in Exod 33:19; 33:20; and 33:21.56 Considering that it is only in 33:21-23 that Yhwh directly addresses Moses’ request in 33:18 to see Yhwh’s “glory,” it seems

























































54

AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 102; GERTZ, “Beobachtungen,” 102; and KONKEL, Sünde, 121 use this as an argument that Exod 33:2 is later than 33:12. Although it is true that the combination of 33:2 and 33:12 makes Moses seem very forgetful, 33:12 is somewhat suspicious as a new beginning inasmuch as Moses already assumes that Yhwh will send something or someone with him. Moreover, Moses casts his request that Yhwh’s “face” go with the people as an additional condition for continuing the journey, and Yhwh also acknowledges it as such: ‫גם את הדבר הזה אשר דברת אעשה‬. 55 These observations pose a challenge to the view that Exod 33:12-17 are a compositional unity, as is held by AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 102–3; VAN SETERS, Life, 322; KONKEL, Sünde, 121; and DOZEMAN, Exodus, 719. 56 Cf. CHILDS, Exodus, 595.

160 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) most plausible that 33:18 originally connected directly to 33:21-23 and was later supplemented first by 33:20 and then by 33:19, since 33:19 connects even more poorly to 33:21 than it does to 33:20.57 In terms of its broader narrative connections, this unit presupposes the intercession scene in 33:1217*. There is no shift in setting between 33:17 and 33:18, and Moses’ request that Yhwh show Moses his “glory” in 33:18 (‫ )הראני נא את כבדך‬clearly mirrors his request that Yhwh make known his “ways” in 33:13. Thus, 33:18-23* cannot be earlier than 33:12-17*, and the fact that Moses’ request comes after Yhwh’s response in 33:17 suggests that 33:18-23* are later than, rather than contemporaneous with, 33:12-17*.58 These verses contradict the view expressed in 33:11 that Moses spoke with Yhwh face to face in the Tent of Meeting and can be interpreted as a reaction against that verse, indicating that not even Moses is permitted to see Yhwh directly.59 To anticipate the analysis of Exod 34, 33:18-23 also presuppose and reinterpret (in advance) Moses’ encounter with Yhwh in 34:5-7 and thus cannot be earlier than those verses either.60 Preparations for another divine encounter on Mount Sinai (Exod 34:1-4). There are several narrative tensions within this unit that indicate that it is not a compositional unity.61 The first is the placement of Yhwh’s statement that he will write on the tablets in Exod 34:1b, which comes too early and would make better sense after 34:2, since it is only after Moses’ ascent that Yhwh will write on the tablets.62 The odd placement of this statement, as well as the fact that it interrupts the chain of imperative verbs in 34:1a and 34:2 (‫פסל‬ ‫)לך…והיה נכון‬, suggests that 34:1b does not belong to the most basic narrative material in this unit.63 Another narrative tension is found in 34:4b, which speaks of “two stone tablets” without the definite article. This is somewhat surprising, since 34:4aα1 describes Moses’ carving of two stone tablets, making it seem as if 34:4aα2βb is not aware of the reference to the tablets in 34:4aα1. Assuming that the phrase ‫ לחת אבנים‬in 34:4b has not lost a definite

























































57

This is a widely adopted reconstruction; cf. NOTH, Exodus, 212 (ET 257–58); ZENGER, Sinaitheophanie, 93; JEREMIAS, Theophanie, 200–204; and AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 103. 58 Cf. AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 103–4 and VAN SETERS, Life, 323. 59 Cf. KONKEL, Sünde, 123. 60 At issue in Exod 33:18-23 is the question of whether Moses is able to see Yhwh’s face. Whereas 34:6 suggests that Yhwh was fully visible to Moses, 33:18-23 correct this depiction by introducing the “cleft of the rock”; on this, see RUDOLPH, Elohist, 57–58; AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 103–4; BLUM, Studien, 64–65; BOORER, Promise, 239; and KONKEL, Sünde, 122. 61 Against PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 209–13; AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 116–17; BLUM, Studien, 68; CRÜSEMANN, Tora, 68–69; and VAN SETERS, Life, 324–25. 62 Cf. KONKEL, Sünde, 124. 63 Cf. DOHMEN, “Was stand auf den Tafeln?,” 28–29.

1. Exod 32–34

161

article in the process of textual transmission (for which there is no manuscript evidence), then it is likely that the reference to the tablets in 34:4aα2βb does not presuppose 34:4aα1 (or 34:1aβb, which is closely connected to 34:4aα1) and was composed prior to those references to the tablets. The fact that Moses is first named as the subject in 34:4aα2βb lends further support to the notion that 34:1aβb and 34:4aα1 do not belong to the most basic material in the unit.64 Thus, the most basic material in 34:1-4 can be identified in 34:1aα, 2-3,65 4aα2βb.66 Moses’ encounter with Yhwh (Exod 34:5-28). There are several significant narrative discontinuities within this unit. Between Exod 34:9 and 34:10, a problem arises from the fact that Yhwh’s statement regarding the covenant with the people does not address Moses’ request for divine accompaniment in 34:9 at all, suggesting that these verses do not belong to the same compositional level. In light of the fact that Moses’ request for divine accompaniment is not addressed anywhere within 34:10-28, it seems likely that 34:9 is a later insertion into an earlier composition already containing 34:10.67 Further narrative tension is created by Exod 34:11b. When read in light of 34:11a, which serves as an introduction to divine commands (‫שמר לך את אשר‬ ‫)אנכי מצוך היום‬, 34:11b is quite surprising, since it does not contain any commands. Exod 34:11b also stands in tension with 34:12, since in 34:11b Yhwh states that he will drive out the previous inhabitants of the land, while 34:12 (and indeed 34:12-16 as a whole) warns against making a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, thereby assuming a scenario in which other nations still live in the land. Thus, in light of the narrative tensions on both sides of 34:11b, it seems likely that this half verse is a later addition between 34:11a and 34:12.68 Exod 34:12-16 show signs of possibly being composite.69 While 34:12 and 34:14-16 have a 2ms implied addressee, 34:13 uses 2mp verbs. Moreover, the clause ‫ פן תכרת ברית ליושב הארץ‬in 34:15 is a strange continuation of 34:14, since the juxtaposition of these two verses implies that making a covenant with the inhabitants of the land (34:15) results from bowing down to other

























































64

Cf. KONKEL, Sünde, 124. Without the waw at the beginning of Exod 34:2. 66 On the tablets as secondary to the most basic narrative in Exod 34, see ZENGER, Sinaitheophanie, 94–95; JEREMIAS, Theophanie, 197 n. 11; HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 204; LEVIN, Jahwist, 369; and KONKEL, Sünde, 124–25. Most of these analyses regard the entire motif of the tablets as secondary and take a traditio-historical rather than literary-critical approach. The analysis presented here suggests, however, that the reference to the tablets in 34:4b belongs to an earlier compositional level than those in 34:1aβb and 34:4aα1 and need not be removed from the most basic material in Exod 34. 67 Cf. NOTH, Exodus, 215 (ET 261) and BOORER, Promise, 240. 68 Cf. KONKEL, Sünde, 130, who regards Exod 34:11 as a whole as later than 34:12. 69 Against HALBE, Privilegrecht, 97, who regards Exod 34:12-15 as a literary unity. 65

162 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) gods (34:14). Although such a reading is possible, it diverges significantly from 34:12, where the making of a covenant with the inhabitants of the land is a cause of transgression, not its outcome. Indeed, the verbatim repetition of ‫ פן תכרת ברית ליושב הארץ‬in 34:15 may be a Wiederaufnahme of 34:12aα, serving as the point of attachment for the more detailed warnings in 34:15-16, which may be regarded as an elaboration of ‫ פן יהיה למוקש בקרבך‬in 34:12b.70 Thus, the most basic material within 34:12-16 likely consists of 34:12a(b) and 34:14.71 The collection of ritual laws in Exod 34:17-26 is largely coherent in terms of its style and content, with the exception of 34:24, which interrupts the series of commandments with a statement that Yhwh will dispossess (‫ירש‬ hiphil) nations from before the people. Exod 34:24b partially alleviates the interruption by making a connection between Yhwh’s dispossession of the nations and the preceding commandment to appear before Yhwh three times a year, although this is achieved at the expense of creating a repetitive text through the chiastic Wiederaufnahme of 34:23: ‫ שלש פעמים בשנה‬34:23 ‫יראה כל זכורך את פני האדן ה׳ אלהי ישראל‬ ‫ כי אוריש גוים מפניך והרחבתי את גבלך ולא יחמד איש את ארצך‬24 ‫בעלתך לראות את פני ה׳ אלהיך‬ ‫שלש פעמים בשנה‬

The significant shift in subject matter, as well as the repetition created by the transition back to the cultic commandments, strongly suggests that 34:24 is a later insertion into 34:17-23, 25-26.72 The narrative conclusion to Moses’ encounter with Yhwh in Exod 34:2728 also contains a narrative tension: Yhwh’s instructions to Moses to write down the divine words in 34:27 and the fulfillment report in 34:28b are separated by a statement that Moses was on the mountain for forty days and forty nights and did not eat or drink anything during his time there. This clause has an abrupt shift in its subject,73 and its rhetorical aims are distinct from the rest of 34:27-28, raising the possibility that this half verse is an insertion. In con-

























































70

Cf. DOHMEN, “Eifersüchtiger,” 294 n. 18 and KONKEL, Sünde, 190. Cf. G. SCHMITT, Du sollst keinen Frieden schließen, 24–30; DOHMEN, “Eifersüchtiger,” 294; IDEM, “Sinaibund,” 65–67; FREVEL, Aschera, 1:223; and KONKEL, Sünde, 188–90, all of whom identify Exod 34:12a, 14 as the most basic material within these verses. 72 This conclusion fits well with the foregoing arguments for the secondary nature of Exod 34:11b, which shares the theme of Yhwh’s dispossession of the previous inhabitants of the land. 73 Cf. H.-C. SCHMITT, “Das sogenannte jahwistische Privilegrecht,” 159 n. 11. 71

1. Exod 32–34

163

trast, I find no grounds for assigning 34:27 and 34:28bα74 to two different compositional levels, particularly since Yhwh’s command to Moses to write “these words” is fulfilled only in 34:28bα.75 Moses’ descent from the mountain (Exod 34:29-32). The fact that Moses is named explicitly as the subject three times within Exod 34:29 raises the suspicion that this verse is not a unity. While the clause in 34:29aα (‫ויהי ברדת‬ ‫ )משה מהר סיני‬is essential to the logic of the narrative, the statement that Moses was carrying the two “tablets of the testimony” when he came down from the mountain (‫ )ושני לחת העדת ביד משה ברדתו מן ההר‬is doubly redundant, repeating Moses’ name as well as the report of his descent. The use of the phrase ‫ שני לחת העדת‬is also surprising here, since this term for the tablets is used nowhere else in the immediate narrative context of Exod 34.76 Thus, it seems likely that 34:29aβγ is a later insertion that was perhaps made in order to include the concept of the ‫ לחת העדת‬at this point in the narrative. The statement in Exod 34:29b that Moses did not know that his face was shining also creates a certain degree of narrative tension. Here, too, Moses is named explicitly, although this can be explained by the x-qatal circumstantial clause used here to set off parenthetical information. More troublesome is the reference to the deity using a pronominal suffix with no clear antecedent in the text. Most significantly, the placement of this parenthetical information before the statement in 34:30 that Moses’ face was radiant takes away the element of surprise created by the ‫ הנה‬in 34:30. All of these considerations suggest that 34:29b is also a secondary insertion into a more original connection between 34:29aα and 34:30.77 Moses’ veil (Exod 34:33-35). Apart from the duplicate occurrence of the phrase ‫ פני משה‬in Exod 34:35, which creates a slight redundancy, these three verses form a coherent whole. This unit presupposes both the episode involving the Tent of Meeting in 33:7-11 (cf. esp. 33:9 and 34:34)78 and the phenomenon of Moses’ radiant face from 34:29-32 and must therefore belong to a stage of composition at which both of these units were present in Exod 32– 34. Interim result. The foregoing analysis of Exod 32–34 has produced the following results:

























































74

The phrase ‫ עשרת הדברים‬in Exod 34:28bβ is possibly a later addition; cf. WELLHAUComposition3, 332–33 n. 3 and CRÜSEMANN, Tora, 68. 75 Here I disagree with ZENGER, Sinaitheophanie, 199–203; HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 210; and KONKEL, Sünde, 131–32, who regard Exod 34:28 as a whole as secondary to 34:27 based on the appearance of the tablets in 34:28b. This is unnecessary, however, if the reference to the tablets in Exod 34:4b is retained. 76 The phrase ‫ שני לחת העדת‬occurs one other time in Exod 32–34 as a whole (32:15). 77 Against KONKEL, Sünde, 133, who regards Exod 34:29-35 as a compositional unity. 78 Cf. OTTO, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 97. SEN,

164 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) – 32:1-8: 32:4b-5aα and 8bβ are likely later additions. – 32:9-14 are later than 32:1-8*, and 32:13 may be an even later addition. – 32:15-20: 32:15b-16, 17-18, and 20b are likely later insertions. – 32:21-24 are a compositional unity and presuppose 32:9-14. – 32:25-29 are not part of the most basic narrative; 32:25b is even later. – 32:30-35: 32:30-34 are secondary to 33:1-6*, as is 32:35 to 32:30-34. – 33:1-6: 33:(2b?), 3a, 3bα2, and 5-6 are secondary within this unit. – 33:7-11 may belong with 33:5-6; 33:11bβγ is a later addition. – 33:12-17 presuppose 33:1-4*; 33:12b, 13(aβ?)b, 16aα are additions. – 33:18-23 are secondary to 33:12-17* and also presuppose 34:6-7. – 34:1-4: 34:1aβb and 4aα1 are secondary. – 34:5-28: 34:9, 11b, 13, 15-16, 24, and 28a are secondary insertions. – 34:29-32: 34:29aβγ(b?) is likely a later insertion. – 34:33-35 are a unity and presuppose both 33:7-11 and 34:29-32. When all of these observations are connected with each other, Exod 32:1-4a, 5aβ-7bα, 15a, 19-20a;79 33:1-2a, (2b?), 3bα1, 3bβ, 4; 34:1aα, 2-3, 4aα2βb, 5-8, 10-11a, 12, 14, 17-23, 25-27, 28b, 29aα(b?), 30-32 emerge as possibly belonging to the most basic narrative thread in Exod 32–34. Although this narrative sequence is largely coherent, it still poses several problems. First, even the smallest extent of material in Exod 33 seems out of place when compared to the most basic narrative material in chapters 32 and 34.80 Moreover, the warning not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land in Exod 34:12 stands out as rather distinct from the other commandments in 34:14, 17-23, 25-26, which are more explicitly connected to cultic practice. Finally, one of the most difficult aspects of Exod 32–34 is the place of the stone tablets, which seem essential to some passages but appear to be secondary in others and which are often described in conflicting ways. These issues require comparison with texts beyond Exod 32–34 and will be taken up in §1.2. 1.2. Macrocontextual analysis Now that a variety of secondary materials have been identified in Exod 32– 34, the more basic materials can be evaluated in terms of their place within a broader narrative framework. Particular attention will be given to to determining (1) their relationship with Exod 19–24, (2) whether they are prepriestly or post-priestly, and (3) whether they could have belonged to an independent exodus-conquest narrative. Exod 32:1-8. The making of the golden calf in Exod 32 constitutes a violation of the first (and likely also the second) commandment of the Decalogue and thus presupposes some form of Exod 19–24 that includes the Deca-

























































79 80

Cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 140 (ET 135). Cf. NOTH, Exodus, 200 (ET 243) and BOORER, Promise, 243–44.

1. Exod 32–34

165

logue.81 While it is possible that the Decalogue belongs to a pre-priestly stage in the formation of Exod 19–24 (see Chapter 4), even the earliest reconstructible narrative in Exod 32:1-8 shows signs of post-priestly composition. As discussed in §1.1, the figure of Aaron – who is explicitly portrayed here in his role as priest (cf. esp. 32:5aβb82) – cannot be removed from the most basic narrative thread. Even if one disputes the notion that Aaron’s appearance in the scene indicates post-priestly composition, other evidence also suggests that Exod 32:1-8 presuppose priestly literature. For example, the combination ‫ על‬+ ‫ קהל‬is attested elsewhere in the Pentateuch only in Num 16:3, 19; 17:7; and 20:2, all of which are (post-)priestly texts.83 Moreover, the motif of the gold earrings in Exod 32:2-3 can be interpreted as a misuse of the gold for the tabernacle (cf. 35:22), while it is much more difficult to see how Exod 35:22 could presuppose 32:2-3.84 Finally, 32:6 forms links with post-priestly material in Exod 24, casting the worship of the calf as a perversion of the sacrifices in 24:5 and the theophany in 24:11.85 Regarding the wider literary horizon of the making of the calf in Exod 32:1-6*, the allusion in 32:4b to Jeroboam’s initiation of the cult of golden calves at Dan and Bethel in 1 Kgs 12:28-33 lies at the heart of a major discussion over the extent of Deuteronomistic compositional activity within the Sinai pericope. There is a broad consensus that the statement ‫אלה אלהיך ישראל‬ ‫ אשר העלוך מארץ מצרים‬in Exod 32:4b draws on 1 Kgs 12:28 and not vice versa.86 However, since this verse is an addition, the question of whether the most basic material in Exod 32:1-8 also presupposes the Jeroboam narrative



























































81 Cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 141–42 (ET 136). HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 159–62; DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 141–47; IDEM, “Was stand auf den Tafeln?,” 47; and WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 156–57 argue that Exod 32 did not originally presuppose the prohibition on images in the Decalogue, but it is difficult to imagine what purpose this narrative would have served if not as a commentary on the people’s failure to observe the law that they had just received in Exod 20. 82 The combination of the terms ‫ חג לה׳‬+ ‫ קרא‬in Exod 32:5bβ has parallels elsewhere in Exod 12:14; Lev 23:6; and Num 29:12; cf. DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 105–6 and GERTZ, “Beobachtungen,” 91–92 (with additional biblical references). 83 Cf. OTTO, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 85. 84 Cf. ibid., 86; IDEM, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 152; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44– 11,32, 956. 85 Cf. OTTO, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 153; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 957. 86 Cf. VAN SETERS, Life, 295–301; KRATZ, Komposition, 139 (ET 134); H.-C. SCHMITT, “Erzählung,” 314; and ACHENBACH, “Grundlinien,” 70. Some earlier commentators sought to maintain that Exod 32 was pre-Deuteronomistic by arguing that Exod 32 and 1 Kgs 12 drew independently on an old tradition from Bethel; see, e.g., NOTH, Exodus, 202 (ET 246).

166 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) in 1 Kgs 12 must be answered on the basis of other evidence.87 Further parallels between Exod 32:1-6 and 1 Kgs 12:28-33 include the use of gold to make the calf (Exod 32:2 // 1 Kgs 12:28), the construction of an altar (Exod 32:5aβ // 1 Kgs 12:32), and the declaration of a festival to Yhwh (Exod 32:5bβ // 1 Kgs 12:32).88 Yet 1 Kgs 12:28-33 also shows signs of being a composite text: Jeroboam’s speech to the people in 12:28b is not necessary from a narrative point of view, and the cultic details described in 12:31-33 come too late after 12:30, suggesting that they are also secondary.89 Thus, it may be necessary to reckon with a back-and-forth process of composition, whereby Exod 32:1-6* likely presupposed a basic report of Jeroboam’s installation of golden calves at Dan and Bethel in 1 Kgs 12:28a, 29-30 but possibly served as the Vorlage to 1 Kgs 12:31-33. In sum, it can be concluded that the most basic narrative thread in Exod 32:1-8 is post-priestly90 and likely has an Enneateuch as its literary horizon. The only way to posit the existence of a pre-priestly golden calf narrative is to assume that an earlier, pre-priestly version of the making of the calf has been overwritten and significantly recast in light of priestly literature.91 Since the remainder of Exod 32–34 is dependent on the making of the calf in 32:18, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that these chapters are post-priestly in their entirety. Such a conclusion finds further support at many other points in these chapters. Exod 32:9-14. Above it was concluded that this scene is a later addition to the most basic narrative thread in Exod 32. Through its multiple allusions to the ancestral narratives (e.g., Yhwh’s plan to make Moses into a “great nation” in 32:10 and Moses’ invocation of Yhwh’s promise of descendants and land to the ancestors in 32:13), the scene clearly presupposes a literary horizon that includes priestly and post-priestly material in the book of Genesis.92

























































87

Against OTTO, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 151; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 956, who argues that the most basic narrative in Exod 32* is dependent on 1 Kgs 12:26-30 in light of the citation of 1 Kgs 12:28 in Exod 32:4. 88 These connections are noted by H.-C. SCHMITT, “Erzählung,” 314. 89 Cf. FRITZ, 1. Könige, 137–38, who argues that 1 Kgs 12:30b is later than 12:26-30a and that 12:31-32 are also later additions, with 12:33 serving as a redactional transition. Fritz says nothing, however, of these texts’ relationship to Exod 32. 90 Cf. H.-C. SCHMITT, “Erzählung,” 314, who admits that the most basic material in Exod 32 exhibits “Berührungen mit der Priesterschrift” but does not emphasize this point in his overall discussion. 91 ACHENBACH, “Grundlinien,” 71. See also NOTH, Exodus, 203 (ET 247), although he does not consider the figure of Aaron to be an indication of post-priestly compositional activity. If a pre-priestly narrative were to be identified within the received text of Exod 32:1-8, it would have to begin in 32:7-8. This seems unlikely, however, since in 32:8 Yhwh summarizes events from 32:4-6. 92 Cf. RÖMER, Israels Väter, 258–65, 563–65; K. SCHMID, Erzväter, 296–99 (ET 276– 79); GERTZ, “Beobachtungen,” 100–101; BLUM, “Die literarische Verbindung,” 153–54;

1. Exod 32–34

167

Exod 32:15-20. The literary-critical analysis of this unit concluded that Exod 32:15b-16, 17-18, and 20b are likely later additions to a basic narrative thread in 32:15a*, 19-20a. Intertextual comparison indicates that 32:15aβ presupposes priestly literature in its description of the tablets as ‫לחת העדת‬,93 and since 32:15b-16 cannot stand alone without 32:15aβ, then 32:15aβb-16 as a whole must be evaluated as post-priestly.94 Moreover, the appearance of Joshua in 32:17-18 cannot be earlier than his appearance in Exod 24:13-14, which does not connect directly to the pre-priestly narrative thread in Exod 19–24*.95 Exod 32:17-18 also likely presuppose the post-priestly episode of the battle with the Amalekites in Exod 17:8-16 (cf. the use of the root ‫ חל״ש‬in 17:13 and 32:18).96 Finally, the reference to Moses’ strewing the calf dust over the water and making the people drink in 32:20b may be an allusion to



























































































































and KONKEL, Sünde, 149–50 against DOZEMAN, Exodus, 577, who assigns Exod 32 in its entirety (apart from 32:15) to a “Non-P History.” For a detailed discussion of the other intertextual connections made in Exod 32:9-14, particularly with the book of Kings, see AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 91–100, although he does not address the question of whether this unit presupposes priestly texts. 93 The post-priestly nature of the references to the ‫ לחת העדת‬has long been recognized based on the appearance of the term ‫ עדת‬in Exod 25:16, 21; 31:7; and 40:20. Several commentators have attempted to resolve this problem by postulating an earlier version of 32:15 that referred to Moses carrying “two tablets” but did not use the term ‫ ;עדת‬cf. WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 97; NOTH, Exodus, 204–5 (ET 248–49); PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 209; HYATT, Exodus, 307; VAN SETERS, Life, 294; ACHENBACH, “Grundlinien,” 65; and PROPP, Exodus 19–40, 149. Other commentators, however, argue that the reference to the tablets in Exod 32:15aβb is (post-)priestly from the outset; cf. PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 209; ZENGER, Sinaitheophanie, 83–84; HAHN, Das “Goldene Kalb,” 116–19; HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 146–47; DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 78; W EIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 126– 27; AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 58; SMITH, Pilgrimage Pattern, 187, 246–47; OTTO, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 88; IDEM, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 154; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 958; GERTZ, “Beobachtungen,” 91; and H.-C. SCHMITT, “Erzählung,” 313, 323. 94 Cf. PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 209; ZENGER, Sinaitheophanie, 84; HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 146–47; DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 108; WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 126–27; AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 58; GERTZ, “Beobachtungen,” 96–97; KONKEL, Sünde, 110; and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 274. 95 On the evaluation of Exod 32:17-18 as post-priestly, see DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 109 and OTTO, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 81; IDEM, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 154; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 958. 96 On the evaluation of Exod 17:8-16 as post-priestly, see Chapter 3, §7.2. KONKEL, Sünde, 162 also notes the connection with Exod 17:8-16 but regards the latter as both prepriestly and pre-Deuteronomistic in its most basic form. Nevertheless, Konkel concedes that a post-priestly origin for Exod 32:17-18 cannot be excluded (ibid., 168).

168 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) the “water of cursing” in Num 5:11-31.97 Thus, the only potentially prepriestly material in Exod 32:15-20 consists of 32:15aα* and 32:19.98 Exod 32:21-24. This unit was evaluated in §1.1 as an expansion that presupposes Exod 32:9-14. Since the latter can be confidently evaluated as postpriestly, 32:21-24 must also be evaluated as a post-priestly addition that seeks to cast Aaron in an even more negative light than in 32:1-6. 99 Exod 32:25-29. Although the etiology of the Levites’ ordination in Exod 32:25-29 has typically been regarded as pre-priestly,100 a number of commentators have also argued in favor of its post-priestly provenance.101 The most extensive arguments for the latter have been collected by Michael Konkel; the following points are, in my view, the strongest: (1) The reference to the “sons of Levi” in 32:26 presupposes the (post-)priestly genealogy in Exod 6:16. (2) Although the expression ‫ מלא יד‬occurs in both priestly and nonpriestly texts, its closest parallels are found in 1 Chr 29:5 and 2 Chr 29:31, both of which have cultic resonances. (3) This unit has structural parallels with Num 25:1-13 in its post-priestly compositional form.102 Exod 33:1-6. Exod 33:1-2a, (2b?), 3bα1, 3bβ, and 4, which constitute the most basic material in Exod 33 but are secondary to the most basic narrative thread in Exod 32 and 34, show signs of post-priestly provenance. Exod 33:1 combines the notion of Yhwh’s oath-promise of the land with an explicit reference to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and, as such, is one of a handful of texts that serve to demarcate the (post-priestly) Pentateuch as a canonical

























































97

Cf. NOTH, Exodus, 205 (ET 249–50) and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 276. Exod 32:19 will be revisited in the discussion of the tablets below (pp. 173–75). 99 Cf. WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 131–32, 155–56; ACHENBACH, “Grundlinien,” 77; and KONKEL, Sünde, 168. Although Aaron’s own rhetorical aim in the world of the narrative is to save face by blaming the people, the ultimate rhetorical effect on the reader is to cast Aaron in an even more negative light than in Exod 32:1-6 through his feeble attempt to exonerate himself. For this interpretation, cf. NOTH, Exodus, 201 (ET 244); MOBERLY, At the Mountain of God, 54; CHILDS, Exodus, 562; and BOORER, Promise, 245 against CASSUTO, Exodus, 420; LOEWENSTAMM, “Making,” 337; HYATT, Exodus, 309; and BRICHTO, “Worship,” 11–15, who regard 32:21-24 as casting Aaron in a positive light. 100 NOTH, ÜP, 219–20 n. 545 (ET 201 n. 545); BLUM, Studien, 55–56; and DOZEMAN, Exodus, 577. See also SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 276, 278–79, who assigns Exod 32:25-29 to a “nebenpriesterschriftlichen Erzählfaden” (emphasis original). 101 ZENGER, Sinaitheophanie, 189; DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 93–94; WEIMAR, “Das goldene Kalb,” 131–32, 155–58; DAHMEN, Leviten, 80–85; OTTO, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 90; IDEM, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 156; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 959; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Erzählung,” 323; and ACHENBACH, “Grundlinien,” 76–78. 102 KONKEL, Sünde, 163–68. On the third observation, see DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 109– 11; DAHMEN, Leviten, 87–90; and H.-C. SCHMITT, “Erzählung,” 323. For a critique of Konkel’s arguments, see SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 278 n. 1253. 98

1. Exod 32–34

169

unit.103 Moreover, the problem of Yhwh’s presence in the midst of the people expressed in Exod 33:1-6 – particularly in light of the divine command that the people take off their ornaments – seems to undo the notion that Yhwh’s presence traveled with the people via the (priestly) tabernacle constructed from the people’s jewelry.104 Exod 33:7-11. The description of the Tent of Meeting in Exod 33:7-11 has traditionally been regarded as part of an older, pre-priestly narrative.105 Not only does such an evaluation rely on questionable Hilfskonstruktionen,106 it is also forced to downplay the fact that 33:7-11 build upon the issue of divine absence raised in 33:1-6. As A. H. J. Gunneweg has observed, the location of the Tent of Meeting outside the camp can be regarded as a revision of the priestly notion of the tabernacle in the midst of the camp.107 A number of commentators have followed Gunneweg in evaluating this passage as postpriestly,108 and this perspective has recently been strengthened by Rainer Albertz, who has shown in detail that the reference to the ‫ אהל מועד‬in 33:7-11 presupposes the priestly ‫( אהל מועד‬cf. esp. Exod 33:10 with Lev 9:23-24).109 In fact, Exod 33:7-11 can be understood as a dialectical reinterpretation of the priestly concept of divine presence in the tabernacle and the more radical notion of divine absence presented in 33:1-6. Although Yhwh is not directly present in the tabernacle, access to the divine can still be mediated verbally through the figure of Moses.110 As Gunneweg has observed, this synthesis of two conceptions of divine presence/absence in the figure of Moses reflects a

























































103

On the combination of the oath-promise with the reference to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as post-priestly, see RÖMER, Israels Väter, 554–68 and H.-C. SCHMITT, “Josephsgeschichte,” 394. For an extended discussion of these texts’ place in demarcating the Pentateuch as a canonical unit, see K. SCHMID, Erzväter, 296–99 (276–79), with an evaluation of Exod 33:1 as post-priestly on 298 (ET 278). 104 On Exod 33:1-6 as a whole as post-priestly, see JOHNSTONE, “From the Mountain,” 276 and KONKEL, Sünde, 122. See also GERTZ, “Beobachtungen,” 102, where such a conclusion is implicit. 105 Cf., e.g., GÖRG, Zelt der Begegnung, 151–65; FRITZ, Tempel, 100–109; and BLUM, Studien, 76–88. 106 E.g., KONKEL, Sünde, 171–73 bases this conclusion on the assumption that the pillar of cloud is pre-priestly and pre-Deuteronomistic; DOZEMAN, Exodus, 719 postulates that a “Non-P author” has incorporated “an independent tradition of the tent of meeting”; and STACKERT, Prophet, 82–91 argues that “the pentateuchal compiler here did not follow his regular practice of retaining the sequence of the text in his source” (p. 85). 107 GUNNEWEG, “Gesetz,” 174. 108 LEVIN, Jahwist, 368; OTTO, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 91– 92; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Suche,” 274 (repr. 271); OSWALD, Israel, 216–17; KRATZ, Komposition, 140 (ET 135); HARTENSTEIN, “Angesicht Gottes,” 158–59; GERTZ, “Beobachtungen,” 103; and ACHENBACH, “Grundlinien,” 79–80. 109 ALBERTZ, “Ex 33,7-11,” 26–34, esp. 31–33. 110 Cf. ibid., 35.

170 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) concrete theological reality, namely, the notion that Yhwh’s communication with Moses – that is, the Torah – is the site of Yhwh’s presence in the midst of the people, even in the absence of the tabernacle – that is, the temple and its priests.111 The Torah orientation of this text is further suggested by the reference to Joshua remaining in the Tent of Meeting in 33:11bβ (‫ומשרתו‬ ‫)יהושע בן נון נער לא ימיש מתוך האהל‬, which forms a lexical link with Yhwh’s command to Joshua in Josh 1:8 not to let the “book of the Torah” depart from his mouth (‫)לא ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך‬. Exod 33:12-17. In the literary-critical analysis, it was argued that Moses’ third intercession with Yhwh in Exod 33:12-17 presupposes at least 33:16*,112 which were evaluated as post-priestly. Although several commentators have proposed that 33:12-17 once connected directly to 32:30-34,113 this is not possible, since the latter verses are a Vorwegnahme of 33:1. It is also difficult to imagine that 33:1-6*, 12-17 could have stood alone without Exod 32, since “the circumstantial negotiations in 33.12ff. need an occasion which makes Yhwh’s going with the people a problem,”114 namely, the sin of the golden calf. Exod 33:18-23. The literary-critical analysis showed that these verses are not a compositional unity, that their most basic material presupposes the intercession scene in Exod 33:12-17, and that they present a correction of the view in 33:11 that Moses spoke with Yhwh face to face. Since 33:7-11 and 33:12-17 are post-priestly texts, 33:18-23 must also be evaluated as postpriestly.115 This evaluation is reinforced by the conceptual and intertextual analysis of 34:5-7, upon which 33:18-23 also depend (see below). Exod 34:1-4. The literary-critical analysis led to the conclusion that the most basic material in Exod 34:1-4 consists of 34:1aα, 2-3,116 4aα2βb. Here, Yhwh’s instructions to Moses to prepare for another ascent of the mountain has resonances with the theophany texts in Exod 19–24:

























































111

GUNNEWEG, “Gesetz,” 174–75; cf. ALBERTZ, “Ex 33,7-11,” 36. For the view that Exod 33:12-17 presuppose some amount of preceding material in Exod 33, see WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 94; VAN SETERS, Life, 320; KRATZ, Komposition, 141 (ET 136); and DOZEMAN, Exodus, 727. 113 For the view that Exod 33:12-17 are earlier than 33:1-11, see NOTH, Exodus, 211 (ET 256); AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 102; GERTZ, “Beobachtungen,” 102; and KONKEL, Sünde, 177. 114 KRATZ, Komposition, 141 (quote from ET 136). Kratz leaves open the question of whether Exod 32 + 34* or Exod 33* constituted the earliest material in Exod 32–34. 115 On Exod 33:18-23 as (post-)priestly, see JOHNSTONE, “Reactivating,” 30. KONKEL, Sünde, 177 argues that the unit is late but that its traditio-historical place cannot be determined precisely. Although many commentators have rightly noted that the concept of Yhwh’s “glory” (‫ )כבוד‬differs from that found in priestly texts (see, e.g., DOZEMAN, Exodus, 729–30), this is hardly a reason to assume that the passage is pre-priestly. 116 Without the waw at the beginning of Exod 34:2. 112

1. Exod 32–34

171

‫ והיו נכנים ליום השלישי‬19:11 ‫ וירד ה׳ על הר סיני אל ראש ההר‬19:20

‫ והיה נכון לבקר ועלית בבקר אל הר סיני‬34:2 ‫ונצבת לי שם על ראש ההר‬

‫ והגבלת את העם סביב לאמר השמרו לכם‬19:12 ‫עלות בהר ונגע בקצהו כל הנגע בהר מות‬ ‫ לא תגע בו יד כי סקול יסקל או ירה‬13 117‫יומת‬ ‫יירה אם בהמה אם איש לא יחיה‬

‫ ואיש לא יעלה עמך וגם איש אל ירא בכל‬34:3 ‫ההר גם הצאן והבקר אל ירעו אל מול ההר‬ ‫ההוא‬

This comparison reveals that even the most basic material in 34:1-4 presupposes the theophany materials in Exod 19 at a post-priestly stage of composition. The term ‫ הר סיני‬and the phrase ‫ ראש ההר‬in 34:2 draw on language from Exod 19:20. Likewise, 34:3 has thematic connections to 19:12-13.118 The likelihood that 34:3 draws on 19:12-13 and not vice versa is strengthened by the statement ‫ואיש לא יעלה עמך‬, which may be a reaction against Joshua’s accompanying Moses (at least part of the way) up the mountain in Exod 24:13-14. The insertion of the motif of the tablets within 34:1-4 is a special problem that will be discussed in further detail below. Exod 34:5-28. Above it was concluded that Exod 34:9, 11b, 13, 15-16, 24, 28a are likely secondary to the most basic material in 34:5-28. Yet even apart from these additions and apart from the complicated issue of the direction of dependence among the legal materials in Exod 13; 20; 21–23; and 34:1126,119 a comparison of the narrative framework of Exod 34:5-28 with Exod 19–24 reveals that this narrative frame presupposes Exod 19–24 at a postpriestly stage of composition:

























































117

This perhaps presupposes Exod 19:21 but not 19:22-25. For the view that Exod 34:2-3 are a Wiederaufnahme of materials in 19:10-19, see BLUM, “Privilegrecht,” 355 (albeit with a different relative dating of 19:10-19). 119 The following verbal parallels exist between the legal material in Exod 34:11-26 and other legal corpora in the book of Exodus: 34:14 // 20:3; 34:17 // 20:4; 34:18 // 23:15; 34:19 // 13:12-13; 34:20 // 23:15; 34:21 // 20:9-10; 34:22 // 23:16; 34:23 // 23:17; 34:25 // 23:18; and 34:26 // 23:19. Although it is beyond the scope of the present study to discuss the possible directions of dependence among all of these texts, it should be noted here that an increasing number of commentators regard the legal materials in 34:11-26 as a late compilation of materials from elsewhere in the book of Exodus; see already ALT, Ursprünge, 1:317 n. 1 and, more recently, PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 216–38; KUTSCH, “Erwägungen,” 33–36 (late-Dtr); AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 116–26; JOHNSTONE, “Reactivating,” 27–28; BLUM, Studien, 69–70, 369–70; IDEM, “Israël à la montagne de Dieu,” 278 n. 21; IDEM, “Privilegrecht,” 357–58 (KD); BAR-ON, “Festival Calendars,” 185 (post-priestly); CARR, “Exodus 34,11-26” (post-priestly); and H.-C. SCHMITT, “Das sogenannte jahwistische Privilegrecht,” 169. The direction of dependence between Exod 34:11-26 and the Covenant Code is particularly problematic. Even if the festival laws in the Covenant Code are dependent on 34:11-26 and not vice versa, this is not a strong argument for an early dating of the core of 34:11-26 (against OTTO, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 93–99), since the Covenant Code could have taken on additions at a late stage of composition (cf. H.-C. SCHMITT, “Das sogenannte jahwistische Privilegrecht,” 168). 118

172 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) ‫ והר סיני עשן כלו מפני אשר ירד עליו ה׳‬19:18 ‫באש‬ ‫ ויהי קלת וברקים וענן כבד על ההר‬19:16

‫ וירד ה׳ בענן‬34:5

‫ ויקח משה את הדם ויזרק על העם ויאמר‬24:8 ‫הנה דם הברית אשר כרת ה׳ עמכם על כל‬ ‫הדברים האלה‬ (cf. 19:5; 24:7)

‫ ויאמר הנה אנכי כרת ברית נגד כל עמך‬34:10

…‫ ויכתב משה את כל דברי ה׳‬24:4 …‫ ויקח ספר הברית‬24:7

‫ ויאמר ה׳ אל משה כתב לך את הדברים‬34:27 ‫האלה כי על פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית‬ ‫ואת ישראל‬ ‫ ויכתב על הלחת את דברי הברית עשרת‬34:28b ‫הדברים‬

Exod 34:5 blends the concept of Yhwh’s descent from 19:18 (a post-priestly text) with the motif of the cloud from 19:16.120 The description of Yhwh “cutting” a covenant in 34:10 finds its counterpoint in 24:7-8. In 34:27-28, following the giving of the law, Yhwh tells Moses to “write down these words” (‫)כתב לך את הדברים האלה‬, which has resonances with 24:4-8121 as well as with the introduction to the Decalogue in 20:1 (‫וידבר אלהים את כל‬ ‫)הדברים האלה‬. Thus, in addition to the arguments made by other commentators for the post-priestly shaping of the legal materials in 34:11-26 themselves, the analysis of the narrative frame in 34:5-9*, 27-28* provides further evidence that the basic shaping of 34:5-28 occurred at a post-priestly stage of composition.122 Exod 34:29-32. The literary-critical analysis of this unit concluded that Exod 34:29aβγ is likely a later insertion and that 34:29b may also be secondary. In contrast, the figure of Aaron cannot be removed from the remaining material, which points to its post-priestly provenance.123 Any attempt to argue that part of this unit formed the conclusion to a pre-priestly narrative must

























































120

Cf. KONKEL, Sünde, 235. Cf. BLUM, “Privilegrecht,” 355. KONKEL, Sünde, 265 argues that “Ex 34,27 nimmt auf die Berit von Ex 24,6-8 keinen Bezug, weil auf dieser redaktionellen Stufe nur die Verpflichtung von 24,3 vorausgesetzt wird.” This is difficult to imagine, however, since the motif of writing as well as that of ‫ ברית‬are found only in Exod 24:4-8, not in 24:3. 122 Against KONKEL, Sünde, 249, who assigns the most basic material in Exod 34 to a pre-Deuteronomistic and pre-priestly stage of composition, and DOZEMAN, Exodus, 744, who assigns Exod 34:10-27 to his “Non-P Historian.” 123 The (post-)priestly provenance of this unit is widely acknowledged; see already WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 97 as well as RUDOLPH, Elohist, 60; ZENGER, Exodus, 244– 45, 307–8; BLUM, Studien, 70 (albeit with the assumption that a pre-priestly version underlies the present text); KONKEL, Sünde, 132; and OTTO, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 97–98. 121

1. Exod 32–34

173

assume that only fragments of such a narrative have been preserved124 or that such a narrative lacked a report of Moses’ descent altogether. Such assumptions are unnecessary, however, once the post-priestly nature of Exod 32–34 as a whole is acknowledged. Exod 34:33-35. Above it was concluded that Exod 34:33-35 presuppose both 33:7-11 and 34:29-32. Based on the identification of both of these passages as post-priestly, 34:33-35 must also be evaluated as post-priestly.125 The place of the stone tablets within Exod 32 and 34. While the foregoing discussion has shown that the most basic materials in Exod 32–34 should be evaluated as post-priestly, the precise place of the stone tablets within these materials remains to be clarified. Within the book of Exodus as a whole, the tablets appear in 24:12; 31:18; 32:15-16, 19; and 34:1, 4, 28-29, which reflect a number of different conceptions about the tablets.126 Some passages describe the tablets as ‫לחת העדת‬, “tablets of the testimony” (31:18; 32:15; 34:29), while elsewhere they are referred to as “tablets of stone” (24:12) or “tablets of stones” (31:18; 34:1, 4). The majority of these verses depict the text of the tablets as having been written by God (24:12; 31:18; 32:16; 34:1), although one verse almost certainly indicates that Moses wrote on the tablets (34:28b).127 There is also some tension regarding who made the tablets themselves: While 34:1 and 34:4 explicitly state that Moses is to make the tablets, 32:16 indicates that not only the writing on the tablets but also tablets themselves were the work of God. Finally, these verses disagree over whether Moses only receives the tablets once he has gone up the mountain (24:12; 31:18; 32:16) or whether he brings the tablets up with him (34:1, 4). In short, there is good reason to suspect that the various references to the tablets belong to several different compositional levels.

























































124

NOTH, Exodus, 220 (ET 267) and, hesitantly, BOORER, Promise, 240. RENAUD, “La formation,” 130 argues that Exod 34:29a belongs to a pre-priestly base narrative but ignores the fact that this half verse cannot be separated literarily from the material that follows. 125 This is a point on which the Neo-Documentarians also agree; cf. SCHWARTZ, “Priestly Account,” 114–17 and STACKERT, Prophet, 65. 126 For previous discussions of the tablets, see DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 132–38; IDEM, “Was stand auf den Tafeln?,” 9–50 (with further references on pp. 10–12 n. 6); and BOORER, Promise, 231–36. 127 Although Moses is not explicitly specified as the subject of the verb ‫ויכתב‬, this can be assumed based on the immediate narrative context: (1) in Exod 34:27 Yhwh tells Moses to write “these words,” (2) Moses is clearly the subject of all three verbs in 34:28a, and (3) there is nothing to indicate a change in subject between 34:28a and 34:28b. The view that Yhwh is the subject of the verb ‫ ויכתב‬in 34:28b (CHILDS, Exodus, 615; MOBERLY, At the Mountain of God, 103; DURHAM, Exodus, 462–63; and BOORER, Promise, 236) can be justified only in light of 34:1b, not in light of the immediate narrative context.

174 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) In order to evaluate the relative chronology of these references, it is necessary to recall the observations made in the literary-critical analysis, which concluded that Exod 32:15b (the description of the tablets as being inscribed on both sides); 32:16 (the description of both the tablets and their writing as divinely created); 34:1aβb, 4aα1 (Yhwh’s command to Moses to carve two tablets like the first ones); and 34:29aβγ (a reference to the two tablets of the testimony) create tension within their immediate narrative contexts and are likely secondary. This leaves 32:15aβ, 19bα2β; 34:4aα2βb, and 28 as candidates for the earliest references to the tablets in Exod 32–34. Both Exod 32:15aβ and 32:19bα2β presuppose 31:18, since it is only in this verse that the reader is informed that Moses received the tablets. This connection is further strengthened by the use of the phrase “tablets of the testimony” in 32:15aβ. As for 31:18 itself, the fact that ‫ ככלתו לדבר אתו‬forms a closing bracket with 25:1 (‫ )וידבר ה׳ אל משה לאמר‬suggests that the phrase ‫ שני לחת העדת‬refers to the priestly instructions in Exod 25–31* and not to the law that was revealed in Exod 20–23.128 This interpretation receives further support from the fact that Moses has already written “all the words of Yhwh” in 24:4 (cf. the reference to ‫ ספר הברית‬in 24:7), making it difficult to imagine why Moses would need to be given the same “words” again in the form of stone tablets.129 Yet the notion that the tablets contained priestly instructions does not fit very well with the golden calf episode in Exod 32, since the making of the calf is to be understood primarily as a violation of the first (and possibly also second) commandment in the Decalogue. This suggests that Moses’ breaking of the tablets is not integral to the most basic narrative of the golden calf in Exod 32, indicating that 32:15aβ, 19b(α1?)α2β should be removed from the most basic narrative material in Exod 32–34.130 Turning to Exod 34, a different picture emerges. Here, in contrast to all of the prior references to the tablets, which depict the contents of the tablets as having been written by God or presuppose other texts that do so (24:12; 31:18; 32:15aβb-16, 19bα2β), 34:27-28 depict Moses as writing on the tablets. The reference to “the tablets” using the definite article (‫ )הלחת‬in 34:28 must connect to a preceding reference to the tablets. This can be found in

























































128

See also SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 274. This fact is overlooked by most commentators who seek to identify a pre-priestly tablets motif in Exod 24:12-18*; 31:18*; e.g., BOORER, Promise, 235. DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 132–38; IDEM, “Was stand auf den Tafeln?,” 19–27 recognizes this problem and attempts to resolve it by arguing that the purportedly oldest (JE) references to the tablets in Exod 24:12*; 31:18*; and 32:19 are only a “symbol” of the prior revelation of the law and contained no text. 130 For the view that the motif of the tablets is secondary in Exod 32, see PERLITT, Bundestheologie, 209–10; LORETZ, “Die steinernen Gesetzestafeln,” 160; LEVIN, Jahwist, 369; KONKEL, Sünde, 112; and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 274. In contrast, DOHMEN, “Was stand auf den Tafeln?,” 20 regards the motif of the tablets as original to Exod 32. 129

1. Exod 32–34

175

34:4aα2βb, which does not seem to be aware of any prior reference to the tablets, as is suggested by the lack of the definite article. Since it is unlikely that the reference to Moses writing on the tablets in 34:27-28 is later than the references to Yhwh writing on the tablets, it seems that 34:4aα2βb, 27-28 constitute the earliest references to the tablets in Exod 19–24; 32–34 as a whole. This fits well with the conclusion that 34:1aβb and 34:4aα 1 should be excluded from the most basic material in 34:1-4 on literary-critical grounds. Taking all of these observations together, the development of the motif of the stone tablets within the Sinai pericope can be divided into two primary stages. In the first stage, the motif of the stone tablets appeared only in Exod 34:4aα2βb and 34:27-28.131 Here, Moses’ use of stone tablets to write down the words of the new Decalogue is a fitting response to the violation of the first Decalogue, which Moses had also written down, albeit not in stone (cf. 24:3-8). In the second stage, the motif was added in 24:12; 31:18; 32:15aβb16, 19bα2β; and 34:1aβb, 4aα1 (although not necessarily by a single hand). In 31:18a(b), the reference to the tablets indicates that their contents consist of the priestly instructions in Exod 25–31*,132 and the remaining references all ultimately depend on this verse. It thus seems that Yhwh’s command to Moses to ascend the mountain in Exod 24:12* originally made no reference to the tablets and had in view only Yhwh’s verbal communication of the priestly instructions in Exod 25–31*. At a later stage, these instructions were placed on similar footing with the laws in Exod 34 through the insertion of 24:12b*; 31:18; 32:15aβb-16, 19bα2β; and 34:1aβb, 4aα1. Furthermore, the insertion of the references to the first stone tablets prior to Exod 34 reframes the legal materials in that chapter: Now, the new Decalogue is not only a response to the violation of the first Decalogue but is also a rewriting of the ‫( לחת העדת‬i.e., the priestly instructions in Exod 25–31*) that Moses broke in Exod 32:19bα2β. In this respect, the (already post-priestly) collection of laws in Exod 34 is cast even more strongly as an epitome of the legal materials in the book of Exodus.133 1.3. Synthesis I

The most basic narrative that can be isolated in Exod 32–34 perhaps consisted of Exod 32:1(a?)b-4a, 5aβ, 6-8bα, 15aα, 19a(bα1?), 20a; 34:1aα, 2 (without the waw), (3?), 4aα2βb, 5a, 10aα* (up to ‫)כל עמך‬, 11a, 14a (without the ‫)כי‬, 17-23, 25-27, 28b, 29aα(b?), 30-32. This material tells of the fabrication of the golden calf, Moses’ destruction of

























































131

Here I disagree with ZENGER, Sinaitheophanie, 94–95; JEREMIAS, Theophanie, 197 n. 11; DOHMEN, “Was stand auf den Tafeln?,” 46–47; LEVIN, Jahwist, 369; and KONKEL, Sünde, 124, who regard the tablets as secondary throughout Exod 34. 132 Cf. RÖMER, “Provisorische Überlegungen,” 140. 133 On this, see BLUM, “Privilegrecht,” 358 (with further literature).

176 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) the calf, and Yhwh’s provision of a new Decalogue – dictated by Yhwh but written by Moses – in response to the violation of the first Decalogue. There are multiple indications that this narrative should be regarded as post-priestly from its inception. (1) Exod 32:1 presupposes that Moses has been on the mountain for a long time and, since Moses had already written down the Decalogue and the Covenant Code in 24:7, it is reasonable to assume that the original reason for Moses’ additional ascent was to receive a different set of instructions, namely, the priestly instructions in Exod 25–31*. (2) There are no literary-critical grounds for removing the figure of Aaron from the opening of the narrative in 32:1-6 or from its conclusion in 34:30-31, and arguments that Aaron is not a priestly figure in this passage are not convincing. (3) The use of the expressions ‫הר סיני‬, ‫על ראש ההר‬, ‫וירד ה׳ בענן‬, and ‫( ברית‬34:2, 4, 5a, 10aα, 29, 32) presuppose Exod 19–24 at a post-priestly stage of composition. (4) The laws in the new Decalogue (34:14a*, 17-23, 2527) reflect priestly concerns.134 I+

This narrative was supplemented with a variety of small-scale additions in Exod 32:4b, 5aα, 5b, 8bβ, 15aβb, 16, 19b, 20b*; 34:1aβb, 3, 4aα1, 28a. Although it is difficult to determine precisely when these additions were made, it seems reasonable to assume that at least the references to the first set of tablets in 32:15aβb, 19b*, 34:1aβb, and 4aα1 (as well as in 24:12* and 31:18) were made relatively early.

II

The most basic material in Exod 33 (probably to be found in 33:1-4*, 12-17*) was inserted between Exod 32 and 34.

II+

Sometime after the composition of Exod 33:1-4* and 12-17*, Exod 33 was further expanded in 33:5-11, 18-23 as well as within 33:1-4, 12-17 themselves. It is also possible that 34:6-9 and 34:33-35 were added at this stage, since 34:9 seems to presuppose 33:12-17*, while 34:33-35 presuppose the description of the Tent of Meeting in 33:5-11.

III

Following the composition of the most basic narrative in Exod 32 and 34 as well as the most basic material in Exod 33, two longer intercession texts were added in 32:9-14*, 30-34. Exod 32:30-34 are likely the

























































134

The only possibility for identifying a pre-priestly narrative in Exod 32–34 is to assume that Exod 32:1-6 has been reworked to include the figure of Aaron, which would produce a pre-priestly narrative in 32:1-4a, 5aβ-7βα, 15aα, 19* (up to ‫)וישלח‬, 20. See, e.g., the reconstruction in AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 60, who regards the narrative of the golden calf in Exod 32* as an independent unit that originally connected directly to Exod 19–24*. Yet from a rhetorical perspective, the sin of the calf raises a theological problem that is only partially resolved in Moses’ destruction of the calf and is not truly resolved until the giving of the new Decalogue in Exod 34; see CRÜSEMANN, Tora, 67.

‫‪177‬‬

‫‪1. Exod 32–34‬‬

‫‪earlier of these, since 32:9-14 come too soon in the course of the narra‬‬‫‪tive and seem to anticipate 32:30-34.135‬‬ ‫‪III+ Exod 32:21-24 and 34:5b-9 seem to presuppose the intercession scenes‬‬ ‫‪in 32:9-14 and 32:30-34. Exod 32:9 and 32:13 may also be later addi‬‬‫‪tions to Moses’ intercession in 32:9-14.‬‬ ‫‪At an unknown stage of composition, a variety of other isolated addi‬‬‫‪tions were made within Exod 32–34. These include the appearance of‬‬ ‫‪Joshua in 32:17-18 (cf. 24:13-14), the etiology of the Levites’ ordina‬‬‫‪tion in 32:25-29, Yhwh’s punishment of the people in 32:35, the refer‬‬‫‪), and the Deu‬אעשה נפלאת ‪ence to Yhwh’s wonders in 34:10* (from‬‬‫‪teronomistic-style formulations in 33:2b-3a and 34:11b-13, 15-16, 24.‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪32:1‬‬

‫וירא העם כי בשש משה לרדת מן ההר ויקהל העם על אהרן ויאמרו אליו קום עשה לנו אלהים‬ ‫אשר ילכו לפנינו כי זה משה האיש אשר העלנו מארץ מצרים לא ידענו מה היה לו ‪ 2‬ויאמר אלהם‬ ‫אהרן פרקו נזמי הזהב אשר באזני נשיכם בניכם ובנתיכם והביאו אלי ‪ 3‬ויתפרקו כל העם את נזמי הזהב‬ ‫אשר באזניהם ויביאו אל אהרן ‪ 4‬ויקח מידם ויצר אתו בחרט ויעשהו עגל מסכה ]ויאמרו אלה אלהיך‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫ישראל אשר העלוך מארץ מצרים ‪ 5‬וירא אהרן[ ויבן מזבח לפניו ]ויקרא אהרן ויאמר חג לה׳ מחר[‬ ‫וישכימו ממחרת ויעלו עלת ויגשו שלמים וישב העם לאכל ושתו ויקמו לצחק ‪ 7‬וידבר ה׳ אל משה לך‬ ‫רד כי שחת עמך אשר העלית מארץ מצרים ‪ 8‬סרו מהר מן הדרך אשר צויתם עשו להם עגל מסכה‬ ‫וישתחוו לו ויזבחו לו ]ויאמרו אלה אלהיך ישראל אשר העלוך מארץ מצרים[‬ ‫]‪ 9‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה ראיתי את העם הזה והנה עם קשה ערף הוא[ ‪ 10‬ועתה הניחה לי ויחר‬ ‫אפי בהם ואכלם ואעשה אותך לגוי גדול ‪ 11‬ויחל משה את פני ה׳ אלהיו ויאמר למה ה׳‬ ‫יחרה אפך בעמך אשר הוצאת מארץ מצרים בכח גדול וביד חזקה ‪ 12‬למה יאמרו מצרים‬ ‫לאמר ברעה הוציאם להרג אתם בהרים ולכלתם מעל פני האדמה שוב מחרון אפך והנחם‬ ‫על הרעה לעמך ‪] 13‬זכר לאברהם ליצחק ולישראל עבדיך אשר נשבעת להם בך ותדבר‬ ‫אלהם ארבה את זרעכם ככוכבי השמים וכל הארץ הזאת אשר אמרתי אתן לזרעכם ונחלו‬ ‫לעלם[ ‪ 14‬וינחם ה׳ על הרעה אשר דבר לעשות לעמו‬ ‫‪ 15‬ויפן וירד משה מן ההר ]ושני לחת העדת בידו לחת כתבים משני עבריהם מזה ומזה הם כתבים‬ ‫‪ 16‬והלחת מעשה אלהים המה והמכתב מכתב אלהים הוא חרות על הלחת[‬ ‫‪ 17‬וישמע יהושע את קול העם ברעה ויאמר אל משה קול מלחמה במחנה‬ ‫אין קול ענות גבורה ואין קול ענות חלושה קול ענות אנכי שמע‬

‫‪18‬‬

‫ויאמר‬

‫‪ 19‬ויהי כאשר קרב אל המחנה וירא את העגל ]ומחלת[ ויחר אף משה ]וישלך מידו את הלחת וישבר‬ ‫אתם תחת ההר[ ‪ 20‬ויקח את העגל אשר עשו וישרף באש ויטחן עד אשר דק ]ויזר על פני המים וישק‬ ‫את בני ישראל[‬ ‫‪ 21‬ויאמר משה אל אהרן מה עשה לך העם הזה כי הבאת עליו חטאה גדלה ‪ 22‬ויאמר אהרן‬ ‫אל יחר אף אדני אתה ידעת את העם כי ברע הוא ‪ 23‬ויאמרו לי עשה לנו אלהים אשר ילכו‬ ‫לפנינו כי זה משה האיש אשר העלנו מארץ מצרים לא ידענו מה היה לו ‪ 24‬ואמר להם למי‬ ‫זהב התפרקו ויתנו לי ואשלכהו באש ויצא העגל הזה‬

‫























































‬ ‫‪Cf. WEIMAR, “Das Goldene Kalb,” 137–38.‬‬

‫‪135‬‬

‫)‪178 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬ ‫‪ 25‬וירא משה את העם כי פרע הוא כי פרעה אהרן לשמצה בקמיהם ‪ 26‬ויעמד משה‬ ‫בשער המחנה ויאמר מי לה׳ אלי ויאספו אליו כל בני לוי ‪ 27‬ויאמר להם כה אמר ה׳‬ ‫אלהי ישראל שימו איש חרבו על ירכו עברו ושובו משער לשער במחנה והרגו איש‬ ‫את אחיו ואיש את רעהו ואיש את קרבו ‪ 28‬ויעשו בני לוי כדבר משה ויפל מן העם‬ ‫‪29‬‬ ‫ביום ההוא כשלשת אלפי איש‬ ‫ויאמר משה מלאו ידכם היום לה׳ כי איש בבנו ובאחיו ולתת עליכם היום ברכה‬

‫‪ 30‬ויהי ממחרת ויאמר משה אל העם אתם חטאתם חטאה גדלה ועתה אעלה אל ה׳ אולי‬ ‫אכפרה בעד חטאתכם ‪ 31‬וישב משה אל ה׳ ויאמר אנא חטא העם הזה חטאה גדלה ויעשו‬ ‫להם אלהי זהב ‪ 32‬ועתה אם תשא חטאתם ואם אין מחני נא מספרך‬ ‫אשר כתבת ‪ 33‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה מי אשר חטא לי אמחנו מספרי ‪ 34‬ועתה לך נחה את‬ ‫העם אל אשר דברתי לך הנה מלאכי ילך לפניך וביום פקדי ופקדתי עלהם חטאתם‬ ‫‪ 35‬ויגף ה׳ את העם על אשר עשו את העגל אשר עשה אהרן‬ ‫‪ 33:1‬וידבר ה׳ אל משה לך עלה מזה אתה והעם אשר העלית מארץ מצרים אל הארץ אשר‬ ‫נשבעתי לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב לאמר לזרעך אתננה ‪ 2‬ושלחתי לפניך מלאך ]וגרשתי את‬ ‫הכנעני האמרי והחתי והפרזי החוי והיבוסי ‪ 3‬אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש[ כי לא אעלה בקרבך כי עם‬ ‫קשה ערף אתה פן אכלך בדרך ‪ 4‬וישמע העם את הדבר הרע הזה ויתאבלו ולא שתו איש עדיו‬ ‫עליו‬ ‫]‪ 5 +II‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה אמר אל בני ישראל אתם עם קשה ערף רגע אחד אעלה בקרבך‬ ‫וכליתיך ועתה הורד עדיך מעליך ואדעה מה אעשה לך ‪ 6‬ויתנצלו בני ישראל את עדים מהר‬ ‫חורב ‪ 7‬ומשה יקח את האהל ונטה לו מחוץ למחנה הרחק מן המחנה וקרא לו אהל מועד והיה‬ ‫כל מבקש ה׳ יצא אל אהל מועד אשר מחוץ למחנה ‪ 8‬והיה כצאת משה אל האהל יקומו כל‬ ‫העם ונצבו איש פתח אהלו והביטו אחרי משה עד באו האהלה ‪ 9‬והיה כבא משה האהלה ירד‬ ‫עמוד הענן ועמד פתח האהל ודבר עם משה ‪ 10‬וראה כל העם את עמוד הענן עמד פתח האהל‬ ‫וקם כל העם והשתחוו איש פתח אהלו ‪ 11‬ודבר ה׳ אל משה פנים אל פנים כאשר ידבר איש‬ ‫אל רעהו ושב אל המחנה ומשרתו יהושע בן נון נער לא ימיש מתוך האהל[‬ ‫‪ 12‬ויאמר משה אל ה׳ ראה אתה אמר אלי העל את העם הזה ואתה לא הודעתני את אשר תשלח‬ ‫עמי ]ואתה אמרת ידעתיך בשם וגם מצאת חן בעיני[ ‪ 13‬ועתה אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך הודעני נא‬ ‫את דרכך ואדעך ]למען אמצא חן בעיניך וראה כי עמך הגוי הזה[ ‪ 14‬ויאמר פני ילכו והנחתי לך‬ ‫‪ 15‬ויאמר אליו אם אין פניך הלכים אל תעלנו מזה ‪] 16‬ובמה יודע אפוא כי מצאתי חן בעיניך אני‬ ‫ועמך[ הלוא בלכתך עמנו ונפלינו אני ועמך מכל העם אשר על פני האדמה ‪ 17‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה‬ ‫גם את הדבר הזה אשר דברת אעשה כי מצאת חן בעיני ואדעך בשם‬ ‫]‪ 18 +II‬ויאמר הראני נא את כבדך ‪ 19‬ויאמר אני אעביר כל טובי על פניך וקראתי בשם ה׳ לפניך‬ ‫וחנתי את אשר אחן ורחמתי את אשר ארחם ‪ 20‬ויאמר לא תוכל לראת את פני כי לא יראני‬ ‫האדם וחי ‪ 21‬ויאמר ה׳ הנה מקום אתי ונצבת על הצור ‪ 22‬והיה בעבר כבדי ושמתיך בנקרת‬ ‫הצור ושכתי כפי עליך עד עברי ‪ 23‬והסרתי את כפי וראית את אחרי ופני לא יראו[‬

‫‪179‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪1. Exod 32–34‬‬ ‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪ 34:1‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה ]פסל לך שני לחת אבנים כראשנים וכתבתי על הלחת את הדברים אשר היו על‬ ‫הלחת הראשנים אשר שברת[ ‪] 2‬ו[היה נכון לבקר ועלית בבקר אל הר סיני ונצבת לי שם על ראש ההר‬ ‫‪] 3‬ואיש לא יעלה עמך וגם איש אל ירא בכל ההר גם הצאן והבקר אל ירעו אל מול ההר ההוא ‪ 4‬ויפסל‬ ‫שני לחת אבנים כראשנים[ וישכם משה בבקר ויעל אל הר סיני כאשר צוה ה׳ אתו ויקח בידו שני לחת‬ ‫אבנים ‪ 5‬וירד ה׳ בענן ויתיצב עמו שם‬ ‫ויקרא בשם ה׳ ‪ 6‬ויעבר ה׳ על פניו ויקרא ה׳ ה׳ אל רחום וחנון ארך אפים ורב חסד ואמת‬ ‫‪ 7‬נצר חסד לאלפים נשא עון ופשע וחטאה ונקה לא ינקה פקד עון אבות על בנים ועל בני‬ ‫בנים על שלשים ועל רבעים ‪ 8‬וימהר משה ויקד ארצה וישתחו ‪ 9‬ויאמר אם נא מצאתי חן‬ ‫בעיניך אדני ילך נא אדני בקרבנו כי עם קשה ערף הוא וסלחת לעוננו ולחטאתנו ונחלתנו‬ ‫‪ 10‬ויאמר הנה אנכי כרת ברית נגד כל עמך‬ ‫אעשה נפלאת אשר לא נבראו בכל הארץ ובכל הגוים וראה כל העם אשר אתה‬ ‫בקרבו את מעשה ה׳ כי נורא הוא אשר אני עשה עמך‬ ‫‪ 11‬שמר לך את אשר אנכי מצוך היום‬ ‫הנני גרש מפניך את האמרי והכנעני והחתי והפרזי והחוי והיבוסי ‪ 12‬השמר לך פן‬ ‫תכרת ברית ליושב הארץ אשר אתה בא עליה פן יהיה למוקש בקרב ‪ 13‬כי את‬ ‫מזבחתם תתצון ואת מצבתם תשברון ואת אשריו תכרתון‬ ‫‪] 14‬כי[ לא תשתחוה לאל אחר כי ה׳ קנא שמו אל קנא הוא‬ ‫‪ 15‬פן תכרת ברית ליושב הארץ וזנו אחרי אלהיהם וזבחו לאלהיהם וקרא לך ואכלת‬ ‫מזבחו ‪ 16‬ולקחת מבנתיו לבניך וזנו בנתיו אחרי אלהיהן והזנו את בניך אחרי אלהיהן‬ ‫‪ 17‬אלהי מסכה לא תעשה לך ‪ 18‬את חג המצות תשמר שבעת ימים תאכל מצות אשר צויתך למועד‬ ‫‪20‬‬ ‫חדש האביב כי בחדש האביב יצאת ממצרים ‪ 19‬כל פטר רחם לי וכל מקנך תזכר פטר שור ושה‬ ‫ופטר חמור תפדה בשה ואם לא תפדה וערפתו כל בכור בניך תפדה ולא יראו פני ריקם ‪ 21‬ששת ימים‬ ‫תעבד וביום השביעי תשבת בחריש ובקציר תשבת ‪ 22‬וחג שבעת תעשה לך בכורי קציר חטים וחג‬ ‫האסיף תקופת השנה ‪ 23‬שלש פעמים בשנה יראה כל זכורך את פני האדן ה׳ אלהי ישראל‬ ‫‪ 24‬כי אוריש גוים מפניך והרחבתי את גבלך ולא יחמד איש את ארצך בעלתך לראות‬ ‫את פני ה׳ אלהיך שלש פעמים בשנה‬ ‫‪ 25‬לא תשחט על חמץ דם זבחי ולא ילין לבקר זבח חג הפסח ‪ 26‬ראשית בכורי אדמתך תביא בית ה׳‬ ‫אלהיך לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו ‪ 27‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה כתב לך את הדברים האלה כי על פי הדברים‬ ‫האלה כרתי אתך ברית ואת ישראל ‪] 28‬ויהי שם עם ה׳ ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה לחם לא אכל ומים‬ ‫לא שתה[ ויכתב על הלחת את דברי הברית עשרת הדברים ‪ 29‬ויהי ברדת משה מהר סיני ושני לחת‬ ‫העדת ביד משה ברדתו מן ההר ומשה לא ידע כי קרן עור פניו בדברו אתו ‪ 30‬וירא אהרן וכל בני‬ ‫ישראל את משה והנה קרן עור פניו וייראו מגשת אליו ‪ 31‬ויקרא אלהם משה וישבו אליו אהרן וכל‬ ‫הנשאים בעדה וידבר משה אלהם ‪ 32‬ואחרי כן נגשו כל בני ישראל ויצום את כל אשר דבר ה׳ אתו בהר‬ ‫סיני‬ ‫]‪ 33 +II‬ויכל משה מדבר אתם ויתן על פניו מסוה ‪ 34‬ובבא משה לפני ה׳ לדבר אתו יסיר את‬ ‫המסוה עד צאתו ויצא ודבר אל בני ישראל את אשר יצוה ‪ 35‬וראו בני ישראל את פני משה כי‬ ‫קרן עור פני משה והשיב משה את המסוה על פניו עד באו לדבר אתו[‬

180 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11)

2. Deut 9:7–10:11 2.1. Literary-critical analysis Deut 9–10 contain two different types of material: exhortations in 9:1-6 and 10:12-22 and a historical retrospective in 9:7–10:11, in which Moses reminds the fictive audience of Deuteronomy not to forget how they angered Yhwh in the wilderness and at Horeb, causing Yhwh to want to destroy them.136 When viewed within its immediate textual context, Moses’ retrospective in 9:7– 10:11 constitutes a digression from the exhortations in 9:1-6 and 10:12-22. The theme of possessing the land in 9:1-6 resumes only in 10:11, which serves as a Wiederaufnahme of 9:5. This may suggest that 9:7–10:11 are a later insertion that interrupts an original connection between the exhortations in 9:1-6 and 10:12-22.137 While it cannot be denied that the historical retrospective in 9:7–10:11 serves to reinforce the arguments of the exhortations, the inverse – namely, that 9:1-6 have the Mosaic retrospective in view from the outset138 – is not completely clear, particularly in light of the repetition of the phrase ‫ לא בצדקתך‬in 9:5 and 9:6, which may indicate that 9:6 is the beginning of a Fortschreibung that continues in the historical retrospective.139 The introduction to Moses’ retrospective (Deut 9:7-8). Deut 9:7 contains both 2ms and 2mp grammatical forms. Notably, 9:7a contains the only clear attestation of a second-person singular form of address to the people within the entire unit of 9:7–10:11. (The quotation of divine speech to Moses in the second-person singular is not relevant here.)140 Thus, it may be that 9:7 con-



























































136 For diachronic analyses of Deut 9:7–10:11, see SEITZ, Studien, 51–69; PECKHAM, “Composition of Dt 9:1–10:11”; GARCÍA-LÓPEZ, “Analyse”; HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 147–61; VERMEYLEN, “Deut 5–11,” 197–203; HAHN, Das “Goldene Kalb,” 245–65; ACHENBACH, Israel, 346–78; BOORER, Promise, 272–97; VAN SETERS, Life, 301–10; TALSTRA, “Deuteronomy 9 and 10,” 201–7; LOHFINK, “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11,” 66–77; NELSON, Deuteronomy, 118–28; PORZIG, Lade, 42–46; and OTTO, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 122–75; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 943–54. See also CHUNG, Sin, 58–70, who closely follows the treatment of BOORER, Promise, 273–77. 137 Cf. NELSON, Deuteronomy, 119; PORZIG, Lade, 44; and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 18. 138 VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 225 and ACHENBACH, Israel, 345. 139 ACHENBACH, Israel, 345 notes the doublet but ultimately suggests (similarly to Veijola) that Deut 9:1-7a were written as a later preface to the historical retrospective in 9:7b–10:11. TALSTRA, “Deuteronomy 9 and 10,” 197 and HAYES, “Golden Calf Stories,” 73 do not regard the repetition as an indication of different literary levels. 140 There is divergent manuscript evidence for the number of the first verb in Deut 9:7b, and either direction of change (from singular to plural or vice versa) could have been the result of scribal error; see NELSON, Deuteronomy, 118. There is also divergent manuscript evidence for the 2ms pronominal suffix in 10:10bβ (𝔐 is singular while many 𝔊 manuscripts have a plural pronoun). NELSON, Deuteronomy, 119–120 with n. 1 posits a 2ms base layer in 9:7a, 13-14, 26–29; 10:10bβ-11, but it is questionable whether an entire composi-

2. Deut 9:7–10:11

181

tained both singular and plural forms from the outset as a transition from the 2ms exhortations in 9:1-6 to the largely 2mp Mosaic retrospective in 9:7– 10:11.141 Moses’ destruction of the calf (Deut 9:9-21). Several narrative tensions appear in Deut 9:9-21. (1) Yhwh’s giving of the tablets to Moses is narrated in both 9:10 and 9:11, suggesting that these verses do not belong to the same compositional level. 142 In contrast, the shared reference to the forty days and forty nights and the description of the tablets as ‫ לחת האבנים לחת הברית‬in 9:9 and 9:11 may be an indication that these verses once connected directly to each other.143 (2) Deut 9:12 and 9:13-14 both begin with ‫ויאמר ה׳ אלי‬, which raises the possibility that one of these units may be secondary to the other. If this is the case, then 9:12 must be more original, since the continuation of the narrative action in 9:15 depends upon this verse.144 The possibility that 9:1314 do not belong to the most basic narrative finds further support in the fact that these verses describe only Yhwh’s intention to destroy the people but not Moses’ response.145 (3) Following the recapitulation of Moses’ destruction of the tablets in 9:17, Moses reports in 9:18-20 that he prostrated himself before Yhwh “like the first time” – forty days and forty nights – on account of the people’s (and Aaron’s) sin. This is striking, since prior to this moment in Deut 9 there is no report that Moses prostrated himself before Yhwh. 146 According to Deut 9:9-11, Moses’ first forty-day stay on the mountain was characterized by the giving of the “tablets of the covenant,” not by Mosaic intercession. Moses’ intercession in 9:18-20 is also out of place topologically, since the motif of forty days and forty nights suggests a setting on the mountain (cf. 9:9), while 9:16-17 and 9:21 clearly take place among the people at the foot of the mountain.147 This suggests that 9:18-20 constitute secondary materials that interrupt a more original connection between Moses’ seeing the



























































































































tional layer can be reconstructed on the basis of the single indisputable attestation of a 2ms grammatical form in 9:7a. 141 This may also explain why the only other 2ms grammatical form appears in Deut 10:10 as a transition back to the 2ms forms in 10:12-22; see HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 151, 155 and LOHFINK, “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11,” 70–72. 142 Cf. SEITZ, Studien, 54; HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 149; and OTTO, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 130; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 947. 143 SEITZ, Studien, 54 and HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 151. 144 Cf. HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 151–52. 145 In contrast, NELSON, Deuteronomy, 119–20 with n. 1 argues that Deut 9:13-14 belong to a “reasonably coherent” base layer in 9:7a, 13-14, 26-29; 10:10bβ-11, while 9:12 belongs to a supplementary compositional layer in 9:9-12, 15-19, 21, 25; 10:1-5. Yet Nelson’s base layer is not as coherent as he claims; in any event, Yhwh’s plan to destroy the people because they are stiff-necked cannot stand on its own but requires a motivation, which is found in the making of the golden calf. 146 Cf. LOHFINK, “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11,” 78. 147 Cf. HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 149.

182 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) calf and breaking the tablets in 9:16-17 and the destruction of the calf in 9:21.148 Within 9:18-20, 9:20 comes as something of an afterthought (reinforced by the phrase ‫ )בעת ההוא‬and is likely later than 9:18-19,149 applying the notion of Yhwh’s anger and Moses’ intercession from 9:18-19 to Aaron as well as the people. Other rebellions (Deut 9:22-24). Perhaps the most significant narrative tension within Deut 9–10 is the fact that Moses’ detailed summary of the events at Horeb seems to end already in 9:21, since in 9:22-24 Moses shifts his focus to recalling other moments in which the people rebelled against Yhwh: at Taberah (cf. Num 11:3), Massah (cf. Exod 17:7), Kibrothhatta’avah (cf. Num 11:34), and Kadesh-barnea (cf. Num 13–14).150 The latter verses constitute a fitting counterpart to the introduction in 9:7-8, which thematizes the fact that the people repeatedly angered Yhwh in the wilderness.151 Indeed, in light of the very brief references to other episodes in 9:2224, it even seems possible that the earliest version of Deut 9–10 did not contain an extended retrospective of the golden calf incident at all but rather only the very brief preport about Yhwh’s anger with the people at Horeb in 9:8, which could have connected directly to 9:22-24.152 Moses’ intercession (Deut 9:25-29). Regardless of whether or not Moses’ extended retrospective of the events at Horeb belongs to the most basic material in Deut 9:7–10:11, there are several additional indications that the material following 9:24 is secondary. As Eep Talstra has observed, 9:25–10:11 are “framed by two statements that are in fact repetitions of two lines from the preceding part.”153 Significantly, 9:25 is a Wiederaufnahme of 9:18, which is itself likely secondary.154 Moreover, the continuation of Moses’ retrospective

























































148

Here I disagree with NELSON, Deuteronomy, 120 n. 1 and OTTO, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 130; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 946, who regard Deut 9:15-19 as belonging to a single stage of composition. BADEN, J, E, 164 states that “the placement of Deut 9:21 might render the order of events somewhat unclear” but does not conclude that the text is composite here. 149 Cf. HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 149, 152; NELSON, Deuteronomy, 120; ACHENBACH, “Grundlinien,” 64–65; and OTTO, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 130; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 946. 150 Cf. HAYES, “Golden Calf Stories,” 71, who rightly emphasizes that “[i]ndependent of any comparison with Exodus, the sequence of events in Deuteronomy is illogical.” 151 See also the synchronic observations in TALSTRA, “Deuteronomy 9 and 10,” 197–98: “Deut 9:7b–9:24 is structured by a frame made of two statements about Israel’s rebellious behaviour (9:7 and 9:24), two statements about the places where Israel provoked the Lord (9:8 and 9:22) and two statements about the anger of the Lord (9:8 and 9:20).” 152 LOHFINK, “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11,” 72–73. 153 TALSTRA, “Deuteronomy 9 and 10,” 198. 154 On Deut 9:25 as a Wiederaufnahme of 9:18, see OTTO, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 132; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 948, although he considers 9:18-19 to belong to the most basic material in Moses’ retrospective.

2. Deut 9:7–10:11

183

in 9:25-29 is out of place in terms of narrative sequence and in fact belongs after Yhwh’s wish to destroy the people in 9:13-14. It may be that 9:25-29 were included in order to supplement 9:18-19 by quoting the contents of Moses’ intercession before Yhwh.155 The new tablets (Deut 10:1-5). If Deut 9:22-24 indeed formed the original ending to Moses’ retrospective of the golden calf incident, this implies that the report about the new tablets in 10:1-5 does not belong to the most basic compositional level in Deut 9–10. In any event, Yhwh’s instructions to Moses to ascend the mountain with new tablets in 10:1-5 stand in tension with the immediately preceding unit in 9:25-29, in which Moses is still on the mountain.156 Within 10:1-5, the references to the ark in 10:1b, 2b, 3aα, 5aβb are likely later additions to Moses’ report of receiving the second set of tablets in 10:1-5, 10-11. This can be seen particularly clearly in 10:1, where Yhwh’s command to Moses to build the ark comes too late, since in that verse Yhwh has already told Moses to go up the mountain, whereas in 10:3 Moses makes the ark before going up the mountain.157 Aaron’s death and the ordination of the Levites (Deut 10:6-9). Deut 10:67, 8-9 are undoubtedly secondary to the most basic material in Deut 9:7– 10:11.158 Deut 10:6-7 completely abandon the fiction of Mosaic discourse, referring to the Israelites in the third person rather than the second person, and 10:8-9 begin a new topic, as indicated by the phrase ‫בעת ההוא‬.159 The relative chronology of these two additions is difficult to determine, since 10:8-9 can connect syntactically either to 10:1-5 or to 10:6-7. Considering that 10:6-7 interrupt the shared theme of the ark in 10:1-5, 8-9, it seems likely that 10:8-9 originally connected directly to 10:5 and that 10:6-7 are a later insertion.160 Intercession and departure (Deut 10:10-11). Deut 10:10 is redundant in light of 9:18, and its only function seems to be to place Moses’ second stay on the mountain in parallel with the first, although the result is somewhat awkward, since Deut 10:1-5 do not state that Moses interceded for the people during his trip to receive the second set of tablets. Deut 10:11 could connect directly to either 10:5 or 10:10 but cannot be earlier than these verses.161

























































155

Cf. VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 225. Cf. HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 150. 157 Cf. OTTO, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 132–33; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 949. In contrast, HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 154; KONKEL, Sünde, 125 n. 94; and PORZIG, Lade, 42–50 find no grounds for literary-critical differentiation within Deut 10:1-5. 158 Cf. HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 155; NELSON, Deuteronomy, 120; HAYES, “Golden Calf Stories,” 80; and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 18. 159 Cf. PORZIG, Lade, 45. 160 Cf. LOHFINK, “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11,” 68; PORZIG, Lade, 44; and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 18 against OTTO, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 951. 161 For the view that Deut 10:10-11 are later than 10:1-5*, see PORZIG, Lade, 45–46. 156

184 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) 2.2. Synthesis I

The most basic Mosaic retrospective may be limited to Deut 9:7-8, 2224, which allude to a variety of narratives of the people’s rebelliousness during the wilderness period. From a rhetorical perspective, these materials are quite sufficient as preparation for the exhortations that begin in 10:12.162

II

If it is indeed distinct from the first stage of composition, the next stage likely consisted of the insertion of a more extended retrospective of the golden calf incident in Deut 9:9-12, 15-17, 21 which presuppose that Moses received a first pair of tablets before that incident.163

II+

The basic retrospective of the golden calf incident in Deut 9:9-12, 1517, 21 received later additions in 9:13-14, 18-19, 25-29.

III

At some point after the composition of Deut 9:7-8, 9-12, 15-17, 21, 2224, the retrospective of Moses’ receiving the second tablets was added in 10:1-5*. The narrative transition in 10:10-11 was perhaps also written at the same time as 10:1-5*.

III+ The references to the ark in Deut 10:1b, 2b, 3aα, 5aβb, as well as 10:8-9 (which presuppose the references to the ark), are likely later additions to Moses’ retrospective of receiving the second set of tablets in 10:1-5, 10-11. IV

Deut 9:20 and 10:6-7, both of which are concerned with the figure of Aaron, were added at a very late stage in the development of 9:7–10:11.



























































162 Cf. NELSON, Deuteronomy, 120 n. 1 and CHUNG, Sin, 69, 92. In contrast, SEITZ, Studien, 57; MAYES, Deuteronomy, 201; LOHFINK, Hauptgebot, 210–11, 290; IDEM, “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11,” 76; BOORER, Promise, 277–78; and OTTO, Deuteronomium 4,44– 11,32, 943 regard these verses as some of the latest additions to Moses’ retrospective of the golden calf incident. If Deut 9:7–10:11 are indeed an insertion between 9:1-6 and 10:12-22, Otto’s hypothesis that Deut 9:9-12 originally connected directly to Deut 5:2231* (+ 5:32–6:9, 20-25*) (OTTO, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 122–23; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 943) cannot be upheld. Likewise, it is difficult to accept the thesis that Deut 9:9-21, 25; 10:5, 10-11 constituted the most basic material in 9:7–10:11, as argued by LOHFINK, Hauptgebot, 212–15; IDEM, “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11,” 76 and BOORER, Promise, 277–78, since 9:9 would then lack a suitable introduction, a problem that Lohfink also acknowledges but does not consider to be insurmountable. 163 Cf. NELSON, Deuteronomy, 120 n. 1, who assigns Deut 9:9-12, 15-19, 21, 25 to a tertiary “calf/tablets narrative,” and CHUNG, Sin, 69, 92–96, who assigns 9:9-19, 21, 25-29; 10:1-5, 10 to a “golden calf layer” (“L–2”).

‫‪185‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪2. Deut 9:7–10:11‬‬ ‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪ 9:7‬זכר אל תשכח את אשר הקצפת את ה׳ אלהיך במדבר למן היום אשר יצאת מארץ מצרים עד באכם‬ ‫עד המקום הזה ממרים הייתם עם ה׳ ‪ 8‬ובחרב הקצפתם את ה׳ ויתאנף ה׳ בכם להשמיד אתכם‬ ‫‪ 9‬בעלתי ההרה לקחת לוחת האבנים לוחת הברית אשר כרת ה׳ עמכם ואשב בהר ארבעים יום‬ ‫וארבעים לילה לחם לא אכלתי ומים לא שתיתי ‪ 10‬ויתן ה׳ אלי את שני לוחת האבנים כתבים‬ ‫באצבע אלהים ועליהם ככל הדברים אשר דבר ה׳ עמכם בהר מתוך האש ביום הקהל ‪ 11‬ויהי‬ ‫מקץ ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה נתן ה׳ אלי את שני לחת האבנים לחות הברית ‪ 12‬ויאמר ה׳ אלי‬ ‫קום רד מהר מזה כי שחת עמך אשר הוצאת ממצרים סרו מהר מן הדרך אשר צויתם עשו להם‬ ‫מסכה ‪] 13‬ויאמר ה׳ אלי לאמר ראיתי את העם הזה והנה עם קשה ערף הוא ‪ 14‬הרף ממני‬ ‫ואשמידם ואמחה את שמם מתחת השמים ואעשה אותך לגוי עצום ורב ממנו[ ‪ 15‬ואפן וארד מן‬ ‫ההר וההר בער באש ושני לוחת הברית על שתי ידי ‪ 16‬וארא והנה חטאתם לה׳ אלהיכם עשיתם‬ ‫לכם עגל מסכה סרתם מהר מן הדרך אשר צוה ה׳ אתכם ‪ 17‬ואתפש בשני הלחת ואשלכם מעל‬ ‫שתי ידי ואשברם לעיניכם ‪] 18‬ואתנפל לפני ה׳ כראשנה ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה לחם לא‬ ‫אכלתי ומים לא שתיתי על כל חטאתכם אשר חטאתם לעשות הרע בעיני ה׳ להכעיסו ‪ 19‬כי יגרתי‬ ‫מפני האף והחמה אשר קצף ה׳ עליכם להשמיד אתכם וישמע ה׳ אלי גם בפעם ההוא[‬ ‫‪ 20‬ובאהרן התאנף ה׳ מאד להשמידו ואתפלל גם בעד אהרן בעת ההוא‬ ‫‪ 21‬ואת חטאתכם אשר עשיתם את העגל לקחתי ואשרף אתו באש ואכת אתו טחון היטב עד‬ ‫אשר דק לעפר ואשלך את עפרו אל הנחל הירד מן ההר‬ ‫‪ 22‬ובתבערה ובמסה ובקברת התאוה מקצפים הייתם את ה׳ ‪ 23‬ובשלח ה׳ אתכם מקדש ברנע לאמר‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫עלו ורשו את הארץ אשר נתתי לכם ותמרו את פי ה׳ אלהיכם ולא האמנתם לו ולא שמעתם בקלו‬ ‫ממרים הייתם עם ה׳ מיום דעתי אתכם‬ ‫]‪ 25‬ואתנפל לפני ה׳ את ארבעים היום ואת ארבעים הלילה אשר התנפלתי כי אמר ה׳ להשמיד‬ ‫אתכם ‪ 26‬ואתפלל אל ה׳ ואמר אדני ה׳ אל תשחת עמך ונחלתך אשר פדית בגדלך אשר הוצאת‬ ‫ממצרים ביד חזקה ‪ 27‬זכר לעבדיך לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב אל תפן אל קשי העם הזה ואל רשעו‬ ‫ואל חטאתו ‪ 28‬פן יאמרו הארץ אשר הוצאתנו משם מבלי יכלת ה׳ להביאם אל הארץ אשר דבר‬ ‫להם ומשנאתו אותם הוציאם להמתם במדבר ‪ 29‬והם עמך ונחלתך אשר הוצאת בכחך הגדל‬ ‫ובזרעך הנטויה[‬ ‫‪ 10:1‬בעת ההוא אמר ה׳ אלי פסל לך שני לוחת אבנים כראשנים ועלה אלי ההרה ועשית לך‬ ‫ארון עץ ‪ 2‬ואכתב על הלחת את הדברים אשר היו על הלחת הראשנים אשר שברת ושמתם‬ ‫בארון ‪ 3‬ואעש ארון עצי שטים ואפסל שני לחת אבנים כראשנים ואעל ההרה ושני הלחת‬ ‫בידי ‪ 4‬ויכתב על הלחת כמכתב הראשון את עשרת הדברים אשר דבר ה׳ אליכם בהר מתוך‬ ‫האש ביום הקהל ויתנם ה׳ אלי ‪ 5‬ואפן וארד מן ההר ואשם את הלחת בארון אשר עשיתי‬ ‫ויהיו שם כאשר צוני ה׳‬ ‫‪ 6‬ובני ישראל נסעו מבארת בני יעקן מוסרה שם מת אהרן ויקבר שם ויכהן אלעזר בנו‬ ‫תחתיו ‪ 7‬משם נסעו הגדגדה ומן הגדגדה יטבתה ארץ נחלי מים‬ ‫]‪ 8‬בעת ההוא הבדיל ה׳ את שבט הלוי לשאת את ארון ברית ה׳ לעמד לפני ה׳ לשרתו‬ ‫ולברך בשמו עד היום הזה ‪ 9‬על כן לא היה ללוי חלק ונחלה עם אחיו ה׳ הוא נחלתו כאשר‬ ‫דבר ה׳ אלהיך לו[ ‪ 10‬ואנכי עמדתי בהר כימים הראשנים ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה וישמע‬ ‫ה׳ אלי גם בפעם ההוא לא אבה ה׳ השחיתך ‪ 11‬ויאמר ה׳ אלי קום לך למסע לפני העם‬ ‫ויבאו ויירשו את הארץ אשר נשבעתי לאבתם לתת להם‬

186 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11)

3. Comparison of Exod 32–34 and Deut 9:7–10:11 Comparison of Deut 9:7–10:11 with Exod 32–34 and other texts in Exodus and Numbers reveals numerous points of contact.164 Moses’ historical retrospective in Deut 9:7–10:11 assumes that its audience in the world of the text already knows the events described because they experienced them firsthand, and it is reasonable to assume that readers in the world in front of the text also know the events described, namely via another text. Thus, there is good reason to assume, prima facie, that Deut 9:7–10:11 are generally dependent on materials in Exod 32–34 and not vice versa, although the specific direction of dependence must be verified on a case-by-case basis.165 Deut 9:7-8 // Exod 32:10. The report in Deut 9:8 that Yhwh contemplated wiping out the people (‫ )ויתאנף ה׳ בכם להשמיד אתכם‬seems to presuppose Exod 32:10 (‫)ועתה הניחה לי ויחר אפי בהם ואכלם‬, which is part of a later insertion within Exod 32.166 Deut 9:9-11 // Exod 19:18; Exod 31:18; 34:28a. Deut 9:9-11 presuppose the references to the first tablets in Exod 24:12; 31:18; 32:15-16, 19; 34:1aβb, 4aα1, all of which are later in relation to the second tablets in Exod 34:4b and do not belong to the most basic narrative of the golden calf.167 As for the



























































164 For earlier comparisons of Exod 32–34 and Deut 9:7–10:11, see HAHN, Das “Goldene Kalb,” 236–45; VERMEYLEN, “Deut 5–11,” 186–91, 197–203; DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 128–32; AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 8–126; BOORER, Promise, 297–344; ACHENBACH, Israel, 350–73; RENAUD, “La formation,” 111–33; LOHFINK, “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11,” 77–83; JOHNSTONE, “Use of the Reminiscences,” 251–59; GERTZ, “Beobachtungen,” 99–101; NELSON, Deuteronomy, 120; HAYES, “Golden Calf Stories,” 72–92; ACHENBACH, “Grundlinien,” 63–78; KONKEL, Sünde, 152–68; BADEN, J, E, 160–72; CHUNG, Sin, 70–87; CARR, Formation, 262–65; and OTTO, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 122–75; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 943–69. 165 On the basic dependence of Deut 9:7–10:11 on Exod 32–34, cf. BOORER, Promise, 297–334; LOHFINK, “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11,” 77–78; and HAYES, “Golden Calf Stories,” 72–92, esp. 86–92 against VAN SETERS, Life, 290–360; OTTO, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion,” 88–89 with n. 116; and DOZEMAN, “Composition,” 184– 88; IDEM, Exodus, 40, who argue that the golden calf narrative in Exod 32 is dependent on the version in Deut 9:7–10:11. More recently, OTTO, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 155–56; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 959 has abandoned his earlier position and now follows the approach of ACHENBACH, “Grundlinien,” 63–78, arguing that a pre-priestly and preDeuteronomic base narrative can be isolated in Exod 32:1a, 4aβb, (6), 15aα*, 19abα, 20, 30, 31abαβ, 32, 33, 35abα. 166 On this connection, see GERTZ, “Beobachtungen,” 99. 167 Cf. OTTO, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 131; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 947, who notes that Deut 9:10 presupposes the post-priestly verse Exod 31:18. ACHENBACH, “Grundlinien,” 68 recognizes the problem that Exod 31:18 poses for his theory that the Mosaic retrospective in Deut 9:7–10:11 drew on a pre-priestly Vorlage and attempts to resolve this problem by arguing that “Der Text der Grunderzählung ist an beiden Stellen [i.e., Exod 31:18 and Deut 9:10-11] nicht völlig unverändert erhalten” and that Deut 9:10-

3. Comparison of Exod 32–34 and Deut 9:7–10:11

187

double report of Yhwh’s giving the tablets to Moses in Deut 9:10 and 9:11, comparison with the parallels in Exodus suggests that Deut 9:11 (without ‫ )לחות הברית‬seems to follow Exod 31:18 in assuming that the tablets contain the priestly instructions found in Exod 25–31*. In contrast, Deut 9:10 (and the phrases ‫ לוחת הברית אשר כרת ה׳ עמכם‬in 9:9 and ‫ לחות הברית‬in 9:11, which are possibly later additions) indicates explicitly that the tablets contained the same material that Yhwh communicated to the people on the mountain, which can be interpreted only as the Decalogue. Thus, Deut 9:10 diverges more significantly from the concept of the first tablets within Exod 32, suggesting that it is a later addition that reinterprets the first tablets not as the priestly instructions but as the Decalogue.168 Deut 9:12 // Exod 32:7-8a. Despite what has become a widely held view, there are no compelling reasons to conclude that Yhwh’s speech to Moses in Exod 32:7-8a are dependent in their entirety upon Deut 9:12.169 In the literary-critical analysis of Exod 32:7-8a, it was noted that 32:8a may be composite, raising the possibility of a more complex relationship of dependence. Several commentators have noted that the statement ‫סרו מהר מן הדרך אשר‬ ‫ צויתם‬in 32:8aα has resonances with other Deuteronomistic texts (cf. Deut 11:28; 31:29; and Judg 2:17).170 When combined with the observation that Exod 32:8aα is likely later than 32:8aβγ (see §1.1), this suggests the following compositional scenario: Deut 9:12 drew on Exod 32:7, 8aβγbα, adding the reference to the people turning away from Yhwh’s path. At a later stage, the statement ‫ סרו מהר מן הדרך אשר צויתם‬was then inserted into Exod 32:8aα in order to further coordinate this verse with Deut 9:12.171 Deut 9:13-14 // Exod 32:9-14. The relationship between Deut 9:13-14 and their parallels in Exod 32 is complex. On the one hand, it is likely that a basic form of Exod 32:9-14* was the model for Deut 9:13-14*, since in Deut 9:14



























































































































11 “hat…den glatteren Text bewahrt.” KONKEL, Sünde, 242 argues that the motif of the tablets is original to Deuteronomy and was incorporated into Exod 32–34 only afterwards. This seems unlikely, however, since there are multiple, conflicting depictions of the tablets in Exod 32–34, while Deut 9:7–10:11 contain a more unified concept of the tablets. 168 Cf. OTTO, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 947, who regards Deut 9:10, as well as the reference to ‫ לוחת הברית אשר כרת ה׳‬in 9:9 and ‫ לחות הברית‬in 9:11 as later insertions. 169 Many commentators have assumed that this is the case for two reasons: (1) they regard Exod 32:7-14 as a unified insertion (for a critique, see §1.1); and (2) due to the presence of Deuteronomistic language in Exod 32:7-14, they assume that this unit as a whole must postdate Deut 9:7–10:11; see, e.g., HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 160; DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 129–31; and OTTO, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 154; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 957. 170 E.g., WEINFELD, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 339 and BOORER, Promise, 211. 171 Cf. (implicitly) CARR, Formation, 260–61. Here I can agree only in part with BOORER, Promise, 308 and ACHENBACH, Israel, 355, who argue that Exod 32:7-8 as a whole served as a source for Deut 9:12.

188 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) Yhwh’s intention to destroy the people remains unresolved and Moses simply descends the mountain in 9:15.172 On the other hand, it is possible that at least some of the material in Exod 32:9-14 – particularly 32:9 and 32:13 – is the product of scribal coordination with Deut 9:13-14. The direction of dependence between Exod 32:9 and Deut 9:13 is particularly difficult to determine, since Yhwh’s reference to the people as “stiff-necked” creates narrative tension in both Exod 32 and Deut 9 through the redundant introduction of divine speech. While it is possible that the second introduction of divine speech in Exod 32:9 was conceived as an introduction to the “pre-D” version of Moses’ intercession in Exod 32:9-14*, it is equally conceivable that Yhwh’s intention to destroy the people in Exod 32:10 originally connected directly to 32:8aβγ(b), raising the possibility that the description of the people as “stiffnecked” has its original place in Deut 9:13. As for the parallel between Exod 32:13 and Deut 9:27, it seems likely that Moses’ invocation of the ancestors in Exod 32:13 is derived from Deut 9:27 and not vice versa, since Exod 32:13 comes too late within Moses’ intercession and interrupts his plea for Yhwh to change his mind in 32:12 and its result in 32:14. 173 Deut 9:15 // Exod 32:15. Deut 9:15 not only recapitulates Exod 32:15; it also incorporates the motif of the burning mountain from Exod 19:18.174 Moses’ statement in Deut 9:15 that the two tablets were “on” his two hands perhaps seeks to clarify the suffix of ‫ בידו‬in Exod 32:15 as a dual rather than a singular form. Thus, Deut 9:15 presents a very specific image of Moses resting one tablet in the palm of each hand as he descends the mountain. Deut 9:16 // Exod 32:19abα1; Exod 32:8a // Deut 9:12b; Exod 32:30. Although the primary parallel of Deut 9:16 is Exod 32:19a, Deut 9:16 also draws on the verbal root ‫ חט״א‬from Exod 32:30 as well as on language from the divine speech in Exod 32:8a but in a different order: Exod 32:8a Deut 9:16

‫סרו מהר מן הדרך אשר צויתם עשו להם עגל מסכה‬ ‫וארא והנה חטאתם לה׳ אלהיכם עשיתם לכם עגל מסכה‬ ‫סרתם מהר מן הדרך אשר צוה ה׳ אתכם‬



























































172 For this reason, I disagree with the view of AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 91–100; RENAUD, “La formation,” 119; OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 40–43; ACHENBACH, “Grundlinien,” 74; KONKEL, Sünde, 158; and CARR, Formation, 260–61 that Exod 32:(7-8), 9-14 as a whole are post-Deuteronomic. 173 Cf. GERTZ, “Beobachtungen,” 100; KONKEL, Sünde, 152–55; and OTTO, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 154; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 957–58 (in contrast to his earlier view), who likewise argue that Deut 9:13-14* depend on a basic form of Exod 32:914* but that Exod 32:9 and 13 are later coordinations with Deut 9:13-14, against BOORER, Promise, 309; ACHENBACH, Israel, 356; and CHUNG, Sin, 42, who argue that Deut 9:13-14 depend entirely on Exod 32:9-10. 174 ACHENBACH, Israel, 358 argues that this motif was derived from Deut 5:24-25 and is thus “dtn./dtr.,” yet Deut 5:24-25 themselves depend upon Exod 19:18.

3. Comparison of Exod 32–34 and Deut 9:7–10:11

189

Although the inversion of the two clauses may simply be a scribal citation technique, the likelihood that ‫ סרו מהר מן הדרך אשר צויתם‬in Exod 32:8aα is a later insertion based on Deut 9:12 raises the possibility that Deut 9:16a drew upon Exod 32:8aβγ before it was coordinated with Deut 9:12b, and that ‫סרתם‬ ‫ מהר מן הדרך אשר צוה ה׳ אתכם‬in Deut 9:16b was added later in order to reflect the addition in Exod 32:8aα. Deut 9:17 // Exod 32:19bα2β. Whereas the report of Moses’ breaking the tablets in Exod 32:19bα2β states that Moses cast the tablets from his hand(s), breaking them at the foot of the mountain, Deut 9:17 embellishes the report somewhat: Moses states that he “took” the tablets and then cast them from “upon” his hands, breaking them in the sight of the people. Although it is possible to infer from the phrase ‫ תחת ההר‬in Exod 32:19bα2β that the people witnessed Moses’ action there, Deut 9:17 makes this more explicit and simultaneously emphasizes the people’s responsibility for Moses’ action.175 Deut 9:18-19 // Exod 32:10, 31-33; 34:28a. Although Moses’ recapitulation of his intercession in Deut 9:18-19 connects primarily to Exod 32:31-33, it also draws upon language and concepts from Exod 34:28a and Exod 32:10. Whereas Exod 32:31-33 do not specify how long Moses was interceding before Yhwh, Deut 9:18 states that Moses fell before Yhwh for forty days and forty nights, neither eating nor drinking, thus conflating Moses’ intercession in Exod 32:31-33 with his trip up the mountain in Exod 34. The use of ‫ כראשנה‬in Deut 9:18 also reinterprets Moses’ first intercession with Yhwh in Exod 32:10-14 by implying that this intercession likewise lasted forty days and forty nights. The reference to Yhwh’s anger in Deut 9:19 creates verbal links with Moses’ first intercession in Exod 32:10-14 while also radically reinterpreting Moses’ second intercession in Exod 32:31-33 by presenting it as successful, whereas this is hardly clear from Exod 32:31-33 itself. In sum, Deut 9:18-19 draw on three different encounters between Yhwh and Moses in Exod 32–34, creating a more consistent notion of Mosaic intercession.176 Deut 9:20; cf. Exod 32:1-6, 21-24. Deut 9:20 – along with 10:6-7 – presents a particular interpretation of the figure of Aaron from Exod 32. Whereas the multiple compositional layers in Exod 32 create an ambiguous picture of Aaron’s culpability in the golden calf episode, Moses’ reference to his intercession on behalf of Aaron in Deut 9:20 clarifies why Aaron was not (immediately) punished for his involvement in the golden calf incident.177 Deut 9:21 // Exod 32:20; cf. Exod 32:21, 30-34. The report of Moses’ destruction of the calf in Deut 9:21a almost certainly depends upon Exod 32:20,

























































175

On the emphasis on the culpability of the entire people in Deut 9:7–10:11, see GERTZ, “Beobachtungen,” 99. 176 For a similar evaluation of Deut 9:18-19, see BOORER, Promise, 310–12. 177 Cf. LOZA, “Exod xxxii,” 37–38; BOORER, Promise, 305, 312; ACHENBACH, Israel, 360; and HAYES, “Golden Calf Stories,” 82.

190 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) and Moses’ reference to “the sin which you made” adds a theological evaluation that is likely drawn from the reference to the people’s sin found in Exod 32:21, 30-34. In contrast, it is possible that Moses’ strewing the calf dust over the river(bed) in Deut 9:21b originally had no counterpart in Exod 32:20 and is an innovation that seeks to portray Moses’ response in light of the cult reforms attributed to later kings of Israel and Judah, particularly Josiah.178 As part of the process of coordinating Exod 32 with Deut 9, a later scribe may have taken up the water motif from Deut 9:21b and combined it with the “water of cursing” from Num 5:11-31, thereby creating the reference in Exod 32:20b to Moses making the people drink the calf water.179 Deut 9:22-24 // Num 11; 13–14; 20:24; 27:14; Deut 1. It has long been noted that Deut 9:22-24 refer to a series of narratives revolving around the people’s rebellion in the book of Numbers: Taberah (Num 11:1-3), Kibrothhatta’avah (Num 11:4-34); and the episode of the spies at Kadesh (Num 13– 14). It was argued in §2 that Deut 9:22-24 likely belong to an earlier stage of composition than Moses’ extended retrospective of the golden calf incident. Yet even if this hypothesis is incorrect and Deut 9:22-24 are indeed a very late insertion, this does little to change the post-priestly evaluation of Moses’ retrospective, since Deut 9:7 – without which 9:9-21* cannot stand – presupposes the people’s repeated rebellion against Yhwh that is illustrated by the (post-)priestly narratives in Num 11 and 13–14.180 Deut 9:25-29 // Exod 32:10-13; cf. Num 13–14. Deut 9:25-26, 28-29 draw not only on Exod 32:11-12 but also on the post-priestly additions to the spy story in Num 13–14 (cf. Num 14:16 and Deut 9:28).181 In contrast, as argued above, it seems likely that the direction of dependence between Exod 32:13 and Deut 9:27 runs from Deuteronomy to Exodus.182

























































178

Cf. 1 Kgs 15:13; 2 Kgs 23:6, 12 and the discussion in HOFFMANN, Reform, 311–13. Thus, in the debate over the direction of dependence between Exod 32:20 and Deut 9:21, both sides are partially correct. On the one hand, BEGG, “Destruction,” 233–51; BOORER, Promise, 312–14; and ACHENBACH, Israel, 361–63 are correct in regarding the basic account in Exod 32:20 as the Vorlage for Deut 9:21, although this direction of dependence is limited to Exod 32:20a and Deut 9:21a. On the other hand, DOHMEN, Bilderverbot, 131 is also partially correct in his argument that Deut 9:21 was the Vorlage for Exod 32:20, although this applies only to Deut 9:21b and Exod 32:20b. 180 On Num 11, see Chapter 6, §2.2; on Num 13–14, see Chapter 6, §4.2. 181 The fact that Deut 9:28 draws on both Exod 32:12 and Num 14:16 is also noted by BOORER, Promise, 304, 315–16. ACHENBACH, Israel, 365–68 argues that Deut 9:25-29 and Exod 32:11-14 originated from the same “school” but that Deut 9:25-29 is not directly dependent upon Exod 32:11-14. On the post-priestly nature of Deut 9:25-29, see OTTO, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 132; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 948. 182 Against BOORER, Promise, 306; CHUNG, Sin, 40; and OTTO, Deuteronomium 4,44– 11,32, 948, who regard Exod 32:11-13 as the source for Deut 9:25-29. 179

3. Comparison of Exod 32–34 and Deut 9:7–10:11

191

Deut 10:1-5 // Exod 34:1-4, 28. The narrative about the second set of tablets in Deut 10:1-5*, 10-11 is more consistent than its counterpart in Exod 34:1-4, 27-29: Whereas Exod 34 portrays both Moses (34:27, 28b) and Yhwh (34:1b) as writing on the tablets, Deut 10 portrays only Yhwh as writing on the tablets, thus reproducing the later conception of the tablets found within Exod 34 and omitting the earlier one.183 This shift is carried out with particular skill in Deut 10:4, which cites Exod 34:28b verbatim (‫)ויכתב על הלחת‬ without adjusting for Moses’ first-person discourse, thus recasting the thirdperson report about Moses’ writing on the tablets in 34:28b into a report by Moses about Yhwh’s writing on the tablets in Deut 10:4.184 The references to the ark in Deut 10:1-5, 8, which likely comprise some of the latest additions within Deut 9–10, are a complete innovation in relation to Exod 34 but form links with the priestly references to the ark in Exod 25:10, 16, 22 and Exod 37.185 Notably, the notion that something is placed inside the ark is found elsewhere only in priestly texts,186 and the reference to acacia wood as a construction material occurs elsewhere only in priestly literature (23x).187 Deut 10:6-7 // Num 33:30, 33-34. The late insertion found in Deut 10:6-7 does not have a parallel in Exod 32 but instead draws on the post-priestly itinerary in Num 33 (cf. Num 33:30, 33-34).188 The purpose of this insertion seems to be to answer the same question that faced the scribe who inserted Deut 9:20: Why was Aaron not punished for his involvement in the golden calf incident in Exod 32? For the author of Deut 10:6-7, the answer to this question is that Aaron was not punished immediately but eventually was punished insofar as he died prior to the entry into the promised land. In this



























































183 For this reason, I cannot agree with OTTO, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 950, who concludes that the references to the tablets in Exod 34:1, 4 presuppose Deut 10:1-5*. 184 Cf. DOHMEN, “Was stand auf den Tafeln?,” 31. 185 On the post-priestly nature of the references to the ark in Deut 10:1-5, see OWCZAREK, Vorstellung, 141–42, 171–73; A CHENBACH, Vollendung, 190–93; IDEM, “Grundlinien,” 78; PORZIG, Lade, 49; and OTTO, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 950. BADEN, J, E, 171– 72 rightly notes that the description of the ark in Deut 10:1-5, 8 is the creative product of the author of those verses, yet his argument that the two conceptions of the ark in P and D are independent of each other is grounded more in his presuppositions about the relationship between P and D than in concrete textual evidence. 186 Cf. PORZIG, Lade, 43. 187 Cf. ibid., 49. 188 Cf. ACHENBACH, Israel, 371–72. BADEN, J, E, 166 avoids accounting for these verses by arguing that “[t]he final part of D’s description of the Horeb episode comes in Deut 10:1-5,” although this is contradicted by Deut 10:10-11, in which Moses recapitulates part of his exchange with Yhwh in Exod 33. WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1–11, 419 and CHUNG, Sin, 96 note the parallelism between Deut 10:6-7 and Num 33 but deny any direct dependence between the two texts.

192 Chapter 5: The Golden Calf and its Aftermath (Exod 32–34 // Deut 9:7–10:11) way, Deut 10:6-7 appropriates the (post-)priestly motif of Aaron’s death and burial from the book of Numbers.189 Deut 10:8-9 // Exod 32:25-29. The dependence of the Levite episode in Deut 10:8-9 on the (post-priestly) text of Exod 32:25-29 can be deduced from its exegetical approach to the latter: In Exod 32:25-29, the separation of the Levites is done at Moses’ behest, while in Deut 10:8-9 it is done at Yhwh’s behest.190 Whereas the ordination of the Levites in Exod 32:25-29 takes place shortly after Moses’ destruction of the golden calf, in Deut 10:8-9, the same event takes place after Moses receives the second set of tablets and builds the ark. Thus, the late inclusion of the Levites episode in Deut 10:8-9 may have originally been triggered by the references to the ark in Deut 10:1-5191 and was designed to reinterpret the Levites’ ordination as the result of the creation of the ark rather than as the result of their violent demonstration of loyalty to Yhwh. In contrast, the subsequent addition in Deut 10:6-7 implies that the separation of the Levites in 10:8-9 took place only much later during the journey through the wilderness.192 Deut 10:10-11 // Exod 32:34; 33:1. Deut 10:10 conflates Moses’ ascent with the second set of tablets (cf. the reference to the forty days and forty nights in Exod 34:28a) with his second intercession from Exod 32:30-34. Whereas Yhwh’s response in Exod 32:30-34 is hardly a resounding commitment not to destroy the people, Deut 10:10 is more positive, thus reinforcing the stereotyped notion of Mosaic intercession advanced in Deut 9:18-19. Deut 10:11 forms a parallel with Exod 33:1 but is also a recapitulation (albeit a very free one) of Moses’ second intercession with Yhwh in Exod 32:30-34. Since Moses’ retrospective ends here and the materials that follow switch back to parenesis, it seems unlikely that the divine command to Moses to set out is more original to Deut 10:11 than to Exod 32:31-34 or 33:1.193 The fact that this verse comes at the end of Moses’ retrospective suggests an attempt to resolve the tension created by the odd position of Exod 33 between Exod 32 and Exod 34.194

























































189

For this interpretation of Deut 10:6-7, albeit with different assumptions about the compositional place of Num 33, see HAYES, “Golden Calf Stories,” 82. 190 Cf. ACHENBACH, Israel, 372; HAYES, “Golden Calf Stories,” 84; and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 29. For other arguments for the post-priestly provenance of Deut 10:8-9, see DAHMEN, Leviten, 67–73 and OTTO, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 135; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 950. 191 PORZIG, Lade, 44–45 and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 18. 192 HAYES, “Golden Calf Stories,” 84 reads the combination of Deut 10:6-7 with 10:8-9 positively as emphasizing the Levites’ role as successors of Aaron, while SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 21 interprets the insertion of 10:6-7 as a pro-Aaronide reaction against the Levites’ appropriation of priestly functions in 10:8-9. 193 Against CARR, Formation, 122 n. 50. 194 Cf. BOORER, Promise, 319–20.

4. Result

193

Result. The comparison of Exod 32–34 and Deut 9:7–10:11 indicates that even the most basic form of Deut 9:7–10:11 presupposes Exod 32–34 at a relatively advanced stage of composition and that only a small amount of textual material in Exod 32–34 is dependent on Deut 9:7–10:11.195 Rather than reflecting an earlier stage in the development of Exod 32–34,196 the minuses in Deut 9:7–10:11 should be interpreted primarily as part of the process of abridgment and selection that served its particular rhetorical aims.197

4. Result In contrast to the analysis of Exod 19–24, which concluded that those chapters contain both pre-priestly and post-priestly narrative materials, the analysis of Exod 32–34 strongly suggests that the episode of the golden calf and its aftermath cannot have belonged to a pre-priestly narrative thread in the book of Exodus. If a pre-priestly narrative were to be identified at all, it would have to be sought in Exod 32:1-20*, but even this creates problems, since the figure of Aaron cannot easily be removed from that unit and since the violation of the Decalogue represented by the golden calf incident finds its full resolution only in the giving of a new Decalogue in Exod 34, a post-priestly text. The conclusion that Exod 32–34 as a whole are post-priestly has significant implications for the compositional place of Deut 9:7–10:11. Although some commentators have argued that Deut 9:7–10:11 reflect a potentially pre-priestly Vorlage that did not contain the figure of Aaron, the fact that the most basic retelling of the golden calf incident in Deut 9 presupposes Moses’ receiving and breaking the first set of tablets in Exod 31:18; 32:15aβb, 19b indicates that its Vorlage already included Exod 34 and the addition of the motif of the tablets to Exod 32, both of which were shown to belong to a post-priestly stage of composition (see §1.2).



























































195 Against OTTO, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 165, who claims that “die postpriesterschriftliche Fortschreibung der Grunderzählung in Ex 32* intensiv Dtn 9…rezipiert hat.” 196 ACHENBACH, Israel, 369–70; RENAUD, “La formation,” 117; JOHNSTONE, “Use of the Reminiscences,” 249, 257; and CARR, Formation, 263. When taken to its logical conclusion, this assumption leads to radical compositional conclusions for Exod 32–34 derived from the theological Tendenz of Deut 9:7–10:11, such as the conclusion that Exod 32 did not originally recount the creation of the calf (RENAUD, “La formation,” 121) or that Exod 32 originally did not include the figure of Aaron (ACHENBACH, “Grundlinien,” 69, followed by OTTO, “Deuteronomiumstudien II,” 150; IDEM, Deuteronomium 4,44–11,32, 955). 197 HOSSFELD, Dekalog, 148; BOORER, Promise, 321–22; PECKHAM, “Composition of Dt 9:1–10:11,” 31; and HAYES, “Golden Calf Stories,” 78.

Chapter 6

From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19) Following the Sinai pericope in Exod 19:1–Num 10:10 which, apart from Exod 19–24*, consists entirely of priestly and post-priestly literature,1 the people’s journey through the wilderness continues in Num 10:11. The present chapter will investigate the non-priestly narratives extending from the people’s departure in Num 10:11 up to their sojourn in Kadesh in Num 20:1. Since there is a broad scholarly consensus regarding the (post-)priestly provenance of Num 10:11-28;2 15;3 and 18–19,4 the present analysis will forego a discussion of these materials and will focus solely on the following narratives in Num 10–19: (1) Moses’ discussion with Hobab and the people’s departure (Num 10:29-36); (2) Taberah and the second quails-and-manna episode (Num 11); (3) the confrontation of Aaron and Miriam with Moses (Num 12); (4) the story of the spies (Num 13–14); and (5) the rebellion of Dathan, Abiram, the 250 men, and Korah (Num 16–17).

1. The People’s Departure (Num 10:29-36) 1.1. Literary-critical analysis Num 10:29-36 deal with two distinct subjects: Moses’ dialogue with Hobab in 10:29-32 and the details surrounding the people’s departure from the mountain of Yhwh in 10:33-36. Although many commentators have assigned the departure notice in 10:33a to the same compositional level as 10:29-32,5 this seems unlikely in light of the rough narrative connection between 10:32

























































1

The priestly provenance of Exod 25–31; 35–40; Lev 1–27; and Num 1:1–10:10 forms a broad scholarly consensus; on the post-priestly nature of Exod 32–34, see Chapter 5. 2 G. B. GRAY, Numbers, 90; L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 13; SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 9–15; LEVINE, Numbers 1–20, 303; and ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 196–202. 3 LEVINE, Numbers 1–20, 67, 386; SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 136–37; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 517–25; and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 52–60. 4 LEVINE, Numbers 1–20, 67–68; SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 7–13, 16–18; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 124–72, 189–202, 517–28; and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11– 36,13, 14, 52–60. 5 L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 6; FRITZ, Israel, 15–16; BLUM, Studien, 137–44; and ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 186.

1. The People’s Departure (Num 10:29-36)

195


and 10:33a. Notably, the plural verb ‫ ויסעו‬in 10:33a implies that the subject is the entire people, which constitutes an abrupt change in subject from the dialogue between Moses and Hobab in the preceding verses. Moreover, since it is not explicitly stated whether Hobab agrees to Moses’ request to accompany the people in 10:32, it cannot be assumed that Hobab is included in the plural subject in 10:33a.6 Within 10:33-36, the role of the “cloud of Yhwh” in accompanying the people in 10:34 competes with the role of the ark in 10:33b, 35-36 and is most easily interpreted as a later insertion that interrupts the connection between 10:33b and 10:35-36.7 The phrase ‫ דרך שלשת ימים‬in 10:33b is repetitive in light of the same phrase in 10:33a, suggesting that these two half verses do not belong to the same compositional level.8 If this is the case, then 10:33b, 35-36 must be later than 10:33a, since they cannot stand without the latter. Thus, 10:33a emerges as the most basic material within 10:29-36. 1.2. Macrocontextual analysis From a topological perspective, Moses’ dialogue with Hobab in Num 10:2932 stands in an ambiguous position between the (priestly) notice of the Israelites’ departure from the Wilderness of Sinai in 10:12a and the departure notice from the “mountain of Yhwh” in 10:33a. Thus, in theory, there are two different potential settings for the dialogue: When preceded by the priestly departure notice in 10:12a, the dialogue takes place after the departure from the Wilderness of Sinai, but if the priestly departure notice is bracketed out, the dialogue implicitly takes on a setting at the “mountain of Yhwh,” as it precedes the departure notice in 10:33a. From the perspective of Num 10 alone, either setting is possible, although comparison with Exod 18 suggests a setting that is distinct from Sinai, since Exod 18:27 states that Moses sends off his father-in-law prior to the arrival at Sinai. Thus, when read in light of Exod 18, the reappearance of Moses’s father-in-law in Num 10:29-32 makes more sense following the priestly notice of the people’s departure from the Wilderness of Sinai in 10:12a than prior to their departure from the mountain of Yhwh in 10:33a*.9 This observation, coupled with the conclusion that the

























































6

Cf. WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 98 and SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 8, 10. Cf. MAIER, Das altisraelitische Ladeheiligtum, 5; BLUM, Studien, 136 n. 34; LEVIN, Jahwist, 374; L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 16–17; and PORZIG, Lade, 34–35 with n. 134. 8 Cf. WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 98–99; L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 16; and PORZIG, Lade, 33–34. 9 Cf. ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 186–87, although he concludes that such an implied setting following the departure from Sinai was the result of secondary reworking. 7

196

Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19)

most basic narrative thread in Exod 18 is post-priestly,10 indicates that – contrary to the traditional assignment of 10:29-32 to a pre-priestly narrative11 – Moses’ dialogue with Hobab is a post-priestly text. Such a conclusion is further supported by the reference to Yhwh’s promise of the land in 10:29, a motif that occurs primarily in the book of Genesis12 and occurs in the book of Exodus only in (post-)priestly contexts.13 Within Num 10:33b-36, the materials relating to the ark in 10:33b, 35-36 have typically been evaluated as pre-priestly,14 yet considering that all of the references to the ark up to this point in the Pentateuch are priestly at the earliest, it is unlikely that 10:33b, 35-36 are pre-priestly.15 This conclusion is further supported by the use of the phrase “ark of the covenant of Yhwh” (‫)ארון ברית ה׳‬, which indicates that 10:33b presupposes the post-priestly depiction of the ark in Deut 10:1-5 as a repository for the “words of the covenant” given to Moses on the stone tablets in Exod 34.16 The reference to the “cloud of Yhwh” in Num 10:34 is also priestly at the earliest, as it presupposes some or all of the foregoing priestly or post-priestly references to the cloud as a sign of Yhwh’s presence in Exod 13:21-22; 33:9-10; Num 10:5, 12.17 This leaves Num 10:33a as the only potentially pre-priestly material in 10:29-36. It is difficult to imagine how this departure notice could be later than the priestly departure notice in 10:12a, since the departure from the “mountain of Yhwh” does not make sense geographically following the people’s departure from the Wilderness of Sinai in 10:12a.18 Thus, it is possible that 10:33a belongs to a pre-priestly narrative thread19 that resumes the people’s journey following the revelation of the law in Exod 19–24*.



























































10 See Chapter 3, §8. On the dependence of Exod 18:13-26 on Num 10:29-33, see BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 424. 11 E.g., NOTH, Numeri, 69–71 (ET 77–79); BLUM, Studien, 137–44; LEVINE, Numbers 1–20, 311; SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 8; and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 15–16. 12 Gen 13:15-16; 15:7, 18; 17:8; 24:7; 26:3; 28:13. 13 Exod 6:4, 8; 12:25; 13:5; 32:13; 33:1. 14 Cf. RUDOLPH, Elohist, 64; NOTH, ÜP, 34; IDEM, Numeri, 69 (ET 77); LEVINE, Numbers 1–20, 72, 311; and FRIEDMAN, Bible, 258. 15 On the post-priestly provenance of Num 10:33b, 35-36, see MAIER, Das altisraelitische Ladeheiligtum, 5–12, esp. 8; SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 9; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 189–90; L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 14; and PORZIG, Lade, 34. 16 Cf. ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 190; on Exod 34 and Deut 10:1-5, see Chapter 5. 17 On the post-priestly provenance of Num 10:34, see SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 9; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 195–96; L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 14; and PORZIG, Lade, 34. 18 In contrast, KRATZ, Komposition, 109 (ET 106) argues that Num 10:33a is later than 10:11-12. 19 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 370–74; SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 9; and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 14. In contrast, ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 192, 206 assigns Num 10:33a to a post-priestly Hexateuch redactor.

197

2. Further Complaints in the Wilderness (Num 11)


1.3. Synthesis I

The most basic material in Num 10:29-36 is limited to the departure notice in 10:33a, which could belong to a pre-priestly stage of composition.

II

Both Num 10:29-32 and 10:33b, 35-36 are secondary to 10:33a and of post-priestly provenance. Although there is insufficient literary-critical evidence to conclude whether 10:29-32 have literary priority over 10:33b, 35-36 or vice versa, there is some reason to suspect that 10:33b, 35-36 are a correction to Moses’ request in 10:31 that Hobab serve as the people’s guide through the wilderness, emphasizing instead that the ark will serve as the people’s guide.

II+ The reference to the “cloud of Yhwh” in Num 10:34 is a later addition to 10:33b, 35-36. II

I

10:29

‫ויאמר משה לחבב בן רעואל המדיני חתן משה נסעים אנחנו אל המקום אשר אמר ה׳ אתו‬ ‫ ויאמר אליו לא אלך כי אם אל ארצי‬30 ‫אתן לכם לכה אתנו והטבנו לך כי ה׳ דבר טוב על ישראל‬ ‫ ויאמר אל נא תעזב אתנו כי על כן ידעת חנתנו במדבר והיית לנו לעינים‬31 ‫ואל מולדתי אלך‬ ‫ והיה כי תלך עמנו והיה הטוב ההוא אשר ייטיב ה׳ עמנו והטבנו לך‬32 ‫ ויסעו מהר ה׳ דרך שלשת ימים‬33a ‫ וענן ה׳ עליהם יומם בנסעם‬34] ‫ וארון ברית ה׳ נסע לפניהם דרך שלשת ימים לתור להם מנוחה‬33b ‫ ובנחה‬36 ‫ ויהי בנסע הארן ויאמר משה קומה ה׳ ויפצו איביך וינסו משנאיך מפניך‬35 [‫מן המחנה‬ ‫יאמר שובה ה׳ רבבות אלפי ישראל‬

2. Further Complaints in the Wilderness (Num 11) 2.1. Literary-critical analysis Num 11 contains two episodes of unequal length: a brief episode in 11:1-3 relating Yhwh’s burning the edges of the Israelite camp in response to the people’s complaining and a longer episode in 11:4-35 narrating Yhwh’s sending of quails in response to the people’s request for meat as well as the delegation of Mosaic authority to seventy Israelite elders. The present form of 11:4-35 cannot stand alone without 11:1-3, since otherwise the pronominal suffix in the phrase ‫( האספסף אשר בקרבו‬11:4a) would lack an antecedent. The only way in which 11:4-35 can stand without 11:1-3 is to reconstruct an earlier introduction in 11:4b* (‫)ויבכו…בני ישראל ויאמרו מי יאכלנו בשר‬. Nevertheless, since there are no clear literary-critical indications that 11:4 is a

198

Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19)

composite text, any argument that 11:4-35 once stood independently of 11:13 must be made on other grounds.20 Within Num 11:4-34, the delegation of Mosaic authority to the seventy elders cannot stand independently of the quails motif, since the people’s grumbling about the lack of meat is the impetus for Moses’ complaint to Yhwh in 11:14-15.21 Moreover, considering that the elders do not play a role in resolving the people’s grumbling, there is reason to suspect that the elders materials were not part of the most basic narrative thread.22 Admittedly, the reconstruction of a narrative without the elders materials faces a slight problem insofar as the present syntax of 11:18 (‫ )ואל העם תאמר‬presupposes Yhwh’s instructions to Moses to gather seventy elders in 11:16-17.23 Although it is possible that the original introduction to the divine speech to Moses in 11:18 was lost when the elders materials were incorporated into the quails-and-manna story,24 such a solution requires the assumption of textual loss. Another solution, however, would be to identify ‫ ויאמר ה׳ אל משה‬in 11:16aα1 as the original introduction to the divine speech, which could have connected directly to ‫ התקדשו למחר ואכלתם בשר‬in 11:18*.25 The quails narrative. Once the elders materials are bracketed out, it is possible to identify an earlier quails narrative in Num 11:4-13, 16aα1, 18-24a, 31-35.26 Yet even this remaining narrative shows several signs of literary growth:

























































20

For further discussion of the relationship between Num 11:1-3 and 11:4-35, see §2.2. Cf. NOTH, Numeri, 75 (ET 83) and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 20–21 against SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 36–38; BADEN, J, E, 109; and SOMMER, “Reflecting on Moses,” 607 n. 13, who posit an originally independent elders narrative. 22 Cf. G. B. GRAY, Numbers, 100. 23 Cf. NOTH, ÜP, 141 n. 361 and SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 35. 24 RUDOLPH, Elohist, 67 and SOMMER, “Reflecting on Moses,” 607 n. 13. 25 Cf. ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 228, who does not propose a specific solution to the problematic syntax at the beginning of Num 11:18 but presumably would explain the current wording of the verse through his concept of réécriture. 26 There is a broad consensus on these contours of a quails narrative that originally did not contain the elders materials; cf. BAENTSCH, Numeri, 504–9; G. B. GRAY, Numbers, 101–2; HOLZINGER, Numeri, 42–43; RUDOLPH, Elohist, 66; NOTH, Numeri, 75 (ET 83); COATS, Rebellion, 97–98; FRITZ, Israel, 16–17; BUDD, Numbers, 124–27; GUNNEWEG, “Gesetz,” 177 n. 16; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 219–20; and BADEN, J, E, 109. See also L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 21, who reconstructs a more limited quails narrative in Num 11:4b*-6, 10bα, 31-34*. In contrast, AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 178 and LEVINE, Numbers 1–20, 327–28 argue that the quails narrative and the elders materials are so tightly interwoven that they cannot be differentiated diachronically. 21

2. Further Complaints in the Wilderness (Num 11)

199


(1) Num 11:7-9 contain detailed information about the appearance and taste of the manna that is not directly relevant to the people’s complaint and can easily be bracketed out as a later addition.27 (2) Num 11:10 contains a slight narrative tension in its statement that Moses heard the people crying and the subsequent statement that Yhwh became angry, suggesting that this verse is not a unity. Considering that 11:10a* (‫ )וישמע משה את העם בכה‬can connect directly to Moses’ address to Yhwh in 11:11-13, the remainder of 11:10 may constitute one or more additions.28 (3) Within Num 11:11-13, Moses’ complaint to Yhwh in 11:11-12* (apart from ‫ )ויאמר משה אל ה׳‬is strikingly similar in its subject matter to the elders materials, particularly in the use of the verbal root ‫ נש״א‬in both 11:11* and 11:12 (cf. the similar usage in 11:14 and 11:17), which raises the suspicion that these verses were not part of the earlier quails narrative.29 If Moses’ complaint in these verses is bracketed out, a coherent connection remains between ‫ ויאמר משה אל ה׳‬in 11:11aα1 and 11:13. (4) In Num 11:18, the double statement that the people will eat meat suggests that this verse may have undergone expansion. Indeed, Yhwh’s recapitulation of the people’s grumbling from 11:4-6 is not essential to the divine speech, and ‫ ונתן ה׳ לכם בשר ואכלתם‬can be interpreted as a Wiederaufnahme of ‫ ואכלתם בשר‬at the beginning of the verse. Thus, the most basic material in 11:18 seems to have consisted of ‫התקדשו למחר ואכלתם בשר‬.30 (5) In Num 11:20b, the question ‫ למה זה יצאנו ממצרים‬is placed in the people’s mouth, although the people’s regret about leaving Egypt does not form part of their original complaint about the lack of food in 11:4-6, suggesting that 11:20b does not belong to the most basic quails narrative.31 (6) The syntax of Num 11:33 is unusual, suggesting a literary seam between 11:32 and 11:33. Since 11:33-35 cannot stand alone without 11:31-32, this may indicate that 11:33-35 were added secondarily to a more basic quails narrative that originally had a positive conclusion in Yhwh’s provision of meat to the people rather than Yhwh’s punishment of the people on account of their grumbling.32 The elders materials. Within the supplementary layer concerned with the role of the elders, there is some reason to suspect that the report of the elders’ prophesying in Num 11:25b and the episode involving Eldad and Medad in

























































27

Cf. RUDOLPH, Elohist, 66; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 220; and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 21. 28 Cf. ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 227. 29 Cf. FRITZ, Israel, 16; BLUM, Studien, 83; and ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 228, 239 against RUDOLPH, Elohist, 65 and NOTH, Numeri, 75 (ET 83). 30 In contrast, ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 228 regards Num 11:18b as earlier than 11:18a. 31 Cf. ibid., 229, 231. 32 Cf. ibid., 231.

200

Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19)

11:26-29 are an even later addition, since the elders’ capacity to prophesy is not essential to their role in supporting Moses.33 If these materials concerned with prophecy are bracketed out, 11:25a can be connected directly to 11:30. Interim result. The literary development of Num 11 can be divided into two major stages of composition. The first stage consisted of a quails narrative, which may have originally been limited to 11:4-6, 10aα*, 11aα1, 13, 16aα1, 18aα*, 19-20aα1, 21-24a, 31-32, reaching a positive climax in Yhwh’s provision of meat to the people. This narrative was later reworked in 11:10, 18, 20, 33-35, now reaching a negative climax in the punishment of the people in 11:33-35. At an unknown stage of composition, the parenthetical description of the appearance and taste of the manna in 11:7-9 was also added to the quails narrative. The second stage consisted of a supplementary layer concerned with the delegation of Mosaic authority to seventy Israelite elders (11:11*, 12, 14-15, 16*, 17, 24b-30). Within this layer, the materials concerned with prophecy in 11:25b-29 may be an even later addition. 2.2. Macrocontextual analysis Commentators have traditionally regarded both Num 11:1-3 and 11:4-35* as pre-priestly units.34 The following analysis will demonstrate, however, that Num 11 in its entirety must be assigned to a post-priestly stage of composition. The Taberah episode. The post-priestly provenance of Num 11:1-3 can be deduced from the fact that this brief episode has been modeled on the (post-) priestly murmuring narratives in Exod 15:22b-27, 17:1-7; and/or 16:2-3635 but in an abbreviated, schematic form: Notably, in Num 11:1 there is no external impetus for the people’s complaint.36 At the same time, the term ‫ רע‬in 11:1 and the statement ‫ ויצעק העם אל משה‬in 11:2 suggest that this brief episode presupposes the Deuteronomistic scheme found especially in the book of Judges whereby Israel does evil in Yhwh’s sight, Yhwh punishes Israel,



























































33 On the Eldad-and-Medad episode as a later addition within the elders materials, see NOTH, Numeri, 80–81 (ET 90); SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 34–35; and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 21. In contrast, BLUM, Studien, 84 and ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 262–63 regard the Eldad-and-Medad episode as fundamental to the elders materials. 34 BAENTSCH, Numeri, 504 (E); G. B. GRAY, Numbers, 98 (JE); RUDOLPH, Elohist, 63 (J); NOTH, Numeri, 74–75 (ET 83) (J); COATS, Rebellion, 124–25 (J); FRITZ, Israel, 16–17 (J); JENKS, Elohist, 54 (E); BUDD, Numbers, 118–19 (J); BLUM, Studien, 83 (KD); LEVIN, Jahwist, 370–75 (late J); SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 10, 23–24 (J); L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 20–21 (11:1-3 = JE; 11:4-35* = J); and BADEN, J, E, 109; IDEM, Composition, 82–102 (J and E). 35 For a form-critical overview, see ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 207. 36 Cf. ibid., 203.

2. Further Complaints in the Wilderness (Num 11)

201




the Israelites cry out to Yhwh, and Yhwh provides deliverance.37 The fact that 11:1 speaks of “evil in Yhwh’s ears” (‫ )רע באזני ה׳‬rather than “evil in Yhwh’s eyes” (‫ )רע בעיני ה׳‬can be explained in light of 11:18, which speaks of the people crying “in Yhwh’s ears” (‫)באזני ה׳‬.38 This suggests, furthermore, that the Taberah episode was composed in light of the (expanded) quails narrative in 11:4-13, 16aα1, 18-24a, 31-35.39 This means that the introduction to the quails narrative in 11:4 must have originally consisted of only 11:4b* (‫)ויבכו בני ישראל ויאמרו מי יאכלנו בשר‬.40 The quails narrative. The first indication that even the most basic quails narrative is post-priestly is the fact that this narrative presupposes Yhwh’s provision of manna to the people in Exod 16, a (post-)priestly text.41 The post-priestly provenance of the most basic quails narrative is further suggested by the fact that the quails arrive by means of a divine wind (Num 11:31), which corresponds closely with the arrival of the plague of locusts in Exod 10:13, 19.42 The reworking of the narrative into a story of the Israelites’ punishment for “spurning” Yhwh (cf. Num 11:20) also fits well with an evaluation of Num 11 as post-priestly from the outset.43 Considering that the placename Kibroth-hatta’avah presupposes this reworking of the quails narrative, then the itinerary notice in 11:35 cannot be part of an earlier itinerary chain.44 Finally, the post-priestly nature of the description of the manna in 11:7-9 is also confirmed by its dependence on Exod 16:31,45 which belongs to a late stage in the formation of Exod 16 and implicitly associates the manna with cultic offerings in the temple.



























































37 Cf. AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 144–45 and ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 207–9. See also L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 20, who notes the correspondence but denies that Num 11:1-3 are literarily dependent upon the Judges scheme. 38 Cf. ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 210. 39 Cf. ibid., 213. 40 Cf. ibid., 203 and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 21. 41 On the (post-)priestly provenance of Exod 16, see Chapter 3, §5.2. 42 On the post-priestly provenance of the plague of locusts, see Chapter 2, §6.2. The use of a divine wind also occurs in a post-priestly addition to the narrative of the miracle at the sea in Exod 14:21 (see Chapter 3, §2). On these connections, see ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 229. 43 Cf. RÖMER, “Nombres 11–12,” 496; IDEM, “Israel’s Sojourn,” 433, who argues that the portrayal of the wilderness period in a negative light is a post-priestly phenomenon. 44 Against COATS, “Wilderness Itinerary,” 146, who attributes Num 11:35 to J, and DOZEMAN, “Priestly Wilderness Itineraries,” 274, who regards Kibroth-hatta’avah (as well as Taberah) as a waypoint in a “Non-Priestly narrative.” I am skeptical of the proposal by NOTH, ÜP, 129 n. 335 and ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 204 that the place-name Kibrothhatta’avah was originally connected to the verbal root ‫ תא״ה‬II “to mark” and reflected an actual grave site that served as a waypoint on a desert route. 45 Cf. ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 226.

202

Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19)

The elders materials. Considering that the elders materials in Num 11:11*, 12, 14-15, 16*, 17, 24b-25a (25b-29), 30 are literarily dependent upon the quails narrative, these materials must also be post-priestly. Such a conclusion is supported by two additional observations: (1) There is a relatively broad scholarly consensus that the delegation of Mosaic authority to the elders in Num 11 postdates both Exod 18:13-27 and their (slightly divergent) recapitulation in Deut 1:9-18.46 Considering that Exod 18:13-27 were evaluated as a post-priestly text,47 the elders materials in Num 11 must also be post-priestly. (2) The role of the Tent of Meeting in Num 11:16-17, 24b-30 and its location outside the camp (cf. 11:30) presuppose Moses’ establishment of the Tent of Meeting in Exod 33:7-11, a post-priestly text.48 2.3. Synthesis I

The most basic narrative thread in Num 11 consisted of a post-priestly quails narrative within 11:4-35, which may have originally been limited to 11:4b*-6, 10aα*, 11aα1, 13, 16aα1, 18aα*, 19-20aα1, 21-24a, 31-32, ending in a positive resolution through Yhwh’s provision of meat to the people.

I+

This narrative was later reworked in Num 11:10, 18, 20, 33-35, providing a more negative resolution to the story through Yhwh’s punishment of the people in 11:33-35. Given the similarity of the Taberah episode in 11:1-3 to this reworked version of the quails narrative (including the etiological element), 11:1-3 are probably no earlier than 11:10, 18, 20, 33-35. At an unknown stage of composition, the parenthetical description about the appearance and taste of the manna in 11:7-9 was also added to the quails narrative.

II

The quails-and-manna narrative in Num 11:4-35* was further supplemented with materials concerned with the delegation of Mosaic authority to seventy Israelite elders (11:11*, 12, 14-15, 16*, 17, 24b-25a, 30).

II+

Within the elders layer, the Eldad-and-Medad episode in Num 11:25b29 is possibly an even later addition.

























































46

On the dependence of the elders materials in Num 11:4-35 on Exod 18:13-27, see already RUDOLPH, Elohist, 65–66. For the conclusion that these materials postdate both Exod 18:13-27 and Deut 1:9-18, see PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 58–59; ROSE, Deuteronomist, 224–63, esp. 257, 261–62; and ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 237, 248. 47 Chapter 3, §8.2. 48 On Exod 33:7-11, see Chapter 5, §1.2. On the evaluation of the elders materials in Num 11 as post-priestly, see GUNNEWEG, “Gesetz,” 171–73; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Suche,” 274; OWCZAREK, Vorstellung, 282–96; and ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 247–48.

‫‪203‬‬

‫)‪2. Further Complaints in the Wilderness (Num 11‬‬

‫
‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪11:1‬‬

‫ויהי העם כמתאננים רע באזני ה׳ וישמע ה׳ ויחר אפו ותבער בם אש ה׳ ותאכל בקצה המחנה‬ ‫‪ 2‬ויצעק העם אל משה ויתפלל משה אל ה׳ ותשקע האש ‪ 3‬ויקרא שם המקום ההוא תבערה כי בערה‬ ‫בם אש ה׳‬ ‫‪ 4‬והאספסף אשר בקרבו התאוו תאוה וישבו ויבכו גם בני ישראל ויאמרו מי יאכלנו בשר ‪ 5‬זכרנו את‬ ‫הדגה אשר נאכל במצרים חנם את הקשאים ואת האבטחים ואת החציר ואת הבצלים ואת השומים‬ ‫‪ 6‬ועתה נפשנו יבשה אין כל בלתי אל המן עינינו ]‪ 7‬והמן כזרע גד הוא ועינו כעין הבדלח ‪ 8‬שטו העם‬ ‫ולקטו וטחנו ברחים או דכו במדכה ובשלו בפרור ועשו אתו עגות והיה טעמו כטעם לשד השמן‬ ‫‪ 9‬וברדת הטל על המחנה לילה ירד המן עליו[ ‪ 10‬וישמע משה את העם בכה ]למשפחתיו איש לפתח‬ ‫אהלו[ ]ויחר אף ה׳ מאד ובעיני משה רע[ ‪ 11‬ויאמר משה אל ה׳‬ ‫למה הרעת לעבדך ולמה לא מצתי חן בעיניך לשום את משא כל העם הזה עלי ‪ 12‬האנכי הריתי‬ ‫את כל העם הזה אם אנכי ילדתיהו כי תאמר אלי שאהו בחיקך כאשר ישא האמן את הינק על‬ ‫האדמה אשר נשבעת לאבתיו‬ ‫‪ 13‬מאין לי בשר לתת לכל העם הזה כי יבכו עלי לאמר תנה לנו בשר ונאכלה‬ ‫‪ 14‬לא אוכל אנכי לבדי לשאת את כל העם הזה כי כבד ממני‬ ‫הרג אם מצאתי חן בעיניך ואל אראה ברעתי‬

‫‪15‬‬

‫ואם ככה את עשה לי הרגני נא‬

‫‪ 16‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה‬ ‫אספה לי שבעים איש מזקני ישראל אשר ידעת כי הם זקני העם ושטריו ולקחת אתם אל אהל‬ ‫מועד והתיצבו שם עמך ‪ 17‬וירדתי ודברתי עמך שם ואצלתי מן הרוח אשר עליך ושמתי עליהם‬ ‫ונשאו אתך במשא העם ולא תשא אתה לבדך *‪ 18‬ואל העם תאמר‬ ‫*‪ 18‬התקדשו למחר ואכלתם בשר ]כי בכיתם באזני ה׳ לאמר מי יאכלנו בשר כי טוב לנו במצרים ונתן‬ ‫ה׳ לכם בשר ואכלתם[ ‪ 19‬לא יום אחד תאכלון ולא יומים ולא חמשה ימים ולא עשרה ימים ולא עשרים‬ ‫יום ‪ 20‬עד חדש ימים ]עד אשר יצא מאפכם והיה לכם לזרא יען כי מאסתם את ה׳ אשר בקרבכם ותבכו‬ ‫לפניו לאמר למה זה יצאנו ממצרים[ ‪ 21‬ויאמר משה שש מאות אלף רגלי העם אשר אנכי בקרבו ואתה‬ ‫אמרת בשר אתן להם ואכלו חדש ימים ‪ 22‬הצאן ובקר ישחט להם ומצא להם אם את כל דגי הים יאסף‬ ‫להם ומצא להם ‪ 23‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה היד ה׳ תקצר עתה תראה היקרך דברי אם לא ‪ 24a‬ויצא משה‬ ‫וידבר אל העם את דברי ה׳‬ ‫‪ 24b‬ויאסף שבעים איש מזקני העם ויעמד אתם סביבת האהל ‪ 25‬וירד ה׳ בענן וידבר אליו ויאצל מן‬ ‫הרוח אשר עליו ויתן על שבעים איש הזקנים ]ויהי כנוח עליהם הרוח ויתנבאו ולא יספו ‪ 26‬וישארו‬ ‫שני אנשים במחנה שם האחד אלדד ושם השני מידד ותנח עלהם הרוח והמה בכתבים ולא יצאו‬ ‫האהלה ויתנבאו במחנה ‪ 27‬וירץ הנער ויגד למשה ויאמר אלדד ומידד מתנבאים במחנה ‪ 28‬ויען‬ ‫יהושע בן נון משרת משה מבחריו ויאמר אדני משה כלאם ‪ 29‬ויאמר לו משה המקנא אתה לי ומי‬ ‫יתן כל עם ה׳ נביאים כי יתן ה׳ את רוחו עליהם[ ‪ 30‬ויאסף משה אל המחנה הוא וזקני ישראל‬ ‫‪ 31‬ורוח נסע מאת ה׳ ויגז שלוים מן הים ויטש על המחנה כדרך יום כה וכדרך יום כה סביבות המחנה‬ ‫וכאמתים על פני הארץ ‪ 32‬ויקם העם כל היום ההוא וכל הלילה וכל יום המחרת ויאספו את השלו‬ ‫הממעיט אסף עשרה חמרים וישטחו להם שטוח סביבות המחנה ]‪ 33‬הבשר עודנו בין שניהם טרם יכרת‬ ‫ואף ה׳ חרה בעם ויך ה׳ בעם מכה רבה מאד ‪ 34‬ויקרא את שם המקום ההוא קברות התאוה כי שם‬ ‫קברו את העם המתאוים ‪ 35‬מקברות התאוה נסעו העם חצרות ויהיו בחצרות[‬

204

Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19)

3. The Complaint of Miriam and Aaron against Moses (Num 12) 3.1. Literary-critical analysis Contrary to the reconstructions of some commentators, there are few clear signs of literary growth within this unit.49 There is a slight conceptual tension in the fact that both Miriam and Aaron speak against Moses in Num 12:1 but only Miriam is punished in 12:10-15, although it is difficult to remove the report of Miriam’s punishment from the most basic narrative, since the report of Yhwh’s anger in 12:9 leads the reader to expect some sort of divine response. The parenthetical statement about Moses’ humility in 12:3 may, however, be a later addition, as it is not essential to the subsequent development of the narrative. 3.2. Macrocontextual analysis Although critical scholarship has traditionally assigned Num 12 to a prepriestly source or literary stratum,50 there are several indications that Num 12 belongs to a post-priestly stage of composition:51 (1) Neither the figure of Miriam nor the figure of Aaron appears in the pre-priestly narratives in the book of Exodus, and Num 12 can hardly represent their first appearance in a pre-priestly narrative, since the narrator treats both Miriam and Aaron as known characters in 12:1. (2) The setting at the Tent of Meeting – implicitly located outside the camp (12:4) – presupposes the post-priestly report of Moses’ setting up the Tent of Meeting in Exod 33:7-11.52 (3) Miriam’s affliction with a skin disease and the seven days of quarantine that she must undergo in Num 12:10-15 seem to presuppose the priestly ritual laws on skin disease in Lev 13.53 (4) The episode contains all of the elements of the murmur-

























































49

Against FRITZ, Israel, 18–19, who reconstructs an earlier episode involving only Miriam and a later expansion that incorporated the figure of Aaron. 50 Cf. NOTH, ÜP, 34 with n. 120 (ET 32 with n. 120); IDEM, Numeri, 83 (ET 93) (an addition to J); LEVINE, Numbers 1–20, 52 (JE); VAN SETERS, Life, 235–36 (late J); SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 65 (JE); FRIEDMAN, Bible, 261–62 (E); L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11– 36,13, 30 (JE); BADEN, J, E, 189 (E); and STACKERT, Prophet, 108 (E). 51 Cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 301 (ET 291) and RÖMER, “Mose,” 207 (albeit cautiously). See also ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 267–301 (with a summary on p. 301), who argues that Num 12 reflects an older tradition but in its present form is the product of post-priestly redactional activity. For further discussion of the historical context and intertextual connections of Num 12, see RÖMER, “Israel’s Sojourn,” 439–40; IDEM, “Tracking,” 75. 52 Cf. GUNNEWEG, “Gesetz,” 177–78, although he regards Num 12:2-8 – where the Tent of Meeting appears – as an expansion of an earlier narrative. 53 Although Lev 13:5 stipulates that a person with a skin disease must remain quarantined for a second period of seven days once the priest determines that the disease has not spread, both the general concept of being quarantined for seven days and the specific use

3. The Complaint of Miriam and Aaron against Moses (Num 12)

205


ing motif as encapsulated in the post-priestly text of Num 11:1-3: complaint (11:1 // 12:1), kindling of Yhwh’s anger (11:1 // 12:9), request for Moses’ intervention (11:2 // 12:11), Moses’ intercession with Yhwh (11:2 // 12:13), and a resolution of the problem (11:2 // 12:14-15).54 The itinerary notice in Num 12:16 and its relationship to 11:35 require further discussion here. Notably, 11:35 is formally distinct from other itinerary notices in Exod 12–Num 22 in several respects: (1) It is the only such notice within Exod 12–Num 22 to use the pattern ‫ נסעו‬GN ‫( מן‬all other occurrences of the verb ‫ נסע‬up to this point have occurred in the waw-consecutive);55 (2) the reference to Hazeroth without a prepositional phrase or a directional he is exceptional;56 and (3) the use of the verb ‫ היה‬in Num 11:35b is not, strictly speaking, an arrival notice.57 In light of the syntax of 11:35, the people’s stay in Hazeroth cannot stand without their departure from Kibroth-hatta’avah, indicating that 12:16a (which reports the people’s departure from Hazeroth) cannot be earlier than the expanded quails narrative in 11:4-34. Indeed, given the fact that 11:35 does not contain an arrival notice, there is reason to suspect that 11:35a* originally connected directly to the notice of the people’s arrival in the Wilderness of Paran in 12:16b (‫מקברות התאוה נסעו העם…ויחנו‬ ‫)במדבר פארן‬. This possibility receives further support insofar as 12:16a shares the same unusual use of the perfect verb ‫נסעו‬, suggesting that it is a Wiederaufnahme of 11:35a*. If this reconstruction is correct, it would indicate that 12:1-16a (as well as the references to Hazeroth in 11:35a*, 35b) postdate the expanded quails narrative in 11:4-34, further supporting the evaluation of 12:1-16a as post-priestly. 3.3. Synthesis I

The most basic material in Num 12 is limited to the arrival notice in 12:16b, which at one time connected to the notice of the people’s departure from Kibroth-hatta’avah in 11:35a*.



























































































































of the verbal root ‫ סג״ר‬in Num 12:15 and Lev 13:4-5 suggest that Num 12 presupposes Lev 13. 54 On these parallels, see VAN SETERS, Life, 235, although he concludes that “this pattern is the creation of the Yahwist.” 55 Cf. WALSH, “From Egypt,” 25. The closest analogues to this pattern are found in Num 21:12-13, which use the pattern ‫ משם נסעו ויחנו‬+ GN, and Num 21:19-20, which use the pattern ‫ מן‬+ GN1 GN2. For further discussion of these texts, see Chapter 7, § 7. 56 The only other instances of a place-name appearing after a verb and without a directional he invariably use the verb ‫( בוא‬Exod 19:1, 2; Num 20:1, 22) and are arrival notices, not departure notices. Otherwise, the closest parallel to Num 11:35 is found in Num 21:1920, which use the pattern ‫ מן‬+ GN1 GN2 but do not contain a verb of departure. 57 Cf. WALSH, “From Egypt,” 25. Arrival notices typically use the verbs ‫( בוא‬Exod 15:23, 27; 16:1; 19:1, 2; Num 20:1, 22), ‫( חנה‬Exod 13:20; 17:1; 19:2; Num 12:16b; 21:10, 11, 12, 13; 22:1), or ‫( ישב‬Num 20:1; 25:1).

206 II

Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19)

The narrative of the complaint against Moses by Miriam and Aaron in Num 12:1-16a is largely a compositional unity that shows multiple signs of post-priestly provenance, including (but not limited to) the fact that it postdates both the Taberah episode in 11:1-3 and the quails narrative in 11:4-34*.

II+ The reference to Moses’ humility in Num 12:3 is extraneous to the surrounding narrative and may be a later addition. II

I

‫ ויאמרו‬2 ‫ ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה על אדות האשה הכשית אשר לקח כי אשה כשית לקח‬12:1 ‫ והאיש משה ענו מאד מכל האדם אשר על‬3] ‫הרק אך במשה דבר ה׳ הלא גם בנו דבר וישמע ה׳‬ ‫ ויאמר ה׳ פתאם אל משה ואל אהרן ואל מרים צאו שלשתכם אל אהל מועד ויצאו‬4 [‫פני האדמה‬ ‫ ויאמר שמעו‬6 ‫ וירד ה׳ בעמוד ענן ויעמד פתח האהל ויקרא אהרן ומרים ויצאו שניהם‬5 ‫שלשתם‬ ‫ לא כן עבדי משה בכל ביתי‬7 ‫נא דברי אם יהיה נביאכם ה׳ במראה אליו אתודע בחלום אדבר בו‬ ‫ פה אל פה אדבר בו ומראה ולא בחידת ותמנת ה׳ יביט ומדוע לא יראתם לדבר‬8 ‫נאמן הוא‬ ‫ והענן סר מעל האהל והנה מרים מצרעת כשלג ויפן אהרן‬10 ‫ ויחר אף ה׳ בם וילך‬9 ‫בעבדי במשה‬ ‫ ויאמר אהרן אל משה בי אדני אל נא תשת עלינו חטאת אשר נואלנו‬11 ‫אל מרים והנה מצרעת‬ ‫ ויצעק משה אל ה׳‬13 ‫ אל נא תהי כמת אשר בצאתו מרחם אמו ויאכל חצי בשרו‬12 ‫ואשר חטאנו‬ ‫ ויאמר ה׳ אל משה ואביה ירק ירק בפניה הלא תכלם שבעת ימים‬14 ‫לאמר אל נא רפא נא לה‬ ‫ ותסגר מרים מחוץ למחנה שבעת ימים והעם לא‬15 ‫תסגר שבעת ימים מחוץ למחנה ואחר תאסף‬ ‫ ואחר נסעו העם מחצרות‬16a ‫נסע עד האסף מרים‬ ‫ ויחנו במדבר פארן‬16b

4. The Story of the Spies (Num 13–14) The story of the spies in Num 13–14 and its parallel in Deut 1:19-46 hold a crucial place in the received form of the Pentateuch and in recent models for its formation.58 Several conflicting models have been proposed for explaining the relationship between these two texts, which can be broadly categorized according to the earliest postulated version of the spy story: (1) a nonDeuteronomistic, non-priestly narrative in Num 13–14,59 (2) the narrative in



























































58 See esp. OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 13–109; ACHENBACH, “Erzählung”; BADEN, J, E, 114–30; and CARR, “Scribal Processes,” 79–80; IDEM, Formation, 265–66. 59 Since the mid-twentieth century, this narrative has typically been attributed to J among adherents of the Documentary Hypothesis; cf. RUDOLPH, Elohist, 74–84; NOTH, ÜP, 19, 34 (ET 18–19, 32); L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 74–85; IDEM, “Kundschaftererzählung,” 41– 43; IDEM, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 39; SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 96–101; VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 31; BADEN, J, E, 114–29; IDEM, Composition, 79–80; and SCHART, “Spy Story,” 165–66. The non-Deuteronomistic, non-priestly model also has many proponents who are not strict adherents of the Documentary Hypothesis; cf. BLUM, Studien, 178– 81; ARTUS, Études, 83–159, esp. 156; OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 101–9;

4. The Story of the Spies (Num 13–14)

207




Deut 1:19-46,60 and (3) the priestly narrative in Num 13–14.61 In my view, the reason that a broad consensus has not yet been reached regarding the best solution is the fact that the correspondences between the two spy stories have often been pressed into the service of scholars’ broader assumptions regarding the formation of larger literary works. The only way out of this dilemma is to begin with separate literary-critical and macrocontextual analyses of Num 13–14 and Deut 1:19-46 rather than comparison of the two texts. Only after this literary-critical analysis is accomplished should one move to a diachronic reconstruction based on linkages between the two texts.62 4.1. Literary-critical analysis of Num 13–14

The sending of the spies and their report (Num 13:1-33). Within Num 13, the list of names in 13:4-16 shows signs of being a later insertion: 13:16 forms a closing bracket around the list, and the statement ‫וישלח אתם משה לתור את ארץ‬ ‫ כנען‬in 13:17a is a Wiederaufnahme of 13:3.63 It is possible to connect 13:1-3 directly to 13:21 (perhaps only 13:21a), which uses the verb ‫ תור‬found in 13:2.64 Likewise, 13:25 (which also uses the verb ‫ )תור‬brings the spies back to the place from which Moses sent them and thus cannot be removed from the most basic narrative thread. This thread possibly continues in the spies’ report to Moses in 13:26a*, 32b, culminating in the report that the land that they scouted out “consumes” its inhabitants.65 The reconstruction of an earlier narrative thread in Num 13:1-3, 21, 25-26a* and 13:32b is supported by several additional observations on 13:17b-20, 22-24, and 26b-31:



























































































































ACHENBACH, “Erzählung,” 61, 78; and CARR, “Scribal Processes,” 80; IDEM, Formation, 265–66. 60 Cf. ROSE, Deuteronomist, 264–94 and VAN SETERS, Life, 370–82. A common operating assumption for these scholars is the theory of a post-Deuteronomistic Yahwistic history (i.e., the late Yahwist theory) and the related notion that the book of Deuteronomy has its original Sitz in der Literatur in the framework of the Deuteronomistic History rather than the Pentateuch or Hexateuch. 61 Cf. RABE, Vom Gerücht, 410–13, 440; LEVIN, Jahwist, 376; KRATZ, Komposition, 109 (ET 106–7); IDEM, “Der literarische Ort,” 112; BERNER, “Vom Aufstand,” 16 n. 24; and, most recently, RUDNIG-ZELT, Glaube, 178 et passim (which appeared shortly before the present study went to press and thus could not be taken into account in the following discussion). According to this model, the non-priestly materials in Num 13–14, as well as Deut 1:19-46, are understood as post-priestly (cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 376 n. 28). 62 For this approach, see RABE, Vom Gerücht, 441 and KRATZ, “Der literarische Ort,” 107. 63 Without the list of names in Num 13:4-16, 13:17a would be redundant following directly upon 13:3, and it can hardly be more original than 13:3, since it would still be redundant if it were attached directly to 13:2. 64 Cf. BLUM, Studien, 133 n. 129; RABE, Vom Gerücht, 410–13; ARTUS, Études, 105; SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 88; and BADEN, J, E, 115. 65 Cf. RABE, Vom Gerücht, 411; LEVIN, Jahwist, 376; and ARTUS, Études, 156.

208

Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19)

(1) The possibility that the scouts’ collecting a cluster of grapes from Wadi Eshkol in Num 13:23-24 and the corresponding positive report about the land in 13:26bβ-2766 do not belong to the most basic version of the spy story is supported by the fact that the people’s complaint in Num 14 presupposes a negative report about the land but hardly requires a positive one. Since the report about the strength of the local inhabitants and their cities in 13:28 is syntactically subordinate to 13:27, it cannot be earlier than the latter verse. At the same time, the reference to the “rumor” about the land in 13:32a presupposes the negative report in 13:28, suggesting that 13:28 belonged with 13:26bβ-27 from the outset. In contrast, there is reason to suspect that 13:29 is later than 13:26bβ-28, since this verse seems to reflect more of an antiquarian concern with geography than the strength of the inhabitants of the land per se. (2) The passage in Num 13:30-31 highlighting Caleb’s confidence in the conquest of the land (in contrast to the pessimism of the other scouts) is most likely no earlier than the insertion of the list of names in 13:4-16, since otherwise the figure of Caleb would appear without any prior introduction in the narrative. Moreover, the statement that Caleb “hushed” the people and Caleb’s pointed optimism suggest that his intervention is a response to the negative report in 13:28. If this is indeed the case, then 13:30-31 cannot be earlier than 13:26bβ-29*. (3) Moses’ instructions to the scouts in Num 13:17b-20 cannot belong to the most basic narrative, since this speech anticipates a variety of materials in 13:22-24, 26b-31 (as well as in 14:6-8): (a) Moses’ question in 13:18 regarding the strength and numbers of the people in the land corresponds to the spies’ report in 13:28 that the people are “strong” (‫ )עז‬as well as to the (likely later) notice in 13:29 about the different nations inhabiting the land. (b) Moses’ question in 13:19b whether the land’s cities are in camps or are fortified corresponds to the spies’ statement in 13:28 that the cities are fortified. (c) Moses’ question in 13:20aα whether the land is “fat” (‫ )שמנה‬or “thin” (‫)רזה‬ corresponds to the spies’ report in 13:27b (and in 14:8b) that the land “flows with milk and honey.” (d) Moses’ instructions in 13:20aβ to take some of the produce from the land – as well as the note about the grape harvest in 13:20b – corresponds to the scouts’ taking grapes and other fruit from Wadi Eshkol in 13:23-24 and their presentation of the fruit in 13:26bβ-27. (e) Moses’ question whether the land is “good” (‫ )טובה‬or “bad” (‫ )רעה‬corresponds to the insistence of Joshua and Caleb in 14:7 that the land is “very, very good” (‫)טובה הארץ מאד מאד‬.67



























































66 The reference to “the entire congregation” in Num 13:26bα is syntactically awkward, suggesting that it is a later gloss. 67 Here, Perlitt’s observation regarding the relationship between Num 13–14 and Deut 1 can also be applied to Num 13–14 themselves: “Wenn literarischer Vergleich überhaupt

4. The Story of the Spies (Num 13–14)

209


The people’s reaction (Num 14:1-5). Within this unit, the description of the people’s response to the negative report about the land refers to the people first as “the congregation” (Num 14:1a), then as “the people” (14:1b), then as “all the Israelites” (14:2a), and once again as “the congregation” (14:2b), raising the suspicion that these verses have undergone expansion. The people’s complaint against Moses and Aaron in 14:2 must belong to the most basic narrative thread, since the remainder of the chapter deals with the consequences of the people’s complaint. The statement in 14:1a* that the congregation raised its voice68 can also be connected with this complaint, while the statement about the people’s crying in 14:1b is not essential to the continuation of the narrative. The possibility that 14:1a* belongs to the most basic material in 14:1-5 is further supported by the unusual word order in 14:2, in which the subject ‫ כל בני ישראל‬comes after the prepositional phrase ‫ על משה ועל אהרן‬and thus may be a later addition. Thus, a more basic version of the introduction to the people’s complaint in 14:1-2* might be reconstructed as follows: ‫*ותשא כל העדה את קולם וילנו על משה ועל אהרן ויאמרו אלהם‬. The response of Joshua and Caleb (Num 14:6-10). This unit does not fit well with the most basic narrative thread that has emerged thus far in Num 13:1-3, 25, 26a*, 32b; 14:1-4*, since Joshua and Caleb first appear in the list of names inserted in 13:4-16. Num 14:6-10 are likely later than 14:5, given the disjunctive syntax of 14:6.69 Yhwh’s judgment of the people (Num 14:26-35). The logical continuation of the basic narrative identified thus far in Num 13:1-3, 25-26a*, 32b; 14:15* is to be found in 14:26-35: Both the motif of murmuring (‫ )לו״ן‬in 14:27 and the language of Yhwh’s judgment in 14:28-29 are closely connected to 14:2. Nevertheless, there are also signs of compositional growth within this unit. There is reason to suspect that 14:30 is a later addition, as it does not connect smoothly to 14:29 and also repeats the apodosis of the oath formula from 14:28.70 There are also indications that 14:31-34 are not a unity, since 14:31-32 and 14:33-34 deal with the same subject matter but use different terminology and have different rhetorical aims. Nevertheless, it is difficult to determine which version has literary priority over the other: The reference to children (‫ )טף‬in 14:31 connects to 14:3, while the forty years of wandering in 14:33-34 connects to the forty days taken to scout the land in 13:25, both of which could belong to the most basic narrative thread but need not do so.



























































































































einen Sinn hat, dann gilt: das Ungeordnete geht dem Geordneten voraus, die Vielfalt der Formen geht deren Vereinheitlichung voraus – etc” (PERLITT, “Deuteronomium 1–3,” 120). 68 The verb ‫ ויתנו‬is likely a later addition, as it disrupts the syntax of this half verse. 69 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 376, who likewise regards Num 14:6-10a as secondary to 14:5. 70 On Num 14:30 as a later addition, see L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 99. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that Joshua and Caleb appear nowhere else in the basic narrative thread identified thus far in Num 13–14.

210

Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19)

Finally, it is possible that the most basic material in 14:35 is limited to ‫אני ה׳‬ ‫דברתי‬. Since this expression often concludes divine speeches, this suggests that the rest of the material in the verse comes too late and is secondary. Moses’ intercession (Num 14:11-25). Now that Num 14:26-35 have been discussed, it is possible to return to 14:11-25, which show several indications of being a later insertion between 14:1-5* and 14:26-35*: (1) Despite Yhwh’s acquiescence to Moses’ request that Yhwh forgive the people (14:20), Yhwh’s judgment that the exodus generation will die in the wilderness remains unchanged (14:21-23; cf. 14:28-29). (2) Yhwh’s question in 14:11, “How long (‫ )עד אנה‬will this people despise me? And how long (‫ )עד אנה‬will they refuse to believe in me?” can be interpreted as a theological sharpening of Yhwh’s question in 14:27, “How long (‫ )עד מתי‬shall this wicked congregation complain against me?” (3) Whereas 14:26-35* simply report Yhwh’s decision to let the exodus generation die in the wilderness, Moses’ protest to Yhwh in 14:13-19 reflects upon the theological implications of such a decision.71 (4) Whereas in 14:28 the protasis of the oath formula is followed immediately by the apodosis, in 14:21-23 the apodosis is separated from the protasis by a considerable distance in order to accommodate the detailed subject in 14:22. (5) The secondary insertion of 14:11-23 also fits well with the evaluation of 14:30 as a later addition within 14:26-35*: Considering that this verse corresponds closely with 14:23-24, it reflects an effort to update 14:26-35* in light of 14:11-25. (6) Considering that 14:25 introduces a completely different topic at the end of Yhwh’s speech, there is reason to suspect that this verse is even later than 14:11-24. The punishment of the spies (Num 14:36-38). The report in Num 14:36-38 that all of the men whom Moses sent to scout out the land (except Joshua and Caleb) were killed in a divine plague is likely a later addition to the most basic narrative thread, as it interrupts the connection between 14:26-35* and 14:39. The people’s rebellion against Yhwh’s judgment (Num 14:40-45). In the received text of Num 14, the connection between 14:39 and 14:40 poses no narrative or grammatical difficulties. Nevertheless, there is reason to suspect that 14:40-45 do not belong to the most basic narrative thread, since the only other references to the Amalekites and Canaanites in Num 13–14 are found in 13:29 and 14:25, both of which belong to later stages in the formation of these chapters. There is a particularly close relationship between 14:25 and 14:40-45: In 14:25, Yhwh instructs the people to take a detour toward the Sea of Reeds (‫ )ים סוף‬the following day (‫ )מחר‬in order to avoid confronting the Amalekites and Canaanites, while in 14:40-45 the people arise the following day (‫ )וישכמו בבקר‬and go up into the hill country (‫)אל ראש ההר‬, whereupon they are defeated by precisely these groups.

























































71

Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 376.

4. The Story of the Spies (Num 13–14)

211


Interim result. The foregoing analysis has concluded that the most basic narrative thread in Num 13–14 consists of 13:1-3, 21*, 25-26a*, 32b; 14:15*, 26-29*, 31-35*, 39, while the remainder of the materials in these chapters constitute later additions to the narrative. 4.2. Macrocontextual analysis of Num 13–14 The basic narrative. There are several indications that the most basic version of the spy story in Num 13:1-3, 21*, 25-26a*, 32b; 14:1-5*, 26-29*, 31-35*, 39 reflects priestly provenance. For example, 13:2 uses the priestly term ‫מטה‬ for “tribe,” while 13:26; 14:1-5*, 26-29*, 31-35* involve the figure of Aaron and also presuppose the concept of the Israelites as a “congregation” (‫)עדה‬. There is a broad consensus that this narrative, as well as 14:6-10 and 14:3638, are priestly or post-priestly in nature.72 If this material is bracketed out, three major units of text remain: 13:17b-20, 22-24, 26b-31; 14:11-25; and 14:39-45. Based on the foregoing literary-critical analysis, the evaluation of the these materials as secondary to the basic narrative indicates, prima facie, that they belong to a post-priestly stage of composition. This conclusion receives further confirmation through a closer investigation of the subject matter and intertextual connections in each of these units. Num 13:17b-20, 22-24, 26b-31. Against the traditional view that some or all of the materials in Num 13:17b-20, 22-24, 26b-31 are fragments of a prepriestly spy story,73 the late provenance of much of this material is supported by comparison with texts outside of Num 13–14. For example, Num 13:29 is a Deuteronomistic-style notice with a close affinity to Josh 11:374 and thus cannot belong to a pre-Deuteronomistic stage of composition. Moreover, Num 13:17b, 22, 28bβ, and 30-31 all form links with materials pertaining to Caleb in Josh 15:13-19. The references to the Negev in 13:17b and 13:22 connect to Caleb’s request for the Negev in Josh 15:19, while the reference to Hebron and to the “offspring of Anak” in 13:22 is a blind motif and is de-

























































72

WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 101–2; NOTH, ÜP, 34 (ET 32); DE VAUX, “Settlement,” 109; BLUM, Studien, 133 n. 129; L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 74–75, 96–105, 111–12; IDEM, “Kundschaftererzählung,” 41–43; IDEM, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 39; LEVIN, Jahwist, 375–76; RABE, Vom Gerücht, 410–13; ARTUS, Études, 97, 105, 128–32, 146–51, 156; OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 30–31, 40, 48; ACHENBACH “Erzählung,” 105, 123; SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 84–96 (although he suggests that Num 14:8-9 belong to J); and BADEN, J, E, 114–17. 73 Cf. NOTH, Numeri, 93–94 (ET 104–6); BLUM, Studien, 178–81; ARTUS, Études, 156; OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 101–9; ACHENBACH, “Erzählung,” 61, 78; SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 96; L. SCHMIDT, “Kundschaftererzählung,” 41; VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 31; BADEN, J, E, 114–29; IDEM, Composition, 79–80; CARR, “Scribal Processes,” 80; IDEM, Formation, 265–66; and SCHART, “Spy Story,” 165 n. 3. 74 Similar lists also appear, with variations, in Exod 3:8, 17; 13:5; 23:23, 28; 33:2; 34:11; Deut 7:1; 20:17; Josh 3:10; 9:1; 12:8; 24:11; Judg 3:5.

212

Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19)

pendent on Josh 15:13-14. Although Josh 15:13-19 likely reflect the earliest Caleb tradition in the Hebrew Bible,75 these verses show signs of being relatively late. Outside of Josh 15:13, the use of the term ‫ בני יהודה‬in the books of Genesis through Kings to denote the Judahites occurs in late (and likely all post-priestly) contexts.76 It is also difficult to imagine how Josh 15:13-19 might have belonged to a version of the book of Joshua prior to the insertion of the geographical material in Josh 13–19.77 Num 14:11-25. Against the traditional assignment of Num 14:11-25 to a pre-priestly source,78 comparison of this unit with materials beyond Num 13– 14 supports the view that it is post-priestly in its entirety.79 (1) The concept of Yhwh’s “glory” (‫ )כבוד‬in 14:21-22 occurs elsewhere in the Pentateuch only in priestly or post-priestly texts.80 (2) The reference to Yhwh’s “signs” (‫)אתות‬ in 14:11, 22 connects to (post-)priestly texts in the book of Exodus.81 (3) Yhwh’s statement that he will make Moses into a “great nation” (‫ )גוי גדול‬is dependent on Exod 32:10, part of a post-priestly passage.82 (4) The reference to Yhwh’s presence in both a pillar of cloud and a pillar of fire (14:14) presupposes Exod 13:21-22, a (post-)priestly text.83 (5) The notion that the people “tested” Yhwh ten times (14:22b) presupposes an extensive series of narratives of complaint and rebellion in the books of Exodus and Numbers (cf. b. Arakhin 15a), which have thus far all been evaluated as priestly at the earliest. Although some commentators have noted these elements in 14:1125, their attempts to isolate a more basic pre-priestly compositional stratum within this unit pose more problems than they resolve. 84

























































75

Cf. WRIGHT, David, 185–86. Cf. Num 1:26; 2:3; 10:14; 26:19; Josh 14:6; 15:1, 20, 63; 18:11, 14; 19:1, 9; 21:9; and Judg 1:8, 16. 77 WRIGHT, David, 189 suggests that “the Caleb-Achsah-Othniel legend in [Josh] 15 has been either transposed or gradually isolated from its original setting as a consequence of successive supplements,” although this theory lacks concrete textual evidence to support it. 78 Cf. WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 102; NOTH, ÜP, 34 (ET 32); IDEM, Numeri, 96 (ET 108); COATS, Rebellion, 138–39; FRITZ, Israel, 23; LEVINE, Numbers 1–20, 364; SCHART, Mose, 15; AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 131; and BADEN, J, E, 117, 129. 79 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 376 and OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 41, 51. 80 Cf. Exod 16:7, 10 (Chapter 3, §5.2); 24:16; 29:43; 33:18, 22 (Chapter 5, §1.2); 40:3435; Lev 9:6, 23; Num 14:10b; 16:19; 17:7 (§5.2 below); 20:6 (Chapter 7, §1); and Deut 5:24 (Chapter 4, §3). On the concept of Yhwh’s ‫ כבוד‬as an indication of the post-priestly provenance of Num 14:11-25, see H.-C. SCHMITT, “Redaktion,” 183–84. 81 Cf. Exod 3:12; 4:8-9, 17, 28, 30; 7:3; 10:1-2 and their evaluation in Chapter 2, §1.3. The close connection of the term ‫ אות‬to priestly literature is further supported by the occurrences of this term in the book of Genesis (Gen 1:14; 4:15; 9:12-13, 17; 17:11). 82 Chapter 5, §1.2. 83 Chapter 3, §2.2. 84 E.g., L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 92–95; IDEM, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 36–37 seeks a direct connection between the people’s rejection of Yhwh in Num 14:11a and Yhwh’s oath in 76

4. The Story of the Spies (Num 13–14)

213


Num 14:39-45. Against the traditional assignment of Num 14:(39), 40-45 to an older, pre-priestly version of the spy story,85 these verses must be evaluated as part of a later expansion of the basic priestly narrative. As noted in the literary-critical analysis, Moses’ question to the people, “Why are you transgressing Yhwh’s command?” (‫ )למה זה אתם עברים את פי ה׳‬seems to have in view the command in 14:25b to set out for the wilderness in the direction of the Sea of Reeds (‫)ים סוף‬.86 Since the latter verse is part of a later addition within 14:11-25, a post-priestly unit, then 14:(39), 40-45 must also be postpriestly. 4.3. Synthesis I

The most basic narrative thread in Num 13–14 is found in 13:1-3, 21a, 25-26a*, 32b; 14:1-5*, 26-29*, 31-35*, 39. There is a broad consensus among scholars that this narrative is priestly in provenance.

II

This basic narrative thread was expanded in Num 13:17b-20, 22-24, 26bβ-29, 33; 14:5, 10b, 11-23, 36-38, which likely do not all stem from a single hand.

III

A further group of additions focuses on the exemption of Caleb (and in some texts also Joshua) from Yhwh’s decree that the exodus generation will die in the wilderness and not enter the promised land (Num 13:417a, 30-31; 14:6-10a, 24, 30, 36-38).87

IV

Yhwh’s command to turn toward the Sea of Reeds in Num 14:25 seems to be later than 14:24, which suggests that this verse as well as its counterpart in 14:40-45 are later than the materials in Level III.



























































































































14:21a* (only ‫)חי אני‬, 23a, 24, although Yhwh’s question of how long the people will “spurn” him in 14:11a does not make sense without the priestly material in 14:1-5, (6-10a). Likewise, Artus’s reconstruction of a non-priestly narrative thread in 14:11a, 23b-24, (25b?) (ARTUS, Études, 134–46) faces the problem that 14:23b cannot connect directly to 14:11a, since the 3fs pronominal suffix on ‫ יראוה‬in 14:23b lacks an antecedent without 14:23a. It is equally unclear how Achenbach’s isolation of a pre-priestly narrative thread in 14:21, 22a*, 23a, 25b (ACHENBACH, “Erzählung,” 110–16) and Carr’s “remnants” of an older spy story in 14:22-25 (CARR, Formation, 265) connect to other purportedly prepriestly material in Num 13–14. 85 NOTH, ÜP, 34 (ET 32); IDEM, Numeri, 98–99 (ET 111–12); FRITZ, Israel, 23; DE VAUX, “Settlement,” 109; BUDD, Numbers, 154; LEVINE, Numbers 1–20, 370–71; OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 51 (except 14:39 and 14:44b); BADEN, J, E, 117; and CARR, Formation, 265. 86 Another possibility is that ‫ למה זה אתם עברים את פי ה׳‬is dependent on Deut 1:43; on this, see §4.5. 87 It is likely that these additions do not all stem from a single hand, and it is possible that not all of them are later than the additions in Level II.

‫‪214‬‬

‫)‪Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪ 13:1‬וידבר ה׳ אל משה לאמר ‪ 2‬שלח לך אנשים ויתרו את ארץ כנען אשר אני נתן לבני ישראל איש‬ ‫אחד איש אחד למטה אבתיו תשלחו כל נשיא בהם ‪ 3‬וישלח אתם משה ממדבר פארן על פי ה׳ כלם‬ ‫אנשים ראשי בני ישראל המה‬ ‫‪ 4‬ואלה שמותם למטה ראובן שמוע בן זכור ‪ 5‬למטה שמעון שפט בן חורי ‪ 6‬למטה יהודה‬ ‫כלב בן יפנה ‪ 7‬למטה יששכר יגאל בן יוסף ‪ 8‬למטה אפרים הושע בן נון ‪ 9‬למטה בנימן פלטי‬ ‫בן רפוא ‪ 10‬למטה זבולן גדיאל בן סודי ‪ 11‬למטה יוסף למטה מנשה גדי בן סוסי ‪ 12‬למטה דן‬ ‫עמיאל בן גמלי ‪ 13‬למטה אשר סתור בן מיכאל ‪ 14‬למטה נפתלי נחבי בן ופסי ‪ 15‬למטה גד‬ ‫גאואל בן מכי ‪ 16‬אלה שמות האנשים אשר שלח משה לתור את הארץ ויקרא משה להושע‬ ‫בן נון יהושע ‪ 17‬וישלח אתם משה לתור את ארץ כנען‬ ‫ויאמר אלהם עלו זה בנגב ועליתם את ההר ‪ 18‬וראיתם את הארץ מה הוא ואת העם הישב עליה‬ ‫החזק הוא הרפה המעט הוא אם רב ‪ 19‬ומה הארץ אשר הוא ישב בה הטובה הוא אם רעה ומה‬ ‫הערים אשר הוא יושב בהנה הבמחנים אם במבצרים ‪ 20‬ומה הארץ השמנה הוא אם רזה היש בה‬ ‫עץ אם אין והתחזקתם ולקחתם מפרי הארץ ]והימים ימי בכורי ענבים[‬ ‫‪ 21‬ויעלו ויתרו את הארץ ]ממדבר צן עד רחב לבא חמת[‬ ‫‪ 22‬ויעלו בנגב ויבא עד חברון ושם אחימן ששי ותלמי ילידי הענק וחברון שבע שנים נבנתה לפני‬ ‫צען מצרים ‪ 23‬ויבאו עד נחל אשכל ויכרתו משם זמורה ואשכול ענבים אחד וישאהו במוט בשנים‬ ‫ומן הרמנים ומן התאנים ‪ 24‬למקום ההוא קרא נחל אשכול על אדות האשכול אשר כרתו משם‬ ‫בני ישראל‬ ‫‪ 25‬וישבו מתור הארץ מקץ ארבעים יום ‪ 26‬וילכו ויבאו אל משה ואל אהרן ואל כל עדת בני ישראל אל‬ ‫מדבר פארן ]קדשה[ וישיבו אתם דבר ]ואת כל העדה[‬ ‫ויראום את פרי הארץ ‪ 27‬ויספרו לו ויאמרו באנו אל הארץ אשר שלחתנו ]וגם זבת חלב ודבש‬ ‫הוא[ וזה פריה ‪ 28‬אפס כי עז העם הישב בארץ והערים בצרות גדלת מאד ]וגם ילדי הענק ראינו‬ ‫שם[ ‪] 29‬עמלק יושב בארץ הנגב והחתי והיבוסי והאמרי יושב בהר והכנעני יושב על הים ועל יד‬ ‫הירדן[‬ ‫‪ 30‬ויהס כלב את העם אל משה ויאמר עלה נעלה וירשנו אתה כי יכול נוכל לה‬ ‫אשר עלו עמו אמרו לא נוכל לעלות אל העם כי חזק הוא ממנו‬

‫‪31‬‬

‫והאנשים‬

‫‪ 32‬ויציאו דבת הארץ אשר תרו אתה אל בני ישראל‬ ‫לאמר הארץ אשר עברנו בה לתור אתה ארץ אכלת יושביה הוא וכל העם אשר ראינו בתוכה אנשי‬ ‫מדות‬ ‫‪ 33‬ושם ראינו את הנפילים בני ענק מן הנפלים ונהי בעינינו כחגבים וכן היינו בעיניהם‬ ‫‪ 14:1‬ותשא כל העדה ]ויתנו[ את קולם ]ויבכו העם בלילה ההוא[ ‪ 2‬וילנו על משה ועל אהרן ]כל בני‬ ‫ישראל[ ויאמרו אלהם ]כל העדה[ לו מתנו בארץ מצרים או במדבר הזה לו מתנו ‪ 3‬ולמה ה׳ מביא אתנו‬ ‫אל הארץ הזאת לנפל בחרב נשינו וטפנו יהיו לבז הלוא טוב לנו שוב מצרימה ‪ 4‬ויאמרו איש אל אחיו‬ ‫נתנה ראש ונשובה מצרימה‬ ‫‪ 5‬ויפל משה ואהרן על פניהם לפני כל קהל עדת בני ישראל‬ ‫‪ 6‬ויהושע בן נון וכלב בן יפנה ]מן התרים את הארץ[ קרעו בגדיהם ‪ 7‬ויאמרו אל כל עדת בני‬ ‫ישראל לאמר הארץ אשר עברנו בה לתור אתה טובה הארץ מאד מאד ‪ 8‬אם חפץ בנו ה׳‬ ‫והביא אתנו אל הארץ הזאת ונתנה לנו ]ארץ אשר הוא זבת חלב ודבש[ ‪ 9‬אך בה׳ אל‬ ‫תמרדו ואתם אל תיראו את עם הארץ כי לחמנו הם סר צלם מעליהם וה׳ אתנו אל תיראם‬ ‫‪ 10‬ויאמרו כל העדה לרגום אתם באבנים‬

‫‪215‬‬

‫)‪4. The Story of the Spies (Num 13–14‬‬

‫
‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬

‫וכבוד ה׳ נראה באהל מועד אל כל בני ישראל ויאמר ה׳ אל משה עד אנה ינאצני העם הזה ועד‬ ‫אנה לא יאמינו בי בכל האתות אשר עשיתי בקרבו ‪ 12‬אכנו בדבר ואורשנו ואעשה אתך לגוי גדול‬ ‫ועצום ממנו ‪ 13‬ויאמר משה אל ה׳ ושמעו מצרים כי העלית בכחך את העם הזה מקרבו ‪ 14‬ואמרו‬ ‫אל יושב הארץ הזאת שמעו כי אתה ה׳ בקרב העם הזה אשר עין בעין נראה אתה ה׳ ועננך עמד‬ ‫עלהם ובעמד ענן אתה הלך לפניהם יומם ובעמוד אש לילה ‪ 15‬והמתה את העם הזה כאיש אחד‬ ‫ואמרו הגוים אשר שמעו את שמעך לאמר ‪ 16‬מבלתי יכלת ה׳ להביא את העם הזה אל הארץ‬ ‫אשר נשבע להם וישחטם במדבר ‪ 17‬ועתה יגדל נא כח אדני כאשר דברת לאמר ‪ 18‬ה׳ ארך אפים‬ ‫ורב חסד נשא עון ופשע ונקה לא ינקה פקד עון אבות על בנים על שלשים ועל רבעים ‪ 19‬סלח נא‬ ‫לעון העם הזה כגדל חסדך וכאשר נשאתה לעם הזה ממצרים ועד הנה ‪ 20‬ויאמר ה׳ סלחתי‬ ‫כדברך ‪ 21‬ואולם חי אני וימלא כבוד ה׳ את כל הארץ ‪ 22‬כי כל האנשים הראים את כבדי ואת‬ ‫אתתי אשר עשיתי במצרים ובמדבר וינסו אתי זה עשר פעמים ולא שמעו בקולי ‪ 23‬אם יראו את‬ ‫הארץ אשר נשבעתי לאבתם וכל מנאצי לא יראוה‬ ‫‪ 24‬ועבדי כלב עקב היתה רוח אחרת עמו וימלא אחרי והביאתיו אל הארץ אשר בא שמה‬ ‫וזרעו יורשנה‬ ‫‪ 25‬והעמלקי והכנעני יושב בעמק מחר פנו וסעו לכם המדבר דרך ים סוף‬ ‫‪ 26‬וידבר ה׳ אל משה ואל אהרן לאמר ‪ 27‬עד מתי לעדה הרעה הזאת אשר המה מלינים עלי את תלנות‬ ‫בני ישראל אשר המה מלינים עלי שמעתי ‪ 28‬אמר אלהם חי אני נאם ה׳ אם לא כאשר דברתם באזני כן‬ ‫אעשה לכם ‪ 29‬במדבר הזה יפלו פגריכם וכל פקדיכם לכל מספרכם מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה אשר‬ ‫הלינתם עלי‬ ‫‪ 30‬אם אתם תבאו אל הארץ אשר נשאתי את ידי לשכן אתכם בה כי אם כלב בן יפנה‬ ‫ויהושע בן נון‬ ‫]‪ 31‬וטפכם אשר אמרתם לבז יהיה והביאתי אתם וידעו את הארץ אשר מאסתם בה ‪ 32‬ופגריכם אתם‬ ‫יפלו במדבר הזה[ ‪ 33‬ובניכם יהיו רעים במדבר ארבעים שנה ונשאו את זנותיכם עד תם פגריכם במדבר‬ ‫‪ 34‬במספר הימים אשר תרתם את הארץ ארבעים יום יום לשנה יום לשנה תשאו את עונתיכם ארבעים‬ ‫שנה וידעתם את תנואתי ‪ 35‬אני ה׳ דברתי ]אם לא זאת אעשה לכל העדה הרעה הזאת הנועדים עלי‬ ‫במדבר הזה יתמו ושם ימתו[‬ ‫‪ 36‬והאנשים אשר שלח משה לתור את הארץ וישבו וילונו עליו את כל העדה להוציא דבה על‬ ‫הארץ ‪ 37‬וימתו האנשים מוצאי דבת הארץ רעה במגפה לפני ה׳ ‪ 38‬ויהושע בן נון וכלב בן יפנה חיו‬ ‫מן האנשים ההם ההלכים לתור את הארץ‬ ‫‪ 39‬וידבר משה את הדברים האלה אל כל בני ישראל ויתאבלו העם מאד‬ ‫‪ 40‬וישכמו בבקר ויעלו אל ראש ההר לאמר הננו ועלינו אל המקום אשר אמר ה׳ כי‬ ‫חטאנו ‪ 41‬ויאמר משה למה זה אתם עברים את פי ה׳ והוא לא תצלח ‪ 42‬אל תעלו כי‬ ‫אין ה׳ בקרבכם ולא תנגפו לפני איביכם ‪ 43‬כי העמלקי והכנעני שם לפניכם ונפלתם‬ ‫בחרב כי על כן שבתם מאחרי ה׳ ולא יהיה ה׳ עמכם ‪ 44‬ויעפלו לעלות אל ראש ההר‬ ‫וארון ברית ה׳ ומשה לא משו מקרב המחנה ‪ 45‬וירד העמלקי והכנעני הישב בהר‬ ‫ההוא ויכום ויכתום עד החרמה‬

216

Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19)

4.4. Literary-critical analysis of Deut 1:19-46 Whereas most of Deut 1:19 narrates events in the first-person plural, the 2mp relative clause ‫ אשר ראיתם‬is somewhat surprising, suggesting that both it and its antecedent ‫ את כל המדבר הגדול והנורא‬are secondary within 1:19a.88 There is also good reason to suspect that 1:19b (‫ )ונבא עד קדש ברנע‬and 1:20b do not belong to the same compositional level, since in 1:20b Moses tells the people that they have arrived in the hill country of the Amorites, not at Kadeshbarnea.89 The secondary nature of Deut 1:21 is suggested by the fact that this verse uses 2ms verbs and pronominal suffixes, while most of Deut 1–3 uses 2mp forms,90 and it interrupts the connection between 1:20 and 1:22.91 Deut 1:22bβ is also likely a later addition, since the use of an accusative clause does not fit well with ‫ וישבו אתנו דבר‬in 1:22bα and since the verb ‫ וישבו‬already has a direct object in ‫דבר‬.92 Finally, the absence of ‫ וישבו אתנו דבר‬in 1:25bα* in certain 𝔊 manuscripts as well as in 𝔙 suggests that this clause may not belong to the most basic narrative material.93 There are indications that Deut 1:28-33* are secondary to the most basic narrative of 1:19-46.94 In contrast to the strictly positive report about the land in 1:25, in 1:28 the people accuse their “brothers” of inspiring fear in them by reporting that the inhabitants of the land are numerous and imposing as well as that the cities of the land are large and strongly fortified.95 Deut 1:28-33* were further supplemented in 1:31a, as is suggested by the use of 2ms gram-

























































88

Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 34 and SCHART, “Spy Story,” 171. Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 34 and OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 54; IDEM, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 137. On the relative chronology of Deut 1:19b and 1:20b, see Chapter 7, §4. 90 Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 34; NELSON, Deuteronomy, 26; VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 33; and SCHART, “Spy Story,” 171. 91 Cf. PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 95. 92 Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 35; KRATZ, “Der literarische Ort,” 105; and VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 33. SCHART, “Spy Story,” 169, 172 argues that ‫וישבו‬ ‫ אתנו דבר‬is secondary in both Deut 1:22bα and 1:22bβ. 93 Cf. SCHART, “Spy Story,” 168. 94 Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 36; KRATZ, “Der literarische Ort,” 105; OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 68; IDEM, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 140–41; NELSON, Deuteronomy, 26; PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 105–14; and SCHART, “Spy Story,” 174–75. 95 OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 141 and ACHENBACH, “Erzählung,” 88 attribute Deut 1:28a to the most basic narrative, although this seems unlikely, since the motifs in 1:28a presuppose the addition in 1:22bβ. 89

4. The Story of the Spies (Num 13–14)

217




matical forms,96 and in 1:33, which provides information about the pillar of fire and cloud that is superfluous in its present context.97 Within Deut 1:34-39, Moses’ statement to the people in 1:34 that Yhwh “heard the sound of your words” connects directly to Moses’ reminder of the people’s complaint against Yhwh in 1:27 and thereby continues the most basic narrative thread. The phrase ‫ הדור הרע הזה‬in 1:35aβ is a later addition, as is indicated by its absence in several 𝔊 manuscripts.98 Manuscript evidence suggests that the verb ‫ לתת‬in 1:35bβ may also be secondary.99 Likewise, 1:36-38 and 1:39aα1 (‫ )וטפכם אשר אמרתם לבז יהיה‬prove to be secondary,100 since they interrupt the connection between the exodus generation’s being prevented from seeing the land (1:35*) and their children’s being permitted to enter the land (1:39*) with references to the exemption of Caleb and Joshua from the divine judgment (1:36, 38) and the inclusion of Moses in the punishment (1:37). The original connection between 1:35* (without ‫הדור הרע‬ ‫ )הזה‬and 1:39* (without ‫ )וטפכם אשר אמרתם לבז יהיה‬is supported by the fact that the antecedent of ‫ שמה‬in 1:39 is found only in 1:35 (‫)הארץ הטובה‬. Finally, within Deut 1:40-46, 1:40 and 1:46 show signs of being secondary: 1:40 “is without narrative function within Deut 1,”101 and in 1:46, the sojourn for “many days” in Kadesh seems superfluous in light of the sojourn for “many days” in the hill country of Seir in the following verse (2:1) and may also be secondary.102 In sum, the most basic narrative thread in Deut 1:19-46 can be identified in 1:19a*(b?), 20a(b?), 22abα, 23-27, 34, 35*, 39*, 40-45 (Level I), with the remainder of the text comprising later additions (Level II).103

























































96

Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 36–37; NELSON, Deuteronomy, 26; VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 33; PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 109; and SCHART, “Spy Story,” 171. 97 Cf. VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 33 and SCHART, “Spy Story,” 176. 98 Cf. PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 85 and SCHART, “Spy Story,” 169. In contrast, OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 118 regards 𝔐 as the more original reading. 99 Cf. OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 119 and SCHART, “Spy Story,” 169. 100 See already STEINTHAL, “Die erzählenden Stücke,” 285; cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 37; KRATZ, “Der literarische Ort,” 105; ACHENBACH, “Erzählung,” 75; VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 33; OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 113, 150; PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 116–21; and SCHART, “Spy Story,” 169, 176. 101 Cf. SCHART, “Spy Story,” 175. 102 Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 39–40; KRATZ, “Der literarische Ort,” 105; OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 54; IDEM, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 113; and SCHART, “Spy Story,” 177. 103 BADEN, J, E, 105 recognizes that “there are different authors at work” in Deut 1–3 but remains content to identify these chapters as the work of D.

‫)‪Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪218‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪1:19‬‬

‫ונסע מחרב ונלך ]את כל המדבר הגדול והנורא ההוא אשר ראיתם[ דרך הר האמרי כאשר צוה ה׳‬ ‫אלהינו אתנו ונבא עד קדש ברנע ‪ 20‬ואמר אלכם באתם עד הר האמרי אשר ה׳ אלהינו נתן לנו‬ ‫‪ 21‬ראה נתן ה׳ אלהיך לפניך את הארץ עלה רש כאשר דבר ה׳ אלהי אבתיך לך אל תירא ואל‬ ‫תחת‬ ‫‪ 22‬ותקרבון אלי כלכם ותאמרו נשלחה אנשים לפנינו ויחפרו לנו את הארץ וישבו אתנו דבר ]את הדרך‬ ‫אשר נעלה בה ואת הערים אשר נבא אליהן[ ‪ 23‬וייטב בעיני הדבר ואקח מכם שנים עשר אנשים איש‬ ‫אחד לשבט ‪ 24‬ויפנו ויעלו ההרה ויבאו עד נחל אשכל וירגלו אתה ‪ 25‬ויקחו בידם מפרי הארץ ויורדו‬ ‫אלינו ]וישבו אתנו דבר[ ויאמרו טובה הארץ אשר ה׳ אלהינו נתן לנו ‪ 26‬ולא אביתם לעלת ותמרו את פי‬ ‫ה׳ אלהיכם ‪ 27‬ותרגנו באהליכם ותאמרו בשנאת ה׳ אתנו הוציאנו מארץ מצרים לתת אתנו ביד האמרי‬ ‫להשמידנו‬ ‫‪ 28‬אנה אנחנו עלים אחינו המסו את לבבנו לאמר עם גדול ורם ממנו ערים גדלת ובצורת בשמים‬ ‫וגם בני ענקים ראינו שם ‪ 29‬ואמר אלכם לא תערצון ולא תיראון מהם ‪ 30‬ה׳ אלהיכם ההלך לפניכם‬ ‫הוא ילחם לכם ככל אשר עשה אתכם במצרים לעיניכם ‪] 31‬ובמדבר אשר ראית אשר נשאך ה׳‬ ‫אלהיך כאשר ישא איש את בנו בכל הדרך אשר הלכתם עד באכם עד המקום הזה[ ‪ 32‬ובדבר‬ ‫הזה אינכם מאמינם בה׳ אלהיכם ‪] 33‬ההלך לפניכם בדרך לתור לכם מקום לחנתכם באש לילה‬ ‫לראתכם בדרך אשר תלכו בה ובענן יומם[‬ ‫‪ 34‬וישמע ה׳ את קול דבריכם ויקצף וישבע לאמר‬ ‫את הארץ הטובה אשר נשבעתי ]לתת[ לאבתיכם‬

‫‪35‬‬

‫אם יראה איש באנשים האלה ]הדור הרע הזה[‬

‫‪ 36‬זולתי כלב בן יפנה הוא יראנה ולו אתן את הארץ אשר דרך בה ולבניו יען אשר מלא אחרי ה׳‬ ‫‪ 37‬גם בי התאנף ה׳ בגללכם לאמר גם אתה לא תבא שם ‪ 38‬יהושע בן נון העמד לפניך הוא יבא‬ ‫שמה אתו חזק כי הוא ינחלנה את ישראל ‪ 39‬וטפכם אשר אמרתם לבז יהיה‬ ‫ובניכם אשר לא ידעו היום טוב ורע המה יבאו שמה ולהם אתננה והם יירשוה‬ ‫‪ 40‬ואתם פנו לכם וסעו המדברה דרך ים סוף‬ ‫‪ 41‬ותענו ותאמרו אלי חטאנו לה׳ אנחנו נעלה ונלחמנו ככל אשר צונו ה׳ אלהינו ותחגרו איש את כלי‬ ‫מלחמתו ותהינו לעלת ההרה ‪ 42‬ויאמר ה׳ אלי אמר להם לא תעלו ולא תלחמו כי אינני בקרבכם ולא‬ ‫תנגפו לפני איביכם ‪ 43‬ואדבר אליכם ולא שמעתם ותמרו את פי ה׳ ותזדו ותעלו ההרה ‪ 44‬ויצא האמרי‬ ‫הישב בהר ההוא לקראתכם וירדפו אתכם כאשר תעשינה הדברים ויכתו אתכם בשעיר עד חרמה‬ ‫‪ 45‬ותשבו ותבכו לפני ה׳ ולא שמע ה׳ בקלכם ולא האזין אליכם‬ ‫‪ 46‬ותשבו בקדש ימים רבים כימים אשר ישבתם‬

‫‪4.5. Comparison of Num 13–14 and Deut 1:19–46‬‬ ‫‪Comparison of the received text of Num 13–14 and Deut 1:19-46 reveals that‬‬ ‫)‪both narratives overlap in four main scenes: (1) the sending of the spies, (2‬‬ ‫‪the spies’ report and the people’s reaction, (3) Yhwh’s judgment of the peo‬‬‫‪ple, and (4) the people’s rebellion against Yhwh’s judgment. Most scholars‬‬ ‫‪agree that the correspondences between Num 13–14 and Deut 1:19-46 gener‬‬‫‪ally point to the dependence of Deut 1:19-46 on Num 13–14 (or a hypothet‬‬‫‪ical source that underlies Num 13–14). Nevertheless, a single direction of‬‬

4. The Story of the Spies (Num 13–14)

219




dependence cannot be taken for granted,104 particularly since both Num 13– 14 and Deut 1:19-46 reflect multiple stages of compositional growth. Thus, the direction of dependence for each of the four scenes outlined here must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The sending of the spies. Many commentators have argued that the basic narrative thread in Deut 1:19-46 had a non-priestly source as its Vorlage based on the fact that in Deut 1:22, it is the people who approach Moses and propose to send men to explore (‫ )חפר‬the land, while in Num 13:1-2, it is Yhwh who instructs Moses to send men to scout out (‫ )תור‬the land.105 It is equally conceivable, however, that the people’s proposal to send out spies and Moses’ acquiescence to their proposal in Deut 1:22 is a direct revision of the priestly narrative, serving to recast the people’s failure to occupy the land as the product of human rather than divine initiative.106 The theory of a common pre-priestly and pre-Deuteronomistic source for Num 13–14 and Deut 1:19-46 also fails to explain the fact that the most basic version in Deuteronomy narrates Moses’ sending of one man from each tribe to spy out the land (Deut 1:23 // Num 13:2). Many commentators seem to assume that Deut 1:23 is not dependent on Num 13:2, since Deut 1:23 uses the term ‫ שבט‬for “tribe” while Num 13:2 uses the priestly term ‫מטה‬. The term ‫שבט‬, however, is hardly limited to pre-priestly texts and in fact occurs in many priestly and post-priestly texts within the books of Exodus through Joshua.107 An additional argument against the derivation of Deut 1:23 from a hypothetical pre-priestly narrative is the fact that the explicit reference to the twelve tribes of Israel using the cardinal number ‫ שנים עשר‬occurs elsewhere in the Hexateuch exclusively in (post-)priestly contexts.108 It is difficult to avoid the conclusion, then, that Deut 1:23 – which cannot be removed from

























































104

Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 55–64; OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 63; and CARR, “Scribal Processes,” 79–80. 105 E.g., ACHENBACH “Erzählung,” 65 writes, “Im Paralleltext in Num 13,1-20 geht die Initiative zur Entsendung von Kundschaftern von Jahwe selbst aus, der Text ersetzt also die ältere Version der Kundschaftererzählung, wie sie in Dtn 1,22* noch erhalten ist.” Yet Achenbach must concede that this older version has not been preserved: “wir haben an dieser Stelle das Fragment einer Quelle, allerdings nur in einer dtr Fassung” (ibid., emphasis original). 106 Cf. EHRLICH, Randglossen, Bd. 2, 248; WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1–11, 144; and NELSON, Deuteronomy, 27; see also SCHART, “Spy Story,” 181, who remarks that “Deut 1 wants to enlarge the guilt of the people” but concludes that this reflects a divergence from “the typical element of the text genre ‘Kundschaftergeschichte’, in which the leader of the campaign sends the spies.” 107 Exod 28:21; 39:14; Lev 27:32; Num 4:18; 18:2; 32:33; Deut 3:13; 10:8; 18:1; 29:7; Josh 1:12; 3:12; 4:2, 4, 12; 12:6; 13:7, 14, 29, 33; 18:4, 7; 22:7, 9-11, 13, 15, 21. 108 Exod 24:4; 28:21; 39:14; Num 1:44; 17:17, 21; Josh 3:12; 4:2.

220

Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19)

the basic thread of the narrative – is directly dependent on its priestly parallel in Num 13:2.109 The spies’ report and the people’s reaction. The spies’ report in Deut 1:25 differs from that in Num 13:(27-29), 32, (33) insofar as the firsthand report of the spies in Deut 1:25 is exclusively positive, while in Num 13:(27-29), 32, (33) it is primarily negative and receives a positive aspect only in later additions (Num 13:27b). This difference can be explained in one of two ways: Either the shift from a negative report to a positive report is an original contribution of the author of Deut 1:25, or the author of Deut 1:25 was dependent on Num 14:6-10, in which Joshua and Caleb insist that the land is “very, very good” – a scene that is widely ascribed to (post-)priestly authorship.110 In either case, the author of Deut 1:25 would not have drawn on a pre-priestly narrative source. Rhetorically, the exclusively positive report of the spies in Deut 1:25 serves to accentuate the culpability of the entire people in failing to enter the land. In contrast to Num 13:27-32, which leave the possibility open for placing responsibility primarily on the spies and not on the people as a whole, Deut 1:25 excludes this possibility, thereby heightening the rebelliousness of the people in 1:26. Thus, the divergence of Deut 1:25 from its Vorlage in Num 13 has the same rhetorical function as that in Deut 1:22. The people’s complaint in Deut 1:27 (“it is out of Yhwh’s hate for us that he brought us out of the land of Egypt”) forms a clear intertextual connection with the people’s question in Num 14:3 (“Why has Yhwh brought us into this land to fall by the sword?”). The dependence of Deut 1:27 on Num 14:3 – a priestly text – is strongly suggested by the fact that ‫לתת אתנו ביד האמרי‬ ‫ להשמידנו‬in Deut 1:27 is a blind motif: The preceding narrative in Deut 1:1926 leaves the reader completely unprepared for the notion in 1:27 that the people face the threat of destruction at the hands of the Amorites. After all, the spies had just delivered a positive report about the land without any reference to the danger posed by its inhabitants. In contrast, the reference to the people falling by the sword in Num 14:3 fits well with the negative report about the land found in the priestly narrative in Num 13:32, (33). Yhwh’s judgment of the people. In Num 13–14, Yhwh’s judgment of the people is reported three times, once in 14:28-29, 31, (32-34), a (post-)priestly text that connects to the people’s complaint in 14:1-4; once in 14:21-23 fol-

























































109

SCHART, “Spy Story,” 176 is well aware of this problem: “The number of the spies has long been a puzzling detail for those who maintained that Dtn 1 only knew a JE version of Num 13–14 because the number of twelve is crucial for the P source but not for JE.” Nevertheless, his solution strikes one as special pleading: “It may be that the editor replaced a word or two” (ibid.). 110 Cf. BLUM, Studien, 133 n. 129; L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 88; ARTUS, Études, 132; OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 52; ACHENBACH, “Erzählung,” 123 n. 313; and BADEN, J, E, 116. In contrast, SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 94 assigns Num 14:8-9 to J.

4. The Story of the Spies (Num 13–14)

221


lowing the (post-priestly) intercession scene in 14:10b-20; and again in 14:30 as an appendix to 14:28-29. Of these three judgment reports, 14:28-29, 31, (32-34) has literary priority over 14:21-23 and 14:30 (see §4.1). At the same time, there is an intertextual connection between the two later judgment reports in Num 14 (Num 14:23; 14:30) and Deut 1:35*: Num 14:23

‫אם יראו את הארץ אשר נשבעתי לאבתם‬

Num 14:30

‫אם אתם תבאו אל הארץ אשר נשאתי את ידי לשכן אתכם בה‬

Deut 1:35*

‫אם יראה איש באנשים האלה…את הארץ הטובה אשר נשבעתי לתת לאבתיכם‬

Several observations suggest that Num 14:23 and 14:30 are both dependent on Deut 1:35*. First, the spy story in Deut 1:19-46 lacks an intercession scene, raising the possibility that Num 14:10b-20 – and thus also Num 14:21-23, which depend on 14:10b-20 – did not yet belong to the text that lay before the author who composed the basic narrative in Deut 1:19-46.111 If this is the case, then Deut 1:35 cannot depend on Num 14:23. Likewise, it is unlikely that Deut 1:35* was derived from Num 14:30, since these two verses use different terms for Yhwh’s oath-promise and since Num 14:30b mentions both Caleb and Joshua (although this half verse may be later than 14:30a). If Deut 1:35* is not dependent on either Num 14:23 or 14:30, then the most likely scenario based upon the extant textual evidence is that the oath formula in Deut 1:35* is a reworking of the oath formula found in the priestly narrative thread in Num 14:28-29, 31.112 The people’s rebellion against Yhwh’s judgment. The final scene in both Num 13–14 and Deut 1:19-46 is a report of the people’s rebellion against Yhwh’s decision that the exodus generation will not enter the land (Num 14:40-45; Deut 1:41-45).113 In both accounts, the people confess that they have sinned and propose to “go up” to the land, yet the two versions also differ in several important respects. In Deut 1:41-42, the act of “going up” is portrayed as a military operation, while in Num 14:40-42 it does not have explicit military associations. Whereas in Num 14:41 Moses’ reference to the people’s transgressing the decree of Yhwh could refer only to one of the divine judgments in 14:21-23; 14:28-29, 31; or 14:30, the reference to the

























































111

Cf. AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 134–35. The only alternative to the model proposed here is through recourse to a hypothetical narrative source for which there is no direct textual evidence; for this approach, see OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 62–63; IDEM, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 141–42 and, similarly, ACHENBACH, “Erzählung,” 123. 113 These units contain the densest concentration of verbatim parallels between the two versions of the spy story, and most commentators regard Num 14:40-45* as belonging to a pre-priestly narrative upon which Deut 1:41-45 drew; cf. NOTH, ÜP, 34 (ET 32); FRITZ, Israel, 23; SCHART, Mose, 88–93; L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 132; ARTUS, Études, 156; and BADEN, J, E, 117. 112

222

Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19)

decree of Yhwh in Deut 1:43 refers not to the divine judgment in Deut 1:35*, 39* but rather to the divine warning to the people not to go up in Deut 1:42. Finally, the clause ‫ כי אין ה׳ בקרבכם ולא תנגפו לפני איביכם‬in Num 14:42 does not fit very well within Num 14:40-45 as a whole, since the concept of Yhwh being in the midst of the people and the reference to the people’s enemies suggest a military operation. In contrast, the parallel statement in Deut 1:42, presented as divine speech (‫לא תעלו ולא תלחמו כי אינני בקרבכם ולא תנגפו לפני‬ ‫)איביכם‬, is a fitting response to the people’s plan to go to battle in 1:41. In light of these observations, two scenarios for the literary relationship between Num 14:40-45 and Deut 1:41-45 seem possible. In the first scenario, Deut 1:41-45 could be regarded as a reworking of an earlier version of Num 14:40-45 that consisted only of 14:40a*, 41* (only “and Moses said”), 42* (only “do not go up”), 43b-44a, 45 and that thematized the concept of Yhwh being “with” (‫ )עם‬the people. Such a reworking in Deut 1:41-45 would have portrayed the people’s intention to “go up” as a military operation (Deut 1:41), creating a divine warning to the people (Deut 1:42), and would have changed the reference to Amalekites and Canaanites into a reference to Amorites (Deut 1:44). In a later stage of composition, Moses’ instruction to the people not to go up in Num 14:42* would have been coordinated with the divine warning in Deut 1:42 by inserting ‫ למה זה אתם עברים את פי ה׳‬in Num 14:41 and ‫ כי אין ה׳ בקרבכם ולא תנגפו לפני איביכם‬in Num 14:42.114 This would have also prompted the insertion of Num 14:43a, which connected the term ‫ איביכם‬to the Amalekites and Canaanites. In the second scenario, Num 14:4045 as a whole could be regarded as secondary to Deut 1:41-45. This seems unlikely, however, as it cannot account for the doublets within Num 14:40-45 (both Moses and Yhwh address the people, and two different prepositions – ‫ עם‬and ‫ – בקרב‬are used to describe Yhwh’s presence with the people). If one adopts the first scenario, then Num 14:40-45* (without 14:44b) cannot be assigned as a whole to a pre-Deuteronomistic source.115 Rather, this unit shows signs of coordination with the account of the people’s rebellion in Deut 1:41-45. Based on the documented evidence of verbatim textual coordination between Num 13–14 and Deut 1:19-46 in ⅏ and 4QNumb,116 it is reasonable to assume that a process of coordination – and not dependence on a shared Vorlage – also produced the verbatim correspondences between Num 14:40-45 and Deut 1:41-45 within 𝔐 itself.117 Significantly, even the pre-

























































114

Cf. L. SCHMIDT, “Kundschaftererzählung,” 43 n. 11 and SCHART, “Spy Story,” 183. On the disunity of Num 14:40-45, see MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 52–53; L. SCHMIDT, “Kundschaftererzählung,” 43; and SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 125–26. 116 On this, see CARR, “Scribal Processes,” 66. 117 This also helps to explain why the syntax of Num 14:41-42 is oversaturated, containing three consecutive motive clauses. If Num 14:40-45 were a unified composition based on an earlier Vorlage, one would expect to find a text without such syntactic problems. 115

4. The Story of the Spies (Num 13–14)

223


Deuteronomistic materials in this unit (i.e., Num 14:40a*, 41*, 42*, 43b-44a, 45) cannot stand without the preceding priestly narrative: 14:40 depends on 14:39, which in turn connects to the priestly divine judgment report in 14:2635*. 4.6. Result The foregoing analysis of Num 13–14 and Deut 1:19-46 indicates that neither of these texts preserves traces of a pre-priestly spy story. Rather, Num 13–14 consist of a priestly base narrative that received later, post-priestly additions (some of which are coordinations with Deut 1:19-46*), while the most basic material in Deut 1:19-46 shows dependence on the priestly narrative in Num 13–14. The divergences from the priestly version of the story can be explained by the rhetorical aims of the authors of Deut 1:19-46 and do not require positing the existence of a pre-priestly narrative.118 The fact that this thesis has not received wider reception is somewhat surprising, since commentators have long noted that the textual evidence itself fits uneasily with the classical Documentary Hypothesis,119 and recent nondocumentary attempts to uphold the notion that Num 13–14 preserves traces of a pre-priestly narrative are no less problematic.120 In fact, the theory of a pre-priestly spy story in Num 13–14 is simply a byproduct of the J–E–D–P theory: since the story of the spies appears in D, the Vorlage of the D narrative is assumed to be pre-P.121 If this theory is abandoned, however, the con-

























































118

This interpretive reworking of the priestly spy story in Num 13–14 has often been overlooked due to the tendency to use Deut 1:19-46 as the primary benchmark for identifying a pre-priestly narrative thread in Num 13–14; see esp. OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 17–25; ACHENBACH, “Erzählung,” 61–77; and SCHART, “Spy Story,” 181–85. 119 As NOTH, ÜP, 15 remarked already in 1948, “In der Kundschaftergeschichte Num. 13. 14 erscheint die P-Erzählung…so einseitig bevorzugt, daß nur noch Fragmente der aus den alten Quellen stammenden Erzählung in ihrem Rahmen enthalten sind…; sie dienen…nur der Ausgestaltung der zugrunde gelegten P-Erzählung.” See more recently MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 55 and SCHART, “Spy Story,” 181. 120 E.g., the suggestion made by OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 73 and further developed by ACHENBACH, “Erzählung,” 123 that fragments of a pre-Deuteronomistic spy story were first introduced into Num 13–14 by a Hexateuch redactor requires hypothesizing the existence of a pre-priestly narrative that is known to us only through the work of a post-priestly redactor. Likewise, Carr’s suggestion that “Num 14:22-25 may contain the remnants of a pre-D conclusion to the pre-D spy story reflected in Deut 1” (CARR, “Scribal Processes,” 80; cf. IDEM, Formation, 265) overlooks the (post-)priestly elements found in Num 14:22-25. 121 This assumption is expressed, e.g., by SCHART, “Spy Story,” 180, who writes that “comparison to Deut 1” shows “that the P version is younger than the J version.”

224

Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19)

clusion that the non-priestly elements in Num 13–14 postdate the priestly narrative is a far simpler solution.122 Beyond the evidence brought to bear by the literary-critical analysis of Num 13–14 indicating that a pre-priestly spy story is not recoverable, the hypothesis of a pre-priestly and pre-Deuteronomistic spy story fails to address an even more fundamental question, namely, the function of the spy story in a pre-Deuteronomistic and pre-priestly literary work.123 Significantly, the rhetorical climax of the spy story in Num 13–14 – the divine decree that the exodus generation will not enter the promised land – is closely linked with the concept of the Israelites’ extended sojourn in the wilderness. As will be discussed in Chapter 7, the subsequent development of this concept in the book of Numbers (as well as in Deuteronomy) also belongs to a (post-) priestly stage of composition.

5. Dathan, Abiram, the 250 Men, and Korah (Num 16–17) 5.1. Literary-critical analysis Critical scholarship has long been in agreement that Num 16–17 are not a compositional unity. Unlike many prior studies, which attempt to tease apart several different narrative threads in these chapters from the outset, the present analysis will begin by focusing on signs of literary growth within individual narrative units and will take up the question of larger narrative threads only as the development of the smaller units becomes clearer. The rebels confront Moses (Num 16:1-2). The exposition of the narrative in Num 16:1-2 contains a significant syntactic break between 16:2aα and 16:2aβb caused by the conjunction waw, suggesting either that 16:2aβb is a later addition or that the waw is not original to 16:2. Moreover, 16:2aβb is itself rather overloaded, suggesting that either ‫ אנשים מבני ישראל‬or ‫חמשים‬ ‫ ומאתים נשיאי עדה‬may be secondary, although it is not possible to determine which phrase is more original on the basis of 16:2aβb alone. Korah and the 250 men challenge Moses and Aaron (Num 16:3-11). Given the literary-critical break in Num 16:1-2, it is not immediately clear whether

























































122

Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 376: “Die vermeintliche Parallelquelle, gewöhnlich dem Jahwisten zugeschrieben, ist in den priesterlichen Bestand so glatt eingebettet, daß sie am ehesten aus ihm hervorging.” 123 WRIGHT, David, 194–95 has recently suggested that Judean authors who inherited a northern Israelite “exodus-conquest saga” accounted for the invasion of the land from the east in that narrative (rather than from the south) by reinterpreting the eastern invasion “as a consequence of Israel’s sin.” However, even the texts that Wright points to as the earliest rationalization of the invasion from the east – Exod 13:17-18 and Num 14:25 (ibid., 196) – cannot be securely attributed to a pre-priestly narrative.

5. Dathan, Abiram, the 250 Men, and Korah (Num 16–17)

225


the verb ‫ ויקהלו‬in 16:3 originally referred to Korah, Dathan, and Abiram in 16:1 or to the “princes of the congregation” in 16:2. Nevertheless, the reference to the “congregation” later in 16:3 connects with the reference to the “princes of the congregation” in 16:2aβb, which suggests that 16:3 is more closely related to 16:2* than to 16:1. Within 16:5, the reference to Korah’s “congregation” is unlikely to have in view 16:1 alone, since Dathan, Abiram, and On hardly comprise a group large enough to be called a “congregation.” Rather, this reference seems to presuppose 16:1-2 as a whole. Since the latter verses are composite, this indicates that the reference to “Korah and his entire congregation” in 16:5 cannot belong to the most basic narrative thread in Num 16. The possibility that it is secondary finds further support in 16:6, where the phrase ‫ קרח וכל עדתו‬in 16:6bβ is syntactically awkward and interrupts an otherwise smooth connection between 16:6abα and 16:7.124 Within 16:7a, the adverb ‫ מחר‬does not fit well syntactically with the surrounding material, which suggests that it is not original to the verse.125 Likewise, the exclamation ‫ רב לכם בני לוי‬in 16:7b is syntactically awkward, and Moses’ direct address to the Levites is unexpected, since the Levites have not been mentioned thus far in the chapter. There are also indications that 16:8-11 are later than 16:3-7a, since 16:8-11 presuppose the challenging of Moses’ and Aaron’s positions of authority in 16:3-7a but deal with the Levites, a group that is not mentioned in those verses.126 Dathan and Abiram refuse Moses’ summons (Num 16:12-15). This unit stands in tension with the preceding materials in Num 16 in several respects. (1) According to Num 16:1, the reader must presume that Dathan and Abiram are already in the company of Korah, yet according to 16:12, Moses summons Dathan and Abiram from elsewhere. (2) The repeated use of the patronymic in 16:12 is rather strange in light of 16:1.127 (3) The refusal of Dathan and Abiram to “go up” (‫ )לא נעלה‬does not connect thematically to any of the preceding material in Num 16. When combined, these observations strongly suggest that 16:12-15 know nothing of 16:1-11 and may therefore belong to an earlier stage of composition than those verses. If this is the case, then the clause ‫ העיני האנשים ההם תנקר‬in 16:14 cannot be original, since without 16:111* the reference to “those men” would lack an antecedent.128 There is also reason to suspect that some or all of the material in 16:15 is later than 16:12-

























































124

Cf. HENTSCHEL, “Alle sind heilig,” 22. Cf. SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 217. 126 On Num 16:8-11 as a later addition, cf. WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 340–42; NOTH, Numeri, 110 (ET 124–25); L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 135–36; BERNER, “Wie Laien zu Leviten wurden,” 17–18; and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 213 against BADEN, Composition, 158–61, who treats Num 16:3-11 as a compositional unity. 127 Cf. BERNER, “Vom Aufstand,” 20 n. 38 and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 209. 128 Cf. BERNER, “Vom Aufstand,” 19. 125

226

Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19)

14*. Moses’ request in 16:15aγ that Yhwh not accept “their” offering is completely unexpected in light of 16:12-14*.129 Moreover, Moses’ claim that he has not wronged “a single one of them” (‫ )ולא הרעתי את אחד מהם‬would be strange with reference only to Dathan and Abiram and instead seems to refer to a larger group, which suggests that this statement – and perhaps 16:15 as a whole – presupposes the rebellion of the larger group in 16:2*, 3-7a.130 The testing of Korah and the 250 men (Num 16:16-24). Moses’ instructions in Num 16:16-17 are repetitive in light of 16:6-7* (without ‫קרח וכל עדתו‬ in 16:6), suggesting that 16:6-7* and 16:16-17 do not belong to the same compositional level. While the instructions in 16:6-7* and the fulfillment report in 16:18 speak of placing fire (‫ אש‬+ ‫ )נת״ן‬in the firepans and then placing incense on top (‫ קטרת‬+ ‫)שי״ם‬, the instructions in 16:16-17 do not refer to fire at all131 and instead only speak of placing incense in the firepans using the combination ‫ קטרת‬+ ‫נת״ן‬. This suggests that 16:6-7* is the more original version of Moses’ instructions and that 16:16-17 belong to a later stage of composition.132 Subsequently, 16:6-7* were coordinated with 16:16-17 through the reference to “Korah and his entire congregation.”133 Within 16:18, the reference to Moses and Aaron at the end of the verse does not connect smoothly to the rest of the verse, suggesting that it is a later addition. In 16:19-24, the figure of Korah – who is absent from 16:18 but is essential to 16:16-17 – figures prominently, suggesting that this unit is no earlier than 16:16-17 and thus cannot belong to the most basic report of the cultic challenge that has emerged in 16:2*, 3-7a*, 18*.134 In 16:24, Yhwh’s instructions that the congregation should move back from the dwelling place of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (‫ )העלו מסביב למשכן קרח דתן ואבירם‬is rather surprising as a response to the question posed by Moses and Aaron in 16:22, which clearly has only Korah in view (‫)האיש אחד יחטא ועל כל העדה תקצף‬.135 This

























































129

Cf. L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 121. Cf. KUENEN, “Bijdragen IV,” 141; L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 120–21; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Suche,” 270–71; SCHORN, “Rubeniter,” 261. In contrast, BERNER, “Vom Aufstand,” 12– 13 argues that Num 16:15 is later than 16:12-14* but is earlier than the various materials in 16:1-11. I am not convinced by Achenbach’s suggestion that 16:15 is “ein Rudiment aus einem jetzt verlorengegangen [sic] Zusammenhang” (ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 48). 131 Cf. HENTSCHEL, “Alle sind heilig,” 21 and BERNER, “Vom Aufstand,” 11 n. 5. 132 Cf. BERNER, “Vom Aufstand,” 11 and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 225. 133 Cf. BERNER, “Wie Laien zu Leviten wurden,” 4. 134 On Num 16:19-24 as a later addition, see also HENTSCHEL, “Alle sind heilig,” 18. 135 Here I disagree with SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 210, who argues that Num 16:23-24 once connected directly to 16:15* but does not give sufficient weight to the fact that Yhwh’s instructions to Moses in 16:23-24 to have the congregation (‫ )העדה‬clear the area are best understood as a response to the objection of Moses and Aaron in 16:22 (‫האיש אחד‬ ‫)יחטא ועל כל העדה תקצף‬. In contrast, the congregation is mentioned nowhere in 16:12-15. 130

5. Dathan, Abiram, the 250 Men, and Korah (Num 16–17)

227


suggests that the reference to Dathan and Abiram in 16:24 is a later addition, which finds support in the reference to Korah alone in 𝔊.136 The fate of Dathan and Abiram (Num 16:25-34). Num 16:25 marks another major literary-critical break within the chapter, since here the focus shifts back to Dathan and Abiram and remains on these two figures up to 16:34. There are several indications of literary growth within these verses. (1) The statement in 16:25b that the Israelite elders accompanied Moses in confronting Dathan and Abiram is quite possibly a later addition, since there is no explicit shift back to Moses as the subject in 16:26 and since the elders play no role in the subsequent development of the narrative.137 (2) Moses’ instructions in 16:26 that the congregation should distance itself from the tents of Dathan and Abiram stand in tension with 16:34, which implies that the Israelites (‫ )ישראל‬are still in close proximity to Dathan and Abiram (‫)סביבתיהם‬. Considering that 16:34 is part of the rhetorical climax of the narrative, this suggests that 16:26 is likely later than 16:34.138 (3) The report in 16:27a that the people distanced themselves from the “dwelling” (‫ )משכן‬of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (𝔊: Korah alone) corresponds not to 16:26 but rather to 16:24 and thus cannot be earlier than the Korah materials in 16:19-24. Thus, given that 16:25b, 26, and 27a are all later additions, 16:25a must have found its original continuation in 16:27b, which is quite plausible syntactically.139 (4) There is reason to suspect that Moses’ speech in 16:28-31 is later than the climax of the Dathan-and-Abiram narrative in 16:32-34*, since 16:28-31 refer to the “earth” (‫ )אדמה‬swallowing up Dathan and Abiram, while 16:3234* state that the “land” (‫ )ארץ‬swallowed them up.140 Fire consumes the 250 men (Num 16:35). This verse marks the last major literary-critical break within Num 16 and constitutes the conclusion to the narrative of the 250 men in 16:2*, 3-7a*, 18*, which seems to know nothing of the figure of Korah.141 A covering for the altar (Num 17:1-5). Within this unit, Yhwh’s instruction to Moses to scatter the fire in Num 17:2aβ (‫ )ואת האש זרה הלאה‬is likely a later addition, as it does not fit grammatically or conceptually with the subsequent clause ‫כי קדשו‬, which refers instead to the firepans in 17:2aα.142 The

























































136

Cf. BERNER, “Wie Laien zu Leviten wurden,” 21. In contrast, HENTSCHEL, “Alle sind heilig,” 18 n. 24 and SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 171 regard the reading of 𝔊 as the result of the translator’s effort to resolve the narrative tension in the text. 137 Cf. BERNER, “Vom Aufstand,” 21. 138 Cf. FRITZ, Israel, 24; HENTSCHEL, “Alle sind heilig,” 18; and BERNER, “Vom Aufstand,” 21. 139 Cf. BERNER, “Vom Aufstand,” 22. 140 Cf. L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 126–27; IDEM, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 63 n. 73 and BERNER, “Vom Aufstand,” 12. 141 Cf. BERNER, “Vom Aufstand,” 10. 142 Cf. NOTH, Numeri, 115 (ET 130) and L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 146–47.

228

Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19)

clause ‫ ולא יהיה כקרח וכעדתו‬in 17:5bα creates syntactic problems within its immediate context, suggesting that it is also a later addition.143 Considering that the even the most basic material in 17:1-5 presupposes Yhwh’s fiery punishment in 16:35, this material cannot be earlier than the narrative of the 250 men that emerged in Num 16:2*, 3-7a, 18*, 35. In contrast, the fact that the only reference to Korah in 17:1-5 is part of a later addition strongly suggests that the remainder of the material in this unit predates the Korah materials in Num 16.144 The congregation rebels and is punished (Num 17:6-15). There are several indications that this unit may have undergone compositional growth. Moses’ instructions to Aaron in Num 17:11 are odd as the continuation of the statement in 17:10b that Moses and Aaron fell on their faces. Considering that the prostration of Moses and Aaron is closely connected to the preceding murmuring statement, 17:6-10 and 17:11-15 likely do not belong to the same compositional level.145 Given the verbal and thematic connections between 17:6-10 and 16:8-11, 19-24, it seems that 17:6-10 can be no earlier than the Korah materials in Num 16.146 Within Num 17:11-15, the slight discrepancy between the use of the term ‫ נגף‬in 17:11-12 and the term ‫ מגפה‬in 17:13-15 suggests that one group of terms is secondary to the other.147 Moreover, the duplicate report of the cessation of the plague (‫ )מגפה‬in 17:13b and 17:15b suggests that 17:15b is a Wiederaufnahme following the insertion of additional material in 17:14-15a.148 Thus, the most basic material in Num 17:6-15 seems to have consisted of 17:11-13. Within the context of Num 16–17 as a whole, these verses are an integral part of the narrative of the 250 men in 16:2*, 3-7a*, 18*, 35, since in 16:7aβ, Moses states that the man whom Yhwh chooses is the holy one, which finds its fulfillment only here.149



























































143 Cf. L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 147 and BERNER, “Wie Laien zu Leviten wurden,” 16. For a more detailed literary-critical analysis of Num 17:1-5, see BERNER, “Wie Laien zu Leviten wurden,” 13–16. 144 Cf. FRANKEL, Murmuring Stories, 237–38 and BERNER, “Wie Laien zu Leviten wurden,” 16. In contrast, L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 148; KNOHL, Sanctuary, 79; and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 219, 225 conclude that Num 17:1-5 are no earlier than the Korah materials. 145 Cf. FRANKEL, Murmuring Stories, 239–41 and BERNER, “Wie Laien zu Leviten wurden,” 6. 146 Cf. FRANKEL, Murmuring Stories, 240 and ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 125. 147 Cf. BERNER, “Wie Laien zu Leviten wurden,” 7. 148 Cf. AHUIS, Autorität, 85; AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 199; L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 150; and FRANKEL, Murmuring Stories, 210. 149 Cf. AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 193; L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 146; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 63, 126; BERNER, “Vom Aufstand,” 27–28; and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 225 (although he regards the specific reference to 250 men as part of a later stage of reworking). In contrast, FRITZ, Israel, 26; LEVIN, Jahwist, 378; and KRATZ, Komposition, 110 (ET 107) find the original end of the narrative of the 250 men in Num 16:35. BADEN, “Source Stratification,” 240 avoids taking a definitive stance on this question.

5. Dathan, Abiram, the 250 Men, and Korah (Num 16–17)

229


The miracle of Aaron’s staff (Num 17:16-26). Within this unit, the use of the term ‫ אהל העד)ו(ת‬in 17:22, 23 diverges from the term ‫ אהל מועד‬in 17:19, suggesting that one of these phrases is not original to the unit. Considering that the references to the ‫ אהל העד)ו(ת‬in 17:22 and 17:23 can be removed without disturbing the immediate context while the reference to the ‫אהל מועד‬ cannot easily be removed, it is possible that the references to the ‫אהל העד)ו(ת‬ are later additions.150 This suggests that 17:19b, 25-26, which also use the term ‫עדות‬, are likewise later additions.151 Within the context of Num 16–17 as a whole, this episode is closely connected with the Korah materials in Num 16 insofar as both groups of texts involve the Levites. On the one hand, the miracle of Aaron’s staff can be interpreted as emphasizing Aaron’s position of authority (and, by extension, that of the Aaronide priests) over the Levites, in which case the episode could be assigned to the same compositional level as the Korah materials.152 On the other hand, this narrative is not openly polemical against the Levites, which has led some commentators to evaluate the episode as earlier than the Korah materials.153 Nevertheless, as Reinhard Achenbach has noted, the absence of a critical stance toward the Levites in this passage can also be explained by the fact that the relationship between the Levites and the Aaronide priests has already been addressed, while 17:1626 are concerned instead with the relationship between the Aaronides and the people as a whole.154 While it is difficult to decide definitively in favor of one interpretation or the other, in light of the connections between 17:6-10 and 17:16-26, I am more inclined to regard 17:16-26 as no earlier than the Korah materials in Num 16.155 The Israelites’ fear of death (Num 17:27-28). It is difficult to determine whether this unit originally connected directly to Num 17:11-13*156 or belonged with 17:16-26 from the outset.157 Nevertheless, considering that Moses and the Israelites (‫ )בני ישראל‬are the subjects of these verses, they seem to



























































150 Cf. SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 204–5 and BERNER, “Wie Laien zu Leviten wurden,” 8–9. 151 Cf. BERNER, “Wie Laien zu Leviten wurden,” 9–12. 152 Cf. NOTH, Numeri, 115 (ET 130) and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 227. 153 E.g., SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 183 and BERNER, “Wie Laien zu Leviten wurden,” 4–5. 154 ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 126; see also KNOHL, Sanctuary, 79 and FRANKEL, Murmuring Stories, 242–44. 155 Cf. ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 126–29. See also L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 154, who regards the miracle of Aaron’s staff as later than the Korah materials despite his interpretation of Num 16:16-26 as positive toward the Levites. 156 LEVINE, Numbers 1–20, 431–32; L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 155; IDEM, Numeri 10,11– 36,13, 74–76; and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 221. 157 Cf. BERNER, “Wie Laien zu Leviten wurden,” 24, who regards Num 17:27-28 as additions to 17:16-26*.

230

Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19)

be more closely linked to 17:16-26 than to 17:11-13*. In any event, these verses are unlikely to be earlier than the earliest conclusion to the narrative of the 250 men in 17:11-13*.158 Interim result. The foregoing analysis indicates that Num 16–17 contain several distinct stages of composition. The most basic narrative thread in these chapters consists of the Dathan-and-Abiram materials in 16:12-13, 14*, (15?), 25a, (25b), (26), 27b, (28-31), 32a, 33-34. In a second major stage of composition, this narrative was supplemented with the narrative of the 250 men in 16:2*, 3-7a, 18*, 35; 17:(1-5), (6-10), 11-12*, (13-15), (16-26?), (2728?), which builds on the questioning of Moses’ authority on the part of Dathan and Abiram by portraying the people as a whole as questioning the authority of both Moses and Aaron.159 In a third major stage of composition, the rebellion of the 250 men was further supplemented with the Korah/Levite materials in 16:1, 7b, 8-11, 16-17, 19-24, 27, 32b; 17:5bα, 6-10, 14-15, (1626?), (27-28?), which identified the Levites in particular rather than the people as a whole as the instigators of the rebellion against Aaron (and, by extension, the prerogatives of the Aaronide priesthood).160 Finally, the rebellion of the people in 17:6-10, 14-15 and the related miracle of Aaron’s staff in 17:16-26, 27-28 seem to presuppose materials from the Korah layer in Num 16 and can thus tentatively be assigned to a fourth major stage of composition.161



























































158 The conclusion of FRANKEL, Murmuring Stories, 224–27 that Num 17:27-28 originally connected directly to the story of the 250 men in Num 16* seems unlikely, since these verses use the term ‫בני ישראל‬, which is almost completely absent from Num 16. 159 Notably, in Num 16:3 the people rebel against both Moses and Aaron, which cannot easily be explained by positing an originally independent narrative but can be explained through a supplementary model; cf. BERNER, “Vom Aufstand,” 24 against BADEN, Composition, 164–65 and JEON, “Zadokites,” 390, who hold that the story of the 250 men originally had nothing to do with the Dathan-and-Abiram narrative. 160 The division of Num 16 into three major narrative strands or strata (the Dathan-andAbiram narrative, the narrative of the 250 men, and the Korah materials) forms a broad consensus of scholarship, although views differ widely on the precise delineation of these strata and on whether they represent distinct sources, redactions, or some combination thereof. BADEN, Composition, 158–61 departs from this consensus in that he does not differentiate between the narrative of the 250 men and the Korah materials. 161 Baden’s observation that the miracle of Aaron’s staff “shows no signs of having taken into account anything related to Dathan and Abiram” (BADEN, “Source Stratification,” 241) is in itself unobjectionable, although his conclusion that “[t]he only way that the author or authors of Numbers 17 could have written the texts they did is if the only story they had before them was the priestly story of Korah’s revolt” (ibid., 242–43) does not necessarily follow from this, since the absence of any reference to Dathan and Abiram could simply reflect the fact that these figures were not relevant to the rhetorical aims of Num 17:16-26. Although Baden cites Num 26:9-11 and Ps 106:16-18 as evidence for “what a text looks like when it takes the canonical, combined version of Numbers 16 as its

5. Dathan, Abiram, the 250 Men, and Korah (Num 16–17)

231


5.2. Macrocontextual analysis Since there is widespread agreement that both the narrative of the 250 men and the Korah materials reflect priestly or post-priestly authorship,162 the present analysis will focus only on the Dathan-and-Abiram narrative, whose relationship to priestly literature remains debated. Even in its most basic form, the Dathan-and-Abiram narrative bears several close connections to the story of the spies in Num 13–14. For example, the refusal of Dathan and Abiram to heed Moses’ summons in 16:13-14 – and thus their fundamental rejection of Moses’ authority – is grounded in their accusation that Moses has brought them out of a “land of milk and honey” (i.e., Egypt) simply to let them die in the wilderness (cf. 14:2, 26-35) and has failed to bring them into a “land of milk and honey” (cf. 13:27; 14:8) and to give them fields and vineyards (cf. 13:23) as a possession. Moreover, the punishment of Dathan and Abiram, who are “swallowed up” by the land (‫ותפתח הארץ את פיה ותבלע אתם‬, 16:32a), can be read as an ironic twist on the spies’ rumor that the land they went to explore “devours its inhabitants” (‫הארץ אשר עברנו בה לתור אתה ארץ אכלת יושביה הוא‬, 13:32).163 Considering that the story of the spies presupposes priestly literature from the outset, this indicates that – contrary to the traditional assignment of the Dathan-andAbiram narrative to a pre-priestly narrative source or composition164 – even the most basic version of this narrative cannot belong to a pre-priestly stage of composition.165



























































































































basis” (ibid, 242), here he disregards the issue of genre: Both Num 26:9-11 and Ps 106:1618 are freestanding summaries that refer back to Num 16, yet such a literary form would be strange in Num 17 itself. 162 Cf. KUENEN, “Bijdragen IV,” 159; NOTH, Numeri, 108 (ET 121–22); AHUIS, Autorität, 71–74; MILGROM, “Korah’s Rebellion,” 145; AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 193–94; BLUM, Studien, 265; ARTUS, Études, 193–97; LEVINE, Numbers 1–20, 405; L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 115, 146, 177–79; IDEM, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 64–66; KRATZ, Komposition, 110–12 (ET 107–9); FRANKEL, Murmuring Stories, 224; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 129; SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 175; BADEN, Composition, 158–61; BERNER, “Vom Aufstand,” 16; SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 211 n. 966; and JEON, “Zadokites,” 384. 163 Cf. BERNER, “Vom Aufstand,” 22. 164 Cf. WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 102–5, 340–42; NOTH, ÜP, 34; IDEM, Numeri, 108 (ET 212); COATS, Rebellion, 156; FRITZ, Israel, 25; AHUIS, Autorität, 29–30; AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 192–95; SCHART, Mose, 220–27; BLUM, Studien, 130, 264; L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 177–78; IDEM, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 64; VAN SETERS, Life, 239–41; ARTUS, Études, 180, 190; FRANKEL, Murmuring Stories, 204–5; BADEN, J, E, 183; IDEM, Composition, 158–61; and SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 183. 165 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 377; KRATZ, Komposition, 110–12 (ET 107–9); ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 52–54; BERNER, “Vom Aufstand,” 16; RÖMER, “Israel’s Sojourn,” 434–35; and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 211 n. 966. See also H.-C. SCHMITT, “Suche,” 269–70 and SCHORN, “Rubeniten,” 261, who regard the Dathan-and-Abiram narrative as post-priestly

232

Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19)

The later expansion of the Dathan-and-Abiram narrative in Num 16:28-31 is linked with Num 14:11-24 – part of a later addition to the story of the spies – through the motif of “despising Yhwh” (‫נא״ץ את ה׳‬, cf. 16:30 with 14:11, 23).166 Notably, the combination of the verb ‫ פצה‬and the noun ‫ אדמה‬in these verses occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible only in Gen 4:11, which strongly suggests that the expansion of the Dathan-and-Abiram narrative presupposes the story of Cain and Abel in Gen 4.167 Moreover, connections with the priestly creation narrative in Gen 1 are suggested by the use of the root ‫בר״א‬ in Num 16:30,168 while the use of the verb ‫ בקע‬in 16:31 is reminiscent of the priestly narrative of the miracle at the sea (cf. Exod 14:16, 21b).169 The reception of the Dathan-and-Abiram episode in Deut 11:6, in turn, presupposes the more developed version of the narrative, since it uses the verb ‫ פצה‬from the later addition alongside the noun ‫ ארץ‬from the basic narrative.170



























































































































but assign this narrative to the latest rather than the earliest stage in the formation of Num 16–17. 166 On this connection, see LUX, “Und die Erde tat ihren Mund auf,” 194; ARTUS, Études, 189; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Suche,” 270; SCHORN, “Rubeniten,” 260; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 52; and BERNER, “Vom Aufstand,” 15. 167 Cf. BERNER, “Vom Aufstand,” 13. As Berner aptly observes, an intertextual connection with the story of Cain and Abel also explains the references to the burning of Moses’ anger and to the ‫ מנחה‬in Num 16:15a (cf. Gen 4:3-5), while Num 16:15b seems to have been derived from 1 Sam 12:3b (ibid., 14). While Berner cites the connection between Num 16:15a and Gen 4:3-5 as evidence that Num 16:15 was added at the same time as 16:28-31, I am more inclined to conclude that 16:15 is no earlier than the narrative of the 250 men. 168 Cf. H.-C. SCHMITT, “Suche,” 270; SCHORN, “Rubeniten,” 260; and SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 204 with n. 937. 169 Cf. SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 204 n. 940. 170 Cf. BERNER, “Vom Aufstand,” 13 n. 12 against HENTSCHEL, “Alle sind heilig,” 24, who argues that the lexical divergence in Deut 11:6 reflects an independent tradition. While the reception of the Dathan-and-Abiram narrative alone in Deut 11:6 indeed suggests that this narrative once stood without the other materials in Num 16–17 (e.g., AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 193; BLUM, Studien, 264; L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 114; LUX, “Und die Erde tat ihren Mund auf,” 188–89; HENTSCHEL, “Alle sind heilig,” 23; and BADEN, Composition, 164), it should be emphasized that this does not in itself support a documentary approach to the formation of Num 16–17 over against a supplementary approach, nor does it require assigning the Dathan-and-Abiram narrative to a pre-priestly stage of composition.

5. Dathan, Abiram, the 250 Men, and Korah (Num 16–17)

233


5.3. Synthesis I

The most basic material in Num 16–17 consists of the Dathan-andAbiram narrative in 16:12-13, 14*, 25a, 27b, 32a, 33-34. This narrative presupposes the story of the spies in Num 13–14 and thus cannot belong to a pre-priestly stage of composition.

I+

The Dathan-and-Abiram narrative was subsequently expanded in Num 16:28-31, which bear connections to the story of the spies as well as to the story of Cain and Abel in Gen 4, the priestly account of creation in Gen 1, and the priestly account of the miracle at the sea in Exod 14. Further small-scale additions to the Dathan-and-Abiram narrative are found in 16:15, 25b, and 26, although it is possible that some or all of the latter postdate the narrative of the 250 men.

II

In a second major stage of composition, the Dathan-and-Abiram narrative was supplemented with the narrative of the 250 men in Num 16:2*, 3-7a, 18*, 35; 17:11-13*. There is a broad consensus that this episode, whose outcome reinforces the special prerogatives of the priesthood, is of priestly provenance.

II+

Num 17:1-5 were added sometime after the composition of the basic narrative of the 250 men.

III

In a third major stage of composition, Num 16–17 were further supplemented with the Korah materials in 16:1, 7b, 8-11, 16-17, 19-24, 27, 32b; 17:5bα, which reframed the conflict between the laity and the priesthood in the narrative of the 250 men into an inner-priestly conflict between Levites and Aaronides.

IV

The rebellion of the people in Num 17:6-10, 14-15 and the related miracle of Aaron’s staff in 17:16-26*, 27-28 are quite possibly later than the Korah materials in Num 16.

IV+ The miracle of Aaron’s staff was further expanded with the references to the ‫ עדות‬in Num 17:19b, 22b, 23aα*, 25-26.

‫‪234‬‬

‫)‪Chapter 6: From Sinai to Kadesh (Num 10–19‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬ ‫‪16:1‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬ ‫ויקח קרח בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי ודתן ואבירם בני אליאב ואון בן פלת בני ראובן‬

‫‪ 2‬ויקמו לפני משה ]‪III‬ואנשים מבני ישראל[ חמשים ומאתים נשיאי עדה קראי מועד אנשי שם‬ ‫‪ 3‬ויקהלו על משה ועל אהרן ויאמרו אלהם רב לכם כי כל העדה כלם קדשים ובתוכם ה׳ ומדוע‬ ‫תתנשאו על קהל ה׳ ‪ 4‬וישמע משה ויפל על פניו ‪ 5‬וידבר ]‪III‬אל קרח ואל כל עדתו[ לאמר בקר‬ ‫וידע ה׳ את אשר לו ואת הקדוש ]והקריב אליו ואת אשר יבחר בו יקריב אליו[ ‪ 6‬זאת עשו קחו‬ ‫לכם מחתות ]‪III‬קרח וכל עדתו[ ‪ 7‬ותנו בהן אש ושימו עליהן קטרת לפני ה׳ ]מחר[ והיה האיש‬ ‫אשר יבחר ה׳ הוא הקדוש‬ ‫]רב לכם בני לוי[ ‪ 8‬ויאמר משה אל קרח שמעו נא בני לוי ‪ 9‬המעט מכם כי הבדיל אלהי‬ ‫ישראל אתכם מעדת ישראל להקריב אתכם אליו לעבד את עבדת משכן ה׳ ולעמד לפני‬ ‫העדה לשרתם ‪ 10‬ויקרב אתך ואת כל אחיך בני לוי אתך ובקשתם גם כהנה ‪ 11‬לכן אתה וכל‬ ‫עדתך הנעדים על ה׳ ואהרן מה הוא כי תלונו עליו‬ ‫‪ 12‬וישלח משה לקרא לדתן ולאבירם בני אליאב ויאמרו לא נעלה ‪ 13‬המעט כי העליתנו מארץ זבת חלב‬ ‫ודבש להמיתנו במדבר כי תשתרר עלינו גם השתרר ‪ 14‬אף לא אל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש הביאתנו ותתן‬ ‫לנו נחלת שדה וכרם ]‪II/III‬העיני האנשים ההם תנקר[ לא נעלה ]‪ 15‬ויחר למשה מאד ויאמר אל ה׳ אל‬ ‫תפן אל מנחתם לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי ולא הרעתי את אחד מהם[‬ ‫‪ 16‬ויאמר משה אל קרח אתה וכל עדתך היו לפני ה׳ אתה והם ואהרן מחר ‪ 17‬וקחו איש‬ ‫מחתתו ונתתם עליהם קטרת והקרבתם לפני ה׳ איש מחתתו חמשים ומאתים מחתת ואתה‬ ‫ואהרן איש מחתתו‬ ‫‪ 18‬ויקחו איש מחתתו ויתנו עליהם אש וישימו עליהם קטרת ויעמדו פתח אהל מועד ]ומשה‬ ‫ואהרן[‬ ‫‪ 19‬ויקהל עליהם קרח את כל העדה אל פתח אהל מועד וירא כבוד ה׳ אל כל העדה ‪ 20‬וידבר‬ ‫ה׳ אל משה ואל אהרן לאמר ‪ 21‬הבדלו מתוך העדה הזאת ואכלה אתם כרגע ‪ 22‬ויפלו על‬ ‫פניהם ויאמרו אל אלהי הרוחת לכל בשר האיש אחד יחטא ועל כל העדה תקצף ‪ 23‬וידבר‬ ‫ה׳ אל משה לאמר ‪ 24‬דבר אל העדה לאמר העלו מסביב למשכן קרח }דתן ואבירם{‬ ‫‪ 25‬ויקם משה וילך אל דתן ואבירם ]וילכו אחריו זקני ישראל[ ]‪ 26‬וידבר אל העדה לאמר סורו נא מעל‬ ‫אהלי האנשים הרשעים האלה ואל תגעו בכל אשר להם פן תספו בכל חטאתם[‬ ‫‪ 27‬ויעלו מעל משכן קרח }דתן ואבירם{ מסביב‬ ‫ודתן ואבירם יצאו נצבים פתח אהליהם ונשיהם ובניהם וטפם‬ ‫‪29‬‬

‫]‪ 28‬ויאמר משה בזאת תדעון כי ה׳ שלחני לעשות את כל המעשים האלה כי לא מלבי אם כמות‬ ‫כל האדם ימתון אלה ופקדת כל האדם יפקד עליהם לא ה׳ שלחני ‪ 30‬ואם בריאה יברא ה׳ ופצתה‬ ‫האדמה את פיה ובלעה אתם ואת כל אשר להם וירדו חיים שאלה וידעתם כי נאצו האנשים האלה‬ ‫את ה׳ ‪ 31‬ויהי ככלתו לדבר את כל הדברים האלה ותבקע האדמה אשר תחתיהם[‬ ‫‪ 32‬ותפתח הארץ את פיה ותבלע אתם ואת בתיהם ]‪III‬ואת כל האדם אשר לקרח ואת כל הרכוש[‬ ‫‪ 33‬וירדו הם וכל אשר להם חיים שאלה ותכס עליהם הארץ ויאבדו מתוך הקהל ‪ 34‬וכל ישראל אשר‬ ‫סביבתיהם נסו לקלם כי אמרו פן תבלענו הארץ‬ ‫‪ 35‬ואש יצאה מאת ה׳ ותאכל את החמשים ומאתים איש מקריבי הקטרת‬

‫‪235‬‬

‫‪6. Result‬‬

‫
‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬ ‫‪17: 1‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫וידבר ה׳ אל משה לאמר אמר אל אלעזר בן אהרן הכהן וירם את המחתת מבין השרפה‬ ‫]‬ ‫ואת האש זרה הלאה כי קדשו ‪ 3‬את מחתות החטאים האלה בנפשתם ועשו אתם רקעי פחים‬ ‫צפוי למזבח כי הקריבם לפני ה׳ ויקדשו ויהיו לאות לבני ישראל ‪ 4‬ויקח אלעזר הכהן את מחתות‬ ‫הנחשת אשר הקריבו השרפים וירקעום צפוי למזבח ‪ 5‬זכרון לבני ישראל למען אשר לא יקרב‬ ‫איש זר אשר לא מזרע אהרן הוא להקטיר קטרת לפני ה׳ ולא יהיה כקרח וכעדתו כאשר דבר ה׳‬ ‫ביד משה לו[‬ ‫‪ 6‬וילנו כל עדת בני ישראל ממחרת על משה ועל אהרן לאמר אתם המתם את עם ה׳‬ ‫‪ 7‬ויהי בהקהל העדה על משה ועל אהרן ויפנו אל אהל מועד והנה כסהו הענן וירא‬ ‫כבוד ה׳ ‪ 8‬ויבא משה ואהרן אל פני אהל מועד ‪ 9‬וידבר ה׳ אל משה לאמר ‪ 10‬הרמו‬ ‫מתוך העדה הזאת ואכלה אתם כרגע ויפלו על פניהם‬ ‫‪ 11‬ויאמר משה אל אהרן קח את המחתה ותן עליה אש מעל המזבח ושים קטרת והולך מהרה אל‬ ‫העדה וכפר עליהם כי יצא הקצף מלפני ה׳ ]החל הנגף[ ‪ 12‬ויקח אהרן כאשר דבר משה וירץ אל‬ ‫תוך הקהל ]והנה החל הנגף בעם[ ויתן את הקטרת ויכפר על העם ‪ 13‬ויעמד בין המתים ובין‬ ‫החיים ותעצר המגפה‬ ‫‪ 14‬ויהיו המתים במגפה ארבעה עשר אלף ושבע מאות מלבד המתים על דבר קרח‬ ‫‪ 15‬וישב אהרן אל משה אל פתח אהל מועד והמגפה נעצרה‬ ‫‪ 16‬וידבר ה׳ אל משה לאמר ‪ 17‬דבר אל בני ישראל וקח מאתם מטה מטה לבית אב‬ ‫מאת כל נשיאהם לבית אבתם שנים עשר מטות איש את שמו תכתב על מטהו ‪ 18‬ואת‬ ‫שם אהרן תכתב על מטה לוי כי מטה אחד לראש בית אבותם ‪ 19‬והנחתם באהל מועד‬ ‫]לפני העדות אשר אועד לכם שמה[ ‪ 20‬והיה האיש אשר אבחר בו מטהו יפרח‬ ‫והשכתי מעלי את תלנות בני ישראל אשר הם מלינם עליכם ‪ 21‬וידבר משה אל בני‬ ‫ישראל ויתנו אליו כל נשיאיהם מטה לנשיא אחד מטה לנשיא אחד לבית אבתם שנים‬ ‫עשר מטות ומטה אהרן בתוך מטותם ‪ 22‬וינח משה את המטת לפני ה׳ ]באהל העדת[‬ ‫‪ 23‬ויהי ממחרת ויבא משה ]אל אהל העדות[ והנה פרח מטה אהרן לבית לוי ויצא‬ ‫פרח ויצץ ציץ ויגמל שקדים ‪ 24‬ויצא משה את כל המטת מלפני ה׳ אל כל בני ישראל‬ ‫ויראו ויקחו איש מטהו ]‪ 25‬ויאמר ה׳ אל משה השב את מטה אהרן לפני העדות‬ ‫למשמרת לאות לבני מרי ותכל תלונתם מעלי ולא ימתו ‪ 26‬ויעש משה כאשר צוה ה׳‬ ‫אתו כן עשה[‬ ‫‪ 27‬ויאמרו בני ישראל אל משה לאמר הן גוענו אבדנו כלנו אבדנו‬ ‫אל משכן ה׳ ימות האם תמנו לגוע‬

‫‪28‬‬

‫כל הקרב הקרב‬

‫‪6. Result‬‬ ‫‪The foregoing analysis of Num 10–19 has concluded that all of the material‬‬ ‫‪in these chapters – with the possible exception of Num 10:33a – belongs to a‬‬ ‫‪priestly or post-priestly stage in the formation of the book of Numbers. Thus,‬‬ ‫‪if a pre-priestly continuation of the exodus narrative is to be found in the‬‬ ‫‪book of Numbers, it must be sought in Num 20 or thereafter.‬‬

Chapter 7

From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3) Num 20–21 narrate a variety of events between the people’s sojourn in Kadesh (20:1*) and their arrival in the plains of Moab (22:1*): the (second) miracle of water from a rock (20:2-13), the detour around Edom (20:14-21), the death of Aaron (20:23-29; 21:4a), the banning (‫ )חר״ם‬of Canaanite cities (21:1-3), the episode of the bronze serpent (21:4b-9), various stopovers in the wilderness (21:10-20), and the defeat of Sihon and Og (21:21-35). There is a relatively broad consensus that some of these episodes are (post-)priestly, and these cases can be discussed rather briefly. The compositional place of the remaining material – particularly the texts with parallels in Deut 1–3 and Judg 11 – is more debated and will be the primary focus of this chapter. Although a number of studies have been dedicated to the comparison of these texts,1 many do not provide a full literary-critical analysis of all the texts involved2 and/or operate on the basis of questionable compositional models. Thus, in what follows, an independent literary-critical analysis of each text will be conducted prior to examining the relations of dependence among the parallel texts. Following this comparison, it will be possible to evaluate the literary growth of the itinerary notices in Num 20–21 (as well as in 22:1) and their relationship to the surrounding narratives.

1. Priestly Material in Num 20–21 There is a broad scholarly consensus that the miracle of water from a rock in Num 20:2-13 3 and the report of Aaron’s death in 20:23-294 are priestly texts.

























































1

In addition to the commentaries, see NOTH, “Num 21,” esp. 162–70; SUMNER, “Israel’s Encounters”; BARTLETT, “Sihon and Og”; VAN SETERS, “Conquest”; IDEM, “Once again”; KÖPPEL, Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, 83–105; OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 134–35; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 358–67; BADEN, J, E, 130–41; and FLEMING, Legacy, 114–32. 2 E.g., SUMNER, “Israel’s Encounters,” esp. 220; VAN SETERS, “Conquest,” 182–97; KÖPPEL, Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, 83–105; and ROSE, Deuteronomist, 310–13. 3 RUDOLPH, Elohist, 84–87; NOTH, Numeri, 127 (ET 144); FRITZ, Israel, 27; L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 89–93; RÖMER, “Israel’s Sojourn,” 435; and ALBERTZ,

1. Priestly Material in Num 20–21

237

Moreover, while earlier commentators attributed the narrative of the bronze serpent in 21:4b-9 to a pre-priestly source,5 many of their arguments for doing so point instead to the post-priestly provenance of this passage,6 which is upheld by an increasing number of commentators.7 The brief narrative of the ban against the Canaanites and the etiology of Hormah in Num 21:1-3 requires more discussion. Although commentators have traditionally assigned this episode to one of the old sources,8 the foregoing analysis of the spy story in Num 13–14 as a priestly and post-priestly unit strongly suggests that 21:1-3 are also post-priestly. Whereas 14:39-45 describe how the Israelites were defeated at Hormah following their disobedience against Yhwh in seeking to enter the land on their own terms, 21:1-3 describe how the Israelites sought divine approval before going to battle and emerged victorious. In other words, 21:1-3 serve as a counterpoint to 14:3945, indicating that any attempt to defeat the Canaanites at the Israelites’ own



























































































































“Buch Numeri,” 182. In contrast, LEVINE, Numbers 1–20, 483–84 and SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 270–79 postulate a pre-priestly version that underlies the present text but is too fragmentary to be reconstructed, while BADEN, “Narratives,” 637–39 assigns Num 20:3a, 5 to a non-priestly narrative. 4 NOTH, “Num 21,” 179; FRITZ, Israel, 28; LEVINE, Numbers 1–20, 485; SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 300–301; L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 97; ALBERTZ, “Buch Numeri,” 182; and BADEN, “Narratives,” 635–36. 5 BAENTSCH, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, 575 (E); HOLZINGER, Numeri, 89 (ET 156) (E); EISSFELDT, Hexateuch-Synopse, 180–81* (E); RUDOLPH, Elohist, 90 (J); NOTH, Numeri, 137 (E); FOHRER, Einleitung, 167 (E); and FRITZ, Israel, 30, 93–96 (J). For more recent evaluations of this unit as pre-priestly, see ALBERTZ, “Buch Numeri,” 182 and BADEN, “Narratives,” 642–43. 6 E.g., FRITZ, Israel, 93 assigns Num 21:4b-9 to J on the basis of the parallelism between the people’s confession of sin in 21:7a and Num 14:40; SCHART, Mose, 228 notes that the people’s confession of sin in this unit bears connections with Num 11:1-3 and Num 12; and COATS, Rebellion, 120 observes that this narrative contains “a summary of crises from other traditions in the wilderness theme.” In light of the evaluation of Num 11:1-3; Num 12; and Num 13–14 as post-priestly (Chapter 6, §§2–4), these observations support the post-priestly composition of Num 21:4b-9. 7 AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 152 (somewhat vaguely); KRATZ, Komposition, 301 (ET 292); ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 218; and BERNER, “Die eherne Schlange,” esp. 344–48. See also SCHIPPER, “Die ‘eherne Schlange,’” 381, who points to connections with Exod 15:26 and Deut 18 and thus evaluates Num 21:4b-9 as post-Deuteronomistic and as “ein später Text” (384) but does not situate this unit relative to priestly literature. 8 WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 108 (J); BAENTSCH, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, 573 (J); G. B. GRAY, Numbers, 272 (JE); RUDOLPH, Elohist, 89 (J); NOTH, Numeri, 135 (ET 154) (possibly J, but the unit has been moved from its original place in that source); STURDY, Numbers, 144–46 (J, also claiming that the unit has been moved from its original place); FRITZ, “Jahwe,” 114 (J); SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 307–8 (implicitly J); BADEN, J, E, 137 (E); and, tentatively, ALBERTZ, “Buch Numeri,” 182 (pre-priestly).

238

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

initiative is bound to fail, while a reliance on Yhwh leads to success.9 Given that the spy story is a priestly composition from the outset (see Chapter 6, §4), 21:1-3 cannot be pre-priestly.10 Moreover, since 21:4a connects seamlessly to the report of Aaron’s death in 20:23-29, the simplest explanation is that 21:1-3 were inserted into an existing (post-)priestly literary context.11 The possibility that a pre-priestly textual fragment was inserted into the middle of a priestly text12 is unlikely, since 21:1-3 seem tailor-made for their present location.13

2. Israel’s Detour around Edom (Num 20:14-21) 2.1. Literary-critical analysis Although earlier scholarship generally regarded this episode as a compositional unity,14 more recent studies have tended to conclude that this unit consists of a basic literary stratum that was later expanded.15 Indeed, if one iso-

























































9

Cf. SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 307 (albeit with a different evaluation of Num 13– 14); L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 101; and R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige Krieg,” 92–93. 10 Against BADEN, “Narratives,” 647, who notes the connection to Num 14:39-45 but assigns these verses to J. If the phrase ‫ דרך האתרים‬should indeed be read as ‫דרך *התרים‬, as several ancient versions and medieval Jewish commentators have suggested (cf. 𝔗, 𝔖, 𝔙 as well as Rashi and Rashbam ad loc.), this would further support the post-priestly nature of 21:1-3. BADEN, “Narratives,” 647 n. 47 rejects this possibility on the basis of his presupposition that Num 21:1-3 belong to J. 11 Cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 301 (ET 292) and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 100. This fits well with the possibility that Num 21:1-3 are dependent on Judg 1:17 (L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 100–101), which belongs to a unit that postdates the addition of priestly materials to the book of Joshua. Here I disagree with ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 347, who argues that the report of Aaron’s death in Num 20:23-29 (“PentRed”) was inserted after 21:1-3 (“HexRed”). 12 NOTH, Numeri, 135 (ET 154) and LEVINE, Numbers 21–36, 85. 13 As ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 346 has astutely observed, “So wie es Jakob einst möglich war, nach dem Konflikt mit Esau durch ein Gelübde eine Rückkehr in die Heimat zu erwirken (Gen 28,20; 31,13), so erwirbt Israel nun nach dem Konflikt mit Esau ein Angeld auf die Landnahme.” 14 MEYER, “Kritik,” 118, 121 (E); WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 108 (J); BAENTSCH, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, 571 (E); PROCKSCH, Das nordhebräische Sagenbuch, 105–6 (JE); GRESSMANN, Mose, 300 n. 4 (JE); RUDOLPH, Elohist, 87–88 (J); NOTH, Numeri, 131 (ET 149–50) (JE). 15 MITTMANN, “Num 20,14-21,” 143–49; KRATZ, Komposition, 291 (ET 283); ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 335–44, esp. 344; SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 291; and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 94–97. Exceptions to this tendency include OSWALD, “Revision,” 226 and BADEN, J, E, 130–31; IDEM, “Narratives,” 641 n. 28, who argue explicitly for the literary unity of the episode, as well as BLUM, Studien, 118–21 and ALBERTZ, “Buch Numeri,” 177, who implicitly accept its unity.

2. Israel’s Detour around Edom (Num 20:14-21)

239

lates the most fundamental elements in Num 20:14-21, then a basic narrative thread reporting Edom’s refusal to allow Israel to pass through its territory can be identified in 20:14a, 17, and 21.16 The isolation of this basic narrative thread is supported by the literary evidence in 20:14b-16 and 20:18-20. The historical summary in 20:14b-16 interrupts the connection between Moses’ sending of messengers in 20:14a and the request for passage in 20:17 and is possibly secondary.17 Likewise, there are several reasons to suspect that 20:18-20 constitute a later addition. First, these verses transform the messengers’ monologue into a dialogue and correct 20:17 on two points: 20:19 regards the promise not to drink any water in 20:17 as unrealistic and thus replaces it with an offer by the Israelites to pay for the water that they will drink. Moreover, 20:20 and 20:21 stand in tension with each other: Whereas 20:20 describes Edom’s bellicose reaction to Moses’/Israel’s request, 20:21 simply states that Edom refused to let Israel pass through its territory.18 Num 20:20 must be secondary to 20:21, since the simple refusal (‫ מאן‬piel) of Edom in 20:21 would hardly make sense as a later addition to Edom’s going out to battle against Israel in 20:20.19 Edom’s refusal of passage in 20:18 is equally redundant in light of 20:21, and the fact that it forms part of a coherent dialogue between Israel and Edom in 20:18-20 suggests that it belongs to the same compositional level as 20:20.20 The author of 20:18-20 may have regarded the Edomites’ simple refusal in 20:21 as insufficient grounds to cause the Israelites to turn away, thus expanding the narrative to indicate that the Edomites responded with a military threat.21

























































16

Cf. MITTMANN, “Num 20,14-21,” 144–45; IDEM, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 74. KRATZ, Komposition, 291 (ET 283) and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 95 also include Num 20:18 in the most basic material. 17 Cf. NOTH, ÜP, 39 (ET 36) (only Num 20:15-16a); ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 342; and SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 291 (only 20:15-16a). Here I disagree with MITTMANN, “Num 20,14-21,” 147; IDEM, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 74, who finds the most basic material in 20:14-16, 17*, 21, as well as with L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 94–95. Whether ‫ כה אמר אחיך ישראל‬is more closely linked with 20:14a or with the historical summary that follows is difficult to decide. In any case, the transition from 20:14a to either 20:14b or 20:17 is awkward, since one would expect to read ‫ לאמר‬at the end of 20:14a (cf. OSWALD, “Revision,” 218). 18 Cf. MITTMANN, “Num 20,14-21,” 144–45. 19 Ibid., 145; cf. L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 95. 20 Cf. MITTMANN, “Num 20,14-21,” 145 and SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 291. 21 Cf. MITTMANN,“Num 20,14-21,” 144–45; IDEM, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 75 and SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 291.

240

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

2.2. Macrocontextual analysis The historical summary in Num 20:14b-16 is dependent on the so-called “small historical creed” in Deut 26:5aβ-9,22 presupposes a connection between the ancestral narratives in Genesis and the exodus from Egypt, likely presupposes Exod 18:8,23 and also highlights the role of the ‫ מלאך ה׳‬in the exodus,24 suggesting that this addition stems from a relatively late, postpriestly stage of composition.25 This evaluation fits well with the statement in 20:16b that Kadesh lies at the edge of Edomite territory, which was conceivable only after the fall of the kingdom of Judah, when southern Palestine came under the control of the Edomites.26 Disregarding for now the parallels to Num 20:14-21 in Deuteronomy and Judges, there is insufficient intertextual evidence to determine whether the addition in 20:18-20 and the basic narrative thread in 20:14a, 17, 21 are preor post-priestly. Although it may indeed be the case that 20:14-21 is postpriestly in its entirety, an argument for the post-priestly dating of the entire unit based solely on its location between the priestly narratives in 20:2-13 and 20:22-2927 is methodologically problematic, since such a view does not consider the possibility that the itinerary notices in 20:1aβ and 20:22a may predate the insertion of the priestly narratives in 20:2-13 and 20:22b-29. Thus, the relative dating of both the most basic narrative in 20:14a, 17, 21 and the addition in 20:18-20 requires further evidence and will be taken up again in §6.



























































22 Cf. MITTMANN, “Num 20,14-21,” 146 and OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 163. In contrast, L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 95 argues that the direction of dependence cannot be determined. 23 On the evaluation of Exod 18:8 as post-priestly, see Chapter 3, §8.2. 24 While MITTMANN, “Num 20,14-21,” 147 and others interpret the ‫ מלאך‬as the angel from Exod 14:19a, BLUM, Studien, 119; OSWALD, “Revision,” 220; and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 96 interpret this figure as Moses himself. 25 Cf. OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 163. 26 Cf. BLUM, Studien, 119 and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 94. In contrast, OSWALD, “Revision,” 228 explains the description of Edom’s territory as extending to Kadesh on literary rather than historical considerations: since Num 20:14-21 were inserted between two (priestly) narratives set in Kadesh, the author of 20:16b was forced to depict Edom’s territory as extending as far as Kadesh. Oswald’s conclusion, however, depends on the assumption that 20:14-21 are a literary unity (in which case 20:16b cannot be bracketed out) as well as the assumption that Kadesh does not play a role in the pre-priestly material in the book of Numbers (ibid., 226–27), both of which are open to critique. 27 FRITZ, Israel, 29; BLUM, Studien, 121 n. 81; DOZEMAN, “Geography,” 186–87 (tentatively); and ALBERTZ, “Buch Numeri,” 177.

241

3. The Defeat of Sihon and Og (Num 21:21-35)

2.3. Synthesis I

Num 20:14-21 is not a compositional unity;28 rather, its most basic material likely consisted of 20:14a, 17, 21.

II

This material was expanded in Num 20:18-20.

III

Num 20:14b-16 were added to the episode at a post-priestly stage of composition. III

II

‫וישלח משה מלאכים מקדש אל מלך אדום‬

I 20:14

15

‫כה אמר אחיך ישראל אתה ידעת את כל התלאה אשר מצאתנו וירדו אבתינו מצרימה‬ ‫ ונצעק אל ה׳ וישמע קלנו וישלח‬16 ‫ונשב במצרים ימים רבים וירעו לנו מצרים ולאבתינו‬ ‫מלאך ויצאנו ממצרים והנה אנחנו בקדש עיר קצה גבולך‬ ‫ נעברה נא בארצך לא נעבר בשדה ובכרם ולא נשתה מי באר דרך המלך נלך לא נטה ימין ושמאול‬17 ‫עד אשר נעבר גבלך‬ ‫ ויאמרו אליו בני ישראל במסלה‬19 ‫ ויאמר אליו אדום לא תעבר בי פן בחרב אצא לקראתך‬18 ‫ ויאמר לא תעבר‬20 ‫נעלה ואם מימיך נשתה אני ומקני ונתתי מכרם רק אין דבר ברגלי אעברה‬ ‫ויצא אדום לקראתו בעם כבד וביד חזקה‬ ‫ וימאן אדום נתן את ישראל עבר בגבלו ויט ישראל מעליו‬21

3. The Defeat of Sihon and Og (Num 21:21-35) 3.1. Literary-critical analysis There are several indications that Num 21:21-35 are not a literary unity:29 (1) Within Israel’s request for passage in Num 21:21-23 there is a discrepancy between 1cs and 1cp speech (‫ אעברה‬vs. ‫ נעבר‬/ ‫ נלך‬/ ‫ לא נשתה‬/ ‫)לא נטה‬. Moreover, the beginning of 21:22 and 21:24 speak of Sihon’s “land” (‫)ארצך‬, while the end of 21:22 and the beginning of 21:23 speak of Sihon’s “territory” or “border” (‫ גבלך‬/ ‫)גבלו‬. Thus, it is possible that parts of 21:22-23 are a later addition emphasizing the harmlessness of the Israelites’ request to pass through Sihon’s land.30



























































28 Both OSWALD, “Revision,” 226 and BADEN, J, E, 130–31 argue for the unity of Num 20:14-21 primarily by insisting that the redundancies in this unit are not doublets in the strict sense of the term. While Baden is indeed correct that these repetitions are not “source-critically meaningful doublet[s]” (ibid.), he does not consider that they may instead reflect supplementation. 29 Against BADEN, J, E, 136, who assigns Num 21:21-32 as a whole to E. 30 Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 74.

242

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

(2) The clause ‫ ויקח ישראל את כל הערים האלה‬in Num 21:25a does not have an antecedent in the preceding verses, suggesting that it has been added secondarily, most likely on the basis of a literary Vorlage.31 (3) Num 21:24b and 21:25b present conflicting views regarding the extent of the territory that the Israelites captured from Sihon. According to 21:24b, the Israelites took possession (‫ ירש‬qal) of Sihon’s land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, up to the territory of the Ammonites. According to 21:25b, the Israelites settled (‫ )ישב‬in all the cities of the Amorites – in Heshbon and all of its surrounding towns.32 Since the description of Sihon’s territory as extending from the Arnon to the Jabbok in 21:24b* goes well beyond the territorial interest of the rest of the unit, it seems that it is a later addition relative to 21:25b.33 The reference to the Ammonites in the remainder of 21:24b (‫עד בני‬ ‫)עמון כי עז גבול בני עמון‬, which poses both text-critical34 and historicalgeographical35 problems, cannot stand without the reference to the Arnon and Jabbok and must therefore also be secondary. Thus, it is possible to conclude that the most basic form of 21:24 consisted of ‫ויכהו ישראל לפי חרב ויירש את‬ ‫ ארצו‬at the most.36 (4) Num 21:31 is a doublet of 21:25b. Although some commentators have argued that 21:31 connects directly to the report in 21:24bα that Israel took possession of Sihon’s land,37 it is unclear whether ‫ וירש את ארצו‬belongs to the most basic material in that verse or to the geographical insertion in the remainder of 21:24b. By extension, the notion that 21:25b is part of a later insertion between 21:24 and 21:31 rests on unstable ground.38 Moreover, the compositional priority of 21:31 over 21:25b is far from clear. Indeed, the



























































31 Cf. SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 349, who rejects Fritz’s proposal that Num 21:25a was once preceded by a list of conquered cities that is now lost (FRITZ, Entstehung, 27). See also L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, who argues that 21:25 as a whole is secondary. 32 Cf. NOTH, “Israelitische Stämme,” 38 (repr. 415). 33 Cf. FRITZ, Israel, 33 and WÜST, Untersuchungen, 10–11. 34 The ancient versions read “Jazer” (𝔊 Ιαζηρ, 𝔙 Iazzer) rather than ‫עז‬. FRITZ, Israel, 32 n. 31 suggests that the reference to Jazer in Num 21:24b 𝔊 likely serves to anticipate the reference to Jazer in 21:32. 35 It is not clear whether the phrase ‫ עד בני עמון‬should be interpreted as an epexegetical clarification of ‫ עד יבק‬or whether it describes a border that is distinct from the Jabbok (i.e., the eastern border of Sihon’s territory rather than the northern border). Archaeological evidence for the borders of the historical polity of Ammon seems to support the latter possibility; cf. LIPIŃSKI, On the Skirts of Canaan, 295–96. Contrary to Judg 11:13, which states that Ammonite territory extended as far west as the Jordan, Lipiński argues that there is no archaeological evidence for such a border during the Iron Age; rather, Judg 11:13 reflects the situation during the sixth century B.C.E. or later. For further discussion of the relationship between Num 21:24b and Judg 11:13, see §6. 36 For further discussion of this verse and its intertextual links, see §6. 37 SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 349–50 and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 112. 38 For a different solution, see §6.

3. The Defeat of Sihon and Og (Num 21:21-35)

243

duplicate report in 21:31 seems to serve as a Wiederaufnahme, suggesting that the Heshbon materials in 21:26-31 were added secondarily to the narrative of the defeat of Sihon in 21:21-25*.39 (5) In 𝔐, Moses does not play a role in Num 21:21-31, while he is mentioned twice in 21:32-35. This observation is complicated somewhat by the fact that certain 𝔊 manuscripts attribute the sending of messengers to Moses rather than to Israel. Nevertheless, in light of the numerous references to Israel as an active subject in 21:21-25, 31, it hardly seems necessary to emend 𝔐’s reading ‫ ישראל‬in 21:21 with ‫*משה‬.40 This suggests that 21:32-35 do not belong to the same compositional level as 21:21-31. Moreover, 21:32 stands apart from both the preceding and the following material and has long been regarded as a secondary insertion.41 3.2. Macrocontextual analysis Beyond the literary-critical evidence for the secondary addition of Num 21:26-31, there are other reasons for regarding the Song of Heshbon in 21:2730 as a relatively late composition that is subordinate to its surrounding literary context42 rather than an early, independent piece of poetry.43 Apart from the references to Heshbon in connection to Sihon,44 other references to Heshbon in the Hebrew Bible occur in prophetic oracles (Isa 15:4; 16:8-9; Jer 48:2, 34; 49:3) and geographical lists (Num 32:3, 37; Josh 13:17, 26). In light of the dating of these texts, it is likely that the earliest references to Heshbon in the Hebrew Bible do not antedate the late eighth century B.C.E.45 Moreover, the vocabulary of the poem stands in close relation to texts found in the book of Proverbs,46 priestly literature,47 Deuteronomistic polemics against foreign cults,48 and exilic and postexilic prophetic oracles.49 While these

























































39

Cf. FRITZ, Israel, 32–33. In contrast, it is quite conceivable that the reading “Moses” in 𝔊 is a later harmonization with Num 21:(32), 33-35 (see §6). 41 NOTH, “Num 21,” 163; IDEM, Numeri, 142 (ET 162); FRITZ, Israel, 33; and SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 362. 42 GRESSMANN, Mose, 304 n. 2; FRITZ, Israel, 32–33; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Hesbonlied,” 40; SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 350, 358–60; and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 113–16. 43 HANSON, “Song of Heshbon,” 299; BARTLETT, “Historical Reference,” 94; WÜST, Untersuchungen, 10; WEIPPERT, “Israelite ‘Conquest,’” 17; BOLING, Early Biblical Community, 50–51; and LEVINE, Numbers 21–36, 123–25. 44 Deut 1:4; 2:24, 26, 30; 3:3, 6; 4:46; 29:6; Josh 9:10; 12:2, 5; 13:10, 21, 27; Judg 11:19; Neh 9:22. 45 H.-C. SCHMITT, “Hesbonlied,” 34–38. 46 E.g., the parallelism of ‫ בנה‬and ‫ כון‬in Prov 24:3 and Num 21:27; see TIMM, Moab, 76. 47 E.g., the use of the expression ‫ יצא אש‬in Lev 9:24; 10:2; Num 16:35; Ezek 19:14; and Num 21:28; see ibid. 48 Cf. the ‫ במות‬of Moab in Num 21:28 and the ‫ במות‬in Samuel and Kings; see ibid., 78. 40

244

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

linguistic affinities may not prove with certainty that the Song of Heshbon is post-priestly, they certainly suggest that it is a relatively late scribal product. Archaeological excavations at Tell Ḥesban – which is widely identified with biblical Heshbon – have revealed no material culture from the Late Bronze Age and little from Iron Age I. In contrast, the city’s major floruit occurred at the end of the Iron II period, between 700 and 500 B.C.E.50 This archaeological evidence reinforces the aforementioned observation that the references to Heshbon in the Hebrew Bible are not earlier than the late eighth century.51 It may also be significant that Tell Ḥesban was destroyed around 539 B.C.E. and was not rebuilt during the Persian period.52 This fits well with the call to rebuild Heshbon in Num 21:27aβb, suggesting that this verse – and possibly the entire poem – was composed after 539 B.C.E.53 In terms of its rhetoric, the Song of Heshbon serves to resolve a problem in Num 21:21-25, namely, that some readers may have regarded Heshbon as a Moabite city. Num 21:26 addresses this problem by insisting that Sihon, king of the Amorites, had taken all of the land of the king of Moab as far as the Arnon prior to the Israelites’ defeat of Heshbon, thereby disavowing the Israelites of any involvement in taking Moabite land.54 This rhetorical function of



























































































































49

Cf. the parallel use of ‫ אש‬and ‫ להב‬in Num 21:28 and the oracles against the nations in Isa 10:17; 47:14; Ezek 21:3; and Obad 18; see ibid., 77. Moreover, the term ‫ פליט‬is common in the narrative portions of the book of Jeremiah (Jer 42:17; 44:14 [2x], 28) as well as the curses on Babylon in Jer 50:28 and 51:50 and numerous times in the book of Ezekiel (Ezek 6:8, 9; 7:16; 24:26, 27; 33:21, 22). Although VAN SETERS, “Conquest,” 192– 95 argues that the Song of Heshbon is dependent on the oracle against Moab in Jer 48:4546 (followed by TYSON, Ammonites, 134), H.-C. SCHMITT, “Hesbonlied,” 29–31 convincingly demonstrates that the oracle in Jeremiah is in fact dependent on both the Song of Heshbon and the fourth Balaam oracle. 50 For the excavation report, see RAY, Tell Hesban, esp. 126–37; see also TYSON, Ammonites, 133. 51 Cf. H.-C. SCHMITT, “Hesbonlied,” 39. 52 MACDONALD, “Ammonite Territory,” 37. 53 Cf. L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 113 and PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 205. In contrast, H.-C. SCHMITT, “Hesbonlied,” 39 concludes from this that the composition of the Song of Heshbon during the Persian period is unlikely, since Heshbon was no longer an important city at that time. This is an insufficient argument against dating the Song to the Persian Period, however, since its authors could have known of Heshbon’s (prior) importance from other biblical texts. 54 Cf. MILLER, “Israelite Journey,” 578: “The Arnon was already established as Moab’s northern boundary before the days of Moses, and Israel conquered the region north of this boundary fair and square from a non-Moabite, non-Ammonite king.” KASWALDER, Disputa, 95–96 and H.-C. SCHMITT, “Hesbonlied,” 40 also note this rhetorical aim but nevertheless regard the Song of Heshbon as older than the surrounding narrative of the defeat of Sihon. LEVINE, Numbers 21–36, 111 argues that “the original intent of the ballad’s author was to celebrate an Israelite, not an Amorite, conquest of North Moab,” although this is completely contrary to the rhetorical aim of the passage.

245

3. The Defeat of Sihon and Og (Num 21:21-35)

the Song of Heshbon supports the conclusion that it was composed specifically for its present literary context. Indeed, the multiple references to Sihon in the Song – which, with the possible exception of 21:29bβ, cannot be removed from the poem – do not make sense apart from the narrative of the Israelites’ defeat of Sihon.55 Furthermore, the repeated use of specific geographical references is difficult to explain if one regards the poem as an independent victory song but can easily be explained if it is interpreted as a proof text that the Israelites did not take any territory (directly) from Moab. 3.3. Synthesis I

The most basic narrative thread in Num 21:21-35 likely consists of 21:21-24a, 25b.

I+

This narrative received small-scale additions in Num 21:24b-25a.

II

The episode was expanded in Num 21:32-35, which narrates the conquest of Jazer and the defeat of Og of Bashan in a style distinct from that of 21:21-25*.

III

The Song of Heshbon was inserted between Num 21:21-25 and 21:3235, as is suggested by the Wiederaufnahme of 21:25b in 21:31. III

II

22

I 21:21

‫וישלח ישראל מלאכים אל סיחן מלך האמרי לאמר אעברה בארצך לא נטה בשדה ובכרם לא‬ ‫ ולא נתן סיחן את ישראל עבר בגבלו ויאסף‬23 ‫נשתה מי באר בדרך המלך נלך עד אשר נעבר גבלך‬ ‫ ויכהו ישראל לפי חרב‬24 ‫סיחן את כל עמו ויצא לקראת ישראל המדברה ויבא יהצה וילחם בישראל‬ [‫ ויקח ישראל את כל הערים האלה‬25 ‫]ויירש את ארצו מארנן עד יבק עד בני עמון כי עז גבול בני עמון‬ ‫וישב ישראל בכל ערי האמרי בחשבון ובכל בנתיה‬ ‫ כי חשבון עיר סיחן מלך האמרי הוא והוא נלחם במלך מואב הראשון ויקח את כל ארצו‬26 ‫ על כן יאמרו המשלים‬27 ‫מידו עד ארנן‬ ‫באו חשבון תבנה ותכונן עיר סיחון‬ ‫ כי אש יצאה מחשבון להבה מקרית סיחן‬28 ‫אכלה ער מואב בעלי במות ארנן‬ ‫ אוי לך מואב אבדת עם כמוש‬29 ‫נתן בניו פליטם ובנתיו בשבית למלך אמרי סיחון‬ ‫ ונירם אבד חשבון עד דיבן‬30 ‫ונשים עד נפח אשר עד מידבא‬ ‫ וישב ישראל בארץ האמרי‬31 ‫ ויפנו ויעלו דרך הבשן‬33 ‫ וישלח משה לרגל את יעזר וילכדו בנתיה ויירש את האמרי אשר שם‬32 ‫ ויאמר ה׳ אל משה אל תירא אתו‬34 ‫ויצא עוג מלך הבשן לקראתם הוא וכל עמו למלחמה אדרעי‬ ‫כי בידך נתתי אתו ואת כל עמו ואת ארצו ועשית לו כאשר עשית לסיחן מלך האמרי אשר יושב‬ ‫ ויכו אתו ואת בניו ואת כל עמו עד בלתי השאיר לו שריד ויירשו את ארצו‬35 ‫בחשבון‬

























































55

Cf. TIMM, Moab, 94.

246

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

4. The Mosaic Retrospective in Deut 1–3* Both Israel’s detour around Edom (Num 20:14-21) and the defeat of Sihon and Og (Num 21:21-35) are recapitulated, with variations, in the narrative framework to the book of Deuteronomy (Deut 2:1–3:11). Before a comparison of these three versions can be undertaken, the literary development of Deut 2:1–3:11 must be investigated in its own right.56 Although the primary aim of this section is to evaluate the composition of Deut 2:1–3:11, such an analysis must also take into account Deut 1, since 2:1 continues a narrative thread that begins in the preceding chapter. 4.1. Literary-critical analysis The beginning of Moses’ address (Deut 1:1-8). Although the statement ‫אלה‬ ‫ הדברים אשר דבר משה‬in Deut 1:1 leads the reader to expect direct Mosaic speech, 1:2-4 continue in the third-person narrative voice, creating a tension in the narrative. When combined with the duplicate phraseology in 1:1a and 1:5, this suggests that 1:5 is a Wiederaufnahme of 1:1 that serves to accommodate an insertion in (at least) 1:2-4.57 Thus, it seems likely that 1:1a(b?) once connected directly to 1:6,58 preceded by the ‫ לאמר‬at the end of 1:5. The geographical references in 1:1b cause the verse to be oversaturated and are likely later than 1:1a.59 Within 1:6-8, there are tensions that suggest that these verses do not belong to a single compositional level. While 1:7aα is essential to the continuation of the narrative, 1:7aβb provides a long list of geographical details that are not directly connected with any of the narrative material in Deut 1–3 and are likely a later addition.60 Moreover, the command in 1:8b to “enter and possess the land that Yhwh has sworn to your ancestors” refers to Yhwh in the third person, thus standing in tension with the first-person divine speech to Moses in 1:6b-8a* and suggesting that 1:8b is a later addition.61

























































56

This is a major shortcoming in the analyses of VAN SETERS, Life, 384–86 and BADEN, J, E, 137–41, 148. 57 Cf. PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 4–5. Somewhat differently, NELSON, Deuteronomy, 16 divides Deut 1:1-5 into an earlier layer in 1:1a, 4-5 and a later layer in 1:1b-3, while VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 9–15 regards 1:1b-2, 3, 4, and 5 as belonging, respectively, to progressively older redactional layers. 58 Cf. VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 8, 15. 59 Cf. NELSON, Deuteronomy, 16; VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 12–13; and PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 4–5. 60 Cf. VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 18–20, who regards Deut 1:7b as an earlier addition and 1:7aβ as a later addition. 61 Cf. VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 19. Although ⅏ and certain 𝔊 manuscripts read ‫ נשבעתי‬rather than ‫נשבע ה׳‬, the latter is certainly the lectio difficilior.

4. The Mosaic Retrospective in Deut 1–3*

247

The appointment of judges (Deut 1:9-18). This unit interrupts the connection between Yhwh’s command to the people to depart from the mountain toward the hill country of the Amorites in 1:6-7aα and the corresponding fulfillment report in 1:19a and is widely acknowledged to be a later insertion between those verses.62 The episode of the spies (Deut 1:19-46). In light of the literary-critical analysis of Deut 2:1–3:11 (see below), the most basic material in 1:19 is likely limited to ‫( ונסע מחרב ונלך…דרך הר האמרי‬1:19aα*). The use of 2mp verbal forms in ‫ אשר ראיתם‬in 1:19 as well as in 1:20 are associated with 2:26, 13aα, 24, which belong to a later compositional stratum in Deut 2.63 Moreover, Moses’ identification of Kadesh-barnea with the “hill country of the Amorites” (‫ )הר האמרי‬in 1:20 flatly contradicts the use of ‫ הר האמרי‬later in Deut 2–3 (where it is associated with Transjordan) as well as the topography of Kadesh itself: Historical Kadesh, generally identified with the site ‘Ain elQudeirat, was not in the hill country at all but rather was located at a desert oasis.64 This tension in the identification of ‫ הר האמרי‬suggests that the most basic narrative thread in Deut 1–3 did not contain the story of the spies but instead moved directly from 1:19a*(b?) to events in Transjordan. Perhaps in order to accommodate the insertion of the spy episode, the author of 1:20 rather awkwardly has Moses assert that the people are already in the “hill country of the Amorites” when they arrive in Kadesh-barnea in the Negev.65 The journey through Transjordan (Deut 2:1-8a). Deut 2:1 cannot form the original continuation of 1:1a, 6-7aα, (8a), 19a*(b?) but instead presupposes the presence of the spy story in 1:(19b?), 20-46, in which Yhwh commands the people to set out for the wilderness by way of the Sea of Reeds (cf. Deut 1:40 // Num 14:25).66 Since the spy story is likely secondary to the most basic material in Deut 1–3, then 2:1 must also be later than the most basic narrative thread. Likewise, since 2:2-3 depend on the statement in 2:1 that the people



























































62 Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 34; WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1–11, 139; KRATZ, Komposition, 133 (ET 128); OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 131; VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 21; and PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 57. NELSON, Deuteronomy, 19 also acknowledges that Deut 1:9-18 interrupt the connection between 1:7 and 1:19 but is hesitant to state outright that these verses are a later insertion. 63 In contrast, KRATZ, “Der literarische Ort,” 105 assigns Deut 1:20 to the most basic literary level in Deut 1–3. 64 Cf. ROSKOP, Wilderness Itineraries, 252. 65 On an earlier transition from Deut 1:19 to Deut 2, see also PLÖGER, Deuteronomium, 5–24, who identifies a 1cp travel and battle report in Deut 1:6-8, 19; 2:1, 8, 13b-14, 30a, 32-36; 3:1, 3-8, 12a, 29 as the most basic material in Deut 1–3. 66 Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 64; PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 145; and HECKL, Moses Vermächtnis, 217. Although Mittmann notes the connection between Deut 2:1-3 and 1:40, he does not regard this as a reason to view 2:1-3 as later, since he assigns the spy story to the most basic material in Deut 1–3.

248

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

“circled” the hill country of Seir for many days, these verses also belong to the same compositional level as 1:(19b?), 20-46 and 2:1.67 It is striking that in 2:3, Yhwh gives Moses essentially the same travel instructions as in 1:6-7aα, suggesting that 2:3 is a thematic Wiederaufnahme of 1:6-7aα that serves to incorporate the people’s extended time in the wilderness68 – a consequence of the incident of the spies – into the framework of Yhwh’s command in 1:67aα, 19a* to go (presumably directly) from Mount Horeb to the “hill country of the Amorites”: Deut 1:6-7

‫ פנו וסעו לכם ובאו‬7 ‫ה׳ אלהינו דבר אלינו בחרב לאמר רב לכם שבת בהר הזה‬ …‫הר האמרי ואל כל שכניו‬

Deut 2:1-3

‫ונפן ונסע המדברה דרך ים סוף כאשר דבר ה׳ אלי ונסב את הר שעיר ימים‬ ‫ רב לכם סב את ההר הזה פנו לכם צפנה‬3 ‫ ויאמר ה׳ אלי לאמר‬2 ‫רבים‬

While 2:3 takes up the language from 1:6-7a*, it assigns a new meaning to the phrase ‫ההר הזה‬, namely, the “hill country of Seir” (2:1). The divine speech to Moses in 2:4-6 is subordinate to 2:1-369 and therefore is also secondary to the most basic material in Deut 1–3. This speech cannot have originally connected to the divine speech in 1:6-7aα: The singular imperative ‫ צו‬in 2:4 clearly indicates that Yhwh is speaking to Moses, while in 1:6-7aα Yhwh addresses the people as a whole. Deut 2:4-6 are also closely connected to 2:1 by the theme of Seir (cf. ‫ שעיר‬in 2:4 and ‫ הר שעיר‬in 2:5). Deut 2:7 can easily be identified as a later addition to 2:1-6.70 Whereas 2:2-6 contain 1cs divine speech to a 2mp audience, 2:7 contains a 3ms reference to Yhwh addressed to a second-person singular audience.71 Deut 2:7 also presupposes the inclusion of 1:19b-46 within Deut 1–3*, since the forty years in the wilderness are the result of Yhwh’s judgment of the people following the episode of the spies. Thus, Deut 2:1-7 as a whole presuppose the presence of the story of the spies in 1:19b-46 and cannot have connected directly to 1:19a.72 The literary-

























































67

In this respect, I differ from most commentators, who assign Deut 2:1-3 to the most basic material in Deut 1–3; e.g., OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 132; IDEM, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 158 and KRATZ, “Der literarische Ort,” 105–6. 68 While some commentators regard ‫ ימים רבים‬in Deut 2:1 as implying the death of a generation (e.g., MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 76 and OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 132), FLEMING, Legacy, 122 n. 19 argues that this cannot necessarily be deduced here (unlike in 2:7). 69 Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 64. 70 Cf. ibid., 66; VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 51; and PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 146. 71 Notably, this addressee is not Moses, as is the case in other parts of Deut 2–3 (2:9, 18, 24, 31, 37; 3:2), but rather is closer to the 2ms addressee found in the theological exhortations beginning around 4:29 and in the legal materials in Deut 12–26; cf. PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 146, 160 and HECKL, Moses Vermächtnis, 454. 72 HECKL, Moses Vermächtnis, 245 notes that the themes of obedience and disobedience form a link between Deut 1:42 and 2:4-6, (7), 9.

4. The Mosaic Retrospective in Deut 1–3*

249

critical evaluation of 2:8a, however, is more complex. It is possible that an earlier form of 2:8a narrated the people’s passage through rather than around Edom, as is suggested by 𝔊 and 𝔙, which read ‫ *ונעבר את אחינו‬and ‫דרך‬ ‫ *הערבה‬in contrast to 𝔐 ‫ ונעבר מאת אחינו‬and ‫מדרך הערבה‬.73 This earlier form of 2:8a may have once connected directly to 1:19aα*. If this the case, then the references to Elat and Ezion-geber in 2:8aγ must be later additions, since they presuppose the people’s detour “by way of the Sea of Reeds” (i.e., the Gulf of Aqaba) associated with the spy story (cf. Num 14:25; Deut 1:40; and 2:1).74 Events in Transjordan (Deut 2:8b–3:11). Deut 2:8b–3:11 recount two distinct sets of events – the Israelites’ passage through Moabite and Ammonite territory (2:8b-23) and the conquest of Sihon and Og (2:24–3:11) – which are dovetailed together in various ways in the received form of the text. The best approach to reconstructing the literary growth of this unit is to begin by working backwards, first identifying texts that clearly interrupt their contexts and then analyzing the material that remains. A number of commentators agree in regarding a series of antiquarian notices – or, perhaps better, giants texts – within Deut 2:8b–3:11 as later additions to this unit.75 The first of these is found in 2:10-12, which describe the Rephaim, who lived in the land that later became Moabite territory (2:10-11), and the Horim, whom the sons of Esau (i.e., Edom) wiped out (‫ שמד‬hiphil) and settled in their place (2:12). A similar insertion is found in 2:20-23, which state that the land of the Ammonites was also previously part of the land of the Rephaim (2:20).76 Deut 2:23 applies a similar pattern to the Avvim, whom the Caphtorim wiped out (‫ שמד‬hiphil) and settled in their place.77



























































73 The view that 𝔊 and 𝔙 preserve a more original reading has been argued by a number of commentators, who point out that ‫ מאת‬in 𝔐 can be interpreted as a harmonization with Num 20:21; cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 65–66 (citing earlier literature); BLUM, Studien, 120 n. 77; OSWALD, “Revision,” 232 n. 17; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 338; and PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 140–41. 74 These texts identify ‫ ים סוף‬with the Gulf of Aqaba rather than with a body of water lying between the Nile Delta and the Negev (so Exod 13:18; 15:4, 22). As other biblical references to Elat (2 Kgs 14:22 and 16:6) and Ezion-geber (Num 33:35-36; 1 Kgs 9:26; 22:29; 2 Chr 8:17; 20:36) indicate, these two sites (which may be identical or very close to each other) are also associated with the Gulf of Aqaba. 75 STEUERNAGEL, Deuteronomium, 57; PLÖGER, Deuteronomium, 54–55; MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 67–68, 70–71; PERLITT, “Riesen,” repr. 219–21, 232–36; VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 52–54; HECKL, Moses Vermächtnis, 239–40, 252, 262–64; NELSON, Deuteronomy, 39–40; OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 171, 175–81; and PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 145–46, 178. 76 This passage credits Yhwh with wiping out (‫ שמד‬hiphil) the Rephaim on behalf of the Ammonites (Deut 2:21), just as he did for the sons of Esau (2:22; contrast with 2:12). 77 MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 70 and PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 187 consider Deut 2:23 to be secondary to 2:20-22, while OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 179 regards 2:20-23 as a compositional unity.

250

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

It is possible that 2:12 and 2:22-23, which describe the dispossession of the Horim in Seir at the hands of the “sons of Esau,” are later than the other giants texts:78 unlike the Emim/Zamzumim/Rephaim, the Horim are never described as giants. Moreover, these verses suddenly change the subject from the “sons of Lot” to the “sons of Esau” and seem to presuppose the materials in 2:4-6 describing the Israelites’ passage through Seir, the territory of the “sons of Esau.”79 The purpose of these insertions seems to be to demonstrate that Israel’s neighbors – Edom, Moab, Ammon, and the Philistines – all occupied their land in the same way that the Israelites occupied their divinely-given land on both sides of the Jordan, namely, by wiping out (‫ שמד‬hiphil) giants who lived in the land beforehand.80 The insertion of these glosses immediately following Yhwh’s instructions to Moses not to engage the Moabites (Deut 2:9) or the Ammonites (2:19) in battle suggests that their rhetorical function is to explain how these peoples came to have their own divinely ordained territorial possession (‫)ירשה‬. These considerations also help to explain the enigmatic reference to Og’s iron “bed” (or perhaps “coffin”)81 in Deut 3:11, which bears several connections to 2:10-12, 20-2382 and, like those texts, can easily be removed without disturbing the coherence of the preceding narrative.83 The statement that Og was the only one who remained of the Rephaim (cf. Josh 12:4; 13:12) indicates that the Israelites’ conquest of Og’s kingdom was the final stage in wiping out the giants who, according to these texts, previously inhabited the entire southern Levant. The mythic dimensions of Og’s coffin – nine cubits long by four cubits wide – serve to strengthen the portrayal of Og as a giant.

























































78

Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 67, who notes that Deut 2:10-12 “ist keineswegs aus einem Guß” and that 2:12 stands in thematic tension with 2:10-11 and 2:20. VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 53 also considers that 2:12 may be later than 2:10-11. 79 These giants texts form a close link with Gen 14:5-6. While PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 176 assumes that the reference to the Horim, Emim, and Rephaim in Gen 14:5-6 is dependent on Deut 2:10-12, 20, HECKL, Moses Vermächtnis, 451–52 n. 42 argues (convincingly, in my view) for the opposite direction of dependence. 80 NELSON, Deuteronomy, 36; OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 179; and DOAK, Last of the Rephaim, 81–95. SUMNER, “Israel’s Encounters,” 220 also notes this rhetorical function of these passages but argues that they belong to the same literary level as the divine instructions not to attack Edom, Moab, and Ammon. See also LOHFINK, “Geschichtstypologisch orientierte Textstrukturen,” 154; IDEM, “Geschichtstypologie,” 88, who, like Sumner, denies that the giants texts are later additions. 81 For a discussion of the meaning of the term ‫ ערש‬here, see DOAK, Last of the Rephaim, 91–93 (with further literature). 82 Cf. STEUERNAGEL, Deuteronomium, 61; MAYES, Deuteronomy, 144; VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 78; OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 195; and PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 199. 83 Cf. NELSON, Deuteronomy, 52 and DOAK, Last of the Rephaim, 90.

4. The Mosaic Retrospective in Deut 1–3*

251

Another addition that is perhaps related to Deut 2:10-12, 20-23 and 3:11 is found in 3:9,84 which provides an erudite detail about the alternate names of Mount Hermon.85 This verse is hardly necessary to the flow of the narrative, and it bears a certain affinity to the additions in 2:10-12 and 20-23, which also provide alternate proper names used by different peoples (2:11, 19). Several other isolated additions can also be identified within Deut 2:8b– 3:11. (1) In 2:14-16, Moses states that thirty-eight years have passed between the people’s departure from Kadesh-barnea and their crossing of Wadi Zered.86 During that time, the entire generation of the men of war was eliminated from the camp, just as Yhwh had sworn to them. This passage clearly presupposes the story of the spies87 and thus cannot be earlier than the insertion of 1:19b-46 into Deut 1–3*. (2) Deut 2:30b provides a motive for Sihon’s refusal to allow the people to pass through his land: “Yhwh your [ms] God hardened his spirit and made his heart strong in order to give him over into your [ms] hand.” Like 2:7, 2:30b refers to Yhwh in the third person and has a non-Mosaic 2ms addressee. In this respect, this verse differs from the other 2ms forms of address in Deut 2–3 (2:9, 18, 24, 31, 37; 3:2) and is best explained as an ad hoc gloss correlating the conquest of Sihon’s kingdom with the exodus.88 (3) Deut 3:4b-5 provide further details about the cities that the people captured from Og: sixty fortified cities, which encompassed the entire region (‫ )חבל‬of the Argob.89 This description differs from the analogous description of the destruction of Sihon’s cities in 2:36(a)b, in which Moses addresses the people using 1cp forms and which does not provide a specific number of cities that were conquered.



























































84 This verse has long been identified as a gloss; cf. STAERK, Deuteronomium, 60; STEUERNAGEL, Deuteronomium, 61–62; HÖLSCHER, “Komposition,” 164; PLÖGER, Deuteronomium, 58; MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 84; NELSON, Deuteronomy, 52; and PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 199. 85 OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 195 notes that the name “Sidonians” fits well with the context of the Persian period, when the Phoenicians referred to themselves as Sidonians. 86 For a discussion of why Deut 2:14 reads thirty-eight instead of forty years, see MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 78. 87 Cf. PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 145 and HECKL, Moses Vermächtnis, 245. 88 Such a correlation was likely triggered by the statement in Deut 2:30a that Sihon was not willing to let the people pass through his land, which has clear similarities to Pharaoh’s refusal to let the people leave Egypt in the priestly version of the plague cycle (cf. Exod 7:3); on this, see VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 64 and OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 181–82. As MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 80 and VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 64 have observed, Deut 2:30b also serves to harmonize the contradictory points of view in 2:24aβb (the divine command to engage Sihon in battle) and in 2:2630a (Moses’ peaceful request to pass through Sihon’s land). 89 On Deut 3:4b-5 as a later addition, see MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 82 and VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 64.

252

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

When these additions are removed from Deut 2:8b–3:11, the following text remains: 2:8b 2:9 2:13a 2:13b 2:17-19 2:24aα 2:24aβ-25 2:26-30a* 2:31 2:32-34aα 2:34aβ-35 2:36 2:37 3:1 3:2 3:3a 3:4a 3:3b, 6-7 3:8, 10

1cp retrospective: departure towards the “desert of Moab” Divine speech to Moses: do not engage Moab in battle 2mp imperative: cross Wadi Zered 1cp retrospective: crossing of Wadi Zered Divine speech to Moses: do not engage Ammon in battle 2mp imperative: cross Wadi Arnon Divine speech to Moses: engage Sihon in battle 1cs/p retrospective: Moses requests passage from Sihon Divine speech to Moses: take possession of Sihon’s land 1cp retrospective: Yhwh delivers Sihon to Israel 1cp retrospective: the Israelites subject Sihon’s cities to ‫חרם‬ 1cp retrospective: the territorial extent of Sihon’s cities 2ms retrospective: non-aggression towards Ammon 1cp retrospective: journey towards Bashan; Og attacks Israel Divine speech to Moses: assurance of victory over Og 1cp retrospective: Yhwh delivers Og to Israel 1cp retrospective: the Israelites capture all of Og’s cities 1cp retrospective: the Israelites subject Og’s cities to ‫חרם‬ 1cp retrospective: territory taken from the Amorite kings

In terms of plot, these materials can be divided into two major units: the people’s passage through Moabite and Ammonite territory (2:8b-9, 13, 17-19) and the defeat of Sihon and Og (2:24–3:10). In terms of narrative style and terminology, however, the most significant break between the two units lies not between 2:19 and 2:24 but instead between 2:25 and 2:26. Whereas 2:26– 3:10* are dominated by Moses’ recapitulation of events using 1cs and 1cp verbs, 2:8b-25* contain a mixture of 1cp narration (2:8b, 13b), divine speech to Moses (2:9, 17-19, 24aβb-25), and 2mp commands (2:13a, 24aα). The divine speeches to Moses in Deut 2:9, 17-19 are dependent on the encounter with Edom in 2:4-6. Formal differences between the two units suggest that 2:9, 17-19 are most likely later than, not contemporaneous with, 2:46.90 Since the divine command to cross Wadi Zered in 2:13a presupposes the divine speech to Moses in 2:9, this half verse must also belong with 2:9, 1719. This leaves 2:8b, 13b as the most basic material in 2:8b-19*. Just as 2:8a* seems to have originally described the people’s crossing through Seir, 2:8b, 13b seem to describe the people’s journey through (rather than around) the Wilderness of Moab.91 Thus, 2:8a*, 8b, 13b emerge as the most basic materi-

























































90

Cf. PLÖGER, Deuteronomium, 55; MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 70, 77; PERDeuteronomium 1–6*, 144, 147; and OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 133; IDEM, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 171. 91 For this conclusion, see also MILLER, “Israelite Journey,” 582, who interprets the phrase ‫ מדבר מואב‬as “a general designation for the region east of the Dead Sea rather than as a specific reference to the desert east of Moab.” LITT,

4. The Mosaic Retrospective in Deut 1–3*

253

al in 2:1-23 and the original continuation of 1:19aα* prior to the insertion of the spy story in 1:19b-46. The report of the conquest of Sihon and Og in Deut 2:24–3:10 has a complex literary history, although the evidence is ambiguous and has therefore led to a wide variety of reconstructions of the unit’s development. The most significant problem is the tension between Yhwh’s command to engage Sihon in battle in 2:24 (which has close connections to 2:31) and Moses’ peaceful request to pass through Sihon’s land in 2:26-31*.92 This glaring contradiction has long led commentators to propose that 2:24-25 and 2:26-31* belong to different compositional levels, although the priority of one text over the other remains a matter of dispute. Deut 2:24-25 fit quite well within the context of 2:4-23, forming a diptych with Yhwh’s command not to engage the Edomites, Moabites or Ammonites in war.93 The verb ‫ גרה‬hithpael + ‫“ ב‬to fight” is common to 2:9, 19, and 24, all of which take the form of a divine speech to Moses: Deut 2:9

‫…אל תצר את מואב ואל תתגר בם מלחמה כי לא אתן לך מארצו ירשה כי‬ ‫לבני לוט נתתי את ער ירשה‬

Deut 2:19

‫וקרבת מול בני עמון אל תצרם ואל תתגר בם כי לא אתן מארץ בני עמון לך‬ ‫ירשה כי לבני לוט נתתיה ירשה‬

Deut 2:24aβb

‫ראה נתתי בידך את סיחן מלך חשבון האמרי ואת ארצו החל רש והתגר בו‬ ‫מלחמה‬

A similar divine speech is found in Deut 2:31: Deut 2:31

‫ויאמר ה׳ אלי ראה החלתי תת לפניך את סיחן ואת ארצו החל רש לרשת את‬ ‫ארצו‬

In light of the close connection between Deut 2:24aβb and the preceding verses, it seems most likely that the divine command to Moses to begin taking possession of Sihon’s land has its original setting there and was later duplicated, with slight changes, in 2:31.94 This conclusion helps to explain



























































92 In the words of GESUNDHEIT, “Midrasch-Exegese,” 112 (ET 74), “God’s command in v. 24…seems to be completely ignored by Moses. More than this: Moses does exactly the opposite!”; cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 79. WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1–11, 171 and HECKL, Moses Vermächtnis, 270 downplay this tension, although GESUNDHEIT, “Midrasch-Exegese,” 113 (ET 75) rightly critiques their explanations as “harmonizing exegesis.” 93 Cf. HECKL, Moses Vermächtnis, 288. 94 Cf. NELSON, Deuteronomy, 47; OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 183; and GESUNDHEIT, “Midrasch-Exegese,” 116 (ET 77). In contrast, STEUERNAGEL, Deuteronomium, 58; MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 80; VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 65–66; RÜTERSWÖRDEN, Deuteronomium, 37; and PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 199, 202 conclude that Deut 2:24 is a secondary anticipation of 2:31.

254

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

the awkward command ‫ החל רש לרשת‬in 2:31.95 Moreover, 2:24aβb fits its broader context better than 2:31 does: In 2:31, Yhwh’s command to “begin to take possession” stands in tension with the course of events that immediately follow, in which it is Sihon who initiates the battle against Israel (2:32) and not vice versa. Contrary to most commentators, who regard Deut 2:24-25 as secondary to 2:26-31*, Shimon Gesundheit has recently argued that 2:26-31 constitute a secondary insertion that interrupts an earlier connection between 2:24-25 and 2:32-37*.96 He observes that 2:28 is a direct adaptation of 2:6, changing the request that the Edomites sell the Israelites water in 2:6 to a request that Sihon give the Israelites water in 2:28.97 Although Gesundheit’s explanation of the direction of dependence between 2:6 and 2:28 is convincing, this does not necessarily mean that 2:26-31 as a whole are later than 2:24-25. Indeed, 2:2829a interrupt Moses’ request to pass through the land, separating Moses’ initial request in 2:27 from his statement of the purpose of the request in 2:29b and can be explained as a later insertion into Moses’ speech to Sihon.98 It is possible that the phrase ‫ דברי שלום‬in 2:26b (which Gesundheit regards as essential to what he terms the “innerbiblical midrash” in 2:26-31) is also a later addition, as it causes the verb ‫ ואשלח‬to take the rather unusual double accusative ‫מלאכים…דברי שלום‬. Finally, while 2:30a has a 1cp implied audience, 2:30b has a 2ms implied audience, suggesting that these two half verses do not belong to the same compositional level. Thus, if 2:26-31 as a whole are a later insertion into a literary context that includes 2:24-25, it is surprising that 2:26-31 are not more unified.99 In addition to the evidence within Deut 2:26-30* that challenges the assumption that this unit in its entirety is later than 2:24-25, there is evidence outside of this unit that may point to its literary priority over 2:24-25. (1) The extent of the land that the people took from Sihon as described in 2:36 stands in tension with Yhwh’s instructions in 2:19 not to fight against the Ammonites, since 2:36 implies that the Israelites took possession of all of the land north of the Arnon, including Ammonite territory. In order to clarify that this

























































95

Cf. GESUNDHEIT, “Midrasch-Exegese,” 116 (ET 77). Ibid., 115 (ET 76–77). NELSON, Deuteronomy, 46 similarly notes that the offer of peace in Deut 2:26-30 “stands in some tension with the predominant plot line” in 2:24-25, 31-36. 97 GESUNDHEIT, “Midrasch-Exegese,” 115–16 (ET 77–78). Although Gesundheit does not discuss Deut 2:29a, this verse also takes into account the Israelites’ passage through Edomite and Moabite territory in 2:4-8a, 9. HECKL, Moses Vermächtnis, 266–67, 290 notes that 2:29a is closely connected to 2:4-6, 9, 19 but disregards the fact that 2:29a disturbs the connection between 2:27-28 and 2:29b. 98 Cf. STEUERNAGEL, Deuteronomium, 59; HÖLSCHER, “Komposition,” 164; MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 80; and MAYES, Deuteronomy, 141. 99 This problem will be taken up again in §6. 96

4. The Mosaic Retrospective in Deut 1–3*

255

was not the case, a later scribe inserted 2:37 in order to delineate the Ammonite territory that did not fall within the land that the Israelites took from Sihon.100 In contrast, for 2:32-36, the fact that Sihon’s territory encompassed the historical borders of Ammon is not seen as a problem. This suggests that 2:32-36 were written prior to the texts describing the Israelites’ passage through Edom, Moab, and Ammon in 2:1-23* and therefore also prior to 2:24-25, which presuppose 2:1-23*. If this is correct, then 2:24-25 cannot have formed the earliest exposition of the Sihon episode in Deut 2. (2) While the verbal root ‫ יר״ש‬appears frequently in 2:9-25, 31, it is not used at all in 2:26-30, 32-36, which instead speak of Israel defeating (‫ )נכה‬Sihon and Og and capturing (‫ )לכד‬their cities. (3) Although in 2:24 Yhwh commands Moses to engage Sihon in battle, in the actual battle report in 2:32-33 the opposite occurs: Sihon comes out to engage the Israelites in battle. In light of the conclusion that the divine speeches to Moses in Deut 2:31 and 2:37 are both secondary to Moses’ retrospective in 2:26-30, 32-36*, it seems likely that the divine speech to Moses in 3:2 is also secondary to the most basic narrative of the conquest of Og.101 The speech does not drive the narrative forward but rather serves to make the parallelism between the conquest of Sihon and the conquest of Og more explicit.102 Deut 3:8a serves as a concluding summary of the conquest of Sihon and Og, suggesting that the geographical notices in 3:8b, 10 are later additions.103 The report of the defeat of Og cannot be removed from the most basic narrative thread on literary-critical grounds,104 even though it is apparent that the defeat of Og was modeled on that of Sihon: Deut 3:1b draws directly from 2:32 and replaces only the name of the king and the location of the battle.105 If Deut 2:24-25, 28-29a, 30b, 31, 37; and 3:2, 8b-10 are bracketed out as likely later additions to Moses’ retrospective of the defeat of Sihon and Og, a stylistically consistent narrative characterized by a 1cs narrator (Moses) and a 1cp protagonist (Moses and the people) emerges from the remaining text. Even within these materials, however, it is perhaps possible to identify an

























































100

Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 81, who argues that Deut 2:37a has the same origin as 2:19 and that 2:37b is an even later addition. 101 Cf. HÖLSCHER, “Komposition,” 164; PLÖGER, Deuteronomium, 58; MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 81; and VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 70–71. 102 Cf. PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 198. 103 Cf. ibid., 236. 104 Cf. MAYES, Deuteronomy, 143 and KRATZ, “Der literarische Ort,” 105–6 against PLÖGER, Deuteronomium, 17 and MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 82, 90. Mittmann argues that the Og pericope differs from the preceding material insofar as there is no divine command to set out prior to Deut 3:1 as there is in 2:24, yet this argument is complicated by the fact that the divine command to set out in 2:24 is likely a later addition. 105 Cf. OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 134–35; IDEM, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 191 and PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 230.

256

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

early layer of reworking that portrayed the conquest of Sihon and Og in terms of the ‫ חרם‬ideology in Deuteronomy and Joshua. The concept of ‫ חרם‬appears in three places within the first-person narrative materials in 2:26–3:8*, once in relation to the defeat of Sihon and twice in relation to the defeat of Og: Deut 2:34aβb

‫ונחרם את כל עיר מתם והנשים והטף לא השארנו שריד‬

Deut 2:35

‫רק הבהמה בזזנו לנו ושלל הערים אשר לכדנו‬

Deut 3:3b

‫ונכהו עד בלתי השאיר לו שריד‬

Deut 3:6

‫ונחרם אותם כאשר עשינו לסיחן מלך חשבון החרם כל עיר מתם הנשים והטף‬

Deut 3:7

‫וכל הבהמה ושלל הערים בזונו לנו‬

If these passages are bracketed out, a coherent narrative remains, suggesting that they may be additions to an earlier narrative that was not concerned with portraying the conquest of Transjordan in terms of ‫ חרם‬ideology.106 Admittedly, the literary-critical evidence for assigning Deut 2:34aβ-35; 3:3b, 6-7 to a later level of composition is relatively limited. There are no clear indications of insertions (such as the use of Wiederaufnahmen) or tensions in narrative voice. Nevertheless, it should be noted that in Moses’ review of the defeat of Sihon, the transition from the ‫ חרם‬references in 2:34aβ35 to the geographical references in 2:36 is not very smooth: The listing of conquered areas in 2:36 connects much better to 2:34aα, providing further details regarding the extent of Sihon’s territory.107 In the review of the conquest of Og, the ‫ חרם‬references in 3:6-7 display explicit dependence on those in 2:34aβ-35 and cannot be earlier than them. Thus, I tentatively propose that the ‫ חרם‬references in 2:34aβ-35; 3:3b, 6-7 belong to a separate literary layer that postdates the most basic version of the Sihon and Og narratives in Deut 2–3, which can be identified in 2:26–3:10: 2:26*, 27, 29b-30a, 32-34aα, 36; 3:1, 3a, 4a, 8a. Interim result. According to the foregoing analysis, the most basic narrative thread in Deut 1–3 is to be found in 1:1a, 6-7aα, 19aα*, (19b?); 2:(8a*?), 8b, (13b?), 26*, 27, 29b-30a, 32-34aα, 36; 3:1, 3a, 4a, 8a, 29. 108 This narrative recounts the people’s journey from Horeb directly to the hill country of the Amorites in Transjordan, where the people are confronted by Sihon and Og, defeat them, and capture their cities.



























































106 In contrast, MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 86 considers the ‫ חרם‬references to be integral to the most basic version of the Sihon episode in Deut 2. 107 It is also possible that the geographical references in Deut 2:36aα are secondary and that 2:34aα once connected directly to 2:36aβb. 108 PLÖGER, Deuteronomium, 5–25 arrives at a similar narrative core to Deut 1–3, albeit by different means: He isolates all of the 1cp texts in these chapters, resulting in what he identifies as a “zusammenhängenden Weg- und Kampfbericht” (ibid., 13).

4. The Mosaic Retrospective in Deut 1–3*

257

4.2. Macrocontextual analysis Now that a literary-critical analysis of Deut 1:1-19; 2:1–3:11 has been conducted, it is possible to evaluate the extent of potentially pre-priestly material in Deut 1–3 by situating the various layers in these chapters within a broader compositional horizon. Such comparison reveals that a large amount of material in these chapters presupposes (post-)priestly materials in the books of Exodus and Numbers: – 1:2-4 presuppose the priestly dating of the wilderness journey.109 – 1:9-18 recapitulate the appointment of judges/elders narrated in Num 11:4-35 (cf. Exod 18:13-26).110 – 1:20-46 presuppose the spy story in Num 13–14, which has a priestly base narrative.111 – 2:1-3 presuppose the detour to ‫ ים סוף‬and the prolonged wilderness journey, both of which resulted from the sin of the people in the episode of the spies. – 2:4-6 cannot be earlier than 2:1-3 or the story of the spies in 1:20-46.112 – 2:7 presupposes Yhwh’s judgment of the people in the episode of the spies through its reference to the forty years in the wilderness. – 2:9 presupposes the concept of divine territorial allotment found in Josh 13–19.113 The thematic connection of Deut 2:9 to 2:4-6 further confirms its post-priestly provenance. – 2:10-12, 13a presuppose 2:9. – 2:14-16 presuppose the story of the spies.114 – 2:17-19 are closely connected to 2:4-6 and unlikely to be earlier than that unit.115 – 2:20-23 cannot be earlier than 2:17-19.



























































109 Cf. PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 15 and HECKL, Moses Vermächtnis, 453; against NOTH, ÜSt, 29, who assigns these verses to DtrH. 110 On Num 11, see Chapter 6, §2.2; on Exod 18, see Chapter 3, §8.2. 111 See Chapter 6, §4.2. 112 Moses’ warning the people to be on their guard (‫ שמר‬niphal) in their interaction with the sons of Esau and the use of the verb ‫ ירא‬in Deut 2:4 allude to narratives in the Jacob cycle (Gen 27:41-45; 32:7-9; 33:1-5; 36:8-9), suggesting that 2:4-6 presuppose a literary connection between the books of Genesis and Exodus. Cf. OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 160–61, although he regards 2:4b and 2:5aβb as later additions. 113 Cf. OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 167. For a discussion of the priestly and post-priestly compositional activity in these chapters, see CORTESE, Josua 13–21, 49–85. 114 Cf. PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 145 and HECKL, Moses Vermächtnis, 245. Both MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 69 and OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 170 evaluate Deut 2:16 as earlier than 2:14-15, although 2:16 hardly makes sense without 2:1415. Rather, 2:16 serves as a sort of Wiederaufnahme that facilitates the insertion of 2:14-15 between 2:13 and 2:17; cf. STAERK, Deuteronomium, 60 and PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1– 6*, 172 (albeit with reservations). In any event, both 2:14-15 and 2:16 presuppose the death of the exodus generation resulting from the episode of the spies and thus must be evaluated as post-priestly. 115 Deut 2:17-19 also form connections with the narratives involving Lot in the book of Genesis (Gen 12:14-15; 13; 19); cf. OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 133. In contrast, FLEMING, Legacy, 124 argues that “such a shared tradition between Genesis and Deuteronomy 2 requires no literary or even direct narrative connection.”

258

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

– 2:24-25 and 2:31 set up a contrast with – and thus presuppose – 2:1-7, 9. – 3:4b-5 are likely derived from Josh 13:29-31, a post-priestly text.116 – 3:9 interrupts the conceptual connection between 3:8b and 3:10. Since the latter is postpriestly (see immediately below), 3:9 must also be post-priestly. – 3:10 anticipates Josh 13:17, 21, which belong to a post-priestly context.117 – 3:11 presupposes 2:10-12, 20-23. – 3:12-17 presuppose Moses’ apportioning of the conquered territory in Transjordan to Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh in Num 32:33-42, which cannot stand alone without the (post-)priestly narrative that precedes it in Num 32:1-32.118 – 3:18-20 presuppose the (post-)priestly narrative of the arrangement between Moses and the Transjordanian tribes in Num 32:1-32. – 3:23-28 presuppose Yhwh’s decree that Moses may not enter the land following Moses’ disobedience at Meribat-Kadesh (Num 20:2-13), a (post-)priestly text. Moreover, Yhwh’s instruction to Moses to encourage Joshua in 3:28 draws on Deut 31:7 at an advanced stage of composition in which Joshua’s role in allotting the land to the tribes (‫ נחל‬hiphil) is presupposed.119

In sum, comparison of the various materials in Deut 1–3 with their Vorlagen reveals that a significant amount of text in these chapters belongs to a postpriestly stage of composition, namely, 1:2-4, 7aβb, 9-18, 20-46; 2:1-7, 9-13a, 14-25, 31; and 3:4b-5, 9-20, 23-28. Since all of these texts are later than the most basic narrative thread of Deut 1–3 identified in the literary-critical analysis, the most basic narrative could potentially be pre-priestly, although this cannot be demonstrated with certainty. 4.3. Synthesis I

The most basic literary stratum in Deut 1–3 likely consisted of a Mosaic retrospective of the people’s journey through Transjordan120 and the defeat of Sihon and Og and is characterized by the use of 1cs and 1cp verbs: Deut 1:1a, 6-7aα, 19aα*(b?); 2:8(a*?)b, (13b?), 26*, 27, 29b30a, 32-34aα, 36; 3:1, 3a, 4a, 8a.121

























































116

Cf. OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 193. Cf. ibid., 194. 118 Num 32:33-42 also form a counterpart to the apportioning of the land to the nine and one-half Cisjordanian tribes in Josh 13–19, further confirming its post-priestly provenance; cf. OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 186; IDEM, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 196–98. 119 Cf. OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 203–5. 120 For this conclusion, see also MILLER, “Israelite Journey,” 583. 121 MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 87 excludes Deut 2:26-28, 29bα from the most basic narrative, calling these verses a “singularische Zuwachs.” Here, however, Mittmann’s evaluation is based only on the number of the verbs and not on the person also. While the literary-critical differentiation between 2ms and 2mp verb forms is generally accepted, the same principle cannot be applied directly to 1cs and 1cp verbs, since both fit within the literary fiction of Moses’ retrospective. PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 203 also observes this problem in Mittmann’s reconstruction but overcorrects it by assigning not 117

4. The Mosaic Retrospective in Deut 1–3*

259

I+

This first-person retrospective was supplemented with additional 1cp texts in Deut 2:34aβ-35; 3:3b, 6-7 that portrayed the defeat of Sihon and Og in terms of an understanding of ‫ חרם‬whereby all of the human inhabitants of a city were killed but livestock and other plunder were taken as legitimate booty.

II

Moses’ retrospective of the story of the spies was added in Deut 1:2046*. This is the first clearly identifiable stage of post-priestly composition in Deut 1–3.

II+

The story of the spies was expanded in Deut 1:20-22*, 25*, 28-33, 3539*, 40, and 46.122

III

The retrospective of the defeat of Sihon and Og in Deut 2:26–3:8a* was supplemented in 2:1-6, 9, 17-19, 24-25 by itinerary notices and divine speeches to Moses instructing the Israelites not to attack Edom, Moab, and Ammon but to engage Sihon in battle, forming a contrast with the defeat of Sihon and Og. There are a number of indications that these texts belong to a post-priestly stage of composition.

III+ Sometime after the insertion of the divine speeches to Moses in Deut 2:9, 17-19, 24-25, similar speeches were added in 2:31 and 3:2. In addition, 2:14-16, which presuppose the story of the spies, cannot stand without 2:17 and must have been inserted sometime after that verse. Deut 2:13a, 28-29a, 31, and 37 also presuppose the texts in Level III and thus cannot be earlier than them. IV

A series of giants texts (or antiquarian notices) were added in Deut 2:10-11, (12?), 20-21, (22-23?); 3:11, establishing a pattern whereby Israel and its neighbors Moab and Ammon all received their divinely apportioned land after defeating giants who previously inhabited the land.

IV+ It is possible that Deut 2:12 and 2:22-23, which describe the dispossession of the Horim in Seir at the hands of the “sons of Esau,” are later than the other giants texts. Likewise, 3:9, which has an antiquarian interest similar to 2:11 and 2:20 but does not speak of giants, may be later than the other giants texts. V

Several other additions were made within Deut 1:1–3:11 that are not closely associated with any of the foregoing redactional layers: 1:2-5, 7*-8, 9-18; 2:7, 30b; 3:4b-5.



























































































































only 2:26-29 but also 2:31 and 3:2 to the most basic narrative based on their use of 1cs grammatical forms. 122 See the literary-critical analysis of Deut 1:19-46 in Chapter 6, §4.4.

‫)‪Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪260‬‬

‫‪V‬‬

‫‪ 1:1‬אלה הדברים אשר דבר משה אל כל ישראל בעבר הירדן‬ ‫במדבר בערבה מול סוף בין פארן ובין תפל ולבן וחצרת ודי זהב ‪ 2‬אחד עשר יום‬ ‫מחרב דרך הר שעיר עד קדש ברנע ‪ 3‬ויהי בארבעים שנה בעשתי עשר חדש‬ ‫באחד לחדש דבר משה אל בני ישראל ככל אשר צוה ה׳ אתו אלהם ‪ 4‬אחרי‬ ‫הכתו את סיחן מלך האמרי אשר יושב בחשבון ואת עוג מלך הבשן אשר יושב‬ ‫בעשתרת באדרעי ‪ 5‬בעבר הירדן בארץ מואב הואיל משה באר את התורה‬ ‫הזאת לאמר‬ ‫‪ 6‬ה׳ אלהינו דבר אלינו בחרב לאמר רב לכם שבת בהר הזה ‪ 7‬פנו וסעו לכם ובאו הר האמרי‬ ‫ואל כל שכניו בערבה בהר ובשפלה ובנגב ובחוף הים ארץ הכנעני והלבנון עד‬ ‫הנהר הגדל נהר פרת ‪ 8‬ראה נתתי לפניכם את הארץ באו ורשו את הארץ אשר‬ ‫נשבע ה׳ לאבתיכם לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב לתת להם ולזרעם אחריהם‬ ‫]‪[1:9-18‬‬ ‫‪ 19‬ונסע מחרב ]ונלך את כל המדבר הגדול והנורא ההוא אשר ראיתם[ דרך הר האמרי כאשר צוה ה׳‬ ‫אלהינו אתנו ונבא עד קדש ברנע‬ ‫]‪[1:20-46‬‬ ‫‪ 2:1‬ונפן ונסע המדברה דרך ים סוף כאשר דבר ה׳ אלי ונסב את הר שעיר ימים רבים‬ ‫‪ 2‬ויאמר ה׳ אלי לאמר ‪ 3‬רב לכם סב את ההר הזה פנו לכם צפנה ‪ 4‬ואת העם צו לאמר אתם‬ ‫עברים בגבול אחיכם בני עשו הישבים בשעיר וייראו מכם ונשמרתם מאד ‪ 5‬אל תתגרו בם‬ ‫כי לא אתן לכם מארצם עד מדרך כף רגל כי ירשה לעשו נתתי את הר שעיר ‪ 6‬אכל תשברו‬ ‫מאתם בכסף ואכלתם וגם מים תכרו מאתם בכסף ושתיתם‬ ‫‪ 7‬כי ה׳ אלהיך ברכך בכל מעשה ידך ידע לכתך את המדבר הגדל הזה זה‬ ‫ארבעים שנה ה׳ אלהיך עמך לא חסרת דבר‬ ‫‪ 8‬ונעבר מאת אחינו בני עשו הישבים בשעיר מדרך הערבה מאילת ומעצין גבר‬ ‫ונפן ונעבר דרך מדבר מואב‬ ‫‪ 9‬ויאמר ה׳ אלי אל תצר את מואב ואל תתגר בם מלחמה כי לא אתן לך מארצו ירשה כי‬ ‫לבני לוט נתתי את ער ירשה‬ ‫‪ 10‬האמים לפנים ישבו בה עם גדול ורב ורם כענקים ‪ 11‬רפאים יחשבו אף הם כענקים‬ ‫והמאבים יקראו להם אמים ‪] 12‬ובשעיר ישבו החרים לפנים ובני עשו יירשום‬ ‫וישמידום מפניהם וישבו תחתם כאשר עשה ישראל לארץ ירשתו אשר נתן ה׳ להם[‬ ‫‪ 13‬עתה קמו ועברו לכם את נחל זרד‬ ‫]ונעבר את נחל זרד[‬ ‫]‪ 14‬והימים אשר הלכנו מקדש ברנע עד אשר עברנו את נחל זרד שלשים ושמנה שנה עד‬ ‫תם כל הדור אנשי המלחמה מקרב המחנה כאשר נשבע ה׳ להם ‪ 15‬וגם יד ה׳ היתה בם‬ ‫להמם מקרב המחנה עד תמם ‪ 16‬ויהי כאשר תמו כל אנשי המלחמה למות מקרב העם[‬ ‫‪ 17‬וידבר ה׳ אלי לאמר ‪ 18‬אתה עבר היום את גבול מואב את ער ‪ 19‬וקרבת מול בני עמון אל‬ ‫תצרם ואל תתגר בם כי לא אתן מארץ בני עמון לך ירשה כי לבני לוט נתתיה ירשה‬

‫‪261‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫*‪4. The Mosaic Retrospective in Deut 1–3‬‬ ‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪V‬‬

‫‪ 20‬ארץ רפאים תחשב אף הוא רפאים ישבו בה לפנים והעמנים יקראו להם זמזמים ‪ 21‬עם‬ ‫גדול ורב ורם כענקים וישמידם ה׳ מפניהם ויירשם וישבו תחתם ‪] 22‬כאשר עשה לבני עשו‬ ‫‪23‬‬ ‫הישבים בשעיר אשר השמיד את החרי מפניהם ויירשם וישבו תחתם עד היום הזה‬ ‫והעוים הישבים בחצרים עד עזה כפתרים היצאים מכפתר השמידם וישבו תחתם[‬ ‫‪ 24‬קומו סעו ועברו את נחל ארנן ראה נתתי בידך את סיחן מלך חשבון האמרי ואת ארצו‬ ‫החל רש והתגר בו מלחמה ‪ 25‬היום הזה אחל תת פחדך ויראתך על פני העמים תחת כל‬ ‫השמים אשר ישמעון שמעך ורגזו וחלו מפניך‬ ‫‪ 26‬ואשלח מלאכים ]ממדבר קדמות[ אל סיחון מלך חשבון דברי שלום לאמר‬ ‫בדרך אלך לא אסור ימין ושמאול‬

‫‪27‬‬

‫אעברה בארצך בדרך‬

‫]‪ 28‬אכל בכסף תשברני ואכלתי ומים בכסף תתן לי ושתיתי רק אעברה ברגלי‬ ‫עשו לי בני עשו הישבים בשעיר והמואבים הישבים בער[‬ ‫‪29b‬‬

‫עד אשר אעבר את הירדן אל הארץ אשר ה׳ אלהינו נתן לנו‬

‫‪30‬‬

‫‪29 a‬‬

‫כאשר‬

‫ולא אבה סיחן מלך חשבון העברנו‬

‫בו‬ ‫כי הקשה ה׳ אלהיך את רוחו ואמץ את לבבו למען תתו בידך כיום הזה‬ ‫]‪ 31‬ויאמר ה׳ אלי ראה החלתי תת לפניך את סיחן ואת ארצו החל רש לרשת את ארצו[‬ ‫‪ 32‬ויצא סיחן לקראתנו הוא וכל עמו למלחמה יהצה ‪ 33‬ויתנהו ה׳ אלהינו לפנינו ונך אתו ואת בנו ואת‬ ‫‪35‬‬ ‫כל עמו ‪ 34‬ונלכד את כל עריו בעת ההוא ]ונחרם את כל עיר מתם והנשים והטף לא השארנו שריד‬ ‫רק הבהמה בזזנו לנו ושלל הערים אשר לכדנו[ ‪ 36‬מערער אשר על שפת נחל ארנן והעיר אשר בנחל‬ ‫ועד הגלעד לא היתה קריה אשר שגבה ממנו את הכל נתן ה׳ אלהינו לפנינו‬ ‫]‪ 37‬רק אל ארץ בני עמון לא קרבת כל יד נחל יבק וערי ההר וכל אשר צוה ה׳ אלהינו[‬ ‫‪ 3:1‬ונפן ונעל דרך הבשן ויצא עוג מלך הבשן לקראתנו הוא וכל עמו למלחמה אדרעי‬ ‫]‪ 2‬ויאמר ה׳ אלי אל תירא אתו כי בידך נתתי אתו ואת כל עמו ואת ארצו ועשית לו כאשר‬ ‫עשית לסיחן מלך האמרי אשר יושב בחשבון[‬ ‫‪ 3‬ויתן ה׳ אלהינו בידנו גם את עוג מלך הבשן ואת כל עמו ]ונכהו עד בלתי השאיר לו שריד[‬ ‫את כל עריו בעת ההוא לא היתה קריה אשר לא לקחנו מאתם‬

‫‪4‬‬

‫ונלכד‬

‫ששים עיר כל חבל ארגב ממלכת עוג בבשן ‪ 5‬כל אלה ערים בצרת חומה גבהה‬ ‫דלתים ובריח לבד מערי הפרזי הרבה מאד‬ ‫]‪ 6‬ונחרם אותם כאשר עשינו לסיחן מלך חשבון החרם כל עיר מתם הנשים והטף‬ ‫הערים בזונו לנו[‬

‫‪7‬‬

‫וכל הבהמה ושלל‬

‫‪ 8‬ונקח בעת ההוא את הארץ מיד שני מלכי האמרי אשר בעבר הירדן ]מנחל ארנן עד הר חרמון[‬ ‫]‪ 9‬צידנים יקראו לחרמון שרין והאמרי יקראו לו שניר[ ‪ 10‬כל ערי המישר וכל הגלעד‬ ‫וכל הבשן עד סלכה ואדרעי ערי ממלכת עוג בבשן ‪ 11‬כי רק עוג מלך הבשן נשאר‬ ‫מיתר הרפאים הנה ערשו ערש ברזל הלה הוא ברבת בני עמון תשע אמות ארכה‬ ‫וארבע אמות רחבה באמת איש‬

262

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

5. Jephthah’s Speech in Judg 11:12-28 Judg 11 forms the beginning of a short cycle of narratives in the book of Judges revolving around the figure of Jephthah (Judg 11–12). Following a brief account of Jephthah’s rise to leadership (11:1-11), 11:12-28 describe Jephthah’s first act as a military leader, which, strikingly, is an act of diplomacy and not of war. Jephthah sends messengers to the king of the Ammonites, asking why the Ammonites have invaded Israel. The king of the Ammonites replies that the Israelites took his land when they came up from Egypt, yet Jephthah insists that the Israelites did not take “the land of Moab or the land of the Ammonites.” According to Jephthah, when the people were in Kadesh, they sent a message to Edom requesting passage through the country; when Edom refused, they petitioned Moab for passage, but to no avail. Thus, the Israelites went around Edom and Moab to the east, at which point Sihon attacked the Israelites, Yhwh gave the Israelites victory, and Israel took possession of the land of the Amorites from the Arnon to the Jabbok and from the eastern desert to the Jordan River. Jephthah thereby argues that such land is the rightful possession of Israel and that the king of the Ammonites is wrongfully waging war against Israel. Nevertheless, the king of the Ammonites refuses to listen to Jephthah. This episode does not have any consequences for the narratives that follow: In 11:28, the king of the Ammonites refuses to listen to Jephthah but does not take any military action against him. Indeed, 11:29 functions just as well as the continuation of 11:11 as 11:12 does,123 such that 11:12-28 can easily be removed from the Jephthah cycle without creating any narrative discontinuity.124 Within Judg 11:12-28 themselves, there are few signs that might point to a process of compositional growth.125 The one major exception is the fact that Moab figures so prominently in 11:15-25 despite the fact that Jephthah’s exchange is with the king of Ammon. In 11:15, Jephthah emphasizes that Israel did not take Moabite or Ammonite land during its journey to the land of Canaan, and in 11:24 Jephthah even associates Kemosh, the national deity of Moab, with the Ammonites (‫)כמוש אלהיך‬. Yet if one focuses on the narrative and syntactic coherence of 11:12-28 and not on the thematic tension

























































123

Cf. GROSS, Richter, 557. Cf. KASWALDER, Disputa, 35. 125 In contrast, NOTH, “Nachbarn,” repr. 466 n. 136 and RICHTER, “Überlieferungen,” 522–25 propose that Judg 11:16-26 preserve a pre-Deuteronomistic tradition that originally had nothing to do with Jephthah or Ammon and was later incorporated into the Jephthah cycle by the addition of 11:12-15*, 27*, and 28. Richter’s solution is adopted by MITTMANN, “Aroer,” 67–70; SOGGIN, Judges, 211; WÜST, “Einschaltung”; and BECKER, Richterzeit, 217–19. 124

5. Jephthah’s Speech in Judg 11:12-28

263

between the references to Ammon and Moab, then there is little to indicate a history of composition.126 The apparent conflation of references to Moab and Ammon can be explained by the rhetorical aim of the passage, which is to emphasize that the land that the Israelites conquered in Transjordan – “from the Arnon to the Jabbok and from the desert to the Jordan” (Judg 11:22) – had previously belonged entirely to the Amorites, not to the Ammonites or the Moabites. The implication in 11:24 that Kemosh was an Ammonite deity may be due to the fact that the author of the passage did not have (or was not concerned with presenting) accurate information about Ammonite religion and simply used the information that was at his disposal, such as the reference to Kemosh in Num 21:29.127 In any case, the blurring of the distinction between the Ammonites and the Moabites advances the rhetorical aim of the passage: By repeatedly linking Ammon and Moab, the text implies that the territory of Ammon, like that of Moab, lay outside of the area bounded by the Arnon, the Jabbok, the Jordan, and the eastern desert (contrary to the claim of the king of the Ammonites in 11:13), thereby justifying Israel’s claim to this area.128 In sum, from a literary-critical perspective, there is little reason to regard Judg 11:12-28 as composite. The narrative frame in 11:12-15, 27-28 cannot stand without 11:16-26,129 and it is difficult to imagine a different, more original literary context for 11:16-26. Rather, the repeated references to Moab that have led some commentators to conclude that part of the text has been repurposed from a preexisting literary context form an essential part of the text’s aim to redefine the borders of Ammon as described in other biblical texts. This conclusion is supported by a detailed comparison of the various versions of Israel’s journey through Transjordan (§6).

























































126

Several of Richter’s arguments for the composite nature of the passage are unconvincing in my view. E.g., RICHTER, “Überlieferungen,” 522 argues that “von V. 15 ab ist aber die ganze Botschaft auf Moab abgestellt,” although in Judg 11:15 Jephthah states that Israel took neither Moabite nor Ammonite land. Likewise, Richter claims that “Moab…ist offensichtlich in V. 23b-26 angeredet” (ibid.), yet the antecedent of the 2ms verbs and pronouns in 11:23b is found only in 11:14, in which Jephthah sends messengers to the king of the Ammonites. For the view that 11:12-28 are a compositional unity, see NOTH, ÜSt, 53 n. 5; BOLING, Judges, 201; GROSS, Richter, 560; KASWALDER, Disputa, 48–51; BÖHLER, Jiftach, 27–74, 153–69; GRÄTZ, “Jiftach,” 124; and FOCKEN, Landnahme, 148–65, esp. 148. 127 Cf. BÖHLER, Jiftach, 71–72, 254–57 and FOCKEN, Landnahme, 148. 128 For a possible historical setting of the claim to settlement rights in Transjordan in the Persian period, see GROSS, Richter, 563, followed by FOCKEN, Landnahme, 165–66. 129 This is acknowledged even by RICHTER, “Überlieferungen,” 524.

264

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

6. The Relationship among the Parallel Accounts Four main theories have been proposed for the literary relationship between Num 20:14-21; 21:21-35; and Deut 2:1–3:11: (1) Num 20:14-21 and 21:2135*130 both have basic literary priority over Deut 2:1–3:11;131 (2) the narratives in Numbers and in Deuteronomy reflect a common source that was reworked in both places;132 (3) the core of the Sihon narrative in Num 21:2131* has literary priority over the version in Deut 2, while Num 20:14-21 are a late redactional compilation;133 and (4) Num 21:21-35 are literarily dependent on Deut 2:1–3:11, while Num 20:14-21 are largely left out of consideration.134 In addition, four main approaches can be differentiated regarding the relationship of Judg 11:12-28 to Num 20:14-21; 21:21-35; and Deut 2:1–3:11: (1) Judg 11:12-28 is dependent on Num 20:14-21; 21:21-35, while the relationship between Judg 11:12-28 and Deut 2:1–3:11 is either not discussed135 or is left as an open question;136 (2) Judg 11:12-28 is dependent on both Num 20:14-21; 21:21-35 and Deut 2:1–3:11;137 (3) Judg 11:12-28 presupposes Num 20:14-21; 21:21-35 but is not familiar with Deut 2:1–3:11;138 and (4) Judg 11:12-28 and Deut 2:1–3:11 were both Vorlagen for Num 20:14-21; 21:21-35.139

























































130

Excluding the defeat of Og in Num 21:33-35, which has long been regarded as an addition taken from Deut 3:1-11. 131 WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 195–201; NOTH, ÜP, 34 (ET 32); BARTLETT, “Sihon and Og”; IDEM, “Conquest”; KÖPPEL, Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, 83–105; GLATT-GILAD, “Re-Interpretation”; NELSON, Deuteronomy, 36, 44; SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 289–92, 349–54; L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 94–95, 112–14; HECKL, Moses Vermächtnis, 414–23; and BADEN, J, E, 130–32, 136–41. 132 SUMNER, “Israel’s Encounters,” 226; OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 132; IDEM, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 158–59; and ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 335–44, 358– 69. 133 FRITZ, Israel, 28–33, who argues that Num 20:14-21 presupposes DtrH, while Num 21:21-25 possibly belongs to E; MITTMANN, “Num 20,14-21,” 143–49; IDEM, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 71–79, 86–93; BLUM, Studien, 117–21, 127–30, who assigns Num 21:21-31 to KD but regards Num 20:14-21 as a post-priestly composition; and OSWALD, “Revision,” 218–32, esp. 226–28. 134 VAN SETERS, “Conquest,” 182–97; IDEM, “Once again,” 117–19; IDEM, Life, 383– 404; WÜST, Untersuchungen, 241–43; COATS, “Conquest Traditions,” 182 n. 20; and ROSE, Deuteronomist, 308–12. 135 RICHTER, “Überlieferungen,” 531–35 and BARTLETT, “Conquest,” 347–51. 136 FOCKEN, Landnahme, 151–55. 137 MILLER, “Israelite Journey,” 584–85; BECKER, Richterzeit, 219; BÖHLER, Jiftach, 60– 74; GROSS, Richter, 559–60; and GRÄTZ, “Jiftach,” 126–29. 138 KASWALDER, Disputa, 80. 139 VAN SETERS, “Conquest,” 189–92,” IDEM, “Once again,” 117–24; IDEM, Life, 398.

6. The Relationship among the Parallel Accounts

265

6.1. Comparison of individual motifs In light of the foregoing analyses of the passages in question, the possibility of complex, multidirectional influence must be seriously considered, since most of these texts (with the exception of Judg 11:12-28) show evidence of compositional growth. Thus, it is first necessary to identify the points of correspondence among the various texts and then to evaluate their relationships of dependence on a case-by-case basis. All of the texts in question have the following motifs in common: (1) the sending of messengers (Num 20:14 // 21:21 // Deut 2:26 // Judg 11:17, 19); (2) the request for passage (Num 20:17, 19 // 21:22 // Deut 2:27-29 // Judg 11:17, 19); (3) the refusal of passage (Num 20:18, 20, 21 // 21:23 // Deut 2:30 // Judg 11:17, 20); (4) aggression towards Israel (Num 20:20 // 21:23 // Deut 2:32 // Judg 11:20); and (5) the outcome of the encounter (Num 20:21 // 21:24 // Deut 2:33-34 // Judg 11:17, 21). (1) The sending of messengers. All three of the main texts in question, as well as the recapitulation of the Edom and Sihon episodes in Judg 11:17, 19, describe the sending of messengers to a king: Num 20:14

‫וישלח משה מלאכים מקדש אל מלך אדום‬

Num 21:21

‫וישלח ישראל מלאכים אל סיחן מלך האמרי לאמר‬

Deut 2:26

‫ואשלח מלאכים ממדבר קדמות אל סיחון מלך חשבון דברי שלום לאמר‬

Judg 11:17

‫וישלח ישראל מלאכים אל מלך אדום לאמר‬

Judg 11:19

‫וישלח ישראל מלאכים אל סיחון מלך האמרי מלך חשבון ויאמר לו ישראל‬

Here, there is relatively little material that is of use in determining a clear direction of dependence between these passages. It should be noted, however, that in Num 21:21 it is Israel who sends the messengers to Sihon, while in Deut 2:26 it is Moses. While it is possible to imagine why Deut 2:26 would have changed the subject from Israel to Moses (namely, to fit the context of the Mosaic discourse in Deut 1–3*), it is more difficult to imagine the opposite scenario, in which Deut 2:26 would have served as a Vorlage for Num 21:21. The fact that Israel sends spies to the king of Edom in Judg 11:17 can be explained by the fact that Israel, and not Moses, is the dominant subject of the entire historical retrospective in Judg 11:12-28, being named explicitly ten times within that unit. Also significant is the fact that Judg 11:19 refers to Sihon as “king of the Amorites” and “king of Heshbon,” thus apparently showing knowledge of both Num 21:21 and Deut 2:26. (2) The request for passage. The greatest divergences between the parallel texts occur within the request for passage in each text. These can be further subdivided into six discrete elements: (a) the promise to stay on the road, (b) the promise not to enter fields or vineyards, (c) the promise not to drink water

266

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

from wells, (d) the promise not to veer to the right or left, (e) the offer to pay for food and water, and (f) the intention to cross to the other side. a. The promise to stay on the road. This element is found in all three versions of the request for passage but differs slightly in each text. In Num 20:17, Moses offers to travel along the King’s Highway, which corresponds almost verbatim with the statement ‫ בדרך המלך נלך‬in Num 21:22 with the exception of the use of the preposition -‫ב‬. Deut 2:27 differs from this, using the phrase ‫ בדרך בדרך‬instead. It is more reasonable to assume that ‫בדרך בדרך‬ is a simplification of ‫ בדרך המלך נלך‬than to conjecture that the use of the proper noun ‫ דרך המלך‬is secondary.140 This suggests that the promise to stay on the road in Deut 2:27 used either Num 20:17 or Num 21:22 as a source. In turn, one of the two texts in Numbers must have derived the reference to the King’s Highway from the other. Unfortunately, historical and geographical considerations are not decisive on this point: The King’s Highway (‫)דרך המלך‬ most likely draws on the Neo-Assyrian term ḥarran šarri, which designates the trade route connecting Damascus to the Gulf of Aqaba via the Transjordanian plateau, and thus fits well with both the territory of Sihon as well as that of Edom.141 In any case, as shown in §2, the reference to the ‫ מסלה‬in Num 20:19 is secondary to the reference to the King’s Highway in 20:17. b. The promise not to enter fields or vineyards. This element is found only in the encounter with Edom (Num 20:17) and the Numbers version of the Sihon episode (Num 21:22). Once again, it is reasonable to assume that one text borrowed directly from the other. Considering the topographical and climatic conditions of Edom and of the imagined territory of Sihon (which 21:21-31 depict as overlapping with the historical territory of Moab142), the promise not to enter fields or vineyards fits much better with the Sihon episode than with the Edom episode. Regardless of how Num 20:14-21 conceive of the territorial extent of Edom (whether the Edomite heartland or “greater Edom” extending to the west of Wadi Arabah), Edom’s territory was not well suited for agriculture or viticulture.143 References to Edom and Moab else-

























































140

Cf. GESUNDHEIT, “Midrasch-Exegese,” 117 (ET 78). For this interpretation of the phrase ‫דרך המלך‬, see VAN ZYL, Moabites, 60–62 and BARTLETT, Edom, 38. In contrast, WEIPPERT, “Israelite ‘Conquest,’” 23; DEARMAN, “Historical Reconstruction,” 192; and SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 290, 356 interpret the phrase not as a particular route but as a network of royal roads. 142 In fact, the description of the borders of Sihon’s territory tendentiously restricts Moab’s northern border to Wadi Arnon (Num 21:24); see R OUTLEDGE, Moab, 45–46. 143 Since the Edom episode presupposes that Edom controlled territory as far west as Kadesh (stated explicitly in Num 20:16b but also assumed in 20:14a), it is necessary to take into account the topography and climate of Edom under its greatest territorial extent, sometime after it began expanding west of Wadi Arabah in the early seventh century B.C.E. (LIPIŃSKI, On the Skirts of Canaan, 393) and most likely after the fall of the kingdom of Judah in 587 (cf. WEIPPERT, “Edom und Israel,” 291–95; BLUM, Studien, 119; and 141

6. The Relationship among the Parallel Accounts

267

where in the Bible confirm this picture: While descriptions of Edom’s land in the Bible focus on its rocky terrain and mountains,144 at least some biblical texts (Isa 16:10 and Jer 48:33) associate Moab with viticulture and grain production. c. The promise not to drink water from wells. Like the promise not to enter fields or vineyards, this motif occurs only in the Edom episode and the Numbers version of the Sihon episode. Here again, geographical considerations suggest that the promise not to drink water fits better in Num 21:22 than in Num 20:17. The implied length of the journey through Sihon’s territory to the plains of Moab (Num 22:1) is much shorter than the length of the journey through Edom’s territory, especially considering that the latter would have begun at Kadesh according to Num 20:14-21. Thus, within the narrative world of the text, it is easier to imagine the Israelites foregoing the use of wells during the short journey through Sihon’s territory rather than during the long journey through Edom.145 d. The promise not to veer to the right or left. Thus far, the comparison of the individual elements in the Israelites’/Moses’ request for passage has suggested that the promise not to enter fields or vineyards and the promise not to drink well water has its original place in the Sihon episode in Num 21:2131*. The Edom episode in Num 20:14-21 draws on these elements, while the retelling of the Sihon episode in Deut 2:27 does not. In the latter text, Moses promises instead not to veer to the right or left (‫)לא אסור ימין ושמאול‬. Num 20:17 also uses this expression, albeit with a different verb (‫לא נטה ימין‬ ‫)ושמאול‬. Although some commentators regard this expression as originating in Num 20:17 and not dependent on Deut 2:27,146 there is reason to conclude that it is more original to the latter verse. The combination of the verb ‫סור‬ with the phrase ‫ ימין ושמאול‬occurs several times in the book of Deuteronomy (Deut 5:32; 17:11; 28:14), where it is associated with adherence to the law. Thus, ‫ לא אסור ימין ושמאול‬in Deut 2:27 can be understood as a paraphrase of



























































































































L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 94). The region between Kadesh and Wadi Arabah is largely desert and cannot sustain agriculture without artificial irrigation. Likewise, even the core territory of Edom – the Edomite plateau – receives little rainfall, is cold in winter, and is “thus hardly suitable for citrus fruit, olives, grapes, wheat and barley, and was thus hardly a major agricultural area” (BARTLETT, Edom, 37; cf. HART, “Some Preliminary Thoughts,” 51–58). The northern part of the Edomite plateau (between Wadi el-Ḥasa and Wadi Ghuweir) receives more rainfall than the southern part, but consistent agricultural production here would still be very difficult (KNAUF, “Edom,” 96). In contrast, the environmental conditions of Moab are better suited for agriculture and viticulture, yet even here production would have been limited to certain microclimates (ROUTLEDGE, Moab, 56). 144 Cf. BARTLETT, Edom, 53. 145 Cf. SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 355. 146 MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 87–88; L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 94; and SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 296.

268

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

the promise not to make use of the produce of the land in its Vorlage (Num 21:22) that simultaneously drew on language from elsewhere in the book of Deuteronomy. By extension, Num 20:17 presupposes both Deut 2:27 and Num 21:22, combining the verb ‫ נטה‬from Num 21:22 with the phrase ‫ימין‬ ‫ ושמאול‬from Deut 2:27.147 e. The offer to pay for food and water. Like the promise not to veer to the right or left, the offer to pay for food and water occurs only in Num 20:14-21 and in Deut 2. Num 20:19 has several verbal correspondences with both Deut 2:6 and 2:28: Num 20:19

‫ויאמרו אליו בני ישראל במסלה נעלה ואם מימיך נשתה אני ומקני ונתתי מכרם‬ ‫רק אין דבר ברגלי אעברה‬

Deut 2:6

‫אכל תשברו מאתם בכסף ואכלתם וגם מים תכרו מאתם בכסף ושתיתם‬

Deut 2:28

‫אכל בכסף תשברני ואכלתי ומים בכסף תתן לי ושתיתי רק אעברה ברגלי‬

As discussed in §4.1, Deut 2:28-29a are a later addition within the Sihon episode in 2:26-37 and are dependent on 2:6, serving to strengthen the parallelism (and contrast) between the passage through Edom, Moab, and Ammon in 2:1-23* and the encounter with Sihon.148 Likewise, Num 20:19 was also identified as part of a later addition within Num 20:14-21. Thus, the literarycritical analysis of each passage does not provide a clear solution to the question of dependence here. In order to answer this question, it is necessary to consider the various possibilities regarding the direction of dependence between the two units in more detail. The first possibility that should be explored is whether Num 20:19 served as the Vorlage for Deut 2:4-6, 28. In light of the general nature of Deut 2 as a recapitulation of events that are narrated in the book of Numbers, this would appear to be the simplest explanation. Indeed, several commentators have argued that the motif of paying for food fits better within the context of Num 20:19, serving as an attempt to persuade the Edomites against their initial refusal of passage.149 Yet a closer look at the language of Num 20:19 and Deut 2:28-29a raises a problem: Whereas the 1cs speech in Deut 2:28-29a matches its broader context in 2:26-27, 29b, the use of 1cs speech in Num



























































147 Cf. VAN SETERS, Life, 387–88; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 342; and OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 186. 148 Cf. GESUNDHEIT, “Midrasch-Exegese,” 115–16. PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 213 argues that Deut 2:28 has both Num 20:19 and Deut 2:6 in view. 149 MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 75–76; PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 159; and fundamentally also ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 339–44. According to Mittmann, the “buying” motif in Num 20:18-20 responds to a particular problem in Num 20:14-21 and thus has its origin there, not in Deut 2. Following this line of argumentation, Mittmann concludes that Israel’s treatment of Edom in Deut 2:4-6, 8a is a reversal of that found in Num 20:14-21.

6. The Relationship among the Parallel Accounts

269

20:19 is not consistent with any other part of Num 20:14-21, including the beginning of 20:19 itself, which uses 1cp speech. The uneven juxtaposition of 1cp and 1cs verbs within Num 20:19 thus suggests a different possibility, namely, that the language of this verse is derived directly from Num 21:22 and Deut 2:6, 28. This should not come as a surprise, since Num 20:17 employs precisely the same procedure, combining phraseology from Deut 2:27 and Num 21:22. Given that Num 20:19 was evaluated as a later addition on literary-critical grounds, this direction of dependence applies only to Num 20:19 and not to the most basic material in Num 20:14-21.150 In sum, it can be concluded that the offer to pay for food and water originated in Deut 2:6; it was then added to Deut 2:28 and finally to Num 20:19, which draws on language from both Deut 2:6 and 2:28.151 f. The intention to cross to the other side. In all three principal versions of the request for passage, the request concludes with a statement of the people’s intention to cross to the other side. In the Edom episode as well as the Sihon episode in the book of Numbers, this intention is expressed using exactly the same words: ‫עד אשר נעבר גבלך‬. In Deut 2:29b, in contrast, the emphasis is somewhat different: ‫עד אשר אעבר את הירדן אל הארץ אשר ה׳ אלהינו‬ ‫נתן לנו‬. In light of the verbatim correspondence between Num 20:17 and 21:22, it is logical to conclude that one episode was dependent on the other, although the direction of dependence cannot be determined based on the evidence of Num 20:17 and 21:22 alone. In any event, it seems likely that Deut 2:29b is dependent on Num 21:22 and that Judg 11:19 (‫ )עד מקומי‬in turn draws on Deut 2:29. (3) The refusal of passage. All three of the main versions of the Israelites’ request for passage, as well as the retrospective in Judg 11:12-28, narrate the refusal of passage by Edom and Sihon. As with the people’s intention to cross to the other side, there are verbatim correspondences between the Edom episode and the Numbers version of the Sihon episode:

























































150

L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 94–95 and OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 159 reach a similar conclusion. 151 As a sort of compromise between the two possibilities discussed here, ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 339–44 uses the theory of réécriture in order to posit two directions of dependence simultaneously. On the one hand, he assumes that Deut 2:6, 28 must have had a pre-Deuteronomistic form of 20:19-20 as a Vorlage; on the other hand, he acknowledges that 20:19 corresponds verbatim to Deut 2:28 and that Num 20:20 and 20:21 have echoes with Deut 2:30a and 2:32, respectively (ibid., 342). Achenbach attempts to reconcile these observations by proposing that Num 20:14a, (15-16*), 17-18, 19-20*, 21* reflect a preDeuteronomistic narrative of Israel’s detour around Edom that was later rewritten by the “Hexateuch redactor” who reworked material especially in 20:14-16, 18a, and 20b. Yet if Num 20:19 is merely a rewriting of an earlier version in light of Deut 2, it is surprising that the received text of Num 20:19 does not fit more smoothly within its immediate context.

270

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

Num 20:21

‫וימאן אדום נְ תֹן את ישראל עבר בגבלו‬

Num 21:23

‫ולא נתן סיחן את ישראל עבר בגבלו‬

The syntax of Num 20:21 is somewhat awkward, using ‫ נְ תֹן‬as an infinitive construct rather than the usual ‫ – ֵתת‬the only such occurrence in the Hebrew Bible.152 This suggests that Num 21:23 has literary priority over Num 20:21, whose author sought to rephrase Num 21:23, although this resulted in grammatical infelicities. Deut 2:30 also likely drew on Num 21:23 but changed the prepositional phrase ‫ בגבלו‬simply to ‫בו‬. This is significant, since Num 20:18 also uses the preposition -‫ ב‬with a pronominal suffix rather than with the noun ‫ גבול‬followed by a pronominal suffix: Deut 2:30 Num 20:18

‫ולא אבה סיחן מלך חשבון העברנו בו‬ ‫ויאמר אליו אדום לא תעבר בי‬

Judg 11:17, 20 diverge significantly from all of the above texts and reflect a freer approach to retelling both the Edom and the Sihon episodes. In sum, it is possible to conclude that Num 21:23 constitutes the earliest version of the refusal of passage, upon which both Num 20:21 and Deut 2:30 drew. Edom’s refusal of passage in Num 20:18 in turn seems to be dependent on Deut 2:30. This provides additional evidence that Num 20:14-21, at least in its later stages of composition, presupposed the Sihon narratives in both Numbers and Deuteronomy. (4) Aggression towards Israel. Following the refusal of passage, Edom/ Sihon goes out to meet Israel in battle (Num 20:20; 21:23; Deut 2:32; Judg 11:20).153 Once again, it seems reasonable to assume that Deut 2:32 is dependent on Num 21:23, as there are no positive indications for the opposite direction of dependence: Num 21:23 Deut 2:32

‫ויאסף סיחן את כל עמו ויצא לקראת ישראל המדברה ויבא יהצה וילחם‬ ‫בישראל‬ ‫ויצא סיחן לקראתנו הוא וכל עמו למלחמה יהצה‬

In turn, Num 20:20 differs from both Num 21:23 and Deut 2:32 in its precise phrasing: Num 20:20

‫ויצא אדום לקראתו בעם כבד וביד חזקה‬

The use of the phrase ‫ לקראתו‬in Num 20:20 suggests that this verse drew directly on Num 21:23, replacing ‫ ישראל‬with the 3ms pronominal suffix. At 152 The infinitive absolute ‫ נָ תֹן‬is also rare, appearing only in Num 21:2; 27:7; Isa 37:19; Jer 37:21; and Ezek 23:46. 153 In Judg 11:17, however, Edom does not show aggression toward Israel as in Num 20:20.

6. The Relationship among the Parallel Accounts

271

the same time, both the word order and the brevity of Num 20:20 suggest that the author of this verse also had Deut 2:32 in view. (5) The outcome of the encounter. As was discussed in the literary-critical analysis of Num 21:21-35, there are internal grounds for questioning the compositional unity of Num 21:24-25, whose most basic material is likely limited to 21:24a and 25b. Likewise, it is possible that the most basic material in Deut 2:33-35 consisted only of 2:33-34aα. The corresponding events are also narrated in Judg 11:21a. Thus, it is this material that should first be compared: Num 21:24a, 25b

‫ויכהו ישראל לפי חרב…וישב ישראל בכל ערי האמרי בחשבון ובכל בנתיה‬

Deut 2:33-34

‫ויתנהו ה׳ אלהינו לפנינו ונך אתו ואת בנו ואת כל עמו‬ …‫ ונלכד את כל עריו בעת ההוא‬34

Judg 11:21a

‫ויתן ה׳ אלהי ישראל את סיחון ואת כל עמו ביד ישראל ויכום‬

The strongest evidence for the literary priority of Num 21:24a, 25b over Deut 2:33-34aα is the fact that the defeat of Sihon in Deut 2:33-34aα is theologized, attributing the defeat to Yhwh and not directly to Israel.154 Judg 11:21a, in turn, is the latest of the three versions, as it draws verbatim terminology from Deut 2:33 (see the double-underlined text).155 In contrast to the basic narrative thread in Num 21:24a, 25b, the additions in Num 21:24b-25a seem to be dependent on both Deut 2:34 and Judg 11:21b-22: Num 21:24b-25a

‫ ויקח ישראל‬25a ‫ויירש את ארצו מארנן עד יבק עד בני עמון כי עז גבול בני עמון‬ ‫את כל הערים האלה‬

Deut 2:33-34aα

‫ונלכד את כל עריו‬

Judg 11:21b-22

‫ויירשו את כל גבול‬

34 a α

‫ויתנהו ה׳ אלהינו לפנינו ונך אתו ואת בנו ואת כל עמו‬ ‫בעת ההוא‬

22

‫ויירש ישראל את כל ארץ האמרי יושב הארץ ההיא‬ ‫מארנון ועד היבק ומן המדבר ועד הירדן‬ ‫האמרי‬

On the one hand, within its immediate context, Num 21:25a (‫ויקח ישראל את‬ ‫“ )כל הערים האלה‬hängt…völlig in der Luft”156 but is easily explained as a coordination with Deut 2:34aα.157 On the other hand, the materials in Num 21:24b cannot be explained by comparison with Deut 2. The verb ‫ ירש‬qal is not used in Deut 2:33-34aα, while it occurs twice in Judg 11:21b-22. Likewise, the phrase ‫ מארנון )ו(עד )ה(יבק‬occurs in both Num 21:24b and Judg

























































154

Cf. PERLITT, Deuteronomium 1–6*, 200. VAN SETERS, “Conquest,” 196 argues that Num 21:24 “secularizes” its purported Vorlage in Deut 2:33 (and in Judg 11:21), although such a scenario seems rather unlikely. 155 Cf. R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige Krieg,” 69. 156 ROSE, Deuteronomist, 312. 157 Cf. MITTMANN, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3, 87.

272

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

11:22 but not in Deut 2:33-34aα. It thus seems that the additions in Num 21:24b and 21:25a have drawn on Judg 11:21b-22 and Deut 2:34aα, respectively, as sources.158 Whether these additions were made by the same hand or different hands cannot be determined. In light of these observations, the reference to the border of the Ammonites in Num 21:24b can perhaps be interpreted as a correction of the extent of the conquest described in Judg 11:22 – “from the Arnon to the Jabbok and from the desert to the Jordan” (cf. 11:13). In other words, Num 21:24b adopts the same basic claim as Judg 11:12-28 – namely, that Israel did not take Ammonite territory during the conquest of Sihon – but concedes that the eastern boundary of the area conquered was the border with Ammon, not “the desert.” This geographical conception is presupposed in Josh 12:2, which is thus likely later than both Judg 11:22 and Num 21:24b.159 6.2. Synthesis I

The earliest version of Israel’s encounter with Sihon is found in Num 21:21-31*,160 which originally consisted of 21:21-24a, 25b. There are no indications that these verses presuppose priestly literature.

II

Num 21:21-24a, 25b served as the Vorlage for Moses’ review of the Sihon episode in Deut 2:26*, 27, 29b-30a, 32-34aα, 36, to which the narrative of the conquest of Og was added in Deut 3:1, 3a, 4a, 8a. These narratives form part of the most basic narrative thread in Deut 1–3, which likely consisted of 1:1a, 6-7aα, 19aα*, (19b?); 2:8(a*?)b, (13b?), 26*, 27, 29b-30a, 32-34aα, 36; 3:1, 3a, 4a, 8a, 29. There are no indications that this narrative presupposes priestly literature.

II+

Perhaps in a separate stage of composition, a series of texts were added in Deut 2:34aβ-35; 3:3b, 6-7 that depicted the conquest of Sihon and Og in terms of ‫ חרם‬ideology. There are no indications that this layer of expansion presupposes priestly literature.

III

A narrative of Israel’s peaceful passage through Edom, Moab, and Ammon (Deut 2:1-6, 8a*, 13, 17-19, 24-25) was inserted into Deut 1– 3* either alongside or after the insertion of Deut 1:20-46. This layer of

























































158

In this particular case, I agree with Van Seters that the Sihon narrative in Num 21 drew on the Sihon retrospectives in Deut 2 and Judg 11, although I cannot agree with his view that the Sihon episode in Num 21 in its entirety is secondary to its counterparts in Deut 2 and Judg 11. 159 Here I disagree in part with BARTLETT, “Conquest,” 348, who also regards Num 21:24b as an insertion but argues that it derives from Josh 12:2 and not Judg 11:22. 160 Against VAN SETERS, “Conquest,” 182–97; IDEM, “Once again,” 117–19; IDEM, Life, 383–404; WÜST, Untersuchungen, 241–43; COATS, “Conquest Traditions,” 182 n. 20; and ROSE, Deuteronomist, 308–12.

6. The Relationship among the Parallel Accounts

273

composition is dominated by divine speeches and thematizes the concept of divinely appointed territorial possessions ( ‫) ֻירשה‬. This narrative shows no knowledge of an earlier encounter with Edom, and there is textual evidence that the narrative originally reported Israel’s crossing through Edom’s territory (cf. 2:8a g, o). Since this unit presupposes the story of the spies (see esp. 2:1-3), it must be evaluated as a postpriestly composition. III+ Sometime after the composition of Deut 2:1-6, 8-9, 13, 17-19, 24-25, a series of additions were made in 2:14-16, 28-29a, 31; 3:2. While 2:1416 are concerned primarily with the death of the exodus generation, 2:28-29a, 31; and 3:2 serve to create a more explicit contrast between the conquest of Sihon and Og and Israel’s peaceful passage through Edom, Moab, and Ammon through the insertion of a reference back to the Edomites and Moabites in 2:28-29a and divine speeches in 2:31 and 3:2 parallel to those in 2:9, 17-19, 24-25. IV

The Sihon episode in Num 21:21-24a, 25b was supplemented with the Song of Heshbon and its introduction (21:26-30), and a new conclusion to the expanded unit was created by the Wiederaufnahme of 21:25b in 21:31. Whether this occurred before or after the composition of Deut 2:1-6, 8-9, 13, 17-19, 24-25 cannot be determined with certainty.

IV+ Sometime after the addition of the divine speech in Deut 3:2 (III+), the Og episode from Deut 3:1-4a was added to the Sihon episode in Numbers (Num 21:33-35). The reference to the capture of Jazer in Num 21:32 is perhaps even later than 21:33-35. V

The earliest literary form of the detour around Edom in Num 20:14-21 (i.e., 20:14a, 17, 21) is likely later than the report of Israel’s passage through Edom in Deut 2:4-6, 8a*. The alternative scenario – that Num 20:14-21* has priority over Deut 2:4-6, 8a* – seems unlikely, since it is unclear why the author of Deut 2:4-6, 8a* would revise an existing narrative about Israel’s detour around Edom to depict the Israelites as crossing through Edom (2:4; 8a g, o161) without addressing the fact that, according to Num 20:14-21, the Israelites are denied passage through Edom. The literary priority of Deut 2:1-6, 8a over Num 20:1421 receives further support from Deut 2:1, where the Israelites’ journey “by way of the Sea of Reeds” is not the result of a confrontation with Edom but is instead – as in Num 14:25b and Deut 1:40 – the result of

161

The originality of the reading in g, o is supported by the fact that it would make no sense to emend the text in the opposite direction, i.e., from ‫ מאת‬to ‫את‬, especially if Num 20:14-21 already lay before the author of Deut 2:8a.

274

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

the Israelites’ disobedience following the episode of the spies.162 In other words, the detour in Deut 2:1 has a theological motive and is completely unaware of any conflict with Edom.163 In Deut 2:1-3, “going around” (‫ )סבב‬the hill country of Seir does not seem to have the sense of going around the perimeter of Seir but rather wandering through the hill country of Seir. This is confirmed by the statement in Deut 2:4 that the Israelites are to cross over into the territory of the “sons of Esau,” i.e., Edom. In contrast, it is likely that the basic narrative of the confrontation with Edom in Num 20:14a, 17, 21 already presupposed the theological detour by way of the Sea of Reeds and added an additional, political reason for the detour, namely, Edom’s refusal of passage.164 This reason for the detour was then integrated into the itinerary notice in Num 21:4aα through the insertion of the phrase ‫ לסבב את ארץ אדום‬in 21:4aβ165 and also generated the change from ‫ את‬to ‫ מאת‬in the Masoretic version of Deut 2:8a. This reconstruction indicates that even the earliest version of Num 20:14-21 is a post-priestly composition,166 since it places this narrative at a later compositional stage than the story of the spies as well as the narrative of the passage through Edom in Deut 2:1-8a. V+

The later additions to Num 20:14-21 (i.e., 20:14b-16, 18-20) show further signs of post-priestly compositional activity.167 The main rhetorical aim of these additions is to revise the picture of Edom as Israel’s brother in Deut 2:4-6, 8a168 and Deut 23:4-5, 8a*.169 The juxtaposition

























































162

As FREVEL, “Understanding,” 120 has aptly observed, “the way to the Sea of Reeds is a textual cipher signalising a setback rather than a concrete geographical specification.” 163 Cf. BLUM, Studien, 120. 164 Cf. ibid., 120–121: “Hingegen läßt sich sehr wohl denken, daß spätere Tradenten in Anlehnung an die Sichon-Episode in Nu 21…und an Dtn 2 den Umweg Israels auf das Konto der ungeliebten Edomiter zu schreiben suchen.” 165 Similarly, ibid., 118 observes that “der Umweg von 21,4a gewinnt von 20,14ff. her gesehen gegenüber 14,25 einen neuen Sinn: er resultiert jetzt aus der Ablehnung Edoms.” I would suggest, however, that the phrase ‫ לסבב את ארץ אדום‬in Num 21:4aβ did not simply take on a new meaning but that it presupposed this new meaning from the outset. 166 Cf. FRITZ, Israel, 29; BLUM, Studien, 121; and OSWALD, “Revision.” FINKELSTEIN, “Wilderness Narrative,” 46 argues that Num 20:14-21 “should…be anchored in the late eighth to early sixth centuries – the only time in the Iron Age and Persian period with a strong kingdom in this area,” although he does not consider the possibility that the text may reflect later antagonism with Edomites during the Persian period or later. 167 The historical summary in Num 20:14b-16 bears connections with other post-priestly texts, while the offer to pay for food and water in Num 20:19 is dependent on Deut 2:6, 28. 168 Cf. ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 335–44. 169 On the post-priestly nature of Deut 2:4-6, 8a, see §4. The post-priestly provenance of the “law of the congregation” in Deut 23:2-9 is supported by two considerations. (1) Other materials in this unit reflect priestly concerns and terminology, such as the prohibition of

6. The Relationship among the Parallel Accounts

275

of the reference to Edom as Israel’s “brother” in Num 20:14b with Edom’s bellicose refusal to allow the Israelites to pass through its territory in 20:18, 20 is a revision of the contrast set up in Deut 23:4-5, 8a between brotherly Edom and uncooperative Moab and Ammon: Rather than calling for special treatment of Edom vis-à-vis Moab and Ammon (so Deut 23:8a), the additions to Num 20:14-21 emphasize Edom’s unwillingness to help the Israelites and thereby extend the critique of Ammon and Moab found in Deut 23:4-5 to Edom as well. 170 VI

Judg 11:12-28, which presuppose both the confrontation with Edom in Num 20:14-21* and the defeat of Sihon in Num 21:21-24a, 25b as well as its parallel in Deut 2:26-37*, were inserted into the Jephthah narratives in Judg 11:1–12:8*. Notably, the report of Edom’s refusal of passage in Judg 11:17 simply states that Edom “did not listen” and does not state that Edom came out against Israel in battle as in Num 20:1820. Thus, it is possible that the Edom episode that lay before the author of Judg 11:12-28 had not yet reached its received form, although this cannot be determined with certainty, since it is clear that the author of the retrospective drastically abbreviated both the Edom and the Sihon episodes.

VI+ The Sihon episode in Num 21:21-31* was supplemented in 21:24b on the basis of Judg 11:21b-22. The verb ‫ ירש‬qal and the geographical references to the Arnon and the Jabbok are otherwise foreign to Num 21:21-31* and its parallel in Deut 2:26-37* but are both present in Judg 11:21b-22. The reference to the border of the Ammonites in Num 21:24b also fits well with this hypothesis, since Israel’s past relations with Ammon are the primary subject of Jephthah’s message to the king of the Ammonites. Indeed, Num 21:24b seems to serve as an ex post facto proof text for Jephthah’s claim in Judg 11:27 that Israel did no wrong to Ammon. VII

Sometime after the composition of the report of Israel’s passage through Edom, Moab, and Ammon in Deut 2:1-6, 8-9, 13, and 17-19



























































































































individuals with mutilated genitals or illegitimate children from entering the congregation (‫ )קהל‬of Yhwh (23:2-3, cf. the reference to the ‫ קהל ה׳‬in 23:9). (2) The prohibition from admitting Ammonites and Moabites into the congregation (‫ )קהל‬of Yhwh (23:4-5), as well as the command not to oppress the Edomite “for he his your brother” (23:8a), clearly presupposes Deut 2:4-19*, where the Israelites are instructed to pay for food and water from the Edomites, but no such instructions are given regarding the Moabites or Ammonites. In other words, since Deut 2:4-5 are silent regarding buying food and water from the Moabites or Ammonites, Deut 23:4-5 extrapolates that these two peoples did not offer food and water to the Israelites. On the post-priestly provenance of Deut 23:2-9, see OTTO, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I,” 162–63 n. 319. 170 Cf. OSWALD, “Revision,” 231.

276

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

(Level III), a series of giants texts (2:10-11, 20-21; 3:11) were appended to the divine speeches in this unit as well as to the end of the Og episode. It is not possible to determine when this occurred relative to Levels IV–VI. VII+ Deut 2:12, 22-23 and 3:9 are possibly later than the other giants texts. VIII Deut 2:7, 30b; and 3:4b-5 are isolated glosses that are difficult to connect to a particular stage of textual development. In any event, 2:7 cannot be earlier than 2:1-6, 8a (Level III). Since 2:30b is similar to 2:7 in terms of its form of address, it was possibly added around the same time as 2:7. As for Deut 3:4b-5, the use of the term ‫ חבל‬for “border” or “territory” links this unit with post-priestly texts such as Deut 3:13-14; Josh 17:5, 14; 19:9, 29. Potentially pre-priestly compositional activity Num 21:21-24a, 25b

I II

Deut 1:1a, 6-7aα, 19aα*, (19b); 2:8(a*)b, (13b), 26*, 27, 29b-30a, 3234aα, 36; 3:1, 3a, 4a, 8a, 29

II+

Deut 2:34aβ-35; 3:3b, 6-7

Post-priestly compositional activity III

Deut 2:1-6, 8-9, 13, 17-19, 24-25

III+

Deut 2:14-16, 2829a, 31; 3:2

IV IV+ V V+ VI VI+ VII VII+ VIII

Num 21:26-31 Num 21:32-35 Num 20:14a*, 17*, 21 Num 20:14b-16, 18-21 Judg 11:12-28 Num 21:24b, 25a Deut 2:10-11, 20-21; 3:11 Deut 2:12, 22-23 Deut 2:7, 30b; 3:4b-5

7. The Itinerary Reports (Num 20:1, 22; 21:4a, 10-20; 22:1)

277

7. The Itinerary Reports (Num 20:1, 22; 21:4a, 10-20; 22:1) Now that the narratives in Num 20–21 have been analyzed and compared to their parallels in Deut 2–3 and Judg 11:12-28, it is possible to evaluate the itinerary reports in Num 20:1, 22; 21:4a, 10-20; and 22:1. 7.1. Literary-critical analysis The arrival in the Wilderness of Zin / the stay at Kadesh (Num 20:1a). Within this half verse, the people are referred to using several different designations: ‫ בני ישראל‬and ‫ כל העדה‬in Num 20:1aα and ‫ העם‬in 20:1aβ. Correspondingly, 20:1aα uses a 3mp verb while 20:1aβ uses a 3ms verb. Moreover, the naming of the subject in 20:1aβ is redundant in light of 20:1aα. All of these observations suggest that 20:1aα and 20:1aβ do not belong to the same compositional level.171 The departure from Kadesh / the arrival at Mount Hor (Num 20:22). There is some indication that Num 20:22 is a composite text, since 20:22a does not have an explicit subject, while 20:22b does, which is the reverse of what a reader would normally expect. This tension can be resolved diachronically in one of two ways: Either the subject in 20:22b can be bracketed out as a later gloss (which is certainly feasible syntactically), or 20:22b as a whole can be assigned to a different level of composition. In the latter scenario, 20:22b could not be earlier than 20:22a, since then it would lack a corresponding departure notice that connects to the arrival at Mount Hor. The departure from Mount Hor (Num 21:4a). This verse contains only a departure notice and finds a corresponding arrival notice only in Num 21:10b. This does not pose a narrative problem, however, since the narrative of the bronze serpent takes place while the people are en route (‫בדרך‬, 21:4b). More problematic is the phrase ‫ לסבב את ארץ אדם‬in 21:4aβ, since this reference appears at some distance from the last mention of Edom in 20:14-21 and is rather isolated within its present context. The Israelites’ departure and encampment in Oboth (Num 21:10). Rather exceptionally within biblical literature, Num 21:10a does not specify from where the Israelites set out.172 This can be explained in light of the preceding episode of the bronze serpent, which takes place in an unspecified setting

























































171

There is a broad consensus on the disunity of Num 20:1a; cf. NOTH, ÜP, 138 n. 354 (ET 125 n. 354); FRITZ, Israel, 27–28; KRATZ, Komposition, 111 (ET 108); SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 275; L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 89; and BADEN, “Narratives,” 639. In contrast, ROSKOP, Wilderness Itineraries, 178 treats this verse as a unity. 172 Of the 61 occurrences of travel notices in Genesis through Kings using the wawconsecutive 3mp of ‫( נסע‬42 of which occur in Num 33 alone), only 5 lack the point of departure (Num 10:12, 28; 21:10; 22:1; Josh 9:17) indicated by the preposition -‫ מ‬plus a place-name or a pronoun such as ‫שם‬.

278

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

“along the way” (‫בדרך‬, 21:4b) following the people’s departure from Mount Hor in 21:4a. Thus, rather than assuming that the point of departure in 21:10 has been lost,173 it seems more likely that 21:10a forms a tailor-made transition out of the preceding episode in 21:4b-9 (i.e., a Wiederaufnahme of 21:4a) and cannot be earlier than that episode. 174 Beyond its present connection to 21:10a, the notice of the people’s arrival in Oboth in 21:10b could also connect seamlessly either to 21:4a* (‫ )ויסעו מהר ההר‬or to 20:22a (‫ויסעו‬ ‫)מקדש‬.175 In contrast, the report of the people’s arrival at Mount Hor in 20:22b uses the verb ‫ בוא‬rather than ‫נחה‬, which may suggest that it does not belong to the same compositional level as the travel notices in 21:10b-13a. The departure from Oboth and encampment at Iye-abarim (Num 21:11). Before delving into the literary-critical issues of Num 21:11, a text-critical problem relating to the place name ‫ עיי העברים‬must first be addressed. In contrast to 𝔐, which reads ‫בעיי העברים‬, certain 𝔊 manuscripts read ἐν Αχελγαι ἐκ τοῦ πέραν176 and certain 𝔖 manuscripts read nḫl g’y’177 or b‘yn’.178 Assuming that a Greek nu may have been omitted from the beginning of Αχελγαι through haplography, it is possible to reconstruct the toponym Ναχελγαι in the Old Greek text,179 which can be retroverted to Hebrew as ‫“ *נחל עי‬the Wadi (of) Ai.” In contrast, the reading ‫ בעיי העברים‬in 𝔐 seems to have been influenced by Num 33:44b.180 The possibility that ‫*נחל עי‬ is the more original reading here finds some support in its parallelism with Wadi Zered (‫ )נחל זרד‬in 21:12. The location of ‫ *נחל עי‬is, of course, a separate question. Several commentators have identified Iye-abarim (or ‫ )*נחל עי‬with present-day Khirbet ‘Ay, located around 10 kilometers southwest of Kerak.181 Although this fits well with the reconstructed place-name ‫*נחל עי‬, it places this site north of Wadi Zered (i.e., Wadi al-Ḥasa), which conflicts with the order of the travel notices

























































173

WALSH, “From Egypt,” 27. Cf. ALBERTZ, “Buch Numeri,” 181–82 and BADEN, “Narratives,” 651 n. 60, who attributes Num 21:10a to the “compiler.” 175 The location of Oboth is disputed. NOTH, “Wallfahrtsweg,” repr. 65 suggests that Oboth should be identified with ‘Ain el-Weibeh, on the western side of Wadi Arabah, while MILLER, “Israelite Journey,” 581 argues that this is unlikely, since ‘Ain el-Weibeh does not lie on a direct path from Khirbet el-Feinan to Dhiban, which would be expected based on the order of toponyms in Num 33:43-45. It may be questioned, however, whether Num 33 should be taken as a reliable source of geographical information. E.g., KNAUF, “Supplementa,” 22 argues that Num 33:36-37 identify Kadesh with Petra in Transjordan. 176 Cf. WEVERS, Notes, 255–56. 177 See the text-critical notes in SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 330. 178 BHS ad loc. 179 SEEBASS, “Edom,” 256. 180 Ibid., followed by ALBERTZ, “Buch Numeri,” 337 n. 5. 181 NOTH, “Wallfahrtsweg,” 63–64; DONNER, “Mitteilungen,” 183–88; and ZWICKEL, “Durchzug,” 486; see also the discussion in MACDONALD, East of the Jordan, 72–73. 174

7. The Itinerary Reports (Num 20:1, 22; 21:4a, 10-20; 22:1)

279

in Num 21:11-12. The note in 21:11bα2β that Iye-abarim/‫ *נחל עי‬lies in the wilderness to the east of Moab poses a similar problem, since it implies that the Israelites have already traveled beyond Wadi Zered, which is described elsewhere as the southern border of Moab (cf. Deut 2:13, 17-18).182 In other words, the received form of Num 21:11 suggests that the Israelites would have to backtrack in order to encamp in the Zered in 21:12.183 This suggests that, in their present form, Num 21:11 and 21:12 cannot be the product of a single hand. Rather, one of three alternative scenarios must be the case: (1) 21:11 is a unity and is later than 21:12, in which case ‫ משם‬in 21:12 would have originally referred to Oboth in 21:10; (2) 21:11 is a unity and is earlier than 21:12, in which case 21:11 would have originally connected to 21:13 or some verse thereafter; or (3) 21:11 did not originally contain ‫במדבר אשר על פני מואב ממזרח השמש‬, in which case Iye-abarim/‫*נחל עי‬ would no longer need to be interpreted as located to the east of Moab.184 Literary-critical analysis alone does not provide a clear solution here, and this problem will be revisited in the macrocontextual analysis (§7.2). The encampment in Wadi Zered and beyond (Num 21:12-13). It is noteworthy that the travel notices in Num 21:12-13 use the expression ‫משם נסעו‬ rather than the waw-consecutive verb ‫ויסעו‬. On the one hand, this may constitute evidence that 21:12-13 belong to a different (and if so, likely later) stage of composition from 21:10b-11.185 On the other hand, it may simply be a stylistic device that serves to reduce the repetition that would otherwise characterize the series of back-to-back travel notices.186 While this shift in formulation may not provide a solid basis for literary-critical differentiation, there are other elements in 21:12-13 that do call for such differentiation. In 21:13a, the use of the term ‫ מדבר‬as the apparent subject of the verb ‫ יצא‬is exceptional within biblical literature. This raises the question of whether the term ‫ארנון‬ might function better as the original subject of the verb ‫יצא‬.187 If the reference to the desert is removed, then a coherent report remains stating that the people encamped by the “Arnon which goes out from the territory of the Amo-



























































182 The historical plausibility of this biblically defined border is supported by the distribution of Iron Age Moabite sites, which occur on both sides of Wadi Mujib (= Arnon); cf. ROUTLEDGE, Moab, 93–96. 183 On this problem, see NOTH, “Num 21,” 84–86; DE VAUX, “L’itinéraire,” 341; MILLER, “Israelite Journey,” 558; and A LBERTZ, “Buch Numeri,” 337 n. 5. 184 Admittedly, the third alternative is incompatible with the proposed identification of Iye-abarim/‫ *נחל עי‬with Khirbet ‘Ay, although the latter is itself quite uncertain. 185 ROSKOP, Wilderness Itineraries, 190. 186 A parallel to this simpler form of travel notice is found in ancient Greek literature, using only an adverb such as ἔνθεν or ἐντεῦθεν; on this, see DAVIES, “Wilderness Itineraries: A Comparative Study,” 76. 187 Cf. Gen 2:10, which uses the verb ‫( יצא‬also as a participle) with reference to a river.

280

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

rites” (‫ ארנון אשר יצא מגבול האמרי‬or ‫)ארנון היצא מגבול האמרי‬.188 In 21:13b, the reference to the Arnon as the border (‫ )גבול‬of Moab stands in tension with 21:13a*, which states that the Arnon is at the edge of Amorite territory. The use of ‫ כי‬to introduce this geographical detail suggests that 21:13b is a later addition to 21:13a. Further waypoints (Num 21:14-20). There are several reasons to suspect that Num 21:14-20 are a later addition within the chain of travel notices in Num 20:1–22:1. (1) The reference to the “Book of the Wars of Yhwh” in 21:14a sets this unit off as distinct from its surrounding material. (2) The style of the travel notices in 21:19-20 differs from that of the other travel notices in these chapters, which consistently use the verb ‫ נסע‬in the departure notices and either use the verb ‫ חנה‬or ‫ בוא‬in the arrival notices. (3) This unit interrupts the thematic connection between the reference to the Amorites in 21:13a and 21:21, in which Israel sends messengers to Sihon, king of the Amorites, requesting passage through his land.189 The ascent to Bashan (Num 21:33). This notice is unique within its immediate narrative context, as it does not use the verb ‫ נסע‬and also does not have a corresponding arrival notice. This suggests that the people’s ascent to Bashan does not belong to the most basic travel sequence within 20:1–22:1. In any event, since the narrative of the defeat of Og presupposes the defeat of Sihon, this travel notice cannot be earlier than 21:21–31*. The encampment in the plains of Moab (Num 22:1). Like Num 21:10a, 22:1a is rather unusual among the itinerary notices that employ the verb ‫נסע‬ insofar as it does not specify the point of departure. This may suggest that 22:1a is a dummy notice that was required following the insertion of additional narrative material into an existing itinerary chain.190 Thus, it seems that 22:1b originally connected to some point prior to the Og episode in 21:33-35, namely, one of the following departure notices: 20:22a (Kadesh), 21:11a (Oboth), 21:12a (Iye-abarim/‫)*נחל עי‬, or 21:13aα1 (Wadi Zered). Deciding which of these possibilities is the most likely is not possible on the basis of a literary-critical analysis alone; this question will thus be taken up again in §7.2.

























































188

While 𝔐 suggests that the people encamped to the south of the Arnon (‫)מעבר ארנן‬, some ⅏ manuscripts read ‫בעבר ארנן‬, which seems to place the people instead on the northern side of the Arnon. 189 Cf. NOTH, “Num 21,” 175; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 357; and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 108. This line of reasoning is critiqued by ALBERTZ, “Buch Numeri,” 180 n. 33, who instead proposes that Num 21:13aβb is a later insertion that was added at the same time as the Sihon narrative in 21:21-35*. Although I would agree that 21:13b is a later insertion, whether 21:13aβ is also an insertion is less clear to me. 190 Although it is hypothetically possible that Num 22:1a originally contained a placename that has now been lost or suppressed during textual transmission, such a possibility should not form the starting point for the reconstruction of the text’s composition.

7. The Itinerary Reports (Num 20:1, 22; 21:4a, 10-20; 22:1)

281

Interim result. The literary-critical analysis of the itinerary notices in Num 20:1–22:1 suggests that a more basic travel sequence in these chapters was limited to some or all of the following waypoints: 20:1aβ + 22a (Kadesh), 21:10b + 11a (Oboth), 21:11bα1 + 12a (Iye-abarim/‫)*נחל עי‬, 12b + 13aα1 (Wadi Zered), and 22:1b (the plains of Moab). 7.2. Macrocontextual analysis Num 20:1a. Above it was noted that this half verse is not a compositional unity, and it has long been concluded on the basis of the reference to the ‫עדה‬ and the chronological notice in Num 20:1aα that this part of the verse is priestly.191 Num 20:22. The foregoing analysis concluded that this verse is composite, and the possibility was raised that Num 20:22b is later than 20:22a. Notably, 20:22b uses the verb ‫ בוא‬in its arrival notice, which suggests an affinity with the priestly arrival notice in 20:1aα. The priestly provenance of the stopover at Mount Hor is further suggested by the close connection between Mount Hor and the priestly report of Aaron’s death in 20:23-29. Indeed, the reference to a specific mountain as a waypoint is exceptional when compared to the other travel notices within 20:1–22:1 but is easily understandable in light of the narrative in 20:23-29, in which the top of Mount Hor serves as Aaron’s final resting place. Thus, the stopover at Mount Hor in 20:22b cannot have belonged to a pre-priestly narrative thread within 20:1–22:1. In contrast, there are no indications that the report of the people’s departure from Kadesh in 20:22a presupposes priestly literature.192 Num 21:4a. Since the people’s arrival at Mount Hor in Num 20:22b was evaluated as priestly, their departure from Mount Hor in 21:4a must also be priestly.193 From this it follows that the phrase ‫דרך ים סוף לסבב את ארץ אדם‬ must also be priestly at the earliest,194 which fits well with the evaluation of both the spy story in Num 13–14 and the detour around Edom in 20:14-21 as (post-)priestly texts.195



























































191 NOTH, ÜP, 19 (ET 19); FRITZ, Israel, 27–28; KRATZ, Komposition, 111 (ET 108); SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 275; and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 89. 192 Cf. RUDOLPH, Elohist, 89; NOTH, ÜP, 34 (ET 32); and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11– 22,1, 97. Here I differ from many commentors, who regard Num 20:22a as priestly; e.g., BAENTSCH, Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, 572; HOLZINGER, Numeri, 87; and KRATZ, Komposition, 111 (ET 108). 193 Against SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 362, who regards Num 21:4aα1 as nonpriestly. 194 Against BADEN, “Narratives,” 649–50 with n. 53, who regards ‫ דרך ים סוף‬as a remnant of a J itinerary notice and ‫ לסבב את ארץ אדם‬as “the direct continuation of the last words from the E story in 20:22a.” 195 See Chapter 6, §4.2 and §6 immediately above, respectively.

282

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

Num 21:10-20: General remarks. Several commentators assign much or all of the material within these verses to a post-priestly stage of composition,196 yet such a conclusion is problematic for several reasons. First, as Angela Roskop has remarked, the “stereotypical formula and list-like character” of the biblical itinerary notices, which often has often led commentators to assign them to P, “are simply characteristic of the itinerary genre and would be present irrespective of the ideological leanings, compositional style, or literary goals of the author.”197 Accordingly, it is not inconceivable that some of the notices in this unit belonged to a pre-priestly itinerary.198 Moreover, if one assigns 21:10-20 as a whole to a (post-)priestly stage of composition, then a vast geographical gap is left between the people’s arrival in Kadesh (in the Negev) and the defeat of Sihon (in Transjordan), both of which likely belonged to a pre-priestly narrative thread. Since it is difficult to imagine that the people are still in Kadesh when Sihon comes out to attack them in 21:23*, it is reasonable to assume that at least some of the intervening itinerary notices are pre-priestly.199 Num 21:10. Above it was concluded that Num 21:10a was composed as a transitional element that presupposes the episode of the bronze serpent in 21:4b-9. Since the latter is (post-)priestly (see §1), 21:10a must be as well.200 In contrast, there is no evidence for attributing 21:10b to a (post-)priestly stage of composition. Such an attribution is based on the assumption that 21:10b is derived from the itinerary notice in Num 33:44, although there is no decisive evidence for such a direction of dependence.201 Thus, in my view, it

























































196

KRATZ, Komposition, 111 (ET 108); L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 107–8; FREVEL, “Understanding,” 128–30; and ROSKOP, Wilderness Itineraries, 205. 197 ROSKOP, Wilderness Itineraries, 153. 198 In my view, this undermines Roskop’s conclusion that the itinerary notices in Num 21:10-11a “use the same convention for the itinerary genre found throughout the Priestly string of itinerary notices and are likely part of the same composition” (ibid., 205). 199 KRATZ, Komposition, 111 (ET 108) assigns the detour around Edom to a non-priestly level of composition within Num 20:1–22:1 “which originally led directly from Kadesh, going round Edom (20.14-21), to the region between the Arnon and the Jabbok (21.21ff).” Yet, as was demonstrated in §6, the narrative of the detour around Edom is post-priestly and thus cannot have preceded the narrative of the conquest of Sihon from the outset. 200 Against ALBERTZ, “Buch Numeri,” 181–82, who rightly notes that Num 21:10a connects seamlessly with 21:4-9 but assigns the latter (without the reference to Mount Hor in 21:4) to a pre-priestly stage of composition. 201 This assumed direction of dependence goes back to NOTH, “Num 21,” 171–72, who postulates that Num 33 preserves an old pilgrimage route, and has been maintained even by commentators who do not espouse Noth’s pilgrimage route hypothesis; see, e.g., KNAUF, “Supplementa,” 23 and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 107. For the view that Num 33 did not serve as a source for the itinerary notices elsewhere in Numbers, see ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 623; ROSKOP, Wilderness Itineraries, 139–44; and ALBERTZ, “Buch Numeri,” 181 with n. 34.

7. The Itinerary Reports (Num 20:1, 22; 21:4a, 10-20; 22:1)

283

cannot be ruled out that 21:10b belongs to a pre-priestly itinerary chain and once connected directly to the people’s departure from Kadesh in 20:22a. Num 21:11. The foregoing analysis concluded that the received form of Num 20:11 and 20:12 cannot belong to the same compositional level, since the statement that Iye-abarim/‫ *נחל עי‬lies to the east of Moab stands in tension with the fact that the Israelites reach Wadi Zered only in 20:12. One of the proposed solutions to this problem was to bracket out the phrase ‫במדבר‬ ‫ אשר על פני מואב ממזרח השמש‬in 21:11bα2β as a later addition. Such a solution fits well with the analysis in §6, which concluded that an earlier – yet already post-priestly – level of composition in Deut 2 reported the Israelites’ passage through Edom, Moab, and Ammon. In contrast, the location of Iyeabarim/‫ *נחל עי‬implied by 21:11bα2β seems to presuppose the Israelites’ detour around Edom in 20:14-21 (see also 21:4aβ and Deut 2:8 𝔐), reinterpreting their passage through Moab along similar lines.202 This notion of a detour around Moab is expressed elsewhere in Judg 11:18, which bears striking similarities to Num 21:11bα2β: Judg 11:18 Num 21:11b

‫וילך במדבר ויסב את ארץ אדום ואת ארץ מואב ויבא ממזרח שמש לארץ‬ ‫מואב ויחנון בעבר ארנון ולא באו בגבול מואב כי ארנון גבול מואב‬ ‫ויחנו *בנחל עי מהעבר במדבר אשר על פני מואב ממזרח השמש‬

Although the direction of dependence between these two texts is not completely clear, the literary priority of Judg 11:18 over Num 21:11bα2β203 receives some indirect support from the fact that Num 21 seems to have been coordinated with Judg 11:12-28 in at least two other places: 21:24b (cf. Judg 11:21b-22; see §6) and 21:13b (see immediately below). In either case, however, 21:11bα2β must be evaluated as a post-priestly insertion, since it cannot be earlier than either Deut 2:4-6, 8a or Num 20:14-21. Thus, 21:11abα1 constitutes the greatest extent of potentially pre-priestly material in this verse. Num 21:12-13. The possibility raised in §7.1 that the term ‫ מדבר‬is a later addition to Num 21:13a finds further support in light of the evaluation of 21:11bα2β as a post-priestly insertion that presupposes Num 20:14-21 and perhaps also Judg 11:12-28. This suggests that the term ‫ מדבר‬was added to 21:13a at the same time as 21:11bα2β. In contrast, it is unlikely that 21:13a as a whole belongs to such a late stage of composition, since the reference to the Amorites here forms a transition into the Sihon episode in 21:21, which belongs to one of the earliest stages of composition in Num 21.

























































202

Cf. ROSKOP, Wilderness Itineraries, 209. Cf. DAVIES, “Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch,” 10–11 and ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 623 against BÖHLER, Jiftach, 62, who concludes that the direction of dependence only runs from Num 21:11 to Judg 11:18. 203

284

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

The literary-critical analysis suggested that Num 21:13b is a later addition to 21:13a*, and comparison with Judg 11:18 suggests that it may have been derived from the latter verse: Judg 11:18

‫וילך במדבר ויסב את ארץ אדום ואת ארץ מואב ויבא ממזרח שמש לארץ‬ ‫מואב ויחנון בעבר ארנון ולא באו בגבול מואב כי ארנון גבול מואב‬

Num 21:13b

‫כי ארנון גבול מואב בין מואב ובין האמרי‬

These are the only two verses in the Enneateuch that explicitly state that the Arnon forms one of Moab’s borders.204 While such a detail is important for Judg 11:18, which insists that the Israelites did not infringe upon Moabite territory in their journey through Transjordan, in Num 21:13b it is a blind motif that is understandable only in light of the additions in Num 21:11bα2β and 21:13a*, which serve to recast the itinerary as a journey through the desert to the east rather than through the Transjordanian heartland.205 In sum, it seems that Num 21:12-13* originally did not describe a desert route to the east of the Transjordanian highlands but rather a route passing through the highlands themselves. Later, at a post-priestly stage of composition, these travel notices were reworked in light of Num 20:14-21 and to some extent also Judg 11:12-28, reinterpreting the Israelites’ route as going around Moab and not through it.206 Num 21:10-13 and Num 33. The conclusion that Num 20:10-13 did not originally depict a journey through the desert around Edom and Moab is supported by the (post-)priestly itinerary in Num 33:37, 41-49. Although not all of the toponyms in Num 33:37, 41-49 can be identified with known sites, the references to Punon, Dibon-gad, and Almon-diblathaim clearly indicate a route passing through Edom and Moab.207 Yet rather than tendentiously diverging from a supposedly pre-priestly wilderness route that circumvented Edom and Moab,208 it is more probable that Num 33:37, 41-49 drew on an earlier – but already post-priestly – version of Num 20–21 that described the Israelites’ passage through the Transjordanian heartland but had not yet been reworked in light of Num 20:14-21 and Judg 11:12-28. Num 21:14-20. Above it was concluded that Num 21:14-20 as a whole likely constitute a later insertion that interrupts the thematic and geographical

























































204

For further discussion of the (tendentious) biblical depiction of the Arnon as the northern border of Moab, see ROUTLEDGE, Moab, 45–46. 205 On the dependence of Num 21:13b on Judg 11:18, cf. ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 353. 206 Cf. DAVIES, Way of the Wilderness, 92: “Previous attempts to interpret Num 21:1220* have started from the presumption that it describes a route passing through the desert to the east of Moab. But the phrases on which this presumption is based are probably redactional additions to an older nucleus, which may have referred to a route further west.” 207 Cf. LEVINE, Numbers 21–36, 511–12 and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 204. 208 LEVINE, Numbers 21–36, 511 and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 204–5.

7. The Itinerary Reports (Num 20:1, 22; 21:4a, 10-20; 22:1)

285

connection between 21:13a* and 21:21. The fact that the waypoints of Mattanah, Nahaliel, Bamoth, and Pisgah in 21:19-20 are not present in Num 33 may suggest that these verses were written after the composition of that chapter, which would indicate their post-priestly provenance.209 This fits well with the fact that the waypoints in 21:19-20 form connections with post-priestly compositional strata in the Balaam pericope (cf. Num 22:41; 23:14; and 23:28)210 and serve to further integrate the Balaam pericope into the wilderness narratives.211 Num 21:33. There is a broad consensus that the defeat of Og in Num 21:33-35 is dependent on Deut 3:1-4. Considering that Num 21:33-35 already know the divine speech to Moses in Deut 3:2, which was assigned in §6.2 to a post-priestly stage of composition, 21:33 cannot be pre-priestly. Num 22:1. Above it was concluded that Num 22:1b could have once connected directly to one of the following departure notices: 20:22a (Kadesh), 21:11a (Oboth), 21:12a (Iye-abarim/‫)*נחל עי‬, or 21:13aα1 (Wadi Zered). Notably, it does not connect smoothly with the narrative of the defeat of Sihon, which suggests that the (likely pre-priestly) core of the Sihon episode is itself an insertion into an even more basic narrative thread in 20:1–22:1 consisting only of itinerary notices. Since the only arrival notice following the Sihon narrative is found in 22:1b, it must be concluded that this notice is earlier than the Sihon episode and thus is likely pre-priestly.212 7.3. Synthesis I

The most basic travel notices in Num 20:1–22:1 consist of 20:1aβ, 22a; 21:10b, 11a; 22:1b*213 and serve to bring to people from Kadesh up to the eastern bank of the Jordan. These notices suggest that the people passed through the Transjordanian heartland, and they provide no clear indications of priestly or post-priestly provenance. 214

























































209

Cf. DOZEMAN, “Priestly Wilderness Itineraries,” 286, 288. See Chapter 8, §2. 211 Cf. FREVEL, “Understanding,” 132 and ROSKOP, Wilderness Itineraries, 207–8. 212 Cf. VAN SETERS, Life, 414 and KRATZ, Komposition, 291 (ET 283) against G. B. GRAY, Numbers, 306–7; NOTH, Numeri, 151 (ET 171); IDEM, “Num 21,” 161; BUDD, Numbers, 256; MILGROM, Numbers, 184; SEEBASS, Numeri 10,11–22,1, 366; and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 122, who assign Num 22:1 to P. 213 The lack of a point of departure (such as Wadi Arnon) in Num 22:1 is a problem, although I agree with WALSH, “From Egypt,” 28 that the addition of material between 21:10-13* and 22:1* “would be sufficient to account for the redactional suppression of the point of departure.” For the view that the reports of crossing the Zered and the Arnon are primary to Num 21 (and not Deut 2), see also ZWICKEL, “Durchzug,” 493. 214 In terms of absolute chronology, a route through the Transjordanian highlands fits well with the historical period of Neo-Assyrian hegemony over the southern Levant, ca. 210

286

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

II

This basic itinerary chain was first expanded in Num 21:11bα1, 12, 13a* (without ‫)מדבר‬, which likely occurred at the same time as the insertion of the Sihon episode in 21:21-31*, since 21:13a is closely connected to 21:21-31* both thematically and geographically. Like the Sihon episode itself, there is no indication that these travel notices belong to a priestly or post-priestly stage of composition.

III

The itinerary chain in Num 20:1aβ, 22a; 21:10b, 11abα1, 12, 13a*; 22:1b* was expanded with priestly itinerary notices in 20:1aα, 22b; and 21:4aα1.

IV

At some point after the composition of Num 33, the travel notices in 21:10b, 11*, and 13* were reworked in order to emphasize that the Israelites went around Edom and Moab to the east rather than through the Transjordanian heartland. The additions within these verses share the same perspective as the post-priestly historical summary in Judg 11:1228 and are likely dependent on that unit.

V

Additional waypoints and the Song of the Well were added in Num 21:14-20. The toponyms in 21:18b-20 form a link with the Balaam pericope in Num 22–24, further integrating this episode into the wilderness narrative.



























































































































730–630 B.C.E. During this period, Assyria relocated the main Arabian trade route from the Dharb el-Ghazza (which connected the Gulf of Aqaba and Gaza) to routes passing through the Edomite plateau and the Beer-sheba Valley; on this, see FINKELSTEIN, “Wilderness Narrative,” 45.

‫‪287‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫)‪7. The Itinerary Reports (Num 20:1, 22; 21:4a, 10-20; 22:1‬‬ ‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪V‬‬

‫‪ 20:1aα‬ויבאו בני ישראל כל העדה מדבר צן בחדש הראשון‬ ‫‪ 1aβ‬וישב העם בקדש ]ותמת שם מרים ותקבר שם[‬ ‫]‪[20:2-13‬‬ ‫]‪[20:14-21‬‬ ‫‪ 20:22a‬ויסעו מקדש‬ ‫‪ 22b‬ויבאו בני ישראל כל העדה הר ההר‬ ‫]‪[20:23-29‬‬ ‫]‪[21:1-3‬‬ ‫‪ 21:4‬ויסעו מהר ההר דרך ים סוף ]לסבב את ארץ אדום[‬ ‫]‪[21:4b-9‬‬ ‫‪ 21:10a‬ויסעו בני ישראל‬ ‫‪ 10b‬ויחנו באבת ‪ 11a‬ויסעו מאבת‬ ‫‪ 11bα1‬ויחנו בעיי העברים‬ ‫‪ 11bα2‬במדבר אשר על פני מואב ממזרח השמש‬ ‫‪ 12‬משם נסעו ויחנו בנחל זרד ‪ 13a‬משם נסעו ויחנו מעבר ארנון אשר ]במדבר ה[יצא מגבל האמרי‬ ‫‪ 13b‬כי ארנון גבול מואב בין מואב ובין האמרי‬ ‫‪15‬‬

‫‪ 14‬על כן יאמר בספר מלחמת ה׳ את והב בסופה ואת הנחלים ארנון ואשד‬ ‫הנחלים אשר נטה לשבת ער ונשען לגבול מואב ‪ 16‬ומשם בארה הוא הבאר‬ ‫אשר אמר ה׳ למשה אסף את העם ואתנה להם מים ‪ 17‬אז ישיר ישראל את‬ ‫השירה הזאת עלי באר ענו לה ‪ 18‬באר חפרוה שרים כרוה נדיבי העם במחקק‬ ‫במשענתם וממדבר מתנה ‪ 19‬וממתנה נחליאל ומנחליאל במות ‪ 20‬ומבמות הגיא‬ ‫אשר בשדה מואב ראש הפסגה ונשקפה על פני הישימן‬ ‫]*‪[21:21-25‬‬ ‫]‪[21:26-31‬‬ ‫]‪[21:32-35‬‬ ‫‪ 22:1a‬ויסעו בני ישראל‬ ‫‪ 22:1b‬ויחנו ]בערבות מואב[ מעבר לירדן ירחו‬

288

Chapter 7: From Kadesh to the Plains of Moab (Num 20–21 // Deut 1–3)

8. Result The aim of the foregoing analysis of Num 20–21 and its parallels has been to evaluate the extent of material within these chapters that may have belonged to a pre-priestly narrative spanning from the exodus from Egypt to the conquest of the land. Since there is relatively broad agreement that the second episode of water from a rock (20:2-13), the death and burial of Aaron (20:2329), the episode at Hormah (21:1-3), and the episode of the bronze serpent (21:4b-9) are priestly or post-priestly texts, the present chapter has focused on the relative dating of the remaining materials in Num 20–21, namely, the detour around Edom (20:14-21), the conquest of Sihon and Og (21:21-35), and the itinerary notices that frame these two episodes. Contrary to the frequent assignment of both Num 20:14-21 and 21:21-31 – at least in their most basic literary form – to a pre-priestly stage of composition, the foregoing investigation has concluded that 20:14-21 is post-priestly in its entirety and that 21:21-31 also underwent a significant amount of postpriestly reworking. Conversely, against a long-standing tendency to assign almost all of the itinerary notices in Num 20–21 (and in 22:1) to a priestly or post-priestly stage of composition, the present analysis has concluded that the pre-priestly itinerary in 20:1–22:1 may have included more waypoints than is often acknowledged. To summarize the results of this chapter, the maximal extent of potentially pre-priestly materials in Num 20–21; 22:1 consists of 20:1aβ, 22a; 21:10b, 11abα1, 12, 13a* (without ‫)מדבר‬, 21-24a, 25b; 22:1b*.

Chapter 8

Balaam (Num 22–24) 1. Literary-Critical Analysis The Balaam pericope is full of juxtapositions of distinct terminology and concepts, which have long led scholars to propose a history of composition for the unit.1 A major problem, however, is to what extent these different terms and concepts can be used as literary-critical criteria. While some of these elements can be identified with discrete compositional stages, others – most notably the alternation between the divine names Yhwh and Elohim – defy literary-critical differentiation. Thus, in the following, differences in terminology and concepts will be noted, but their use as literary-critical criteria must be corroborated whenever possible by other means, such as narrative and syntactic unevenness and the use of compositional devices such as Wiederaufnahmen. The exposition of the narrative (Num 22:2-8). There are several indications that this unit is not the product of a single hand. In Num 22:2, Balak son of Zippor is the subject of the main clause (‫)וירא בלק בן צפור‬, while Israel is the subject of the subordinate clause (‫)את כל אשר עשה ישראל לאמרי‬. In contrast, in 22:3a, the subject shifts from Balak to Moab and the object shifts from Israel to “the people” (‫)העם‬. Num 22:3b repeats the same basic information as 22:3a but refers to the people as “the Israelites” (‫)בני ישראל‬, sug-



























































1 Up to the last quarter of the twentieth century, the Documentary Hypothesis dominated research on the composition of Num 22–24 (for a detailed review of research, see GROSS, Bileam, 19–64) and continues to be adopted by L. SCHMIDT, “Die alttestamentliche Bileamüberlieferung”; IDEM, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 117–44; SEEBASS, “Zur literarischen Gestalt”; IDEM, Numeri 22,2–36,13, 2–107; and ZOBEL, “Bileam-Lieder.” Already during the first half of the twentieth century, however, some scholars abandoned the attempt to identify two parallel sources (J and E) in these chapters, and in more recent studies, most scholars reckon with some form of supplementary model; cf. LÖHR, “Bileam,” 85–89; RUDOLPH, Elohist, 106, 128–29; O. KAISER, Einleitung, 87–88; ROFÉ, Book of Balaam, 40– 42; Budd, Numbers, 262–63; ROUILLARD, La péricope de Balaam, 479–82; TIMM, Moab, 97–157; LEVIN, Jahwist, 381–88; VAN SETERS, Life, 405–35; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Der heidnische Mantiker,” 254; FRITZ, Entstehung, 23–24; LEVINE, Numbers 21–36, 135–275; GASS, Stern, 252–65; SCHÜLE, Israels Sohn, 65–69; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 389–424; WITTE, “Segen,” 206–8; ROBKER, “Balaam Narrative,” 342–43; and BICKERT, “Israel,” 192–93.

290

Chapter 8: Balaam

gesting that these two half verses do not belong to the same compositional level.2 In 22:4a, Moab remains the subject, although now Israel is referred to as “the congregation” (‫)הקהל‬, and a new group is introduced, namely, the “elders of Midian.” Since 22:4a does not drive the narrative forward in any way and the “elders of Midian” do not play a significant role in the later unfolding of the story (they are only mentioned again in 22:7), this half verse is likely a later addition to the narrative.3 Finally, the identification of Balak as the king of Moab in 22:4b most likely does not belong to the same compositional level as 22:2, since if that were the case, one would expect 22:2 to describe Balak as the king of Moab from the outset. Nevertheless, it is difficult to determine which verse has literary priority over the other on the basis of 22:2-4 alone.4 In Num 22:5a, an unnamed subject sends messengers to Balaam son of Beor, who is depicted as residing in two different areas: (1) “Petor, which is on the (Euphrates) River” (‫ )פתורה אשר על הנהר‬and (2) “the land of his people” / “the land of the Ammonites” ([‫)ארץ בני עמו]ן‬. Regardless of whether one reconstructs “the land of the Ammonites” on the basis of ⅏, 𝔖, and 𝔙 or retains the reading “the land of his people” in 𝔐, the reference to two distinct place-names suggests that 22:5a is the product of more than one hand.5 The extended geographical reference also places the ‫ לאמר‬found at the beginning of 22:5b at some distance from the report of the sending of messengers, lending further support to the suspicion that 22:5a is oversaturated.6 Within 22:5b, the second ‫ הנה‬clause (‫ )הנה כסה את עין הארץ‬is not absolutely necessary and may also be a later insertion,7 although here the evidence is rather equivocal.8



























































2 Cf. GROSS, Bileam, 65; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 395; BICKERT, “Israel,” 197; and ROBKER, “Balaam Narrative,” 336. 3 Cf. ROBKER, “Balaam Narrative,” 336 and BÜHRER, “Nachgeschichte,” 603. 4 ROBKER, “Balaam Narrative,” 335, 337–38 offers several arguments for the view that Num 22:4b is more original than 22:2. While this is certainly possible, at this point in the analysis it cannot be ruled out that 22:2 once connected directly to 22:5, in which case 22:2 could be more original than 22:4b. LEVINE, Numbers 21–36, 143 regards both 22:2 and 22:4b as later additions, but this seems unlikely, since it implies that the figure of Balak is not introduced at all; for a similar critique, see ROBKER, “Balaam Narrative,” 337 n. 9. GROSS, Bileam, 144; BUDD, Numbers, 263–64; and ACHENBACH Vollendung, 424 assign 22:2 and 22:3a to the same compositional level, although this also seems unlikely given that these two verses refer to the people using different terminology. 5 For a proposed text-critical solution to Balaam’s dual origins in this verse, see ROBKER, “Balaam Narrative,” 338–39. 6 On the composite nature of Num 22:5a, see SEEBASS, Numeri 22,2–36,13, 67–68; L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 124–25; and BICKERT, “Israel,” 198. 7 KRATZ, Komposition, 295–96 n. 89 (ET 298–99 n. 63). 8 The repeated use of ‫( הנה‬including without the copula before the second occurrence) is not uncommon in biblical Hebrew, such that the secondary nature of ‫הנה כסה את עין‬ ‫ הארץ‬cannot easily be argued on syntactic grounds alone.

1. Literary-Critical Analysis

291

Num 22:6a conveys the speaker’s request that Balaam curse the people and forms a logical continuation of the statement that the people dwell opposite the speaker, who should be identified as Balak (cf. 22:7: ‫)דברי בלק‬. The second motive clause in 22:6b (‫)כי ידעתי את אשר תברך מברך ואשר תאר יואר‬ results in an oversaturated sentence and can hardly be more original than the first motive clause, which provides the more obvious reason for Balak’s request, namely, that the people are mightier than he is. Thus, 22:6b may be later than 22:6a.9 Whereas Num 22:5 designates Balak’s emissaries with the generic term ‫מלאכים‬, in 22:7 Balak’s emissaries are described as the “elders of Moab and the elders of Midian,” which suggests that ‫ זקני מואב וזקני מדין וקסמים בידם‬in 22:7 may be a later addition.10 If this material is bracketed out, a coherent text remains,11 giving further support to such a conclusion. Num 22:8aα fits well within the narrative framework found in 22:7*, while both 22:8aβ and 22:8b* are somewhat distinct from the most basic narrative thread that precedes and follows. Thus, it is possible that the most basic material in 22:8 once read as follows: ‫ויאמר אליהם לינו פה הלילה והשבתי אתכם דבר…וישבו…עם בלעם‬. Balaam’s obedience to the deity (Num 22:9-20). Within this unit, Num 22:9 and 22:20 form a doublet, each reporting that God (‫ )אלהים‬came to Balaam. Whereas 22:20 can stand without 22:9-19, the opposite is not the case; thus, it is likely that 22:9 is secondary to 22:20 and serves as the introduction to a large insertion in 22:9-19, which presuppose and cite 22:2-8 in a relatively developed form and seem to have been added in order to elaborate on the motif of Balaam’s obedience to divine instruction in 22:20. 12 Balaam and his donkey (Num 22:21aβb-35). As with Num 22:9-19, there are similar internal reasons for bracketing out the episode of Balaam and his donkey in 22:21aβb-35a from the most basic narrative thread in Num 22– 24.13 The most compelling reason for regarding 22:21aβb-35a as secondary is



























































9 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 382 and WITTE, “Segen,” 205. In contrast, BICKERT, “Israel,” 198 argues that the motive clause in Num 22:6b is more original. 10 Cf. L. SCHMIDT, “Die alttestamentliche Bileamüberlieferung,” 250–51; IDEM; Numeri 10,11–36,13, 118, 124; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 397 (although he regards Num 22:3b-4a, 7a* as reflecting fragments of a Vorlage that has otherwise been lost); BICKERT, “Israel,” 199; and ROBKER, “Balaam Narrative,” 339. 11 Cf. ROBKER, “Balaam Narrative,” 340. 12 Cf. L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 128, who regards Num 22:8-19 (which he assigns to JE) as an addition that is derived from 22:20 (E). 13 There is a broad consensus in more recent scholarship that this episode is a later supplement within Num 22–24; cf. GROSS, Bileam, 355–67; ROFÉ, Book of Balaam, 40–42; BUDD, Numbers, 263; LEVIN, Jahwist, 387; VAN SETERS, Life, 419; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Der heidnische Mantiker,” 252; FRITZ, Entstehung, 23–24; BICKERT, “Israel,” 200; ROBKER, “Balaam Narrative,” 340–41; and BÜHRER, “Nachgeschichte,” 605. Some commentators, however, continue to regard the episode as a fragment of a larger source that has not been

292

Chapter 8: Balaam

the fact that 22:35b constitutes a Wiederaufnahme of 22:21*, and the episode ends exactly as it began, with Balaam accompanying Balak’s emissaries.14 Since 22:21b refers to Balaam accompanying the “princes of Moab” while 22:35b refers to him going with the “princes of Balak,” it seems likely that 22:21b is secondary and that the original narrative thread connected directly between 22:21aα and 22:35b: ‫ויקם בלעם בבקר…וילך…עם שרי בלק‬.15 The first oracle (Num 22:36–23:12). In Num 22:36, Balak comes out to meet Balaam, and in 22:36b the reader is given a very specific geographical reference: “toward the city of Moab that is on the border of the Arnon – that is on the edge of the border/territory.” This reference does not fit well syntactically within the verse as a whole, since the prepositional phrase ‫אל עיר מואב‬ comes after the preposition ‫לקראתו‬, suggesting that it is a later addition. Provided that 22:9-19 are a later expansion of the narrative (see above), 22:37 must also be evaluated as secondary, since Balak’s questioning why Balaam did not come (‫ )למה לא הלכת‬makes sense only in light of 22:9-19, in which Balaam, upon divine instruction, refuses to accompany the first group of Balak’s emissaries. Moreover, 22:38 hardly makes sense without 22:37, since Balaam’s statement to Balak in 22:38 serves as a response to Balak’s question, emphasizing Balaam’s subservience to the divine will. If 22:37-28 are bracketed out as additions associated with 22:9-19, then 22:36* connects directly to 22:39: ‫וישמע בלק כי בא בלעם ויצא לקראתו…וילך בלעם עם בלק ויבאו‬ ‫קרית חצות‬. Num 22:40–23:6 contain a variety of repetitions that can hardly go back to a single basic narrative thread. For example, while 22:39 reports that Balak and Balaam came to Kiriath-huzoth, 22:41 reports that they went up to Bamoth-baal. Likewise, 22:40 states that Balak sacrificed a single bull and an animal of the flock, while 23:1 states that Balaam instructed Balak to build seven altars and to place on them seven heifers and seven rams. Num 23:2 belongs with 23:1, since it narrates Balak’s16 fulfillment of Balaam’s instructions and refers once again to a heifer and a ram. In 23:3aα1, Balaam tells Balak to stand beside his burnt offering (‫)עלה‬, which connects best to 23:1-2 through the shared use of the root ‫ על״ה‬but could possibly also connect to 22:40.



























































































































preserved (albeit not necessarily J or E); cf. ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 403–4 and SEEBASS, Numeri 22,2–36,13, 28, 38. LEVINE, Numbers 21–36, 139 is equivocal here, on the one hand implying that this unit derives from “a separate source” but on the other hand noting that it is in line with “the later negative casting of Balaam” (ibid., 154) and “may be postexilic” (ibid., 237). 14 For this observation, see already WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 109. 15 Cf. ROBKER, “Balaam Narrative,” 340 with n. 22. 16 Several 𝔊 manuscripts lack the words ‫ בלק ובלעם‬in Num 23:2b, suggesting that the attribution of the sacrifice to Balaam in addition to Balak is secondary.

1. Literary-Critical Analysis

293

An alternation in the use of divine names in Num 23:3-4 may indicate multiple stages of composition in these verses, but there are also text-critical problems that must be addressed here. The statement in 23:4b, which implies that Balaam tells God that he has prepared the seven altars and offered up heifer(s) and ram(s) on them, is quite odd in its present context. First, the use of ‫ ויאמר אליו‬is very unusual as the introduction of human speech to the deity. Moreover, if ⅏ and 𝔊 are followed in 23:2, then Balaam was not involved in offering the sacrifices to begin with. Thus, 23:4b makes much better sense as a statement by Balak to Balaam. It seems possible, therefore, that its proper place is not in the middle of the divine appearance to Balaam in 23:4a, 5-6 but rather immediately after 23:2. This receives support from the reading καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτὸν Βαλακ in 23:4 in the 𝔊 manuscript N134, which hardly makes sense in the context of the encounter between Balaam and the deity in 23:4a and is certainly the lectio difficilior. Thus, perhaps 23:4b reached its present place through a scribal error.17 This would also explain the plus in 23:2 𝔐, which was possibly added after the displacement of 23:4b in order to harmonize with the inevitable conclusion that now Balaam has offered sacrifices. If the references to Yhwh in Num 23:3aα2β and 23:5a are bracketed out, then a coherent narrative remains in 23:3-6a*: ‫ויאמר בלעם לבלק התיצב על עלתך‬ ‫ואלכה…וילך שפי ויקר אלהים אל בלעם…ויאמר שוב אל בלק וכה תדבר וישב אליו‬ ‫והנה נצב על עלתו‬. In 23:6b, the reference to the “princes of Moab” has no context, since 22:39–23:6a* (apart from 22:40b) do not mention that any other people are present in the scene and can also be bracketed out as a potential addition.18 The second oracle (Num 23:13-26). Since Balak’s first attempt to curse the people fails, Balak asks Balaam to come with him to a different place and to curse the people again. Balak once again builds seven altars and offers up a heifer and a ram as whole burnt offerings, and Balaam once again prepares for a divine encounter. Yhwh places a word in Balaam’s mouth, and Balaam pronounces another positive oracle over Israel. Within this unit, there are few narrative, syntactic, or thematic problems, suggesting that it is largely a compositional unity. One possible addition, however, is the reference to the “princes of Moab” in Num 23:17aβ, who serve no further role in the episode.19 The third oracle (Num 23:27–24:13). Following Balak’s second failed attempt at having Balaam curse Israel, Balak takes Balaam to the top of Peor, and Balaam instructs Balak to build seven altars and to place seven heifers



























































17 Cf. BHS ad loc. In contrast, BICKERT, “Israel,” 201 and ROBKER, “Balaam Narrative,” 341 propose that Num 23:4b is simply a later addition. 18 Cf. BICKERT, “Israel,” 201. 19 Cf. ibid, who also regards Num 23:17b as an addition.

294

Chapter 8: Balaam

and seven rams on them (Num 23:27-30). The report regarding Balak’s sacrifice in 23:29-30 is a verbatim parallel with 23:1-2, in which Balaam provides the same instructions to Balak prior to the first oracle. In 24:1, Balaam sees that it was “good in Yhwh’s sight” to bless Israel, so he no longer pursues “augury” (‫ )נחשים‬as before. However, the preceding narrative never stated that Balaam had gone after ‫נחשים‬, which suggests that this part of the verse may be a later addition. Balaam then turns his face toward the desert (24:1), lifts up his eyes, and sees Israel dwelling according to its tribes, and the spirit of God (‫ )אלהים‬comes upon him (24:2). This is the first time that the name “Israel” is used in the prose narrative; prior to this, the term “the people” predominates in the prose (22:[3], 5, 6, [11, 12, 17], 41), and the term “the Israelites” (‫ )בני ישראל‬appears once in a text that is likely secondary (22:3b). Likewise, it is noteworthy that here the source of Balaam’s inspiration is the “spirit of God,” whereas for the first and second oracles Balaam receives his inspiration through a divine word that Yhwh places in his mouth (23:5, 12, 16; cf. 23:26). Following Balaam’s self-introduction in Num 24:3b-4, the remainder of the third oracle can be divided into two blocks of material that differ from each other both thematically and stylistically. The first block consists of 24:56, 9b and takes the form of a 2ms address to Jacob/Israel. The second block consists of 24:7-9a, which refers to Israel in the third-person singular, contains references to a future king, and shares verbatim phrases with the second oracle. Considering that 24:7-9a cannot stand alone without 24:5-6, 9b, 24:79a should be evaluated as a later addition.20 Following Balaam’s delivery of the oracle, Balak becomes enraged at the fact that Balaam has blessed his enemies three times rather than cursing them, and he tells Balaam to flee to his home (Num 24:10-11). Balaam then reminds Balak that he could not transgress the word of Yhwh no matter how great the reward (24:12-13). This response connects to 22:9-19, indicating that 24:12-13 most likely do not belong to the most basic narrative thread in the Balaam pericope. The fourth through seventh oracles (Num 24:14-25). There is good reason to suspect that the oracles in Num 24:14-24 do not belong to the most basic material in the Balaam pericope. One might expect the pericope to end soon after Balak’s dismissal of Balaam in 24:11. Instead, Balaam provides an oracle describing what Israel (‫ )העם הזה‬will do to Balak’s people (‫“ )לעמך‬in days to come” (‫)באחרית הימים‬. Unlike the preceding three oracles, this oracle is not given at the request of Balak, nor does it follow an event of divine inspi-



























































20 Cf. ROUILLARD, La péricope de Balaam, 365–66; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Der heidnische Mantiker,” 246; WITTE, “Segen,” 200–201; and BÜHRER, “Nachgeschichte,” 604. In contrast, VAN SETERS, Life, 426 and SEEBASS, Numeri 22,2–36,13, 42 deny that the variations in Num 24:7-9a are sufficient evidence for different authorship.

1. Literary-Critical Analysis

295

ration. Moreover, the focus on Moab in 24:14, 17 marks a significant departure from the primary focus of the rest of the Balaam pericope, namely, the blessing of Israel. These considerations strongly suggest that the oracle against Moab in 24:14-17 is a later addition. This suspicion receives indirect support from the fact that much of the language in the introduction to the fourth oracle in 24:15-16 has verbatim parallels with the introduction to the third oracle in 24:3-4, suggesting that 24:15-16 were modeled on 24:3-4. The fifth, sixth, and seventh oracles in 24:18-24 have no introduction of their own and cannot stand without 24:14-17. If the fourth through seventh oracles in 24:14-24 are bracketed out as later additions, 24:25 connects very well with Balak’s dismissal of Balaam in 24:11, (12-13).21 Interim result. The foregoing analysis has identified secondary materials in Num 22:3-4, 5*, 7*, 8*, 9-19, 21*, 22-35, 36*, 37-38; 23:4b-5a, 6b; 24:1aβ, 12-13, 14-24. If these materials are removed, an earlier stage of Num 22–24 emerges that narrated Balak’s summoning of Balaam, Balaam’s delivery of three positive oracles over Israel, and the conclusion to the encounter. Even within such a narrative, however, a number of tensions remain: (1) The events leading up to the first oracle describe Balak’s sacrifice of a single bull and animal of the flock – apparently at his own initiative (Num 22:40) – as well as his sacrifice of seven heifers and rams upon Balaam’s instruction (23:1-2). Prior to the second oracle, Balak repeats the procedure involving the seven altars, heifers, and rams (23:14b). Prior to the third oracle, Balaam’s instructions regarding sacrifice (23:29-30) form a nearverbatim parallel with 23:1-2, and here again Balak offers the sacrifices. Thus, there is a tension between Balak’s initial sacrifice of single animals and his subsequent three acts of sacrificing animals in groups of seven. (2) In addition to the two different sacrifices leading up to the first oracle, there are also two different geographical settings. The sacrifice of the bull and animal of the flock take place at Kiriath-huzoth, while the sacrifice of the heifers and rams takes place at Bamoth-baal. Thus, there are four geographical settings for only three oracles. (3) It is striking that the most dramatic introduction to Balaam as a seer is found in the third oracle (see Num 24:3-4) and not the first oracle. (4) The first two oracles reflect concepts found in the additions to the prose narrative, such as the lexemes ‫ נחש‬and ‫( קסם‬Num 23:23; cf. 22:7 and 24:1aβ).22 (5) The three oracles have different conceptions of divine revelation. In the first two oracles, Yhwh places the oracle in Balaam’s mouth, while in the



























































21 Cf. BICKERT, “Israel,” 203; ROBKER, “Balaam Narrative,” 341; and BÜHRER, “Nachgeschichte,” 604; Robker and Bührer also include Num 24:14a in the earlier material. 22 BICKERT, “Israel,” 201–2 argues that Num 23:23a is a later addition to the second oracle, although his conclusion is based on intertextual – not literary-critical – grounds.

296

Chapter 8: Balaam

third oracle Balaam receives the “spirit of God.” The notion of Yhwh placing the oracle in Balaam’s mouth is closely related to the repeated statements that Balaam is able to speak only what Yhwh tells him. While such statements are integral to the narrative framework surrounding the first and second oracles (Num 23:12, 26), the related statement following the third oracle is secondary (24:12-13). Balaam’s inability to deviate from the divine will is also the major theme of the two larger additions in 22:9-19 and 22:21aβb-35a. (6) Both the first and second oracles have verbatim correspondences with the third oracle. These include ‫ אל מוציאו ממצרים כתועפת ראם לו‬in Num 23:22 (Oracle 2) and 24:8 (Oracle 3); the reference to ‫ גוים‬in 23:9 (Oracle 1) and 24:8 (Oracle 3); and the parallelism between Jacob and Israel in all three oracles (twice in the first oracle, three times in the second oracle, and once in the third oracle). These correspondences suggest that one or more of these oracles may be literarily dependent upon one or more of the others. If these observations are combined, then the possibility emerges that the first and second oracles – as well as their narrative frameworks – postdate the third oracle.23 Furthermore, the notion that a more basic version of the Balaam pericope containing a single oracle (i.e., the third) was expanded into a triptych is supported by the tension between Balak’s single sacrifice at Kiriath-huzoth and the subsequent set of three parallel sacrifices at other locations.

2. Macrocontextual Analysis Since the narrative framework of the Balaam pericope cannot stand independently of the oracles, the present analysis will begin by investigating the oracles and will then turn to the narrative framework.



























































23 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 388. In a certain sense, this conclusion resembles that of classical source critics, who regard the third oracle (usually assigned to J) as independent of (and implicitly earlier than) the first two (usually assigned to E); e.g., MOWINCKEL, “Ursprung,” 269; NOTH, ÜP, 34, 39; SEEBASS, Numeri 22,2–36,13, 51; and L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11– 36,13, 126–29. In contrast, it diverges from most previous redaction-critical analyses of the Balaam pericope, which either propose that the first three oracles belong to a single level of composition (VAN SETERS, Life, 424; GASS, Stern, 254; ROBKER, “Balaam Narrative,” 344; and BÜHRER, “Nachgeschichte,” 604) or that the third oracle is later than the first two (GROSS, Bileam, 146; ROUILLARD, La péricope de Balaam, 484; TIMM, Moab, 156 n. 43; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Der heidnische Mantiker,” 247; FRITZ, Entstehung, 23–24; WITTE, “Segen,” 202; and BICKERT, “Israel,” 203). While the scholars who have proposed the latter reconstructions make compelling arguments that parts of the third oracle are later than the first two, they do not sufficiently take into consideration the fact that the third oracle itself has a history of composition and that it is the additions to the third oracle (i.e., Num 24:7-9a) that form links to the first and second oracles.

2. Macrocontextual Analysis

297

2.1. The first oracle (Num 23:7-10) Several elements in the first oracle can be used to date this text relative to other biblical literature. (1) The parallelism between Jacob and Israel in Num 23:7, 10 has close connections with Deutero-Isaiah,24 the non-priestly legend of Jacob’s renaming in Gen 32:29, and perhaps also the priestly version in Gen 35:9-10.25 If the oracle indeed presupposes texts from Deutero-Isaiah, then it can be no earlier than the second half of the sixth century B.C.E.26 (2) The theme of Israel dwelling alone in Num 23:9bα occurs elsewhere in the Persian-period oracle of salvation in Mic 7:1427 and is also found in Deut 33:28, although the direction of dependence between this verse and Num 23:9 is debated.28 (3) Given the preponderance of the term ‫ גוי‬in later texts, including priestly/post-priestly texts,29 the framework of the book of Deuteronomy,30 and exilic/postexilic prophecy,31 the statement ‫ ובגוים לא יתחשב‬in Num 23:9bβ is unlikely to reflect a text dating to the monarchic period.32 (4) The use of the word “dust” in 23:10a to describe the offspring of Jacob (‫)עפר יעקב‬ is found elsewhere only in the divine promises of progeny to Abraham and Jacob in the book of Genesis (cf. Gen 13:16; 28:14),33 which suggests that Num 23:10a presupposes those texts.34 In sum, the first oracle is most likely no earlier than the second half of the sixth century B.C.E. and, in light of its connections to Gen 13:16 and 28:14, reflects a literary horizon that includes the ancestral narratives in the book of Genesis. 2.2. The second oracle (Num 23:18b-24) The question of dating is more complex within the second oracle than in the first, since several commentators have argued that this oracle has undergone

























































24

On these connections, see TIMM, Moab, 126–29. ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 410. 26 Against SEEBASS, Numeri 22,2–36,13, 49–50, who argues that the references to Jacob in the first and second oracles date to the early eighth century. 27 ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 411. 28 VAN SETERS, Life, 429 argues that Num 23:9b is probably directly dependent on Deut 33:28, while ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 414 regards the blessing of Moses (Deut 33) as possibly later than the Balaam oracles. 29 Cf. Gen 10:5, 20, 31-32; 12:2; 14:1, 9; 15:14; 17:4, 16, 20; 18:18; 20:4; 21:13, 18; 25:23; 35:11; 46:3; 48:19; Exod 9:24; 19:6; 32:10; 33:13; 34:10, 24; Lev 18:24, 28; 20:23; 25:44; 26:33, 38, 45; Num 14:12, 15; 23:9; 24:8, 20. 30 The term occurs 46x within the book of Deuteronomy. 31 The term occurs 36x within Isa 40–66 (approximately half of the total occurrences in the book of Isaiah); 87x in Jeremiah; 93x in Ezekiel; 10x in Joel; 9x in Micah; 8x in Zephaniah; 4x in Haggai; 17x in Zechariah; and 5x in Malachi. 32 Against SEEBASS, Numeri 22,2–36,13, 48. 33 Notably, the promise to Abraham in Gen 13:16 also uses the verb ‫“ מנה‬to count.” 34 Cf. TIMM, Moab, 132–33; VAN SETERS, Life, 430; and ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 411. 25

298

Chapter 8: Balaam

compositional growth.35 Nevertheless, even Num 23:18b-19, which all commentators assign to the most basic material in the oracle, contain important intertextual connections that can help to situate the composition of the oracle. Num 23:18b. In its combination of the verbs ‫ שמע‬and ‫ אזן‬hiphil, the introduction to the second oracle resembles the introductions to the Song of Moses in Deut 32:1 and the Song of Deborah in Judg 5:3 as well as several texts in the prophetic literature, the Psalter, and the book of Job.36 In the majority of these texts, the verb ‫ שמע‬precedes the verb ‫ אזן‬hiphil, Deut 32:1 and Isa 28:23 being the sole exceptions to this pattern. Thus, it is possible that Num 23:18b used one of the latter two texts as a model. Num 23:19. The phrase ‫ בן אדם‬is attested 93 times in the book of Ezekiel and is otherwise attested only in exilic/postexilic literature,37 which suggests that Num 23:19 is no earlier than the book of Ezekiel.38 This evaluaion receives further support from the notion expressed in this verse that the deity does not change his mind, which is found elsewhere in Jer 4:28; 15:6; 20:16; 31:2; Ezek 24:14; Hos 11:8-9; 13:14; Zech 8:14; and Ps 110:4 but has its closest parallel in 1 Sam 15:29: 1 Sam 15:29 Num 23:19

‫וגם נצח ישראל לא ישקר ולא ינחם כי לא אדם הוא להנחם‬ ‫לא איש אל ויכזב ובן אדם ויתנחם ההוא אמר ולא יעשה ודבר ולא יקימנה‬

Although the direction of dependence between 1 Sam 15:29 and Num 23:19 is a matter of debate,39 1 Sam 15:29 can in any event be evaluated as a postDeuteronomistic and post-priestly text.40 Thus, regardless of the direction of



























































35 WITTE, “Segen,” 202 proposes three compositional layers: (1) a basic text in Num 23:18b-19, 21-22, which correspond to the first and second strophes of the first oracle; (2) supplements in 23:20, 23a, which form connections to the third oracle; and (3) an “eschatological supplement” in 23:23b-24 that is related to 24:8b-9a, 17-24. SEEBASS, Numeri 22,2–36,13, 41 identifies 23:19, 21 as the most basic material and regards 23:20, 22-24 as secondary, while L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 139 regards only 23:22-23 as secondary. In contrast, MOWINCKEL, “Ursprung,” 263 n. 1; SMEND (SR.), Erzählung, 228 n. 1; ROUILLARD, La péricope de Balaam, 300; and TIMM, Moab, 143–44 regard 23:23 as part of the basic text of the oracle. 36 Cf. Isa 1:2, 10; 28:23; 32:9; Jer 13:15; Hos 5:1; Joel 1:2; Ps 17:1; 39:13; 49:2; 54:4; 84:9; 143:1; and Job 33:1; 34:2, 16. ROUILLARD, La péricope de Balaam, 274 notes that ‫אזן‬ hiphil used as a singular imperative is typical of Psalms, while the plural imperative is more typical of prophetic literature. 37 Cf. SEEBASS, Numeri 22,2–36,13, 48–49. 38 For this conclusion, see already VON GALL, “Zusammensetzung,” 27 and, more recently, TIMM, Moab, 136 and VAN SETERS, Life, 430. 39 While many commentators regard Num 23:19 as dependent on 1 Sam 15:29, DONNER, “Verwerfung,” 150–52 and A CHENBACH, Vollendung, 416 argue that 1 Sam 15:29 is dependent on Num 23:19. 40 Cf. DONNER, “Verwerfung,” 150–52 and TIMM, Moab, 134–35.

2. Macrocontextual Analysis

299

dependence, both 1 Sam 15:29 and Num 23:19 are relatively late texts. If Num 23:19 is indeed dependent on 1 Sam 15:29, this would indicate that the former is post-Deuteronomistic and post-priestly. The fact that Num 23:19b begins with a pronoun indicates that it cannot stand without 23:19a. Here, the combination of the verbs ‫ אמר‬and ‫ עשה‬is similar to such usage in DeuteroIsaiah and in priestly literature, 41 thus lending further support to the possibility that this verse is post-priestly. Num 23:21. The closest parallels to the reference to the deity looking upon Israel’s sin are found in Hab 1:3 and Zeph 3:15b. 42 Like Num 23:21, Zeph 3:15b also combines the motif of “seeing no evil” with that of Yhwh as king: Num 23:21 Hab 1:3 Zeph 3:15b

‫לא הביט און ביעקב ולא ראה עמל בישראל ה׳ אלהיו עמו ותרועת מלך בו‬ ‫למה תראני און ועמל תביט ושד וחמס לנגדי ויהי ריב ומדון ישא‬ ‫מלך ישראל ה׳ בקרבך לא תיראי רע עוד‬

It thus seems that Num 23:21 is a pastiche of multiple motifs from different biblical texts: the parallelism of Jacob and Israel and the citation of Hab 1:3 (with an inversion of the verbs ‫ נבט‬hiphil and ‫ )ראה‬in Num 23:21a and a paraphrase of Zeph 3:15b in Num 23:21b. Num 23:22. The association of God with the “horns of a wild ox” (‫תועפת‬ ‫ )ראם‬in this verse corresponds closely with the description of Joseph in Deut 33:17 as “a firstborn bull” with “horns of a wild ox” ( ‫)קרני ראם‬. If these two verses indeed stand in a relationship of direct dependence, then Deut 33:17 should be regarded as the source for Num 23:22 rather than vice versa, since it seems unlikely that Deut 33:17 would have applied an image to Joseph that is elsewhere associated with the deity. 43 Num 23:23. As noted in §1, the references in the prose narrative to ‫קסמים‬ (Num 22:7) and ‫( נחשים‬24:1) are likely part of later additions, although it is difficult to determine whether the corresponding references to ‫ קסם‬and ‫נחש‬ in 23:23 are earlier, contemporaneous with, or later than the prose references. Beyond the Balaam pericope itself, references to ‫ קסם‬and ‫ נחש‬appear in relatively late texts. 44 The closest parallel to Num 23:23 is found in Deut 18:10,

41

Cf. TIMM, Moab, 138. Cf. ibid., 139–40. 43 On this direction of dependence, cf. VAN SETERS, Life, 433. 44 The noun ‫ ֶק ֶסם‬and/or the agent ‫ ק ֵֹסם‬is attested elsewhere in Deut 18:10, 14; Josh 13:22; 1 Sam 6:2; 15:23; 28:8; 2 Kgs 17:17; Isa 3:2; Jer 14:14; 27:9; 29:8; Ezek 12:24; 13:6, 7, 9, 23; 21:26, 27, 28, 34; 22:28; Mic 3:6, 11; Zech 10:2; and Prov 16:10. Few of these texts can be securely evaluated as preexilic. The root ‫ נח״ש‬in its association with divination and/or magic occurs elsewhere in Gen 30:27; 44:5; Exod 7:15; Num 21:7, 9; 1 Kgs 20:33; 2 Kgs 18:4; 21:6 (// 2 Chr 33:6). 42

300

Chapter 8: Balaam

which uses both the root ‫ קסם‬and the root ‫נחש‬. Thus, if Num 23:23 indeed presupposes Deut 18:10, it cannot be pre-Deuteronom(ist)ic.45 Num 23:24. While the image of Israel as a lion is found in several biblical texts, the closest parallels to Num 23:24 are Gen 49:9 and Deut 33:20, 22: Num 23:24 Gen 49:9

‫הן עם כלביא יקום וכארי יתנשא לא ישכב עד יאכל טרף ודם חללים ישתה‬ ‫גור אריה יהודה מטרף בני עלית כרע רבץ כאריה וכלביא מי יקימנו‬

Deut 33:20

‫ולגד אמר ברוך מרחיב גד כלביא שכן וטרף זרוע אף קדקד‬

Deut 33:22

‫ולדן אמר דן גור אריה יזנק מן הבשן‬

Provided that Num 23:24 is indeed dependent on Gen 49:9 and/or Deut 33:20, 22,46 it must be a relatively late text. An exilic/postexilic dating of this verse is further suggested by the fact that the vision of the people’s future military strength makes the most sense in a historical context in which Israel/Judah no longer exerted military power.47 2.3. The third oracle (Num 24:3-9) Num 24:3b. In contrast to the first two oracles, the third oracle has a formal introduction, using the word ‫ נאם‬three times to introduce Balaam and his qualities as a seer in Num 24:3-4 prior to the beginning of the subject matter concerning Israel in 24:5. The first of these occurrences corresponds to the introduction to the “last words of David” in 2 Sam 23:1b: Num 24:3b 2 Sam 23:1b

‫נאם בלעם בנו בער ונאם הגבר שתם העין‬ ‫נאם דוד בן ישי ונאם הגבר הקם על‬

Many commentators have noted the connection between these two passages,48 although few take a clear stance regarding the direction of dependence between them.49 Notably, the use of the patronymic in Num 24:3 (‫)בלעם בנו בער‬ can be explained by the use of older traditions about the seer Balaam (cf. Deir ‘Alla I.1: ‫ ב]רבע[ר‬. ‫ ;בלעם‬I.3: ‫ ברבער‬. ‫)ב]לע[ם‬50 and need not point to depend-

























































45

Many commentators regard Num 23:23 as secondary; e.g., WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 113; L. SCHMIDT, “Die alttestamentliche Bileamüberlieferung,” 246; IDEM, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 139; and BICKERT, “Israel,” 201–2. 46 TIMM, Moab, 145 and VAN SETERS, Life, 433 regard Num 23:24 as derived from Gen 49:9. 47 Cf. GASS, Stern, 235. 48 E.g., G. B. GRAY, Numbers, 361; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 419–20; and GASS, Stern, 235. 49 An exception is ROUILLARD, La péricope de Balaam, 352–54, who argues that Num 24:4 is dependent on 2 Sam 23:1. 50 Transcription follows LEVINE, Numbers 21–36, 244.

2. Macrocontextual Analysis

301

ence on the patronymic in 2 Sam 23:1b. Thus, in my view, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Num 24:3b is dependent on 2 Sam 23:1b. Num 24:4. Here Balaam is described as having special access to the divine realm, “hearing the words of El” and “seeing visions of Shaddai.” On the one hand, this description has lexical connections to the Deir ‘Alla inscription from the ninth–eighth centuries B.C.E.:51 Num 24:4

‫נאם שמע אמרי אל אשר מחזה שדי יחזה נפל וגלוי עינים‬

Deir ‘Alla I.2

‫ אל‬. ‫ כמשא‬. ‫ מחזה‬. ‫ ו[יחז‬. ]‫ בלילה‬. ‫ אלהן‬. ‫ אלוה‬. ‫ויאתו‬

Deir ‘Alla I.5

. ‫ שמעת‬. ‫ מה‬. ‫ לר]א[ה‬. ‫אש‬

Deir ‘Alla I.12

[…] ‫ שדין‬. ‫ מה‬. ‫ אחוכם‬. ‫שבו‬

On the other hand, it has connections to other biblical texts, particularly Gen 49:25. Apart from the references to Shaddai in Num 24:4, (14) and Gen 49:25 (cf. Ps 68:15; 91:1-2), the other references to Shaddai in the Hebrew Bible are found in priestly/post-priestly texts in Genesis and Exodus (Gen 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; Exod 6:3; always as ‫)אל שדי‬, the book of Ezekiel (Ezek 1:24; 10:5); and other late texts (Isa 13:6; Joel 1:15; 31 times in the book of Job; Ruth 1:20-21). Two different scenarios thus seem possible: (1) The parallelism between El and Shaddai in Num 24:4 drew on older traditions about Balaam, reinterpreting the plural term ‫( שדין‬which in the Deir ‘Alla inscription refers to a particular group of deities) as an epithet for a single deity. It is conceivable that the usage in Num 24:4 is one of the earliest juxtapositions of the terms ‫ אל‬and ‫ שדי‬in the Hebrew Bible and that the epithet ‫ אל שדי‬found in priestly/post-priestly texts in Genesis (and in Exod 6:3) took this juxtaposition one step further. (2) Alternatively, it is possible that Num 24:4 presupposes the priestly epithet ‫ אל שדי‬and has separated its constituent parts here for poetic purposes. This explanation is somewhat weaker, however, since it fails to explain the other correspondences that Num 24:4 has with older Balaam traditions, such as the use of the roots ‫ שמ״ע‬and ‫חז״ה‬. Several commentators have observed connections between the motif of Balaam’s open eyes in Num 24:(3b?), 4 and the donkey episode in 22:22-35, although the view that 24:3-4 presuppose 22:22-3552 is hardly necessary, since an emphasis on the visual aspects of Balaam’s vocation is found already in the Deir ‘Alla inscription, which describes Balaam as a “divine seer” and explicitly states that Balaam beheld a vision of the gods (Deir ‘Alla I.1-2). Thus, it seems more likely that the motif of Balaam’s open eyes is original to the third oracle and was later used in an ironic fashion in Num 22:22-35.53

























































51

On the dating of the Deir ‘Alla inscription, see, e.g., SCHÜLE, Israels Sohn, 120–22. ROUILLARD, La péricope de Balaam, 350–51. 53 Cf. VAN SETERS, Life, 425. 52

302

Chapter 8: Balaam

Num 24:5. The references to the “tents” (‫ )אהלים‬and “dwellings” (‫)משכנת‬ of Jacob/Israel in this verse bear connections to Isa 54:2; Jer 30:18; Hos 12:10; and Zech 12:7, all of which are associated with the notion of restoration.54 While it is difficult to determine whether Num 24:5 is directly dependent on any of these verses, the fact that the terms ‫ אהלים‬and ‫ משכנות‬are elsewhere associated with restoration fits well with the broader themes of the third oracle. Num 24:6-7a. As in Num 24:5, several keywords in 24:6-7a connect to prophetic texts related to Judah’s restoration, such as the use of the terms ‫גן‬ and ‫ זרע‬in Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Deutero-Isaiah55 and the terms ‫ ארז‬and ‫מים‬ ‫ רבים‬in the book of Ezekiel.56 Taking these observations together, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Num 24:6-7a are concerned with the theme of restoration and likely presuppose the related texts in Deutero-Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.57 Num 24:7b. The reference to Agag in Num 24:7b is closely related to 1 Sam 15:29, a post-Deuteronomistic and possibly also post-priestly text,58 although it seems more likely that 1 Sam 15:29 drew on Num 24:7b rather than vice versa.59 In any event, Num 24:7b is unlikely to date to the monarchic period, since the reference to the defeat of Agag likely reflects a context in which Israel lacked political and/or military power.60 Moreover, the use of the term ‫ מלכות‬rather than ‫ מלוכה‬or ‫ ממלכה‬points to a late linguistic usage found elsewhere in the books of Esther, Nehemiah, Daniel, and Chronicles.61 Num 24:8a. This half verse (‫ )אל מוציאו ממצרים כתועפת ראם לו‬has a nearverbatim parallel in Num 23:22 (‫)אל מוציאם ממצרים כתועפת ראם לו‬. Notably, the 3mp pronominal suffix on ‫ מוציאם‬in 23:22 does not fit well with its surrounding context, which otherwise refers to Israel using 3ms pronouns and verbs. In contrast, the 3ms pronominal suffix on ‫ מוציאו‬in 24:8a fits smoothly with its grammatical context. Considering that there would be no reason to change ‫ מוציאו‬to ‫ מוציאם‬if 23:22 were derived from 24:8a, it must be concluded that 23:22 instead served as the Vorlage for 24:8a, where the 3mp pronominal suffix from 23:22 was changed to a 3ms suffix in order to match

























































54

ROUILLARD, La péricope de Balaam, 354–56. On ‫גן‬, see Ezek 28:13; 31:8-9; 36:35; Jer 31:11; and Isa 51:3; 58:11. On ‫זרע‬, see Ezek 17:5, 13; Jer 33:22, 26; and Isa 43:5; 44:3; 54:3; 61:9; 65:9, 23. 56 Cf. esp. Ezek 17:5-6 and 31:8-9. The close relationship between Num 24:6-7a and these texts becomes even more striking if one emends ‫“ מדליו‬from his buckets” in Num 24:6 to ‫“ *מדליותיו‬from his branches” on the basis of ‫ דליותיו‬in Ezek 17:6, 7, 23 and 19:11. 57 Cf. ROUILLARD, La péricope de Balaam, 370 and GASS, Stern, 238. 58 On the relative dating of 1 Sam 15:29, see DONNER, “Verwerfung,” 150–52. 59 Cf. DONNER, “Verwerfung,” 150–52 and H.-C. SCHMITT, “Der heidnische Mantiker,” 244–45. 60 GASS, Stern, 236. 61 ROUILLARD, La péricope de Balaam, 372. 55

2. Macrocontextual Analysis

303

the new literary context.62 Thus, in light of the dating of the second oracle as a whole, 24:8a is most likely no earlier than the exilic period. Num 24:8b. The reference to Israel consuming enemy nations in this half verse can be compared to other late exilic/postexilic prophetic texts that envisage the destruction of Judah’s enemies as part of a plan for Judah’s restoration, such as Jer 30:16 and Isa 61:6:63 Num 24:8b

‫יאכל גוים צריו ועצמתיהם יגרם וחציו ימחץ‬

Jer 30:16

‫לכן כל אכליך יאכלו וכל צריך כלם בשבי ילכו והיו שאסיך למשסה וכל בזזיך אתן‬ ‫לבז‬

Isa 61:6

‫ואתם כהני ה׳ תקראו משרתי אלהינו יאמר לכם חיל גוים תאכלו ובכבודם תתימרו‬

Num 24:9a. This half verse can be regarded as a patchwork of lexemes from Num 23:24 and Gen 49:9, strongly suggesting that it is later than both of those passages:64 Num 24:9 Num 23:24 Gen 49:9

‫כרע שכב כארי וכלביא מי יקימנו‬ ‫הן עם כלביא יקום וכארי יתנשא לא ישכב עד יאכל טרף ודם חללים ישתה‬ ‫גור אריה יהודה מטרף בני עלית כרע רבץ כאריה וכלביא מי יקימנו‬

The image of Israel as a lion in Num 23:24 and 24:9a may also be connected to the extended allegory of Israel as a lion in Ezek 19:1-9.65 Num 24:9b. Num 22:6b; Num 24:9b; Gen 12:3a; and Gen 27:29b are closely connected in their parallelism of the motifs of blessing and cursing: Num 22:6b

‫כי ידעתי את אשר תברך מברך ואשר תאר יואר‬

Num 24:9b

‫מברכיך ברוך וארריך ארור‬

Gen 12:3a Gen 27:29b

‫ואברכה מברכיך ומקללך אאר‬ ‫ארריך ארור ומברכיך ברוך‬

Nevertheless, commentators are divided on how to understand the relative chronology of these four texts.66 In light of the use of the same grammatical



























































62 Cf. ROUILLARD, La péricope de Balaam, 375; VAN SETERS, Life, 432; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Der heidnische Mantiker,” 246; and SEEBASS, Numeri 22,2–36,13, 42. 63 ROUILLARD, La péricope de Balaam, 380. 64 Cf. ibid., 381–82; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Der heidnische Mantiker,” 246 n. 54; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 421; and GASS, Stern, 256 against ZOBEL, “Bileam-Lieder,” 151, who argues that Num 24:9a is earlier than 23:24. 65 VAN SETERS, Life, 427. 66 According to L. SCHMIDT, “Die alttestamentliche Bileamüberlieferung,” 255–56, Gen 12:3a drew on Num 24:9b (J). According to ROUILLARD, La péricope de Balaam, 382–83, Gen 27:29b (J) formed the point of departure for the other three verses, and Num 22:6b has

304

Chapter 8: Balaam

forms in Num 24:9b and Gen 27:29b, these two verses have a particularly close relationship. Despite the traditional attribution of the Esau narrative in Gen 27 to a relatively early literary source (J), this narrative more likely reflects antagonism between Judah and Edom beginning in the early sixth century. Moreover, other elements of Isaac’s blessing over Jacob in Gen 27 – particularly the notion that other “peoples” and “nations” will serve him – respond to Judah’s loss of political power following the fall of the kingdom of Judah in 587 B.C.E. Thus, if Num 24:9b is indeed dependent on Gen 27:29b, this would rule out a preexilic dating of Num 24:9b. 2.4. The fourth through seventh oracles (Num 24:15-24) As discussed in the literary-critical analysis, a broad consensus has emerged that the fourth oracle is later than the first three. In terms of absolute dating, commentators are also broadly in agreement that the fourth oracle is no earlier than the exilic period.67 Num 24:17b-18 have close correspondences with the postexilic oracles against the nations in Jer 48–49; Ezek 25:8-14; Isa 34:5-17; and Isa 63:1-6,68 while 24:19 has similarities with the anti-Edomite perspective found in Obad 18.69 This anti-Edomite perspective differs from the peaceful solution to the question of Israel’s relationship to the Edomites found in texts such as Deut 2:4-6, 8a and instead reflects the perspective found in exilic and postexilic prophetic literature as well as in the narrative of the encounter with Edom in Num 20:14-21. Similar observations apply to the fifth through seventh oracles.70 2.5. The prose narrative Num 22:2-8. Num 22:3 is similar in formulation to Exod 1:12: Exod 1:12

‫וכאשר יענו אתו כן ירבה וכן יפרץ ויקצו מפני בני ישראל‬

Num 22:3

‫ויגר מואב מפני העם מאד כי רב הוא ויקץ מואב מפני בני ישראל‬

As discussed earlier in this study, Exod 1:12b* (‫ )ויקצו מפני בני ישראל‬does not belong to a pre-priestly level of composition,71 which also rules out a pre-



























































































































literary precedence over Num 24:9b. Similarly, H.-C. SCHMITT, “Der heidnische Mantiker,” 246–47 argues that Num 24:9b is dependent on both Gen 27:29b and Gen 12:3a. 67 ROUILLARD, La péricope de Balaam, 415–48; H.-C. SCHMITT, “Der heidnische Mantiker,” 243; VAN SETERS, Life, 428; SCHÜLE, Israels Sohn, 296; and ROBKER, “Balaam Narrative,” 344. In contrast, SEEBASS, Numeri 22,2–36,13, 62 holds to the classical attribution of the fourth oracle to J, proposing a date of composition in the early ninth century. 68 Cf. VAN SETERS, Life, 428. 69 Cf. ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 423. 70 Cf. GASS, Stern, 275. 71 See Chapter 2, §1.2.

2. Macrocontextual Analysis

305

priestly provenance for Num 22:3b. Similarly, 22:4 cannot be pre-priestly, as indicated by the use of the term ‫ קהל‬in 22:4aα.72 Within this verse, the fear expressed by Moab that the Israelites will “lick up” their territory “as the ox licks up the vegetation of the field” bears a strong resemblance to the postpriestly plague of locusts in Exod 10:3-20, in which the locusts are described as devouring every plant that grows in the field (Exod 10:5, 15).73 This connection is further strenghtened by the statement ‫ הנה כסה את עין הארץ‬in Num 22:5, which also appears in both Exod 10:5 and 10:15.74 Moreover, the references to the elders of Midian in 22:4, 7 form a connection with Num 25:1718; 31:1-12,75 which are widely attributed to priestly authorship. The reference to Petor in Num 22:5a has a parallel in Deut 23:5, which states that Balaam was from ‫ פתור ארם נהרים‬and makes no mention of ‫ארץ בני‬ [‫עמו]ן‬. Three scenarios are possible for the literary relationship between these two texts: (1) Deut 23:5 drew on a version of Num 22:5a that mentioned only Petor, (2) Deut 23:5 suppressed the reference to the land of the Ammonites in Num 22:5a, or (3) Deut 23:5 drew on a Vorlage that mentioned only the land of the Ammonites but intentionally changed Balaam’s place of origin to Petor in the retelling of the Balaam episode in Deut 23:5-6, in which case the reference to Petor in Num 22:5 could be a later coordination with Deut 23:5.76 Several considerations support the third scenario. The reference to Balaam in Deut 23:5-6 fits within the larger context of a prohibition of Ammonites and Moabites from the congregation of Yhwh, stating that both the Ammonites and the Moabites hired Balaam to curse the Israelites.77 Since the larger unit thematizes both the Ammonites and the Moabites, perhaps the author who recapitulated the Balaam episode in Deut 23:5-6 felt that it was necessary to describe Balaam’s home as somewhere outside of both Ammon and Moab. The willingness of the author of Deut 23:5-6 to tendentiously revise Balaam’s place of origin is quite conceivable, since this author also revises the Vorlage in Deut 23:6, stating that Yhwh was not willing to listen to Balaam, implying that Balaam himself wanted to curse Israel. This completely contradicts Num 22–24, which never states that Balaam wanted to curse Israel and consistently emphasizes the irrelevance of Balaam’s will in his delivery of the words of

























































72

Cf. WITTE, “Segen,” 204 n. 47, who notes priestly terminology in Num 22:1, 3, 4a*. On the post-priestly provenance of the plague of locusts, see Chapter 2, §6.2. 74 Cf. GROSS, Bileam, 258 and VAN SETERS, Life, 415. 75 Cf. VAN SETERS, Life, 414; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 395; SEEBASS, Numeri 22,2– 36,13, 35; L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 124; BICKERT, “Israel,” 197–98; and ROBKER, “Balaam Narrative,” 349. 76 Cf. TIMM, Moab, 150–51. In contrast, SEEBASS, Numeri 22,2–36,13, 46 contests such a direction of dependence. 77 In 𝔐, the verb ‫ שכר‬is singular, but the immediately preceding context implicates both the Ammonites and the Moabites. 𝔊* and 𝔙 have a plural verb, although they may reflect a later effort to smooth out the verse, since the singular verb is the lectio difficilior. 73

306

Chapter 8: Balaam

Yhwh.78 The secondary nature of the location of Balaam’s home in “Petor of Aram on the two rivers” is also supported indirectly by the Deir ‘Alla inscription, since the find-spot of the inscription fits well with Balaam’s association with Ammon and does not fit as well with the association of Balaam with northern Syria or Mesopotamia. Thus, there is reason to conclude that the reference to Petor in Num 22:5 presupposes Deut 23:5-6, which are in turn post-priestly.79 In Num 22:6aα, Balak’s statement that Israel is stronger than he is (‫עצום‬ ‫ )הוא ממני‬has parallels with Exod 1:7, 9 as well as with Deut 4:38; 7:1; 9:1, 14; 11:23; 26:5; and Josh 23:9.80 It thus seems that Num 22:6aα must be evaluated as post-Deuteronomistic. Whether it is also post-priestly is difficult to determine, since Exod 1:9* potentially contains pre-priestly material. In contrast, the reference in Num 22:6aβ to Balak driving out the Israelites from his land (‫ )אולי אוכל נכה בו ואגרשנו מן הארץ‬has connections with a number of late texts in the books of Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Joshua,81 many of which are post-priestly (e.g., Exod 6:1; 10:11; 11:1; and 12:39).82 Num 22:9-19. There are several indications that Num 22:9-19 – which are largely a compositional unity83 – are post-priestly: (1) Num 22:9-12 presuppose a priestly concept of revelation whereby Yhwh appears to non-Israelites as Elohim (cf. Gen 20:3; 31:24).84 (2) Num 22:12 presupposes the blessing of Jacob by Elohim in Gen 35:9-15, a priestly text.85 (3) Num 22:10-11 presuppose 22:5b-6a in their received form, which includes post-priestly materials. (4) The expression ‫ עב״ר את פי ה׳‬appears elsewhere in the books of Genesis through Joshua only in Num 14:41,86 a post-priestly text.87 Num 22:20-21. The portrayal of God coming to Balaam by night in Num 22:20 corresponds closely with texts such as Gen 20:3 and 31:24, which were traditionally identified as Elohistic but have more recently been evaluated by

























































78

Cf. ROBKER, “Balaam Narrative,” 352, who argues that “the author of Deut 23 was attempting to reevaluate the Balaam story from Numbers in a manner that was less favorable toward Balaam.” 79 On the post-priestly nature of Deut 23:5-6, see Chapter 7, §6.2 (n. 169). 80 On these connections, see TIMM, Moab, 154 and ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 396. 81 Cf. Exod 6:1; 10:11; 11:1; 12:39; 23:28-31; 33:2; 34:11; Deut 33:27; Josh 24:12, 18. 82 Against ROUILLARD, La péricope de Balaam, 59, who follows the classical source assignments of these verses to J and E. 83 Although ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 400 suggests that the sending of messengers in Num 22:15-18 may reflect an older source, there are no internal grounds for differentiating these verses from 22:9-19 as a whole. 84 Ibid., 398. 85 Ibid., 399. On the (post-)priestly nature of Gen 35:9-15, see also L EVIN, Jahwist, 262. 86 The phrase also appears in 1 Sam 15:24. On these parallels, see TIMM, Moab, 152; VAN SETERS, Life, 418 (who assigns Num 14:41 to his Yahwist); and ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 401. 87 See Chapter 6, §4.2.

2. Macrocontextual Analysis

307

some commentators as post-priestly.88 Nevertheless, it is unclear whether Num 22:20-21 are directly dependent upon the latter texts, since the motif of a nighttime visitation by the deity may instead be indebted to an older, independent tradition about Balaam the seer as reflected in the Deir ‘Alla inscription (cf. Deir ‘Alla I.2: ‫ בלילה‬. ‫ אלהן‬. ‫ אלוה‬. ‫)ויאתו‬. Num 22:22-35. The episode of Balaam and his donkey contains several motifs that point to a late date of composition. Outside of this passage, the motif of the “angel with the drawn sword” appears elsewhere only in Josh 5:13-15 and 1 Chr 21:16-17. Although Josh 5:13-15 have traditionally been regarded as a relatively early unit,89 this passage is in fact a post-priestly text.90 Given its similar subject matter, it can be assumed that Num 22:22-35 is chronologically not far removed from Josh 5:13-15 and 1 Chr 21:16-17.91 Num 22:35b-41; 23:1-6, 11-17, 25-30; 24:1-2, 10-14. As was discussed in the literary-critical analysis, Num 22:37-38 cannot be earlier than the donkey episode in 22:22-35.92 The literary relationship between Balak’s offering of a steer and an animal of the flock in 22:40a and his offering of a heifer and a ram on seven altars in 23:1-2, 4b, 14b, and 29-30 has long posed interpretive problems.93 Although several scholars have pointed to extrabiblical parallels associating sacrifices with the giving of omens, such as the Neo-Assyrian ašipu ritual,94 the Neo-Babylonian bit rimki ritual,95 and a Greek ritual involving sacrifices and a seer (μάντις) aimed at obtaining positive omens,96 the offering of seven heifers and rams also has parallels elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible in Ezek 45:23; Job 42:8; and 1 Chr 15:26.97 In light of these parallels, it cannot be ruled out that Num 23:1-2, 14b, and 29-30 may presuppose priestly ritual laws. Additional evidence that later compositional layers within the prose narrative in Num 22:36–24:14* presuppose priestly texts is found in the use of the expression ‫ קצה העם‬in 22:41 and the expression ‫ קצהו‬in 23:13, which belong to the narrative framework of the first and second oracles, respectively. The

























































88

E.g., ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 398. E.g., NOTH, Josua2, 23 and GÖRG, Josua, 20. 90 On the post-priestly provenance of Josh 5:13-15, see Chapter 9, §4.2. 91 On the late dating of this episode, see DAY, Adversary, 52, 61 n. 44 (who tentatively assigns the unit to P) and H.-C. SCHMITT, “Der heidnische Mantiker,” 252. 92 Cf. ROUILLARD, La péricope de Balaam, 129–40. 93 L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 126 attributes these different groups of offerings to different sources (Num 22:40a = J; 23:1-2, 14b, 29-30 = E), while VAN SETERS, Life, 420 attempts to explain the different offerings synchronically. 94 LEVINE, Numbers 21–36, 162. 95 M. MOORE, Balaam Traditions, 36–38. 96 This ritual is described in Xenophon’s Anabasis and was first used in the interpretation of the Balaam pericope in ROST, “Fragen”; see also VAN SETERS, Life, 412–13. 97 Cf. VAN SETERS, Life, 420 and ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 408. 89

308

Chapter 8: Balaam

term ‫ קצה‬occurs frequently in priestly texts,98 and the only other passage in which it is used with reference to the Israelites during the exodus and wilderness narratives is Num 11:1, a post-priestly text that describes how fire from Yhwh consumed the “edge of the camp” (‫)בקצה המחנה‬.99 This suggests that the narrative framework of the first and second oracles may also be postpriestly. Such a possibility is further supported by the fact that the three places to which Balak takes Balaam in the three-oracle narrative framework – ‫במות‬ ‫( בעל‬Num 22:41), ‫ ראש הפסגה‬/ ‫( שדה צפים‬23:14), and ‫ ראש הפעור‬overlooking ‫( הישימן‬23:28) – are referred to elsewhere in late geographical texts.100 In contrast, the place-name ‫ קרית חצות‬in 22:39 is found nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. In light of the fact that ‫במות בעל‬, ‫אשדות הפסגה‬, and ‫בית פעור‬, as well as ‫( בית הישמות‬which is strikingly similar to ‫ הישימן‬in Num 21:20; 23:28) all occur in close proximity to each other within Josh 13:17 and 13:20, it is possible that the author of the three-oracle narrative framework in Num 22:36–24:14* drew the place-names ‫( במות בעל‬22:41), ‫( ראש הפסגה‬23:14), ‫( ראש הפעור‬23:28), and ‫( הישימן‬23:28) from the post-priestly unit describing the tribal allotment of Reuben in Josh 13:15-23. The literary horizon of the prose narrative. As was concluded in §1, the most basic material in the prose narrative consists of Num 22:3a, 4b-8*, 2021*, 36a(b), 39, 40a(b); 23:3-4a, 5b-6a; 24:2, 10bα, 11a, 25. On the one hand, this material shows no clear awareness of priestly or post-priestly literature and thus may belong to a pre-priestly stage in the composition of the book of Numbers.101 On the other hand, there are reasons to doubt that this material formed part of an independent exodus-conquest narrative, since its emphasis on the concept of blessing is closely connected to the promises to the ancestors in Genesis but is absent from the most basic material in the book of Exodus. Thus, the Balaam pericope likely presupposes the literary connection between the books of Genesis and Exodus from the outset.102

























































98

Cf. Exod 13:20; 16:35; Exod 25–31 + 35–40 (27x); Lev 14:41, 43; and Num 11:1; 33:6, 37; 34:3. 99 On Num 11, see Chapter 6, §2. 100 On ‫במות בעל‬, see Josh 13:17. On ‫הפסגה‬, see Deut 3:17, 27; 4:49; 34:1; Josh 12:3; 13:20. On ‫פעור‬, see Num 25:3, 5, 18; 31:16; Deut 3:29; 4:3, 46; Josh 13:20; 22:17; Hos 9:10; Ps 106:28. On ‫יש]י[מ]ו[ן‬, see 1 Sam 23:19, 24; 26:1, 3; Isa 43:19-20; Ps 68:8; 78:40; 106:14; 107:4; see also the similar place-name ‫ בית הישמות‬in Josh 12:3; 13:20. 101 In contrast, WITTE, “Segen,” 209 argues that even the most basic material in the Balaam pericope presupposes priestly texts. Notably, however, such a conclusion is predicated upon the assumption that the first and second oracles belong to the most basic material in the Balaam pericope, which I have argued is not the case. 102 In contrast, KRATZ, Komposition, 295–96 (ET 287) and WITTE, “Segen,” 209 argue that the Balaam pericope was originally integrated into an exodus-conquest narrative that was not yet connected literarily to the book of Genesis.

2. Macrocontextual Analysis

309

Evaluating the diachronic relationship of the Balaam pericope to its immediate narrative context requires further discussion of Num 22:2. As was noted in the literary-critical analysis, this verse almost certainly does not belong to the most basic version of the Balaam pericope. Considering that this verse serves to establish a temporal, spatial, and logical connection between the Balaam pericope and the defeat of Sihon in 21:21-31, its secondary nature indicates that Num 21:21-31 and Num 22–24* do not belong to the same compositional level. On the one hand, it could be argued that the most basic version of Num 22–24* was composed prior to Num 21:21-31 since, if Num 22–24* were later, a report such as that found in 22:2 would presumably have been part of the most basic narrative, not a later addition. On the other hand, it could be argued that the most basic Balaam narrative was simply not interested in explicitly casting the Moabites’ fear as a logical consequence of the defeat of Sihon. Indeed, the possibility that Num 22–24* once stood in their present place without the preceding narrative of the defeat of Sihon seems unlikely in light of the inner-biblical reception of the two episodes. Whereas the defeat of Sihon is frequently alluded to without any concomitant reference to Balaam in the historical retrospectives in the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua, the Balaam narrative is not referred to at all in the historical framework of the book of Deuteronomy, and both of the references to Balaam in the book of Joshua (Josh 13:22; 24:9) immediately follow references to the defeat of Sihon.103 There is good reason to conclude, therefore, that Num 21:21-31 were already present when the most basic version of the Balaam narrative was added in Num 22–24*. The only way in which Num 22–24* could be evaluated as earlier than Num 21:21-31 is to hypothesize that the Balaam pericope was originally an independent composition that was inserted secondarily into its present context in the book of Numbers. Although there is a broad consensus in recent scholarship that the Balaam pericope was originally independent,104 I am somewhat skeptical toward such a view, since even the most basic narrative thread in the Balaam narrative presupposes the exodus from Egypt and the people’s “dwelling” (‫ )יש״ב‬in Transjordan (22:5; cf. 21:31), and since the intertextual connections in Num 22–24* point to an absolute dating during the exilic period at the earliest.



























































103 In Josh 24:8, Sihon is not mentioned by name, although the reference to the defeat of the Amorites leaves little doubt that Num 21:21-31 is in view. 104 GROSS, Bileam, 147; WÜST, Untersuchungen, 217 n. 671; ROFÉ, Book of Balaam, 7; ROUILLARD, La péricope de Balaam, 479–80; BLUM, Studien, 116; FRITZ, Entstehung, 23– 24; KRATZ, Komposition, 295–96 (ET 287); SCHÜLE, Israels Sohn, 72; WITTE, “Segen,” 209; ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 394; BICKERT, “Israel,” 198; and ROBKER, “Balaam Narrative,” 362.

310

Chapter 8: Balaam

3. Synthesis I

The most basic version of the Balaam narrative, which contained only one oracle (i.e., Oracle 3), can be identified in Num 22:3a, 4b-8*, 2021*, 36a(b), 39-40a(b); 23:3-4a, 5b-6a; 24:2-6, 9b, 10bα, 11a, 25. It can be concluded with relative confidence that this material does not stem from the monarchic period because of the links that Num 24:5 shares with exilic and postexilic prophetic texts and the links that Num 24:9b shares with Gen 12:3a and/or Gen 27:29b. Irrespective of whether it is regarded as an originally independent text or as a supplement created specifically for its present literary context (in my view, the latter is more probable), this narrative was likely inserted into a version of the book of Numbers that already contained the narrative of the defeat of Sihon in Num 21:21-31, and it is quite possible that it also presupposes a literary connection between the books of Genesis and Exodus. Nevertheless, neither of these observations provide incontrovertible evidence for the post-priestly authorship of the most basic Balaam narrative.105 Thus, it cannot be completely ruled out that this narrative was inserted into its present literary context at a pre-priestly stage of composition.

II

This basic narrative culminating in a single oracle was subsequently expanded into a narrative involving three oracles. The dependence of the first two oracles on the third fits well with the fact that the closest connections to the Balaam traditions represented by the Deir ‘Alla inscription are found in the third oracle and not in the first two oracles. When the first and second oracles were added, the narrative framework was also expanded with the descriptions of the seven sacrifices preceding each oracle (Num 23:1-2, 14b, 29-30), the three new locations (22:41; 23:14; 23:28), and the notion that Balaam is able to say and do only what Yhwh tells him (22:9-19; 23:11-12; 23:25-26; and 24:12-13). As part of (or perhaps slightly later than) this expansion of the Balaam pericope, the third oracle was also expanded in 24:7-9a in order to coordinate it further with the themes of the first two oracles. This stage of composition bears a number of connections with priestly/post-priestly texts in Genesis through Joshua as well as with late exilic and postexilic prophetic literature.

II+

The references to the elders of Midian in Num 22:4*, 7*, which form a link with the materials concerning the Midianites in subsequent chap-

























































105

The parallelism between ‫ אל‬and ‫ שדי‬in Num 24:4 is also ambiguous, since these terms may reflect an external Balaam tradition (which also found expression in the Deir ‘Alla inscription) rather than dependence on priestly texts.

‫‪311‬‬

‫‪3. Synthesis‬‬

‫‪ters of the book of Numbers, stand quite isolated within Num 22–24‬‬ ‫‪and may be later additions to the three-oracle reworking of the Balaam‬‬ ‫‪narrative.‬‬ ‫‪The donkey episode was added in Num 22:21aβ-35, further strengthen‬‬‫‪ing the triptych structure of the unit and emphasizing that Balaam was‬‬ ‫‪utterly incapable of acting in contravention to the will of Yhwh.‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪The fourth, eschatological oracle (Num 24:14-19) was added, borrow‬‬‫‪ing phrases particularly from the third oracle.‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪IV+ At the same time or possibly even later, the fifth through seventh ora‬‬‫‪cles (Num 24:20-24) were added.‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬ ‫‪22:2‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫וירא בלק בן צפור את כל אשר עשה ישראל לאמרי‬

‫‪ 3‬ויגר מואב מפני העם מאד כי רב הוא‬ ‫ויקץ מואב מפני בני ישראל‬ ‫כלחך השור את ירק השדה‬

‫‪4‬‬

‫ויאמר מואב אל זקני מדין עתה ילחכו הקהל את כל סביבתינו‬

‫ובלק בן צפור מלך למואב בעת ההוא ‪ 5‬וישלח מלאכים אל בלעם בן בעור ]פתורה אשר על הנהר[‬ ‫ארץ בני עמו לקרא לו לאמר הנה עם יצא ממצרים ]הנה כסה את עין הארץ[ והוא ישב ממלי ‪ 6‬ועתה‬ ‫לכה נא ארה לי את העם הזה כי עצום הוא ממני ]אולי אוכל נכה בו ואגרשנו מן הארץ[ ]כי ידעתי את‬ ‫אשר תברך מברך ואשר תאר יואר[ ‪ 7‬וילכו ]זקני מואב וזקני מדין וקסמים בידם[ ויבאו אל בלעם‬ ‫וידברו אליו דברי בלק ‪ 8‬ויאמר אליהם לינו פה הלילה והשבתי אתכם דבר ]כאשר ידבר ה׳ אלי[ וישבו‬ ‫שרי מואב עם בלעם‬ ‫‪ 9‬ויבא אלהים אל בלעם ויאמר מי האנשים האלה עמך ‪ 10‬ויאמר בלעם אל האלהים בלק בן צפר‬ ‫מלך מואב שלח אלי ‪ 11‬הנה העם היצא ממצרים ויכס את עין הארץ עתה לכה קבה לי אתו אולי‬ ‫אוכל להלחם בו וגרשתיו ‪ 12‬ויאמר אלהים אל בלעם לא תלך עמהם לא תאר את העם כי ברוך‬ ‫הוא ‪ 13‬ויקם בלעם בבקר ויאמר אל שרי בלק לכו אל ארצכם כי מאן ה׳ לתתי להלך עמכם‬ ‫‪ 14‬ויקומו שרי מואב ויבאו אל בלק ויאמרו מאן בלעם הלך עמנו ‪ 15‬ויסף עוד בלק שלח שרים‬ ‫רבים ונכבדים מאלה ‪ 16‬ויבאו אל בלעם ויאמרו לו כה אמר בלק בן צפור אל נא תמנע מהלך אלי‬ ‫‪ 17‬כי כבד אכבדך מאד וכל אשר תאמר אלי אעשה ולכה נא קבה לי את העם הזה ‪ 18‬ויען בלעם‬ ‫ויאמר אל עבדי בלק אם יתן לי בלק מלא ביתו כסף וזהב לא אוכל לעבר את פי ה׳ אלהי לעשות‬ ‫קטנה או גדולה ‪ 19‬ועתה שבו נא בזה גם אתם הלילה ואדעה מה יסף ה׳ דבר עמי‬ ‫‪ 20‬ויבא אלהים אל בלעם לילה ויאמר לו אם לקרא לך באו האנשים קום לך אתם ואך את הדבר אשר‬ ‫אדבר אליך אתו תעשה ‪ 21‬ויקם בלעם בבקר ]ויחבש את אתנו[ וילך עם שרי מואב‬ ‫‪ 22‬ויחר אף אלהים כי הולך הוא ויתיצב מלאך ה׳ בדרך לשטן לו והוא רכב על אתנו ושני‬ ‫נעריו עמו ‪ 23‬ותרא האתון את מלאך ה׳ נצב בדרך וחרבו שלופה בידו ותט האתון מן הדרך‬ ‫ותלך בשדה ויך בלעם את האתון להטתה הדרך ‪ 24‬ויעמד מלאך ה׳ במשעול הכרמים גדר‬ ‫מזה וגדר מזה ‪ 25‬ותרא האתון את מלאך ה׳ ותלחץ אל הקיר ותלחץ את רגל בלעם אל‬ ‫הקיר ויסף להכתה ‪ 26‬ויוסף מלאך ה׳ עבור ויעמד במקום צר אשר אין דרך לנטות ימין‬ ‫ושמאול ‪ 27‬ותרא האתון את מלאך ה׳ ותרבץ תחת בלעם ויחר אף בלעם ויך את האתון‬ ‫‪29‬‬ ‫במקל ‪ 28‬ויפתח ה׳ את פי האתון ותאמר לבלעם מה עשיתי לך כי הכיתני זה שלש רגלים‬ ‫ויאמר בלעם לאתון כי התעללת בי לו יש חרב בידי כי עתה הרגתיך ‪ 30‬ותאמר האתון אל‬ ‫בלעם הלוא אנכי אתנך אשר רכבת עלי מעודך עד היום הזה ההסכן הסכנתי לעשות לך כה‬

‫‪Chapter 8: Balaam‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪312‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬ ‫‪31‬‬

‫ויאמר לא ויגל ה׳ את עיני בלעם וירא את מלאך ה׳ נצב בדרך וחרבו שלפה בידו ויקד‬ ‫וישתחו לאפיו ‪ 32‬ויאמר אליו מלאך ה׳ על מה הכית את אתנך זה שלוש רגלים הנה אנכי‬ ‫יצאתי לשטן כי ירט הדרך לנגדי ‪ 33‬ותראני האתון ותט לפני זה שלש רגלים אולי נטתה‬ ‫מפני כי עתה גם אתכה הרגתי ואותה החייתי ‪ 34‬ויאמר בלעם אל מלאך ה׳ חטאתי כי לא‬ ‫ידעתי כי אתה נצב לקראתי בדרך ועתה אם רע בעיניך אשובה לי ‪ 35‬ויאמר מלאך ה׳ אל‬ ‫בלעם לך עם האנשים ואפס את הדבר אשר אדבר אליך אתו תדבר וילך בלעם עם שרי‬ ‫בלק‬ ‫‪ 36‬וישמע בלק כי בא בלעם ויצא לקראתו ]אל עיר מואב אשר על גבול ארנן אשר בקצה הגבול[‬ ‫‪ 37‬ויאמר בלק אל בלעם הלא שלח שלחתי אליך לקרא לך למה לא הלכת אלי האמנם לא אוכל‬ ‫כבדך ‪ 38‬ויאמר בלעם אל בלק הנה באתי אליך עתה היכל אוכל דבר מאומה הדבר אשר ישים‬ ‫אלהים בפי אתו אדבר‬ ‫‪ 39‬וילך בלעם עם בלק ויבאו קרית חצות ‪ 40‬ויזבח בלק בקר וצאן ]וישלח לבלעם ולשרים אשר אתו[‬ ‫‪ 41‬ויהי בבקר ויקח בלק את בלעם ויעלהו במות בעל וירא משם קצה העם ‪ 23:1‬ויאמר בלעם אל‬ ‫בלק בנה לי בזה שבעה מזבחת והכן לי בזה שבעה פרים ושבעה אילים ‪ 2‬ויעש בלק כאשר דבר‬ ‫בלעם ויעל בלק ובלעם פר ואיל במזבח‬ ‫‪ 3‬ויאמר בלעם לבלק התיצב על עלתך ואלכה אולי יקרה ה׳ לקראתי ודבר מה יראני והגדתי לך וילך‬ ‫שפי ‪ 4‬ויקר אלהים אל בלעם ויאמר אליו‬ ‫את שבעת המזבחת ערכתי ואעל פר ואיל במזבח ‪ 5‬וישם ה׳ דבר בפי בלעם ויאמר‬ ‫שוב אל בלק וכה תדבר ‪ 6‬וישב אליו והנה נצב על עלתו ]הוא וכל שרי מואב[‬ ‫‪ 7‬וישא משלו ויאמר‬ ‫מן ארם ינחני בלק מלך מואב מהררי קדם לכה ארה לי יעקב ולכה זעמה ישראל‬ ‫‪ 8‬מה אקב לא קבה אל ומה אזעם לא זעם ה׳‬ ‫‪ 9‬כי מראש צרים אראנו ומגבעות אשורנו הן עם לבדד ישכן ובגוים לא יתחשב‬ ‫‪ 10‬מי מנה עפר יעקב ומספר את רבע ישראל תמת נפשי מות ישרים ותהי אחריתי כמהו‬ ‫‪ 11‬ויאמר בלק אל בלעם מה עשית לי לקב איבי לקחתיך והנה ברכת ברך ‪ 12‬ויען ויאמר הלא את‬ ‫אשר ישים ה׳ בפי אתו אשמר לדבר ‪ 13‬ויאמר אליו בלק לך נא אתי אל מקום אחר אשר תראנו‬ ‫משם אפס קצהו תראה וכלו לא תראה וקבנו לי משם ‪ 14‬ויקחהו שדה צפים אל ראש הפסגה ויבן‬ ‫שבעה מזבחת ויעל פר ואיל במזבח ‪ 15‬ויאמר אל בלק התיצב כה על עלתך ואנכי אקרה כה‬ ‫‪ 16‬ויקר ה׳ אל בלעם וישם דבר בפיו ויאמר שוב אל בלק וכה תדבר ‪ 17‬ויבא אליו והנו נצב על‬ ‫עלתו ושרי מואב אתו ויאמר לו בלק מה דבר ה׳ ‪ 18‬וישא משלו ויאמר‬ ‫קום בלק ושמע האזינה עדי בנו צפר‬ ‫‪ 19‬לא איש אל ויכזב ובן אדם ויתנחם ההוא אמר ולא יעשה ודבר ולא יקימנה‬ ‫‪ 20‬הנה ברך לקחתי וברך ולא אשיבנה‬ ‫‪ 21‬לא הביט און ביעקב ולא ראה עמל בישראל ה׳ אלהיו עמו ותרועת מלך בו‬ ‫‪ 22‬אל מוציאם ממצרים כתועפת ראם לו‬ ‫‪ 23‬כי לא נחש ביעקב ולא קסם בישראל כעת יאמר ליעקב ולישראל מה פעל אל‬ ‫‪ 24‬הן עם כלביא יקום וכארי יתנשא לא ישכב עד יאכל טרף ודם חללים ישתה‬

‫‪313‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪3. Synthesis‬‬ ‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬ ‫‪26‬‬

‫‪25‬‬

‫ויאמר בלק אל בלעם גם קב לא תקבנו גם ברך לא תברכנו ויען בלעם ויאמר אל בלק הלא‬ ‫דברתי אליך לאמר כל אשר ידבר ה׳ אתו אעשה ‪ 27‬ויאמר בלק אל בלעם לכה נא אקחך אל‬ ‫מקום אחר אולי יישר בעיני האלהים וקבתו לי משם ‪ 28‬ויקח בלק את בלעם ראש הפעור הנשקף‬ ‫על פני הישימן ‪ 29‬ויאמר בלעם אל בלק בנה לי בזה שבעה מזבחת והכן לי בזה שבעה פרים‬ ‫ושבעה אילם ‪ 30‬ויעש בלק כאשר אמר בלעם ויעל פר ואיל במזבח ‪ 24:1‬וירא בלעם כי טוב בעיני‬ ‫ה׳ לברך את ישראל ולא הלך כפעם בפעם לקראת נחשים וישת אל המדבר פניו‬ ‫‪ 2‬וישא בלעם את עיניו וירא את ישראל שכן לשבטיו ותהי עליו רוח אלהים ‪ 3‬וישא משלו ויאמר‬ ‫נאם בלעם בנו בער ונאם הגבר שתם העין‬ ‫‪ 4‬נאם שמע אמרי אל אשר מחזה שדי יחזה נפל וגלוי עינים‬ ‫‪ 5‬מה טבו אהליך יעקב משכנתיך ישראל‬ ‫‪ 6‬כנחלים נטיו כגנת עלי נהר כאהלים נטע ה׳ כארזים עלי מים‬ ‫‪ 7‬יזל מים מדליו וזרעו במים רבים וירם מאגג מלכו ותנשא מלכתו‬ ‫‪ 8‬אל מוציאו ממצרים כתועפת ראם לו יאכל גוים צריו ועצמתיהם יגרם וחציו ימחץ‬ ‫‪ 9a‬כרע שכב כארי וכלביא מי יקימנו‬ ‫‪ 9b‬מברכיך ברוך וארריך ארור‬ ‫]‪ 10‬ויחר אף בלק אל בלעם ויספק את כפיו[ ויאמר בלק אל בלעם לקב איבי קראתיך והנה ברכת ברך‬ ‫]זה שלש פעמים[ ‪ 11‬ועתה ברח לך אל מקומך‬ ‫אמרתי כבד אכבדך והנה מנעך ה׳ מכבוד ‪ 12‬ויאמר בלעם אל בלק הלא גם אל מלאכיך אשר‬ ‫שלחת אלי דברתי לאמר ‪ 13‬אם יתן לי בלק מלא ביתו כסף וזהב לא אוכל לעבר את פי ה׳ לעשות‬ ‫טובה או רעה מלבי אשר ידבר ה׳ אתו אדבר‬ ‫‪ 14‬ועתה הנני הולך לעמי לכה איעצך אשר יעשה העם הזה לעמך באחרית הימים‬ ‫‪ 15‬וישא משלו ויאמר‬ ‫נאם בלעם בנו בער ונאם הגבר שתם העין‬ ‫‪ 16‬נאם שמע אמרי אל וידע דעת עליון מחזה שדי יחזה נפל וגלוי עינים‬ ‫‪ 17‬אראנו ולא עתה אשורנו ולא קרוב דרך כוכב מיעקב וקם שבט מישראל‬ ‫ומחץ פאתי מואב וקרקר כל בני שת‬ ‫‪ 18‬והיה אדום ירשה והיה ירשה שעיר איביו וישראל עשה חיל‬ ‫‪ 19‬וירד מיעקב והאביד שריד מעיר‬ ‫‪ 20‬וירא את עמלק וישא משלו ויאמר ראשית גוים עמלק ואחריתו עדי אבד‬ ‫‪ 21‬וירא את הקיני וישא משלו ויאמר איתן מושבך ושים בסלע קנך‬ ‫‪ 22‬כי אם יהיה לבער קין עד מה אשור תשבך‬ ‫‪ 23‬וישא משלו ויאמר אוי מי יחיה משמו אל‬ ‫‪ 24‬וצים מיד כתים וענו אשור וענו עבר וגם הוא עדי אבד‬ ‫‪ 25‬ויקם בלעם וילך וישב למקמו וגם בלק הלך לדרכו‬

Chapter 9

Preparations for Conquest (Josh 1–5) 1. Instructions prior to Entering the Land (Josh 1) 1.1. Literary-critical analysis Josh 1 describes the transition of authority from Moses to Joshua (1:1-9), Joshua’s first instructions for crossing the Jordan and taking possession of (‫ )יר״ש‬the land (1:10-11), and Joshua’s discussion with the two and one-half Transjordanian tribes regarding their responsibilities in the conquest (1:1218). There are a number of indications that this chapter is not a compositional unity. On the one hand, at least some of the material in the divine speech to Joshua in Josh 1:1-9 must belong to the most basic narrative thread in the chapter, since Joshua’s instructions to the ‫ שטרי העם‬in 1:10-11 presuppose elements from Yhwh’s instructions to Joshua, especially from 1:1-2 (e.g., the command to cross the Jordan and the theme of Yhwh giving the land to the people using the root ‫)נת״ן‬. On the other hand, there is evidence that the divine speech in 1:1-9 is not a compositional unity. The clearest evidence of this is found in the double divine exhortation to Joshua to “be strong and courageous” in 1:6 and 1:7. Whereas in 1:6 this is connected to Joshua’s role in fulfilling the divine promise of giving the land to the people (cf. 1:3), in 1:7-8 it is connected to the observance of the ‫ תורה‬of Moses. The secondary nature of 1:7-8 in relation to 1:6 is indicated not only by the abrupt shift in topic but also by editorial markers such as ‫ רק‬at the beginning of 1:71 and the inverted Wiederaufnahme of 1:5-6 in 1:9. Thus, 1:7-9 cannot belong to the most basic form of the divine speech to Joshua in 1:1-9.2 Strictly speaking, the divine reassurances to Joshua in Josh 1:3-6* are not essential to the continuation of the narrative action in 1:10-11, where Joshua instructs the ‫ שטרי העם‬to prepare the people to cross the Jordan in three days’

























































1

Cf. SMEND, “Gesetz,” 494–96. With NENTEL, Trägerschaft, 24–27, I would not rule out the possibility that Josh 1:8-9 are even later than 1:7. Bieberstein’s suggestion that 1:9b once connected directly to 1:6 at an earlier stage of composition (BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 94) is unlikely, since 1:9b refers to Yhwh in the third person, while in 1:6 Yhwh speaks in the first person. If anything, 1:9b is an even later addition to 1:7-9a for this very reason. 2

1. Instructions prior to Entering the Land (Josh 1)

315

time. Thus, it is conceivable that 1:1-2* once connected directly to 1:10-11, although this cannot be demonstrated conclusively. In any event, 1:3-6 are not a compositional unity. At the very least, the expansive geographical description in 1:4a* (‫ )ועד הנהר הגדול נהר פרת כל ארץ החתים‬must be regarded as secondary within 1:3-6, since the area included in 1:4a* clearly exceeds “every place that your feet will touch” (1:3) as described in the remainder of the book of Joshua.3 Moreover, the divine address shifts from Joshua in 1:1-2 to the people in 1:3-4 (especially in 𝔐) and then back to Joshua in 1:5-6,4 which suggests that 1:3-4 were inserted secondarily between 1:1-2 and 1:5-6.5 Joshua’s discussion with the two and one-half Transjordanian tribes in Josh 1:12-18 cannot belong to the most basic material in the chapter, since the notion that Israel’s land also includes territory in Transjordan contradicts the basic notion of the Jordan as the boundary of the promised land that is presented in 1:2 and 1:11. In sum, the most basic material in Josh 1 should be sought within 1:1-2, (5-6), 10-11.6 The question of whether this material itself is a compositional unity will be taken up again in §1.2. 1.2. Macrocontextual analysis Although there is little use of overtly priestly terminology or concepts in this chapter, there are other indications that the majority of the chapter nevertheless belongs to a Deuteronomistic and post-priestly stage of composition. Josh 1:3-4 make explicit reference to Deut 11:24, as is indicated by the clause ‫ כאשר דברתי אל משה‬in Josh 1:3.7 Deut 11:24, in turn, is part of a unit that thematizes Yhwh’s “driving out” (‫ ירש‬hiphil) nations on the condition that the people observe the law. As I have argued elsewhere, such occurrences of ‫ ירש‬hiphil8 postdate the majority of the occurrences of ‫ ירש‬qal, which themselves have a post-Deuteronomic and post-priestly form of the books of Genesis through Joshua as their minimum literary horizon.9 Thus, Josh 1:3-4 cannot have belonged to an independent, pre-priestly exodus-conquest narra-

























































3

Cf. KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 77–81. See already STEUERNAGEL, Deuteronomium und Josua, 192. 5 Cf. NENTEL, Trägerschaft, 22–23 and DOZEMAN, “Joshua 1,1-9,” 166. 6 Within these verses, several words and short phrases are lacking in 𝔊 and thus are likely also later additions: ‫ עבד ה׳‬in Josh 1:1, ‫ הזה‬and ‫ לבני ישראל‬in 1:2, ‫ הזה‬in 1:4, and ‫ לרשתה‬in 1:11; cf. TOV, “Literary Development,” 71. 7 Cf. WEINFELD, Deuteronomy 1–11, 448; NENTEL, Trägerschaft, 22–23; RÖMER, SoCalled Deuteronomistic History, 175 n. 25; and DOZEMAN, “Joshua 1,1-9,” 175. 8 Cf. Exod 34:24; Num 14:12; Deut 4:38; 9:4, 5 (9:6 also seems to presuppose 9:4-5); Deut 11:23a; 18:12; Josh 3:10; 13:6; 23:5, 9, 13; Judg 2:21, 23; 11:23, 24; 1 Kgs 14:24; 21:26; 2 Kgs 16:3; 17:8; 21:2. 9 GERMANY, “Compositional Horizon.” 4

316

Chapter 9: Preparations for Conquest (Josh 1–5)

tive. Beyond the connection of Josh 1:3-4 to Deut 11:24, there is a further connection between Josh 1:5 and Deut 11:25, although here the direction of dependence is more difficult to determine. There is clearly a degree of verbal overlap between the two verses, and the fact that 𝔊, 𝔖, and 𝔙 read ‫*לפניכם‬ rather than ‫ לפניך‬in Josh 1:5 may suggest that this verse is dependent on Deut 11:25.10 It is quite possible that Josh 1:6 belongs to a distinct stage of composition from 1:5, since Yhwh’s command to Joshua to “be strong and courageous” in 1:6 is based not on the promise of divine accompaniment in 1:5 but instead on the fact that Joshua will cause the people to inherit the land that Yhwh swore to their ancestors. The reference to the oath-promise to the ancestors indicates a literary horizon that reaches back to the book of Genesis, yet determining the literary place of these references is difficult. It should be noted, however, that many of the so-called non-priestly occurrences of the oath promise (e.g., Exod 13:5, 11; Num 11:12; 14:23; Deut 1:35; 8:1; 10:11; 31:7, 20)11 can be demonstrated to be post-priestly texts.12 In sum, Josh 1:6 has a literary horizon that extends beyond the books of Exodus through Joshua, and it is also quite possible that this verse is post-priestly. Although it cannot be ruled out that the term ‫ התורה‬in Josh 1:7 refers to the book of Deuteronomy alone, it seems more likely that this term has the entire Pentateuch in view. The use of wisdom language (‫למען תשכיל בכל אשר‬ ‫ )תלך‬reflects a late association between wisdom and Torah that has in view the canonical unit of the Pentateuch – including priestly literature – and not simply the book of Deuteronomy.13 The same is true of the reference to the ‫ ספר התורה‬in 1:8, which is also associated with wisdom language (‫כי אז‬ ‫)תצליח את דרכך ואז תשכיל‬. There is some indication that parts – if not all – of Josh 1:10-11 are postpriestly. The reference to the “officials of the people” (‫ )שטרי העם‬in 1:10 refers back to Deut 1:9-18 (see esp. Deut 1:15), which in turn presuppose the establishment of judges in Exod 18:13-27 and Num 11:14-17, both of which are post-priestly texts.14 Thus, if a pre-priestly narrative thread is to be found in Josh 1:10-11, it would have reported Joshua’s direct instructions to the

























































10

Although it cannot be ruled out that Deut 11:25 is later than 11:24 and presupposes Josh 1:5, such a scenario seems less likely in my view. 11 DOZEMAN, “Joshua 1,1-9,” 169. 12 On Num 11, see Chapter 6, §2; on Num 13–14 // Deut 1:19-46, see Chapter 6, §4; on Deut 9:7–10:11, see Chapter 5, §2. 13 For further discussion of this phenomenon, see SCHIPPER / TEETER (eds.), Wisdom and Torah. In contrast, WEINFELD, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 304, 336, 339 argues that Josh 1:7-9 have (only) the book of Deuteronomy in view. 14 On Exod 18, see Chapter 3, §8; on Num 11, see Chapter 6, §2. The conclusion that Josh 1:10-11 are later than 1:1-2* is indirectly supported by the fact that Joshua’s statement in 1:11 expands upon Yhwh’s speech to Joshua in 1:2.

1. Instructions prior to Entering the Land (Josh 1)

317

people.15 Josh 1:11bβ contains two occurrences of the verb ‫ ירש‬qal16 which, apart from two further occurrences in 1:15 (a post-priestly text), is absent from Josh 1–11 but appears again in 12:1; 13:1; 18:3; 19:47; and 21:43, all of which are post-priestly texts.17 Although 1:11bβ could be a later addition to 1:10-11, these verses do not contain clear signs of compositional growth (apart from the absence of ‫ לרשתה‬at the end of 1:11 in 𝔊), which raises the possibility that they are post-priestly in their entirety. Joshua’s discussion with the two and one-half Transjordanian tribes in Josh 1:12-18 must also be evaluated as post-priestly, since it cites Moses’ arrangement with the Transjordanian tribes in Deut 3:18-20, which in turn presupposes Num 3218 at an already advanced stage of composition, following the addition of the reference to the half tribe of Manasseh in 32:33a*, 3942.19 This version of Num 32, which contains a retrospective of the spy story (32:8-15) and includes the figure of Eleazar the priest (32:28), already presupposes priestly texts, indicating that both Deut 3:18-20 and Josh 1:12-18 must be post-priestly.20 1.3. Synthesis I

The most basic material in Josh 1 should be sought within 1:1-2*, (6), 10-11. Since it is possible that 1:6, 10-11* are already Deuteronomistic and post-priestly in their entirety, this would leave 1:1-2* as the only potentially pre-Deuteronomistic and pre-priestly material in the chapter.

II

Josh 1:6, 10-11* (without the instructions to the ‫ )שטרי העם‬are likely later than 1:1-2*.

III

Josh 1:3-5, 7-9, 10-11* (the instructions to the ‫)שטרי העם‬, and 12-18 belong to an even later stage of composition.

























































15

‫ויצו יהושע…את העם לאמר הכינו לכם צידה כי בעוד שלשת ימים אתם עברים את הירדן הזה‬. Many 𝔊 manuscripts lack the second of these two occurrences. 17 On Josh 12:1, see Chapter 11, §4; on Josh 13–21, see C ORTESE, Josua 13–21, 49–85. 18 In contrast, KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 111 suggests that the similarities between Num 32; Deut 3:18-20; and Josh 1:12-18 “kaum von einer literarischen Abhängigkeit herrühren, sondern traditionsgeschichtlich bedingt sein dürften.” 19 It seems that an earlier form of Num 32 referred only to the tribes of Reuben and Gad and thus possibly antedates the concept of the two and one-half Transjordanian tribes and nine and one-half Cisjordanian tribes. On the secondary nature of Num 32:33a*, 39-42, see BIEBERSTEIN, “Buch Josua,” 164. 20 Cf. OTTO, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 201. 16

‫‪318‬‬

‫)‪Chapter 9: Preparations for Conquest (Josh 1–5‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫‪1:1‬‬

‫ויהי אחרי מות משה ]עבד ה׳[ ויאמר ה׳ אל יהושע בן נון ]משרת משה[ לאמר משה עבדי מת‬ ‫ועתה קום עבר את הירדן ]הזה[ אתה וכל העם הזה אל הארץ אשר אנכי נתן להם ]לבני ישראל[‬ ‫‪ 3‬כל מקום אשר תדרך כף רגלכם בו לכם נתתיו כאשר דברתי אל משה ‪ 4‬מהמדבר והלבנון‬ ‫הזה ]ועד הנהר הגדול נהר פרת כל ארץ החתים[ ועד הים הגדול מבוא השמש יהיה‬ ‫גבולכם ‪ 5‬לא יתיצב איש לפניך כל ימי חייך כאשר הייתי עם משה אהיה עמך לא ארפך ולא‬ ‫אעזבך‬ ‫‪ 6‬חזק ואמץ כי אתה תנחיל את העם הזה את הארץ אשר נשבעתי לאבותם לתת להם‬ ‫‪ 7‬רק חזק ואמץ ]מאד[ לשמר לעשות ככל התורה אשר צוך משה עבדי אל תסור ממנו ימין‬ ‫ושמאול למען תשכיל בכל אשר תלך ‪ 8‬לא ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך והגית בו יומם‬ ‫ולילה למען תשמר לעשות ככל הכתוב בו כי אז תצליח את דרכך ואז תשכיל ‪ 9‬הלוא‬ ‫צויתיך חזק ואמץ אל תערץ ואל תחת כי עמך ה׳ אלהיך בכל אשר תלך‬ ‫‪ 10‬ויצו יהושע את ]שטרי העם לאמר ‪ 11‬עברו בקרב המחנה וצוו את[ העם לאמר הכינו לכם צידה‬ ‫כי בעוד שלשת ימים אתם עברים את הירדן הזה לבוא לרשת את הארץ אשר ה׳ אלהיכם נתן‬ ‫†‬ ‫לכם }לרשתה{‬ ‫‪ 12‬ולראובני ולגדי ולחצי שבט המנשה אמר יהושע לאמר ‪ 13‬זכור את הדבר אשר צוה‬ ‫אתכם משה עבד ה׳ לאמר ה׳ אלהיכם מניח לכם ונתן לכם את הארץ הזאת ‪ 14‬נשיכם‬ ‫טפכם ומקניכם ישבו בארץ אשר נתן לכם משה בעבר הירדן ואתם תעברו חמשים לפני‬ ‫אחיכם כל גבורי החיל ועזרתם אותם ‪ 15‬עד אשר יניח ה׳ לאחיכם ככם וירשו גם המה את‬ ‫הארץ אשר ה׳ אלהיכם נתן להם ושבתם לארץ ירשתכם }וירשתם אותה{ אשר נתן לכם‬ ‫משה }עבד ה׳{ בעבר הירדן מזרח השמש ‪ 16‬ויענו את יהושע לאמר כל אשר צויתנו נעשה‬ ‫ואל כל אשר תשלחנו נלך ‪ 17‬ככל אשר שמענו אל משה כן נשמע אליך רק יהיה ה׳ אלהיך‬ ‫עמך כאשר היה עם משה ‪ 18‬כל איש אשר ימרה את פיך ולא ישמע את דבריך לכל אשר‬ ‫תצונו יומת רק חזק ואמץ‬

‫)‪2. Rahab and the Spies (Josh 2‬‬ ‫‪2.1. Literary-critical analysis‬‬ ‫‪Some commentators have argued that the story of Rahab and the spies origi‬‬‫‪nally consisted of a more basic narrative in Josh 2:1-6, 15-16, 22-23 that did‬‬ ‫‪not contain Rahab’s confession or the spies’ oath to protect her family.21‬‬ ‫‪While it is indeed possible to reconstruct such a narrative from a strictly syn‬‬‫‪tactic point of view, the narrative thread that remains lacks a clear purpose.‬‬ ‫‪As Erhard Blum has aptly noted, such a truncated episode does not drive the‬‬ ‫‪larger narrative forward, and “the preservation of the spies by Rahab remains‬‬

‫























































‬ ‫†‬

‫‪Rounded brackets {…} indicate materials that are absent in 𝔊*.‬‬ ‫‪See esp. FLOSS, Kunden, 1:79; 2:144–63 and KRATZ, Komposition, 208 (ET 206 n.‬‬ ‫‪68, 208). See also CAMPBELL, “Growth,” 74–75, who identifies an earlier narrative in Josh‬‬ ‫‪2:1-9, 12-24.‬‬ ‫‪21‬‬

2. Rahab and the Spies (Josh 2)

319

without meaning, both for the characters as well as for the readers.” 22 For this reason, I find it difficult to excise Rahab’s confession or the spies’ oath to exempt her and her family from Jericho’s impending destruction from the narrative and thus regard the chapter as a basic compositional unity.23 2.2. Macrocontextual analysis There are several indications that Josh 2 is a later insertion between Josh 1 and Josh 3. First, 2:1 and 3:1 have the same geographical setting at Shittim, which indicates that 3:1 is no less plausible as the original continuation of Josh 1* than 2:1 is.24 Moreover, as has long been noted, the sequence of events narrated in Josh 2 does not fit within the chronological framework established in Josh 1 and Josh 3, in which only three days pass between Joshua’s giving of instructions to the ‫ שטרי העם‬regarding the crossing of the Jordan in 1:11 and the fulfillment of those instructions in 3:2.25 This indicates that Josh 2 as a whole must be later than both 1:11 and 3:2.26 The Rahab narrative also corrects the complete execution of Deuteronomy’s ‫ חרם‬ideology in the conquest of Jericho (6:21)27 and thus cannot be earlier than the Deuteronomistic version of Josh 6.28 As John Van Seters and others have convincingly argued, the episode was inserted “in order to articulate a more universalistic perspective on Israel’s religion.”29 This situates Josh 2 – alongside texts such as Ezra 9–10 and Neh 13 on the one hand and the book of Ruth on

























































22

BLUM, “Pentateuch,” 388–89 (quote from ET 55–56); cf. VAN SETERS, “Joshua’s Campaign,” 4 n. 9 and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 137. 23 Cf. NOTH, Josua2 , 29–30, LANGLAMET, “Josué, II,” 343–53; and SOGGIN, Joshua, 37–38. The clause ‫ כי ביתה בקיר החומה ובחומה היא יושבת‬in Josh 2:15b is absent in 𝔊 and can be identified as a later gloss; cf. TOV, “Literary Development,” 71, who concludes that “[t]he long text in MT+ is secondary since Rahab’s house is intact in 6,22 after the walls fell and therefore could not have been joined to the wall.” 24 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, “Buch Josua,” 156, who argues that Josh 2:1 was modeled on 3:1. 25 Cf. VAN SETERS, In Search of History, 325; HOWARD, “Three Days,” 540–41; NELSON, Joshua, 41; BLUM, “Beschneidung,” 294 (repr. 221); HAARMANN, JHWH-Verehrer, 108–9; KNAUF, Josua, 46; and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 141. 26 There is a growing consensus on this conclusion; cf. VAN SETERS, In Search of History, 325; IDEM, “Joshua’s Campaign,” 3–4; BLUM, “Beschneidung,” 294 (repr. 221–22); IDEM, “Pentateuch,” 389–90 (ET 56); RÖMER, So-Called Deuteronomistic History, 134; KNAUF, Josua, 46–47; HAARMANN, JHWH-Verehrer, 126–27; RÖSEL, Joshua, 43–44; BIEBERSTEIN, “Buch Josua,” 154–55; and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 147. 27 Cf. KNAUF, Josua, 46. 28 Against CAMPBELL, “Growth,” 74–75, who regards Josh 2:1-9, 12-24 as preDeuteronomistic. 29 VAN SETERS, In Search of History, 325; cf. IDEM, “Joshua’s Campaign,” 4; KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 149–50.

320

Chapter 9: Preparations for Conquest (Josh 1–5)

the other – within a broader debate on the role of non-Israelites (or nonJudahites) in the religion and society of Persian-period Yehud.30 Despite the growing consensus that Josh 2 is a relatively late text that challenges the exclusivist ‫ חרם‬ideology found especially in the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua, there has been little discussion of the text’s relationship to priestly literature. A clue to the post-priestly provenance of Josh 2 may, however, lie in the observation that Josh 2 serves as a counternarrative to the sin of Baal-Peor in Num 25:1-5. As a number of commentators have noted, the Rahab narrative is connected to Num 25:1-5 both in its geographical setting at Shittim as well as in the motif of illicit relationships with foreign women (and their gods) evoked by the verbal root ‫זנ״ה‬.31 Although some commentators assign Num 25:1-5 to a pre-priestly stage in the formation of the Pentateuch,32 others assign this unit to a (post-)priestly stage of composition.33 Moreover, as noted in the discussion of Josh 1, it is possible that 1:1011 in their entirety are post-priestly from the outset, which would also make Josh 2 a post-priestly text. Several elements in Rahab’s confession form intertextual connections with (post-)priestly texts. First, Rahab’s confession in Josh 2:9b draws directly from the Song at the Sea, inverting the diction of Exod 15:15-16:34 Josh 2:9b

‫וכי נפלה אימתכם עלינו וכי נמגו כל ישבי הארץ מפניכם‬

Exod 15:15-16

…‫…נמגו כל ישבי כנען תפל עליהם אימתה ופחד‬

As argued in Chapter 3, the Song at the Sea presupposes the priestly version of the miracle at the sea in Exod 14* and is thus a post-priestly text. Moreover, the Rahab narrative in Josh 2 can potentially be read as a structural counterpart to the story of the spies in Num 13–14 // Deut 1:19b-46.35 This is suggested by a number of lexical parallels between Num 13–14 and Josh 2,36 including the use of the verb ‫חפר‬, which appears in the context of a spy mis-

























































30

Cf. KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 179–80. BLUM, “Beschneidung,” 227; PRESSLER, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, 23; ROBINSON, “Rahab,” 264; HARVEY, Retelling, 87; SHERWOOD, “A Leader’s Misleading,” 50–51; HAARMANN, JHWH-Verehrer, 119–20; and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 152–55. 32 BLUM, Studien, 114–16, L. SCHMIDT, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 148–49; and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 152. 33 KRATZ, Komposition, 117 (ET 113) and ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 425–28. 34 Cf. KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 166–67. Although Josh 2:9bβ is absent in 𝔊*, I agree with Krause in questioning the frequent assumption that the minus in 𝔊* reflects an earlier Hebrew Vorlage (ibid., 169–71). Yet even if 2:9bβ were a later addition, this would hardly challenge the conclusion that Josh 2 presupposes the Song at the Sea, since 2:9bα and 2:24b also reflect textual dependence on Exod 15. 35 On the dependence of Josh 2 on Num 13–14, see esp. ASSIS, From Moses, 58–66; IDEM, “Story,” 2–3. 36 For a list of parallels, see ASSIS, From Moses, 15; IDEM, “Story,” 2–3. 31

321

2. Rahab and the Spies (Josh 2)

sion only in Deut 1:22 and Josh 2:2-3. Joachim Krause has recently objected to the notion that the author of Josh 2 intentionally alluded to the story of the spies in Num 13–14 // Deut 1:19b-46, noting the more “anonymous and passive” role of the spies as well as the absence of any reference to the shift of generations in Josh 2.37 While Krause is undoubtedly correct in noting that the rhetorical aims of Josh 2 are very different from those of Num 13–14 // Deut 1:19b-46, this cannot serve as an argument that the author of Josh 2 did not use Num 13–14 // Deut 1:19b-46 (whether consciously or unconsciously) as a literary template. Moreover, despite the rhetorical and thematic differences between the two stories, there is nevertheless a striking structural parallelism between Num 13–14 and Josh 2, whereby Joshua’s sending of spies into the promised land ahead of the rest of the people can be interpreted as a sort of imitatio Mosis that reinforces the characterization of Joshua as Moses’ legitimate and faithful successor. 2.3. Synthesis Apart from a later gloss in Josh 2:15b, the story of Rahab and the spies in Josh 2 is largely a compositional unity, and there is a wide range of evidence indicating that this narrative presupposes both Deuteronomy and priestly literature from the outset.38 By extension, the fulfillment of the spies’ oath to Rahab in Josh 6:17b, 22-23, 25 must also be post-Deuteronomic and postpriestly, since these verses cannot stand independently of Josh 2. II

I

‫ וישלח יהושע בן נון מן השטים שנים אנשים מרגלים חרש לאמר לכו ראו את הארץ ואת יריחו וילכו‬2:1 ‫ ויאמר למלך יריחו לאמר הנה אנשים באו הנה הלילה‬2 ‫ויבאו בית אשה זונה ושמה רחב וישכבו שמה‬ ‫ וישלח מלך יריחו אל רחב לאמר הוציאי האנשים הבאים אליך אשר‬3 ‫מבני ישראל לחפר את הארץ‬ ‫ ותקח האשה את שני האנשים ותצפנו ותאמר כן באו אלי‬4 ‫באו לביתך כי לחפר את כל הארץ באו‬ ‫ ויהי השער לסגור בחשך והאנשים יצאו לא ידעתי אנה הלכו האנשים‬5 ‫האנשים ולא ידעתי מאין המה‬ ‫ והיא העלתם הגגה ותטמנם בפשתי העץ הערכות לה על הגג‬6 ‫רדפו מהר אחריהם כי תשיגום‬ ‫ והאנשים רדפו אחריהם דרך הירדן על המעברות והשער סגרו אחרי כאשר יצאו הרדפים אחריהם‬7 ‫ ותאמר אל האנשים ידעתי כי נתן ה׳ לכם את הארץ‬9 ‫ והמה טרם ישכבון והיא עלתה עליהם על הגג‬8 ‫ כי שמענו את אשר הוביש ה׳ את מי ים‬10 ‫וכי נפלה אימתכם עלינו וכי נמגו כל ישבי הארץ מפניכם‬ ‫סוף מפניכם בצאתכם ממצרים ואשר עשיתם לשני מלכי האמרי אשר בעבר הירדן לסיחן ולעוג אשר‬ ‫ ונשמע וימס לבבנו ולא קמה עוד רוח באיש מפניכם כי ה׳ אלהיכם הוא אלהים‬11 ‫החרמתם אותם‬ ‫ ועתה השבעו נא לי בה׳ כי עשיתי עמכם חסד ועשיתם גם אתם עם‬12 ‫בשמים ממעל ועל הארץ מתחת‬ ‫ והחיתם את אבי ואת אמי ואת אחי ואת אחותי ואת כל אשר‬13 ‫בית אבי חסד ונתתם לי אות אמת‬ ‫ ויאמרו לה האנשים נפשנו תחתיכם למות אם לא תגידו את דברנו‬14 ‫להם והצלתם את נפשתינו ממות‬ ‫ ותורדם בחבל בעד החלון‬15 ‫זה והיה בתת ה׳ לנו את הארץ ועשינו עמך חסד ואמת‬

























































37

KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 184–95, here 191. Cf. BLUM, “Beschneidung,” 226–27 and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 180–81. See also KNAUF, Josua, 46, who regards Josh 2 as “eine der jüngsten Ergänzungen im Buch.” 38

322

Chapter 9: Preparations for Conquest (Josh 1–5) II

I

{‫}כי ביתה בקיר החומה ובחומה היא יושבת‬ ‫ ותאמר להם ההרה לכו פן יפגעו בכם הרדפים ונחבתם שמה שלשת ימים עד שוב הרדפים ואחר‬16 ‫ הנה אנחנו באים‬18 ‫ ויאמרו אליה האנשים נקים אנחנו משבעתך הזה אשר השבעתנו‬17 ‫תלכו לדרככם‬ ‫בארץ את תקות חוט השני הזה תקשרי בחלון אשר הורדתנו בו ואת אביך ואת אמך ואת אחיך ואת‬ ‫ והיה כל אשר יצא מדלתי ביתך החוצה דמו בראשו ואנחנו נקים‬19 ‫כל בית אביך תאספי אליך הביתה‬ ‫ ואם תגידי את דברנו זה והיינו נקים‬20 ‫וכל אשר יהיה אתך בבית דמו בראשנו אם יד תהיה בו‬ ‫ ותאמר כדבריכם כן הוא ותשלחם וילכו ותקשר את תקות השני בחלון‬21 ‫משבעתך אשר השבעתנו‬ ‫ וילכו ויבאו ההרה וישבו שם שלשת ימים עד שבו הרדפים ויבקשו הרדפים בכל הדרך ולא מצאו‬22 ‫ וישבו שני האנשים וירדו מההר ויעברו ויבאו אל יהושע בן נון ויספרו לו את כל המצאות אותם‬23 ‫ ויאמרו אל יהושע כי נתן ה׳ בידנו את כל הארץ וגם נמגו כל ישבי הארץ מפנינו‬24

3. The Crossing of the Jordan (Josh 3–4) 3.1. Literary-critical analysis There is a broad scholarly consensus that the narrative of the Israelites’ crossing of the Jordan in Josh 3–4 has undergone literary growth, although reconstructions of the composition of these chapters vary widely.39 The departure from Shittim (Josh 3:1). Signs of a composite narrative are evident already in Josh 3:1, where the statement that Joshua arose in the morning (‫וישכם יהושע בבקר‬, 3:1aα1) does not connect smoothly with the report that the people (albeit not mentioned explicitly as the subject) set out from Shittim and approached the Jordan (‫ מהשטים ויבאו עד הירדן‬40‫)ויסעו‬.41 The phrase ‫ הוא וכל בני ישראל‬in 3:1aβ likely reflects a later attempt to smooth out this tension by implying that the subject of ‫ ויסעו‬should be understood as both Joshua and the people.42 This phrase comes too late syntactically and is



























































39 For a summary of some of the major diachronic analyses of Josh 3–4 up to the early 1980s, see PECKHAM, “Composition of Joshua 3–4,” 413–17; for more recent analyses, see FRITZ, Josua, 43–56; BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 170–94; WAGENAAR, “Crossing,” 466–68; NELSON, Joshua, 55–60, 65–69; K RATZ, Komposition, 208 (ET 201); GUILLAUME, “Une traversée,” 21–32; PORZIG, Lade, 56–68; KNAUF, Josua, 51–55; RÖSEL, Joshua, 58–60; KRAUSE, “Zug”; IDEM, Exodus und Eisodus, 197–273; LEE, Crossing; and DOZEMAN; Joshua 1–12, 277–81. 40 𝔊BL and 𝔖A read ‫*ויסע‬. 41 LEE, Crossing, 163 also notes that “[t]he change of the subject from third person singular into plural makes one suspect the integrity of this material.” In contrast, BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 171 notes that a similar shift in number and implied subject occurs in Josh 6:12; 8:10-11; and Judg 7:1, arguing that there are no grounds for literary-critical differentiation between Josh 3:1aα1 and 3:1aα2. 42 Cf. LEE, Crossing, 54. On the evaluation of this phrase as a later gloss, see also FRITZ, Josua, 44.

3. The Crossing of the Jordan (Josh 3–4)

323

also absent in 𝔊*.43 Considering that ‫ וישכם יהושע בבקר‬in 3:1aα1 cannot stand without 3:1aα2, it is likely a later addition within 3:1. The officers and the ark (Josh 3:2-4). This unit cannot belong to the same compositional level as Josh 3:1, since 3:1 implies that the people would cross the following day, while 3:2 indicates that three days have passed.44 Within 3:2-4, 3:4abα1 (‫ )אך רחוק יהיה ביניכם ובינו כאלפים אמה במדה אל תקרבו אליו‬can be identified as a later insertion that interrupts the conceptual connection between 3:3 and 3:4bα2β, both of which focus on the ark as a guide for the people.45 Instructions for the people and the priests (Josh 3:5-6). A new narrative unit begins in Josh 3:5, in which Joshua tells the people (‫ )העם‬to sanctify themselves. Joshua’s speech then shifts to the priests in 3:6, instructing them to pass before the people with the ark.46 It is difficult to determine whether 3:5 and 3:6 belong to the same or different compositional levels: On the one hand, the repetition of ‫ ויאמר יהושע‬in both verses is slightly suspicious; on the other hand, the two verses may simply be stating the distinct ways in which the people and the priests are to prepare for what is to follow.47 Here, Joshua’s reference to “tomorrow” in 3:5 is significant, since neither 3:6 nor the materials that follow give any indication that a day has passed since Joshua’s statement in 3:5. This suggests that 3:5 and 3:6 do not belong to the same compositional level.48 Divine instructions to Joshua (Josh 3:7-8). In these verses, which constitute a distinct narrative unit, Yhwh reassures Joshua of divine accompaniment and provides Joshua with further instructions to relay to the priests carrying the ark.49 Joshua addresses the people (Josh 3:9-13). In this unit, Joshua explains to the Israelites (‫ )בני ישראל‬that the parting of the waters of the Jordan through the miraculous action of the ark is a sign that “the living God is in your

























































43

Cf. SIPILÄ, “Septuagint Version,” 68. Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 171 (with earlier literature in n. 141). 45 Cf. ibid., 172 (with earlier literature in n. 144) and NELSON, Joshua, 60 against LEE, Crossing, 166, who regards Josh 3:2-4 as a compositional unity, and PECKHAM, “Composition of Joshua 3–4,” 421, who notes that 3:4bα2β “is extraneous to its context” but rejects the notion that it is a later addition. 46 𝔊 lacks ‫ לאמר‬in Josh 3:6. With LEE, Crossing, 56, I would not exclude the possibility that here 𝔊 reflects a different Hebrew Vorlage and not simply the translator’s technique. 47 LEE, Crossing, 167 regards Josh 3:5-6 as a compositional unity, albeit on the basis of comparison with the ark narratives in Chronicles, which is methodologically problematic. 48 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 171–72 and the literary layers in KNAUF, Josua, 51. 49 Josh 3:8 𝔊 reads καὶ νῦν (*‫ )ועטה‬rather than ‫( ואתה‬not noted in BHS). The reading of 𝔊 is preferable to that of 𝔐, since there is no shift in subject between 3:7 and 3:8. Thus, with LEE, Crossing, 56, I regard ‫ ואתה‬in 𝔐 as a scribal error caused by phonetic similarity. A similar (but inverse) case occurs in 1 Kgs 1:18; cf. TOV, Textual Criticism2, 251. 44

324

Chapter 9: Preparations for Conquest (Josh 1–5)

midst” (‫)אל חי בקרבכם‬. There are indications that parts of this unit constitute later expansions, as they interrupt the basic proof of Yhwh’s presence. These expansions include the statement in Josh 3:10b that Yhwh will “drive out” (‫ )הורש יוריש‬the “seven nations” from before the people50 and the command in 3:12 to select one man from each tribe, which plays no role in the miraculous action of the ark in 3:13.51 Thus, a more basic compositional layer within 3:9-13 can be identified in 3:(9?), 10a*,52 11, 13*. 53 The crossing of the Jordan (Josh 3:14-17). Josh 3:14-15 are oversaturated, suggesting that the events leading up to the crossing of the Jordan were later expanded. For example, the reference to the priests carrying the ark of the covenant in 3:14b stands rather isolated within its immediate context.54 Moreover, the reference to the high water level of the Jordan in 3:15b provides parenthetical information that serves to amplify the miraculous nature of the event and is thus likely later than 3:15a.55 The double report of the people’s crossing in 3:16b and 3:17 also suggests compositional growth. Of these two reports, 3:16b is almost certainly more original, since it would make little sense to insert 3:16b into an existing context consisting of 3:16a*, 17. In contrast, the notion that 3:17 is a later insertion56 fits well with the observation that 3:14b may also be a later addition.57 This suggests that the motif of the priests carrying the ark – and perhaps even the ark itself – may not have been part of an earlier report of the crossing of the Jordan, in which case 3:15a(α?)β would also be a later addition to the unit.58 Finally, the report of the “cutting off” of the Jordan’s waters in 3:16a seems to have undergone expansion in two areas. (1) Some of the geographical references in 3:16a (‫ באדם העיר אשר מצד צרתן‬and the alternate name ‫ ים המלח‬for the Dead Sea)

























































50

Cf. KNAUF, Josua, 59 against LEE, Crossing, 168, who regards Josh 3:10b as integral to 3:7-11. 51 On Josh 3:12 as a later addition, see FRITZ, Josua, 55; PORZIG, Lade, 61; LEE, Crossing, 169; KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 258; and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 288. 52 Perhaps originally without the repetition of ‫ ויאמר יהושע‬in Josh 3:10a, which is absent in 𝔊*. In contrast, PORZIG, Lade, 61 with n. 87 considers 3:9 to be a later addition to 3:10, the latter of which was subsequently smoothed out in 𝔊* by deleting ‫ויאמר יהושע‬. 53 𝔊 lacks ‫ מלמעלה‬and ‫נד אחד‬, suggesting that an earlier form of Josh 3:13aγb read ‫*והמים הירדים יעמדו‬. 54 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 44 and PORZIG, Lade, 62. 55 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 55; PORZIG, Lade, 62; and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 288. 56 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 176–77. In contrast, KNAUF, Josua, 52 regards Josh 3:17 as earlier than 3:16. Within 3:17, the word ‫ הכן‬is likely an even later addition, as is suggested by its absence in 𝔊BA (cf. LEE, Crossing, 59, not noted in BHS). 57 As will be discussed in §3.2, Josh 3:17 also reflects a different conception of the position of the priests relative to the people and serves to set the stage for the (secondary) episode of the stones in 4:1-9*. 58 Cf. PORZIG, Lade, 62, who regards Josh 3:15a as presupposing the role of the priests from the outset (cf. 𝔊: οἱ ἱερεῖς οἱ αἴροντες τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης, not noted in BHS).

3. The Crossing of the Jordan (Josh 3–4)

325

interrupt the flow of the verse and are quite possibly antiquarian glosses.59 (2) The words ‫ קמו נד אחד‬are superfluous after ‫ ויעמדו המים הירדים מלמעלה‬and may be a later addition. 60 When the foregoing observations are combined, they suggest that the most basic narrative thread in 3:14-17 is to be found in 3:14a, 16* (without the more detailed geographical notices or the words ‫קמו‬ ‫)נד אחד‬. The twelve stones (Josh 4:1-10). Within this unit, there are several textual variants in g that may reflect small-scale additions or changes in j vis-à-vis an earlier Hebrew Vorlage:61 4:2: 4:3: 4:5: 4:6-7: 4:7: 4:10:

‫( איש אחד ;שנים עשר ;לכם‬second occurrence) > g*. 62 ‫ > ממצב רגלי הכהנים‬g*. g: Προσαγάγετε ἔμπροσθέν μου πρὸ προσώπου κυρίου g: ὅταν ἐρωτᾷ σε ὁ υἱός σου…τῷ υἱῷ σου(j: plural) ‫ > נכרתו מי הירדן‬g*, o. ‫ > ככל אשר צוה משה את יהושע‬g*.

As A. Graeme Auld has noted, in Josh 4:5, “lpny rendered as ἔμπροσθέν μου and lpny yhwh rendered as πρὸ προσώπου κυρίου may go back to alternative forms of the Hebrew text.” 63 This may suggest an earlier Hebrew version of this verse that simply read ‫*עברו לפנַ י‬, and was later expanded to ‫עברו לפנֵ י‬ ‫*ה׳‬, both of which are reflected in g. These readings were then expanded in the tradition of j to ‫עברו לפנֵ י ארון ה׳ אלהיכם‬.64 At a literary-critical level, the report in Josh 4:9 that Joshua set up twelve stones in the middle of the Jordan stands quite isolated and, unlike the fulfillment report in 4:8, does not have corresponding divine instructions to Joshua at the beginning of the unit. This suggests that 4:9 is a later addition within 4:1-10.65 This addition, which makes a point of noting that Joshua erected the stones precisely where the priests carrying the ark had been stand59

Cf. KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 256–57. In contrast, LEE, Crossing, 171 regards Josh 3:16 as a compositional unity and BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 175 regards only ‫ ים המלח‬as a later addition. 60 For further arguments that ‫ קמו נד אחד‬is a later addition, see §3.2. 61 Cf. PORZIG, Lade, 63. This is not to say that every variant in g reflects an earlier stage of composition; for a discussion of several variants in g that can likely be attributed to the translator, see SIPILÄ, “Septuagint Version,” 67–68. 62 SIPILÄ, “Septuagint Version,” 68 argues that ‫ שנים עשר‬in j is an addition vis-à-vis the Vorlage of g, since normally ‫ שנים עשר‬is followed by ‫ איש‬in the singular. 63 AULD, Joshua: Jesus Son of Nauē, 112. 64 Cf. TOV, “Growth,” 394, who regards the reference to the ark in Josh 4:5 as a later theological correction. 65 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 179–81 (with earlier literature on 181 n. 176); K NAUF, Josua, 52, 60; LEE, Crossing, 175; KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 248–50; and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 290–91 against RUDOLPH, Elohist, 176; NOTH, Josua2, 27; and FRITZ, Josua, 46, who argue that Josh 4:1-8 are later than 4:9.

326

Chapter 9: Preparations for Conquest (Josh 1–5)

ing (‫)תחת מצב רגלי הכהנים נשאי ארון הברית‬, may have been the impetus for the addition of the phrase ‫ ממצב רגלי הכהנים‬in 4:3 𝔐,66 thereby strengthening the parallelism between the tribes’ twelve stones to the west of the Jordan and Joshua’s twelve stones in the middle of the river. The report in Josh 4:10b that “the people hurried and crossed” stands in tension with 3:16b; 3:17b; and 4:1a, all of which indicate that the people have already crossed the Jordan prior to the episode of the stones in 4:1-10*. This half verse may have been inserted in an effort to create a smoother transition to 4:11 and is thus a sort of Wiederaufnahme of the crossing report in 3:16b.67 By extension, 4:1a, which is very similar in its phrasing to 4:11a, can be interpreted as a Vorwegnahme of 4:11a, indicating that 4:1-10 as a whole are a later insertion between 3:16b and 4:11a.68 The people and the ark finish crossing (Josh 4:11). As noted immediately above, Josh 4:11a continues the narrative thread from 3:16b and states explicitly that all the people have crossed the Jordan. In contrast, 4:11b seems to belong to a different compositional level than 4:11a,69 since it presents the crossing of the ark and the priests (𝔊: the ark and the stones) before the people out of chronological order and as parenthetical information. On the one hand, if one regards the reference to “stones” instead of “priests” in 𝔊 as the more original reading here, then 4:11b cannot be earlier than 4:1-10*, since the stones first appear in that unit. On the other hand, if one regards the reading of 𝔐 as more original, then 4:11b cannot belong to the same compositional level as 4:1-10* since, according to 4:10, the priests continued to stand in the middle of the Jordan even after the people crossed (cf. 3:16b; 4:1), which stands in tension with the statement in 4:11b that the priests and the ark crossed before (‫ )לפני‬the people.70 Thus, 4:11b is later than 4:11a and belongs to a different compositional level than 4:1-10*. The crossing of the Transjordanian tribes (Josh 4:12-13). These verses stand in tension with Josh 4:11a, which reports that all the people had crossed and does not account separately for the two and one-half Transjordanian tribes.71 This suggests that 4:12-13 are a later addition that was inserted as the fulfillment report for 1:12-18.72

























































66

Cf. KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 247–52, who assigns Josh 4:3* and 4:9 to the same redactional layer. 67 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 181. 68 On an earlier, direct connection between Josh 3:16 and 4:11a, see VAN SETERS, In Search of History, 325–26; FRITZ, Josua, 45; and LEE, Crossing, 175–76. 69 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 45 and PORZIG, Lade, 63. 70 Whether ‫ לפני‬is understood temporally or spatially makes little difference, since here temporal priority also implies spatial priority and vice versa. 71 DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 292–93 makes the intriguing proposal that the use of the terms ‫ גוי‬and ‫ עם‬in Josh 4 “may represent the distinction between those who live west of the Jordan and the tribes who dwell outside of this territory, perhaps signifying Diaspora

3. The Crossing of the Jordan (Josh 3–4)

327

Joshua’s exaltation (Josh 4:14). This verse reports that Yhwh “made Joshua great in the eyes of all Israel,” thereby fulfilling Yhwh’s statement to Joshua in 3:7 and establishing Joshua unquestionably as Moses’ legitimate successor. The compositional place of this verse will be discussed in further detail in §3.2. The emergence of the ark from the Jordan (Josh 4:15-18). A significant narrative tension exists between Josh 4:11b and 4:15-18: Whereas the latter verses assume that the priests are still standing in the Jordan,73 4:11b has already reported the crossing of the ark and the priests. Thus, 4:11b cannot belong to the same compositional level as 4:15-18. There is some justification for attributing 4:11b to the same stage of composition as 3:6 and 3:11, which also describe the priests and the ark as crossing before the people. In contrast, the notion of the priests and the ark as remaining in the middle of the Jordan until after the people crossed is closely connected to the episode of the twelve stones, which required an explanation for how the representatives of the twelve tribes were able to collect the stones from the bed of the Jordan after the people had already crossed the river. Thus, 4:15-18 presuppose the episode of the twelve stones in 4:1-10*.74 Moreover, since 4:15-18 cannot have connected directly to 4:11b, it seems that they also presuppose the addition of 4:12-13 and/or 4:14 after 4:11b. The people’s encampment at Gilgal (Josh 4:19). Thus far, it has been concluded that Josh 4:11a belongs to an earlier narrative thread than 4:1-10*, 11b, 12-13, 14, and 15-18. Since 4:11a is a subordinate clause, this indicates that the main clause to which it originally connected must be sought in 4:19 or thereafter. Considering that 4:20-24 presuppose the episode of the stones in 4:1-10* (see immediately below), 4:11a cannot have connected directly to any point within these verses, since 4:11a is earlier than 4:1-10* and thereby also earlier than 4:20-24. Thus, the original continuation of 4:11a must be sought within 4:19. Since 4:11a cannot connect syntactically to 4:19a, it must have originally connected directly to 4:19b.



























































































































Jews.” The only problem with this suggestion is the fact that both 3:17 and 4:1 state that the “entire nation” (‫ )כל הגוי‬crossed prior to the episode of the stones, thus contradicting with the notion that the two and one-half Transjordanian tribes have not yet crossed. 72 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 182–83. 73 Here I cannot agree with Lee’s separation of Josh 4:15-16 and 4:17-18 into two different units (LEE, Crossing, 177–78), since Joshua’s command to the priests in 4:17 to ascend from the Jordan is of a piece with Yhwh’s instructions to Joshua in 4:15-16. 74 Dozeman’s observation that “the story of the Jordan is told as a three-stage process in which the ark enters (3:7-17), pauses midriver (4:1-14), and exits (4:15–5:1)” (DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 279) is undeniably correct at the level of the received text, but this ignores the many indications that the episode of the twelve stones is not an original element in the narrative.

328

Chapter 9: Preparations for Conquest (Josh 1–5)

The conclusion to the episode of the stones (Josh 4:20-24). Given that the episode of the twelve stones does not reach a satisfactory conclusion in Josh 4:1-10* (in 4:8 the stones are brought to the ‫ מלון‬but are not yet erected), at least some of the material in 4:20-24 must belong to the same compositional level as 4:1-10*.75 Within this unit, 4:21-22 are essential to the etiological nature of the episode of the stones, while 4:23-24 possibly belong to a later stage of composition, since 4:23 does not connect smoothly to the so-called “catechism” in 4:21-22.76 3.2. Macrocontextual analysis Josh 3:1. Considering that the statement ‫ וישכם יהושע בבקר‬in Josh 3:1aα1 is likely a later addition and that the verbs ‫ ויסעו‬and ‫ ויבאו‬in 3:1aα2 do not have an explicit subject, 3:1aα2 must have once connected to a narrative thread in which the people are the implied subject. This is not to be found in Josh 2 and must be sought somewhere in Josh 1. There, the only possible point of connection is found in 1:1-2*, in which Yhwh instructs Joshua to take the people across the Jordan.77 This fits well with the conclusion reached in §1 that 1:12* constitute the most basic material in Josh 1. In contrast, the statement ‫ וישכם יהושע בבקר‬in 3:1aα1 can be interpreted as a later transitional element following the insertion of the Rahab narrative in Josh 2.78 Josh 3:2-4. It was concluded in §3.1 that, apart from Josh 3:4abα1, which is a later addition, 3:2-4 are a compositional unity. The most basic material in this unit connects back to the motif of the ‫ שטרים‬in 1:10-11, which was evaluated in §1.2 as post-priestly.79 The notion that 3:2-4* are post-priestly is further suggested by the role of the ark of the covenant and of the priests: Thus far, all of the prior references to the ark in the books of Exodus through Deuteronomy can be identified as priestly or post-priestly,80 which makes it unlikely that the references to the ark here are pre-priestly.81 Moreover, the

























































75

Against LEE, Crossing, 179. This possibility is ignored by most commentators, who generally treat Josh 4:21-24 as a unity. 77 Cf. BRIEND, “Les sources,” 356–57 (ET 373–74) and KNAUF, Josua, 57. This possibility has also been adopted by KRATZ (private communication, 3 November 2014). 78 Thus, the observation by BLUM, Studien, 389–90; IDEM, “Beschneidung,” 223 and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 236–37 with n. 174 that Josh 3:1 presupposes Josh 2 applies to the received form of the verse but not to its most basic material. 79 WAGENAAR, “Crossing,” 466 and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 206 are certainly correct in pointing to the close connection betweeen Josh 1:10-11 and 3:2-4, although this connection does not in itself justify their attribution of 3:2-4 to the most basic material in Josh 3–4. For the conclusion that 3:2-4 are later than 3:1, see also PORZIG, Lade, 59. 80 Cf. PORZIG, Lade, 67. 81 Here I do not intend to suggest that there were no pre-priestly traditions about an ark of Yhwh. Yet such traditions, which treat the ark as a numinous presence in battle, are 76

3. The Crossing of the Jordan (Josh 3–4)

329

prominent ceremonial role of the priests in carrying the ark is a strong indication of the post-priestly provenance of this motif in Josh 3–4. The addition in 3:4abα1 stipulating that the people should maintain a distance of one thousand cubits also reflects priestly influence, as it evokes the frequent use of precise measurements in cubits in priestly literature. 82 Josh 3:5-6. Joshua’s instructions to the people in Josh 3:5 establish a parallelism between the crossing of the Jordan and (post-)priestly materials in both the exodus narrative and the narrative of the theophany at Sinai. The command that the people should sanctify themselves forms a link with Exod 19:10-11,83 while the reference to “wonders” (‫ )נפלאות‬forms an inclusio with Exod 3:20, a (post-)priestly text.84 Likewise, Joshua’s instructions to the priests to advance before the people (i.e., in the vanguard) with the ark in Josh 3:6 presupposes 3:2-4, which are also (post-)priestly. Josh 3:7-8. The exaltation of Joshua as the legitimate successor of Moses is referred to only in Josh 3:7 and 4:14. It is difficult to determine precisely when these references entered the narrative on the basis of 3:7; their compositional place will be considered again below in light of 4:14. Josh 3:8 presupposes the episode of the twelve stones, which is later than the (post-) priestly expansion of the Jordan-crossing narrative involving the ark and the priests. Josh 3:9-13. Given that the most basic material in Josh 3:9-13 features the priests and the ark, this material should be associated with the other (post-) priestly references to the priests and the ark identified so far.85 By extension, the later additions in 3:10b and 3:12 must also be post-priestly. Josh 3:14-17. The identification of a later layer of reworking involving the priests and the ark finds further support in Josh 3:14, where the reference to



























































































































more likely to be found in the books of Samuel and Kings, not in the narratives of Israel’s mythic past in the Pentateuch and the books of Joshua and Judges (cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 354, who speaks of a “Rückübertragung der Lade vom Kulturland in die Wüstenzeit”). For this conclusion, see also PORZIG, Lade, 65, 67, although he does not rule out the possibility that the retrojection of the ark into the narratives of Israel’s mythic past could have occurred in the book of Joshua earlier than in the wilderness narratives. 82 See esp. Exod 25–31; 35–40, where the term ‫ אמה‬occurs 59 times. 83 Cf. DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 284. This is also noted by PECKHAM, “Composition of Joshua 3–4,” 423–24, although he attributes Exod 19:10-11 to J. 84 On Exod 3:20, see Chapter 2, §3. On the implicit evaluation of Josh 3:5 as postpriestly, see PORZIG, Lade, 60 with n. 83. These links are also noted by FRITZ, Josua, 54, although he regards both Exod 19:10 and Exod 3:20 as additions to J. PECKHAM, “Composition of Joshua 3–4,” 424 notes a lexical connection with Exod 34:10, 11b, although he attributes the latter verses to J. 85 As DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 288 has noted, “The demand for divine recognition is often directed at Israel in the Priestly literature of the Pentateuch (e.g., Exod 29:46) and in Ezekiel (e.g., 11:10, 12),” which further supports the evaluation of the most basic material in Josh 3:9-13 as post-priestly.

330

Chapter 9: Preparations for Conquest (Josh 1–5)

the priests carrying the ark in 3:14b interrupts the temporal clause begun by ‫ויהי בנסע העם‬. This layer continues in 3:15a, which emphasizes the central role of the priests in the miraculous parting of the waters in 3:16*. The more basic narrative thread from 3:14a is resumed in 3:16*. The statement ‫קמו נד‬ ‫ אחד‬in 3:16 is a later insertion that serves to create an intertextual link between the Song at the Sea (cf. Exod 15:8) and the crossing of the Jordan. Since Exod 15:8 belongs to a post-priestly stage of composition,86 the two references to ‫ נד אחד‬in Josh 3:13* and 3:16* must also be post-priestly. The use of two verbs – ‫ תמו‬and ‫ – נכרתו‬to describe the blocking of the water downstream is repetitive, indicating that one is possibly secondary to the other. Considering that the verb ‫ תמם‬is also used in the secondary verse 3:17, it is possible that ‫ תמו‬in 3:16 is a later addition. Josh 3:17 not only presupposes the reworking of the Jordan-crossing narrative to include the priests and the ark; it also seems to presuppose the episode of the twelve stones, since it emphasizes that the priests stood in place while the people crossed on dry ground (‫)חרבה‬.87 Considering that this verse portrays the priests and the ark as remaining in the middle of the Jordan rather than crossing before the people (cf. 3:3, 6, 11, 14b; 4:11b), it is likely later than the initial priestly reworking of the Jordan-crossing narrative in Josh 3*.88 Josh 4:1-10, 20-24. There are several indications that the most basic version of the episode of the twelve stones is a post-priestly text. First, the fact that the twelve men are able to reenter the river after the people have crossed is made possible only by the priests’ remaining in the middle of the river (cf. Josh 3:17 and 4:10), indicating that this episode presupposes the (post-) priestly expansion of the Jordan-crossing narrative in Josh 3*. Moreover, regardless of whether the so-called “catechism” in 4:6b-7 is more original than that in 4:21-22 (23-24) or vice versa,89 both units reflect post-priestly

























































86

See Chapter 3, §3.2. On the use of the term ‫ חרבה‬in Josh 3:17 and Exod 14:21, see KRAUSE, “Zug,” 397; IDEM, Exodus und Eisodus, 246. 88 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 44, who regards Josh 3:17 as later than 3:14-16*, and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 246–47, who assigns 3:17abα to a post-priestly layer of redaction associated with the insertion of the so-called “catechism” in 4:6-7. 89 COATS, “Ark,” 144–45; OTTO, Mazzotfest, 43–46, 54–56; FABRY, “Spuren,” 352; BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 184–86; NELSON, Joshua, 71; PORZIG, Lade, 63; and DOZEMAN, “yamsûp,” 412–13; IDEM, Joshua 1–12, 279 argue that the so-called “catechism” in Josh 4:20-24 is later than that in 4:6b-7. In contrast, KRAUSE, “Zug,” 390; IDEM, Exodus und Eisodus, 226–27 has recently argued for the priority of 4:21-24, noting that the unusual place of 4:67 can be explained by the fact that the best place for its insertion was already taken by 4:21-24. Such a solution is supported by two further observations: (1) a smooth connection between 4:4-5 and 4:8 remains if 4:6-7 are removed; and (2) 4:21 reflects the more logical audience for the so-called “catechism” (‫)בני ישראל‬, whereas in 4:6-7 Joshua addresses only the twelve men. The fact that 4:6-7 focus more narrowly on the role of the ark is no reason to regard these verses as earlier than 4:21-24 (against DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 280); rather, 87

3. The Crossing of the Jordan (Josh 3–4)

331

provenance in various ways: 90 4:7 presupposes the role of the priests and the ark in the Jordan-crossing narrative, 91 while 4:22 forms an intertextual link with the priestly version of the crossing of the Sea of Reeds through its use of the term ‫( יבשה‬cf. Exod 14:16, 22, 29; 15:19). 92 It was noted in §3.1 that 4:23 does not connect smoothly to the so-called “catechism” in 4:21-22, which suggests that 4:23-24 belong to a later stage of composition. Within the latter two verses, 4:24a may be later still, 93 considering that here the crossing of the Jordan becomes a sign for “all the peoples of the earth” and not only for the community of Israel. 94 Josh 4:11. As noted in the literary-critical analysis, Josh 4:11b adopts the view found at several points in Josh 3 that the ark and the priests crossed before the people. Thus, it is possible that 4:11b belongs to the same compositional level as the priestly reworking in Josh 3* and predates the insertion of the episode of the twelve stones in 4:1-10, 20-24. Josh 4:12-13. The crossing of the two and one-half Transjordanian tribes serves as a fulfillment report for Josh 1:12-18 and ultimately for Num 32. Since both of the latter units are post-priestly, so too are Josh 4:12-13. 95 they seem to reflect a later effort to emphasize the miraculous role of the ark in Josh 3 –4 (cf. KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 242–43). 90 Cf. DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 281. 91 DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 281 also notes that “the identification of memorials occurs almost exclusively in Priestly literature in the Pentateuch,” citing Exod 12:14; 28:12; Lev 23:24; and Num 17:5 [EV 16:40]. 92 Cf. KRAUSE, “Zug,” 392; IDEM, Exodus und Eisodus, 230; and D OZEMAN, Joshua 1– 12, 280. On Josh 4:21-24 as a post-priestly unit, see also FABRY, “Jos 4,21ff,” 351–56; BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 401–3; and BLUM, “Beschneidung,” 220–27. KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 225 also argues for the post-priestly nature of 4:21-24 on the basis of these verses’ similarity to Rahab’s confession in 2:9-11. 93 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 45. 94 As DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 281 aptly observes, “The recognition formula in Josh 4:24 aimed at the nations…repeats a central motif from the Priestly version of the exodus, where the purpose of the events is also to force Pharaoh and the Egyptians to acknowledge Yahweh (e.g., Exod 6:7; 7:5; 14:4, 18).” K RAUSE, “Zug,” 393; IDEM, Exodus und Eisodus, 231–32 argues that Josh 4:24 goes even further, since here it is not only a question of the nations recognizing Yhwh’s power as in Exod 14:4, 18 but also of their fearing Yhwh, a theme that is also central to Rahab’s speech in Josh 2 (cf. B LUM, “Beschneidung,” 293–300 and HAARMANN, JHWH-Verehrer, 125–26). This interpretation, however, requires reading ‫( *למען יִ ְר ָא ָתם‬conjectured by BHS; cf. B IEBERSTEIN, Josua, 166 and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 231–32 n. 158) rather than ‫אתם‬ ֶ ‫( למען יְ ָר‬so j, cf. g) in 4:24b. 95 Cf. SCHORN, Ruben, 160 n. 116 and ALBERTZ, “Die kanonische Anpassung,” 204 (ET 291). See also K RAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 255–56, who regards only Josh 4:13 as postpriestly and assigns 4:12 instead to his Deuteronomistic Grundschicht. Curiously, Krause notes that 4:12 reflects priestly phraseology in its use of the terms ‫ בני ראובן‬and ‫בני גד‬, although he claims that “[d]er Vers is lediglich nach dem Vorbild der späteren, in priesterlicher Tradition stehenden Texte zum Thema sprachilch retouchiert worden” (256).

332

Chapter 9: Preparations for Conquest (Josh 1–5)

Josh 4:14. As noted in the macrocontextual analysis of Josh 3:7-8, it is difficult to determine whether the references to Joshua’s exaltation in Josh 3:7 and 4:14 are potentially pre-priestly or post-priestly on the basis of these verses alone. An important clue to their compositional place, however, can be gleaned from the fact that both references to Joshua’s exaltation are closely linked with the episode of the twelve stones. If one follows 𝔊 in reading ‫ *ועטה‬rather than ‫ ואתה‬in 3:8, then Yhwh’s instruction that Joshua command the priests to “stand” (i.e., remain in place) in the Jordan is logically connected to Yhwh’s exaltation of Joshua in 3:7. Notably, the location of the priests in 3:8 matches that in 3:17 and 4:10, both of which form a frame around the first part of the episode of the stones. The fact that the fulfillment report of Joshua’s exaltation comes in 4:14 and not earlier (such as after 3:16) further reinforces the notion that it was Joshua’s role in the episode of the stones – a post-priestly addition – that led to his exaltation in the eyes of the people. Josh 4:15-18. As discussed in §3.1, this unit presupposes the episode of the twelve stones in Josh 4:1-10. Unlike in the first (post-)priestly layer of reworking in Josh 3*, here the priests and the ark do not go before the people but rather come after, as the last to emerge from the Jordan. This is evident especially in 4:18, which states that the waters of the Jordan returned to their original place immediately after the priests reached dry land. Apart from this internal evidence suggesting that 4:15-18 are later than the basic (post-) priestly reworking of the Jordan-crossing narrative, there are two further indications of the post-priestly provenance of this unit. First, the term ‫ארון‬ ‫ העדות‬occurs elsewhere only in Exod 26:33; 40:3; and 40:21, all of which indisputably belong to priestly literature.96 Moreover, Yhwh’s instructions to Joshua and Joshua’s immediate fulfillment of those instructions place the miracle of the parting of the Jordan’s waters in parallel with the climax to the priestly version of the miracle at the sea in Exod 14:26-28:97 Exod 14:26-28

‫ויאמר ה׳ אל משה נטה את ידך על הים וישבו המים על מצרים על רכבו ועל‬ ‫ ויט משה את ידו על הים וישב הים לפנות בקר לאיתנו ומצרים נסים‬27 ‫פרשיו‬ ‫ וישבו המים ויכסו את הרכב ואת‬28 ‫לקראתו וינער ה׳ את מצרים בתוך הים‬ ‫הפרשים לכל חיל פרעה הבאים אחריהם בים לא נשאר בהם עד אחד‬

Josh 4:15-18

‫ צוה את הכהנים נשאי ארון העדות ויעלו מן הירדן‬16 ‫ויאמר ה׳ אל יהושע לאמר‬ ‫ ויהי בעלות הכהנים נשאי‬18 ‫ ויצו יהושע את הכהנים לאמר עלו מן הירדן‬17 ‫ארון ברית ה׳ מתוך הירדן נתקו כפות רגלי הכהנים אל החרבה וישבו מי הירדן‬ ‫למקומם וילכו כתמול שלשום על כל גדותיו‬



























































96 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 54, who assigns Josh 4:15-17 to a post-priestly stage of composition on the basis of this phrase. 97 Here I cannot agree with FRITZ, Josua, 45 and NELSON, Joshua, 57, who separate Josh 4:18 from 4:16-17 and assign 4:18 to the most basic narrative thread in Josh 3–4.

3. The Crossing of the Jordan (Josh 3–4)

333

Josh 4:19. The calendrical notice in Josh 4:19a, which situates the people’s entry into the promised land on the tenth day of the first month, reflects a priestly interest in aligning major events in Israel’s mythic past with important dates in the religious calendar.98 This notice indicates that the people have entered the land just in time to celebrate Passover and Maṣṣot, which creates a further parallelism between the exodus from Egypt (cf. Exod 12:3334, 39, 43-49; 13:3-10) and the eisodus into the land (cf. Josh 5).99 In contrast, the notice of the people’s encampment in 4:19b could have once connected directly to the report of the people’s crossing in 3:16*, continuing a pre-priestly narrative thread and setting the stage for the narrative of the fall of Jericho in Josh 6. 3.3. Synthesis By combining the foregoing literary-critical and macrocontextual analyses, it is possible to reconstruct the major stages in the formation of Josh 3–4 as well as to evaluate the extent of potentially pre-Deuteronomistic and prepriestly material in these chapters. While critical scholarship has long recognized the priestly nature of a handful of verses in Josh 3–4,100 the present analysis of these chapters indicates that they contain more material that presupposes priestly texts than previous studies tended to admit.101 I

The most basic narrative in Josh 3–4 consisted of a report of the people’s crossing the Jordan that did not yet feature the ark or the priests

























































98

On the (post-)priestly provenance of Josh 4:19a, see WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 120; NOTH, Josua2, 37–39; FRITZ, Josua, 48; KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 253–54; and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 294–95. 99 Cf. KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 357 and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 280. 100 Cf., e.g., KUENEN, Historisch-kritisch onderzoek2, 155 n. 20 (Josh 4:12, 13[?], 15-18, 20); WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 120 (4:19); RUDOLPH, Elohist, 177; MOWINCKEL, Tetrateuch, 57–58 (4:2, 9, 19); BLENKINSOPP, “Structure,” 288 (4:9-10, 19); FRITZ, Josua, 54 (4:15-17); and BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 193–94 (4:9, 19-24). 101 Curiously, PECKHAM, “Composition of Joshua 3–4,” 427, 430–31 concludes that the vast majority of Josh 3–4 (everything except 3:5, 10b, 16b) was the work of a Dtr2 author who already had a version of the Pentateuch that included priestly literature as a literary Vorlage. Yet Peckham’s reconstruction of Dtr1 in 3:5, 10b, 16b results, in my view, in an incoherent narrative, and his attribution of the rest of Josh 3–4 to Dtr2 is overly simplistic and is forced to explain away a number of narrative tensions through structuralist arguments. KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 205–60 (with an overview on 259–60) offers convincing arguments for attributing at least twenty verses or partial verses in Josh 3–4 (i.e., roughly half of the text in these chapters) to post-priestly reworking, although I would argue that some of the materials in his Grundschicht also belong to post-priestly stages of composition.

334

Chapter 9: Preparations for Conquest (Josh 1–5)

who carried it (3:1a*, 14a, 16*; 4:[11a?], 19b).102 There are no indications that this narrative presupposes Deuteronomy or priestly literature. II

This basic report was significantly expanded through the incorporation of the ark and the priests into the narrative in Josh 3:2-3, 4b*, (5?), 6, 910a, 11, 13, 14b-15a,103 which consistently depict the ark and the priests as crossing before the people.104 Given the prominent place of the priests and the role of the ark, which has thus far appeared only in priestly and post-priestly texts, this layer already belongs to a postpriestly stage of composition.105

II+

Level II was later supplemented by a variety of additions: the instructions to maintain a certain distance from the ark in Josh 3:4abα1, the reference to Yhwh’s dispossession of the seven Canaanite nations in 3:10b, and the reference to the high level of the Jordan in 3:15b. The report of the blocking of the waters of the Jordan was also expanded through the addition of the phrase ‫ נד אחד‬in 3:13 and 3:16,106 which served to create an explicit parallelism between the miracle at the sea and the crossing of the Jordan, as well as through the antiquarian geographical notices in 3:16. The report of the people’s emergence from the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month in 4:19a is also a (post-) priestly addition that anticipates the people’s observance of Passover on



























































102 For similar reconstructions of a basic layer that did not yet refer to the ark or the priests, cf. VOGT, “Erzählung,” 129–31 (Josh 3:1, 14a, 16; 4:10b, 13, 19b); MAIER, Das altisraelitische Ladeheiligtum, 29; LANGLAMET, Gilgal, 93 (3:1, 5, 14a, 16; 4:19b); IDEM, “La traversée,” 38 (3:1*, 14a, 16*; 4:1*, 3*, 8, 19b); KELLER, “Über einige alttestamentliche Heiligtumslegende,” 89; BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 193–94 (3:1, 5, [10*], 13*, 14a, 16 = layer A); KRATZ, Komposition, 208–9 (ET 201) (3:1, 14a, 16; 4:19b); KNAUF, Josua, 54, 57, 61 (at least 3:1 and 4:13); and PORZIG, Lade, 63 (3:1, 14a, 16; 4:1, 11a, 18b-19). Similarly, FRITZ, Josua, 44 identifies the most basic narrative in 3:1*, 15a*, 16*; 4:11a, 18*, 19 but includes the ark in this narrative (i.e., 3:15a*). 103 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 193–94, who assigns the addition of the ark to a layer B. PORZIG, Lade, 65 argues that the earliest references to the ark in Josh 3–4 may have been limited to 3:2, 3aα, 3b, 6b, 11, 15aα and did not yet refer to the priests, while all further references to the ark “setzen Priester und wohl auch Priesterschrift schon voraus.” 104 For the view that the depiction of the priests crossing before the people belongs to an earlier stage of composition than the depiction of the priests remaining in the middle of the Jordan, see also WAGENAAR, “Crossing,” 466–67. 105 Against NELSON, Joshua, 56, who regards the references to the priests as additions made by the Deuteronomistic Historian “in order to emphasize Joshua’s obedience to Deut 10:8.” Yet, as argued in Chapter 5, §2.2, Deut 10:8 is already a post-priestly text. 106 In Josh 3:13, this likely happened at a very late stage, as 𝔊 seems to reflect a Vorlage in which Joshua’s speech did not contain the phrase ‫נד אחד‬. In contrast, KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 240–41 regards the reading of 𝔐 as more original and suggests that the minuses in 3:13 𝔊 reflect the attempt of the translator to avoid repetition with 3:16.

3. The Crossing of the Jordan (Josh 3–4)

335

the fourteenth day of the first month (5:10-12) in accordance with Exod 12:3. III

The report of the two and one-half Transjordanian tribes’ crossing the Jordan in Josh 4:12-13 is difficult to situate precisely within the literary history of Josh 3–4, although it is certainly of post-priestly provenance, since it is a fulfillment report of Num 32 and Josh 1:12-18. I have placed these verses here in view of the fact that a direct connection between 4:13 and 4:19b is conceivable, although it cannot be ruled out that they were added at an even later stage of composition.

IV

A basic version of the setting up of the twelve stones to the west of the Jordan was added in Josh 3:17; 4:1-5, 8, 10, 20-22.107 Since this episode presupposes the role of the priests in carrying the ark, it cannot be earlier than Level II and thus must also be post-priestly. That it is later than Level II is indicated by the different location of the priests, who are now depicted as remaining in the middle of the Jordan rather than crossing with the ark at the vanguard of the people.

IV+ The episode of the twelve stones received further additions in Josh 4:67, 23, 24b and, perhaps at an even later stage of composition, was supplemented with 4:24a as well as the report about Joshua’s twelve stones in the middle of the Jordan in 4:9.108 Joshua’s instructions to the Israelites to select one man from each tribe in 3:12 also presupposes the basic episode of the twelve stones and cannot be earlier than Level IV. V

At some point after the composition of the episode of the twelve stones, a layer of texts focused on Yhwh’s exaltation of Joshua in the eyes of the people was added in Josh 3:7-8 and 4:14. The likelihood that this layer presupposes Level IV is supported by 3:8, which depicts the priests as standing in the middle of the Jordan while the people cross.

























































107

In contrast to many earlier (and some more recent) studies, which include at least part of the episode of the twelve stones in the earliest version(s) of Josh 3–4 (e.g., LANGLAMET, “La traversée,” 38; DUS, “Analyse,” 125–26; and, more recently, KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 206–12 and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 281, with further literature on 272–73), many recent commentators acknowledge the secondary nature of this episode; cf. FRITZ, Josua, 45, 53; BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 193–94; NELSON, Joshua, 57, 67; PORZIG, Lade, 62; OSWALD, Staatstheorie, 114–15; and RÖSEL, Joshua, 60 (although he considers that it could reflect “an ancient etiological tradition”; ibid, n. 6). Given that the episode of the stones (including the report of the people’s crossing in 4:10b) is secondary to the most basic narrative, the view that the report of the people’s crossing in 3:16b is a late addition (KNAUF, Josua, 52 and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 257–58) cannot be upheld. 108 FRITZ, Josua, 45 argues that Josh 3:17 and 4:9 belong together but does not provide any concrete reasons for this claim.

‫‪336‬‬

‫)‪Chapter 9: Preparations for Conquest (Josh 1–5‬‬

‫‪The report of the priests’ emergence from the Jordan with the ark in‬‬ ‫‪Josh 4:15-18 presupposes the episode of the twelve stones in 4:1-8, 10,‬‬ ‫‪20-22 and cannot be earlier than those verses.109 On the one hand, these‬‬ ‫‪verses serve the practical purpose of narrating the priests’ ascent from‬‬ ‫‪the river after the collection of the twelve stones. On the other hand,‬‬ ‫‪they also serve to reinforce the parallelism between the exodus from‬‬ ‫‪Egypt and the eisodus into the land – not to mention Joshua’s role as‬‬ ‫‪Moses’ legitimate successor (Level V) – insofar as the command-and‬‬‫‪fulfillment pattern here is modeled on that found in the priestly version‬‬ ‫‪of the miracle at the sea in Exod 14:26-28.‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫]‬

‫‪II‬‬ ‫‪3:1‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪V‬‬

‫‪VI‬‬

‫‪VI‬‬

‫וישכם יהושע בבקר[ ויסעו מהשטים ויבאו עד הירדן }הוא וכל בני ישראל{ וילנו שם טרם יעברו‬ ‫‪3‬‬

‫‪2‬‬

‫ויהי מקצה שלשת ימים ויעברו השטרים בקרב המחנה ויצוו את העם לאמר כראותכם את‬ ‫ארון ברית ה׳ אלהיכם והכהנים הלוים נשאים אתו ואתם תסעו ממקומכם והלכתם אחריו‬ ‫‪ 4a‬אך רחוק יהיה ביניכם ובינו כאלפים אמה במדה אל תקרבו אליו‬ ‫‪ 4b‬למען אשר תדעו את הדרך אשר תלכו בה כי לא עברתם בדרך מתמול שלשום‬ ‫]‪ 5‬ויאמר יהושע אל העם התקדשו כי מחר יעשה ה׳ בקרבכם נפלאות[‬ ‫‪ 6‬ויאמר יהושע אל הכהנים ]לאמר[ שאו את ארון הברית ועברו לפני העם וישאו את ארון הברית‬ ‫וילכו לפני העם‬ ‫‪ 7‬ויאמר ה׳ אל יהושע היום הזה אחל גדלך בעיני כל ישראל אשר ידעון כי‬ ‫כאשר הייתי עם משה אהיה עמך ‪ 8‬ואתה תצוה את הכהנים נשאי ארון הברית‬ ‫לאמר כבאכם עד קצה מי הירדן בירדן תעמדו‬ ‫‪ 9‬ויאמר יהושע אל בני ישראל גשו הנה ושמעו את דברי ה׳ אלהיכם ‪ 10‬ויאמר יהושע בזאת תדעון‬ ‫כי אל חי בקרבכם ]והורש יוריש מפניכם את הכנעני ואת החתי ואת החוי ואת הפרזי ואת‬ ‫הגרגשי והאמרי והיבוסי[ ‪ 11‬הנה ארון הברית אדון כל הארץ עבר לפניכם בירדן‬ ‫]‪ 12‬ועתה קחו לכם שני עשר איש משבטי ישראל איש אחד איש אחד לשבט[‬ ‫‪ 13‬והיה כנוח כפות רגלי הכהנים נשאי ארון ה׳ אדון כל הארץ במי הירדן מי הירדן יכרתון המים‬ ‫‪a‬‬ ‫הירדים }מלמעלה ו{יעמדו }נד אחד{‬ ‫‪ 14a‬ויהי בנסע העם מאהליהם לעבר את הירדן‬ ‫‪ 14b‬והכהנים נשאי הארון הברית לפני העם ‪ 15‬וכבוא נשאי הארון עד הירדן ורגלי הכהנים נשאי‬ ‫הארון נטבלו בקצה המים ]והירדן מלא על כל גדותיו כל ימי קציר[‬ ‫‪ 16‬ויעמדו המים הירדים מלמעלה ]קמו נד אחד[ ]הרחק מאד באדם העיר אשר מצד צרתן[ והירדים על‬ ‫ים הערבה ]ים המלח[ ]תמו[ נכרתו והעם עברו נגד יריחו‬ ‫‪ 17‬ויעמדו הכהנים נשאי הארון ברית ה׳ בחרבה בתוך הירדן ]הכן[ וכל ישראל עברים‬ ‫בחרבה עד אשר תמו כל הגוי לעבר את הירדן‬

‫























































‬ ‫‪109‬‬

‫‪Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 193–94, who includes Josh 4:15-18 in his layer C.‬‬ ‫‪𝔊: τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ Ιορδάνου ἐκλείψει, τὸ δὲ ὕδωρ τὸ καταβαῖνον στήσεται‬‬

‫‪a‬‬

‫‪337‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫)‪3. The Crossing of the Jordan (Josh 3–4‬‬ ‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪V‬‬

‫‪VI‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫‪4:1‬‬

‫ויהי כאשר תמו כל הגוי לעבור את הירדן ויאמר ה׳ אל יהושע לאמר קחו לכם מן‬ ‫העם }שנים עשר אנשים איש אחד{ איש אחד משבט ‪ 3‬וצוו אותם לאמר שאו }לכם‬ ‫מזה{ מתוך הירדן }ממצב רגלי הכהנים{ הכין שתים עשרה אבנים והעברתם אותם‬ ‫עמכם והנחתם אותם במלון אשר תלינו בו הלילה ‪ 4‬ויקרא יהושע אל שנים העשר‬ ‫איש ]אשר הכין[ מבני ישראל איש אחד איש אחד משבט ‪ 5‬ויאמר להם }יהושע{‬ ‫עברו לפני ]}ארון{ ה׳ }אלהיכם{[‪ b‬אל תוך הירדן והרימו לכם איש אבן אחת על‬ ‫שכמו למספר שבטי בני ישראל ]‪ 6‬למען תהיה זאת אות בקרבכם כי ישאלון בניכם‬ ‫מחר לאמר מה האבנים האלה לכם ‪ 7‬ואמרתם להם אשר נכרתו מימי הירדן מפני‬ ‫ארון ברית ה׳ בעברו בירדן }נכרתו מי הירדן{ והיו האבנים האלה לזכרון לבני ישראל‬ ‫עד עולם[ ‪ 8‬ויעשו כן בני ישראל כאשר צוה יהושע וישאו שתי עשרה אבנים מתוך‬ ‫הירדן כאשר דבר ה׳ אל יהושע למספר שבטי בני ישראל ויעברום עמם אל המלון‬ ‫וינחום שם ]‪ 9‬ושתים עשרה אבנים הקים יהושע ב}תוך ה{‪ c‬ירדן תחת מצב רגלי‬ ‫הכהנים נשאי ארון הברית ויהיו שם עד היום הזה[ ‪ 10‬והכהנים נשאי הארון עמדים‬ ‫בתוך הירדן עד תם כל הדבר אשר צוה ה׳ את יהושע לדבר אל העם }ככל אשר צוה‬ ‫משה את יהושע{ וימהרו העם ויעברו‬ ‫]‪ 11‬ויהי כאשר תם כל העם לעבור[‬ ‫ויעבר ארון ה׳ }והכהנים לפני העם{‬

‫‪d‬‬

‫‪ 12‬ויעברו בני ראובן ובני גד וחצי שבט המנשה חמשים לפני בני ישראל כאשר דבר אליהם‬ ‫משה ‪ 13‬כארבעים אלף חלוצי הצבא עברו לפני ה׳ למלחמה אל ערבות יריחו‬ ‫‪ 14‬ביום ההוא גדל ה׳ את יהושע בעיני כל ישראל ויראו אתו כאשר יראו את‬ ‫משה כל ימי חייו‬ ‫‪ 15‬ויאמר ה׳ אל יהושע לאמר ‪ 16‬צוה את הכהנים נשאי ארון העדות ויעלו‬ ‫מן הירדן ‪ 17‬ויצו יהושע את הכהנים לאמר עלו מן הירדן ‪ 18‬ויהי בעלות‬ ‫הכהנים נשאי ארון ברית ה׳ מתוך הירדן נתקו כפות רגלי הכהנים אל‬ ‫החרבה וישבו מי הירדן למקומם וילכו כתמול שלשום על כל גדותיו‬ ‫‪ 19a‬והעם עלו מן הירדן ]בעשור לחדש הראשון[‬ ‫‪ 19b‬ויחנו בגלגל בקצה מזרח יריחו‬ ‫‪21‬‬

‫‪ 20‬ואת שתים עשרה האבנים האלה אשר לקחו מן הירדן הקים יהושע בגלגל‬ ‫}ויאמר אל בני ישראל לאמר{‪ e‬אשר ישאלון בניכם מחר את אבותם לאמר מה‬ ‫‪f‬‬ ‫האבנים האלה ‪ 22‬והודעתם את בניכם לאמר ביבשה עבר ישראל את הירדן }הזה{‬ ‫]‪ 23‬אשר הוביש ה׳ אלהיכם את מי הירדן מפניכם עד עברכם כאשר עשה ה׳ אלהיכם‬ ‫לים סוף אשר הוביש מפנינו עד עברנו ]]‪ 24‬למען דעת כל עמי הארץ את יד ה׳ כי‬ ‫חזקה היא[[ למען יראתם את ה׳ אלהיכם כל הימים[‬

‫























































‬ ‫‪b‬‬

‫‪See the reconstruction of this verse’s development proposed in §3.1.‬‬ ‫‪See LEE, Crossing, 63 (not noted in BHS).‬‬ ‫‪d‬‬ ‫‪𝔊: καὶ οἱ λίθοι ἔμπροσθεν αὐτῶν‬‬ ‫‪e‬‬ ‫‪> 𝔊BA . See LEE, Crossing, 65 (not noted in BHS).‬‬ ‫‪f‬‬ ‫‪See ibid. (not noted in BHS).‬‬ ‫‪c‬‬

338

Chapter 9: Preparations for Conquest (Josh 1–5)

4. A Bookend to the Exodus (Josh 5) 4.1. Literary-critical analysis The Amorite and Canaanite kings’ fear (Josh 5:1). Within this verse, the references to the kings of the Amorites and of the Canaanites are absent in 𝔊, as is the specification that these kings were on the western side of the Jordan (‫)ימה‬, which may reflect a shorter Hebrew Vorlage. Albeit not attested in the manuscript evidence, another possible addition within this verse is the phrase ‫עד עברנו‬, which does not fit well with the third-person narrative voice in the rest of the verse. The circumcision of the wilderness generation (Josh 5:2-9). Within this unit, it is possible that Josh 5:9 is a later addition, since the rationale for the people’s circumcision in that verse (removing the “reproach of Egypt”110) is distinct from that in 5:4-7 (the death of the exodus generation).111 Contrary to the earlier view that 5:4-7 constitute a later addition within 5:2-9,112 I agree with more recent analyses which conclude that there are no literary-critical grounds for excising 5:4-7 from the rest of the unit.113 Passover and the cessation of manna (Josh 5:10-12). Within this unit, the absence of the phrases ‫( ממחרת הפסח‬Josh 5:11) and ‫( ממחרת‬5:12) in 𝔊* may suggest that these phrases are later additions to an earlier version, which would have placed Maṣṣot on the same day as Passover. Indeed, in 5:11, ‫ ממחרת הפסח‬separates ‫ עבור הארץ‬from its appositional object ‫מצות וקלוי‬. Likewise, the adverb ‫ ממחרת‬in 5:12 is unnecessary to the report of the cessation of manna and was most likely inserted at the same time as ‫ממחרת הפסח‬ in 5:11.114 The notice of the Israelites’ encampment in Gilgal (5:10a) is also



























































110 KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 310–13 convincingly argues that the “reproach of Egypt” is a reference to the people’s desire to return to Egypt in Num 14:3-4. For a discussion of other interpretations, see NOORT, “Disgrace,” 14–18. 111 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 209; VAN DER MEER, Formation, 311–15; and KNAUF, Josua, 65. In contrast, BLUM, “Beschneidung,” 305–8 (repr. 233–36) and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 303–4 regard Josh 5:2-9 as a compositional unity. In my view, KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 304 overstates his case in claiming that “die Abtrennung von V. 9 bricht diesem sorgfältig gestalteten Stück narrativer Theologie die Spitze ab,” since the main theme of the unit is circumcision as a prerequisite for observing Passover (which Krause also notes; Exodus und Eisodus, 314), not the etiology of the place-name Gilgal. 112 HOLLENBERG, “Die deuteronomistischen Bestandtheile,” 493 and RUDOLPH, Elohist, 180. 113 BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 194–210; VAN DER MEER, Formation, 289–311; BLUM, “Beschneidung,” 302–8 (repr. 230–36); KNAUF, Josua, 64–65; and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 303. 114 On the evaluation of these phrases as later additions, see BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 219; AULD, “Joshua: The Hebrew and Greek Texts,” 8 (repr. 12); TOV, “Growth,” 389–90; and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 332.

4. A Bookend to the Exodus (Josh 5)

339

lacking in 𝔊*, which names the Israelites explicitly as the subject of ‫ ויעשו‬in 5:10b.115 There is insufficient literary-critical evidence within 5:10-12 to decide which of the two variants is more original, although two considerations may point in favor of the reading reflected in 𝔊*. First, if 5:9 is indeed a later addition, then the reference to the Israelites’ encampment at Gilgal may have been added at the same time as 5:9 as a Wiederaufnahme of 5:8b (‫)וישבו תחתם במחנה עד חיותם‬. Moreover, there are several similar references to the people’s encampment at Gilgal elsewhere in the Masoretic version of Joshua that are also lacking in 𝔊*,116 which may point to a deliberate redactional layer in 𝔐.117 A further sign of literary growth within 5:10-12 is the double report of the cessation of manna in 5:12aα and 5:12aβb. Considering that 5:12aα connects directly to the language of 5:11, this first part of 5:12 is unlikely to be secondary to the most basic material in 5:10-12*. This suggests that 5:12aβb is a later addition that was perhaps intended to highlight that the produce was from the land of Canaan rather than the wilderness.118 The commander of Yhwh’s army (Josh 5:13-15). Determining the relative chronology of Josh 5:13-15 to 5:1, 2-9, and 10-12 is complicated by the fact that there is little internal evidence to indicate the order in which these units were composed.119 Thus, it is necessary to investigate the broader textual connections made by Josh 5 in order to reconstruct its internal literary growth more precisely. 4.2. Macrocontextual analysis All four units in Josh 5 constitute digressions between the report of the people’s encampment at Gilgal, to the east of Jericho, in 4:19b and the narrative of the fall of Jericho in Josh 6.120 Thus, all of the material in Josh 5 seems to be secondary to an earlier, direct connection between 4:19b and 6:1.121

























































115

Not noted in BHS. Cf. Josh 10:15, 43. See also 8:9, 13, which refer to the people’s encampment but do not mention Gilgal explicitly. 117 Cf. AULD, “Joshua: The Hebrew and Greek Texts,” 5 (repr. 10–11) and DE TROYER, Rewriting, 39–58. In contrast, BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 206; NELSON, Joshua, 73; and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 334 regard the reading of 𝔐 as more original here and explain the minus in 𝔊* as a scribal error in which the Greek translator jumped from “Gilgal” in 5:9b to “Gilgal” in 5:10a (i.e., parablepsis). See also VAN DER MEER, Formation, 316–17 and RÖSEL, Joshua, 85 n. 13, who argue that 𝔊* reflects a reworking by the Greek translator. 118 On the composite nature of Josh 5:12, see ROSE, Deuteronomist, 35–37, 41–42 and WAGENAAR, “Cessation of Manna,” 201. In contrast, BREKELMANS, “Joshua V 10-12,” 92; BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 222; and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 348 regard 5:12 as a unity. 119 Cf. BLUM, “Beschneidung,” 311–12 (repr. 239–40), who envisages multiple hypothetical scenarios for the relative chronology of Josh 5:2-9, 10-12, and 13-15. 120 As KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 387–88 notes, Josh 5:12-15 can hardly be regarded as the original introduction to Josh 6, since 6:1 clearly serves to introduce a new scene. In 116

340

Chapter 9: Preparations for Conquest (Josh 1–5)

Josh 5:1. The clause ‫ אשר הוביש ה׳ את מי הירדן מפני בני ישראל עד עברנו‬in Josh 5:1 is a clear citation of 4:23. Since the latter verse was identified as part of a post-priestly stage of composition in Josh 3–4 (see §3.2), 5:1 cannot be a pre-priestly text.122 Josh 5:2-9. The report of Joshua’s circumcision of the people in Josh 5:28, (9) shows a clear dependence on priestly texts insofar as it presupposes the instructions for the circumcision of the people in Exod 12:43-50123 as well as other (post-)priestly concepts, such as the forty-year wilderness period (5:6), which resulted from the people’s disobedience in the episode of the spies (Num 13–14; cf. Deut 2:14-16).124 Josh 5:2-8, (9) are also closely linked with the “bridegroom of blood” episode in Exod 4:24-26, the only other text in the Hebrew Bible in which circumcision is carried out using a stone blade.125 Josh 5:10-12. The most basic form of Josh 5:10-12, which recounts the observance of Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month, presupposes a (late-)priestly conception of Passover,126 namely, the identification of the



























































































































contrast, VAN SETERS, “Joshua’s Campaign,” 10 argues that 6:1 is a “parenthetical statement” between 5:13-15 and 6:2, and RÖMER, So-Called Deuteronomistic History, 87 with n. 39 regards 5:15 and 6:1 as insertions into an earlier connection between 5:13-14 and 6:2. 121 Cf. KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 389, although he includes the report of Joshua’s setting up of stones in Josh 4:20 in the earliest literary connection between Josh 3–4 and Josh 6. For arguments that 4:20 belongs to a later stage of composition, see §3. 122 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 194 and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 235–36, who assign Josh 5:1 to a post-priestly stage of composition together with 4:21-24, against RUDOLPH, Elohist, 178 (Deuteronomistic); NOTH, Josua2, 30 (pre-Deuteronomistic); FRITZ, Josua, 57 (Deuteronomistic); and NELSON, Joshua, 75 (pre-Deuteronomistic). 123 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 210; NOORT, “Disgrace,” 12; and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 314. On Exod 12:43-50 as a (post-)priestly text cf. Chapter 2, §6.2. 124 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 397–418, 432, who assigns Josh 5:2-8 to a post-priestly redactional layer (Rp) and 5:9 to an even later etiological addition. BLUM, “Beschneidung,” 304–5 (repr. 232) finds a “nicht-priesterliche[s] Profil” in 5:2-9 and assigns this unit to a different stage of composition from 5:10-12, although he does not take a clear stance on which unit has priority over the other. In contrast, KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 315–16 argues explicitly that 5:2-9 postdate 5:10-12 and are thus post-priestly. 125 Cf. BLUM, “Beschneidung,” 310 (repr. 238); KNAUF, Josua, 64–65; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 131–33 (who regards Exod 4:24-26 as dependent on Josh 5:2-9); and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 313. 126 This was a general consensus prior to the work of Noth (for further literature, see BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 211–14). Noth, in contrast, attempted to excise the priestly date formula from the remainder of the unit, and his reconstruction was widely adopted during the second half of the twentieth century (for further literature, see KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 336–37). More recently, Noth’s view has rightly been critiqued for placing traditiohistorical assumptions before literary-critical observations, and there is an increasing return to the view that 5:10-12* cannot be pre-priestly; cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 220–23; BLUM, “Beschneidung,” 300 (repr. 228); VAN DER MEER, Formation, 318–20; RÖSEL, Joshua, 85; KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 336–38; and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 300–301.

4. A Bookend to the Exodus (Josh 5)

341

beginning of Maṣṣot with the beginning of Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month as described in Exod 12:18-20,127 a unit which postdates the priestly regulations for Passover in Exod 12:1-13 as well as in Lev 23 and Num 28:16-25.128 The phrasing of Josh 5:10b is also remarkably similar to that of Num 9:5a.129 In contrast, the later additions in 5:11 and 5:12, which serve to offset Maṣṣot from Passover by one day, constitute an attempt to align Josh 5:10-12 with an earlier stage in the history of priestly Passover legislation, namely, the conception reflected in Lev 23:5-8, which separates Maṣṣot from Passover by one day.130 The conclusion that Josh 5:10-12* cannot belong to a pre-priestly stage of composition is further supported by the notice of the cessation of manna in 5:12aα, which forms a clear link with the priestly story of the manna in Exod 16.131 Regarding the literary relationship between Exod 16:35 and Josh 5:12 in particular, a multistage process of composition seems likely: (1) The notice of the cessation of manna in Josh 5:12aα clearly presupposes a basic version of the manna narrative in Exod 16. (2) The proleptic report in Exod 16:35a that the Israelites ate manna for forty years is either contemporaneous with or later than Josh 5:12aα.132 (3) Both Exod 16:35b and Josh 5:12aβb are secondary in their immediate contexts, and both show a particular interest in emphasizing the concept of the land of Canaan. Here, it is possible that both texts were added to their respective contexts by the same hand, yet it is equally possible that one of the additions preceded the other. 133

























































127

Cf. BLUM, “Beschneidung,” 301–2 (repr. 228–29) and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 339, 358. 128 According to KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 339–40, 365–68, the development of Passover legislation can be reconstructed as follows: (1) Originally there were two independent festivals – Passover and Maṣṣot (cf. Exod 23:15) – which were first combined into a single festival in Deut 16:1-8. (2) This joining of Passover and Maṣṣot was originally rejected by priestly circles, as is suggested in the Grundbestand of Exod 12:1-13, which did not yet contain the reference to unleavened bread in 12:8b. (3) Later priestly legislation sought a compromise by accepting the joining of Passover and Maṣṣot (Deut 16:1-8) but assigning the festivals to different dates (Lev 23:5-8; Num 28:16-25). (4) This offsetting of Maṣṣot by one day did not last, however, as is reflected in texts such as Num 9:1-4; Ezra 6:19-22; 2 Chr 30:15; 35:1, 17; the received form of Exod 12; as well as the earlier version of Josh 5:10-12 reflected by 𝔊*. 129 Cf. ROSE, Deuteronomist, 31; BREKELMANS, “Joshua V 10-12, 94; and WAGENAAR, “Cessation of Manna,” 200. 130 Cf. TOV, “Growth,” 390; AULD, “Joshua: The Hebrew and Greek Texts,” 8 (repr. 12); BLUM, “Beschneidung,” 301–2 (repr. 228–29); and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 340. 131 Cf. KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 353. On Exod 16, see Chapter 3, §5. 132 Cf. BREKELMANS, “Joshua V 10-12,” 93 and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 355–56, both of whom argue that Exod 16:35 cannot be earlier than Josh 5:10-12. 133 Cf. WAGENAAR, “Cessation of Manna,” 202–3, although he assigns Exod 16:35a and Josh 5:12aα to a pre-priestly stage of composition (i.e., a post-Deuteronomistic Yahwist).

342

Chapter 9: Preparations for Conquest (Josh 1–5)

Josh 5:13-15. Contrary to the view of most earlier scholarship, which tended to regard this unit either as a fragment of an ancient narrative or as the original introduction to the Jericho narrative in Josh 6, there are indications that the appearance of the commander of Yhwh’s army in 5:13-15 is also a post-priestly text.134 This brief scene reaches its climax in the commander’s instructions for Joshua to take his sandals off his feet, since the place where Joshua is standing is holy (5:15). These instructions form a clear intertextual link with Exod 3:5b, which was evaluated in Chapter 2 as a later – yet possibly still pre-priestly – addition to the most basic narrative thread in Exod 3–4. The episode also bears striking similarities to the episode involving Balaam’s donkey (Num 22:22-35) and the appearance of the angel on the threshing floor of Arauna/Ornan (2 Sam 24:16-17 // 1 Chr 21:15-17).135 Given that Josh 5:13-15 contain motifs from Exod 3:5b; Num 22:22-35; and 1 Chr 21:15-17, which otherwise have little in common, this suggests that Josh 5:13-15 are later than at least two of these three texts.136 Yet, as with Exod 3:5b, it is difficult to assign the episode of Balaam’s donkey with certainty to a postpriestly stage of composition.137 Also significant is this unit’s resemblance to the so-called “‫ מלאך‬texts” in the Pentateuch. The statement ‫ עתה באתי‬by the ‫ שר צבא ה׳‬can be interpreted as a bookend to Exod 23:20, where Yhwh declares that he will send his ‫מלאך‬ to accompany the people on their journey and to bring them to “the place that I have established.”138 The use of different terminology in Josh 5:13-15 suggests that this unit was not composed at the same time as the ‫ מלאך‬texts and likely belongs to a later stage of composition than the latter.139 The fact that the phrase ‫ שר צבא ה׳‬is attested elsewhere only in Dan 8:25; 10:13, 20-21; 12:1 adds further support to the notion that this unit is relatively late.140 Indeed, the only possibility for interpreting Josh 5:13-15 as a pre-priestly unit is to assume that it once connected directly to 4:19b, since it has been concluded that 4:20–5:12 as a whole are post-priestly. Yet a direct connection between 4:19b and 5:13 is quite unlikely, since the explicit reference to Jeri-

























































134

For an overview and critique of earlier positions, see KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 375–88. 135 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 414 and BLUM, “Beschneidung,” 308 (repr. 236). 136 Whether it knows both Num 22:22-35 and 1 Chr 21:15-17 or only one of these is less certain; cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 414–15. 137 Chapter 8, §2.5. 138 JÓDAR-ESTRELLA, “Jos 5,13-15,” 274; KNAUF, Josua, 67; and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 399. 139 Cf. KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 400, although he leaves open the question of whether the author of Josh 5:13-15 intended to create a connection to the ‫ מלאך‬texts. 140 For this line of reasoning, see already KUENEN, Historisch-kritisch onderzoek2, 241 (ET 248) and more recently H.-C. SCHMITT, “Der heidnische Mantiker,” 251 and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 388 with n. 72.

4. A Bookend to the Exodus (Josh 5)

343

cho in 5:13 and the new introduction to Josh 6 would then be unnecessary.141 Moreover, the statement ‫ עתה באתי‬by the commander of Yhwh’s army suggests that his arrival could take place only after the immediately preceding events had been carried out.142 Finally, as both Klaus Bieberstein and Joachim Krause have shown, the intertextual connection that Josh 5:15 creates with the call of Moses in Exod 3:5143 is part of a larger chiastic structure between the exodus and the entry into the land, to which Josh 5 as a whole contributes significantly:144 Divine appearance (Exod 3–4) Passover (Exod 12:1-28) Circumcision (Exod 12:43-50) Water miracle (Exod 14) Sinai/wilderness journey Water miracle (Josh 3–4) Circumcision (Josh 5:2-9) Passover (Josh 5:10-12) Divine appearance (Josh 5:13-15)

In this respect, Josh 5:13-15 makes little sense without the foregoing material in 5:2-8 (9) and 5:10-12, which was evaluated as post-priestly. 4.3. Synthesis Josh 5 contains four relatively independent units that likely do not all belong to the same compositional level. Although none of these units belong to a pre-priestly narrative thread in the book of Joshua, their relative chronology remains rather unclear. Nevertheless, several observations suggest that the Passover scene in 5:10-12 may constitute the earliest material in the chapter. This episode shows no awareness of the circumcision episode in 5:2-9, which may indicate that 5:2-9 were composed after 5:10-12.145 Likewise, 5:13-15 make little sense without 5:2-9 (and thus also 5:10-12) and cannot be earlier than those verses. Given the abrupt shift in subject matter between 5:10-12 and 5:13-15, it is also unlikely that these two units are the product of the same hand, which would indicate that 5:13-15 are later than 5:10-12. This leaves 5:1 as the only other verse that may belong to the most basic material in Josh 5 alongside 5:10-12. Yet there is reason to suspect that 5:1 is linked to 5:2-9, since the Amorite and Canaanite kings’ fear can be interpreted as

























































141

Cf. KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 390. Cf. BLUM, “Beschneidung,” 309–10 (repr. 237–38) and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 391–92. 143 For arguments that Josh 5:15 depends upon Exod 3:5 and not vice versa, see KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 394–96. 144 BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 415, 418 and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 435–37. 145 Cf. NELSON, Joshua, 78 and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 361–63. 142

344

Chapter 9: Preparations for Conquest (Josh 1–5)

background information explaining how the Israelite males were able to undergo circumcision without the threat of attack.146 This suggests that 5:1 is either contemporaneous with or later than 5:2-9.147 If this reconstruction is correct (and here the evidence is admittedly ambiguous), then it would suggest that Josh 5:10-12 once connected directly to Josh 4. Given the close thematic connection between the people’s emergence from the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month in 4:19aβ (a later addition) and their observance of Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month in 5:10, it seems possible that 5:10-12* (without 5:10a) at one time connected directly to 4:19 (including 4:19aβ).148 It is also possible, however, that 5:1012 was composed after 4:20-22 (23-24). In the presentation of the Hebrew text below, I have assigned 5:1, 2-8, (9), and 13-15 to a secondary stage of composition in relation to 5:10-12* but have refrained from proposing a specific relative chronology for the former, since there is little concrete evidence favoring one reconstruction over another. II

I

5:1

‫ויהי כשמע כל מלכי האמרי אשר בעבר הירדן ימה וכל מלכי הכנעני אשר על הים את אשר‬ ‫הוביש ה׳ את מי הירדן מפני בני ישראל עד עברנו וימס לבבם ולא היה בם עוד רוח מפני בני‬ ‫ישראל‬ ‫ ויעש‬3 b{‫ מל את בני ישראל }שנית‬a‫ בעת ההיא אמר ה׳ אל יהושע עשה לך חרבות צרים ושוב‬2 ‫ וזה הדבר אשר מל יהושע כל‬4 ‫לו יהושע חרבות צרים וימל את בני ישראל אל גבעת הערלות‬ ‫ כי מלים היו‬5 ‫העם היצא ממצרים הזכרים כל אנשי המלחמה מתו במדבר בדרך בצאתם ממצרים‬ ‫ כי ארבעים שנה הלכו‬6 ‫כל העם היצאים וכל העם הילדים במדבר בדרך בצאתם ממצרים לא מלו‬

























































146

Cf. KNAUF, Josua, 63 and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 302, who argue that the Amorite and Canaanite kings’ fear in Josh 5:1 is a prerequisite for the Israelite warriors’ ability to undergo and recover from their circumcision in 5:2-9. Yet the fact that 5:2-9 can be read in light of 5:1 hardly indicates the literary priority of 5:1 over 5:2-9; indeed, it seems equally plausible that a later author noticed that the Israelite males’ circumcision would have made them vulnerable to attack and thus added 5:1 in order to explain why the Canaanites did not come out in battle against the Israelites. 147 In contrast, KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 363 argues that Josh 5:10-12 originally connected directly to 5:1. 148 KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 362 regards this reconstruction as improbable for the following reason: “Denn hätte Jos 5,10-12 ursprünglich direkt an das dtr Finale in Jos 4,19*.20 angeschlossen, hätte es der Wiederaufnahme [i.e., in 5:10a] nicht bedurft. Diese ist nur und erst deshalb nötig, weil mit der katechetischen Reflexion Jos 4,21-24 einschließlich der zugehörigen Notiz Jos 5,1 eine umfangreiche Digression den von der dtr Erzählung vorgegebenen Handlungsfaden unterbricht.” Here, Krause assumes that the Wiederaufnahme of Josh 4:19bα in 5:10a was part of 5:10-12 from the outset, although the evidence of 𝔊* may instead suggest that 5:10a was composed in order to allow for the insertion of intervening material between 4:19 and 5:10b-12 rather than the addition of further material following the composition of 4:21–5:1 as Krause envisions. a 𝔊*: καἰ καθίσας = ‫*ושב‬. b This adverb is absent in some 𝔊 manuscripts; cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 203 with n. 40.

345

5. Result II

I

‫בני ישראל במדבר עד תם כל הגוי אנשי המלחמה היצאים ממצרים אשר לא שמעו בקול ה׳ אשר‬ ‫נשבע ה׳ להם לבלתי הראותם את הארץ אשר נשבע ה׳ לאבותם לתת לנו ארץ זבת חלב ודבש‬ ‫ ויהי כאשר תמו‬8 ‫ ואת בניהם הקים תחתם אתם מל יהושע כי ערלים היו כי לא מלו אותם בדרך‬7 ‫ ויאמר ה׳ אל יהושע היום גלותי את חרפת‬9] ‫כל הגוי להמול וישבו תחתם במחנה עד חיותם‬ c [{‫מצרים מעליכם ויקרא שם המקום ההוא גלגל }עד היום הזה‬ ‫𝔊[ את הפסח בארבעה עשר יום לחדש בערב‬: ‫ }ויחנו בני ישראל בגלגל{ ויעשו ]*בני ישראל‬10 ‫ וישבת המן‬12 ‫ ויאכלו מעבור הארץ }ממחרת הפסח{ מצות וקלוי בעצם היום הזה‬11 ‫בערבות יריחו‬ ‫ באכלם מעבור הארץ ]ולא היה עוד לבני ישראל מן ויאכלו מתבואת ארץ כנען בשנה‬d{‫}ממחרת‬ [‫ההיא‬ ‫ ויהי בהיות יהושע ביריחו וישא עיניו וירא }והנה{ איש עמד לנגדו וחרבו שלופה בידו וילך‬13 ‫ ויאמר לא כי אני שר צבא ה׳ עתה באתי ויפל‬14 ‫יהושע אליו ויאמר לו הלנו אתה אם לצרינו‬ ‫ ויאמר שר צבא ה׳ אל‬15 ‫יהושע אל פניו ארצה }וישתחו{ ויאמר לו מה אדני מדבר אל עבדו‬ e {‫יהושע של נעלך מעל רגלך כי המקום אשר אתה עמד עליו קדש הוא }ויעש יהושע כן‬

5. Result The foregoing analyses of Josh 1–5 indicate that the maximum extent of prepriestly and pre-Deuteronomistic narrative material in these chapters consists of Josh 1:1-2*; 3:1a*, 14a, 16*; 4:[11a?], 19b.149 These verses report the transfer of leadership from Moses to Joshua and then continue the chain of itinerary notices found in Num 20:1–22:1, accompanied by a brief report of the miraculous stopping of the flow of the Jordan River, allowing the people to cross. This basic narrative thread, which brings the people from Shittim to Jericho in preparation for Josh 6, was subsequently expanded with a variety of materials that presuppose the book of Deuteronomy and/or priestly literature.

























































c

𝔊 diverges significantly from 𝔐 in Josh 5:4-8. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 202–3 and KRAUSE, “Buch Josua,” 23–58 (with a summary in IDEM, Exodus und Eisodus, 298–302) have offered detailed comparisons of the two versions and conclude that 5:4-8 𝔊 reflect a later reworking of a Hebrew Vorlage similar to 𝔐. Krause attributes the version of 𝔊 to the translator, as does VAN DER MEER, Formation, 78–90; IDEM, “Provenance,” 68–74. d For arguments in favor of regarding the references to the “following day” in Josh 5:11-12 𝔐 as additions to an earlier version reflected in 𝔊*, see BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 215– 20. e Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 228 (not noted in BHS). 149 In contrast, KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 406–15 identifies a more expansive base narrative in Josh 1–5. Within Josh 3–4 in particular, Krause’s reconstruction relies heavily on his view that no part of 3:1 belongs to the most basic narrative thread in Josh 3–4, setting 3:2-4 as the narrative and thematic benchmark for the identification of the base narrative (ibid., 206–12). Yet if 3:2-4 are recognized as later than 3:1aα* (without ‫וישכם‬ ‫)יהושע בבקר‬, such a reconstruction is unnecessary.

Chapter 10

The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8) 1. The Conquest of Jericho (Josh 6) 1.1. Literary-critical analysis There are a number of indications that the narrative of the conquest of Jericho in Josh 6 is not a compositional unity and has been supplemented with a variety of materials that were not part of the original narrative.1 This can be seen not least in the many pluses in 𝔐 compared to 𝔊*, which suggest that the chapter’s literary growth extended into a very late period. 2 Yhwh’s instructions to Joshua (Josh 6:1-5). Josh 6:1 picks up the narrative thread left off in 4:19b, which describes the people’s encampment at Gilgal, to the east of Jericho. This verse establishes the fact that Jericho is impenetrable and thus provides essential background information to the subsequent narrative. Similarly, Yhwh’s speech to Joshua in 6:2a* (up to ‫ )את יריחו‬is essential to the narrative, since 6:3-5 cannot stand without this half verse. In contrast, the phrase ‫ ואת מלכה‬is somewhat surprising, since no mention is made of Jericho’s king in the remainder of the chapter; thus, it is possible that this phrase is a later addition.3 Moreover, the phrase ‫ גבורי החיל‬in 6:2b does not connect smoothly to 6:2a, as it lacks a coordinating conjunction and cannot be interpreted as being in apposition to the preceding phrase ‫את יריחו ואת‬ ‫מלכה‬.4

























































1

For an overview of the main approaches to the composition of Josh 6 from the late nineteenth century to the late twentieth century, see BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 231–40 and the review of research in DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 316–20 (albeit with an inaccurate presentation of Bieberstein’s reconstruction of the base layer of Josh 6). 2 While some minuses in Josh 6 𝔊 may indeed reflect earlier stages in the formation of the Hebrew version (GREENSPOON, Textual Studies, 82*; TOV, “Literary Development,” 73; and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 321), it must also be acknowledged that a number of variants (including minuses) in 𝔊 reflect the translator’s effort to create a smoother text and to correct certain ritual-legal problems in the Hebrew Vorlage (BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 240–67, esp. 266–67; MAZOR, “Nomistic Re-Working,” 47–62; and VAN DER MEER, Formation, 73– 75; IDEM, “Sound the Trumpet!,” 22, 34–42). 3 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 268. 4 Cf. ibid. (with reference to further literature in n. 134) and PORZIG, Lade, 71.

1. The Conquest of Jericho (Josh 6)

347

Within Josh 6:3, there is a tension between the 2mp instructions in 6:3aα (‫ )וסבתם את העיר‬and the 2ms instructions in 6:3b (‫)כה תעשה ששת ימים‬, although a plural verb is attested in 6:3b in several of the ancient versions (𝔊OL, 𝔖, 𝔙) and may reflect an originally plural verb in the Hebrew Vorlage. Even if this is the case, however, the middle of 6:3 is still rather unclear: it is difficult to determine whether the phrase ‫ כל אנשי המלחמה‬is the subject of the preceding verb (‫ )וסבתם‬or whether it is the direct object of the following clause ‫( הקיף את העיר‬interpreted as a hiphil imperative rather than a hiphil infinitive absolute).5 If the latter is the case, ‫כל אנשי המלחמה הקיף את העיר‬ can be interpreted as a later insertion, as it does not begin with a coordinating conjunction, and the second occurrence of the phrase ‫ את העיר‬is rather repetitive.6 Whether the remainder of 6:3 (‫ )פעם אחת כה תעשה ששת ימים‬may also be part of this addition is a more difficult question.7 It seems possible that an originally plural verb form in 6:3b (‫ )*תעשו‬may have been changed to a singular form following the insertion of ‫כל אנשי המלחמה הקיף את העיר‬. Within Josh 6:4, the depiction of the priests carrying seven shofarot before the ark in 6:4aα interrupts the contrast set up between 6:3b (‫כה תעשו* ששת‬ ‫ )ימים‬and 6:4aβγ (‫ )וביום השביעי תסבו את העיר שבע פעמים‬and can thus be identified as an insertion.8 Considering that 6:4b shares the same subject matter as 6:4aα, it was likely added at the same time as 6:4aα.9 In 6:5, ‫ בשמעכם את קול השופר‬is redundant in light of the preceding reference to the blowing of the ram’s horn, suggesting that it is a later addition.10 This conclusion is further supported by the analysis of 6:4, which evaluated the references to the priests carrying the shofarot as later additions.11



























































5 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 269 with n. 140, although he rules out the possibility that ‫ הקיף‬is an imperative verb form here. 6 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 68 (‫ כל אנשי המלחמה הקיף את העיר‬is a later addition); BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 268 (‫ כל אנשי המלחמה‬is a later addition); and PORZIG, Lade, 71 (‫כל אנשי המלחמה‬ ‫ הקיף את העיר‬is a later addition). 7 Given that Josh 6:3aβb is absent in 𝔊*esc, it is possible that the entire latter part of the verse is a later expansion of 6:3aα that was not present in the Vorlage of 𝔊*, although such a possibility is complicated by the fact that the Greek version of Josh 6 is quite free in its translation style and thus may not accurately reflect its Hebrew Vorlage; see BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 240–67, esp. 266–67. 8 Cf. PORZIG, Lade, 71: “V. 4aβ ist die direkte Fortführung von V. 3b.” 9 Cf. RUDOLPH, Elohist, 182–83; NOTH, Josua2, 41; and BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 290–91. Josh 6:4 in its entirety is absent in 𝔊*esc, although in light of the free translation technique of Josh 6 𝔊, it is far from clear that this minus reflects a shorter Hebrew Vorlage. 10 Cf. RUDOLPH, Elohist, 183 and NOTH, Josua2, 41. In contrast, SCHWIENHORST, Eroberung, 32, 39, 137; FRITZ, Josua, 67; BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 272; and PORZIG, Lade, 72 regard ‫ במשך בקרן היובל‬as secondary. 11 This conclusion may also be supported by the fact that ‫ בשמעכם את קול השופר‬is not represented in 𝔊*, although it cannot be ruled out that this clause was already present in the Hebrew Vorlage of 𝔊* but was omitted in order to create a more concise text.

348

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

In sum, the most basic material in Josh 6:1-5 that can be identified using literary criticism likely consisted of 6:1-2, 3* (without ‫)כל אנשי המלחמה‬, 4aβγ, 5* (without ‫)בשמעכם את קול השופר‬. In these verses, Yhwh instructs Joshua to have the people circle the city one time for six days and seven times on the seventh day; then, upon hearing the signal of the horn blast, all the people are to shout, resulting in the fall of the city’s wall. Although it is theoretically possible to reconstruct an even more basic text in 6:1-2, 3* (only ‫)ויסבו את העיר‬, 5* that does not depict a week-long process of circling the city, there is little literary-critical evidence within 6:1-5 to indicate that the seven-day process described in 6:3*, 4aβγ belongs to a later stage of composition.12 Events leading up to the capture of the city (6:6-16). Taking the contents of Yhwh’s instructions to Joshua in 6:2-5 as a starting point, a more basic report of the capture of Jericho can be identified within 6:6-20. Like 6:4aα and 4b, 6:6aγb is concerned with the priests’ role in blowing the seven shofarot and in carrying the ark and is absent in 𝔊*. If this part of the verse is bracketed out, the connection that remains between 6:6aαβ and 6:7 in 𝔐 is quite rough. The subject of the verb ‫ ויאמרו‬in 6:7 𝔐 can only be interpreted as the priests, which indicates that this verb presupposes the intervening material in 6:6aγb. In contrast, 4QJosha reads ‫ויאמר יהושע‬,13 which need not have presupposed Joshua’s instructions to the priests in 6:6 from the outset.14 The notion that 6:6 does not belong to the most basic narrative thread in Josh 6 is further suggested by the reference to Joshua as “Joshua son of Nun.” As Klaus Bieberstein has noted, a reference to Joshua using the patronymic would normally be expected at the beginning of a narrative, and such references in the middle of a narrative elsewhere in the books of Exodus through



























































12 SCHWIENHORST, Eroberung, 39 excludes the seven-day process of circling the city in Josh 6:3-4* from the most basic Jericho narrative, albeit not on the basis of observations within 6:1-5 but rather on the basis of the literary-critical analysis of 6:14. 13 Cf. 𝔖, 𝔗, 𝔙 and the qere tradition of 𝔐. Joshua is a more natural subject for the verb, since elsewhere in the chapter it is Joshua, not the priests, who addresses the people (cf. Josh 6:10, 16). 14 In 𝔊*, the initial verb in Josh 6:7 is construed as an imperative (Παραγγείλατε), whereby Joshua instructs the priests what to tell the people. Yet even in 𝔊* the presence of the priests in 6:6-7 is rather unexpected in light of 6:2-3aα, 5*, where Yhwh makes no reference to priests in his instructions to Joshua. Thus, even 6:6-7 𝔊* likely do not reflect the most basic narrative thread, although they may give some hints at the wording of an earlier Hebrew version. Notably, 6:6 𝔊* states that Joshua “went” (καὶ εἰσῆλθεν) to the priests rather than “called” (‫ )ויקרא‬to them. If 𝔊* reflects an earlier Hebrew Vorlage here, then it is possible that 6:6-7a* may have once read ‫ *וילך יהשע…ויאמר אל העם‬without any reference to the priests.

1. The Conquest of Jericho (Josh 6)

349

Joshua often indicate the beginning of a later redactional unit.15 This suggests that 6:6 as a whole is a later addition.16 If this is the case, then the reference to the vanguard advancing in front of the ark of Yhwh in Josh 6:7b would also be a later addition, since this reference seems to presuppose the instructions to carry the ark in 6:6. Yet the instructions for the vanguard to go before the ark of Yhwh also stand in tension with 6:6, which states that seven priests carrying shofarot should go before the ark of the covenant. Considering that the vanguard is mentioned nowhere in Yhwh’s earlier instructions to Joshua while the priests are (cf. 6:4aα, 4b), it seems that 6:7b is even later than the materials concerned with the role of the priests.17 The same is true of 6:8-9, which describe the spatial arrangement of the priests, the ark, and its military entourage (i.e., the vanguard and the rear guard) as well as the seven-day process of circling the city. Notably, the depiction of the priests as blowing the shofarot during the entire process of circling the city in 6:8-9 stands in tension with 6:4aα, 4b, which depicts the priests as blowing the shofarot only on the seventh day and apparently only as a signal for the people to shout.18 Although 6:10 does not explicitly depict the priests as blowing their shofarot during the circling of the city, Joshua’s instructions to the people not to shout “until the day when I tell you to shout” (‫ )עד יום אמרי אליכם הריעו‬clearly constitute an attempt to resolve the tension created by the two different views on when the horn is to be blown and thus cannot stand independently of 6:8-9. That 6:10 is later than 6:8-9 is suggested by the fact that Joshua’s instructions to the people come too late after 6:8-9, which already depict the priests, the vanguard, and the rear guard as blowing their horns. 19 The reference to the ‫ ארון ה׳‬circling the city in Josh 6:11a stands in tension with 6:11b, which uses plural verbs that can have only human actors – not the ark – as their subject. At the same time, 6:11b is hardly understandable without the basic report about circling the city in 6:11a. This suggests that the verb ‫ ויסב‬in 6:11a originally had the people as its implied subject and that the phrase ‫ ארון ה׳‬is a later insertion into the verse.20 If this is the case, then 6:11*

























































15

BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 273 with nn. 156–59. Cf. ibid., 273 and SCHWIENHORST, Eroberung, 36–37. 17 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 274 and SCHWIENHORST, Eroberung, 24. 18 Cf. WELLHAUSEN, “Composition” (1876), 591 and BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 274–75, 296, although the latter regards only ‫ עברו ותקעו בשופרות‬in Josh 6:8 and ‫ הלוך ותקוע בשופרות‬in 6:9 (and not 6:8-9 as a whole) as later than 6:4aα, 4b. 19 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 68 and BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 276–77, 290–91. 20 Cf. WELLHAUSEN, “Composition” (1876), 590; RUDOLPH, Elohist, 183; and BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 278–79. 16

350

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

(without ‫ )ארון ה׳‬connects smoothly to Joshua’s instructions to the people in 6:7a.21 Within the received text of Josh 6:12-16, the reference to the “second day” (‫ )ביום השני‬in 6:14 is out of place, since 6:12 already marks a shift to the second day (‫)וישכם יהושע בבקר‬. Since it would make little sense for the reference to the second day to have been added secondarily to 6:14,22 this suggests that 6:14 preserves the original shift to the second day in the narrative and that 6:12-13 are a later addition. Such a conclusion fits well with the evaluation of 6:8-9 as a later addition, since both units have the same subject matter: the priests, the vanguard, and the rear guard advancing with the ark and blowing their shofarot. If 6:12-13 are bracketed out, then 6:14 connects smoothly to 6:11.23 In 6:15, comparison with 𝔊* suggests that ‫ כמשפט הזה‬and ‫רק ביום‬ ‫ ההוא סבבו את העיר שבע פעמים‬are later clarifying glosses. Otherwise, the remainder of 6:15*, which describes the sevenfold circling of the city on the seventh day, forms the logical continuation of the six-day pattern in 6:14 and also corresponds to the divine instructions in 6:4aβγ. Thus, provided that 6:4aβγ and 6:14 belong to the most basic narrative thread, so too must 6:15*.24 Within Josh 6:16, the reference to the priests sounding their shofarot (‫תקעו‬ ‫ )הכהנים בשופרות‬in 6:16aβ can be identified as a later insertion. A temporal clause beginning with ‫ ויהי‬would normally be followed by another wawconsecutive verb,25 not a perfect verb, as is the case here. This suggests that ‫ תקעו הכהנים בשופרות‬was not the original continuation of ‫ויהי ביום השביעי‬. Rather, it constitutes the fulfillment of 6:4b, which was evaluated as a later addition to the most basic narrative thread.26 In terms of syntax, Joshua’s

























































21

Here I differ slightly from BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 290–91, who reconstructs a direct connection between Josh 6:5 and 6:11*. In my view, 6:7a is a natural transition between the divine instructions to Joshua in 6:1-5* and the people’s fulfillment of those instructions in 6:11*. The inclusion of 6:7a in the most basic narrative also avoids the need to reconstruct the subject ‫ העם‬in place of ‫ ארון ה׳‬in 6:11*, as Bieberstein proposes (ibid., 291 n. 250). 22 Against NOTH, Josua2, 40 and FRITZ, Josua, 68, who regard the phrase ‫ ביום השני‬in Josh 6:14 as a gloss. In 𝔊*, the reference to the second day is found already at the beginning of 6:12, which is certainly more logical than in 𝔐 in terms of narrative sequence. Nevertheless, if it is assumed that 𝔊* reflects the more original reading, then it is difficult to explain why ‫ ביום השני‬would have been moved from 6:12 to 6:14 in the textual tradition preserved by 𝔐, which has the lectio difficilior. Rather, it seems that here the Greek translator smoothed out a chronological problem in the Hebrew Vorlage by moving the reference to the second day forward to 6:12; cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 256 (with reference to further literature in n. 80). 23 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 291–92. 24 Cf. ibid. 25 Cf. JOÜON / MURAOKA, Grammar, §166b. 26 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 292.

1. The Conquest of Jericho (Josh 6)

351

command to the people to shout in 6:16b can be connected directly to ‫ויהי ביום‬ ‫ השביעי‬in 6:16aα, although it does not fit well in terms of content with the basic version of the divine instructions in 6:1-5*, where the blowing of a horn serves as the signal for the people to shout.27 Furthermore, Joshua’s verbal command in 6:16b can be interpreted as the fulfillment of his instructions in 6:10, which was evaluated as later than the layer of reworking that featured the role of the priests. Thus, 6:16b cannot have been part of the most basic narrative thread.28 In sum, the most basic narrative thread in Josh 6:6-16 can be identified in 6:6-7a* (‫)*וילך יהשע…ויאמר אל העם‬, 14* (without ‫)ביום השני‬, 15a* (without ‫)כמשפט הזה‬, and 16aα, (16b?). According to this narrative, the people circle the city once a day for six days and seven times on the seventh day, although this originally involved neither priests nor the ark. Details about the ban (Josh 6:17-19). These three verses can be identified as a later insertion, as they interrupt the connection between Joshua’s instructions to the people to shout in Josh 6:16b and their fulfillment in 6:20.29 Since 6:16b is likely later than both the most basic narrative thread and the stage of reworking that featured the role of the priests and thus belongs to a tertiary stage in the formation of Josh 6, 6:17-19 cannot be earlier than the fourth major level of composition within the chapter.30 These verses may have themselves undergone compositional growth, as the absence of 6:17bβ in 𝔊 suggests. Josh 6:18 may likewise belong to a later level of composition than 6:17abα, 19, as the narrative voice in this verse switches abruptly from thirdperson description to 2mp exhortation.31 The capture of the city (Josh 6:20-27). Josh 6:20 contains two conflicting depictions of the people’s final actions that precede the fall of Jericho. Two observations suggest that 6:20aβbα* (‫ויתקעו בשפרות ויהי כשמע העם את קול‬ ‫ )השופר ויריעו העם‬is a later insertion that expands on a more basic statement of the people’s shouting (‫)*וירע העם תרועה גדולה‬.32 (1) The clause ‫ויתקעו‬ ‫ בשפרות‬does not fit well with ‫ וירע העם‬in 6:20aα, since all of the preceding references to the blowing of the shofarot in Josh 6 have the priests, the vanguard, and the rear guard – not the people – as their subject. (2) The second statement of the people’s shouting (‫ )ויריעו העם‬can be interpreted as a Wiederaufnahme of 6:20aα.33

























































27

Cf. RÖSEL, Joshua, 94. Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 76 and BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 292. 29 Cf. FLEMING, “Seven-Day Siege,” 216. 30 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 73 and BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 282 (with further literature), 293. 31 On the development of Josh 6:17-19, see BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 283–84, 293–94. 32 Cf. ibid., 284–86. 33 Cf. BLUM, “Überlegungen,” 153 n. 66, who likewise describes the second report as “eine ‘wiederaufnehmende’ Überleitung.” On the one hand, the notion that the original reference to the people’s shouting used a singular verb is supported by the fact that the 28

352

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

In Josh 6:21, ‫ לפי חרב‬is located at quite a distance from ‫ויחרימו את כל אשר‬ ‫ בעיר‬at the beginning of the verse, which may suggest that the intervening list underwent expansion. Notably, while the specification of human victims uses ‫ מן‬and ‫ עד‬in a merism, the use of ‫ עד‬in the list of livestock departs from this figure of speech, suggesting that the phrase ‫ ועד שור ושה וחמור‬is a later addition.34 The compositional place of the execution of the ban in 6:21 is difficult to determine on the basis of a literary-critical analysis alone. On the one hand, the details about the ban in 6:17-19 were evaluated as no earlier than a fourth major level of composition in the chapter; on the other hand, there is no evidence of a literary-critical break between 6:20* and 6:21*. Thus, for now it seems best to regard 6:21* as possibly part of the most basic narrative thread in Josh 6.35 Josh 6:24a constitutes the logical continuation of 6:21:36 In 6:21, the focus is on killing the city’s humans and animals “at the edge of the sword,” while in 6:24a the focus is on destroying the city itself “by fire.”37 The placement of the direct object prior to the verb in 6:24a (‫ )והעיר שרפו באש‬serves to differentiate between the treatment of the city’s living inhabitants and its physical structure and material culture.38 In this respect, 6:24a would make much more sense immediately after 6:21 than in its present location. This, in turn, suggests that the report about the rescue of Rahab and her family in 6:22-23 is a later insertion that breaks apart the logical connection between 6:21 and 6:24.39 Moreover, the syntax of the introduction to Joshua’s speech to the spies in 6:22 (‫ )ולשנים האנשים המרגלים את הארץ אמר יהושע‬presupposes that Joshua has already addressed the people in 6:16b, indicating that 6:22-23 cannot be earlier than 6:16b.40 Within 6:22-23 themselves, it seems that



























































































































reference to the people’s invasion of the city also uses a singular verb (‫)ויעל העם‬. On the other hand, it cannot be completely ruled out that the second (plural) reference to the people’s shouting is more original, which would then correspond with the plural verb ‫יריעו‬ in 6:5 (NOTH, Josua2, 40 and BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 285–86, 292–93). 34 Cf. SCHWIENHORST, Eroberung, 35, 89 and PORZIG, Lade, 71. 35 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 292. In contrast, FLEMING, “Seven-Day Siege,” 216 connects Josh 6:21, 24a with the ‫ חרם‬texts in 6:17-19. 36 PORZIG, Lade, 72 observes that Josh 6:24a cannot connect directly to 6:20b and thus cannot belong to the most basic narrative thread in Josh 6, although he does not seriously consider the possibility that 6:21* could also belong to the most basic narrative. 37 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 73 and RÖSEL, Joshua, 94–95. 38 On the placement of the direct object before the verb for the purpose of contrast, see JOÜON-MURAOKA, Grammar, §155oa. 39 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 289, who notes that the implied subject of the verb ‫ שרפו‬is the entire people, not the spies, marking a literary-critical break between Josh 6:22-23 and 6:24. I cannot agree, however, with Bieberstein’s conclusion that 6:24a is later than 6:2223 (ibid., 293), since in that case one would expect 6:24a to name the people explicitly as the subject. 40 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 287, 292–93.

1. The Conquest of Jericho (Josh 6)

353

6:23aβb is an even later addition. The reference to “all her [i.e., Rahab’s] clans (𝔊: sg.)” comes too late after the phrase ‫ ואת כל אשר לה‬and is also redundant in light of the reference to Rahab’s father, mother, and brothers in 6:23aα. The statement that “they made them dwell outside the camp of Israel” seems to refer to the clans and not to Rahab’s immediate family, since it also comes too late after ‫ואת כל אשר לה‬.41 The statement in 6:24b that the people took the silver, gold, and objects of bronze and iron and placed them in the “treasury of the house of Yhwh”42 is quite strange, and the use of ‫ רק‬at least raises the suspicion that this half verse is a later addition.43 The compositional place of Josh 6:25 is difficult to determine precisely. In light of its vocabulary, this verse bears a strong connection to Joshua’s instructions to exempt Rahab and her family from the ban in 6:17b:44 Josh 6:17b

‫רק רחב הזונה תחיה היא וכל אשר אתה בבית כי החבאתה את המלאכים‬ ‫אשר שלחנו‬

Josh 6:25

‫ואת רחב הזונה ואת בית אביה ואת כל אשר לה החיה יהושע ותשב בקרב‬ ‫ישראל עד היום הזה כי החביאה את המלאכים אשר שלח יהושע לרגל את‬ ‫יריחו‬

At the same time, 6:25 forms a doublet with 6:22-23 insofar as it reports the sparing of Rahab and her family a second time,45 and the two units contain contradictory statements about the integration of Rahab and her family into Israelite society.46 Thus, 6:25 cannot belong to the same compositional level as 6:22-23. Determining the precise diachronic relationship between 6:22-23 and 6:17b, 25 is further complicated by the fact that 6:23aβb is likely a later addition within 6:22-23. Since there is insufficient evidence to reconstruct these verses’ development on the basis of literary-critical observations alone, this question will be reconsidered in the macrocontextual analysis (§1.2). The compositional place of Josh 6:26 and 6:27 is also difficult to determine on the basis of an internal literary-critical analysis alone. Although each of these verses deal with discrete topics (i.e., Joshua’s curse over Jericho and his reputation throughout the land), there is no clear narrative or grammatical evidence to suggest that they are later additions to the Jericho narrative.47

























































41

In contrast, BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 289 regards Josh 6:22-23 as a compositional unity. 𝔊*, 𝔙: “treasury of Yhwh.” 43 For further discussion of this half verse, see the analysis of Josh 7 in §2. 44 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 73 and BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 294. 45 Cf. NOTH, Josua2, 41 and RÖSEL, Joshua, 94. 46 Cf. SCHWIENHORST, Eroberung, 36, 105, 113 and BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 288. 47 NOTH, Josua2, 41 argues that Josh 6:26 is a later addition in light of its loose thematic connection to the preceding narrative, while FRITZ, Josua, 68 argues that 6:24b-27 are later additions based on his conclusion that 6:24a represents “das Ende der Handlung.” Nevertheless, BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 290 is correct in concluding that 6:26-27 do not constitute “literarkritische Spannungen im strengen Sinn.” 42

354

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

Interim result. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the following materials emerge as possibly belonging to the most basic thread of the Jericho narrative: Josh 6:1-3aα, 5*, 6-7a* (‫)*וילך יהושע…ויאמר אל העם‬, 14* (without ‫)ביום השני‬, 15a* (without ‫)כמשפט הזה‬, 16* (without ‫)תקעו הכהנים בשופרות‬, 20* (without the references to the shofarot), 21, 24a, (26?), (27?). In a second stage of composition, this narrative was expanded through a series of passages that highlight the role of the priests, the ark, the vanguard, and the rear guard in the process of circling the city (6:4aα, 4b, 5aα2, 6, 7b-9, 12-13, 16aβ, 20aβbα1).48 In a third stage of composition, this narrative was further reworked in 6:10, 16b, replacing the sound of the horn as the cue for the people to shout with a verbal command to shout by Joshua. Both the insertion in 6:17-19 and Joshua’s speech in 6:22-23 presuppose the verbal command in 6:16b and thus cannot be earlier than this third stage of composition.49 Given that 6:17-19 interrupt the connection between 6:16b and 6:20, they are likely later than the third stage and thus can tentatively be assigned to a fourth major stage of composition. In light of the close lexical connections between 6:17b and 6:25, the latter verse should also be assigned to this fourth stage of composition.50 Several other small-scale additions were also made in Josh 6 (6:19, 23aβb, 24b, 26?, 27?), although it is difficult to place these in a precise diachronic framework on the basis of the internal evidence.51 1.2. Macrocontextual analysis The role of the priests and the ark. It was concluded in §1.1 that the passages describing the role of the priests and the ark in Josh 6:4aα, 4b, 5aα2, 6, 7b-13, 16aβ, 20aβbα1 do not belong to the most basic narrative thread in Josh 6. As in Josh 3–4, here too the role of the priests and the ark can be attributed to a post-priestly expansion of the narrative,52 since all the texts referring to the ark up to this point in Exodus through Joshua are priestly at the earliest.53 A further indication that the appearance of the priests in Josh 6 does not belong

























































48

For the view that the ark and the priests are secondary to the most basic narrative thread, see PROCKSCH, Das nordhebräische Sagenbuch, 133–34; RULOLPH, Elohist, 182– 88; NOTH, Josua2, 41–43; MAIER, Das altisraelitische Ladeheiligtum, 35–36; BRIEND, “Jéricho,” 25–28; SCHWIENHORST, Eroberung, 23–28; FRITZ, Josua, 75–76; BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 296; and BLUM, “Überlegungen,” 152. In contrast, DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 324–25 regards the ark and the priests as part of the most basic narrative. 49 Against FRITZ, Josua, 68, who includes Josh 6:22-23 in the most basic narrative. 50 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 294, who likewise assigns Josh 6:17-19, 25 to a fourth major stage of composition, which he labels R ä for “etiological redaction.” 51 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 294. 52 In contrast, BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 354–58 argues that these priestly elements in Josh 6 belong to a pre-priestly compositional level (his layer B). 53 Gen 50:26; Exod 25:10; 26:33-34; 30:26; 40:3, 5, 21; Num 10:33; 14:44; Deut 10:13, 8; 31:9, 25; Josh 3:3, 6, 8, 11, 13-15, 17; 4:5, 7, 9-11, 16, 18.

1. The Conquest of Jericho (Josh 6)

355

to an early stage of composition is the use of the term ‫ חלוץ‬to describe the warriors who will go ahead of the ark (6:7) or ahead of the priests (6:9, 13). Within the books of Genesis through Kings, the substantivized form ‫חלוץ‬ appears elsewhere only in Num 31:5; 32:20, 27, 29 (2x), 32; and Deut 3:18, all of which are post-priestly texts.54 The sparing of Rahab and her family. The sparing of Rahab’s family in Josh 6:22-23aα was evaluated in §1.1 as belonging at the earliest to a tertiary stage in the chapter’s formation, while the other references to Rahab in 6:17b, 23aβb, 25 are even later. Considering that the Rahab narrative in Josh 2 is a post-priestly text, 6:17b, 22-23aα, 23aβb, 25 must also be post-priestly.55 As already noted, 6:23aβb and 6:25 reflect very different conceptions of Rahab’s fate following her rescue from Jericho: While 6:25 implicitly argues in favor of the inclusion of foreigners within the community of Israel,56 6:23aβb takes an exclusionary stance towards foreigners, placing Rahab’s family outside the Israelite camp in accordance with Deut 23:10-15.57 Considering that the Rahab narrative in Josh 2 portrays Rahab in a positive light, 6:25 seems to be a more fitting conclusion to the Rahab episode than 6:23aβb, which should therefore be interpreted as a later, exclusionary reaction against the Rahab story.58 The enactment of the ban. It was concluded in §1.1 that the details about the ban in Josh 6:17-19 are a later insertion, while there is little concrete evidence to indicate that the enactment of the ban in 6:21, 24a and Joshua’s curse in 6:26 (which presupposes the destruction of the city in 6:24a) are later additions to the most basic narrative thread.59 Here, the question arises



























































54 For a discussion of Num 31 and 32:1-32, see ACHENBACH, Vollendung, 376–88 (Num 32:1-32), 615–22 (Num 31). For a discussion of Deut 3:18, see Chapter 7, §4.2. 55 This conclusion fits well with the fact that these passages were shown on literarycritical grounds to postdate the incorporation of the priests and the ark into the Jericho narrative. 56 Cf. KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 150–52, 179–80 (with references to further literature on 180 n. 202). 57 On the connection between Josh 6:23aβb and Deut 23:10-15, see FRITZ, Josua, 73. The phrase ‫ מחוץ למחנה‬occurs 29 times in the Hebrew Bible, and 26 of these occurrences are found in priestly/post-priestly texts in Exodus through Numbers, against ibid., who argues that Miriam’s exclusion from the camp in Num 12* is a Yahwistic narrative. The phrase also appears in Deut 23:11 and 13, which belong to a unit that reflects priestly influence. The only other occurrence is in Josh 6:23b. 58 Cf. NELSON, Joshua, 90 and RÖSEL, Joshua, 95. This tension between Josh 6:23aβb and the basic inclusionary stance of the Rahab story is overlooked by a number of commentators, e.g., KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 178, who implicitly assigns 6:17, 22-23, 25 to a single compositional level. 59 Admittedly, it is conceivable that the most basic narrative thread once found its conclusion in Josh 6:20 (SCHWIENHORST, Eroberung, 27, 54), although in this case the reader would be left wondering how the Israelites dealt with the city after capturing it.

356

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

whether the enactment of the ban in 6:21, 24a, 26 presupposes the laws relating to ‫ חרם‬in Deuteronomy or whether they may be independent of those laws and thus belong to a pre-Deuteronomistic narrative in the book of Joshua. This requires a brief discussion of the verbal root ḫrm/ḥrm in extrabiblical sources as well as in the book of Deuteronomy. The verbal root ḫrm/ḥrm occurs in a handful of West Semitic epigraphic sources from the late second millennium and first millennium B.C.E. The earliest preserved use of this root in the West Semitic realm comes from Ugarit (KTU 1.13) and describes the warfare of the goddess Anat: (2) [r]ḥm tld (3) [’ibr ?] ḫrm ṯn ym (4) m šp[k dm (?) ṯlṯ] ymm lk (5) hrg ’ar[b‘] ymm bṣr (6) kp šsk [dm ?] lḥbšk (7) ‘tk r’iš [wṯb ?] lmhrk (8) w‘p ldr[‘] nšrk (9) wrbṣ lǵrk ’inbb (10) kt ǵrk ’ank yd‘t (11) kt ’atn ’at mṯbk b’(?) (12) [š]mm rm lk p rẓ kt (13) [k]bkbm

May the [la]ss bear [a bull?]. Devote to destruction for two days, Pour [blood(?) for three] days, Go, kill for fo[ur] days. Harvest hand(s), pour out [blood?], To your belt attach heads. [Then return?] to your soldiery, And fly at the arm of your vultures. And repose at your mount, Inbb, The dais of your mount which I know(?). To the dais which I give come(?). To your throne come(?). To the high heavens, go, Then rule the dais [of the s]tars(?).60

Although this is the only attested occurrence of the verbal root ḫrm/ḥrm in the Ugaritic alphabetic script,61 Mark Smith has argued that this text, combined with KTU 1.3 II 4-30, reflects a notion of the ban similar to that found in later West Semitic texts, which includes “(1) the divine pursuit of warfare… (2) the deity’s return of the captives to her heavenly palace…and (3) the divine consumption of the captive warriors.”62 The most well known and most widely discussed extrabiblical text to use the verbal root ḥrm is the Mesha inscription, written sometime during the ninth century B.C.E.,63 in which King Mesha of Moab states that he destroyed the population of Ataroth for Kemosh and killed seven thousand men and women in Nebo, since he had “dedicated” (hḥrmth) that place to AshtarKemosh (lines 14–17):64

























































60

Transcription and translation from SMITH, “Anat’s Warfare-Cannibalism,” 380. The root ḫrm also appears three times in the syllabic form ḫa-ri-mu (Ugaritica V, text 137 ii39ʹ, 40ʹ, 42ʹ; see SMITH, “Anat’s Warfare-Cannibalism,” 380). 62 SMITH, “Anat’s Warfare-Cannibalism,” 379. 63 ROUTLEDGE, Moab, 137. 64 Transcription follows and translation adapted from LEMAIRE, “Le ḥérem,” 82. 61

1. The Conquest of Jericho (Josh 6)

357

wy’mr . ly . kmš . lk . ’ḥz . ’t . nbh . ‘l . yśr’l . w’ (15)hlk . bllh . w’ltḥm65 . bh . mbq66 . hšḥrt . ‘d . hṣhrm . w’ḥ(16)zh . w’hrg . klh . šb‘t . ’lpn . gbrn . wgrn . wgbrt . wgr(17)t . wrḥmt . ky . l‘štr . kmš . hḥrmth . w’qḥ . mšm . ’[t] . [’r’](18)ly yhwh . w’sḥb . hm . lpny . kmš Then Kemoš said to me: “Go, sieze Nebo from Israel.” So I went by night; and I fought against it from the break of dawn until noon; and I took it; and I put all to death: 7,000 men and boys, and women and girls, and pregnant women,67 because I had dedicated (ḥrm) it to ‘Aštar-Kemoš. And I took from there the altar-hearths of Yhwh, and I dragged them before Kemoš.

The use of ky in line 17 suggests that the use of the verb ḥrm in the causative stem is connected conceptually with the report of putting the city’s entire population to death. Here, all that can be said with certainty about the verb ḥrm is that it involves the killing of all of the city’s inhabitants and has a religious dimension.68 The large-scale killing of a city’s population and the dedication of the city to the national deity is also found in lines 11–12 of the Mesha inscription. Although the verbal root ḥrm is not used here, this passage is nevertheless quite important for the understanding of the ban: 69 wybn . lh . mlk . y(11)śr’l . ’t . ‘ṭrt w’ltḥm . bqr . w’ḥzh . w’hrg . ’t . kl . h‘[m .] (12) hqr . hyt . lkmš . wlm’b . w’šb . mšm . ’t . ’r’l . dwdh . w’s(13)ḥbh . lpny . kmš . bqryt And the king of Israel had rebuilt/fortified ‘Aṭarot for him (“the Gadite”). But I fought against the town, and I took it. And I slew all the peo[ple]. The town became Kamoš’s and Moab’s. And I brought back from there its Davidic altar hearth; and I dragged it before Kamoš in Qiryat(en).

Earlier studies tended to read w’hrg . ’t . kl . h‘m . hqr . ryt . lkmš wlm’b in lines 11–12 and to translate this as “and I killed the entire population of the city – a satiation for Kemosh and for Moab” or the like.70 André Lemaire, however, has argued for the reading hyt instead of ryt (from the verbal root rwy), resulting in the translation “And I slew all the peo[ple]. The town became Kamoš’s and Moab’s.”71 This reading, which has been followed by a growing number of scholars,72 is of great significance for the concept of the ban, since it indicates that Ataroth was treated in the same way as Nebo, even

























































65

JACKSON / DEARMAN, “Text,” 94 read ‫ואלתהם‬. Ibid., 94 read ‫מבקה‬. 67 For this translation of ‫רחמת‬, see MONROE, Josiah’s Reform, 51. 68 On the religious and sociological aspects of ‫ חרם‬in the Mesha inscription, see ROUTLEDGE, “Politics,” 237–38. 69 Transcription follows and translation adapted from LEMAIRE, “Le ḥérem,” 82. 70 LOHFINK, “ḥāram,” 190; JACKSON / DEARMAN, “Text,” 94; P. STERN, Biblical Ḥerem, 32; KAMINSKY, “Joshua 7,” 333–34; DIETRICH, “Ban,” 202; and NELSON, “Ḥerem,” 47. 71 LEMAIRE, “Notes,” 206; IDEM, “New Photographs,” 204–7. 72 DONNER / RÖLLIG, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, 41; ROUTLEDGE, Moab, 135 n. 7; and YOUNGER, “Some Recent Discussion,” 515. 66

358

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

though the verbal root ḥrm is not used here: the entire populations of both cities are put to death, both cities are “dedicated” to the national deity, and certain cultic items are taken as plunder. Moreover, as K. Lawson Younger has emphasized, this means that “the Mesha Incription does not present the concept of ḥērem in terms of a sacrifice.”73 Another epigraphic source containing the verbal root ḥrm is the Sabaean text RES 3945, which recounts the accomplishments of the mukarrib Karibilu. Based on the reference to a Sabaean ruler named Karib-ilu in a NeoAssyrian text from the time of Sennacherib (ca. 685 B.C.E.), RES 3945 possibly dates to the early seventh century B.C.E.74 The verbal root ḥrm occurs in two lines of this text: hrg . srm . wşyr . ‘dhbhw . whbklhw . sb’ . wywm . mhḍ . dhsm . wtbny . whrghmw . tny . ‘lpm . ‘‘ . wsbyhmw . hmst . ‘lpm . “””” . wwpṭ . ‘hgrhmw .............................. dhsm . wwḥrm . rn . .............................. whtb . [dhs]m . wtbny . wdtnt . l’lmqh . wl . sb’ . whtb . ’wdm . lmlk . dhsm . w (line 7) And when he overthrew DHSm and TBNY and slew two thousand of them 2000, and captured five thousand of them 5000, and burnt their cities .............................. DHSm, and put its town to the ḥērem .............................. and made over DHSm and TBNY and DTNT to ‘LMQH and to Sabā.75 whgrn . nšn . yhḥrm . bn . mwpṭm . w‘tbhw . hrš . bythw . ‘prw . whrš . hgrhw . nšn . wbd‘ . bẓhr . nšn . sl’m . ‘pklt . w‘tb . bn . nšn . ‘l . wḍ’t . šptmw . nsrn . ‘l’ltn . wyhrgw . w‘tb . smhyp‘ . wnšn . kd . yḥwr . sb’ . bhgrn . nšn . wkd . ybny . smhyp‘ . wnšn . byt . ‘lmqh . bwst . hlrn . nšn . (line 16) And he devoted the city of NŠN to the ḥērem by burning, and he instructed him to destroy his palace ‘FRW and his city NŠN and imposed on NŠN a tribute for the priests, and he gave command concerning those of NŠN whose dedication to the gods was allotted(?) so that they were killed, and he instructed SMHYF‘ and NŠN that Sabaeans should settle in the city NŠN and that SMHYF‘ and NŠN should build a temple for ‘LMQH in the midst of the city NŠN.76

Taken together, these two lines indicate that the verbal root ḥrm is associated with the large-scale killing of a city’s population, the burning of the city, and the consecration of the cities to the national deity. In this respect, the use of the verb ḥrm overlaps to a considerable degree with that found in the Mesha inscription, namely, the killing of a city’s population and the consecration of the city to the national deity. Here, however, there is the additional element of burning the city, which is not mentioned in the Mesha inscription.

























































73

YOUNGER, “Some Recent Discussion,” 515. On this dating, see BRON, “Guerre,” 144–46 and MONROE, “Israelite, Moabite, and Sabaean War-ḥērem Traditions,” 327–31. 75 Translation adapted from MONROE, “Israelite, Moabite, and Sabaean War-ḥērem Traditions,” 334–35. 76 Translation follows MONROE, Josiah’s Reform, 52. 74

1. The Conquest of Jericho (Josh 6)

359

Within the nonnarrative sections of Deuteronomy, the verbal root ‫חר״ם‬ appears in three passages: Deut 20:10-18; 13:13-19; and 7:1-6, 26. Deut 20:10-18 contain a series of rules governing warfare and can be divided into two main parts. The first part, Deut 20:10-14, stipulates that an offer of peace should first be made to a city, but if the offer is rejected, the city should be attacked and all its male inhabitants put to death, while women, children, livestock, and nonliving booty may be taken as plunder. The second part, Deut 20:15-18, qualifies the first part by restricting such rules to cities lying outside the promised land. As for cities within the promised land, the text instructs its audience not to allow any living thing to survive (‫לא תחיה כל‬ ‫ )נשמה‬but instead to subject such cities to the ban (‫ )כי החרם תחרימם‬so that their inhabitants cannot teach their illicit religious practices.77 There is a broad consensus that 20:15-18 are a later revision of 20:10-14,78 indicating that – at least within Deut 20 – the use of the verb ‫ חרם‬hiphil and the instruction to kill all human life belongs to a later stage of composition than the instruction to kill only a city’s male inhabitants and to spare women, children, livestock, and nonliving booty. A second reference to ‫ חרם‬within the legal sections of Deuteronomy is found in Deut 13:13-19, which is concerned not with the rules of warfare but instead with illicit religious practices “in one of your cities that Yhwh your God is giving to you” (13:13). The text stipulates that, if such practices are discovered, the inhabitants of that city are to be put to death by the sword. The city and everything in it is to be placed under the ban (‫החרם אתה ואת כל‬ ‫)אשר בה‬, and all of its plunder is to be collected together and burned as a whole burnt offering (‫ )כליל‬to Yhwh (13:15-17). This is followed by an additional warning to keep away from the banned goods (‫“ )החרם‬so that Yhwh may turn away from his wrath” (13:18) and finally by an exhortation to obey all of Yhwh’s commandments (13:19). Finally, the verbal root ‫ חר״ם‬appears at two points in the parenetic chapter Deut 7. The first occurrence is in 7:2, which stipulates that the audience must “completely ban” (‫ )החרם תחרים‬the other nations living in the land that the people are about to enter to possess. Although this text has the conquest of the land in view, it is not primarily concerned with the rules governing warfare but rather provides an exhortation not to mingle with the people of the

























































77

As NOORT, “Kapitulationsangebot,” 218 aptly notes here, “Der Bann ist nicht Folge und Zweck der Kriegshandlung, sondern dient der Abwehr der Fremdgötterkulte. Er ist mittel zum Zweck, nicht der Zweck selbst.” 78 CORNHILL, Einleitung, 26; ROFÉ, “Laws of Warfare,” 29–30; FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 199–200; SCHÄFER-LICHTENBERGER, “Das gibeonitische Bündnis,” 60–61; NOORT, “Kapitulationsangebot,” 217, 222; DIETRICH, “Ban,” 198 with n. 8; HOFFMAN, “Deuteronomistic Concept,” 201–2; NELSON, Deuteronomy, 246–47; CROUCH, War, 186; R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige Krieg,” 55; EDENBURG, “Joshua 9,” 120; SAMUEL, “Deuteronomic War Prescriptions,” 142–43; and BERNER, “Gibeonite Deception,” 257.

360

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

land in order to avoid illicit religious practices, particularly idolatry. The same concern with idolatry is found in 7:26, which states that an idol (indicated by the euphemism ‫“ תועבה‬abomination”) is ‫ חרם‬and warns that anyone who brings an idol into his house will likewise become ‫חרם‬. In light of the extrabiblical evidence for the root ḥrm and the uses of the root ‫ חר״ם‬in Deuteronomy, it is now possible to consider whether the enactment of the ban in Josh 6:21, 24a can be regarded as Deuteronomistic in any meaningful way. Considering that the root ‫ חר״ם‬is not used in the context of warfare in Deut 13:13-19 and 7:26, then Deut 7:2 and 20:10-18 emerge as the primary texts for comparison. Notably, Deut 7:2 does not provide any specific details about how the verb ‫ חרם‬hiphil is to be understood or implemented, so it is difficult to see how the specific details found in Josh 6:21, 24a could be dependent on this particular passage. Likewise, it is striking that the basic rules governing warfare in Deut 20:10-14 do not call for putting to death a city’s entire population but instead explicitly require that women and children be spared. Thus, if the reports in Josh 6:21, 24a are indeed dependent on the laws governing warfare in Deuteronomy, then they must have been composed after Deut 20:15-18 were added to 20:10-14. Yet such a solution encounters a further problem, namely, that Deut 20:15-18 make no reference to burning the city, while Josh 6:24a does. At the same time, the evidence from Ugarit (KTU 1.13; 1.3 II 4–30), the Mesha inscription, and the Sabaean text RES 3945 indicates that the ideology of ḫrm/ḥrm (if not its practice) existed in the West Semitic cultural area already during the Late Bronze Age and is also attested in the southern Levant in the mid-ninth century and in the Arabian Peninsula in the early seventh century B.C.E. On the whole, the enactment of the ban in Josh 6:21*, 24a fits quite well with the concept of ḫrm/ḥrm found in the extrabiblical evidence and does not fit well with the laws governing warfare in Deut 20:10-14 or their revision in 20:15-18.79 Thus, I find no reason to conclude that these verses (apart from the reference to Jericho’s livestock in 6:21b*80) presuppose the book of Deuteronomy. 81



























































79 DIETRICH, “Achans Diebstahl,” 57–58 is certainly correct in noting the similar conceptions of the verb ‫ חרם‬hiphil in Deut 20:16-17 and Josh 6:21 (both of which he assigns to DtrH), although he does not offer an explanation for the fact that Josh 6:24a also describes the burning of the city, which is mentioned nowhere in Deut 20:15-18. 80 This reference has its closest parallels in Deut 13:16 and 1 Sam 15 (cf. LOHFINK, “ḥāram,” 187) and seems to reflect a particularly rigorous interpretation of the phrase ‫כל‬ ‫ נשמה‬in Deut 20:16 which, based on its immediate context, applies only to human life. 81 For the conclusion that the basic concept of ḥērem in Josh 6 is pre-Deuteronomistic, see LOHFINK, “ḥāram,” 193; OTTOSON, “Rahab,” 426 with n. 20; and P. STERN, Biblical Ḥerem, 144.

1. The Conquest of Jericho (Josh 6)

361

Joshua’s curse over Jericho. Josh 6:26 bears lexical connections to 1 Kgs 16:34, which states that a certain Hiel of Bethel built up Jericho: Josh 6:26

‫וישבע יהושע בעת ההיא לאמר ארור האיש לפני ה׳ אשר יקום ובנה את העיר‬ ‫הזאת את יריחו בבכרו ייסדנה ובצעירו יציב דלתיה‬

1 Kgs 16:34

‫בימיו בנה חיאל בית האלי את יריחה באבירם בכרו יסדה ובשגיב צעירו הציב‬ ‫דלתיה כדבר ה׳ אשר דבר ביד יהושע בן נון‬

It is difficult to imagine either of these verses without the other. On the one hand, Joshua’s curse in Josh 6:26 is so specific that it seems to have the particular situation of 1 Kgs 16:34 in view; on the other hand, the fact that Hiel built Jericho “at the cost of” his sons is a blind motif that is understandable only in light of Josh 6:26.82 Moreover, it is doubtful that the report in 1 Kgs 16:34 preserves a historical kernel; rather, Hiel’s building of Jericho – a Canaanite city – symbolizes the influence of illicit religious practices during the rule of Ahab.83 Thus, it seems possible that Josh 6:26 and 1 Kgs 16:34 were composed by the same hand.84 This points to a literary horizon that extends beyond the book of Joshua,85 indicating that Josh 6:26 cannot have formed part of an independent exodus-conquest narrative. Joshua’s renown. Like Josh 6:26, there is reason to suspect that the report in 6:27 that Yhwh was with Joshua and of Joshua’s renown throughout the land is also a later addition to the narrative. This report serves as a fulfillment of the promise of divine accompaniment to Joshua in 1:9 and also has close affinities to 1:17; 3:7; and 4:14.86 Considering that all of these verses were assigned to post-priestly stages in the formation of their respective chapters,87 6:27 should also be assigned to a post-priestly stage of composition.

























































82

On the dependence of 1 Kgs 16:34 on Josh 6:26, see FISHBANE, Biblical Interpretation, 500–501 and MAZOR, “Origin,” 23–24. In contrast, FRITZ, Josua, 74 argues that 1 Kgs 16:34 has traditio-historical priority over Josh 6:26, and PORZIG, Lade, 82 argues that 1 Kgs 16:34abα served as a Vorlage for Josh 6:26 and was later aligned with Josh 6:26 by the addition of the fulfillment notice in 16:34bβ. 83 On the secondary nature of 1 Kgs 16:34 within its immediate context, see MAZOR, “Origin,” 23, who notes that the verse is absent in the Lucianic recension of the book of Kings; WÜRTHWEIN, Könige, 203; and SWEENEY, I & II Kings, 206–7. In contrast, PORZIG, Lade, 82 entertains the possibility that 1 Kgs 16:34abα preserves an annalistic notice. 84 Cf. R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige Krieg,” 99, who assigns both passages to the Grundschicht of DtrH. 85 Cf. NELSON, Joshua, 90. 86 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 76. 87 Chapter 9, §§1.2 and 3.2.

362

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

1.3. Synthesis I

The most basic narrative thread in Josh 6 may have originally consisted only of 6:1-3aα, 5*, 7a*, 14* (only ‫)ויסבו את העיר‬, 20* (without the references to the shofarot), recounting a basic version of Yhwh’s instructions to Joshua, the people’s encircling the city one time, Joshua’s command to give a great shout, the collapse of Jericho’s walls, and Israel’s capture of the city.88

I+

Alternatively, it is possible that the most basic narrative was somewhat more developed and included the description of the seven-day process of circling the city in Josh 6:3aβb, 4aβ, 11*, 14b-16aα89 and/or the enactment of the ban in 6:21, 24a.90 There are no compelling reasons for regarding 6:21, 24a as dependent on the book of Deuteronomy.

II

This narrative was later expanded in Josh 6:4aα, 4b, 5aα2, 6, 7b-9, 1213, 16aβ, and 20aβbα1 in order to feature the role of the priests and the ark in the circling of Jericho.91 Since all previous references to priests and the ark in Exodus through Joshua can be evaluated as priestly or post-priestly, this layer of reworking cannot be pre-priestly.92

III

The narrative was further reworked in Josh 6:10, 16b, which presuppose the procession of the priests and their shofarot (Level II) and specify that Joshua will give a verbal command for the people to shout.93

























































88

Cf. SCHWIENHORST, Eroberung, 23–28, 39–72 (Josh 6:1, 2-5*, 14*, 20b) and KRATZ, Komposition, 208, 301 (ET 201, 292) (6:1-3, 5, 12a, 14*, 20b); see also the slightly more expansive reconstruction of KNAUF, Josua, 68–69 (6:1-3aα, 5a*, 7a, 10, 12a, 15aα*, 16bα, 20aα, 20bβγ, 27). 89 On the comparative evidence for seven-day intervals in the context of war, see FLEMING, “Seven-Day Siege,” 221–28. 90 Cf. the reconstructions of FRITZ, Josua, 69–73 (Josh 6:1, 2a, 3*, 4aβ, 5, 7a, 14, 15a, 20b, 21-24a); BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 296 (6:1-3, 4aβ, 5, 11, 14-15, 20-21*); and BLUM, “Überlegungen,” 153 n. 66 (6:1-3, 4aβ, 5, [7a?], 11* [without ‫]ארון ה׳‬, 14-15, 20b, 21, [24a?]) against the overly simplistic reconstructions of VAN DER MEER, “Sound the Trumpet!,” 31; R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige Krieg,” 98; and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 325. 91 Cf. the similar layers of reworking proposed by FRITZ, Josua, 75–76; BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 297; PORZIG, Lade, 79; and BLUM, “Überlegungen,” 153. See also NELSON, Joshua, 89–90 and RÖSEL, Joshua, 97, who likewise conclude that the ark is not original but remain undecided over whether the priests belonged to the most basic narrative. 92 Cf. VAN DER MEER, “Sound the Trumpet!,” 30–31, who assigns Josh 6:4, 6, 8-9, 1213, 16a to a priestly redactional layer, against BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 296–300, 353–58, who concludes that his layer B is pre-Deuteronomistic and (implicitly) pre-priestly, and BLUM, “Überlegungen,” 153, who assigns his “Hauptbearbeitung”-layer to DtrH. 93 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 296, who assigns Josh 6:10, 16b to his layer C1, and BLUM, “Überlegungen,” 153, who assigns Joshua’s verbal command to “einer zweiten, recht umfangreichen Bearbeitung.”

1. The Conquest of Jericho (Josh 6)

IV

363

The fulfillment report regarding the rescue of Rahab in Josh 6:22-23aα presupposes Joshua’s speech to the people in 6:16b and thus cannot be earlier than Level III.94 The post-priestly nature of 6:22-23aα is demonstrated by the fact that this unit cannot be earlier than the priestly layer of reworking in Level II and by the fact that it presupposes the postpriestly Rahab narrative in Josh 2.

IV+ A further addition was made in Josh 6:23aβb describing how Rahab’s extended family was settled outside the Israelite camp, thereby contradicting the inclusive stance toward Rahab in the earlier additions. V

Like Josh 6:22-23aα, Joshua’s specifications regarding the exemption of Rahab’s family from the ban in 6:17b (as well as the related statement in 6:25) presuppose his speech to the people in 6:16b and thus cannot be earlier than Level III. The relative chronology of the Rahab materials in 6:22-23aα (Level IV) and in 6:17b, 25 (Level V) is difficult to determine on the basis of Josh 6 alone, although comparison with the Rahab narrative in Josh 2 suggests that 6:22-23aα constitute the more original fulfillment report, since these verses refer to the spies as ‫( האנשים המרגלים‬6:22; cf. 2:1), whereas 6:17b, 25 call them ‫המלאכים‬.95

V+

It is possible that the warning to keep away from banned goods (‫ )חרם‬in Josh 6:18 (which connects to Josh 7) is later than 6:17, since 6:18 has a completely different conception of ‫ חרם‬from 6:17.96

VI

The references to the precious metals in Josh 6:19, 24b do not fit well with the portrayal of the banned goods as found in 6:18 or indeed with that of the Achan narrative in Josh 7. Thus, these references must be even later than 6:18. In striking contradiction to the basic rhetorical function of Josh 7, which links the misappropriated precious metals with idolatry (see §2), these verses suggest that there was a legitimate place for such items in the “treasury of Yhwh.” 97

























































94

Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 296, who includes Josh 6:22-23 in his layer C1, and BLUM, “Überlegungen,” 153, who assigns 6:22-23 to a second layer of reworking, against FRITZ, Josua, 68, who assigns 6:22-23 to the most basic narrative. 95 On the evaluation of Josh 6:17b, 25 as later than 6:22-23aα, cf. PORZIG, Lade, 77–79 against NOTH, Josua2, 40–41 and RÖSEL, Joshua, 95. 96 Cf. DIETRICH, “Achans Diebstahl,” 59. 97 On the different attitudes towards the precious metals in Josh 6:19, 24b and Josh 7, cf. KAMINSKY, “Joshua 7,” 330–31 against DIETRICH, “Achans Diebstahl,” 59, who assigns Josh 6:19 and Josh 7 to the same compositional level.

‫)‪Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪364‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫‪6:1‬‬

‫ויריחו סגרת ומסגרת מפני בני ישראל אין יוצא ואין בא ויאמר ה׳ אל יהושע ראה נתתי בידך את‬ ‫יריחו ואת מלכה }גבורי החיל{ ‪ 3‬וסבתם את העיר כל אנשי המלחמה‬ ‫הקיף }את העיר פעם אחת כה תעשה ששת ימים ‪ 4‬ושבעה כהנים ישאו שבעה שופרות היובלים‬ ‫לפני הארון וביום השביעי תסבו את העיר שבע פעמים והכהנים יתקעו בשופרות{‬ ‫‪ 5‬והיה במשך בקרן היובל‬ ‫}בשמעכם את קול השופר{‬ ‫‪a‬‬

‫יריעו כל העם תרועה גדולה ונפלה חומת העיר תחתיה ועלו העם איש נגדו‬ ‫]*‪ 6‬וילך יהושע[‬

‫‪b‬‬

‫*‪ 6‬ויקרא יהושע בן נון אל הכהנים ויאמר אלהם }שאו את ארון הברית ושבעה כהנים ישאו‬ ‫שבעה שופרות יובלים לפני ארון ה׳{‬ ‫*‪ 7‬ויאמר יהושע‪ c‬אל העם עברו וסבו את העיר‬ ‫והחלוץ יעבר לפני ארון ה׳ ‪} 8‬ויהי כאמר יהושע אל העם{ ושבעה הכהנים נשאים שבעה שופרות‬ ‫היובלים לפני ה׳ עברו ותקעו בשופרות וארון ברית ה׳ הלך אחריהם ‪} 9‬והחלוץ הלך לפני הכהנים‬ ‫תקעו השופרות{ והמאסף הלך אחרי הארון הלוך ותקוע בשופרות ‪ 10‬ואת העם צוה יהושע לאמר‬ ‫לא תריעו ולא תשמיעו את קולכם ולא יצא מפיכם דבר עד יום אמרי אליכם הריעו והריעתם‬ ‫‪ 11‬ויסב ארון ה׳ את העיר הקף פעם אחת ויבאו המחנה וילינו במחנה ‪ 12‬וישכם יהושע בבקר‬ ‫וישאו הכהנים את ארון ה׳ ‪ 13‬ושבעה הכהנים נשאים שבעה שופרות היבלים לפני ארון ה׳ הלכים‬ ‫הלוך ותקעו בשופרות והחלוץ הלך לפניהם והמאסף הלך אחרי ארון ה׳ הולך ותקוע בשופרות‬ ‫‪ 14‬ויסבו את העיר ]ביום השני פעם אחת וישבו המחנה כה עשו ששת ימים ‪ 15‬ויהי ביום השביעי‬ ‫וישכמו כעלות השחר ויסבו את העיר כמשפט הזה שבע פעמים רק ביום ההוא סבבו את העיר שבע‬ ‫פעמים ‪ 16‬ויהי בפעם השביעית[‬ ‫תקעו הכהנים בשופרות‬ ‫ויאמר יהושע אל העם הריעו כי נתן ה׳ לכם את העיר‬ ‫‪ 17‬והיתה העיר חרם היא וכל אשר בה לה׳ רק רחב הזונה תחיה היא וכל אשר אתה‬ ‫בבית כי החבאתה את המלאכים אשר שלחנו ‪ 18‬ורק אתם שמרו מן החרם פן תחרימו‬ ‫ולקחתם מן החרם ושמתם את מחנה ישראל לחרם ועכרתם אותו ‪ 19‬וכל כסף וזהב‬ ‫וכלי נחשת וברזל קדש הוא לה׳ אוצר ה׳ יבוא‬ ‫‪} 20‬וירע העם{‪ d‬ויתקעו בשפרות ויהי כשמע העם את קול השופר‬

‫‪e‬‬

‫























































‬ ‫‪a‬‬

‫ועלה העם ‪] 4QJosha‬ועלו העם‬ ‫‪Cf. 𝔊.‬‬ ‫‪c‬‬ ‫‪). For the 3ms verb, cf. qere, 𝔖, 𝔗,‬ויאמרו אל העם ‪Following 4QJosha (in contrast to 𝔐:‬‬ ‫‪𝔙Mss, and 𝔊p; see also BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 252 with n. 72.‬‬ ‫‪d‬‬ ‫‪] > 𝔊esc. Ibid., 251 convincingly argues in favor of 𝔐 as the more original‬וירע העם‬ ‫‪reading, interpreting the minus in 𝔊esc as an effort to smooth out the verse.‬‬ ‫‪e‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊e τῶν σαλπίγγων; 𝔊scp τὴν φωνὴν τῶν σαλπίγγων‬את כל השופר‬ ‫‪b‬‬

365

2. Achan’s Sin (Josh 7) IV

III

g

II

I

f

‫ויריעו העם תרועה גדולה ותפל החומה תחתיה ויעל העם העירה איש נגדו וילכדו את העיר‬ [‫ את כל אשר בעיר מאיש ועד אשה מנער ועד זקן ועד שור ושה וחמור לפי חרב‬h‫ ויחרימו‬21] ‫ ולשנים האנשים המרגלים את הארץ אמר יהושע באו בית האשה הזונה והוציאו משם‬22 ‫ ויבאו הנערים המרגלים ויציאו את רחב‬23 ‫את האשה ואת כל אשר לה כאשר נשבעתם לה‬ ‫ ויניחום‬i‫ואת אביה ואת אמה ואת אחיה ואת כל אשר לה ]ואת כל משפחותיה הוציאו‬ [‫מחוץ למחנה ישראל‬ [‫ ]והעיר שרפו באש וכל אשר בה‬24 ‫רק הכסף והזהב וכלי הנחשת והברזל נתנו אוצר }בית{ ה׳‬ ‫ ואת רחב הזונה ואת בית אביה ואת כל אשר לה החיה יהושע ותשב בקרב ישראל עד‬25 ‫ אשר שלח יהושע לרגל את יריחו‬j‫היום הזה כי החביאה את המלאכים‬ ‫ את העיר הזאת }את‬l‫ אשר יקום ובנה‬k{‫ וישבע יהושע בעת ההיא לאמר ארור האיש }לפני ה׳‬26] [‫ ויהי ה׳ את יהושע ויהי שמעו בכל הארץ‬27 n‫ בבכרו ייסדנה ובצעירו יציב דלתיה‬m {‫יריחו‬

2. Achan’s Sin (Josh 7) 2.1. Literary-critical analysis Josh 7 contains two separate episodes that are logically linked in the received text of the chapter. The first episode (7:2-5) describes Joshua’s sending of spies from Jericho to Ai and the failure of the Israelites’ initial attack on Ai. The second episode (7:1, 6-26) serves to explain why the Israelites were defeated: Yhwh did not accompany the Israelites in battle because they failed to destroy banned objects in their midst (7:12). Achan’s sin and the failure to capture Ai (Josh 7:1, 2-5). The report of the people’s failure to capture Ai in Josh 7:2-5 stands in tension with the narra-

























































f

‫𝔊 ]ויריעו‬esc ἠλάλαξεν ‫𝔊 > ]איש נגדו וילכדו את העיר‬ec. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 261 interprets this minus as a haplography. h ‫ ]ויחרימו‬καὶ ἀνεθεμάτισεν αὐτὴν Ἰησοῦς. Here, it seems likely that the Greek translator had a Vorlage with the reading ‫ ויחרימו‬but interpreted this not as a plural verb but instead as a singular verb with a 3ms pronominal suffix, adding a reference to Joshua as the subject for the sake of clarity; cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 261. i ‫ *𝔊 ]ואת כל משפחותיה הוציאו‬καὶ τὴν συγγένειαν αὐτῆς καὶ πάντα ὅσα ἦν αὐτῇ; 𝔊scp καὶ [𝔊cp πάντα] ὅσα ἦν αὐτῇ καὶ πάσαν τὴν συγγένειαν αὐτῆς j ‫ *𝔊 ]את המלאכים‬τοὺς κατασκοπεύσαντας k ‫ > ]לפני ה׳‬4QTest, 4QPsJosh, 𝔊esc l ‫ ]אשר יקום ובנה‬4QTest, 4QPsJosh ‫אשר יבני‬, 𝔊es ὃς οἰκοδομήσει m ‫ > ]את יריחו‬4QTest, 4QPsJosh, 𝔊esc n
‫ 𝔊 ]דלתיה‬καὶ οὕτως ἐποίησεν Οζαν ὁ ἐκ Βαιθηλ: ἐν τῷ Αβιρων τῷ πρωτοτόκῷ ἐθεμελίωσεν αὐτὴν καὶ ἐν τῷ ἐλαχίστῷ διασωθέντι ἐπέστησεν τὰς πύλας αὐτῆς. For further g

discussion of this Greek variant, see esp. Mazor, “Origin.”

366

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

tive of Achan’s sin in several respects. There is an abrupt change in subject matter between 7:1 and 7:2, which suggests that these two verses do not belong to the same compositional level.98 Since 7:1 cannot connect directly to 7:6 (Joshua’s lament is clearly a response to the failed attack on Ai and not to Achan’s taking of prohibited booty), 7:2-5 cannot be a later insertion into the chapter. Only two possible alternatives remain: Either 7:1 is an isolated addition,99 in which case 7:2-5 and 7:6-26 could belong to the same compositional level, or 7:1 and 7:6-26 were composed together, in which case they would constitute a later level of composition that frames the earlier material in 7:25. It is difficult to decide between these two possibilities on the basis of Josh 7 alone.100 On the one hand, a text-critical observation lends at least some weight to the latter possibility: In 𝔐, 7:2-5 consistently refer to the people as ‫( העם‬4x), while 7:1 and 7:6-26 overwhelmingly use the terms ‫( ישראל‬9x) or ‫( בני ישראל‬4x) and use the term ‫ העם‬only twice.101 On the other hand, the fact that ‫ העם‬is used in 7:7 and 7:13 complicates the view that 7:2-5 can be separated from 7:6-26 on such lexical grounds. Thus, this question must be revisited in the macrocontextual analysis (§2.2). Joshua’s lament and Yhwh’s response (Josh 7:6-15). There are several signs of literary growth within this unit. (1) The reference to Joshua and the elders’ mourning ritual in Josh 7:6aβb (‫)הוא וזקני ישראל ויעלו עפר על ראשם‬ comes too late after Joshua’s prostration and thus may be a later insertion.102 (2) The reference to the ark in 7:6 is absent in 𝔊* and may be an addition.103 (3) The continuation of Joshua’s intercession in 7:8-9 may belong to a different compositional level than 7:6-7, since 7:7 uses the term “Amorites” with reference to the inhabitants of the land, while 7:8 uses “Canaanites.” Since 7:6-7 can stand without 7:8-9 but the opposite is not the case, then 7:8-9 can be identified as a later addition.104 (4) Within Yhwh’s response in 7:10-15, the juxtaposition of 7:12 and 7:13 is rather repetitive, since both verses state that the people are not able to stand against their enemies as long as there is ‫ חרם‬in their midst. This raises the question of whether 7:12-13 have under-

























































98

Cf. PORZIG, Lade, 86 against DIETRICH, “Achans Diebstahl,” 64, who regards Josh 7 as a compositional unity. 99 Cf. PORZIG, Lade, 88 n. 234: “V. 1a könnte verallgemeindernde Überschrift sein.” 100 For a discussion of the various possible scenarios, see PORZIG, Lade, 87. 101 Although 𝔊 occasionally reads ὁ λαός where 𝔐 reads ‫( ישראל‬Josh 7:11, 16, 24), 𝔊 still overwhelmingly uses the term Ισραηλ in 7:1, 6-26 (11x) but not at all in 7:2-5. 102 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 85. 103 Cf. ibid., 84–85 and PORZIG, Lade, 91. 104 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 85. In contrast, RÖSEL, Joshua, 115 notes the different terminology but does not take this as an indication of different compositional levels within Josh 7:6-9. I cannot agree with PORZIG, Lade, 90, who concludes that 7:6-9 as a whole are a later addition. Porzig identifies the original beginning of the Achan narrative in 7:10 (88 n. 236), yet Yhwh’s instruction that Joshua stand up is understandable only in light of 7:6-7, (8-9).

2. Achan’s Sin (Josh 7)

367

gone literary development, and certain lexical and conceptual differences between the two verses support this possibility. In 7:12, Yhwh states that the Israelites will not be able to stand against their enemies since they have become “proscribed” (‫)חרם‬, and this situation can be resolved only if the people “annihilate” (‫ )תשמידו‬the ‫ חרם‬from their midst. In contrast, 7:13 states that the people will not be able to stand against their enemies until they “remove” (‫ )הסירכם‬the ‫ חרם‬from their midst. Notably, 7:12 states that the people themselves are the ‫חרם‬, whereas 7:11 and 7:13 clearly use the term ‫ חרם‬to indicate inanimate, prohibited objects. 105 In short, 7:11, 13 and 7:12 contain very different conceptions of what (and who) should be classified as ‫חרם‬. (5) Within 7:12, there is also a tension between the description of the entire people as ‫ חרם‬and the stipulation to “annihilate” the ‫ חרם‬from the people’s midst, since this implies that all the people would be subjected to the punishment. Since the statement that the entire people have become ‫ חרם‬leads to a logical contradiction, this suggests that 7:12 does not reflect the original conception of the narrative. In contrast, 7:11, 13 indicate that Israel is affected corporately by the taking of banned goods but state that the problem can be resolved by removing the banned goods from the people’s midst. 106 Achan’s discovery and punishment (Josh 7:16-26). There is strong evidence of literary development within Josh 7:24-26, which present two conflicting resolutions to the narrative. Whereas 7:25bα, γ state that the Israelites stoned Achan (and, according to the plural pronoun in 7:25bγ, also Achan’s family), 7:25bβ states that “they” burned “them.” 107 Before attempting to determine which of these depictions belongs to the most basic Achan narrative, further discussion of the burning motif in 7:25bβ is necessary. Neither the subject of the verb ‫ וישרפו‬nor the antecedent of ‫ א ָֹתם‬are immediately clear, and several possibilities emerge for interpreting them together. On the one hand, the subject of the verb ‫ וישרפו‬must either be the envoys (‫)מלאכים‬ who were sent to retrieve the banned goods (7:22) or Joshua and the rest of the Israelites (‫יהושע…וכל ישראל עמו‬, 7:24). On the other hand, there are four different possibilities for the antecedent of ‫א ָֹתם‬: (a) the banned goods alone (as is clearly the case for the 3mp pronominal suffixes in 7:23); (b) the banned goods and Achan ( ‫את עכן בן זרח ואת הכסף ואת האדרת ואת לשון הזהב‬, 7:24*); (c) Achan, his family, and all his possessions ( ‫את עכן בן זרח…ואת בניו‬ 105 The use of the verb ‫ שמד‬hiphil reinforces the view in Josh 7:12 that the people have become the ‫חרם‬, since this verb is overwhelmingly used throughout the Hebrew Bible with reference to people, not objects. The verb ‫ סור‬hiphil in 7:13 is more ambiguous, since elsewhere it takes both nonhuman and human objects. 106 Surprisingly, the logical tension within Josh 7:12 is rarely noted by commentators. On 7:12 as a later addition, see, however, P ORZIG, Lade, 88 n. 236. 107 NELSON, Joshua, 99 notes the tension between burning and stoning as an indication of “editorial development” but concludes that “a detailed reconstruction of the process is impossible.”

368

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

‫ואת בנתיו ואת שורו ואת חמרו ואת צאנו ואת אהלו ואת כל אשר לו‬, 7:24*, cf. g*); or (d) the banned goods as well as Achan, his family, and all his possessions (7:23-24*).108 When these two aspects are considered together, they allow for two basic scenarios: (1) If the subject of the verb ‫ וישרפו‬is the envoys, then ‫ א ָֹתם‬must refer to the banned goods alone, in which case Josh 7:23 would have been followed immediately by 7:25bβ (‫ )וישרפו א ָֹתם באש‬and then by 7:26aβ (‫וישב ה׳ מחרון‬ ‫)אפו‬. This scenario requires the further assumption that 7:15 is a later addition to the narrative, since in this verse Joshua explicitly states that the one caught with banned goods will be burned in fire along with all his possessions (‫)והיה הנלכד בחרם ישרף באש אתו ואת כל אשר לו‬.109 If 7:15 is bracketed out, 7:14 must be removed as well, since without 7:15 the instructions in 7:14 would not have a clear purpose. 110 Thus, in this scenario, 7:13 would have to be connected directly to 7:16, which is certainly possible from a narrative standpoint.111 This offers a plausible explanation for the tension between 7:12 and 7:13, suggesting that the application of the term ‫ חרם‬to human beings and the imperative to “annihilate” (‫ שמד‬hiphil) such ‫ חרם‬in 7:12 is connected conceptually to 7:14-15 and to the notion that Achan (and perhaps also his family members) were burned in the fire in 7:24-25. Moreover, a scenario in which only the banned goods were burned and not Achan himself fits well with Achan’s confession and penitence in 7:20-21, which hardly lead the reader to expect that Achan himself will be punished in such a gruesome way. (2) If the subject of the verb ‫ וישרפו‬is Joshua and the people, then ‫א ָֹתם‬ must have referred to Achan plus the banned goods and/or Achan’s family and possessions. According to this scenario (setting aside the motif of stoning for now), there is no need to bracket out Josh 7:14-15 from the most basic Achan narrative, and the resolution to the narrative in 7:24-25 could have consisted of 7:24a, 25bβ. Nevertheless, this scenario does not easily account for the tension between 7:12 (human ‫ )חרם‬and 7:13 (‫ חרם‬as banned goods) or the fact that 7:12 is likely later than 7:13, since 7:12 interprets the term ‫חרם‬ in a manner not attested elsewhere in the chapter. 112 Moreover, as Christoph Levin and Peter Porzig have noted, 7:24 g* seems to preserve a Wiederaufnahme in its Hebrew Vorlage, referring twice to the Valley of Achor: 108

According to P ORZIG, Lade, 88 n. 238, ‫ א ָֹתם‬refers to the list in Josh 7:24. On Josh 7:15 as a later addition, see also PORZIG, Lade, 88 n. 236, who seems to assume that the burning originally related only to the banned objects, similarly to the reconstruction presented here. 110 Against PORZIG, Lade, 88 n. 236. 111 On Josh 7:14-15 as a later addition, see already WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 125. 112 Cf. NOTH, Josua2, 45, who notes that “das Wort ‫ ֵח ֶרם‬in dieser Erzählung mit verschiedenen Bedeutungsnuancen (cf vor allem 12a und 12b. 13) gebraucht wird.” K AMINSKY, “Joshua 7,” 339 also notes the logical tension created by the application of the term ‫ חרם‬to the Israelites in 7:12 but attempts to resolve this tension synchronically. 109

2. Achan’s Sin (Josh 7)

369

καὶ ἔλαβεν Ἰησοῦς τὸν Αχαρ υἱὸν Ζαρα καὶ ἀνήγαγεν αὐτὸν εἰς φάραγγα Αχωρ καὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς μόσχους αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ ὑποζύγια αὐτοῦ και πάντα τὰ πρόβατα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτοῦ, καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς εἰς Εμεκαχωρ.

This strongly suggests that ‫ואת בניו ואת בנתיו ואת שורו ואת חמרו ואת צאנו ואת‬ ‫ אהלו ואת כל אשר לו וכל ישראל עמו ויעלו אתם עמק עכור‬is an addition (with the reference to the precious metals as an even later addition) and that an earlier version of 7:24 read ‫ויקח יהושע את עכן בן זרח ויעל אתו עמק עכור‬.113 Thus, the clause ‫ וישרפו אתם באש‬in 7:25bβ is either an early element that refers to the burning of the banned objects or is a late addition that presupposes the secondary reference to Achan’s family members and possessions in 7:24*. It is now possible to turn to the motif of stoning in Josh 7:24-26. Here, a starting point for the literary-critical analysis is the double report of stoning in 7:25bα (‫ )וירגמו אתו כל ישראל אבן‬and 7:25bγ (‫)ויסקלו אתם באבנים‬. Since the subsequent report of the Israelites’ setting up of a heap of stones has only Achan in view (‫)ויקימו עליו גל אבנים גדול‬, 7:26aα must be connected to the first stoning report in 7:25bα. Moreover, considering the prominent etiological component in 7:24b, 26b, it is reasonable to conclude that the reference to the heap of stones in 7:26aα belonged to the stoning motif from the outset. This suggests that 7:25bα constitutes the original stoning report and that 7:25bγ is a later addition,114 which finds further support in the fact that 7:25bγ is absent in 𝔊*. Although the original stoning report depicted the stoning of Achan alone, it seems that the report presupposed the presence of Achan’s family in the scene from the outset, since 7:24b reports that the Israelites brought “them” up to the Valley of Achor. The diachronic relationship between the burning motif and the stoning motif must now be considered. A good starting point for doing so is the reference to the abatement of Yhwh’s wrath in Josh 7:26aβ, which constitutes the resolution to the initial problem of the Israelites’ failure in battle and must therefore belong to the most basic Achan narrative. Given that such failure in battle was caused by the misappropriation of banned goods and can be reversed only by the removal of the banned goods (cf. 7:11, 13), Achan’s punishment by stoning hardly resolves the fundamental problem posed by the narrative. Thus, it is unlikely that the motif of stoning is more original than the motif of burning, indicating that 7:25bα, γ, 26aα can be bracketed out from the most basic narrative thread in 7:16-26.115

























































113

Cf. LEVIN, Verheißung, 45 n. 34 and PORZIG, Lade, 88 n. 238. In contrast, VEIJOLA, “Klagegebet,” 188 n. 76 regards Josh 7:25bα as a later element. 115 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 84–85, who assigns the punishment of burning to the most basic Achan narrative and the punishment of stoning to a later addition yet surprisingly assigns the reference to the heap of stones in Josh 7:26aα to the basic narrative. In contrast, NOTH, Josua2, 43, 46 and PORZIG, Lade, 88 n. 238 conclude that the motif of burning is secondary 114

370

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

A separate question that remains to be addressed is whether the etiology relating to the Valley of Achor in Josh 7:24b, 25a, 26b was originally connected to the burning motif or was added to the narrative at the same time as the stoning motif. Considering that the stoning motif is focused on Achan alone, the statement that Joshua and the Israelites brought Achan’s family members and possessions up to the Valley of Achor is superfluous to the stoning motif. In contrast, it is quite relevant to the later expansion of the burning motif involving not only the banned goods but also Achan (and his family) as hypothesized in scenario (1) above. As 7:15 stipulates, the one caught with banned goods must be burned in fire along with everything and everyone connected to him, and this is precisely what the detailed list in 7:24a* represents. Interim result. Based on the foregoing analysis, at least three major levels of composition can be identified in Josh 7. The earliest level may have consisted of only 7:2-5a, which reports on the people’s failure to capture Ai, although it is also possible that this report was created as part of the Achan narrative from the outset. A basic version of the latter is found in 7:6-11, 13, 16-23, 25bβ, 26aβ, which depicts the discovery of Achan as the culprit, Achan’s penitence, and the destruction of the banned goods by fire, resulting in the abatement of Yhwh’s wrath. This basic Achan narrative was subsequently reworked through the addition of 7:1, 12, 14-15, 24, 25a, 26b, which applied the concept of ‫ חרם‬to Achan, his family, and his possessions and added the etiology connected to the Valley of Achor.116 Finally, the etiological aspect of the Achan narrative was expanded further with the report of the stoning of Achan and the erection of the heap of stones in the Valley of Achor. 2.2. Macrocontextual analysis While many commentators have concluded that the Achan narrative is a Deuteronomistic text due to its theme of ‫חרם‬,117 few have taken a clear stance on its relationship to priestly and post-priestly literature until recently. While some earlier commentators identified isolated priestly elements in the narra-



























































































































to the motif of stoning, and RUDOLPH, Elohist, 189–90 regards a basic version of both motifs as original to the narrative. 116 On the secondary nature of the etiology in Josh 7:26b, cf. NELSON, Joshua, 99; VEIJOLA, “Klagegebet,” 188 n. 76; and R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige Krieg,” 100 against FRITZ, Josua, 79, who assigns 7:26 in its entirety to the most basic narrative despite his observation that “[m]it 26a liegt der eigentliche Abschluß der Erzählung vor” (84). 117 E.g., KRATZ, Komposition, 209 (ET 201–2). In contrast, NELSON, Joshua, 99 argues that the Achan narrative is pre-Deuteronomistic.

2. Achan’s Sin (Josh 7)

371

tive,118 there are good reasons to conclude that the entire Achan narrative presupposes not only Deuteronomy but also priestly literature. Josh 7:1. The post-priestly nature of Josh 7:1 can be deduced from the use of the verbal root ‫“ מע״ל‬to transgress,” which in the Pentateuch is concentrated within priestly and post-priestly literature119 and is often used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible to designate, in the words of Volkmar Fritz, “einen unerlaubten Übergriff des Menschen in die sakralrechtliche Sphäre.”120 Josh 7:2-5. Consideration of the broader literary context of Josh 7 supports the possibility that the narrative of the Israelites’ initial defeat in 7:2-5 was originally independent of the story of Achan. Josh 7:2 serves as a fitting continuation of Josh 6, forming a narrative connection between the sites of Jericho and Ai. Moreover, Yhwh’s statement to Joshua in 8:1 not to be afraid follows logically from the Israelites’ defeat in 7:2-5, suggesting that 7:2-5 at one time immediately preceded Josh 8.121 Finally, the close connection between 7:2-5a(b?) and the Ai narrative in Josh 8 is supported by the existence of similar plot structures in classical literature.122 This does not necessarily mean, however, that Josh 7:2-5a(b?) belong to an early stage in the composition of the conquest narratives in the book of Joshua. Indeed, there is strong evidence that 7:2-5 were composed with several relatively late narratives in the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua in view. First, the people’s failed attack on Ai constitutes a structural parallel to the failed entry into the promised land at the end of the spy story in Num 14:40-45. In both episodes, the action clearly takes place at human initiative, ultimately resulting in failure.123 Thus, if Josh 7:2-5 presuppose the spy story in Num 13–14, then these verses cannot have been part of a pre-priestly narrative in the book of Joshua.124 Moreover, there are several indications that Josh 7:2-5 presuppose the Rahab narrative in Josh 2. The terms ‫ אנשים‬and ‫רגל‬ piel connect to the sending of men to spy out Jericho,125 and the motif of the people’s “melting heart” in 7:5b (‫ )וימס לבב העם‬sets up a contrast with Ra-

























































118

E.g., NÖLDEKE, Untersuchungen, 95–98 attributes Josh 7:1, 14, 16, 17, 24, 25 to P. Lev 5:15, 21; 26:40; Num 5:6, 12, 27; 31:16; Deut 32:51. Cf. RÖSEL, Joshua, 111; DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 354; and EDENBURG, “Paradigm,” 131–32. 120 FRITZ, Josua, 79. 121 For the view that Josh 7:2-5 were once independent of 7:1, 6-26, see NOTH, Josua2, 43 (only 7:2-5a); NELSON, Joshua, 98; VEIJOLA, “Klagegebet,” 188–89; PORZIG, Lade, 87 (only 7:2-5a); RÖSEL, Joshua, 109; and BLUM, “Überlegungen,” 154 (only 7:2-5a). 122 MALAMAT, “Eroberung,” 24–25. 123 Cf. DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 356. See also PORZIG, Lade, 88, who states that Josh 7:2-5a illustrate “die Gefährdung der Gabe des Landes bei eigenmächtigem Vorgehen” but does not draw a direct connection to the spy story in Num 13–14. 124 On Num 13–14, see Chapter 6, §4. 125 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 79, although he considers the most basic Rahab narrative to be preDeuteronomistic and the Achan narrative to be Deuteronomistic. 119

372

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

hab’s confession in 2:11 (‫)וימס לבבנו‬.126 In light of additional elements in Josh 7 that serve to cast the Achan narrative as a negative counterpart to the Rahab narrative (see below), it is reasonable to assume that here, too, the direction of dependence runs from Josh 2 to Josh 7:2-5 and not vice versa.127 Josh 7:6-15. A number of elements in this unit draw on post-priestly texts in the Pentateuch, particularly the spy story and the episode of the golden calf.128 (1) Joshua’s act of tearing his clothes (Josh 7:6) is similar to that of Joshua and Caleb in response to the people’s lack of faith in the spy story (Num 14:6).129 (2) Joshua’s act of falling on his face before Yhwh (7:6) recalls the Mosaic retrospective of the golden calf episode, where Moses states that he “lay prostrate” (‫ )ואתנפל‬before Yhwh during his intercessions (Deut 9:18, 25). Notably, Moses’ prostration is not part of the intercession scene in Exod 32. (3) Joshua’s questioning why Yhwh brought the people across the Jordan simply to let them be defeated by the “Amorites” (7:7a) connects to similar accusations that the people make against Yhwh in the story of the spies (Num 14:3 // Deut 1:27) and that Moses makes against Yhwh in the retrospective of his intercession during the golden calf incident (Deut 9:28). (4) Joshua’s wish that the people had been content to remain on the eastern side of the Jordan (7:7b) corresponds to the people’s wish that they had died in the wilderness in Num 14:2 (cf. also the people’s complaints to Moses in Exod 14:12 and 16:3).130 (5) The motif of the “name” (‫ )שם‬has a double connection to the golden calf incident: Joshua’s concern that the Canaanites may cut off (‫ כרת‬hiphil) the people’s “name” (7:9) is similar to Yhwh’s threat to “wipe out” (‫ שמד‬hiphil) their name in Deut 9:14.131 At the same time, Joshua’s calling into question Yhwh’s reputation (‫ )שם‬among the inhabitants of the land (7:9) evokes Moses’ intercession with Yhwh in the episode of the golden calf (Exod 32:12 // Deut 9:28). (6) Yhwh’s statement that the people have sinned and violated his covenant (7:11) is reminiscent of Yhwh’s similar statement to Moses in the episode of the golden calf (Exod 32:7-8; Deut 9:16). (7) Yhwh’s statement that the Israelites will not be able to stand against their enemies (7:12) is similar to Moses’ command to the people not to attempt to enter the land on their own volition at the end of the spy story (Num 14:41-43 // Deut 1:42).

























































126

Cf. DIETRICH, “Achans Diebstahl,” 61 n. 26 and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 183. In contrast, BLUM, “Überlegungen,” 154 argues that Josh 7:2-5a served as a model for the sending of the spies in Josh 2, which is in turn presupposed by 7:1, 5b-26. 128 On these connections, cf. BEGG, “Josh 7,1–8,29,” 324–27, although he does not regard the spy story or the golden calf incident as (post-)priestly, and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1– 12, 350, who notes here a “blending of Deuteronomistic and Priestly motifs.” 129 Cf. DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 356. 130 Cf. ibid., 357. 131 Cf. BEGG, “Josh 7,1–8,29,” 326. 127

2. Achan’s Sin (Josh 7)

373

Josh 7:16-26. Within this unit, further connections to the Rahab narrative in Josh 2 come to the fore. Just as Rahab takes (‫ )לק״ח‬the spies (2:4) and hides (‫ )טמ״ן‬them among the stalks of flax on her roof (2:6), Achan takes (‫ )לק״ח‬the precious metal and hides (‫ )טמ״ן‬it in the ground inside his tent (7:21).132 Moreover, Achan’s fate is an inversion of Rahab’s fate with regard to the ban: Whereas Rahab, a faithful outsider, aided the people in the capture of Jericho and was thus exempted from the ban, Achan, an unfaithful Israelite, violated the ban and thus doomed the people’s initial attack on Ai. 133 The foregoing discussion of Joshua’s lament has already shown that the Achan narrative presupposes Deuteronomy at a relatively advanced stage of composition. This connection to the book of Deuteronomy can also be seen in the items that Achan misappropriated, which can easily be associated with idolatry,134 and the act of burning them may reflect the command to burn the idols of the nations in the land (Deut 7:5). Likewise, the motif of Yhwh’s anger in Josh 7:26aβ has particularly strong connections to texts in Deuteronomy that relate to worshiping other gods (Deut 7:4; 11:16-17; 29:25-26).135 Finally, the addition of the stoning motif within Josh 7:24-26 was possibly made under the influence of Deut 17:2-5 and/or 13:7-12, both of which stipulate a punishment of stoning (‫ )סק״ל‬for someone who worships (or entices others to worship, 13:7-12) other gods.136 The Achan narrative has particularly close connections to Deut 7:25-26 and 13:18, although here the direction of dependence may run the other way around. Notably, Deut 7:5 has already ordered the destruction of foreign idols by fire, which makes the command in Deut 7:25 appear rather redundant. That Deut 7:25-26 are a later expansion137 modeled on Deut 7:5 is indicated by the Numeruswechsel in Deut 7:25-26, where the only 2mp verb is found in the command ‫ פסילי אלהיהם תשרפון באש‬while the rest of the verbs are in the

























































132

Cf. NELSON, Joshua, 102. On the Achan narrative as the antithesis of the Rahab narrative, see STEK, “Rahab,” 44; SPINA, Faith, 63; HAARMANN, JHWH-Verehrer, 116–21; HAWK, “Conquest,” 154; RÖSEL, Joshua, 119; and KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 183–84. 134 Cf. LATVUS, God, 52; CLEMENTS, “Achan’s Sin,” 117; and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 352. On the association of silver and gold with idolatry, see Deut 29:16. 135 The juxtaposition the motif of Yhwh’s anger in Deut 7:4 and the command to burn idols with fire in 7:5 lend further support to the conclusion reached in §2.1 that the burning motif has priority over the stoning motif in Josh 7. 136 On the reception of Deut 13:10 in Josh 7:24-26, see R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige Krieg,” 100. On the reception of Deut 17:2-5, see EDENBURG, “Paradigm,” 131. Such reference to Deuteronomy helps to explain the redundant statement ‫ ויסקלו אתם באבנים‬in Josh 7:25 𝔐, which further aligns the stoning report (which uses the root ‫ )רג״ם‬with the laws in Deuteronomy. 137 On the secondary nature of Deut 7:25-26, see AURELIUS, Fürbitter, 24 and VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 205. 133

374

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

singular.138 In contrast, the appearance of the 2mp command ‫ופסיליהם תשרפון‬ ‫ באש‬in 7:5 matches its surrounding context (at least in 𝔐). The fact that Deut 7:25 may presuppose the Achan narrative is further suggested by the dense concentration of the terms “silver” and “gold” and the verb “to covet” (‫)חמ״ד‬, all of which also appear in Josh 7:21.139 Likewise, the concepts in Deut 7:26 (i.e., the reference to one’s “house” and the use of ‫ חרם‬as a noun) are so specific that they must have the Achan narrative in view. 140 The same can also be said of Deut 13:18,141 which can hardly have served as the starting point for the Achan narrative, since Deut 13:13-19 relate not to foreign cities that are to be conquered but instead to Israelite cities and reflect a late mixture of motifs taken from a number of different conquest narratives in the book of Joshua.142 Beyond its connections to Deuteronomy, the concept of ‫ חרם‬in the Achan narrative also has connections to (post-)priestly literature. As a number of commentators have noted, the notion that the presence of proscribed objects has a miasmic quality that can affect the people as a whole (indicated by the failed attempt to capture Ai) is similar to the priestly concept that a ritually impure individual can impart impurity on the entire camp (cf. Num 5:1-4).143 Likewise, the later inclusion of Achan’s family in his punishment (Josh 7:24*, 25bγ), which violates the law prohibiting vicarious punishment in Deut 24:16,144 may also reflect the priestly concept of the transmission of ritual impurity following the death of an individual in a tent in Num 19:14.145

























































138

Cf. VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1–16,17, 205 n. 497. On these correspondences, see ibid, 205 n. 499. 140 NELSON, “Ḥerem,” 53 notes that Deut 7:26 “capitalizes on the contagious character of the ḥerem state” (cf. IDEM, Deuteronomy, 104) but does not discuss the diachronic relationship between Deut 7:25-26 and Josh 7. In contrast, VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium 1,1– 16,17, 205 concludes that Deut 7:25-26 presuppose Josh 7. 141 Cf. ROSE, 5. Mose 12–25, 306; PORZIG, Lade, 89; and R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige Krieg,” 62 against CLEMENTS, “Achan’s Sin,” 117; HAWK, “Conquest,” 156; and EDENBURG, “Paradigm,” 130, who regard Josh 7 as dependent on Deut 13:15-18. NELSON, Deuteronomy, 173 notes that Deut 13:18 reflects the same concept of ‫ חרם‬as that found in Josh 7 but stops short of drawing any conclusions about the direction of dependence. 142 Cf. R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige Krieg,” 62, who argues that Deut 13:13-19 presuppose Deut 20:10-18 as well as Josh 7; 8; and Judg 20 and notes that “Der Bann ist hier nicht nur wie in den Landnahmeerzählungen Maßstab des Gottesgehorsams, sondern ganz entschieden Drohkulisse gegen den ‘Feind im Innern’” (ibid., 63). 143 SCHWIENHORST, Eroberung, 115; NELSON, Joshua, 101; DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 351–53; and EDENBURG, “Joshua 7–8,” 132. 144 Cf. CLEMENTS, “Achan’s Sin,” 113. 145 Cf. GREENBERG, “Some Postulates,” 31 and KAMINSKY, “Joshua 7,” 331, 338. 139

2. Achan’s Sin (Josh 7)

375

2.3. Synthesis I

The most basic material in Josh 7 may have originally consisted only of the failed attempt to capture Ai in 7:2-5a(b?) and would have connected directly to the Ai narrative in Josh 8. Since this unit presupposes both the spy story in Num 13–14 and the Rahab narrative in Josh 2, it must be evaluated as a post-priestly text.

II

Josh 7:2-5a(b?) were significantly expanded by a basic version of the Achan narrative in 7:1, 6-11, 13, 16-23, 25bβ, 26aβ, which depicts the discovery of Achan as the culprit, Achan’s penitence, and the destruction of the banned goods by fire, resulting in the abatement of Yhwh’s wrath.146 This narrative presupposes the book of Deuteronomy at a relatively advanced stage of composition147 as well as (post-)priestly literature in the Pentateuch and book of Joshua.148

III

The Achan narrative was supplemented by the stoning of Achan and the etiology of the Valley of Achor in Josh 7:24* (which did not yet refer to Achan’s family or possessions; cf. 𝔊*), 25abα.149

III+ The report of the stoning of Achan was later supplemented with the reference to the heap of stones in 7:26aα and the etiology of the Valley of Achor in 7:26b. IV

The narrative was further reworked through the addition of Josh 7:12, 14-15, 24aα* (the reference to Achan’s family and possessions), which explicitly applied the concept of ‫ חרם‬to the people themselves (7:12) and shifted the burning motif from the banned objects to Achan, his family, and his possessions (7:14-15, 24aα*).

IV+ At some point after the addition of Josh 7:24aα*, this partial verse was further expanded with the reference to the items that Achan had stolen, which is absent in 𝔊*. The repeated reference to the stoning of Achan’s family in 7:25bγ cannot be earlier than the reference to Achan’s family members in 7:24aα* and is also absent in 𝔊*.

























































146

In contrast, VEIJOLA, “Klagegebet,” 188 with n. 75; IDEM, Deuteronomium 1,1– 16,17, 206 evaluates the recovery of the banned items in Josh 7:21-23 as a “midraschartige Erweiterung” and regards the stoning of Achan and his family as original to the narrative. 147 Against LOHFINK, “ḥāram,” 193, who argues that the references to ḥērem in Josh 7 are non-Deuteronomistic, and BEGG, “Function,” who assigns only Josh 7:1b, 5bβ, 7b, 9b, 11bα, 12b, 13bβ, 15bα, 25b, 26bα to a Deuteronomistic stratum. 148 Cf. LATVUS, God, 49–50 and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 351–54. EDENBURG, “Paradigm,” 131–33 also discusses priestly elements in the chapter but does not take a clear stance on whether Josh 7 as a whole is post-priestly or simply contains a post-priestly layer of reworking. 149 On the secondary nature of the etiology, see R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige Krieg,” 100.

‫)‪Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8‬‬

‫‪376‬‬

‫‪Alternate reconstruction:‬‬ ‫‪Same as I.‬‬

‫ʹ‪I‬‬

‫‪Josh 7:2-5a(b?) were expanded by 7:1, 6-11, 13, 16-23, 24a*,150 25abα,‬‬ ‫‪26aβ, which depict the discovery of Achan, his stoning, and the abate‬‬‫‪ment of Yhwh’s wrath.‬‬

‫ʹ‪II‬‬

‫‪IIʹ+ The stoning of Achan was supplemented in 7:26aα, 26b.‬‬ ‫‪The narrative was further reworked in 7:12, 14-15, 24aα*,151 25bβ,‬‬ ‫‪which shifted the punishment from the stoning of Achan alone to the‬‬ ‫‪burning of Achan along with his family and possessions.‬‬

‫ʹ‪III‬‬

‫‪IIIʹ+ Same as IV+.‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪7:1‬‬

‫וימעלו בני ישראל מעל בחרם ויקח עכן בן כרמי בן זבדי בן זרח למטה יהודה מן החרם ויחר‬ ‫אף ה׳ בבני ישראל‬ ‫‪ 2‬וישלח יהושע אנשים מיריחו העי אשר עם בית און מקדם לבית אל ויאמר אליהם לאמר עלו ורגלו‬ ‫את הארץ ויעלו האנשים וירגלו את העי ‪ 3‬וישבו אל יהושע ויאמרו אליו אל יעל כל העם כאלפים איש‬ ‫או כשלשת אלפים איש יעלו ויכו את העי אל תיגע שמה את כל העם כי מעט המה ‪ 4‬ויעלו מן העם‬ ‫שמה כשלשת אלפים איש וינסו לפני אנשי העי ‪ 5‬ויכו מהם אנשי העי כשלשים וששה איש וירדפום‬ ‫לפני השער עד השברים ויכום במורד ]וימס לבב העם ויהי למים[‬ ‫‪ 6‬ויקרע יהושע שמלתיו ויפל על פניו ארצה לפני }ארון{ ה׳ עד הערב הוא וזקני ישראל ויעלו עפר‬ ‫על ראשם ‪ 7‬ויאמר יהושע אהה אדני ה׳ למה העברת העביר את העם הזה את הירדן לתת אתנו‬ ‫ביד האמרי להאבידנו ולו הואלנו ונשב בעבר הירדן ‪} 8‬בי אדני{ מה אמר אחרי אשר הפך‬ ‫ישראל ערף לפני איביו ‪ 9‬וישמעו הכנעני וכל ישבי הארץ ונסבו עלינו והכריתו את שמנו מן הארץ‬ ‫ומה תעשה לשמך הגדול ‪ 10‬ויאמר ה׳ אל יהושע קם לך למה זה אתה נפל על פניך ‪ 11‬חטא‬ ‫ישראל‪ b‬וגם עברו את בריתי אשר צויתי אותם וגם לקחו מן החרם וגם גנבו וגם כחשו וגם שמו‬ ‫בכליהם‬ ‫‪a‬‬

‫‪ 12‬ולא יכלו בני ישראל לקום לפני איביהם ערף יפנו לפני איביהם כי היו לחרם לא‬ ‫אוסיף להיות עמכם אם לא תשמידו החרם מקרבכם‬ ‫‪ 13‬קם קדש את העם ואמרת התקדשו למחר כי כה אמר ה׳ אלהי ישראל חרם בקרבך‪ c‬ישראל‬ ‫לא תוכל‪ d‬לקום לפני איביך‪ e‬עד הסירכם החרם מקרבכם‬ ‫‪ 14‬ונקרבתם בבקר לשבטיכם והיה השבט אשר ילכדנו ה׳ יקרב למשפחות והמשפחה‬ ‫אשר ילכדנה ה׳ תקרב לבתים והבית אשר ילכדנו ה׳ יקרב לגברים ‪ 15‬והיה הנלכד‬ ‫בחרם ישרף באש אתו ואת כל אשר לו כי עבר את ברית ה׳ וכי עשה נבלה בישראל‬

‫























































‬ ‫‪150‬‬

‫‪Without reference to the stolen goods or Achan’s family and possessions.‬‬ ‫‪Only the reference to Achan’s family and possessions.‬‬ ‫‪a‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 αὐτόν‬אתנו‬ ‫‪b‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 ὁ λαός‬ישראל‬ ‫‪c‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 ἐν ὑμῖν‬בקרבך‬ ‫‪d‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 οὐ δυνήσεσθε‬לא תוכל‬ ‫‪e‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὑμῶν‬איביך‬

‫‪151‬‬

‫‪377‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫)‪2. Achan’s Sin (Josh 7‬‬ ‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪16‬‬

‫‪17‬‬

‫‪f‬‬

‫וישכם יהושע בבקר ויקרב את ישראל לשבטיו וילכד שבט יהודה ויקרב את משפחת יהודה‬ ‫וילכד את משפחת הזרחי ויקרב את משפחת הזרחי לגברים וילכד זבדי ‪ 18‬ויקרב את ביתו‬ ‫לגברים וילכד עכן בן כרמי בן זבדי בן זרח למטה יהודה ‪ 19‬ויאמר יהושע אל עכן בני שים נא‬ ‫כבוד לה׳ אלהי ישראל ותן לו תודה והגד נא לי מה עשית אל תכחד ממני ‪ 20‬ויען עכן את יהושע‬ ‫ויאמר אמנה אנכי חטאתי לה׳ אלהי ישראל וכזאת וכזאת עשיתי ‪ 21‬ואראה בשלל אדרת שנער‬ ‫אחת טובה ומאתים שקלים כסף ולשון זהב אחד חמשים שקלים משקלו ואחמדם ואקחם והנם‬ ‫טמונים בארץ בתוך האהלי והכסף תחתיה ‪ 22‬וישלח יהושע מלאכים וירצו האהלה והנה טמונה‬ ‫באהלו והכסף תחתיה ‪ 23‬ויקחום מתוך האהל ויבאום אל יהושע ואל כל בני ישראל ויצקם לפני ה׳‬ ‫‪ 24‬ויקח יהושע את עכן בן זרח *ויעל אתו עמק עכור*‬

‫‪g‬‬

‫}ואת הכסף ואת האדרת ואת לשון הזהב{ ואת בניו ואת בנתיו ואת שורו ואת חמרו‬ ‫ואת צאנו ואת אהלו ואת כל אשר לו‬ ‫וכל ישראל‪ h‬עמו‬ ‫ויעלו אתם עמק עכור‬ ‫‪ 25‬ויאמר יהושע מה עכרתנו יעכרך ה׳ ביום הזה‬ ‫וירגמו אתו כל ישראל אבן‬ ‫}וישרפו אתם באש{‬ ‫}ויסקלו אתם באבנים{‬

‫‪26 i‬‬

‫]ויקימו עליו גל אבנים גדול עד היום הזה[‬

‫וישב ה׳ מחרון אפו‬ ‫]על כן קרא שם המקום ההוא עמק עכור עד היום הזה[‬

‫ʹ‪I‬‬

‫ʹ‪II‬‬ ‫‪7:24‬‬

‫ʹ‪III‬‬ ‫ויקח יהושע את עכן בן זרח *ויעל אתו עמק עכור*‬

‫‪g‬‬

‫]ואת הכסף ואת האדרת ואת לשון הזהב[ ואת בניו ואת בנתיו ואת שורו ואת חמרו ואת‬ ‫צאנו ואת אהלו ואת כל אשר לו‬ ‫וכל ישראל‪ h‬עמו‬ ‫ויעלו אתם עמק עכור‬ ‫‪ 25‬ויאמר יהושע מה עכרתנו יעכרך ה׳ ביום הזה וירגמו אתו כל ישראל אבן‬ ‫וישרפו אתם באש }ויסקלו אתם באבנים{‬

‫‪i‬‬

‫‪] 26‬ויקימו עליו גל אבנים גדול עד היום הזה[ וישב ה׳ מחרון אפו ]על כן קרא שם המקום ההוא‬ ‫עמק עכור עד היום הזה[‬

‫























































‬ ‫‪f‬‬

‫‪] 𝔊 ὁ λαός‬ישראל‬ ‫‪Following 𝔊.‬‬ ‫‪h‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊* ὁ λαός‬ישראל‬ ‫‪i‬‬ ‫𝔙 ‪] > 𝔊*, 𝔖,‬ויסקלו אתם באבנים‬ ‫‪g‬‬

378

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

3. The Conquest of Ai (Josh 8) The narrative of the conquest of Ai in Josh 8 poses two special problems that must be addressed in the analysis of this chapter: (1) The manuscript evidence for Josh 8 is highly divergent. 𝔊 represents a shorter text than 𝔐 at many points, although commentators disagree over whether 𝔊 reflects a shorter Hebrew Vorlage that had not yet come to include all of the text preserved in 𝔐 152 or whether the minuses in 𝔊 should be attributed to the Greek translator, who sought to smooth out a number of tensions in a longer Hebrew Vorlage similar to 𝔐.153 Moreover, although 4QJosha may reflect some of the minuses found in 𝔊,154 its fragmentary nature precludes certainty in this matter. Thus, given that a number of scholars doubt that 𝔊 reflects a pre-Masoretic stage in the formation of the Hebrew text of Josh 8 and that the evidence of 4QJosha is ambiguous at best, in the following discussion, variants in 𝔊 and 4QJosha (particularly minuses) will be noted and evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and the question of the extent to which these two textual witnesses may reflect an earlier stage in the formation of Josh 8 will be taken up again at the end of the analysis. (2) The literary relationship between Josh 8 and the narrative of the war against the Benjaminites in Judg 20 is also debated. Whereas most prior studies that address this question tend to focus primarily on only one of these two texts, a satisfactory evaluation of their literary relationship requires that the literary growth of each text first be investigated in its own right. Thus, the literary development of Judg 20 and its relationship to Josh 8 will be treated separately following the macrocontextual analysis of Josh 8. 3.1. Literary-critical analysis of Josh 8 Yhwh’s instructions to Joshua (Josh 8:1-2). Within Josh 8:1, the phrase ‫ואת‬ ‫ עמו ואת עירו‬is absent in 𝔊. Since this phrase does not pose any narrative or conceptual problems for the reader, there is little reason to assume that the minus in 𝔊 is the work of the Greek translator, which suggests that this

























































152

HOLMES, Joshua, 2; ORLINSKY, “Hebrew Vorlage,” 195; TOV, Text-critical Use2, 245–46; MAZOR, “Textual and Literary Study,” 108; and AULD, “Joshua,” 4–5. 153 DILLMANN, Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 472–77; OETTLI, Deuteronomium, Josua, Richter, 148; HOLZINGER, Josua, 25; RUDOLPH, Elohist, 195; BUTLER, Joshua, 78; MOATTI-FINE, Jésus (Josué), 134; and VAN DER MEER, Formation, 417–78. NELSON, Joshua, 110 attempts to explain the minuses in Josh 8:7-8, 11-13, 15-16, and 26 as scribal errors in the Greek text, although this seems quite unlikely. 154 ULRICH, “4QJosha,” 145–46; MAZOR, “Textual and Literary Study,” 108; and GREENSPOON, “Qumran Fragments,” 170–71.

3. The Conquest of Ai (Josh 8)

379

phrase in 𝔐 is a later addition.155 Within 8:2, the logical and syntactic connection between 8:2a and 8:2b is rather rough. Yhwh’s command to Joshua to ambush the city in 8:2b does not fit smoothly with the instruction to “do to Ai and to its king what you did to Jericho and to its king” in 8:2a, since the conquest of Jericho did not involve an ambush at all. Moreover, whereas the use of the converted perfect ‫ ועשית‬in 8:2a following the imperative ‫ קח‬in 8:1 is a common syntactic pattern,156 the asyndetic use of the imperative ‫שים לך ארב‬ in 8:2b following ‫ ועשית‬in 8:2a is unusual. Rather, such a construction typically follows directly upon another imperative verb, particularly verbs of movement.157 Thus, there is reason to suspect a literary-critical break between 8:2a and 8:2b, and in light of typical Hebrew syntax, it seems that 8:2b may have once connected directly to ‫ וקום‬in 8:1a, suggesting that 8:1b-2a belong to a later stage of composition.158 Joshua’s instructions to the people (Josh 8:3-9). Josh 8:3-6 present only one minor tension: ‫ ונסנו לפניהם‬in 8:6b comes too late in terms of narrative sequence and is identical to the end of 8:5. Since this clause is absent in 8:6 𝔊, it is reasonable to conclude that it is not original to the chapter and is a dittography of the end of 8:5.159 In Josh 8:7, ‫ והורשתם את העיר‬is rather out of place prior to ‫ונתנה ה׳ אלהיכם‬ ‫בידכם‬, implying that the people will “dispossess” the city even before Yhwh hands it over to them. Josh 8:7a 𝔊 reads καὶ πορεύσεσθε εἰς τὴν πόλιν (‫)*והלכתם אל העיר‬,160 which makes better sense prior to the Übergabeformel in 8:7b 𝔐. Yet 8:7b-8aα are absent in 𝔊, which makes matters somewhat more complex: If the reading καὶ πορεύσεσθε εἰς τὴν πόλιν (‫והלכתם אל‬ ‫ )*העיר‬in 8:7a 𝔊 is more original, it is slightly more difficult to regard Joshua’s further instructions in 8:7b-8aα 𝔐 as a later addition, although it is not inconceivable that the command to approach the city once connected directly

























































155

In contrast, NELSON, Joshua, 108 argues that the minus in 𝔊 is the result of haplography. Notably, VAN DER MEER, Formation, 465–76 does not discuss this variant in his “Remarks Regarding the Greek Version of Joshua 8:1-29,” perhaps because it does not fit well with his thesis that the minuses in 𝔊 consistently reflect the translator’s effort to smooth out “duplications and contradictions” (ibid., 467). 156 Cf. JOÜON-MURAOKA, Grammar, §119l. 157 Cf. ibid., §177e. 158 The command ‫ רק שללה ובהמתה תבזו לכם‬in Josh 8:2aβ is possibly even later than 8:1b-2aα, as suggested by the shift to a 2mp imperative verb. 159 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 87 and NELSON, Joshua, 108. 160 Cf. MAZOR, “Textual and Literary Study,” 77 with n. 11. Alternatively, the Hebrew Vorlage of Josh 8:7a 𝔊 could have read ‫*ונגשתם אל העיר‬, especially since the root ‫נג״ש‬ and not ‫ הל״ך‬is used in 8:11a 𝔐. Here, too, 𝔊 uses the verb πορεύομαι, and it is difficult to know whether this reflects a variant at the Hebrew level of the text (i.e., the use of ‫ )הל״ך‬or the translator’s decision to translate ‫ נג״ש‬with πορεύομαι rather than with προσάγω, προσέρχομαι, or ἐγγίζω, which are typically used to render ‫נג״ש‬.

380

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

to 8:8aβ* (‫*כדבר הזה תעשו‬, so 𝔊), since Joshua’s instructions need not reflect every event that will transpire later in the narrative.161 In any event, the tension noted in 8:7 𝔐 indicates that 8:7-8 𝔐 do not reflect the earliest form of these verses. Thus, rather than assuming that an earlier Hebrew text was expanded and/or reworked to produce the text reflected in 𝔐 and subsequently abridged by the Greek translator, it should not be ruled out that 𝔊 may reflect (at least in part) an earlier Hebrew version of these verses.162 Within Josh 8:9, ‫ וילן יהושע בלילה ההוא בתוך העם‬is absent in 𝔊, which raises the question of whether this half-verse is a later addition. Here, the evidence of 4QJosha seems to support the reading of 𝔊. Based on the vertical alignment of frg. 9 ii lines 7–9, reconstructing ‫וילן יהושע בלילה ההוא בתוך העם‬ in line 9 would result in a line length that is 10-15 letterspaces longer than the other lines in the fragments reconstructed on the basis of 𝔐.163 The notion that here both 𝔊 and 4QJosha offer evidence of a partially overlapping (and shorter) Hebrew version of Josh 8 is also indirectly supported by the reading ‫ ו[הזקנים‬in 4QJosha frg. 15, which corresponds to καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι in 𝔊 over against ‫ וזקני ישראל‬in 𝔐. The priority of 𝔊 in 8:9 is further supported by the fact that it is easier to imagine a scribe’s motivation for adding 8:9b to a shorter text (namely, to specify exactly where Joshua was before he arose the next morning)164 than to imagine a translator’s motivation for removing 8:9b, since this half verse does not pose any narrative problems that would need to be resolved, and its removal would not even change the temporal sequence of the narrative, assuming this was the translator’s intention.165 The positioning of the army (Josh 8:10-13). As has long been noted, Joshua’s selection and placement of five thousand men as an ambush in Josh 8:12 forms a doublet with his selection and deployment of thirty thousand men in

























































161

On the secondary nature of Josh 8:7b, see R UDOLPH, Elohist, 194. Against VAN DER MEER, Formation, 472, who argues that ‫ והורשתם‬in 𝔐 is more original than ‫ *והלכתם‬in 𝔊 and that the absence of Josh 8:7b-8a in 𝔊 can be explained as a homoioteleuton. Van der Meer does not specify whether the latter would have occurred at the Hebrew or Greek level, although in either case this seems unlikely to me. NELSON, Joshua, 109 (textual note g) explains the minus in 𝔊 as an “inner-Greek haplography” whereby the scribe’s eye jumped from καὶ* following πόλιν in 8:7 to κατὰ in 8:8, but this seems improbable. 163 Cf. ULRICH, “4QJosha,” 150 and NELSON, Joshua, 109. VAN DER MEER, Formation, 460–61 claims that 4Q47 9 ii does not support the view that 𝔊 reflects a shorter Hebrew text in Josh 8:7-8, yet he offers no explanation for the fact that the reconstruction of frgs. 9 and 15 following the text of 𝔐 results in an abnormally long line for 4Q47 V 9 (Josh 8:9; cf. the reconstructed text in ibid., 462). 164 Cf. NELSON, Joshua, 109 (textual note i). 165 Here, van der Meer’s theory that the shorter text of Josh 8 𝔊 results from “the interpretative, harmonising and stylising skills of the Greek translator” who was “troubled by the duplications and contradictions” in the Hebrew Vorlage (VAN DER MEER, Formation, 467) is completely groundless. 162

3. The Conquest of Ai (Josh 8)

381

8:3, 9, although which version is more original is debated.166 Whereas some commentators have suggested that Joshua’s selection of thirty thousand men is more original and that the selection of five thousand men represents an enlargement of the ambush,167 others argue that 8:12 is more original and that 8:3 – as well as 8:4-9, which cannot stand without the report of Joshua’s selection of the thirty thousand men – belong to a later stage of composition that greatly amplified the depiction of the ambush.168 Considering that a massive increase from five thousand to thirty thousand is easier to imagine than a marginal increase from thirty thousand to thirty-five thousand, the latter scenario seems much more likely.169 Thus, the following discussion will assume as a working hypothesis that 8:3-9 are a later addition that interrupted an earlier connection between 8:1-2* and 8:10-13*. In Josh 8:10, the phrase ‫ הוא וזקני ישראל לפני העם‬may be a later addition, since the elders play no further role in the narrative of the capture of Ai. 170 If this phrase is removed, it highlights another narrative tension in 8:10-11: Whereas 8:11aα indicates that the people171 were with Joshua, the statement ‫ עלו ויגשו ויבאו נגד העיר‬suggests that the people went up separately, since Joshua’s ascent is already reported by the verb ‫ ויעל‬in 8:10b.172 This problem can be resolved by bracketing out ‫ עלו ויגשו ויבאו נגד העיר‬and by regarding the phrase ‫ וכל )ה(עם המלחמה )אשר( אתו‬as additional information connected to the report of Joshua’s ascent in 8:10b.173 In Josh 8:12, Joshua is not named explicitly as the subject of ‫ויקח‬, which is somewhat disturbing, since all of the verbs in 8:11 have the people as their express or implied subject. This suggests that 8:12 may have once connected

























































166

Cf. DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 375. RUDOLPH, Elohist, 194–95 and NOTH, Josua2, 51. 168 RÖSEL, Joshua, 124–25 regards Josh 8:10-12 (13) as the more original version because (1) it is shorter, (2) the number of troops is smaller, and (3) the report of the army’s approach in 8:10-12 is simpler. VAN DER MEER, Formation, 445–48 also assigns 8:10-13 to the most basic narrative, albeit not on strictly literary-critical grounds. 169 Moreover, as VAN DER MEER, Formation, 443 notes, Josh 8:3-9 are “far less specific regarding topography” and “could easily have been taken from the second version.” 170 Cf. RÖSEL, Joshua, 126. It seems that the phrase ‫ לפני העם‬must belong with the reference to the elders and does not serve to differentiate Joshua’s ascent from that of the people, since Josh 8:11a indicates that the army was with Joshua. Notably, the reference to the elders is attested in both 4QJosha and 𝔊, suggesting that, if it is an addition, it likely preceded some of the other additions that are suggested by the minuses in 4QJosha and 𝔊. 171 In what follows, I render ‫ העם‬as “the people” for the sake of simplicity, but this term could also be rendered here as “the army.” 172 Cf. RÖSEL, Joshua, 126. 173 This hypothesis is supported by 4Q47 V 11, where the preposition ‫ א[תו‬is not followed by the verb ‫ עלו‬but rather by ‫וישובו‬. The use of the waw-consecutive verb ‫וישובו‬ suggests that in 4QJosha the phrase ‫ *וכל העם…א[תו‬is not the subject of a new clause as in 𝔐 but instead a further specification of who went up with Joshua in Josh 8:10b. 167

382

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

directly to 8:10 or to the reference to the people in 8:11aα1. If this is the case, then the reference to the people’s encampment in 8:11b would be a later addition to the narrative, a possibility which finds support in 𝔊*. In Josh 8:13a, the report of the people’s encampment poses two literary problems. First, in its present wording, it is difficult to identify an independent clause, since the ‫ אשר‬causes ‫ מצפון לעיר‬to modify ‫ את כל המכנה‬and thus leaves one wondering where the people in fact set up camp. Moreover, the report of the people’s setting up camp in 8:13aα is repetitive in light of 8:11b. Assuming that 8:11b is part of a later insertion within 8:10-12, the report of the people’s encampment in 8:11b is likely secondary to that in 8:13aα. If this is the case, the disruptive relative pronoun ‫ אשר‬in 8:13aα possibly reflects a later attempt to update 8:13aα following the addition of 8:11b, causing 8:13a to refer to previously introduced information. Nevertheless, it cannot be completely ruled out that 8:11b has literary priority over 8:13aα.174 In any event, the reference to the placement of the rear guard (‫ )עקב‬to the west of the city in 8:13aβ stands in tension with Joshua’s placement of the ambush group to the west of the city in 8:12 and may be later than 8:13aα. In Josh 8:13b, the statement that Joshua “walked in the midst of the valley that night” (‫ )וילך יהושע בלילה ההוא בתוך העמק‬does not fit well with 8:14a*, which reports that the men of Ai (𝔊: the king) went out against Israel (4QJosha: “against them”) in battle. This suggests that Joshua’s walking in the valley175 was not what triggered the reaction of the king and men of Ai (𝔊: the king alone); rather, it was the people’s encampment that is reported in 8:13a. Thus, the reference to Joshua’s whereabouts in 8:13b appears to be a later addition that interrupts the reference to the people in 8:13a and 8:14a*. Considering its near-verbatim correspondence with 8:9b, it is likely dependent on the latter and thus cannot be earlier than the insertion of 8:3-9 into the Ai narrative.176 In sum, on the basis of an internal literary-critical analysis, the most basic material in Josh 8:10-13 seems to have consisted of 8:10* (without ‫הוא וזקני‬ ‫)ישראל לפני העם‬, 11aα1, 12 (possibly without ‫)בין בית אל ובין העי‬, 13aα* (without ‫)אשר‬. This reconstruction should now be compared to the manuscript evidence offered by 𝔊 and 4QJosha. Both of these texts offer a shorter version of 8:10-13, although they are identical neither to each other nor to the shorter text reconstructed here using literary-critical means.

























































174

FRITZ, Josua, 87 and RÖSEL, Joshua, 128. Or Joshua’s sleeping among the people, if one emends the text to follow Josh 8:9b. 176 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 87–88, who concludes that Josh 8:13b is derived from 8:9b, as well as MAZOR, “Textual and Literary Study,” 91 and NELSON, Joshua, 109, who regard 8:9b and 8:13b as additions that go back to a single process of reworking. In contrast, RÖSEL, Joshua, 128 argues that 8:13b may be earlier than 8:13a. 175

3. The Conquest of Ai (Josh 8)

383

Excursus: The manuscript evidence for Josh 8:10-13 The evidence of g. Within Josh 8:10-13, g contains several significant variants vis-à-vis j. In 8:10b, g uses the plural verb ἀνέβησαν where j uses the singular ‫ויעל‬. In 8:11a, g states that the people went up from the east, a detail that is not present in j. In 8:12, g states that the ambush group was located to the west of the city but does not report Joshua’s selection of five thousand men or the geographical detail that the ambush was located between Bethel and Ai. Finally, g is lacking 8:13 altogether. Assuming that 8:3-9 do not belong to the earliest version of the Ai narrative, g cannot reflect a Hebrew Vorlage of 8:10-13 that is more original than j in every respect, since 8:10-12 g cannot stand without 8:3-9 (8:12 g presupposes the prior reference to the ambush in those verses), while 8:10*, 11aα 1, 12, 13aα* j can. Josh 8:10-12 g present a narrative that is much smoother than the same unit in j, which may reflect the work of the Greek translator. Nevertheless, the possibility that some of the variants in 8:10-12 g stem from the translator does not necessarily mean that the translator’s Vorlage was identical to j. 177 Based on the literarycritical analysis conducted above, it seems quite possible that the Hebrew Vorlage of 8:1012 g was shorter than the text of j and may have lacked the duplicate report of the people’s encampment in 8:11b, 178 the precise location of the ambush group (‫)בין בית אל ובין העי‬ in 8:12, the note about the rear guard in 8:13aβ, and/or the report of Joshua’s nighttime whereabouts in 8:13b. 179 The evidence of 4QJosh a (4Q47). The possibility that the Hebrew Vorlage of Josh 8:1012 g was shorter than 8:10-13 j finds support in 4QJosh a (4Q47), which contains a shorter text of 8:10-13, although the evidence is complicated by the highly fragmentary state of the manuscript at this point in the text. The text of Josh 8:10-13 is preserved on two small fragments (4Q47 15–16). Fragment 15 can be situated within col. V of 4Q47 and contains the following text from Josh 8:10-13: 180 ‫[זקנים‬ ‫[תו וישובו‬ ‫[ כראות‬ ‫[ ֯ראתם‬

] 10 ] 11 ] 12 ] 13

Here, ‫ [זקנים‬can be correlated with 8:10b j, while ‫ וישובו‬is not attested in any other witness to 8:10-14. In turn, ‫ כראות‬reflects the beginning of 8:14, while ‫ [ ֯ראתם‬can be correlated with ‫ לקראת ישראל‬later in 8:14a j. 181 Based on a reconstructed line length of approximately forty-nine letters per line for this column, 182 there is not enough space in 4Q47 V 10-13 to contain the Masoretic text of Josh 8:10-14, which has led some scholars to

177 Against VAN DER MEER, Formation, 476, who concludes that “the longer version of the passage as attested by MT must have been the basis for the condensed Greek formulation” (emphasis added) and systematically interprets the minuses in g in accordance with this logically flawed assumption (ibid., 465–76). 178 Or, alternatively, in Josh 8:13aα, if one regards 8:11b as the more original report. 179 NELSON, Joshua, 109 (textual note m) suggests that g reflects “a long haplography covering much of vv. 11-13,” but the evidence of 4QJosh a makes this unlikely. 180 ULRICH, “4QJosh a,” 150 reads ‫[ה זקנים‬, ֯ although a he is not discernible on any of the photographs of the fragment. 181 Cf. TOV, “Literary Development,” 67. 182 ULRICH, “4QJosh a,” 144.

384

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6 –8)

conclude that here 4QJosh a contains a shorter text similar to the text of g. 183 On the one hand, such a possibility is supported by the reading ‫ [זקנים‬rather than ‫ ; זקני ישראל‬on the other hand, the reading ‫ וישובו‬is not found in g. Thus, while 4QJosh a clearly has a shorter text than j, this text differs in certain respects from the short text of g. 4Q47 16 plays a crucial role in reconstructing the contents of 4Q47 V 10-13. This fragment contains only two words, which are vertically aligned: ] ֯‫הע י‬ ֯ [ ]‫[ימהר‬ Eugene Ulrich reconstructs the word ‫ נגד‬immediately before ] ֯‫הע י‬ ֯ [, thus concluding that the first line of the fragment reflects the end of Josh 8:11a. Based on the word ]‫ [ימהר‬on the second line, Ulrich places the fragment close to the right margin of 4Q47 V 12 -13. If one follows the text of j, this is a logical place for the fragment, since the rest of line 13 can then be reconstructed on the basis of j, with 8 letterspaces preceding ]‫ [ימהר‬and 26 letterspaces following it. If one assumes that the upper line of the fragment reflects the phrase ‫ נגד העיר‬at the end of 8:11a, this would suggest that a maximum of 25–30 letterspaces separates the end of Josh 8:11a from the beginning of 8:14a (‫ )כראות‬in 4Q47 V 12 – a considerable minus vis-à-vis j. 184 Several possibilities emerge for reconstructing the text in this lacuna: (1) Since g offers a much shorter text in Josh 8:11-13, it should first be considered whether the (hypothetical) Hebrew Vorlage of g could have fit on 4Q47 V 12. The text of Josh 8:11-12 g can be retroverted as follows: ‫וכל העם המלחמה אשר אתו עלו וילכו ויבאו נגד‬ ‫העיר ִמ ֶקּ ֶדם והמארב ִמיָּ ם לעיר‬.185 The phrase ‫ ִמ ֶקּ ֶדם והמארב ִמיָּ ם לעיר‬occupies approximately 20 letterspaces and could thus fit within the empty space in 4Q47 V 12. Reconstructing 4Q47 V 13 on the basis of g, however, is somewhat more problematic, since a literal retroversion of Josh 8:14a g would read ‫ויהי כראות מלך העי וימהר ויצא לקראתם למלחמה הוא‬ ‫וכל העם אשר אתו‬.186 Yet according to Ulrich’s placement of 4Q47 16, ‫ לקראתם‬cannot have followed immediately upon ‫ ויצא‬but instead was separated from ‫ ויצא‬by approximately 15– 20 letterspaces. Here, two possibilities emerge for filling in this gap: (a) Unlike in the retroverted Vorlage of g (cf. also j), the phrase ‫ הוא וכל העם אשר אתו‬may have appeared before ‫ ;לקראתם‬or (b) the text could be similar to j: ‫וימהרו וישכימו ויצאו אנשי העיר‬ ‫לקראתם‬. In terms of length, both reconstructions are possible, although the latter seems unlikely in terms of content, since the verb ‫ וישכימו‬makes sense only in light of the reference to the night in Josh 8:13b, for which there is no room in 4QJosha. Thus, if the gap in 4Q47 V 13 is filled with ‫הוא וכל העם אשר אתו‬, the only difference with the retroverted Vorlage of Josh 8:14a g would be in word order, not in the content of the verse. While it is possible that here g reflects the word order of its Hebrew Vorlage, it is also possible that the translator changed the word order in Greek, since the phrase αὐτὸς καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ὁ μετ’ αὐτου would be rather disruptive if placed between καὶ ἐξῆλθεν and εἰς συνάντησιν αὐτοῖς. Thus, it is possible to reconstruct a text in 4Q47 V 10-13 that corresponds very closely to the retroverted Vorlage of g:

183

Cf. ibid., 150. Cf. ibid. 185 Cf. the slightly different retroversion of M AZOR, “Textual and Literary Study,” 77: ‫וכל העם המלחמה אשר אתו עלו וילכו ויבאו נגד העיר ִמ ֶקּ ֶדם ומארב העיר ִמיָּ ם‬. 186 Cf. ibid., 78: ‫ויהי כראות מלך העי וימהר ויצא לקראתם ישראל למלחמה הוא וכל העם אשר‬ ‫עמו‬. 184

3. The Conquest of Ai (Josh 8)

385

‫ וישכם יהושע בבקר ויפקד את העם ויעל הוא והזקנים‬10 ‫ ל  פ נ י  ה ע  ם   ה ע  י   ו  כ ל   ה  ע ם   ה מ ל  חמ  ה  א ש  ר   א ת  ו   ו  י ש  ו  ב ו‬11 ‫ ו  י ב א  ו נ  ג ד ה  ֯ע י֯   ר ִמ ֶ קּ ֶ ד  ם ו  ה  מ  א  ר ב ִמ  יָּ  ם ל  ע י  ר ו  י  ה י כראות‬12 ‫ מלך העי ו ימהר ויצא הוא וכל העם אשר אתו לק ֯ראתם‬13 The most significant documented difference between 4Q47 and g within this unit is the fact that 4Q47 V 11 reads ‫וישובו‬, while ἀνέβησαν καὶ πορευόμενοι ἦλθον in g presumably renders ‫*עלו וילכו ויבואו‬, 187 which differs from both 4QJosh a and j. Considering that ‫וישובו‬ was probably followed by another waw-consecutive verb at the beginning of 4Q47 V 12, the most likely reconstruction is ‫ויבאו‬, which is supported by j and g (ἦλθον) as well as by the fact that ‫ שו״ב‬occurs in tandem with ‫ בו״א‬in other biblical texts.188 (2) Alternatively, if one uses j as the basis of the reconstruction, either Josh 8:11b (‫ויחנו מצפון לעי והגי בינו ובין העי‬, 34 letterspaces) or 8:13a* ( ‫וישימו את כל המחנה מצפון לעיר‬, 29 letterspaces) emerges as the best candidate to fill in the gap in 4Q47 V 12. Reconstructing 8:12 here is less likely, since the Masoretic wording of the verse is too long for the gap. Moreover, since 4QJosh a has already reported Joshua’s sending of the ambush group from 8:9 (4Q47 V 9), the reference to the ambush group in 8:12 is not essential to the flow of the narrative in 4QJosh a. The notice of Joshua’s nighttime whereabouts in 8:13b is also an unlikely candidate to fill this gap, since such a notice would also require the report of the people’s encampment, yet the lacuna in 4Q47 V 12 is too short to contain both. (3) It is also necessary to consider whether 4Q47 16 could have been located in a different place from that proposed by Ulrich. For example, Michaël van der Meer has suggested that this tiny fragment may instead reflect Josh 8:18-19, where ‫ העיר‬and ‫ וימהרו‬also appear in close proximity. 189 If this were the case, it would make a precise reconstruction of 4Q47 V 11–12 more difficult, although it would not change the fact that 4QJosh a reflects a shorter text of Josh 8:10-13 than j and is possibly very close to g here. All three of these reconstructions are potentially challenged, however, by a small trace of ink on the left edge of 4Q47 16. 190 Ulrich concludes that this is “probably either a random ink dot or a supralinear letter” but also suggests that it “could possibly be the top of a lamed.”191 Unfortunately, Ulrich does not discuss the ramifications of this possibility for his placement of 4Q47 16: If the trace of ink indeed belongs to a lamed, then the reconstruction of 4Q47 V 11–13 must be completely rethought. Assuming that ‫ וימהר‬in 4Q47 16 187

The Greek verb πορεύομαι usually renders the Hebrew root ‫הל״ך‬. For the combination of πορεύομαι and ἔρχομαι, see esp. Josh 2:1, where πορευθέντες εἰσήλθοσαν renders ‫וילכו ויבאו‬, and Josh 2:22, where καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν καὶ ἤλθοσαν renders ‫וילכו ויבאו‬. The Vorlage to g probably did not contain the verb ‫וישובו‬, since the Hebrew root ‫ שו״ב‬is usually translated with ἀποστρέφω or other verbs built on the root στρέφω, although there are two exceptional instances where ‫ שו״ב‬is translated with πορεύομαι: Gen 43:2 and 1 Sam 1:19. 188 Cf. Gen 14:7; Josh 20:6; 1 Sam 1:19; 25:12; 27:9; 2 Sam 19:6; 2 Kgs 7:8; Isa 35:10; 51:11; Job 17:10; Dan 11:25; and Neh 2:15. 189 VAN DER MEER, Formation, 461. 190 See the photograph in DJD 14, pl. XXXIII as well as the more recent photographs online: www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-368564 and B-368565. 191 ULRICH, “4QJosh a,” 150. V AN DER MEER, Formation, 461 n. 98 aptly notes the consequences of this possibility for his proposal that frg. 16 reflects Josh 8:18-19: Since none of the words following ‫ וימהרו‬in 8:19 contain a lamed, this leads van der Meer to wonder whether the fragment belongs in Josh 8 at all.

386

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6 –8)

reflects Josh 8:14, the lamed following ‫ וימהר‬suggests that 4QJosh a has a shorter text vis-àvis j not only in 8:10-13 but also in 8:14. In j, the first lamed to appear after ‫ וימהרו‬is in the phrase ‫לקראת ישראל‬. From a narrative point of view, it is certainly possible for ‫ וימהר‬to have been followed directly by ‫לקראתם‬, and such a shorter reading finds further support in g* and o. Based on the position of the lamed stroke in 4Q47 16, it is unlikely that 4QJosh a would have had room for a waw (i.e., a plural verb ending) following ‫וימהר‬, which also fits well with the use of a singular verb in g* and o. Thus, although Ulrich places 4Q47 16 close to the right margin of 4Q47 col. V, it is possible that this fragment should instead be placed closer to the left margin, followed directly by ‫לק [ ֯ראתם‬. If this is the case, then none of the three scenarios proposed above are possible, since ] ֯‫הע י‬ ֯ [ in 4Q47 16 would need to be placed close to ‫ [כראות‬in 4Q47 15. However, there are two further scenarios in which ] ֯‫הע י‬ ֯ [ could have immediately preceded ‫ ויהי [כראות‬near the left margin of 4Q47 V 12. (4) ] ֯‫הע י‬ ֯ [ could belong to ‫ העי‬at the end of Josh 8:11b. In this scenario, the problem of the contents of 4Q47 V 11 is resolved, although Josh 8:11b is slightly too short to fill out 4Q47 V 12. As noted above, the space following ‫ מלך העי‬in 4Q47 V 13 can potentially be filled with a direct object or subordinate clause. ‫ וישכם יהושע בבקר ויפקד את העם ויעל הוא והזקנים‬10 11 ‫לפני העם העי וכל העם המלחמה אשר א תו וישובו‬ ‫הע י֯ ויהי כראות‬ ֯ ‫יחנו מצפון לעי והגי בינו ובין‬ 12 ‫ מלך העי את כל עם המלחמה במחנה? ו ימהר לק ֯ראתם‬13 (5) ] ֯‫הע י‬ ֯ [ could belong to ‫ העי‬towards the end of Josh 8:12b. In this scenario, the notice regarding the ambush in 8:12b fits in the lacuna in 4Q47 V 12, although the report of Joshua’s selecting five thousand men in Josh 8:12a does not, and it is difficult to reconstruct 8:12a before ‫ ו ישובו‬in 4Q47 V 11, since then the verbs would switch abruptly between singular and plural forms. Thus, the notice of Joshua setting up the ambush would be shorter than that found in Josh 8:12 j. As above, the space following ‫ מלך העי‬in 4Q47 V 13 can be filled with a direct object or subordinate clause. ‫ וישכם יהושע בבקר ויפקד את העם ויעל הוא והזקנים‬10 ‫ ל  פ נ י  ה ע  ם   ה ע  י   ו  כ ל   ה  ע ם   ה מ ל  חמ  ה  א ש  ר   א ת  ו   ו  י ש  ו  ב ו‬11 ‫הע י֯ ויהי כראות‬ ֯ ‫ למחנה וישם יהושע ארב בין בית אל ובין‬12 ‫ מ  ל ך ה ע י א  ת כ ל ע  ם ה  מ  ל ח מ  ה במחנה ו ימהר לק ֯ראתם‬13 Provided that the mark at the edge of the fragment indeed indicates a lamed, these two reconstructions are more plausible than the placement of 4Q47 16 closer to the right margin of the column as Ulrich proposes. In sum, there are several possible scenarios for reconstructing the contents of 4Q47 V 10-13. These fall into two mutually exclusive groups, depending on whether one interprets the trace of ink on 4Q47 16 as a stray mark or part of an interlinear notation (scenarios 1–3) or as part of a lamed (scenarios 4–5). Significantly, in most of these scenarios there is no room for a reference to Joshua’s selection of five thousand men for the ambush as is found in Josh 8:12 j; rather, 4Q47 V 10-13 either contained no reference to the ambush at all (scenarios 2 and 4) or referred to the ambush very briefly (scenarios 1, 3, and 5). The only reconstruction that can stand independently of Joshua’s instructions regarding the ambush in Josh 8:3-9 is scenario 5, although even this scenario does not have space for the reference to the five thousand men in 8:12 j. These considerations are of great significance in reconstructing the literary growth of Josh 8. On the one hand, if the literary-critical evidence is given priority and it is assumed that the reference to the five thousand men in 8:12 j is more original than the reference to

3. The Conquest of Ai (Josh 8)

387

the thirty thousand men in 8:3, then none of the five reconstructions of 4Q47 V 10–13 discussed above would reflect the most original Hebrew text in Josh 8:10-13; they would instead reflect a later stage of composition that eliminated the tension between the thirty thousand men and the five thousand men by removing the (presumably) earlier reference to the five thousand men in 8:12. If this was indeed the case, then 4QJosha would represent an attempt to smooth out the narrative at the Hebrew level of the text. This, in turn, would undermine the widely held view that the shorter text of Josh 8 𝔊 can be attributed completely to the work of the Greek translator and would instead suggest that 8:10-12 𝔊 may be based on a shorter Hebrew Vorlage. On the other hand, if the manuscript evidence is given priority over the literary-critical evidence of 𝔐, then the literary-critical evidence itself must be reinterpreted. In other words, if the shorter version of 4QJosha is assumed to be more original than 𝔐 in every respect, the notice of Joshua’s selection of the five thousand men in Josh 8:12 𝔐 must have been written after the reference to the thirty thousand men in 8:3. Yet, in my view, no convincing argument has been offered for why a later author would have updated the already massive figure of thirty thousand men with a reference to a comparatively paltry five thousand men. Here, then, the literary-critical evidence of 𝔐 cannot simply be cast aside in light of the manuscript evidence; rather, both sets of evidence must be evaluated in combination with each other in order to achieve a reconstruction that resolves the most problems presented by the textual evidence as a whole.

The people of Ai are drawn out (Josh 8:14-17). The response by the king of Ai and his men in Josh 8:14a poses several narrative problems. Given that the king of Ai is the subject at the beginning of the verse (‫)ויהי כראות מלך העי‬, the shift to plural verbs with “the men of the city” as their subject in 𝔐 (‫ )וימהרו וישכימו ויצאו אנשי העיר‬is rather abrupt. The disruptive nature of the reference to “the men of the city” is reinforced by the phrase ‫ הוא וכל עמו‬that follows, which implies that the subject is still the king of Ai. This suggests that the phrase ‫ אנשי העיר‬is a later addition and that the verbs ‫וימהרו וישכימו‬ ‫ ויצאו‬originally had as their subject the king of Ai, not “the men of the city.” This notion is supported by 𝔊, which reads ἔσπευσεν καὶ ἐξῆλθεν, suggesting a Hebrew Vorlage that read ‫וימהר ויצא‬.192 The phrase ‫ למועד לפני הערבה‬comes too late after ‫ הוא וכל עמו‬and is absent in 𝔊, which suggests that this phrase is also a later addition.193 Josh 8:14b disrupts the connection between the prepositional phrase ‫ לפניהם‬in 8:15a and its antecedent in 8:14a (‫ )הוא וכל עמו‬and thus may also be a later addition.194 Josh 8:16a stands in tension with 8:14a insofar as it assumes that the people are still in the city (‫ )כל העם אשר בעיר‬even though 8:14a states that all the people (‫ )כל העם‬have already gone out to battle alongside the king of Ai. This raises the possibility that 8:16a is a later addition and that 8:16b once connected directly to 8:15a, as is suggested by 𝔊. The clause ‫וירדפו אחרי ישראל‬ in 8:17bβ is redundant in light of 8:16b (‫ )וירדפו אחרי יהושע‬and can be inter-

























































192

Cf. RUDOLPH, Elohist, 196. Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 90. 194 Cf. ibid. (albeit on different grounds). 193

388

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

preted as a Wiederaufnahme accompanying the insertion of supplementary information in 8:17abα, which emphasizes that the city was emptied of its (male) population and was left open for the taking.195 In sum, the most basic material in Josh 8:14-17 likely consisted of 8:14a*, 15a(b?), 16b. This material partially overlaps with 𝔊, which also contains 8:14b, 17* (without ‫)ובית אל‬.196 Thus, if 𝔊 is a faithful rendering of its Hebrew Vorlage, this would suggest that 8:14b, 17* were added prior to 8:(15b), 16a. Yhwh’s instructions to Joshua and the defeat of Ai (Josh 8:18-23). The evidence of 4QJosha may indicate that even the most basic material in Josh 8:14b-17 (i.e., 8:15a[b?], 16b) is secondary to the earliest Ai narrative: In 4Q47 col. V, Josh 8:14a* is followed immediately by material that seems to reflect 8:18 and was written by a later hand.197 Assuming that 8:18 is not simply in a different location with respect to 8:14b-17*, it seems that 8:14b17* were not yet part of the Ai narrative in 4QJosha. Considering that 8:18 was added by a later hand in 4QJosha, it is possible that this verse did not belong to 4QJosha at the time it was first copied and that 8:14a* was once followed by 8:19*, which is completely plausible from a narrative and syntactic point of view.198 The secondary nature of 8:18 is further supported by the odd placement of ‫ כנטות ידו‬in 8:19, which suggests that 8:19 originally knew nothing of the extension of Joshua’s hand. This clause may also point to a later development within 8:18 itself: Whereas in 8:18 Yhwh refers to the sword that is in Joshua’s hand, 8:19 refers to Joshua’s hand alone. The possibility that the reference to Joshua’s sword in 8:18 is a later addition is further suggested by the awkward wording of 𝔊, which seems to be a conflation of two different readings, one which refers only to Joshua’s hand (Ἔκτεινον τὴν χεῖρά σου) and one that is closer to the wording of 𝔐 (ἐν τῷ γαίσῳ τῷ ἐν τῇ χειρί σου).199



























































195 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 87–88, who concludes that Josh 8:16-17 are an addition emphasizing that the city was completely emptied of battle-ready men. I disagree, however, with Fritz’s view that 8:16 in its entirety is a later addition. According to Fritz, the most basic narrative moved directly from the statement of the Israelites’ flight in 8:15 to the mobilization of the ambush group in 8:19, although this leaves out a crucial piece of information, namely, that the Israelites’ flight drew the inhabitants of Ai out of the city, which is reported in 8:16b. 196 The reference to Bethel may be an even later addition within Josh 8:17; cf. VAN DER MEER, Formation, 422. 197 Cf. ULRICH, “4QJosha,” 150. 198 Against VAN DER MEER, Formation, 439, who argues that Josh 8:14b-18 are essential to the narrative. TOV, “Growth,” 67–68 disagrees with van der Meer’s conclusion but remains cautious over whether 8:14b-18 were present or absent in 4QJosha. 199 Cf. NELSON, Joshua, 109 (textual note t). Such a possibility has consequences for the reconstruction of 4Q47 V 14. Whereas Ulrich’s reconstruction follows 𝔐, it is possible

3. The Conquest of Ai (Josh 8)

389

The statement in Josh 8:20b that “the people fleeing toward the wilderness turned against its pursuer” comes too early in relation to 8:21, which also refers to Joshua and all Israel turning around to attack the men of Ai.200 That 8:20b is a later addition is suggested by the fact that the only prior reference to the people fleeing towards the wilderness is in 8:15b, which was evaluated as a later addition.201 The response by the men of Ai in 8:20a may also be an addition (albeit earlier than 8:20b), as it separates the capture of Ai in 8:19 from Joshua’s response in 8:21 and is not essential to the flow of the narrative.202 Another likely addition is 8:22, which comes too late following the report of Israel’s defeat of the men of Ai in 8:21203 and seems to serve the purpose of clarifying that the entire population of Ai was killed in battle and that Israel left no survivors. Since the statement that the Israelites captured the king of Ai alive in 8:23 constitutes an exception to the complete slaughter of the inhabitants of Ai, this verse is probably not earlier than 8:22. The aftermath of the battle (Josh 8:24-29). Given that Josh 8:20(a?)b, 2223 are likely later additions, it is possible that the statement that Israel returned and struck down the men of Ai in 8:21b refers not to the men of Ai who left the city in pursuit of Israel but to the people who were still in the city. If this is the case, 8:21 would already mark the conclusion of the attack. In contrast, 8:24 seeks to emphasize that 8:21 does not represent the conclusion of the attack as a whole but only of its first phase, namely, the defeat of the men of Ai who had come out of the city. According to 8:24, the second phase of the attack was the slaughter of all of the people in the city itself. Yet 8:24 likely does not belong to the same level of composition as 8:21, since both verses use the sequence of ‫ שו״ב‬followed by ‫ נכ״ה‬hiphil, suggesting that one verse was modeled on the other. If one assumes that 8:24a*204 and 8:24b belong to the same compositional level, then 8:21 cannot be secondary to 8:24b, since the (initial) defeat of the men of Ai is presupposed by 8:24a. Alternatively, if 8:24a and 8:24b are decoupled, then 8:24b could potentially be regarded as the more original report, in which case it could connect direct-





























































































































that here 4QJosha simply read ‫ נטה ידך‬rather than ‫ נטה בכידון אשר בידך‬and was thus approximately twelve letterspaces shorter than the text of 𝔐. This would shift the beginning of the material written by the later hand further to the left by twelve (large) letterspaces, indicating that the beginning of 4Q47 V 14 may have contained more material from Josh 8:14a*. 200 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 93: “20b nimmt 21 vorweg.” 201 Against VAN DER MEER, Formation, 450, who concludes that Josh 8:21 is later than 8:20 in light of the emphasis on “all Israel” in 8:21. 202 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 88, who regards Josh 8:20 as a whole as “eher störend” and “das Ergebnis phantasievoller Ausschmückung,” although it should also be noted that 8:20a does not pose any major syntactic problems in relation to the surrounding materials. 203 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 87. 204 Perhaps originally without ‫ויפלו כלם לפי חרב‬, which is absent in 𝔊.

390

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

ly to 8:19.205 I am inclined to regard 8:21 as more original, although in either case the result is similar: 8:19 was followed directly either by 8:21 or by 8:24b and then perhaps by 8:25.206 Provided that the reference to Joshua’s hand in Josh 8:18 is a later addition, the corresponding reference in 8:26 cannot belong to the most basic narrative thread in Josh 8. The secondary nature of the verse is further suggested by its absence in 𝔊*207 as well as by the fact that the extension of Joshua’s hand during the entire battle contradicts the report of Joshua’s active participation in the battle in 8:21.208 Within this verse, the reference to Joshua’s sword in 8:26aβ may be an even later addition (cf. the discussion of 8:18 above), as ‫ אשר נטה בכידון‬can easily be removed without disturbing the coherence of the rest of the verse. From a narrative perspective, it is possible to connect 8:27 to either 8:25 or 8:24b. Thus, if 8:24b belongs to the most basic narrative thread, 8:27 could possibly be evaluated as part of the basic narrative. On the other hand, if 8:21 is more original than 8:24b, then 8:27 cannot belong to the most basic narrative, since it cannot be easily connected to 8:21. There is reason to suspect that the statement that Joshua burned Ai to the ground in Josh 8:28 does not belong to the most basic narrative, since 8:19 has already stated that the ambush group set the city ablaze.209 The only possibilities for assigning 8:28 to the original narrative are (1) to evaluate 8:19b, 21aβ as later than 8:28,210 (2) to assume that the ambush group’s initial act of setting the city ablaze was limited in scope and did not destroy the entire city, or (3) to contend that 8:28 is a summarizing retrospective of 8:19b (albeit one that places more emphasis on Joshua) and thus that there is no contradiction

























































205

FRITZ, Josua, 88 evaluates Josh 8:24 as secondary to the most basic narrative thread on the grounds that the city was already conquered in 8:19. Such an conclusion could possibly be countered by arguing that the verb ‫ לכ״ד‬in 8:19 may simply refer to the fact that the ambush group gained control of the city, while city’s ultimate defeat only took place at the hands of the main Israelite force. 206 RÖSEL, Joshua, 130 argues that Josh 8:25 cannot belong to the most basic narrative due to the use of the “redactional phrase” ‫ביום ההוא‬. While I would not rule out the possibility that 8:25 is a later addition, I do not find Rösel’s line of argumentation to be particularly compelling. 207 Cf. MAZOR, “Textual and Literary Study,” 96 against NELSON, Joshua, 110, who attributes the minus in 𝔊* to a scribal error (homoioteleuton). 208 VAN DER MEER, Formation, 450–51 argues that Josh 8:21-25 “interrupt the coherence between verses 18-20 on the one hand and 26 on the other,” yet 8:26 can easily be interpreted as a parenthetical statement that in fact has 8:21-25 in view. 209 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 88, 92. See also NELSON, Joshua, 110, who notes the tension between the two reports but does not take a clear stance on their diachronic relationship. 210 To my knowledge, no commentator has proposed such a solution, and with good reason, since the act of setting the city ablaze in Josh 8:19b serves as the signal to Joshua and the rest of the Israelite force that the city has been captured (8:21a).

3. The Conquest of Ai (Josh 8)

391

between the two reports.211 The third interpretation certainly does the best job of explaining the repetition, although the shifting of credit to Joshua in fact highlights that 8:28 reflects a different concern from 8:19b and most likely does not belong to the same compositional level as the latter. The reference to the fate of the king of Ai in Josh 8:29 is also unlikely to have belonged to the most basic narrative thread. Considering that this verse adds a further etiological element to the conclusion of the story (cf. the repetition of ‫ עד היום הזה‬in 8:28 and 8:29), it is quite possible that it is later than 8:28.212 The rituals at Mount Ebal (Josh 8:30-35). The report of Joshua’s construction of an altar at Mount Ebal, his writing of a copy of the ‫ תורת משה‬on the stones, and his reading of the words of the ‫ תורה‬can be identified as a later addition on several grounds: (1) it contains completely different subject matter, (2) it interrupts the connection between the defeat of Ai in the preceding verses and the response by the other kings to the west of the Jordan in Josh 9:1-2, and (3) it is out of place geographically, as it suddenly locates the people further to the north.213 Interim result. On the basis of a literary-critical analysis of 𝔐 combined with the textual evidence of 𝔊 and 4QJosha, the most basic narrative thread in Josh 8 can be identified in 8:1a, 2b, 10* (without ‫)הוא וזקני ישראל לפני העם‬, 11aα1* (without ‫)עלו ויגשו ויבאו נגד העיר‬, 12* (without ‫)?בין בית אל ובין העי‬, 13aα* (without ‫)אשר‬, 14a* (without ‫ אנשי העיר‬and ‫)למועד לפני הערבה‬, 19* (without ‫)כנטות ידו‬, 21. This narrative received a variety of additions in 8:1b2aα, 3-6a, 7-8*, 9a, 10*, 11aα2βb, 13aβb, 15a, 16b, 18*, 19*, 20, 22, 24-25, 26aαb, 27-28, 30-35, which likely do not all belong to the same compositional level. Some of these additions were further expanded in 8:2aβ, 6b, 7-8*, 9b, 14b, 15b-16a, 17, 18*, 23, 26aβ, 29. Some of the additions listed above are already attested in 4QJosha, namely, Joshua’s instructions to the larger ambush group in Josh 8:3-9, the reference to the elders in 8:10, the report of Israel’s approach in 8:11aα2β, and the reference to Joshua extending his hand (and sword?) in 8:18*. The fact that 8:18* is written by a different hand may be relevant in sorting out the relative chronology of some of these additions, as it suggests that 8:18* may not have been known to the first scribe who copied 4QJosha and, by extension, that the

























































211

RUDOLPH, Elohist, 197; similarly NOTH, Josua2, 50. FRITZ, Josua, 88 argues that Josh 8:29 originally connected directly to the notice of the king’s capture in 8:23, although such a reconstruction is syntactically problematic, since both verses begin with ‫ואת מלך העי‬. Rather than 8:23, 29 being earlier than the intervening materials in 8:24-28, it seems more likely that both of these verses are later additions to their respective narrative contexts (cf. R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige Krieg,” 101). 213 Cf. BUTLER, Joshua, 94; VAN DER MEER, Formation, 417; and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1– 12, 376. 212

392

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

various materials in 8:14b-17 may postdate 8:18*, since these verses are not attested in 4QJosha. The text of 𝔊 seems to reflect a Hebrew Vorlage that is more developed than 4QJosha (e.g., in 8:14b-17) but that is not yet as developed as 𝔐, particularly regarding the tertiary additions (8:6b, 7b, 9b, 26 are lacking altogether, and 8:7a, 8a, 18* may reflect earlier Hebrew phrasing).214 3.2. Macrocontextual analysis of Josh 8 The present analysis will focus on the literary relationship of Josh 8 to the book of Deuteronomy and priestly literature, while the relationship between Josh 8 and Judg 20 will be addressed separately in §3.4. Josh 8:1-2. Although a number of commentators have argued that Josh 8:1-2 belong to a Deuteronomistic stage of composition,215 they tend to regard these verses as a compositional unity, which I have argued is not the case. While it is possible that the command in 8:2aβ to take only the city’s livestock and material goods as plunder presupposes Deut 20:14 and perhaps also 20:16,216 it is likely that 8:2aβ is a later addition within 8:1-2. Although the divine instruction to Joshua not to fear in 8:1a is quite similar to the phrasing of Deut 1:21 and 3:2, this does not necessarily mean that Josh 8:1a is dependent on either of these verses, since a divine command not to fear is a traditional trope in ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts.217 The Übergabeformel in 8:1b also bears connections to Deut 1:21 and 3:2 and may be a better candidate for a Deuteronomistic text, although this formula comes too late after 8:1a and is thus likely a later addition. In short, although Josh 8:1-2 may indeed contain some Deuteronomistic elements, the latter do not belong to the most basic material in these verses. Josh 8:3-9. Within this unit, it is noteworthy that the only Deuteronomistic elements are found in Josh 8:7aβ, (7b?), and 8aβ, all of which have significant variants in 𝔊: In 8:7aβ, the Hebrew Vorlage possibly read ‫והלכתם אל‬ ‫( העיר‬or ‫ )ונגשתם אל העיר‬rather than ‫והורשתם את העיר‬, 8:7b is lacking altogether, and the Hebrew Vorlage of 8:8aβ possibly read ‫כדבר הזה תעשו‬.218

























































214

In this respect, I agree with the conclusion of MAZOR, “Textual and Literary Study,” 108 that 4QJosha reflects the earliest preserved version of Josh 8 (but not necessarily its earliest form tout court), while 𝔊 reflects a stage of composition between 4QJosha and 𝔐. 215 NOTH, Josua2, 50; FRITZ, Josua, 87; NELSON, Joshua, 111; VAN DER MEER, Formation, 476; and R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige Krieg,” 101. 216 Cf. RUDOLPH, Elohist, 194; FRITZ, Josua, 92; and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 386. 217 Cf. the Zakkur inscription in DONNER / RÖLLIG, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, 1:37 (no. 202); for an English translation, see COS 2:155. In contrast, RÖSEL, Joshua, 123 concludes that the command not to fear in Josh 8:1 is Deuteronomistic. 218 Here the manuscript evidence challenges the theory of VAN DER MEER, Formation, 476 that Josh 8:1-9 are part of a Deuteronomistic reworking of an earlier, pre-Deuteronomistic narrative as well as his claim that the Greek translator “mainly followed the text of the second (DtrH) layer at the cost of the older version” (ibid., 467). If this is so, the

3. The Conquest of Ai (Josh 8)

393

Thus, it seems possible that 8:3-9* originally did not reflect a Deuteronomistic background and were only later aligned with other Deuteronomistic texts. Josh 8:10-13. Based on the literary-critical analysis of Josh 8:10-13 𝔐, the earliest material in this unit possibly read as follows: Josh 8:10-13*

‫ וכל העם המלחמה אתו‬11 ‫וישכם יהושע בבקר ויפקד את העם ויעל העי‬ ‫ וישימו העם את כל‬13 ‫ ויקח כחמשת אלפים איש וישם אותם ארב מים לעיר‬12 ‫המחנה מצפון לעיר‬

𝔊 and 4QJosha also offer shorter versions of 8:10-13,219 yet both of these witnesses already include the reference to the elders in 8:10b. Prior to this verse, the elders last appeared in 7:6,220 which belongs to a stage of composition in Josh 7 that presupposes both the book of Deuteronomy and (post-) priestly literature (see §2.2). This means that 8:10-13 in 𝔊 and 4QJosha have already reached a stage of development that presupposes the book of Deuteronomy and priestly literature.221 By extension, the pluses in 8:11b and 8:13b 𝔐 must also be evaluated as post-Deuteronomic and post-priestly.222 Josh 8:14-17. The foregoing literary-critical analysis, combined with the text-critical evidence, concluded that the most basic material in Josh 8:14-17 once consisted of only 8:14a* (‫ויהי כראות מלך העי וימהר ]ויצא[ לקראתם‬ ‫)למלחמה הוא וכל עמו‬. This text was first expanded in 8:15a, 16b and then further expanded in 8:14* (‫)למועד לפני הערבה‬, 15b-16a, 17. Apart from 8:15b, which is likely derived from Judg 20 and thus cannot be pre-Deuteronomistic (see §3.4),223 there is no evidence that any other parts of this unit presuppose the book of Deuteronomy or other biblical texts. Josh 8:18-23. The literary-critical analysis of Josh 8 concluded that the most basic material within this unit consisted of 8:19* (without ‫)כנטות ידו‬, 20a, and 21, while 8:18, 19* (‫)כנטות ידו‬, 20b, 22, and 23 are later additions. The closest parallels to Yhwh’s command to Joshua to stretch out his hand (‫ )נט״ה יד‬in Josh 8:18 (and ‫ כנטות ידו‬in 8:19) are found in the (post-)priestly plagues narrative (Exod 7:19; 8:1-2, 13; 9:22; 10:12, 21-22) and in the priestly version of the miracle at the sea (Exod 14:16, 21, 26, 27). This suggests



























































































































question arises why the Greek version of 8:3-9 lacks the specifically Deuteronomistic elements found in 𝔐. 219 See the excursus on the manuscript evidence for Josh 8:10-13 in §3.1. 220 On the connection between Josh 8:10b and 7:6, see NELSON, Joshua, 114. 221 Cf. DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 389. 222 On the post-Deuteronomic nature of these pluses, see also §3.4. 223 In Judg 20:13, the reference to eliminating evil from Israel is evocative of a number of texts in Deuteronomy (Deut 13:6; 17:7, 12; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 22, 24; 24:7). Considering that 20:13 in its entirety likely belongs to the most basic narrative thread of Judg 20, this suggests that Judg 20 presupposes the book of Deuteronomy from the outset, against HENTSCHEL / NIESSEN, “Bruderkrieg,” 35, 37.

394

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

that the command in Josh 8:18 was modeled on the latter and serves to strengthen the parallelism between the exodus and the conquest as well as to highlight Joshua’s role as Moses’ successor.224 As will be discussed in §3.4, the motif of the flight to the wilderness in Josh 8:20b is part of a process of coordinating Josh 8 with Judg 20. Given that Judg 20 presupposes the book of Deuteronomy from the outset, Josh 8:20b cannot belong to a preDeuteronomistic version of Josh 8. Since 8:22 repeats the basic report of the Israelites’ defeat of the men of Ai in 8:21, the raison d’être of this verse seems to lie in the additional detail that the Israelites left no survivors or refugees (‫)ויכו אותם עד בלתי השאיר לו שריד ופליט‬. The clause ‫עד בלתי השאיר לו‬ ‫ שריד‬also appears in Deut 3:3, where the prepositional phrase ‫ לו‬is more understandable (referring to Og).225 Thus, Josh 8:22 presupposes the Mosaic retrospective of the defeat of Og in Deut 3 and cannot belong to a preDeuteronomistic version of Josh 8.226 Since 8:23 cannot stand without 8:22, the same is true of this verse as well. In contrast to these later additions within 8:18-23, all of which bear links with either (post-)priestly or Deuteronomistic texts, the more basic material in 8:19* (without ‫)כנטות ידו‬, 20a, 21 shows no evidence of priestly or Deuteronomistic influence. Josh 8:24-29. As argued in §3.1, Josh 8:24-29 as a whole may be secondary to the most basic narrative of the conquest of Ai, which could have reached its original conclusion in 8:21. The motif of the flight to the desert in 8:24 (‫ )במדבר אשר רדפום בו‬can easily be removed from that verse without disturbing the flow of the narrative,227 while 8:26 and 8:28 are likely also later than 8:24*, 25, 27. Josh 8:24* states that the Israelites struck Ai down “at the edge of the sword” (‫)ויכו אתה לפי חרב‬, 8:25 adds that both men and women were killed in the attack, and 8:27 notes that the Israelites took the city’s livestock and non-living goods as plunder “according to the word that Yhwh had commanded Joshua.” These verses seem to presuppose the revision of the law of warfare in Deut 20:10-14 by 20:15-18, since 20:13 stipulates that only an enemy city’s male inhabitants should be put to the sword, while 20:16 clearly states that no survivors should be left.228 Whereas Deut 20:16 is not completely clear on the question of whether ‫ כל נשמה‬refers only to the human inhabitants or also to livestock, Josh 8:27 seems to interpret the



























































224 Although the objection might be raised that here Joshua’s act of extending his hand simply serves as a signal for the ambush group to attack, such an objection would need to explain why a divine command was necessary if the sole purpose of the addition of Josh 8:18 were to introduce Joshua’s signal to the ambush group. 225 Although Josh 8:22 𝔙, 𝔖, 𝔗 have a 3mp suffix, the 3ms suffix is clearly the lectio difficilior. 226 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 88, 92; NELSON, Joshua, 111; VAN DER MEER, Formation, 450; and RÖSEL, Joshua, 129. 227 For further discussion of this motif, see §3.4. 228 On the Deuteronomistic nature of Josh 8:24-25, see FRITZ, Joshua, 88, 92.

3. The Conquest of Ai (Josh 8)

395

phrase as indicating only the human inhabitants, since it regards the Israelites’ plundering of Ai’s livestock as permissible.229 Given that 8:24*, 25, 27 likely constitute the most basic material within 8:24-29, the remainder of the materials in 8:24-29 cannot be pre-Deuteronomistic. Indeed, 8:28-29 contain multiple connections to the book of Deuteronomy: The use of the phrase ‫תל‬ ‫ עולם‬in Josh 8:28 forms an intertextual connection with Deut 13:17,230 and the detail that Joshua hanged the king of Ai “until evening” in Josh 8:29 presupposes Deut 21:22-23.231 Josh 8:26 requires further discussion. Whereas Yhwh’s command to Joshua to stretch out his hand in 8:18 connects primarily to the (post-)priestly plagues cycle and the miracle at the sea, 8:26 connects to the post-priestly episode of the war against Amalek in Exod 17:8-13.232 According to Exod 17:11, the staff in Moses’ hand plays a decisive role in the victory over Amalek: Whenever Moses raises his hand, Israel prevails, and whenever Moses lowers his hand, Amalek prevails. Similarly, Josh 8:26 implies that Joshua’s act of stretching out his hand is directly connected to the Israelites’ defeat of Ai, since he does not withdraw his hand until all of the inhabitants of the city have been killed. Although the direction of dependence between the two units is not completely clear, comparison with Josh 8:18, which was likely added in order to enhance Joshua’s character by placing his actions in parallel with those of Moses, suggests that 8:26 likewise seeks to imbue Joshua with the same numinous power that Moses possesses in Exod 17:8-13. 233 Josh 8:30-35. As noted in §3.1, this episode interrupts its narrative context in both 𝔐 and 𝔊 and can be evaluated as a later addition. There are several indications that this unit presupposes the book of Deuteronomy: (1) The clause ‫ כאשר צוה משה עבד ה׳ את בני ישראל‬in Josh 8:31aα1 indicates that Joshua’s building of the altar on Mount Ebal was commanded by Moses, and the only text in which such a command is found is Deut 27:4-8. These verses are themselves secondary within Deut 27:1-8, as they repeat the command found in 27:2-3; thus, Josh 8:30-32 presuppose Deut 27:1-8 at an advanced stage of composition.234 (2) The placement of half of the people facing Mount Gerizim and half of the people facing Mount Ebal in Josh 8:33 and the refer-

























































229

Such a view is also found in Deut 2:34-35; 3:6-7; and Josh 11:14. Cf. NELSON, Joshua, 115 and VAN DER MEER, Formation, 447. 231 Cf. NELSON, Joshua, 111 and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 371 against RUDOLPH, Elohist, 198 and FRITZ, Josua, 91. 232 On Exod 17:8-13, see Chapter 3, §7. 233 Cf. MAZOR, “Textual and Literary Study,” 95; FRITZ, Josua, 88, 93; and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 390. See also R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige Krieg,” 101, who suggests that only the motif of the sword connects to Exod 17:8-13, as well as NELSON, Joshua, 114; VAN DER MEER, Formation, 422; and RÖSEL, Joshua, 129, who note the connection between the two units but do not argue for a particular direction of dependence. 234 Cf. NIHAN, “Torah,” 200–205, 217–18 and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 377. 230

396

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

ence to the blessing and the curse in 8:34 presuppose the blessing and cursing passages in Deut 27:11-26 (cf. Deut 11:29-30).235 In short, Josh 8:30-35 cannot have belonged to a pre-Deuteronomistic stage of composition.236 Moreover, the presence of (post-)priestly terminology and concepts in 8:33-35 suggests that these verses are not only Deuteronomistic but also post-priestly (cf. the reference to the ark and the phrase ‫ כגר כאזרח‬in 8:33 and the reference to the ‫ קהל ישראל‬in 8:35).237 The relationship between Josh 8:30-35 and Exod 17:14-16 must also be discussed. As Thomas Dozeman has noted, the connection between Josh 8 and the battle against Amalek is not limited to the motif of the outstretched hand but also includes the writing of a text (cf. Exod 17:14 with Josh 8:32) and the building of an altar (cf. Exod 17:15 with Josh 8:30-31). Dozeman concludes from this that “[t]he author of Joshua models Josh 8 on the same sequence of events, including war, the building of an altar, and the writing of Torah.”238 Although Dozeman is undoubtedly correct in seeing a connection between the motif of writing and the building of an altar in the two units, it seems more likely that here the direction of dependence runs from Josh 8:3035 to Exod 17:14-16. Notably, the divine command for Moses to record the event in writing is never fulfilled, and although Moses builds an altar, there is no corresponding report that he offered sacrifices on it. Thus, both the writing of the reminder and the building of the altar are blind motifs that are more easily explained as literarily dependent upon Josh 8:30-35 than as a literary source for the latter. Result. Based on the foregoing analysis, there is nothing to indicate that the most basic narrative of the conquest of Ai presupposes the book of Deuteronomy or priestly literature. In contrast, the later additions to this narrative bear a number of connections to Deuteronomy and other Deuteronomistic texts as well as several connections to (post-)priestly texts in the Pentateuch.

























































235

Considering that Josh 8:33 already presupposes the blessing-and-curse passages in Deuteronomy, Dozeman’s conclusion that 8:34-35 were added by a “subsequent editor” who “has qualified the blessing [in 8:33] by introducing the motif of ‘blessing and curse’” (DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 383–84) seems unnecessary. If there is a literary-critical break within Josh 8:30-35, it is more likely to be found between 8:30-32 and 8:33-35 (cf. NA’AMAN, “Law of the Altar,” 150–51, 154–55) rather than between 8:30-33 and 8:34-35. 236 The location of part or all of this unit after Josh 5 in 4QJosha is a separate problem that need not be discussed in detail here, since the preserved text in 4QJosha clearly refers to the ‫ספר התורה‬, i.e., either the book of Deuteronomy or the Pentateuch as a whole. For a detailed discussion of this passage in 4QJosha, see VAN DER MEER, Formation, 479–522. 237 Cf. AULD, “Reading,” 176; KNAUF, Josua, 86–88; and NIHAN, “L’autel,” 118. 238 DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 390. Contrary to Dozeman’s phrasing, the word ‫ תורה‬does not occur in Exod 17:14.

3. The Conquest of Ai (Josh 8)

397

3.3. Literary-critical analysis of Judg 20 Before a comparison of Josh 8 and Judg 20 can be undertaken, the literary development of Judg 20 must first be investigated in its own right. The Israelites prepare for battle (Judg 20:1-19). Judg 20:1-2 are overloaded with different terms referring to the Israelites: 20:1 first calls them ‫בני‬ ‫ ישראל‬and then refers to the people as ‫העדה‬.239 Of these two references, the first is likely more original, since the term ‫ בני ישראל‬occurs throughout the rest of the chapter, while ‫ העדה‬does not.240 Thus, (‫ותקהל העדה )?כאיש אחד‬ can be evaluated as a later addition. Judg 20:2 also refers to ‫פנות כל העם‬, then ‫כל שבטי ישראל‬, and finally ‫קהל עם האלהים‬, although it is difficult to determine the diachronic relationship between these phrases on the basis of 20:2 alone.241 Within Judg 20:3-11, the statement in 20:3 that the Benjaminites heard that the Israelites had gone up to Mizpah is out of place and is likely a later addition.242 Moreover, the report of the Israelites’ coming together in 20:11 is redundant in light of 20:1-2*, and the reference to the assembly of “every (fighting) man of Israel” (‫ )כל איש ישראל‬comes too early with respect to 20:12-14, suggesting that 20:11 is a later addition.243 Within Judg 20:12-19, the report about the seven hundred left-handed expert stone-throwers in 20:16 is hardly essential to the narrative and may be a later addition.244 In addition, the phrase ‫ שבע מאת איש בחור‬in 20:15bβ is likely a dittography from 20:16 and thus cannot be earlier than that verse.245 The notice of the mustering of four hundred thousand Israelite warriors in 20:17 is also rather repetitive in light of 20:2*, which raises the question of whether one of the two references to the four hundred thousand warriors is a later addition. Between the two possibilities, the reference in 20:17 seems to fit the context better than in 20:2*, suggesting that the reference to the four

























































239

Cf. BECKER, Richterzeit, 267. For this reason, the proposal of BECKER, Richterzeit, 268 that ‫ ויצאו כל בני ישראל‬is secondary to ‫ ותקהל העדה כאיש אחד‬seems rather unlikely. 241 On the literary stratification of Judg 20:1-2, cf. EDENBURG, Dismembering, 23, 25. 242 Cf. BECKER, Richterzeit, 266–67. This conclusion undermines the view that Judg 20:3a once connected directly to 20:14 and thus that 20:3b-13 are a later insertion, as argued by BURNEY, Judges, 447, 453–54; RÖSEL, “Studien,” 33; and J. GRAY, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 228. For a critique of this view, see also EDENBURG, Dismembering, 24. 243 Cf. BURNEY, Judges, 448; BECKER, Richterzeit, 266, 272; and HENTSCHEL / NIESSEN, “Bruderkrieg,” 30 against SCHULZ, Anhänge, 72–73, who argues that Judg 20:11 could belong to the most basic narrative. Here I cannot agree with EDENBURG, Dismembering, 24–25, who argues that 20:3b-11 are an insertion between 20:1-3a* and 20:12, since the Israelites’ demand that the Benjaminites hand over the ‫ בני בליעל‬in 20:13 presupposes that the Israelites know the details of the incident, which are reported to them only in 20:4-6. 244 Cf. BECKER, Richterzeit, 274. 245 Cf. ibid. 240

398

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

hundred thousand warriors in 20:2* is not original to that verse.246 The inquiry of God at Bethel in 20:18 regarding who will go up first does not fit well with the depiction of Israel acting as a unified group throughout the rest of the chapter and is also secondary.247 Although the report that the people arose the next morning in 20:19a serves as a fitting transition out of 20:18,248 it could also connect directly to 20:14, 15abα, or 17. In their present form, 20:19 and 20:20 constitute a doublet, since they both describe the Israelites’ preparation for war,249 although it is difficult to determine which verse has compositional priority over the other on the basis of the immediate context.250 In sum, the most basic material in Judg 20:1-19 may be limited to 20:1*, 3-10, 12-15abα, 17, 19b. The first and second days of battle (Judg 20:20-29). Within this unit, Judg 20:22 is out of place in terms of narrative sequence, which has led several commentators to propose that it originally stood after 20:23.251 Even if this is the case, 20:22 stands out as possibly a later addition within the unit due to its use of the phrase ‫ איש ישראל‬rather than ‫בני ישראל‬, the latter of which is the dominant term within 20:20-29.252 Likewise, the reference to the ark and Phinehas in 20:27b-28a* (up to ‫ )בימים ההם‬can be identified as a later addition, as it interrupts the connection between ‫ וישאלו בני ישראל בה׳‬in 20:27a and ‫ לאמר‬in 20:28.253 Finally, the reference to Israel’s setting up of ambushes in 20:29 disrupts its immediate narrative context in three respects: (1) 20:30 is the logical fulfillment of Yhwh’s instructions in 20:28 (cf. the use of the root ‫ על״ה‬in both verses), (2) the explicit naming of Israel as the subject in both 20:29 and 20:30 is unnatural from a syntactic point of view, and (3) the use of the term ‫ ישראל‬rather than ‫ בני ישראל‬in 20:29 diverges from the com-

























































246 247

77.

Cf. ibid., 267. Cf. GROSS, Richter, 823; EDENBURG, Dismembering, 33; and SCHULZ, Anhänge, 76–

248 Cf. BECKER, Richterzeit, 275 and SCHULZ, Anhänge, 78, who assign Judg 20:19 as a whole to the same compositional level as 20:18. 249 Cf. BECKER, Richterzeit, 275. 250 BECKER (ibid.) argues that Judg 20:20 may be secondary to 20:19, since in his view 20:21 implies a surprise attack by the Benjaminites, but this is not evident in the text itself. 251 G. F. MOORE, Judges, 431; BURNEY, Judges, 448; and EDENBURG, Dismembering, 34; cf. the apparatus to BHS ad loc. 252 On Judg 20:22 as an addition, see BECKER, Richterzeit, 275, albeit on different grounds. 253 Cf. WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 231 n. 1; G. F. MOORE, Judges, 434; BECKER, Richterzeit, 276; HENTSCHEL / NIESSEN, “Bruderkrieg,” 26–27; SAMUEL, Von Priestern, 354 n. 1585; EDENBURG, Dismembering, 34; and SCHULZ, Anhänge, 79. Notably, the reference to the ark and to Phinehas in Judg 20:27b-28a* is lacking in
, indicating that the Old Greek Vorlage of
– and thus also the Hebrew Vorlage of the Old Greek – did not yet contain this insertion; on this, see TREBOLLE BARRERA, “Textual Variants,” 241–42.

3. The Conquest of Ai (Josh 8)

399

mon usage elsewhere in 20:20-29. Thus, 20:29 is likely a later addition between 20:28 and 20:30.254 Beyond these small-scale additions within Judg 20:20-29, there is reason to suspect that the war against the Benjaminites originally took place in a single day, not over three days, and that the statements of the Israelites’ defeat at the hands of the Benjaminites on the first two days were added to the narrative at a secondary stage of composition. This possibility is suggested first of all by the fact that the Israelite casualties on the first two days are significantly higher than on the third day.255 Moreover, it is surprising that the Israelites could be defeated by the Benjaminites at all, considering the Israelites’ vastly superior numbers and the fact that they have divine assurance of victory even during the first two days.256 This hypothesis is also supported by variant readings in Judg 20:19
and in 20:31 𝔊*, both of which contain instructions for the ambush that are not reflected in the major manuscript traditions of 𝔊 or in 𝔐:257
20:19+ …uenerunt in Gabaa ut pugnarent et dederunt eis filii Istrahel mille uiros obsidentes ciuitates in uia Gabaon applicauerunt et mandauit eis omnis synagoga dicens Abite ad eum qui super insidias est et erit quando prodire coeperint filii Ben. de ciuitate et uos258 secus latenter commiscetis uos et introibitis illo et tolletis pacem et reuertemur super eos et percutiemus illos et exiit Beniamin ex Gabaa in obuiam Istrahel 𝔊* 20:31+ ἀπέστειλαν δὲ οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ χιλίους ἄνδρας εἰς τὴν ὁδόν καὶ ἐνετείλαντο αὐτοῖς λέγοντες πορεύεσθε πρὸς τὸν ἐπὶ τῶν ἐνέδρων τόπον καὶ ἔσται ὃταν ἐκπορεύωνται ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ὑμεις εἰσελεύεσθε259 ἐκεῖ καὶ ἀρειτε πυρσὸν εἰς ὕψος καὶ ἐπιστρέψωμεν ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς260 καὶ ἐξῆλθον οἱ υἱοὶ Βενιαμιν εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ λαοῦ και ἐξειλκύσθησαν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως

Although
differs somewhat from 𝔊*, it seems likely that both pluses ultimately reflect a variant reading at the level of the Hebrew text, since both



























































254 Cf. BECKER, Richterzeit, 277; EDENBURG, Dismembering, 38; and SCHULZ, Anhänge, 85–86. 255 This problem is also noted by SCHULZ, Anhänge, 87, although she argues that the smaller number of fallen Israelites in Judg 20:31 is later, not earlier, than the larger figures in 20:21-30. 256 EDENBURG, Dismembering, 200 argues that “the defeat and victory schema is not integral to the Gibeah story” but does not provide a full reconstruction of the composition of Judg 20:18-28 (ibid., 32–37), so it is difficult to know precisely which materials within this unit she regards as belonging to the most basic narrative thread. 257 Both texts presented here generally follow TREBOLLE BARRERA, “Textual Variants,” 243. The underlined text indicates correspondences between the two variants. I am grateful to Devin White for his helpful comments on an earlier version of the following discussion. 258 Following BROOKE / MCLEAN, Old Testament, 878 (Trebolle Barrera reads “nos”). 259 BROOKE / MCLEAN, Old Testament, 878: εισελευσεσθε. 260 Ibid.: αυτους.

400

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

contain Hebraisms (e.g., dicens/λέγοντες = ‫ ;*לאמר‬et erit quando/καὶ ἔσται ὃταν = ‫)*ויהי כאשר‬. In
, this plus comes immediately after Judg 20:19b and concludes with a text similar to that found in 20:21a + 31a* 𝔐 (et exiit Beniamin ex Gabaa in obuiam Istrahel; ‫)ויצאו בני בנימן מן הגבעה…לקראת העם‬. In contrast, in 𝔊* it is located in the middle of 20:31 and concludes with the same text found in 20:31a 𝔐. The location of the instructions in
is more logical, since their appearance in 20:31 𝔊* is out of place temporally: The plus in 𝔊* is preceded by a report that the Benjaminites were drawn out of the city (καὶ ἐξεκενώθησαν τῆς πόλεως), whereas the instructions in the plus assume that the people have not yet gone out from the city (καὶ ἔσται ὃταν ἐκπορεύωνται ἐκ τῆς πόλεως…). The location of the instructions following Judg 20:19b in
is striking, since the ambush tactic plays no role in 20:21b-30. When combined with the observation that the reports of the Israelites’ defeat during the first two days in 20:21b-30 are greatly disproportionate to the number of fallen Israelites in 20:31, this provides further evidence in support of the view that the first two days of battle as recounted in 20:21b-30 are a secondary insertion between 20:19b+, (20?), 21a on the one hand and 20:31aα* (from ‫ )לקראת העם‬on the other. Indeed, it seems that the pluses in
and 𝔊* may reflect a more original statement about the setting up of the ambush following 20:19b as well as an originally direct connection between 20:21a + 31aα* (‫ויצאו בני בנימן מן‬ ‫הגבעה…לקראת העם‬, cf.
). This connection was then broken apart when the narrative was expanded to encompass three days, with 20:30b-31aα* constituting a Wiederaufnahme of 20:20*, 21a.261 The report about the ambush reflected in 20:19+
was subsequently suppressed in 𝔐 and 𝔊AB and was placed after 20:21b-30 in other Greek manuscripts (𝔊*), although this resulted in an awkward narrative sequence in 20:31. In 𝔐, an alternate report of the setting up of the ambush was inserted in 20:29.262 In sum, several pieces of evidence suggest that Judg 20:21b-30 belong to a secondary stage of composition in Judg 20 that reshapes a one-day battle into a three-day battle.263 Unfortunately, the relevant text-critical evidence that supports this conclusion is overlooked in almost all literary-critical analyses of the chapter, which leads many commentators to assign much of 20:21b-30 to the most basic narrative thread.264

























































261

Cf. TREBOLLE BARRERA, “Textual Variants,” 243. On Judg 20:29 as a later addition, see immediately above. 263 Cf. RÖSEL, “Studien,” 33, who evaluates Judg 20:21, 23-28 as a later insertion, albeit not on text-critical grounds. 264 BECKER, Richterzeit, 279; SCHULZ, Anhänge, 56; and EDENBURG, Dismembering, 32– 37. 262

3. The Conquest of Ai (Josh 8)

401

The Israelites defeat the Benjaminites (Judg 20:30-48). The battle report for the third day in Judg 20:30-48 has also undergone compositional growth. Assuming that 20:21b-30 are indeed a later insertion, the phrases ‫כפעם בפעם‬ in 20:31 and ‫ כבראשנה‬in 20:32 cannot be original. In addition, there are a number of narrative inconsistencies within this unit: (1) The report that the Benjaminites were drawn out of the city in 20:31aβ does not connect smoothly to 20:31aα in terms of syntax and is likely a later addition.265 (2) The report of the Israelites’ withdrawal and the subsequent attack by the ambush group is reported twice (20:33 and 20:36b-37). (3) The report that the Benjaminites began to inflict casualties on the Israelites “on the highways” in 20:31b* comes too early with respect to 20:32, in which the Israelites have apparently not yet lured the Benjaminites out to the highways.266 (4) The subject shifts abruptly between 20:34a and 20:34b, indicating a literarycritical break. (5) The report of Yhwh’s defeat of Benjamin in 20:35 is somewhat out of place and has an affinity with 20:21b-30* (cf. esp. 20:28). (6) The Benjaminites begin to inflict casualties on the Israelites twice (20:31*, 39).267 (7) The Benjaminites realize that they are overpowered by the Israelites force twice (20:36a, 41b). (8) The number of Benjaminite casualties is reported twice (20:35, 44 + 46).268 (9) The Benjaminites’ flight to the desert is reported three times (20:42, 45, 47).269 (10) Within 20:30-36a, the terms ‫ בני ישראל‬and ‫ איש ישראל‬are both used, while in 20:36b-48 the term ‫ איש ישראל‬alone is used.270 In short, Judg 20:33-36a* and 20:36b-46* are to a large extent doublets of each other.271 Determining which unit has compositional priority over the other requires a closer look at 20:42-47, which contains three statements of the Benjaminites’ flight. The second and third statements contain the same phrasing, suggesting either that 20:47 is a later addition following 20:42-46 or that 20:42-46 is an insertion that has been incorporated through the Vorwegnahme of 20:47 in 20:45.272 Given that in either case the Benjaminites’ flight to the Rock of Rimmon presupposes the episode that follows in Judg 21, it is difficult to conceive of the purpose of supplementing 20:42-46 with 20:47.273 In contrast, it is quite possible to conceive of 20:42-46 as an embellishment of 20:47 in which the Benjaminites are defeated in stages during

























































265

Cf. BECKER, Richterzeit, 277 and SCHULZ, Anhänge, 86. Cf. HENTSCHEL / NIESSEN, “Bruderkrieg,” 26–27 with n. 41 against BECKER, Richterzeit, 277 and SCHULZ, Anhänge, 87. 267 Cf. EDENBURG, Dismembering, 38. 268 Cf. ibid. 269 Cf. HENTSCHEL / NIESSEN, “Bruderkrieg,” 27. 270 Cf. ibid., 29–30. 271 Cf. FERNÁNDEZ, “El atentado,” 298. 272 For the latter view, see RÖSEL, “Studien,” 45 and BECKER, Richterzeit, 285. 273 Against SCHULZ, Anhänge, 90, who regards Judg 20:42-46 as earlier than 20:47. 266

402

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

their flight to the desert.274 This suggests that 20:47 once connected directly to 20:36a and that 20:36b-46 were inserted secondarily between 20:36a and 20:47.275 By extension, the fact that the term ‫ איש ישראל‬predominates in 20:36b-46 suggests that the other verses in the chapter that use this term (e.g., 20:17, 20, 33a) are also secondary.276 Finally, 20:48 does not connect very well conceptually to 20:47. Considering that 20:48 speaks of the destruction of other Benjaminite cities by fire, this verse seems to presuppose 20:36b-46, suggesting that it is later than 20:47.277 Interim result. The foregoing analysis suggests that the most basic narrative thread in Judg 20 is to be found in 20:1*, 3-10, 12-14, (15abα?), 19+, 21a + 31aα*, 31b* (without ‫כפעם בפעם במסלות אשר אחת עלה בית אל ואחת‬ ‫)גבעתה‬, 32* (without ‫)כבראשנה‬, 33b, 34aβ, 35* (without ‫ויגף ה׳ את בנימן לפני‬ ‫)ישראל‬, and possibly also 36a + 47.278 This narrative was then reworked into a three-day battle through the addition of 20:21b-30 and, probably later, given an alternative ending in 20:36b-46. In light of the significant amount of duplicate material between 20:31-36a and 20:36b-46, it may be that the ‫איש‬ ‫ ישראל‬texts in 20:11, 17, 20, 33a, 36b-46 were originally composed as part of a rewriting of Judg 20, then the two versions were later combined into a single text.279

























































274

Cf. G. F. MOORE, Judges, 435; RÖSEL, “Studien,” 41; BECKER, Richterzeit, 279; and GÖRG, Richter, 107. 275 Cf. BERTHEAU, Richter und Ruth, 276; NOTH, System, 168; RÖSEL, “Studien,” 41; and BECKER, Richterzeit, 279; against EDENBURG, Dismembering, 52, who assigns Judg 20:36b-44 to the most basic narrative thread and postulates that 20:42b-43 are based on “a fragment from a lost poetic source” (48). For the theory of an older poetic source used within 20:30-48, see also MAZOR, “Textual and Literary Study,” 100. 276 On the differentiation of the ‫ בני ישראל‬texts from the ‫ איש ישראל‬texts, see also BERTHEAU, Richter und Ruth, 265–75; SCHUNCK, Benjamin, 61; RÖSEL, “Studien,” 31–32; and BECKER, Richterzeit, 279. 277 Cf. BECKER, Richterzeit, 279 against SCHULZ, Anhänge, 93, 192–93, who argues that Judg 20:48 is more original than 20:47. 278 This basic narrative resembles that of BECKER, Richterzeit, 279 (Judg 20:14, 15abα*, 18, 19, 21, 23-26, 27a, 28aβb, 30, 31*, 32, 34-36a, 47) in certain respects but treats the first two days of battle as a later expansion and the motif of the ambush as part of the original narrative. 279 In this respect, I agree to a certain extent with earlier commentators who identified two separate versions of Judg 20 that were later combined: cf. BURNEY, Judges, 449–52; FERNÁNDEZ, “El atentado,” 298; and RÖSEL, “Studien,” 32. Yet rather than assuming that the ‫ איש ישראל‬texts are fragments of a parallel narrative that has otherwise been lost, it seems more cautious to regard these variants as only a partial rewriting of the ‫בני ישראל‬ version of the narrative.

3. The Conquest of Ai (Josh 8)

403

3.4. Comparison of Josh 8 and Judg 20 Now that a literary-critical analysis of Judg 20 has been conducted, it is possible to discuss the particular connections between Josh 8 (as well as some materials in Josh 7) and Judg 20. These connections are listed here in the order of their appearance in Josh 7–8:280 (1) The number of casualties (2) Lamentation following initial defeat (3) The Übergabeformel (4) Reference to the previous encounter (5) The placement of the ambush (6) The act of going out to battle (7) The motif of “not knowing” (8) The reference to the ‫מועד‬ (9) The motif of feigned defeat (10) The flight toward the desert (11) The combination of ‫ קו״ם‬and ‫מקום‬ (12) The smoke signal (13) The perception of the smoke (14) Defeat at the “edge of the sword”

Josh 7:5 // Judg 20:31 Josh 7:6 // Judg 20:23, 26, 27 Josh 8:1 // Judg 20:31 Josh 8:5 // Judg 20:32 Josh 8:12* // Judg 20:19+ Josh 8:14 // Judg 20:21a, 31a Josh 8:14 // Judg 20:34 Josh 8:14 // Judg 20:38 Josh 8:15a // Judg 20:31aβ, 32b Josh 8:15b // Judg 20:42, 45, 47 Josh 8:19 // Judg 20:33a Josh 8:20 // Judg 20:38 Josh 8:20 // Judg 20:40b Josh 8:24b // Judg 20:48

(1) The report of thirty Israelite casualties in Jug 20:31 is quite close to the report of thirty-six Israelite casualties in Josh 7:5.281 On the one hand, since it is reasonable to assume that the specific number of casualties is more original than the round number, there is prima facie evidence that Josh 7:5 has literary priority over Judg 20:31.282 On the other hand, the strange use of -‫ כ‬with the number thirty-six in Josh 7:5 suggests that the latter may have later been coordinated with Judg 20:31.283 Since both of these reports likely belong to the most basic narrative thread in each respective chapter, this also suggests that the most basic material in Judg 20 presupposes Josh 8 from the outset. (2) The expanded account of the first two days of battle in Judg 20:21b-30 forms a connection with Joshua’s lamentation in the Achan narrative: Josh 7:6

‫ויקרע יהושע שמלתיו ויפל על פניו ארצה לפני }ארון{ ה׳ עד הערב הוא וזקני‬ ‫ישראל ויעלו עפר על ראשם‬

Judg 20:23

‫ויעלו בני ישראל ויבכו לפני ה׳ עד הערב‬

Judg 20:26

‫ויעלו כל בני ישראל וכל העם ויבאו בית אל ויבכו וישבו שם לפני ה׳ ויצומו‬ ‫ביום ההוא עד הערב ויעלו עלות ושלמים לפני ה׳‬

























































280

For similar overviews, see MAZOR, “Textual and Literary Study,” 99; BECKER, Richterzeit, 282; RÖSEL, Joshua, 122–23; and EDENBURG, Dismembering, 204–6. 281 Cf. HENTSCHEL / NIESSEN, “Bruderkrieg,” 34. 282 Cf. EDENBURG, Dismembering, 212. 283 Cf. ibid. and SCHULZ, Anhänge, 97 n. 373.

404

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

Considering that the Israelites’ act of lamentation appears twice in Judg 20 and that the first lamentation does not even result in victory, it is something of a blind motif there, suggesting that Judg 20:23, 26 were modeled on Josh 7:6 and not vice versa. Likewise, the secondary reference to the ark in Judg 20:27 (‫ )ושם ארון ברית האלהים בימים ההם‬may reflect an attempt to update Judg 20 in light of the apparently secondary insertion of the word ‫ ארון‬in Josh 7:6. (3) The declaration of divine assurance in Judg 20:28b (‫עלו כי מחר אתננו‬ ‫ )בידך‬resembles that found in Josh 8:1 (‫וקום עלה העי ראה נתתי בידך את מלך‬ ‫)העי‬. In Judg 20:28b, the 2ms pronominal suffix on ‫ בידך‬does not fit well with the plural imperative ‫עלו‬, suggesting that Judg 20:28b is dependent upon Josh 8:1. (4) The phrase ‫ כבראשנה‬in Judg 20:32 is unusual in its juxtaposition of -‫כ‬ and -‫ ב‬and was almost certainly derived from ‫ כאשר בראשנה‬in Josh 8:5.284 Moreover, the reference to the “first time” does not fit well within the narrative context of Judg 20, since here there were two previous defeats rather than one.285 (5) In Josh 8:12*, Joshua selects five thousand men and places them as an ambush to the west of Ai, while in Judg 20:19+ the Israelites send one thousand men as an ambush against the city, and in Judg 20:33 the ambush group bursts forth from the west of Gibeah (cf. 𝔊, 𝔙). Here, determining the direction of dependence is made more difficult by the uncertainty over whether the reference to the five thousand men in Josh 8:12 belongs to the earliest reconstructible account of the conquest of Ai (cf. the literary-critical analysis of 𝔐) or whether it is a later addition (cf. 𝔊 and 4QJosha). Thus, while I regard 8:12* as the place where the original notice of the placement of the ambush stood, I would not rule out the possibility that this verse was reworked in light of the concept of multiple ambushes in Judg 20:29, whereby the reference to the five thousand men denoted a second ambush group. (6) In Josh 8:14*, the king of Ai goes out against Israel in battle (cf. 𝔊, 4QJosha), while in Judg 20:21a + 31a* the Benjaminites go out against the people. In light of the conclusions drawn in (1) above, it is reasonable to assume that the basic form of Josh 8:14* has literary priority over Judg 20:21a + 31a*. At the same time, there is text-critical evidence that Josh 8:14* was reworked by the addition of the ‫אנשי העיר‬, the accompanying shift in subject and number from ‫ *וימהר‬and ‫ *ויצא‬to ‫ וימהרו‬and ‫ויצאו‬, and the addition of the verb ‫וישכימו‬. As noted in the literary-critical analysis of Josh 8, the verb ‫ וישכימו‬works together with several other late additions in 8:10-14 to reshape the narrative from a two-day process to a three-day process. Consid-

























































284

Cf. EDENBURG, Dismembering, 209–10. Against BECKER, Richterzeit, 283–84, who concludes that the use of the term ‫ראשנה‬ in Judg 20:32 does not point to literary dependence on Josh 8. 285

3. The Conquest of Ai (Josh 8)

405

ering that later versions of Judg 20 cast the war with Benjamin as a three-day process, it is quite possible that the late additions in Josh 8:14 𝔐 presuppose the three-day chronology of Judg 20 and reflect an attempt to coordinate Josh 8 with that chapter.286 (7) The statement ‫ והם לא ידעו כי נגעת עליהם הרעה‬in Judg 20:34 is similar to Josh 8:14 (‫)והוא לא ידע כי ארב לו מאחרי העיר‬. Considering that Judg 20:34 is more abstract, it is reasonable to assume that this verse was composed on the basis of Josh 8:14 rather than vice versa. (8) The reference to the “agreement” (‫ )מעוד‬between the main Israelite force and the ambush group in Judg 20:38 is an unusual usage of the term ‫ מועד‬and was likely derived from the reference to the “meeting place in front of the Arabah” (‫ )למועד לפני הערבה‬in Josh 8:14,287 which is itself likely secondary to the most basic narrative thread in Josh 8. (9) In Judg 20:31, ‫ הנתקו מן העיר‬was evaluated as secondary on syntactic grounds. A similar statement appears in Josh 8:16bβ, where it does not create narrative problems. Thus, ‫ הנתקו מן העיר‬in Judg 20:31 was almost certainly taken directly from Josh 8:16bβ.288 (10) The three references to the Benjaminites’ flight toward the wilderness in Judg 20:42, 45, and 47 connect to the Israelites’ flight toward the wilderness in Josh 8:15b, 20b, and 24aα2. Notably, all three of the references to the wilderness in Josh 8 were evaluated in §3.1 as later additions to the narrative. Moreover, whereas in Judg 20 the flight to the wilderness serves a specific narrative function (i.e., allowing a small group of Benjaminites to survive), the flight to the wilderness in Josh 8 serves only as a scenic embellishment – and one that creates significant narrative tensions, particularly in Josh 8:20b. Thus, it seems possible that here Josh 8:15b-16a, 20b, and 24aα2 are dependent on Judg 20.289 (11) The verb ‫ קו״ם‬appears in conjunction with ‫ ממקומו‬in both Josh 8:19 and Judg 20:33a. In Judg 20:33a, the verb ‫ קמו‬disagrees in number with the

























































286

Curiously, although MAZOR, “Textual and Literary Study,” 97–108 argues that Josh 8 was “assimilated” with Judg 20 at a late stage in its literary development, she does not discuss the shift from a two-day account to a three-day account in 𝔐 as an aspect of such assimilation. Conversely, although DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 366–67 highlights the fact that Josh 8 𝔐 has a three-day account while 𝔊 has a two-day account, he does not attempt to explain why this is the case. 287 Cf. SCHULZ, Anhänge, 97 against MAZOR, “Textual and Literary Study,” 105–6, who argues that the reference to the ‫ מועד‬in Josh 8:14 is dependent on Judg 20:38, and EDENBURG, Dismembering, 219, who argues that the two occurrences of the term ‫ מועד‬are independent of each other. 288 Cf. EDENBURG, Dismembering, 209. 289 Cf. MAZOR, “Textual and Literary Study,” 103–5 against VAN DER MEER, Formation, 437–38 and EDENBURG, Dismembering, 215–16.

406

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

prepositional phrase ‫ממקומו‬, which suggests that this verse is dependent on Josh 8:19.290 (12) The reference to the ambush group sending a smoke signal from the city in Judg 20:38 (‫משאת העשן מן העיר‬, cf. also 20:40) connects to the depiction of smoke rising up from Ai in Josh 8:20 (‫)והנה עלה עשן העיר השמימה‬.291 Considering that the reference to the ‫ מועד‬at the beginning of the verse is dependent on Josh 8:14, it can be concluded that the author of Judg 20:38 presupposed the narrative of the fall of Ai and thus that the reference to the smoke signal in Judg 20:38 is dependent upon Josh 8:20. (13) The reference to the Benjaminites turning around and seeing Gibeah in smoke in Judg 20:40b (‫ )ויפן בנימן אחריו והנה עלה כליל העיר השמימה‬connects to a similar report in Josh 8:20 (‫ויפנו אנשי העי אחריהם ויראו והנה עלה‬ ‫)עשן העיר השמימה‬. The use of the phrase ‫ כליל העיר‬in Judg 20:40b is rather unusual and can best be explained as an allusion to Deut 13:17, which orders the complete destruction of an apostate city.292 Here, it is simpler to assume that the author of Judg 20:40b modified the more straightforward phrase ‫עשן‬ ‫ העיר‬from Josh 8:20 in order to incorporate the additional intertextual reference to Deut 13:17 than to assume that the author of Josh 8:20 simplified the rare phrase ‫כליל העיר‬.293 (14) The statement in Judg 20:48 that the Israelite warriors turned against the Benjaminites and “struck them down at the edge of the sword” (‫ואיש‬ ‫ )ישראל שבו אל בני בנימן ויכום לפי חרב‬connects to Josh 8:24b, which reports that, after killing the inhabitants of Ai who had come out in battle, the Israelites returned to Ai and “struck it down at the edge of the sword” (‫וישבו כל‬ ‫)ישראל העי ויכו אתה לפי חרב‬. Whereas the use of the verb ‫ שו״ב‬is logical in Josh 8:24b, which narrates the Israelite warriors’ return to a specific place (Ai), in Judg 20:48 its use with reference to the Benjaminites is somewhat strange. As Cynthia Edenburg has noted, “there is no real ‘return’ here, since the Israelites do not return to their target as in Josh 8 but undertake a new objective.”294 Thus, it can be concluded that Judg 20:48 is dependent on Josh 8:24b.295 On the basis of the foregoing discussion, it can be concluded that the majority of the intertextual connections between Josh 8 and Judg 20 reflect the

























































290

Cf. EDENBURG, Dismembering, 212–13. Against MAZOR, “Textual and Literary Study,” 100, who regards Judg 20:38 as part of a poetic source (‫ )מקור פיוטי‬that does not know the story of the conquest of Ai. 292 Cf. GROSS, Richter, 863; SCHULZ, Anhänge, 98–99; and EDENBURG, Dismembering, 215. 293 Cf. EDENBURG, Dismembering, 214–15. 294 Ibid., 217. 295 Cf. ibid. 291

3. The Conquest of Ai (Josh 8)

407

dependence of Judg 20 on Josh 8.296 Since some of these connections occur already at the level of the most basic narrative in Judg 20, it can also be concluded that the narrative of the war against the Benjaminites presupposed the narrative of the conquest of Ai from the outset and was never independent of the latter.297 At the same time, however, there are a small number of intertextual connections that suggest the opposite direction of dependence (the -‫ כ‬in Josh 7:5, the reference to the five thousand men in 8:12, the three-day chronology in 8:13b-14a, and the flight to the wilderness in 8:6b, 15b-16a, 20b, and 24aα2) and seem to represent an effort to coordinate Josh 8 with Judg 20. Notably, every element in Josh 8 that suggests dependence upon Judg 20 is absent in 𝔊 (as well as in the extant text of 4QJosha), which suggests that the process of coordinating Josh 8 with Judg 20 occurred at a very late stage in the development of Josh 8.298 3.5. Synthesis I

The most basic narrative thread in Josh 8 can be identified in 8:1a, 2b(?), 10* (without ‫)הוא וזקני ישראל לפני העם‬, 11aα1* (without ‫עלו ויגשו‬ ‫)ויבאו נגד העיר‬, 12* (without ‫)?בין בית אל ובין העי‬, 13aα* (without ‫)אשר‬, 14a* (without ‫ אנשי העיר‬and ‫)למועד לפני הערבה‬, 19* (without ‫)כנטות ידו‬, 21.299 This narrative shows no awareness of Deuteronomy or priestly

























































296

Against ROTH, “Hinterhalt,” 300; DE VAUX, Histoire, 569–70 (ET 618–19); and RÖSEL, “Studien,” 34; IDEM, Joshua, 122, who regard Judg 20 as the Vorlage for Josh 8. 297 Cf. EDENBURG, Dismembering, 220 and SCHULZ, Anhänge, 93 against BECKER, Richterzeit, 283–84. 298 Cf. MAZOR, “Textual and Literary Study,” 100–6, 108, who likewise emphasizes that the “assimilation” of Josh 8 to Judg 20 occurs predominately in material that is unique to 𝔐 and is not reflected in 𝔊 or 4QJosha (although Mazor’s study can be critiqued for failing to discuss the many cases in which Judg 20 is dependent on Josh 8), against VAN DER MEER, Formation, 440, who concludes that the coordination of Josh 8 with Judg 20 “must have taken place during a stage in the formation of Joshua 8 preceding the textual variation.” Such a conclusion is possible only if one adopts van der Meer’s view that 𝔊 reflects a later abridgment of a longer Hebrew Vorlage (i.e., 𝔐) by the Greek translator. Yet, since the only passages in which Josh 8 reflects coordination with Judg 20 are found in pluses in 𝔐, van der Meer would need to explain why the Greek translator chose to systematically eliminate precisely these coordinating passages, and his failure to do so further illustrates the weakness of his overall theory. 299 Cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 217 (ET 208), who identifies the most basic narrative in Josh 8:1-2a, 10a, 11a, 14, 19. Other reconstructions of the most basic narrative vary widely; cf. RUDOLPH, Elohist, 195 (8:3-7a, 8-11, 14-17, 19-25, 28-29); FRITZ, Josua, 88 (8:1012, 14-15, 19, 21, 23, 29); VAN DER MEER, Formation, 448 (8:10-14, 16, 18-20, 26); KNAUF, Josua, 81–83 (8:1-2, 3b-10, 24a, 26-27); and R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige Krieg,” 101 (8:1-9, 16-18, 22, 24-28).

408

Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8)

literature and thus could have belonged to a pre-priestly and preDeuteronomistic conquest account in the book of Joshua.300 II

This narrative received a variety of additions in Josh 8:1b-2aα, 3-6a, 78*, 9a, 10*, 11aα2β, 11b, 13aβ, 13b, 14b, 15a, 16b, 19*, 20, 22, 24-25, 27, 28, 30-35. Although these were probably not all made by the same hand, many of them presuppose texts in the book of Deuteronomy.301

II+

Some of the additions in Level II were further expanded or reworked in Josh 8:2aβ, 7a* (‫)והורשתם‬, 7b, 8a* (‫)כדבר ה׳ תעשו‬, 9b, 17, 23, 29. It is also possible that 8:33-35 are a later addition within 8:30-35.

III

The divine instruction to Joshua to stretch out his hand toward Ai in Josh 8:18* (without reference to the sword) and the corresponding clause ‫ כנטות ידו‬in 8:19* were added, creating an intertextual link with the war against Amalek in Exod 17:8-13. It is possible that 8:26 was added at the same time as 8:18*, although the absence of this verse in 𝔊* may suggest that it is even later than 8:18*.

III+ Sometime after the addition of Josh 8:18*, this verse was revised by placing a sword in Joshua’s hand. It is not clear whether the reference to the sword in 8:26 is original to that verse or was added later. IV

At a late stage in the literary development of Josh 8, this chapter was coordinated with the narrative of the war against the Benjaminites in Judg 20, which otherwise shows literary dependence on Josh 8. These coordinations include the motif of the flight to the wilderness (8:6b, 15b-16a, 20b, 24aα2), the reference to the five thousand men in 8:12, and the shift from a two-day to a three-day chronology effected by the addition of 8:13b and the verb ‫ וישכימו‬in 8:14a. Most of this material is absent in 𝔊 as well as in the preserved portions of 4QJosha, which suggests that these coordinations were some of the latest additions to the Masoretic version of Josh 8.

























































300

Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 89–91; VAN DER MEER, Formation, 448; KNAUF, Josua, 83; and BLUM, “Überlegungen,” 154, who regard the most basic narrative in Josh 8 as preDeuteronomistic. 301 Against BLUM, “Überlegungen,” 154, who concludes that “die Eroberungserzählung in Kap. 8…keine deuteronomistische Bearbeitung auf[weist].”

‫‪409‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫)‪3. The Conquest of Ai (Josh 8‬‬ ‫‪II‬‬

‫‪8:1‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫ויאמר ה׳ אל יהושע ]אל תירא ואל תחת[ קח עמך את כל עם המלחמה וקום עלה העי‬ ‫ראה נתתי בידך את מלך העי }ואת עמו ואת עירו{ ואת ארצו‬ ‫עשית ליריחו ולמלכה ]‪ II+‬רק שללה ובהמתה תבזו לכם[‬

‫‪2 a‬‬

‫ועשית לעי ולמלכה כאשר‬

‫]‪ 2b‬שים לך ארב לעיר מאחריה[‬ ‫‪ 3‬ויקם יהושע וכל עם המלחמה לעלות העי ויבחר יהושע שלשים אלף איש גבורי החיל וישלחם‬ ‫לילה ‪ 4‬ויצו אתם לאמר ראו אתם ארבים לעיר מאחרי העיר אל תרחיקו מן העיר מאד והייתם‬ ‫כלכם נכנים ‪ 5‬ואני וכל העם אשר אתי נקרב אל העיר והיה כי יצאו לקראתנו ]כאשר בראשנה[‬ ‫ונסנו לפניהם ‪ 6‬ויצאו אחרינו עד התיקנו אותם מן העיר כי יאמרו נסים לפנינו ]כאשר בראשנה[‬ ‫}ונסנו לפניהם{‬ ‫‪a‬‬

‫‪ 7‬ואתם תקמו מהאורב והורשתם את העיר‬ ‫}ונתנה ה׳ אלהיכם בידכם{ ‪} 8‬והיה כתפשכם את העיר תציתו את העיר באש{‬ ‫כדבר *הזה‪ b‬תעשו ראו צויתי אתכם‬ ‫העי מים לעי‬

‫‪9‬‬

‫וישלחם יהושע וילכו אל המארב וישבו בין בית אל ובין‬

‫}וילן יהושע בלילה ההוא בתוך העם{‬ ‫‪c‬‬

‫‪ 10‬וישכם יהושע בבקר ויפקד את העם ויעל ]‪II‬הוא וזקני ישראל לפני העם[ העי‬ ‫‪d‬‬ ‫אשר אתו עלו ויגשו ויבאו נגד העיר‬

‫‪11‬‬

‫וכל העם המלחמה‬

‫}ויחנו מצפון לעי והגי בינו ובין העי ‪ 12‬ויקח כחמשת אלפים איש וישם אותם ארב בין‬ ‫בית אל ובין העי מים לעיר ‪ 13‬וישימו העם את כל המחנה אשר מצפון לעיר ואת עקבו‬ ‫‪e‬‬ ‫מים לעיר וילך יהושע בלילה ההוא בתוך העמק{‬ ‫‪ 14‬ויהי כראות מלך העי *וימהר‬ ‫}וישכימו ויצאו אנשי העיר{‬

‫‪f‬‬

‫*לקראתם‪ g‬למלחמה הוא וכל עמו‬ ‫}למועד לפני הערבה{‬ ‫והוא לא ידע כי ארב לו מאחרי העיר ‪ 15‬וינגעו יהושע וכל ישראל לפניהם‬ ‫}וינסו דרך המדבר ‪ 16‬ויזעקו כל העם אשר בעיר לרדף אחריהם{‬

‫























































‬ ‫‪a‬‬

‫‪] 𝔊 καὶ πορεύσεσθε εἰς‬והורשתם את‬ ‫כדבר ה׳ = 𝔐 ;)‪Following 𝔊 (κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο‬‬ ‫‪c‬‬ ‫‪ 𝔊* καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι‬וה[זקנים ‪] 4QJosha‬וזקני ישראל‬ ‫‪d‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 καὶ πορευόμενοι ἦλθον ἐξ ἐναντίας τῆς πόλεως ἀπ᾽ ανατολῶν‬ויגשו ויבאו נגד העיר‬ ‫‪e‬‬ ‫‪8:11b-13] 𝔊* καὶ τὰ ἔνεδρα τῆς πόλεως ἀπὸ θαλάσσης‬‬ ‫‪f‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 ἔσπευσεν καὶ ἐξῆλθεν‬וימהרו וישכימו ויצאו אנשי העיר‬ ‫‪g‬‬ ‫לקראת ישראל = 𝔐 ;‪ and 𝔊* εἰς συνάντησιν αὐτοῖς‬לק[ראתם ‪Following 4QJosha‬‬ ‫‪b‬‬

‫)‪Chapter 10: The Conquest of Jericho and Ai (Josh 6–8‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪410‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫וירדפו אחרי יהושע וינתקו מן העיר‬ ‫‪ 17‬ולא נשאר איש בעי }ובית אל{ אשר לא יצאו אחרי ישראל ויעזבו את העיר‬ ‫פתוחה וירדפו אחרי ישראל‬ ‫‪ 18‬ויאמר ה׳ אל יהושע נטה ]בכידון אשר ב[ידך אל העי כי בידך אתננה ויט יהושע ]בכידון‬ ‫אשר ב[ידו אל העיר‬ ‫‪ 19‬והאורב קם מהרה ממקומו וירוצו ]‪III‬כנטות ידו[ ויבאו העיר וילכדוה וימהרו ויציתו את העיר באש‬ ‫‪ 20‬ויפנו אנשי העי אחריהם ויראו והנה עלה עשן העיר השמימה ולא היה בהם ידים לנוס הנה‬ ‫והנה‬ ‫}והעם הנס המדבר נהפך אל הרודף{‬ ‫‪ 21‬ויהושע וכל ישראל ראו כי לכד הארב את העיר וכי עלה עשן העיר וישבו ויכו את אנשי העי‬ ‫‪ 22‬ואלה יצאו מן העיר לקראתם ויהיו לישראל בתוך אלה מזה ואלה מזה ויכו אותם עד בלתי‬ ‫השאיר לו שריד ופליט‬ ‫‪ +II ] 23‬ואת מלך העי תפשו חי ויקרבו אתו אל יהושע[‬ ‫‪ 24‬ויהי ככלות ישראל להרג את כל ישבי העי בשדה ] ‪IV‬במדבר[ אשר רדפום בו } ‪IV‬ויפלו כלם לפי‬ ‫חרב{ עד תמם וישבו כל ישראל‪ h‬העי ויכו אתה לפי חרב ‪ 25‬ויהי כל הנפלים ביום ההוא מאיש‬ ‫ועד אשה שנים עשר אלף כל אנשי העי‬ ‫‪} 26‬ויהושע לא השיב ידו אשר נטה בכידון עד אשר החרים את כל ישבי העי{‬ ‫‪ 27‬רק הבהמה ושלל העיר ההיא בזזו להם ישראל כדבר ה׳ אשר צוה את יהושע‬ ‫] ‪ 28 +II‬וישרף יהושע את העי וישימה תל עולם שממה עד היום הזה ‪ 29‬ואת מלך העי תלה על‬ ‫העץ עד עת הערב וכבוא השמש צוה יהושע וירידו את נבלתו מן העץ וישליכו אותה אל פתח‬ ‫שער העיר‪ i‬ויקימו עליו גל אבנים גדול עד היום הזה[‬ ‫‪ 30‬אז יבנה יהושע מזבח לה׳ אלהי ישראל בהר עיבל ‪ 31‬כאשר צוה משה עבד ה׳ את בני ישראל‬ ‫ככתוב בספר תורת משה‪ j‬מזבח אבנים שלמות אשר לא הניף עליהן ברזל ויעלו עליו עלות לה׳‬ ‫ויזבחו שלמים ‪ 32‬ויכתב שם על האבנים את משנה תורת משה אשר כתב לפני בני ישראל‬ ‫] ‪ 33 +II‬וכל ישראל וזקניו ושטרים ושפטיו עמדים מזה ומזה לארון נגד הכהנים הלוים נשאי ארון‬ ‫ברית ה׳ כגר כאזרח חציו אל מול הר גרזים והחציו אל מול הר עיבל כאשר צוה משה עבד ה׳‬ ‫לברך את העם ישראל בראשנה ‪ 34‬ואחרי כן קרא את כל דברי התורה הברכה והקללה ככל‬ ‫הכתוב בספר התורה‪ 35 k‬לא היה דבר מכל אשר צוה משה אשר לא קרא יהושע נגד כל קהל‬ ‫ישראל והנשים והטף והגר ההלך בקרבם[‬

‫























































‬ ‫‪h‬‬

‫‪] 𝔊 καὶ ἀπέστρεψεν Ἰησοῦς‬וישבו כל ישראל‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 εἰς τὸν βόθρον‬אל פתח שער העיר‬ ‫‪j‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωυσῆ‬בספר תורת משה‬ ‫‪k‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωυσῆ‬בספר התורה‬ ‫‪i‬‬

4. Result

411

4. Result The foregoing analyses of Josh 6–8 indicate that the maximum extent of prepriestly and pre-Deuteronomistic material in these chapters consisted of Josh 6:1-3, 4aβ, 5*, 6:7a*, 11*, 14a*, 14b-16aα, 20*, 21, 24a and 8:1a*, 2b(?), 10*, 11aα1*, 12*, 13aα*, 14a*, 19*, 21 (i.e., Josh 6 I/I+ and Josh 8 I). These verses constitute a continuous narrative thread that can be connected directly to the pre-priestly and pre-Deuteronomistic narrative in Josh 1:1-2*; 3:1a*, 14a, 16*; 4:(11a?), 19b. Within Josh 6, the next major levels of composition (II–III) presuppose the role of the ark and can thus be associated with the post-priestly ark layer in Josh 3–4 II. The fulfillment report regarding the rescue of Rahab in 6:17b, 22-23, 25 (Josh 6 IV–V) cannot be earlier than the insertion of Josh 2 between Josh 1* and Josh 3–4*. Like Josh 6 IV–V, the most basic material in Josh 7 (i.e., 7:2-5a[b?]) presupposes the Rahab narrative in Josh 2. This material was then expanded with the Achan narrative (Josh 7 II–IV). In turn, Josh 6 V+/VI presuppose the Achan narrative and must be later than Josh 7 I. Within Josh 8, the first major layer of reworking (II) presupposes materials in the book of Deuteronomy but does not show awareness of priestly literature or the post-priestly additions identified thus far in the book of Joshua (i.e., Josh 1 II–III; Josh 2; Josh 3–4 II–VI; Josh 5; Josh 6 II–VI; Josh 7). Thus, Josh 8 II may belong to a post-Deuteronomic but pre-priestly stage in the composition of Josh 1–12. In contrast, given that Josh 8 III forms an intertextual link with Exod 17:8-13, this layer of reworking (and likely also the very late coordinations with Judg 20 in Josh 8 IV) cannot be evaluated as prepriestly.

Chapter 11

The Conquest of the Remainder of the Land (Josh 9–12) 1. The Gibeonite Accord (Josh 9) 1.1. Literary-critical analysis The gathering of Cisjordanian kings (Josh 9:1-2). It has long been noted that Josh 9:1-2 do not fit well with the rest of Josh 9, since the Cisjordanian kings play no further role in the chapter. Since these kings reappear only in Josh 10, the question arises whether 9:1-2 once connected directly to Josh 10.1 Yet such a solution is not possible, since the narrative in Josh 10 presupposes that the inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Israel (10:1b), indicating that 9:12 cannot be earlier than 9:3-27. In light of the repetitive nature of the motif of “hearing” in 9:1-2 and 9:3 and the fact that 9:1 does not specify what the Cisjordanian kings heard, it is most plausible to assume that 9:1-2 were composed after 9:3. The Gibeonite ruse and the Gibeonite-Israelite accord (Josh 9:3-15). Within this unit, there is a discrepancy between “Israel” in 9:6 𝔊 and the “man of Israel” (‫ )איש ישראל‬in 9:6 𝔐. Simiarly, 9:7 𝔐 repeats the designation “man of Israel” while 9:7 𝔊 uses the term “Israelites” (οἱ υἱοι Ισραηλ). The question of which readings in each verse are more original cannot be answered on the basis of 9:6-7 alone and must be combined with other evidence (see below). The reference to the Hivites in Josh 9:7 is rather unexpected in light of 9:3-6 and is comprehensible only in light of the list of indigenous nations in 9:1b. Thus, 9:7 cannot be earlier than 9:1-2 and most likely does not belong to the most basic narrative thread in Josh 9.2 This conclusion receives further support from the rough transition between 9:7, in which the “man of Israel” (𝔐) or the “Israelites” (𝔊) address the Hivites, and 9:8,3 in which the Gibe-

























































1

Such a connection is proposed by L ANGLOIS, Le texte, 234. Against RÖSEL, Joshua, 149, who concludes that the reference to the Hivites in Josh 9:7 is a remnant of an “older ‘man of Israel’ tradition.” 3 On the tension between Josh 9:7 and 9:8, see BLENKINSOPP, “Are There Traces?,” 210; HALBE, “Gibeon,” 617–18; SCHÄFER-LICHTENBERGER, “Das gibeonitische Bündnis,” 65; NELSON, Joshua, 123; and BERNER, “Gibeonite Deception,” 259. 2

1. The Gibeonite Accord (Josh 9)

413

onites address Joshua, not the Israelites. Thus, 9:8 seems to have once connected directly to 9:6. Yet the connection between 9:6b and 9:8a is itself not free of tension: In 9:6b, the Gibeonites ask Joshua and the “man of Israel” (𝔊: “Israel”) to make a covenant (‫ )ברית‬with them, whereas in 9:8a they speak only to Joshua, declaring that they are his servants. The fact that the Gibeonites ask to make a covenant with Joshua and with the “man of Israel” before declaring their submission to Joshua is rather strange, which suggests that 9:6b and 9:8a do not belong to the same compositional level. Significantly, the Gibeonites address Joshua twice, first in 9:6b* and again in 9:8a*, suggesting that 9:8a* is a Wiederaufnahme that accompanied the insertion of additional material between ‫ ויאמרו אליו‬in 9:6b* and ‫ עבדיך אנחנו‬in 9:8a*.4 This possibility is further supported by the fact that in both 9:6a and 9:8a the Gibeonites interact with Joshua alone. Following the Gibeonites’ submission in Josh 9:8a, 9:8b-13 focus on their insistence that they came from a faraway land, and the conclusion of the accord is only reported in 9:14-15. Here, the Gibeonites give a different reason for their arrival (Yhwh’s renown) than that given by the narrator in 9:3 (Joshua’s defeat of Jericho and Ai).5 Although the Gibeonites initially address Joshua alone in 9:9, their speech ultimately makes an appeal to the Israelites more broadly, as is indicated by the plural forms in 9:11. Indeed, 9:11b is quite similar in its phrasing to 9:6b + 8a but is more uniform in terms of grammatical number and also contains a different word order: Josh 9:6b, 8a

[…] ‫ויאמרו אליו ואל איש ישראל מארץ רחוקה באנו ועתה כרתו לנו ברית‬ ‫ויאמרו אל יהושע עבדיך אנחנו‬

Josh 9:11b

‫ואמרתם אליהם עבדיכם אנחנו ועתה כרתו לנו ברית‬

Unlike the basic narrative thread identified in 9:6a, 8a, in which the Gibeonites surrender to Joshua alone, in 9:11b they declare their subservience to the entire people. Thus, 9:11 – as well as 9:8b-10, which cannot stand without 9:11 – must be evaluated as later than 9:6a, 8a. Considering that the Gibeonites’ speech reaches its rhetorical climax in Josh 9:11bβ (‫)ועתה כרתו לנו ברית‬, their demonstration of their stale bread and worn-out wineskins in 9:12-13 comes rather late, suggesting that these verses – along with 9:14, which presupposes 9:12-13 – are later than 9:8b-11.6 Notably, 9:14 refers to “the men” (‫)האנשים‬, which connects back to the Gibeonites’ speech to the ‫ איש ישראל‬in 9:6b*-7, suggesting that 9:6b*-7 and 9:12-14 belong to the same compositional level.7 Likewise, 9:4-5 also seem to belong

























































4

Cf. SCHÄFER-LICHTENBERGER, “Das gibeonitische Bündnis,” 66 and BERNER, “Gibeonite Deception,” 259. 5 Cf. SCHÄFER-LICHTENBERGER, “Das gibeonitische Bündnis,” 67. 6 Cf. BERNER, “Gibeonite Deception,” 259–60. 7 Cf. SCHÄFER-LICHTENBERGER, “Das gibeonitische Bündnis,” 68.

414

Chapter 11: The Conquest of the Remainder of the Land (Josh 9–12)

to this level of composition, since the Gibeonites’ use of worn-out clothes and stale provisions ultimately serves to persuade “the men” (‫ )האנשים‬of their ruse in 9:11-14 and is rather unmotivated without the latter verses. If Josh 9:8b-14 are bracketed out as later additions, then 9:15a connects smoothly to 9:8a: The Gibeonites surrender to Joshua and, as a result, Joshua makes peace with them.8 Given that the motif of the covenant in 9:6b is a later addition, its appearance in 9:15aβ may also be a later addition, even though the latter connects smoothly to 9:15aα syntactically.9 In any event, the statement in 9:15b that the “princes of the congregation” (‫ )נשיאי העדה‬swore an oath to the Gibeonites is certainly disruptive insofar as the “princes of the congregation” have not appeared up to this point in the narrative. 10 In sum, Josh 9:4-5, 6b*-7, 8b-14, (15aβ?), and 15b can be evaluated as later additions within 9:3-15.11 This leaves 9:3, 6a, 8a, and 15aα(β?) as possibly constituting the most basic material within this unit. According to this basic narrative, the Gibeonites heard about Joshua’s defeat of Jericho and Ai and decided to forego a similar fate by preemptively surrendering to Joshua, which resulted in Joshua making peace with them.12 The results of the accord (Josh 9:16-27). Within this unit, Josh 9:17-21 can be identified as a later addition in light of the fact that the prepositional phrase ‫ להם‬in 9:22 can only refer back to the Gibeonites in 9:16.13 Within 9:17-21 themselves, 9:17 is rather out of place, since the Israelites’ journey to the Gibeonites’ cities plays no role in the subsequent verses. Thus, 9:17 is perhaps even later than 9:18-21.14 Within 9:18-21, the “princes of the congregation” feature prominently, suggesting that these verses belong to the same level of composition as 9:15b.15 Within Josh 9:22-27, Joshua’s curse in 9:23 interrupts his question to the Gibeonites in 9:22 and their response in 9:24-25, suggesting that this verse is a later addition.16 Between 9:26 and 9:27, the presence of a literary-critical break is strongly suggested by the fact that Joshua is named explicitly as the subject in 9:27 yet is already the implied subject in 9:26. There is reason to

























































8

Cf. BERNER, “Gibeonite Deception,” 256. For further discussion of Josh 9:15aβ, see §1.2. 10 Cf. LIVER, “Literary History,” 231 and NELSON, Joshua, 123. 11 Against BRIEND, “Israël,” 143, who concludes that the references to ‫ איש ישראל‬within Josh 9:3-15 are original and that the references to Joshua are secondary. 12 The present identification of the most basic narrative thread in Josh 9:3-15 is indebted especially to the observations of BERNER, “Gibeonite Deception,” 255–56. 13 Cf. BRIEND, “Israël,” 159. 14 In contrast, BERNER, “Gibeonite Deception,” 267 n. 46 proposes that Josh 9:17 and 9:18* are earlier than 9:18*-21. 15 Cf. BRIEND, “Israël,” 133. 16 Against BRIEND, “Israël,” 160, who concludes that Josh 9:23 “s’inscrit parfaitement comme la suite du v.22.” 9

1. The Gibeonite Accord (Josh 9)

415

suspect that an earlier core in 9:27* is more original than 9:26, since in 9:25 the Gibeonites tell Joshua to do with them as he sees fit, a request which is only fulfilled in 9:27*.17 In sum, the most basic material in 9:16-27 consists of 9:16, 22, 24-25, 27*, although these verses do not belong to the most basic narrative thread in the chapter, since they presuppose the motif of the Gibeonite ruse within 9:3-15, which was evaluated as secondary to that unit. Josh 9:18-21, 26, 27* are later additions, while 9:17 may be even later than 9:18-21, 26, 27*. Interim result. (1) The most basic narrative thread in Josh 9 consists of 9:3, 6a, 8a, 15aα, which recount the Gibeonites’ preemptive surrender to Joshua and the subsequent peace accord (‫ שלם‬hiphil).18 (2) This episode was later expanded into a narrative about the Gibeonites’ deception of the Israelites, resulting in a ‫ ברית‬that protected the Gibeonites from being annihilated by the Israelites (9:8b-11, 15aβ, 16, 22, 24-26).19 (3) The Gibeonites’ demonstration of their worn-out clothes and stale provisions (9:1-2, 4-5, 6b*-7, 1214) seems to be part of a later reworking of the ruse which culminates in the men falling for the deception, thus shifting some of the responsibility away from Joshua. (4) The chapter received a variety of further additions in 9:15b, 17, 18-21, 23, and 27.20 Josh 9:15b, 18-21 likely belong to the same compositional level, since it is only in these verses that the princes of the congregation are mentioned. The relative chronology of the three reports of the Gibeonites’ inferior status within Israel (9:21, 23, 27) will be revisited in §1.2.

























































17

On Josh 9:27* as earlier than 9:26, see SCHÄFER-LICHTENBERGER, “Das gibeonitische Bündnis,” 76; BRIEND, “Israël,” 161–62; and BERNER, “Gibeonite Deception,” 261 n. 21. 18 Cf. BERNER, “Gibeonite Deception,” 255–56. While Berner isolates this basic narrative thread largely on the basis of Josh 10, the present analysis indicates that this material can be isolated on the basis of Josh 9 alone. For similar reconstructions, see WEIMAR, “Jahwekriegserzählungen,” 60 (9:3, 6aα, 8, 9aα, 15aα) and KNAUF, Josua, 90 (9:3*, 6*, 11b*, 15aα). 19 The assignment of the Gibeonites’ ruse to a secondary level of composition resolves the debate among some commentators over whether Josh 9:15 constitutes the original conclusion of the narrative (HALBE, “Gibeon,” 624–26; BUTLER, Joshua, 99; BOLING / WRIGHT, Joshua, 262; and FRITZ, Josua, 101) or whether the most basic narrative thread must have continued in 9:16-27 (RÖSEL, “Anmerkungen,” 31; IDEM, Joshua, 144). In fact, both positions are correct but reflect two stages of composition: The most basic narrative – without the motif of deception – ends in 9:15aα, while the motif of deception contained 9:16, 22, 24-26 from the outset. 20 On the “man of Israel” texts as later additions, see RUDOLPH, Elohist, 200–204; HERTZBERG, Josua, 68; KEARNEY, “Role of the Gibeonites,” 4; and BERNER, “Gibeonite Deception,” 259–60, 264–65. The view of many commentators that the “man of Israel” texts constitute the oldest stage of tradition in Josh 9 (NOTH, Josua2, 55; HALBE, “Gibeon,” 618–22; SUTHERLAND, “Israelite Political Theories,” 65–74; FRITZ, Josua, 101; NELSON, Joshua, 125; and RÖSEL, Joshua, 143, 148) is not supported by a literary-critical analysis of the chapter.

416

Chapter 11: The Conquest of the Remainder of the Land (Josh 9–12)

1.2. Macrocontextual analysis (1) Joshua’s accord with the Gibeonites (Josh 9:3, 6a, 8a, 15aα). The reconstruction of the most basic narrative thread in Josh 9:3, 6a, 8a, 15aα is supported by the reference to Joshua’s accord with the Gibeonites in 10:1, which states that the inhabitants of Gibeon made peace with Israel (‫השלימו ישבי‬ ‫ )גבעון את ישראל‬but says nothing of the Gibeonite deception or the making of a covenant (‫ )ברית‬with the Israelites.21 This basic narrative was almost certainly unaware of the later reworking of the laws of warfare in Deut 20:15-18, which calls for the complete banning (‫ )חר״ם‬of cities within the promised land. Yet it does not seem to have been written with an eye to the earlier form of the law in Deut 20:10-14 either: Whereas Deut 20:11 stipulates that the inhabitants of a city that surrenders should be placed under forced labor, neither the most basic narrative in Josh 9 nor the reference back to the accord in 10:1 gives any indication that the Gibeonites experienced such a fate. Thus, there is nothing within Josh 9:3, 6a, 8a, 15aα to indicate that this unit is in any sense Deuteronomistic.22 (2) The Gibeonite deception (Josh 9:8b-11, 15aβ, 16, 22, 24-26). The report of the Gibeonites’ deception of the Israelites in Josh 9:8b-11, 15aβ, 16, 22, 24-26 clearly presupposes Deut 20:15-18, which restrict the earlier law in Deut 20:10-14 by stating that the terms of surrender apply only to distant cities, while the populations of cities within the promised land must be subjected to the ban. This layer of reworking thus reflects an attempt to reconcile the earlier report in Josh 9:3, 6a, 8a, 15aα with the law in Deut 20:15-18 by explaining that the Israelites were unwittingly placed in a position in which they could not carry out the ban, since they could not rescind their covenant with the Gibeonites.23 (3) The expansion of the deception (Josh 9:4-5, 6b*-7, 12-14). Whereas the most basic report of the Gibeonites’ deception in Josh 9:8b-11, 15aβ, 16, 22, 24-26 connects primarily to Deut 20:15-18, the expansion of this report in

























































21

Cf. BERNER, “Gibeonite Deception,” 256. Cf. KNAUF, Josua, 90 and BERNER, “Gibeonite Deception,” 256–57. For the view that the most basic material in Josh 9 is pre-Deuteronomistic, see also NOTH, Josua, 55; LIVER, “Literary History,” 229, 234; BLENKINSOPP, “Are There Traces?,” 211–12; KEARNEY, “Role of the Gibeonites,” 4; HALBE, “Gibeon,” 616–17; SCHÄFER-LICHTENBERGER, “Das gibeonitische Bündnis,” 79–80; BRIEND, “Israël,” 162–64; IDEM, “Gabaon,” 9, 17; NELSON, Joshua, 124; and RÖSEL, Joshua, 143. In contrast, FRITZ, Josua, 101; EDENBURG, “Joshua 9,” 132; and SAMUEL, “Deuteronomic War Prescriptions,” 147 regard Josh 9 as Deuteronomistic from the outset. 23 Cf. SCHÄFER-LICHTENBERGER, “Das gibeonitische Bündnis,” 79; EDENBURG, “Joshua 9,” 119, 121; DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 417; and BERNER, “Gibeonite Deception,” 260–62 against BRIEND, “Israël,” 163, who questions the dependence of the Gibeonite deception on Deut 20. 22

1. The Gibeonite Accord (Josh 9)

417

9:4-5, 6b-7*, 12-14 with the motif of worn-out clothes and stale provisions has striking parallels with both Deut 8:4 and 29:4b-5a: Josh 9:4-5

‫ויעשו גם המה בערמה וילכו ויצטירו ויקחו שקים בלים לחמוריהם ונאדות יין‬ ‫ ונעלות בלות ומטלאות ברגליהם ושלמות בלות‬5 ‫בלים ומבקעים ומצררים‬ ‫עליהם וכל לחם צידם יבש היה נקדים‬

Deut 8:4 Deut 29:4b-5a

‫שמלתך לא בלתה מעליך ורגלך לא בצקה זה ארבעים שנה‬ ‫לחם לא אכלתם ויין‬

5a

‫לא בלו שלמתיכם מעליכם ונעלך לא בלתה מעל רגלך‬ ‫ושכר לא שתיתם‬

All three of these passages contain the lexemes ‫בל״ה‬, ‫רגל‬, and ‫שלמה‬/‫שמלה‬, while Josh 9:4 and Deut 29:4b-5a also share the lexemes ‫ יין‬and ‫לחם‬, and there is good reason to conclude that Josh 9:4-5 are literarily dependent upon Deut 29:4b-5a in particular.24 As Cynthia Edenburg has noted, it is “unlikely that a story relating how the Israelites were tricked into not implementing the ḥērem prescribed by Deuteronomy should leave its imprint upon Deuteronomy’s parenetic framework.”25 Given that Deut 29:4a contains the postpriestly concept of the forty-year journey through the wilderness, Deut 29:4b5a – and, by extension, Josh 9:4-5, 6b*-7, 12-14 – must also be evaluated as post-priestly texts. The question posed by the man of Israel to the Gibeonites in Josh 9:7 (“Supposing you live in my midst, how can I make a covenant with you?”) clearly presupposes the prohibition against making a covenant with the inhabitants of the land in Deut 7:2bβ.26 In contrast, the more basic version of the Gibeonites’ ruse does not seem to be aware of this law and is concerned only with the ‫ חרם‬law in Deut 20:15-18.27 This suggests that Deut 7:2bβ may not have been present in the book of Deuteronomy at the time the earlier version of the Gibeonites’ deception and making of a covenant with Joshua was written28 and raises the possibility that Deut 7:2bβ is a reaction against the earlier account of the Gibeonites’ ruse and Joshua’s covenant with them in Josh 9:8b-11, 15aβ, 16, 22, 24-26. In this respect, Josh 9 and the laws of Deuteronomy reflect a back-and-forth process of composition: Josh 9:8b-11, 15aβ, 16, 22, 24-26 react to Deut 20:15-18; then Deut 7:2bβ reacts to this version of Josh 9; and finally Josh 9:4-5, 6b*-7, 12-14 react to the new prohibition in Deut 7:2bβ.29

























































24

Cf. BLENKINSOPP, “Are There Traces?,” 209; KEARNEY, “Role of the Gibeonites,” 6; SCHÄFER-LICHTENBERGER, “Das gibeonitische Bündnis,” 65; RÖSEL, Joshua, 147; and EDENBURG, “Joshua 9,” 122. 25 EDENBURG, “Joshua 9,” 123. 26 Cf. BERNER, “Gibeonite Deception,” 264–66. 27 Cf. ibid. 28 Cf. ACHENBACH, “Bündnisverbot,” 95. 29 BERNER, “Gibeonite Deception,” 266–67 proposes a similar back-and-forth process.

418

Chapter 11: The Conquest of the Remainder of the Land (Josh 9–12)

Subsequent additions (Josh 9:15b, 17, 18-21, 23, 27). Within this group of later additions, the texts concerned with the oath made by the princes of the congregation (Josh 9:15b, 18-21) stand out as a distinct unit. As has long been noted, the reference to the ‫ עדה‬in these verses suggests their familiarity with priestly literature.30 A. D. H. Mayes has argued that these verses seek to transfer responsibility for failing to observe the law from Joshua to the leaders of the people,31 although it should be noted that the reworking of the Gibeonites’ ruse in 9:4-5, 6b*-7, 12-14 in fact already shifts the responsibility to the people and away from Joshua. Thus, I would suggest that a more significant revision effected by these verses is the shift from speaking of a “covenant” (‫ )ברית‬to speaking of an “oath” (‫)שב״ע‬, which may reflect an attempt to soften the tension between Josh 9:15aβ and Deut 7:2b by stating that the people made an oath rather than a covenant with the Gibeonites.32 The priestly term ‫ עדה‬is also found in the report of the Gibeonites’ punishment by Joshua in Josh 9:27, which has led some commentators to suggest that this verse belongs to the same priestly redaction as 9:15b, 18-21.33 The problem with such a theory, however, is that it results in a double report of the Gibeonites’ punishment in 9:21 and 9:27. This suggests that although 9:15b, 18-21 and 9:27 both contain priestly terminology, they do not belong to the same compositional level. Indeed, the three references to the Gibeonites’ punishment in 9:21, 23, and 27 differ with respect to the particular context of their role as woodcutters and drawers of water. Whereas 9:21 indicates that the Gibeonites will serve as woodcutters and drawers of water for the congregation, 9:23 (𝔐) indicates that they will perform this function for the temple. Finally, 9:27 indicates that the Gibeonites will serve both the congregation and the “altar of Yhwh.” As discussed in §1.1, 9:27* (only ‫ויתנם יהושע‬ ‫ )ביום ההוא חטבי עצים ושאבי מים…עד היום הזה‬seems to contain the earliest reference to the Gibeonites’ punishment, since 9:25 calls for a response by Joshua. As for 9:21 and 9:23, it is possible that 9:21 is the later of the two notices, as it regards the Gibeonites’ association with the temple in 9:23 as problematic.34 Then, at a later stage, a scribe sought to harmonize 9:27 with both 9:21 and 9:23 by adding ‫ לעדה ולמזבח ה׳‬and ‫אל המקום אשר יבחר‬.35

























































30

Cf. WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 125; RUDOLPH, Elohist, 202; MOWINCKEL, Tetrateuch, 59; HALBE, “Gibeon,” 614–15; MAYES, “Deuteronomy 29,” 321; BRIEND, “Gabaon,” 9; SUTHERLAND, “Israelite Political Theories,” 72; RÖSEL, Joshua, 144, 152; EDENBURG, “Joshua 9,” 117; DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 408; and BERNER, “Gibeonite Deception,” 267. 31 MAYES, “Deuteronomy 29,” 321. 32 BERNER, “Gibeonite Deception,” 268 argues instead that the reference to the oath seeks to explain why the Israelites did not simply kill the Gibeonites despite the covenant. 33 E.g., FRITZ, Josua, 101 and NELSON, Joshua, 124. 34 Cf. NELSON, Joshua, 125. 35 Cf. BERNER, “Gibeonite Deception,” 261 n. 21, although he includes ‫ למזבח ה׳‬in the most basic material within Josh 9:27.

1. The Gibeonite Accord (Josh 9)

419

1.3. Synthesis I

The most basic narrative thread in Josh 9 is found in 9:3, 6a, 8a, 15aα, which recounts the Gibeonites’ preemptive surrender to Joshua and the peace accord (‫ שלם‬hiphil) between Joshua and the Gibeonites. This report shows no awareness of either the book of Deuteronomy or priestly literature and thus could have belonged to a pre-Deuteronomistic and pre-priestly exodus-conquest narrative.36

II

This report was later expanded into a narrative about the Gibeonites’ deception of the Israelites, resulting in a ‫ ברית‬that protected the Gibeonites from being annihilated by the Israelites (Josh 9:8b-11, 15aβ, 16, 22, 24-25, 27*). This stage of composition reflects an attempt to reconcile the earlier report of the accord between Joshua and the Gibeonites with the ‫ חרם‬law in Deut 20:15-18 by showing that here the Israelites’ noncompliance to the law was beyond their control.

II+

Given that Josh 9:7 (part of Level III) uses the term “Hivites” to describe the Gibeonites, it seems likely that 9:1-2 were already present in the chapter when Level III was written.

III

The Gibeonites’ demonstration of their worn-out clothes and stale provisions (Josh 9:4-5, 6b*-7, 12-14) seems to be part of a later reworking of the ruse which culminates in the men falling for the deception, thus shifting some of the responsibility away from Joshua. These verses play on motifs from Deut 29:4-5 (worn-out clothes, bread and wine) and thus cannot be earlier than Deut 29. Since the motif of the forty-year wilderness wandering in Deut 29:4 is (post-)priestly, Josh 9:4-5, 6b*-7, 12-14 cannot belong to a pre-priestly stage of composition.

IV

Josh 9 received a variety of further additions in 9:15b, 17, 18-21, 23, 26, and 27*. There is a broad consensus that 9:15b, 18-21 belong to a (post-)priestly stage of composition. Determining the relative chronology of the three reports of the Gibeonites’ inferior status within Israel (9:21, 23, and 27*) is particularly difficult, although there is some reason to conclude that 9:21 reacts to 9:23 and that ‫ לעדה ולמזבח ה׳‬in 9:27* represents a later coordination with 9:21 and 9:23.

IV+ Considering that Josh 9:17 does not connect smoothly to 9:22, there is good reason to regard this verse as later than 9:18-21.



























































36 Cf. KNAUF, Josua, 90, who assigns a similar base narrative to an “alten ExodusJosua-Geschichte.”

‫)‪Chapter 11: The Conquest of the Remainder of the Land (Josh 9–12‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬

‫‪420‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬

‫‪9:1‬‬

‫] ויהי כשמע כל המלכים אשר בעבר הירדן בהר ובשפלה ובכל חוף הים הגדול אל מול הלבנון‬ ‫החתי והאמרי הכנעני הפרזי החוי והיבוסי ‪ 2‬ויתקבצו יחדו להלחם עם יהושע ועם ישראל פה‬ ‫אחד[‬ ‫‪ 3‬וישבי גבעון שמעו את אשר עשה יהושע‪ a‬ליריחו ולעי‬ ‫‪ 4‬ויעשו גם המה בערמה וילכו ויצטירו ויקחו שקים בלים לחמוריהם ונאדות יין בלים‬ ‫ומבקעים ומצררים ‪ 5‬ונעלות בלות ומטלאות ברגליהם ושלמות בלות עליהם וכל לחם צידם‬ ‫יבש היה נקדים‬ ‫‪ 6‬וילכו אל יהושע אל המחנה הגלגל ויאמרו אליו‬ ‫ואל איש ישראל‪ b‬מארץ רחוקה באנו ועתה כרתו לנו ברית ‪ 7‬ויאמרו איש ישראל‪ c‬אל החוי‬ ‫אולי בקרבי אתה יושב ואיך אכרות לך ברית ‪ 8‬ויאמרו אל יהושע‬ ‫עבדיך אנחנו‬ ‫ויאמר אלהם יהושע מי אתם ומאין תבאו ‪ 9‬ויאמרו אליו מארץ רחוקה מאד באו עבדיך לשם ה׳‬ ‫אלהיך כי שמענו שמעו‪ d‬ואת כל אשר עשה במצרים ‪ 10‬ואת כל אשר עשה לשני מלכי האמרי‬ ‫אשר בעבר הירדן לסיחון מלך חשבון ולעוג מלך הבשן אשר בעשתרות‪ 11 e‬ויאמרו אלינו זקינינו‬ ‫וכל ישבי ארצנו לאמר קחו בידכם צידה לדרך ולכו לקראתם ואמרתם אליהם עבדיכם אנחנו‬ ‫ועתה כרתו לנו ברית‬ ‫‪ 12‬זה לחמנו חם הצטידנו אתו }מבתינו{ ביום צאתנו ללכת אליכם ועתה הנה יבש והיה‬ ‫נקדים ‪ 13‬ואלה נאדות היין אשר מלאנו חדשים והנה התבקעו ואלה שלמותינו ונעלינו בלו‬ ‫מרב הדרך מאד ‪ 14‬ויקחו האנשים‪ f‬מצידם ואת }פי{ ה׳ לא שאלו‬ ‫‪ 15‬ויעש להם יהושע שלום‬ ‫ויכרת להם ברית לחיותם‬ ‫וישבעו להם נשיאי העדה‬ ‫‪ 16‬ויהי מקצה שלשת ימים אחרי אשר כרתו להם ברית וישמעו כי קרבים הם אליו ובקרבו הם‬ ‫ישבים‬ ‫]‪ 17‬ויסעו בני ישראל ויבאו אל עריהם }ביום השלישי{ ועריהם גבעון והכפירה‬ ‫ובארות וקרית יערים[‬ ‫‪ 18‬ולא הכום בני ישראל כי נשבעו להם נשיאי העדה בה׳ אלהי ישראל וילנו כל העדה‬ ‫על הנשיאים ‪ 19‬ויאמרו כל הנשיאים אל כל העדה אנחנו נשבענו להם בה׳ אלהי‬ ‫ישראל ועתה לא נוכל לנגע בהם ‪ 20‬זאת נעשה להם והחיה אותם ולא יהיה עלינו קצף‬ ‫על השבועה אשר נשבענו להם ‪} 21‬ויאמרו אליהם הנשיאים{ יחיו ויהיו חטבי עצים‬ ‫ושאבי מים לכל העדה‪ g‬כאשר דברו להם הנשיאים‬

‫























































‬ ‫‪a‬‬

‫‪] 𝔊 κύριος‬יהושע‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 καὶ εἶπαν πρὸς Ἰησοῦν καὶ Ἰσραήλ‬ויאמרו אליו ואל איש ישראל‬ ‫‪c‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 καὶ εἶπαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ‬ויאמרו איש ישראל‬ ‫‪d‬‬ ‫‪] τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ‬שמעו‬ ‫‪e‬‬ ‫‪] ἐν Ασταρωθ καὶ ἐν Εδραϊν‬בעשתרות‬ ‫‪f‬‬ ‫‪] οἱ ἄρχοντες‬האנשים‬ ‫‪g‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 καὶ ἐποίσαν πᾶσα ἡ συναγωγή‬לכל העדה‬ ‫‪b‬‬

421

2. The Conquest of the South (Josh 10) IV

III

II

I

22

‫ויקרא להם יהושע וידבר אליהם לאמר למה רמיתם אתנו לאמר רחוקים אנחנו מכם מאד‬ ‫ואתם בקרבנו ישבים‬ {‫ ועתה ארורים אתם ולא יכרת מכם עבד וחטבי עצים }ושאבי מים לבית אלהי‬23 ‫ ויענו את יהושע ויאמרו כי הגד הגד לעבדיך את אשר צוה ה׳ אלהיך את משה עבדו לתת לכם‬24 ‫את כל הארץ ולהשמיד את כל ישבי הארץ מפניכם ונירא מאד לנפשתינו מפניכם ונעשה את‬ ‫ ויעש להם כן ויצל אותם‬26 ‫ ועתה הננו בידך כטוב וכישר בעיניך לעשות לנו עשה‬25 ‫הדבר הזה‬ ‫מיד בני ישראל ולא הרגום‬ ‫ עד היום הזה‬i‫ ולמזבח ה׳‬h‫ ויתנם יהושע ביום ההוא חטבי עצים ושאבי מים לעדה‬27 j ‫אל המקום אשר יבחר‬

2. The Conquest of the South (Josh 10) 2.1. Literary-critical analysis Josh 10 can be divided into three major narrative units: (1) an attack on Gibeon by a coalition of nearby kings (10:1-15), (2) the death of five kings in a cave at Makkedah (10:16-27), and (3) Joshua’s conquest of the larger southern region (10:28-43).37 The Amorite attack against Gibeon (Josh 10:1-15). The statement of what the king of Jerusalem heard in Josh 10:1 contains two ‫ כי‬clauses, although only the second clause is relevant to the decision to attack Gibeon. Moreover, ‫ כאשר עשה ליריחו ולמלכה כן עשה לעי ולמלכה‬is syntactically awkward and may be a later addition to the first ‫ כי‬clause.38 Thus, it seems that three different levels of composition can be identified in 10:1: (1) The most basic material consists of 10:1aα1, b (‫ויהי כשמע אדני צדק מלך ירושלם…כי השלימו ישבי גבעון‬ ‫)את ישראל ויהיו בקרבם‬, which has only the immediately preceding peace accord with the Gibeonites in view.39 (2) This material was supplemented with

























































h

‫ 𝔊 ]לעדה‬πάσῃ τῇ συναγωγῇ ‫ 𝔊 ]ולמזבח ה׳‬τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τοῦτο ἐγένοντο οἱ κατοικοῦντες Γαβαων ξυλοκόποι καὶ ὑδροφόροι τοῦ θυσιαστηρίοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ j ‫ 𝔊 ]יבחר‬ἐκλέξηται κύριος 37 For this division, see BLENKINSOPP, Gibeon, 41; KNAUF, Josua, 95; LANGLOIS, Le texte, 191; and RÖSEL, Joshua, 161. In contrast, for a bipartite division between Josh 10:115 and 10:16-43, see NOTH, “Die fünf Könige,” 289; WEIMAR, “Jahwekriegserzählungen,” 51; and BRIEND, “Israël,” 168; IDEM, “Josué 10,” 56. 38 Cf. NOTH, Josua2, 63 and RÖSEL, Joshua, 165. 39 Cf. KNAUF, Josua, 96, 98 against FRITZ, Josua, 110, who concludes that the report of the peace accord in Josh 10:1b is a later addition to the narrative, and LATVUS, “From Army Campsite,” 111, who argues that the most basic narrative in Josh 10 “mentioned nothing about the peace-treaty with the Gibeonites but referred to Gibeon as a campsite of the Israelite army.” i

422

Chapter 11: The Conquest of the Remainder of the Land (Josh 9–12)

a second ‫ כי‬clause in 10:1aα2* (‫)כי לכד יהושע את העי ויחרימה‬. (3) The latter was further expanded with ‫כאשר עשה ליריחו ולמלכה כן עשה לעי ולמלכה‬. In Josh 10:2, there is a grammatical tension between the plural verb ‫וייראו‬ and the singular subject of 10:1, Adoni-Zedek.40 Within 10:2 itself, the clause ‫ וכי היא גדולה מן העי‬is absent in 𝔊*, and the fact that it is a second and nonessential ‫ כי‬clause suggests that 𝔊* may reflect an earlier stage of literary development.41 This possibility fits well with the literary development of 10:1, since the reference to Ai in 10:2 is understandable only in light of the secondary reference to Joshua’s defeat of Ai in 10:1aα2*. In 10:3-4, AdoniZedek is named explicitly as the subject, and the verb ‫ וישלח‬is singular in number. In light of the plural verb in 10:2, this may suggest that 10:1* once connected directly to 10:3. Indeed, the statement in 10:2 that “they” were afraid is not essential to the flow of the narrative, since in 10:4 Adoni-Zedek cites the Gibeonites’ peace accord with Israel42 as the motivation for the attack, not Gibeon’s size or military prowess.43 The explicit reference to the four kings in 10:5aα2 is somewhat repetitive in light of 10:3 and may be a later addition. Likewise, ‫ הם וכל מחניהם‬in 10:5aβ is not essential to the flow of the narrative and may have been added at the same time as 10:5aα2.44 Within Josh 10:7, the phrase ‫ וכל גבורי החיל‬is redundant following the reference to ‫ כל עם המלחמה‬and may be a later addition.45 The divine speech to Joshua in 10:8 interrupts the flow of the narrative between 10:7 and 10:9 (especially considering the emphasis on the surprise attack in 10:9) and thus seems to be a later addition.46 The statement in 10:9b that Joshua went up47 all night from Gilgal comes too late in terms of narrative sequence and thus may be a later addition.48 While the use of a perfect verb here marks the

























































40

Although 𝔖Mss and 𝔙 have a singular verb here, the plural verb is the lectio difficilior and thus cannot be dismissed on text-critical grounds; cf. LANGLOIS, Le texte, 199. 41 Cf. GÖRG, Josua, 48; FRITZ, Josua, 110, 112; and LANGLOIS, Le texte, 199. 42 4QJosha reads ‫ ואת ישראל‬rather than ‫ואת בני ישראל‬. 43 In contrast, BRIEND, “Josué 10,” 57–58 argues that the plural verb in Josh 10:2 reflects an earlier version of 10:1-15 that did not mention Adoni-Zedek but rather “all the kings of the Amorites” in 10:1*. 44 Cf. BRIEND, “Israël,” 172–73, who reconstructs an earlier form of Josh 10:5 as follows: “les […] rois des Amorites (ou : ils) s’assemblèrent, montèrent, …assiégèrent Gabaon et l’attaquèrent.” 45 Cf. NOTH, Josua2, 63; BRIEND, “Israël,” 173; IDEM, “Josué 10,” 58 n. 3; and FRITZ, Josua, 110. 46 Cf. VAN DER LINGEN, Les guerres, 111–13; MARGALIT, “Day,” 468; BRIEND, “Josué 10,” 58 (implicitly); and LANGLOIS, Le texte, 189, 203. 47 𝔊 reads (εἰσ)επορεύθη, supported by 4QJosha [‫ ;הל]ך‬cf. LANGLOIS, Le texte, 157. 48 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 110 and LANGLOIS, Le texte, 203–4.

2. The Conquest of the South (Josh 10)

423

clause as parenthetical information,49 the question remains why it was so important to note that the surprise attack took place in the morning, after Joshua and his men had journeyed all night.50 The sudden appearance of Yhwh on the scene in Josh 10:10aα is somewhat surprising, especially since the subsequent battle report includes the verb ‫רדף‬, which seems to require Joshua as its subject rather than Yhwh.51 If 10:10aα is removed, the verbs in the remainder of the verse can easily take Joshua as their subject, connecting seamlessly to the report of Joshua’s sudden attack in 10:9a.52 Yhwh’s sending down stones from heaven against the Amorite kings in Josh 10:11 is also likely a later addition to the most basic narrative in Josh 10. Notably, 10:10 refers to the “ascent of Beth Horon” (‫)מעלה בית חורן‬,53 while 10:11 refers to the “descent of Beth Horon” (‫)מורד בית חורן‬, suggesting that these two references do not belong to the same compositional level. Moreover, given that the statement ‫ ויהמם ה׳ לפני ישראל‬in 10:10aα is a later addition, the focus on Yhwh’s leading role in 10:11 can be evaluated similarly. Finally, Yhwh’s intervention in 10:11 does not in fact drive the narrative forward; it merely provides parenthetical information regarding Joshua’s defeat of the Amorite kings in 10:10 (cf. the repetition of ‫ עד עזקה‬in 10:11).54 There is also good reason to conclude that the episode of the sun standing still in Josh 10:12-14 was not part of the most basic battle report in 10:1-15*. Considering that 10:12 refers to Yhwh’s decisive role in the battle, it seems that this verse – and thus also 10:13-14 – cannot be earlier than 10:10aα and 10:11.55 Although it cannot be ruled out that at least part of the poetic portion of this unit has been repurposed from another context (whether written or

























































49

Cf. BRIEND, “Israël,” 174, who notes that the report in Josh 10:9b constitutes “un retour en arrière” but nevertheless concludes that it may belong to the same compositional level as 10:9a. 50 This question will be revisited in the macrocontextual analysis (§2.2). 51 Apart from this verse, there are no attestations of Yhwh as the subject of the verb ‫רדף‬ in the Hebrew Bible. 52 On the secondary nature of Josh 10:10aα, cf. VAN DER LINGEN, Les guerres, 114 and LANGLOIS, Le texte, 205 against DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 449, who seeks to maintain the unity of Josh 10 by noting that “[a]s in ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts, the war against the enemy is a mixture of heroic action and divine intervention,” taking up the basic arguments of YOUNGER, Ancient Conquest Accounts, 204–37. 53 𝔊 Ωρωνιν; 4QJosha ‫?]חור[ונים‬, proposed tentatively by LANGLOIS, Le texte, 167. 54 On the secondary nature of Josh 10:11, see FRITZ, Josua, 112–13 and LANGLOIS, Le texte, 205–6, who emphasizes that 10:11 has the same theological Tendenz as 10:8 and 10:10aα. Somewhat differently, BRIEND, “Israël,” 176; IDEM, “Josué 10,” 59 concludes that 10:11a and 10:11b may belong to different compositional levels. 55 Cf. VAN DER LINGEN, Les guerres, 111–13, 121 and BRIEND, “Les sources,” 359. See also LANGLOIS, Le texte, 207–9, who suggests that Josh 10:12b-13, 14bβ are later than 10:12a.

424

Chapter 11: The Conquest of the Remainder of the Land (Josh 9–12)

oral),56 here the main concern is to reconstruct the literary development of Josh 10 itself; thus, the age of the purported source material must be strictly separated from the question of when such material was incorporated into Josh 10.57 In 𝔐, the narrative of the Amorite attack against Gibeon ends in Josh 10:15, which states that Joshua and “all Israel” returned to the camp in Gilgal following their defeat of the Amorite kings. This verse is absent in 𝔊*, which may suggest that it was added at a late stage in the literary development of Josh 10,58 although this cannot be confirmed on the basis of a literary-critical analysis of 10:1-15 alone. In sum, within Josh 10:1-15 a more basic narrative thread can be isolated in 10:1aα1, 1b, 3-4, 5aα1, 5b, 6* (without ‫)אל המחנה הגלגלה‬, 7* (without ‫וכל‬ ‫)גבורי החיל‬, 9a, 10aβb.59 The episode of the cave (Josh 10:16-27). Within this unit, the main signs of possible compositional growth are found in Josh 10:20-21 and perhaps also in 10:23.60 Whereas 10:20a suggests that all of the people being pursued by the Israelites were killed (‫)עד תמם‬, 10:20b states that there were some survivors who fled to fortified cities. Given that the survivors play no further role in the chapter, it is possible that 10:20b is a later addition to the narrative.61 There is also conflicting information within 10:20-21 on whether Joshua joined in the pursuit (10:20a) or stayed in Makkedah (10:21).62 Thus, either the reference to Joshua in 10:20a or the phrase “to Joshua” in 10:21 must be evaluated as secondary. Since Joshua’s command in 10:19 suggests that he

























































56

NELSON, Joshua, 142. Cf. VAN DER LINGEN, Les guerres, 121, 123, who assigns Josh 10:12-14 to a late stage in the formation of Josh 10 but considers that the poetic passage may have been taken from an older source or tradition. 58 Cf. ibid., 125; NELSON, Joshua, 140; DE TROYER, Rewriting, 52–53; KNAUF, Josua, 101; LANGLOIS, Le texte, 211–12; and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 441. 59 For other reconstructions of the most basic material in Josh 10:1-15, cf. KNAUF, Josua, 96–97 (10:1aα, 1b, 2-11*, 14b); BERNER, “Gibeonite Deception,” 256 n. 3 (10:1aα1, 1bα, 2aα, 3-4, 5*, 6, 7aα, 9a, 10, 12, 13aα, 15); and FRITZ, Josua, 110 (10:1a, 2a, 3-6, 7abα, 8-9a, 10, 12-15). I cannot agree with WEIMAR, “Jahwekriegserzählungen,” 55, who argues that the narrative of the battle at Gibeon originally recounted an Israelite attack against the Gibeonites but was later reworked into an Israelite defense of the Gibeonites. 60 DE TROYER, “Did Joshua Have a Crystal Ball?,” 586; IDEM, Rewriting, 52–53 suggests that Josh 10:17 may also be a later addition based on its absence in some Greek manuscripts. While de Troyer’s proposal cannot be ruled out completely, a direct connection between 10:16 and 10:18 is problematic from a narrative point of view, since then, in de Troyer’s words, it must be assumed that Joshua “needs a crystal ball” in order to know of the kings’ whereabouts. Alternatively, LANGLOIS, Le texte, 84, 214 argues that the absence of 10:17 in a minority of Greek manuscripts is the result of homoioteleuton. 61 Cf. KNAUF, Josua, 101, 103. 62 Cf. LANGLOIS, Le texte, 215. 57

2. The Conquest of the South (Josh 10)

425

will not join in the pursuit, it is perhaps more plausible to assume that the reference to Joshua in 10:20 is secondary and the phrase “to Joshua” in 10:21 is original.63 Such a reconstruction is indirectly supported by the absence of the phrase ‫ אל המחנה‬in 10:21 𝔊, which suggests that it may be a later addition. The statement in 10:21b that no one threatened the Israelites on their return trip is also somewhat surprising in light of the fact that 10:20a states that the Israelites eliminated their enemies (‫)עד תמם‬. Thus, 10:21b may belong to the same (secondary) level of composition as 10:20b, which states that some survivors were able to escape to fortified cities. Finally, the detailed fulfillment report following ‫ ויעשו כן‬in 10:23 is redundant and may be a later addition.64 This possibility receives further support from the fact that the explicit reference to the five kings by name is rather out of place, since elsewhere in this unit the phrase ‫ חמשת המלכים האלה‬seems to suffice. The conquest of the southern region (Josh 10:28-43). In the report of the defeat of Makkedah in Josh 10:28, Joshua is either the express or the implied subject of all of the verbs in 𝔐, whereas 𝔊 uses plural verbs.65 𝔊 also lacks ‫ואת מלכה‬, raising the question of whether it is a later addition. Regardless of whether ‫ ואת מלכה‬is present or absent, the subsequent clause ‫ החרם אותם‬in 𝔐 poses a literary-critical problem, since there is no clear plural antecedent for the 3mp suffix of ‫אותם‬. The phrase ‫ ואת מלכה‬in 10:30 comes too late after ‫ויתן ה׳ גם אותה ביד ישראל‬, suggesting that it may be a later addition.66 Notably, in 𝔊 the phrase καὶ τὸν βασιλέα αὐτῆς is part of the subsequent clause, which may reflect an attempt to smooth out a syntactically difficult Hebrew Vorlage at the Greek level of the text. There are several reasons to suspect that Josh 10:33 does not belong to the same compositional level as the preceding verses. First, whereas the kings of Makkedah, Libnah, and Lachish are anonymous, 10:33 provides the name of the king of Gezer.67 Moreover, whereas 10:28 and 10:30 use the expression ‫לא‬ ‫השאיר )בה( שריד‬, 10:33 uses ‫עד בלתי השאיר לו שריד‬. Finally, although the temporal marker ‫ אז‬serves here to report events concurrent (rather than sub-

























































63

In contrast, ibid., 215–16 suggests that the phrase ‫ אל יהושע מקדה‬in Josh 10:21 is a later addition. 64 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 109, who argues that Josh 10:23b (but not 10:23aβ) is a later addition. In contrast, DE TROYER, “Did Joshua Have a Crystal Ball?,” 585 argues that ‫ ויעש כן‬is a later addition based on its absence in 𝔊. 65 Ιn the case of the expression ‫לא השאיר שריד‬, 𝔊 uses a passive construction: οὐ κατελείφθη ἐν αὐτῇ οὐδεις διασεσῳσμένος καὶ διαπεφευγώς. 66 Cf. NOTH, Josua2, 62. 67 Cf. BOLING / WRIGHT, Joshua, 292, who regard only the name of the king as the work of a later redactor, and LANGLOIS, Le texte, 232, who regards the entire verse as a later addition.

426

Chapter 11: The Conquest of the Remainder of the Land (Josh 9–12)

sequent) to 10:31-32, it is not uncommon for such a marker to introduce secondary material within a text.68 Within Josh 10:34-37, although the subject remains “Joshua and all Israel with him” (‫ )יהושע וכל ישראל עמו‬as in 10:29 and 10:31, most of the verbs have shifted from singular to plural.69 In 10:35, however, ‫החרים ככל אשר עשה‬ ‫ ללכיש‬remains in the singular, which may suggest that it is a later addition to the verse.70 In 10:36, the absence of a reference to the departure from Eglon in 𝔊* may suggest that ‫ מעגלונה‬is a later addition.71 In 10:37, ‫ואת מלכה ואת כל‬ ‫ עריה ואת כל הנפש אשר בה‬comes too late after ‫ וילכדוה ויכוה לפי חרב‬and is also absent in 𝔊,72 suggesting that this phrase is a later addition (cf. 10:30).73 Moreover, unlike in 10:28, 30, 32, and 36, where -‫ כ)כל( אשר עשה ל‬is the last element in the verse, in 10:37 it is followed by ‫ויחרם אותה ואת כל הנפש אשר‬ ‫בה‬, suggesting that the latter statement may not be original. In Josh 10:38-39, the verbs largely return to the singular pattern apart from ‫ ויכום לפי חרב ויחרימו את כל נפש אשר בה‬in 10:39,74 which may thus be a later addition. Moreover, ‫ וכאשר עשה ללבנה ולמלכה‬is repetitive following ‫כאשר‬ ‫ עשה לחברון כן עשה לדברה ולמלכה‬and also breaks the pattern established thus far of referring only to the immediately preceding city in such references. Thus, ‫ וכאשר עשה ללבנה ולמלכה‬is likely a later addition, which is supported by its absence in 𝔊*.75 Finally, given that ‫ואת מלכה ואת כל עריה ואת כל הנפש‬ ‫ אשר בה‬in 10:36 (Hebron) is secondary, the phrase ‫ ואת מלכה ואת כל עריה‬in 10:39 is probably also secondary,76 since it is unlikely to have been applied only to Debir and not to Hebron in light of the statement that the treatment of Debir corresponded to that of Hebron. The foregoing analysis has suggested that thus far most, if not all, of the references to the fate of these cities’ kings as well as all of the references to



























































68 Cf. the use of ‫ אז‬in Josh 10:12. On 10:33 as a later addition, cf. NOTH, Josua2, 63; FRITZ, Josua, 114, 117; BRIEND, “Josué 10,” 62; KNAUF, Josua, 104, 108; LANGLOIS, Le texte, 232; RÖSEL, Joshua, 161, 175; and R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige Krieg,” 108 against VAN DER LINGEN, Les guerres, 118 n. 22, who regards 10:33 as a deliberate interruption. 69 In 𝔊, the verbs retain the same alternation between singular verbs at the beginning of the verse and plural verbs at the end of the verse found in Josh 10:30 and 10:32, which may reflect the translator’s effort to produce a more consistent Greek text. 70 Cf. (tentatively) LANGLOIS, Le texte, 57. Oddly, the grammatical number of the verbs in Josh 10:35 𝔊 is precisely the inverse of that in 𝔐. 71 Cf. ibid., 223. 72 On this minus, see ibid., 227 (not noted in BHS). 73 Cf. NOTH, Josua2, 62, who evaluates ‫ ואת מלכה‬as a later addition, and LANGLOIS, Le texte, 58, who suggests that ‫ ואת כל הנפש אשר בה‬belongs to a secondary reworking. 74 This is also noted by LANGLOIS, Le texte, 60. 75 Cf. ibid., 231 against NELSON, Joshua, 138 (textual note x), who claims that the wording in 𝔐 “seeems too awkward for a harmonizing addition or an expansion” and regards the minus in 𝔊* as the result of haplography. 76 Cf. NOTH, Josua2, 62.

2. The Conquest of the South (Josh 10)

427

‫ חרם‬are later additions within Josh 10:28-39.77 By extension, it seems quite possible that ‫ ואת כל מלכיהם‬and ‫ואת כל הנשמה החרים כאשר צוה ה׳ אלהי ישראל‬ in 10:40 are also later additions.78 It is also noteworthy that here the term ‫ נשמה‬is used rather than ‫נפש‬, suggesting that ‫ואת כל הנשמה החרים כאשר צוה‬ ‫ ה׳‬may belong to a different level of composition than the references to ‫נפש‬ in 10:28-39.79 Regarding the reference to ‫ חרם‬in 10:40b, such a conclusion is further supported by the fact that 10:40aβ already states that Joshua left no survivor, which makes the statement that he “banned every living thing” (‫ואת‬ ‫ )כל הנשמה החרים‬rather redundant. Following the summary of the regions that Joshua conquered in Josh 10:40a is an additional statement in 10:41 regarding the territorial extent of Joshua’s conquests, this time described by points that are apparently intended to reflect the boundaries of the conquered land. Given that Kadesh-barnea and Gaza lie beyond the Negev and Shephelah (as understood in other biblical texts), 10:41 has a more expansive view of the territory conquered by Joshua than that found in 10:40a, suggesting that 10:41 is a later verse.80 Within 10:41, ‫ ועד גבעון‬does not fit well syntactically with the immediately preceding phrase ‫( ואת כל ארץ גשן‬one would expect a ‫ מן…עד‬construction as in the first half of the verse) and may thus be an even later addition.81 The compositional place of Josh 10:42 is difficult to determine on the basis of a literary-critical analysis of 10:28-43 alone. Although some commentators regard 10:42 as more original than 10:40-41,82 it should be noted that 10:42 presupposes the references to the kings in 10:28-39 (many of which were identified as later additions), which suggests that 10:42 is not part of the most basic material in this unit.83 The report in Josh 10:43 that Joshua and all Israel returned to the camp at Gilgal is absent in 𝔊*, which raises the possibility that this verse, like 10:15, is a later addition.84



























































77 Cf. NOTH, Josua2, 66, who regards the ‫ חרם‬references in Josh 10:30, 32, 35, 37, and 39 as secondary. 78 Cf. ibid., 67, who regards Josh 10:40aβb as secondary, and VAN DER LINGEN, Les guerres, 119, who regards only the reference to the ban in 10:40bβ as a later addition. 79 LANGLOIS, Le texte, 233. 80 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 115, 117; RÖSEL, Joshua, 177–78; and (hesitantly) DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 457. In contrast, LANGLOIS, Le texte, 190, 233 assigns the most basic material in Josh 10:41 to the same compositional level as 10:40a. 81 Cf. LANGLOIS, Le texte, 233, who notes that it is equally possible to regard ‫ואת כל ארץ‬ ‫ גשן‬as secondary and ‫ ועד גבעון‬as primary. 82 Cf. BRIEND, “Josué 10,” 63; CAMPBELL, “Growth,” 80–83; and KNAUF, “Buchschlüsse,” 218; IDEM, Josua, 109–10, who argues that Josh 10:42a originally connected directly to 10:1-15*. 83 Cf. VAN DER LINGEN, Les guerres, 119 and LANGLOIS, Le texte, 236. 84 Cf. DE TROYER, Rewriting, 57–58 and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 441.

428

Chapter 11: The Conquest of the Remainder of the Land (Josh 9–12)

The literary relationship between Josh 10:1-15, 16-27, and 28-43. There is widespread agreement that the three episodes in Josh 10 did not belong together from the outset.85 The episode of the cave in 10:16-27 cannot stand without the battle of Gibeon in 10:1-15, since it presupposes the defeat of the five Amorite kings by Joshua and his forces in 10:10.86 In contrast, the narrative of the battle of Gibeon does not require the episode of the cave, since it narrates a victory for Joshua and Israel already in 10:10. Considering that Joshua and his forces pursue the kings as far as Makkedah in 10:10 and depart from Makkedah in 10:29 in order to carry out the conquest of the south, it is possible that these verses once connected directly to each other and that the episode of the cave is a later insertion.87 By extension, there is reason to suspect that Josh 10:28 is not original to the report of the conquest of the south but was composed as a transitional verse that accompanied the insertion of the episode of the cave in 10:16-27.88 The most compelling argument for such a conclusion is the fact that, in 10:30, the fate of the king of Libnah is not compared to that of the king of Makkedah but rather to that of the king of Jericho, thus diverging from the pattern found throughout the remainder of the unit, where the fate of each city’s king is compared to that of the previous city’s king. This suggests that Libnah was originally the first city mentioned in the last major unit of Josh 10 and that 10:28 was added later on the basis of 10:30 (cf. the identical reference to the fate of the king of Jericho at the end of both verses).89 If it is assumed that Josh 10:16-27 + 28 constitute a later insertion between 10:1-10* and 10:29-43*, the lack of statements about the execution of the kings of Lachish (10:32), Eglon (10:35), and Hebron (10:37*)90 requires further discussion. As Richard Nelson has noted, “[T]he kings who are executed in vv. 16-27 are carefully passed over in the following section (vv. 32,



























































85 Cf. WEIMAR, “Jahwekriegserzählungen,” 54, who argues that the battle at Gibeon and the Makkedah episode were originally independent stories that were combined by a Sammler. 86 Cf. LANGLOIS, Le texte, 189. In light of this observation, it is surprising that a number of commentators regard the episode of the cave as an originally independent tradition; e.g, NA’AMAN, “Conquest,” 254; FRITZ, Josua, 109; and NELSON, Joshua, 138. 87 Cf. LANGLOIS, Le texte, 215, 234, although he concludes that the report of the defeat in Josh 10:20 is earlier than the remainder of 10:16-27 and connects 10:1-10* with 10:2837*. Yet, in my view, such a reconstruction is unlikely for two reasons: (1) 10:20 can be interpreted as a revision of 10:10 (see the preceding footnote), and (2) 10:20 uses the term ‫בני ישראל‬, whereas 10:1-10, 29-43 consistently use the term ‫( ישראל‬for the reading ‫ישראל‬ in 10:4, cf. 4QJosha). 88 Cf. BRIEND, “Josué 10,” 62 and RÖSEL, Joshua, 161. 89 Cf. KNAUF, Josua, 107–9; LANGLOIS, Le texte, 231; and RÖSEL, Joshua, 175. 90 The phrase ‫ ואת מלכה ואת כל אריה‬is absent in Josh 10:37 𝔊 (not noted in BHS).

2. The Conquest of the South (Josh 10)

429

35, 37 [restored text]).”91 This leads Nelson to conclude that 10:28-39 as a whole presuppose the Makkedah episode,92 although such a conclusion is unnecessary in light of the foregoing analysis of 10:28-37, which determined on literary-critical grounds that the phrases ‫ ואת מלכה‬in 10:28, 30, 37, and 39 – as well as the notice of the defeat of Horam, king of Gezer, in 10:33 – are later additions to the unit. Thus, the fact that 10:32, 35, and 37* (cf. 𝔊) lack references to the execution of the kings of Lachish, Eglon, and Hebron does not indicate that the most basic report of the conquest of the south in 10:2843* presupposes the episode of the cave in 10:16-2793 but merely that the supplementation of 10:28-43* with references to the execution of certain kings cannot be earlier than the insertion of 10:16-27 into Josh 10. 94 Interim result. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the most basic narrative thread in Josh 10 can be identified in 10:1aα, 1b, 3-4, 5-7*, 9a, 10aβb, 29-32*, 34-40*, 42-43(?). This narrative, which moved directly from the battle of Gibeon to Joshua’s conquest of the south,95 was supplemented with the episode of the cave in 10:16-27 + 28 and, perhaps at the same time, with the additional references to the execution of kings in 10:29-39. The remainder of the additions within 10:29-43 are more difficult to situate diachronically. While it is possible that these additions were made at the same time as the references to the execution of kings, it is equally possible that they belong to a different stage of reworking. The episode of the hail in 10:11 and of the sun standing still in 10:12-14 were most likely composed after the insertion of 10:16-27 + 28, since these episodes separate the demonstrative adjective ‫ האלה‬in 10:16 from its antecedent in 10:1-10* by a considerable distance and are not presupposed by 10:16-27.96

























































91

NELSON, Joshua, 146 (with reference to Josh 10:37 𝔊). Ibid., 138. 93 Against FRITZ, Josua, 115; NELSON, Joshua, 138; and RÖSEL, Joshua, 161, all of whom argue that Josh 10:28-43 are fundamentally linked to 10:16-27. 94 Within the textual tradition of 𝔐, it seems that a later scribe added ‫ואת מלכה ואת כל‬ ‫ עריה‬to the report on Hebron in an effort to coordinate Josh 10:37 with 10:39, which states that Joshua did to Debir “just as he did to Hebron,” implying that the king of Hebron was also killed; cf. NELSON, Joshua, 137 (textual note v). 95 KNAUF, Josua, 97 similarly proposes an original connection between the defeat of Gibeon in Josh 10:1-15 and the core of the summary statement in 10:40-43. Here I cannot agree with LANGLOIS, Le texte, 234, who suggests that 10:29-39* could have been composed independently 10:1-15* and thus constitute the earliest core of the chapter. The problem with this proposal is that it is difficult to imagine how 10:29 could have connected directly to any point prior to Josh 10, and Langlois does not offer any concrete proposals in this regard. 96 Cf. LANGLOIS, Le texte, 42, 189. 92

430

Chapter 11: The Conquest of the Remainder of the Land (Josh 9–12)

2.2. Macrocontextual analysis The basic narrative. There are no indications that the basic narrative thread in Josh 10 presupposes the book of Deuteronomy or priestly literature. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that the narrative of the peace accord with the Gibeonites in 10:1 uses the verb ‫ שלם‬hiphil, thus connecting to the base layer of Josh 9, which likewise shows no awareness of Deuteronomy or priestly literature.97 Moreover, all of the typically Deuteronomistic phrases in the report of the conquest of the south in 10:29-43 were identified as later additions in the literary-critical analysis above.98 The episode of the cave. The most basic narrative in Josh 10:16-27 shows signs of dependence on the book of Deuteronomy. In Josh 10:20a, the report that Joshua and the Israelites struck down the inhabitants of the cities ruled by the five kings “until all had perished” uses the phrase ‫עד תמם‬, found elsewhere in Deut 2:15 but also in Deut 31:24, 30, where it is used with reference not to the complete destruction of an enemy but to the completion of verbal tasks (writing and reciting, respectively).99 Moreover, Joshua’s instructions to the Israelites in 10:25 not to fear and to be strong (‫אל תיראו ואל תחתו חזקו‬ ‫ )ואמצו‬combines lexical pairs found elsewhere in several different Deuteronomistic passages.100 Finally, the hanging of the five kings in 10:26-27 (probably with reference to impalement on wooden stakes)101 follows the regulation in Deut 21:22-23 for execution by hanging.102 Given that the most basic material in Josh 10:16-27 is Deuteronomistic, the later additions in this unit cannot belong to a pre-Deuteronomistic stage in the composition of Josh 10; indeed, some of these additions reflect a later reworking of Deuteronomistic concepts. The clearest case of this is found in 10:20b, which contradicts the depiction of complete destruction of Israel’s enemies in 10:20a by suggesting that there were some survivors who escaped and took safety in fortified cities. While this notice is rather unmotivated



























































97 Against R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige Krieg,” 102–3, who argues that Josh 10 presupposes the making of the covenant (“Bundesschluß”) with the Gibeonites in Josh 9 and thus should be attributed to DtrH but disregards the fact that Josh 10 does not in fact use the term ‫ברית‬. 98 For the view that an earlier version of Josh 10:29-43 belonged to a pre-Deuteronomistic version of Josh 10, cf. NELSON, Joshua, 138 against R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige Krieg,” 108. 99 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 113. See also the use of this expression in Josh 8:24, which was identified as belonging to a Deuteronomistic reworking of Josh 8 (see Chapter 10, §3.5). 100 Cf. ‫ אל תירא ואל תחת‬in Deut 1:21; Josh 8:1 and ‫ חזק ואמץ‬in Deut 31:7, 23; Josh 1:6, 9, 18. 101 Cf. NA’AMAN, “Conquest,” 254, who points to the Neo-Assyrian practice of impaling leaders of conquered cities on stakes as portrayed in the Sennacherib reliefs. For the images, see USSISHKIN, Conquest, 102, 104. 102 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 114; VAN BEKKUM, Conquest, 376; and RÖSEL, Joshua, 175.

2. The Conquest of the South (Josh 10)

431

within its immediate narrative context, it fits naturally with the “late Deuteronomistic” concept of the unconquered land reflected in texts such as Josh 23 and Judg 1:1–2:9.103 A late provenance for the statement in 10:21b that no one threatened the Israelites (‫ )לא חרץ לבני ישראל לאיש את לשנו‬is also fitting. This statement is strikingly similar to ‫ ולכל בני ישראל לא יחרץ כלב לשנו‬in Exod 11:7,104 and the motivation for this insertion in Josh 10:21b seems to have been to establish further parallels between the exodus and the entry into the land,105 a phenomenon that occurs in other late additions to Josh 1–12.106 Later additions to Josh 10:1-15. In Josh 10:8, the combination of the command not to fear (‫ )אל תירא מהם‬and the Übergabeformel (‫)כי בידך נתתים‬ closely resembles Josh 8:1. Yet, whereas in 8:1b the Übergabeformel is a later Deuteronomistic addition,107 there is no evidence that 10:8 is composite, which suggests that 10:8 as a whole is literarily dependent upon the developed form of 8:1 and thus cannot belong to a pre-Deuteronomistic stage of composition. In 10:10aα, ‫ ויהמם ה׳ לפני ישראל‬uses the rare verb ‫“ המם‬to rout,” which occurs elsewhere in Exod 14:24, part of the post-priestly reworking of the miracle at the sea.108 Like Josh 10:21b, it seems that this statement was inserted in order to strengthen the parallelism between the exodus and the conquest. The notice in 10:11 that Yhwh sent down (hail)stones from heaven shares a similar Tendenz with 10:8, emphasizing that the victory ultimately belongs to Yhwh. The use of hailstones as Yhwh’s weapon of choice also seems deliberate, further reinforcing the parallelism between the exodus and the conquest by forming a link with the post-priestly plague of hail in Exod 9:13-35.109 Like Josh 10:8 and 10:11, the present form of 10:12-14 (regardless of the origin of the poetic text) reiterates Yhwh’s role in the Israelites’ victory. Moreover, like 10:11, ‫ כי ה׳ נלחם לישראל‬in 10:14b also forms a link with the exodus narrative, evoking language from the narrative of the miracle at the sea (cf. Exod 14:14, 25).110 Assuming that 10:12-14 presuppose at least 10:8 (as is suggested by the use of ‫ נת״ן‬in 10:12), this unit cannot belong to a preDeuteronomistic stage in the composition of Josh 10. Moreover, in light of its connections to the post-priestly reworking of the miracle at the sea, it cannot belong to a pre-priestly stage of composition.

























































103

On this concept, see esp. SMEND, “Gesetz,” 129–37; IDEM, “Das uneroberte Land.” Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 113. 105 Cf. HALL, Conquering, 182. 106 See the analyses of Josh 3–4 and Josh 5 in Chapter 9, §§3–4 and the discussion of other such occurrences in Josh 10 immediately below. 107 Chapter 10, §3.5. 108 Chapter 3, §2. 109 On the parallelism with the exodus narrative, see HALL, Conquering, 181–82 and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 458. On Exod 9:13-35, see Chapter 2, §6.2. 110 Cf. HALL, Conquering, 182 and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 458. 104

432

Chapter 11: The Conquest of the Remainder of the Land (Josh 9–12)

Given that Josh 10:21a describes the people as returning to Joshua at Makkedah, the reference to the return of Joshua and Israel to the camp in Gilgal in 10:15 must be later than the episode of the cave in 10:16-27111 and cannot have belonged to a pre-Deuteronomistic version of Josh 10. Moreover, as is suggested by the manuscript evidence of 𝔊, 10:15 is likely later than 10:11, which would suggest that it belongs to a post-priestly stage in the formation of Josh 10.112 Later additions to Josh 10:28-43. As argued in detail in §2.1, the following materials can be identified as later additions to Josh 10:28-43 on textcritical and/or literary-critical grounds: 10:28: 10:30: 10:33: 10:35: 10:37: 10:39:

10:40: 10:41: 10:42: 10:43:

‫ואת מלכה ;החרים אותם‬ ‫ואת מלכה‬ entire verse ‫החרים ככל אשר עשה ללכיש‬ ‫ואת מלכה ואת כל עריה ואת כל הנפש אשר בה‬ ‫;ויכום לפי חרב ויחרימו את כל נפש אשר בה‬ ‫;וכאשר עשה ללבנה ולמלכה‬ ‫ואת מלכה ואת כל עריה‬ ‫;ואת כל מלכיהם‬ ‫ואת כל הנשמה החרים כאשר צוה ה׳ אלהי ישראל‬ entire verse entire verse (uncertain) entire verse (uncertain)

Notably, it is only in these materials that Deuteronomistic terms and phrases occur, such as the verb ‫ חרם‬hiphil and the reference to leaving no survivor (‫)שריד‬. This suggests that 10:28-43 were not a Deuteronomistic unit from the outset but were instead reworked – rather inconsistently – in light of Deuteronomistic concepts.113 Moreover, the fact that most or all of the references to the putting to death of kings within this unit are also later additions may suggest that this emphasis on regicide is closely associated with the Deuteronomistic layer of reworking or possibly an even later stage of reworking. 2.3. Synthesis I

The most basic narrative thread in Josh 10 can be identified in 10:1aα, 1b, 3-4, 5-7*, 9a, 10aβb, 29-32*, 34-40*, 42-43(?), moving directly from the battle of Gibeon to Joshua’s conquest of the south. There is no evidence that this narrative is aware of either the book of Deuteronomy or priestly literature.

























































111

Cf. BRIEND, “Israël,” 169. On the late nature of Josh 10:15 and 10:43, see DE TROYER, Rewriting, 29–58. 113 Cf. RÖSEL, Joshua, 177. 112

433

2. The Conquest of the South (Josh 10)

I+

At an unknown stage of composition, the narrative of the battle of Gibeon in Josh 10:1-10* and the narrative of the conquest of the south in 10:29-43 were expanded with later additions, many of which reflect awareness of Deuteronomy.

II

The episode of the cave was added in Josh 10:16-27* + 28 and presupposes a variety of materials in the book of Deuteronomy.

II+

The episode of the cave was further supplemented in Josh 10:20b, 21a* (‫)אל המחנה‬, 21b, 23* (following ‫)ויעש כן‬. Some of these materials (10:20b and 10:21b) seem to have been added in order to align the episode with the late Deuteronomistic concept of the incomplete conquest.

III

The episode of the hail in Josh 10:11 and the episode of the sun standing still in 10:12-14 were most likely composed after the insertion of 10:16-27* + 28 and are neither pre-Deuteronomistic nor pre-priestly.

IV

The references to the return to the camp at Gilgal in Josh 10:15 and 10:43 seem to belong to a late stage of reworking that was particularly concerned with emphasizing the place of Gilgal in the conquest narratives in Josh 1–12. IV

III

a

II

I 10:1

‫ויהי כשמע אדני צדק מלך ירושלם ]כי לכד יהושע את העי ויחרימה כאשר עשה ליריחו ולמלכה‬ ‫ מאד כי עיר גדולה‬c‫ וייראו‬2 ‫ ישראל ויהיו בקרבם‬b‫כן עשה לעי ולמלכה ו[כי השלימו ישבי גבעון את‬ ‫ וישלח אדני צדק מלך ירושלם‬3 ‫גבעון כאחת ערי הממלכה }וכי היא גדולה מן העי{ וכל אנשיה גברים‬ ‫ עלו אלי‬4 ‫אל הוהם מלך חברון ואל פראם מלך ירמות ואל יפיע מלך לכיש ואל דביר מלך עגלון לאמר‬ e ‫ ויאספו ויעלו ]חמשת מלכי האמרי‬5 d‫ועזרני ונכה את גבעון כי השלימה את יהושע ואת בני ישראל‬ ‫מלך ירושלם מלך חברון מלך ירמות מלך לכיש מלך עגלון הם וכל מחניהם[ ויחנו על גבעון וילחמו‬ ‫ וישלחו אנשי גבעון אל יהושע אל המחנה הגלגלה לאמר אל תרף ידיך מעבדיך עלה אלינו‬6 ‫עליה‬ ‫ ויעל יהושע מן הגלגל הוא וכל‬7 ‫ ישבי ההר‬f‫מהרה והושיעה לנו ועזרנו כי נקבצו אלינו כל מלכי האמרי‬ ‫ נתתים לא יעמד‬h‫ ויאמר ה׳ אל יהושע אל תירא מהם כי בידך‬8] [‫ גבורי החיל‬g‫עם המלחמה עמו ]וכל‬ j ‫ ויהמם ה׳ לפני ישראל ויכם‬10 ‫ מן הגלגל‬i‫ ויבא אליהם יהושע פתאם כל הלילה עלה‬9 [‫איש מהם בפניך‬ ‫ עד עזקה ועד מקדה‬l‫ ויכם‬k‫מכה גדולה בגבעון וירדפם דרך מעלה בית חורן‬

























































a

‫ *𝔊 ]אדני צדק‬Αδωνιβεζεκ (for discussion, see LANGLOIS, Le texte, 197–99). ‫ 𝔊 ]את‬+ Ἰησοῦν καὶ πρός c ‫*𝔖 ]וייראו‬, 𝔙 sg. d ‫ ]ואת בני ישראל‬4QJosha ‫ואת ישראל‬ e ‫𝔊 ]האמרי‬Β τῶν Ιεβουσαίων 𝔊Mss των αμορραιων f ‫𝔊 ]האמרי‬Ms ιεβουσαιων g ‫ ]וכל‬πᾶς h ‫ 𝔊 ]כי בידך‬εἰς γὰρ τὰς χεῖράς σου; cf. 𝔖, 𝔙 i ‫( 𝔊 ]עלה‬εἰσ)επορεύθη 4QJosha [‫( ?הל]ך‬see LANGLOIS, Le texte, 157). j ‫ 𝔊 ]ויכם‬καὶ συνέτριψεν αὐτοὺς κύριος k ‫ 𝔊 ]חורן‬Ωρωνιν 4QJosha ‫( ?]חור[ונים‬proposed by LANGLOIS, Le texte, 167). l ‫ 𝔊 ]ויכם‬καὶ κατέκοπτον b

‫)‪Chapter 11: The Conquest of the Remainder of the Land (Josh 9–12‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪III‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬

‫‪434‬‬

‫‪IV‬‬ ‫‪n‬‬

‫‪m‬‬

‫ויהי בנסם מפני ישראל הם במורד בית חורן וה׳ השליך עליהם אבנים גדלות מן‬ ‫השמים עד עזקה וימתו רבים אשר מתו באבני הברד מאשר הרגו בני ישראל בחרב‬ ‫‪ 12‬אז ידבר יהושע לה׳ ביום תת ה׳‪ o‬את האמרי לפני }בני{ ישראל ויאמר‪} p‬לעיני ישראל{‬ ‫שמש בגבעון דום וירח בעמק אילון ‪ 13‬וידם השמש וירח עמד עד יקם גוי איביו‪} q‬הלא היא‬ ‫כתובה על ספר הישר{ ויעמד השמש בחצי השמים ולא אץ לבוא כיום תמים ‪ 14‬ולא היה‬ ‫כיום ההוא לפניו ואחריו לשמע ה׳‪ r‬בקול איש כי ה׳ נלחם לישראל‬ ‫‪} 15‬וישב יהושע וכל ישראל עמו אל המחנה הגלגלה{‬ ‫‪ 16‬וינסו חמשת המלכים האלה‪ s‬ויחבאו במערה במקדה ‪ 17‬ויגד ליהושע לאמר נמצאו חמשת‬ ‫המלכים נחבאים במערה במקדה ‪ 18‬ויאמר יהושע גלו אבנים גדלות אל פי המערה והפקידו עליה‬ ‫אנשים לשמרם ‪ 19‬ואתם אל תעמדו רדפו אחרי איביכם וזנבתם אותם אל תתנום לבוא אל עריהם‬ ‫כי נתנם ה׳ אלהיכם בידכם ‪ 20‬ויהי ככלות יהושע ובני ישראל להכותם מכה גדולה מאד עד תמם‬ ‫]והשרידים שרדו מהם ויבאו אל ערי המבצר[ ‪ 21‬וישבו כל העם }אל המחנה{ אל יהושע מקדה‬ ‫בשלום ]לא חרץ לבני ישראל לאיש את לשנו[ ‪ 22‬ויאמר יהושע פתחו את פי המערה והוציאו אלי‬ ‫את חמשת המלכים האלה מן המערה ‪ 23‬ויעשו כן ]ויציאו אליו את חמשת המלכים האלה מן‬ ‫המערה את מלך ירושלם את מלך חברון את מלך ירמות את מלך לכיש את מלך עגלון[ ‪ 24‬ויהי‬ ‫כהוציאם }את המלכים האלה{ אל יהושע ויקרא יהושע אל כל איש ישראל ויאמר אל קציני‬ ‫אנשי המלחמה ההלכוא אתו קרבו שימו את רגליכם על צוארי המלכים האלה ויקרבו וישימו את‬ ‫רגליהם על צואריהם ‪ 25‬ויאמר אליהם יהושע אל תיראו ואל תחתו חזקו ואמצו כי ככה יעשה ה׳‬ ‫לכל איביכם אשר אתם נלחמים אותם ‪ 26‬ויכם יהושע אחרי כן וימיתם ויתלם על חמשה עצים‬ ‫ויהיו תלוים על העצים עד הערב ‪ 27‬ויהי לעת בוא השמש צוה יהושע וירידום מעל העצים וישלכם‬ ‫אל המערה אשר נחבאו שם וישמו אבנים גדלות על פי המערה עד עצם היום הזה ‪ 28‬ואת מקדה‬ ‫לכד יהושע‪ t‬ביום ההוא ויכה‪ u‬לפי חרב }ואת מלכה{ החרם אותם‪ v‬ואת כל הנפש אשר בה לא‬ ‫השאיר שריד ויעש‪ u‬למלך מקדה כאשר עשה למלך יריחו‬ ‫‪ 29‬ויעבר יהושע וכל ישראל עמו ממקדה לבנה וילחם עם לבנה ‪ 30‬ויתן ה׳ גם אותה ביד ישראל ]ואת‬ ‫מלכה[ ויכה לפי חרב ואת כל הנפש אשר בה לא השאיר בה שריד ויעש למלכה כאשר עשה למלך‬ ‫יריחו ‪ 31‬ויעבר יהושע וכל ישראל עמו מלבנה לכישה ויחן עליה וילחם בה ‪ 32‬ויתן ה׳ את לכיש ביד‬ ‫ישראל וילכדה ביום השני ויכה לפי חרב ואת כל הנפש אשר בה ‪ w‬ככל אשר עשה‪ x‬ללבנה ]‪ 33‬אז עלה‬ ‫הרם מלך גזר לעזר את לכיש ויכהו יהושע ואת עמו עד בלתי השאיר לו שריד[ ‪ 34‬ויעבר יהושע וכל‬ ‫ישראל עמו מלכיש עגלנה ויחנו עליה וילחמו עליה ‪ 35‬וילכדוה ביום ההוא ויכוה לפי חרב ואת כל הנפש‬ ‫אשר בה }ביום ההוא{ ]החרים ככל אשר עשה‪ x‬ללכיש[ ‪ 36‬ויעל יהושע וכל ישראל עמו מעגלונה‬ ‫חברונה וילחמו עליה ‪ 37‬וילכדוה ויכוה לפי חרב }ואת מלכה ואת כל עריה{ ואת כל הנפש אשר בה לא‬ ‫השאיר שריד ככל אשר עשה‪ x‬לעגלון ]ויחרם‪ u‬אותה ואת כל הנפש אשר בה[ ‪ 38‬וישב יהושע וכל‬

‫























































‬ ‫‪m‬‬

‫‪] 𝔊 τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ‬ישראל‬ ‫‪ (see LANGLOIS, Le texte, 175–76).‬אבנים ‪] 𝔊 λίθους χαλάζης 4QJosha‬אבנים גדלות‬ ‫‪o‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 ὁ θεός‬ה׳‬ ‫‪p‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 + Ἰησοῦς‬ויאמר‬ ‫‪q‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 ἕως ἠμύνατο ὁ θεὸς τοὺς ἐχθροὺς αὐτῶν‬עד יקם גוי איביו‬ ‫‪r‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 θεόν‬ה׳‬ ‫‪s‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊Mss των ιεβουσαιων (for discussion, see LANGLOIS, Le texte, 214).‬האלה‬ ‫‪t‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 ἐλάβοσαν‬לכד יהושע‬ ‫‪u‬‬ ‫‪𝔊 pl.‬‬ ‫‪v‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 καὶ ἐξωλέθρευσαν πᾶν ἐμπνέον ἐν αὐτῇ‬החרם אותם‬ ‫‪w‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 καὶ ἐξωλέθρευσαν αὐτήν‬ואת כל הנפש אשר בה‬ ‫‪x‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 ὃν τρόπον ἐποίησαν‬ככל אשר עשה‬ ‫‪n‬‬

435

3. The Conquest of the North (Josh 11) IV u

III

II

I

39

‫ישראל עמו דברה וילחם עליה וילכדה ואת מלכה ואת כל עריה ויכום לפי חרב ויחרימו את כל‬ ‫ לדברה ולמלכה }וכאשר עשה ללבנה‬u‫ לחברון כן עשה‬y‫נפש אשר בה לא השאיר שריד כאשר עשה‬ ‫ ויכה יהושע את כל הארץ ההר והנגב והשפלה והאשדות ]ואת }כל{ מלכיהם[ לא השאיר‬40 {‫ולמלכה‬ ‫ }ויכם יהושע{ מקדש ברנע ועד עזה ואת‬41 ‫שריד ואת כל הנשמה החרים כאשר צוה ה׳ אלהי ישראל‬ ‫ ואת ארצם לכד יהושע פעם אחת כי ה׳ אלהי ישראל‬z‫ ואת כל המלכים האלה‬42 ‫כל ארץ גשן ועד גבעון‬ ‫נלחם לישראל‬ {‫ }וישב יהושע וכל ישראל עמו אל המחנה הגלגלה‬43

3. The Conquest of the North (Josh 11) 3.1. Literary-critical analysis The list of six nations in Josh 11:3 does not connect smoothly to 11:2 in terms of syntax and is rather redundant vis-à-vis 11:2 in terms of geography. Whereas 11:2 uses a geographical merism involving the four cardinal directions to emphasize that the kings come from the entire northern region, 11:3 uses a more obscure merism involving east and west plus the “hill country” (presumably indicating a southern area) and “the land of Mizpah,” which the verse locates near Mount Hermon, indicating a northern area. The secondary nature of 11:3 is suggested by 11:4, which seems to have the kings of 11:2 as its subject, not the six nations in 11:3.114 The divine command to Joshua in Josh 11:6b to hamstring the enemy’s horses and to burn the enemy’s chariots does not connect smoothly to 11:6a in terms of syntax and is not directly pertinent to the divine assurance of victory to Joshua in that half-verse. This suggests that 11:6b, along with its fulfillment report in 11:9, are later additions to Josh 11. Within Josh 11:8, there is a slight tension between the statement that Joshua and the Israelites pursued their enemies as far as Sidon, Misrephoth-maim, and the Valley of Mizpeh and the subsequent statement that they left no survivor: If the basic intent of the verse was to emphasize the complete annihilation of the enemy force, this raises the question of why it was necessary to report the pursuit of the enemy force to territory just beyond Israelite control.115 The possibility that 11:8 is not a compositional unity is indirectly supported by the divergent orthography between 11:8a* (from ‫)ויכום‬, which uses plene orthography for ‫ ויכום‬and ‫וירדפום‬, and 11:8b, which uses defective

























































y

‫ 𝔊 ]כאשר עשה‬ὃν τρόπον ἐποίησαν ‫ 𝔊 ]ואת כל המלכים האלה‬καὶ πάντας τοὺς βασιλεῖς αὐτῶν 114 On Josh 11:3 as a later addition, see NOTH, Josua2, 68; NA’AMAN, “Conquest,” 257; and BRIEND, “Les sources,” 360 (ET 377). Somewhat differently, FRITZ, Josua, 119 suggests that both 11:2 and 11:3 are later additions. 115 For this interpretation of the geographical references here, see NOTH, Josua2, 68–69. z

436

Chapter 11: The Conquest of the Remainder of the Land (Josh 9–12)

orthography for ‫ויכם‬. ֻ Since there is insufficient literary-critical evidence to determine which part of the verse is more original, this question will be taken up again in the macrocontextual analysis (§3.2). There are several reasons to suspect that the report of the conquest of Hazor in Josh 11:10-11 is a later addition. First, 11:10 contains the phrase ‫בעת ההיא‬, which often demarcates later material. 116 Moreover, the report of the conquest of Hazor comes too late after 11:8, which serves as the conclusion to the Israelite victory over the kings who had gathered at the Waters of Merom. Finally, the report in 11:10-11 interrupts the connection between the phrase ‫ כל ערי המלכים האלה‬in 11:12 and its antecedent in 11:4-9*. Given that 11:13 presupposes the reference to the burning of Hazor in 11:11, it cannot be earlier than 11:10-11.117 Although several commentators identify Josh 11:10-15 as a whole as a later addition,118 such a conclusion goes too far in my view: Whereas 11:10-11, 13 focus on Hazor, 11:12, 14-15 speak of the northern cities as a whole. Thus, there is no compelling reason to assign 11:12, 14-15 to the same compositional level as 11:10-11, 13 or to remove them from the most basic material in the chapter. Within 11:14, the reference to taking livestock as plunder may, however, be a later addition, as it is absent in g. Josh 11:16 and 11:17 do not connect smoothly to each other syntactically and thus likely belong to different compositional levels. Whereas 11:16 lists the territory conquered in the south (cf. 10:40) as well as “the hill country of Israel and its Shephelah,” 11:17 adds to this a reference to territory spanning from the Edomite plateau 119 to Baal-Gad near Mount Hermon, i.e., the entire area of Transjordan. Since Josh 11 hardly has in view the conquest of all of Transjordan in addition to the conquest of the north,120 11:17 exceeds the geographical scope of the rest of the chapter and is likely a later addition. Josh 11:19 j states that “there was no city that made peace with the Israelites except the Hivites dwelling in Gibeon,” while g states that “there was no city that the Israelites did not capture.” 121 Two scenarios for the direction of change are possible here. (1) g may reflect a more original Hebrew Vorlage that perhaps only had in view the conquest of the north, in which case the exceptional status of Gibeon would not have posed a problem. Later, 11:19 was reinterpreted as a conclusion to the conquest of both the south and the 116

Cf. RÖSEL, Joshua, 188. On Josh 11:13 as a later addition, cf. FRITZ, Josua, 123 and RÖSEL, Joshua, 188. 118 NOTH, Josua2, 69; MILLER, “Israelite Occupation,” 234, 282; and RÖSEL, Joshua, 182. 119 Presumably this is what is meant by ‫ההר החלק העולה שעיר‬. 120 Apart from Josh 11:17a, all other references to sites in Transjordan in Josh 11 are focused on northern Transjordan, around Mount Hermon. 121 This variant is noted by R ÖSEL, Joshua, 190 and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 461, although neither takes a clear stance on which reading should be regarded as more original. 117

3. The Conquest of the North (Josh 11)

437

north, requiring a reference to the exceptional status of the Gibeonites in the textual tradition reflected by 𝔐. (2) If 𝔐 is assumed to be the more original reading, 𝔊 may reflect a change introduced by the translator, who interpreted 11:19 as applying only to the conquest of the north and thus eliminated the reference to the Gibeonites. Since the latter scenario seems rather unlikely, I regard the reading of 𝔊 as more original. Following the summary report of Joshua’s conquest of the entire region in Josh 11:16-19*,122 the statement about Yhwh’s hardening of the enemy’s hearts in 11:20 is rather out of place and thus may be a later addition to the narrative.123 Likewise, the report about Joshua’s annihilation of the Anakites in 11:21-22 comes too late following 11:16-19* and may also be evaluated as a later addition. In this case, the repetition of ‫ ויקח יהושע את כל הארץ‬in 11:23 can be interpreted as a Wiederaufnahme of 11:16, indicating that 11:23 was added at the same time as 11:21-22.124 In sum, the most basic material in Josh 11 can be identified in 11:1-2, 46a, 7-8, 12, 14-16, 18, 19* (following 𝔊), while later additions can be identified in 11:3, 6b, 9, 10-11, 13, 17, 20, 21-23. 3.2. Macrocontextual analysis Josh 11 raises a number of issues in terms of its broader context, including the relationship of the various compositional levels in Josh 11 to those in Josh 10, the relationship to texts beyond Josh 10, and the possible date of composition of both Josh 10 and Josh 11. The relationship with Josh 10. In light of the complementary nature of Josh 10 and Josh 11, the former narrating the conquest of the south and the latter narrating the conquest of the north, several commentators have concluded that at least parts of these chapters are the product of a single author.125 Yet, despite a general structural parallelism between Josh 10 and Josh 11, several details pose problems for the view that the most basic material in Josh 11 belongs to the same compositional level as that in Josh 10. First, the summary notice in 10:40 states that Joshua conquered “the entire land” (‫ויכה‬ ‫)יהושע את כל הארץ‬, which suggests that the author of 10:40 did not have in view a conquest of the north as narrated in Josh 11.126 Moreover, the use of

























































122

Whether this is understood to comprise both the south and the north or the north alone is complicated by the geographical references in Josh 11:16. 123 Cf. CAMPBELL, “Growth,” 83–84. 124 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 125–26 and DIETRICH, “Achans Diebstahl,” 57 n. 1. 125 NA’AMAN, “Conquest,” 256–57; RÖSEL, Joshua, 164; and DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 473. 126 Cf. CAMPBELL, “Growth,” 72 and KNAUF, “Buchschlüsse,” 218; IDEM, Josua, 109– 10. YOUNGER, Ancient Conquest Accounts, 242 translates the phrase ‫ כל הארץ‬in Josh 10:40

438

Chapter 11: The Conquest of the Remainder of the Land (Josh 9–12)

geographical terms such as ‫ נגב כנרות‬and ‫ שפלה‬in 11:2 suggests that the author of this verse was not very familiar with the actual geography of the north and instead used the geographical terms in 10:40 as a model. Finally, if the basic report of the conquest of the north in Josh 11 was conceived of as a counterpart to Josh 10 from the outset, then, as Thomas Dozeman has noted, “The war in Josh 11:16-20 is surprising in scope,” since it once again includes the southern regions.127 This suggests that the most basic layer in Josh 11 is later than that in Josh 10 and seeks to revise the concept of the “entire land” found in 10:40. Other intertextual connections. In contrast to Josh 10, in which the most basic narrative thread shows no clear connections to the book of Deuteronomy, the most basic material in Josh 11 (i.e., 11:1-2, 4-6a, 7-8, 12, 14-16, 18, 19*) already presupposes the laws of warfare in Deuteronomy. Both 11:8b and 11:14 speak of the Israelites leaving no human survivors, a motif that also appears in the Deuteronomistic reworking of Josh 10. Moreover, the reference to the taking of cattle as legitimate booty in 11:14 (𝔐) clearly has Deut 20:14 in view.128 Finally, 11:15 reports that Joshua did everything that Yhwh had commanded Moses which, in the context of the conquest, can only have in view the laws of warfare in Deuteronomy. 129 Some of the later additions to Josh 11 also engage with the laws of Deuteronomy. The divine command to Joshua to hamstring the horses and to burn the chariots of the northern kings in 11:6b and Joshua’s fulfillment of the command in 11:9 can be understood only in light of the law of the king in Deut 17:14-20, which specifically prohibits the acquisition of many horses by the future king of Israel (17:16).130 Considering that the law of the king presupposes and critiques the excesses of Solomon in 1 Kings131 and ultimately implies that such behavior will lead to the loss of the kingdom (17:20), Joshua’s complete renunciation of horses and chariots132 depicts the time of Joshua as a golden age in which the necessary evil of kingship did not yet exist.133



























































































































as “the entire region,” yet such a translation in fact already recognizes (and attempts to soften) the tension created by the continuation of the conquest in Josh 11. 127 DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 478, although he assigns Josh 10–11 to the same author. 128 Cf. KNAUF, Josua, 115. 129 On the Deuteronomistic nature of Josh 11:10-15, see RÖSEL, Joshua, 188. 130 Cf. VAN BEKKUM, Conquest, 376. While the specific reference to the hamstringing of horses may reflect dependence on the report of David’s campaign against Hadadezer of Zobah in 2 Sam 8:3-4 (NA’AMAN, “Conquest,” 258), this does not change the evaluation of Josh 11:6b, 9 as post-Deuteronomic, since 2 Sam 8:3-4 themselves presuppose the law of the king in Deut 17:14-20; cf. DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 476. 131 For references to Solomon’s acquisition of numerous horses, see 1 Kgs 4:26; 10:28. 132 In contrast to David, who kept a small number of horses (2 Sam 8:3-4). 133 Cf. DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 476, who concludes that Joshua’s complete elimination of horses and chariots reflects a “more extreme antimonarchic ideology.” Dozeman also

3. The Conquest of the North (Josh 11)

439

Beyond connecting to the law of the king in Deut 17:14-20, the references to horses and chariots in Josh 11 also serve to strengthen the parallelism between the exodus and the conquest of the land, corresponding to Pharaoh’s pursuit of the Israelites with horses and chariots (cf. Exod 14:9, 23; 15:1, 19, 21). The same is true of the reference to Yhwh hardening the hearts of the northern kings in 11:20, which forms a connection with Yhwh’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in the priestly portions of the plagues narrative.134 Within 11:21-22, the reference to Joshua annihilating the Anakites everywhere within the territory of Israel but not in Gaza, Gath, or Ashdod seems to anticipate the narratives of the Israelites’ later conflict with the Philistines and particularly David’s defeat of Goliath in 1 Sam 17. Thus, like the giants texts in Deut 2–3, Josh 11:21-22 clearly understand the term ‫ ענקים‬as designating a group of people of unusually great stature.135 The date of Josh 10–11. Although the most basic material in Josh 11 does not go back to the same compositional level as that in Josh 10, it can be concluded that both chapters were written by Judahite/Judean authors. In Josh 10 this is suggested by the use of Judah’s historical boundaries to describe the conquest of “the entire land.”136 In Josh 11, in contrast, the author’s southern background can be deduced from the application of southern geography to the conquest of the north, suggesting that the author of Josh 11 was not very familiar with the actual geography of northern Israel.137 These observations are of particular importance for determining a terminus post quem for Josh 10, which is the earlier of the two chapters and seems to preserve the earliest extant conclusion to the conquest narratives in the book of Joshua. Based on the Judahite/Judean perspective of Josh 10, it can be concluded that the most basic narrative in Josh 1–10* postdates the fall of the northern kingdom in 722 B.C.E.138



























































































































suggests that the appearance of horses and chariots in Josh 11 alludes to Deut 20:1 (ibid.), although here the direction of dependence is less clear, and it is possible that Deut 20:1 presupposes Josh 11. If this is the case, it would indicate that the laws of warfare in Deut 20:1-9 are later than those in 20:10-20, since Josh 11 already knows the latter verses. 134 On Josh 11:20 as a post-priestly inclusio with the exodus narrative, see KNAUF, Josua, 118. See also BLENKINSOPP, “Structure,” 277, who regards 11:20 as part of a continuous priestly source. Here I cannot agree with R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige Krieg,” 110, who argues that the motif of Yhwh hardening the kings’ hearts does not necessarily presuppose priestly literature. 135 Cf. RÖSEL, Joshua, 191. 136 Cf. KNAUF, Josua, 17–18, 105, 109 and BLUM, “Überlegungen,” 156. 137 Cf. NELSON, Joshua, 152 and RÖSEL, Joshua, 183–84. 138 Cf. BLUM, “Überlegungen,” 156 and KNAUF, Josua, 17–18, 105, 109, both of whom suggest that the extent of the conquered territory in Josh 10 may have corresponded to the boundaries of the kingdom of Judah during the time of Josiah.

‫‪440‬‬

‫)‪Chapter 11: The Conquest of the Remainder of the Land (Josh 9–12‬‬

‫‪3.3. Synthesis‬‬ ‫‪The most basic material in Josh 11 can be identified in 11:1-2, 4-6a, 7‬‬‫‪8, 12, 14-16, 18, 19* (𝔊). This material is later than the most basic nar‬‬‫‪rative thread in Josh 10 and, unlike the latter, presupposes material in‬‬ ‫‪the book of Deuteronomy from the outset.139‬‬

‫‪I‬‬

‫‪This basic narrative was supplemented with a variety of additions in‬‬ ‫‪Josh 11:3, 6b, 9, 10-11, 13, 17, 20, 21-23. Although the order in which‬‬ ‫‪these additions were made cannot be determined precisely, many of‬‬ ‫‪them create further intertextual links with the book of Deuteronomy,‬‬ ‫‪priestly and post-priestly texts in the Penatateuch, and narratives in the‬‬ ‫‪books of Samuel and Kings.‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪I‬‬

‫‪II‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫‪11:1‬‬

‫ויהי כשמע יבין מלך חצור וישלח אל יובב מלך מדון ואל מלך שמרון ואל מלך אכשף‬ ‫המלכים אשר מצפון בהר ובערבה נגב כנרות ובשפלה ובנפות דור מים‬

‫ואל‬

‫‪ 3‬הכנעני ממזרח ומים והאמרי והחתי והפרזי והיבוסי בהר והחוי תחת חרמון בארץ המצפה‬ ‫‪ 4‬ויצאו הם וכל מחניהם עמם עם רב כחול אשר על שפת הים לרב וסוס ורכב רב מאד ‪ 5‬ויועדו כל‬ ‫המלכים האלה ויבאו ויחנו יחדו אל מי מרום להלחם עם ישראל ‪ 6‬ויאמר ה׳ אל יהושע אל תירא‬ ‫מפניהם כי מחר כעת הזאת אנכי נתן את כלם חללים לפני ישראל‬ ‫את סוסיהם תעקר ואת מרכבתיהם תשרף באש‬ ‫‪8‬‬

‫‪ 7‬ויבא יהושע וכל עם המלחמה עמו עליהם על מי מרום פתאם ויפלו בהם ויתנם ה׳ ביד ישראל ויכום‬ ‫וירדפום עד צידון רבה ועד משרפות מים ועד בקעת מצפה מזרחה ויכם עד בלתי השאיר להם שריד‬ ‫‪ 9‬ויעש להם יהושע כאשר אמר לו ה׳ את סוסיהם עקר ואת מרכבתיהם שרף באש‬ ‫‪ 10‬וישב יהושע בעת ההיא וילכד את חצור ואת מלכה הכה בחרב כי חצור לפנים היא ראש כל‬ ‫הממלכות האלה ‪ 11‬ויכו את כל הנפש אשר בה לפי חרב ]החרם[ לא נותר כל נשמה ואת חצור‬ ‫שרף באש‬ ‫‪ 12‬ואת כל ערי המלכים האלה ואת כל מלכיהם לכד יהושע ויכם לפי חרב ]החרים אותם כאשר צוה‬ ‫משה עבד ה׳[‬ ‫]‪ 13‬רק כל הערים העמדות על תלם לא שרפם ישראל זולתי את חצור לבדה שרף יהושע[‬ ‫‪ 14‬וכל שלל }הערים האלה והבהמה{ בזזו להם בני ישראל רק את כל האדם הכו לפי חרב עד השמדם‬ ‫אותם לא השאירו כל נשמה ‪ 15‬כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה עבדו כן צוה משה את יהושע וכן עשה יהושע‬ ‫לא הסיר דבר מכל אשר צוה ה׳ את משה‪ 16 a‬ויקח יהושע את כל הארץ הזאת ההר ואת כל הנגב ואת‬ ‫כל ארץ הגשן ואת השפלה ואת הערבה ואת הר ישראל ושפלתה‬

‫























































‬ ‫‪139‬‬

‫‪For the conclusion that the most basic material in Josh 11 is Deuteronomistic, cf.‬‬ ‫‪NA’AMAN, “Conquest,” 259; KNAUF, Josua, 18, 111, 116; and R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige‬‬ ‫‪Krieg,” 109 against NOTH, Josua2, 69; BRIEND, “Les sources,” 360 (ET 377); CAMPBELL,‬‬ ‫‪“Growth,” 72; KRATZ, Komposition, 209 (ET 201); RÖSEL, Joshua, 189; and BLUM, “Über‬‬‫‪legungen,” 155, who identify parts of Josh 11 as potentially pre-Deuteronomistic.‬‬ ‫‪a‬‬ ‫‪] 𝔊 αὐτῷ Μωυσῆς‬ה׳ את משה‬

441

4. The List of Conquered Cities (Josh 12) II

I

17

‫מן ההר החלק העולה שעיר ועד בעל גד בבקעת הלבנון תחת הר חרמון ואת כל מלכיהם לכד‬ ‫ויכם וימיתם‬ ‫לא היתה עיר אשר השלימה אל בני‬

19

‫ ימים רבים עשה יהושע את כל המלכים האלה מלחמה‬18 ‫ }בלתי החוי ישבי גבעון{ את הכל לקחו במלחמה‬b‫ישראל‬

‫ כי מאת ה׳ היתה לחזק את לבם לקראת המלחמה את ישראל למען החרימם לבלתי היות להם‬20 ‫תחנה כי למען השמידם כאשר צוה ה׳ את משה‬ ‫ ויבא יהושע בעת ההיא ויכרת את הענקים מן ההר מן חברון מן דבר מן ענב ומכל הר יהודה‬21 ‫ לא נותר ענקים בארץ בני ישראל רק בעזה בגת‬22 ‫ומכל הר ישראל עם עריהם החרימם יהושע‬ ‫ ויקח יהושע את כל הארץ ככל אשר דבר ה׳ אל משה ויתנה יהושע לנחלה‬23 ‫ובאשדוד נשארו‬ ‫לישראל כמחלקתם לשבטיהם והארץ שקטה ממלחמה‬

4. The List of Conquered Cities (Josh 12) 4.1. Literary-critical analysis Josh 12 can be divided into two main units, which report on the territory and kings conquered in Transjordan (12:1-6) and Cisjordan (12:7-24), respectively. These two units are formally distinct: While 12:9-24 list the Cisjordanian kings in a tally format, 12:2-5 do not, and while 12:2-5 describe the individual territorial boundaries for each Transjordanian king, 12:7-8 describe the combined territorial boundaries of the Cisjordanian kings. Moreover, whereas 12:7 states that Joshua and the Israelites conquered the kings listed in the subsequent verses, 12:1 refers to the Israelites alone and refers to Moses’ involvement only in 12:6. These formal differences suggest that 12:1-6 and 12:7-24 do not belong to the same compositional level, although determining the relative chronology of the two units requires consideration of materials beyond Josh 12 itself. 4.2. Macrocontextual analysis Within its immediate literary context, the summary of the conquest of Transjordan by the Israelites and Moses in Josh 12:1-6 is rather out of place, since the immediately preceding narratives deal only with the conquest of Cisjordan. Thus, it seems likely that the report in 12:1-6* is a later addition to the chapter. Given that the introductions to the two units are quite similar, it is possible that 12:1aα (which does not mention Joshua) is more original than 12:7aα, which refers specifically to the territory conquered by Joshua in Cisjordan and thus serves as a counterpoint to the report of the territory con-

























































b

‫ 𝔊 ]אשר השלימה אל בני ישראל‬ἣν οὐκ ἔλαβεν Ισραηλ

442

Chapter 11: The Conquest of the Remainder of the Land (Josh 9–12)

quered by Moses in Transjordan in 12:1aβb-6.140 Moreover, given that the geographical description in 12:7aβb-8 is not strictly necessary to the list of conquered kings that follows, these verses may also be later additions141 that serve to align 12:9-24 with the geographical description of the territory of Sihon and Og in 12:2-5. The literary relationship between the list of Cisjordanian kings in Josh 12:9-24 and the preceding narratives in Josh 6–11 has been a matter of debate in prior scholarship. Following the lead of Martin Noth, several commentators have concluded that the list of kings in 12:9-24 is based on an independent document that originally had nothing to do with the narratives in Josh 6– 11.142 Others, however, have argued that 12:9-24 do not contain traces of an originally independent document but were instead composed specifically for their present literary context, including Josh 13–21.143 In order to determine whether the most basic material in Josh 12 (i.e., 12:1aα, 9-24*) presupposes the book of Deuteronomy or priestly literature, it is necessary to consider which compositional levels in Josh 6–11; 13–21 are presupposed by the toponyms in 12:9-24: Jericho Ai (+ Bethel) Jerusalem Hebron Yarmuth Lachish Eglon Gezer Debir Geder Hormah Arad Libnah Adullam Makkedah Bethel (> 𝔊) Tappuah

Josh 6 Josh 8 Josh 10:1 Josh 10:3 Josh 10:3 Josh 10:3 Josh 10:3 Josh 10:33 Josh 10:38
(but cf. Gedor in Josh 15:58) Josh 15:30; 19:4; Judg 1:17 Num 21:1; 33:40 Josh 10:29 Josh 15:35 Josh 10:10 Josh 7:2; 8:9, 12, 17 Josh 15:34, (53); 16:8; 17:7-8



























































pre-Dtr, pre-P pre-Dtr, pre-P pre-Dtr, pre-P pre-Dtr, pre-P pre-Dtr, pre-P pre-Dtr, pre-P pre-Dtr, pre-P Dtr, pre-P pre-Dtr, pre-P post-P post-P P/post-P pre-Dtr, pre-P post-P pre-Dtr, pre-P post-P

140 On Josh 12:1aα as the original introduction to the chapter, see FRITZ, Josua, 128 and KNAUF, Josua, 121. In contrast, BLUM, “Überlegungen,” 155 regards 12:7aα* as original. 141 Cf. FRITZ, Josua, 128 and BLUM, “Überlegungen,” 155. 142 NOTH, Josua2, 71–72; SOGGIN, Joshua, 143; FRITZ, Josua, 129; NELSON, Joshua, 162; and VAN BEKKUM, Conquest, 355–56. See also BRIEND, “Les sources,” 361 (ET 377– 78), who regards Josh 12:7-24 as the conclusion to an “ancient document” consisting of Josh 10–12*. 143 MOWINCKEL, Tetrateuch, 48–49; G. SCHMITT, Du sollst keinen Frieden schließen, 116–20; NA’AMAN, “Conquest,” 273; CAMPBELL, “Growth,” 84; KNAUF, Josua, 120–21; and RÖSEL, Joshua, 195.

443

4. The List of Conquered Cities (Josh 12) Hepher Aphek Sharon (> 𝔊) Madon (> 𝔊) Hazor Shimron-Meron Achshaf Ta’anach Megiddo Kedesh Yoqne’am Dor Goim of Gilgal Tirzah

Josh 17:2-3 Josh 13:4; 19:30
Josh 11:1 Josh 11:1 Josh 11:1 Josh 11:1 Josh 17:11; 21:25 Josh 17:11 Josh 15:23; 19:37; 20:7; 21:32 Josh 19:11; 21:34 (cf. En-Dor in Josh 17:11) (cf. 𝔊 with Josh 20:7; 21:32) Josh 17:3

post-P post-P Dtr Dtr Dtr Dtr post-P post-P post-P post-P post-P post-P post-P

As can be seen here, the list of conquered kings in Josh 12:9-24 follows the general order of the conquest as narrated in Josh 6–11 (Jericho, Ai, south, north) and draws on toponyms from a variety of compositional levels in the book of Joshua, including Deuteronomistic and post-priestly materials.144 4.3. Synthesis I

The most basic material in Josh 12 likely consisted of 12:1aα, 9-24*. This list of conquered kings in Cisjordan drew on toponyms from the conquest narratives in Josh 6–11 as well as from the reports of Joshua’s apportioning the land to the Cisjordanian tribes in Josh 13–21 and cannot have belonged to a pre-Deuteronomistic or pre-priestly version of the book of Joshua.

I+

In light of their absence in 𝔊, the references to Bethel, Sharon, and Madon are possibly later additions to the list.

II

The list of conquered kings in Cisjordan was later supplemented to include a reference to the conquest of Sihon and Og and a report about the extent of their territory (Josh 12:1aβb-6) as well as a corresponding description of the boundaries of the territory conquered in Cisjordan (12:7-8).

























































144

For the view that the earliest form of Josh 12 goes back to a Deuteronomistic stage of composition, see WELLHAUSEN, Composition3, 127; NOTH, Josua2, 71–72; and R. SCHMITT, Der “Heilige Krieg,” 109. See also MOWINCKEL, Tetrateuch, 59–60, who assigns the list to P, and KNAUF, Josua, 122, who evaluates Josh 12 as post-Deuteronomistic and post-priestly. In contrast, BRIEND, “Les sources,” 361 (ET 377–78); KRATZ, Komposition, 209, 217 (ET 201, 208); and BLUM, “Überlegungen,” 155 conclude that the most basic version of Josh 12 is pre-Deuteronomistic. FRITZ, “Die sogenannte Liste,” 156; IDEM, Josua, 128–29 adopts both positions simultaneously by arguing that 12:9-24* once constituted an early, independent document but was attached to Josh 1–11* only by DtrH.

‫)‪Chapter 11: The Conquest of the Remainder of the Land (Josh 9–12‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪12:1‬‬

‫‪444‬‬

‫‪II‬‬ ‫ואלה מלכי הארץ אשר הכו בני ישראל וירשו את ארצם‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫בעבר הירדן מזרחה השמש מנחל ארנון עד הר חרמון וכל הערבה מזרחה סיחון מלך האמרי‬ ‫היושב בחשבון משל מערוער אשר על שפת נחל ארנון ותוך הנחל וחצי הגלעד ועד יבק הנחל‬ ‫גבול בני עמון ‪ 3‬והערבה עד ים כנרות מזרחה ועד ים הערבה ים המלח מזרחה דרך בית הישמות‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫ומתימן תחת אשדות הפסגה ‪ 4‬וגבול עוג מלך הבשן מיתר הרפאים היושב בעשתרות ובאדרעי‬ ‫ומשל בהר חרמון ובסלכה ובכל הבשן עד גבול הגשורי והמעכתי וחצי הגלעד גבול סיחון מלך‬ ‫חשבון ‪ 6‬משה עבד ה׳ ובני ישראל הכום ויתנה משה עבד ה׳ ירשה לראובני ולגדי ולחצי שבט‬ ‫המנשה ‪ 7‬ואלה מלכי הארץ אשר הכה יהושע ובני ישראל בעבר הירדן ימה מבעל גד בבקעת‬ ‫הלבנון ועד ההר החלק העלה שעירה ויתנה יהושע לשבטי ישראל ירשה כמחלקתם ‪ 8‬בהר‬ ‫ובשפלה ובערבה ובאשדות ובמדבר ובנגב החתי האמרי והכנעני הפרזי החוי והיבוסי‬ ‫‪ 9‬מלך יריחו אחד‬ ‫‪ 10‬מלך ירושלם אחד‬ ‫‪ 11‬מלך ירמות אחד‬ ‫‪ 12‬מלך עגלון אחד‬ ‫‪ 13‬מלך דבר אחד‬ ‫‪ 14‬מלך חרמה אחד‬ ‫‪ 15‬מלך לבנה אחד‬ ‫‪ 16‬מלך מקדה אחד‬ ‫‪ 17‬מלך תפוח אחד‬ ‫‪ 18‬מלך אפק אחד‬ ‫‪} 19‬מלך מדון אחד{‬ ‫‪ 20‬מלך שמרון מראון אחד‬ ‫‪ 21‬מלך תענך אחד‬ ‫‪ 22‬מלך קדש אחד‬ ‫‪ 23‬מלך דור לנפת דור אחד‬ ‫‪ 24‬מלך תרצה אחד‬

‫מלך העי אשר מצד בית אל אחד‬ ‫מלך חברון אחד‬ ‫מלך לכיש אחד‬ ‫מלך גזר אחד‬ ‫מלך גדר אחד‬ ‫מלך ערד אחד‬ ‫מלך עדלם אחד‬ ‫}מלך בית אל אחד{‬ ‫מלך חפר אחד‬ ‫}מלך לשרון אחד{‬ ‫מלך חצור אחד‬ ‫מלך אכשף אחד‬ ‫מלך מגדו אחד‬ ‫מלך יקנעם לכרמל אחד‬ ‫מלך גוים לגלגל‪ a‬אחד‬ ‫כל מלכים שלשים ואחד‬

‫‪5. Result‬‬ ‫‪The foregoing analyses of Josh 9–12 indicate that the maximum extent of‬‬ ‫‪pre-priestly and pre-Deuteronomistic material in these chapters consists of‬‬ ‫‪Josh 9:3, 6a, 8a, 15aα; 10:1aα, 1b, 3-4, 5-7*, 9a, 10aβb, 29-32*, 34-40*,‬‬ ‫‪42(?). These verses constitute a continuous narrative thread that can be con‬‬‫‪nected directly to the pre-priestly and pre-Deuteronomistic narratives of the‬‬ ‫‪conquest of Jericho and Ai in Josh 6–8*.145 Considering that the conquest of‬‬ ‫‪Jericho and Ai alone hardly constitutes a satisfactory conclusion to a larger‬‬

‫























































‬ ‫‪a‬‬

‫‪] 𝔊* Γεει τῆς Γαλιλαίας‬גוים לגלגל‬ ‫‪See the narrative transition to the report on the Gibeonite accord in Josh 9:3, which‬‬ ‫‪refers directly to the conquest of Jericho and Ai.‬‬ ‫‪145‬‬

5. Result

445

narrative describing the people’s entry into the land following the exodus,146 then the most basic material in Josh 9–10* must be evaluated as an integral part of the conquest narrative in Josh 1–12* from the outset.147 In contrast, the earliest material in Josh 11 is later than the basic narrative thread in Josh 9–10*. It already presupposes the book of Deuteronomy, and its conception of the entire land as encompassing both northern and southern regions (11:16) revises the conception of the entire land in 10:40, which has only the southern territory of Judah in view. Thus, the conquest of the south in Josh 10* constitutes the earliest identifiable conclusion to the conquest narratives in Josh 1–12.148 The statement in 11:23 that Joshua allotted the land to Israel and that “the land had rest from war” creates a strong sense of closure and may constitute a second conclusion to the conquest narrative that already presupposes the book of Deuteronomy but does not presuppose Josh 12 or 13–24.149 While some commentators have suggested that an independent, prepriestly and pre-Deuteronomistic exodus-conquest narrative (or, according to some, an early Hexateuch) found its original conclusion in Josh 24*,150 such a view must be ruled out, since even the most basic literary layer in Josh 24151 thematizes the concept of “serving” (i.e., worshipping) Yhwh (‫ )עבד את ה׳‬and presupposes the people’s failure to serve Yhwh, which is a central Leitmotif in the books of Judges through Kings. Thus, Josh 24 must be evaluated as a post-Deuteronomic text152 that has an Enneateuch (or Octateuch) as its literary horizon from the outset.153

























































146

The question of whether Josh 6* or 8* reflect older local traditions that once existed independently (and possibly in oral form) is not directly relevant here since, in any event, a conquest narrative that marks the endpoint of the exodus and the people’s settlement in the land is unlikely to have reported only the conquest of two cities and nothing else. 147 Against BRIEND, “Les sources,” 358–61 (ET 375–78), who argues that an earlier “document” in Josh 1:1-2*; 3–9* was later supplemented by Josh 10–12. 148 Cf. CAMPBELL, “Growth,” 83; KNAUF, Josua, 17; IDEM, “Buchschlüsse,” 218–19; and K. SCHMID, Literaturgeschichte, 89 (ET 83). 149 Cf. KNAUF, Josua, 17; IDEM, “Buchschlüsse,” 220. On Josh 11:23 as an earlier ending to the book of Joshua, see also KRATZ, Komposition, 199, 204, 207 (ET 192, 197, 200) (Deuteronomistic); BECKER, “Endredaktionelle Kontextvernetzungen,” 151–52 (Deuteronomistic); RÖMER, “Book-Endings,” 89–90 (Deuteronomistic); and BLUM, “Überlegungen,” 155 (pre-Deuteronomistic). 150 TENGSTRÖM, Hexateucherzählung, 154, 163–67; BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 336–41; and KONKEL, Sünde, 260. 151 I identify the most basic material in Josh 23–24 as 23:1-3, (5); 24:14a, 15*, 16, 18b, 22, 28. For a similar base text, see KRATZ, Komposition, 207 (ET 200) and AURELIUS, “Zur Entstehung,” 102. 152 There is broad scholarly consensus on the post-Deuteronomic nature of Josh 24; see already VAN SETERS, “Joshua 24,” 154 and more recently KRATZ, Komposition, 207, 217 (ET 200, 208); IDEM, “Der vor- und der nachpriesterschriftliche Hexateuch,” 302–3;

446

Chapter 11: The Conquest of the Remainder of the Land (Josh 9–12)

Josh 9 II; Josh 10 I+, II; and Josh 11 I do not show any awareness of priestly literature and thus, like Josh 8 II, may belong to a post-Deuteronomic but pre-priestly stage in the composition of Josh 1–12. In contrast, Josh 9 III– IV; Josh 10 III–IV; Josh 11 II; and Josh 12 I–II presuppose priestly or postpriestly texts and thus cannot belong to a pre-priestly version of Josh 1–12.



























































































































RÖMER, “Das doppelte Ende,” 540; IDEM, “Book-Endings,” 97; KNAUF, “Buchschlüsse,” 221–23 (also post-priestly); AURELIUS, “Zur Entstehung,” 95; and K. SCHMID, “Samaritaner,” 41–42 (also post-priestly). 153 Cf. BREKELMANS, “Joshua XXIV,” 6–7; ANBAR, Josué, 101–15, esp. 114–15; MÜLLER, Königtum, 231–32; and KRATZ, “Der vor- und der nachpriesterschriftliche Hexateuch,” 302–3, 306. MÜLLER, Königtum, 231–32 entertains the possibility that Josh 24:2830 (or its parallel in Judg 2:6, 8-9) may have belonged to a pre-Deuteronomistic exodusconquest narrative and connected directly to 11:23a, yet this seems unlikely, since Joshua’s dismissal (‫ של״ח‬piel) of the people in 24:28 (or Judg 2:6) is the narrative counterpart to his gathering (‫ )אס״ף‬of the people in 24:1 and can hardly stand alone without the latter.

Chapter 12

Conclusion 1. The Theoretical Problem and a Proposed Solution The fundamental aim of the present study has been to reevaluate the extent of pre-priestly material within the books of Exodus through Joshua following the decline – and in many quarters the abandonment – of the classical Documentary Hypothesis as the guiding methodological framework for the diachronic analysis of the Pentateuch. Among the many constraints that the Documentary Hypothesis imposes on interpreters, perhaps that of most consequence for the identification of pre-priestly materials in the Pentateuch is the (often implicit) persistence of the hypothesized order J–E–D–P for the Pentateuchal sources established by scholars such as Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen toward the end of the nineteenth century. When pushed to its logical conclusion, this relative chronology implies that the non-priestly materials in the Pentateuch – with the exception of those purportedly composed by the so-called “Pentateuch redactor” – are also pre-priestly. In certain cases, this assumption is reinforced by the fact that a number of narratives in the books of Exodus and Numbers have parallels in the framework of the book of Deuteronomy.1 Nevertheless, the use of the historical retrospectives in Deuteronomy as a benchmark for identifying pre-priestly materials in the books of Exodus and Numbers is methodologically problematic. In effect, such a procedure extrapolates Graf’s evaluation of the diachronic relationship between the Deuteronomic law and priestly literature to the book of Deuteronomy as a whole despite the fact that virtually all scholars acknowledge that the book of Deuteronomy has its own complex history of composition. Yet even if it is granted that the corpus of laws in Deut 12–26* is earlier than (or at least literarily independent of) priestly literature, this does not necessarily mean that the historical framework of Deuteronomy is



























































1 E.g., CARR, “Moses Story,” 20 writes that “the materials in Deuteronomy 1–3 provide (more and less) extended overviews of materials found in the non-P Tetrateuch, containing enough verbal parallels to support the hypothesis that the author of these materials knew some literary form of these corresponding tetrateuchal narratives prior to their combination with P.” For a similar assumption, see L. SCHMIDT, Studien, 114; JOHNSTONE, “From the Mountain,” 280; BADEN, J, E, 153–71; CARR, Formation, 122; SCHART, “Spy Story,” 164– 65; and STACKERT, Prophet, 31.

448

Chapter 12: Conclusion

also earlier than (or literarily independent of) priestly literature. Thus, the application of the siglum “D” to the book of Deuteronomy as a whole is completely unsatisfactory for the purposes of diachronic analysis.2 By extension, the fact that certain narratives from the books of Exodus and Numbers appear in the historical framework of Deuteronomy (and are thus pre-D) cannot be used as evidence that such narratives are pre-priestly. Therefore, deciding whether a given non-priestly text within the books of Exodus through Joshua is pre-priestly or post-priestly requires comparison to priestly literature itself. However, since many non-priestly texts do not make explicit use of priestly terminology and/or concepts, determining such texts’ relationship to priestly literature requires a different criterion, namely, that of narrative dependence. In other words, a non-priestly text can be evaluated as post-priestly if it can be shown to be literarily dependent on priestly or postpriestly texts in the surrounding context. Admittedly, this approach presupposes that the narratives in Exodus through Joshua largely arose through a process of supplementation rather than through the combination of originally separate, parallel narrative sources. Nevertheless, such a presupposition seems methodologically more cautious than the theory of parallel narrative sources, which is often required to reckon with the additional assumption of textual loss.

2. Synthesis and Evaluation of the Results When the results of the analyses in the preceding chapters are combined, several discrete stages in the pre-priestly literary history of the books of Exodus through Joshua emerge. These stages will be reconstructed here and evaluated in terms of their narrative coherence, literary horizon, possible historical context, and absolute date. 2.1. The earliest exodus-conquest narrative The most basic pre-priestly and pre-Deuteronomistic narrative in the books of Exodus through Joshua consists of Exod 2:1-2a, 3*, 5aα, 5bα, 6, 10aβb, 11aα, 11b-12, 15*; 3:1*, 2b-3a, 4a, 5a, 6b-7a, 10*; 4:18aα*, 20aβ; 5:1-2*; 7:1418*, 20*-21a, 24a, 26-27, 29; 8:2b, 16-17*, 20, 28; 12:29a, 30aβb, 33, (37?); 13:20; 15:22b-23a(b), 27; 16:1aα; 19:2aα2; Num 20:1aβ, 22a; 21:10b, 11a; 22:1b*; Deut 34:5*; Josh 1:1-2*; 3:1a*, 14a, 16*; 4:(11a?), 19b; 6:1-3, 4aβ, 5*, 7a*, 11*, 14a*, 14b-16aα, 20*, 21, 24a; 8:1a*, 2b(?), 10*, 11aα1*, 12*,

























































2

Against BADEN, J, E, 105, who states that Deut 1–4; 5–11; 12–26; 27–30; and 31–34 “all belong under the name ‘D’” despite his recognition that “there are different authors at work in these various sections.”

2. Synthesis and Evaluation of the Results

449

13aα*, 14a*, 19*, 21; 9:3, 6a, 8a, 15aα; 10:1aα, 1b, 3-4, 5-7*, 9a, 10aβb, 2932*, 34-40*, 42(?). In this narrative, Yhwh commissions Moses to lead the people out of Egypt and brings about the people’s departure through a series of three plagues. The people then enter the wilderness and travel around the eastern side of the Dead Sea, where Moses dies. Following Moses’ death, Yhwh instructs Joshua to lead the people across the Jordan River. Once in the land, Joshua and the people capture Jericho and Ai, Joshua makes peace with the Gibeonites, and the people go on to capture all the land in the region of Judah. In light of its parallels with the Sargon legend, the exodus narrative can be no earlier than the late eighth century. Moreover, if the exodus narrative is indeed to be interpreted as a counternarrative to the propaganda of Esarhaddon (r. 681–669 B.C.E.), as several scholars have proposed,3 then the exodus narrative can perhaps be dated even more precisely to the second quarter of the seventh century. Likewise, there are several indications that the most basic material in Josh 1–10* likely stems from the same time period. (1) The depiction of the Jordan as the eastern boundary of the land in Josh 3–4* presupposes a historical setting in which parts of Transjordan were not regarded as an integral part of Israel’s territory, reflecting a date of composition sometime after the Assyrian conquest of Transjordan in 733 B.C.E.4 (2) Parallels between Josh 6–10* and Neo-Assyrian conquest accounts also point to a terminus post quem in the late eighth or seventh century.5 (3) If the figure of Joshua is indeed a thinly veiled reference to king Josiah, as several scholars have proposed,6 these narratives can be no earlier than the late seventh century.7 Such a date of composition fits well with the geography of the most basic conquest narrative, which focuses exclusively on the territory of Benjamin and Judah.8 The most basic narrative thread reconstructed above can be read as a continuous and independent narrative. In light of its parallels to the Sargon legend, the story of Moses’ birth in Exod 2* is a plausible exposition to the exodus narrative, and the report of the conquest of the southern hill country in Josh 10* is equally plausible as the original conclusion to the conquest narratives in the book of Joshua.9 Moreover, the fact that both the exodus narrative

























































3

Cf. OTTO, “Mose,” 47–67; GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 149–240; and BIEBER“Buch Josua,” 159. 4 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, “Buch Josua,” 158–59. 5 Cf. RÖMER, So-Called Deuteronomistic History, 83–86. 6 E.g., NELSON, “Josiah,” 531–40; IDEM, Joshua, 22; RÖMER, So-Called Deuteronomistic History, 86–89; and KNAUF, Josua, 16. 7 For this dating of the conquest narratives, see NA’AMAN, “Conquest,” 281; KNAUF, Josua, 16; and EDENBURG, “Joshua 9,” 128. 8 Cf. KNAUF, “Buchschlüsse,” 219. 9 Cf. ibid., 218. STEIN,

450

Chapter 12: Conclusion

and the conquest narrative can be independently evaluated as dating to the seventh century provides further (albeit indirect) support for the possibility that these narratives belonged together already at an early stage of composition. When combined, these observations strongly support the hypothesis of an independent exodus-conquest narrative spanning from Exod 2* to Josh 10* and that is no earlier the seventh century B.C.E.10 Within this material, the shift from Moses as the leader of the people in the exodus narrative to Joshua as the leader of the people in the conquest narrative poses a potential problem in terms of narrative continuity. This problem, however, cannot be resolved simply by postulating that two originally independent narratives were juxtaposed, since on the one hand Moses’ death in Transjordan is hardly satisfactory as the conclusion to an independent exodus narrative but instead presupposes the conquest narrative in Josh 1–10*, while on the other hand the people’s location in Transjordan at the beginning of the conquest narrative is hardly understandable without the exodus narrative. In other words, inasmuch as the shift from Moses to Joshua is regarded as a narrative tension, the problem of the literary connection between the exodus and the conquest cannot be resolved on the basis of the received biblical text. Rather, any solution to this problem inevitably requires the assumption of textual loss and/or reworking and is therefore unfalsifiable. Such solutions, which are necessarily speculative, can be grouped into five major categories: (1) The classic solution to this problem is the hypothesis that the original conclusion to the exodus narrative has been replaced by the account of the conquest found in the book of Joshua.11 According to some scholars, such a view finds support in 1 Sam 12:8, which purportedly reflects an alternative eisodus tradition in which Moses brought the people into the land.12 Nevertheless, this verse poses two significant problems as evidence for an earlier eisodus narrative under Moses. First, although 1 Sam 12:8 𝔐 clearly implies that Moses and Aaron were responsible for bringing the people out of Egypt

























































10

For reconstructions spanning from Exod 2* to Josh 10*, see esp. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 341–44; KNAUF, Josua, 17; and K. SCHMID, Literaturgeschichte, 89 (ET 79). See also KRATZ, Komposition, 286–304 (ET 279–95), whose reconstructed narrative spans from Exod 2* to Josh 12*. For more general references to an exodus-conquest narrative, see MÜLLER, Königtum, 77, 231–32; BECKER, “Endredaktionelle Kontextvernetzungen,” 152; KONKEL, Sünde, 260; ZENGER, “Theorien,” 101; GERTZ (ed.), Grundinformation, 289; GERTZ et al., T&T Clark Handbook, 356–60; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 430–31; FREVEL, “Wiederkehr,” 29; and NIHAN, “Literary Relationship,” 108. 11 GOFF, “Lost Jahwistic Account,” 241–49; NOTH, ÜSt, 210; and, more recently, CARR, “Moses Story,” 31–32. See also KNAUF, Josua, 17–18, who posits an “exodus-Joshua narrative” dating to around 600 B.C.E. but also identifies an older “Moses-exodus tradition” that originated in the northern kingdom of Israel in the eighth century and that also ended in the land. 12 AHLSTRÖM, “Another Moses Tradition,” 65–69 and RÖMER, “Mose,” 204–6.

2. Synthesis and Evaluation of the Results

451

and settling them in the land in its use of plural verbs (‫וישלח ה׳ את משה ואת‬ ‫)אהרן ויוציאו את אבתיכם ממצרים וישבום במקום הזה‬, 𝔊 uses singular verbs, implying that Yhwh – not Moses and Aaron – settled the people in the land. Moreover, the reference to Aaron in this historical retrospective indicates that 1 Sam 12:8 presupposes a version of the exodus narrative that already includes priestly literature, which makes it unlikely that this verse reflects an early Moses tradition. (2) According to Reinhard Kratz, the Grundschrift of the exodus-conquest narrative was constructed on the basis of earlier, independent traditions regarding a victory over the Egyptians in Exod 14*; 15:20-21 (which, in Kratz’s view, originally had nothing to do with the exodus from Egypt) and the conquest of Jericho and Ai in Josh 6* and 8*.13 While this theory can account for the shift in protagonists from Moses to Joshua, it presupposes that the narrative of the miracle at the sea in Exod 14* belongs to the earliest literary stratum in the book of Exodus (and is indeed traditio-historically older than the exodus narrative itself), a conclusion which was challenged in the analysis of Exod 14.14 (3) According to Daniel Fleming, the exodus narrative may have reached its original conclusion with the conquest of Transjordan under Moses, reflecting an older, northern Israelite tradition.15 This theory, however, also has several weaknesses. Most significantly, it assumes that the narrative of the defeat of Sihon and Og under Moses in Deut 2 reflects a tradition that is independent of Num 21:21-31 and that did not necessarily have in view the conquest of Cisjordan under Joshua. Nevertheless, it is much more straightforward to assume that Deut 1–3 are fundamentally dependent on the narratives in the book of Numbers than to postulate parallel narratives that have otherwise been lost. In light of such considerations, then Moses’ conquest of Sihon can hardly have represented the original conclusion to the exodus narrative, since this episode is a later addition within the itinerary chain in Num 20–2116 which, in its most basic form, serves to bring the people to eastern side of the Jordan River opposite Jericho and thus presupposes the conquest of Cisjordan. (4) Another possibility is that both the exodus narrative and the conquest narrative were originally based on independent traditions and were only connected secondarily. An independent cycle of conquest stories under Joshua is indeed conceivable as a piece of political propaganda, although the remains of such a narrative would have to be sought exclusively in Josh 6–10*, since Josh 1:1-2*; 3:1a*, 14a, 16*; 4:(11a?), 19b already presuppose the notion of

























































13

KRATZ, Komposition, 304 (ET 293). Chapter 3, §2. 15 FLEMING, Legacy, 117–28. 16 Chapter 7, §7.3. 14

452

Chapter 12: Conclusion

the people entering the land from the outside. In contrast, the existence of an independent exodus narrative is somewhat more problematic: As Fleming has pointedly noted, “The exodus story by itself would be excruciatingly unsatisfying.”17 Thus, if the exodus narrative did not originally conclude with the people’s settlement of the land, then its conclusion would need to be sought in the revelation of the law at Sinai in Exod 19–24*.18 Nevertheless, such a scenario is problematic in two respects. First, the revelation of the law is likely a later insertion within the report of the people’s journey through the wilderness. Moreover, even if Exod 19–24* are assigned to the most basic exodus narrative, the conclusion of such a narrative in the wilderness is still quite unsatisfying. (5) A final possibility is that the conquest narrative in Joshua was composed as a sequel to the exodus narrative, in which case the exodus narrative would have originally been independent but the conquest narrative in Joshua would never have stood alone.19 However, such a scenario, like scenario (2), fails to address the problem of identifying a satisfactory conclusion to the exodus narrative. In short, the notion that the exodus narrative ended in the land of Israel (and more specifically Cisjordan) is practically unavoidable.20 This seems to rule out Scenarios 3, 4, and 5 and thus leaves Scenarios 1 and 2 as remaining possibilities. Nevertheless, neither of these scenarios is without its own problems. Even if the possibility cannot be ruled out that an earlier conclusion to the exodus narrative has been replaced by the conquest narratives in the book of Joshua, there is little use in speculating further on the nature of such a conclusion, for which there is no textual evidence. In any event, from a methodological point of view, the possibility of textual loss should be raised only at the end of the textual analysis and cannot be assumed from the outset.21 2.2. Pre-priestly expansions to the exodus-conquest narrative In addition to identifying the most basic narrative pre-priestly and preDeuteronomistic narrative thread in the books of Exodus through Joshua, the

























































17

FLEMING, Legacy, 117. Ibid. 19 This seems to be the view of ZENGER, “Theorien,” 101, who suggests that “die alte Exodusgeschichte durch eine Kombination mit ‘Josuageschichten’ zu einer ‘Landnahmegeschichte’ (ohne ‘Sinai’) fortgeschrieben worden sein [könnte].” 20 Cf. KNAUF, Josua, 17: “Eine Geschichte vom ‘Auszug aus Ägypten’ ist undenkbar ohne ihren Abschluss mit einem ‘Einzug in Kanaan.’” 21 Such an assumption led Noth and many subsequent followers of the Deuteronomistic History hypothesis to postulate that the most basic narrative thread in Josh 1–12* is Deuteronomistic, although the foregoing analysis of Josh 1–12 has demonstrated that this is not the case. 18

2. Synthesis and Evaluation of the Results

453

analyses conducted in the foregoing chapters also reconstructed the subsequent literary development of the individual narrative units. The following discussion will focus on the materials that were identified as later than the most basic narrative thread but still potentially pre-priestly.22 Within the book of Exodus, further potentially pre-priestly material can be identified primarily in Exod 1–2 and Exod 19–24. In Exod 1, the earliest layer of additions likely consisted of 1:6aα*, 8, 9*, (without ‫ )בני ישראל‬10* (without ‫)ועלה מן הארץ‬, 22, which serve to create a literary bridge with the Joseph story in the book of Genesis and are thus perhaps no earlier than the late sixth century. Further additions are found in Exod 1:11a(b), 12a, 15-21; 2:2b-3aα*, 4, 5aβ, 5bβ, 7-10aα(β?), 11aβ, 13-14 and likely postdate Exod 1:6aα*, 8, 9*, 10*, and 22. In Exod 19–24, further potentially pre-priestly material can be identified in the relatively brief report of the revelation of the Decalogue and the people’s commitment to obey the law in Exod 19:2b, 16aα, 16b-17; 20:1-17*; 24:3b. Within the book of Numbers, further potentially pre-priestly compositional activity is limited to the notice of the people’s departure from the mountain of God in Num 10:33a; a slight expansion of the itinerary chain in 21:11bα 1, 12, 13a* (without ‫ ;)מדבר‬a basic version of the defeat of Sihon in 21:21-24a, 25b; and the most basic version of the Balaam narrative in 22:3a, 4b-8*, 20-21*, 36a(b), 39-40a(b); 23:3-4a, 5b-6a; 24:2-6, 9b, 10bα, 11a, 25. The defeat of Sihon extends the scope of the land conquered by the people into Transjordan and thus differs from the most basic narrative of the conquest in Josh 1–10*, which imagines the Jordan as the eastern boundary of the land. 23 The most basic Balaam narrative stems from the sixth century at the earliest and quite possibly presupposes a literary connection between the books of Genesis and Exodus. Within the book of Joshua, a striking difference can be observed between the later compositional strata in Josh 1–5 and those in Josh 6–11. In Josh 1–5, all subsequent stages of composition beyond the most basic narrative thread seem to belong to a post-priestly stage of composition, while in Josh 6–11 further potentially pre-priestly material can be identified in 6:3aβb, 4aβ, 11*, 14b-16aα, 21, 24a; 8:1b-2aα(β), 3-6a, 7a(b), 8, 9a(b), 10*, 11aα2β, 11b, 13aβ, 13b, 14b, 15a, 16b, (17), 19*, 20, 22, (23), 24-25, 27, 28, (29); 9:(1-2), 8b-11,

























































22

For detailed reconstructions of the priestly and post-priestly stages in the formation of the texts analyzed in this study, see the syntheses at the end of each respective section. 23 The fact that post-priestly literary strata in the book of Joshua (still) presuppose the Jordan as the boundary of the land may suggest that the conquest of Sihon in Num 21:2124a, 25b is in fact even later than these strata and therefore post-priestly from the outset, although such a conclusion rests upon the assumption that the increasing scope of the land conquered by the Israelites corresponds directly with increasingly later stages of composition, which is not necessarily the case.

454

Chapter 12: Conclusion

15aβ, 16, 22, 24-25, 27*; 10:11, 12-14, 16-27*, 28; 11:1-2, 4-6a, 7-8, 12, 1416, 18, 19* (𝔊). Much of this material presupposes laws in the book of Deuteronomy, which suggests that the conquest narratives in Josh 6–11 underwent a relatively early post-Deuteronomic – yet still pre-priestly – reworking before Josh 1–12 as a whole were further expanded through a variety of postpriestly (and also post-Deuteronomic) materials.

3. Implications for the Formation of the Hexateuch The results of the present study have several important implications for the formation of the Pentateuch and book of Joshua: First, and perhaps most significantly, the foregoing analyses have shown that the extent of pre-priestly material in the books of Exodus through Joshua is more limited than is typically assumed. On a terminological level, this means that reference to the “non-priestly narrative(s)” in the Pentateuch is imprecise and misleading, as it implies a close compositional relationship among texts that in fact lie on opposite sides of one of the most decisive stages in the formation of the Pentateuch, namely, the integration of priestly literature into a pre-priestly narrative thread. Moreover, on a conceptual level, it indicates that the (often implicit) assignment of priestly literature to one of the latest stages in the formation of the Pentateuch – a relic of the order of the Pentateuchal sources postulated by the Neuere Urkundenhypothese (i.e., J–E– D–P) and popularized by Wellhausen – must be abandoned. Rather, the present study has shown that priestly texts were incorporated at a relatively early stage in the development of the narrative materials in Exodus through Joshua and that many of the so-called “non-priestly” texts in the books of Exodus and Numbers can be evaluated as post-priestly. The results of the present study are also of significance for reconstructing literary precursors to the Pentateuch and book of Joshua in their received, canonical shape. These results indicate that the exodus and conquest narratives were already connected to each other at a pre-priestly stage of composition, thereby challenging the view that a Tritoteuch (Genesis through Leviticus) or Tetrateuch (Genesis through Numbers) was connected to Deuteronomy and the books that follow it only at a post-priestly stage of composition24 as well as the view that the pre-priestly narratives (or sources) in the Pentateuch do not continue beyond the book of Numbers25 or Deuteronomy.26 Rather, there is strong evidence that the earliest reconstructible literary works in the books of Genesis through Joshua did not correspond to the present canon-

























































24

E.g., RÖMER, “Buch Numeri,” 220–31 and ALBERTZ, “Buch Numeri,” 338. H. H. SCHMID, Der sogenannte Jahwist, 17 and LEVIN, Jahwist, 381. 26 E.g., VAN SETERS, Life; BADEN, Composition; and STACKERT, Prophet. 25

3. Implications for the Formation of the Hexateuch

455

ical boundary between the Pentateuch and book of Joshua but instead likely consisted of an independent cycle of ancestral narratives in the book of Genesis and an originally independent exodus-conquest narrative in the books of Exodus through Joshua. Finally, the present study has significant implications for reconstructing the literary integration of the non-priestly legal corpora into the Pentateuch. The analysis of Exod 19–24 concluded that the insertion of the Decalogue (and perhaps also the Covenant Code) likely preceded the integration of priestly literature within the books of Exodus through Joshua. Whether the insertion of the Decalogue and/or the Covenant Code also preceded the insertion of the Deuteronomic law between Num 25:1 and Josh 3:1 is more difficult to determine.27 In any event, there is good reason to conclude that the Deuteronomic law was inserted into the exodus-conquest narrative at a prepriestly stage of composition,28 since neither the earliest narrative framing of the Deuteronomic law in Deut 5:1*29 nor the earliest post-Deuteronomic expansions in Josh 6–11 show any awareness of priestly literature.30



























































27 Cf. KRATZ, “Der literarische Ort,” 119, who likewise concludes that the relative date of the insertion of the Covenant Code and the Deuteronomic law within their respective narrative frameworks cannot be determined definitively. 28 Cf. KRATZ, “Der literarische Ort,” 119 against OTTO, “Integration,” 340–41 (with reference to his earlier discussions of the subject), who argues that the book of Deuteronomy was integrated into the Hexateuch/Pentateuch only at a post-priestly stage composition. 29 On this, see KRATZ, “Der literarische Ort,” 118; IDEM, “Headings,” 44. 30 Such a conclusion finds further support insofar as the earliest narrative stratum in Deut 1–3 – which postdates Deut 5:1* – may also go back to a pre-priestly stage of composition (see Chapter 7, §4).

Bibliography ACHENBACH, R., “Bündnisverbot und Mischehenverbot. Zum Banngebot in Deuteronomium 7,1-2 und seiner Wirkungsgeschichte,” in: C. BERNER / H. SAMUEL (eds.), The Reception of Biblical War Legislation in Narrative Contexts, BZAW 460, Berlin 2015, 87–108. —, “Die Erzählung von der gescheiterten Landnahme von Kadesch Barnea (Numeri 13– 14) als Schlüsseltext der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch,” ZABR 9 (2003), 56– 123. —, “Pentateuch, Hexateuch und Enneateuch: Eine Verhältnisbestimmung,” ZABR 11 (2005), 122–54. —, Die Vollendung der Tora. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch, BZABR 3, Wiesbaden 2003. ADDIS, W. E., The Documents of the Hexateuch translated and arranged in chronological order, 2 vols., London 1892–1898. AEJMELAEUS, A., “What Can We Know about the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint?” ZAW 99 (1987), 58–89. AHLSTRÖM, G. W., “Another Moses Tradition,” JNES 39 (1980), 65–69. AHUIS, F., Autorität im Umbruch. Ein formgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur Klärung der literarischen Schichtung und der zeitgeschichtlichen Bezüge von Num 16 und 17. Mit einem Ausblick auf die Diskussion um die Ämter in der Kirche, CThM.BW 13, Stuttgart 1983. —, Exodus 11,1–13,16 und die Bedeutung der Trägergruppen für das Verständnis des Passa, FRLANT 168, Göttingen 1996. —, Der klagende Gerichtsprophet. Studien zur Klage in der Überlieferung von den alttestamentlichen Gerichtspropheten, CThM.BW 12, Stuttgart 1982. ALBERS, E., Die Quellenberichte in Josua I–XII. Beitrag zur Quellenkritik des Hexateuchs, Bonn 1891. ALBERTZ, R., “Der Beginn der vorpriesterlichen Exoduskomposition (KEX ). Eine Kompositions- und Redaktionsgeschichte von Ex 1–5,” ThZ 67 (2011), 223–62. —, “Das Buch Numeri jenseits der Quellentheorie. Eine Redaktionsgeschichte von Num 20–24,” ZAW 123 (2011), 171–83, 336–47. —, “Ex 33,7-11, ein Schlüsseltext für die Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch,” BN (NF) 149 (2011), 13–43. —, Exodus. Band I: Ex 1–18, ZBK, Zurich 2012. —, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, trans. J. BOWDEN, OTL, Louisville (KY) 1994. —, “Die kanonische Anpassung des Josuabuches. Eine Neubewertung seiner sogenannten ‘priesterschriftlichen Texte,’” in: T. RÖMER / K. SCHMID (eds.), Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque, BETL 203, Leuven 2007, 199–216.

458

Bibliography

ANBAR, M., Josué et l’alliance de Sichem, BBET 25, Frankfurt 1992. ARTUS, O., Études sur le livre de Nombres: Récit, histoire et loi en Nb 13,1–20,13, OBO 157, Fribourg / Göttingen 1997. ASSIS, E., From Moses to Joshua and from the Miraculous to the Ordinary: A Literary Analysis of the Conquest Narrative in the Book of Joshua, Jerusalem 2005 [Hebrew]. —, “The Story of the Sin at Kadesh and the Book of Joshua,” JANES 31 (2009), 1–14. AULD, A. G., Joshua: Jesus Son of Nauē in Codex Vaticanus, Septuagint Commentary Series 1, Leiden 2005. —, Joshua, Moses and the Land: Tetrateuch – Pentateuch – Hexateuch in a Generation since 1938, Edinburgh 1980. —, “Joshua: The Hebrew and Greek Texts,” in: J. A. EMERTON (ed.), Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament, VTSup 30 (1979); repr. in: IDEM, Joshua Retold: Synoptic Perspectives, OTS, Edinburgh 1998, 7–18. —, “Reading Joshua after Kings,” in: G. HARVEY / J. DAVIES / W. G. E. WATSON (eds.), Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Essays in Honour of John F. Sawyer, Sheffield 1995, 167–81. AURELIUS, E., Der Fürbitter Israels. Eine Studie zum Mosebild im Alten Testament, ConBOT 27, Stockholm 1988. —, “Der Ursprung des Ersten Gebots,” ZTK 100 (2003), 1–21. —, “Zur Entstehung von Josua 23–24,” in: J. PAKKALA / M. NISSINEN (eds.), Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola, Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 95, Helsinki / Göttingen 2008, 95–114. BADEN, J. S., The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis, AYBRL, New Haven 2012. —, “From Joseph to Moses: The Narratives of Exodus 1–2,” VT 62 (2012), 133–58. —, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, FAT 68, Tübingen 2009. —, “The Narratives of Numbers 20–21,” CBQ 76 (2014), 634–52. —, “The Original Place of the Priestly Manna Story in Exodus 16,” ZAW 122 (2010), 491– 504. —, “Source Stratification, Secondary Additions, and the Documentary Hypothesis in the Book of Numbers: The Case of Numbers 17,” in: C. FREVEL / T. POLA / A. SCHART (eds.), Torah and the Book of Numbers, FAT II/62, Tübingen 2013, 233–47. BAENTSCH, B., Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri, HKAT I/2, Göttingen 1903. BAR-ON, S., “The Festival Calendars in Exodus xxii 14-19 and xxxiv 18-26,” VT 48 (1998), 161–95. —, “Zur literarkritischen Analyse von Ex 12,21-27,” ZAW 107 (1995), 18–31. BARTLETT, J. R., “The Conquest of Sihon’s Kingdom: A Literary Re-Examination,” JBL 97 (1978), 347–51. —, Edom and the Edomites, JSOTSup 77, Sheffield 1989. —, “The Historical Reference of Numbers XXI. 27-30,” PEQ 101 (1969), 94–100. —, “Sihon and Og, Kings of the Amorites,” VT 20 (1970), 257–77. BECKER, U., “Endredaktionelle Kontextvernetzungen des Josua-Buches,” in: M. WITTE / K. SCHMID / D. PRECHEL / J. C. GERTZ (eds.), Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke. Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten, BZAW 365, Berlin 2006, 139–61. —, Richterzeit und Königtum. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Richterbuch, BZAW 192, Berlin 1990.

Bibliography

459

BEGG, C. T., “The Destruction of the Calf (Exod 32,30/Deut 9,21),” in: N. LOHFINK / S. AMSLER (eds.), Das Deuteronomium. Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft, BETL 68, Leuven 1985, 208–51. —, “The Function of Josh 7.1–8.29 in the Deuteronomistic History,” Bib 67 (1986), 320– 34. VAN BEKKUM, K., From Conquest to Coexistence: Ideology and Antiquarian Intent in the Historiography of Israel’s Settlement in Canaan, CHANE 45, Leiden 2011. BERLEJUNG, A., Die Theologie der Bilder. Herstellung und Einweihung von Kultbildern in Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche Bilderpolemik, OBO 162, Freiburg 1998. BERNER, C., “Die eherne Schlange. Zum literarischen Ursprung eines ‘mosiaschen’ Artefakts,” ZAW 124 (2012), 341–55. —, Die Exoduserzählung. Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungslegende Israels, FAT 73, Tübingen 2010. —, “Gab es einen vorpriesterschriftlichen Meerwunderbericht?,” Bib 95 (2014), 1–25. —, “The Gibeonite Deception: Reflections on the Interplay between Law and Narrative in Josh 9,” SJOT 31 (2017), 254–74. —, “Der literarische Charakter der Priesterschrift in der Exoduserzählung,” in: F. HARTENSTEIN / K. SCHMID (eds.), Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte, VWGTh 40, Leipzig 2015, 94–133. —, “The Redaction History of the Sinai Pericope (Exod 19–24) and its Continuation in 4Q158,” DSD 20 (2013), 376–407. —, “Der Sabbat in der Mannaerzählung Ex 16 und in den priesterlichen Partien des Pentateuch,” ZAW 128 (2016), 562–78. —, “Vom Aufstand Datans und Abirams zum Aufbegehren der 250 Männer. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Anfängen der literarischen Genese von Num 16–17,” BN 150 (2011), 9–33. —, “Das Wasserwunder von Rephidim (Ex 17,1-7) als Schlüsseltext eines nachpriesterschriftlichen Mosebildes,” VT 63 (2013), 193–209. —, “Wie Laien zu Leviten wurden. Zum Ort der Korachbearbeitung innerhalb der Redaktionsgeschichte von Num 16–17,” BN 152 (2012), 3–28. BERTHEAU, E., Das Buch der Richter und Ruth, 2d ed., HAT, Leipzig 1883. BERTHOLET, A., “Josua, Josuabuch,” RGG2, Tübingen 1927–1931, 3:384–85. BEYERLIN, W., Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions, Oxford 1965; trans. of Herkunft und Geschichte der ältesten Sinaitraditionen, Tübingen 1961. BICKERT, R., “Israel im Lande Moab. Die Stellung der Bileamerzählung Num 22–24 in ihrem redaktionellen Kontext,” ZAW 121 (2009), 189–210. BIEBERSTEIN, K., “Das Buch Josua und seine Horizonte,” in: H.-J. STIPP (ed.), Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, ÖBS 39, Frankfurt 2011, 151–76. —, Josua – Jordan – Jericho. Archäologie, Geschichte und Theologie der Landnahmeerzählungen Josua 1–6, OBO 143, Fribourg / Göttingen 1995. BLEEK, F., “Einige aphoristische Bemerkungen zu den Untersuchungen über den Pentateuch,” in: Biblisch-Exegetisches Repertorium, oder die neuesten Fortschritte in Erklärung der heiligen Schrift, Bd. 1, Leipzig 1822, 1–79. BLENKINSOPP, J., “Are There Traces of the Gibeonite Covenant in Deuteronomy?,” CBQ 28 (1966), 207–19. —, Gibeon and Israel: The Role of Gibeon and the Gibeonites in the Political and Religious History of Early Israel, SOTSMS 2, Cambridge 1972. —, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, ABRL, New York 1992.

460

Bibliography

—, “The Structure of P,” CBQ 38 (1976), 275–92. BLUM, E., “Beschneidung und Passa in Kanaan. Beobachtungen und Mutmaßungen zu Jos 5,” in: C. HARDMEIER (ed.), Freiheit und Recht. Festschrift für Frank Crüsemann, Gütersloh 2003, 292–322; repr. in: W. OSWALD (ed.), Textgestalt und Komposition. Exegetische Beiträge zu Tora und Vordere Propheten, FAT 69, Tübingen 2010, 219–48. —, “Die Feuersäule in Exod 13–14—Eine Spur der ‘Endredaktion’?,” in: R. ROUKEMA (ed.), The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman, Leuven 2006, 117–37; repr. in: W. OSWALD (ed.), Textgestalt und Komposition. Exegetische Beiträge zu Tora und Vordere Propheten, FAT 69, Tübingen 2010, 137–56. —, “Israel à la montagne de Dieu: Remarques sur Ex 19–24; 32–34 et sur le contexte littéraire et historique de sa composition,” in: A. DE PURY (ed.), Le Pentateuque en question: les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes, MdB 19, Geneva 1989, 271–95. —, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte, WMANT 57, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1984. —, “Der kompositionelle Knoten am Übergang von Josua zu Richter. Ein Entflechtungsvorschlag,” in: M. VERVENNE / J. LUST (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans, BETL 133, Leuven 1997, 181–212; repr. in: W. OSWALD (ed.), Textgestalt und Komposition. Exegetische Beiträge zu Tora und Vordere Propheten, FAT 69, Tübingen 2010, 249–58. —, “Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus. Ein Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen,” in: J. C. GERTZ / K. SCHMID / M. WITTE (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion, BZAW 315, Berlin 2002, 119–56. —, “The Literary Connection between the Books of Genesis and Exodus and the End of the Book of Joshua,” in: T. B. DOZEMAN / K. SCHMID (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, SBLSymS 34, Atlanta 2006, 89–106. —, “Pentateuch – Hexateuch – Enneateuch? oder: Woran erkennt man ein literarisches Werk in der hebräischen Bibel?” in: T. RÖMER / K. SCHMID (eds.), Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque, BETL 203, Leuven 2007, 67–97; English trans.: “Pentateuch – Hexateuch – Enneateuch? Or: How Can One Recognize a Literary Work in the Hebrew Bible,” in: T. B. DOZEMAN / T. RÖMER / K. SCHMID (eds.), Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings, AIL 8, Atlanta 2011, 43–71. —, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189, Berlin 1990. —, “Überlegungen zur Kompositionsgeschichte des Josuabuches,” in: E. NOORT (ed.), The Book of Joshua, BETL 250, Leuven 2012, 137–58. —, “Zwischen Literarkritik und Stilkritik. Die diachrone Analyse der literarischen Verbindung von Genesis und Exodus – im Gespräch mit Ludwig Schmidt,” ZAW 124 (2012), 492–515. BÖHLER, D., Jiftach und die Tora. Eine intertextuelle Auslegung von Ri 10,6–12,7, ÖBS 34, Frankfurt 2008. BOLING, R. G., The Early Biblical Community in Transjordan, SWBA 6, Sheffield 1988. —, Judges, AB 6A, New York 1975. BOLING, R. G. / WRIGHT, G. E., Joshua: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 6, Garden City (NY) 1982. BOORER, S., The Promise of the Land as Oath: A Key to the Formation of the Pentateuch, BZAW 205, Berlin 1992.

Bibliography

461

BRAULIK, G., “Die deuteronomistische Landeroberungserzählung aus der Joschijazeit in Deuteronomium und Josua,” in: H.-J. STIPP (ed.), Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, ÖBS 39, Frankfurt 2011, 89–150. BREKELMANS, C., “Joshua V 10-12: Another Approach,” in: A. S. VAN DER WOUDE (ed.), New Avenues in the Study of the Old Testament: A Collection of Old Testament Studies Published on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap and the Retirement of Prof. Dr. M. J. Mulder, OTS 25, Leiden 1989, 89–95. —, “Joshua XXIV: Its Place and Function,” in: J. A. EMERTON (ed.), Congress Volume Leuven, 1989, VTSup 43, Leiden 1991, 1–9. BRENNER, M. L., The Song of the Sea: Ex. 15:1-21, BZAW 195, Berlin 1991. BRICHTO, H. C., “The Worship of the Golden Calf: A Literary Analysis of a Fable on Idolatry,” HUCA 54 (1983), 1–44. BRIEND, J., “Gabaon à l’époque perse,” Transeu 5 (1992), 9–20. —, “Israël et les gabaonites,” in: E. M. LAPERROUSAZ (ed.), La protohistoire d’Israël, Paris 1990, 121–82. —, “Jéricho dans la Bible: Une liturgie autour de Jéricho,” MdB 69 (1991), 25–28. —, “Josué 10: Une conquête en morceaux,” FoiVie 97 (1998), 55–65. —, “Les sources de l’histoire deutéronomique: Recherches sur Jos 1–12,” in: A. DE PURY / T. RÖMER / J.-D.-MACCHI (eds.), Israël construit son histoire: L’historiographie deutéronomiste à la lumière des recherches récentes, MdB 34, Geneva 1996, 343–74; English trans.: “The Sources of the Deuteronomistic History: Research on Joshua 1–12,” in: A. DE PURY / T. RÖMER / J.-D.-MACCHI (eds.), Israel Constructs its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research, JSOTSup 306, Sheffield 2000, 360–86. BRON, F., “Guerre et conquête dans le Yémen préislamique,” in: L. N EHMÉ (ed.), Guerre et conquête dans le proche-orient ancien: Actes de la table ronde du 15 novembre 1998 organisée par l’URA 1062, “Études Sémitiques,” Antiquités Sémitiques 4, Paris 1999, 143–48. BROOKE, A. E. / MCLEAN, N., The Old Testament in Greek, according to the text of Codex Vaticanus, supplemented from other uncial manuscripts, with a critical apparatus containing the variants of the chief ancient authorities for the text of the Septuagint, 3 vols., Cambridge 1906–1940. BUDD, P. J., Numbers, WBC 5, Waco (TX) 1984. BÜHRER, W., “Die zweifache Nachgeschichte Bileams,” ZAW 128 (2016), 594–611. BURNEY, C. F., The Book of Judges, with Introduction and Notes, and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings: With and Introduction and Appendix, LBS, New York 1970. BUTLER, T. C., Joshua, WBC 7, Waco (TX) 1983. CAMPBELL, A. F., “The Growth of Joshua 1–12 and the Theology of Extermination,” in: W. KIM / M. H. FLOYD / M. A. SWEENEY (eds.), Reading the Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept, and Theological Perspective. Volume 2: Exegetical and Theological Studies, SAC, Harrisburg (PA) 2000, 72–88. CARPENTER, E., “Exodus 18: Its Structure, Style, Motifs and Functions in the Book of Exodus,” in: IDEM (ed.), A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form, and Content. Essays in Honor of George W. Coats, JSOTSup 240, Sheffield 1997, 91–108. CARPENTER, J. E., The Composition of the Hexateuch: An Introduction with Select Lists of Words and Phrases, London 1902. CARR, D. M., The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction, New York 2011.

462

Bibliography

—, “Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives,” in: A. WÉNIN (ed.), Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction, and History, BETL 155, Leuven 2001, 273–95. —, “The Moses Story: Literary-Historical Reflections,” HBAI 1 (2012), 7–36. —, “Scribal Processes of Coordination/Harmonization and the Formation of the First Hexateuch(s),” in: T. B. DOZEMAN / K. SCHMID / B. J. SCHWARTZ (eds.), The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, FAT 78, Tübingen 2011, 63– 83. —, “What is Required to Identify Pre-Priestly Narrative Connections between Genesis and Exodus? Some General Reflections and Specific Cases,” in: T. B. DOZEMAN / K. SCHMID (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, SBLSymS 34, Atlanta 2006, 159–80. CASSUTO, U., A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, Jerusalem 1967. CAZELLES, H., “Alliance du Sinaï, alliance de l’Horeb et renouvellement de l’alliance,” in: H. DONNER / R. HANHART / R. SMEND (eds.), Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie. Festschrift W. Zimmerli, Göttingen 1977, 69–79; repr. in: H. CAZELLES, Autour de l’Exode (Études), Paris 1987, 299–309. —, “‘Royaume de prêtres et nation consacrée’ (Ex XIX,6),” in: C. KANNENGIESSER / Y. MARCHASSON (eds.), Humanisme et foi chrétienne: Mélanges scientifiques du centenaire de l’Institut Catholique de Paris, Paris 1976, 541–45; repr. in: H. CAZELLES, Autour de l’Exode (Études), Paris 1987, 289–94. CHILDS, B. S., Exodus: A Commentary, OTL, London 1974. CHUNG, Y. H., The Sin of the Calf: The Rise of the Bible’s Negative Attitude Toward the Golden Calf, LHBOTS 523, London 2010. CLEMENTS, R. E., “Achan’s Sin: Warfare and Holiness,” in: D. PENCHANSKY / P. L. REDDITT (eds.), Shall Not the Judge of All the Earth Do What is Right? Studies on the Nature of God in Tribute to James L. Crenshaw, Winona Lake (IN) 2000, 113–26. COATS, G. W., “The Ark of the Covenant in Joshua: A Probe into the History of a Tradition,” HAR 9 (1985), 137–57. —, “Conquest Traditions in the Wilderness Theme,” JBL 95 (1976), 177–90. —, “Moses versus Amalek: Aetiology and Legend in Exod. XVII 8-16,” in Congress Volume: Edinburgh 1974, VTSup 28, Leiden 1975, 29–41. —, Rebellion in the Wilderness: The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditions of the Old Testament, Nashville 1968. —, “The Wilderness Itinerary,” CBQ 34 (1972), 135–52. COLENSO, J. W., The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, 7 vols., London 1862–1870. COOKE, G. A., The Book of Joshua: In the Revised Version, with introduction and notes, Cambridge 1918. CORNHILL, C. H., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 3d ed., Grundriss der Theologischen Wissenschaft 2/1, Freiburg 1896. CORTESE, E., Josua 13–21. Ein priesterschriftlicher Abschnitt im deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, OBO 94, Fribourg / Göttingen 1990. CROSS, F. M., “The Epic Traditions of Early Israel: Epic Narrative and the Reconstruction of Early Israelite Institutions,” in: R. E. FRIEDMAN (ed.), The Poet and the Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism, HSS 26, Chico (CA) 1983, 13–39. —, “The Priestly Work,” in: IDEM, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Cambridge (MA) 1973, 293–325. CROSS, F. M. / FREEDMAN, D. N., “The Song of Miriam,” JNES 14 (1955), 237–50.

Bibliography

463

—, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, SBLDS 21, Missoula (MT) 1975; repr. Grand Rapids (MI) 1997. CROUCH, C. L., War and Ethics in the Ancient Near East: Military Violence in Light of Cosmology and History, BZAW 407, Berlin 2009. CRÜSEMANN, F., “Der Exodus als Heiligung. Zur rechtsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung des Heiligkeitsgesetzes,” in: E. BLUM / C. MACHOLZ / E. W. STEGEMANN (eds.), Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990, 117–29. —, Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Israel, WMANT 32, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969. —, Die Tora. Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes, Munich 1992; English trans.: The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law, Minneapolis 1996. DAHMEN, U., Leviten und Priester im Deuteronomium. Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien, BBB 110, Bodenheim 1996. DAVIES, G. I., The Way of the Wilderness: A Geographical Study of the Wilderness Itineraries in the Old Testament, SOTSMS 5, Cambridge 1979. —, “The Wilderness Itineraries: A Comparative Study,” TynBul 25 (1974), 46–81. —, “The Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch,” VT 33 (1983), 1– 13. DAY, P. L., An Adversary in Heaven: ŚĀṬĀN in the Hebrew Bible, HSM 43, Atlanta 1988. DEARMAN, J. A., “Historical Reconstruction and the Mesha Inscription,” in: IDEM, Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, SBLABS 2, Atlanta 1989, 155–210. DIETRICH, W., “Achans Diebstahl (Jos 7). Eine Kriminalgeschichte aus frühpersischer Zeit,” in: F. HARTENSTEIN / M. PIETSCH (eds.), “Sieben Augen auf einem Stein” (Sach 3,9). Festschrift I. Willi-Plein, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2007, 58–67. —, “The ‘Ban’ in the Age of the Early Kings,” in: V. FRITZ / P. R. DAVIES (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States, JSOTSup 228, Sheffield 1996, 196–210. DILLMANN, A., Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, HAT 13, Leipzig 1886. DOAK, B., The Last of the Rephaim: Conquest and Cataclysm in the Heroic Ages of Ancient Israel, Ilex Foundation Series 7, Boston 2012. DOHMEN, C., Das Bilderverbot. Seine Entstehung und seine Entwicklung im Alten Testament, BBB 62, Bonn 1985. —, “‘Eifersüchtiger ist sein Name’ (Ex 34,14). Ursprung und Bedeutung der alttestamentliche Rede von Gottes Eifersucht,” TZ 46 (1990), 289–304. —, Exodus 19–40, HTKAT, Freiburg 2004. —, “Der Sinaibund als Neuer Bund nach Ex 19–34,” in: C. DOHMEN / E. ZENGER (eds.), Der Neue Bund im Alten. Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente, QD 146, Freiburg 1993, 51–83. —, “Was stand auf den Tafeln von Sinai und was auf denen vom Horeb?,” in: F.-L. HOSSFELD (ed.), Vom Sinai zum Horeb. Stationen alttestamentlicher Glaubensgeschichte, Würzburg 1989, 9–50. DONNER, H., “Mitteilungen zur Topographie des Ostjordanlandes anhand der Mosaikkarte von Mādebā,” ZDPV 98 (1982), 174–91. —, “Die Verwerfung des Königs Saul,” in: IDEM, Aufsätze zum Alten Testament. Aus vier Jahrzehnten, BZAW 224, Berlin 1994, 133–64. DONNER, H. / RÖLLIG, W., Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, 2d ed., 3 vols., Wiesbaden 1966–1969. DOZEMAN, T. B., Commentary on Exodus, ECC, Grand Rapids 2009.

464

Bibliography

—, “The Composition of Ex 32 within the Context of the Enneateuch,” in: M. BECK / U. SCHORN (eds.), Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt von Genesis bis II Regum. Festschrift Hans-Christoph Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag, BZAW 370, Berlin 2006, 175–89. —, “Geography and Ideology in the Wilderness Journey from Kadesh through the Transjordan,” in: J. C. GERTZ / K. SCHMID / M. WITTE (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion, BZAW 315, Berlin 2002, 173–89. —, God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology and Canon in Exodus 19–24, SBLMS 37, Atlanta 1989. —, “Joshua 1,1-9: The Beginning of a Book or a Literary Bridge?,” in: E. Noort (ed.), The Book of Joshua, BETL 250, Leuven 2012, 159–82. —, Joshua 1–12: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 6B, New Haven 2015. —, “The Priestly Wilderness Itineraries and the Composition of the Pentateuch,” in: T. B. DOZEMAN / K. SCHMID / B. J. SCHWARTZ (eds.), The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, FAT 78, Tübingen 2011, 257–88. —, “The Song of the Sea and Salvation History,” in: S. L. COOK / S. C. WINTER (eds.), On the Way to Nineveh: Studies in Honor of George M. Landes, ASOR Books 4, Atlanta 1999, 94–113. —, “The yam-sûp in the Exodus Tradition and the Crossing of the Jordan River,” CBQ 58 (1996), 407–16. DRIVER, S. R., Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, International Theological Library 1, New York 1891. DURHAM, J. I., Exodus, WBC, Waco (TX) 1987. DUS, J., “Die Analyse zweier Ladeerzählungen des Josuabuches (Jos 3–4 und 6),” ZAW 72 (1960), 107–34. EBACH, J., Genesis 37–50, HTKAT, Freiburg 2007. EDENBURG, C., Dismembering the Whole: Composition and Purpose of Judges 19–21, AIL 24, Atlanta 2016. —, “Joshua 9 and Deuteronomy, an Intertextual Conundrum: The Chicken or the Egg?” in: K. SCHMID / R. F. PERSON, Jr. (eds.), Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History, FAT II/56, Tübingen 2012, 115–32. —, “Paradigm, Illustrative Narrative or Midrash: the Case of Josh 7–8 and Deuteronomic/istic Law,” in: C. BERNER / H. SAMUEL (eds.), The Reception of Biblical War Legislation in Narrative Contexts, BZAW 460, Berlin 2015, 123–37. EHRLICH, A. B., Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, Bd. 2. Leviticus, Numeri, Deuteronomium, Leipzig 1909. EISSFELDT, O., “Deuteronomium und Hexateuch,” MIOF 12 (1966), 17–39; repr. in: R. SELLHEIM / F. MAASS (eds.), Kleine Schriften, Tübingen 1968, 4:238–58. —, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 3d ed., Tübingen 1964; English trans.: The Old Testament: An Introduction, New York 1965. —, 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 samt einer in Einleitung und Anmerkungen gegebenen Begründung, Leipzig 1922; repr. Darmstadt 1962. EWALD, H., Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis Christus, 3 vols., Göttingen 1843–1852; 2d ed. 1851; 3d ed. 1864. —, Review of J. J. Stähelin, Kritische Untersuchungen über die Genesis, TSK 4 (1831), 595–606.

Bibliography

465

FABRY, H.-J., “Spuren des Pentateuchredaktors in Jos 4,21ff. Anmerkungen zur Deuteronomismus-Rezeption,” in: N. LOHFINK / S. AMSLER (eds.), Das Deuteronomium. Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft, BETL 68, Leuven 1985, 351–56. FERNÁNDEZ, A., “El atentado de Gabaa (Crítica histórico-literaria de Jud. 19–21),” Bib 12 (1931), 297–315. FINKELSTEIN, I., “The Wilderness Narrative and Itineraries and the Evolution of the Exodus Tradition,” in: T. E. LEVY / T. SCHNEIDER / W. H. C. PROPP (eds.), Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience, Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences, Cham 2015, 39–53. FINSTERBUSCH, K., Deuteronomium. Eine Einführung, UTB 3626, Göttingen 2012. FISHBANE, M., Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford 1985. FLEMING, D. E., The Legacy of Israel in Judah’s Bible, Cambridge 2012. —, “The Seven-Day Siege of Jericho in Holy War,” in: R. CHAZAN / W. W. HALLO / L. H. SCHIFFMAN (eds.), Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine, Winona Lake (IN) 1999, 211–28. FLOSS, J. P., Kunden oder Kundschafter? Literaturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung zu Jos 2: I. Text, Schichtung, Überlieferung, ATSAT 16, St. Ottilien 1982; II: Komposition, Redaktion, Intention, ATSAT 26, St. Ottilien 1986. FOCKEN, F.-E., Zwischen Landnahme und Königtum. Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Anfang und Ende der deuteronomistischen Richtererzählungen, FRLANT 258, Göttingen 2014. FOHRER, G., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Heidelberg 1965. —, “‘Priesterliches Königtum’: Ex. 19,6,” TZ 19 (1963), 359–62. —, Überlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus. Eine Analyse von Ex 1–15, BZAW 91, Berlin 1964. FOHRER, G. / SELLIN, E., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1969. FRANKEL, D., The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School, VTSup 89, Leiden 2002. FREVEL, C., Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch YHWHs. Beiträge zu literarischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion, 2 vols., BBB 94, Weinheim 1995. —, “‘Jetzt habe ich erkannt, dass YHWH größer ist als alle Götter.’ Ex 18 und seine kompositionsgeschichtliche Stellung im Pentateuch,” BZ 47 (2003), 3–22. —, “Understanding the Pentateuch by Structuring the Desert: Num 21 as Compositional Joint,” in: J. VAN RUITEN / J. C. DE VOS (eds.), The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort, VTSup 124, Leiden 2009, 111–35. —, “Die Wiederkehr der Hexateuchperspektive. Eine Herausforderung für die These vom deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk,” in: H.-J. STIPP (ed.), Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, ÖBS 39, Frankfurt 2011, 13–53. FRIEDMAN, R. E., The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses, New York 2003. FRITZ, V., Das Buch Josua, HAT I/7, Tübingen 1994. —, Die Entstehung Israels im 12. und 11. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Biblische Enzyklopädie 2, Stuttgart 1996. —, Israel in der Wüste. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Wüstenüberlieferung des Jahwisten, MThSt 7, Marburg 1970. —, “Jahwe und El in den vorpriesterschriftlichen Geschichtswerken,” in: I. KOTTSIEPER (ed.), “Wer ist wie du, Herr, unter den Göttern?” Studien zur Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels für Otto Kaiser zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1994, 111–26.

466

Bibliography

—, “Die sogenannte Liste der besiegten Könige in Josua 12,” ZDPV 85 (1969), 136–61. —, Tempel und Zelt. Studien zum Tempelbau in Israel und zu dem Zeltheiligtum der Priesterschrift, WMANT 47, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1977. VON GALL, A. F., “Zusammensetzung und Herkunft der Bileamperikope,” in: W. D IEHL (ed.), Festgruss Bernhard Stade zur Feier seiner 25 jährigen Wirksamkeit als Professor dargebracht, Giessen 1900, 2–47. GARCÍA-LÓPEZ, F., “Analyse littéraire de Deutéronome V–XI,” RB 84 (1977), 481–522; 85 (1978), 5–49. GASS, E., “Ein Stern geht auf aus Jakob”. Sprach- und literaturwissenschaftliche Analyse der Bileampoesie, ATSAT 69, St. Ottilien 2001. GEDDES, A., The Holy Bible, or The Books Accounted Sacred by Jews and Christians; otherwise called the Books of the Old and New Covenants: Faithfully Translated from Corrected Texts of the Originals. With Various Readings, Explanatory Notes, and Critical Remarks, 2 vols., London 1792. GERHARDS, M., Die Aussetzungsgeschichte des Mose. Literar- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Schlüsseltext des nichtpriesterlichen Tetrateuch, WMANT 109, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2006. GERMANY, S., “The Compositional Horizon of the Verb yarash (qal and hiphil) in Deuteronomy and Joshua: A Re-evaluation,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL, Atlanta, November 2015. GERTZ, J. C., “Beobachtungen zu Komposition und Redaktion in Exodus 32–34,” in: M. KÖCKERT / E. BLUM (eds.), Gottes Volk am Sinai. Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10, VWGTh 18, Gütersloh 2001, 88–106. —, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung. Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch, FRLANT 186, Göttingen 2000. —, “Zusammenhang, Trennung und Selbständigkeit der Bücher Genesis und Exodus im priesterlichen und nachpriesterlichen Pentateuch,” in: F. GIUNTOLI / K. SCHMID (eds.), The Post-Priestly Pentateuch: New Perspectives on its Redactional Development and Theological Profiles, FAT 101, Tübingen 2015, 233–51. GERTZ, J. C. (ed.), Grundinformation Altes Testament. Eine Einführung in Literatur, Religion und Geschichte des Alten Testaments, UTB 2745, 3d ed., Göttingen 2009. GERTZ, J. C. et al., T&T Clark Handbook of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Literature, Religion and History of the Old Testament, London 2012. GESUNDHEIT, S., “Die Midrasch-Exegese im Dienst der Literarkritik. Zum Beispiel: Krieg und Frieden in Dtn 2,24-32,” in: C. MAIER (ed.), Congress Volume: Munich 2013, VTSup 163, Leiden 2014, 111–24; English trans.: “Midrash-Exegesis in the Service of Literary Criticism,” in: C. BERNER / H. SAMUEL (eds.), The Reception of Biblical War Legislation in Narrative Contexts, BZAW 460, Berlin 2015, 73–86. —, Three Times a Year: Studies on Festival Legislation in the Pentateuch, FAT 82, Tübingen, 2012. GILDERS, W. K., Blood Ritual in the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power, Baltimore 2004. GLATT-GILAD, D. A., “The Re-Interpretation of the Edomite-Israelite Encounter in Deuteronomy ii,” VT 47 (1997), 441–55. GOFF, B. L., “The Lost Jahwistic Account of the Conquest of Canaan,” JBL 53 (1934), 241–49. GÖRG, M., Josua, NEchtB 26, Würzburg 1991. —, Richter, NEchtB 31, Würzburg 1993. —, Das Zelt der Begegnung. Untersuchung zur Gestalt der sakralen Zelttraditionen Altisraels, BBB 27, Bonn 1967.

Bibliography

467

GRAF, K. H., Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments. Zwei historisch-kritische Untersuchungen, Leipzig 1866. —, “Die s.g. Grundschrift des Pentateuchs,” AWEAT 1 (1869), 466–77. GRÄTZ, S., “Jiftach und seine Tochter,” in: P. MOMMER / A. SCHERER (eds.), Geschichte Israels und deuteronomistisches Geschichtsdenken. Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Winfried Thiel, AOAT 380, Münster 2010, 119–34. GRAY, G. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers, ICC 4, Edinburgh 1903. GRAY, J., Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, NCBC, Grand Rapids 1986. GREENBERG, M., “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law,” in: M. HARAN (ed.), Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume: Studies in Bible and Jewish Religion, Jerusalem 1960, 5–28. GREENSPOON, L. J., “The Qumran Fragments of Joshua: Which Puzzle are they Part of and Where Do they Fit?,” in: G. J. BROOKE / B. LINDERS (eds.), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and its Relation to the Dead Sea Srolls and Other Writings, Manchester, 1990, SBLSCS 33, Atlanta 1992, 159–94. —, Textual Studies in the Book of Joshua, HSM 28, Chico (CA) 1983. GRESSMANN, H., Mose und seine Zeit. Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-Sagen, Göttingen 1913. GROSS, W., Bileam. Literar- und formkritische Untersuchung der Prosa in Num 22–24, SANT 38, Munich 1974. —, Richter, HTKAT, Freiburg 2009. —, “Die Wolkensäule und die Feuersäule in Ex 13+14. Literarkritische, redaktionsgeschichtliche und quellenkritische Erwägungen,” in: G. BRAULIK et al. (eds.), Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel. Für Norbert Lohfink SJ, Freiburg 1993, 142– 65. —, Zukunft für Israel. Alttestamentliche Bundeskonzepte und die aktuelle Debatte um den Neuen Bund, SBS 176, Stuttgart 1998. GUILLAUME, P., “Une traversée qui n’en finit pas (Josué 3–4),” FoiVie 97 (1998), 21–32. GUNNEWEG, A. H. J., “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. HAARMANN, V., JHWH-Verehrer der Völker. Die Hinwendung von Nichtisraeliten zum Gott Israels in alttestamentlichen Überlieferungen, ATANT 91, Zurich 2008. HAHN, J., Das “Goldene Kalb.” Die Jahwe-Verehrung bei Stierbildern in Geschichte Israels, EHS.T 154, Frankfurt 1981. HALBE, J., “Gibeon und Israel,” VT 25 (1975), 613–41. —, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes. Ex 34,10-26. Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken in vordeuteronomistischer Zeit, FRLANT 114, Göttingen 1975. HALL, S. L., Conquering Character: The Characterization of Joshua in Joshua 1–11, LHBOTS 512, New York 2010. HANSON, P. D., “The Song of Heshbon and David’s Nīr,” HTR 61 (1968), 297–320. HART, S., “Some Preliminary Thoughts on Settlement in Southern Edom,” Levant 19 (1986), 51–58. HARTENSTEIN, F., “Das ‘Angesicht Gottes’ in Exodus 32–34,” in: M. KÖCKERT / E. BLUM (eds.), Gottes Volk am Sinai. Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10, VWGTh 18, Gütersloh 2001, 157–83. HARVEY, J. E., Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic Historian’s Use of Tetrateuchal Narratives, JSOTSup 403, London 2004.

468

Bibliography

HAWK, L. D., “Conquest Reconfigured: Recasting Warfare in the Redaction of Joshua,” in: B. E. KELLE / F. R. AMES (eds.), Writing and Reading War: Rhetoric, Gender, and Ethics in the Biblical and Modern Contexts, SBLSymS 42, Atlanta 2008, 145–60. HAYES, C. E., “Golden Calf Stories: The Relationship of Exodus 32 and Deuteronomy 9– 10,” in: H. NAJMAN / J. H. NEWMAN (eds.), The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, JSJSup 83, Leiden 2004, 45–94. HECKL, R., Moses Vermächtnis. Kohärenz, literarische Intention und Funktion von Dtn 1– 3, AzBG 9, Leipzig 2004. HENTSCHEL, G., “‘Alle sind heilig – die ganze Gemeinde.’ Zur Auseinandersetzung um das alttestamentliche Priestertum in Num 16,” in: W. BEINERT et al. (eds.), Unterwegs zum einen Glauben. Festschrift für Lothar Ullrich zum 65. Geburtstag, ETS 74, Leipzig 1997, 12–33. HENTSCHEL, G. / NIESSEN, C., “Der Bruderkrieg zwischen Israel und Benjamin (Ri 20),” Bib 89 (2008), 17–38. HERRMANN, S., Israels Aufenthalt in Ägypten, SBS 40, Stuttgart 1970. HERTZBERG, H. W., Die Bücher Josua, Richter, Ruth, ATD 9, Göttingen 1953. HOFFMAN, Y., “The Deuteronomistic Concept of the Herem,” ZAW 111 (1999), 196–210. HOFFMANN, H.-D., Reform und Reformen. Untersuchungen zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung, ATANT 66, Zurich 1980. HOLLENBERG, J., “Die deuteronomistischen Bestandtheile des Buches Josua,” TSK 47 (1874), 462–506. HOLMES, S., Joshua: The Hebrew and Greek Texts, Cambridge 1914. HÖLSCHER, G., Geschichtsschreibung in Israel. Untersuchungen zum Jahvisten und Elohisten, Acta reg. societatis humaniorum litterarum lundensis 50, Lund 1952. —, “Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums,” ZAW 40 (1922), 161–255. HOLZINGER, H., Das Buch Josua, Tübingen 1901. —, Exodus, KHC 2, Tübingen 1900. —, Numeri, KHC 4, Tübingen 1903. HOSSFELD, F.-L., Der Dekalog. Seine späten Fassungen, die originale Komposition und seine Vorstufen, OBO 45, Fribourg / Göttingen 1982. HOWARD, D. M., “‘Three Days’ in Joshua 1–3: Resolving a Chronological Conundrum,” JETS 41 (1998), 539–50. HUROWITZ, V. A., “The Golden Calf and the Tabernacle,” Shnaton 7–8 (1983–1984), 51– 59. HYATT, J. P., Commentary on Exodus, NCB, London 1971; repr. Grand Rapids 1980. JACKSON, K. P. / DEARMAN, J. A., “The Text of the Mesha‘ Inscription,” in: J. A. DEARMAN (ed.), Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, SBLABS 2, Atlanta 1989, 93–95. JENKS, A. W., The Elohist and North Israelite Traditions, SBLMS 22, Missoula (MT) 1977. JEON, J., The Call of Moses and the Exodus Story: A Redaction-Critical Study in Exodus 3– 4 and 5–13, FAT II/60, Tübingen 2013. —, “The Zadokites in the Wilderness: The Rebellion of Korach (Num 16) and the Zadokite Redaction,” ZAW 127 (2015), 381–411. JEREMIAS, J., Theophanie. Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung, 2d ed., WMANT 10, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1977. JÓDAR-ESTRELLA, C., “Jos 5,13-15: Ensayo sobre la coherencia textual,” EstBib 59 (2001), 243–79.

Bibliography

469

JOHNSTONE, W., “From the Mountain to Kadesh, with Special Reference to Exodus 32.30– 34.29*,” in: IDEM, Chronicles and Exodus: An Analogy and its Application, JSOTSup 275, Sheffield 1998, 262–80. —, “From the Sea to the Mountain: Exodus 15,22–19,2: A Case-Study in Editorial Techniques,” in: M. VERVENNE (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation, BETL 126, Leuven 1996, 245–63; repr. in: W. JOHNSTONE, Chronicles and Exodus: An Analogy and its Application, JSOTSup 275, Sheffield 1998, 242–61. —, “Reactivating the Chronicles Analogy in Pentateuchal Studies, with Special Reference to the Sinai Pericope in Exodus,” ZAW 99 (1987), 16–37. —, “Recounting the Tetrateuch,” in: A. D. H. MAYES / R. B. SALTERS (eds.), Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of E. W. Nicholson, New York 2003, 209–34. —, “The Use of the Reminiscences in Deuteronomy in Recovering the Two Main Literary Phases in the Production of the Pentateuch,” in: J. C. GERTZ / K. SCHMID / M. WITTE (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion, BZAW 315, Berlin 2002, 247–73. JOÜON, P. / MURAOKA, T., A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2d ed., SubBi 27, Rome 2006. KAISER, A., Das vorexilische Buch der Urgeschichte Israels, Strasbourg 1874. KAISER, O., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 4th ed., Gütersloh 1978. KALLAI, Z., “The Wandering-Traditions from Kadesh-Barnea to Canaan: A Study in Biblical Historiography,” JSS 33 (1982), 175–84. KAMINSKY, J., “Joshua 7: A Reassessment of Israelite Conceptions of Corporate Punishment,” in: S. W. HOLLOWAY / L. K. HANDY (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström, JSOTSup 190, Sheffield 1995, 315–46. KASWALDER, P., La Disputa Diplomatica di Iefte (Gdc 11,12-18): La Ricerca Archeologica in Giordania e il Problema della Conquista, SBFA 29, Jerusalem 1990. KEARNEY, P. J., “The Role of the Gibeonites in the Deuteronomistic History,” CBQ 35 (1973), 1–19. KEGLER, J., “Die Berufung des Mose als Befreier Israels. Zur Einheitlichkeit des Berufungsberichts in Exodus 3–4,” in: C. HARDMEIER / R. KESSLER (eds.), Freiheit und Recht. Festschrift für Frank Crüsemann zum 65. Geburtstag, Gütersloh 2003, 162–88. KELLER, C. A., “Über einige alttestamentliche Heiligtumslegende I,” ZAW 67 (1955), 141– 67. KLOSTERMANN, A., Der Pentateuch. Beiträge zu seinem Verständnis und seiner Entstehungsgeschichte, Leipzig 1893. KNAUF, E. A., “Buchschlüsse in Josua,” in: T. RÖMER / K. SCHMID (eds.), Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque, BETL 203, Leuven 2007, 217–24. —, “Edom: The Social and Economic History,” in: D. V. EDELMAN (ed.), You Shall Not Abhor the Edomite for He is Your Brother: Edom and Seir in History and Tradition, SBLABS 3, Atlanta 1995, 93–117. —, Josua, ZBKAT 6, Zurich 2008. —, “Supplementa Ismaelitica 14: Mount Hor and Kadesh Barnea,” BN 22 (1992), 22–26. KNIERIM, R. P., “Exodus 18 und die Neuordnung der Mosaischen Gerichtsbarkeit,” ZAW 73 (1961), 146–71. KNOBEL, A. W., Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua. Nebst einer Kritik des Pentateuch und Josua, HAT 13, Leipzig 1861. KNOHL, I., The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, Minneapolis 1995; repr. Winona Lake (IN) 2007. KOCH, K., “P – kein Redaktor!,” VT 37 (1987), 446–67.

470

Bibliography

KÖCKERT, M., “Wie kam das Gesetz an den Sinai?,” in: C. BULTMANN / W. DIETRICH / C. LEVIN (eds.), Vergegenwärtigung des Alten Testaments. Beiträge zur biblischen Hermeneutik. Festschrift für Rudolf Smend zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 2002, 13– 27. KOHATA, F., Jahwist und Priesterschrift in Exodus 3–14, BZAW 166, Berlin 1986. KONKEL, M., Sünde und Vergebung. Eine Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte der hinteren Sinaiperikope (Exodus 32–34) vor dem Hintergrund aktueller Pentateuchmodelle, FAT 58, Tübingen 2008. 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, EHS XIII/122, Bern 1979. KRATZ, R. G., “The Analysis of the Pentateuch: An Attempt to Overcome Barriers of Thinking,” ZAW 128 (2016), 529–61. —, “Der Dekalog im Exodusbuch,” VT 44 (1994), 205–38. —, “The Headings of the Book of Deuteronomy,” in: K. SCHMID / R. F. PERSON, Jr. (eds.), Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History, FAT II/56, Tübingen 2012, 31–46. —, “‘Höre Israel’ und Dekalog,” in: C. FREVEL / M. KONKEL / J. SCHNOCKS (eds.), Die Zehn Worte. Der Dekalog als Testfall der Pentateuchkritik, Freiburg 2005, 77–86. —, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments, Göttingen 2000; English trans.: The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament, trans. J. BOWDEN, London 2005. —, “Der literarische Ort des Deuteronomiums,” in: IDEM / H. SPIECKERMANN (eds.), Liebe und Gebot. Studien zum Deuteronomium, FRLANT 190, Göttingen 2000, 101–20. —, “The Pentateuch in Current Research: Consensus and Debate,” in: T. B. DOZEMAN / K. SCHMID / B. J. SCHWARTZ (eds.), The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, FAT 78, Tübingen 2011, 31–61. —, “Der vor- und der nachpriesterschriftliche Hexateuch,” in: J. C. GERTZ / K. SCHMID / M. WITTE (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion, BZAW 315, Berlin 2002, 295–323. KRAUS, H.-J., “Das Heilige Volk. Zur alttestamentlichen Bezeichnung ‘am qādōš,” in: J. J. STAMM / E. WOLF (eds.), Freude am Evangelium. Alfred de Quervain zum 70. Geburtstag am 28. Sept. 1966, BEvT 44, Munich 1966, 50–61. KRAUSE, J. J., “Das Buch Josua auf Griechisch. Jos 5,2-9 als Ausnahme, die die Regel bestätigt,” JNSL 38 (2012), 23–58. —, Exodus und Eisodus: Komposition und Theologie von Josua 1–5, VTSup 161, Leiden 2014. —, “Der Zug durch den Jordan nach Josua 3–4. Eine neue Analyse,” in: E. NOORT (ed.), The Book of Joshua, BETL 250, Leuven 2012, 383–400. KRÜGER, T., “Erwägungen zur Redaktion der Meerwundererzählung (Exodus 13,17– 14,31),” ZAW 108 (1996), 519–33. KUENEN, A., “Bijdragen tot de Critiek van Pentateuch en Jozua. IV. De opstand van Korach, Dathan en Abiram,” ThT 12 (1878), 139–62. —, “Bijdragen tot de Critiek van Pentateuch en Jozua. VII. Manna en Kwakkeln (Exod. XVI),” ThT 14 (1880), 281–302; German trans.: “Manna und Wachteln,” in: IDEM, Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur biblischen Wissenschaft, trans. K. BUDDE, Freiburg / Leipzig 1894, 276–95.

Bibliography

471

—, Historisch-kritisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds, Eerste deel. De thora en de historische boeken des Ouden Verbonds, Leiden 1861, 2d rev. ed. 1885; English trans.: A Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (Pentateuch and Book of Joshua), trans. P. H. WICKSTEED, London 1886; German trans.: Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bücher des alten Testaments hinsichtlich ihrer Entstehung und Sammlung. Erster Teil. Erstes Stück: Die Entstehung des Hexateuch, trans. J. C. MATTHES, Leipzig 1887. KUTSCH, E., “Erwägungen zur Geschichte der Passafeier und des Massotfestes,” in: Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament, BZAW 168, Berlin 1986, 29–63. LAMBERTY-ZIELINSKI, H., Das “Schilfmeer.” Herkunft, Bedeutung und Funktion eines alttestamentlichen Exodusbegriffs, Athenäums Monographien Theologie 78, Frankfurt 1993. LANGLAMET, F., Gilgal et les récits de la traversée du Jourdain, Jos. III–IV, CahRB 11, Paris 1969. —, “Josué, II, et les traditions de l’hexateuque,” RB 78 (1971), 5–17. —, “La traversée du Jourdain et les documents de l’Hexateuque: note complémentaire sur Jos 3–4,” RB 79 (1972), 7–38. LANGLOIS, M., Le texte de Josué 10: Approche philologique, épigraphique et diachronique, OBO 252, Fribourg / Göttingen 2011. LATVUS, K., “From Army Campsite to Partners in Peace: The Changing Role of the Gibeonites in the Redaction Process of Josh. x 1–8; xi 19,” in: K.-D. SCHUNCK / M. AUGUSTIN (eds.), “Lasset uns Brücken bauen...”: Collected Communications to the XVth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Cambridge 1995, BEATAJ 42, Frankfurt 1998, 111–15. —, God, Anger, and Ideology: The Anger of God in Joshua and Judges in Relation to Deuteronomy and the Priestly Writings, JSOTSup 279, Sheffield 1998. LEE, E.-W., Crossing the Jordan: Diachrony versus Synchrony in the Book of Joshua, LHBOTS 578, London 2013. LEHMING, S., “Massa und Meriba,” ZAW 73 (1961), 71–77. —, “Versuch zu Ex. xxxii,” VT 19 (1960), 16–50. LEMAIRE, A., “Le ḥérem dans le monde nord-ouest sémitique,” in: L. NEHMÉ (ed.), Guerre et conquête dans le proche-orient ancien: Actes de la table ronde du 15 novembre 1998 organisée par l’URA 1062, “Études Sémitiques,” Antiquités Sémitiques 4, Paris 1999, 79–92. —, “New Photographs and ‘ryt’ or ‘hyt’ in the Mesha Inscription, Line 12,” IEJ 57 (2007), 204–7. —, “Notes d’épigraphie nord-ouest sémitique,” Syria 64 (1987), 205–16. LEVIN, C., “Der Dekalog am Sinai,” VT 35 (1985), 165–91; repr. in: IDEM, Fortschreibungen. Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, BZAW 316, Berlin 2003, 60–80. —, Der Jahwist, FRLANT 157, Göttingen 1993. —, “Die Priesterschrift als Quelle. Eine Erinnerung,” in: F. HARTENSTEIN / K. SCHMID (eds.), Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte, VWGTh 40, Leipzig 2015, 9–31. —, “Source Criticism: The Miracle at the Sea,” in: J. M. LEMON / K. H. RICHARDS (eds.), Method Matters: Essays on the Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David L. Petersen, SBLRBS 56, Atlanta 2009, 39–61. —, Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes: in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt, FRLANT 137, Göttingen 1985.

472

Bibliography

—, “The Yahwist and the Redactional Link between Genesis and Exodus,” in: T. B. Dozeman / K. Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, SBLSymS 34, Atlanta 2006, 131–41. LEVINE, B., Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 4, Garden City (NY) 1993. —, Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 4A, New York 2000. VAN DER LINGEN, A., Les guerres de Yahvé: L’implication de YHWH dans les guerres d’Israël selon les livres historiques de l’Ancien Testament, LD 139, Paris 1990. LIPIŃSKI, E., On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age: Historical and Topographical Researches, OLA 153, Leuven 2006. LIVER, J., “The Literary History of Joshua IX,” JSS 8 (1963), 227–43. LOEWENSTAMM, S. E., “The Making and Destruction of the Golden Calf – A Rejoinder,” Bib 56 (1975), 330–43. LOHFINK, N., “Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. Zum gleichnamigen Buch von Lothar Perlitt,” in: IDEM, Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur I, SBABAT 8, Stuttgart 1990, 325–61. —, “Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11 und Exodus 32–34. Zu Endgestalt, Intertextualität, Schichtung und Abhängigkeiten,” in: M. KÖCKERT / E. BLUM (eds.), Gottes Volk am Sinai. Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10, VWGTh 18, Gütersloh 2001, 41–87. —, “Geschichtstypologie in Deuteronomium 1–3,” in: K.-D. SCHUNCK / M. AUGUSTIN (eds.), “Lasset uns Brücken bauen...” Collected Communications to the XVth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament – Cambridge 1995, Frankfurt 1998, 87–92. —, “Geschichtstypologisch orientierte Textstrukturen in den Büchern Deuteronomium und Josua,” in: M. VERVENNE / J. LUST (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans, BETL 133, Leuven 1997, 133–60. —, Das Hauptgebot. Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn 5–11, AnBib 20, Rome 1963. —, “Kerygmata des Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks,” in: J. JEREMIAS / L. PERLITT (eds.), Die Botschaft und die Boten. Festschrift für Hans Walter Wolff zum 70. Geburtstag, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981, 87–100; repr. in: IDEM, Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur II, SBABAT 12, Stuttgart 1991, 125–42. —, “‫ חָ רַ ם‬ḥāram, ‫ חֵ רֶ ם‬ḥērem,” ThWAT 3:192–213; English trans.: TDOT 5:180–99. LÖHR, M., “Bileam. Num 22,2–24,25,” AfO 4 (1927), 85–89. —, Untersuchungen zum Hexateuchproblem 1. Der Priesterkodex in der Genesis, BZAW 38, Giessen 1924. LORETZ, O., “Die steinernen Gesetzestafeln in der Lade. Probleme der Deuteronomiumforschung zwischen Geschichte und Utopie,” UF 9 (1977), 159–61. LOZA, J., “Exode xxxii et la rédaction JE,” VT 23 (1973), 31–55. LUX, R., “‘Und die Erde tat ihren Mund auf...’: Zum ‘aktuellen Erzählinteresse’ Israels am Konflikt zwischen Mose und Datan und Abiram in Num 16,” in: D. V IEWEGER / E.-J. WASCHKE (eds.), Von Gott reden. Beiträge zur Theologie und Exegese des Alten Testaments. Festschrift für Siegfried Wagner zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1995, 187–216. MACDONALD, B., “Ammonite Territory and Sites,” in: B. MACDONALD / R. W. YOUNKER (eds.), Ancient Ammon, SHCANE 17, Leiden 1999, 30–56. —, East of the Jordan: Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scriptures, Boston 2000. MAIER, J., Das altisraelitische Ladeheiligtum, BZAW 93, Berlin 1965.

Bibliography

473

MALAMAT, A., “Die Eroberung Kanaans. Die israelitische Kriegsführung nach der biblischen Tradition,” in: G. STRECKER / N. KAMP (eds.), Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit. Jerusalem-Symposium 1981 der Hebräischen Universität und der Georg-AugustUniversität, GTA 25, Göttingen 1983, 7–32. MARGALIT, B., “The Day the Sun Did Not Stand Still: A New Look at Joshua X 8-15,” VT 42 (1992), 466–91. MAY, H. G., “The Relation of the Passover to the Festival of Unleavened Cakes,” JBL 55 (1936), 65–82. MAYES, A. D. H., Deuteronomy, NCBC 5, Grand Rapids 1979. —, “Deuteronomy 29, Joshua 9, and the Place of the Gibeonites in Israel,” in: N. LOHFINK / S. AMSLER (eds.), Das Deuteronomium. Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft, BETL 68, Leuven 1985, 321–25. MAZOR, L., “A Nomistic Reworking of the Jericho Conquest Narrative Reflected in LXX to Joshua 6:1-20,” Textus 18 (1995), 47–62. —, “The Origin and Evolution of the Curse upon the Rebuilder of Jericho: A Contribution of Textual Criticism to Biblical Historiography,” Textus 14 (1988), 1–26. —, “A Textual and Literary Study of the Fall of Ai in Joshua 8,” in: S. JAPHET (ed.), The Bible in Light of its Interpreters: Sarah Kamin Memorial Volume, Jerusalem 1994, 73– 108 [Hebrew]. MCCARTHY, D. J., Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament, 2d ed., AnBib 21A, Rome 1978. VAN DER MEER, M., Formation and Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses, VTSup 102, Leiden 2004. —, “Provenance, Profile, and Purpose of the Greek Joshua,” in: M. K. H. PETERS (ed.), XII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leiden 2004, SBLSCS 54, Atlanta 2006, 55–80. —, “‘Sound the Trumpet!’ Redaction and Reception of Joshua 6:2-25,” in: J. VAN RUITEN / J. C. DE VOS (eds.), The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort, VTSup 124, Leiden 2009, 19–43. MEYER, E., “Kritik der Berichte über die Eroberung Palaestinas (Num. 20, 14 bis Jud. 2, 5),” ZAW 1 (1881), 117–46. MILGROM, J., “Korah’s Rebellion: A Study in Redaction,” in: M. CARREZ / J. DORÉ / P. GRELOT (eds.), De la Tôrah au Messie: Mélanges Henri Cazelles, Paris 1981, 135–46. —, Numbers: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation, JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia 1990. MILLER, J. M., “The Book of Joshua,” IDBSup, Nashville 1976, 493–96. —, “The Israelite Journey through (around) Moab and Moabite Toponymy,” JBL 108 (1989), 577–95. —, “The Israelite Occupation of Canaan,” in: J. H. HAYES / J. M. MILLER (eds.), Israelite and Judean History, OTL, Philadelphia 1977, 213–84. MITTMANN, S., “Aroer, Minnith und Abel Keramim (Jdc 11,33),” ZDPV 85 (1969), 63–75. —, Deuteronomium 1,1–6,3 literarkritisch und traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht, BZAW 139, Berlin 1975. —, “Num 20,14-21 – Eine redaktionelle Kompilation,” in: H. GESE / H. P. RÜGER (eds.), Wort und Geschichte. Festschrift für Karl Elliger zum 70. Geburtstag, AOAT 18, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1973, 143–49. MOATTI-FINE, J., Jésus (Josué), La Bible d’Alexandrie 6, Paris 1996. MOBERLY, W., At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32–34, JSOTSup 22, Sheffield, 1983.

474

Bibliography

MOENIKES, A., “Beziehungssysteme zwischen dem Deuteronomium und den Büchern Josua bis Könige,” in: G. BRAULIK (ed.), Das Deuteronomium, ÖBS 23, Frankfurt 2003, 69–85. MONROE, L. A. S., “Israelite, Moabite, and Sabaean War-ḥērem Traditions and the Forging of National Identity: Reconsidering the Sabaean Text RES 3945 in Light of Biblical and Moabite Evidence,” VT 57 (2007), 318–41. —, Josiah’s Reform and the Dynamics of Defilement: Israelite Rites of Violence and the Making of a Biblical Text, New York 2011. MOORE, G. F., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, New York 1910. MOORE, M., The Balaam Traditions, SBLDS 113, Atlanta 1991. MOWINCKEL, S., Erwägungen zur Pentateuch Quellenfrage, Trondheim 1964. —, Psalmenstudien, 6 vols., Kristiania 1921–1924. —, Tetrateuch – Pentateuch – Hexateuch. Die Berichte über die Landnahme in den drei altisraelitischen Geschichtswerken, BZAW 90, Berlin 1964. —, “Der Ursprung der Bil‘āmsage,” ZAW 48 (1930), 233–71. MÜLLER, R., “Jahwekrieg und Heilsgeschichte,” ZThK 106 (2009), 265–83. —, Königtum und Gottesherrschaft. Untersuchungen zur alttestamentliche Monarchiekritik, FAT II/3, Tübingen 2004. NA’AMAN, N., “The ‘Conquest of Canaan’ in the Book of Joshua and in History,” in: I. FINKELSTEIN / N. NA’AMAN (eds.), From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel, Jerusalem 1994, 218–81. —, “The Law of the Altar in Deuteronomy and the Cultic Site near Shechem,” in: S. L. MCKENZIE / T. RÖMER (eds.), Rethinking the Foundations: Essays in Honour of John Van Seters, BZAW 294, Berlin 2000, 141–61. NELSON, R., Deuteronomy: A Commentary, OTL, Louisville (KY) 2002. —, “Ḥerem and the Deuteronomic Social Conscience,” in: M. VERVENNE / J. LUST (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans, BETL 133, Leuven 1997, 39–54. —, Joshua: A Commentary, OTL, Louisville (KY) 1997. —, “Josiah in the Book of Joshua,” JBL 100 (1981), 531–40. NENTEL, J., Trägerschaft und Intention des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks. Untersuchungen zu den Reflexionsreden Jos 1; 23; 24; 1 Sam 12; 1 Kön 8, BZAW 297, Berlin 2000. NICHOLSON, E. W., “The Covenant Ritual in Exodus XXIV 3-8,” VT 32 (1982), 74–86. —, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, Oxford 1998. NIHAN, C., “L’autel sur le mont Garizim. Deutéronome 27 et la rédaction de la torah entre Samaritains et Judéens à l’époque achéménide,” Transeu 36 (2008), 98–124. —, “The Literary Relationship between Deuteronomy and Joshua: A Reassessment,” in: K. SCHMID / R. F. PERSON, Jr. (eds.), Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History, FAT II/56, Tübingen 2012, 79–114. —, “The Torah between Samaria and Judah: Shechem and Gerizim in Deuteronomy and Joshua,” in: G. N. KNOPPERS / B. M. LEVINSON (eds.), The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding its Promulgation and Acceptance, Winona Lake (IN) 2007, 187–223. NÖLDEKE, T., Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments, Kiel 1869. NOORT, E., “The Disgrace of Egypt: Joshua 5.9a and its Context,” in: A. HILHORST / G. H. VAN KOOTEN (eds.), The Wisdom of Egypt: Jewish, Early Christian, and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, AGJU 59, Leiden 2005, 3–19.

Bibliography

475

—, “Josua und Amalek. Exodus 17:8-16,” in: R. ROUKEMA (ed.), The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman, Leuven 2006, 155–70. —, “Das Kapitulationsangebot im Kriegsgesetz Dtn 20:10ff. und in den Kriegserzählungen,” in: F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ (ed.), Studies in Deuteronomy: Festschrift C. J. Labuschagne, VTSup 53, Leiden 1994, 197–222. NOTH, M., Das Buch Josua, HAT I/7, Tübingen 1938; 2d ed. 1953. —, “Die fünf Könige in der Höhle von Makkeda,” PJ 33 (1937), 22–36. —, “Israelitische Stämme zwischen Moab und Ammon,” ZAW 60 (1944), 11–57; repr. in: H.-W. WOLFF (ed.), Archäologische, exegetische und topographische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels, ABLAK I, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1971, 391–433. —, “Die Nachbarn der israelitischen Stämme im Ostjordanlande,” BBLAK 68 (1949), 44– 50; repr. in: H.-W. WOLFF (ed.), Archäologische, exegetische und topographische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels, ABLAK I, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1971, 434–75. —, “Num 21 als Glied der ‘Hexateuch’-Erzählung,” ZAW 58 (1940/41), 161–89. —, Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels, Stuttgart 1930; repr. Darmstadt 1966. —, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, Stuttgart 1948; English trans.: A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. B. W. ANDERSON, Englewood Cliffs (NJ) 1972. —, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, Halle 1943; repr. Tübingen 1957; repr. Darmstadt 1967; abridged English trans.: The Deuteronomistic History, trans. J. DOULL et al., JSOTSup 15, Sheffield 1981; 2d ed. 1991. —, Das vierte Buch Mose. Numeri, ATD 7, Göttingen 1966; English trans.: Numbers, trans. J. D. MARTIN, OTL, Philadelphia 1968. —, “Der Wallfahrtsweg zum Sinai,” PJ 36 (1940), 5–28; repr. in: H.-W. WOLFF (ed.), Archäologische, exegetische und topographische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Israels, ABLAK I, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1971, 55–74. —, Das zweite Buch Mose. Exodus, 4th ed., ATD 5, Göttingen [1959] 1968; English trans.: Exodus, trans. J. BOWDEN, OTL, Philadelphia 1962. OETTLI, S., Das Deuteronomium, und die Bücher Josua und Richter, Munich 1893. ORLINSKY, H. M., “The Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint of the Book of Joshua,” in: G. W. ANDERSON (ed.), Congress Volume: Rome 1968, VTSup 17, Leiden 1969, 187– 95. OSWALD, W., Israel am Gottesberg. Eine Untersuchung zur Literargeschichte der vorderen Sinaiperikope Ex 19–24 und deren historischem Hintergrund, OBO 159, Fribourg / Göttingen 1997. —, “Lawgiving at the Mountain of God (Exodus 19–24),” in: T. B. DOZEMAN / C. A. EVANS / J. N. LOHR (eds.), The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, VTSup 164, Leiden 2014, 169–92. —, “Die Revision des Edombildes in Num XX 14-21,” VT 50 (2000), 218–32. —, Staatstheorie im Alten Israel. Der Politische Diskurs im Pentateuch und in den Geschichtsbüchern des Alten Testaments, Stuttgart 2009. OTTO, E., Deuteronomium 1–11. Erster Teilband: 1,1–4,43, HTKAT, Freiburg 2012. —, Deuteronomium 1–11. Zweiter Teilband: 4,44–11,32, HTKAT, Freiburg 2012. —, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens, FAT 30, Tübingen 2000. —, “Deuteronomiumsstudien I. Die Literaturgeschichte von Deuteronomium 1–3,” ZABR 14 (2008), 86–236.

476

Bibliography

—, “Deuteronomiumstudien II. Deuteronomistische und postdeuteronomistische Perspektiven in der Literaturgeschichte von Deuteronomium 5–11,” ZABR 15 (2009), 65–215. —, “Forschungen zur Priesterschrift,” ThR 62 (1997), 1–50. —, “The Integration of the Post-Exilic Book of Deuteronomy into the Post-Priestly Pentateuch,” in: F. GIUNTOLI / K. SCHMID (eds.), The Post-Priestly Pentateuch: New Perspectives on its Redactional Development and Theological Profiles, FAT 101, Tübingen 2015. —, Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal, BWANT 107, Stuttgart 1975. —, “Mose und das Gesetz. Die Mose-Figur als Gegenentwurf politischer Theologie zur neuassyrischen Königsideologie im 7. Jh. v. Chr.,” in: IDEM (ed.), Mose. Ägypten und das Alte Testament, SBS 189, Stuttgart 2000, 43–83. —, “Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus,” in: M. VERVENNE (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction – Reception – Interpretation, BETL 126, Leuven 1996, 61–112. —, “The Pentateuch in Synchronical and Diachronical Perspectives: Protorabbinical Scribal Erudition Mediating Between Deuteronomy and the Priestly Code,” in: E. OTTO / R. ACHENBACH (eds.), Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, FRLANT 206, Göttingen 2004, 14–35. —, Die Tora des Mose. Die Geschichte der literarischen Vermittlung von Recht, Religion und Politik durch die Mosegestalt, Göttingen 2001. OTTOSON, M., “Rahab and the Spies,” in: H. BEHRENS et al. (eds.), DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, Philadelphia 1989, 419–27. OWCZAREK, S., Die Vorstellung vom Wohnen Gottes inmitten seines Volkes in der Priesterschrift. Zur Heiligtumstheologie der priesterschriftlichen Grundschrift, EHS.T 625, Frankfurt 1998. PECKHAM, B., “The Composition of Dt 9:1–10:11,” in: J. PLEVNIK (ed.) Word and Spirit: Essays in Honor of David Michael Stanley SJ on his 60th Birthday, Willowdale (ON) 1975, 3–59. —, “The Composition of Joshua 3–4,” CBQ 46 (1984), 413–31. PERLITT, L., Bundestheologie im Alten Testament, WMANT 36, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969. —, Deuteronomium. 1. Teilband: Deuteronomium 1–6*, BKAT V/I, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2013. —, “Deuteronomium 1–3 im Streit der exegetischen Methoden,” in: IDEM, Deuteronomium-Studien, FAT 8, Tübingen 1994, 109–22. —, “Riesen im Alten Testament: Ein literarisches Motiv im Wirkungsfeld des Deuteronomismus,” NAWG.PH (1990), 1–52; repr. in: IDEM, Deuteronomium-Studien, FAT 8, Tübingen 1994, 205–46. PLÖGER, J. G., Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium, BBB 26, Bonn 1967. PORZIG, P., Die Lade Jahwes im Alten Testament und in den Texten vom Toten Meer, BZAW 397, Berlin 2009. PRESSLER, C., Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, Louisville (KY) 2002. PROCKSCH, O., Das nordhebräische Sagenbuch. Die Elohimquelle, Leipzig 1906. PROPP, W. H. C., Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 2, New York 1998. —, Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 2A, New York 2006. DE PURY, A., “Le cycle de Jacob comme légende autonome des origines d’Israël,” in: J. A. EMERTON (ed.), Congress Volume Leuven, VTSup 43, Leiden 1991, 78–96.

Bibliography

477

RABE, N., Vom Gerücht zum Gericht. Die Kundschaftererzählung Num 13.14 als Neuansatz in der Pentateuchforschung, THLI 8, Tübingen 1994. VON RAD, G., Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuchs, Stuttgart 1938; English trans.: The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, trans. E. W. TRUEMAN DICKEN, New York 1966. —, Die Priesterschrift im Hexateuch, Stuttgart 1934. RAKE, M., Juda wird aufsteigen! Untersuchungen zum ersten Kapitel des Richterbuches, BZAW 367, Berlin 2006. RAY, P. J., Tell Hesban and Vicinity in the Iron Age, Hesban 6, Berrien Springs (MI) 2001. REDFORD, D. B., “Exodus I 11,” VT 13 (1963), 401–18. —, “The Literary Motif of the Exposed Child (cf. Ex. 2:1-10),” Numen 14 (1967), 209–28. RENAUD, B., “La formation de Ex 19–40: Quelques points de repère,” in: P. HAUDEBERT (ed.), Le Pentateuque: Débats et recherches, Paris 1992, 101–33. —, La théophanie du Sinaï. Ex 19–24: exégèse et théologie, CahRB 30, Paris 1991. RENDTORFF, R., Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, BZAW 147, Berlin 1977; English trans.: The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch, trans. J. J. SCULLION, JSOTSup 89, Sheffield 1990. RICHTER, W., “Die Überlieferungen um Jephtah, Ri 10,17–12,6,” Bib 47 (1966), 485–556. ROBINSON, B. P., “Rahab of Canaan – and Israel,” SJOT 23 (2009), 257–73. ROBKER, J. M., “The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch/Hexateuch/Enneateuch,” in: C. FREVEL / T. POLA / A. SCHART (eds.), Torah and the Book of Numbers, FAT II/62, Tübingen 2013, 334–66. ROFÉ, A., The Book of Balaam (Numbers 22:2–24:25): A Study in Methods of Criticism and the History of Biblical Literature and Religion, With an Appendix: Balaam in the Deir ‘Alla Inscription, Jerusalem 1981 [Hebrew]. —, “Deuteronomy 5:28–6:1: Composition and Text in the Light of Deuteronomic Style and Three Tefillin from Qumran (4Q 128, 129, 137),” Hen 7 (1985), 1–14. —, “The Laws of Warfare in the Book of Deuteronomy: Their Origins, Intent and Positivity,” JSOT 32 (1985), 23–44. RÖMER, T., “Book-Endings in Joshua and the Question of the So-Called Deuteronomistic History,” in: K. L. NOLL / B. SCHRAMM (eds.), Raising up a Faithful Exegete: Essays in Honor of Richard D. Nelson, Winona Lake (IN) 2010, 87–101. —, “Das Buch Numeri und das Ende des Jahwisten. Anfragen zur ‘Quellenscheidung’ im vierten Buch des Pentateuch,” in: J. C. GERTZ / K. SCHMID / M. WITTE (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion, BZAW 315, Berlin 2002, 215–31. —, “Das doppelte Ende des Josuabuches: einige Anmerkungen zur aktuellen Diskussion um ‘deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk’ und ‘Hexateuch,’” ZAW 118 (2006), 523– 48. —, “Exodus 3–4 und die aktuelle Pentateuchdiskussion,” in: R. ROUKEMA (ed.), The Interpretation of Exodus, CBET 44, Leuven 2006, 65–79. —, “How Many Books (teuchs): Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Deuteronomistic History, or Enneateuch?” in: T. B. DOZEMAN / T. RÖMER / K. SCHMID (eds.), Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings, AIL 8, Atlanta 2011, 25–42. —, “Israel’s Sojourn in the Wilderness and the Construction of the Book of Numbers,” in: R. REZETKO / T. H. LIM / W. B. AUCKER (eds.), Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld, VTSup 113, Leiden 2007, 419– 45.

478

Bibliography

—, Israels Väter. Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition, OBO 99, Fribourg / Göttingen 1990. —, “The Joseph Story in the Book of Genesis: Pre-P or Post-P?,” in: F. GIUNTOLI / K. SCHMID (eds.), The Post-Priestly Pentateuch: New Perspectives on Its Redactional Development and Theological Profiles, FAT 101, Tübingen 2015, 185–201. —, “Mose in Äthiopien. Zur Herkunft der Num 12,1 zugrunde liegenden Tradition,” in: M. BECK / U. SCHORN (eds.), Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt von Genesis bis II Regum. Festschrift Hans-Christoph Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag, BZAW 370, Berlin 2006, 203–15. —, “Nombres 11–12 et la question d’une rédaction deutéronomique dans le Pentateuque,” in: M. VERVENNE / J. LUST (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans, BETL 133, Leuven 1997, 481–98. —, “Provisorische Überlegungen zur Entstehung von Exodus 18–24,” in: R. ACHENBACH / M. ARNETH (eds.), “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (Gen 18,19). Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie, Festschrift für Eckart Otto zum 65. Geburtstag, BZABR 13, Wiesbaden 2009, 128–54. —, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical, and Literary Introduction, London 2005. —, “Tracking Some ‘Censored’ Moses Traditions Inside and Outside the Hebrew Bible,” HBAI 1 (2012), 64–76. —, “Zwischen Urkunden, Fragmenten und Ergänzungen. Zum Stand der Pentateuchforschung,” ZAW 125 (2013), 2–24. RÖMER, T. / BRETTLER, M. Z., “Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch,” JBL 119 (2000), 401–19. ROSE, M., 5. Mose 12–25, ZBKAT 5, Zurich 1994. —, “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 1981. RÖSEL, H., “Anmerkungen zur Erzählung vom Bundesschluß mit den Gibeoniten,” BN 28 (1985), 30–35. —, Joshua, HCOT, Leuven 2011. —, “Studien zur Topographie der Kriege in den Büchern Josua und Richter,” ZDPV 92 (1976), 10–46. ROSKOP, A., The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of the Torah, HACL 3, Winona Lake (IN) 2011. ROST, L., “Fragen um Bileam,” in: H. DONNER / R. HANHART / R. SMEND (eds.), Beiträge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie. Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1977, 377–87. ROTH, W., “Hinterhalt und Scheinflucht. Der stammespolemische Hintergrund von Jos 8,” ZAW 75 (1963), 206–304. ROUILLARD, H., La péricope de Balaam (Nombres 22–24): La prose et les “oracles,” EBib (NS) 4, Paris 1985. ROUTLEDGE, B., Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology, Philadelphia 2004. —, “The Politics of Mesha: Segmented Identities and State Formation in Iron Age Moab,” JESHO 43 (2000), 221–56.

Bibliography

479

RUDNIG-ZELT, S., Glaube im Alten Testament. Eine begriffsgeschichtliche Untersuchung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Jes 7,1-17; Dtn 1–3; Num 13–14 und Gen 22,119, BZAW 452, Berlin 2017. RUDOLPH, W., “Der Aufbau von Exod 19–34,” in: P. VOLZ / F. STUMMER / J. HEMPEL (eds.), Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments. Vorträge, gehalten auf der Internationalen Tagung Alttestamentlicher Forscher zu Göttingen vom 4.-10. September 1935, BZAW 66, Berlin 1936, 41–48. —, Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Josua, BZAW 68, Berlin 1938. RUPRECHT, E., “Exodus 24:9-11 als Beispiel lebendiger Erzähltradition aus der Zeit des babylonischen Exils,” in: R. ALBERTZ et al. (eds.), Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments. Festschrift für Claus Westermann, Göttingen / Neukirchen-Vluyn 1980, 138– 73. —, “Stellung und Bedeutung der Erzählung vom Mannawunder (Ex 16) im Aufbau der Priesterschrift,” ZAW 86 (1974), 267–307. RÜTERSWÖRDEN, U., Das Buch Deuteronomium, NSKAT 4, Stuttgart 2006. SAMUEL, H., “Deuteronomic War Prescriptions and Deuteronomistic Wars,” in: C. BERNER / H. SAMUEL (eds.), The Reception of Biblical War Legislation in Narrative Contexts, BZAW 460, Berlin 2015, 139–54. —, Von Priestern zum Patriarchen. Levi und die Leviten im Alten Testament, BZAW 448, Berlin 2014. SCHÄFER-LICHTENBERGER, C., “Das gibeonitische Bündnis im Licht deuteronomistischer Kriegsgebote. Zum Verhältnis von Tradition und Interpretation in Jos 9,” BN 34 (1986), 58–81. SCHART, A., Mose und Israel im Konflikt. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Wüstenerzählungen, OBO 98, Fribourg / Göttingen 1990. —, “The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch,” in: C. FREVEL / T. POLA / A. SCHART (eds.), Torah and the Book of Numbers, FAT II/62, Tübingen 2013, 164–99. SCHENKER, A., “Les sacrifices d’alliance: Ex XXIV,3-8 dans leur portée narrative et religieuse – Contribution à l’étude de la berît dans l’Ancien Testament,” RB 101 (1994), 481–94. SCHIPPER, B. U., “Die ‘eherne Schlange.’ Zur Religionsgeschichte und Theologie von Num 21,4-9,” ZAW 121 (2009), 369–87. —, “Raamses, Pithom, and the Exodus: A Critical Evaluation of Ex 1:11,” VT 65 (2015), 265–88. SCHIPPER, B. U. / TEETER, D. A. (eds.), Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of “Torah” in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period, JSJSup 163, Leiden 2013. SCHMID, H. H., Der sogenannte Jahwist. Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung, Zurich 1976. SCHMID, K., Erzväter und Exodus. Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments, WMANT 81, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999; English trans.: Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible, trans. J. D. NOGALSKI, Siphrut 3, Winona Lake (IN) 2010. —, “Exodus in the Pentateuch,” in: T. B. DOZEMAN / C. A. EVANS / J. N. LOHR (eds.), The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, VTSup 164, Leiden 2014, 27–60. —, “Genesis and Exodus as Two Formerly Independent Traditions of Origins for Ancient Israel,” Bib 93 (2012), 187–208.

480

Bibliography

—, “Israel am Sinai. Etappen der Forschungsgeschichte zu Ex 32–34 in seinen Kontexten,” in: M. KÖCKERT / E. BLUM (eds.), Gottes Volk am Sinai. Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10, VWGTh 18, Gütersloh 2001, 7–40. —, Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments. Eine Einführung, Darmstadt 2008; English trans.: The Old Testament: A Literary History, trans. L. M. MALONEY, Minneapolis 2012. —, “Die Samaritaner und die Judäer. Die biblische Diskussion um ihr Verhältnis in Josua 24,” in: J. FREY / U. SCHATTNER-RIESER / K. SCHMID (eds.), Die Samaritaner und die Bibel. Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen. The Samaritans and the Bible: Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions, SJ 70, Berlin 2012, 31–49. —, “The Transition between the Books of Genesis and Exodus,” in: T. B. DOZEMAN / K. SCHMID (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, SBLSymS 34, Atlanta 2006, 73–87. SCHMIDT, L., Das 4. Buch Mose. Numeri, Kapitel 10,11–36,13, ATD 7/2, Göttingen 2004. —, “Die alttestamentliche Bileamüberlieferung,” BZ (NF) 23 (1979), 234–61. —, Beobachtungen zu der Plagenerzählung in Exodus VII 14–XI 10, StudBib 4, Leiden 1990. —, “Dekalog und Bundesbuch im Kontext von Exodus 19–24,” ZAW 128 (2016), 579–93. —, “Die Kundschaftererzählung in Num 13–14 und Dtn 1,19-46. Eine Kritik neuerer Pentateuchkritik,” ZAW 114 (2002), 40–58. —, “Die Priesterschrift in Exodus 16,” ZAW 119 (2007), 483–98. —, Studien zur Priesterschrift, BZAW 214, Berlin 1993. —, “Die vorpriesterliche Darstellung in Ex 11,1–13,16*,” ZAW 117 (2005), 171–88. —, “Die vorpriesterliche Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus durch die Josefsgeschichte (Gen 37; 39–50*) und Exodus 1,” ZAW 124 (2012), 19–37. SCHMIDT, W. H., Exodus. 1. Teilband: Ex 1–6, BK II/1, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1988. —, Exodus, Sinai und Mose. Erwägungen zu Ex 1–19 und 24, EdF 191, Darmstadt 1983. SCHMITT, G., Du sollst keinen Frieden schließen mit den Bewohnern des Landes. Die Weisungen gegen die Kanaanäer in Israels Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung, BWANT 91, Stuttgart 1970. SCHMITT, H.-C., “Die ‘Altesten’ in der Exodusüberlieferung und im Aramäischen Briefbericht von Esr 4,8–6,15,” in: I. KOTTSIEPER / R. SCHMITT / J. WÖHRLE (eds.), Berührungspunkte. Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt. Festschrift für Rainer Albertz zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, AOAT 350, Münster 2008, 57–72. —, “Die Erzählung vom Goldenen Kalb Ex 32* und das Deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk,” in: U. SCHORN / M. BÜTTNER (eds.), Theologie in Prophetie und Pentateuch. Gesammelte Schriften, BZAW 310, Berlin 2001, 311–25. —, “Erzvätergeschichte und Exodusgeschichte als konkurrierende Ursprungslegenden Israels – ein Irrweg der Pentateuchforschung,” in: A. HAGEDORN and H. PFEIFFER (eds.), Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition. Festschrift für Matthias Köckert, BZAW 400; Berlin 2009, 241–66. —, “Das Gesetz aber ist neben eingekommen. Spätdeuteronomistische nachpriesterschriftliche Redaktion und ihre vorexilische Vorlage in Ex 19–20*, in: R. ACHENBACH et al (eds.), “Gerechtigkeit und Recht zu üben” (Gen 18,19). Studien zur altorientalischen und biblischen Rechtsgeschichte, zur Religionsgeschichte Israels und zur Religionssoziologie. Festschrift für Eckart Otto zum 65. Geburtstag, Wiesbaden 2009, 155– 70.

Bibliography

481

—, “Der heidnische Mantiker als eschatologischer Jahweprophet. Zum Verständnis Bileams in der Endgestalt von Num 22–24,” in: U. SCHORN / M. BÜTTNER (eds.), Theologie in Prophetie und Pentateuch. Gesammelte Schriften, BZAW 310, Berlin 2001, 238–54. —, “Das Hesbonlied Num. 21,27aβ-30 und die Geschichte der Stadt Hesbon,” ZDPV 104 (1988), 26–43. —, “Die Josefs- und die Exodus-Geschichte: Ihre vorpriesterliche weisheitstheologische Verbindung,” ZAW 127 (2015), 171–87. —, “Die Josephsgeschichte und das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk. Genesis 38 und 48–50,” in: M. VERVENNE / J. LUST (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans, BETL 133, Leuven 1997, 391–405. —, Die nichtpriesterliche Josephsgeschichte. Ein Beitrag zur neuesten Pentateuchkritik, BZAW 154, Berlin 1980. —, “Die 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 jahwistische Privilegrecht in Ex 34,10-28 als Komposition der spätdeuteronomistischen Endredaktion des Pentateuch,” in: J. C. GERTZ / K. SCHMID / M. WITTE (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion, BZAW 315, Berlin 2002, 157–71. —, “Das spätdeuteronomistische Geschichtswerk Gen I–2 Regum XXV und seine theologische Intention,” in: J. EMERTON (ed.), Congress Volume Cambridge, 1995, VTSup 66, Leiden 1997, 261–79; repr. in: U. SCHORN / M. BÜTTNER (eds.), Theologie in Prophetie und Pentateuch. Gesammelte Schriften, BZAW 310, Berlin 2001, 277–94. —, “Die Suche nach der Identität des Jahweglaubens im nachexilischen Israel: Bemerkungen zur theologischen Intention der Endredaktion des Pentateuch,” in: J. MEHLHAUSEN (ed.), Pluralismus und Identität, VWGTh 8, Gütersloh 1995, 259–278; repr. in: U. SCHORN / M. BÜTTNER (eds.), Theologie in Prophetie und Pentateuch. Gesammelte Schriften, BZAW 310, Berlin 2001, 255–76. —, “Tradition der Prophetenbücher in den Schichten der Plagenerzählung Ex 7,1–11,10,” in: V. FRITZ et al. (eds.), Prophet und Prophetenbuch. Festschrift O. Kaiser, BZAW 185, Berlin 1989, 196–216. —, “Wie deuteronomistisch ist der nichtpriesterliche Meerwunderbericht von Exodus 13,17–14,31?” Bib 95 (2014), 26–48. SCHMITT, R., Der “Heilige Krieg” im Pentateuch und im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Studien zur Forschungs-, Rezeptions- und Religionsgeschichte von Krieg und Bann im Alten Testament, AOAT 381, Münster 2011. SCHORN, U., Ruben und das System der zwölf Stämme Israels. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Bedeutung des Erstgeborenen Jakobs, BZAW 248, Berlin 1997. —, “Rubeniten als exemplarische Aufrührer in Num. 16f*/Deut. 11,” in: S. L. MCKENZIE / T. RÖMER / H. H. SCHMID (eds.), Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible. Essays in Honour of John Van Seters, BZAW 294, Berlin 2000, 251–68. SCHÜLE, A., Israels Sohn – Jahwes Prophet. Ein Versuch zum Verhältnis von kanonischer Theologie und Religionsgeschichte anhand der Bileam-Perikope (Num 22–24), Altes Testament und Moderne 17, Münster 2001. SCHULZ, S., Die Anhänge zum Richterbuch. Eine kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Ri 17–21, BZAW 477, Berlin 2015.

482

Bibliography

SCHUNCK, K.-D., Benjamin. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Geschichte eines israelitischen Stammes, BZAW 86, Berlin 1963. SCHWARTZ, B. J., “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai,” in: M. V. FOX et al. (eds.), Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, Winona Lake (IN) 1996, 103–34. —, “The Visit of Jethro: A Case of Chronological Displacement? The Source-Critical Solution,” in: N. S. FOX / D. A. GLATT-GILEAD / M. J. WILLIAMS (eds.), Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay, Winona Lake (IN) 2009, 29–48. SCHWIENHORST, L., Die Eroberung Jerichos. Exegetische Untersuchungen zu Josua 6, SBS 122, Stuttgart 1986. SEEBASS, H., “Edom und seine Umgehung,” VT 47 (1997), 255–60. —, Numeri. Zweiter Teil: 10,11–22,1, BK IV/2, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2003. —, “Zur literarischen Gestalt der Bileam-Perikope,” ZAW 107 (1995), 409–19. SEITZ, G., Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium, BWANT 93, Stuttgart 1971. SHERWOOD, A., “A Leader’s Misleading and a Prostitute’s Profession: A Re-examination of Joshua 2,” JSOT 31 (2006), 43–61. SIPILÄ, S., “The Septuagint Version of Joshua 3–4,” in: C. E. COX (ed.), VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989, SBLSCS 31, Atlanta 1991, 63–74. SKA, J.-L., “Exode 19,3b-6 et l’identité de l’Israël postexilique,” in: M. VERVENNE (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction – Reception – Interpretation, BETL 126, Leuven 1996, 289–317. —, “El relato del diluvio: Un relato sacerdotal y algunos fragmentos redaccionales posteriores,” EstBib 52 (1994), 37–62. SMEND, R. (JR.), Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments, ThW 1, Stuttgart 1978. —, “Das Gesetz und die Völker. Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte,” in: H. W. WOLFF (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, Munich 1971, 494–509. —, “Das uneroberte Land,” in: G. STRECKER (ed.), Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit. Jerusalem-Symposium 1981 der Hebräischen Universität und der Georg-AugustUniversität, Göttingen 1983, 91–102; repr. in: IDEM, Die Mitte des Alten Testaments. Exegetische Aufsätze, Tübingen 2002, 162–73. SMEND, R. (SR.), Die Erzählung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht, Berlin 1912. SMITH, M. S., “Anat’s Warfare Cannibalism and the West Semitic Ban,” in: S. W. HOLLOWAY / L. K. HANDY (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta Ahlström, JSOTSup 190, Sheffield 1995, 368–86. SMITH, M. S., with contributions by E. BLOCH-SMITH, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus, JSOTSup 239, Sheffield 1997. SOGGIN, J. A., Joshua: A Commentary, OTL, London 1972. —, Judges: A Commentary, OTL, London 1981. SPINA, F. A., The Faith of the Outsider: Exclusion and Inclusion in the Biblical Story, Grand Rapids (MI), 2005. STACKERT, J., A Prophet like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion, New York 2014. STAERK, W., Das Deuteronomium, sein Inhalt und seine literarische Form. Eine kritische Studie, Leipzig 1894. —, “Zum alttestamentlichen Erwählungsglauben,” ZAW 55 (1937), 1–36.

Bibliography

483

STÄHELIN, J. J., “Beiträge zu den kritischen Untersuchungen über den Pentateuch, die Bücher Josua und der Richter,” TSK 8 (1835), 461–77. STEINTHAL, H., “Die erzählenden Stücke im fünften Buch Mose,” Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft 12 (1880), 253–89. STEK, J. A., “Rahab of Canaan and Israel: The Meaning of Joshua 2,” CTJ 37 (2002), 28– 48. STERN, E., Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Volume II: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods, 732–332 BCE, ABRL, New York 2001. STERN, P. D., The Biblical Ḥerem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience, BJS 211, Atlanta 1991. STEUERNAGEL, C., Das Deuteronomium, 2d ed., HKAT I/3, Göttingen 1923. —, Übersetzung und Erklärung der Bücher Deuteronomium und Josua und Einleitung in den Hexateuch, HKAT 3, Göttingen 1900. STURDY, J., Numbers, NEB, Cambridge 1976. SUMNER, W. A., “Israel’s Encounters with Edom, Moab, Ammon, Sihon, and Og according to the Deuteronomist,” VT 18 (1968), 216–28. SUTHERLAND, R., “Israelite Political Theories in Joshua 9,” JSOT 53 (1992), 65–74. SWEENEY, M. A., I & II Kings: A Commentary, OTL, Louisville (KY) 2007. TALSTRA, E., “Deuteronomy 9 and 10: Synchronic and Diachronic Observations,” in: J. C. DE MOOR (ed.), Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis – Papers read at the Ninth Joint Meeting of het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en Belgie and the Society for Old Testament Study, OTS 34, Leiden 1995, 187–220. TENGSTRÖM, S., Die Hexateucherzählung. Eine literaturgeschichtliche Studie, Lund 1976. TIMM, S., Moab zwischen den Mächten. Studien zu historischen Denkmälern und Texten, ÄAT 17, Wiesbaden 1989. TOV, E., “The Growth of the Book of Joshua in Light of the Evidence of the Septuagint,” ScrHier 31 (1986), 321–39. —, “Literary Development of the Book of Joshua as Reflected in the MT, the LXX, and 4QJosha,” in: E. NOORT (ed.), The Book of Joshua, BETL 250, Leuven 2012, 65–86. —, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, 2d ed., Jerusalem 1997. —, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2d ed., Minneapolis 2001. TREBOLLE BARRERA, J., “Textual Variants in 4QJudga and the Textual and Editorial History of the Book of Judges,” RdQ 14 (1989), 229–45. DE TROYER, K., “Did Joshua Have a Crystal Ball?” The Old Greek and the MT of Joshua 10:15, 17, 23,” in: S. M. PAUL / R. A. KRAFT / L. H. SCHIFFMANN / W. W. FIELDS (eds.), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov, VTSup 94, Leiden 2003, 571–89. —, Rewriting the Sacred Text: What the Old Greek Tells us about the Literary Growth of the Bible, Atlanta 2003. TYSON, C. W., The Ammonites: Elites, Empires, and Sociopolitical Change (1000–500 BCE), LHBOTS 585, London 2014. ULRICH, E., “4QJosha,” in: IDEM et al., Qumran Cave 4, IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, DJD 14, Oxford 1995. USSISHKIN, D., The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib, Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 6, Tel Aviv 1982. UTZSCHNEIDER, H. / OSWALD, W., Exodus 1–15, IEKAT 2.1, Stuttgart 2012; English trans.: Exodus 1–15, trans. P. SUMPTER, IECOT, Stuttgart 2015.

484

Bibliography

VALENTIN, H., Aaron. Eine Studie zur vorpriesterschriftliche Aaron-Überlieferung, OBO 18, Freiburg 1978. VAN SETERS, J., “Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period,” VT 22 (1972), 448–59. —, “The Conquest of Sihon’s Kingdom: A Literary Examination,” JBL 91 (1972), 182–97. —, “Etiology in the Moses Tradition: The Case of Exodus 18,” HAR 9 (1985), 355–61. —, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History, New Haven 1983. —, “Joshua 24 and the Problem of Tradition in the Old Testament,” in: B. BARRICK / J. R. SPENCER (eds.), In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G. W. Ahlström, Sheffield 1984, 139–58. —, “Joshua’s Campaign of Canaan and Near Eastern Historiography,” SJOT 4 (1990), 1– 12. —, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers, Louisville (KY) 1994. —, “Once Again – The Conquest of Sihon’s Kingdom,” JBL 99 (1980), 117–19. —, “The Patriarchs and the Exodus: Bridging the Gap between Two Origin Traditions,” in: R. ROUKEMA (ed.), The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman, CBET 44, Leuven 2006, 1–15. —, The Pentateuch: A Social Science Commentary, Trajectories 1, Sheffield 1999. —, “The Place of the Yahwist in the History of Passover and Massot,” ZAW 95 (1983), 167–82. —, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis, Louisville (KY) 1992. DE VAUX, R., Histoire ancienne d’Israël, 2 vols., EBib, Paris 1971–1973; English trans.: The Early History of Israel, trans. D. SMITH, Philadelphia 1978. —, “L’itinéraire des Israélites de Cadès aux plaines de Moab,” in: A. CAQUOT / M. PHILONENCO (eds.), Hommages à André Dupont-Sommer, Paris 1971, 331–42. —, “The Settlement of the Israelites in Southern Palestine and the Origins of the Tribe of Judah,” in: H. T. FRANK / W. L. REED (eds.), Translating and Understanding the Old Testament: Essays in Honor of Herbert Gordon May, Nashville 1970, 108–34. VEIJOLA, T., Das 5. Buch Mose. Deuteronomium Kapitel 1,1–16,17, ATD 8/1, Göttingen 2004. —, “Das Klagegebet in Literatur und Leben der Exilsgeneration am Beispiel einiger Prosatexte,” in: IDEM, Moses Erben: Studien zum Dekalog, zum Deuteronomismus und zum Schriftgelehrtentum, BWANT 149, Stuttgart 2000, 176–91. VERMEYLEN, J., “L’affaire du veau d’or (Ex 32–34): Une clé pour la ‘question deutéronomiste,’” ZAW 97 (1985), 1–23. —, “Les sections narratives de Deut 5–11 et leur relation à Ex 19–34,” in: N. LOHFINK (ed.), Das Deuteronomium. Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft, BETL 68, Leuven 1985, 174–207. VOGT, E., “Die Erzählung vom Jordanübergang Josua 3–4,” Bib 46 (1965), 125–48. VOLZ, P., “Anhang. P ist kein Erzähler,” in: IDEM / W. RUDOLPH, Der Elohist als Erzähler. Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik?, BZAW 63, Giessen 1933, 135–42. VRIEZEN, T. C., “Exodusstudien: Exodus I,” VT 17 (1967), 334–53. WAGENAAR, J., “The Cessation of Manna: Editorial Frames for the Wilderness Wandering in Exodus 16,35 and Joshua 5,10-12,” ZAW 112 (2000), 192–209. —, “Crossing the Sea of Reeds (Exod 13–14) and the Jordan (Josh 3–4): A Priestly Framework for the Wilderness Wandering,” in: M. VERVENNE (ed.), The Book of Exodus, BETL 126, Leuven 1996, 461–70.

Bibliography

485

WALSH, J. T., “From Egypt to Moab: A Source Critical Analysis of the Wilderness Itinerary,” CBQ 39 (1977), 20–33. WAMBACQ, B. N., “Les origines de la Pesaḥ israélite,” Bib 57 (1976), 206–24, 301–26. WEIMAR, P., Die Berufung des Mose. Literaturwissenschaftliche Analyse von Exodus 2,23– 5,5, OBO 32, Fribourg / Göttingen 1980. —, “Das Goldene Kalb. Redaktionskritische Erwägungen zu Ex 32,” BN 38–39 (1987), 117–60. —, “Die Jahwekriegserzählungen in Exodus 14, Josua 10, Richter 4, und 1 Samuel 7,” Bib 57 (1976), 38–73. —, Die Meerwundererzählung. Eine redaktionskritische Analyse von Ex 13,17–14,31, ÄAT 9, Wiesbaden 1985. WEINFELD, M., Deuteronomy 1–11, AB 5, New York 1991. —, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford 1972. WEIPPERT, M., “Edom und Israel,” TRE 9 (1982), 291–95. —, “The Israelite ‘Conquest’ and the Evidence from Transjordan,” in: D. N. FREEDMAN (ed.), Symposia Celebrating the 75th Anniversary of the Founding of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900–1975), Zion Research Foundation Occasional Publications 1–2, Cambridge (MA) 1979, 15–34. WELLHAUSEN, J., “Die Composition des Hexateuchs,” JDT 21 (1876), 392–450, 531–602; JDT 22 (1877), 407–79. —, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. Zweiter Druck. Mit Nachträgen, Berlin 1889 [repr. 1963]; 3d ed. 1899. —, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, Zweites Heft: Die Composition des Hexateuchs, 2d ed., Berlin 1885. DE WETTE, W. M. L., Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen und apokryphischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, 4th ed., Berlin 1833; 5th ed. 1840. WEVERS, J. W., Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers, SBLSCS 46, Atlanta 1998. WITTE, M., “Der Segen Bileams – eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Problemanzeige zum ‘Jahwisten’ in Num 22–24,” in: J. C. GERTZ / K. SCHMID / M. WITTE (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion, BZAW 315, Berlin 2002, 191–213. WRIGHT, J. L., David, King of Israel and Caleb in Biblical Memory, New York 2014. WÜRTHWEIN, E., Die Bücher der Könige, ATD 11, Göttingen 1977–1984. WÜST, M., “Die Einschaltung in die Jiftachgeschichte. Ri 11,13-26,” Bib 56 (1975), 464– 79. —, Untersuchungen zu den siedlungsgeographischen Texten des Alten Testaments. I. Ostjordanland, BTAVO B9.1, Wiesbaden 1975. YOUNGER, K. L., Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing, JSOTSup 98, Sheffield 1990. —, “Some Recent Discussion on the Ḥērem,” in: D. BURNS / J. W. ROGERSON (eds.), Far from Minimal: Celebrating the Work and Influence of Philip R. Davies, LHBOTS 484, London 2012, 505–22. ZAHN, M., “Reexamining Empirical Models: The Case of Exodus 13,” in: E. O TTO / R. ACHENBACH (eds.), Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, FRLANT 206, Göttingen 2004, 36–55. ZENGER, E., Israel am Sinai. Analysen und Interpretationen zu Exodus 17–34, 2d ed., QD 146, Altenberge 1985. —, Die Sinaitheophanie. Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen und elohistischen Geschichtswerk, FB 3, Würzburg 1971.

486

Bibliography

—, “Theorien über die Entstehung des Pentateuch im Wandel der Forschung,” in: E. ZENGER et al. (eds.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 7th ed., Stuttgart 2008, 74–123. —, “Tradition und Interpretation in Exodus XV 1-21,” in: J. EMERTON (ed.), Congress Volume: Vienna 1980, VTSup 32, Leiden 1981, 452–83. ZIMMERLI, W., “Erwägungen zum ‘Bund’. Die Aussagen über die Jahwe-berît in Ex 19– 34,” in: H. J. STOEBE (ed.), Wort – Gebot – Glaube. Beiträge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments, ATANT 59, Zurich 1970, 171–90. ZOBEL, H. J., “Bileam-Lieder und Bileam-Erzählung,” in: E. BLUM (ed.), Die hebräische Bible und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte. Festschrift für R. Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990, 141–54. ZWICKEL, W., “Der Durchzug der Israeliten durch das Ostjordanland,” UF 22 (1990), 475– 95. VAN ZYL, A. H., The Moabites, POS 3, Leiden 1960.

Index of Ancient Sources Indented biblical references are selective. Further references to individual verses can be found within the pages given for the larger unit. Italicized page numbers indicate the main discussion of a particular unit.

Hebrew Bible Genesis 1 1:2 1:14 1:20 2:10 4 4:3-5, 11 4:15 7:4 9:12-13 9:13-14, 16 9:17 10:5, 20, 31-32 12:2 12:3 12:14-15 13 13:15-16 13:16 14:1 14:5-6 14:7 14:9 15:7 15:14 15:18 17:1 17:4 17:8 17:11 17:16, 20 18:18

14, 232–33 92 212 56 279 232–33 232 212 100 212 124 212 297 297 303–4, 310 257 257 196 297 297 250 385 297 196 297 196 301 297 196 212 297 297

19 20:3 20:4 21:13, 18 22:12 24:7 25:23 26:3 26:24 27 27:29 27:41-45 28:3 28:13 28:14 28:20 30:27 31:13 31:24 32:7-9 32:29 33:1-5 35:9-15 35:9-10 35:11 36:8-9 43:2 43:14 44:5 45:10 46:1-4 46:3 46:28, 34

257 306 297 297 119 196 297 196 30 304 303–4, 310 257 144, 301 30, 196 297 238 299 238 306 257 297 257 306 297 144, 297, 301 257 385 301 299 57 30 297 57

488 47:1, 4, 6, 27 48:3 48:4 48:19 49:6 49:9 49:25 49:29, 33 50:8 50:25 50:26 Exodus 1–13 1–12 1 1:1-9 1:1-5 1:7 1:8 1:9 1:10-14 1:11 1:12 1:13-14 1:15-22 1:22 2–4 2 2:1-22 2:1-15 2:1-10 2:11-23 2:11-15 2:11 2:13-14 2:15–4:31 2:15-25 2:15-23 2:15 2:20 2:23-25 3 3–4 3:1–4:18 3:1-10

Index of Ancient Sources 57 301 144 297 144 300, 303 301 15 57 82 354

84 8, 69–70 11–16, 19, 69–70, 453 11–16, 70 8 8, 306 19 19–20, 306 11–13, 15–16, 70 19–20, 24, 40, 62 40, 304 8, 37–38, 40 12–13, 15–16, 70 18–20 110 13, 15–16, 19–20, 69, 449–50, 453 4 17–21, 448 17–20, 33, 69–70 27 18–20, 27, 69–70 33, 41, 56 27 21–35, 28, 33, 40 21–22, 28, 32, 33, 69 27 18, 20 110 8, 30, 40–42 26–29, 31, 33 29, 31, 33, 40, 343 21, 22–33, 69, 448 38, 41

3:1-6 3:1 3:5 3:7-8 3:8 3:12 3:13-15 3:17 3:18 3:20 3:21-22 3:22 4:8-9 4:14-16 4:17 4:18-31 4:18 4:19 4:20 4:24-26 4:27-31 4:27 4:28 4:30 4:31 5 5:1–6:1 5:1-2 5:1 5:3 5:8, 17 6 6:1 6:2–7:7 6:2-12 6:2-9 6:3 6:4 6:5 6:7 6:8 6:9 6:10-13 6:14-15 6:16 6:29-30 7:1-7 7:3

4 21 342–43 4 111, 211 57, 212 40 211 37, 62 329 4 123 57, 212 37 57, 212 21, 27–28, 29, 32– 33, 69, 448 4, 110 22 4, 41 340 37, 111 111 57, 212 57, 212 111 41 36–39, 55, 69, 448 45, 55–56 56 56–57, 62 62 33 31, 55, 306 39–42 29 8, 30, 38 301 196 15 331 196 31 8 8 168 8 8 57, 212, 251

Index of Ancient Sources 7:5 7:8–12:51 7:8-13 7:13 7:14-25 7:14 7:15 7:19-20 7:19 7:22 7:26–8:11 8:1-3 8:1-2 8:4-9 8:4-8 8:4 8:11-15 8:12-15 8:13 8:15 8:16-28 8:21-28 8:21-25 8:21 9:1-7 9:2 9:8-12 9:12 9:13-35 9:18 9:22-23 9:22 9:24 9:25 9:26 9:28 10:1-20 10:1-2 10:3-20 10:4 10:6 10:7-11 10:11 10:12 10:13

331 43–69, 448 8, 32, 43, 44–45, 55 45, 59 33, 43–45, 55, 56, 63, 69 41 299 8, 96 393 8, 59 33, 45, 56, 63, 69 8 393 46 57 62 8 33, 45–46, 47, 56– 57, 63 393 59 33, 46–47, 57–58, 63, 69 49 62 105 47, 58, 63 59 8, 47, 58, 63 59 47–50, 58–59, 63, 431 85, 100, 105 96 393 85, 297 61 57 61 50, 59, 63, 88 212 305 105 85 60–61, 84 306 393 201

10:14 10:17 10:19 10:21-29 10:21-22 10:25 10:28-29 11:1-10 11:1 11:2-3 11:4-8 11:6 11:7 11:9-10 12–19 12 12:1-28 12:1-23 12:1-13 12:3 12:6 12:14 12:18-20 12:21 12:22 12:24-27 12:25 12:28 12:29-33 12:31 12:33-34 12:34-35 12:35-36 12:37 12:39 12:40-51 12:43-50 12:43-49 13–18 13 13:1-16 13:1-2 13:2 13:3-10 13:5 13:9 13:11 13:12-13

489 85 61 201 51, 52, 59–60, 63 393 62 85 51–52, 54, 60, 63 306 31, 62 61 85 47, 431 8 74 52–54, 60–63, 69 343 8 341 335 100, 144 37, 165, 331 341 31 33 8 196 8 33 82 333 123 4, 31 8, 33, 71–72, 82–83 306, 333 8 340, 343 333 8, 112 171 60 8 123 333 196, 211, 316 31 316 171

490 13:17–14:31 13:17-22 13:17-18 13:18 13:20

13:21-22 13:21 14

14:1-4 14:1-2 14:2 14:4 14:5-9 14:5-6 14:8-9 14:9 14:10-14 14:10 14:11-12 14:12 14:13-14 14:14 14:15-20 14:15-18 14:16 14:17 14:18 14:19-20 14:19 14:20 14:21-31 14:21 14:22-23 14:22 14:23 14:24 14:25 14:26-28 14:26

Index of Ancient Sources 76–91, 448 76–77, 79, 81, 82– 83, 88–89 224 71, 91, 96, 249 8, 33, 71–73, 78, 96–97, 112, 205, 308 85–86, 196, 212 86, 124 81–84, 87–88, 91– 94, 97, 233, 320, 343, 451 8, 77, 78–79, 81, 88–89 82 71–72, 96, 101 91, 331 77–78, 81, 83–84, 88–89 4 8, 80 439 78–79, 81, 84–85, 88–89 8 86 372 4, 80 431 79, 80, 81, 85–86, 87, 88–89 8 232, 331, 393 91, 105 331 124 240 83 79–81, 86–89 4, 8, 201, 232, 330, 393 8 92, 331 439 124, 431 91, 431 332, 336 8, 393

14:27 14:28-29 14:28 14:29 14:30 15 15:1-21 15:1 15:4 15:8 15:15-16 15:19 15:20-22 15:20-21 15:21 15:22–27 15:22-25 15:22-23 15:22 15:23-25 15:23 15:24-25 15:26 15:27 16 16:1 16:2-36 16:2 16:3 16:4 16:7 16:8 16:10 16:31 16:35 17–18 17:1-7 17:1 17:3 17:7 17:8-16 17:8-13 17:14-16 18 18:1-12

4, 8, 393 8 91–92 331 4 88, 93–94 91–94 439 249 330 320 331, 439 4 451 439 95–97, 200, 448 4 71, 112 33, 72, 91, 249 105 71–72, 101, 205 105 237 4, 8, 71–72, 101, 112, 205 8, 98–103, 107, 201, 341, 448 4, 71–72, 96, 107, 112, 147, 205 200 96–97 144, 372 105 212 96–97 212 201 308, 341 109 103–6, 107, 200 8, 71–73, 96, 101, 205 96–97 182 106–8, 167 395, 408, 411 396 108–12 108–11

Index of Ancient Sources 18:8 18:13-27 19–24

19 19:1-24 19:1-2 19:1 19:2

19:3-9

19:3 19:6 19:9 19:10-19

19:10-11 19:18 19:19-22 19:20-25

19:20 20 20:1-17

20:1 20:18-22 20:18-21

20:22-26 21–23

21:1

240 108, 110–11, 196, 202, 257, 316 4, 8, 113–38, 144– 48, 149, 164–65, 167, 170–71, 175– 76, 193–94, 196, 448, 452–53, 455 125, 129, 145, 147, 171 113 71, 113, 121 72, 136, 205 4, 8, 72–73, 96, 107, 109, 130, 132– 33, 135, 147, 205 113–14, 115–16, 121, 122–24, 126, 128–29, 136 4, 130–33, 135, 147 297 83 114–16, 117–18, 121–25, 129–30, 132–36, 145, 147, 171–72 329 186, 188 136 115, 116, 117–18, 121, 122–23, 125, 136, 145, 147, 171 130 125, 129, 165, 171, 174 116, 117, 118–19, 121, 123, 130–33, 135, 147, 171 113, 172 113 117, 121, 122, 129– 30, 132–34, 136, 145–48 117–18, 121, 130– 36, 146–47 117–18, 121, 130– 33, 135–36, 146– 47, 171, 174 119, 131

22:26 23:15-19 23:15 23:20-33 23:20 23:23 23:28-31 23:28 24:1-18 24:1-2 24:3-8

24:4-8 24:4 24:5 24:9-11 24:9-10 24:11 24:12-18 24:12-15 24:12 24:15-18 24:15-16 24:16 24:18 25–31 25 25:10 25:16 25:21 25:22 26:33-34 26:33 28–30 28–29 28:3 28:12 28:21 28:41 29 29:1 29:20-21 29:27, 33, 36-37 29:39, 41

491 123 171 37, 341 85 342 30, 211 306 211 113 118, 119–20, 121– 22, 125, 136, 147 118–19, 121, 126– 36, 144, 146–48, 172, 174–76 31, 58 219 165 119–20, 121–22, 125, 136, 147 110 165 174 120, 121, 136, 167, 171, 173–77 186 8, 120–21, 136, 145 83, 124 212 4, 83, 124, 130–32 8, 31, 174–76, 187, 194, 308, 329 83, 124 191, 354 167, 191 167 191 354 332 124 58 123 331 219 123 126–27 123 126 123 100

492 29:43 29:44 29:46 30:8 30:26 30:29-30 31:2 31:7 31:13 31:18 32–34 32

32:1-20 32:1-8 32:1-6 32:1 32:5 32:6 32:7-14 32:7-8 32:9-14

32:10 32:12 32:13 32:15-20

32:21-24 32:25-29 32:30-35

33 33:1-6

Index of Ancient Sources 212 123 329 100 354 123 107 167 123 173–76, 186–87, 193 4, 8, 136, 149, 150– 79, 186–93, 194 31, 136, 150, 153– 56, 164–66, 168, 170, 173–74, 176, 186–93, 371 193 150–52, 164–66, 175–76 168, 189 131 37 186 152–53, 158, 187 153, 166, 187–89, 372 152–53, 154, 158, 164, 166, 167–68, 176–77, 186–90 212, 297 372 196 153–54, 155–56, 163–64, 167–68, 173–74, 175–77, 186, 188–90, 193 154, 164, 168, 177, 189–90 154–55, 164, 168, 177, 192 155–57, 164, 170, 176–77, 186, 188– 90, 192 156, 158, 164, 168, 170, 176, 191–92 156, 157–58, 159, 164, 168–69, 170, 176–77

33:1 33:2-4 33:2 33:5-11 33:7-11 33:9-10 33:11 33:12-17 33:13 33:18-23 33:18, 22 34

34:1-4

34:5-28

34:5 34:10 34:11-27 34:11 34:22 34:24 34:25 34:27-29 34:28 34:28-29 34:29-35 34:29-32 34:33-35 35–40 35:22 35:30 37 38:22 39:14 40:3 40:5 40:9-11, 13 40:20 40:21 40:34-38 40:34-35

192, 196 85 30, 211, 306 176 158, 163–64, 169– 70, 173, 202, 204 83, 124, 196 160 159, 160, 164, 170, 176 297 159–60, 170, 176 212 149, 157, 161, 163– 64, 168, 172–76, 189, 191–92, 196 160–61, 163–64, 170–71, 173–76, 186, 191 160, 161–63, 164, 170, 171–72, 174, 175–77 83, 124 297, 329 85 30, 211, 306, 329 37 297, 315 37 191 186, 189, 191–92 173 149, 163 163, 164, 172–73, 174, 175–76 163, 164, 173, 176 8, 31, 194, 308, 329 165 107 191 107 219 332, 354 354 123 167 332, 354 83, 124 212

493

Index of Ancient Sources Leviticus 1–27 4:13, 21 5:2 5:15, 21 7:14 8 8:12 8:23-24 8:30 9 9:6 9:23-24 9:23 9:24 10:1-5 10:2 11 11:10, 23, 29 11:31, 41 11:45 13–17 13–14 13 13:4-5 13:5 14:41, 43 16:2 16:7 16:13 16:33 17:6 18:24, 28 19:2, 26 20:7 20:8 20:24-26 20:23 21:8, 15, 23 22:5 22:9, 16, 32 22:33 23:5-8 23:5 23:6 23:24 23:29, 34 23:43 24:10

8, 194 144 56 371 58 124, 126–27 123 126 123, 126 122 212 169 212 243 122 243 123–24 56 56 128 123–24 32 204–5 205 204 308 83, 124 144 83, 124 144 58 297 128 128 123 128 297 123 56 123 128 341 100 165 331 37 128 62

25:9 25:38 25:44 25:45, 55 26:13 26:33, 38 26:40 26:45 26:46 27:32 Numbers 1:1–10:28 1:1–10:10 1:26 1:44 2:3 4:18 5:1-4 5:6 5:11-31 5:12, 27 9:1-4 9:3 9:5 9:11 9:15-22 10–22 10–14 10:5 10:7 10:11-28 10:11-12 10:11 10:12 10:14 10:28 10:29-36 10:33 10:34 11 11:1-3 11:1 11:3 11:4-35

124 128 297 128 128 297 371 297 128 219

8 194 212 219 212 219 374 371 168, 190 371 341 100 100, 341 100 83, 124 74 8 83, 196 144 194 83, 124, 196 194 71–72, 83, 96, 124, 195–96, 277 212 277 194–97 71–72, 96, 235, 354, 453 83, 124 194, 197–203 190, 197–98, 200– 202, 205–6 308 182 190, 197–202, 205– 6, 257

494 11:12, 14-17 11:25 11:34 11:35 12 12:10 12:11-13 12:16 13–14

13:1-33 13:1-17 13:21 13:23 13:25 13:26 13:27 13:32 14:1-10 14:1-5 14:2 14:3 14:5 14:6-10 14:6 14:7 14:8 14:11-25 14:12 14:14 14:15 14:16 14:23 14:25 14:26-35 14:27 14:36-38 14:36 14:39, 40-45 14:41 14:44 15

Index of Ancient Sources 316 83, 124 182 71–72, 96 194, 204–6, 237 83, 124 101 71–72, 96 182, 190, 194, 206– 24, 237, 320–21, 340 207–8, 209, 211– 13, 219–20 8 8 231 8 72 231 8, 231 8 209, 210, 213, 220 231, 372 82, 372 144 209, 211, 213, 220– 21 372 208 231 210, 211, 212–13, 220–21, 232 297, 315 83, 124 297 190 316 71, 96, 224, 247– 48, 273 209–10, 213, 220– 21, 223, 231 96–97 210, 211, 213 96–97 210, 211, 213, 221– 23, 237–38, 371–72 306 354 8, 194

15:15 16–17 16 16:1-2 16:2 16:3-11 16:3 16:7-8 16:12-15 16:13 16:16-24 16:19 16:25-34 16:33 16:35 17–19 17:1-5 17:3 17:5 17:6-15 17:7 17:12 17:16-26 17:17, 21 17:27-28 18–19 18:2 19:11-20 19:13 19:14 19:20 20–24 20:1

20:2-13 20:2 20:3 20:4 20:5 20:6-11 20:6

144 224–35 8 224, 225–28, 230, 233 96–97 8, 224–25, 226–28, 230, 233 128, 144, 165 96–97 225–26, 230, 231– 32, 233 18 8, 226–27, 228, 230, 233 165, 212 227, 230, 231–32, 233 144 8, 227, 228, 230, 233, 243 8 227–28, 230, 233 96–97 331 228, 229, 230, 233 83, 124, 165, 212 144 229–30, 233 219 229–30, 233 194 219 55 58 374 58, 144 8 4, 71–72, 194, 205, 236, 240, 277, 281, 286, 288, 448 105, 236, 240, 258, 288 165 237 144 237 8 144, 212

Index of Ancient Sources 20:10, 12 20:14-21

20:21 20:22-29 20:22

20:23-29 20:24 21:1-3 21:1 21:2 21:4-9 21:4 21:7, 9 21:10-20

21:10-11 21:20 21:21-35

21:21-24 21:29 21:33 22–24 22:1

22:2-8 22:4 22:6 22:7 22:9-20 22:20-21 22:21-35

144 4, 236, 238–41, 246, 264–76, 277, 283–84, 288, 304 249 240 71–72, 96, 205, 277–78, 280, 281, 283, 285, 286, 288, 448 8, 236, 238, 281, 288 190 236, 237–38, 288 442 270 71–72, 237, 278, 282, 288 96, 236–37, 277– 78, 281, 283, 286 299 71–73, 96, 205, 236, 277–87, 288, 448, 453 8 308 236, 241–45, 246, 264–76, 280, 282– 83, 285–86, 288, 309–10, 451 4 263 71, 280, 285 4, 286, 453 4, 8, 71–73, 96, 205, 236, 277, 280– 81, 285–86, 288, 305, 448 289–91, 294, 295, 304–6, 308–9, 310 144 303 299 291, 292, 294, 295– 96, 306, 310 306–7, 308, 310 291–92, 295–96, 301, 307, 311, 342

22:36–23:12 22:41 23:7-10 23:13-26 23:14 23:18-24 23:27–24:13 23:28 24:3-9 24:14-25 24:15-24 24:20 25–27 25:1-13 25:1-5 25:1 25:3, 5 25:17-18 25:18 26:9-11 26:19 27:7 27:14 28–29 28:4, 8 28:16-25 29:12 30 31 31:1-12 31:5 31:16 32 32:1-32 32:2-6 32:3 32:8-15 32:16-32 32:20, 27 32:28 32:29, 32 32:33-42 32:33 32:37 32:39-42

495 292–93, 294, 295– 96, 307–8, 310 285 297 293, 294, 295–96, 307–8, 310 285 297–300, 302–3 293–94, 295–96, 297–99, 307–8, 310 285 300–304 294–95, 308, 311 304 297 8 168 320 4, 205, 455 308 305 308 230–31 212 270 190 8 100 341 165 8 8 305 355 308, 371 331, 335 258 8 243 317 8 355 317 355 258 219, 317 243 317

496 33:1-49 33:1-15 33:6 33:16-36 33:30, 33-34 33:35-36 33:36-37 33:37-49 33:37 33:40 33:41-49 33:43-45 33:44 34–36 34:3 Deuteronomy 1–34 1–30 1–3

1 1:1-8 1:1 1:4 1:9-18 1:19-46

1:21 1:22 1:27 1:33 1:35 1:40 1:42 1:43 2:1-8

2:1 2:4-6 2:8–3:11 2:8

Index of Ancient Sources 8, 73–75 73–74 308 74 191 249 278 73–74 284, 308 442 284 278 282 8 308

8 5 6, 216–17, 236, 246–61, 264–76, 451, 455 190, 208, 219 246, 247–48, 256, 257–59 114 243 109, 202, 247, 257– 59, 316 206–7, 216–23, 247, 248–49, 253, 256, 257–59, 272, 320–21 392, 430 321 372 83, 124 316 273 372 213 247–49, 250–51, 254, 257–59, 264, 268–69, 273–76 217, 246 283, 304 247, 249–59, 264– 76 283, 304

2:13 2:14-16 2:15 2:17-18 2:24, 26, 30 2:34-35 3:1-4 3:2 3:3 3:6-7 3:6 3:12 3:13-14 3:13 3:17 3:18-20 3:18 3:27 3:29 4:3 4:11 4:29 4:38 4:44-45 4:45 4:46 4:49 5 5:1–6:3 5:1-5 5:4, 5 5:6-21 5:22–6:3 5:22-31 5:22 5:24-25 5:24 5:32–6:9 5:32 6:4 6:17 6:20-25 6:22-23, 25 7:1-6 7:1 7:2 7:4 7:5

279 340 430 279 243 395 285 392 243, 394 395 243 247 276 219 308 317 355 308 247, 308 308 83, 124 248 306, 315 114 139 243, 308 308 145–46 113, 139–46, 147 139–40, 141–48 135 139–40, 143–44 139, 140–42, 143– 47 184 83, 124 188 212 184 267 140, 142–43 321 184 321 359 211, 306 360, 417–18 373 373–74

Index of Ancient Sources 7:6 7:25-26 7:26 8:1 8:3 8:4 8:16 9–10 9 9:1-6 9:1 9:4, 5, 6 9:7–10:11 9:7-24 9:7-8 9:9-21 9:10 9:13 9:14 9:16, 18 9:22-24 9:23 9:25–10:11 9:25-29 9:25, 28 10:1-5 10:1-3 10:4 10:6-9 10:8 10:10-11 10:11 10:12-22 10:12 11:6 11:16-17 11:23 11:24 11:25 11:28 11:29-30 12–26 13:6 13:7-12

128 373–74 359–60, 374 316 101 417 101 180, 182–83, 191 181, 188, 190, 193 180–81 306 315 149–50, 180–93 182 180–81, 182, 184, 186, 190 181–82, 183–84, 186–90, 191–92 144 153 306, 372 372 182, 183, 184, 190 31 182 180–81, 182–84, 188, 190 372 181, 183–84, 191, 192, 196 354 144 183–84, 191–92 219, 334, 354 180–81, 183–84, 191, 192 316 180–81 184 232 373 306, 315 315–16 316 187 396 248, 447 393 373

13:13-19 13:17 13:18 14:2, 21 16:1-8 17:2-5 17:7 17:11 17:12 17:14-20 18 18:1 18:10 18:12 18:14 18:16 19:19 20:1-9 20:10-18 20:10-14 20:14 20:15-18 20:17 21:21 21:22-23 22:21, 22, 24 23:1-3 23:2-9 23:5-6 23:8 23:10-15 24:7 24:16 26:5-9 26:5 26:18, 19 27:1-8 27:11-26 28:9 28:14 29:4-5 29:6 29:7 29:16 29:25-26 31:7 31:9 31:15

497 359–60, 374 395, 406 373–74 128 341 373 393 267 393 438–39 237 219 299–300 315 299 144 393 439 359, 374 359–60, 394, 416 392, 438 359–60, 394, 416– 17, 419 30, 211 393 395, 430 393 144 274–75 305–6 144 355 393 374 240 306 128 395 396 128 267 417, 419 243 219 373 373 258, 316, 430 354 83

498 31:20 31:23, 24 31:25 31:29 31:30 32:1 32:51 33:17 33:20, 22 33:27 33:28 34:1 34:5-6 34:5 Joshua 1–12 1–23 1–5 1 1:1-2 1:6 1:8 1:9 1:10-11 1:11 1:12-18 1:12 1:17 1:18 2

2:1-7 2:1 2:4, 6 2:9-11 2:10 2:11 2:15-16 2:22-23 2:22 3–4

3:1

Index of Ancient Sources 316 430 354 187 144, 430 298 371 299 300 306 297 308 4 448

8, 452, 454 5 453 314–18, 411, 448, 451 328, 345, 411, 445 430 170 361, 430 320, 328 319 326, 331, 335 219 361 430 318–22, 328, 355, 363, 371–73, 375, 411 4 385 373 331 2 372 4 4 385 89, 322–37, 340, 343, 345, 411, 448, 449, 451 4, 319, 322–23, 328, 334, 345, 411, 455

3:2-4 3:2 3:3 3:5-6 3:6 3:7-8 3:7 3:8 3:9-13 3:10 3:11 3:12 3:13-15 3:13 3:14-17 3:14 3:16 3:17 4:1-10

4:2, 4 4:5, 7, 9-11 4:11 4:12-13 4:12 4:14 4:15-18 4:16, 18 4:19

4:20-24 4:23 5 5:1 5:2-9 5:10-12

323, 328–29, 334, 345 319 330, 354 323, 329, 334 327, 330, 354 323, 329, 332, 335 327, 361 354 323–24, 329, 334– 35 211, 315 327, 330, 354 219 354 92 324–325, 329–30, 334–35 4, 345, 411 4, 92, 326, 332, 345, 411 326–27, 332, 354 325–26, 327–28, 330–31, 332, 335, 336 219 354 326, 327, 330, 331, 345, 411 326, 327, 331, 335 219 327, 329, 332, 335, 361 327, 332, 336 354 4, 327, 333–34, 335, 339, 342, 344– 46, 411 328, 330–31, 335, 336, 340, 344 2 333, 338–45, 396, 411 338, 340, 343–44, 455 33, 338, 339, 340, 343–44, 345 335, 338–41, 343– 44, 345

Index of Ancient Sources 5:13-15 6–11 6

6:1-5 6:1 6:2 6:6-16 6:12 6:17-19 6:20-27 6:21 7 7:1, 2-5 7:2 7:5 7:6-26 7:6-15 7:6 7:16-26 7:12 7:13 8

8:1-2 8:1 8:3-9 8:3 8:5 8:7-8 8:9 8:10-13 8:10-11 8:11-13 8:11 8:12

30, 307, 339, 340, 342–44 453–55 124, 333, 339–40, 342–43, 345, 346– 65, 411, 442, 444– 45, 448 346–48, 349–52, 354, 362 339–40 340 348–51, 352, 354– 55, 362–63 322 351, 352–53, 354– 55, 363 351–56, 360–61, 362–63 319 363, 365–77, 411 365–66, 370–72, 375–76 442 403, 407 365–66, 371 366–67, 368–69, 370, 372, 375–76 393, 403–4 367–70, 373–76 365 123 371, 374–75, 378– 411, 442, 444–45, 448–49 378–79, 381, 391– 92, 407–8 371, 403–4, 430–31 379–80, 381–82, 386, 391–93, 407–8 387 403–4 378 339, 442 380–87, 391, 393, 404, 407–8 322 378 379 403–4, 442

8:13 8:14-17 8:14 8:15-16 8:17 8:18-23

8:18-19 8:24-29 8:24 8:26 8:30-35 9 9:1-2 9:1 9:3-15 9:10 9:16-27 9:17 9:18 10

10:1-15 10:1 10:15 10:16-27 10:28-43 10:43 11 11:3 11:4 12 12:1 12:2 12:3 12:4 12:5 12:6 12:8 12:9-24 13–24

499 339, 407 387–88, 389, 391– 93, 403–5, 407–8 383, 386 378 442 388–89, 390, 391– 94, 395, 403, 405– 6, 407–8 385 389–92, 394–95, 403, 405–7, 408 430 378 391, 395–96, 408 412–21, 430, 444– 46, 449 391, 412, 415, 419 30, 211 412–19, 444 243 414–19 277 96–97 412, 415, 421–35, 437–38, 439, 440, 444–46, 449, 450 421–24, 426–27, 428–33, 442, 444 412, 416 339 424–25, 428–33 425–30, 432–33, 437–38, 442, 444 339 435–41, 443, 444– 46 30, 211 395 441–46, 450 4, 317 243, 270 308 250 243 219 30, 211 4 445

500 13–22 13:1–21:42 13–21 13–19 13:1 13:4 13:6 13:7 13:10 13:12 13:14 13:15-23 13:17 13:20 13:21 13:22 13:26, 27 13:29-31 13:29, 33 14:6 15:1 15:13-19 15:20 15:23 15:30, 34, 35, 58 15:63 16:8 17:2-3 17:5 17:7-8 17:11 17:14 18:3 18:4, 7 18:11, 14 19:1 19:4 19:9 19:29 19:30, 37 19:47 20:6 20:7 21:9 21:25, 32 21:43 22:7, 9-11, 13, 15 22:17 22:21

Index of Ancient Sources 8 2 317, 442–43 212, 257–58 317 443 315 219 243 250 219 308 243, 258, 308 308 243, 258 299, 309 243 258 219 212 212 211–12 212 443 442 212 442 443 276 442 443 276 317 219 212 212 442 212, 276 276 443 317 385 443 212 443 317 219 308 219

23–24 23 23:5 23:9 23:13 24 24:1 24:2b-13 24:8, 9 24:11 24:12, 18 24:28-30 24:32 Judges 1:1–2:9 1:8, 16 1:17 2:1-5 2:6 2:8-10 2:8-9 2:17 2:21, 23 3:5 5:3 7:1 11–12 11 11:11 11:12-28

8, 445 431 315 306, 315 315 445 446 2 309 211 306 446 82

20:30-48 21

431 212 238, 442 85 446 14–15 446 187 315 30, 211 298 322 262 236 262 262–63, 264–65, 269–72, 275–76, 283–84, 286 242 243 315 374, 378, 392–94, 397–408, 411 397–98, 399–400, 402–4 393 398–400, 401, 402– 4 398–400, 401–6 401

1 Samuel 1:19 3:4

385 30

11:13 11:19 11:23, 24 20 20:1-19 20:13 20:20-29

501

Index of Ancient Sources 6:2 12:3 12:8 15 15:23 15:24 15:29 17 23:19, 24 25:12 26:1, 3 27:9 28:8

299 232 450–51 360 299 306 298–99, 302 439 308 385 308 385 299

2 Samuel 8:3-4 19:6 23:1 24:16-17

438 385 300–301 342

1 Kings 1:18 4:26 9:26 10:28 12 12:28-33 14:24 15:13 16:34 20:33 21:26 22:29

323 438 249 438 165–66 165–66 315 190 361 299 315 249

2 Kings 7:8 14:22 16:3 16:6 17 17:8 17:17 18:4 21:2 21:6 23:6, 12

385 249 315 249 157 315 299 299 315 299 190

Isaiah 1:2, 10

298

3:2 10:17 13:6 15:4 16:8-9 16:10 28:23 32:9 34:5-17 35:10 37:19 40–66 43:5 43:19-20 44:3 47:14 51:3 51:11 54:2, 3 58:11 61:6 61:9 63:1-6 65:9, 23

299 244 301 243 243 267 298 298 304 385 270 297 302 308 302 244 302 385 302 302 303 302 304 302

Jeremiah 4:28 13:15 14:14 15:6 20:16 27:9 29:8 30:16 30:18 31:2 31:11 33:22, 26 37:21 42:17 44:14, 28 48–49 48:2 48:33 48:34 48:45-46 49:3 50:28 51:50

298 298 299 298 298 299 299 303 302 298 302 302 270 244 244 304 243 267 243 244 243 244 244

502

Index of Ancient Sources

Ezekiel 1:24 6:8, 9 7:16 10:2 10:5 11:10, 12 12:24 13:6-7, 9, 23 17:5-6, 13, 23 19:1-9 19:11 19:14 21:3 21:26-28, 34 22:28 23:46 24:14 24:26, 27 25:8-14 28:13 31:8-9 33:21, 22 36:35 43:18 45:23

301 244 244 58 301 329 299 299 302 303 302 243 244 299 299 270 298 244 304 302 302 244 302 58 307

Hosea 5:1 9:10 11:8-9 12:10 13:14

298 308 298 302 298

Joel 1:2 1:15 2:1 2:15

298 301 124 124

Obadiah 18

Zephaniah 3:15

299

Zechariah 8:14 10:2 12:7

298 299 302

Psalms 13:6 17:1 39:13 49:2 54:4 68:8 68:15 78:40 81:3 84:9 91:1-2 98:1 104:33 106:14 106:16-18 106:28 107:4 110:4 143:1

93 298 298 298 298 308 301 308 124 298 301 93 93 308 230–31 308 308 298 298

Job 17:10 33:1 34:2, 16 42:8

385 298 298 307

Proverbs 16:10 24:3

299 243

Ruth 1:20-21

301

Daniel 8:25 10:13, 20-21 11:25 12:1

342 342 385 342

244, 304

Micah 3:6, 11 7:14

299 297

Habakkuk 1:3

299

503

Index of Ancient Sources Ezra 6:19-22 9–10

341 319

Nehemiah 2:15 9:8 9:22 13

385 30 243 319

1 Chronicles 15:26

307

21:15-17 21:16-17 29:5

342 307 168

2 Chronicles 8:17 20:36 29:31 30:15 33:6 35:1, 17

249 249 168 341 299 341

Qumran 4QJosha (4Q47) 9 ii 16 V9

380 383–86 380

V 10-13 V 11 V 14

383–87 381 388–89

Other Ancient Sources Deir ‘Alla inscription I.1 300–301 I.2 301, 306 I.5 301 I.12 301 KTU 1.3 II 4-30 1.13

356, 360 356, 360

Mesha inscription 11–12 14–17

357 356–57

RES 3945

358, 3

Index of Modern Authors Achenbach, R. 5, 99, 127–29, 150, 165– 69, 180, 182, 186–196, 198–202, 204, 206–7, 211, 213, 216–17, 219– 21, 223, 226, 228–29, 231–32, 236– 39, 249, 264, 268–69, 274, 280, 282–84, 289–292, 297–98, 300, 303–7, 309, 320, 355, 417 Addis, W. E. 2 Aejmelaeus, A. 21 Ahlström, G. W. 450 Ahuis, F. 29, 60, 228, 231 Albers, E. 2 Albertz, R. 7, 12–15, 17, 19, 22, 24–25, 28–29, 36–37, 39–40, 47, 55, 57, 59–60, 79, 81–86, 100, 102, 104–9, 111, 158, 169, 170, 236–38, 240, 278–80, 282, 331, 454 Anbar, M. 446 Artus, O. 206–7, 211, 213, 220–21, 231–32 Assis, E. 320 Auld, A. G. 1, 325, 338–39, 341, 378, 396 Aurelius, E. 36, 38, 95–96, 119, 144, 149, 152–60, 167, 170–71, 176, 186, 188, 198, 201, 212, 221, 228, 231– 32, 237, 373, 445–46 Baden, J. S. 7, 12, 19, 74, 100, 108, 122, 149–50, 182, 186, 191, 198, 200, 204, 206–7, 211–13, 217, 220– 21, 225, 228, 230–32, 236–38, 241, 246, 264, 277–78, 281, 447, 448, 454 Baentsch, B. 92, 109, 198, 200, 237–38, 281 Bar-On, S. 60, 171 Bartlett, J. R. 236, 243, 264, 266–67, 272

Becker, U. 4, 262, 264, 397–404, 407, 445, 450 Begg, C. T. 190, 372, 375 Bekkum, K. van 430, 438, 442 Berlejung, A. 149 Berner, C. 4, 7, 11–15, 17–19, 21–33, 36–37, 39–41, 43–63, 76–86, 88, 91–93, 95–96, 100, 104–11, 115, 117, 123, 127, 142, 146, 148, 153, 196, 207, 225–32, 237, 340, 359, 412–18, 424, 450 Bertheau, E. 402 Bertholet, A. 2 Beyerlin, W. 154 Bickert, R. 289–91, 293, 295–96, 300, 305, 309 Bieberstein, K. 4–5, 20, 314, 317, 319, 322–27, 329–31, 333–36, 338–40, 342–54, 362–65, 445, 449–50 Bleek, F. 1 Blenkinsopp, J. 122, 333, 412, 416–17, 421, 439 Blum, E. 5, 7–8, 11, 14, 19, 22, 24, 29, 32–33, 40, 51, 79, 82–83, 85, 107, 111, 119, 122, 126, 128–29, 149, 153, 160, 166, 168–69, 171–72, 175, 194–96, 199–200, 206–7, 211, 220, 231–32, 238, 240, 249, 264, 266, 274, 309, 318–21, 328, 331, 338–43, 351, 354, 362–63, 371–72, 408, 439–40, 442–43, 445 Böhler, D. 263–64, 283 Boling, R. G. 3, 243, 415, 425 Boorer, S. 150, 152–57, 160–61, 164, 168, 173–74, 180, 184, 186–90, 192–93 Braulik, G. 5 Brekelmans, C. 339, 341, 446 Brenner, M. L. 93

Index of Modern Authors Brettler, M. Z. 5, 82 Brichto, H. C. 168 Briend, J. 328, 354, 414–16, 418, 421– 23, 426–28, 432, 435, 440, 442–43, 445 Bron, F. 358 Brooke, A. E. 399 Budd, P. J. 198, 200, 213, 285, 289–91 Bührer, W. 290–91, 294–96 Burney, C. F. 397–98, 402 Butler, T. C. 378, 391, 415 Campbell, A. F. 318–19, 427, 437, 440, 442, 445 Carpenter, E. 108, 111 Carpenter, J. E. 2 Carr, D. M. 2, 5, 8, 14–15, 19, 29, 171, 186–88, 192–93, 206–7, 211, 213, 219, 222–23, 447, 450 Cassuto, U. 168 Cazelles, H. 71, 129 Childs, B. S. 11, 14–15, 17, 28–29, 37, 39, 47, 55, 57–60, 81–82, 84–86, 100, 106, 108, 128, 149, 151–52, 154–55, 157–59, 168, 173 Chung, Y. H. 149, 151, 154–55, 180, 184, 186, 188, 190–91 Clements, R. E. 373–74 Coats, G. W. 62, 71–74, 95, 106, 198, 200–201, 212, 231, 237, 264, 272, 330 Colenso, J. W. 2, 100 Cooke, G. A. 2 Cornhill, C. H. 359 Cortese, E. 8, 257, 317 Cross, F. M. 7, 73, 93, 101, 128 Crouch, C. L. 359 Crüsemann, F. 93, 127–28, 149, 160, 163, 176 Dahmen, U. 168, 192 Davies, G. I. 73–74, 279, 283–84 Day, P. L. 307 Dearman, J. A. 266, 357 Dietrich, W. 357, 359–60, 363, 366, 372, 437 Dillmann, A. 2, 73, 378 Doak, B. 250

505

Dohmen, C. 120, 122, 126, 129, 149– 56, 160, 162, 165, 167–68, 173–75, 186–87, 190–91 Donner, H. 278, 298, 302, 357, 392 Dozeman, T. B. 12, 14–15, 24, 28–30, 32, 37, 40, 44, 47, 55, 57–60, 62, 75, 81–84, 92, 96, 100–101, 108, 115, 118–19, 121–23, 125, 127, 129, 149, 159, 167–70, 172, 186, 201, 240, 285, 315–16, 322, 324–27, 329–31, 333, 335, 340, 346, 354, 362, 371– 75, 381, 391–93, 395–96, 405, 416, 418, 423–24, 427, 431, 436–38 Driver, S. R. 2 Durham, J. I. 173 Dus, J. 335 Ebach, J. 30 Edenburg, C. 359, 371, 373–75, 397– 407, 416–18, 449 Ehrlich, A. B. 219 Eissfeldt, O. 2–3, 237 Ewald, H. 1 Fabry, H.-J. 330–31 Fernández, A. 401–2 Finkelstein, I. 274, 286 Finsterbusch, K. 140 Fishbane, M. 359, 361 Fleming, D. E. 236, 248, 257, 351–52, 362, 451–52 Floss, J. P. 318 Focken, F.-E. 263–64 Fohrer, G. 3, 93, 129, 237 Frankel, D. 100, 228–31 Freedman, D. N. 93 Frevel, C. 4, 109–10, 162, 274, 282, 285, 450 Friedman, R. E. 196, 204 Fritz, V. 3, 73, 103–5, 166, 169, 194, 198–200, 204, 212–13, 221, 227–28, 231, 236–37, 240, 242–43, 264, 274, 277, 281, 289, 291, 296, 309, 322, 324–26, 329–35, 340, 347, 349–55, 361–63, 366, 369–71, 379, 382, 387–92, 394–95, 407–8, 415–16, 418, 421–31, 435–37, 442–43

506

Index of Modern Authors

Gall, A. F. von 298 García-López, F. 180 Gass, E. 289, 296, 300, 302–4 Geddes, A. 1 Gerhards, M. 11–15, 17–20, 449 Germany, S. 315 Gertz, J. C. 4, 7, 11–15, 17–19, 21–25, 28–32, 36–41, 44, 46–63, 77–86, 153–54, 159, 165–67, 169–70, 186, 188–89, 450 Gesundheit, S. 60, 253–54, 266, 268 Gilders, W. K. 126–27 Glatt-Gilad, D. A. 264 Goff, B. L. 2, 450 Görg, M. 169, 307, 402, 422 Graf, K. H. 7, 100, 447 Grätz, S. 263–64 Gray, G. B. 194, 198, 200, 237, 285, 300 Gray, J. 397 Greenberg, M. 374 Greenspoon, L. J. 346, 378 Gressmann, H. 238, 243 Gross, W. 83, 85, 129, 262–64, 289–91, 296, 305, 309, 398, 406 Guillaume, P. 322 Gunneweg, A. H. J. 169–70, 198, 202, 204 Haarmann, V. 29, 108, 111, 319–20, 331, 373 Hahn, J. 149, 152–53, 155–56, 167, 180, 186 Halbe, J. 161, 412, 415–16, 418 Hall, S. L. 431 Hanson, P. D. 243 Hart, S. 267 Hartenstein, F. 169 Harvey, J. E. 320 Hawk, L. D. 373–74 Hayes, C. E. 153, 155, 180, 182–83, 186, 189, 192–93 Heckl, R. 247–51, 253–54, 257, 264 Hentschel, G. 225–27, 232, 393, 397– 98, 401, 403 Herrmann, S. 93 Hertzberg, H. W. 415 Hoffman, Y. 359 Hoffmann, H.-D. 190

Hollenberg, J. 338 Holmes, S. 378 Hölscher, G. 120, 251, 254–55 Holzinger, H. 2, 153–54, 198, 237, 281, 378 Hossfeld, F.-L. 128, 131, 139–42, 145– 46, 154, 161, 163, 165, 167, 180–83, 187, 193 Howard, D. M. 319 Hurowitz, V. A. 149 Hyatt, J. P. 156, 167–68 Jackson, K. P. 357 Jenks, A. W. 128, 200 Jeon, J. 22–28, 30, 32, 36, 41, 43, 46, 104, 230–31 Jeremias, J. 129, 160–61, 175 Jódar-Estrella, C. 342 Johnstone, W. 5, 97, 101, 109, 169–71, 186, 193, 447 Joüon, P. 91, 350, 352, 379 Kaiser, A. 74, 100, Kaiser, O. 289 Kallai, Z. 74 Kaminsky, J. 357, 363, 368, 374 Kaswalder, P. 244, 262–64 Kearney, P. J. 415–17 Kegler, J. 29 Keller, C. A. 334 Klostermann, A. 7 Knauf, E. A. 4, 267, 278, 282, 319, 321–25, 328, 334–35, 338, 340, 342, 344, 362, 396, 407–8, 415–16, 419, 421, 424, 426–29, 437–40, 442–43, 445–46, 449–50, 452 Knierim, R. P. 108 Knobel, A. W. 2 Knohl, I. 128, 228–29 Koch, K. 40 Köckert, M. 117, 119, 121, 129 Kohata, F. 48, 50, 59–60, 79, 82 Konkel, M. 119, 126–27, 129, 131, 149–51, 153–55, 157–63, 167–70, 172, 174–75, 183, 186–88, 445, 450 Köppel, U. 236, 264 Kratz, R. G. 4, 6–10, 13–15, 17–19, 21, 23–26, 31, 55, 81, 83–86, 93, 96, 100–102, 107, 111, 115, 117, 119,

Index of Modern Authors 130–32, 140, 143, 152, 157, 164–65, 169–70, 196, 204, 207, 216–17, 228, 231, 237–39, 247–48, 255, 277, 281–82, 285, 290, 308, 309, 318, 320, 322, 328, 334, 362, 370, 407, 440, 443, 445–46, 450–51, 455 Kraus, H.–J. 129 Krause, J. J. 5, 30, 33, 100, 315, 317, 319–22, 324–26, 328, 330–31, 333– 35, 338–45, 355, 372–73 Krüger, T. 79, 86 Kuenen, A. 2, 100, 226, 231, 333, 342, 447 Kutsch, E. 171 Lamberty-Zielinski, H. 82 Langlamet, F. 319, 334–35 Langlois, M. 412, 421–29, 433–34 Latvus, K. 373, 375, 421 Lee, E.-W. 322–28, 337 Lehming, S. 104, 149–50, 152 Lemaire, A. 356–57 Levin, C. 7–8, 12, 14–15, 17–19, 21– 24, 29, 31, 37, 46, 48, 50, 56, 58–60, 63, 77–79, 81, 83–86, 92–93, 96, 100, 108–10, 118–20, 130–35, 161, 169, 174–75, 195, 196, 200, 207, 209–12, 224, 228, 231, 289, 291, 296, 306, 368–69, 454 Levine, B. 74, 194, 196, 198, 204, 212– 13, 229, 231, 237–38, 243–44, 284, 289–90, 292, 300, 307 Lingen, A. van der 422–24, 426–27 Lipiński, E. 242, 266 Liver, J. 414, 416 Loewenstamm, S. E. 168 Lohfink, N. 5, 129, 180–84, 186, 250, 357, 360, 375 Löhr, M. 7, 289 Loretz, O. 174 Loza, J. 149, 189 Lux, R. 232 MacDonald, B. 244, 278 Maier, J. 195–96, 334, 354 Malamat, A. 371 Margalit, B. 422 May, H. G. 60

507

Mayes, A. D. H. 139–42, 184, 250, 254, 255, 418 Mazor, L. 346, 361, 365, 378–79, 382, 384, 390, 392, 395, 402–3, 405–7 McCarthy, D. J. 128 McLean, N. 399 Meer, M. van der 338–40, 345–46, 362, 378–81, 383, 385, 388–92, 394–96, 405, 407–8 Meyer, E. 238 Milgrom, J. 231, 285 Miller, J. M. 3, 73, 244, 252, 258, 264, 278–79, 436 Mittmann, S. 116, 118–20, 129, 131, 139–42, 216–17, 219, 222–23, 238– 41, 247–58, 262, 264, 267–68, 271 Moatti-Fine, J. 378 Moberly, W. 149, 155–56, 168, 173 Moenikes, A. 5 Monroe, L. A. S. 357–58 Moore, G. F. 398, 402 Moore, M. 307 Mowinckel, S. 2–3, 93, 296, 298, 333, 418, 442–43 Müller, R. 81, 87, 446, 450 Muraoka, T. 91, 350, 352, 379 Na’aman, N. 396, 428, 430, 435, 437– 38, 440, 442, 449 Nelson, R. 139–40, 142–43, 180–84, 186, 216–17, 219, 246–47, 249–51, 253–54, 264, 319, 322–23, 330, 332, 334–35, 339–40, 343, 355, 357, 359, 361–62, 367, 370–71, 373–74, 378– 80, 382–83, 388, 390, 392–95, 412, 414–16, 418–24, 426, 428–40, 439, 442, 449 Nentel, J. 314–15 Nicholson, E. W. 3, 119 Niessen, C. 393, 397–98, 401, 403 Nihan, C. 4, 395–96, 450 Nöldeke, T. 8, 100, 371 Noort, E. 107, 338, 340, 359 Noth, M. 2–3, 6, 11–12, 17, 21–22, 26, 28, 32, 37, 39–40, 43–44, 47–49, 55–60, 74, 81–82, 84–86, 93, 95, 100, 103–7, 118, 121–22, 126, 128, 131, 149–50, 152, 154–57, 160–61, 164–68, 170, 173, 196, 198–201,

508

Index of Modern Authors

204, 206, 211–13, 221, 223, 225, 227, 229, 231, 236–39, 242–43, 257, 262–64, 277–82, 285, 296, 307, 319, 325, 333, 340, 347, 350, 352–54, 363, 368–69, 371, 381, 391–92, 402, 415–16, 421–22, 425–27, 435–36, 440, 442–43, 450, 452 Oettli, S. 378 Orlinsky, H. M. 378 Oswald, W. 5, 19, 33, 105, 113–23, 125–26, 128–31, 145, 149, 169, 238–41, 249, 264, 274–75, 335 Otto, E. 5, 17–20, 24, 29–32, 41, 111, 119, 126–27, 129, 139–42, 146, 149, 163, 165–69, 171–72, 180–84, 186– 88, 190–93, 206, 211–13, 216–17, 219–21, 223, 236, 240, 247–53, 255, 257–58, 264, 268–69, 275, 317, 330, 449, 455 Ottoson, M. 360 Owczarek, S. 191, 202 Peckham, B. 180, 193, 322–23, 329, 333 Perlitt, L. 119, 126, 129, 131, 139–42, 145–46, 149, 154, 160, 167, 171, 174, 202, 208–9, 216–17, 244, 246– 53, 255, 257–58, 268, 271 Plöger, J. G. 247, 249, 251–52, 255–56 Porzig, P. 180, 183, 191–92, 195–96, 322, 324–26, 328–30, 334–35, 346– 47, 352, 361–63, 366–69, 371, 374 Pressler, C. 320 Propp, W. H. C. 12, 14–15, 28, 37, 39– 40, 55, 58–60, 108, 114, 122, 126, 149, 167 Procksch, O. 238, 354 Pury, A. de 14 Rabe, N. 207, 211 Rad, G. von 2, 128 Rake, M. 2 Ray, P. J. 244 Redford, D. B. 12, 15, 18 Renaud, B. 116, 122, 128, 150, 173, 186, 188, 193 Rendtorff, R. 3, 7, 19 Richter, W. 262–64

Robinson, B. P. 320 Robker, J. M. 289–93, 295–96, 304–6, 309 Rofé, A. 142, 289, 291, 309, 359 Röllig, W. 357, 392 Römer, T. 2–3, 5, 7–8, 14, 16, 19, 22– 24, 29–31, 82, 96, 100–101, 104, 108–11, 119, 122, 125, 127–28, 166, 169, 175, 201, 204, 231, 236, 315, 319, 340, 445–46, 449–50, 454 Rose, M. 5, 30, 202, 207, 236, 264, 271–72, 339, 341, 374 Rösel, H. 319, 322, 335, 339–40, 351– 53, 355, 362–63, 366, 371, 373, 381–82, 390, 392, 394–95, 397, 400–403, 407, 412, 415–18, 421, 426–30, 432, 436–40, 442 Roskop, A. 62, 72–74, 109, 247, 277, 279, 282–83, 285 Rost, L. 307 Roth, W. 407 Rouillard, H. 289, 294, 296, 298, 300– 304, 306–7, 309 Routledge, B. 266–67, 279, 284, 356– 57 Rudnig-Zelt, S. 207 Rudolph, W. 2, 22, 47, 77, 79, 83, 93, 108, 125, 156–57, 160, 172, 196, 198–200, 202, 206, 236–38, 281, 289, 325, 333, 338, 340, 347, 349, 370, 378, 380–81, 387, 391–92, 395, 407, 415, 418 Ruprecht, E. 99–100, 102, 104, 118, 126 Rüterswörden, U. 253 Samuel, H. 152–56, 167–68, 174, 180, 183, 192, 225–26, 228–29, 231–32, 359, 398, 416 Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C. 359, 412–13, 415–17 Schart, A. 104, 206, 211–12, 216–17, 219–23, 231, 237, 447 Schenker, A. 129 Schipper, B. U. 15, 237, 316 Schmid, H. H. 5, 454 Schmid, K. 1, 3–4, 14, 17–19, 24, 29, 31–32, 93, 149, 166, 169, 445–46, 450

Index of Modern Authors Schmidt, L. 14, 47–48, 54, 60–61, 74, 85, 100–102, 115–16, 125–26, 129, 135, 139–42, 194–96, 198–201, 204, 206, 209, 211–12, 220–22, 225–29, 231–32, 236–40, 242–44, 264, 267, 269, 277, 280–82, 284–85, 289–91, 296, 298, 300, 303, 305, 307, 320, 447 Schmidt, W. H. 12–14, 17, 22–23, 28– 29, 32, 39, 50, 55, 60, 93, 111 Schmitt, G. 162, 442 Schmitt, H.-C. 5, 14, 17, 19, 25, 29, 31, 58, 82–83, 85–88, 127–28, 135, 149–50, 152–54, 156–57, 162, 165– 69, 171, 202, 212, 226, 231–32, 243–44, 289, 291, 294, 296, 302–4, 307, 342 Schmitt, R. 107, 238, 271, 359, 361–62, 370, 373–75, 391–92, 395, 407, 426, 430, 439–40, 443 Schorn, U. 5, 226, 231–32, 331 Schüle, A. 289, 301, 304, 309 Schulz, S. 397–403, 405–7 Schunck, K.–D. 402 Schwartz, B. J. 109, 173 Schwienhorst, L. 124, 347–49, 352–55, 362, 374 Seebass, H. 194–96, 198, 200, 204, 206–7, 211, 220, 222, 227, 229, 231, 237–39, 242–43, 264, 266–67, 277– 78, 281, 285, 289–90, 292–94, 296– 98, 303–5 Seitz, G. 180–81, 184 Sellin, E., 3 Sherwood, A. 320 Sipilä, S. 323, 325 Ska, J.-L. 100, 126–29 Smend, R. (Sr.) 2, 39, 156, 298 Smend, R. (Jr.) 129, 314, 431 Smith, M. S. 101, 109, 124, 128–29, 131, 149, 167, 356 Soggin, J. A. 3, 262, 319, 442 Spina, F. A. 373 Stackert, J. 126, 128, 149, 169, 173, 204, 447, 454 Staerk, W. 128, 251, 257 Stähelin, J. J. 2 Steinthal, H. 217 Stek, J. A. 373

509

Stern, E. 20 Stern, P. D. 357, 360 Steuernagel, C. 2, 249–51, 253–54, 315 Sturdy, J. 237 Sumner, W. A. 236, 250, 264 Sutherland, R. 415, 418 Sweeney, M. A. 361 Talstra, E. 180, 182 Teeter, D. A. 316 Tengström, S. 3, 445 Timm, S. 243, 245, 289, 296–300, 305– 6 Tov, E. 142, 315, 319, 323, 325, 338, 341, 346, 378, 383, 388 Trebolle Barrera, J. 398–400 Troyer, K. de 339, 424–25, 427, 432 Tyson, C. W. 244 Ulrich, E. 378, 380, 383–86, 388 Ussishkin, D. 430 Utzschneider, H. 19 Valentin, H. 29, 106, 156 Van Seters, J. 5, 7–8, 14, 28–30, 32, 44–45, 59–60, 82, 100, 105, 108–9, 121–22, 149, 152, 159–60, 165, 167, 170, 180, 186, 204–5, 207, 231, 236, 244, 246, 264, 268, 271–72, 285, 289, 291, 294, 296–301, 303–7, 319, 326, 340, 445, 454 Vaux, R. de 74, 211, 213, 279, 407 Veijola, T. 139–44, 180, 183, 206, 211, 216–17, 246–51, 253, 255, 369–71, 373–75 Vermeylen, J. 149, 180, 186 Vogt, E. 334 Volz, P. 7 Vriezen, T. C. 14 Wagenaar, J. 100, 322, 328, 334, 339, 341 Walsh, J. T. 73, 83, 95, 205, 278, 286 Wambacq, B. N. 60 Weimar, P. 23–24, 29, 31–32, 48, 77– 79, 84–85, 149–57, 165, 167–68, 177, 415, 421, 424, 428 Weinfeld, M. 128, 139–40, 187, 191, 219, 247, 253, 315–16

510

Index of Modern Authors

Weippert, M. 243, 266 Wellhausen, J. 1–2, 7, 17, 28–29, 37, 39, 55, 60, 62, 74, 77, 96, 100, 108, 114, 122, 126, 149, 152, 156–57, 163, 167, 170, 172, 195, 211–12, 225, 231, 237–38, 264, 292, 300, 333, 349, 368, 398, 418, 443, 447, 454 Wette, W. M. L. de 2, 6 Wevers, J. W. 278 Witte, M. 289, 291, 294, 296, 298, 305, 308–9 Wright, G. E. 3, 415, 425 Wright, J. L. 212, 224

Würthwein, E. 361 Wüst, M. 242–43, 262, 264, 272, 309 Younger, K. L. 357–58, 423, 437 Zahn, M. 60 Zenger, E. 3–4, 92, 106–7, 119, 129, 131, 149, 151–52, 154, 157, 160–61, 163, 167–68, 172, 175, 450, 452 Zimmerli, W. 128 Zobel, H. J. 289, 303 Zwickel, W. 74, 278, 286 Zyl, A. H. van 266

Subject Index Achan narrative 363, 365–76, 403, 411 Amalek/Amalekites 106–8, 167, 210, 222, 395–96, 408 Ammon/Ammonites 242, 249, 250, 252–55, 259, 262–63, 268, 272–73, 275, 283, 290, 305–6 Amorites 220, 242, 244, 252, 262–63, 265, 280, 283, 309103, 338, 343–44, 366, 372, 421–24, 428 – hill country of the 216, 247–48, 256 Anak/Anakites 211, 437, 439 ancestral narratives 13–14, 19–20, 106, 240, 297, 455 angel of Yhwh/‫ מלאך ה׳‬23, 79, 85, 89, 157, 159, 240, 307, 342 ark of Yhwh 183–84, 191–92, 195–97, 323–36, 347–51, 354–55, 362, 366, 396, 398, 404, 411 ban see ḥērem Benjaminites 378, 397–408 Canaanites 210, 222, 236–37, 334, 338, 343–44, 366, 372 circumcision 32124, 338, 340, 343–44 Cisjordan 441, 443, 451–52 – kings of 412, 441–43 – tribes of 258118, 31719, 443 coordination/harmonization 101129, 120, 145–48, 152, 187–90, 222–23, 226, 24340, 24973, 25188, 271, 283, 293, 305, 380, 394, 403, 405, 407–8, 411, 418–19, 42994 covenant/‫ברית‬ – ark of the 196, 324, 328, 349 – with inhabitants of the land, 161, 162, 164, 413–14, 416–18, 43097

– with Yhwh 31, 121, 126, 128–30, 136, 139–40, 143–44, 147, 161, 172, 181, 196, 372 Covenant Code 118–19, 123, 130–36, 146–47, 171119, 176, 455 Decalogue 116–19, 130–36, 139–48, 164–65, 172, 174–76, 187, 193, 453, 455 detour – around Edom 236, 238–40, 246, 262, 269, 273–74, 281, 282199, 283–84, 286, 288 – around Moab 262, 283–84, 286 – via the Sea of Reeds 96, 210, 247, 249, 257, 273–74 Deuteronomic law 139–40, 143, 146– 47, 447, 455 Deuteronomistic History 3, 5–6, 20760, 45221 divine presence/absence 76, 83, 124, 157–58, 169–70, 196, 212, 222, 324, 32881 divine warrior, Yhwh as 87, 89 Documentary Hypothesis 6, 9, 55, 12139, 149, 20659, 223, 232170, 289, 447, 454 DtrL 5–6 Edom/Edomites 236, 238–40, 246, 249– 50, 252–55, 259, 262, 265–70, 272– 75, 277, 281, 282199, 283–84, 286, 288, 304 elders – of Israel 24–26, 31–32, 37137, 53, 110, 114, 118–20, 141, 197–200, 202, 227, 257, 366, 381, 391, 393 – of Midian 290–91, 305, 310–11 – of Moab 291

512

Subject Index

Elohim 77, 89, 110, 113, 289, 293–94, 306 Enneateuch 4–6, 166, 284, 445 etiology 61, 95, 98–102, 105–6, 112, 140–43, 146–47, 155, 168, 177, 202, 237, 328, 335107, 338111, 340124, 35450, 369–70, 375, 391 exodus narrative 6, 13–14, 19–20, 32122, 33125, 40–41, 55, 57, 62, 69, 93, 96, 112, 235, 329, 431, 439134, 449–52 exodus-conquest narrative 1, 3–6, 164, 308, 361, 419, 445, 448–52, 455 forty years in the wilderness 100, 209, 248, 25186, 257, 340–41, 417, 419 fragmentary hypothesis 9, 1044 giants 249–50, 259, 276, 439 Gibeon/Gibeonites 412–19, 421–22, 424, 428–30, 432, 436–37, 444145, 449 harmonization see coordination ḥērem 236–37, 252, 256, 259, 272, 319– 20, 351–53, 355–60, 362–63, 366– 68, 370, 373–75, 416–17, 419, 427, 432 Hexateuch 12, 14, 2–6, 20760, 445, 454 Hivites 412, 419, 436 Holiness Code/texts 6, 123–24, 128 intercession – by Joshua 366, 372 – by Moses 45, 46, 49, 51, 57, 59, 61, 152–57, 159–60, 170, 176–77, 181– 83, 188–89, 192, 205, 210, 221 itinerary notices 62261, 71–76, 81–82, 88, 95–97, 101, 107, 112–13, 135– 36, 147, 191, 201, 205, 236, 240, 259, 274, 277–86, 288, 345, 451, 453 Joseph story 14–16, 1943, 57, 70, 453 Josiah 190, 439138, 449 King’s Highway 266 Levites 154–55, 168, 177, 183, 192, 225–30, 233

manna 98–102, 107, 194, 198–202, 338–39, 341 Maṣṣot 53–54, 62, 333, 338, 341 Moab/Moabites 244–45, 249–50, 252– 53, 255, 259, 262–63, 266–68, 272– 73, 275, 279, 280, 283–84, 286, 289–93, 295, 305, 309, 356–57 murmuring/complaint motif 85, 96–101, 103–5, 200, 204–5, 208–10, 212, 217, 220, 372 Passover 52–54, 60–61, 333–34, 338, 340–41, 343–44 Pentateuchal sources, classical 2–3, 6– 7, 9, 29, 40–41, 121–22, 126, 128, 237, 447–48, 454 Philistines 250, 439 pilgrimage routes 74, 282201 pillars of cloud and fire 76, 79–80, 83, 85–87, 89, 169106, 196, 212, 217 priestly literature 7–9 and passim quails 98–102, 107, 194, 197–202, 205– 6 Rahab narrative 318–21, 328, 33192, 33194, 352–53, 355, 363, 371–73, 375, 411 Sabbath 98, 100, 102 Sargon legend 18, 20, 69, 449 Shema 140, 142–43 Sihon and Og 236, 241–46, 249, 251– 56, 258–59, 262, 264–73, 275, 280, 282–83, 286, 288, 309–10, 442–43, 451, 453 Sinai – lawgiving at 130–36 – pericope 423, 734, 12140, 123, 12769, 147, 165, 175, 194 – theophany at 60, 109159, 121, 329, 452 spies, story of the 82, 190, 194, 206–24, 231–33, 247–48, 251, 257, 259, 273–74, 317, 320–21, 340, 372 staff – of Aaron 43–46, 55–56, 229–30, 233 – of God 106, 108

Subject Index – of Moses 26–27, 31–32, 43, 55, 79, 104–5, 395 supplementary hypothesis 9, 1044, 40, 70, 87, 230, 232170, 289, 448 tablets 154, 160–61, 163, 167, 173–76, 181–84, 186–89, 191–93, 196 Tent of Meeting 83, 158, 160, 163, 169–70, 176, 202, 204 testing motif 95, 101129, 104, 145, 212 Tetrateuch 454 theophany 23, 30, 115, 117, 119, 121– 25, 12769, 129–30, 132–36, 147, 165, 170–71, 329 Transjordan 247, 249, 256, 258, 263, 278175, 282, 284–86, 309, 315, 436, 441–42, 449–51, 453 – tribes of 258, 314–15, 317, 326–27, 331, 335

513

translator, role of the 227136, 32346, 32561, 334106, 339117, 345c, 3462, 378–80, 383–84, 387, 392218, 407298, 42669, 437 Tritoteuch 454 Übergabeformel 379, 392, 403, 431 Vorwegnahme 101126, 170, 326 Wiederaufnahme 26, 39, 53, 114, 117, 121, 133, 136, 162, 171118, 180, 182, 199, 205, 207, 228, 243, 245–46, 248, 256, 257114, 273, 278, 292, 314, 326, 339, 344148, 388, 400, 413, 437 Yahwist, late 5–6, 20760, 341133

Index of Geographical Names Achor, Valley of 368–70, 375 Achshaf 443 Adullam 442 Ai 278, 365–66, 370–71, 374–75, 378– 96, 403–8, 413–14, 422, 442–44, 449, 451 Almon-diblathaim 284 Aphek 443 Aqaba, Gulf of 249, 266, 286 214 Arabah, Wadi 266, 278175, 405 Arad 442 Arnon 242, 244, 252, 254, 262–63, 266142, 272, 275, 279–80, 282199, 284, 285213, 292 Ashdod 439 Ataroth 356–57 ‘Ay, Khirbet 278, 279184 Baal-Gad 436 Bamoth 285 Bamoth-baal 292, 295 Bashan 245, 252, 280 Beth Horon 423 Bethel 165–66, 361, 383, 388196, 398, 442–43 Canaan 99, 262, 339, 341 Damascus 266 Dan 165–66 Dead Sea 25291, 324, 449 Debir 426, 42994, 442 Dibon-Gad 284 Dor 443 Dur-Katlimmu 74 Ebal, Mount 391, 395 Edomite plateau 267143, 436 Eglon 426, 428–29, 442

Elat 249 Elim 713, 95, 101–2, 107, 147 En-Dor 443 Eshkol, Wadi 208 Etam 82 Ezion-Geber 7421, 249 Gath 439 Gaza 286214, 427, 439 Geder 442 Gedor 442 Gerizim, Mount 395 Gezer 425, 429, 442 Ghazza, Dharb el- 286214 Gibeah 399256, 404, 406 Gibeon 421–22, 424, 428–29, 432, 436 Gilgal 327, 338–39, 346, 422, 424, 427, 432–33, 443 Goshen 46–47, 49, 57–58 Hasa, Wadi al- 278 Hazeroth 205 Hazor 436, 443 Hebron 211, 426, 428–29, 442 Hepher 443 Hermon, Mount 251, 435–36 Hesban, Tell 244 Heshbon 242–45, 265, 273 Hor, Mount 72, 7421, 277–78, 281, 282200 Horeb 140, 180, 182, 248, 256 Hormah 237, 288, 442 Iye-abarim 278–81, 283, 285 Jabbok 242, 262–63, 272, 275, 282199 Jazer 242, 245, 273

Index of Geographical Names Jericho 12459, 319, 333, 339, 342, 345– 63, 365, 371, 373, 379, 413–14, 428, 442–44, 449, 451 Jerusalem 124, 421, 442 Jordan River 71, 8990, 242, 250, 262– 63, 272, 285, 314–15, 322–36, 338, 344–45, 372, 391, 449, 451, 453, Kadesh 72, 7421, 190, 194, 217, 236, 240, 247, 258, 262, 267, 277, 280– 83, 285 Kadesh-barnea 182, 216, 247, 251, 427 Kedesh 443 Kerak 278 Kibroth-hatta’avah 71, 182, 190, 201, 205 Kiriath-huzoth 292, 295 Lachish 425, 428–29, 442 Libnah 425, 428, 442 Madon 443 Makkedah 421, 424–25, 428–29, 432, 442 Marah 713, 95, 102, 105, 107, 112 Mari 74 Massah 104–6, 182 Mattanah 285 Megiddo 443 Meribah 104–6, Meribat-Kadesh 258 Merom, Waters of 436 Migdol 77 Misrephoth-maim 435 Mizpah 397, 435 Mizpeh, Valley of 435 Moab, plains of 7421, 236, 267, 280–81 Moab, Wilderness of 252 Mujib, Wadi 279182 Nahaliel 285 Nebo 356 Negev 211, 247, 24974, 282, 427

515

Oboth 277–81, 285 Paran, Wilderness of 205 Peor 293 Petor 290, 305–6 Petra 278175 Philistia 76 Pi-hahiroth 77 Pisgah 285 Pithom 15–16 Punon 284 Qudeirat, ‘Ain el- 247 Raamses 15–16, 71, 82 Rephidim 71, 104, 107, 109159, 113 Rimmon, Rock of 401 Sea of Reeds/‫ ים סוף‬71, 91, 95–97, 210, 213, 247, 249, 257, 273–74, 331 – Wilderness of the 71, 96 Seir 217, 248, 250, 252, 259, 274 Sharon 443 Shephelah 427, 436 Shimron-Meron 443 Shittim 319–20, 322, 345 Shur, Wilderness of 95–96 Sidon 435 Sin, Wilderness of 101, 107 Sinai 73, 7421, 83, 101128, 107, 109159, 195, 343 – Wilderness of 71, 107, 113, 147, 195–96 Sukkot 71, 82 Ta’anach 443 Taberah 182, 190, 194, 200–202, 206 Tappuah 442 Tirzah 443 Ugarit 356, 360 Weibeh, ‘Ain el- 278175 Yarmuth 442 Yoqne’am 443 Zered, Wadi 251–52, 278–81, 283, 285