Exodus–Numbers (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions) [New ed.] 9783631833544, 9783631838525, 9783631838532, 9783631838549, 3631833547

Table of contents :
Cover
Copyright information
Acknowledgments
Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1. Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12
1.1. Exod 1 (cf. Deut 1:1–39b)
1.2. Exod 2 (cf. Deut 1:39c–46)
1.3. Exod 3 (cf. Deut 2–3)
1.4. Exod 4:1–17 (cf. Deut 4:1–18)
1.5. Exod 4:18–31 (cf. Deut 4:19–35)
1.6. Exod 5:1–6:1 (cf. Deut 4:36–5:3)
1.7. Exod 6:2–7:13 (cf. Deut 5:4–16)
1.8. Exod 7:14–11:10 (cf. Deut 5:17–31)
1.9. Exod 12:1–13 (cf. Deut 5:32–6:15)
1.10. Exod 12:14–28 (cf. Deut 6:16–25)
1.11. Exod 12:29–51 (cf. Deut 7:1–12)
1.12. Exod 13:1–16 (cf. Deut 7:13–15)
1.13. Exod 13:17–14:31 (cf. Deut 7:16–21)
1.14. Exod 15:1–21 (cf. Deut 7:21b–26)
1.15. Exod 15:22–16:36 (cf. Deut 8:1–14)
1.16. Exod 17 (cf. Deut 8:15–9:3)
1.17. Exod 18–31 (cf. Deut 9:4–11)
1.18. Exod 32–33 (cf. Deut 9:12–29)
1.19. Exod 34 (cf. Deut 10:1–5)
1.20. Exod 35 (cf. Deut 10:6–11:32)
1.21. Exod 36–40 (cf. Deut 12:1–12)
Chapter 2. Leviticus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 12:13–17:13
2.1. Lev 1–7 (cf. Deut 12:13–18b)
2.2. Lev 8–9 (cf. Deut 12:18c–28)
2.3. Lev 10 (cf. Deut 12:29–14:3)
2.4. Lev 11 (cf. Deut 14:4–21e)
2.5. Lev 12–22 (cf. Deut 14:21f–29)
2.6. Lev 23:1–14 (cf. Deut 15:1–16:8)
2.7. Lev 23:15–22 (cf. Deut 16:9–11)
2.8. Lev 23:23–44 (cf. Deut 16:12–17a)
2.9. Lev 24–25 (cf. Deut 16:17b–20)
2.10. Lev 26–27 (cf. Deut 16:21–17:13)
Chapter 3. Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12
3.1. Num 1–2 (cf. Deut 17:14–20)
3.2. Num 3–8 (cf. Deut 18:1–7a)
3.3. Num 9:1–11:3 (cf. Deut 18:7b–14)
3.4. Num 11:4–12:16 (cf. Deut 18:15–22)
3.5. Num 13:1–26 (cf. Deut 19)
3.6. Num 13:27–14:45 (cf. Deut 20:1–17)
3.7. Num 15:1–18:32b (cf. Deut 20:18–20)
3.8. Num 18:32c–19:22 (cf. Deut 21:1–23:1)
3.9. Num 20:1–22:1 (Deut 23:2–5b)
3.10. Num 22:2–25:19 (cf. Deut 23:5c–9)
3.11. Num 26 (cf. Deut 23:10–30:20)
3.12. Num 27 (cf. Deut 31:1–8)
3.13. Num 28–31 (cf. Deut 31:9–32:45)
3.14. Num 32–33 (cf. Deut 32:46–51)
3.15. Num 34–35 (cf. Deut 32:52–33:29)
3.16. Num 36 (cf. Deut 34)
General conclusions
Bibliography
Index of ancient sources
Series index

Citation preview

Exodus–Numbers

EUROPEAN STUDIES IN THEOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF RELIGIONS Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski

VOL. 26

Bartosz Adamczewski

Exodus–Numbers A Hypertextual Commentary

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available online at http://dnb.d-nb.de. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. This publication was financially supported by Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw.

ISSN 2192-1857 ISBN 978-3-631-83354-4 (Print) E-ISBN 978-3-631-83852-5 (E-PDF) E-ISBN 978-3-631-83853-2 (EPUB) E-ISBN 978-3-631-83854-9 (MOBI) DOI 10.3726/b17721 © Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften Berlin 2020 All rights reserved. Peter Lang – Berlin ∙ Bern ∙ Bruxelles ∙ New York ∙ Oxford ∙ Warszawa ∙ Wien All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. This publication has been peer reviewed. www.peterlang.com

Acknowledgments I thank my dear Mother, Jolanta Adamczewska, MSc; my relatives and friends; my Diocese of Warszawa-Praga; and the community of the Catholic Parish of St  Mark in Warsaw for their encouragement, prayers, and spiritual support during my writing of this book. My thanks also go to the staff of the Tübingen University Library for their help during my summer bibliographical research. Last but not least, I want to thank Mr Łukasz Gałecki and the members of the staff of the Publisher who helped to turn the electronic version of the text into a book.

Contents Introduction ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  11 Sequential hypertextuality ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������  12 Exodus–Numbers and Deuteronomy ��������������������������������������������������������������  19 Date of composition �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  32 Place of composition ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  37

Chapter 1. Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12 ���������������������������������������������������������������������������  41 1.1.  Exod 1 (cf. Deut 1:1–39b) ���������������������������������������������������  41 1.2.  Exod 2 (cf. Deut 1:39c–46) �������������������������������������������������  47 1.3.  Exod 3 (cf. Deut 2–3) �����������������������������������������������������������  50 1.4.  Exod 4:1–17 (cf. Deut 4:1–18) ��������������������������������������������  55 1.5.  Exod 4:18–31 (cf. Deut 4:19–35) ����������������������������������������  58 1.6.  Exod 5:1–6:1 (cf. Deut 4:36–5:3) ����������������������������������������  61 1.7.  Exod 6:2–7:13 (cf. Deut 5:4–16) �����������������������������������������  64

1.8. Exod 7:14–11:10 (cf. Deut 5:17–31) ����������������������������������  69



1.9. Exod 12:1–13 (cf. Deut 5:32–6:15) �������������������������������������  73



1.10. Exod 12:14–28 (cf. Deut 6:16–25) ��������������������������������������  76



1.11. Exod 12:29–51 (cf. Deut 7:1–12) ����������������������������������������  79



1.12. Exod 13:1–16 (cf. Deut 7:13–15) ����������������������������������������  82



1.13. Exod 13:17–14:31 (cf. Deut 7:16–21) ��������������������������������  85



1.14. Exod 15:1–21 (cf. Deut 7:21b–26) �������������������������������������  90



1.15. Exod 15:22–16:36 (cf. Deut 8:1–14) ����������������������������������  93



1.16. Exod 17 (cf. Deut 8:15–9:3) ������������������������������������������������  97



1.17. Exod 18–31 (cf. Deut 9:4–11) ���������������������������������������������  99



1.18. Exod 32–33 (cf. Deut 9:12–29) �����������������������������������������  105

8

Contents



1.19. Exod 34 (cf. Deut 10:1–5) �������������������������������������������������  111



1.20. Exod 35 (cf. Deut 10:6–11:32) ������������������������������������������  114



1.21. Exod 36–40 (cf. Deut 12:1–12) �����������������������������������������  119

Chapter 2. Leviticus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 12:13–17:13 ��������������������������������������������������������������  123 2.1.  Lev 1–7 (cf. Deut 12:13–18b) �������������������������������������������  123 2.2.  Lev 8–9 (cf. Deut 12:18c–28) ��������������������������������������������  126 2.3.  Lev 10 (cf. Deut 12:29–14:3) ���������������������������������������������  128 2.4.  Lev 11 (cf. Deut 14:4–21e) ������������������������������������������������  131 2.5.  Lev 12–22 (cf. Deut 14:21f–29) ����������������������������������������  133 2.6.  Lev 23:1–14 (cf. Deut 15:1–16:8) �������������������������������������  139 2.7.  Lev 23:15–22 (cf. Deut 16:9–11) ��������������������������������������  141 2.8.  Lev 23:23–44 (cf. Deut 16:12–17a) ����������������������������������  143 2.9.  Lev 24–25 (cf. Deut 16:17b–20) ���������������������������������������  144

2.10.  Lev 26–27 (cf. Deut 16:21–17:13) ������������������������������������  147

Chapter 3. Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12 ��������������������������������������������������������������  153

3.1. Num 1–2 (cf. Deut 17:14–20) ���������������������������������������������  153



3.2. Num 3–8 (cf. Deut 18:1–7a) �����������������������������������������������  156



3.3. Num 9:1–11:3 (cf. Deut 18:7b–14) �������������������������������������  160



3.4. Num 11:4–12:16 (cf. Deut 18:15–22) ���������������������������������  163



3.5. Num 13:1–26 (cf. Deut 19) �������������������������������������������������  166



3.6. Num 13:27–14:45 (cf. Deut 20:1–17) ���������������������������������  170



3.7. Num 15:1–18:32b (cf. Deut 20:18–20) ������������������������������  177



3.8. Num 18:32c–19:22 (cf. Deut 21:1–23:1) ����������������������������  179 3.9.  Num 20:1–22:1 (Deut 23:2–5b) ������������������������������������������  183

Contents

9



3.10. Num 22:2–25:19 (cf. Deut 23:5c–9) ���������������������������������  188



3.11. Num 26 (cf. Deut 23:10–30:20) ����������������������������������������  191



3.12. Num 27 (cf. Deut 31:1–8) �������������������������������������������������  193



3.13. Num 28–31 (cf. Deut 31:9–32:45) ������������������������������������  196



3.14. Num 32–33 (cf. Deut 32:46–51) ���������������������������������������  199



3.15. Num 34–35 (cf. Deut 32:52–33:29) ����������������������������������  203



3.16. Num 36 (cf. Deut 34) ���������������������������������������������������������  206

General conclusions ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  209 Bibliography ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  217 Primary sources ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  217 General ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  217 Israelite-Jewish ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  217 Graeco-Roman �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  217 Secondary literature �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  217

Index of ancient sources �������������������������������������������������������������������������������  251

Introduction The books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers are traditionally regarded as three separate books of the Pentateuch. However, taking into consideration the relatively weak boundaries between them, they can also be regarded as one literary work.1 The narrative unity between Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers is provided, for example, by the progressively ordered chronological remarks in Exod 19:1; 40:17; Lev 7:35–38 (cf. 1:2); 8:33–36; 9:1; Num 1:1.18; (cf. 9:1); 10:17; 33:38,2 which conceptually and linguistically correspond to the chronological remark in Deut 1:3. Therefore, these three books can be treated as one literary work. Moreover, this monograph demonstrates that the books of Exodus–Numbers, taken together, resulted from a consistent hypertextual reworking of the book of Deuteronomy. This fact additionally proves that Exodus–Numbers should be regarded as one literary work. The style of this monograph is highly repetitive, resembling that of Num 33:5–49. This ‘minimalistic’ style of scholarly analysis directs the attention of the reader to the hitherto unknown phenomenon of over 1200 sequentially arranged, conceptual, but often also linguistic, hypertextual correspondences between Exodus–Numbers and Deuteronomy. The discovery of this phenomenon radically changes our understanding of the books of Exodus–Numbers: their origin, literary character, and theological ideas. It reveals that Exodus–Numbers as a whole, and not just some fragments thereof (the story of the moulded calf etc.), was consistently written as a hypertextual reworking of Deuteronomy. The English translations of the Hebrew words, phrases, and sentences of Exodus–Numbers, which are used in this monograph, are often as literal as possible, even at the cost of incorrectness of the English grammar and style 1 See H. J. Koorevaar, ‘The Books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, and the MacroStructural Problem of the Pentateuch,’ in T. Römer (ed.), The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (BETL 215; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, MA 2008), 423–453 (esp. 450); id., ‘Steps for Dating the Books of the Pentateuch: A Literary and Historical Canonical Approach,’ in M. Armgardt, B. Kilchör, and M. Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm Change in Pentateuchal Research (BZABR 22; Harrassowitz:  Wiesbaden 2019), 227–242 (esp. 231–232). 2 Cf. A. Ruwe, ‘The Structure of the Book of Leviticus in the Narrative Outline of the Priestly Sinai Story (Exod 19:1–Num 10:10*),’ in R.  Rendtorff, R.  A.  Kugler, and S. Smith Bartel (eds.), The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (VTSup 93; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2003), 55–78 (esp. 59–67).

12

Introduction

(‘do’ instead of ‘make’ etc.), to show the linguistic and conceptual connections between Exodus–Numbers and Deuteronomy, which are often only detectable in the original Hebrew text.

Sequential hypertextuality The methodological approach adopted in this monograph is not based on any widely used modern exegetical method. These methods are generally based on various presuppositions, for example, that the biblical texts are similar to other ancient texts, that they have some diachrony, that they have some internal narrative coherence, that they convey some coherent ideas, etc., which are not necessarily true. The approach adopted in this monograph is therefore based on a close reading and a comparative analysis of the biblical texts as we have them, with paying particular attention to the order of their ideas and to their minor, somewhat surprising details, which are rarely scrutinized by other scholars. Thus, in a critical and verifiable way, it explains numerous data of the biblical texts which are very difficult to explain with the use of more widely known biblical methods, a feature which from a general methodological point of view constitutes its greatest advantage over them.3 For example, Reinhard G. Kratz, in a way which is typical of modern historical-critical biblical scholarship, argues that grammatical, lexical, narrative, and conceptual irregularities or peculiarities as well as literary techniques such as the Wiederaufnahme in the Pentateuch should be taken as indications that different literary layers, works of different hands, are potentially present in a given text.4 However, as has also been noted by other scholars, ‘the warrants for dividing a text into sources or layers are often arbitrary, hidden behind expressions such as “smooth” (What constitutes a smooth text?) and “awkward” (What makes it awkward?), and one person’s sign of composition history is often another person’s literary device.’5

3 Cf. L. Alonso Schökel and J. M. Bravo Aragón, Apuntes de hermenéutica (Trotta: Madrid 1994), 138: ‘Un método se afirma por sus resultados.’ 4 R. G. Kratz, ‘The Analysis of the Pentateuch: An Attempt to Overcome Barriers of Thinking,’ ZAW 128 (2016) 529–561 (esp. 535, 539). 5 A. Roskop Erisman, ‘Genre Conventions and Their Implications for Composition History: A Case for Supplementation in Exodus 16,’ in S. M. Olyan and J. L. Wright (eds.), Supplementation and the Study of the Hebrew Bible (BJS 361; Brown University: Providence, RI 2018), 53–67 (here: 53).

Introduction

13

Most modern scholars fail to take into due consideration the fact that literary irregularities or peculiarities (but rather not evident errors) as well as Wiederaufnahmen may also result from a consistent but somehow imperfect creative reworking of an earlier text in a later one, written by a single author as one literary work. Accordingly, these literary phenomena need not be explained diachronically as resulting from the activities of different hands over a long period of time. They may also be explained as resulting from a creative use of one or more earlier texts by a single author. The main difference between the approach presented in this monograph and in traditional historical-critical analyses lies in the different perceptions of the role of ancient authors in their dealing with earlier texts. In their historical-critical approach, modern scholars often methodologically compare the Pentateuchal authors to scribes copying and reworking earlier manuscripts, so that in their opinion there is no great difference between textual formation and textual transmission.6 In the research on hypertextuality, however, the Pentateuchal authors are credited with much more freedom and creativity in their dealing with earlier literary works, and their activities are perceived as significantly differing from those of later copyists of their works. Although the biblical writers at times evidently borrowed some texts almost verbatim, they also creatively, with the use of much imagination and often purely conceptual and/or linguistic associations, reworked the contents of earlier literary works. The evidently different ways of, on the one hand, quite faithful use of Mesopotamian flood narratives and, on the other hand, very creative use of Transjordanian Balaam traditions (known to us from the Deir ‘Alla inscriptions) should warn us against a too limited view of the creative abilities and intentions of the Pentateuchal authors. The methodological approach based on the concept of hypertextuality was already adopted and refined in my earlier monographs concerning various biblical writings. These studies revealed that the sequentially arranged, hypertextual connections between the New Testament Gospels and their hypotexts can be counted not in tens, as I had earlier thought, but in hundreds.7 The present 6 See e.g. R. G. Kratz, ‘Analysis,’ 535, 539. Cf. also J. L. Ska, ‘Some Empirical Evidence in Favor of Redaction Criticism,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (FAT 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 567–577 (esp. 567–568, 577), who quotes a similar statement of Julius Wellhausen. 7 See B. Adamczewski, The Gospel of Mark: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 8; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2014), 31–197; id., The Gospel of Luke: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 13; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2016), 35–204; id., The

14

Introduction

monograph likewise presupposes and develops the results of my earlier study on Exodus–Numbers, in which I argued that there are thirty-one sequentially arranged, hypertextual connections between Exodus–Numbers and Deuteronomy.8 According to the French literary theorist Gérard Genette, hypertextuality can be defined as any relationship uniting a text B (which is in such a case called hypertext) to an earlier text A (which is called hypotext), upon which it grafts itself in a manner that is not that of commentary.9 Accordingly, a hypertextual relationship of a given text to a hypotext by definition does not consist in directly commenting on the hypotext, its ideas, literary features, phraseology, etc. Therefore, a hypertextual relationship may include some linguistic connections between the hypertext and the hypotext, but it may also be purely conceptual. For this reason, although the presence of shared language, especially unique to two given texts, is a useful preliminary indicator of some kind of literary relationship between them, the volume of shared language should not be regarded as the primary criterion for detecting literary dependence between two given texts, especially ancient Near Eastern texts.10 My analyses of the phenomenon of hypertextuality in biblical writings reveal that the most important criterion for detecting a hypertextual relationship between two given biblical writings is the criterion of the order of their hypertextual correspondences. If two given works reveal conceptual and/or linguistic correspondences which follow a sequential pattern, it is reasonable to argue that the author of one of these works in a hypertextual way reworked the other Gospel of Matthew: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 16; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et  al.] 2017), 29–201; id., The Gospel of John:  A  Hypertextual Commentary (EST 17; Peter Lang:  Frankfurt am Main [et  al.] 2018), 29–205. Cf. also id., Genesis: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST 25; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2020), 37–225; id., Deuteronomy–Judges: A Hypertextual Commentary (EST; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.]) [forthcoming]. 8 Id., Retelling the Law:  Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (EST 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012), 183–223. 9 G.  Genette, Palimpsestes:  La littérature au second degré (Seuil:  [s.l.] 1982), 13: ‘Hypertextualité [:]‌J’entends par là toute relation unissant un texte B (que j’appellerai hypertexte) à un texte antérieur A (que j’appellerai, bien sûr, hypotexte) sur lequel il se greffe d’une manière qui n’est pas celle du commentaire.’ 10 Cf. J. R. Kelly, ‘Identifying Literary Allusions: Theory and the Criterion of Shared Language,’ in Z. Zevit (ed.), Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible (Equinox: Sheffield · Bristol 2017), 22–40 (esp. 27–33). See also G. D. Miller, ‘Intertextuality in Old Testament Research,’ CurBR 9.3 (2010) 283–309 (esp. 295–298).

Introduction

15

work, preserving the basic sequence of its ideas, concepts, literary motifs, etc. In such a case, the relationship between these works may be called sequential hypertextuality. Jeffrey M. Leonard makes use of this criterion in his identification of the allusive technique called ‘narrative tracking.’11 Leonard’s criterion of detecting the mimicking of the narrative structure of an earlier text in a later text can certainly be applied to the narrative parts of Deuteronomy and Exodus–Numbers (the initial elapse of time between two Israelite generations, the Israelites becoming numerous in the exile, the proposal to deal wisely with the Israelites, commanding the Israelites, the exhortation not to be afraid of the pagan enemy, etc.). However, the phenomenon of the common order of ideas, concepts, motifs, specific vocabulary, etc. can be much broader than that of the presence of ‘narrative tracking’ because it can also be detected in non-narrative or only partly narrative texts. In the cases in which the level of verbal agreement between the conceptually corresponding fragments of two given works is very low, and consequently the relationship between both works is truly hypertextual, the criterion of order is particularly useful. In such cases, the weakness of purely linguistic signals of literary dependence (quoted or imitated sentences, reproduced characteristic phrases, characteristic vocabulary, etc.) is recompensed by the consistency of the strictly sequential reworking of the conceptual elements (ideas, images, arguments, references to time, directions of movement in space, actions taken, features of the characters, etc.) of one work in the other one. The criterion of the common order of the conceptually and/or linguistically corresponding elements is particularly compelling if it refers not only to larger thematic sections or pericopes, but also to individual sentences or even clauses, phrases, and words. In such cases, the argumentative force of this criterion is very high, even if the level of verbal or formal agreement between the compared texts is quite low. It should be admitted that the detection of a sequence of several similar elements, which is often used in structuralist-oriented scholarship for postulating the existence of various chiastic, concentric, and parallel patterns in biblical texts (ABCDC’B’A’ etc.), can be regarded as more or less subjective.12

11 J. M. Leonard, ‘Identifying Subtle Allusions: The Promise of Narrative Tracking,’ in Z. Zevit (ed.), Subtle, 91–113 (here: 97): ‘By narrative tracking, I refer to the process by which one text alludes to another by mimicking its narrative structure.’ 12 Cf. S. Frolov, ‘The Rings of the Lord: Assessing Symmetric Structuring in Numbers and Judges,’ VT 66 (2016) 15–44 (esp. 27–30).

16

Introduction

However, the degree of interpretative objectivity is much higher if the detected common sequence of conceptually corresponding elements consists of tens or hundreds of sequentially arranged items. Moreover, instead of placing great emphasis on the presence or absence of shared language in two given texts, the analysis of literary dependence, especially that of a highly creative, hypertextual kind, may be based on the criterion of noticing and explaining the presence of somewhat surprising features in the later text.13 David M. Carr points to the presence of such features in the so-called ‘blind motifs.’14 Such particular, surprising, innovative, atypical features, which go beyond evoking general associations with other texts (achieved with the use of familiar motifs, formulaic language, type-scenes, literary genres, etc.), point to literary, reinterpreting dependence upon an earlier text, and not merely oral transmission of traditional material, which could be freely used by the author in his creative literary activity.15

13 Cf. C.  Edenburg, ‘Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of Readership: Some Preliminary Observations,’ JSOT 35.2 (2010) 131–148 (here: 144): ‘For allusion to fulfill its purpose as a signifying device, it must be accompanied by textual markers that alert the audience to an underlying significance. The marker is an element that is “borrowed” from another context where it is at home, and then planted in a new, foreign context. The foreignness of the marker hampers superficial comprehension of the text’s overt significance, and intimates that full comprehension of the text will be attained only after identifying the function and significance of the marker in its original textual context. […] Since allusion invokes a specific text, rather than a general motif or genre, there is no guarantee that members of the text’s audience will succeed in identifying the allusion, and attain full appreciation of the text.’ 14 D. M. Carr, ‘Method in Determining the Dependence of Biblical on Non-Biblical Texts,’ in Z. Zevit (ed.), Subtle, 41–53 (here: 46): ‘One criterion that does not seem to be highlighted in Hays’s or Fishbane’s discussions, but that can be particularly helpful, is that of a place where particularly odd features of a biblical text can be explained as blind motifs resulting from the appropriation in that biblical text of elements from a […] precursor. A “blind motif ” is an element or theme from a borrowed tradition appearing in a later text that does not fit well in the new context.’ 15 Cf. C. Edenburg, ‘Intertextuality,’ 147: ‘Thus, preservation of literary innovations is dependent upon scribal activity and a readership with sufficient literary competence to appreciate the innovation. From this I surmise that texts that elicit intertextual associations stemming from parallel accounts, allusion, implicit citation and inner-biblical interpretation, were designed by highly literate scribes for reading audiences who had the means to peruse and reread texts in order to recognize the associative device, recall the association, and finally identify the alluded text. […] If so, then such texts were

Introduction

17

The not easily perceivable, rarely noticed, somewhat surprising features of a given literary work can often be explained if this work is an imperfect literary reworking of another text, in which such problems and surprising features are absent. In fact, every reworking of something else leaves some traces, and even a gifted and creative author is not always capable of eliminating all of them, especially if they are barely noticeable.16 A careful analysis of such minor, intriguing literary features, which are often neglected or only superficially explained by most commentators, may give important clues to the discovery of a hypertextual relationship of a given text to a hypotext. Moreover, it can help to ascertain the direction of literary dependence between two given writings.17 In particular, in the analysis of the phenomenon of sequential hypertextual reworking in the Hebrew Bible it is important to pay close attention to various intriguing linguistic phenomena in the Hebrew text of its writings:  the use of the same Hebrew root in semantically apparently unrelated words, plays with the meaning of proper nouns, the use of ambiguous words and phrases, surprising combinations of words in phrases, linguistic differences between parallel accounts, the interpretative function of the masoretic punctuation of Hebrew homographs,18 etc. not designed for the purpose of enculturalization, but were created, in part, as pieces of learning and scribal art with the aim of commenting upon or revising other texts.’ 16 Cf. J. Stackert, Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation (FAT 52; Mohr Siebeck:  Tübingen 2007), 152–153. Pace G.  Genette, Palimpsestes, 555, who has argued that the hypertext, being semantically autonomous, does not contain any perceivable internal ‘ungrammaticality.’ Genette’s general idea does not always refer to all minor details of the hypertext because the inevitable tension between the intratextual and intertextual levels of the meaning of the hypertext often results in some consciously or unconsciously created disruptions to its intratextual logic. On the other hand, the hypertext does not necessarily contain aberrant features, ungrammaticalities, anomalies, inconsequences, non sequiturs, the loss of narrativity, etc. which are so evident that they function as really sylleptic, and consequently compulsory in their impelling the reader to pursue the search for a hypotext, as was argued by M. Riffaterre, Fictional Truth (Parallax: Re-visions of Culture and Society; 2nd ed., The John Hopkins University: Baltimore · London 1993), 90–91. 17 In my opinion, this criterion is much better than the partly reversible criteria adopted by other scholars, e.g. M.  Bauks, ‘Intratextualität, Intertextualität und Rezeptionsgeschichte: Was tragen “transpositional techniques” und “empirical evidences” zur literarischen Genese der Urgeschichte aus?,’ in M. Bauks [et al.] (eds.), Neue Wege der Schriftauslegung (ATM 24; Lit: Berlin 2019), 13–63 (esp. 24). 18 On the phenomenon of numerous homographs in the Hebrew Bible before the invention of the masoretic pointing, see S. Schorch, ‘Dissimilatory Reading and the Making

18

Introduction

It should also be noted that the crucial hermeneutical disposition for analysing hypertextual correspondences in the Bible consists is the use of the faculty of imagination19 in order to detect imaginative, creative, at times purely conceptual correspondences between various ideas, images, statements, and words in the biblical texts.20 In imagination, as is well known, the sky is the limit. Therefore, in this respect the methods of midrashic and allegorical interpretation used by ancient rabbis and church fathers at times better reflected the complex meaning of the biblical texts, with their metaphors, allusions, word-plays, hidden polemic, and narrative illustrations of various theological and legal ideas, than do modern, often too ‘arid’ exegetical methods, which aim at being scholarly objective, and consequently prefer the more evident, but in fact more superficial level of meaning. Therefore, if the Bible resembles a work of art, then the exegete needs a good, gifted, but also trained ‘ear’ or ‘eye,’21 as well as broad scholarly knowledge (and not merely following a widely used interpretative procedure), to detect signals of creative, hypertextual reworking of another work in a given biblical writing.22 The problem of adequate scholarly interpretation of the Bible, including Exodus–Numbers, is additionally complicated by the question how typical the Bible is among ancient literary works. Modern biblical methodology assumes that the biblical writings generally resemble other ancient literary works of similar literary genres (literary legends, genealogies, folk tales, family sagas, historical narratives, collections of laws, etc.), and therefore it is possible to understand adequately the biblical writings by using methods developed in literary criticism to interpret literary works which belong to a given literary genre. However, my own research on the phenomenon of sequential hypertextuality in biblical writings shows that the Bible may be quite unique in its extensive, systematic, detailed use of the procedure of sequential hypertextual reworking of earlier

19 20 2 1 22

of Biblical Texts: The Jewish Pentateuch and the Samaritan Pentateuch,’ in R. F. Person, Jr. and R. Rezetko (eds.), Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism (AIL 25; SBL: Atlanta 2016), 109–127 (esp. 111). Cf. I. J. de Hulster, ‘Imagination: A Hermeneutical Tool for the Study of the Hebrew Bible,’ BibInt 18 (2010) 114–136 (esp. 132–134). Cf. L. Alonso Schökel and J. M. Bravo Aragón, Apuntes, 156: ‘Hay que leer con fantasía lo que se escribió con fantasía.’ Cf. G. D. Miller, ‘Intertextuality,’ 298. Cf. G. Hepner, Legal Friction: Law, Narrative, and Identity Politics in Biblical Israel (StBibLit 78; Peter Lang: New York [et al.] 2010), 51: ‘identifying verbal resonances is no less an art that a science.’

Introduction

19

texts. Therefore, in order to maintain the standards of interpretative objectivity, the biblical writings should be analysed against the background of other writings of the same kind, so in this case other biblical, hypertextual writings, and not merely other ancient texts of only apparently similar literary genres.

Exodus–Numbers and Deuteronomy As is well known, there are several basic models used by modern scholars to explain the literary origin of the Pentateuch. Almost all of them postulate a diachronically complex origin of the books of the Pentateuch.23 In recent scholarship, there is a general consensus that the most plausibly identifiable type of material in the Pentateuch is the Priestly material, source, or layer.24 Among the main problems discussed today is the question of the relationship between the Priestly and the non-Priestly material, the problem of the end of the Priestly writing, and the question whether various texts regarded as non-Priestly are in fact pre-Priestly or post-Priestly.25 Therefore, the problem of the literary relationship between Exodus–Numbers and Deuteronomy is rather seldom analysed in recent scholarship. The thesis that various parts of Exodus–Numbers are literarily dependent on Deuteronomy is not knew. In the second half of the twentieth century, it was formulated in terms of the use of Deuteronom(ist)ic ideas,26 redactional layer,27 23 For recent overviews of modern hypotheses concerning the origin of the Pentateuch, see e.g. T. Römer, ‘Zwischen Urkunden, Fragmenten und Ergänzungen: Zum Stand der Pentateuchforschung,’ ZAW 125 (2013) 2–24; C. Levin, ‘Die Priesterschrift als Quelle: Eine Erinnerung,’ in F. Hartenstein and K. Schmid (eds.), Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte (VWGT 40; Evangelische: Leipzig 2015), 9–31; E. Zenger and C. Frevel, ‘Theorien über die Entstehung des Pentateuch im Wandel der Forschung,’ in C. Frevel (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament (KST 1,1; 9th ed., W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2016), 87–135 (esp. 104–123). 24 Cf. K. Schmid, ‘Genesis in the Pentateuch,’ in C. A. Evans, J. N. Lohr, and D. L. Petersen (eds.), The Book of Genesis:  Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (VTSup 152; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2012), 27–50 (esp. 33–34). For a recent different view, see G.  Fischer, ‘Time for a Change! Why Pentateuchal Research is in Crisis,’ in M. Armgardt, B. Kilchör, and M. Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm, 3–20 (here: 15): ‘It [‘P’] is a chimera leading scholars in a false direction.’ 25 Cf. E. Zenger and C. Frevel, ‘Theorien,’ 121–123. 26 H.  H.  Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist:  Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung (Theologischer: Zürich 1976), 166. 27 M. Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke (ATANT 67; Theologischer: Zürich 1981), 323–327.

20

Introduction

and/or literature28 by the hypothetical Yahwist. Other scholars postulated the dependence of other parts of Exodus–Numbers, especially the so-called Holiness Code, on Deuteronomic legislation.29 However, these hypotheses did not gain universal support from the exegetes. Moreover, they did not refer to the whole work of Exodus–Numbers, especially to its numerous sections widely regarded as Priestly. Besides, they did not present any coherent view on the use of the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature by the postulated Yahwist. A survey of modern research on the presence of Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic elements in Genesis–Numbers has recently been done by Hans Ausloos.30 In the conclusion of his study, the Flemish scholar states, ‘Our survey of the origins, evolution and heyday of interest in passages akin to Deuteronomy in Genesis–Numbers should have made it clear that the issue is and remains one of the most important difficulties facing Pentateuch research. […] Research into the Deuteronom(ist)ic problem in Genesis–Numbers has reached something of an impasse.’31 However, Ausloos’s study is methodologically restricted to the ‘Deuteronom(ist)ic passages’ in Genesis–Numbers, that is, to the passages which exhibit a relatively high level of agreement in its form (vocabulary, style, and/ or compositional features) and/or content (theological themes and concepts) with passages in the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.32 Ausloos’s key example in this respect is Exod 23:20–33. Therefore, although his study declaratively aims ‘to provide a detailed status quaestionis concerning the relationship between the books Genesis–Numbers and the so-called Deuteronom(ist)ic literature,’33 it does not refer to the problem of the relationship between Deuteronomy and Exodus– Numbers as a whole, but only to some selected fragments of these works.

28 J.  Van Seters, The Life of Moses:  The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers (Westminster/John Knox: Louisville, KY 1994); id., A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code (Oxford University: Oxford · New York 2003). 29 A.  Cholewiński, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium:  Eine vergleichende Studie (AnBib 66; Biblical Institute: Rome 1976). 30 H. Ausloos, The Deuteronomist’s History: The Role of the Deuteronomist in HistoricalCritical Research into Genesis-Numbers (OtSt 67; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2015), 1–257; cf. also id., ‘The “Proto-Deuteronomist” Fifty Years Later,’ OTE 26 (2013) 531–558. Therefore, the presentation of the status quaestionis concerning the literary relationship between Exodus–Numbers and Deuteronomy may here be limited to the last decade of research. 31 Id., Deuteronomist’s History, 258–259. 32 Ibid. 289–296. 33 Ibid. xii.

Introduction

21

The problem is additionally complicated by the fact that numerous modern scholars divide the fragments of Exodus–Numbers into various layers, redactions, rewritings, etc., which in their opinions may predate or postdate Deuteronomy. Accordingly, in this exegetical approach a given text can be regarded as both pre-Deuteronomic and post-Deuteronomic.34 Therefore, the scholarly ideas concerning the direction of dependence between Exodus–Numbers and Deuteronomy are at times very complex. Reinhard Achenbach argues that both the order and the contents of Deut 14 reflect the form and the contents of Lev 11. However, he performs no in-depth analysis of the direction of the dependence between these two texts.35 On the other hand, the German scholar rejects Benjamin Kilchör’s idea that Deut 15 must be literarily younger than the Holiness Code and argues that Lev 25:2–7 reinterprets Deut 15:1–11, and Lev 25:8–55 reformulates and innovates Deut 15:12–18.36 Joel S. Baden argues that the story of the judges in Exod 18 and the story of the elders in Num 11 cannot be dependent on Deut 1:9–18 because Exod 18 refers to Jethro, and Num 11 refers to the prophesying elders, elements which are contrary to the Deuteronomic idea of the uniqueness of Moses.37 Likewise, Baden argues that Exod 34:1–5 cannot be dependent on Deut 10:1–5 because Exod 34:1–5 is lacking the thrice-repeated reference to the ark, which is present in Deut 10:1–5 and which is important to D.38 However, Baden’s arguments only demonstrate that Exod 18; Num 11; and Exod 34:1–5 are not Deuteronomic. In fact, it is possible that these texts, being post-Deuteronomic, develop Deuteronomic ideas in some new directions. Therefore, Baden’s general claim that the fact of D’s dependence on its non-Priestly textual antecedents has been demonstrated both for the legal and the narrative portions of D39 is not convincing. Moreover, the American 34 Cf. e.g. H.-C. Schmitt, ‘»Versuchung durch Gott« und »Gottesfurcht« in Gen 22,1.12 und Ex 20,20,’ ZAW 126 (2014) 15–30 (esp. 19–21). 35 R. Achenbach, ‘Zur Systematik der Speisegebote in Leviticus 11 und in Deuteronomium 14,’ ZABR 17 (2011) 161–209 (esp. 166–206). 36 Id., ‘Lex Sacra and Sabbath in the Pentateuch,’ ZABR 22 (2016) 101–109 (esp. 105). 37 J.  S.  Baden, ‘The Deuteronomic Evidence for the Documentary Theory,’ in T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz (eds.), The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (FAT 78; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 327–344 (esp. 330–335); id., The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (AYBRL; Yale University: New Haven · London 2012), 141. 38 Id., ‘Deuteronomic,’ 338–342; id., Composition, 142. 39 Id., ‘Literary Allusions and Assumptions about Textual Familiarity,’ in Z. Zevit (ed.), Subtle, 114–130 (esp. 116).

22

Introduction

scholar admits that the narrative portions of Deuteronomy which seem to have some non-Priestly antecedents (the retelling of the Horeb narrative, the retrospective ‫ כאשר‬clause, and the allusions to events in the wilderness episodes) can also be understood in Deuteronomy without any recourse to the non-Priestly texts,40 a fact which further complicates his hypothesis of the dependence of Deuteronomy on its non-Priestly counterparts. David M. Carr states that the non-P texts in Exodus and Numbers which have their Deuteronomic parallels contain harmonizing expansions of pre-D narratives with D narratives, so that in the opinion of the American scholar the relation of the texts from Exodus and Numbers with Deuteronomy is quite complex.41 Nathan MacDonald, in his analysis of the ritual of the red cow in Num 19, argues that it draws upon Deut 21 and the regulations of Lev 4–5; 11–16.42 In his opinion, the relationship between Num 20–21 and Deut 1–3 was also complex, so that the present text of Num 20–21 contains both pre- and post-Deuteronomic compositional layers.43 On the other hand, he argues that Lev 23 and Exod 34 are indebted to Deut 16.44 Alfred Marx regards the section Lev 17–27 as belonging to P and repeatedly argues that it was influenced by various texts from Deuteronomy.45 Christoph Nihan states that the laws about clean and unclean animals in Lev 11 and Deut 14 are not dependent on each other but they both originate from an earlier instruction, which was separately reworked in both texts.46 However, he also argues that the tithe law of Num 18:20–32 is a revision of the tithe laws of 4 0 Ibid. 117–126. 41 D. M. Carr, ‘Scribal Processes of Coordination/Harmonization and the Formation of the First Hexateuch(s),’ in T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz (eds.), Pentateuch, 63–83 (esp. 77–82). 42 N. MacDonald, ‘The Hermeneutics and Genesis of the Red Cow Ritual,’ HTR 105 (2012) 351–371 (esp. 357–360). 43 Id., ‘Edom and Seir in the Narratives and Itineraries of Numbers 20–21 and Deuteronomy 1–3,’ in G. Fischer, D. Markl, and S. Paganini (eds.), Deuteronomium – Tora für eine neue Generation (BZABR 17; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2011), 83–103 (esp. 100). 44 N. MacDonald, ‘Ritual Innovation and Shavu’ot,’ in id. (ed.), Ritual Innovation in the Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism (BZAW 468; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2016), 55–77 (esp. 62–67). 45 A. Marx, Lévitique 17–27 (CAT 3b; Labor et Fides: Genève 2011), 14, 48–49, 84, 92, etc. 46 C. Nihan, ‘The Laws about Clean and Unclean Animals in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and Their Place in the Formation of the Pentateuch,’ in T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz (eds.), Pentateuch, 401–432 (esp. 431).

Introduction

23

Deut 14:22–29; 26:12–15, and consequently it encourages some form of complementary reading between these two texts.47 Jeffrey Stackert, following the traditional source theory, argues that various texts in Deuteronomy are modelled on their Elohistic counterparts in Exod 3; 18–20; Num 11.48 On the other hand, in his opinion the text of Lev 25:2–7, which is attributed by him to H, was influenced by Deut 15.49 John S. Bergsma, in his analysis of the relationship between Lev 25 and Deut 15:1–18, states that these texts share too few low-frequency vocabulary and word sequences to justify the scholarly attempts to demonstrate a direct literary relationship between them.50 However, the American scholar’s statement, ‘Literary dependence is, after all, one text’s reuse of the language of another text’51 is not necessarily true. In fact, in the ancient procedure of creative imitation (mimesis/​ imitatio/aemulatio) the later author tried to avoid slavish copying in content or style of an earlier author, and he strived to emulate the spirit rather than the letter.52 Shimon Gesundheit begins his analyses of the origin of the festival legislation in the Pentateuch with the presupposition, ‘It is clear that the conception of the unleavened bread in its literary form in the Book of the Covenant precedes the configuration of the Passover sacrifice in the Deuteronomic source.’53 Consequently, in line with this presupposition, he a priori treats texts from Exod 13; 23; 34 as Vorlagen to their counterparts in Deut 16:1–8.54 However, he also 47 Id., ‘The Priestly Laws of Numbers, the Holiness Legislation, and the Pentateuch,’ in C. Frevel, T. Pola, and A. Schart (eds.), Torah and the Book of Numbers (FAT 2.62; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 109–137 (esp. 129–132). 48 J. Stackert, ‘Mosaic Prophecy and the Deuteronomic Source of the Torah,’ in K. Schmid and R.  F.  Person, Jr. (eds.), Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History (FAT 2.56; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 47–63 (esp. 52–61). 49 Id., ‘The Sabbath of the Land in the Holiness Legislation: Combining Priestly and Non-Priestly Perspectives,’ CBQ 73 (2011) 239–250 (esp. 244–245, 249). 50 J. S. Bergsma, ‘The Biblical Manumission Laws: Has the Literary Dependence of H on D Been Demonstrated?,’ in E. F. Mason [et al.] (eds.), A Teacher for All Generations, Festschrift J. C. VanderKam, vol. 1 (JSJSup 153/1; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2012), 65–91 (esp. 73–86). 51 Ibid. 67 [italics original]. 52 Cf. J.  Van Seters, ‘Creative Imitation in the Hebrew Bible,’ in id., Changing Perspectives I: Studies in the History, Literature, and Religion of Biblical Israel (CISem; Equinox: London · Oakville 2011), 307–320 (esp. 310). 53 S. Gesundheit, Three Times a Year: Studies on Festival Legislation in the Pentateuch (FAT 82; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 11. 54 Ibid. 106–128.

24

Introduction

argues that ‘at least some parts of the Priestly Pesaḥ laws in Exodus 12 post-date the final text of Deut 16:1–8, and perhaps even react to some of the ideas found in it.’55 In his analysis of Num 32:1–33 and Deut 3:18–20, the Jewish scholar notes the scholarly disagreement as concerns the direction of literary dependence between these texts, but he argues that Deut 3:18–20 is dependent on Num 32:1–33 without referring to any criteria for ascertaining the direction of literary dependence.56 Sun-Jong Kim, having noted the difference in scholarly opinions concerning the relationship between Lev 25 and Deut 15, suggests that both texts developed independently of each other, more or less simultaneously, on the basis of Exod 23:10–11.57 Anja Klein, in her analysis of the Song of the Sea in Exod 15, has argued that Exod 15:14–16 is dependent on Deut 2:25; Josh 2:9.24, and not vice versa, because Exod 15:14–16 conflates the latter texts and develops their message.58 Eckart Otto argues that the post-exilic Fortschreibung of Deut 11 was dependent on Num 16, but on the other hand it did not know the post-redactional expansions in Num 16.59 In his opinion, Deut 11:6 must depend on Num 16:32 because Deut 11:6 contains the remark, ‘and their tents, and all the living beings that were on their legs, in the midst of all Israel,’ which is allegedly absent in Num 16:32.60 However, he does not take into consideration the fact that a thematically similar remark, ‘and all the men that were…, and all their goods,’ is also present in Num 16:32. Likewise, Otto argues that the Holiness Code reflects the structure of the law in Deut 12–26; 28 and it contains numerous laws which are reworked

5 5 Ibid. 145. 56 Id., ‘Die Beteiligung der ostjordanischen Stämme an der westjordanischen Landnahme. Ein Vergleich von Num 32,1–33; Dtn 3,18–20 und Jos 1,12–15,’ ZAW 131 (2019) 58–76 (esp. 65–70). 57 S.-J. Kim, Se reposer pour la terre, se reposer pour Dieu: L’année sabbatique en Lv 25,1–7 (BZAW 430; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2012), 43–46. 58 A. Klein, ‘Hymn and History in Ex 15: Observations on the Relationship between Temple Theology and Exodus Narrative in the Song of the Sea,’ ZAW 124 (2012) 516– 527 (esp. 526). 59 E. Otto, ‘The Books of Deuteronomy and Numbers in One Torah. The Book of Numbers Read in the Horizon of the Postexilic Fortschreibung in the Book of Deuteronomy: New Horizons in the Interpretation of the Pentateuch,’ in C. Frevel, T. Pola, and A. Schart (eds.), Torah, 383–397 (esp. 392–393). 60 Ibid.

Introduction

25

versions of their Deuteronomic counterparts.61 On the other hand, however, the German scholar argues that Deut 4; 10–11; 30–31 also contains allusions to the Holiness Code, so that there are two directions of influence between these two works.62 Aaron Schart, having analysed the spy story in Num 13–14 and Deut 1:19– 46, comes to the conclusion that both texts originate from an oral version of the story, which was later reworked in several stages in both texts, but the final version of Deut 1:19–46 presupposes a version of Num 13–14.63 Ludwig Schmidt, in his analysis of the stories of Sihon and Og, argues that the texts of Num 21:21–35 and Deut 2:24–3:11* were mutually dependent on each other, but they do not originate from a common tradition.64 Angela Roskop Erisman similarly argues that the Transjordanian stories in Num 21 and Deut 2 contain odd elements which are best explained with the other episode in view, suggesting that they are interdependent and have a single implied author.65 Thomas Hieke, having noted the fact that Lev 11:1–21 is almost identical with Deut 14:3–21, suggests a literary relationship between these texts. However, in his opinion, since both texts betray particular compositional interests, they are not dependent on each other in any direction but rather originate from a common source, which was redactionally reworked in both of them independently of each other.66 This argument is evidently weak because it is difficult to find any source text (including a hypothetical common source) which would betray no particular compositional interest. Konrad Schmid is of the opinion that Exodus must have at least partly chronologically preceded Deuteronomy because the idea of the centralization of

61 Id., ‘Priesterschrift und Deuteronomium im Buch Levitikus:  Zur Integration des Deuteronomiums in den Pentateuch,’ in F. Hartenstein and K. Schmid (eds.), Abschied, 161–185 (esp. 171–174). 62 Ibid. 174–184. 63 A. Schart, ‘The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch,’ in C. Frevel, T. Pola, and A. Schart (eds.), Torah, 164–200 (esp. 184–185). 64 L. Schmidt, ‘Sihon und Og in Num 21,21ff.* Dtn 2,24ff.*: Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung des Buches Numeri,’ in C.  Frevel, T.  Pola, and A.  Schart (eds.), Torah, 314–333 (esp. 327, 331). 65 A.  Roskop Erisman, ‘Transjordan in Deuteronomy:  The Promised Land and the Formation of the Pentateuch,’ JBL 132 (2013) 769–789 (esp. 776–777). 66 Cf. T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 1, 1–15] (HThKAT; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2014), 415–417.

26

Introduction

worship is more developed in Deuteronomy than in Exodus.67 However, he does not take into due consideration the possibility that both Genesis and Exodus– Numbers function as narrative prequels to Deuteronomy, so that the development and reinterpretation of various ideas between Genesis, Exodus–Numbers, and Deuteronomy is wholly justifiable, as the German scholar himself admits.68 Simeon Chavel argues that Deuteronomy reacts to the altar law in Exod 20:22–26 and the thematically related texts Exod 19:3–6; 24:3–8.11bβ inasmuch as they deny the idea of a single ritual site or structure of divine choice and priestly control of that site or structure.69 However, he takes the dependence of Deuteronomy on Exodus for granted, without laying down any criteria for ascertaining this particular direction of literary dependence between the two works. Georg Fischer is of the opinion that Deut 28–30 is dependent on Lev 26, and not vice versa, because one could assume an original ending with Deut 28 and because the whole section Deut 28–30, with its final positive outlook, develops the program laid down in Deut 4:26–31 under the influence of Lev 26:36–38.39– 45.70 In fact, the conceptual correlation between Deut 28–30 and Deut 4:26–31, which was noted by the Austrian scholar, strengthens the hypothesis of the originality of Deut 28–30 and weakens the argument concerning its dependence on Lev 26:36–45. Benjamin Kilchör, in his monograph on the relationship between Deut 12–26 and Exodus–Leviticus–Numbers, notes that arguments for a direction of dependence between two given texts are almost always reversible, but if a given text alternately follows two or more other texts in a ‘zigzag’ manner, then it can be argued that it is dependent on them.71 According to the Swiss scholar, this is the 67 K. Schmid, ‘Der Pentateuch und seine Theologiegeschichte,’ ZTK 111 (2014) 239–270 (esp. 256). 68 Ibid. 257. 69 S. Chavel, ‘A Kingdom of Priests and its Earthen Altars in Exodus 19–24,’ VT 65 (2015) 169–222 (esp. 202–205). 70 G. Fischer, ‘A Need for Hope? A Comparison between the Dynamics in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28–30,’ in R. E. Gane and A. Taggar-Cohen (eds.), Current Issues in Priestly and Related Literature: The Legacy of Jacob Milgrom and Beyond (RBS 82; SBL: Atlanta 2015), 369–385 (esp. 384–385). 71 B. Kilchör, Mosetora und Jahwetora: Das Verhältnis von Deuteronomium 12–26 zu Exodus, Levitikus und Numeri (BZABR 21; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2015), 37–38. Cf. also id., ‘Frei aber arm? Soziale Sicherheit als Schlüssel zum Verhältnis der Sklavenfreilassungsgesetze im Pentateuch,’ VT 62 (2012) 381–397 (esp. 386–387); id., ‘The Direction of Dependence between the Laws of the Pentateuch: The Priority of a Literary Approach,’ ETL 89 (2013) 1–14 (esp. 11).

Introduction

27

case of various fragments of Deut 12:2–26:15 being alternately dependent on various parts of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.72 Kilchör’s argument is in itself certainly strong, but it should be noted that the same argument is used in the New Testament synoptic problem in the highly implausible hypothesis of Mark’s dependence on both Matthew and Luke,73 a fact which considerably diminishes its practical value in biblical studies. Moreover, Kilchör’s argument that Deut 25:5–10 is an addition and improvement to the earlier laws in Lev 27:1–11; 20:2174 does not take into consideration the law in Josh 17:3–4, with its broader issue of the division of the territory of Manasseh (Josh 17:1–6), which should be regarded as a Deuteronomistic precedent for the abstract legal regulation in Lev 27:1–11. More recently, Kilchör has stated that the Holiness Code in Leviticus influenced Deuteronomy on an early stage of the redaction of Deuteronomy,75 and that Deuteronomy postdated the Priestly source.76 Wolfgang Oswald in his analysis of the relationship between Exod 17:8–16 and Deut 25:17–19 comes to the conclusion that neither text simply depends on the other, but they commonly depend on the fact of a fierce hostility between Israel and Amalek.77 This conclusion, however, seems not to take into serious consideration the almost verbatim correspondence between Exod 17:14d and Deut 25:19e, a fact which was noted by the scholar78 and which suggests literary dependence of some kind between the two analysed texts. Pekka Pitkänen argues that Deuteronomy continues the story of Numbers and includes major references to the Sinai narrative in Exodus. Moreover, in his 7 2 Id., Mosetora, 71–317. 73 See B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 145, 153–155, 157–159. 74 B. Kilchör, ‘Levirate Marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5–10 and Its Precursors in Leviticus and Numbers: A Test Case for the Relationship between P/H and D,’ CBQ 77 (2015) 429–440 (esp. 439). 75 Id., ‘Did H Influence D on an Early or a Late Stage of the Redaction of D?,’ OTE 29 (2016) 502–512. 76 Id., ‘Wellhausen’s Five Pillars for the Priority of D over P/H:  Can They Still Be Maintained?,’ in M. Armgardt, B. Kilchör, and M. Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm, 101–113 (esp. 110). 77 W. Oswald, ‘Defeating Amalek, Defending the Constitution: The Political Theory of Ex 17:8–16,’ in C. Berner and H. Samuel (eds.), The Reception of Biblical War Legislation in Narrative Contexts: Proceedings of the EABS research group “Law and Narrative” (BZAW 460; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2015), 61–72 (esp. 69–71). 78 Ibid. 69.

28

Introduction

opinion Deuteronomy was aware of all of the main various sources postulated for Genesis–Numbers. Therefore, he considers Genesis–Numbers as having been written by one author, who worked together with the author of Deuteronomy– Joshua, so that they both created Genesis–Joshua as a unified work.79 However, he at least logically allows for the reverse direction of literary dependence, ‘[…] even if one were to assume a chronological priority of Deuteronomy–Joshua, this would be compatible with the idea of Genesis–Numbers being separate, and, in terms of logic, Genesis–Numbers could be conceived to have been produced after Deuteronomy–Joshua either after a period of time or in close succession.’80 Thomas Römer has noted the presence of a Deuteronomistic phrase in Exod 6:6 and has raised the question whether Priestly texts knew and could utilize Deuteronomistic phraseology.81 John Van Seters has argued that the Yahwist (also considered responsible for the composition of the Covenant Code) transformed the Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic tradition as well as the prophetic tradition, especially that of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.82 On the other hand, Van Seters claims that the Yahwist was used by Second Isaiah, although he does not apply any reliable criteria for ascertaining the direction of literary dependence between these two works.83 In the opinion of the Canadian scholar, the Priestly writer made use of Deuteronomy and the prophetic tradition, including Ezekiel and Second Isaiah.84 David P.  Wright supports the hypothesis of the influence of Deuteronomy, conflated with the Covenant Code, on Lev 24, although in his opinion this influence was rather incidental and oblique. The direction of dependence was from Deuteronomy to Lev 24 because, as the American scholar argues, with respect to the instructions of Deuteronomy, Lev 24 is more elaborate, systematic, highly ideological, and ritualized.85 79 P.  Pitkänen, ‘Reading Genesis–Joshua as a Unified Document from an Early Date: A Settler Colonial Perspective,’ BTB 45 (2015) 3–31 (esp. 4–5). 80 Ibid. 5. 81 T. Römer, ‘Von Moses Berufung zur Spaltung des Meers: Überlegungen zur priesterschriftlichen Version der Exoduserzählung,’ in F. Hartenstein and K. Schmid (eds.), Abschied, 134–160 (esp. 142). 82 J. Van Seters, The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary (2nd ed.; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2015), 124–135, 172–174. 83 J. Van Seters, ‘Dating the Yahwist’s History: Principles and Perspectives,’ Bib 96 (2015) 1–25 (esp. 6–13). 84 Id., Pentateuch, 150, 156, 180–181. 85 D. P. Wright, ‘Source Dependence and the Development of the Pentateuch: The Case of Leviticus 24,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), Formation, 651–682 (esp. 671–678).

Introduction

29

Roy E. Garton argues that the Massah-Meribah narratives evolved in parallel ways in Exod 17:1–7; Num 20:1–13, and the stages of this development corresponded to the growth of the same tradition in the Deuteronomic texts Deut 8:15 and 32:13; 6:16; 9:22; 33:8; 32:15.86 Stephen Germany argues that many non-Priestly texts in Exodus–Numbers influenced their thematic counterparts in Deuteronomy, but there are also some fragments of Exodus–Numbers (e.g. Exod 17:14; 19:12–13a.23–24; Num 22:5) which are dependent on Deuteronomy.87 Esias E. Meyer has criticized Benjamin Kilchör’s arguments for regarding the laws of the Deuteronomic Code as posterior to their counterparts in the Holiness Code. In particular, he has criticized Kilchör’s use of references to the larger literary context of a given text. He has stated that one could use Kilchör’s criteria to argue the opposite of what Kilchör claims.88 Susanne Rudnig-Zelt, in her analysis of the relationship between Num 13–14 and Deut 1–3, simply assumes that the direction of this relationship goes from Num 13–14 to Deut 1–3*.89 Paavo N.  Tucker has argued that ‘Deuteronomistic’ language and concepts can be found in both non-Priestly and Priestly texts, apart from Exod 25–Lev 16, which he regards as using ‘pure’ Priestly language without Deuteronomistic influence.90 Kevin Mattison, in his analyses of the laws of Deuteronomy and the Covenant Collection (Exod 20:22–23:19), simply assumes the priority of the Covenant Collection over Deuteronomy.91 He then argues for this direction of dependence 86 R. E. Garton, Mirages in the Desert: The Tradition-historical Developments of the Story of Massah-Meribah (BZAW 492; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2017), 197–201, 232–240. 87 S. Germany, The Exodus-Conquest Narrative: The Composition of the Non-Priestly Narratives in Exodus–Joshua (FAT 115; Mohr Siebeck:  Tübingen 2017), 147–148, 193, 223; id., ‘Die Bearbeitung des deuteronomischen Gesetzes im Lichte biblischer Erzählungen,’ ZAW 131 (2019) 43–57 (esp. 51, 53–55). 88 E. E. Meyer, ‘When Synchrony Overtakes Diachrony: Perspectives on the Relationship between the Deuteronomic Code and the Holiness Code,’ OTE 30 (2017) 749–769 (esp. 767). 89 S. Rudnig-Zelt, Glaube im Alten Testament: Eine begriffsgeschichtliche Untersuchung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Jes 7,1–17; Dtn 1–3; Num 13–14 und Gen 22,1–19 (BZAW 452; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2017), 197–233. 90 P.  N.  Tucker, The Holiness Composition in the Book of Exodus (FAT 2.98; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2017), 59–60. 91 K. Mattison, Rewriting and Revision as Amendment in the Laws of Deuteronomy (FAT 2.100; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 1, 5.

30

Introduction

by noting the difference between the convenient access to a cult place in Exod 20:24–26; 21:12–14; 22:28–29 and the problem of distance to it in Deut 12.92 In fact, however, this difference can be explained by the different contexts of the instructions contained in Exod 20:22–23:19 (all Israel being together on the way to Canaan)93 and in Deut 12 (Israel already settled in the extended land of Canaan). Hendrick Stoppel argues that the relationship between Exod 19–24; 32–34 and Deut 5; 9–10 can best be explained with the use of the hypothesis of several literary strata in these texts, especially in Exod 19–24; 32–34. According to the German scholar, mutual influence between these strata gradually led to the composition of both Exod 19–24; 32–34 and Deut 5; 9–10.94 Gili Kugler rather traditionally suggests that the author of Deut 1 reworked the non-Priestly version of the spy story in Num 13–14 but not the Priestly version thereof.95 Guillaume Lepesqueux has argued that the texts Exod 34:1–4.28–29 were composed with the use of Deut 10:1–5, and Exod 34:6–7 is a relecture of Deut 10:9–10.96 On the other hand, he also suggests that Deut 9:9–11.21; 10:11 contains earlier material which can be found in Exod 24:12*.13b.18b; 31:18*; 32:20.97 Jaeyoung Jeon has recently argued that both nonpriestly and priestly strands in the scout narrative Num 13–14 precede their counterparts in Deut 1:22–25.28.98 This survey of most recent research on the relationships between Exodus– Numbers and Deuteronomy reveals that in the opinion of most scholars there are some literary connections between various parts of these works. However, there is no consensus concerning the extent and direction of literary dependence 9 2 Ibid. 179. 93 In the section Exod 20–23, the idea of Israel going to the land of Canaan only appears in Exod 23:20–33 (cf. the vague references to the ground/soil in Exod 20:12.24; 23:19). In Exod 24:4–5, the Israelites offer sacrifices at Mount Horeb, away from the chosen place in the land of Canaan. 94 H. Stoppel, Von Angesicht zu Angesicht: Ouvertüre am Horeb: Deuteronomium 5 und 9–10 und die Textgestalt ihrer Folie (ATANT 109; Theologischer: Zürich 2018), 345, 349–350, 431–435. 95 Cf. G. Kugler, When God Wanted to Destroy the Chosen People: Biblical Traditions and Theology on the Move (BZAW 515; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2019), 87–92. 96 G. Lepesqueux, L’exposition du nom divin dans le livre de l’Exode: Étude exégétique d’Ex 3,1–4,18; 6,2–7,7; 33–34 (FAT 2.102; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2019), 319–329. 97 Ibid. 105–106. 98 J. Jeon, ‘The Scout Narrative (Numbers 13) as a Territorial Claim in the Persian Period,’ JBL 139 (2020) 255–274 (esp. 261–263).

Introduction

31

between them. In order to overcome this difficulty, scholars often postulate the existence of various diachronic literary strata in these texts. Consequently, the proposed patterns of literary dependence between Exodus–Numbers and Deuteronomy become very complex and in fact hardly verifiable. As concerns the notoriously difficult question of the direction of literary dependence between various biblical writings, Michael A. Lyons, developing the ideas which are contained in the works of many other scholars,99 proposed four criteria to establish these directions.100 In fact, however, his criterion of modification in line with one author’s distinctive ideas logically resembles his criterion of expansions which are interpreting the other text. Both criteria are reversible because one can also imagine a later author omitting certain distinctive ideas of the earlier text and abbreviating its too expanded form.101 The scholar’s two other criteria, namely that of only partial integration of the shared text into one of the contexts and that of the need of supplying information from one text to understand the other text, are also logically correlated with each other. They refer to the incongruity or obscurity of the shared text in one of the analysed texts. These two criteria are not reversible as far as the incongruity or obscurity in question is barely perceivable. If it is rather evident, one can also imagine the later author as correcting the easily noticeable incongruity or obscurity in the earlier text.102 Of course, opinions on what is barely perceivable and what is evident can be highly subjective. However, they are more objective if they are formulated in the context of the state of research on a given text. If an incongruity or obscurity is perceived by some scholars but not by the majority of them, then it can be regarded as barely perceivable, and consequently it may point to the fact and the direction of literary dependence on another text. The two other criteria mentioned by Lyons, namely that of conflation (A + B → AB) and that of splitting and recombination (AB → A + B),103 are in fact mutually opposite, so that their value for ascertaining the direction of literary dependence is rather limited.104 99 E.g. D. Carr, ‘Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26 and its Parallels,’ in M. Köckert and E. Blum (eds.), Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (VWGT 18; Chr. Kaiser: Gütersloh 2001), 107–140 (esp. 109–112). 100 M. A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (LHBOTS 507; T&T Clark: New York · London 2009), 61–66. 101 See B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q, 188–190. 102 See ibid. 201–204. 103 M. A. Lyons, From Law, 66–67. 104 See B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q, 196–198.

32

Introduction

Therefore, the application of the criteria proposed by Lyons and other scholars rarely solves the problem of the direction of dependence between two given literary works.105 In fact, the hypotheses concerning the direction of literary dependence between various biblical writings should inevitably be supplemented with more general scholarly considerations concerning the history of the composition of biblical texts.106

Date of composition The books of Exodus–Numbers are a sequel to the book of Genesis because numerous motifs from Genesis are borrowed and often developed or summarized in Exodus–Numbers (cf. e.g. Exod 1:5 and Gen 46:26–27; Exod 13:19 and Gen 50:25; Exod 32:13 and Gen 22:15–17; 26:3–4; 48:4; Num 26:19 and Gen 38:7– 10).107 Therefore, the composition of Genesis, which can be dated to c.350–340 bc,108 constitutes the terminus a quo for the composition of Exodus–Numbers. Moreover, it can be argued that in both Genesis and Exodus–Numbers the same motifs are used in a hypertextual way to illustrate the same ideas in Deuteronomy. For example, the motif of humans being fruitful, multiplying, and filling the earth/land (‫ הארץ‬+ ‫ מלא‬+ ‫ *רבו‬+ ‫ )פרו‬in both Gen 1:28109 and Exod 1:7 illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh commanding the sons of Israel

105 This fact was later admitted by the scholar himself: M. A. Lyons, ‘How Have We Changed? Older and Newer Arguments about the Relationship between Ezekiel and the Holiness Code,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), Formation, 1055–1074 (esp. 1072). 106 Cf. E. E. Meyer, ‘Leviticus 17, Where P, H, and D Meet: Priorities and Presuppositions of Jacob Milgrom and Eckart Otto,’ in R. E. Gane and A. Taggar-Cohen (eds.), Current, 349–367 (esp. 364–367). 107 For a survey of modern research on the literary connections between Genesis and Exodus–Numbers, see recently K. Schmid, ‘The Sources of the Pentateuch, Their Literary Extent and the Bridge between Genesis and Exodus: A Survey of Scholarship since Astruc,’ in C. Berner, H. Samuel, and S. Germany (eds.), Book-Seams in the Hexateuch I:  The Literary Transitions between the Books of Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/Judges (FAT 120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 21–41 (esp. 25–40). Cf. also J. S. Baden, ‘The Lack of Transition between Genesis 50 and Exodus 1,’ in C. Berner, H. Samuel, and S. Germany (eds.), Book-Seams, 43–53; D. Jericke, ‘Exodus Material in the Book of Genesis,’ in C.  Berner, H.  Samuel, and S.  Germany (eds.), BookSeams, 137–156; W. Oswald, ‘Genesis Material in the Book of Exodus: Explicit Back References,’ in C. Berner, H. Samuel, and S. Germany (eds.), Book-Seams, 157–170. 108 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Genesis, 25–29. 109 Cf. ibid. 42.

Introduction

33

(Deut 1:3c). Likewise, the motif of being a shepherd of sheep (‫ צאן‬+ ‫ רעה‬+ ‫)היה‬ in both Gen 4:2110 and Exod 3:1 illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the sons of Esau dwelling in Seir (Deut 2:4). Therefore, the use of these motifs in both Genesis and Exodus–Numbers in the same hypertextual function cannot be adequately explained in terms of their repeated use in some postulated, overarching Pentateuchal sources or layers, for example in the so-called Priestly material.111 It rather implies the same time and milieu of the composition of both Genesis and Exodus–Numbers. Therefore, it can be argued that both Genesis and Exodus–Numbers were written at approximately the same time, around 350–340 bc, probably as two parts of one great literary project of composing a hypertextual, sequentially organized, elaborate prequel to Deuteronomy. The extent of this great composition thematically corresponds to Hos 12:3–14 (from the actions of Jacob to Israel’s exodus from Egypt and dwelling in tents).112 Other methods of dating Exodus–Numbers are not very reliable. For example, Guy Darshan, referring to the literary genre, has recently argued that the casuistic ritual and religious ordinances concerning impurity, purification, sacrifices, and tithes, ordered by divine decree and intended to be observed by the public at large, laws which constitute much of the material contained especially in Leviticus and Numbers, have their closest parallel in the Cyrene inscription, dated to the late fourth century bc.113 However, an earlier example of this literary genre can already be found in Deuteronomy (esp. Deut 23:11–12), so that its use cannot be regarded as providing a clear reference point for dating Exodus–Numbers. As concerns the linguistic features of Exodus–Numbers, Jan Joosten has argued that the use of the expression ‘to speak before’ in Num 36:1 is typical of the Persian period due to the changed sociolinguistic milieu.114 However, 1 10 Cf. ibid. 58. 111 For this argument, see e.g. K. Schmid, ‘Taming Egypt: The Impact of Persian Imperial Ideology and Politics on the Biblical Exodus Account,’ in M. Popović, M. Schoonover, and M. Vandenberghe (eds.), Jewish Cultural Encounters in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern World (JSJSup 178; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2017), 13–29 (esp. 18–19). 112 Cf. H.-C. Schmitt, ‘Erzvätergeschichte und Exodusgeschichte als konkurrierende Ursprungslegenden Israels – ein Irrweg der Pentateuchforschung,’ in A. C. Hagedorn and H. Pfeiffer (eds.), Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition, Festschrift M. Köckert (BZAW 400; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2009), 241–266 (esp. 244–248). 113 G. Darshan, ‘The Casuistic Priestly Law in Ancient Mediterranean Context: The History of the Genre and its Sitz im Leben,’ HTR 111 (2018) 24–40 (esp. 34–37, 39). 114 J. Joosten, ‘Diachronic Linguistics and the Date of the Pentateuch,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), Formation, 327–344 (esp. 339).

34

Introduction

in Exodus–Numbers it is difficult to find vocabulary and phraseology which is exclusively characteristic of the post-exilic period, thus being clearly postexilic linguistic innovations. For example, the noun ‫( מלכות‬vs. ‫ )ממלכה‬used for ‘kingdom’ in Num 24:7 is used in the Hebrew Bible almost exclusively in postexilic texts, but it also occurs three times in the book of Jeremiah (Jer 10:7; 49:34; 52:31),115 so it can only prove that Exodus–Numbers is not pre-exilic. However, the noun ‫רכוש‬, apart from Genesis and Numbers, can only be found in Ezra, Chronicles, and Daniel,116 which suggests that Genesis and Exodus–Numbers are late Persian texts. The linguistic dating of the Pentateuchal texts to the pre-exilic period on the basis of their use of Classical Biblical Hebrew is methodologically questionable, not least because ‘there is a significant gap in the external, nonbiblical control corpora for Hebrew from the sixth to second centuries bce,’117 so that ‘we are not able to define a clear terminus ante quem for CBH from the external evidence.’118 Likewise, it is difficult to date Exodus–Numbers with the use of the argumentum ex silentio as concerns the absence of Late Biblical Hebrew features or loanwords.119

115 Cf. D.-H.  Kim, Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Linguistic Variability:  A  Sociolinguistic Evaluation of the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (VTSup 156; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2013), 137; A. Hurvitz, A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period (VTSup 160; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 165, 169. 116 Cf. K. Schmid, ‘How to Identify a Persian Period Text in the Pentateuch,’ in R. J. Bautch and M. Lackowski (eds.), On Dating Biblical Texts to the Persian Period: Discerning Criteria and Establishing Epochs (FAT 2.101: Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2019), 101–118 (esp. 111). 117 K. Schmid, ‘Distinguishing the World of the Exodus Narrative from the World of Its Narrators: The Question of the Priestly Exodus Account in Its Historical Setting,’ in T. E. Levy, T. Schneider, and W. H. C. Propp (eds.), Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience (QMHSS; Springer: Chum [et al.] 2015), 331–344 (here: 340). 118 Ibid. 341. 119 Cf. E. Blum, ‘The Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Approach with Methodological Limitations,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), Formation, 303–325 (esp. 311–313); R. Albertz, ‘Die Identifikation von nachexilischen Redaktionsschichten im Pentateuch,’ in id., Pentateuchstudien, ed. J. Wöhrle and F. Neumann (FAT 117; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 429–447 (esp. 438–439). For such an attempt as concerns the ‘J’ source, see e.g. R. M. Wright, Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-exilic Date of the Yahwistic Source (LHBOTS 419; T&T Clark International: London · New York 2012), 161–164.

Introduction

35

As concerns the relationship between the Exodus narrative and the historical data, Lester L. Grabbe has rightly stated, ‘It is not sufficient to point to early elements in a text to demonstrate an early date for it. Early elements can be found in late texts, but not vice versa. Ultimately, judging the date of a text depends on a variety of factors, but the final form of a text can be no earlier than the latest element in it.’120 For this reason, the remark concerning ‘linen trousers’ (Exod 28:42; 39:28; Lev 6:3; 16:4; cf. Ezek 44:18), a garment which seems to be a Persian innovation, could point to a post-exilic date of the composition of Exodus–Numbers.121 It is always possible for an educated and gifted author to imitate in a selective way the vocabulary, style, cultural phenomena, and historical references which could be found in earlier texts,122 but it is rather impossible to imitate the vocabulary and style which came to be used only later. Therefore, it should be argued that the author of Exodus–Numbers deliberately used archaizing elements in his story about Israel’s distant ancestors, but he did not avoid using some linguistic and historical elements which were more contemporary to his, much later world.123 On the other hand, since Samuel–Kings is a Judaean reworking of Deuteronomy,124 and it contains motifs borrowed from Exodus–Numbers (cf. e.g. 1 Kgs 7:14 and Exod 35:31–36:1; 1 Kgs 7:23–39 and Exod 30:18–21), then

120 L. L. Grabbe, ‘Exodus and History,’ in T. B. Dozeman, C. A. Evans, and J. N. Lohr (eds.), The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (VTSup 164; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 61–87 (here: 84). 121 Cf. J. Blenkinsopp, ‘The Earliest Persian Period Prophetic Texts,’ in R. J. Bautch and M. Lackowski (eds.), On Dating, 11–29 (esp. 23); K. Schmid, ‘How to Identify,’ 112. For arguments that linen undergarments were known in the biblical world centuries before the Persian period, see J. K. Hoffmeier, ‘Egyptian Religious Influences on the Early Hebrews,’ in J. K. Hoffmeier, A. R. Millard, and G. A. Rendsburg (eds.), “Did I Not Bring Israel Out of Egypt?” Biblical, Archaeological, and Egyptological Perspectives on the Exodus Narratives (BBRSup 13; Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2016), 3–35 (esp. 33–34). 122 For example, the language of Esther and 1QM can be regarded as classicizing; cf. J. Screnock, ‘The Syntax of Complex Adding Numerals and Hebrew Diachrony,’ JBL 137 (2018) 789–819 (esp. 803). 123 The presence of late features in a given text is often explained by attributing them to late layers, redactions, additions, etc., as is done, for example, by J. Joosten, ‘Diachronic,’ 338–339. However, such supportive hypotheses should generally be avoided because they too easily suit modern scholarly perceptions of literary coherence. 124 See B. Adamczewski, Retelling, 225–280.

36

Introduction

its composition constitutes the terminus ad quem for the writing of Exodus– Numbers. Therefore, dating Exodus–Numbers to the Hellenistic period125 implies dating Samuel–Kings to a later time in the Hellenistic period, and Chronicles yet later. This is rather implausible because Sir 44–49 (written c.195–180 bc)126 alludes to the combined Israelite–Judaean story (Gen–Kings) which is already present in Chronicles. Moreover, Exodus–Numbers is witnessed in manuscript copies which can be dated to the third century bc. In particular, the manuscript 4QExod-Levf [4Q17] is dated to the middle or the second half of the third century bc,127 and 4QExodd [4Q15] and 6QpaleoLev [6Q2] are dated to 250–150 bc. Besides, Exodus– Numbers is witnessed in the Old Greek translation, which can be dated to the mid-third century bc.128 Accordingly, dating Exodus–Numbers to the third century bc is rather implausible. Therefore, Exodus–Numbers, similarly to Genesis, was most probably written by the end of the Persian period, so c.350–340 bc. Helmut Utzschneider and Walter Oswald have likewise argued that the final form of the book of Exodus was composed in the late Persian or early Hellenistic period.129 Likewise, in the opinion of Horst Seebass the book of Numbers was written in the second half of the fourth century bc, although he argues that it also contains later canonical additions (Num 7:1–88; 9:1–14; 31:1–54) from the first century bc – first century ad.130

125 Cf. R. E. Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch (LHBOTS 433; T&T Clark: New York · London 2006), 170–249 (arguing for 273–272 bc); P. Wajdenbaum, ‘Is the Bible a Platonic Book?,’ SJOT 24 (2010) 129–142 (esp. 134–137). 126 Cf. B. G. Wright III, ‘Ben Sira, Book of,’ in J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow (eds.), The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 2010), 436–438 (esp. 436–437). 127 Cf. F. M. Cross, ‘4QExod-Levf,’ in E. Ulrich [et al.] (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. VII: Genesis to Numbers (DJD 12; Clarendon: Oxford 1994), 133–144 (esp. 134); M. Langlois, ‘Dead Sea Scrolls Palaeography and the Samaritan Pentateuch,’ in id. (ed.), The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls (CBET 94; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Bristol, CT 2019), 255–285 (esp. 256). 128 Cf. K. Schmid, ‘How to Identify,’ 102–103. 129 H. Utzschneider and W. Oswald, Exodus 1–15 (IEKAT; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2013), 53. 130 H. Seebass, Numeri, vol. 1, Numeri 1,1–10,10 (BKAT 4/1; Neukirchener: NeukirchenVluyn 2012), 22*, 30*, 38*.

Introduction

37

Consequently, in his literary activity the author of Exodus–Numbers could use the earlier prophetic works of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Deutero-Isaiah, and possibly also Joel and the book of Proverbs. As is consistently argued in this monograph, he used Deuteronomy as his main structuregiving hypotext. Besides, he used the literary sequel to Deuteronomy: the books of Joshua and Judges.131

Place of composition It seems to be methodologically impossible to identify the place of the composition of Exodus–Numbers on the basis of the postulated dialectal differences between the Hebrew spoken in Israel and in Judah.132 Therefore, in order to identify the place of the composition of Exodus–Numbers, the allusive rhetoric of this work should be taken into due consideration. The name of Jerusalem never appears in Exodus–Numbers. However, the motif of making cultic objects for the worship of Yahweh by Bezalel of the tribe of Judah and, to a lesser degree, by Oholiab of the tribe of Dan (Exod 31:2.6; cf. 35:30–36:2; 37:1; 38:22–23) presents them as engaging in the construction of the unique, pan-Israelite sanctuary of Yahweh. The identification of these artisans as originating from the tribes of Judah and Dan alludes to these two tribes as located at the opposite ends of the land of Canaan, but also having their own, separatist (from the perspective of Shechem) sanctuaries, in Jerusalem and Dan respectively. Accordingly, with the use of the figure of synecdoche (pars pro toto), this motif rhetorically presents the tribes of Judah and Dan as called to abandon their separatist worship and contribute to the construction of the unique legitimate sanctuary of Yahweh, presumably located in central Canaan, in the region of Shechem. A positive allusion to Shechem (‫)שכם‬, which resembles the allusions to this place in Gen 9:23; 48:22, appears in the narratively redundant text concerning the Israelites carrying unleavened dough on their shoulder (sing. ‫ )שכם‬and acting according to the word of Moses (Exod 12:34–35a). This text, as is argued in this monograph, illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites breaking 131 It is quite natural in expansions of a given story (see, for example, the saga of the Star Wars) that the original story (in this case, Deuteronomy) is first supplemented with a sequel (in this case, Joshua and Judges), and only thereafter with a prequel (in this case, Genesis followed by Exodus–Numbers). 132 See N.  Pat-El, ‘Israelian Hebrew:  A  Re-Evaluation,’ VT 67 (2017) 227–263 (esp. 242–248).

38

Introduction

down the pagans’ altars and thus acting according to the word of Moses (Deut 7:5ab). Accordingly, Shechem is allusively presented in Exod 12:34–35a as the only legitimate place of worshipping Yahweh in full agreement with the law of Moses (cf. Deut 11:29–12:5; 27:4–8; Josh 8:30–35; 24:1–27; cf. also Gen 12:6–7; 22:1–14), which presumably included offering the Passover sacrifice and eating bread made of unleavened dough (Deut 16:5–8). Another positive allusion to Shechem can be traced in the image of the Israelites standing in front of the holy mountain (‫ הר‬+ ‫אל־מול‬: Exod 34:3). This motif was borrowed from Josh 8:33, where it refers to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, so mountains located in the area of Shechem. The idea of a half-Israelite blasphemer against Yahweh as originating from the tribe of Dan (Lev 24:11) implies rivalry with its local sanctuary.133 This rivalry with Dan is most plausible in the central tribe of Ephraim, with its post-exilic sanctuary on Mount Gerizim, rather than in the southern tribe of Judah, which was considerably distanced from the tribe of Dan. The list of the leaders of Israel’s secular tribes as chosen by Yahweh (Num 1:5–15), which illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh choosing a king among the Israelites (Deut 17:15), presents the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph, as located in the central position (Num 1:10), which implies that their central, presumably leading function among the Israelites is chosen by Yahweh. In the instructions concerning the arrangement of the Israelite camp and the Israelite army marching eastwards (Num 2:1–32; 10:14–28), the most numerous tribe of Judah is the foremost tribe, presumably the first one to engage in a battle with the enemies, but the tribe of Ephraim is located immediately behind the sanctuary of Yahweh (Num 2:17–18; 10:21–22), thus occupying the privileged position which in the Persian army was reserved for the king (cf. Herodotus, Hist. 7.40). On the other hand, the position of Moses and Aaron in the same eastward direction as the tribe of Judah (Num 3:38)134 probably reflects the Israelite respect for the Judaean Levitical priesthood (cf. Gen 14:18–20; Neh 13:28; cf. also the link between Aaron and Nahshon in Exod 6:23). 133 Cf. T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 2, 16–27] (HThKAT; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2014), 961. 134 Cf. J. Rhyder, ‘Unity and Hierarchy: North and South in the Priestly Traditions,’ in B. Hensel, D. Nocquet, and B. Adamczewski (eds.), Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity from Judah, Samaria, and the Diaspora in Biblical Traditions (FAT 2.120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2020), 109–134 (esp. 121–122, 125, 127).

Introduction

39

The contrasting image of the Judaean leader Caleb, whose disparaging name means ‘dog,’ as encouraging the Israelites to conquer the land of Canaan but in his persuasion not mentioning God (Num 13:30), and on the other hand the Ephraimite leader Joshua (cf. Josh 24:30; Judg 2:9), whose theophoric name refers to Yahweh, as together with Caleb pointing to the power of Yahweh (Num 14:6–9) allusively points to the tribe of Ephraim as the only one really believing in the power of Yahweh. The idea of cursing the Judaean (cf. Judg 1:16) Kenites (Num 24:21–22) also presents the tribe of Judah in a negative light. As is argued in this monograph, the motif of the Ephraimite secular leader Joshua having the authority to divide the land among the Israelites (Num 34:17; cf. Josh 14:1; 19:51) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of a king in Jeshurun (Deut 33:5a). This fact points to the tribe of Ephraim as being called to exercise secular authority in Israel. The list of the leaders of the tribes of Israel (Num 34:19–28), in which the names of the leaders of seven central Canaanite tribes (Simeon, Benjamin, Manasseh, Ephraim, Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali) contain theophoric references to the name of God/El, in contrast to the names of the leaders of the peripheral tribes of Judah, Dan, and Asher, of which Judah and Dan had their own, separatist (from the perspective of Shechem) sanctuaries of Yahweh, also favours the central tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim against the peripheral tribes of Judah and Dan. The importance of the tribe of Joseph in the structurally important sections of the book of Numbers, namely Num 26 (concluding the first part: Num 1–26) and Num 27; 36 (framing the second part: Num 27–36), likewise favours the tribe of Joseph, especially that of Manasseh.135 All these positive allusions to Ephraim, Manasseh, Shechem, and Mt. Gerizim, together with the generally negative allusions to Judah, Jerusalem, and Dan, especially to their local sanctuaries of Yahweh (but not to the Jerusalemite Levitical priesthood), imply that Exodus–Numbers, like Genesis,136 Deuteronomy,137 135 Cf. J. S. Bergsma, ‘A ”Samaritan” Pentateuch? The Implications of the Pro-Northern Tendency of the Common Pentateuch,’ in M. Armgardt, B. Kilchör, and M. Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm, 287–300 (esp. 293–294). 136 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Genesis, 30–36. 137 Cf. A.  Schenker, ‘Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch und Samareitikon:  Zur Textgeschichte des Pentateuchs im 2.  Jh. v.Chr.,’ in M.  Mor, F. V. Reiterer, and W. Winkler (eds.), Samaritans: Past and Present: Current Studies (SJ 53 / SSam 5; De Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2010), 105–121 (esp. 118); S. Schorch, ‘Der Pentateuch der Samaritaner:  Seine Erforschung und seine Bedeutung für

40

Introduction

Joshua,138 and Judges,139 was written from an Israelite140 (northern) geographicaltheological perspective.141 In contrast to Genesis and its story of Israel’s lay patriarchs, Exodus–Numbers repeatedly highlights the role of the Levitical priesthood. According to Exodus– Numbers, Aaron and the Levitical priests are subordinated to the instructions given by Moses, but they play a very important role in the life of the people of Israel. This fact may imply that the Sitz im Leben of Exodus–Numbers should be traced not only in the secular elite of the province of Samaria, but also in its priestly circles.

das Verständnis des alttestamentlichen Bibeltextes,’ in J. Frey, U. Schattner-Rieser, and K. Schmid (eds.), Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen (SJ 70 / SSam 7; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2012), 5–29 (esp. 28–29). 138 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Joshua 1–12: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AYB 6B; Yale University: New Haven · London 2015), 28–31. 139 Cf. I. Finkelstein, ‘Major Saviors, Minor Judges: The Historical Background of the Northern Accounts in the Book of Judges,’ JSOT 41.4 (2017) 431–449. 140 The people who worshipped Yahweh on Mount Gerizim called themselves ‘Israelites,’ as is witnessed, for example, in two Delos inscriptions; see e.g. M. Kartveit, ‘Samaritan Self-Consciousness in the First Half of the Second Century B.C.E. in Light of the Inscriptions from Mount Gerizim and Delos,’ JSJ 45 (2014) 449–470 (esp. 466–468); B. Hensel, Juda und Samaria: Zum Verhältnis zweier nach-exilischer Jahwismen (FAT 110; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 159–161. 141 Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘The Roles of Gerizim and Jerusalem in the Israelite Heptateuch Genesis–Judges,’ RB [forthcoming].

Chapter 1.  Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12 The contents of the book of Exodus sequentially, in a hypertextual way illustrate the contents of the Deuteronomic major section Deut 1:1–12:12.

1.1. Exod 1 (cf. Deut 1:1–39b) The opening section Exod 1 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding opening section Deut 1:1–39b. The opening nominal clause, ‘And these are (‫ )ואלה‬the names’ (Exod 1:1a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic nominal clause, ‘These are (‫ )אלה‬the words’ (Deut 1:1a). The particular statement, ‘And these are the names of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt’ (‫ואלה שמות בני ישראל‬ ‫הבאים מצרימה‬: Exod 1:1ab) is verbatim conformed to that occurring in Gen 46:8.1 The subsequent idea of (a) the sons of Israel (‫ישראל‬: Exod 1:1) and their households, all (‫כל‬: Exod 1:5) the descendants of Jacob, (b) being on the way from Canaan to Egypt (Exod 1:1–5) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) all Israel (b) being in the wilderness on the way to Canaan (Deut 1:1b–2). The particular order of the names of the sons of Jacob in Exod 1:2–4 reflects the order of the sons of Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah, which is presented in Gen 35:23–26.2 The motif of all people who came out of the loins of Jacob being seventy in Egypt (‫ יצאי‬+ ‫ נפש‬+ ‫כל‬ ‫ מצרים‬+ ‫ שבעים‬+ ‫ יעקב‬+ ‫ ירך‬+: Exod 1:5) was in a simplifying way (surprisingly including Jacob himself) borrowed from Gen 46:26–27.3 1 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Commentary on Exodus (ECC; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 2009), 64; C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18 (HThKAT; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2015), 91–92; J. C. Gertz, ‘The Relative Independence of the Books of Genesis and Exodus,’ in C. Berner, H. Samuel, and S. Germany (eds.), Book-Seams in the Hexateuch I: The Literary Transitions between the Books of Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/Judges (FAT 120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 55–72 (esp. 55, 63). 2 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Exodus, 64–65; C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 95; J. C. Gertz, ‘Relative Independence,’ 63. 3 Cf. C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 98–99; J. S. Baden, ‘The Lack of Transition between Genesis 50 and Exodus 1,’ in C. Berner, H. Samuel, and S. Germany (eds.), Book-Seams, 43–53 (esp. 45 n. 7); J. C. Gertz, ‘Relative Independence,’ 63–64.

42

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

The subsequent thought that the whole earlier generation died (Exod 1:6) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of forty years (Deut 1:3a), so presumably the time during which the whole earlier generation died (cf. Num 32:13: ‫ כל־הדור‬+ ‫ ;ארבעים שנה‬cf. also Deut 2:14). The subsequent idea of the sons of Israel (‫בני ישראל‬: Exod 1:7a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the sons of Israel (Deut 1:3b). The subsequent idea of the sons of Israel being fruitful, prolific, multiplying, and growing exceedingly mighty (Exod 1:7) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh commanding the sons of Israel (Deut 1:3c), presumably to be fruitful, prolific, and multiplying (cf. Gen 9:7: ‫ *רבו‬+ ‫ *שרצו‬+ ‫)פרו‬.4 The particular motif of humans being fruitful and multiplying, as well as filling the earth/land (‫ הארץ‬+ ‫ מלא‬+ ‫ *רבו‬+ ‫פרו‬: Exod 1:7) also in Gen 1:285 illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh commanding the sons of Israel (Deut 1:3bc).6 The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly introduced idea of a new king (‫מלך‬: cf. Gen 41:46; diff. Gen 50:4–7; Exod 1:11: Pharaoh) of the Gentile country of Egypt (Exod 1:8a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the kings of the Gentile Amorites and Bashan (Deut 1:4– 5). The particular motif of a Gentile king arising against Israel (‫ מלך‬+ ‫ויקם‬: Exod 1:8a) was borrowed from Josh 24:9. The subsequent idea of (a) not knowing (b) the ancestor Joseph (Exod 1:8b) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) going to the previously unknown land (b) which Yahweh promised to the ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as their descendants after them (Deut 1:6–8). The particular motif of the Israelite leader and the whole previous generation dying, and a new generation arising, who did not know Yahweh or his representative (‫ אשר לא־ידע* את־‬+ ‫ ויקם‬+ ‫ *כל הדור ההוא‬+ ‫וימת‬: Exod 1:6.8), was borrowed

4 Cf. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1999), 129–130, 134; K. Schmid, ‘Exodus in the Pentateuch,’ in T. B. Dozeman, C. A. Evans, and J. N. Lohr (eds.), The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (VTSup 164; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 27–60 (esp. 34); J. C. Gertz, ‘Relative Independence,’ 61. 5 Cf. K. Schmid, ‘Exodus,’ 34; J. C. Gertz, ‘Relative Independence,’ 61; W. Oswald, ‘Genesis Material in the Book of Exodus: Explicit Back References,’ in C. Berner, H. Samuel, and S. Germany (eds.), Book-Seams, 157–170 (esp. 168). 6 Cf. B.  Adamczewski, Genesis:  A  Hypertextual Commentary (EST 25; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2020, 42.

Exod 1 (cf. Deut 1:1–39b)

43

from Judg 2:8.10.7 However, its use in Exod 1:6.8 is quite surprising because it could suggest that the new king appeared relatively soon after the king who had known Joseph and his generation (cf. Gen 15:16; Exod 6:16–20; Num 26:57–59; diff. Gen 15:13; Exod 12:40–41: after more than 400 years).8 The subsequent statement, ‘And he said to (‫ )ויאמר אל‬his people’ (Exod 1:9a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic statement, ‘And I said to (*‫ )ואמר אל‬you’ (Deut 1:9). The subsequent thought that behold (‫)הנה‬, the people of the sons of Israel (‫בני‬ ‫ )ישראל‬is numerous (‫רב‬: Exod 1:9b), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic thought that Yahweh God multiplied (‫ )רבה‬the sons of Israel (cf. Deut 1:3), and behold, they are in a great number (‫רב‬: Deut 1:10). The particular motif of being more numerous and mightier than another nation (‫ מן‬+ ‫ ועצום‬+ ‫רב‬: Exod 1:9b) was borrowed from Deut 7:1. The subsequent, quite surprising idea of the sons of Israel being mightier than the Egyptians (Exod 1:9b)9 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the sons of Israel (cf. Deut 1:3) increasing a thousand times more than they are (Deut 1:11–12). The subsequent proposal of the king to act (*‫ )הב‬and deal wisely (‫)חכם‬, so that they set (‫ )שים‬over Israel (*‫ )על‬commanders (‫שרי‬: Exod 1:10–11), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic proposal of Moses to act and choose wise men (‫ )חכם‬in order that he might set them, so that he took wise men and gave them over the Israelites as commanders (Deut 1:13–15). The 7 Cf. W. Groß, ‘Das Richterbuch zwischen deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk und Enneateuch,’ in H.-J. Stipp (ed.), Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk (ÖBS 39; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 177–205 (esp. 181–182); R. Albertz, ‘Der Beginn der vorpriesterlichen Exoduskomposition (KEX): Eine Kompositionsund Redaktionsgeschichte von Ex 1–5,’ in id., Pentateuchstudien, ed. J.  Wöhrle and F. Neumann (FAT 117; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 79–111 (esp. 86). Pace S. Germany, ‘The Literary Relationship between Genesis 50–Exodus 1 and Joshua 24–Judges 2,’ in C. Berner, H. Samuel, and S. Germany (eds.), Book-Seams, 385–400 (esp. 395–396, 399–400), who argues for a partial dependence of Exod 1:6 on Judg 2:10, but on the other hand for the dependence of Judg 2:10 on Exod 1:8. 8 Cf. W. H. Schmidt, Exodus, vol. 1, Exodus 1–6 (BKAT 2/1; Neukirchener: NeukirchenVluyn 1988), 32; J. Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus– Numbers (Westminster/John Knox:  Louisville, KY 1994), 19; L.  Schmidt, ‘Die vorpriesterliche Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus durch die Josefsgeschichte (Gen 37; 39–50*) und Exodus 1,’ ZAW 124 (2012) 19–37 (esp. 33). 9 Cf. C. Houtman, Exodus, vol. 1, trans. J. Rebel and S. Woudstra (HCOT; Kok: Kampen 1993), 236; W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 130–131.

44

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

particular motif of Israel going up from the land (‫ מן־הארץ‬+ ‫עלה‬: Exod 1:10) also occurs, more naturally formulated (with a demonstrative pronoun), in Gen 50:24 (cf. Deut 20:1). Likewise, the motif of Pharaoh choosing the place of Rameses (‫ רעמסס‬+ ‫פרעה‬: Exod 1:11) also occurs in Gen 47:11. The subsequent thoughts that (a) as (*‫ )כ‬the Egyptians oppressed Israel (sing.),10 (b) so (*‫ )כ‬Israel (sing.) multiplied and so (*‫ )כ‬it (sing.) spread, so that (c) the Egyptians were (plur.) in dread in front of (‫ )מפני‬the sons of Israel (plur.), and (d) Egypt made (sing./plur.) the sons of Israel serve with harshness (Exod 1:12–13) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrate the subsequent Deuteronomic ideas of (a) showing no partiality but hearing as (*‫)כ‬ the small one (sing.), (b) so (*‫ )כ‬the great one (sing.), (c) being called not to be (plur.) afraid in front of anyone (indef.), for (d) the judgement is God’s (Deut 1:16–17d). The subsequent idea of making the Israelites’ lives bitter with hard (‫)קשה‬ work (Exod 1:14a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a case being too hard (‫ )קשה‬for the Israelites (Deut 1:17e–g). The particular motif of the Egyptians imposing hard labour upon the Israelites (‫ עבדה קשה‬+ ‫מצרים‬: Exod 1:13–14) was borrowed from Deut 26:6. The subsequent idea of imposing upon the Israelites all (‫ )את כל־‬the service which (‫ )אשר‬they made (Exod 1:14b) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of commanding the Israelites all the things which they did (Deut 1:18). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Exod 1:13) idea of dealing with the Israelites with harshness (Exod 1:14c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God commanding the Israelites to go through the great and terrible wilderness (Deut 1:19). The subsequent idea of (a) the king of Egypt (diff. Exod 1:11: Pharaoh) saying (‫ )ויאמר‬to (b) the Hebrew (‫ *ה‬pred. adj.) midwives, (c) who (‫ )אשר‬bore names related to (d) beauty11 and (e) crying out (Exod 1:15; cf. Isa 42:14: ‫)פעה‬.12 10 Cf. K. Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible, trans. J. D. Nogalski (SLTHS 3; Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2010), 220. 11 Cf. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 130–139; M. Gerhards, Die Aussetzungsgeschichte des Mose: Literar- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Schlüsseltext des nichtpriesterlichen Tetrateuch (WMANT 109; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2006), 41; T. Römer, ‘Mose und die Frauen in Exodus 1–4,’ in R. Achenbach, R. Ebach, and J. Wöhrle (eds.), Wege der Freiheit: Zur Entstehung und Theologie des Exodusbuches, Festschrift R. Albertz (ATANT 104; Theologischer: Zürich 2014), 73–86 (esp. 77). 12 Cf. U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, trans. I. Abrahams (Magnes / Hebrew University: Jerusalem 1967), 13–14.

Exod 1 (cf. Deut 1:1–39b)

45

conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses saying (‫ )ואמר‬to the Israelites coming to (b) the Amorite (*‫ ה‬pred. adj.) mountains, (c) which (‫ )אשר‬Yahweh God gave them, so that (d) they should look at the land before them and not (e) be afraid or terrified (Deut 1:20–21). The particular motif of two named Israelite characters acting positively, in contrast to the majority of the Israelites, who were afraid (Exod 1:15–17), by means of the hypertextual procedure of transsexuation (in this case, feminization)13 illustrates the similar Deuteronomic motif in Deut 1:36–38. The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Exod 1:15) idea of the king of Egypt saying (‫ויאמר‬: Exod 1:16a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites coming to Moses and saying (‫ותאמרו‬: Deut 1:22ab). The subsequent, surprisingly formulated idea of the midwives being commanded to look at the ‘stones’ (Exod 1:16bc)14 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the spies being sent to ‘dig’ the land and bring back a report concerning the way on which the Israelites should go (Deut 1:22c–f). The subsequent idea of killing the males and letting the females live (Exod 1:16d–g) with the use of the motif of the Israelites conquering a Gentile city (‫)עיר‬ and killing all the males and letting the females live (Deut 20:13–14) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Gentile cities to which the Israelites should come (Deut 1:22g). The subsequent idea of the midwives fearing God, not doing as the king of Egypt told them, and letting the children alive (Exod 1:17) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the spies coming to the valley of Eschcol, so presumably not to any city, as they were told (diff. Deut 1:22), and bringing some of the fruit of the land, presumably not killing anyone (Deut 1:23–25). The subsequent idea of (a) the king of Egypt summoning the midwives to him (diff. Exod 1:15: no such remark) and (b) speaking (‫)אמר‬, (c) complaining that the midwives let the children live (Exod 1:18; diff. 1:16d–g), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites not wanting to go and (b) speaking, (c) complaining that they will be destroyed by the Amorites, whose cities are unassailable (Deut 1:26–28; diff. 1:22g; 20:13–14). The subsequent idea of (a) the midwives saying (‫ )ותאמרן‬to (‫ )אל‬Pharaoh that (b) the Hebrews are not (‫)לא‬, presumably weak, as the Egyptians (Exod 1:19ab)

1 3 See G. Genette, Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré (Seuil: [s.l.] 1982), 423–424. 14 Cf. R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 1, Ex 1–18 (ZBK.AT 2.1; Theologischer: Zürich 2012), 50.

46

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses saying (‫ )ואמר‬to the Israelites that (b) they should not be terrified or afraid of the Gentiles (Deut 1:29). The subsequent idea of the Hebrews being lively,15 presumably unlike the Egyptians (‫מצרי‬: Exod 1:19c), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh going before the Israelites and fighting for them, according to all that he did in Egypt (‫מצרים‬: Deut 1:30). The subsequent idea of (a) the Hebrews giving birth (b) before the midwife comes (‫ )בוא‬to them (Exod 1:19de) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God carrying the Israelites as a man carries his presumably little son, (b) until they came to this place (Deut 1:31). The subsequent idea of God (‫ )אלהים‬doing good to the midwives (Exod 1:20a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God going before the Israelites on the way (Deut 1:32–33a). The subsequent, militarily sounding idea of (a) the Israelite people multiplying and (b) becoming very mighty (Exod 1:20bc) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) searching out a place for the Israelites, for (b) pitching their presumably military camp (Deut 1:33b–e; cf. 1:15). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Exod 1:17) idea of the midwives fearing God (Exod 1:21ab) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh being angry and swearing against the Israelites (Deut 1:34–35). The subsequent idea of God providing the two exceptionally named (cf. Exod 1:15) positive characters of the midwives, being now apparently male (masc. ‫;להם‬ diff. Exod 1:18: fem. ‫)להן‬,16 with households (Exod 1:21b) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the exceptionally named positive character of Caleb being promised sons, and the exceptionally named positive character of Joshua being mentioned as well (Deut 1:36–38). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Exod 1:16d–g) idea of Pharaoh saying (‫ )אמר‬to his people that they should throw every born Israelite son into the river, and let every Israelite daughter live (Exod 1:22) with the use of the motif of conquering an enemy city and killing all the males and letting the females live (Deut 20:13–14) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the

1 5 Cf. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 140. 16 Cf. H. Utzschneider and W. Oswald, Exodus 1–15 (IEKAT; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2013), 78; C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 108.

Exod 2 (cf. Deut 1:39c–46)

47

subsequent Deuteronomic idea of saying that the Israelites’ little children will become booty (Deut 1:39ab).

1.2. Exod 2 (cf. Deut 1:39c–46) The section Exod 2 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 1:39c–46. The idea of an adult Israelite woman seeing her little son (‫ )בן‬that he is good (‫טוב‬: Exod 2:1–2d)17 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites’ little sons not knowing good or bad (Deut 1:39c–f). The particular motif of a priestess conceiving a son with an unnamed man, bearing the son, hiding him, placing him in a reed basket sealed with pitch, leaving him on the river, someone else taking him out of the river, raising him, and adopting him as a son (Exod 2:1–10) was borrowed from the birth legend of Sargon of Akkad,18 most probably to provide an artificial Hebrew etymology, ‘drawn out of the water’ (Exod 2:10; diff. 2:5: ‫)לקח‬, to the Egyptian name Moses (‘has borne’).19 The particular motif of Moses, like his brother Aaron, originating from the tribe of Levi (Exod 2:1) could have been deduced from Deut 10:6; 32:50; etc. The subsequent idea of hiding an Israelite for three months (Exod 2:2e–3b) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites turning for themselves and setting out on a journey to the wilderness (Deut 1:40ab). The particular motif of a woman hiding an Israelite man (‫צפן‬: Exod 2:2e–3b) was borrowed from Josh 2:4. The subsequent idea of placing the Israelite son in the reeds (‫ )סוף‬of the Nile (Exod 2:3c–10) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites going to the Sea of Reeds (Deut 1:40b). The 1 7 Cf. U. Cassuto, Exodus, 18; W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 149. 18 See COS 1.133. Cf. M. Gerhards, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 234–249; D. Mathews, Royal Motifs in the Pentateuchal Portrayal of Moses (LHBOTS 571; T&T Clark: New York · London 2012), 87–90; C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 114–116. 19 Cf. H. Jenni, ‘Fragen zum Verb mšj in der Kindheitsgeschichte Moses (Ex 2,10),’ in H. Jenni [et al.] (eds.), Nächstenliebe und Gottesfurcht, Festschrift H.-P. Mathys (AOAT 439; Ugarit:  Münster 2016), 151–175 (esp.  158); A.  Michel, ‘Exodus  – historisch, mythisch, theologisch,’ in C. Neuber (ed.), Der immer neue Exodus: Aneignungen und Transformationen des Exodusmotivs (SBS 242; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2018), 20–44 (esp.  27); T.  Römer, ‘Auszug aus Ägypten oder Pilgerreise in der Wüste? Überlegungen zur Konstruktion der Exodustradition(en),’ in R. Ebach and M. Leuenberger (eds.), Tradition(en) im alten Israel: Konstruktion, Transmission und Transformation (FAT 127; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2019), 89–107 (esp. 94).

48

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

particular motif of an ark, saving an Israelite on the water (‫תבה‬: Exod 2:3.5), also occurs in Gen 6:14–9:18.20 The motif of the Israelites’ leader named Moses (‫משה‬: Exod 2:10) was borrowed from Deut 1:1; Mic 6:4; etc. The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelite Moses resolving to perform an apparently righteous and courageous deed of avenging a Hebrew struck by an Egyptian, so that, (b) seeing that there is no other man (‫)איש‬, he stroke the Egyptian,21 and (c) the next day he attempted to reconcile fighting Israelites in a similar, apparently easy way (Exod 2:11–13) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites wanting to fight, apparently just as Yahweh God commanded them, so that (b) every man girded the weapons of war, because (c) they considered it easy to go up into the mountains (Deut 1:41). The particular juridical motif of two men fighting (‫אנשים‬ ‫ נצה‬+: Exod 2:13) was borrowed from Deut 25:11. Likewise, the juridical motif of one of the fighting men being in the wrong (‫ רשע‬+ ‫אנשים‬: Exod 2:13) was borrowed from Deut 25:1–2. Similarly, the motif of not striking the neighbour (‫נכה‬: Exod 2:13) was borrowed from Deut 25:3 (cf. 19:4; 27:24; etc.). The subsequent idea of (a) an Israelite saying (‫ )ויאמר‬that (b) no one set Moses as a superior or judge over (‫ )על‬the Israelites, so that (c) he should not kill anyone (Exod 2:14a–e), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh saying that (b) the Israelites should not go up (‫ )עלה‬because Yahweh is not with them, so that (c) they will be struck by their enemies (Deut 1:42). The subsequent idea of the Israelite Moses being afraid because of the widely known matter/speech (‫)דבר‬, and the Egyptian Pharaoh hearing (‫ )שמע‬of this matter/speech (‫דבר‬: Exod 2:14f–15a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh speaking (‫ )דבר‬to the Israelites, who did not hear (Deut 1:43). The subsequent idea of the Gentile Pharaoh seeking to kill the Israelite Moses (Exod 2:15bc) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Gentile Amorites coming out against the Israelites (Deut 1:44ab). The subsequent idea of Moses fleeing away from Pharaoh (Exod 2:15d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites being chased by the Amorites (Deut 1:44d–f).

20 Cf. W. H. Schmidt, Exodus, vol. 1, 68–69; J. Lemański, Księga Wyjścia: Wstęp, przekład z oryginału, komentarz (NKBST 2; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2009), 118; C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 213. 21 Cf. U. Cassuto, Exodus, 22; J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 126.

Exod 2 (cf. Deut 1:39c–46)

49

The subsequent idea of (a) Moses dwelling (‫( )וישב‬b) in the land of Midian (Exod 2:15e), so the land of God’s exilic presence (cf. Exod 3:1),22 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites dwelling (‫ ;ותשבו‬cf. Deut 1:45 LXX: καθίσαντες; cf. also Deut 1:46) and (b) weeping before Yahweh in the exile (Deut 1:45). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Exod 2:15e)23 idea of Moses dwelling (‫ )וישב‬by a well (Exod 2:15f) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent, likewise repeated (cf. Deut 1:45) Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites dwelling (‫ )ותשבו‬in an oasis (Deut 1:46a). The subsequent, liturgical idea of the sacred number of seven daughters of a Midianite priest (Exod 2:16–20) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the ‘sanctuary’ of Kadesh (Deut 1:46a). The particular motif of the daughter of a local chief coming to the well with the flock of her father, and the main hero watering the flock for her (‫ וישק את־‬+ ‫ רעה‬+ *‫ אביה‬+ ‫ צאן‬+ ‫ שקה‬+ ‫ בוא‬+ ​‫בת‬ *‫צאנ‬: Exod 2:16–17.19) also occurs in Gen 29:6–10.24 The motif of the southern character of Reuel (‫רעואל‬: Exod 2:18) also occurs in Gen 36:4–17, and it is most probably secondary to the motif of the southern character of Hobab as the father-in-law of Moses (Num 10:29; cf. Judg 4:11). The concluding, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Exod 2:15ef) idea of Moses dwelling (‫ישב‬: Exod 2:21) as a foreigner many days (‫ימים *רבים‬: Exod 2:23), but the days of the Israelites’ exile coming to an end with the death of the king of Egypt (Exod 2:21–25), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the concluding, likewise repeated (cf. Deut 1:46a) Deuteronomic idea of many days spent in Kadesh, but the days of the Israelites’ dwelling there being limited (Deut 1:46ab). The particular motif of Gershom as the son of Moses (+ ‫ בן‬+ ‫משה‬ ‫גרשם‬: Exod 2:21–22) was borrowed from Judg 18:30.25

2 2 Cf. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 168–169. 23 Cf. J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 128–129; R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 1, 62; C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 123–124. 24 Cf. R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 1, 63. 25 The name Gershom (‫גרשם‬: Judg 18:30; cf. Exod 2:22; 18:3) has its original etymology in Deut 18:6; Judg 17:7 (‫)גר שם‬. The one provided in Exod 2:22; 18:3 (‫ )גר הייתי‬is much more strained. For the reading ‘Moses’ (‫ )משה‬as original in Judg 18:30, see R. Ryan, Judges (ReNBC; Sheffield Phoenix 2007), 140; S. Niditch, Judges: A Commentary (OTL; Westminster John Knox: Louisville · London 2008), 184; T. C. Butler, Judges (WBC 8; Thomas Nelson: Nashville [et al.] 2009), 371.

50

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

1.3. Exod 3 (cf. Deut 2–3) The section Exod 3 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 2–3. The opening idea of (a) Moses going beyond26 the wilderness (‫)המדבר‬,27 (b) coming (c) to Mount Horeb, (d) the angel of Yahweh appearing to Moses (‫יהוה‬ *‫( )אלי‬e) from a somewhat distanced burning bush, presumably located on the mountain (‫ )הר‬of God at Horeb (cf. Exod 3:1), to which Moses turned aside28 to see (f) this great phenomenon, why the bush is not burned up, presumably for a considerable period time (Exod 3:1–3), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites journeying into the wilderness (b) on the way (c) of the Sea of Reeds,29 (d) as Yahweh spoke to Moses, and (e) skirting, presumably at a certain distance, the mountain of Seir (f) for many days (Deut 2:1). The particular motif of being a shepherd of sheep (‫ צאן‬+ ‫ רעה‬+ ‫היה‬: Exod 3:1) in Gen 4:2 refers to the character of Abel, who alludes to the sons of Esau, similarly dwelling in Seir (cf. Deut 2:4).30 The connection between Horeb (Exod 3:1– 2) and Mount Seir (Deut 2:1) was borrowed from Deut 1:2 (cf. 33:2). The motif of the angel of Yahweh appearing to someone (‫ אליו‬+ ‫ מלאך יהוה‬+ ‫וירא‬: Exod 3:2) was borrowed from Judg 6:12.31 The motif of Yahweh being in a bush (‫סנה‬: Exod 3:2) was borrowed from Deut 33:16. The motif of the mountain of God at Horeb burning with fire (‫ בער באש‬+ ‫ חרב‬+ ‫ אלהים‬+ ‫הר‬: Exod 3:1–2) was borrowed from

26 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Exodus, 117; H. Utzschneider and W. Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 113; C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 139. 27 The use of the definite article referring to the wilderness in Exod 3:1 is somewhat surprising, but its use in the hypotext Deut 2:1 is quite natural after the preceding remarks concerning the wilderness (Deut 1:19.31.40). 28 Cf. C. Berner, Die Exoduserzählung: Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungslegende Israels (FAT 73; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2010), 72; H. Utzschneider and W. Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 113; C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 149. 29 It should be noted that the Deuteronomic Sea of Reeds (Deut 1:40; 2:1; 11:4; cf. Jer 49:21; cf. also Suph in Deut 1:1) seems to be located in the Arabah valley, so beyond the wilderness, from the point of view of Egypt and Midian (Exod 3:1). Cf. P. Y. Yoo, ‘Once Again: The Yam Sûp of the Exodus,’ JBL 137 (2018) 581–597 (esp. 593). 30 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Genesis, 58. 31 Pace J. E. Harvey, Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic Historian’s Use of Tetrateuchal Narratives (JSOTSup 403; T&T Clark: London · New York 2004), 72, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

Exod 3 (cf. Deut 2–3)

51

Deut 4:10–11 and reworked to make it more understandable: not the whole mountain, but a single bush was burning. The subsequent idea of Yahweh seeing Moses, and God speaking (‫ )ויאמר‬to Moses (Exod 3:4a–e) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh speaking to Moses (Deut 2:2). The motif of God calling a certain character by repeating his name, and the character saying, ‘Here I am’ (‫ אלהים‬+ ‫ ויאמר‬+ N, N + ‫ויאמר הנני‬: Exod 3:4ef) also occurs in Gen 46:232 (cf. 22:11).33 The subsequent idea of Moses being ready to come (Exod 3:4f) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites no more skirting the mountain, but turning northward, so towards Canaan (Deut 2:3). The subsequent idea of saying (‫ )אמר‬to Moses that he should not (‫ )אל‬draw near to the mountain (Exod 3:5ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of saying to the people that they should not get involved in strife with the inhabitants of the mountain of Seir (Deut 2:4–5a; cf. 2:1). The particular motif of commanding an Israelite not to draw near to a holy object (*‫אל־תקרב‬: Exod 3:5b) was borrowed from Josh 3:4. The subsequent idea of Yahweh commanding Moses to take his sandals off his feet (‫רגל‬: Exod 3:5c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh not giving to the Israelites the treading place of the sole of a foot (Deut 2:5b). The particular motif of telling an Israelite to take his sandals off his feet because the place where he stands is holy (‫ של־נעל*ך‬+ ‫ויאמר‬ ‫ קדש הוא‬+ ‫מעל רגל*ך כי המקום אשר אתה ע*מד עליו‬: Exod 3:5) was borrowed from Josh 5:15,34 where it much more naturally refers to the oasis of Jericho in the land of Canaan, and not to a hot and rocky wilderness mountain. 32 Cf. J. C. Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch (FRLANT 186; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2000), 273–280; T. B. Dozeman, Exodus, 121; G. Lepesqueux, L’exposition du nom divin dans le livre de l’Exode: Étude exégétique d’Ex 3,1–4,18; 6,2–7,7; 33–34 (FAT 2.102; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2019), 117–119. 33 Cf. J. C. Gertz, Tradition, 272; E. Blum, ‘Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen,’ in J. C. Gertz, K. Schmid, and M. Witte (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (BZAW 315; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2002), 119–156 (esp. 125, 132); J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 144. 34 Cf. J. Van Seters, ‘The Report of the Yahwist’s Demise Has Been Greatly Exaggerated!,’ in T. B. Dozeman and K. Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SymS 34; SBL: Atlanta 2006), 143–157 (esp. 155). Pace J. J. Krause, Exodus und Eisodus: Komposition und Theologie

52

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

The subsequent ideas of Yahweh commanding Moses because (‫ )כי‬the place is holy ground (diff. Josh 5:15: no remark concerning the ground), and Yahweh presenting himself as the God of Moses’ father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob (Exod 3:5d–6b), so in a way related to giving the land to possess (‫ירש‬: Deut 9:5; cf. 6:10; 30:20), conceptually and linguistically illustrate the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh commanding the Israelites because he has given the land as a possession (‫ירשה‬: Deut 2:5c; cf. 2:12; 3:20). The subsequent idea of Moses (diff. Deut 31:17–18 etc.: Yahweh) hiding his face (Exod 3:6c–e) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites scarcely eating and drinking (Deut 2:6). The subsequent idea of Yahweh indeed (‫)כי‬35 knowing (‫ )ידע‬the Israelites’ sufferings (Exod 3:7), presumably for many years (cf. Exod 2:23–25), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God indeed knowing the Israelites’ going through the great wilderness for forty years (Deut 2:7). The particular motif of Yahweh seeing the affliction of the Israelites in Egypt and hearing them (‫ שמע‬+ ‫ מצרים‬+ *‫ את־עני‬+ ‫ ראה‬+ ‫יהוה‬: Exod 3:7) was borrowed from Deut 26:6–7. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh coming down, (b) delivering Israel (sing.) from the hand of Egypt, and (c) bringing Israel (sing.) up out of that land (+ ‫מן‬ ‫ארץ‬: Exod 3:8a–c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites passing from the mountain of Seir to the valley of the Arabah, (b) Yahweh ordering Israel (sing.) not to engage in battle with Moab and the sons of Ammon, and (c) not giving to Israel (sing.) any of their land (Deut 2:8–23; esp. 2:8–9.19). The particular motif of Yahweh delivering Israel from the hand of Egypt (‫ מיד מצרים‬+ ‫נצל‬: Exod 3:8b) was borrowed from Judg 6:9. The subsequent idea of Yahweh bringing Israel to a good land (‫)ארץ‬, the land of the Gentile nations, including the Amorites (‫האמרי‬: Exod 3:8d), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh giving to Israel Sihon the Amorite and his land (Deut 2:24). The particular motif of Yahweh bringing Israel to a good land (‫אל־ארץ טובה‬: Exod 3:8d) was borrowed from Deut 8:7. Likewise, the motif of a land flowing with fat and honey (Exod

von Josua 1–5 (VTSup 161; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 394–396; R. Albertz, ‘Die kompositionelle Bedeutung der Hexateuchredaktion: Ein Zwischenergebnis,’ in id., Pentateuchstudien, 449–470 (esp. 465), who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 35 Cf. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 201; C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 140.

Exod 3 (cf. Deut 2–3)

53

3:8d)36 was borrowed from Deut 6:3 etc. Similarly, the motif of six Gentile nations, including the Canaanites, the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites (‫הכנעני *החתי והאמרי והפרזי והחוי והיבוסי‬: Exod 3:8d) was borrowed from Judg 3:5 (cf. Deut 20:17; Josh 9:1; 12:8). The subsequent idea of Yahweh now hearing the cry of the sons of Israel and seeing the oppression with which the Egyptians oppressed them (Exod 3:9) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh this day putting the dread and fear of the Israelites upon Gentile nations (Deut 2:25). The particular motif of Yahweh seeing the oppression of the Israelites with which the Egyptians oppressed them (‫ מצרים‬+ ‫ לחץ‬+ ‫ את־‬+ ‫ראה‬: Exod 3:9) was borrowed from Deut 26:6–7. The subsequent idea of Yahweh sending (*‫ )ואשלח‬Moses to (‫ )אל‬Pharaoh and to (‫ )אל‬the sons of Israel in Egypt (Exod 3:10–15; esp. 3:10) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses sending messengers to Sihon king of Heshbon (Deut 2:26a). The particular motif of God saying to the main hero, ‘I will be with you’ (‫אהיה עמך‬: Exod 3:12; cf. 3:14) is postDeuteronomic (cf. Deut 31:23; Josh 1:5; 3:7; Judg 6:16).37 The motif of the mention of the name of Yahweh (‫ זכר‬+ ‫יהוה‬: Exod 3:15) was borrowed from Hos 12:6. The subsequent idea of Moses and the elders of Israel going to the king of Egypt and peacefully speaking (‫ )אמר‬to him (Exod 3:16–18c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the messengers speaking to the king of Heshbon words of peace (Deut 2:26b). The particular motif of God surely visiting the Israelites in Egypt and bringing them up out of Egypt to the land of Canaan (+ ‫ אל‬+ ‫ מן‬+ ‫ אתכם‬+ ‫ עלה‬+ ‫ אתכם‬+ ‫ פקד‬+ ‫ פקד‬+ ‫אלהים‬ ‫ארץ‬: Exod 3:16–17) also occurs in Gen 50:24 (cf. 50:25).38 The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites saying to the king of Egypt that the God of the Hebrews, named in a surprising way (‫ ;עבריים‬diff. Exod 2:6; 5:3 etc.: ‫)עברים‬,39 met with them, and requesting permission (cohort.) to (b) go

36 Cf. I.  Dershowitz, ‘A  Land Flowing with Fat and Honey,’ VT 60 (2010) 172–176 (esp. 173). 37 Cf. J.  Van Seters, Life of Moses, 43, 53; J.  Jeon, The Call of Moses and the Exodus Story:  A  Redactional-Critical Study in Exodus 3–4 and 5–13 (FAT 2.60; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 106. 38 Cf. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 206; E. Blum, ‘The Literary Connection between the Books of Genesis and Exodus and the End of the Book of Joshua,’ in T. B. Dozeman and K. Schmid (eds.), Farewell, 89–106 (esp. 96). 39 Cf. W.  H.  Schmidt, Exodus, vol. 1, 105; T.  D.  Alexander, Exodus (ApOTC 2; Apollos: London and InterVarsity: Downers Grove, IL 2017), 76.

54

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

(‫ )הלך‬by the way (‫ )דרך‬of three days through (‫ )ב‬the wilderness (Exod 3:18de) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites requesting permission (cohort.) from the king of Heshbon to pass (‫( )עבר‬b) through his land and go only by the way (Deut 2:27–29c; esp. 2:27). The subsequent idea of the Israelites sacrificing, presumably on the holy mountain (cf. Exod 3:12),40 to Yahweh their God (‫יהוה אלהינו‬: Exod 3:18f) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites coming to the land which Yahweh their God is giving them (Deut 2:29d). The subsequent idea of (b) the king (‫ )מלך‬of Egypt (a) not (‫ )לא‬letting the Israelites go (c) unless compelled by a mighty hand (‫יד‬: Exod 3:19) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Sihon the king of Heshbon (a) not letting the Israelites pass (c) because Yahweh God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate in order to give him into the hand of Israel (Deut 2:30). The particular motif of Yahweh God compelling the king of Egypt with a mighty hand (‫ ביד חזקה‬+ ‫מלך מצרים‬: Exod 3:19) was borrowed from Deut 7:8 (cf. 4:34 etc.). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh stretching out his hand and (b) striking (‫ )נכה‬Egypt with all (‫ )כל‬his wonders in its midst (Exod 3:20) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh giving Sihon before the Israelites and (b) striking him, his sons, and all his people (Deut 2:31–33; esp. 2:33). The particular motif of all Yahweh’s wonders in Egypt (*‫ כל נפלאתי‬+ ‫מצרים‬: Exod 3:20) was borrowed from Judg 6:13.41 The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh giving (‫ )נתן‬favour to the Israelites in the sight of the Egyptians, so that (b) the Israelites did not go empty-handed but took valuable goods of the Egyptians (Exod 3:21–22a), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh giving (Deut 2:36; 3:2–3) Gentile cities to the Israelites, so that (b) the Israelites plundered them and captured their spoil (Deut 2:34–3:11; esp. 2:35; 3:7). The particular motif of the Israelites, presumably as former Egyptian slaves, while departing, not departing empty-handed (‫ לא ת* ריקם‬+ *‫כי ת‬: Exod 3:21d) was borrowed from Deut 15:13 in order to justify the idea of the Israelites capturing the Gentiles’ property as spoil (Deut 2:35; 3:7).

40 Cf. C.  Houtman, Exodus, vol. 1, 377; D.  K.  Stuart, Exodus (NAC 2; Broadman & Holman: Nashville, TN 2006), 125; J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 154. 41 Pace J. E. Harvey, Retelling, 72, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

Exod 4:1–17 (cf. Deut 4:1–18)

55

The subsequent idea of the Israelites putting the Gentile valuable goods on their sons (*‫ )בני‬and daughters (Exod 3:22b) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses giving the Gentile regions to the sons (esp. Deut 3:18) of Israel (Deut 3:12–18). The concluding, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Exod 3:22ab) idea of the Israelites plundering the Egyptians (Exod 3:22c) illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic ideas of the Israelites having much, presumably plundered, livestock and many cities in Transjordan, which Yahweh gave to them as a possession (Deut 3:19–29; esp. 3:19–20).

1.4. Exod 4:1–17 (cf. Deut 4:1–18) The section Exod 4:1–17 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 4:1–18. The opening idea of Moses supposing that the Israelites will not listen (‫)שמע‬ to his voice (Exod 4:1a–d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of Moses calling the Israelites to listen to the statutes and judgements which he teaches and to his word (Deut 4:1–2c). The particular motif of the Israelites not believing Yahweh/Moses and not listening to his voice (*‫ בקל‬+ ‫ שמע‬+ ‫ ולא‬+ ‫ ל‬+ ‫ אמן‬+ ‫לא‬: Exod 4:1) was borrowed from Deut 9:23. The subsequent idea of the Israelites doubting that Yahweh appeared to Moses (Exod 4:1ef) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God’s commandments which Moses is commanding (Deut 4:2de). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses seeing how Yahweh made a staff in Moses’ hand, thrown on the ground, into a snake, (b) so that Moses fled from (‫ )מן‬it (Exod 4:2–3), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites seeing what Yahweh did at Baal Peor, (b) so that every man who went after Baal of Peor was destroyed from the midst of Israel (Deut 4:3). The motif of the staff in the leader’s hand (+ ‫בידך‬ ‫מטה‬: Exod 4:2) also occurs in Gen 38:18. The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of (a) Moses holding on (diff. Exod 4:17: ‫ )לקח‬to (‫ )ב‬the snake’s tail42 and (b) having a safe staff in his hand (Exod 4:4; diff. 4:3) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites clinging to Yahweh God and (b) remaining alive (Deut 4:4; diff. 4:3).

42 Cf. U. Cassuto, Exodus, 47; C. Houtman, Exodus, vol. 1, 392; W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 209.

56

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites believing that Moses saw (‫( )ראה‬b) Yahweh, the God (‫ )יהוה אלהי‬of their fathers, (c) the God (‫ )אלהי‬of Abraham, the God (‫ )אלהי‬of Isaac, and the God (‫ )אלהי‬of Jacob (Exod 4:5), with the use of the motif of the ancestors being promised the land to possess (Deut 9:5 etc.) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites seeing that Moses taught them (b) the statutes and judgements of Yahweh, the God of Moses, (c) which the Israelites should do in the land which they should possess (Deut 4:5). The subsequent idea of Yahweh telling Moses to put his hand in his bosom, and Moses exactly doing what Yahweh commanded him (Exod 4:6a–c.7a–c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites carefully doing (Deut 4:6ab), presumably what Yahweh God commanded them (cf. Deut 4:5). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses two times bringing something out of his covered part,43 and (b) his hand becoming leprous as snow (so ritually unclean)44 and then restored like his body (Exod 4:6de.7de) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites’ two internal virtues of wisdom and understanding (b) being externally visible in the sight of the pagan peoples (Deut 4:6c). The subsequent idea of the people possibly not listening (‫ )ישמעו‬to, quite surprisingly, the voice of the first sign (Exod 4:8a–c;45 diff. 4:1.9: the voice of Moses; diff. 4:3–5: nothing audible) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the peoples listening to all these statutes (Deut 4:6d). The subsequent idea of the people believing in the voice of the second sign, namely that of Moses two times bringing something out of his covered part (Exod 4:8; cf. 4:6–7), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the peoples believing that the great nation of Israel has the two virtues of being a wise and understanding people (Deut 4:6e–8; cf. 4:6c: wisdom and understanding). The subsequent idea of (a) the people possibly not believing the two signs and (b) not listening to Moses’ voice (Exod 4:9a–c) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel being called not to forget the things (plur.) which his eyes have seen and (b) not to let the words depart from his heart (Deut 4:9).

4 3 Cf. J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 157; C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 140. 44 Cf. J. I. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3; Word Books: Dallas, TX 1987), 45; W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 209. 45 Cf. W. H. Schmidt, Exodus, vol. 1, 186; C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 169.

Exod 4:1–17 (cf. Deut 4:1–18)

57

The subsequent idea of (a) the dry land (‫( )יבשה‬b) having blood on it (Exod 4:9d–h) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the ‘dry land’ of Horeb (‫( )חרב‬b) being a place of Israel learning to fear and of burning with the presumably red fire (Deut 4:10–11). The semantic correspondence between the roots ‫( יבש‬Exod 4:9e–h) and ‫( חרב‬Deut 4:10) is also witnessed in Gen 8:13–14. The subsequent idea of Moses not being able to speak while Yahweh (‫)יהוה‬ spoke (‫ )דבר‬to Moses (Exod 4:10) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh speaking to the Israelites (Deut 4:12a). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh making a man able or unable to hear and (b) seeing or blind (Exod 4:11) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites hearing the voice but (b) not seeing any form (Deut 4:12bc). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh promising to be with Moses’ mouth and (b) instructing him in a Torah-like way (‫)ירה‬46 (c) what he should say (‫דבר‬: Exod 4:12) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh declaring his covenant, which (b) he commanded the Israelites to perform, (c) the ten sayings (‫דבר‬: Deut 4:13a–d). The subsequent, surprisingly introduced idea of Yahweh sending Aaron the Levite (‫)הלוי‬47 to explain divine matters (Exod 4:13–14)48 with the use of the motif of Yahweh choosing the tribe of the Levites (‫ )הלוי‬to carry the ark with two tablets of stone and explain the written law (Deut 10:5.8; cf. 17:9.18; 31:9.25–26) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh writing the ten sayings on two tablets of stone (Deut 4:13d). The particular motif of Yahweh speaking to Moses about Aaron as his brother (‫ אהרן אחיך‬+ ‫משה‬: Exod 4:14) was borrowed from Deut 32:48.50. The motif of Aaron being related to Levi (‫ לוי‬+ ‫אהרן‬: Exod 4:14) could have been deduced from Deut 10:6.8; Josh 21:4.10; etc. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh instructing Moses and Aaron, as well as (b) teaching them (‫( )אתכם‬c) what (d) they should do (‫עשה‬: Exod 4:15) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh commanding Moses to (b) teach them, that is, the Israelites

4 6 Cf. W. H. Schmidt, Exodus, vol. 1, 202. 47 Cf. H. Samuel, Von Priestern zum Patriarchen: Levi und die Leviten im Alten Testament (BZAW 448; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2014), 255. 48 Cf. T.  B.  Dozeman, ‘The Commission of Moses and the Book of Genesis,’ in T. B. Dozeman and K. Schmid (eds.), Farewell, 107–129 (esp. 122–123).

58

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

(c) statutes and judgements (d) to do them (Deut 4:14). The particular motif of putting someone’s words in someone else’s mouth (‫ בפיך‬+ ‫ דברים‬+ ‫שים‬: Exod 4:15) was borrowed from the prophetic texts Isa 51:16; 59:21. On the other hand, from the linguistic point of view, the priests-related motif of instructing what to do (‫ עשה‬+ ‫ אשר‬+ ‫ירה‬: Exod 4:15) is Deuteronomic (cf. Deut 17:10–11; 24:8). The subsequent idea of the (a) speaking (‫ )דבר‬of (b) Aaron (c) to (‫ )אל‬the people, and his (d) being a mouth for Moses, and thus for (e) the representative of God (Exod 4:16), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the (a) speaking of (b) Yahweh (c) to the Israelites (d) at Horeb out of (e) the fire (Deut 4:15). The concluding, somewhat surprisingly added idea of Yahweh commanding Moses to take in his hand the staff, which had become a snake on the ground (cf. Exod 4:3), to make (‫ )עשה‬signs with it (Exod 4:17)49 conceptually and linguistically, in a corrective way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh commanding the Israelites not to make the likeness of any animal on the earth or anything that creeps on the ground (Deut 4:16–18).

1.5.  Exod 4:18–31 (cf. Deut 4:19–35) The section Exod 4:18–31 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 4:19–35. The opening idea of (a) Moses wanting to go to his brothers in Egypt and (b) see (‫ )ראה‬whether they are alive (Exod 4:18a–f) with the use of the motif of the Israelites being as the stars of heaven in multitude (‫ השמים‬+ ‫כוכבים‬: Deut 1:10 etc.) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite lifting his eyes to the heaven and (b) seeing the presumably moving sun, the moon, and the stars (Deut 4:19ab). The motif of Jethro (‫ )יתרו‬as Moses’ father-in-law (Exod 4:18g; cf. 3:1 etc.) is linguistically related to the name of Jether (‫יתר‬: Exod 4:18b), borrowed from Judg 8:20,50 a name which means ‘remainder’ and which, as referring to the one to whom Moses goes and returns (Exod 4:18ab), is used in semantic parallelism to the idea of Moses’ brothers still remaining in Egypt, to whom Moses likewise goes and returns (Exod 4:18de). Therefore, the motif of Jethro as Moses’ father-in-law (Exod 3:1; 4:18; etc.) semantically reflects its context in Exod 4:18.

4 9 Cf. J. I. Durham, Exodus, 51. 50 Pace J. E. Harvey, Retelling, 72–73, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

Exod 4:18–31 (cf. Deut 4:19–35)

59

Therefore, it is most probably secondary to the earlier motif of the southern character of Hobab as Moses’ father-in-law (Num 10:29; cf. Judg 4:11). The subsequent idea of Jethro sending Moses to Egypt (Exod 4:18gh), a land in which the Israelites served (‫ )עבד‬the oppressive Egyptians (cf. Exod 1:13–14.23), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite being seduced to serve all the host of heaven (Deut 4:19c–e). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted (cf. Exod 4:18) idea of Yahweh likewise sending Moses from Midian to Egypt,51 evidently prevailing over its threatening people (plur.: Exod 4:19; diff. 2:23: only the king of Egypt), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh allotting pagan deities to all the pagan peoples under the whole heaven (Deut 4:19f). The subsequent idea of Moses taking (‫ )לקח‬the (‫ )את‬wife and the (‫ )את‬sons, as well as taking (‫ )לקח‬the (‫ )את‬staff/tribe of God (Exod 4:20) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh taking the Israelites (Deut 4:20a). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh, when Moses went back to Egypt (‫)מצרים‬, (b) putting wonders in his hand to perform them before Pharaoh, but (c) hardening Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not (d) liberate the people (‫עם‬: Exod 4:21) conceptually and linguistically, in an almost consistently sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Yahweh bringing the Israelites out of the smelting furnace (c) for iron, (a) out of Egypt, (d) to be a people for him (Deut 4:20a–c). The particular motif of Yahweh hardening the heart of Israel’s enemy (*‫*חזק את־לב‬: Exod 4:21) was borrowed from Josh 11:20.52 The subsequent idea of Yahweh saying that Israel is his firstborn son, who should serve Yahweh (Exod 4:22–23), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel being the people of Yahweh’s inheritance, so presumably his heir, as it is this day (Deut 4:20cd). The subsequent, surprising idea of (a) Yahweh encountering Moses on the way, at a lodging place, and (b) trying to make him die (‫מות‬: Exod 4:24)53 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic

51 Cf. J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 166–168; C. Berner, Exoduserzählung, 124; R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 1, 94. 52 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 90. 53 Cf. R. Embry, ‘The Endangerment of Moses: Towards a New Reading of Exodus 4:24– 26,’ VT 60 (2010) 177–196 (esp. 177–179); C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 175; D. Pettit, ‘When the LORD Seeks to Kill Moses: Reading Exodus 4.24–26 in its Literary Context,’ JSOT 40.2 (2015) 163–177 (esp. 163–164).

60

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

idea of (a) Yahweh being angry with Moses and swearing that Moses will not cross over the Jordan to enter Canaan, so that (b) he had to die (Deut 4:21–22). The subsequent ideas of (a) Zipporah cutting (‫ )כרת‬the foreskin of her son, (b) touching the Israelite’s54 feet and calling him the bridegroom of blood for her, so (c) Yahweh withdrawing himself from the Israelite, and (d) Zipporah referring to the bridegroom of blood (e) by circumcision (Exod 4:25–26) with the use of the motifs of the covenant of circumcising the foreskin of every male (Gen 17:10–14) and of Yahweh being the bridegroom for Israel (Isa 62:5) conceptually and linguistically, in an almost consistently sequential way illustrate the subsequent Deuteronomic ideas of (a) the Israelites not forgetting the covenant which Yahweh God made (‫( )כרת‬b) with them, and (c) the Israelites making for themselves an idol in the form of (d) all that Yahweh, Israel’s God, (e) commanded him (Deut 4:23). The particular motif of a flint for circumcising the foreskin (‫צר‬ *‫ מול‬+ ‫ ערלה‬+: Exod 4:25–26) was borrowed from Josh 5:2–3. The subsequent, surprisingly introduced idea of (a) Aaron going to the wilderness, to the mountain of God (‫)אלהים‬,55 and (b) kissing Moses (Exod 4:27) with the use of the motif of the mountain of Horeb burning with a consuming fire (Deut 5:22–26) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God (‫ )אלהים‬being a consuming fire and being a God (‫( )אל‬b) who is jealous, presumably for the Israelites (Deut 4:24). The subsequent idea of Moses telling Aaron all the things which Yahweh commanded him (Exod 4:28) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses foretelling that the Israelites will make an idol, which Yahweh commanded them not to make (Deut 4:25; cf. 4:23: ‫)צוה‬. The subsequent idea of Moses and Aaron gathering all the elders of the sons of Israel (Exod 4:29) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh dispersing the Israelites but in the future regathering Israel, for Yahweh will not forget the covenant of Israel’s fathers (Deut 4:26–31). The subsequent idea of (a) Aaron speaking all the things (‫ )דבר‬which (b) Yahweh spoke (‫ )דבר‬to Moses (Exod 4:30ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a 54 The vague pronominal suffixes in Exod 4:24–26 render the identity of this Israelite unclear. Cf. J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 170–171; A. J. Howell, ‘The Firstborn Son of Moses as the “Relative of Blood” in Exodus 4.24–26,’ JSOT 35.1 (2010) 63–76 (esp.  70); D. Mielnik, ‘Czym Mojżesz rozgniewał Boga? Problem przyczyny gniewu Bożego w narracji Wj 4,24–26,’ VV 33 (2018) 21–43 (esp. 28–30). 55 Cf. R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 1, 98; H. Utzschneider and W. Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 146; C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 178–179.

Exod 5:1–6:1 (cf. Deut 4:36–5:3)

61

sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel hearing about the great thing which happened, that (b) God spoke out of a fire (Deut 4:32–33). The subsequent idea of Moses doing (‫ )עשה‬the signs (‫ )אתת‬in the sight of (‫)לעיני‬ the Israelite people (Exod 4:30c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God doing signs in Egypt in the sight of Israel (Deut 4:34). The concluding idea of (a) the Israelite people believing and hearing that Yahweh visited them, and (b) bowing down and worshipping Yahweh (Exod 4:31) sequentially illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel knowing that Yahweh is God, (b) there is no other God besides him (Deut 4:35). The particular motif of bowing down and worshipping (‫ויקדו וישתחוו‬: Exod 4:31) also occurs in Gen 43:28 (cf. 24:26.48).

1.6. Exod 5:1–6:1 (cf. Deut 4:36–5:3) The section Exod 5:1–6:1 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 4:36–5:3. The opening idea of (a) Moses and Aaron telling Pharaoh about Yahweh God of Israel, and Pharaoh disdainfully asking who Yahweh is, that he should hear (‫ )שמע‬his voice (‫)קלו‬, and saying that (b) he does not know Yahweh (Exod 5:1–2) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God (cf. Deut 4:35) letting Israel hear his voice, and (b) Israel seeing his great fire and hearing his words out of the fire (Deut 4:36). The particular motif of celebrating a pilgrimage feast in honour of Yahweh (‫ ל‬+ ‫ חגג‬+ ‫יהוה‬: Exod 5:1) was borrowed from Deut 16:15. The subsequent idea of (a) the God of the Hebrews (b) letting himself be met by Moses and Aaron (Exod 5:3ab; diff. 5:1:  Israel) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God (cf. Deut 4:35) loving Israel’s fathers and (b) choosing their descendants (Deut 4:37ab). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites wanting to go into the wilderness and sacrifice to Yahweh God, lest (b) he confronts them with (‫ )ב‬pestilence or (c) with (‫ )ב‬a sword, and (d) the king of Egypt (‫מצרים‬: Exod 5:4; diff. 5:1–2: Pharaoh)56 asking why Moses and Aaron let the people free out of (‫ )מן‬their forced works 56 Cf. J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 182; M. Frey, ‘Sabbath in Egypt? An Examination of Exodus 5,’ JSOT 39.3 (2015) 249–263 (esp. 253); L. Invernizzi, “Perché mi hai inviato?” Dalla diacronia redazionale alla dinamica narrativa in Es 5,1–7,7 (AnBib 216; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2016), 183.

62

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

(Exod 5:3c–4) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God (cf. Deut 4:35) bringing Israel (b) with his face, (c) with his great power (d) out of Egypt (Deut 4:37c). The particular motif of Yahweh destroying the Israelites with pestilence and sword (‫דבר‬ ‫ חרב‬+: Exod 5:3e) is prophetic (cf. Amos 4:10; Jer 14:12; Ezek 5:12; etc.).57 The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of (a) Pharaoh saying that the people of the land (‫ ;ארץ‬diff. Exod 5:4: simply ‘people’; diff. 1:9: people of the sons of Israel)58 are (plur.; diff. Exod 1:9: sing.) numerous (b) now (Exod 5:5ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) driving out nations greater and mightier than Israel, to give their land to Israel, (b) as it is this day (Deut 4:38). The subsequent idea of Moses and Aaron making the Israelites rest in a Sabbath-like way (‫)שבת‬59 from their forced labour (Exod 5:5c) with the use of the motif of Yahweh commanding not to do any work on the day of the Sabbath (‫שבת‬: Deut 5:12–15 etc.) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh calling Israel to keep his statutes and his commandments (Deut 4:39–40a). The subsequent idea of (a) Pharaoh commanding (‫( )צוה‬b) that day (‫יום‬: Exod 5:6) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh commanding (b) this day (Deut 4:40b). The particular motif of the officials of the Israelites (‫שטרים‬: Exod 5:6) was borrowed from Deut 1:15 etc. The subsequent idea of Pharaoh no longer giving (‫ )נתן‬straw to (‫ )ל‬the Israelite people (Exod 5:7ab) in a negative way conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God giving the ground to Israel for all time (Deut 4:40c–e). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites making bricks (b) as yesterday and the day before yesterday (‫)תמול שלשם‬, and the number of bricks which they made yesterday and the day before yesterday (‫ )תמול שלשם‬being imposed upon them (Exod 5:7c–8c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses setting apart cites (b) for a manslayer who did not hate his neighbour from yesterday and the day before yesterday (Deut 4:41–42c). The particular motif of making bricks (‫ לבנים‬+ ‫לבן‬: Exod

5 7 Cf. J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 182. 58 Cf. J. I. Durham, Exodus, 64–65; M. Frey, ‘Sabbath,’ 252, 254 n. 19; L. Invernizzi, Perché, 190–192. 59 Cf. M. Frey, ‘Sabbath,’ 254, 257, 260–262; L. Invernizzi, Perché, 193–194; T. D. Alexander, Exodus, 120.

Exod 5:1–6:1 (cf. Deut 4:36–5:3)

63

5:7) also occurs in Gen 11:3. The motif of not reducing anything from the commanded matter (‫לא תגרעו ממנו‬: Exod 5:8) was borrowed from Deut 4:2 (cf. 13:1). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites being slack and crying out that they want to go and (b) sacrifice to their God (Exod 5:8d–g) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) an Israelite fleeing and (b) living in one of the cities of refuge, presumably local sanctuaries (Deut 4:42d–43; cf. Josh 20:7–8). The subsequent idea of Pharaoh making the Israelites perform heavy/honoured (‫ ;כבד‬diff. Exod 1:14; 6:9: hard) service (diff. Exod 5:4: work; 5:4–5: forced labour) and pay no attention to false words (Exod 5:9) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the law which Moses set before the Israelites (Deut 4:44). The subsequent idea of (a) the taskmasters and the officials speaking to (‫)אל‬ the people the orders of Pharaoh, that (b) the people should go to find straw and (c) nothing will be reduced out of (‫ )מן‬their service (Exod 5:10–11), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the decrees, statutes, and judgements which Moses spoke to the Israelites (b) when they came out (c) of Egypt (Deut 4:45). The subsequent idea of (a) the people being dispersed (b) in (‫ )ב‬the whole (c) land (‫ )ארץ‬of Egypt, and (d) the Egyptian taskmasters (cf. Exod 5:14) urging them to work (Exod 5:12–13) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites being beyond the Jordan, (b) in (c) the foreign land of Sihon, (d) king of the Amorites (Deut 4:46a). The subsequent idea of (a) the striking60 (‫ ויכו‬in Exod 5:14 and ‫ מכים‬in Exod 5:16 can also be read as active hiphil) of (b) the officials of the sons of Israel (‫ ;בני ישראל‬diff. Exod 5:4–13: people),61 and the sons of Israel crying because they were struck/striking (Exod 5:14–16) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) Moses and the sons of Israel (a) striking when they came out of Egypt (Deut 4:46). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Exod 5:8d–g)62 idea of the Israelites being slack and saying that they want to go and sacrifice to their God (Exod 5:17) illustrates the subsequent, likewise repeated (cf. Deut 4:43)

6 0 Cf. T. D. Alexander, Exodus, 122. 61 Cf. L. Invernizzi, Perché, 237–239. 62 Cf. J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 187; R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 1, 112; L. Invernizzi, Perché, 265–266.

64

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites taking possession of Bashan in Transjordan (Deut 4:47). The subsequent idea of the people being assigned a precise measure of bricks (Exod 5:18–19)63 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites being assigned a precisely delimitated territory in Transjordan (Deut 4:48–49), presumably with its cities (cf. Deut 3:4–17). The subsequent idea of Moses (‫ )משה‬and Aaron staying to meet/call (‫ ;קרא‬diff. Exod 4:29: gather) the Israelite officials (Exod 5:20) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses calling (‫ )קרא‬all Israel and saying to them (Deut 5:1a). The subsequent idea of (a) saying to them (‫ )ויאמר * אלהם‬that (b) Yahweh should judge (‫ )שפט‬what Moses and Aaron did (Exod 5:21) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) saying to them that b) Israel should hear the statutes and judgements (‫ )משפטים‬which Moses spoke to them (Deut 5:1b–g). The subsequent idea of Yahweh in the past sending Moses but not delivering the Israelite people (‫עם‬: Exod 5:22–23) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh in the past making a covenant with (‫ ;עם‬diff.. Deut 5:3: ‫ )את‬the Israelites at Horeb (Deut 5:2). The subsequent idea of Yahweh now acting for the Israelite people (Exod 6:1) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh making a covenant not with the Israelites’ fathers but with the present Israelites (Deut 5:3).

1.7.  Exod 6:2–7:13 (cf. Deut 5:4–16) The section Exod 6:2–7:13 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 5:4–16. The somewhat surprisingly introduced64 idea of (a) God speaking (‫ ;דבר‬diff. Gen 17:1: appearing)65 to Moses and (b) saying (‫אמר‬: Exod 6:2ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of (a)

6 3 Cf. W. H. Schmidt, Exodus, vol. 1, 262. 64 Cf. R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 1, 118–120; T. Römer, ‘Zwischen Urkunden, Fragmenten und Ergänzungen:  Zum Stand der Pentateuchforschung,’ ZAW 125 (2013) 2–24 (esp. 17); E. Blum, ‘Noch einmal: Das literargeschichtliche Profil der P-Überlieferung,’ in F. Hartenstein and K. Schmid (eds.), Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte (VWGT 40; Evangelische: Leipzig 2015), 32–64 (esp. 50). 65 Cf. K. Schmid, Genesis, 241.

Exod 6:2–7:13 (cf. Deut 5:4–16)

65

Yahweh speaking with the Israelites through Moses, and Moses telling them Yahweh’s word (‫)דבר‬, (b) saying (Deut 5:4–5). The subsequent idea of Yahweh declaring, ‘I am Yahweh’ (‫אני יהוה‬: Exod 6:2c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh declaring, ‘I am Yahweh’ (‫אנכי יהוה‬: Deut 5:6a). The subsequent idea of Yahweh presenting himself to the ancestors as God (‫)אל‬ Almighty (Exod 6:3) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh presenting himself as Israel’s God (‫אלהים‬: Deut 5:6a). The particular motif of Yahweh appearing to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty (‫ אל שדי‬+ ‫ אל־יעקב‬+ ‫ אל־אבר*ם‬+ ‫ראה‬: Exod 6:3a) corresponds to Gen 17:1; 35:9.11; 48:3 (cf. 28:3),66 but the idea of Yahweh not revealing his name to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exod 6:3b) does not agree with Gen 15:7; 28:13; etc.67 Therefore, the idea of Yahweh presenting himself to the ancestors only as God Almighty and first revealing his name Yahweh to Moses (Exod 6:2c–3) is here new. The subsequent idea of Yahweh giving to the Israelites the land (‫ )ארץ‬of Canaan as the land (‫ )ארץ‬of sojourning as aliens (Exod 6:4) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh bringing Israel out of a foreign land (Deut 5:6b). The particular motif of Yahweh establishing his covenant with the Israelites (*‫ את־בריתי את‬+ ‫הקמתי‬: Exod 6:4) was borrowed from Ezek 16:6268 (cf. Gen 6:18 etc.). The motif of Yahweh giving to the Israelites the land of Canaan as the land of their sojourning (‫ ארץ‬+ ‫ את‬+ ‫ ל‬+ ‫נתן‬ *‫ ארץ מגרי‬+ ‫כנען‬: Exod 6:4) also occurs in Gen 17:8.69

66 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Exodus, 164–166; K. Schmid, ‘Exodus,’ 34; R. Achenbach, ‘The Post-Priestly Elohîm-Theology in the Book of Genesis,’ in S. Grätz, A. Graupner, and J. Lanckau (eds.), Ein Freund des Wortes, Festschrift U. Rüterswörden (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2019), 1–21 (esp. 1–6). 67 Pace L. Invernizzi, Perché, 329, who interprets Exod 6:3 as referring to Yahweh not revealing his name at the moments of his being seen by the patriarchs. 68 Cf. J. Jeon, ‘The Promise of the Land and the Extension of P,’ ZAW 130 (2018) 513–528 (esp. 518). Pace J. Lust, ‘Exodus 6,2–8 and Ezekiel,’ in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction – Reception – Interpretation (BETL 126; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1996), 209–224 (esp. 215), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 69 Cf. T. Römer, ‘Von Moses Berufung zur Spaltung des Meers: Überlegungen zur priesterschriftlichen Version der Exoduserzählung,’ in F. Hartenstein and K. Schmid (eds.), Abschied, 134–160 (esp. 148–149).

66

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

The subsequent idea of Yahweh hearing the Israelites groaning because of the Egyptians (‫מצרים‬: Exod 6:5ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the land of Egypt (Deut 5:6b). The subsequent idea of the Egyptians treating the Israelites as slaves (‫)*עבדים‬, and Yahweh bringing the Israelites out from under the burden of the Egyptians and delivering them out of (‫ )מן‬their slavery (‫עבדה‬: Exod 6:5b–6) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of bringing Israel out of the house of slavery (Deut 5:6b). Moreover, the statement, ‘I am Yahweh… who brought you out of… Egypt’ (‫ מצרים‬+ ‫ מן‬+ *‫ הוצאתי‬+ ‫אני יהוה‬: Exod 6:6a–c) was quite faithfully borrowed from Deut 5:6ab. The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Exod 6:6)70 idea of (a) Yahweh being (‫ )היה‬for the Israelites (*‫ )לכ‬God (‫אלהים‬: diff. Exod 6:6) and (b) being Yahweh their God (‫)אלהים‬, who brought them out from under the forced labour of Egypt (Exod 6:7–8), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) there being for Israel no god (b) except Yahweh Israel’s God, who brought him out of the land of Egypt (Deut 5:7; cf. 5:6: ‫ מצרים‬+ ‫ מן‬+ ‫ יצא‬+ ‫)אנ*י יהוה‬. The particular motif of Yahweh bringing the Israelites to the land for which he raised his hand to give it to the Israelites’ ancestors, thus revealing that he is Yahweh (‫ אל־הארץ אשר‬+ ‫ אתכם‬+ ‫בוא‬ ‫ אני יהוה‬+ *‫נשאתי את־ידי לתת אתה ל‬: Exod 6:8), was borrowed from Ezek 20:4271 and conflated with Ezek 33:24 (‫ מורשה‬+ ‫ ל‬+ ‫ נתן‬+ ‫)אברהם‬.72 The subsequent idea of the Israelites not listening to Moses because of the lack (‘shortness’) of spirit73 and because of hard service (Exod 6:9) with the use of apparently psychological but in fact theological language (cf. Deut 5:1: + ‫דבר‬ ‫ שמע‬+ ‫ ישראל‬+ ‫ אל־‬+ ‫ ;משה‬Deut 4:28: ‫ עבד‬+ ‫ ;רוח‬Hab 2:18–19: ‫ רוח‬+ ‫ עשה‬+ ‫)פסל‬ illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel making idols, presumably to serve them (Deut 5:8; cf. 5:9). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) Moses and Aaron being urged to give orders self-confidently to Pharaoh that he should (b) let the Israelites go out of his land (Exod 6:10–13)74 sequentially illustrates the subsequent 7 0 Cf. R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 1, 125; L. Invernizzi, Perché, 346. 71 Cf. J.  Lust, ‘Exodus 6,2–8,’ 218–223; T.  Römer, ‘Zwischen Urkunden,’ 18; J.  Jeon, ‘Promise,’ 518–519. 72 Cf. T. Römer, ‘Von Moses,’ 149–150; J. Jeon, ‘Promise,’ 517, 519. 73 Cf. C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 191; T. D. Alexander, Exodus, 128–129; J. Lemański, ‘Standardowe i specyficzne rozumienie słowa rûaḥ w tekstach Księgi Rodzaju i Księgi Wyjścia,’ VV 37 (2020) 11–34 (esp. 30). 74 Cf. J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 199; R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 1, 128.

Exod 6:2–7:13 (cf. Deut 5:4–16)

67

Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel being urged not to bow down to idols or (b) serve them (Deut 5:9ab). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted75 genealogical list of (a) the heads of the houses of the fathers (‫)אבות‬, (b) the sons (‫ )בנים‬of Reuben and the sons (‫ )בנים‬of Simeon (Exod 6:14–15), so the ancestors who were regarded as guilty (Gen 49:4–7), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God calling to account the guilt of the fathers (b) on the sons to the fourth generation of those who hate him (Deut 5:9c–e). The particular motif of Reuben being the firstborn of Israel (‫ראובן בכר‬: Exod 6:14) also occurs in Gen 49:3 etc. The motif of the sons of Reuben: Hanoch and Palu, Hezron and Karmi, as well as the sons of Simeon: Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jahin, Zohar, and Shaul the son of a Canaanite woman (Exod 6:14–15) also occurs in Gen 46:9–10.76 The subsequent idea of (a) listing the sons of Levi according to their generations (diff. Exod 2:1: unnamed) to the sixth generation (Levi–Kohath–Amram– Aaron–Eleazar–Phinehas: Exod 6:16–25),77 and (b) the praise of Aaron and Moses (Exod 6:16–27; esp. 6:26–27) with the use of the motif of Levi being faithful and keeping Yahweh’s word (‫ שמר‬+ ‫ חסיד‬+ ‫לוי‬: Deut 33:8–9) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God showing faithfulness to the thousandth generation of (b) those who love him and keep his commandments (Deut 5:10). The particular motif of the sons of Levi: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari (Exod 6:16) also occurs in Gen 46:11.78 The motif of Aaron having the son Eleazar (‫ אלעזר‬+ ‫אהרן‬: Exod 6:23) was borrowed from Deut 10:6. The motif of Eleazar having the son Phinehas (‫ פינחס‬+ ‫אלעזר‬: Exod 6:25) was borrowed from Josh 22:13 etc. The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 6:2) idea of (a) Yahweh speaking to Moses, highlighting the importance of the name Yahweh (‫)יהוה‬, and Moses saying before Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬that (b) Pharaoh will not listen to his uncircumcised speech (Exod 6:28–30)79 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite not taking Yahweh’s name to (b) worthless things (Deut 5:11). 7 5 Cf. L. Invernizzi, Perché, 376. 76 Cf. J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 200; H. Utzschneider and W. Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 174. 77 Cf. W.  H.  Schmidt, Exodus, vol. 1, 304; D.  C.  Smith, The Role of Mothers in the Genealogical Lists of Jacob’s Sons (CBET 90; Peeters:  Leuven · Paris · Bristol, CT 2018), 60–61. 78 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Exodus, 169; J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 201–202. 79 Cf. C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 191; L. Invernizzi, Perché, 396–398.

68

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

The subsequent, likewise somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Exod 4:14– 16),80 theological idea of Yahweh telling Moses to be as God, and Aaron to be as a prophet (Exod 7:1) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of name of Yahweh telling Israel to keep holiness (Deut 5:12ab). The subsequent idea of Moses speaking all that (‫ )אשר‬Yahweh commanded him (‫*צוך‬: Exod 7:2ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite acting as (‫ )כאשר‬Yahweh his God commanded him (Deut 5:12c). The subsequent idea of (a) Pharaoh letting the Israelites go (b) out of (‫ )מן‬his land (‫ארץ‬: Exod 7:2cd) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite serving for six days but not doing any work on the seventh day because (b) he was a slave in the land of Egypt, and Yahweh brought him out of there (Deut 5:13–15c). The subsequent idea of Yahweh hardening Pharaoh’s heart, multiplying his signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, raising his hand (‫ )יד‬against Egypt, and bringing the Israelites in a military way out of the land of Egypt by great judgements (Exod 7:3–4) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh bringing Israel out of the land of Egypt with his mighty hand (Deut 5:15c). The subsequent idea of Yahweh stretching out (‫ )נטה‬his hand and bringing the Israelites out of the midst of Egypt (Exod 7:5) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh bringing Israel out of the land of Egypt with an outstretched arm (Deut 5:15c). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses and Aaron doing (‫( )עשה‬b) as Yahweh commanded (‫ צוה יהוה‬/ ‫ )כאשר צוה‬them, so (a’) doing (‫עשה‬: Exod 7:6), conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b’) Yahweh commanding (a) the Israelite to do, and the Israelite honouring his father and his mother (b) as Yahweh God commanded him (Deut 5:15d–16b). The subsequent idea of Moses and Aaron being many years old when they spoke to Pharaoh (Exod 7:7)81 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the days of the faithful Israelite being prolonged, and it going well with him (Deut 5:16cd). The idea of Moses being 80 years old before the 40–year-long journey

8 0 Cf. C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 210–211; L. Invernizzi, Perché, 404. 81 Cf. U. Cassuto, Exodus, 91; C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 214; W. H. Schmidt, Exodus, vol. 2, Exodus 7–15,21 (BKAT 2/2; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2019), 334.

Exod 7:14–11:10 (cf. Deut 5:17–31)

69

through the wilderness (‫ שנה‬+ ‫בן‬: Exod 7:7) was calculated on the basis of the remarks concerning his being 120 years old after that journey (Deut 31:2; 34:7). The subsequent, narratively following idea of giving (‫נתן‬: cf. Deut 6:22; 13:2; diff. Exod 4:21: ‫ )עשה‬a miracle (cf. Exod 7:3) to the Israelites (*‫לכ‬: Exod 7:9), which consisted in Aaron’s staff/tribe becoming a sea-monster (Exod 7:9–10.12; diff. 4:3; 7:15: snake)82 that swallowed up the Egyptian staffs/tribes (Exod 7:8– 13; esp. 7:12c), with the use of the motif of swallowing (‫ )בלע‬as destroying enemies (cf. Deut 11:6; Exod 15:12; etc.) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God giving the ground to Israel (Deut 5:16e). The particular motif of the soothsayer-priests of Egypt (‫חרטמי‬ ‫מצרים‬: Exod 7:11) also occurs in Gen 41:8.83

1.8.  Exod 7:14–11:10 (cf. Deut 5:17–31) The section Exod 7:14–11:10 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 5:17–31. The idea of Aaron taking a staff, lifting it up, and striking the water,84 so that the water turned into blood, the fish died, and there was blood in the whole land (Exod 7:14–25), in a negative, graphic, narratively progressive way illustrates the Deuteronomic prohibition of murdering (Deut 5:17). The subsequent idea of frogs coming into the Pharaoh’s house, into the inner room of his (sexual) lying (cf. Lev 18:22; 20:13; Num 31:17–18.35; etc.), and on his bed (Exod 7:26–28c)85 in a negative, graphic, narratively progressive way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic prohibition of committing adultery (Deut 5:18). The subsequent idea of frogs coming into the Egyptians’ houses, baking ovens, and kneading troughs, as well as courtyards and fields, and being gathered like grain in heaps/homers (Exod 7:28c–8:11; cf. Gen 41:35.49: ‫ )צבר‬illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic prohibition of stealing (Deut 5:19). The particular motif of Yahweh striking Egypt, so the people supplicated (+ ‫ מצרים‬+ ‫נגף‬ ‫עתר‬: Exod 7:27; 8:1–5), was borrowed from Isa 19:22. The motif of an Israelite

82 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Exodus, 211; H. Utzschneider and W. Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 253; S. Boorer, The Vision of the Priestly Narrative: Its Genre and Hermeneutics of Time (AIL 27; SBL: Atlanta 2016), 222. 83 Cf. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 322. 84 Cf. U. Cassuto, Exodus, 98. 85 Cf. J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 230–231.

70

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

in Egypt crying out to Yahweh (‫ אל־יהוה‬+ ‫ו*צעק‬: Exod 8:8) was borrowed from Deut 26:7. The subsequent, ambiguously formulated idea of Aaron striking the dust of the land, so that it became gnats86 or apparently honest people (‫כנים‬: cf. Gen 42:11–34; cf. ‫כן‬: Exod 8:13–14) acting against (‫ )ב‬humans and against (‫ )ב‬animals (Exod 8:12–15), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic prohibition of testifying against (‫ )ב‬one’s neighbour as worthless witness (Deut 5:20). The particular motif of recognizing the finger of God (‫ )אצבע אלהים‬as pointing to one of the ten commandments (Exod 8:15; cf. Deut 5:20) was borrowed from Deut 9:10. The subsequent idea of Moses early in the morning taking position before (diff. Exod 7:15: going to meet) Pharaoh when he comes out to the water (diff. Exod 9:13), presumably to bathe (Exod 8:16; cf. 2:5), by means of the hypertextual procedure of transsexuation (in this case, masculinization)87 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic prohibition of coveting the neighbour’s wife (Deut 5:21a). The subsequent idea of vermin coming to the house (‫ )בית‬of Pharaoh and to the house (‫ )בית‬of his non-Israelite servants, so that their houses (‫ )בית‬were filled with vermin (Exod 8:17–28; esp. 8:17.20), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic prohibition of craving for the neighbour’s house (Deut 5:21b). The motif of Israel living in the land of Goshen (‫ארץ‬ ‫גשן‬: Exod 8:18) also occurs in Gen 45:10 etc.88 Likewise, the motif of regarding something as the abomination of the Egyptians (‫כי תועבת מצרים‬: Exod 8:22) also occurs in Gen 46:34 (cf. 43:32).89 The subsequent idea of pestilence attacking non-Israelites’ livestock which was in the field (‫שדה‬: Exod 9:1–7; esp. 9:3) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic prohibition of craving for the neighbour’s field (Deut 5:21b). The subsequent idea of boils appearing on the Egyptians’ humans as well as animals (Exod 9:8–12) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic prohibition of craving for the neighbour’s male slave and female slave, as well as his ox and his donkey (Deut 5:21b). The particular motif of Yahweh telling someone to take handfuls of remnants of fire and scatter them in the sight of someone else 86 The identification of ‫( כנים‬Exod 8:12–14) with some species of animals is uncertain; cf. J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 235–236; H. Utzschneider and W. Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 213; C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 228. 87 See G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 423–424. 88 Cf. W. Oswald, ‘Genesis Material,’ 166. 89 Cf. ibid. 167.

Exod 7:14–11:10 (cf. Deut 5:17–31)

71

(‫ לעיני‬+ *‫ וזרק‬+ *‫ מלא חפניכ‬+ ‫ אל־‬+ ‫ויאמר‬: Exod 9:8) was borrowed from Ezek 10:2. The motif of boils appearing in Egypt (‫ שחין‬+ ‫מצרים‬: Exod 9:9–11) was borrowed from Deut 28:27. The subsequent idea of hail striking all that belonged to (*‫ )כל אשר ל‬the nonIsraelites, so their humans, animals, and plants in the field, because they were not gathered to the house (Exod 9:13–35; esp. 9:19.25), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic prohibition of craving for all that belongs to the neighbour, presumably in addition to his house and his field (Deut 5:21c; cf. 5:21b). The subsequent, retrospective idea of Yahweh placing these (‫אלה‬: Exod 10:1) signs, namely bringing locusts which ate all that the hail left in the field (Exod 10:1–20; cf. 9:25.31–32), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic, retrospective idea of Yahweh speaking these words (Deut 5:22a), presumably those concerning not craving for all that belongs to the neighbour (cf. Deut 5:21c). The particular motif of the Sea of Reeds (*‫ימ‬ ‫סוף‬: Exod 10:19) was borrowed from Deut 1:40 etc. The subsequent idea of (a) palpable darkness90 and (b) deep, threatening darkness91 being over Egypt, and (c) light being for all (‫ )כל‬the Israelites in their dwellings (Exod 10:21–27) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh speaking (c) to all the assembly of the Israelites from the midst of fire, in a (a) cloud and (b) thick darkness (Deut 5:22a). The particular motif of groping in darkness (+ ‫משש‬ ‫אפלה‬: Exod 10:21–22) was borrowed from Deut 28:29. The subsequent idea of (a) Pharaoh telling Moses to get away from him, be on his guard, and (b) not carry on (‫יסף‬: Exod 10:28a–d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh speaking with a loud voice and (b) not carrying on (Deut 5:22). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses until now seeing (‫ )ראה‬Pharaoh’s face, but being warned that (b) on the day (‫ )יום‬that (c) he sees (‫ )ראה‬Pharaoh’s face (d) he shall die (‫*מות‬: Exod 10:28e–g) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh letting the Israelites see his glory and greatness, (b) the Israelites this day (c) seeing God, and the Israelites asking why (d) they should die (Deut 5:23–25a).

90 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Exodus, 244, 246; J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 270; H. Utzschneider and W. Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 231. 91 Cf. J. I. Durham, Exodus, 139; T. B. Dozeman, Exodus, 244, 246–247; J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 271.

72

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

The subsequent idea of Moses saying to Pharaoh that he will not see Pharaoh’s face any more (‫ עוד‬+ ‫)יסף‬, and Yahweh speaking to Moses still more (‫עוד‬: Exod 10:29–11:1a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites not wanting to hear the voice of Yahweh God any more (Deut 5:25b–d). The subsequent idea of (a) the dying (‫ )מות‬of (b) all (‫ )כל‬the firstborns, from the firstborn of Pharaoh to the firstborn of a female servant and all (‫ )כל‬the firstborns of animals (Exod 11:1b–5; esp. 11:5), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites dying and asking (b) who from all flesh, presumably remained alive (Deut 5:25e–26a). The subsequent idea of a great cry in Egypt, such as (‫ )כמ*ו‬has never been and such as (‫ )כמ*ו‬will never be again (Exod 11:6), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of hearing the voice of God speaking from the midst of fire, such as the Israelites heard (Deut 5:26bc). The subsequent idea of all Israelites, from a man to an animal, not being threatened even by a dog (Exod 11:7)92 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites remaining alive (Deut 5:26d). The subsequent idea of the Egyptians going down to Moses and bowing down to him, and telling him that he (‫ )אתה‬should get out from them (Exod 11:8a–e) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites telling Moses that he should get closer to Yahweh God (Deut 5:27). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses showing his heat of anger at Pharaoh, and (b) Pharaoh not heeding Moses and Aaron, (c) so that (‫ )למען‬Yahweh’s wonders might be multiplied (Exod 11:8f–9), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites fearing Yahweh God and (b) keeping his commandments, (c) so that it might go well with them and with their sons forever (Deut 5:28–29). The concluding idea of (a) Moses and Aaron doing (‫ )עשו‬all the (‫ )את כל‬wonders before Pharaoh, who (b) did not let the Israelites go from his land (‫ארץ‬: Exod 11:10; diff. 9:35; 10:20.27; etc.: no remark concerning the land),93 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses standing by Yahweh, who spoke to him all the commandments

9 2 Cf. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 344. 93 Cf. U. Cassuto, Exodus, 135; C. Houtman, Exodus, vol. 2, Chapters 7:14–19:25, trans. S. Woudstra (HCOT; Kok: Kampen 1996), 136; J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 278.

Exod 12:1–13 (cf. Deut 5:32–6:15)

73

which he should teach the Israelites, so that they might do them (b) in the land which Yahweh is giving them (Deut 5:30–31).

1.9. Exod 12:1–13 (cf. Deut 5:32–6:15) The section Exod 12:1–13 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 5:32–6:15. The opening idea of (a) Yahweh speaking to Moses and Aaron by (b) speaking, and (c) this new month being to them (‫ ;לכם‬diff. Exod 12:3: ‫ )להם‬the beginning of the presumably future months, the first to them (‫ ;לכם‬diff. Exod 12:3: ‫ )להם‬of (d) the months (plur.) of the year (Exod 12:1–2), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God commanding the Israelites the way which (b) he commanded the Israelites, and (c) the Israelites living, and it being well to them, and (d) the Israelites prolonging their days (plur.: Deut 5:32–33). The particular motif of the first month (‫ )ראשון‬as the month of celebrating the Passover (Exod 12:2) was borrowed from Ezek 45:21; Josh 4:19. The subsequent idea of Yahweh commanding Moses and Aaron to speak to the whole congregation of Israel (Exod 12:3ab) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God commanding Moses to teach the Israelites the statutes and the judgements (Deut 6:1a–c). The subsequent idea of the Israelites doing something on the tenth (diff. Exod 12:6; Lev 23:5; Num 9:3–5; 28:16; Josh 15:10: fourteenth)94 day of this, presumably the first month (Exod 12:3b) with the use of the motif of the Israelites crossing over (‫ )עבר‬the Jordan and coming up from it on the tenth day of the first month (*‫בעשור לחדש ה‬: Josh 3:15–4:19; esp. 4:19) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites doing things in the land which they are crossing over to possess (Deut 6:1d–f). The subsequent idea of every Israelite man taking for himself a lamb (Exod 12:3c), a motif evoking Abraham taking (‫ )לקח‬his son as a lamb (‫ בן‬+ ‫ )שה‬because he feared God (‫ אלהים‬+ ‫ירא‬: cf. Gen 22:2–3.8–9.12), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite fearing Yahweh God, together with his son and the son of his son (Deut 6:2). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of a lamb for the house of the fathers (‫אבת‬: Exod 12:3c;95 diff. Gen 34:19; Num 3:24; etc.: father)

9 4 Cf. J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 287. 95 Cf. J. I. Durham, Exodus, 151; W. H. Schmidt, Exodus, vol. 2, 501.

74

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God of Israel’s fathers (Deut 6:3). The subsequent idea of a house and its neighbour taking one lamb, which should be eaten by numerous people (Exod 12:4), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel hearing that Yahweh is one (Deut 6:4). The subsequent idea of (a) the lamb being without blemish, (b) a male one year old, (c) taken from the young rams or from the goats (Exod 12:5; diff. Deut 16:2: from the flock and the herd),96 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel loving Yahweh God with all his heart, (b) with all his liveliness, and (c) with all his strength (Deut 6:5). The particular motif of offering a year-old young ram without blemish (‫ כבש‬+ ‫ בן־שנה‬+ ‫תמים‬: Exod 12:5) was borrowed from Ezek 46:13. The subsequent command that (a) it shall be that (‫ )והיה‬the Israelites should engage in (b) keeping (c) until the fourteenth day (‫יום‬: diff. Exod 12:3) of this month (Exod 12:6a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic command that (a) it shall be that (‫)והיו‬ the words (b) which Yahweh commands (c) this day should be on Israel’s heart (Deut 6:6). The particular motif of celebrating the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month (‫ארבעה עשר יום לחדש‬: Exod 12:6) was borrowed from Ezek 45:21; Josh 5:10. The subsequent idea of cultic activity of the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel (Exod 12:6b) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite repeatedly reciting Yahweh’s words to his children (Deut 6:7). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of Israel cultically acting between (‫ )בין‬the two correlated evenings (‫ע*ים‬: Exod 12:6b;97 diff. Deut 16:6)98 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite having Yahweh’s words between his two correlated eyes (‫ע*ים‬: Deut 6:8). The particular motif of celebrating the Passover in the evening (‫ערב‬: Exod 12:6) was borrowed from Deut 16:6. The subsequent idea of the Israelites taking some of the blood and putting it on (‫ ;על‬diff. Ezek 45:19: ‫ )אל‬the two doorposts (‫מזוזת‬: Exod 12:7ab), presumably using the blood to write saving signs (cf. Exod 12:13),99 conceptually

9 6 Cf. S. Boorer, Vision, 222, 230. 97 Cf. J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 288; H. Utzschneider and W. Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 247; C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 281–282. 98 Cf. C. Houtman, Exodus, vol. 2, 175; S. Boorer, Vision, 222–223, 230. 99 Cf. U. Cassuto, Exodus, 139.

Exod 12:1–13 (cf. Deut 5:32–6:15)

75

and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite writing Yahweh’s words on the doorposts (Deut 6:9). The particular motif of taking some of the blood and putting it on the doorpost of the house (‫ מן‬+ *‫ולקח‬ ‫ בית‬+ ‫ מזוזת‬+ *‫ ונתנ‬+ ‫ דם‬+: Exod 12:7) was borrowed from Ezek 45:19.100 The subsequent idea of the Israelites putting the blood also (‫ )ו‬on the framed opening (Exod 12:7b; cf. 1 Kgs 6:4; 7:4–5: ‫ )שקף‬illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite writing Yahweh’s words also on his gates (Deut 6:9). The subsequent idea of (a) the houses (‫( )בתים‬b) in which (‫ )אשר‬the Israelites should eat the lamb (Exod 12:7bc) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God giving to Israel houses (b) filled with all good things, which they did not fill (Deut 6:10–11b). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites eating the flesh at night, roasted on fire, as well as (b) eating unleavened breads on, (c) somewhat surprisingly added, bitter things (Exod 12:8)101 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God giving to Israel hewn-out, so presumably dark cisterns, as well as (b) vineyards not cultivated by the Israelites, and (c) olives (Deut 6:11c–e). The particular motif of eating unleavened bread on Passover (+ ‫מצות‬ ‫אכל‬: Exod 12:8) was borrowed from Ezek 45:21; Deut 16:3.8.16; Josh 5:11. The subsequent idea of the Israelites eating (‫ )אכל‬the lamb not cooked (diff. Deut 16:7: ‫)בשל‬102 but roasted with its entrails,103 thus eating as much as they can during the night (Exod 12:9–10), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite eating his fill (Deut 6:11fg). The particular motif of not leaving from the meat until morning (‫ בקר‬+ ‫ מן‬+ ‫ולא־‬: Exod 12:10) was borrowed from Deut 16:4.104 The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites’ loins being girded, for (b) this is a Passover for Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: Exod 12:11), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite being on his guard, (b) not to forget Yahweh (Deut 6:12ab). The particular motif of eating in haste the Passover for Yahweh (‫ ליהוה‬+ ‫ פסח‬+ ‫ בחפזון‬+ ‫אכל‬: Exod 12:11) was borrowed from Deut 16:2–3.

1 00 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 118. 101 Cf. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 394; J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 290. 102 Cf. S. Boorer, Vision, 222–223, 231. 103 It can be observed that roasted meat increases appetite more than boiled meat does. 104 Cf. C. Berner, Exoduserzählung, 329.

76

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

The subsequent idea of Yahweh passing through the land of Egypt (‫;ארץ מצרים‬ diff. 12:23: simply Egypt) at night (Exod 12:12a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh bringing Israel out of the land of Egypt (Deut 6:12c), presumably at night (cf. Deut 16:1: ‫)לילה‬. The subsequent idea of Yahweh striking every firstborn, from humans to animals (Exod 12:12b), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of fearing Yahweh (Deut 6:13). The subsequent idea of Yahweh executing judgements on all the gods (‫)אלהי‬ of Egypt (Exod 12:12c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites not going after other gods, the gods of the peoples who are around them (Deut 6:14). The particular motif of Yahweh executing judgements on Egypt (‫ שפטים‬+ ‫ עשה‬+ ‫מצרים‬: Exod 12:12) was borrowed from Ezek 30:19 (cf. 30:14). The subsequent idea of Yahweh exclaiming, ‘I am Yahweh!’ (Exod 12:12d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh being a jealous God (Deut 6:15a). The subsequent idea of the blood functioning as a protective sign for the Israelites, so that there will be no Yahweh’s blow of destruction against them (‫בכם‬: Exod 12:13a–e), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel avoiding the kindling of the anger of Yahweh against him (‫בך‬: Deut 6:15b). The particular motif of striking for the destruction (‫ נכה‬+ ‫ )למשחית‬of those on whom there was no sign (Exod 12:13) was borrowed from Ezek 9:5–6. The subsequent idea of Yahweh striking people in the land of Egypt (Exod 12:13f) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh exterminating people from the face of the earth (Deut 6:15c).

1.10.  Exod 12:14–28 (cf. Deut 6:16–25) The section Exod 12:14–28 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 6:16–25. The idea of the Israelites celebrating a memorial festival105 for Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: Exod 12:14) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites being called not to tempt Yahweh God, as they tempted him in the past (Deut 6:16). The particular motif of something being a memorial for the Israelites forever (+ *‫והי‬

105 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Exodus, 270; J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 292; H. Utzschneider and W. Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 246–247, 257.

Exod 12:14–28 (cf. Deut 6:16–25)

77

‫ עולם‬+ ‫ ל‬+ ‫לזכרון‬: Exod 12:14) was borrowed from Josh 4:7. The motif of an everlasting statute (‫ עולם‬+ ‫חקה‬: Exod 12:14) was borrowed from Ezek 46:14. The subsequent idea of Yahweh exhorting the Israelites to observe strictly his commands concerning eating unleavened breads (‫ )מצות‬and not working (Exod 12:15–16) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh exhorting the Israelites to be diligent in observing, presumably Yahweh’s commandments (Deut 6:17a). The particular motif of the Israelites for seven days eating unleavened breads, beginning to celebrate on the first day, not having any leaven in his territory, and not eating anything leavened (‫ ביום‬+ *‫ תאכל‬+ ‫ מצות‬+ ‫שבעת ימים‬ ‫ חמץ‬+ ‫ אכל‬+ ‫ שאר‬+ ‫הראשון‬: Exod 12:15), was borrowed from Deut 16:3–4. The motif of the transgressing person being cut off from Israel (‫ונכרתה הנפש ההוא‬ *‫מ‬: Exod 12:15) also occurs in Gen 17:14.106 The motif of commanding the Israelites to have on the seventh day a holy convocation to Yahweh and not to do any work (‫ עשה‬+ ‫ לא‬+ ‫ מלאכה‬+ ‫ יהוה‬+ ‫וביום השביעי‬: Exod 12:16) was borrowed from Deut 16:8. The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites observing the unleavened breads (‫ מצות‬+ ‫ את־‬+ ‫ )שמר‬because (b) on this day Yahweh brought them out of Egypt (Exod 12:17ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites observing the commandments (‫ )מצות‬of (b) Yahweh God and his testimonies (Deut 6:17b). The subsequent idea of the Israelites observing this day throughout their generations as an everlasting statute (‫חקה‬: Exod 12:17c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites observing Yahweh’s statutes (‫חק‬: Deut 6:17b). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Exod 12:8.15.17) idea of the Israelites eating unleavened bread (‫מצת‬: Exod 12:18; diff. 12:8.15.17: ‫)מצות‬, as Yahweh earlier commanded (cf. Exod 12:15), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel observing that what Yahweh commanded (‫צוה‬: Deut 6:17c). The particular motif of celebrating the Passover in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month (‫בראשן בארבעה‬ ‫עשר יום לחדש‬: Exod 12:18), was borrowed from Ezek 45:21.107

1 06 Cf. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 403. 107 Cf. P. N. Tucker, The Holiness Composition in the Book of Exodus (FAT 2.98; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2017), 105–107. Pace R. Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah (JSOTSup 358; Sheffield Academic: London · New York 2002), 47–48, 84, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

78

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

The subsequent, likewise somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Exod 12:15) idea of the Israelites not eating anything leavened (Exod 12:19a–c), as Yahweh earlier commanded (cf. Exod 12:15), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel doing what is right and good in the sight of Yahweh (Deut 6:18a). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted (diff. Exod 12:15) idea of (a) the congregation of Israel, (b) an immigrant and (c) a full citizen of the land (‫הארץ‬: Exod 12:19c; diff. Josh 8:33: no remark concerning the land), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel being prosperous, (b) coming, and (c) possessing the land (Deut 6:18b–d). The particular motif of both a stranger and a full citizen (+ ‫גר‬ ‫אזרח‬: Exod 12:19) was borrowed from Josh 8:33 (cf. Ezek 47:22). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 12:19) idea of the Israelites eating unleavened bread in their dwellings (Exod 12:20; diff. 12:19: houses) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the good land which Yahweh swore to Israel’s fathers (Deut 6:18e). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Exod 12:3–7.12–13)108 idea of (a) the Israelites being protected when Yahweh strikes and destroys the Egyptians, and (b) the Israelites keeping this saying (‫ )דבר‬when they come to the land which Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬will give them, just as he said (‫כאשר דבר‬: Exod 12:21–25), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh thrusting out all Israel’s enemies, (b) just as Yahweh said (Deut 6:19). The subsequent idea of the Israelites’ sons asking them what this service means for them (‫ *כם‬+ *‫ מה ה‬+ ‫ בן‬+ ‫ אמר‬+ ‫כי־‬: Exod 12:26) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite’s son asking him what these testimonies, statues, and judgements mean, which Yahweh commanded them (Deut 6:20). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites saying (*‫ )ואמרת‬that (b) Yahweh (‫)יהוה‬ passed over their houses in Egypt (‫במצרים‬: Exod 12:27a–c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite saying that the Israelites were slaves of Pharaoh (b) in Egypt, and Yahweh brought them out of Egypt (Deut 6:21). The particular motif of the sacrifice of the Passover (‫ פסח‬+ ‫זבח‬: Exod 12:27) was borrowed from Deut 16:2 (cf. 16:5–6).109

1 08 Cf. J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 294; R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 1, 210–211. 109 Cf. J. C. Gertz, Tradition, 43.

Exod 12:29–51 (cf. Deut 7:1–12)

79

The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh striking Egypt (‫ )מצרים‬but delivering the houses (‫ )בית‬of the Israelites, so that (b) the Israelite people bowed down and worshipped (Exod 12:27d–g), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh showing destructive signs and wonders against Egypt, against Pharaoh, and against all his house before the eyes of the Israelites, whom (b) he brought to the land of which he swore to their fathers (Deut 6:22–23). The concluding idea of the Israelites doing (‫ )עשה‬just as Yahweh commanded (‫ יהוה‬+ ‫ צוה‬+ ‫)כאשר‬, so doing (‫עשה‬: Exod 12:28), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh commanding the Israelites to do all the statutes, and the Israelites doing the entire commandment, just as Yahweh God commanded (Deut 6:24–25).

1.11. Exod 12:29–51 (cf. Deut 7:1–12) The section Exod 12:29–51 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 7:1–12. The opening, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Exod 11:4–5; 12:12) idea of Yahweh striking all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, presumably with their numerous social strata, from the firstborn of the Pharaoh sitting on his throne to the firstborn of the captive in the cistern (diff. Exod 11:5; 12:12: no such remark)110 and all the firstborn of livestock (Exod 12:29), illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God driving away numerous pagan nations, which are more numerous and mightier than Israel (Deut 7:1). The particular motif of a prisoner kept in the cistern (‫בית הבור‬: Exod 12:29) was borrowed from Jer 37:16. The subsequent idea of (a) Pharaoh and his servants and all the Egyptians rising, and (b) a great cry being in Egypt, for there was no house in which there was no dead (Exod 12:30), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh giving the pagans before Israel, and (b) Israel striking them and putting them under a destructive ban, showing them no mercy (Deut 7:2). The author of Exodus–Numbers with the use of the idea of consecrating every firstborn to Yahweh (‫בכור‬: Deut 15:19) reworked the Deuteronomic idea of Israel exterminating the whole pagan population of Canaan (Deut 7:1–2) into the more

110 Cf. J. I. Durham, Exodus, 166; T. D. Alexander, Exodus, 236; W. H. Schmidt, Exodus, vol. 2, 532.

80

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

irenic one of Yahweh himself killing all the firstborn in the pagan land of Egypt, so that the Israelites were not involved in killing them (Exod 12:29–30). The subsequent idea of (a) expelling Moses and Aaron from among the people of Egypt, both them and (b) the sons (‫ )בן‬of Israel serving (‫ )עבד‬Yahweh, the Israelites taking (‫ )לקח‬their flocks and their herds, and (c) blessing Pharaoh (Exod 12:31–32) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel not making marriages with the pagans, and (b) not taking the pagan’s daughter for the Israelite’s son, for that would turn away the Israelite’s son from Yahweh to serve gods other than (c) the presumably graceful Yahweh (Deut 7:3–4b). The subsequent idea of (a) the Egyptians being strong against the Israelite people, (b) to send them soon (‫ )מהר‬away from the land, for they said that they would all be dead (Exod 12:33), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the anger of Yahweh being kindled against the Israelites, and (b) Yahweh soon exterminating Israel (Deut 7:4cd). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted idea of the Israelite people carrying unleavened dough on their shoulder (sing. ‫)שכם‬111 and acting (‫ )עשה‬according to the word of Moses (Exod 12:34–35a)112 with the use of the motif of Shechem/shoulder (‫ ;שכם‬cf. Gen 9:23; 48:22) as the only legitimate place of offering burnt offerings to Yahweh in agreement with the law of Moses (Deut 11:29–12:5; 27:4–8; Josh 8:30–35; 24:1–27; cf. Gen 12:6–7; 22:1–14), which presumably included offering the Passover sacrifice and eating unleavened bread (Deut 16:5–8), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites acting in this prescribed way, namely to break down the pagans’ altars (Deut 7:5ab). The particular motif of something not swelling in the Israelites’ cloaks (*‫ שמלת‬+ ‫ )בצק‬during their journey from Egypt (Exod 12:34) was borrowed from Deut 8:4. The use of the allusion to the unique legitimate sanctuary at Shechem in Exod 12:34–35a implies that Exodus– Numbers is an Israelite work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Exod 3:22; 11:2)113 idea of (a) the Israelites asking from the Egyptians three kinds of precious objects: articles of silver, (b) articles of gold, and (c) clothes (Exod 12:35b) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites destroying

1 11 Cf. U. Cassuto, Exodus, 146; C. Houtman, Exodus, vol. 2, 200. 112 Cf. H. Utzschneider and W. Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 266–267. 113 Cf. ibid. 267; W. H. Schmidt, Exodus, vol. 2, 536–537.

Exod 12:29–51 (cf. Deut 7:1–12)

81

three kinds of pagan cultic objects: sacred pillars, which should be smashed into fragments, (b) sacred poles, which should be cut to pieces, and (c) divine images, which should be burned with fire (Deut 7:5c–e). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬giving to the Israelite people (‫)עם‬ favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that (b) they asked the Egyptians (‫שאל‬ read as qal: cf. Exod 12:35) and robbed the Egyptians (Exod 12:36), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel being a holy people to Yahweh, whom Yahweh chose to be a people of (b) his personal property from among all the peoples on the earth (Deut 7:6). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites departing from (‫ )מן‬the power-related Egyptian Rameses to (b) the booths-related Succoth114 (c) in the surprisingly great number of about 600,000 men, together with children, a mixed numerous (‫ )רב‬crowd (*‫ )רב‬and much livestock (Exod 12:37–38), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites not being more numerous (‫ )רבב‬than (‫ )מן‬all the Gentile peoples, for they were (b) the least of all the peoples, but (c) Yahweh kept the oath which he had sworn to the Israelites’ fathers (Deut 7:7–8c), presumably that he will make the Israelites as numerous (‫ )רבה‬as the stars of heaven (cf. Gen 22:16– 17; 26:3–4; Exod 32:13). The motif of going to Succoth (‫סכתה‬: Exod 12:37) also occurs in Gen 33:17. The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites bringing (*‫ )הוציא‬the dough (b) from (‫ )מן‬Egypt (‫ )מצרים‬and (c) being driven out from (‫ )מן‬Egypt (‫מצרים‬: Exod 12:39) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh bringing the Israelites (b) from the house of slavery, (c) from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt (Deut 7:8de). The subsequent idea of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt being 430 years, and the Israelites after 430 years on the very same day going out from the land of Egypt as a powerful army of Yahweh (Exod 12:40–41), apparently according to the promise which Yahweh gave to Abraham (cf. Gen 15:13–14),115 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God being faithful and keeping covenant and loyalty (Deut 7:9a–c). The particular motif of the exile of the sons of Israel lasting 430 years (Exod 12:40; diff. Gen 15:13: 400 years) was borrowed

114 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Exodus, 283; H. Utzschneider and W. Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 268; C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 307. 115 Cf. C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 307.

82

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

from Ezek 4:5–6 (390 years for the house of Israel and thereafter 40 years for the house of Judah).116 The subsequent idea of this night being spent on keeping (‫ )שמר‬vigil for Yahweh, and the Israelites keeping (‫ )שמר‬vigil for Yahweh throughout their generations (‫דור‬: Exod 12:42) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites loving Yahweh and keeping his commandments for a thousand generations (Deut 7:9d–10; esp. 7:9de). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh proclaiming to Moses and Aaron the statute (‫חקה‬: Exod 12:43) concerning the Passover, (b) the whole congregation of Israel being exhorted to do (‫עשה‬: Exod 12:47) this statute, and the stranger coming near to do (‫לעשת‬: Exod 12:48) the Passover (Exod 12:43–49) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites being told to keep the commandment, the statues (‫)חק‬, and the judgements which Moses commands (b) to do them (Deut 7:11). The particular motif of celebrating the Passover (‫ פסח‬+ ‫עשה‬: Exod 12:48) was borrowed from Deut 16:1. The motif of all males being circumcised (‫המול ל* כל־זכר‬: Exod 12:48) also occurs in Gen 17:10 etc. The subsequent idea of all the Israel in fact doing (‫ )עשה‬as Yahweh commanded Moses and Aaron, thus doing (Exod 12:50), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites listening to the judgements, keeping them, and doing them (Deut 7:12a–d). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Exod 12:17.41)117 idea of Yahweh (diff. Exod 12:41: the Israelites) on the very same day bringing out the Israelites from the land of Egypt as a powerful army (Exod 12:51) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh keeping the covenant and loyalty to Israel’s fathers (Deut 7:12ef).

1.12.  Exod 13:1–16 (cf. Deut 7:13–15) The section Exod 13:1–16 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 7:13–15. The idea of (a) Yahweh calling Moses to consecrate to him (b) all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb of the Israelites, both (c) man (‫ )אדם‬and (d) animal (Exod 13:1–2), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh blessing (b) the fruit of the Israelite’s womb 116 Cf. W.  H.  C.  Propp, Exodus 1–18, 416; H.  Utzschneider and W.  Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 269. 117 Cf. C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 309.

Exod 13:1–16 (cf. Deut 7:13–15)

83

and (c) the fruit of his ground (‫)אדמה‬, as well as (d) the offspring of his cattle and his flocks (Deut 7:13a–d). The particular motif of the Israelite consecrating to Yahweh all the firstborn born in his flocks (‫ ב‬+ ‫ כל־*בכור‬+ ‫ ל‬+ ‫קדש‬: Exod 13:2) was borrowed from Deut 15:19118 and conflated with the idea of the man Ephraim/ Joseph being the firstborn of Yahweh (‫בכור‬: Jer 31:9; cf. Deut 33:17). The latter element of the conflation suggests that Exodus–Numbers is an Israelite work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent idea of the land which Yahweh swore to Israel’s fathers to give to Israel (‫אשר נשבע לאבתיך לתת לך‬: Exod 13:3–11; esp. 13:5; cf. 13:11) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the ground which Yahweh swore to Israel’s fathers to give to Israel (Deut 7:13ef). The particular motif of the Israelites being called to remember the day on which they came out of Egypt, so that nothing leavened should be eaten (+ ‫זכר‬ ‫ חמץ‬+ ‫ אכל‬+ ‫ לא‬+ ‫ מצרים‬+ ‫ מן‬+ ‫ יצא‬+ ‫את־*יום‬: Exod 13:3), was borrowed from Deut 16:3119 and reformulated in a somewhat surprising way which suggests a general prohibition of eating anything leavened. Likewise, the motif of Israel going out of Egypt in the month of Abib (‫ בחדש האביב‬+ ‫יצא‬: Exod 13:4) was borrowed from Deut 16:1120 and conflated with the idea of going out on a certain day (‫יום‬: Deut 16:3; diff. 16:1: night). Similarly, the motif of Israel eating unleavened bread for seven days (‫ מצות‬+ ‫שבעת ימים תאכל‬: Exod 13:6; cf. 13:7a) was borrowed from Deut 16:3121 and conflated with the thematically related motif of celebrating a festival for Yahweh on the seventh day (‫ ליהוה‬+ ‫ וביום השביעי‬+ ‫ימים תאכל מצות‬: Deut 16:8),122 so that the tension in the counting of the days of eating unleavened bread in Deut 16:3.8 was resolved. The following motif of leavened dough not being seen in Israel (‫ולא־יראה לך שאר‬: Exod 13:7c) was borrowed from the following text Deut 16:4123 and conflated with the thematically related motif of something leavened (‫חמץ‬: Exod 13:7b; cf. Deut 16:3). 118 Cf. J. C. Gertz, Tradition, 71. Pace B. Kilchör, ‘Did H Influence D on an Early or a Late Stage of the Redaction of D?,’ OTE 29 (2016) 502–512 (esp. 504–505), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 119 Pace C. Berner, Exoduserzählung, 305, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 120 Pace ibid. 301–305, suggesting the reverse direction of borrowing. 121 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 120. 122 Cf. J. C. Gertz, Tradition, 70; M. M. Zahn, ‘Reexamining Empirical Models: The Case of Exodus 13,’ in E. Otto and R. Achenbach (eds.), Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 206; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2004), 36–55 (esp. 48–49). 123 Cf. M. M. Zahn, ‘Reexamining,’ 48–49. Pace C. Berner, Exoduserzählung, 311, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

84

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

The motif of the Israelite telling his son, and it being a sign on the Israelite’s hand and a reminder between his eyes (‫ בין עיניך‬+ ‫ ל‬+ ‫ לאות על־ידך‬+ *‫ והי‬+ *‫לבנ‬: Exod 13:8–9) was borrowed from Deut 6:7–8124 and reformulated in a somewhat surprising way, so that the event of going out of Egypt became a sign on the hand and a reminder between the eyes.125 The motif of Yahweh’s instruction being on the Israelite’s mouth (‫ *פיך‬+ ‫תורה‬: Exod 13:9) was borrowed from Josh 1:8. The motif of keeping the ordinance, which reminds the going out of Egypt, at the proper time (‫ מועד‬+ ‫ ממצרים‬+ ‫יצא‬: Exod 13:9–10) was borrowed from Deut 16:6. The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Exod 13:2)126 idea of (a) Israel dedicating to Yahweh (b) all that opens the womb, presumably of the Israelites (cf. Exod 13:2), and (c) all that opens the offspring of his animals (‫בהמה‬: Exod 13:12) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Deut 7:13a–d) Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel being blessed, and (b) there being no barrenness among the Israelites and (c) among their animals (Deut 7:14). The particular motif of the offspring of animals (‫שגר‬: Exod 13:12) was borrowed from the thematically related text Deut 7:13. From the linguistic point of view, the noun ‫‘( שגר‬offspring’) was used in Exodus–Numbers only once (in Exod 13:12), whereas it was used four times in Deuteronomy (Deut 7:13; 28:4.18.51). Therefore, it is typically Deuteronomic. Moreover, its occurrence in Exod 13:12 corresponds to its occurrence in the Deuteronomic hypotext Deut 7:13–14. Accordingly, it was most likely borrowed by the author of Exodus–Numbers from Deuteronomy, a fact which linguistically corroborates the hypothesis of the dependence of Exodus–Numbers on Deuteronomy. The concluding, somewhat surprisingly redundantly formulated127 idea of (a) Israel redeeming a firstborn donkey and a firstborn human, presumably from dying, and (b) Yahweh by strength of hand killing all the firstborn in the land of Egypt (‫)מצרים‬, and therefore (c) Israel redeeming all the firstborn of Israel’s sons, presumably from dying, because (d) Yahweh by strength of hand brought the Israelites out of Egypt (Exod 13:13–16) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh

1 24 Cf. J. C. Gertz, Tradition, 61–63; M. M. Zahn, ‘Reexamining,’ 49–50. 125 Cf. C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 310–312. 126 Cf. J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 310; H. Utzschneider and W. Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 278; W. H. Schmidt, Exodus, vol. 2, 568. 127 Cf. R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 1, 222–223.

Exod 13:17–14:31 (cf. Deut 7:16–21)

85

taking away from Israel all sickness and (b) inflicting all the malicious diseases of Egypt (c) not upon Israel, but (d) laying them upon those who hate Israel (Deut 7:15). The particular motif of a son asking the Israelite, saying, ‘What is this?,’ and the Israelite saying that Yahweh by strength of hand brought the Israelites out of Egypt, which was a house of slaves (+ ‫ חזק‬+ ‫ ב‬+ ‫ ואמרת‬+ ‫כי־ישאלך בנך מחר לאמר מה‬ ‫ עבדים‬+ ‫ הוציאנו יהוה ממצרים‬+ ‫יד‬: Exod 13:14), was borrowed from Deut 6:20–21.128 The motif of something becoming a sign on the Israelite’s hand and pendants between his eyes (‫ לטוטפת בין עיניך‬+ ‫ ו‬+ ‫לאות על־ידכה‬: Exod 13:16; cf. 13:9) was borrowed from the thematically related text Deut 6:8129 (cf. 11:18)130 and used in a somewhat surprising way, so that the killing and redeeming the firstborns became a sign on the hand and pendants between the eyes.131 From the linguistic point of view, the phrase ‫‘( לטוטפת‬to pendants’) was used in Exodus–Numbers only once (in Exod 13:16), and the thematically related text Exod 13:9 contains the phrase with the noun ‫‘( זכרון‬reminder’), which is typical of Exodus–Numbers (cf. Exod 12:14 etc.). On the other hand, the phrase ‫לטוטפת‬ (‘to pendants’) was used two times in Deuteronomy (Deut 6:8; 11:18). Therefore, it can be regarded as typically Deuteronomic. Accordingly, it was most likely borrowed by the author of Exodus–Numbers from Deuteronomy,132 a fact which linguistically corroborates the hypothesis of the dependence of Exodus–Numbers on Deuteronomy.

1.13.  Exod 13:17–14:31 (cf. Deut 7:16–21) The section Exod 13:17–14:31 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 7:16–21. The opening idea of (a) Pharaoh sending the Israelite people (‫ העם‬+ ‫ )את־‬out of Egypt, and (b) God (‫ )אלהים‬not (‫ )לא־‬leading them / repenting (‫ נחם‬also read as ‫ נחם‬niphal: cf. Exod 13:17f)133 (c) by the way to the Philistines, (d) for that was (‫ הוא‬... ‫ )כי‬near (Exod 13:17a–d), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel destroying other

1 28 Cf. M. M. Zahn, ‘Reexamining,’ 49–50; C. Berner, Exoduserzählung, 315. 129 Cf. J.  C.  Gertz, Tradition, 65; M.  M.  Zahn, ‘Reexamining,’ 49–50; C.  Berner, Exoduserzählung, 315. 130 Cf. J. Jeon, Call of Moses, 172; P. N. Tucker, Holiness, 103. 131 Cf. C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 310–312. 132 Cf. M. M. Zahn, ‘Reexamining,’ 49. 133 Cf. U. Cassuto, Exodus, 156; W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 485.

86

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

peoples, which (b) Yahweh God gives to him, and not having pity on them or (c) serving their pagan gods, (d) for that would be a snare to him (Deut 7:16). The subsequent idea of (a) God saying (‫ )כי *אמר‬that (b) the people might repent, seeing the approaching war, presumably with the Philistines (cf. Exod 13:17c), and they might return to Egypt (Exod 13:17e–h) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel saying that (b) these nations are more numerous than Israel (Deut 7:17ab). The subsequent idea of (a) God making the people go around134 Canaan (cf. Exod 13:17) by way of the wilderness,135 (b) the Israelites being organized for war136 while going up out of (‫ )מן‬the land of Egypt, and (c) taking the bones of Joseph because he had solemnly (inf. abs. + finite verb; diff. Gen 50:25) adjured the Israelites that God (‫ )אלהים‬will solemnly (inf. abs. + finite verb) visit them, so they should take his bones with them (Exod 13:18–19), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel asking how/where he could dispossess the Canaanite peoples, and (b) Israel being encouraged not to be afraid of them, but (c) to remember solemnly what Yahweh God did (Deut 7:17c–18c). The particular motif of the Israelites skirting Canaan and going by the way of the wilderness, of the Sea of Reeds (‫ ים־סוף‬+ ‫ המדבר‬+ ‫ דרך‬+ ‫סבב‬: Exod 13:18), was borrowed from Deut 2:1 (cf. 1:40). Likewise, the motif of the Israelites being organized in military groups of fifty or armed (‫חמשים‬: Exod 13:18) was borrowed from Deut 1:15 (cf. Josh 4:12).137 The motif of Joseph adjuring the Israelites, saying that God will solemnly visit them, so they should take his bones

1 34 Cf. U. Cassuto, Exodus, 156; H. Utzschneider and W. Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 299. 135 It should be noted that the Deuteronomic Sea of Reeds (Deut 1:40; 2:1; 11:4; cf. Jer 49:21; Exod 23:31; Num 21:4; cf. also Suph in Deut 1:1) seems to be located in the Arabah valley. Cf. P. Y. Yoo, ‘Once Again,’ 593. 136 Cf. J. L. Ska, Le passage de la mer: Étude de la construction, du style et de la symbolique d’Ex 14,1–31 (AnBib 109; 2nd ed., Pontificio Istituto Biblico: Roma 1997), 16–17; C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 285–286; P. Y. Yoo, ‘Armed for Battle? On the Meaning of ‫ חמשים‬in Exodus 13,18,’ ZAW 128 (2016) 42–48 (esp. 48). 137 Cf. J.  Wagenaar, ‘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.), Studies, 461–470 (esp. 468–469).

Exod 13:17–14:31 (cf. Deut 7:16–21)

87

from there (‫ את־בני ישראל לאמר פקד יפקד אלהים אתכם והעליתם את־עצמתי‬+ ‫ שבע‬+ ‫יוסף‬ ‫מזה‬: Exod 13:19), was almost verbatim borrowed from Gen 50:25.138 The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh powerfully leading the Israelites out of Egypt, the Israelites camping directed to (*‫ל‬: Exod 14:2; diff. Exod 13:20: ‫)ב‬ Pi-Hahiroth and directed to (*‫ )ל‬Baal-Zephon (Exod 14:2), as well as (b) Yahweh hardening the heart of Pharaoh (‫ )פרעה‬and gaining glory over Pharaoh (‫)פרעה‬ and (c) all (‫ )כל‬his army, so that (d) Egypt (‫ )מצרים‬might know the power of Yahweh (Exod 13:20–14:4; esp. 14:3–4), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God doing harm to (*‫( )ל‬b) Pharaoh and to (c) all (d) Egypt (Deut 7:18c). The particular motif of Yahweh going before the Israelites by day in a cloud to lead/encamp them on the way, and by night in fire to provide visibility, so that they might go, and Yahweh not taking away the cloud by day (+ ‫ הלך לפני*ם‬+ ‫יהוה‬ ‫ ענן יומם‬+ ‫ הלך‬+ ‫ אש‬+ ‫ ב‬+ ‫ לילה‬+ ‫ דרך‬+ ‫ לחנתכם‬/ ‫ לנחתם‬+ ‫ ענן‬+ ‫ ב‬+ ‫יומם‬: Exod 13:21– 22) was borrowed from Deut 1:32–33139 and conflated with the motifs of Yahweh appearing to Israel in a pillar of cloud (‫בעמוד ענן‬: Deut 31:15) and Yahweh leading Israel in the wilderness (‫ נחה‬+ ‫יהוה‬: Deut 32:12). The motif of Pharaoh pursuing after the Israelites, and Yahweh prevailing over the army of Egypt (+ ‫ רדף‬+ ‫פרעה‬ ‫ מצרים‬+ ‫ חיל‬+ ‫אחרי*ם‬: Exod 14:4) was borrowed from Deut 11:3–4. The subsequent, psychologically trapping (in terms of Israel’s apparent weakness and then military strength) idea of the heart of Pharaoh and his servants being changed because the Israelites had fled,140 so that he and the Egyptians regretted that they had let the Israelites go, and with many chariots pursued after the Israelites, who were going out with an upraised hand (Exod 14:5–9), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of great temptations, presumably to the Egyptians (Deut 7:19a). The particular motifs of Pharaoh’s chariots (‫רכבו‬: Exod 14:6) and of Pharaoh’s horses, chariots, and army (‫ חיל‬+ ‫ רכב‬+ ‫סוס‬: Exod 14:9) were borrowed from Deut 11:4 and conflated with the motif of the Egyptians pursuing after the Israelites to the sea with chariots and horsemen (‫וירדפו מצרים‬ ‫ פרשים‬+ ‫ רכב‬+ ‫ הים‬+ *‫אחרי‬: Josh 24:6).

138 Cf. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 489; H.-C. Schmitt, ‘Wie deuteronomistisch ist der nichtpriesterliche Meerwunderbericht von Exodus 13,17–14,31?,’ Bib 95 (2014) 26–48 (esp. 28); C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 92, 313. 139 Pace J. E. Harvey, Retelling, 11; G. Braulik, ‘Gott kämpft für Israel: Zur Intertextualität der Deuteronomistischen Landeroberungserzählung mit Exodus 1–14,’ BZ, nf 55 (2011) 209–223 (esp. 216), who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 140 Cf. J. L. Ska, Passage, 53–55.

88

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites lifting their eyes (*‫עיני‬: Exod 14:10), being despaired, but seeing (‫ )ראה‬the salvation of Yahweh, so that although they saw (‫ )ראה‬the Egyptians, they would not see (‫ )ראה‬them again forever (Exod 14:13),141 for (b) Yahweh would fight for them (Exod 14:10–14), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the things which Israel’s eyes saw, (b) signs and wonders (Deut 7:19a). The particular motif of the Israelites at the Sea of Reeds crying out to Yahweh (‫ אל־יהוה‬+ ‫ויצעקו‬: Exod 14:10) was borrowed from Josh 24:7. The motif of charging Yahweh or Moses that he brought the Israelites out of Egypt to let them die in the wilderness (*‫ הוציא‬+ ‫ במדבר‬+ ‫ מות‬+ ‫ל‬: Exod 14:11) was borrowed from Deut 9:28. The motif of seeing the salvation of God (‫ את ישועת‬+ ‫וראו‬: Exod 14:13) was borrowed from Isa 52:10. The motif of the Israelites not seeing the Egyptians again forever (‫ עוד‬+ *‫ לראת‬+ *‫ לא תסיפ‬+ ‫מצרים‬: Exod 14:13) was borrowed from Deut 28:68. The motif of Moses promising the Israelites that Yahweh would fight for them (‫ ילחם לכם‬+ ‫יהוה‬: Exod 14:14) was borrowed from Deut 1:30.142 The subsequent idea of (a) Moses lifting up his staff (‫ )מטה‬and stretching out (‫ )נטה‬his hand (‫יד‬: Exod 14:16), so that (b) the Israelites might go through the midst of the sea, and (c) Yahweh hardening the hearts of the Egyptians and gaining glory over them (Exod 14:15–18) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the mighty hand and the outstretched arm, by which (b) Yahweh brought Israel out, and (c) Yahweh God so doing to all the peoples of whom the Israelites were afraid (Deut 7:19a–d). The particular motif of Yahweh’s agent stretching out his hand against the enemies (‫ יד‬+ ‫נטה‬: Exod 14:16) was borrowed from Josh 8:19.26 and conflated with the motif of Yahweh lifting up his staff over the sea (‫ על־הים‬+ ‫מטה‬: Isa 10:26). The motif of the sons of Israel going through the midst of a body of water on dry ground (‫ ביבשה‬+ ‫ ישראל‬+ *‫בני‬: Exod 14:16) was borrowed from Josh 4:22.143 The subsequent idea of the messenger sent by God (‫ ;אלהים‬diff. Exod 3:2: Yahweh) going behind the Israelites, and the cloud becoming darkness to the Egyptians and forbidding them from approaching all night (Exod 14:19–20) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of 141 Cf. N. L. DeLapp, Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch: Visions of YHWH (LHBOTS 660; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2018), 51. 142 Pace G. Braulik, ‘Gott kämpft,’ 213–215; H.-C. Schmitt, ‘Wie deuteronomistisch,’ 47 n. 90, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 143 Pace J. L. Ska, Passage, 170 n. 35; A. Wénin, ‘Josué 1–12 comme récit,’ in E. Noort (ed.), The Book of Joshua (BETL 250; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, MA 2012), 109–135 (esp. 125), who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing.

Exod 13:17–14:31 (cf. Deut 7:16–21)

89

Yahweh God sending dejection against Israel’s enemies (Deut 7:20a). The particular motif of the angel of God (‫מלאך האלהים‬: Exod 14:19) was borrowed from Judg 6:20; 13:6.9 (cf. Gen 31:11). The subsequent idea of the Egyptian army being destroyed (Exod 14:20–28c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel’s enemies perishing (Deut 7:20b). The particular motif of a body of water becoming dry land, and the waters being divided (‫ המים‬+ ‫חרבה‬: Exod 14:21) was borrowed from Josh 3:16–17 (cf. 4:18)144 and conflated with the motif of drying up the sea (‫ ים‬+ *‫חרב‬: Isa 51:10), so that the relatively plausible image of a heap of the water of the Jordan on one side of the Israelites (Josh 3:16) was reworked into a much more implausible image of a wall of the water of the sea on both sides of the Israelites (Exod 14:22).145 Likewise, the motif of the waters returning (‫ מים‬+ ‫וישבו‬: Exod 14:26) was borrowed from Josh 4:18.146 The motif of Yahweh bringing into confusion the non-Israelite enemy chariots and camp (‫ מחנה‬+ ‫ את‬+ ‫ ויהם‬+ ‫רכב‬: Exod 14:23– 24) was borrowed from Judg 4:15.147 The subsequent idea of none of the Egyptians remaining (*‫נשאר‬: Exod 14:28d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of those enemies who remained also perishing (Deut 7:20c). The particular motif of not one of the enemies remaining (‫ עד־אחד‬+ ‫לא נשאר‬: Exod 14:28) was borrowed from Judg 4:16 (cf. the earlier use of Judg 4:15 in Exod 14:23–24).148 The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Exod 14:22)149 idea of the waters being a wall for the Israelites on both sides of them (Exod 14:29) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the enemies who hid themselves from Israel also perishing (Deut 7:20d). The subsequent idea of Yahweh saving Israel from the Egyptians, and the Israelites seeing the Egyptians dead on the shore of the sea (Exod 14:30) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel not having dread of their enemies (Deut 7:21a).

1 44 Pace J. L. Ska, Passage, 170 n. 35, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 145 Pace J. J. Krause, Exodus, 269 n. 310, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing because in the hymnic tradition the passage through the Jordan never appears alone (apart from Mic 6:5). However, the traditional prominence of the motif of a passage through the sea does not imply that the text of Exod 14 is earlier than that of Josh 3. 146 Pace A. Wénin, ‘Josué 1–12,’ 125, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 147 Cf. B. Herzberg, ‘Deborah and Moses,’ JSOT 38.1 (2013) 15–33 (esp. 23–24), merely noticing the parallelism between Deborah and Moses. 148 Cf. ibid., merely noticing the parallelism between Deborah and Moses. 149 Cf. J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 328; R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 1, 246.

90

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

The subsequent idea of (a) Israel seeing the hand, (b) a great (‫ )גדל‬hand with which Yahweh acted in Egypt, and (c) the people fearing (‫ )ירא‬Yahweh and believing in Yahweh and in Moses (Exod 14:31)150 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God being in the midst of Israel (b) as God who is great and (c) feared (Deut 7:21b).

1.14.  Exod 15:1–21 (cf. Deut 7:21b–26) The section Exod 15:1–21 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 7:21b–26. The idea of Moses and the Israelites praising Yahweh for violently destroying Israel’s enemies and being fearsome (‫נורא‬: Exod 15:1–12; esp. 15:11), an idea which thematically continues the preceding thought of the Israelites fearing Yahweh and believing in him (Exod 14:31), conceptually and linguistically continues the illustration of the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh being fearsome (Deut 7:21b). The particular motif of Moses and the Israelites singing a religious song (‫את־‬ ‫השירה הזאת‬: Exod 15:1) was borrowed from the Deuteronomic song of Moses (Deut 31:19.22). The motif of opening the victory song with the words, ‘I will sing to Yahweh’ (‫ ליהוה‬+ ‫אשירה‬: Exod 15:1) was borrowed from the victory song of Deborah (Judg 5:3). The motif of Yah being the Israelite’s refuge and strength, as well as his salvation and his God (‫ אל‬+ ‫ ישועה‬+ ‫עזי וזמרת יה‬: Exod 15:2) was borrowed from an Isaianic hymn (Isa 12:2).151 Likewise, the motif of praising the Israelite’s God (*‫ ארממ‬+ ‫אלהי‬: Exod 15:2) was borrowed from an Isaianic hymn (Isa 25:1). Similarly, the motif of Yahweh being a man of war (‫ איש‬+ ‫יהוה‬ ‫ מלחמה‬+ : Exod 15:3) was borrowed from an Isaianic song (Isa 42:13).152 The motif of covering the enemy with deep water, and his going down (+ ‫ כסה‬+ ‫תהום‬ ‫ירד‬: Exod 15:5) was borrowed from an oracle against Pharaoh (Ezek 31:15). The motif of waters standing like a heap (‫ נד‬+ ‫מים‬: Exod 15:8) was borrowed from

1 50 Cf. N. L. DeLapp, Theophanic, 52. 151 Cf. B. Gosse, ‘L’usage du terme yšw’h dans les livres de Samuel, en Genèse – 2 Rois et en 1–2 Chroniques,’ RB 117 (2010) 210–222 (esp. 212). Pace W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 511; I. D. Wilson, ‘The Song of the Sea and Isaiah: Exodus 15 in Post-monarchic Prophetic Discourse,’ in E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin (eds.), Thinking of Water in the Early Second Temple Period (BZAW 461; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2014), 123–147 (esp. 138), who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 152 Cf. K. Schmid, Genesis, 221–222.

Exod 15:1–21 (cf. Deut 7:21b–26)

91

Josh 3:13.16.153 The motif of Yahweh stretching out his hand and making the earth swallow the enemies (‫ ארץ‬+ *‫ תבלעמ‬+ ‫נטה‬: Exod 15:12) was borrowed from Deut 11:2.6. The archaizing or poetic154 motif of preterite expressed by prefixed conjugations (Exod 15:5–7.12.14–17)155 was borrowed from the most likely postexilic156 Song of Deborah (Judg 5:26.29). The subsequent idea of Yahweh in his strength leading the Israelite people to his holy habitation in Canaan (Exod 15:13) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God gradually driving away the Canaanite nations from before Israel (Deut 7:22). The particular, formulated in a poetic way, motif of this people (‫עם־זו‬: Exod 15:13.16) was borrowed from Isa 43:21 (cf. 42:24). The subsequent idea of (a) the Canaanite peoples hearing, presumably that Yahweh gave Canaan to Israel (cf. Exod 15:13; Josh 2:9–10), and therefore (b) trembling, being seized with fear, being horrified, and being despaired, as well as terror and dread falling upon them, (c) until (‫ )עד‬Yahweh’s people pass over to Yahweh’s possession in Canaan (Exod 15:14–17) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God giving the Canaanite nations before Israel and (b) dismaying them with great dismay, (c) until they are destroyed (Deut 7:23). The particular motif of all the inhabitants of Canaan hearing, being despaired before Israel, and terror falling upon the Canaanites (+ ‫ נפל‬+ ‫ נמגו כל ישבי‬+ ‫שמע‬ *‫ אימת‬+ *‫עלי‬: Exod 15:14–16) was borrowed from Josh 2:9–10157 (cf. 2:24)158 and

153 Cf. J. Lemański, ‘W poszukiwaniu najstarszej literackiej wersji “cudu nad morzem” (Wj 13,17–15,21),’ BibAn 6 (2016) 5–44 (esp. 18). Pace J. L. Ska, Passage, 170 n. 35, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 154 Cf. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 506–507; H. Utzschneider and W. Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 339–340. 155 See T. Notarius, The Verb in Archaic Biblical Poetry: A Discursive, Typological, and Historical Investigation of the Tense System (SSLL 68; Brill: Leiden 2013), 118–121. 156 S. Frolov, ‘How Old Is the Song of Deborah?,’ JSOT 36.2 (2011) 163–184 (esp. 183) dates the Song of Deborah to c.700–450 bc, but in fact this Song, like the rest of the book of Judges, is most likely post-exilic. 157 Pace A. Wénin, ‘Josué 1–12,’ 126; R. Albertz, ‘Kompositionelle,’ 464, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 158 Cf. A. Klein, ‘Hymn and History in Ex 15: Observations on the Relationship between Temple Theology and Exodus Narrative in the Song of the Sea,’ ZAW 124 (2012) 516–527 (esp. 526).

92

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

conflated with the thematically related motif of pagan nations trembling and fearing, as well as dread falling on them (‫ פחד‬+ ‫ חיל‬+ * ‫רגזו‬: Deut 2:25).159 The motif of the tribal chiefs of Edom (‫אלופי אדום‬: Exod 15:15) also occurs in Gen 36:43 etc. The motif of Israel being the people whom Yahweh acquired/created (‫ קנה‬+ ‫עם‬: Exod 15:16) was borrowed from Deut 32:6. The subsequent motif of Yahweh being king (‫מלך‬: Exod 15:18) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh giving the Canaanite kings into the hand of Israel (Deut 7:24a). The subsequent idea of Yahweh bringing back the waters of the sea upon Pharaoh’s warriors (Exod 15:19) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel exterminating the Canaanites’ names from under heaven and destroying all of them (Deut 7:24b–d). The author of Exodus–Numbers reworked the militant Deuteronomic idea of exterminating the Canaanites (Deut 7:24b–d; cf. Judg 4:15–16 used in Exod 14:23–24.28) into the more irenic one of Pharaoh’s warriors being guilty of coming into the sea, and Yahweh merely bringing back the waters of the sea upon them, with no active participation on the part of the Israelites (Exod 15:19).160 Therefore, according to Exod 15:19 the pagans were destroyed not by the Israelites but in consequence of their own stubbornness, by a natural disaster. The subsequent idea of (a) Miriam, surprisingly, the prophetess,161 (b) the presumably feminine sister of Aaron, (c) taking a free-style tambourine, and (d) all the Israelite women going out, presumably of their homes, with tambourines and dances (Exod 15:20) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic, emotions-laden idea of (a) the Israelites burning the objects of pagan worship, (b) the Israelite not desiring the silver or gold which is on them, (c) lest he be ensnared by it, and (d) the Israelite not bringing an abhorrent thing into his house (Deut 7:25–26b). The particular motif of Miriam being related to Aaron (‫ אהרן‬+ ‫מרים‬: Exod 15:20) was borrowed from Mic 6:4.162 The motif of women going out with tambourines and dances (‫ בתפים ובמחלת‬+ ‫יצא‬: Exod 15:20) was borrowed from Judg 11:34 (cf. 21:21; Jer 31:4). 159 Cf. ibid. Pace J.  E. Harvey, Retelling, 20, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 160 Cf. H. Utzschneider and W. Oswald, Exodus 1–15, 292–293; P. Y. Yoo, ‘Armed,’ 44. 161 Cf. C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 356–357. 162 Pace J. Wöhrle, ‘Jacob, Moses, Levi: Pentateuchal Figures in the Book of the Twelve,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (FAT 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 997–1014 (esp. 1007), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

Exod 15:22–16:36 (cf. Deut 8:1–14)

93

The concluding idea of (a) Miriam exhorting the Israelites to sing, presumably emotionally, to Yahweh, (b) for (‫ )כי‬he threw the Egyptian horse and rider into the sea (Exod 15:21), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel emotionally detesting and abhorring pagan worship, (b) for this is dedicated for destruction by a ban (Deut 7:26c–e).

1.15.  Exod 15:22–16:36 (cf. Deut 8:1–14) The section Exod 15:22–16:36 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 8:1–14. The opening idea of (a) Moses bringing Israel (b) from the Sea of Reeds (Exod 15:22a) sequentially illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses ordering Israel to observe diligently every commandment which he commands, so that (b) they might live in the land (Deut 8:1). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites going out to the wilderness of Shur, and (b) going (‫( )הלך‬c) three days (d) in the wilderness (‫במדבר‬: Exod 15:22bc) with the use of the motif of the wilderness of Shur (‫ שור‬+ ‫)מדבר‬, presumably located between Egypt and Canaan (cf. Gen 16:7; 20:1; 25:18),163 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel remembering all the way, presumably between Egypt and Canaan, which (b) Yahweh God made him go (c) forty years (d) in the wilderness (Deut 8:2ab). The subsequent idea of the Israelites after three days in the wilderness (cf. Exod 15:22c) finding no water, and then not being able to drink water of Marah because it was bitter (Exod 15:22d–24) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh afflicting Israel (Deut 8:2c). The particular motif of the Israelite people murmuring against an Israelite leader (‫ על‬+ ‫וילנו‬: Exod 15:24) was borrowed from Josh 9:18. The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted and formulated idea of Yahweh giving a statute and a judgement to Israel, testing (‫ )נסה‬him (Exod 15:25),164 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh testing Israel (Deut 8:2d).165 The particular motif of Yahweh 1 63 Cf. T. D. Alexander, Exodus, 312. 164 Cf. R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 1, 262; B. T. German, ‘Moses at Marah,’ VT 63 (2013) 47–58 (esp. 47); C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 380. 165 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘From the Sea to the Mountain: Exodus 15,22–19,2: A Case-Study in Editorial Techniques,’ in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies, 245–263 (esp. 251–253).

94

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

making bitter water (‫ )המים‬into sweet water (‫)המים‬, which was related to a tree (‫עץ‬: Exod 15:25), was borrowed from Ezek 47:7–12. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh wondering whether Israel would listen to his voice and do what is right in his eyes, heeding (b) his commandments (‫)מצותיו‬ and keeping (‫ )שמר‬all his statutes, thus symbolically receiving healing and life in abundance (Exod 15:26–27),166 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh wanting to know what is in Israel’s heart, whether (b) Israel would keep his commandments or not (Deut 8:2e–g). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 15:24) idea of the Israelites setting out from the lush oasis of Elim (cf. Exod 15:27) and coming to the barren wilderness of Sin, in which they murmured against Moses and Aaron (Exod 16:1–2),167 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh afflicting Israel (Deut 8:3a). The particular motif of Sin (‫סין‬: Exod 16:1) could have been borrowed from Ezek 30:15–16 or formed as a variant of the name of Sinai (‫סיני‬: Exod 16:1).168 The motif of Sinai (‫סיני‬: Exod 16:1) was borrowed from Deut 33:2; Judg 5:5. The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Exod 14:11–12)169 idea of the Israelites complaining that Yahweh wanted to kill them with hunger (‫רעב‬: Exod 16:3; diff. 14:11–12) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh subjecting Israel to hunger (Deut 8:3b). The subsequent idea of Yahweh promising that he would give to the Israelites something to eat (‫אכל‬: Exod 16:4–12; esp. 16:8.12) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh giving to Israel something to eat (Deut 8:3c).170 The particular motif of the Israelites walking in Yahweh’s instruction (‫ בתורתי‬+ ‫הלך‬: Exod 16:4) was borrowed from Jer 26:4 etc. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh giving the Israelites quails and a fine crackling substance, as fine as frost, so that the Israelites spoke to each other concerning what/manna (‫ )מן‬it is,171 (b) for they did not know (‫ )לא ידעו‬what it was, and (c) Moses said that (d) this is the bread (‫ )הלחם‬which (e) Yahweh (‫)יהוה‬ gave them to eat (Exod 16:13–15; esp. 13:15) conceptually and linguistically, in 166 Cf. C. Kupfer, Mit Israel auf dem Weg durch die Wüste: Eine leserorientierte Exegese der Rebellionstexte in Exodus 15:22–17:7 und Numeri 11:1–20:13 (OtSt 61; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2012), 53–54. 167 Cf. U. Cassuto, Exodus, 189; T. B. Dozeman, Exodus, 381; J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 356. 168 Cf. J. I. Durham, Exodus, 216; J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 356; R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 1, 268. 169 Cf. J. I. Durham, Exodus, 219; J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 356; R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 1, 269. 170 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘From the Sea,’ 253–254. 171 Cf. U. Cassuto, Exodus, 196; C. Houtman, Exodus, vol. 2, 339.

Exod 15:22–16:36 (cf. Deut 8:1–14)

95

a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh feeding Israel with manna, (b) which they did not know and their fathers did not know, (c) so that they might know that (d) man does not live by the bread alone, but (e) man lives by everything that comes from the mouth of Yahweh (Deut 8:3c–i).172 The subsequent thought that (a) this (‫ )זה‬is (b) the word (Exod 16:16a), presumably of Yahweh’s instruction for the Israelites (cf. Exod 16:16cd), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic thoughts that (a) the Israelites were protected by Yahweh these (‫ )זה‬forty years and that (b) Yahweh instructs Israel (Deut 8:4–5). The subsequent idea of the thing which Yahweh commanded (‫צוה‬: Exod 16:16b) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the commandments (‫ )מצוה‬of Yahweh God (Deut 8:6). The subsequent idea of the Israelites gathering of it, presumably of the manna on the land (‫ארץ‬: cf. Exod 16:14–15), as much as one needed to eat (Exod 16:16cd) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God bringing Israel to a good and fertile land (Deut 8:7). The subsequent idea of the Israelites gathering an omer, so a measure of grain,173 for each person (Exod 16:16e–17) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the land providing wheat and barley (Deut 8:8). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites measuring food with an omer, so a measure of grain, and (b) the one gathering little not lacking anything (+ ‫לא‬ ‫חסר‬: Exod 16:18) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel eating bread without scarcity and (b) not lacking anything (Deut 8:9ab). The subsequent, partly repeated thought that (a) the Israelites left out of (‫)מן‬ it until morning (cf. Exod 12:10), and (b) it was decomposed into presumably red (cf. Exod 25:4 etc.: ‫ ;תולעה‬diff. 16:24) worms (Exod 16:19–20; diff. 12:10) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic thought that (a) out of its mountains (b) Israel can hew copper (Deut 8:9cd). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites gathering each morning according to what they needed to eat (‫אכל‬: Exod 16:21.25), (b) on the sixth day gathering twice as much bread, and (c) celebrating a holy Sabbath to Yahweh (Exod

1 72 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘From the Sea,’ 254. 173 Cf. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1–18, 596.

96

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

16:21–27)174 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel eating, (b) being satiated, and (c) blessing Yahweh (Deut 8:10). The particular motif of the Sabbath being on the seventh day (‫*יום השביעי שבת‬: Exod 16:26) was borrowed from Deut 5:20. The subsequent idea of Yahweh complaining that the Israelites refuse to keep his commandments and (*‫ )שמר מצותי* ו‬his instructions (Exod 16:28) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses telling Israel not to forget Yahweh God, to keep his commandments and his judgements and his statutes (Deut 8:11a–c). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses showing the Sabbath which Yahweh has given, (b) Yahweh giving bread for two days, (c) the Israelites being told to dwell (‫)ישב‬, every man not going out of his place, and the house (‫ ;בית‬diff. Exod 16:17 etc.: sons) of Israel calling it manna (Exod 16:29–31a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses commanding today, (b) Israel eating and being satiated, and (c) building good houses and dwelling in them (Deut 8:11d–12). The subsequent idea of (a) manna being white, and (b) its taste being like honey (Exod 16:31bc; diff. Num 11:7–8:  no colour, tasting like oil) with the use of the correspondence of colours sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel having much silver and (b) gold (Deut 8:13). The concluding idea of (a) Yahweh commanding the Israelites to keep an omer throughout their generations, so that they might see the bread with which he fed them in the wilderness, when (b) he brought them out of the land of Egypt (‫ מארץ מצרים‬+ ‫יצא‬: Exod 16:32), (c) until they came to the land of their dwelling (Exod 16:32–36), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel being called not to forget Yahweh God, (b) who brought him out of the land of Egypt, (c) out of the house of slavery (Deut 8:14). The particular motif of the place of the testimony (‫העדת‬: Exod 16:34) was borrowed from Josh 4:16. The motif of the Israelites eating manna for forty years (‫ ארבעים שנה‬+ ‫ את־המן‬+ ‫אכל‬: Exod 16:35) was borrowed from Deut 8:2–4.175 The motif of an ephah being one-tenth of another measure unit (‫ האיפה‬+ ‫עשרית‬: Exod 16:36) was borrowed from Ezek 45:11.

174 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Exodus, 385; J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 362; A. Grund, Die Entstehung des Sabbats: Seine Bedeutung für Israels Zeitkonzept und Erinnerungskultur (FAT 75; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 255. 175 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘From the Sea,’ 254.

Exod 17 (cf. Deut 8:15–9:3)

97

1.16. Exod 17 (cf. Deut 8:15–9:3) The section Exod 17 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 8:15–9:3. The opening idea of the Israelites setting out from the wilderness (‫ )מדבר‬of Sin, departing by stages, presumably through the wilderness, according to the command of Yahweh, and camping at Rephidim (Exod 17:1ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh leading Israel through the great and terrible wilderness, with fiery serpents and scorpions (Deut 8:15a). The subsequent idea of there being no water (‫ )אין מים‬for the people to drink, so that the people were thirsty (‫ )צמא‬and said that Moses wanted to kill them with thirst (‫צמא‬: Exod 17:1c–3), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a thirsty region (‫ )צמאון‬where there is no water (Deut 8:15b). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh standing on the rock (‫)צור‬, Moses striking the rock (‫)צור‬, and water (‫ )מים‬coming (‫ )יצא‬out of (‫ )מן‬it (b) in the sight of the elders of Israel (Exod 17:4–6; esp. 17:6) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh letting water come for Israel out of the flint rock (b) and feeding him with something that Israel’s fathers did not know (Deut 8:15c–16b).176 The subsequent idea of Moses calling the place Massah and Meribah, because (a) the Israelites quarrelled and (b) tested (*‫ )נסת‬Yahweh (Exod 17:7a–c), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh humbling Israel and (b) testing Israel (Deut 8:16cd). The particular motif of Massah as the place of the Israelites’ temptation and Meribah as the water-related place of the Israelites’ quarrel (‫ נסה‬+ ‫ ריב‬+ ‫ על‬+ ‫ מריבה‬+ ‫מסה‬: Exod 17:7; cf. 17:2) was borrowed from Deut 33:8177 (cf. 32:51) and conflated with the motif of the Israelites tempting Yahweh at Massah (‫ את־יהוה‬+ ‫ נסה‬+ ‫מסה‬: Deut 6:16;178 cf. 9:22).179 1 76 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 195; W. Johnstone, ‘From the Sea,’ 258. 177 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘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, and M. Witte (eds.), Abschied, 247–273 (esp. 261). 178 Cf. id., ‘From the Sea,’ 251, 258. Pace M. Mark, “Mein Angesicht geht” (Ex 33,14): Gottes Zusage personaler Führung (HeBS 66; Herder: Freiburg [et al.] 2011), 290, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 179 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Reading Exodus in Tetrateuch and Pentateuch,’ in T. B. Dozeman, C. A. Evans, and J. N. Lohr (eds.), Book of Exodus, 3–26 (esp. 15). Pace N. Lohfink,

98

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

The subsequent idea of the Israelites asking whether Yahweh is among them or not (Exod 17:7d–f) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh doing good to Israel only in the end (Deut 8:16e). The particular motif of Yahweh being among the Israelites (*‫ בקרב‬+ ‫יהוה‬: Exod 17:7e) was borrowed from Deut 6:15 (cf. the earlier use of Deut 6:16 in Exod 17:7a.c). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses speaking (‫ )אמר‬to Joshua about choosing men and fighting with Amalek, and (b) Moses standing on the top of the hill with the staff of God in his hand (‫ידי‬: Exod 17:8–9; esp. 17:9) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel speaking about his power and (b) the might of his hand (Deut 8:17a). The particular motif of Amalek attacking Israel on the way from Egypt (‫עמלק‬: Exod 17:8) was borrowed from Deut 25:17–18.180 The motif of Moses’ military assistant Joshua (‫ יהושע‬+ ‫משה‬: Exod 17:9) was borrowed from Deut 31:7 etc. The subsequent idea of (a) Joshua acting (‫ )עשה‬as Moses told him, (b) to fight with Amalek, while Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill (Exod 17:10), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel acting (b) to have this military power (Deut 8:17b). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses raising his hand, and therefore (b) Israel militarily prevailing (Exod 17:11a–c; cf. Josh 8:18)181 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel remembering Yahweh God, who gives power to Israel, (b) so that Israel might have military power, to confirm today Yahweh’s covenant with the ancestors (Deut 8:18). The subsequent, opposite idea of (a) Moses letting his hand rest, and therefore (b) Amalek prevailing over Israel (Exod 17:11de) sequentially illustrates the subsequent, opposite Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel forgetting Yahweh God, and therefore (b) perishing (Deut 8:19–20). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites taking a stone, (b) Moses sitting/ dwelling on it, and (c) Aaron and Hur holding his hands firmly up (cf. Exod 17:11), so in the direction of the sun until it went down (Exod 17:12), with the use of the motif of taking stones from the Jordan and placing them somewhere (‫ אבן‬+ ‫לקח‬: Josh 4:20) and the Israelite leader holding his hand up against an ‘Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11 und Exodus 32–34: Zu Endtextstruktur, Intertextualität, Schichtung und Abhängigkeiten,’ in M. Köckert and E. Blum (eds.), Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (VWGT 18; Chr. Kaiser: Gütersloh 2001), 41–87 (esp. 61), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 180 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 203. 181 Cf. ibid.; J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 375–376; C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 408.

Exod 18–31 (cf. Deut 9:4–11)

99

enemy city until it was destroyed (‫ עד‬+ ‫יד‬: Josh 8:26)182 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel crossing the Jordan, (b) taking possession of nations greater and mightier than him, (c) cities fortified up to heaven (Deut 9:1). The subsequent idea of Joshua defeating Amalek (‫ )עמלק‬and his people (‫עם‬: Exod 17:13; diff. 17:8–11.14.16: no remark concerning the people)183 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel dispossessing the great people of the sons of Anak (‫ענק‬: Deut 9:2). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses writing this as a memorial in a book and putting it into the ears of his successor Joshua that (b) Yahweh will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven, (c) Moses somewhat surprisingly (diff. Exod 24:4) building an altar to Yahweh, and (d) regarding Yahweh as his military standard (Exod 17:14–15) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel knowing today that (b) Yahweh goes over before Israel (c) as a consuming fire, that (d) he will exterminate Israel’s enemies (Deut 9:3a–c). The particular motif of blotting out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven (‫*מחה את־זכר עמלק מתחת השמים‬: Exod 17:14) was almost verbatim borrowed from Deut 25:19184 and adapted to the idea of Yahweh himself destroying Israel’s enemies (Deut 9:3b; cf. Exod 17:14d). The concluding, somewhat enigmatically formulated idea of (a) Moses having his hand (cf. Exod 17:11) on the throne of Yahweh, and (b) a war for/of Yahweh against Amalek being (c) from generations (Exod 17:16; diff. 3:15; Isa 34:10: to generations)185 sequentially illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh humbling Israel’s enemies before him, and (b) Israel dispossessing and destroying his enemies, (c) as Yahweh previously said to him (Deut 9:3d–g).

1.17. Exod 18–31 (cf. Deut 9:4–11) The section Exod 18–31 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 9:4–11. The opening idea of (a) Jethro hearing of (b) all that God (‫ ;אלהים‬diff. Exod 17:16: Yahweh) did for Israel, that Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬brought Israel out of Egypt 1 82 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 203; J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 375–376. 183 Cf. J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 376; C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 417. 184 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 203; W. Johnstone, ‘From the Sea,’ 259; S. Germany, ‘Die Bearbeitung des deuteronomischen Gesetzes im Lichte biblischer Erzählungen,’ ZAW 131 (2019) 43–57 (esp. 55). 185 Cf. J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 378.

100

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

(Exod 18:1),186 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) not saying in the heart when (b) Yahweh God thrusts away Israel’s enemies (Deut 9:4ab). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses blameably dismissing his wife and sons, although he received them as signs of help for him (cf. Exod 2:21–22), (b) Jethro coming (‫בוא‬: Exod 18:5–7) to him, (c) Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: Exod 18:8) acting for Israel on the way, (d) Jethro blessing Yahweh for punishing the insolent Egyptians,187 and (e) Jethro worshipping and eating with all the elders of Israel before (‫*פני‬: Exod 18:12) God (Exod 18:2–12) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel not saying that because of his righteousness (b) he came, (c) thanks to Yahweh, to inherit this land, and (d) because of the wickedness of the pagan nations Yahweh driving them out (e) before Israel (Deut 9:4c–f). The particular motif of seeing what Yahweh did to Pharaoh and to Egypt (+ *‫ ול‬+ ‫ לפרעה‬+ ‫ אשר עשה יהוה‬+ ‫את‬ ‫מצרים‬: Exod 18:8) was borrowed from Deut 7:18; 29:1 (cf. 34:11).188 The subsequent idea of (a) Moses overestimating his judging activity, so Jethro saying that it is not (‫לא‬: Exod 18:17) good to judge people alone, and (b) the Israelite people coming to their place (c) in peace (Exod 18:13–23) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) not Israel’s righteousness or the uprightness of his heart (b) causing him to inherit the land, but (c) Yahweh fulfilling the word which he swore to the fathers (Deut 9:5). The particular motif of Moses not being able to carry the people alone (*‫ לבד‬+ ‫לא־*וכל‬: Exod 18:18) was borrowed from Deut 1:9. The motif of an Israelite leader warning the people concerning the way which they should go (‫ דרך‬+ ‫והזהרת* את*ם‬: Exod 18:20) was borrowed from Ezek 3:17–19 etc. The motif of Moses choosing upright men and setting them over the Israelites as captains of

186 The characterization of Jethro as a priest of Midian (Exod 18:1a) presents him as being capable of knowing God (Exod 18:1b), and the reference to Jethro as the father-in-law of Moses (Exod 18:1a) presents him as being capable of knowing Yahweh (Exod 18:1c). Cf. C. Dohmen, Exodus 1–18, 421. 187 Cf. J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 385; R. Achenbach, ‘How to Speak about GOD with NonIsraelites: Some Observations about the Use of Names for God by Israelites and Pagans in the Pentateuch,’ in F. Giuntoli and K. Schmid (eds.), The Post-Priestly Pentateuch: New Perspectives on Its Redactional Development and Theological Profiles (FAT 101; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2015), 35–51 (esp. 47); T. D. Alexander, Exodus, 344. 188 Cf. J. Jeon, ‘The Visit of Jethro (Exodus 18): Its Composition and Levitical Reworking,’ JBL 136 (2017) 289–306 (esp. 293).

Exod 18–31 (cf. Deut 9:4–11)

101

thousands, captains of hundreds, captains of fifties, and captains of tens, to judge the people at all time (+ ‫ על*ם שרי אלפים *שרי מאות *שרי חמשים ושרי עשרת‬+ ‫אנשים‬ ‫ שפט‬+ ‫עת‬: Exod 18:21–22), was borrowed from Deut 1:15–16.189 Likewise, the following motif of every matter which is great being brought to Moses (+ ‫הדבר‬ *‫אלי‬: Exod 18:22; cf. 18:26)190 was borrowed from the following text Deut 1:17. Similarly the motif of the judges carrying the people with Moses (‫נשא‬: Exod 18:22) was borrowed from Deut 1:12–13. The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 18:19.21–22) idea of (a) Moses not judging alone, (b) the judges judging the people (‫עם‬: Exod 18:26), and (c) hard (‫קשה‬: Exod 18:26; cf. Deut 1:17;191 diff. Exod 18:22: ‫ )גדל‬cases being brought to Moses (Exod 18:24–27) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent, likewise partly repeated Deuteronomic idea of (a) not Israel’s righteousness causing Yahweh to give him the land, (b) for he is a people with (c) a hard neck (Deut 9:6). The particular motif of Moses taking men from all Israel and making them heads over the people, captains of thousands, captains of hundreds, captains of fifties, and captains of tens (‫ ו*תן אתם ראשים‬+ *‫אנשי‬ ‫על* שרי אלפים *שרי מאות *שרי חמשים ושרי עשרת‬: Exod 18:25), was borrowed from Deut 1:15.192 The subsequent thought that (a) on the third month after the Israelites’ going out (‫ )יצא‬of the land of Egypt (‫)מארץ מצרים‬, on the same day (‫ )יום‬of their going out, (b) the Israelites came (‫ )בוא‬to the wilderness of Sinai (Exod 19:1–2b) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the day of Israel’s going out of the land of Egypt until (b) his coming to this place, that is, to Horeb (Deut 9:7). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of (a) the Israelites camping in (‫ )ב‬the wilderness, (b) militarily camping opposite (cf. Josh 8:11: *‫ויחנ‬ ‫ נגד‬+ ) the mountain (Exod 19:2cd)193 conceptually and linguistically, in a

189 Cf. C.  Berner, Exoduserzählung, 428; S.  C.  Russell, ‘The Structure of Legal Administration in the Moses Story,’ in T. E. Levy, T. Schneider, and W. H. C. Propp (eds.), Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience (QMHSS; Springer: Chum [et al.] 2015), 317–329 (esp. 323–324). Pace J. E. Harvey, Retelling, 15, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 190 Cf. S. C. Russell, ‘Structure,’ 323–324. 191 Cf. R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 1, 313 n. 20. 192 Cf. ibid. 193 Cf. W.  H.  C.  Propp, Exodus 19–40:  A  New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2A; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 2006), 155.

102

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites in Horeb (b) rousing Yahweh to anger, so that he wanted to destroy them (Deut 9:8). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses going up (‫ )עלה‬to God, and (b) Yahweh calling to him from the mountain (‫ההר‬: Exod 19:3a–c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses going up (b) to the mountain (Deut 9:9a). The elaborate account of Yahweh through Moses making a covenant with the Israelites on the mountain (‫)ההר‬, that is, on Mount Sinai (‫הר‬: Exod 19:3d– 24:11; esp. 19:11–14.16–18.20.23; 20:18; 24:4) illustrates the retrospectively used Deuteronomic idea of the covenant which Yahweh made with the Israelites (cf. Deut 9:9bc), presumably on the mountain (Deut 9:9a).194 In particular, the motif of all the words which Yahweh spoke (‫כל־הדברים אשר־‬ ‫דבר יהוה‬: Exod 24:3; cf. 19:6–7; 20:1) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the retrospectively used Deuteronomic idea of all the words which Yahweh spoke (Deut 9:10). The motif of the covenant which Yahweh made with the Israelites (‫הברית אשר כרת יהוה עמכם‬: Exod 24:8) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the covenant which Yahweh made with the Israelites (Deut 9:9c). Besides, the section Exod 19:3d–24:11 contains much material concerning making a covenant and promulgating a law code, material which was partly borrowed from various sources, including Deuteronomy195 (e.g. Exod 20:2–17 cf. Deut 5:6–21)196 and Mesopotamian law codes (e.g. the goring ox 194 In fact, the sections Exod 19:3d–24:11; 25:1–31:17, which illustrate the Deuteronomic idea of the first covenant, presumably containing cultic instructions (cf. Deut 9:9), thematically prepare the following sections Exod 32–34; 35–40, which present the renewed covenant with its cultic instructions (cf. Deut 9:12–12:12). For such an interpretation of the function of the sections Exod 19:3d–24:11; 25:1–31:17, see D. Markl, ‘Zur literarischen und theologischen Funktion der Heiligtumstexte im Buch Exodus,’ in M. Hopf, W. Oswald, and S. Seiler (eds.), Heiliger Raum: Exegese und Rezeption der Heiligtumstexte in Ex 24–40 (ThA 8; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2016), 57–87 (esp. 59–60). 195 Cf. J.  Van Seters, ‘Cultic Laws in the Covenant Code and their Relationship to Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code,’ in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies, 319–345; id., A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code (Oxford University:  Oxford · New  York 2003), 45–175; id., ‘Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code and a Response to My Critics,’ SJOT 21 (2007) 5–28. 196 Cf. F.-L. Hossfeld, Der Dekalog: Seine späten Fassungen, die originale Komposition und seine Vorstufen (OBO 45; Universitätsverlag:  Freiburg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1982), 161–162, 284; F. Crüsemann, Die Tora: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes (Chr. Kaiser: München 1992), 408–412;

Exod 18–31 (cf. Deut 9:4–11)

103

law).197 Therefore, this material may seem traditionally old, older than its counterpart in the rhetorically ‘new’ covenant in the land of Moab (cf. Deut 28:69). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 19:20) but narratively gradually prepared (Exod 24:1–2.9–11) idea of Moses going up (‫ )עלה‬to the mountain (‫)ההרה‬,198 and (a) Yahweh giving him the tablets of stone (*‫ )לחת האבנ‬as well as (b) the law and the commandments which he wrote to instruct the Israelites (Exod 24:12) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses going up to the mountain (cf. Deut 9:9a) and (a) receiving the tablets of stone, (b) the tablets of the covenant which Yahweh made with the Israelites (Deut 9:9bc).199 The subsequent idea of (a) the elders of Israel remaining (‫ )ישב‬at some distance (Exod 24:14; cf. 24:1.9),200 and at the same time Moses being (b) on the mountain forty days and forty nights (‫בהר ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה‬: Exod

J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 270–286; C. Dohmen, ‘Decalogue,’ in T. B. Dozeman, C. A. Evans, and J. N. Lohr (eds.), Book of Exodus, 193–219 (esp. 218). 197 Cf. R. Rothenbusch, Die kasuistische Rechtssammlung im ‘Bundesbuch’ (Ex 21,2–11.18– 22,16) und ihr literarischer Kontext im Licht altorientalischer Parallelen (AOAT 259; Ugarit: Münster 2000); D. P. Wright, Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (Oxford University: New York 2009); E. Otto, ‘Das Bundesbuch und das “Kodex” Hammurapi: Das biblische Recht zwischen positiver und subversiver Rezeption von Keilschriftrecht,’ ZABR 16 (2010) 1–26 (esp. 10–23). 198 Cf. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 19–40, 298. 199 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 252; R. Rothenbusch, ‘Zur Ausgestaltung der Sinaiperikope durch die Priesterliche Gebotsmitteilung,’ in E.  Gaß and H.-J.  Stipp (eds.), “Ich werde meinen Bund mit euch niemals brechen” (Ri 2,1), Festschrift W. Groß (HeBS 62; Herder: Freiburg [et al.] 2011), 3–28 (esp. 22). Pace Y. H. Chung, The Sin of the Calf: The Rise of the Bible’s Negative Attitude Toward the Golden Calf (LHBOTS 523; T&T Clark: New York · London 2010), 80–81, who suggests the reverse direction of literary dependence. 200 It should be noted that the account Exod 24, having set the basic paradigm by quoting the instructions of Yahweh (Exod 24:1–2.12), conveys the idea of graduality in going up and approaching Yahweh: 1. the people (Exod 24:3–8); 2. Aaron (with Hur), Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel (Exod 24:9–11.14); 3. Joshua (Exod 24:13.15–17; cf. 32:17); and 4. Moses (Exod 24:18). Pace R. E. Averbeck, ‘Reading the Torah in a Better Way: Unity and Diversity in Text, Genre, and Compositional History,’ in M. Armgardt, B. Kilchör, and M. Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm Change in Pentateuchal Research (BZABR 22; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2019), 21–43 (esp. 24–25), who sees in Exod 24 only two grades of access to Yahweh: 1. the people with the selected leaders at the foot of the mountain; and 2. Moses with Joshua on the top of the mountain.

104

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

24:13–18; esp. 24:18) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses remaining (b) on the mountain forty days and forty nights (Deut 9:9d). In particular, the motif of the glory of Yahweh settling on Mount (‫ )הר‬Sinai, Yahweh calling to Moses from the midst (‫ )מתוך‬of the cloud, and the glory being like a consuming fire (‫אש‬: Exod 24:16–17; cf. 19:18) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the retrospectively used Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh speaking on the mountain from the midst of the fire (Deut 9:10). The motif of Joshua being Moses’ servant (*‫ משרת‬+ ‫ יהושע‬+ ‫משה‬: Exod 24:13) was borrowed from Josh 1:1.201 The motif of the appearance of the glory of Yahweh (‫ כבוד‬+ ‫מראה‬ ‫יהוה‬: Exod 24:17) was borrowed from Ezek 1:28. The subsequent, elaborate instructions concerning Moses and the Israelites making generous offerings for the sanctuary of Yahweh (esp. Exod 25:2–8; 27:20; 29:27–28; 30:13–16), including giving bread (‫ )לחם‬on the table before Yahweh (Exod 25:1–31:17; esp. 25:30; 29:23–25), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses on the mountain neither eating bread nor drinking water (Deut 9:9ef). Besides, the section Exod 25:1–31:17 contains much material concerning the sanctuary and the cult, which was partly borrowed from various sources, including Deuteronomy (cf. e.g. Exod 25:10 and Deut 10:3). The motif of the making of cultic objects for the worship of Yahweh by Bezalel of the tribe of Judah and to a lesser degree by Oholiab of the tribe of Dan (Exod 31:2.6; cf. 35:30–36:2; 37:1; 38:22–23) presents them as filled by Yahweh with divine wisdom, in order that they might engage in the construction of the unique, pan-Israelite sanctuary of Yahweh.202 The identification of these artisans as originating from the tribes of Judah and Dan alludes to these two tribes as located at the opposite ends of the land of Canaan,203 but also having their own, separatist (from the perspective of Shechem) sanctuaries, in Jerusalem and Dan respectively. Accordingly, with the use of the figure of synecdoche (pars pro toto), this motif rhetorically presents the tribes of Judah and Dan as called to abandon their separatist worship and contribute to the construction of the unique legitimate 2 01 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 252. 202 Cf. J.  Rhyder, ‘Unity and Hierarchy:  North and South in the Priestly Traditions,’ in B. Hensel, D. Nocquet, and B. Adamczewski (eds.), Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity from Judah, Samaria, and the Diaspora in Biblical Traditions (FAT 2.120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2020), 109–134 (esp. 115–119). 203 Cf. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 19–40, 487; J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 595; R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 2, Ex 19–40 (ZBK.AT 2.1; Theologischer: Zürich 2015), 253.

Exod 32–33 (cf. Deut 9:12–29)

105

sanctuary of Yahweh, presumably located in central Canaan, in the region of Shechem. This rhetoric implies that Exodus–Numbers is an Israelite work, and not a Judaean one. The concluding idea of (a) Yahweh giving (‫( )ויתן‬b) to (‫ )אל‬Moses (c) two tablets (‫ )שני לחת‬of the testimony, tablets of stone (‫ אבן‬+ ‫)לחת‬, (d) written with the finger of God (‫כתבים באצבע אלהים‬: Exod 31:18), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding, repetitiously formulated Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh giving (b) to Moses (c) the two tablets of stone, (d) written with the finger of God, and (a’) Yahweh giving (b’) to Moses (c’) the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant (Deut 9:10–11).204

1.18.  Exod 32–33 (cf. Deut 9:12–29) The section Exod 32–33 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 9:12–29. The opening idea of the Israelites making themselves a moulded calf (Exod 32:1–6), so that (a) Yahweh said to (‫ )וי* יהוה אל‬Moses that he should (b) go down (‫( )רד‬c) because his people acted corruptly, a people whom he had brought (‫כי‬ ‫( )שחת עמך אשר ה*ת‬d) out of (‫ )מן‬the land of (e) Egypt, they quickly turned aside from the way which Yahweh commanded them, they made themselves (‫מצרים‬ ‫( )סרו מהר מן־הדרך אשר צויתם עשו להם‬f) a moulded (‫ )מסכה‬calf (Exod 32:1–8; esp. 32:7–8), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh saying to Moses that he should (b) go down quickly from here (c) because his people acted corruptly, a people whom he had brought (d) out of (e) Egypt, they quickly turned aside from the way which Yahweh commanded them, they made themselves (f) a moulded idol (Deut 9:12).205 The particular motif of making not just any moulded idol (Deut 9:12; cf. 27:15) but a moulded calf (‫עגל מסכה‬: Exod 32:4.8) was borrowed from the thematically

204 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 252; R. Achenbach, ‘Grundlinien redaktioneller Arbeit in der Sinai-Perikope,’ in E.  Otto and R.  Achenbach (eds.), Deuteronomium, 56–80 (esp. 66, 68). 205 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 258; M. Konkel, Sünde und Vergebung: Eine Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte der hinteren Sinaiperikope (Exodus 32–34) vor dem Hintergrund aktueller Pentateuchmodelle (FAT 58; Mohr Siebeck:  Tübingen 2008), 154. Pace J. C. Gertz, ‘Beobachtungen zu Komposition und Redaktion in Exodus 32–34,’ in M. Köckert and E. Blum (eds.), Gottes Volk, 88–106 (esp. 99), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

106

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

related text Deut 9:16.206 The motif of the Israelites making themselves gods (‫עשה‬ ‫ אלהים‬+ ‫ ל‬+: Exod 32:1) was borrowed from Jer 2:28 etc. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh saying to (‫ )ויאמר יהוה אל‬Moses that (b) he has seen this people, that it is a stiff-necked people (‫ראיתי את־העם הזה והנה עם־קשה־‬ ‫ערף הוא‬: Exod 32:9), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way, almost verbatim illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh saying to Moses that (b) he has seen this people, that it is a stiff-necked people (Deut 9:13).207 The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh telling Moses to let him alone, so that (b) his anger might burn against the Israelites, and he might destroy them but (c) make Moses into a great nation (‫ואעשה אותך לגוי‬: Exod 32:10), and Moses praying for them (Exod 32:10–14) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh telling Moses to let him alone, so that (b) he might destroy them but (c) make Moses into a mightier and more numerous nation (Deut 9:14).208 The particular motif of Moses praying for the Israelites, arguing that Yahweh brought them out of Egypt by his great power (‫ בכח‬+ ‫ מצרים‬+ ‫ מן‬+ ‫אשר הוצאת‬ ‫ גדול‬+ ), with a mighty hand, so why should the Egyptians say that with evil intent he brought them out to kill them (*‫ הוציאם לה‬+ ‫)יאמרו‬, therefore he should remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, his servants (‫ לאברהם ליצחק‬+ ‫זכר‬ ‫ עבדיך‬+: Exod 32:11–13), was borrowed from the thematically related text Deut 9:26–29 and reordered.209 The motif of Yahweh turning from the fierceness of his anger (*‫ מחרון אפ‬+ ‫שוב‬: Exod 32:12) was borrowed from Deut 13:18; Josh 7:26. The motif of Yahweh swearing to Abraham by his own self that he will multiply his descendants as the stars of heaven (‫ ארבה את־זרעכ* ככוכבי‬+ ‫ אל‬+ *‫ ב‬+ *‫נשבעת‬ ‫השמים‬: Exod 32:13) was borrowed from Gen 22:15–17210 and conflated with the 2 06 Pace M. Mark, Mein Angesicht, 314, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 207 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 258; M. Konkel, Sünde, 154; R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 2, 273. 208 Cf. M. Konkel, Sünde, 154. Pace S. Boorer, ‘The Promise of the Land As Oath in Exodus 32:1–33:3,’ in T. B. Dozeman, C. A. Evans, and J. N. Lohr (eds.), Book of Exodus, 245–266 (esp. 262). 209 Cf. M. Konkel, Sünde, 155; T. B. Dozeman, Exodus, 697, 699. Pace H.-C. Schmitt, ‘Die “Sinai-Ouvertüre” in Ex 19:3b–9 als nachpriesterliche Verbindung zwischen Pentateuch und Vorderen Propheten,’ in F. Giuntoli and K. Schmid (eds.), Post-Priestly, 277–303 (esp. 296), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 210 Cf. C. Dohmen, Exodus 19–40 (HThKAT; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2004), 305; M. Konkel, ‘Exodus 32–34 and the Quest for an Enneateuch,’ in T. B. Dozeman, T. Römer, and K. Schmid, Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (AIL 8; SBL: Atlanta 2011), 169–184 (esp. 173).

Exod 32–33 (cf. Deut 9:12–29)

107

thematically related motifs of Yahweh promising similar things to Isaac (+ ‫רבה‬ *‫ לזרעכ‬+ ‫ נתן‬+ *‫ כל־הארצ‬+ ‫את־זרעכ* ככוכבי השמים‬: Gen 26:3–4)211 and to Israel (‫רבה‬ ‫ עלם‬+ *‫ לזרעכ‬+ ‫ נתן‬+ ‫ הארץ הזאת‬+: Gen 48:4). The motif of Yahweh relenting as concerns the disaster which he pronounced against his people (‫וינחם יהוה *ל־הרעה‬ ‫ עם‬+ ‫אשר דבר‬: Exod 32:14) was borrowed from Jer 26:12–13.19.212 The subsequent idea of (a) Moses turning and going down from the mountain (‫ מן־ההר‬+ ‫ ירד‬+ ‫ ו‬+ ‫ פנה‬+ ‫)ו‬, (b) and the two tablets of the testimony (*‫)ושני לחת ה‬ (c) being in his hand (‫יד‬: Exod 32:15–16; esp. 32:15) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses turning and going down from the mountain, (b) and the two tablets of the covenant (c) being on his two hands (Deut 9:15).213 The particular motif of God’s writing on the tablets (‫מכתב‬: Exod 32:16) was borrowed from the thematically related text Deut 10:4. The subsequent idea of Joshua and Moses hearing the voice of the people, and Moses seeing (‫ ראה‬+ ‫ )ו‬the calf (‫עגל‬: Exod 32:17–19c; esp. 32:19c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses seeing that the Israelites sinned, that they made themselves a moulded calf (Deut 9:16).214 The subsequent idea of (a) Moses being angry, (b) throwing (‫ )שלך‬from his hands (*‫ ידי‬+ ‫ )מן‬the tablets (‫)הלחת‬, and (c) breaking (‫ שבר‬+ ‫ )ו‬them (d) at the foot of the mountain (Exod 32:19d–f) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses taking hold of (b) the tablets, throwing them from his two hands, and (c) breaking them (d) before the Israelites’ eyes (Deut 9:17–20; esp. 9:17).215 The author of Exodus–Numbers simplified the Deuteronomic account by eliminating the repetition of the motif of Moses’ praying for the sinful Israelites (Deut 9:18–20). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) Moses taking (‫ )לקח‬the calf (‫ )את־העגל‬which they made (‫ עשה‬+ ‫( )אשר‬b) and burning with fire (‫ באש‬+ ‫)ו*שרף‬, (c) grinding it (‫ )טחן‬until it became fine (‫)עד אשר־דק‬, and (d) scattering it on the water and making the Israelites drink it (Exod 32:20),216 conceptually and 2 11 Cf. C. Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 305. 212 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 314. 213 Cf. ibid. 315; W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 258. Pace Y. H. Chung, Sin, 76, who suggests the reverse direction of literary dependence. 214 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 315; W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 258. 215 Cf. J.  Van Seters, Life of Moses, 315; W.  Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 258; T.  B.  Dozeman, Exodus, 697. 216 Cf. C.  Houtman, Exodus, vol. 3, Chapters  20–40, trans. S.  Woudstra (HCOT; Peeters: Leuven 2000), 658–659.

108

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses taking the sinful thing which they made, the calf, (b) and burning it with fire, (c) crushing it by grinding until it became fine as dust, and (d) throwing the dust into the stream which ran down from the mountain (Deut 9:21).217 The subsequent idea of (a) Aaron bringing upon the Israelite people (b) a great sin (Exod 32:21) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Levi-related Massah (cf. Deut 33:8) and other places where the Israelites (b) provoked Yahweh to anger (Deut 9:22). The subsequent idea of (a) Aaron, so presumably a priest, saying (‫ )אמר‬that (b) the anger of the lord should not burn hot, presumably against the people, because (c) Moses knows the (‫ את‬+ ‫ )ידע‬people (Exod 32:22) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) in the ‘sanctuary’ of Kadesh Barnea saying that (b) the Israelites should go and possess the land which Yahweh gave them, but they were rebellious since (c) Moses knew them (Deut 9:23–24). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 32:1–4) idea of (a) the Israelites making themselves gods who should go before (‫ )לפני‬them because (b) they did not know what happened to Moses, presumably because he delayed his coming down from the mountain (Exod 32:23–24; esp. 32:23; cf. 32:1), conceptually and linguistically, in a negative, sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses prostrating himself before Yahweh, (b) forty days and forty nights prostrating himself (Deut 9:25ab). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses seeing the people running wild and saying (‫ )אמר‬that Yahweh says (‫אמר‬: Exod 32:26–27) that (b) the Levites should kill their brothers and relatives (Exod 32:25–29) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh saying that (b) the Israelites should be destroyed (Deut 9:25cd). The particular motif of the sons of Levi being loyal to Yahweh up to the point of not acknowledging their brothers, each one being against his son, thus receiving a blessing (*‫ ברכ‬+ ‫ בנו‬+ ‫ את־אחיו‬+ ‫לוי‬: Exod 32:26–27.29), was borrowed from Deut 33:8– 9.11.218 The motif of filling the hands to consecrate (*‫מלאו יד‬: Exod 32:29) was borrowed from Ezek 43:26 (cf. Judg 17:5.12).

217 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 303–307, 315; W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 258; T. B. Dozeman, Exodus, 697, 699. 218 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 316–317; M. Konkel, Sünde, 166.

Exod 32–33 (cf. Deut 9:12–29)

109

The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 32:7–8.14)219 idea of Moses saying to the people (‫ )העם‬that the people committed a great sin (‫)חטאה‬, but he would go up to Yahweh (‫ )אל־יהוה‬and make atonement for their sin (‫)חטאת‬, so that (a) Moses returned to Yahweh (‫ )אל־יהוה‬and (b) said (‫ )אמר‬that (c) this people (‫העם‬ ‫ )הזה‬committed (d) a sin, a great sin (‫)חטאה‬, but Yahweh should forgive their sin (‫ )חטאת‬and wipe out only the one who sinned (‫חטא‬: Exod 32:30–33; esp. 32:31– 32a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses praying to Yahweh and (b) saying that Yahweh should not care about (c) the obstinacy of this people and its (d) sin (Deut 9:26–27). The particular motif of making atonement for the Israelites (‫כפר‬ ‫ בעד‬+: Exod 32:30) was borrowed from Ezek 45:17. The subsequent idea of Moses and a representative of Yahweh leading the Israelite people, and Yahweh punishing the Israelite people (Exod 32:34–35) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh apparently not being able to lead the Israelites (Deut 9:28a–d). The particular motif of Yahweh punishing the Israelites’ sin (‫ חטאת‬+ ‫פקד‬: Exod 32:34) was borrowed from Hos 8:13; 9:9. The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 32:34)220 idea of Yahweh telling Moses and the people to go to the land which (‫אל־הארץ אשר‬: Exod 33:1) he swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and promising that his angel would drive out the Canaanite nations and lead the Israelites to the land (‫ )אל־ארץ‬flowing with fat and honey (Exod 33:1–3a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of bringing the Israelites to the land which Yahweh promised them (Deut 9:28e). The subsequent idea of Yahweh not going up with the Israelites because they are a stiff-necked people and he would destroy them, so that they stripped themselves of their ornaments (Exod 33:3b–6), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh apparently hating the Israelites (Deut 9:28f). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted221 idea of Moses pitching the tent of meeting, quite surprisingly, outside the camp (diff. Num 2:2.17),222 so that 219 Cf. G. Kugler, When God Wanted to Destroy the Chosen People: Biblical Traditions and Theology on the Move (BZAW 515; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2019), 22. 220 Cf. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 19–40, 597; C. Dohmen, Exodus 19–40, 328; J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 625. 221 Cf. J. I. Durham, Exodus, 439–442; R. Albertz, ‘Ex 33,7–11, ein Schlüsseltext für die Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch,’ in id., Pentateuchstudien, 225–248 (esp. 233–234). 222 Cf. J. J. Lawlor, ‘The “At-Sinai Narrative”: Exodus 18–Numbers 10,’ BBR 21 (2011) 23–42 (esp. 39–41).

110

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

the Israelites and Moses, when seeking Yahweh, used to go out (‫ )יצא‬to it outside the camp (Exod 33:7–11; esp. 33:7–8),223 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh making the Israelites go out (Deut 9:28g). The particular motif of the tent of meeting, and the people seeing Yahweh’s pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent (‫ עמוד הענן‬+ ‫אהל מועד‬ ‫ ראה‬+ ‫ פתח האהל‬+ ‫ עמד‬+: Exod 33:7–10) was borrowed from Deut 31:14–15. The motif of Yahweh speaking to Moses face to face (‫ פנים אל־פנים‬+ ‫ משה‬+ ‫יהוה‬: Exod 33:11) was borrowed from Deut 34:10.224 The subsequent idea of Yahweh saying to Moses that he should bring up this people, and apparently only Moses finding grace in Yahweh’s sight (Exod 33:12– 13d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh apparently killing the Israelites in the wilderness (Deut 9:28h). The subsequent idea of Moses pointing out to the fact that the Israelite nation is Yahweh’s people (‫עמך‬: Exod 33:13ef) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites being Yahweh’s people (Deut 9:29a). The subsequent idea of Yahweh’s presence going with the Israelites, and thus the Israelites being specially treated above all the people on the earth (Exod 33:14–17) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites being Yahweh’s inheritance (Deut 9:29a). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh showing his goodness and grace, (b) Moses not being able to see Yahweh’s awesome face, and (c) Yahweh putting Moses in a cleft of the rock, protectively holding his hand over Moses, and then taking his hand away from Moses (Exod 33:18–23)225 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh bringing Israel out (b) with his great power and (c) his outstretched arm (Deut 9:29b). The particular motif of Yahweh showing his glory (*‫ את־כבד‬+ *‫הראנ‬: Exod 33:18) was borrowed from Deut 5:24.

223 Cf. M. Rogland, ‘ “Moses Used to Take a Tent”? Reconsidering the Function and Significance of the Verb Forms in Exodus 33:7–11,’ JTS, ns 63 (2012) 449–466 (esp. 464–465); R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 2, 293. 224 Pace E.  Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch:  Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens (FAT 30; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 2000), 229, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 225 Cf. M. Widmer, Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer: A Study of Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 13–14 (FAT 2.8; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2004), 166; G. Lepesqueux, L’exposition, 315,

Exod 34 (cf. Deut 10:1–5)

111

1.19. Exod 34 (cf. Deut 10:1–5) The section Exod 34 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 10:1–5. The idea of (a) Yahweh saying to Moses (‫ )*אמר יהוה אל‬that he should (b) cut himself two tablets of stone like the first ones (‫פסל־לך שני־לחת אבנים כראשנים‬: Exod 34:1ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh saying to Moses that he should (b) cut himself two tablets of stone like the first ones (Deut 10:1).226 The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh writing (‫ כתב‬+ ‫( )ו‬b) on the tablets the words which were on the first tablets, which Moses broke (‫על־הלחת את־הדברים אשר‬ ‫היו על־הלחת הראשנים אשר שברת‬: Exod 34:1c–e), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way, almost verbatim illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh writing (b) on the tablets the words which were on the first tablets, which Moses broke (Deut 10:2).227 The subsequent idea of (a) Moses cutting two tablets of stone like the first ones (‫ שני־לחת אבנים כראשנים‬+ ‫ פסל‬+ ‫( )ו‬b) and going up to the mountain (‫ הר‬+ ‫ עלה‬+ ‫)ו‬, as well as (c) taking in his hand the two tablets (‫ לחת‬+ ‫ שני‬+ *‫ביד‬: Exod 34:2–4; esp. 34:4) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses cutting two tablets of stone like the first ones (b) and going up to the mountain, and (c) the two tablets being in his hand (Deut 10:3).228 The particular motif of the Israelites standing in front of the holy mountain (‫ הר‬+ ‫אל־מול‬: Exod 34:3) was borrowed from Josh 8:33, where it refers to Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal. This fact implies that Exodus–Numbers is an Israelite work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent ideas of (a) Moses proclaiming the name of Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: Exod 34:5–9), Yahweh making a covenant before Israel (Exod 34:10), Yahweh proclaiming a Decalogue-like set of commandments to Israel (Exod 34:11–26),229 (b’) Yahweh telling Moses to write (‫( )כתב‬c’) these words (‫ הדברים‬+ ‫ )את‬because in accordance with these words (‫( )הדברים‬a’) Yahweh made a covenant with Moses and Israel, and Moses (b) writing on the tablets (‫( )ויכתב על־הלחת‬c) the

2 26 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 254; G. Lepesqueux, L’exposition, 319–321. 227 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 254; G. Lepesqueux, L’exposition, 319. 228 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 254; G. Lepesqueux, L’exposition, 319–321. 229 Cf. R. Rothenbusch, ‘Zur Ausgestaltung,’ 22; C. Dohmen, ‘Decalogue,’ 213; E. Zenger and C.  Frevel, ‘Theorien über die Entstehung des Pentateuch im Wandel der Forschung,’ in C. Frevel (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament (KST 1,1; 9th ed., W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2016), 87–135 (esp. 98–99).

112

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

words (‫ )דברים‬of the covenant, the ten words (‫ עשרת הדברים‬+ ‫את‬: (Exod 34:5–28; esp. 34:27–28), conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrate the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh (b) writing on the tablets, (c) similarly to the first writing, the ten words, which (a) Yahweh God had spoken on the mountain from the midst of fire on the day of the assembly (Deut 10:4).230 The particular motif of Yahweh being a merciful God (‫ אל רחום‬+ ‫יהוה‬: Exod 34:6) was borrowed from Deut 4:31231 and conflated with Joel 2:13 (‫ רחום‬+ ‫יהוה‬ ‫ ארך אפים ורב־חסד‬+ ‫ חנון‬+).232 The motif of keeping mercy to thousands but visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the sons to the third and the fourth generation (‫ שלשים ועל־רבעים‬+ ‫ פקד עון אבות על־בנים ועל‬+ ‫חסד לאלפים‬: Exod 34:7) was borrowed from Deut 5:9–10233 and conflated with Josh 24:19 (*‫ חטא‬+ ‫ פשע‬+ ‫)נשא‬. The motif of Yahweh forgiving the iniquity and the sins of the Israelites (*‫ לעונ‬+ ‫סלח‬ *‫ ולחטאת‬+: Exod 34:9) was borrowed from Jer 31:34 etc.234 The motif of Yahweh making a covenant with Israel (‫ ברית‬+ ‫אנכי כרת‬: Exod 34:10) was borrowed from Deut 29:13. The motif of Israel not making a covenant with the inhabitants of Canaan, for it would be a snare (‫ מוקש‬+ ‫ ברית‬+ ‫כרת‬: Exod 34:11–12), was borrowed from Deut 7:1–2.16. The following motif of destroying their altars, breaking their pillars, and cutting down their cultic poles (+ *‫ מצבתם תשברו‬+ * ‫מזבחת*ם תתצו‬ ‫אשרה‬: Exod 34:13) was borrowed from the following text Deut 7:5.235 The motif 2 30 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 254; G. Lepesqueux, L’exposition, 319–320. 231 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 349. Pace M. Franz, Der barmherzige und gnädige Gott:  Die Gnadenrede vom Sinai (Exodus 34,6–7) und ihre Parallelen im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt (BWANT 160; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2003), 220, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 232 Cf. the probable use of Joel 2:22 in Gen 1:11–12. Pace R.  Scoralick, Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn: Die Gottesprädikationen in Exodus 34,6f und ihre intertextuellen Beziehungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch (HeBS 33; Herder: Freiburg im Breisgau [et al.] 2002), 171; M. Franz, Barmherzige, 257–258, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 233 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 348–350; G. Lepesqueux, L’exposition, 327–329. Pace M. Franz, Barmherzige, 220, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 234 Pace A. J. O. van der Wal, ‘Themes from Exodus in Jeremiah 30–31,’ in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies, 559–566 (esp. 564–565); G. Fischer, ‘‫ותפשי התורה לא ידעוני‬: The Relationship of the Book of Jeremiah to the Torah,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), Formation, 891–911 (esp. 901), who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 235 Cf. D. Carr, ‘Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26 and its Parallels,’ in M. Köckert and E. Blum (eds.), Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (VWGT Gesellschaft für Theologie 18; Chr. Kaiser:  Gütersloh 2001), 107–140 (esp.  128);

Exod 34 (cf. Deut 10:1–5)

113

of not worshipping any other god (‫ אחר‬+ * ‫ אל‬+ ‫השתחוה‬: Exod 34:14) was borrowed from Deut 8:19 etc. and conflated with that of Yahweh being a jealous God (‫ הוא‬+ ‫אל קנא‬: Deut 4:24). The motif of adulterously pursuing other gods (+ ‫זנה‬ ‫ אלהים‬+ ‫אחרי‬: Exod 34:15–16) was borrowed from Deut 31:16 etc. The motif of not taking the Canaanites’ daughters for the Israelites’ sons, so that they would serve other gods (‫ אלהים‬+ *‫ לבנ‬+ ‫ בת‬+ ‫לקח‬: Exod 34:16), was borrowed from Deut 7:3–4.236 The motif of the Israelites not appearing before Yahweh empty-handed (‫ולא‬ ‫ ריקם‬+ ‫ פני‬+ *‫ירא‬: Exod 34:20) was borrowed from Deut 16:16. The motif of Israel working six days and on the seventh day resting (+ ‫ יומ השביעי‬+ ‫ששת ימים תעבד‬ ‫שבת‬: Exod 34:21) was borrowed from Deut 5:13–14. The motif of making the festival of weeks and the festival of ingathering (‫ אסף‬+ ‫ חג‬+ ‫ עשה‬+ ‫חג שבעת‬: Exod 34:22) was borrowed from Deut 16:10.13.237 The following motif of three times in the year all males appearing before Yahweh God (‫שלש פעמים בשנה יראה כל־זכורך‬ ‫ אלהים‬+ ‫ יהוה‬+ ‫את־פני‬: Exod 34:23–24) was almost verbatim borrowed from the following text Deut 16:16 and conflated with the motif of Yahweh driving out pagan nations before Israel (‫ מפניך‬+ ‫*וריש גוים‬: Deut 4:38). The motif of Yahweh enlarging Israel’s borders (‫ את־גבולך‬+ ‫רחב‬: Exod 34:24) was borrowed from Deut 12:20;238 19:8. The motif of the sacrifice of the Passover not being left until the morning (‫ פסח‬+ ‫ זבח‬+ ‫ לבקר‬+ ‫ולא־ילין‬: Exod 34:25) was borrowed from Deut 16:2.4. The motif of bringing the best of the first fruits to the house of Yahweh (‫ יהוה‬+ ‫ראשית בכורי‬: Exod 34:26) was borrowed from Ezek 44:30.239 The motif of not boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (‫לא־תבשל גדי בחלב אמו‬: Exod 34:26; cf. 23:19) was verbatim borrowed from Deut 14:21. The motif of Moses, after the Israelites’ sin, being with Yahweh forty days and forty nights, and neither eating bread nor drinking water (‫ ארבעים יום‬+ ‫יהוה‬

H.-C.  Schmitt, ‘Das sogenannte jahwistische Privilegrecht in Ex 34,10–28 als Komposition der spätdeuteronomischen Endredaktion des Pentateuch,’ in J. C. Gertz, K. Schmid, and M. Witte (eds.), Abschied, 157–171 (esp. 162). 236 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 254–255. 237 Cf. W. Oswald, ‘Correlating the Covenants in Exodus 24 and Exodus 34,’ in R. J. Bautch and G. N. Knoppers (eds.), Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2015), 59–73 (esp. 66–67); N. MacDonald, ‘Ritual Innovation and Shavu’ot,’ in id. (ed.), Ritual Innovation in the Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism (BZAW 468; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2016), 55–77 (esp. 66–67). 238 Pace M. Konkel, Sünde, 228–229, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 239 Cf. N. MacDonald, Priestly Rule: Polemic and Biblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44 (BZAW 476; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2015), 100 n. 250.

114

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

*‫וארבעים לילה לחם לא אכל* ומים לא שת‬: Exod 34:28) was almost verbatim borrowed from Deut 9:18.240 The subsequent idea of (a) Moses coming down (‫( )ירד‬b) from (‫ )מן‬Mount (‫)הר‬ Sinai, and (c) the two tablets (‫ )לחת‬of the testimony being in his hand when (a’) he came down (‫( )ירד‬b’) from the mountain (‫מן־ההר‬: Exod 34:29a–d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses turning and coming down (b) from the mountain with (c) the tablets (Deut 10:5a–c).241 The subsequent, surprising idea of (a) the skin of Moses’ face having horns/ protrusions,242 which (b) were a result of his speaking with Yahweh and which (c) made him a covered (‫מסוה‬: Exod 34:33–35)243 embodiment of the commandments that Yahweh had spoken with him on Mount Sinai (Exod 34:29e–33), in a graphic way, sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the rectangular ark/chest, which (b) Moses made, presumably as Yahweh commanded him (cf. Deut 10:5f), and (c) placed the tablets there, in the presumably covered (cf. Exod 40:21: ‫ )מסך‬ark (Deut 10:5de). Accordingly, Exod 34:29e–33 presents Moses as a personified ark of the covenant. The concluding idea of Moses telling the Israelites (a) the things that (‫( )אשר‬b) he was commanded (‫צוה‬: Exod 34:34–35; esp. 34:34) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of Moses acting (a) just as (‫ )כאשר‬Yahweh (b) commanded him (Deut 10:5f).

1.20. Exod 35 (cf. Deut 10:6–11:32) The section Exod 35 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 10:6–11:32. The opening idea of (a) Moses gathering all the congregation of the sons of Israel (‫ )בני ישראל‬and (b) telling them the words (‫ )דבר‬which (‫ )אשר‬Yahweh commanded them to do (Exod 35:1) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential

2 40 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Exodus, 697. 241 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 254; G. Lepesqueux, L’exposition, 319–320. 242 Cf. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 19–40, 618; J. L. Koosed, ‘Moses: The Face of Fear,’ BibInt 22 (2014) 414–429 (esp. 417). This translation does not exclude the meaning ‘radiance,’ which conveys the idea of cultic glory (cf. Exod 34:29–30.35 LXX); cf. E. X. Jarrard, ‘Double Entendre in Exodus 34: Revisiting the ‫ קרן‬of Moses,’ ZAW 131 (2019) 388–406 (esp. 398–399). 243 Cf. J. I. Durham, Exodus, 468; T. B. Dozeman, Exodus, 752–753; J. L. Koosed, ‘Moses,’ 419 n. 15.

Exod 35 (cf. Deut 10:6–11:32)

115

way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) the sons of Israel setting out on a journey, Aaron’s son succeeding him as priest, and (b) the tribe of Levi ministering Yahweh, just as (‫ )כאשר‬Yahweh said (‫ )דבר‬to him (Deut 10:6–9). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted, partly repeated (cf. Exod 31:15)244 idea of (a) Israel doing his work six days (‫ )ימים‬and (b) on the seventh day (‫ )יום‬having a holy Sabbath, (c) a recurring Sabbath celebration for Yahweh (Exod 35:2ab), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses staying on the mountain as in the first days, (b) forty days (‫ )יום‬and forty nights, and (c) Yahweh listening to him that time as well (Deut 10:10ab). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 31:15)245 idea of anyone who does any work on the Sabbath being put to death (Exod 35:2cd) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh being on the point of destroying Israel (Deut 10:10cd). The subsequent, somewhat surprising (diff. Exod 31:15) idea of (a) the Israelites not kindling fire (b) in all their dwelling places (c) on the Sabbath day (Exod 35:3)246 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses getting up, going, and setting out on a journey before the people, and (b) the people coming in and possessing the land which (c) Yahweh swore to their fathers to give them (Deut 10:11). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 35:1) idea of (a) Moses saying to all the congregation of the sons of Israel (‫ )ישראל‬that (b) this is the word/ matter (sing.; diff. Exod 35:1: plur.) which Yahweh commanded (Exod 35:4) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent

244 Cf. C.  Nihan, ‘Das Sabbatgesetz Exodus 31,12–17, die Priesterschrift und das Heiligkeitsgesetz:  Eine Auseinandersetzung mit neueren Interpretationen,’ in R. Achenbach, R. Ebach, and J. Wöhrle (eds.), Wege, 131–149 (esp. 138); R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 2, 331; J. Stackert, ‘The Composition of Exodus 31:12–17 and 35:1–3 and the Question of Method in Identifying Priestly Strata in the Torah,’ in R. E. Gane and A. Taggar-Cohen (eds.), Current Issues in Priestly and Related Literature: The Legacy of Jacob Milgrom and Beyond (RBS 82; SBL: Atlanta 2015), 175–196 (esp. 192–193). 245 Cf. T. B. Dozeman, Exodus, 758; D. C. Timmer, Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath: The Sabbath Frame of Exodus 31:12–17; 35:1–3 in Exegetical and Theological Perspective (FRLANT 227; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht:  Göttingen 2009), 48, 57; J.  Stackert, ‘Composition,’ 192–193. 246 Cf. D.  C.  Timmer, Creation, 57–59; A.  Grund, Entstehung, 284–285; R.  Albertz, Exodus, vol. 2, 331.

116

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses now speaking to Israel about (b) what Yahweh God requires (Deut 10:12a). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 25:2) idea of the Israelites taking from themselves (‫ )מ*כם‬a contribution for Yahweh (Exod 35:5a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh requiring from him (‫)מ*ך‬, that is, from Israel (Deut 10:12a). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 25:2) idea of (a) everyone who has a generous heart (‫( )לב‬b) bringing a contribution of Yahweh (‫ את‬+ noun + ‫יהוה‬: Exod 35:5b; diff. 35:5a: for Yahweh) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel being called to love Yahweh God and serve him with all his heart (‫)לבב‬, (b) keeping the commandments of Yahweh and his statutes (Deut 10:12b–13). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 25:3–7) idea of offering various precious commodities for Yahweh (Exod 35:5b–9) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of all that is in the earth being for Yahweh God (Deut 10:14). The subsequent idea of (a) all (‫ )כל‬who (b) have a wise heart (‫( )לב‬c) among the Israelites (‫בכם‬: Exod 35:10a) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (c) Yahweh choosing the Israelites above (a) all peoples and (b) commanding them to circumcise the foreskin of their heart (‫( )לבב‬Deut 10:15–16). The subsequent idea of the Israelites coming to the sanctuary of Yahweh (Exod 35:10a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites serving Yahweh God and clinging to him (Deut 10:17–22; esp. 10:20). The subsequent idea of the Israelites doing all that Yahweh commanded (‫צוה‬: Exod 35:10) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel loving Yahweh God and keeping his commandments (‫מצוה‬: Deut 11:1–8; esp. 11:1.8). The subsequent, concisely repeated but reordered (cf. Exod 25:10–26:37) idea of (a) the dwelling place, (b) the tent with its covering, (c) the ark with its covering, and (d) the table with its bread of the presence (Exod 35:11–13) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites prolonging their days in the promised land, (b) a land of mountains and valleys, which (c) from the rain of heaven (d) drinks water (Deut 11:9–11). The subsequent, partly repeated but reordered (cf. Exod 25:6.31–39) idea of (a) the lampstand giving light, its lamps, and (b) the oil for the presumably incessant light (Exod 35:14) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the land which Yahweh God seeks, and the eyes of Yahweh God being always on it, (b) from the beginning of the year to the end of the year (Deut 11:12).

Exod 35 (cf. Deut 10:6–11:32)

117

The subsequent, partly repeated but reordered (cf. Exod 30:1–9; 31:8–11; 26:36–37; 27:4; 30:28; 27:9–19) idea of (a) the altar of incense with its fragrant perfumes and curtains, the altar of burnt offering, the hanging and a screen, and (b) the vestments for ministering in the holy place (Exod 35:15–19) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) heeding the commandments to love, presumably intimately, Yahweh God and (b) serve him (Deut 11:13a–e). The subsequent idea of (a) the coming of every Israelite whose heart (‫)לב‬ impelled him and (b) whose spirit247 incited him (Exod 35:20–21c; esp. 35:21) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites acting (a) with all their hearts (‫ )לבב‬and (b) with all their souls (Deut 11:13e). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 25:2–5) idea of the Israelites voluntarily bringing the contribution of Yahweh for all the cultic service (‫)עבדה‬, presumably to Yahweh (Exod 35:21d–24), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh giving rain to Israel, so the Israelites being satiated with food, but not serving (‫ )עבד‬other gods or worshipping them (Deut 11:14–17). The subsequent idea of (a) all the women of wise heart (‫( )לב‬b) spinning with their hands (‫ )יד‬and (c) bringing yarns of various colours (Exod 35:25) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites putting Yahweh’s words in their hearts (‫( )לבב‬b) and binding them as a sign on their hands and as (c) ornaments between their eyes (Deut 11:18). The subsequent idea of (a) other women whose heart (b) impelled them with (‫ )ב‬wisdom (c) spinning the goats (Exod 35:26) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites teaching these words to their children (b) by speaking about (‫ )ב‬them at home and (c) on the way (Deut 11:19). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 25:7) idea of (a) the Israelite leaders bringing precious stones to be set (b) in the body-covering ephod and (c) in the presumably outer breastplate (Exod 35:27) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites writing these words (b) on the doorposts of their presumably private houses and (c) on their presumably outer gates (Deut 11:20). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 25:6) idea of bringing aromatic oil and fragrant incense, presumably rising up to heaven (Exod 35:28), illustrates

247 Cf. J. Lemański, ‘Standardowe,’ 30–31.

118

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites prolonging their days, like the days of the heaven above the earth (Deut 11:21). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites whose heart incited them to bring for (b) the whole work (‫( )כל־המ*ה‬c) which (‫ )אשר‬Yahweh (d) commanded (‫)צוה‬ through Moses (e) to do (‫)לעשות‬, (f) the Israelites bringing a free-will offering to Yahweh (Exod 35:29) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites diligently keeping (b) the whole commandment (‫( )כל־המ*ה‬c) which Moses (d) commands (e) to do, (f) to love Yahweh God and cling to him (Deut 11:22). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 31:2–6)248 idea of (a) Moses saying to the Israelites that they should see that Yahweh called by name (b) Bezalel of the southernmost tribe of Judah, filling him with the Spirit of God (‫)אלהים‬, with wisdom and knowledge (‫דעת‬: Exod 35:31), and giving (‫ )נתן‬in his heart the ability to teach, as well as (c) Oholiab of the northernmost tribe of Dan, not being spiritually gifted (Exod 35:30–34), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic ideas of (a) Moses saying that Yahweh will drive out pagan nations from the Israelites’ territory with its named extensions (Deut 11:23–25), as well as (b) setting a blessing, especially for obeying the commandments and knowing (‫ )ידע‬Yahweh God (Deut 11:26–28), and giving it on the southern Mount Gerizim, related to the tribes of Judah and Levi, and (c) a curse on the northern Mount Ebal, related to the tribe of Dan (Deut 11:23–31; esp. 11:29–30; cf. 27:12–13). The choice of the two particular tribes of Judah and Dan, which had their own sanctuaries of Yahweh, suggests that their representatives should abandon their separatist (from the perspective of Shechem) ideas and engage in the construction of the one, pan-Israelite sanctuary of Yahweh (Exod 35:30–34), presumably in the region of Shechem (cf. Deut 11:29–30). This fact implies that Exodus– Numbers is an Israelite work, and not a Judaean one. The particular motif of wisdom, understanding, and knowledge (‫ תבונה‬+ ‫חכמה‬ ‫ דעת‬+: Exod 35:31), related to obeying the commandments of Yahweh (cf. Deut 11:27), was borrowed from Prov 2:1–6 etc. The subsequent idea of (a) filling the Israelites with wisdom of the heart (b) to do (‫( )לעשות‬c) all (‫ )כל‬the work of skilled artisans, (b’) who did (‫( )עשה‬c’) all (‫)כל‬ the work of artisans (Exod 35:35), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites observing (b) to do (c) all the statutes and judgements which Moses gives (Deut 11:32).

248 Cf. J. I. Durham, Exodus, 476; R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 2, 335.

Exod 36–40 (cf. Deut 12:1–12)

119

1.21. Exod 36–40 (cf. Deut 12:1–12) The section Exod 36–40 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 12:1–12. The opening idea of (a) Bezalel, Oholiab, and every man of wise heart, whom Yahweh gave wisdom (b) to do (‫ )לעשת‬all the work (Exod 36:1–2), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) the statutes and judgements which the Israelites should observe (b) to do (Deut 12:1). The subsequent idea of (a) taking away from Moses (b) all (‫ )כל‬the contribution (c) which (‫ )אשר‬the people brought for (d) the service (‫ )עבדה‬of their own will, which (e) exceeded the required service (‫ )עבדה‬that Yahweh commanded to do (Exod 36:3–5), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) destroying (b) all the places (c) in which the nations (d) served (‫ )עבד‬their gods, in (e) numerous pagan cultic places (Deut 12:2–3). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses commanding that men and women should not do (‫( )אל־יעשו‬b) any excessive work (c) to (‫ )ל‬the sanctuary (Exod 36:6) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses telling the Israelites that they should not do (‫( )לא־תעשון‬b) in this way (c) to Yahweh God (Deut 12:4). The subsequent idea of the Israelites’ work meeting that which was required to do, and this being more than enough (Exod 36:7) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites having one cultic place (Deut 12:5a). The subsequent, partly repeated but reordered (cf. Exod 26:1–32.36–37; 25:10–39; 30:1–5.25) idea of (a) all the people of wise heart, (b) among those who did the work, (c) making the dwelling place (‫משכן‬: Exod 36:8–32), and Bezalel making the ark, the atonement, cherubim, and other, less important, golden signs of Yahweh’s presence (Exod 36:8–37:29) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the place where Yahweh God chooses, (b) out of all Israel’s tribes, (c) to put his name, to make it dwell (‫שכן‬: Deut 12:5a–c). The particular motif of the dwelling place of Yahweh (‫משכן‬: Exod 36:8–32) was borrowed from Ezek 37:27; Josh 22:19.29. The motif of making an ark of acacia wood (‫ ארן עצי שטים‬+ ‫ו*עש‬: Exod 37:1) was borrowed from Deut 10:3. The motif of doing something to carry the ark (‫ ארן‬+ ‫לשאת את־‬: Exod 37:5) was borrowed from Deut 10:8.

120

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 27:1–8; 30:18; 27:9–19)249 idea of making the sacrificial altar (‫ )מזבח‬of burnt offering (‫עלה‬: Exod 38:1; diff. 27:1: no remark concerning burnt offering)250 with its utensils (Exod 38:1–20) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of bringing there burnt offerings and sacrifices (‫זבח‬: Deut 12:6). The particular motif of the altar pots, the shovels, the craters, and the scuttles, all the utensils of bronze (‫ נחשת‬+ *‫ כל־כלי‬+ ‫ ואת־המחתת‬+ ‫ ואת־המזרקת‬+ ‫את־הסירת ואת־היעים‬: Exod 38:3), was borrowed from Jer 52:18–19. The subsequent, partly repeated but reordered (cf. Exod 35:22; 30:12–16) tripartite idea of gold, obligatorily given silver, and bronze being offered for the holy Levitical service (Exod 38:21–31) illustrates the subsequent tripartite Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites’ tithes, contributions, and voluntary offerings (Deut 12:6). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 28:2–42) idea of (a) making ceremonial vestments for Aaron and his sons, (b) with the seven times repeated formula ‘just as (‫ )כאשר‬Yahweh commanded Moses’ (Exod 39:1–31; esp. 39:1.5.7.21.26.29.31;251 diff. 28:2.8.12.28.34.40.37: no such remark), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) being in the cultic place, before Yahweh God, and rejoicing in all things (b) in which (‫ )אשר‬Yahweh God blesses Israel (Deut 12:7). The particular motif of a set of precious stones enclosed in gold (+ ‫ אדם פטדה‬+ ‫אבן‬ ‫ זהב‬+ ‫ תרשיש שהם וישפה‬+ ‫ ויהלם‬+ ‫ ספיר‬+ ‫ נפך‬+ ‫וברקת‬: Exod 39:10–13) was borrowed from Ezek 28:13 and reworked to obtain the number twelve to allude to all Israel, presumably blessed by Yahweh (Deut 12:7). Likewise, the motif of the priests wearing linen trousers (‫מכנסים‬: Exod 39:28) was borrowed from Ezek 44:18. The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites finishing (diff. Exod 39:42) the cultic service and doing (‫( )עשה‬b) according to all that Yahweh (‫ )ככל אשר‬commanded Moses, (c) so doing (‫עשה‬: Exod 39:32), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites not doing cultic things (b) according to all that they (c) did in Transjordan (Deut 12:8). The subsequent idea of the Israelites bringing (‫ )בוא‬the dwelling place, in the form of a portable tent, to Moses (Exod 39:33–41) conceptually and linguistically,

2 49 Cf. R. Albertz, Exodus, vol. 2, 357–359. 250 Cf. C. Houtman, Exodus, vol. 3, 442. 251 Cf. J. I. Durham, Exodus, 493–494; W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 19–40, 669.

Exod 36–40 (cf. Deut 12:1–12)

121

in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites not yet coming (‫ )בוא‬to Canaan (Deut 12:9). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 39:32)252 idea of (a) the Israelites doing the cultic service according to all that Yahweh commanded, and (b) Moses seeing all (‫ )כל־‬their work and (c) blessing them (Exod 39:42–43) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites inheriting the proper land of Canaan, (b) resting from fighting with all their enemies, and (c) dwelling in security (Deut 12:10). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 26:30) idea of (a) the particular day in (‫ב‬: diff. Exod 26:30) which, as Yahweh said, (b) Moses should set up the dwelling place (‫משכן‬: Exod 40:1–2) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the particular place which Yahweh God takes delight in it (b) to make his name dwell (‫שכן‬: Deut 12:11a–c). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 26:31–33) idea of putting (*‫ )שמ‬the ark there (‫שם‬: Exod 40:3; diff. 26:31–33) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of making Yahweh’s name (*‫ )שמ‬dwell there (Deut 12:11c). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 26:35) idea of Moses bringing the (‫ בוא‬hiphil + ‫ )את‬table, bringing the (‫ בוא‬hiphil + ‫ )את‬lampstand, and putting other things (Exod 40:4) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites bringing all the things that Yahweh commands them (Deut 12:11de). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 27:1–16; 29:4–9; 30:18.25–31) idea of (a) placing the sacrificial altar (‫ )מזבח‬of burnt offering (‫עלה‬: Exod 40:6.10) and (b) all (‫כל‬: Exod 40:9–10) other cultic utensils, as well as (c) consecrating them and consecrating priests (d) to (‫ל‬: Exod 40:13.15) Yahweh (Exod 40:5–16) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) burnt offerings, sacrifices (‫)זבח‬, and (b) all choice offerings which (c) the Israelites vow (d) to Yahweh (Deut 12:11ef). The subsequent, concisely repeated (cf. Exod 30:18–21 etc.)253 idea of (a) setting up the dwelling place in a proper cultic way, ‘just as Yahweh commanded Moses’ (repeated seven times: Exod 40:19.21.23.25.27.29.32),254 including putting the table, laying out a row of bread, and setting lamps before Yahweh (‫לפני יהוה‬:

2 52 Cf. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 19–40, 670. 253 Cf. J. Lemański, Wyjścia, 666. 254 Cf. J. I. Durham, Exodus, 493–500; C. Houtman, Exodus, vol. 3, 598.

122

Exodus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 1:1–12:12

Exod 40:23.25), as well as (b) Moses (diff. Exod 40:12), Aaron, and their sons (*‫ובני‬: Exod 40:31) washing themselves (c) in (‫ב‬: Exod 40:32) their going into the tent and approaching the altar, (d) which was located close to the gate (‫שער‬: Exod 40:33) of the court (Exod 40:17–33), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) rejoicing before Yahweh God, (b) both the Israelites, their sons, and the Levites who are (c) in (d) their gates (Deut 12:12a). The concluding, somewhat surprising idea of Moses and presumably all the house of Israel (Exod 40:36–38) not being able to enter the Levitical (cf. Exod 40:32) tent of meeting (diff. Exod 33:7–11)255 because the glory of Yahweh filled the dwelling place (Exod 40:34–38) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of the Levite having no share or inheritance with the Israelites, presumably being separated from them (Deut 12:12b).

255 Cf. W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 19–40, 673.

Chapter 2.  Leviticus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 12:13–17:13 The contents of the book of Leviticus sequentially, in a hypertextual way illustrate the contents of the Deuteronomic major section Deut 12:13–17:13.

2.1. Lev 1–7 (cf. Deut 12:13–18b) The section Lev 1–7 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 12:13–18b. The opening, centripetal idea of Yahweh calling to Moses, who was presumably outside the tent of meeting (cf. Exod 40:35),1 and speaking to him from the tent of meeting (Lev 1:1; diff. Exod 40:1; Lev 4:1: simply speaking; Num 1:1 in the tent of meeting) illustrates the opening Deuteronomic centripetal idea of Israel not offering burnt offerings at any random place, but only in the place which Yahweh chooses (Deut 12:13–14a). The subsequent idea of Moses telling the Israelites that they may offer a burnt offering (‫עלה‬: Lev 1:3–4.6.9–10.13–14.17) from the herd, the flock, or birds on the altar at the entrance of the tent of meeting (Lev 1:2–17) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic thought that there, that is, in the chosen place Israel should offer burnt offerings (Deut 12:14b). The particular motif of the Israelites bringing an animal offering to Yahweh (‫קרבן‬: Lev 1:2 etc.) was borrowed from Ezek 40:43. Likewise, the motif of bringing a burnt offering to make atonement for an Israelite (*‫ לכפר עלי‬+ ‫עלה‬: Lev 1:4) was borrowed from Ezek 45:15. Similarly, the motif of the priests, sons of their ancestor, offering animal blood to Yahweh (‫ דם‬+ ‫ כהנים‬+ ‫ בני‬+ ‫קרב‬: Lev 1:5) was borrowed from Ezek 44:15 and reworked to explain the ritual as sprinkling the blood on the altar (‫ המזבח‬+ ‫ על‬+ ‫ דם‬+ ‫זרק‬: cf. Ezek 43:18). The motif of a priest offering an offering made by fire to Yahweh (‫ אשה‬+ ‫כהן‬: Lev 1:9) was borrowed

1 Cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1991), 134; M. F. Rooker, Leviticus (NAC 3A; Broadman & Holman:  Nashville, TN 2000), 82; T.  Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 1, 1–15] (HThKAT; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2014), 156.

124

Leviticus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 12:13–17:13

from Deut 18:1. The motif of a soothing odour to Yahweh (‫ריח־ניחוח‬: Lev 1:9) was borrowed from Ezek 20:41 etc.2 The subsequent idea of (a) Moses telling the Israelites that as an offering made by fire on the altar (Lev 2:2.8–9.16) (b) they may make (‫עשה‬: Lev 2:8.11) (c) all (‫כל‬: Lev 2:11.13) grain offerings, (d) provided that they are not made with leaven and they are salted with salt (Lev 2), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic thought that (a) there, that is, in the chosen place (b) Israel should make (c) all offerings that (d) Moses commands (Deut 12:14bc). The particular motif of offering as an offering to Yahweh fine flour with oil (‫ שמן‬+ ‫ סלת‬+ ‫מנחה ליהוה‬: Lev 2:1) was borrowed from Ezek 46:14. The motif of the priests eating from the offering made by fire to Yahweh (‫אשי יהוה‬: Lev 2:3 etc.; cf. 1:9) was borrowed from Deut 18:1. The motif of making offerings with salt (‫מלח‬ ‫ קרב‬+: Lev 2:13) was borrowed from Ezek 43:24. The subsequent idea of offering a slaughtered (‫זבח‬: Lev 3:1.3.6.9) communion offering from the herd or the flock and burning only the fat, presumably eating the rest as a communion offering (Lev 3:1–16),3 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of slaughtering and eating meat (Deut 12:15). The particular motif of slaughtering communion offerings (+ ‫זבח‬ ‫שלמים‬: Lev 3:1) was borrowed from Deut 27:7 etc. The motif of the combination of male and female (‫ נקבה‬+ ‫זכר‬: Lev 3:1) was borrowed from Deut 4:16. The subsequent idea of all Israelites not eating fat and not eating blood (‫דם‬ ‫לא תאכלו‬: Lev 3:17) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites not eating blood (Deut 12:16a).4 The subsequent idea of the priest pouring (‫שפך‬: Lev 4:7.18.25.30.34; cf. 5:9: draining out; diff. 3:2.8.13; 7:2.14: sprinkling)5 all the blood (‫דם‬: Lev 2 Pace R. Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah (JSOTSup 358; Sheffield Academic: London · New York 2002), 55–56, 76–77, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 3 Cf. R.  Rendtorff, Leviticus, vol. 1, Leviticus 1,1–10,20 (BKAT 3/1; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2004), 65, 122; J. W. Watts, Leviticus 1–10 (HCOT; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, MA 2013), 268; T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 1, 1–15], 221–222. 4 Pace B. Kilchör, ‘Did H Influence D on an Early or a Late Stage of the Redaction of D?,’ OTE 29 (2016) 502–512 (esp. 504), who suggests the reverse direction of literary dependence. 5 Cf. A. Marx, ‘The Theology of the Sacrifice According to Leviticus 1–7,’ in R. Rendtorff, R.  A.  Kugler, and S.  Smith Bartel (eds.), The Book of Leviticus:  Composition and Reception (VTSup 93; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2003), 103–120 (esp. 116); A. Tronina,

Lev 1–7 (cf. Deut 12:13–18b)

125

4:5–7.16–18.25.30.34; 5:9; cf. 4:12; 6:3–4: fatty ashes) at the base of the altar (Lev 4:1–6:6) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites pouring blood (cf. Deut 12:16a) on the ground like water (Deut 12:16b). The particular motif of a legal regulation concerning someone who sinned unintentionally (‫בשגגה‬: Lev 4:2 etc.) was borrowed from Josh 20:3.9. The motif of bringing a bull of the herd as a sin offering for a priest (+ ‫ פר בן־בקר‬+ ‫כהן‬ ‫לחטאת‬: Lev 4:3) was borrowed from Ezek 43:19. The motif of bringing an unclean element outside the camp (‫ אל־מחוץ למחנה‬+ ‫יצא‬: Lev 4:12 etc.) was borrowed from Deut 23:11. The motif of the elders of the congregation (‫זקני העדה‬: Lev 4:15) was borrowed from Judg 21:16. The motif of not touching a carcass of an unclean animal (*‫ בנבלת‬+ ‫ טמא‬+ ‫נגע‬: Lev 5:2) was borrowed from Deut 14:8. The motif the priest taking off his garments, putting on other garments, and thus going out of the sanctuary to another place (+ *‫ ח*צ‬+ ‫ יצא‬+ ‫ ולבש* בגדים אחרים‬+ *‫פשט* את־בגדי‬ ‫אל־‬: Lev 6:4) was borrowed from Ezek 44:19.6 The subsequent idea of (a) the sons of Aaron eating (‫אכל‬: Lev 6:9.11.19.22; 7:6.15) what is left of the food offering of fine flour with oil (b) in the holy court of the tent of meeting, (c) the priests offering one-tenth (‫עשירת‬: Lev 6:13) of an ephah of (d) fine flour (e) made with oil, (f) the priest eating the holy meat of the herds-related (cf. Lev 4:3.14) sin offering, (g) the priest eating the holy meat of the flocks-related (cf. Lev 5:6.15.18.25) guilt offering, and (h) every (‫כל־‬: Lev 7:10.14) offering belonging to the priests (Lev 6:7–7:15) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel not being allowed to eat (b) within his profane gates (c) the Levitical tithe (‫ )מעשר‬of (d) his grain, (e) his new wine and his oil, (f) the firstborn of his herds and (g) his flocks, and (h) every offering (Deut 12:17ab). The subsequent idea of (a) the priests eating the sacrifice of a vow (‫נדר‬: Lev 7:16) or of (b) a voluntary offering (‫נדבה‬: Lev 7:16–27; esp. 7:16)7 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel not being allowed to eat within his profane gates (a) the vows which he vowed and (b) his voluntary offerings (Deut 12:17c). The particular motif of Księga Kapłańska: Wstęp, przekład z oryginału, komentarz (NKBST 3; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2006), 104; J. W. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 336. 6 Pace N. MacDonald, Priestly Rule: Polemic and Biblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44 (BZAW 476; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2015), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 7 Cf. R.  Rendtorff, Leviticus, vol. 1, 251; J.  W.  Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 416; T.  Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 1, 1–15], 319.

126

Leviticus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 12:13–17:13

not eating the meat which became unclean, in the state of uncleanness, and not eating the fat of a dead or torn animal (‫ טרפה‬+ ‫ נבלה‬+ ‫ טמא‬+ ‫ נפש‬+ ‫ פגול‬+ ‫ בשר‬+ ‫אכל‬ ‫ אכל‬+ ‫ לא‬+: Lev 7:18–21.24) was borrowed from Ezek 4:14.8 The subsequent idea of (a) the hands (‫יד‬: Lev 7:30) of the Israelites bringing a raised offering to the priest,9 and (b) the Israelites bringing the contribution (‫תרומה‬: Lev 7:32.34) for priests (Lev 7:28–36) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel not being allowed to eat within his profane gates (b) the contribution of (a) his hand (Deut 12:17). The concluding, geographical-cultic idea of (a) Yahweh commanding Moses on (‫ )ב‬Mount Sinai, on the day when he commanded the Israelites to offer their offerings to Yahweh (b) in (‫ )ב‬the wilderness of Sinai (Lev 7:37–38; esp. 7:38), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding, geographical-cultic Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel eating the offerings before Yahweh God (b) in the place which Yahweh God chooses (Deut 12:18ab).

2.2.  Lev 8–9 (cf. Deut 12:18c–28) The section Lev 8–9 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 12:18c–28. The opening, partly repeated (cf. Exod 28:1; 29:1–3)10 but somewhat surprisingly reworked idea of Moses taking (diff. Exod 28:1; 29:4; 40:12; Lev 8:6: bringing near) Aaron and his sons, together with offerings (Lev 8:1–2), illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of Israel taking on the pilgrimage to the chosen place the Levite who is within Israel’s gates (Deut 12:18c). The subsequent idea of gathering the whole congregation at the entrance of the tent of meeting (Lev 8:3–4) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel rejoicing before Yahweh God (Deut 12:18d).11 The subsequent idea of Moses telling the congregation what Yahweh commanded to do (Lev 8:5) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses commanding Israel to keep himself (Deut 12:19a).

8 9 10 11

Pace R. Levitt Kohn, New Heart, 44, 79, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. Cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 430–431; J. W. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 421–423. Cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 495. For the semantic correspondence of the expressions ‘at the entrance of the tent of meeting’ (Lev 8:3–4) and ‘before Yahweh’ (Deut 12:18), see M. B. Hundley, ‘Before YHWH at the Entrance of the Tent of Meeting: A Study of Spatial and Conceptual Geography in the Priestly Texts,’ ZAW 123 (2011) 15–26 (esp. 23–24).

Lev 8–9 (cf. Deut 12:18c–28)

127

The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 29:4–9)12 idea of Moses anointing Aaron (Lev 8:6–13) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel not forgetting the Levite (Deut 12:19b). The particular motif of the priestly Urim and Thummim (‫ תמים‬+ ‫אורים‬: Lev 8:8) was borrowed from Deut 33:8. The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 29:10–26)13 idea of (a) Moses bringing the bull of the sin offering, (b) using the blood (‫הדם‬: Lev 8:15.19.24; cf. 8:23) for purification and pouring it out at the base of the altar or sprinkling it around the altar, as well as (c) placing food on the palms of Aaron and his sons, and thereafter burning it (so that they did not eat it),14 thus (d) offering it to Yahweh (Lev 8:14–29), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel, the unclean and the clean, eating meat, and (b) not eating the blood (Deut 12:23) but pouring it on the ground like water, thus (c) not eating it, and therefore (d) doing what is right in the sight of Yahweh (Deut 12:20–25). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 29:21.29–30) idea of Moses making Aaron, his garments, his sons, and their garments holy (‫קדש‬: Lev 8:30) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel having holy things (Deut 12:26a). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 29:31–43)15 idea of (a) Aaron and his sons boiling the flesh (b) at the entrance of the tent of the meeting, not going away from the entrance of the tent of the meeting for the cultic-ritual period of seven days (cf. Lev 23:6–8.34–42 etc.),16 and the Israelites taking offerings before Yahweh, whose sanctuary-related glory would appear to them,17 before the tent of meeting (Lev 8:31–9:6) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel taking the vowed offerings and (b) coming to the place which Yahweh chooses (Deut 12:26b–d). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses commanding Aaron to make (‫עשה‬: Lev 9:7.16) a sin offering and (b) a burnt offering (‫עלה‬: Lev 9:7.12–14.16–17), and (c) Aaron putting the blood (‫הדם‬: Lev 9:9) of the offerings (d) on the horns of the 1 2 Cf. J. Stökl, ‘Innovating Ordination,’ HBAI 7 (2018) 483–499 (esp. 491–492). 13 Cf. ibid. 492. 14 Cf. J. E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Word Books: Dallas, TX 1992), 114; A. Tronina, Kapłańska, 148; J. W. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 472. 15 Cf. J. Stökl, ‘Innovating,’ 493. 16 Cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 537; T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 1, 1–15], 356. 17 Cf. J. W. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 491; N. L. DeLapp, Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch:  Visions of YHWH (LHBOTS 660; Bloomsbury T&T Clark:  London · New York 2018), 83.

128

Leviticus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 12:13–17:13

altar (‫ מזבח‬+ ‫על‬: Lev 9:9) and (e) sprinkling the blood (‫דם‬: Lev 9:12.18) (f) on the altar and around it (‫ מזבח‬+ ‫על‬: Lev 9:12.18), (g) presumably leaving the meat for eating (Lev 9:7–21a; esp. 9:19–20),18 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses commanding Israel to make (b) burnt offerings, the flesh and (c) the blood, (d) on the altar of Yahweh God, (e) the blood being poured out (f) on the altar of Yahweh God, and (g) the flesh being eaten (Deut 12:27). The subsequent idea of (a) Aaron acting just as (‫( )כאשר‬b) Moses commanded (‫צוה‬: Lev 9:21b) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel keeping all the words which (‫( )אשר‬b) Moses commands (Deut 12:28a–c). The subsequent idea of (a) Aaron blessing the people (b) after making (‫)עשה‬ offerings (Lev 9:22–23c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic thought that (a) it should go well with Israel forever (b) because he will make what is good and right (Deut 12:28de). The concluding idea of the glory of Yahweh being seen by the people (Lev 9:23d– 24)19 illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of Israel acting in the sight of Yahweh God (Deut 12:28e).

2.3.  Lev 10 (cf. Deut 12:29–14:3) The section Lev 10 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 12:29–14:3. The opening, somewhat surprising idea of (a) two Israelite priests taking their own censers, apparently not those of the Yahwistic sanctuary,20 (b) putting fire (‫ )אש‬in them, and placing a smoking substance on it,21 thus (c) offering before Yahweh non-Israelite fire (‫אש‬: Lev 10:1a–d),22 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel being 18 Cf. R.  Rendtorff, Leviticus, vol. 1, 299; J.  W.  Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 497; T.  Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 1, 1–15], 370. 19 Cf. N. L. DeLapp, Theophanic, 84. 20 Cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 597; J. W. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 527. 21 Cf. T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 1, 1–15], 383–384. 22 Cf. C. Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus (FAT 2.25; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 580–581; G. A. Anderson, ‘ “Through Those Who Are Near to Me, I Will Show Myself Holy”: Nadab and Abihu and Apophatic Theology,’ CBQ 77 (2015) 1–19 (esp. 5–19). It should be noted that the condemned cultic element is not the fire itself (Lev 10:1b) but rather the fire with a smoking substance on it (Lev 10:1cd); cf. P. A. Wiśniewski, La discendenza di Aronne: Studio

Lev 10 (cf. Deut 12:29–14:3)

129

ensnared to serve Canaanite gods, as (b) the Canaanites burnt their sons and their daughters in the fire (c) to their gods (Deut 12:29–31; esp. 12:31). The subsequent idea of (a) the two priests doing things which (‫( )אשר‬b) Yahweh did not command them (*‫צוה את‬: Lev 10:1e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites being called to observe the things which (b) Moses commanded them (Deut 13:1). The subsequent idea of (a) fire going out from Yahweh and devouring the idolatrous priests, so that (b) they died (‫ )מות‬before Yahweh (Lev 10:2), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites fearing Yahweh God, and (b) the deceiving prophet being caused to die for speaking falsehood concerning Yahweh God (Deut 13:2–6b; esp. 13:6). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh showing himself as holy and (b) showing himself as glorious before the whole people,23 and (c) Aaron remaining silent, although his sons were killed (Lev 10:3; cf. 10:2),24 sequentially illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God bringing the Israelites out of Egypt and (b) redeeming Israel from the house of slavery, so (c) Israel purging the evil from his midst (Deut 13:6c–h). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses commanding Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons (‫ )בן‬of Aaron’s uncle, to carry their deceiving brothers (‫( )אח‬b) away from (‫ מן‬+ prep.) (c) the face of the holy, (d) outside the Israelite camp (Lev 10:4),25 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses commanding the Israelite not to spare his enticing brother, the son of his mother (Deut 13:7), who turns the Israelite (b) away from (c) Yahweh God, who brought Israel out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, so (d) all Israel fearing (Deut 13:7–12). The subsequent idea of (a) Mishael and Elzaphan carrying away their deceiving brothers (b) by their tunics, thus not touching them,26 out of the camp, (c) just as (‫( )כאשר‬d) Moses said (Lev 10:5), conceptually and linguistically, in a

2 3 24 25 26

diacronico di Es 24*; Lv 10*; Nm 17*; Nm 27* (RivBSup 62; Dehoniane:  Bologna 2017), 88–89. Cf. N. L. DeLapp, Theophanic, 87. Cf. J. D. Findlay, From Prophet to Priest: The Characterization of Aaron in the Pentateuch (CBET 76; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Bristol, CT 2017), 220. Cf. G. J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (NICOT; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI 1979), 158. Cf. J. W. Watts, Leviticus 1–10, 533; T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 1, 1–15], 389.

130

Leviticus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 12:13–17:13

sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel killing the deceiving people and (b) cursing them, and nothing of the cursed object sticking to the Israelite’s hand, so that (c) Yahweh might have compassion on Israel, just as (Deut 13:18) he swore, if Israel obeys what (d) Moses commands (Deut 13:13–19). The subsequent idea of Moses speaking to Aaron and, somewhat surprisingly, to Eleazar and Ithamar, his named sons (‫בנים‬: Lev 10:6a), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses saying that the Israelites are sons of Yahweh God (Deut 14:1a). The subsequent idea of (a) Eleazar and Ithamar not making their heads without order and (b) not (‫ )לא‬tearing their garments, thus (c) not dying (‫מות‬: Lev 10:6) in the time of mourning, not going out from the entrance of the tent of meeting, and thus not dying (‫מות‬: Lev 10:7), and not drinking wine or beer27 while entering the tent of meeting, and thus not dying (‫מות‬: Lev 10:6–9; esp. 10:9), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites not cutting themselves and (b) not making a bald place between their eyes (c) for the dead (Deut 14:1bc). The subsequent idea of (a) the priests distinguishing between the holy (‫קדש‬: Lev 10:10) and the profane, as well as (b) teaching the statutes which Yahweh has spoken to the Israelites (Lev 10:10–11) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel being a holy people (b) of Yahweh God (Deut 14:2a). The particular motif of the priests distinguishing between holy and profane, and between unclean and clean (‫ *טהור‬+ ‫ ובין הטמא‬+ ‫ חל‬+ ‫ קדש‬+ ‫ בין‬+ *‫הבדיל‬: Lev 10:10) was borrowed from Ezek 22:2628 (cf. 44:23).29 The subsequent idea of (a) Moses letting the priests take an offering remaining from the offerings made to Yahweh and eat it beside the altar as the most holy portion, as well as (b) the priests receiving it as their statutory portion of the

2 7 Cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 612; T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 1, 1–15], 376. 28 Pace R. Levitt Kohn, New Heart, 50–51, 78; K. Min, ‘Die vorexilische priesterliche Verantwortung für die Tora?,’ Biblische Notizen, nf 170 (2016) 13–33 (esp. 20), who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 29 Cf. A. Ruwe, ‘The Structure of the Book of Leviticus in the Narrative Outline of the Priestly Sinai Story (Exod 19:1–Num 10:10*),’ in R.  Rendtorff, R.  A.  Kugler, and S. Smith Bartel (eds.), Book of Leviticus, 55–78 (esp. 76–77); C. Nihan, ‘Ézéchiel 44,17– 31 et la tradition sacerdotale,’ in H. Jenni [et al.] (eds.), Nächstenliebe und Gottesfurcht, Festschrift H.-P. Mathys (AOAT 439; Ugarit: Münster 2016), 321–338 (esp. 331). Pace R. Levitt Kohn, New Heart, 50–51, 78, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

Lev 11 (cf. Deut 14:4–21e)

131

offerings made to Yahweh (Lev 10:12–15) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh choosing Israel (b) to be for him a people of special property (Deut 14:2b–d). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) the priests not (‫לא‬: Lev 10:17) (b) eating (‫אכל‬: Lev 10:17–19) the sin offering, and (c) this fact being evaluated as good in both Yahweh’s and Moses’ eyes (Lev 10:16–20: esp. 10:19e–20)30 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel not (b) eating anything (c) abhorrent, presumably in both Yahweh’s and Moses’ eyes (Deut 14:3; cf. 7:25–26 etc.).

2.4. Lev 11 (cf. Deut 14:4–21e) The section Lev 11 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 14:4–21e. The opening idea of speaking to the Israelites about the living creatures which the Israelites are allowed to eat (‫ )זאת ה* אשר תאכלו‬among all the animals (‫)הבהמה‬ that are on the earth (Lev 11:1–2; esp. 11:2) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of speaking to the Israelites about the animals which they are allowed to eat (Deut 14:4). The subsequent idea of any animal having a divided hoof, having a cleft in the hoofs, and chewing the cud, among the animals this being the one that the Israelites are allowed to eat (‫ פרסת מעלת גרה בבהמה‬+ ‫ מפרסת פרסה ושסעת שסע‬+ ‫כל‬ ‫אתה תאכלו‬: Lev 11:3), conceptually and linguistically, almost verbatim illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea in Deut 14:6.31 In his reworking of the dietary regulations Deut 14:4–6 in Lev 11:3, the author of Exodus–Numbers omitted the initial list of particular animals (Deut 14:4–5)32 because he evidently intended to issue general rules in this matter (Lev 11:3–8).33 The subsequent idea of not eating also this among those which chew the cud or have a divided hoof: the camel, because it chews the cud but does not have a

3 0 Cf. T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 1, 1–15], 397. 31 Pace R.  Achenbach, ‘Zur Systematik der Speisegebote in Leviticus 11 und in Deuteronomium 14,’ ZABR 17 (2011) 161–209 (esp. 178), who suggests the reverse direction of literary dependence. 32 Pace B. Kilchör, ‘Did H Influence D,’ 504–505, who suggests the reverse direction of literary dependence. 33 Cf. T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 1, 1–15], 417, who notes that whereas Deut 14 is interested in issuing detailed dietary regulations concerning eating various animals, Lev 11 is more theoretical in its approach to the issue of cultic uncleanness.

132

Leviticus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 12:13–17:13

divided hoof, this being unclean to the Israelites (‫אך את־זה לא תאכלו ממעלי הגרה‬ ‫ טמא* ה* לכם‬+ *‫ *פריס‬+ ‫ כי־מעלה גרה ה* ופרסה‬+ ‫ את־הגמל‬+ ‫וממפריסי הפרסה‬: Lev 11:4), conceptually and linguistically, almost verbatim illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea in Deut 14:7. The following, similarly formulated instructions concerning the rock badger (‫ואת־השפן‬: Lev 11:5) and the hare (‫ואת־הארנבת‬: Lev 11:6) were likewise borrowed from Deut 14:7. The subsequent idea of the swine, because it has a divided hoof but does not chew the cud, being unclean to the Israelites, so that of their flesh they should not eat and their carcasses they should not touch (+ ‫ואת־החזיר כי־מפריס פרסה הוא‬ ‫ טמא הוא לכם מבשרם לא תאכלו ובנבלתם לא תגעו‬+ ‫ לא‬+ ‫גרה‬: Lev 11:7–8), conceptually and linguistically, almost verbatim illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea in Deut 14:8.34 The subsequent idea of the Israelites eating this among all those which are in water: eating every animal which has fins and scales, but not eating every animal which does not have fins or scales, this being detestable to the Israelites (‫את־זה‬ ‫ תאכלו וכל אשר אין־לו סנפיר וקשקשת‬+ ‫תאכלו מכל אשר במים כל אשר־לו סנפיר וקשקשת‬ ‫ הוא לכם‬+ ‫ לא תאכלו‬+ : Lev 11:9–12), conceptually and linguistically, in a more elaborate way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea in Deut 14:9–10. The particular motif of the Israelites detesting something as unclean (*‫תשקצ‬: Lev 11:11) was borrowed from Deut 7:26. The subsequent idea of some birds being detestable, so not being allowed to be eaten by the Israelites (‫לא *אכלו *הם‬: Lev 11:13a–c), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea in Deut 14:11–12 (cf. 14:20: ‫)עוף‬.35 The subsequent list of detestable birds (‫ ואת־‬+ ‫ ה*אה‬+ ‫ העזניה‬+ ‫ הפרס‬+ ‫הנשר‬ ‫ את כל־ערב למינו ואת בת היענה ואת־התחמס ואת־השחף ואת־הנץ למינהו‬+ ‫ למינה‬+ ‫האיה‬ + ‫ ואת החסידה‬+ *‫ הקאת ואת־הרחמ‬+ ‫ התנשמת‬+ ‫ ואת־הינשוף‬+ ‫ ואת־השלך‬+ ‫ את־הכוס‬+ ‫ העמלף‬+ ‫ הדוכיפת‬+ ‫האנפה למינה‬: Lev 11:13c–19) conceptually and linguistically, almost verbatim, in a slightly reordered (‫ )ואת־השלך‬way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic list in Deut 14:12–18.36

34 Pace R. Achenbach, ‘Zur Systematik,’ 181, who suggests the reverse direction of literary dependence. 35 Cf. A. Tronina, Kapłańska, 182. 36 Pace R. Achenbach, ‘Zur Systematik,’ 195, who suggests the reverse direction of literary dependence.

Lev 12–22 (cf. Deut 14:21f–29)

133

The subsequent idea of all flying insects being detestable to the Israelites (‫כל‬ ‫ הוא לכם‬+ ‫שרץ העוף‬: Lev 11:20) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea in Deut 14:19. The subsequent, somewhat surprising in the context of the preceding general statement Lev 11:20, idea of the Israelites being allowed to eat some flying insects (‫ עוף‬+ ‫ כל‬+ ‫תאכלו‬: Lev 11:21–23; esp. 11:21) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Deut 14:11) Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites being allowed to eat clean flying birds (Deut 14:20).37 The subsequent idea of the Israelites not touching carcasses (‫נבלה‬: Lev 11:24– 40; esp. 11:24–25.27–28.35–40; cf. 11:31–33) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites not eating any animal carcass (Deut 14:21a). The subsequent idea of (a) all detestable animals (b) not being eaten (‫אכל‬: Lev 11:41–42) by the Israelites, who would thus (c) make themselves unclean (Lev 11:41–43), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential but negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) giving the carcass to (b) an alien, who would it eat, or selling it to (c) a foreigner (Deut 14:21b–d). The subsequent thought (a) that (‫( )כי‬b) Yahweh is the Israelites’ God (‫יהוה‬ *‫)אלהיכ‬, so (c) they should make themselves holy (‫ )קדש‬and be holy (‫ )קדש‬because Yahweh their God is holy (‫)קדוש‬, because (d) Yahweh brought them up from the land of Egypt and became their God, so (c’) they should be holy (‫ )קדש‬because he is holy (‫קדוש‬: Lev 11:44–47; esp. 11:44–45), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic thought (a) that (b) Israel is a people (c) holy to (d) Yahweh his God (Deut 14:21e).

2.5.  Lev 12–22 (cf. Deut 14:21f–29) The section Lev 12–22 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 14:21f–29. The idea of (a) a woman bearing a male (diff. Lev 12:6: a son),38 being unclean as during her menstruation, so presumably being separated from others (cf. Lev 15:19–24.33; 20:18),39 letting the male child be circumcised, (b) remaining in (‫ב‬: Lev 12:4) the blood of (c) her childbirth purification, and similarly with a female (Lev 12:1–5)40 sequentially illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of (a) not 3 7 38 39 40

Cf. A. Tronina, Kapłańska, 182. Cf. T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 1, 1–15], 445–446. Cf. G. J. Wenham, Leviticus, 186; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 745. Cf. T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 1, 1–15], 451–452.

134

Leviticus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 12:13–17:13

boiling, that is, presumably separating a kid (b) in the milk of (c) its mother (Deut 14:21f). The subsequent idea of the priest being necessary for making atonement for a woman after the birth of a son or a daughter (Lev 12:6–8; diff. 12:2.5: male or female),41 examining and making atonement for skin diseases on the body (Lev 13–14),42 making atonement for discharges from the body (Lev 15), and making atonement for himself and for the Israelites (Lev 16),43 in all cases presumably taking the sin offering and the guilt offering for himself (Lev 12:6–16:34; esp. 14:13), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of diligently tithing, presumably for the priests, all the produce of Israel’s semen/seed (Deut 14:22a). The particular motif of the outbreak of a skin disease causing the Israelite to consult the priests (‫ הכהנים‬+ ‫ צרעת‬+ ‫נגע‬: Lev 13:2) was borrowed from Deut 24:8. The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of bringing to the tent of meeting (diff. Deut 12:15.21–22), with the aim of offering some offering,44 the animals slaughtered on the surface of the field (‫השדה‬: Lev 17:1–5b; esp. 17:5b)45 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of tithing, presumably for the sanctuary, everything that comes from the field (Deut 14:22b). The subsequent idea of (a) bringing sacrifices to Yahweh, to the entrance of the tent of meeting, and (b) slaughtering them as communion offerings (Lev 17:5c–6; esp. 17:5cd) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) eating before Yahweh God, in the chosen place, (b) the tithes of herds and flocks (Deut 14:23a–c).

41 Cf. J.  Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement:  The Priestly Conceptions (HBM 2; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2005), 106. 112, 115. 42 Cf. ibid. 106–113; N.  Hays, ‘The Redactional Reassertion of the Priestly Role in Leviticus 10–16,’ ZAW 130 (2018) 175–188 (esp. 177). 43 Cf. B. Jürgens, Heiligkeit und Versöhnung: Levitikus 16 in seinem literarischen Kontext (HeBS 28; Herder: Freiburg im Breisgau [et al.] 2001), 91–93. 44 The phrase ‫‘( להקריב קרבן‬to offer an offering’: Lev 17:4) is semantically general and consciously ambiguous; cf. D. A. Teeter, ‘Textgeschichte, Fortschreibung, und Rechtshermeneutik: Das Problem der “profanen” Schlachtung in Lev 17,’ HBAI 2 (2013) 287–314 (esp. 310). 45 Cf. A. Marx, Lévitique 17–27 (CAT 3b; Labor et Fides: Genève 2011), 48–49. P. N. Tucker, The Holiness Composition in the Book of Exodus (FAT 2.98; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2017), 61–62, explains this idea in terms of the restoration of creation, but it is hard to imagine how the total prohibition of profane slaughter would function in practice.

Lev 12–22 (cf. Deut 14:21f–29)

135

The subsequent idea of (a) no longer offering sacrifices to goat-demons,46 and (b) this being a statute forever, throughout generations (Lev 17:7), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) learning to fear Yahweh God (b) all the days (Deut 14:23de). The subsequent idea of (a) an Israelite or a resident alien (b) bringing his offering to (‫אל‬: Lev 17:9) the entrance of the tent of meeting, (c) to make it for Yahweh (Lev 17:8–9), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) dwelling far from the chosen place, so (b) going with money to the place which Yahweh God chooses and (c) buying a proper offering there (Deut 14:24–26c). The subsequent idea of an Israelite or a resident alien not eating (‫ )אכל‬blood, and an Israelite or a resident alien avoiding eating (‫ )אכל‬a dead or torn animal (Lev 17:10–16) conceptually and linguistically, in a negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of eating the offering there, that is, in the chosen place (Deut 14:26d). The particular motif of not eating blood because the life of the flesh is in the blood (‫ דם‬+ ‫ הבשר‬+ ‫ נפש‬+ ‫ כי‬+ ‫ דם‬+ ‫אכל‬: Lev 17:10–12.14) was borrowed from Deut 12:23.47 The motif of pouring out the blood and covering it with dust (‫ עפר‬+ ‫ כסה‬+ ‫ דם‬+ ‫שפך‬: Lev 17:13) was borrowed from Ezek 24:7.48 The subsequent idea of Yahweh being the Israelites’ God (*‫יהוה אלהיכ‬: Lev 18:1–4; esp. 18:2.4) conceptually and linguistically, in a negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel acting before Yahweh God (Deut 14:26d). The subsequent idea of (a) a man living thanks to keeping the statutes concerning (b) his relations with his (‫*ך‬: Lev 18:7–16) close relatives and within his extended household (Lev 18:5–30; esp. 18:6–23)49 sequentially illustrates the 46 Cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3A; Doubleday:  New  York [et  al.] 2000), 1462; A.  Tronina, Kapłańska, 255; T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 2, 16–27] (HThKAT; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2014), 626. 47 Cf. A. Cholewiński, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium: Eine vergleichende Studie (AnBib 66; Biblical Institute:  Rome 1976), 169–175; E.  Otto, ‘Priesterschrift und Deuteronomium im Buch Levitikus: Zur Integration des Deuteronomiums in den Pentateuch,’ in F. Hartenstein and K. Schmid (eds.), Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte (VWGT 40; Evangelische: Leipzig 2015), 161–185 (esp. 173). 48 Pace M. A. Lyons, From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (LHBOTS 507; T&T Clark: New York · London 2009), 116, 167, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 49 Cf. A. Schenker, ‘What Connects the Incest Prohibitions with the Other Prohibitions Listed in Leviticus 18 and 20?,’ in R. Rendtorff, R. A. Kugler, and S. Smith Bartel (eds.), Book of Leviticus, 162–185 (esp. 163–170); T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 2, 16–27], 667.

136

Leviticus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 12:13–17:13

subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite rejoicing, (b) he and his household (Deut 14:26e).50 The particular motif of not uncovering the nakedness of the father (‫ גלה‬+ *‫ערבת אב‬: Lev 18:7) was borrowed from Ezek 22:10.51 The motif of not approaching a woman in her menstruation (‫ לא *קרב‬+ ‫ נדה‬+ ‫ואל־אשה‬: Lev 18:19) was borrowed from Ezek 18:652 and likewise conflated with Ezek 22:10 (*‫)טמאת‬. Similarly, the motif of not taking the wife of the neighbour with the result of defiling (‫ טמא‬+ ‫ לא‬+ ‫וא*־אשת‬: Lev 18:20) was borrowed from Ezek 18:6.53 The subsequent idea of calling the Israelites to be holy and to worship only Yahweh (Lev 19:1–4) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of not neglecting the Levite who is within Israel’s gates (Deut 14:27). The particular motif of keeping the Sabbaths (‫ שבת‬+ ‫שמר‬: Lev 19:3) was borrowed from Deut 5:12.54 The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Lev 7:16–18)55 idea of (a) offering a communion offering and eating it on the same day and on the next day, but not eating it on the third (‫של*ש‬: Lev 19:6–7) day, thus (b) respecting the holy object of Yahweh (Lev 19:5–8), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) every third year bringing out the tithe and leaving it (b) for the Levite (Deut 14:28–29b). The subsequent idea of respecting the alien (‫גר‬: Lev 19:10.33–34)56 as well as other weaker people and objects in the society (Lev 19:9–25.32–37),57 but also highlighting differences from non-Israelites (Lev 19:9–37; esp. 19:26–31),58 50 This fact additionally suggests that the idea of a man actively having sex with a passive male (Lev 18:22; cf. 20:13) should be regarded as mainly referring to pederasty within the extended household. 51 Pace M. A. Lyons, From Law, 169, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 52 Pace ibid. 90, 169, suggesting the reverse direction of borrowing. 53 Pace R.  Levitt Kohn, New Heart, 40, 78; C.  Nihan, ‘Ezekiel and the Holiness Legislation: A Plea for Nonlinear Models,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (FAT 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 1015–1039 (esp. 1023–1024), who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 54 Cf. A. Cholewiński, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 262–263. 55 Cf. G. J. Wenham, Leviticus, 266; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1616–1619; T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 2, 16–27], 716–717. 56 Cf. H. L. Bosman, ‘Loving the Neighbour and the Resident Alien in Leviticus 19 as Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,’ OTE 31 (2018) 571–590 (esp. 579–583). 57 Cf. A.  Schenker, ‘Das Gebot der Nächstenliebe in seinem Kontext (Lev 19,17– 18): Lieben ohne Falschheit,’ ZAW 124 (2012) 244–248 (esp. 246). 58 Cf. G. J. Wenham, Leviticus, 272–273; A. Tronina, Kapłańska, 289–292; T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 2, 16–27], 746–753.

Lev 12–22 (cf. Deut 14:21f–29)

137

conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of leaving the tithe for the alien (Deut 14:29c). The particular motif of the Israelite reaping the harvest and not gathering everything in the field, likewise not gleaning his vineyard but leaving something for the alien, for Yahweh is the God of the Israelites (‫ כרמך‬+ ‫ שדה‬+ ‫ לא‬+ ‫ קציר‬+ ‫קצר‬ *‫ יהוה אלהיכ‬+ ‫ לגר‬+ ‫לא תעולל‬: Lev 19:9–10), was borrowed from Deut 24:19.21.59 The prohibition of stealing (*‫לא תגנב‬: Lev 19:11; cf. Exod 20:15) was borrowed from Deut 5:19. The motif of not exploiting a hired labourer (‫ שכיר‬+ ‫לא־תעשק‬: Lev 19:13) was borrowed from Deut 24:14.60 The motif of the Israelite not joining two kinds of animals, not sowing his field with two kinds of seed, and not wearing garments made of mixed fabric (‫ שעטנז‬+ ‫ כלאים‬+ ‫ לא־תזרע‬+ ‫*ך‬: Lev 19:19) was borrowed from Deut 22:9–11.61 The prohibition of practising divination or interpreting signs (*‫ עוננ‬+ ‫נחש‬: Lev 19:26) was borrowed from Deut 18:10.62 Likewise, the prohibition of consulting spirits or soothsayers (‫ ידענים‬+ ‫אוב‬: Lev 19:31) was borrowed from Deut 18:11.63 The motif of not oppressing the alien (‫ ינה‬+ ‫גר‬: Lev 19:33) was borrowed from Jer 22:3 (cf. Ezek 22:29). The motif of the Israelites loving the alien because they were aliens in the land of Egypt (‫ כי־‬+ *‫ ואהבת‬+ ‫הגר‬ ‫גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים‬: Lev 19:34) was borrowed from Deut 10:19.64 The motif of the Israelites having honest balances, honest ephah, and honest another unit of

59 Cf. A. Cholewiński, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 269–271; A. Marx, Lévitique 17–27, 84. Pace B. Kilchör, ‘The Direction of Dependence between the Laws of the Pentateuch: The Priority of a Literary Approach,’ ETL 89 (2013) 1–14 (esp. 12), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 60 Cf. E.  Otto, ‘Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26,’ in id., Die Tora:  Studien zum Pentateuch:  Gesammelte Schriften (BZABR 9; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2009), 46–106 (esp. 67); E. E. Meyer, ‘When Synchrony Overtakes Diachrony: Perspectives on the Relationship between the Deuteronomic Code and the Holiness Code,’ OTE 30 (2017) 749–769 (esp. 758–761). Pace B. Kilchör, ‘Direction,’ 11, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 61 Cf. A.  Cholewiński, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 304–305; C.  Nihan, ‘The Holiness Code between D and P: Some Comments on the Function and Significance of Leviticus 17–26 in the Composition of the Torah,’ in E. Otto and R. Achenbach (eds.), Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 206; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2004), 81–122 (esp. 95); E. Otto, ‘Innerbiblische,’ 65. 62 Cf. A. Marx, Lévitique 17–27, 92. 63 Cf. E. Otto, ‘Innerbiblische,’ 67. 64 Cf. A. Cholewiński, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 274–276; A. Marx, Lévitique 17–27, 95. Pace E. Otto, ‘Priesterschrift,’ 175, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

138

Leviticus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 12:13–17:13

measure (‫ איפת צדק ו* צדק יהי* לכם‬+ ‫מאזני צדק‬: Lev 19:36) was borrowed from Ezek 45:1065 and conflated with Deut 25:15 (‫ צדק‬+ ‫)אבן‬.66 The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Lev 18:7–23) idea of the laws concerning (a) children, spirits of the dead, and parents (Lev 20:1–9) as well as (b) women and other living beings treated as weaker sexual partners (Lev 20:13.15–16) without sufficient male protection, who cannot protect their nakedness from being uncovered (Lev 20:1–21; esp. 20:10–21), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of caring for (a) the orphan and (b) the widow (Deut 14:29c).67 For this reason, the laws in Lev 20:2–21, in comparison to those in Lev 18:7–23, are supplemented with penal sanctions.68 The particular motif of not cursing the father or the mother (‫ אם‬+ ‫ אב‬+ ‫קלל‬: Lev 20:9) was borrowed from Ezek 22:7.69 The motif of not committing adultery with the neighbour’s wife (‫נאף‬ ‫ רע‬+ ‫ אשה‬+ ‫ את־‬+: Lev 20:10) was borrowed from Jer 29:23. The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites inheriting the land of the pagan nations but not following their statutes (Lev 20:22–24), as well as (b) making a distinction between clean and unclean food (Lev 20:25), and (c) being holy to Yahweh and not having pagan spirits (Lev 20:22–27; esp. 20:26–27)70 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel’s gates, within which the pagan alien lives, as well as (b) the Levite and the alien eating, presumably different foods, and (c) the Levite and the alien being satiated, presumably in spiritually different ways (Deut 14:29c–e). The particular motif of making a distinction between clean and unclean, and between unclean and clean (+ ‫בדל‬ ‫ הטמא לטהר‬+ ‫ ובין־‬+ ‫בין‬: Lev 20:25) was borrowed from Ezek 22:26.71 The motif of the Israelites not making themselves detestable by the animals creeping on the ground (‫ האדמה‬+ ‫רמש‬: Lev 20:25) was borrowed from Deut 4:18. 65 Pace R. Levitt Kohn, New Heart, 60, 84; M. A. Lyons, From Law, 173, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 66 Cf. A. Cholewiński, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 277–279; A. Marx, Lévitique 17–27, 96. 67 This fact additionally suggests that the idea of an adult man actively having sex with a passive male (Lev 20:13; cf. 18:22) should be regarded as mainly referring to pederasty, based on inequality in social status. 68 Cf. L. Massmann, Der Ruf in die Entscheidung: Studien zur Komposition, zur Entstehung und Vorgeschichte, zum Wirklichkeitsverständnis und zur kanonischen Stellung von Lev 20 (BZAW 324; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2003), 195–198; T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 2, 16–27], 775–777; M.  Rosenberg, ‘The Conflation of Purity and Prohibition: An Interpretation of Leviticus 18:19,’ HTR 107 (2014) 447–469 (esp. 460). 69 Pace M. A. Lyons, From Law, 175, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 70 Cf. A. Tronina, Kapłańska, 305. 71 Pace M. A. Lyons, From Law, 175, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

Lev 23:1–14 (cf. Deut 15:1–16:8)

139

The subsequent idea of the priests not defiling themselves but being holy for their God (*‫אלהי‬: Lev 21; esp. 21:6–7.12.17.21–22) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh Israel’s God blessing Israel (Deut 14:29f). The particular motif of the Israelites not making a bald place on their heads (+ ‫לא־‬ *‫קרחה ב‬: Lev 21:5) was borrowed from Deut 14:1. The motif of the high priest (‫הכהן הגדול‬: Lev 21:10)72 was borrowed from Josh 20:6. The motif of a priest who has a blemish not offering an offering to his God, in particular someone who is blind or lame (‫ פסח‬+ ‫ או‬+ ‫ עור‬+ *‫ אלהי‬+ ‫ לא‬+ ‫יהיה בו מום‬: Lev 21:17–18), was borrowed from Deut 15:21 and adapted to suit the topic of the priests (Lev 21; cf. Deut 14:29f). The subsequent idea of dealing respectfully with the holy things which the Israelites dedicate to Yahweh (Lev 22:1–16), and the Israelites making (‫עשה‬: Lev 22:23–24) offerings free of blemish and pleasing Yahweh (Lev 22:18–30), presumably from the Israelite’s hand (‫יד‬: Lev 22:1–30; esp. 22:25), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of all the presumably cultic making (‫ )מעשה‬of the Israelite’s hand (Deut 14:29f). The particular motif of not offering as a sacrifice to Yahweh an animal which has a blemish or which is blind (‫ עור‬+ ‫ ליהוה‬+ ‫ זבח‬+ ‫*בו מום‬: Lev 22:20–22) was borrowed from Deut 15:21.73 The concluding idea of the Israelites keeping Yahweh’s commandments and doing (‫עשה‬: Lev 22:31) them, thus being sanctified (Lev 22:31–33), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of the cultic things which Israel does (Deut 14:29g).

2.6.  Lev 23:1–14 (cf. Deut 15:1–16:8) The section Lev 23:1–14 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 15:1–16:8. The opening idea of (a) Moses speaking (‫ )דבר‬to the Israelites concerning (b) the festivals of Yahweh, which (c) the Israelites should proclaim (‫ )קרא‬as sacred proclamations (‫)מקרא‬,74 as (d) festivals of Yahweh (Lev 23:1–2), conceptually and

72 Cf. T. Hieke, ‘Priestly Leadership in the Book of Leviticus: A Hidden Agenda,’ in K. Pyschny and S. Schulz (eds.), Debating Authority: Concepts of Leadership in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets (BZAW 507; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2018), 68–88 (esp. 75). 73 Cf. A. Marx, Lévitique 17–27, 133–134. Pace B. Kilchör, ‘Did H Influence D,’ 507, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 74 Cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3B; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 2001), 1957.

140

Leviticus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 12:13–17:13

linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses explaining the word (‫ )דבר‬of (b) the festive remission, which reflects (c) the proclaiming of (d) the remission because of Yahweh (Deut 15:1–11; esp. 15:1–2). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 31:15; 35:2 etc.)75 idea of (a) the Israelites doing work six (‫ )שש‬days, (b) and on the seventh day (‫( )וב* השביעי‬c) there being a Sabbath of total cessation,76 (d) a holy convocation (Lev 23:3ab), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Hebrew slave serving six years, (b) and in the seventh year (c) being sent free (d) because Yahweh redeemed Israel (Deut 15:12–17; esp. 15:12.15). The subsequent idea of (a) all (‫ )כל‬the work (b) the Israelites not doing (*‫)תעש‬ on the Sabbath (Lev 23:3cd) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God blessing Israel in (a) all that (b) Israel does (Deut 15:18). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Lev 23:2) idea of holy (‫ )קדש‬convocations to Yahweh (Lev 23:4) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of all firstborn male animals being declared holy to Yahweh God (Deut 15:19a). The subsequent idea of the first (cf. Exod 12:6; diff. Deut 16:1: Abib) month (Lev 23:5)77 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the firstborn animal being eaten year by year (Deut 15:19b–23). The subsequent idea of (a) a day in the month (‫ )חדש‬on which there is (b) Passover to Yahweh (‫פסח ליהוה‬: Lev 23:5) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the month in which Israel should make (b) Passover to Yahweh God (Deut 16:1–2).78 The subsequent idea of (a) seven days (‫ )שבעת ימים‬in which (b) the Israelites should eat unleavened bread (*‫ תאכל‬+ ‫מצות‬: Lev 23:6) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) seven days in which (b) Israel should eat unleavened bread (Deut 16:3).79 75 Cf. ibid. 1959; A.  Grund, Die Entstehung des Sabbats:  Seine Bedeutung für Israels Zeitkonzept und Erinnerungskultur (FAT 75; Mohr Siebeck:  Tübingen 2011), 284, 292–293. 76 Cf. J. Rhyder, ‘Sabbath and Sanctuary Cult in the Holiness Legislation: A Reassessment,’ JBL 138 (2019) 721–740 (esp. 724). 77 Cf. T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 2, 16–27], 898. 78 Cf. G. Hepner, Legal Friction: Law, Narrative, and Identity Politics in Biblical Israel (StBibLit 78; Peter Lang: New York [et al.] 2010), 734; C. Nihan, ‘Holiness Code,’ 90. 79 Cf. A. Cholewiński, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 192; C. Nihan, ‘Holiness Code,’ 90.

Lev 23:15–22 (cf. Deut 16:9–11)

141

The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 12:16) thought that (a) on the first day (‫( )ביום הראשון‬b) there should be a holy convocation for the Israelites, and (c) the Israelites should offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh for seven days (‫שבעת ימים‬: Lev 23:7–8a) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly reversed order, which corrects the confused, non-chronological presentation in Deut 16:4, illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (c) there being no leaven in Israel for seven days (presumably after the first day), (a) nothing remaining of the meat slaughtered on the first day (b) in the chosen place, and (c’) Israel eating unleavened bread for six days (Deut 16:4–8a).80 The concluding thought that (a) on the seventh day (‫( )ביום השביעי‬b) there should be a holy convocation, and (c) the Israelites should do no work (+ ‫מלאכה‬ *‫לא תעש‬: Lev 23:8b–14; esp. 23:8bc) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic thought that (a) on the seventh day (b) there should be a festive assembly to Yahweh God, and (c) Israel should do no work (Deut 16:8bc).81 The particular, inserted (diff. Deut 16:8) motif of the Israelites coming into the land which Yahweh gives to them, bringing the first fruits of the harvest to the priest, the priest setting it before Yahweh, offering a Passover-like sacrifice, the Israelites not eating bread until they bring the first fruits to Yahweh, and this being a Levitical-style statute for the Israelites in all their dwellings (‫כי־תבא* אל־הארץ אשר‬ ‫ הביא* את־‬+ ‫ הכהן‬+ ‫ יהוה‬+ ‫ לפני‬+ ‫ אל־הכהן‬+ *‫ ראש‬+ ‫ בוא‬+ *‫ נתן לכ‬+: Lev 23:9–14) was borrowed from Deut 26:1–1182 and logically inserted after the text concerning the spring festival of Passover (Lev 23:5–8; cf. Deut 16:1–8).

2.7.  Lev 23:15–22 (cf. Deut 16:9–11) The section Lev 23:15–22 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 16:9–11. The opening idea of (a) the Israelites counting (‫ )ספר‬for themselves (*‫)לכ‬83 from (‫( )מן‬b) the beginning of the harvest of grain (cf. Lev 23:10–14) (c) seven 80 Cf. K. W. Weyde, The Appointed Festivals of YHWH: The Festival Calendar in Leviticus 23 and the sukkôt Festival in Other Biblical Texts (FAT 2.4; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2004), 26. 81 Cf. A. Cholewiński, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 192; K. W. Weyde, Appointed, 24. 82 Cf. K. W. Weyde, Appointed, 70, 76, 78; A. Marx, Lévitique 17–27, 148; N. MacDonald, ‘Ritual Innovation and Shavu’ot,’ in id. (ed.), Ritual Innovation in the Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism (BZAW 468; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2016), 55–77 (esp. 64). 83 Cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 1998; A. Tronina, Kapłańska, 340; T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 2, 16–27], 908.

142

Leviticus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 12:13–17:13

complete Sabbaths/weeks (‫שבע* שב*ות‬: Lev 23:15)84 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel counting for himself from (b) the beginning of putting the sickle to the standing grain (c) seven weeks (Deut 16:9).85 The subsequent thought that the Israelites (a) after the seventh Sabbath/week (‫ שביעי‬+ ‫( )שבת‬b) should offer a new offering to Yahweh (‫)ליהוה‬, (c) bringing counted offerings to Yahweh (Lev 23:16–18), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel (a) making the festival of weeks (‫( )שבעות‬b) to Yahweh God and (c) giving a certain measure of a free-will offering according to the blessing of Yahweh (Deut 16:10).86 The subsequent idea of offering a sin offering and a communion offering (Lev 23:19) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of rejoicing before Yahweh God with one’s household (Deut 16:11a). The subsequent idea of (a) the offering being for the priest, (b) this being a Levitical-style statute in (‫ )ב‬all the dwellings of the Israelites (Lev 23:20–21), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the joy of the Levite (b) who is within Israel’s gates (Deut 16:11b). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Lev 19:9–10)87 idea of the Israelites leaving some grain for the poor and for the alien (‫גר‬: Lev 23:22a–d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the joy of the alien, the orphan, and the widow, who are among the Israelites (Deut 16:11c).88 The concluding, partly repeated (cf. Lev 19:10)89 idea of Yahweh pointing to himself as the Israelites’ God (*‫יהוה אלהיכ‬: Lev 23:22e)90 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh Israel’s God choosing a place to make his name dwell there (Deut 16:11de).

8 4 Cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 1998. 85 Cf. A.  Cholewiński, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 209; Y.  H.  Kim, ‘The Jubilee:  Its Reckoning and Inception Day,’ VT 60 (2010) 147–151 (esp.  150); N.  MacDonald, ‘Ritual Innovation,’ 63–64. 86 Cf. A. Tronina, Kapłańska, 341. 87 Cf. G. J. Wenham, Leviticus, 304; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2010. 88 Cf. A. Cholewiński, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 201; E. Otto, ‘Innerbiblische,’ 76. 89 Cf. G. J. Wenham, Leviticus, 304; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2010. 90 Cf. T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 2, 16–27], 914.

Lev 23:23–44 (cf. Deut 16:12–17a)

143

2.8. Lev 23:23–44 (cf. Deut 16:12–17a) The section Lev 23:23–44 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 16:12–17a. The opening idea of the Israelites celebrating a memorial day (‫זכרון‬: Lev 23:23–24; diff. Num 29:1: no remark concerning remembering)91 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of Israel remembering (‫זכר‬: Deut 16:12a). The subsequent idea of the Israelites doing no slave (‫ )עבדה‬work, but offering an offering made by fire to Yahweh (Lev 23:25) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel once being a slave (‫עבד‬: Deut 16:12b). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Lev 16:29–31)92 idea of the souls of the Israelites being afflicted, like in Egypt (Lev 23:26–29; cf. Exod 1:11–12 etc.: ‫)ענה‬, illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel being in Egypt (Deut 16:12b). The subsequent idea of the rules concerning the Israelites doing (‫ )עשה‬no work (Lev 23:30–31a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel diligently doing (Deut 16:12cd). The subsequent idea of (a) a statute (‫חקה‬: Lev 23:31b) forever for the Israelites concerning (b) this (‫ )הוא‬Sabbath (Lev 23:31b–32) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) these (‫( )אלה‬a) statutes (‫חק‬: Deut 16:12d). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites celebrating the festival of booths (‫( )חג הסכות‬b) for seven days (‫ )שבעת ימים‬to Yahweh (Lev 23:33–34; esp. 23:34) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel making the festival of booths (b) for seven days (Deut 16:13).93 The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites having a holy convocation and (b) doing no slave (‫ )עבדה‬work (Lev 23:35) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite rejoicing in his festival (b) with his slave (‫עבד‬: Deut 16:14). The subsequent idea of (a) for seven days the Israelites offering (*‫)שבעת ימים ת‬ an offering made by fire (b) to Yahweh (‫ליהוה‬: diff. Lev 23:8; Num 29:12: reversed order),94 (c) in (‫ ;ב‬diff. Lev 15:29; 22:27; etc.: no preposition) the eight day having 9 1 92 93 94

Cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2014. Cf. G. J. Wenham, Leviticus, 305; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2020–2021. Cf. C. Nihan, ‘Holiness Code,’ 88. Cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2028.

144

Leviticus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 12:13–17:13

a holy convocation, (d) offering an offering made by fire to Yahweh, and having a festive assembly (Lev 23:36a–d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) for seven days Israel celebrating a festival (b) to Yahweh God (c) in (‫ )ב‬the place which he chooses, and (d) Yahweh God blessing Israel (Deut 16:15a–c). The subsequent idea of (a) all (‫ )כל‬the slave work (b) the Israelites not doing (‫עשה‬: Lev 23:36e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic thought that (a) in all the Israelite’s produce, in all (b) the deed (‫ )מעשה‬of his hand, the Israelite should rejoice (Deut 16:15cd). The subsequent idea of these being the festivals of Yahweh which the Israelites should proclaim as holy convocations (Lev 23:37ab) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the three festivals in which all Israel’s males should appear before Yahweh God in the place which he chooses (Deut 16:16ab). The subsequent idea of the Israelites offering an offering made by fire and other offerings to Yahweh (Lev 23:37c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel not appearing before Yahweh empty-handed (Deut 16:16c). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites’ gifts (‫ )מתנה‬and (b) free-will offerings which they give to Yahweh (Lev 23:38) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) every Israelite offering a gift (b) of his hand (Deut 16:17a). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites gathering the fruit of the land, taking the fruits and branches of splendid trees,95 and (b) rejoicing before (c) Yahweh the Israelites’ God (‫אלהים‬: Lev 23:40.43), who brought them out of the land of Egypt (Lev 23:39–44), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the gift of everyone’s hand being according to (b) the blessing of (c) Yahweh Israel’s God (Deut 16:17a).

2.9.  Lev 24–25 (cf. Deut 16:17b–20) The section Lev 24–25 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 16:17b–20. The partly repeated (cf. Exod 27:20–21; 25:30) idea of (a) the Israelites’ continual offering before Yahweh, an eternal covenant, being destined (b) to (‫)ל‬ Aaron and to (‫ )ל‬his sons to be eaten by them, this being destined to (‫ )ל‬him as

95 Cf. J. E. Hartley, Leviticus, 368, 389; B. C. Babcock, Sacred Ritual: A Study of the West Semitic Ritual Calendars in Leviticus 23 and the Akkadian Text Emar 446 (BBRSup 9; Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2014), 87; T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 2, 16–27], 930–931.

Lev 24–25 (cf. Deut 16:17b–20)

145

most holy from the offerings of Yahweh (Lev 24:1–9; esp. 24:9),96 sequentially illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh continually giving (‫ נתן‬read as qal participle: cf. Deut 16:18.20) his blessing (b) to Israel (Deut 16:17b). The subsequent idea of (a) a half-Israelite man and an Israelite man fighting (b) in (‫ )ב‬the camp, (c) the half-Israelite man ‘piercing’ and despising the name of Yahweh (cf. Lev 24:9.12),97 and (d) the half-Israelite man being of (‫ )ל‬the tribe of Dan (Lev 24:10–11) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel appointing for himself judges and officials (b) in all his gates, (c) which (the ‘pierced’ gates) Yahweh Israel’s God gives to Israel, (d) of Israel’s tribes (Deut 16:18ab). The fact that the half-Israelite blasphemer was of the tribe of Dan (Lev 24:11) implies rivalry with its local sanctuary.98 This rivalry with Dan is most plausible for the central tribe of Ephraim, with its post-exilic sanctuary on Mount Gerizim, rather than for the southern tribe of Judah, which was considerably distanced from the tribe of Dan. This fact suggests that Exodus–Numbers is an Israelite work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 21:23–25)99 idea of giving a clear judicial decision, consisting in administering an appropriate, retributive punishment (Lev 24:12–21),100 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of judging the people with just judgement (Deut 16:18c). The particular motif of retaliating life for life, fractured limb for fractured limb, eye for eye, and tooth for tooth (‫נפש‬ ‫ שן‬+ ‫ שן‬+ ‫ עין‬+ ‫ עין‬+ ‫ נפש‬+: Lev 24:18.20; cf. Exod 21:23–25) was borrowed from Deut 19:21. The subsequent idea of (a) one law (‫ )משפט‬being (b) for the alien and for the citizen (Lev 24:22) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates

96 Cf. J. E. Hartley, Leviticus, 402; A. Tronina, Kapłańska, 350; A. Schellenberg, ‘More than Spirit: On the Physical Dimension in the Priestly Understanding of Holiness,’ ZAW 126 (2014) 163–179 (esp. 172). 97 Cf. J. E. Hartley, Leviticus, 404, 408–409. 98 Cf. T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 2, 16–27], 961. 99 Cf. M.  Leuchter, ‘The Ambiguous Details in the Blasphemer Narrative:  Sources and Redaction in Leviticus 24:10–23,’ JBL 130 (2011) 431–450 (esp. 432); C. Nihan, ‘Murder, Blasphemy and Sacral Law: Another Look at Lev 24,10–23,’ ZABR 17 (2011) 211–240 (esp. 224–229); D. P. Wright, ‘Source Dependence and the Development of the Pentateuch: The Case of Leviticus 24,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), Formation, 651–682 (esp. 653–654, 667). 100 Cf. B. Lee, ‘Unity in Diversity: The Literary Function of the Formula of Retaliation in Leviticus 24.15–22,’ JSOT 38.3 (2014) 297–313 (esp. 298).

146

Leviticus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 12:13–17:13

the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) not twisting the law and (b) not showing partiality (Deut 16:19ab). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses speaking words (‫ )דבר‬to the Israelites, and (b) the Israelites justly punishing the guilty person, as Yahweh commanded Moses (Lev 24:23), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel taking no bribe because a bribe twists the words of the righteous, and (b) Israel pursuing justice, strict justice (Deut 16:19–20a). The concluding, partly repeated (cf. Exod 23:10–11 etc.)101 thought that (a) the Israelites will come into (b) the land which (‫( )הארץ אשר‬c) Yahweh gives to them (*‫נתן לכ‬: Lev 25:2), so that (b’) the land (‫ )ארץ‬shall rest (Lev 25:4–7.9–10),102 the Israelites will dwell securely in the land (‫הארץ‬: Lev 25:18–19), the land (‫)ארץ‬ (c’) is leased by Yahweh to the Israelites (Lev 25:23–24.31),103 Yahweh God (‫יהוה‬ *‫ )אלהיכ‬gives to the Israelites (*‫ לכ‬+ ‫( )נתן‬b”) the land (‫ )ארץ‬of Canaan (Lev 25:38), the aliens in the land (‫ )ארץ‬of the Israelites are (c”) their property (Lev 25:45), which (a’) the Israelites’ children will inherit (‫ירש‬: Lev 25:46), and the Israelites should be released (Lev 25) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel living and inheriting (b) the land which (c) Yahweh God gives to him (Deut 16:20b–d). The particular motif of proclaiming, at the end of (seven times) seven years, a year of release (‫ שנה‬+ ‫ שנים‬+ ‫שבע‬: Lev 25:8.10) was borrowed from Deut 15:1.9, conflated with Jer 34:8.15.17 (‫ )קרא* דרור‬and Ezek 46:17 (‫ דרור‬+ ‫)שנה‬, as well as reworked in the economically more realistic terms of the fiftieth and not the seventh year (Lev 25:10)104 and adapting the prices of long-term lease to the time until the year of release (Lev 25:15–16.50–52).105 Likewise, the motif of an 101 Cf. S.-J. Kim, ‘Les enjeux théologiques des bénéficiaires de l’année sabbatique (Lev 25,6–7),’ ZAW 122 (2010) 33–43 (esp. 33–37); D. P. Wright, ‘Source Dependence,’ 666; S. M. Olyan, ‘Are there Legal Texts in the Hebrew Bible that Evince Concern for Animal Rights?,’ BibInt 27 (2019) 321–339 (esp. 329–331). 102 Cf. A. R. Schafer, ‘Rest for the Animals? Nonhuman Sabbath Repose in Pentateuchal Law,’ BBR 23 (2013) 167–186 (esp. 178). 103 Cf. M. G. Brett, ‘Permutations of Sovereignty in the Priestly Tradition,’ VT 63 (2013) 383–392 (esp. 389). 104 Cf. A. Tronina, Kapłańska, 372. 105 Cf. C. Nihan, ‘Holiness Code,’ 85 n. 22; S. C. Russell, ‘Biblical Jubilee Laws in Light of Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Period Contracts,’ ZAW 130 (2018) 189–203 (esp. 191–192, 197–198). Cf. also J. Kaplan, ‘The Credibility of Liberty: The Plausibility of the Jubilee Legislation of Leviticus 25 in Ancient Israel and Judah,’ CBQ 81 (2019) 183–203 (esp. 200).

Lev 26–27 (cf. Deut 16:21–17:13)

147

Israelite selling himself to another Israelite but serving only until the year of release, when he should depart (*‫ ימכר‬+ ‫ עבד‬+ ‫ שנה‬+ ‫ *מכר לך‬+ ‫ אחיך‬+ ‫כי־‬: Lev 25:39–42), was borrowed from Deut 15:12 (cf. Deut 15:18: ‫)שכיר‬.106 The motif of not taking from the Israelite brother interest on money or food (‫ כסף‬+ ‫ אחיך‬+ ‫נשך‬ ‫ אכל‬+: Lev 25:36–37) was borrowed from Deut 23:20.107 The motif of the Israelites not ruling over other Israelites with violence (‫ בפרך‬+ ‫רדה‬: Lev 25:43.46.53) was borrowed from Ezek 34:4.108

2.10.  Lev 26–27 (cf. Deut 16:21–17:13) The section Lev 26–27 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 16:21–17:13. The opening idea of (a) the Israelites not (‫ )לא־‬making for themselves (*‫)לכ‬ idols or divine images (b) and not setting up for themselves a sacred pillar (‫ו‬ *‫ לא־תקימ* לכ‬+ ‫ מצבה‬+ ) because (c) Yahweh is the God of the Israelites (‫יהוה‬ *‫אלהיכ‬: Lev 26:1) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite not planting for himself a sacred pole (b) and not setting up for himself a sacred pillar, which (c) Yahweh the God of Israel hates (Deut 16:21–22).109 The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites reverencing the sanctuary of Yahweh because (b) he is Yahweh (Lev 26:2) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel not sacrificing to Yahweh God defective animals because (b) this is an abomination to Yahweh God (Deut 17:1). The subsequent idea of Yahweh giving (‫ )נתן‬rain to Israel, the land giving (‫)נתן‬ its produce, the field giving (‫ )נתן‬its fruit (Lev 26:4), Yahweh giving (‫ )נתן‬peace in the land (Lev 26:6), Yahweh giving (‫ )נתן‬his dwelling in the midst of the Israelites (Lev 26:11), and being Yahweh their God (*‫יהוה אלהיכ‬: Lev 26:3–13) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel’s gates, which Yahweh God gives to Israel (Deut 17:2ab).

106 Cf. J. Stackert, Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation (FAT 52; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 144–153; E. Otto, ‘Priesterschrift,’ 172; E. E. Meyer, ‘When Synchrony,’ 762–767. 107 Cf. C. Nihan, From Priestly, 532. 108 Cf. B. M. Levinson, ‘The Birth of the Lemma: The Restrictive Reinterpretation of the Covenant Code’s Manumission Law by the Holiness Code (Leviticus 25:44–46),’ JBL 124 (2005) 617–639 (esp. 637 n. 64). Pace R. Levitt Kohn, New Heart, 67, 79; M. A. Lyons, From Law, 82–83, 178, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 109 Cf. A. Cholewiński, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 267–269; A. Marx, Lévitique 17–27, 195.

148

Leviticus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 12:13–17:13

The particular motif of Yahweh giving peace to the land and removing evil beasts from the land (‫ והשבתי חיה רעה מן־הארץ‬+ ‫שלום‬: Lev 26:6) was borrowed from Ezek 34:25.110 The motif of Yahweh multiplying the Israelites and making a covenant with them (‫ א*ם‬+ ‫ ברית‬+ ‫והרביתי א*ם‬: Lev 26:9) was borrowed from Ezek 37:26.111 The following motif of Yahweh setting his dwelling place among the Israelites as well as being their God, and the Israelites being his people (‫ונתתי‬ ‫ *היו־לי לעם‬+ *‫ והייתי ל*ם לאלהים ו‬+ ‫ משכני‬+ ‫*י בתוכ*ם‬: Lev 26:11–12) was borrowed from the following text Ezek 37:26–27.112 The motif of Yahweh breaking the bands of the Israelites’ yoke of being slaves (‫ מטת על*ם‬+ ‫ שבר‬+ ‫עבדים‬: Lev 26:13) was borrowed from Ezek 34:27.113 The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites not doing (‫ )עשה‬all Yahweh’s commandments and thus (b) breaking his covenant (‫ברית‬: Lev 26:14–15) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) an Israelite doing evil and (b) transgressing Yahweh’s covenant (Deut 17:2c–4). The subsequent idea of Yahweh summoning terror on the Israelites and severely punishing them in several progressively arranged turns (Lev 26:14– 17.18–20.21–22.23–26.27–39; diff. Deut 28:15–68)114 of a judicial procedure (Lev 26:16–39) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel stoning the guilty person to death on the account of two or three witnesses (Deut 17:5–6).

110 Cf. R. Müller, ‘A Prophetic View of the Exile in the Holiness Code: Literary Growth and Tradition History in Leviticus 26,’ in E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin, The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and Its Historical Contexts (BZAW 404; De Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2010), 207–228 (esp. 209); E. Otto, ‘Priesterschrift,’ 181; R. Albertz, ‘Die Abschlüsse der ersten und zweiten priesterlichen Komposition in Lev 16 und 26,’ in id., Pentateuchstudien, ed. J. Wöhrle and F. Neumann (FAT 117; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 297–326 (esp. 316 n. 81). 111 Pace C. Nihan, ‘Ezekiel and the Holiness,’ 1030–1031, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 112 Cf. R. Müller, ‘Prophetic,’ 211; R. Albertz, ‘Abschlüsse,’ 316 n. 81. Pace B. Kilchör, ‘Überlegungen zum Verhältnis zwischen Levitikus 26 und Ezechiel und die tempeltheologische Relevanz der Abhängigkeitsrichtung,’ ZABR 24 (2018) 295–306 (esp. 300– 305), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 113 Cf. R. Müller, ‘Prophetic,’ 209; R. Albertz, ‘Abschlüsse,’ 316 n. 81. Pace C. L. Nihan, ‘Ezekiel 34–37 and Leviticus 26: A Reevaluation,’ in W. A. Tooman and P. Barter (eds.), Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions (FAT 112; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2017), 153–178 (esp. 170–171), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 114 Cf. G. J. Wenham, Leviticus, 330–332; J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2304; A. Marx, Lévitique 17–27, 200–202.

Lev 26–27 (cf. Deut 16:21–17:13)

149

The particular motif of Yahweh afflicting Israel with wasting disease and fever (‫ קדחת‬+ ‫שחפת‬: Lev 26:16) was borrowed from Deut 28:22.115 Similarly, the following motif of the Israelites being defeated before their enemies (‫ לפני‬+ ‫נגף‬ *‫איביכ‬: Lev 26:17) was borrowed from the following text Deut 28:25.116 Likewise, the motif of the heaven being like iron and the earth like bronze (+ ‫ ברזל‬+ *‫שמיכ‬ ‫ נחשה‬+ ‫ארץ‬: Lev 26:19) was borrowed from Deut 28:23 and slightly reworked.117 The motif of Yahweh breaking to the Israelites the staff of bread, so that they will eat bread by weight (*‫ ואכל‬+ ‫ במשקל‬+ ‫ לחם‬+ ‫ לכם מטה־לחם‬+ ‫שבר‬: Lev 26:26), was borrowed from Ezek 5:16; 4:16 (cf. 14:13).118 The motif of the Israelites eating the flesh of their sons and their daughters (*‫ בנתיכ‬+ *‫ בשר בניכ‬+ *‫ואכלת‬: Lev 26:29) was borrowed from Deut 28:53.119 The motif of Yahweh destroying the Israelites’ cultic high places (‫ במת‬+ ‫שמד‬: Lev 26:30) was borrowed from Hos 10:8. The motif of Yahweh laying the corpses of the Israelites on their idols (*‫ונתתי את־פגרי‬ *‫ גלולי‬+: Lev 26:30) was borrowed from Ezek 6:5.120 Likewise, the motif of laying the Israelites’ cities in ruins, and their land being a desolation (+ ‫עריכ* חרבה‬ ‫שממה‬: Lev 26:31–33) was borrowed from Ezek 35:4.121 Similarly, the motif of the Israelites ‘rotting’ in exile because of their guilt (‫*מקו בעונם‬: Lev 26:39) was borrowed from Ezek 4:17 (cf. 24:23).122 The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites confessing their guilt for which (b) they were punished (Lev 26:40–41) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the witnesses being against the guilty person (b) to put

115 Cf. R. Müller, ‘Prophetic,’ 214; A. Marx, Lévitique 17–27, 203; C. Nihan, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz und Pentateuch: Traditions- und kompositionsgeschichtliche Aspekte von Levitikus 26,’ in F. Hartenstein and K. Schmid (eds.), Abschied, 186–218 (esp. 202). 116 Cf. R.  Müller, ‘Prophetic,’ 214; A.  Marx, Lévitique 17–27, 203; C.  Nihan, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 202. 117 Cf. A.  Marx, Lévitique 17–27, 203; C.  Nihan, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 202; E.  Otto, ‘Priesterschrift,’ 178. 118 Cf. C.  Nihan, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 203; R.  Albertz, ‘Abschlüsse,’ 316 n.  81. Pace M. A. Lyons, From Law, 94, 182, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 119 Cf. R. Müller, ‘Prophetic,’ 216; C. Nihan, ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz,’ 203. 120 Cf. R. Müller, ‘Prophetic,’ 217. Pace M. A. Lyons, From Law, 139, 182; C. Nihan, ‘Ezekiel and the Holiness,’ 1022, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 121 Pace M. A. Lyons, From Law, 183, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 122 Cf. R. Müller, ‘Prophetic,’ 222; R. Albertz, ‘Abschlüsse,’ 316 n. 81. Pace M. Zehnder, ‘Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28: Some Observations on Their Relationship,’ in M. Armgardt, B. Kilchör, and M. Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm Change in Pentateuchal Research (BZABR 22; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2019), 115–175 (esp. 153–155), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

150

Leviticus as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 12:13–17:13

him to death (Deut 17:7ab). The particular motif of the exiled Israelites paying in full for their guilt (*‫ עונ‬+ ‫רצה‬: Lev 26:41.43) was borrowed from Isa 40:2.123 The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh remembering the covenant with Israel’s fathers, (b) the Israelites paying for their guilt, and again (c) Yahweh remembering the covenant with the Israelites (Lev 26:42–46; esp. 26:42–45)124 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) all the Israelite people (b) purging the evil (c) from the midst of Israel (Deut 17:7cd). The particular motif of declaring, ‘These are the statutes and the judgements’ (‫אלה החקים והמשפטים‬: Lev 26:46) was borrowed from Deut 12:1 (cf. 4:45). From the linguistic point of view, the phrase ‫‘( החקים והמשפטים‬the statutes and the judgements’) was used in Exodus–Numbers only once (in Lev 26:46), whereas it was used five times in Deuteronomy (Deut 4:45; 5:31; 6:1.20; 12:1), and similar combinations of the words ‫‘( משפטים‬statutes’) and ‫‘( חקים‬judgements’) were used in Deuteronomy eight times (Deut 4:1.5.8.14; 5:1; 7:11; 11:32; 26:16; cf. 26:17). Therefore, this phrase is typically Deuteronomic.125 Accordingly, it was most likely borrowed by the author of Exodus–Numbers from Deuteronomy, a fact which linguistically corroborates the hypothesis of the dependence of Exodus– Numbers on Deuteronomy. The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly added126 and formulated idea of (a) an Israelite making a vow which is extraordinary (‫כי יפלא‬: Lev 27:2)127 (b) for Moses in assessing (c) lives for Yahweh (Lev 27:1–2) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a matter which is extraordinary (b) for the Israelite in judging (c) various kinds of bloodshed (Deut 17:8a).

1 23 Cf. C. Nihan, ‘Holiness Code,’ 110–111; R. Müller, ‘Prophetic,’ 224. 124 Cf. A.  Tronina, Kapłańska, 391; T.  Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 2, 16–27], 1090–1091; M.  Zehnder, ‘Structural Complexity, Semantic Ambiguity, and the Question of Literary Integrity: A New Reading of Leviticus 26,14–45,’ in H. Jenni [et al.] (eds.), Nächstenliebe, 503–530 (esp. 522–523). 125 Cf. T. Hieke, Levitikus [vol. 2, 16–27], 1098; C. Nihan, ‘Leviticus 26:39–46 and the PostPriestly Composition of Leviticus: Some Remarks in Light of the Recent Discussion,’ in F. Giuntoli and K. Schmid (eds.), The Post-Priestly Pentateuch: New Perspectives on Its Redactional Development and Theological Profiles (FAT 101; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2015), 305–329 (esp. 325–326). 126 Cf. J.  Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2407; J.  E.  Hartley, Leviticus, 479; A.  Tronina, Kapłańska, 396. 127 Cf. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2369.

Lev 26–27 (cf. Deut 16:21–17:13)

151

The subsequent idea of the assessment being made in shekels according to the shekel of the sanctuary (Lev 27:3–7; esp.  27:3) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of arising and going up with the contested matter to the place which Yahweh chooses (Deut 17:8bc). The subsequent idea of presenting the object for the assessment before the priest (‫הכהן‬: Lev 27:8.11–12.14.18.21.23), who shall assess it according to (‫על־‬ ‫פי‬: Lev 27:8.18; cf. 27:16) various factors (Lev 27:8–24), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of coming to the priests and doing according to the decision which they pronounce (Deut 17:9–10b). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly repeated (cf. Lev 27:3),128 cultic idea of all assessments being made according to the shekel of the sanctuary, and every firstborn animal belonging to Yahweh (Lev 27:25–26) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the place which Yahweh chooses (Deut 17:10c). The particular motif of twenty gerahs making the shekel (‫ השקל‬+ ‫עשרים גרה‬: Lev 27:25) was borrowed from Ezek 45:12. The subsequent idea of unclean animals being redeemed or sold according to the priest’s assessment (Lev 27:27) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites diligently doing according to all that the priests teach (Deut 17:10d–11). The subsequent idea of (a) a man (‫( )איש‬b) who (‫( )אשר‬c) is dedicated to destruction, (d) this one dying (‫ )מות‬with death (‫מות‬: Lev 27:28–29), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the man (b) who (c) does not obey the priest, (d) that man dying (Deut 17:12a–e). The subsequent idea of (a) every tithe being dedicated as holy to Yahweh, (b) whether it is good or bad (‫רע‬: Lev 27:30–33), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) removing (b) the bad (Deut 17:12f). The particular motif of a tithe (‫מעשר‬: Lev 27:30–32) was borrowed from Deut 12:6 etc. The concluding idea of (a) the commandments which Yahweh commanded Moses for the Israelites (b) on the presumably fearsome (cf. Exod 19:18) Mount Sinai (Lev 27:34) sequentially illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) all the people of Israel (cf. Deut 17:12f) hearing and (b) fearing (Deut 17:13).

128 Cf. A. Marx, Lévitique 17–27, 223.

Chapter 3.  Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12 The contents of the book of Numbers sequentially, in a hypertextual way illustrate the contents of the Deuteronomic major section Deut 17:14–34:12.

3.1. Num 1–2 (cf. Deut 17:14–20) The section Num 1–2 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 17:14–20. The opening military idea of being in the wilderness of Sinai, on the way from Egypt to Canaan, and counting the number of the whole congregation of the Israelites, all adult males able to do the military service, as well as mustering them as military forces (Num 1:1–3)1 illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of Israel coming to the land of Canaan and taking possession of it, in a presumably military way (Deut 17:14a–e). The subsequent idea of (a) a man from each tribe, the head of his fathers’ house, being with Moses and Aaron, and (b) Yahweh calling and designating by name the leaders of the Israelite tribes (Num 1:4–17) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel setting over himself a king whom (b) Yahweh God chooses (Deut 17:14f–15b). The author of Exodus–Numbers, writings in the late post-exilic period, reworked the idea of one king over Israel (Deut 17:14f–15b) into that of the leaders of Israel’s secular tribes (Num 1:4– 17).2 Among them, Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph, are listed in the

1 Cf. T.  R.  Ashley, The Book of Numbers (NICOT; William B.  Eerdmans:  Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 1993), 49; B. A. Levine, Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 4; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1993), 134; P. Pitkänen, A Commentary on Numbers: Narrative, Ritual and Colonialism (RSBW; Routledge: London · New York 2018), 54. 2 For the reordering of the tribes from the familiar, Genesis-related list (Num 1:5–11) to the new pattern of four groups of three tribes each (Num 2:3–31), see I. Kislev, ‘The Numbers of Numbers: The Census Accounts in the Book of Numbers,’ ZAW 128 (2016) 189–204 (esp. 191–197).

154

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

central position (Num 1:10),3 which implies their leading function as chosen by Yahweh (cf. Deut 17:15b). The names of the leaders of the tribes, with the exception of the southern (from the point of view of Ephraim and Manasseh),4 potentially separatist tribes of Judah, which had its own sanctuary in Jerusalem (Num 1:7), and Benjamin, which had its own sanctuary at Bethel (Num 1:11), as well as the northern, likewise potentially separatist tribes of Dan, which had its own sanctuary at Dan (Num 1:12), and Naphtali, which had its own sanctuary at Kedesh (Num 1:15), are theophoric, containing references to the name of God/El (‫אל‬: Num 1:5–6.8–10.13–14), thus additionally linguistically illustrating the idea of being chosen by Yahweh God (‫אלהים‬: Deut 17:15b). The subsequent idea of the whole congregation of adult men demonstrating their genealogies by their clans and their fathers’ houses in the twelve secular tribes (Num 1:18–46), no non-Israelite coming near (‫קרב‬: Num 1:51), and the Israelites camping within their camps (Num 1:18–54; esp. 1:52) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the king being chosen from among (‫)קרב‬ the Israelite brethren and not being a foreigner (Deut 17:15c–e). The order of the tribes in Num 1:20–43, as organized in four groups of three tribes each, prepares the order in Num 2:3–31.5 The subsequent idea of the Israelites, led by their tribal leaders, setting out on a march6 eastwards, so presumably from Sinai (cf. Num 1:1.19) towards Transjordan (Num 2:1–32; cf. 21:11–13 etc.), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the king not causing the people to return to Egypt (Deut 17:16–17; esp. 17:16). The particular motif of dividing the twelve tribes into four groups of three tribes each, located on four sides of the camp (Num 2:3–31), was borrowed from Ezek 48:31–34.7 In the instructions concerning the arrangement of the Israelite camp (Num 2:1–32), the tribe of Judah is the most numerous tribe, having its position to the

3 Cf. D. C. Smith, The Role of Mothers in the Genealogical Lists of Jacob’s Sons (CBET 90; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Bristol, CT 2018), 62. 4 The tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (Num 1:10) are placed in the centre of the list of tribes in Num 1:5–15. Cf. N. P. Lunn, ‘Numbering Israel: A Rhetorico-Structural Analysis of Numbers 1–4,’ JSOT 35.2 (2010) 167–185 (esp. 169). 5 Cf. I. Cardellini, Numeri 1,1–10,10: Nuova versione, introduzione e commento (LBPT 4,1; Paoline: Milano 2013), 66, 86; D. C. Smith, Role of Mothers, 64–66. 6 Cf. P. J. Budd, Numbers (WBC 5; Word Books: Dallas, TX 1984), 22–23; B. A. Levine, Numbers 1–20, 144; H.  Seebass, Numeri, vol. 1, Numeri 1,1–10,10 (BKAT 4/1; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2012), 47. 7 Cf. P. J. Budd, Numbers, 24.

Num 1–2 (cf. Deut 17:14–20)

155

east of the tent of meeting (Num 2:3–4; cf. 10:14). The tribe of Ephraim is less numerous, and its position lies to the west of the tent of meeting (Num 2:18; cf. 10:22). In the Israelite army marching eastwards, the most numerous tribe of Judah is the foremost tribe,8 presumably the first one to engage in a battle with the enemies,9 and the tribe of Ephraim is located immediately behind the sanctuary of Yahweh (Num 2:17–18; cf. 10:21–22).10 Since according to Num 10:33 the ark precedes and not follows the Israelites,11 it can be argued that in Num 2:1–32 the tribe of Judah goes before the Israelite army proper, which consists of the priests, the tent of meeting, and the tribe of Ephraim flanked by Manasseh and Benjamin, as well as less important Levitical clans and Israelite tribes. This interpretation of Num 2:1–32 is confirmed by the writings of Herodotus, who states that the position in the front of the marching Persian army was given to the least important people, and the place behind the mobile sanctuary of the deity was reserved for the king (Herodotus, Hist. 7.40).12 According to this Persian military pattern, presumably used at the time of the writing of the book of Numbers,13 the position of the most numerous tribe of Judah reflects that of various non-Persian auxiliary forces. On the other hand, the position of the tribe of Ephraim, located immediately behind the sanctuary of Yahweh, reflects the position of the king.14 Therefore, the privileged position of the tribe of Ephraim, together with the depreciating position of the tribe of Judah, implies that Exodus–Numbers is an Ephraimite work, and not a Judaean one.

8 Cf. R.  Achenbach, Die Vollendung der Tora:  Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (BZABR 3; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2003), 483; M. Nobile, ‘Il censimento e l’accampamento della comunità dell’esodo (Nm 1–2),’ in G. Borgonovo (ed.), Torah e storiografie dell’Antico Testamento (LCSB 2; Elledici: Leumann, TO 2012), 517–532 (esp. 526). 9 The position of Moses and Aaron in the same eastward direction as the tribe of Judah (Num 3:38) illustrates the Deuteronomic instructions concerning the priest as standing before the army prepared for the battle (Deut 20:1–2). It may also reflect the Israelite respect for the Judaean Levitical priesthood (cf. Gen 14:18–20; Neh 13:28; cf. also the link between Aaron and Nahshon in Exod 6:23). 10 It should be noted that in Gen 33:2 the most beloved Rachel and Joseph are likewise put at the end of the march column. 11 Cf. I. Cardellini, Numeri 1,1–10,10, 105. 12 In fact, the standard position of the commander of every army is not in the first battle row, but somewhere behind the attacking soldiers, to command the movements of the military units from a safer position. 13 Cf. R. Achenbach, Vollendung, 475–478. 14 Cf. ibid. 484–485.

156

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

The subsequent idea of the Levites (‫ )הלוים‬not being mustered among the lay Israelites, just as Yahweh commanded Moses (Num 2:33), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the king writing for himself a copy of the law from the presumably superior Levites (Deut 17:18). The subsequent idea of the Israelites doing (‫ )עשה‬according to all (‫ )כל‬that Yahweh commanded Moses (Num 2:34ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the king doing all the words of the law and all the statutes (Deut 17:19). The concluding, somewhat surprisingly added (diff. Num 1:54) idea of (a) the Israelites setting out, everyone in his clan, (b) over (‫ )על‬his fathers’ house (Num 2:34cd) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) the king not exalting himself above his brethren, and thus (b) prolonging his days over his kingdom, he and his sons (Deut 17:20).

3.2. Num 3–8 (cf. Deut 18:1–7a) The section Num 3–8 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 18:1–7a. The opening idea of the sons of Aaron, the anointed priests (‫כהנים‬: Num 3:3), ministering as priests (‫כהן‬: Num 3:3), and in fact the faithful sons Eleazar and Ithamar ministering as priests (‫כהן‬: Num 3:1–4; esp. 3:4)15 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of the Levitical priests (Deut 18:1a). The subsequent idea of the tribe of Levi (‫לוי‬: Num 3:5–8; esp. 3:6) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the whole tribe of Levi (Deut 18:1a). The particular motif of the Levites standing before and serving (‫ שרת‬+ ‫ לפני‬+ ‫ עמד‬+ ‫לוי‬: Num 3:6–7) was borrowed from the thematically related text Deut 18:7 (cf. 18:5). The subsequent idea of the Levites being given to Aaron from among the sons of Israel (‫ישראל‬: Num 3:9–10; esp. 3:9) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Levites having no portion or inheritance with Israel (Deut 18:1a). 15 Cf. B. A. Levine, Numbers 1–20, 156; F. Cocco, ‘ “Mors tua, vita mea”: Eleazaro e il sommo sacerdozio,’ Bib 94 (2013) 509–533 (esp. 516–518); C. Frevel, ‘Ending with the High Priest: The Hierarchy of Priests and Levites in the Book of Numbers,’ in C. Frevel, T. Pola, and A. Schart (eds.), Torah and the Book of Numbers (FAT 2.62; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 138–163 (esp. 145–146).

Num 3–8 (cf. Deut 18:1–7a)

157

The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh taking the Levites from among the Israelites, so that they might belong to Yahweh (b) in place of Israel’s consecrated firstborns, who belong to Yahweh (Num 3:11–39; esp. 3:12–13),16 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Levites eating the sacrifices offered by fire to Yahweh, as well as (b) Yahweh’s inheritance (Deut 18:1b). The subsequent idea of Moses (Num 3:41; diff. 3:12:  Yahweh) taking the Levites from among the Israelites, so that they might belong to Yahweh in place of Israel’s firstborns, who should bring redemption money to Aaron and his sons (Num 3:40–51), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the tribe of Levi having no inheritance among its brothers (Deut 18:2a). The subsequent idea of listing the Levites according to their families to do the work in the tent of meeting according to the utterance of Yahweh (Num 4; esp. 4:46–49) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the tribe of Levi having Yahweh as its inheritance (Deut 18:2b). The subsequent idea of the Israelites acting in the matter of ritual purity as Yahweh said (‫כאשר דבר‬: Num 5:4) to Moses (Num 5:1–4) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the tribe of Levi acting as Yahweh said to him (Deut 18:2c). The subsequent idea of a legal procedure in the case of being guilty or probably guilty, a procedure adopted by the priest (‫הכהן‬: Num 5:8–10.15–19.21.23.25– 26.30)17 according to this (‫זאת‬: Num 5:29–30) law (Num 5:5–31), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of this (‫ )זה‬being the judgement of the priests (Deut 18:3a). The subsequent idea of a Nazirite consecrating himself and offering a male lamb, a ewe lamb, and a ram (Num 6:12.14.17) as a sacrifice (‫זבח‬: Num 6:1– 18; esp. 6:17–18) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the people offering a sacrifice of a bull or a sheep (Deut 18:3b). The particular motif of an Israelite being a Nazirite, and therefore drinking no wine or beer and eating no related things, nothing coming from the vine, and razor not coming upon his head, and the Israelite touching nothing 16 Cf. H. Samuel, Von Priestern zum Patriarchen: Levi und die Leviten im Alten Testament (BZAW 448; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2014), 173; M. Winkler, ‘Der Levit als totaler Stellvertreter: theologische Vorstellungen zum Levitentum im Ausgang von Num 3–4,’ BN, nf 162 (2014) 3–22 (esp. 9–11). 17 Cf. P. J. Budd, Numbers, 58–59, 65–66; R. P. Knierim and G. W. Coats, Numbers (FOTL 4; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 2005), 75, 83; M. Roi, ‘The Law of the Sotah and the Cup of Wrath: Substantive and Adjective Law in the Hebrew Bible,’ RB 124 (2017) 161–179 (esp. 177).

158

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

unclean (‫ טמא‬+ ‫ לא־י* על־ראשו‬+ ‫ מכל אשר י* מגפן‬+ ‫ אכל‬+ ‫ שתה‬+ ‫ יין ושכר‬+ ‫נזיר‬: Num 6:2–7.13.18–21) was borrowed from Judg 13:4–5.14. The subsequent idea of (a) the priest (‫הכהן‬: Num 6:19) taking, somewhat surprisingly, (b) the forelimb (‫הזרע‬: Num 6:19; diff. Exod 29:27 etc.)18 as well as (c) an unleavened cake and an unleavened wafer after (d) the shaving of the hair, and (e) the offering belonging to the priest (‫הכהן‬: Num 6:19–21; esp. 6:20), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) giving to the priest (b) the forelimb as well as (c) the first fruits of grain and of (d) the fleece of sheep, and (e) giving it to the priest (Deut 18:3c–4). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses speaking to Aaron and his sons (‫בניו‬: Num 6:23) that they should (b) bless the Israelites in the name of Yahweh (Num 6:24–26),19 thus (c) putting the name (‫שם‬: Num 6:27) of Yahweh on the Israelites (Num 6:22–27),20 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God choosing the priest, as well as his sons, (b) to stand to minister, presumably in a priestly way, (c) in the name of Yahweh (Deut 18:5). The particular motif of blessing an Israelite (sing.; diff. Num 6:23.27: plur.) in the name of Yahweh (Num 6:24–26) is known from, among others, the amulets from Ketef Hinnom (KH 1:14–18; KH 2:5–12). In fact, the blessing contained in Num 6:24–26 is related to various ancient devotional and apotropaic blessings, including Akkadian, Middle Hittite, Ugaritic, Phoenician, Punic, and Hebrew ones, which were originally not related to priests.21 However, the author of Exodus–Numbers reworked such a traditional devotional blessing by adding 18 Cf. J. S. Greer, ‘The “Priestly Portion” in the Hebrew Bible: Its Ancient Near Eastern Context and Its Implications for the Composition of P,’ JBL 138 (2019) 263–284 (esp. 267). 19 Cf. R. P. Knierim and G. W. Coats, Numbers, 93; D. P. Wright, ‘Law and Creation in the Priestly-Holiness Writings of the Pentateuch,’ in K. Schmid and C. Uehlinger (eds.), Laws of Heaven – Laws of Nature: Legal Interpretations of Cosmic Phenomena in the Ancient World (OBO 276; Academic: Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2016), 71–101 (esp. 82); R. Heckl, ‘The Aaronic Blessing (Numbers 6): Its Intention and Place in the Concept of the Pentateuch,’ in R. J. Bautch and M. Lackowski (eds.), On Dating Biblical Texts to the Persian Period: Discerning Criteria and Establishing Epochs (FAT 2.101: Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2019), 119–138 (esp. 128). 20 Cf. P. J. Budd, Numbers, 76; R. Heckl, ‘Aaronic,’ 133–135. 21 Cf. J. D. Smoak, The Priestly Blessing in Inscription and Scripture: The Early History of Numbers 6:24–26 (Oxford University: New York 2016), 43–60, 113–121; M. A. Awabdy, ‘The Holiness Composition of the Priestly Blessing,’ Bib 99 (2018) 29–49 (esp. 29–38).

Num 3–8 (cf. Deut 18:1–7a)

159

an introduction which presents the priestly task of Aaron and his sons (Num 6:22–23; diff. KH 2:1–4),22 using the name of Yahweh three times (Num 6:24–26; diff. KH 2:5–12:  two times), and adding an explicit reference to invoking the name of Yahweh (Num 6:27) to illustrate the Deuteronomic idea of the priests ministering in the name of Yahweh (Deut 18:5). In order to achieve this goal, the author of Exodus–Numbers reformulated the relatively balanced traditional devotional blessing (3 + 4 + 3 words:  KH 2:5–12) into an elaborate priestly blessing consisting of three bicola of increasing length (3 + 5 + 7 words: Num 6:24–26).23 The subsequent idea of (a) the leaders of Israel bringing (‫בוא‬: Num 7:3) their offerings to the sanctuary and giving them to (b) the Levites (‫הלוי‬: Num 7:5– 6), (c) one (‫אחד‬: Num 7:11) tribal leader each day, (d) from the twelve tribes of Israel, and all (‫כל‬: Num 7:85–88) twelve offerings being counted together (Num 7:1–88)24 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the coming (‫ )בוא‬of (b) the Levite (c) from one of Israel’s gates, (d) from all Israel, where he dwells (Deut 18:6ab). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 25:22.31–39)25 idea of (a) Moses coming (‫( )בוא‬b) to (‫ )אל־‬the tent of meeting and (c) hearing the voice from above the mercy seat which (‫ )אשר‬was on (d) the ark of the testimony, located between the two cherubim, and Yahweh speaking to him (Num 7:89), presumably from the lit spot in front of (‫מול‬: Num 8:2–3; diff. Exod 25:37) the lampstand,26 just as (‫ )כאשר‬Yahweh commanded and according to the pattern which (‫ )אשר‬Yahweh showed (Num 7:89–8:4; esp. 8:3–4), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Levite coming (b) to the place (c) which (d) Yahweh chooses (Deut 18:6cd), presumably in front of Gilgal (Deut 11:30–12:5).

22 Cf. M. Leuenberger, Segen und Segenstheologien im Alten Testament: Untersuchungen zu ihren religions- und theologiegeschichtlichen Konstellationen und Transformationen (ATANT 90; Theologischer: Zürich 2008), 167–170; M. Geiger, ‘Synergie zwischen priesterlichem und göttlichem Handeln im Aaronitischen Segen (Num 6,22–27): Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Wendung ‫יִ שָ ּׂא יְ הוָה ָ ּפנָיו אֵ לֶיָך‬,’ VT 68 (2018) 51–72 (esp. 59). 23 Cf. T.  R.  Ashley, Numbers, 151; R.  P.  Knierim and G.  W.  Coats, Numbers, 93; M. A. Awabdy, ‘Holiness,’ 38. 24 Cf. P. J. Budd, Numbers, 83. 25 Cf. T. R. Ashley, Numbers, 166; B. A. Levine, Numbers 1–20, 259, 271; H. Seebass, Numeri, vol. 1, 200. 26 Cf. T. R. Ashley, Numbers, 166; B. A. Levine, Numbers 1–20, 271–272; I. Cardellini, Numeri 1,1–10,10, 348.

160

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

The subsequent idea of (c) taking the Levites (‫הלוים‬: Num 8:6.9–15.18– 22.24.26), bringing them before (‫לפני‬: Num 8:9) the tent of meeting, before Yahweh (‫לפני יהוה‬: Num 8:10–11.21), (a) to do the service of Yahweh, and making them stand (‫עמד‬: Num 8:13) before (‫ )לפני‬Aaron and before (‫ )לפני‬his sons (Num 8:13.22), as well as offering them to Yahweh, so that the Levite (a’) might minister (‫( )ושרת‬b) his brothers (‫)אחיו‬, and (c’) Moses thus doing with the Levites (‫לוים‬: Num 8:5–26; esp. 8:26), conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Levite (a) ministering in the name of Yahweh God (b) like all his brothers (c) the Levites (Deut 18:7a), who presumably stand before Yahweh (cf. Deut 18:7b).

3.3.  Num 9:1–11:3 (cf. Deut 18:7b–14) The section Num 9:1–11:3 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 18:7b–14. The opening, partly repeated (cf. Exod 12:6.11.24.43)27 idea of the Israelites celebrating the Passover and offering the cultic offering of Yahweh, but the unclean ones also wanting to celebrate it, so coming before (‫ )לפני‬Moses and before (‫ )לפני‬Aaron (Num 9:6), thus indirectly standing (‫עמד‬: Num 9:8) before Yahweh (Num 9:1–8; esp. 9:8), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of the Levites standing before Yahweh (Deut 18:7b). The subsequent idea of (a’) the Israelites who are unclean or (a”) on a long journey (a) also celebrating the Passover and (b) eating it (*‫יאכל‬: Num 9:11),28 so (a’ ”) both the foreigner and the native of the land having one statute concerning the Passover (Num 9:9–14), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a’) the Levites who come from a lay milieu (a”) in all Israel (cf. Deut 18:6) (a) receiving an equal portion and (b) eating it (Deut 18:8a).

2 7 Cf. P. J. Budd, Numbers, 96; T. R. Ashley, Numbers, 177. 28 The particular idea of celebrating the Passover in the second month (Num 9:6–11) as postponed from the first month (Num 9:5; cf. Exod 12:2; Lev 23:5 etc.) caused the surprising, retrospective reference to the first month in Num 9:1–5, although Num 1:1 already referred to the second month. Pace H. Seebass, Numeri, vol. 1, 224; O. Artus, ‘Enjeux passés et actuels de l’exégèse du livre de Nombres,’ RB 132 (2016) 161–182 (esp. 177), who regard the relationship between Num 9:1 and Num 1:1 as a contradiction.

Num 9:1–11:3 (cf. Deut 18:7b–14)

161

The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 40:34–38)29 idea of the cloud exercising full authority over the (*‫על־ה‬: Num 9:15.17–20.22) dwelling place, thus controlling its movements (Num 9:15–23), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Levite retaining full selling rights over the fathers’ home (Deut 18:8b). The subsequent idea of the priests blowing an alarm, like for attacking Jericho, the first city in Canaan (cf. Josh 6:16.20), and the Israelites at some time coming (‫ בוא‬+ ‫ )כי‬to war in their land (‫ארץ‬: Num 10:9), as well as setting out from the wilderness of Sinai towards Canaan, grouped according to their military standards and units (Num 10:1–28), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel at some time coming to the land of Canaan (Deut 18:9a). The particular motif of the priests blowing an alarm (+ ‫ רוע‬+ ‫ תרועה‬+ ‫תקע‬ ‫הכהנים‬: Num 10:3–8) was borrowed from Josh 6:16.20. Likewise, the motif of the inhabitants of Canaan being the Israelites’ enemies (‫צר‬: Num 10:9) was borrowed from Josh 5:13. The motif of the Israelites on their way to Canaan being in the wilderness of Paran (‫ פארן‬+ ‫במדבר‬: Num 10:12) was borrowed from Deut 1:1. In the list of the marching tribes (Num 10:14–28), the tribe of Judah is the foremost tribe (Num 10:14), and the tribe of Ephraim immediately follows the holy objects (Num 10:21–22). Like in the account Num 2:1–32, the position of the tribe of Judah reflects that of various non-Persian auxiliary forces, and the position of the tribe of Ephraim reflects that of the Persian king (cf. Herodotus, Hist. 7.40). Therefore, the privileged position of the tribe of Ephraim, together with the depreciating position of the tribe of Judah, implies that Exodus–Numbers is an Ephraimite work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent idea of the Israelites going to the place of which (‫ )אשר‬Yahweh said that he would give it to them (*‫ לכ‬+ ‫נתן‬: Num 10:29) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the land which Yahweh God is giving to Israel (Deut 18:9b). The particular motif of Hobab being Moses’ father-in-law (‫ חתן משה‬+ ‫חבב‬: Num 10:29) was borrowed from Judg 4:11.30 The subsequent idea of a pagan Midianite not wanting to go with the Israelites, but ultimately participating in Yahweh’s goodness for the Israelites, as well as the Israelites following the ark of the covenant of Yahweh (diff. Num 2:17; 10:21),31 29 Cf. T. R. Ashley, Numbers, 183; B. A. Levine, Numbers 1–20, 298; H. Seebass, Numeri, vol. 1, 234. 30 Cf. P. J. Budd, Numbers, 114; H. Seebass, Numeri, vol. 2, Numeri 10,11–22,1 (BKAT 4/2; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2003), 15. 31 Cf. P. Pitkänen, Numbers, 105.

162

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

and Moses praying to Yahweh against pagan enemies who hate Yahweh (Num 10:30–36) in a corrective way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel not learning to follow the abominations of the pagan nations (Deut 18:9cd). Accordingly, the author of Exodus–Numbers reworked the exclusivist ideology of Deuteronomy (Deut 18:9cd) into an inclusivist one, incorporating to Israel also non-Israelite members of the Israelites’ households (Num 10:30–32). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites unjustifiably complaining against Yahweh,32 so that (b) the fire (‫ )אש‬of Yahweh burned against them and (c) destroyed some in the outskirts of Israel’s camp (Num 11:1), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite not being allowed to make his son or his daughter pass (b) through fire because all who do such things are an abomination to Yahweh, so that (c) Yahweh drove them out before Israel (Deut 18:10–12). The subsequent idea of the Israelite people crying out to Moses, and Moses praying to Yahweh, thus quenching the punishing fire (Num 11:2), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel being blameless with Yahweh God (Deut 18:13). The particular motif of Moses praying for the sinful Israelites (‫ אל־יהוה‬+ ‫ו*תפלל‬: Num 11:2) was borrowed from Deut 9:26. The concluding idea of (a) Israel calling the place, evidently now in Hebrew, Taberah (b) because (‫ )כי‬the fire of Yahweh burned against them (Num 11:3) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel dispossessing the Canaanite nations (b) because they listened to soothsayers and diviners, which was an abomination to Yahweh (Deut 18:14; cf. 18:10.12). The particular motif of the Israelites provoking Yahweh at Taberah (‫תבערה‬: Num 11:3) was borrowed from Deut 9:22 and provided with an aetiology of the name.33 32 Cf. R. Achenbach, Vollendung, 213; L. Schmidt, Das vierte Buch Mose, vol. 2, Numeri 10,11–36,13 (ATD 7/2; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Güttingen 2004), 23; C. Kupfer, Mit Israel auf dem Weg durch die Wüste: Eine leserorientierte Exegese der Rebellionstexte in Exodus 15:22–17:7 und Numeri 11:1–20:13 (OtSt 61; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2012), 86–87. 33 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘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, and M. Witte (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (BZAW 315; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2002), 247– 273 (esp. 260). Pace N. Lohfink, ‘Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11 und Exodus 32–34: Zu Endtextstruktur, Intertextualität, Schichtung und Abhängigkeiten,’ in M.  Köckert and E. Blum (eds.), Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (VWGT 18; Chr. Kaiser: Gütersloh 2001), 41–87 (esp. 61), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

Num 11:4–12:16 (cf. Deut 18:15–22)

163

3.4. Num 11:4–12:16 (cf. Deut 18:15–22) The section Num 11:4–12:16 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 18:15–22. The opening idea of (a) the rabble in the midst (‫ )קרב‬of Israel (sing.: Num 11:4) desiring (b) someone who would give them meat to eat, although they had manna, miraculously given through Moses (Num 11:4–9; cf. Exod 16:15.31), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God from the midst of Israel (sing.) raising (b) a prophet like Moses for Israel (Deut 18:15a). The subsequent idea of Moses hearing (‫ )שמע‬the people weeping, and like Yahweh regarding it as something evil (Num 11:10) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites hearing Moses (Deut 18:15b). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses asking Yahweh why (b) Yahweh laid the burden of all this people on him, and (c) not (‫לא‬: Num 11:14) being able to (‫ ל‬+ inf. cstr.) bear all the (‫ )את־‬people for it was too heavy/glorious (Num 11:11–14) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel asking from Yahweh God (b) on the day of the assembly, saying that (c) he does not want to hear the voice of Yahweh God (Deut 18:16a–d). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses asking Yahweh to utterly kill him, but (b) not wanting to see (‫( )אראה‬c) his evil (Num 11:15) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) this great fire (b) Moses not wanting to see and (c) die (Deut 18:16ef). The subsequent idea of Yahweh saying to (‫ )ויאמר יהוה אל‬Moses (Num 11:16a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh saying to Moses (Deut 18:17a). The subsequent idea of seventy reliable elders being witnesses of Yahweh speaking (‫ )דבר‬with Moses, as well as receiving Moses’ spirit and bearing the burden of the people (Num 11:16b–17) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of well-disposed Israelites speaking (Deut 18:17bc). The particular motif of choosing Israelite helpers for Moses (Num 11:16) was borrowed from Deut 1:13.1534 and conflated with that of seventy men of the elders of Israel (‫ ישראל‬+ ‫שבעים איש מזקני‬: Ezek 8:11; cf. Judg

34 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 261.

164

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

9:2.5.18). Likewise, the motif of Moses not bearing the burden of the people by himself alone (*‫ לבד‬+ ‫ משא‬+ ‫נשא‬: Num 11:17) was borrowed from Deut 1:12.35 The subsequent idea of Yahweh giving meat to the Israelites abundantly, presumably like he had given it through Moses (Num 11:18–20b; cf. Exod 16:8), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh raising up a prophet, presumably like Moses (cf. Deut 18:15), for the Israelites (Deut 18:18a). The subsequent idea of Yahweh and Moses being in the midst (‫ )קרב‬of the Israelites (Num 11:20c–23: esp. 11:20–21) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the prophet being from the midst of the Israelites (plur.: Deut 18:18a). The subsequent idea of Moses gathering seventy men of the elders of the people (Num 11:24) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the prophet’s brothers (Deut 18:18a). The subsequent idea of Yahweh speaking to Moses and taking of the spirit which was upon him (Num 11:25a–d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh raising a prophet like Moses (Deut 18:18a). The subsequent idea of Yahweh giving (‫ )נתן‬the Spirit upon the seventy elders, so that the Spirit rested upon them (Num 11:25e–g), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh giving his words in the mouth of the Moses-like prophet (Deut 18:18b). The particular motif of Yahweh giving his Spirit over someone (‫ על‬+ ‫ נתן‬+ ‫רוח‬: Num 11:25.29) was borrowed from Isa 42:1. Likewise, the motif of the Spirit resting upon someone (‫נוח‬ ‫ רוח‬+ *‫ עלי‬+: Num 11:25–26) was borrowed from Isa 11:2. The subsequent idea of the seventy elders prophesying, but not always (Num 11:25f–30), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the prophet speaking all that Yahweh commanded (Deut 18:18cd). The author of Exodus– Numbers reworked the Deuteronomic idea of one charismatic leader, the spiritual successor of Moses (Deut 18:18; cf. Num 11:28: Joshua), into that of gerusia (Num 11:25–26) and the whole people (Num 11:29; cf. Joel 3:1) as spiritual successors of Moses.36 The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly formulated idea of (a) Yahweh sending quails in abundance, like through Moses (cf. Exod 16:13),37 and (b) 35 Pace J. E. Harvey, Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic Historian’s Use of Tetrateuchal Narratives (JSOTSup 403; T&T Clark: London · New York 2004), 14, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 36 Cf. O. Artus, ‘Gouverner et parler au nom de Dieu: La question du pouvoir en Nb 11–12,’ RB 124 (2017) 26–37 (esp. 35–37). 37 Cf. C. Kupfer, Mit Israel, 110.

Num 11:4–12:16 (cf. Deut 18:15–22)

165

Yahweh striking against the people (‫בעם‬: Num 11:33), presumably for their rebellion against Moses (cf. Num 11:4–6.13), with a great plague (Num 11:31–35) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) someone not hearing Yahweh’s words, which the prophet like Moses would speak in Yahweh’s name, and (b) Yahweh requiring account of (‫ )מעם‬that person (Deut 18:19). The particular motif of the Israelites provoking Yahweh to anger at Kibroth Hattaavah (‫קברות התאוה‬: Num 11:34–35) was borrowed from Deut 9:22 and provided with an aetiology of the name (Num 11:4.34).38 Likewise, the motif of the Israelites on the way to Canaan being at Hazeroth (‫חצרות‬: Num 11:35) was borrowed from Deut 1:1. The subsequent idea of Miriam (cf. Exod 15:20: prophetess)39 and Aaron presumptuously speaking (‫דבר‬: Num 12:1) against Moses, claiming that Yahweh spoke (‫דבר‬: Num 12:2) through them as well, and Moses being very humble (Num 12:1–3) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a false prophet presumptuously speaking (Deut 18:20ab). The subsequent idea of Aaron and Miriam hearing the words (‫דבר‬: Num 12:6) of Yahweh, there being an Israelite prophet of Yahweh, and Yahweh making himself known to him in a vision, as well as speaking (‫דבר‬: Num 12:6) to him in a dream (Num 12:4–6) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a dubious word in the name of Yahweh (Deut 18:20b). The subsequent thought that (a) it is not (‫ )לא־‬so with (b) Yahweh’s faithful servant Moses (Num 12:7) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) something which Yahweh did not (b) command the prophet (Deut 18:20c). The subsequent idea of Yahweh speaking (‫ )דבר‬with Moses face to face, and Moses looking at the form of Yahweh (Num 12:8ab)40 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of speaking reliably, presumably the things which Yahweh commanded (Deut 18:20d; cf. 18:20c). The subsequent idea of (a) speaking (‫( )דבר‬b) against (‫ )ב‬Yahweh’s servant, against (‫ )ב‬Moses (Num 12:8cd), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential

38 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 260. Pace N. Lohfink, ‘Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11,’ 61, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 39 Cf. R. Achenbach, Vollendung, 270; M. Jasinski, ‘Miriam – zapomniana bohaterka Exodusu,’ VV 19 (2011) 41–64 (esp. 53–57). 40 Cf. P. J. Budd, Numbers, 137; T. R. Ashley, Numbers, 226; N. L. DeLapp, Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch: Visions of YHWH (LHBOTS 660; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2018), 109–110.

166

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) speaking (b) in (‫ )ב‬the name (Deut 18:20e). The subsequent idea of the anger of Yahweh arousing against Aaron and Miriam, and Yahweh departing (Num 12:9) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the false prophet being attached to other gods (Deut 18:20e). The subsequent idea of Miriam becoming leprous, like a dead (‫ )מת‬newborn child (Num 12:10–12),41 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the false prophet dying (Deut 18:20f). The particular motif of Yahweh punishing Miriam (‫מרים‬: Num 12:10; diff. 12:9: Aaron as well) was borrowed from Deut 24:9. The subsequent idea of Moses crying out to Yahweh and saying (‫אמר‬: Num 12:13) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelite saying in his heart, presumably to Yahweh (Deut 18:21). The subsequent idea of Yahweh saying that Miriam’s father would spit in her face, so that she would be ashamed (Num 12:14a–c), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh presumably answering that if the prophet’s word is not realized, it means that he spoke it in presumptuousness (Deut 18:22a–e). The concluding idea of Miriam being shut up outside the camp, and after seven days the people receiving her again (Num 12:14d–16; esp. 12:15)42 illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of Israel not being afraid of the false prophet (Deut 18:22f).

3.5.  Num 13:1–26 (cf. Deut 19) The section Num 13:1–26 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 19. The opening idea of (a) spying out the land (‫ )ארץ‬of Canaan, which (‫)אשר‬ Yahweh gives to (*‫ )נתן ל‬the Israelites, and (b) the Israelites sending one man from each tribe of (c) their fathers (Num 13:1–3; esp. 13:2) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God cutting off the nations whose land Yahweh God gives to Israel, and (b) Israel settling in their cities and in (c) their houses (Deut 19:1). The particular motif of sending men to spy out the land of Canaan, one man from each tribe (*‫ איש אחד ל‬+ ‫ את־הארץ‬+ ‫ אנשים‬+ ‫שלח‬: Num 13:2), was borrowed from Deut

4 1 Cf. T. R. Ashley, Numbers, 221; B. A. Levine, Numbers 1–20, 333. 42 Cf. T. R. Ashley, Numbers, 228.

Num 13:1–26 (cf. Deut 19)

167

1:22–2343 and conflated with Deut 32:49 (‫ ;את־ארץ כנען אשר־אני נתן לבני ישראל‬cf. 32:52).44 The author of Exodus–Numbers reworked the Deuteronomic idea of Moses guiltily yielding to the Israelites’ lack of trust (Deut 1:21–23.37) into that of Moses being obedient to an explicit command of Yahweh (Num 13:1–3).45 The subsequent, quite surprising in the context of the preceding division of Israel into four groups of three tribes each (Num 2:3–31; 10:14–27), idea of the twelve tribes of Israel being implicitly grouped into three groups of four tribes each (Num 13:4–7.8–11.12–15), so that the tribes of Judah, Ephraim, and Naphtali, as well as the Transjordanian tribes of Reuben, Manasseh, and Gad, are listed in the respective three groups (Num 13:4–15) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of setting apart three cities in Israel and dividing the territory of Israel into three parts (Deut 19:2–3b), presumably including three other cities in Transjordan (cf. Deut 19:9). The idea of setting apart the cities of refuge in the tribes of Judah, Ephraim, and Naphtali, as well as Reuben, Manasseh, and Gad, was borrowed from Josh 20:7–8; 21:13.21.27.32.36.38 (cf. Deut 4:43). The particular motif of Caleb son of Jephunneh as the leader of the tribe of Judah (‫ כלב בן־יפנה‬+ ‫יהודה‬: Num 13:6) was borrowed from Josh 14:6; 15:13 (cf. Deut 1:36), without the earlier nuances of his being a Kenizzite in the midst of Judah etc. (Josh 14:6; 15:13). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Num 13:2) idea of sending men to spy out the land (‫ארץ‬: Num 13:16a–c) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the land of Israel (Deut 19:3b). The subsequent, quite surprising idea of Moses changing the simple name of Hoshea son of Nun (cf. Num 13:8; diff. 11:28 etc.) to the Yahwistic theophoric name of Joshua with no patronym (Num 13:16d) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God giving inheritance to Israel (Deut 19:3c). The subsequent idea of Moses somewhat surprisingly sending the spies to the entire land of Canaan (cf. Num 13:2.21), and not only to the Negeb and the hill country (Num 13:17; diff. Deut 1:24),46 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic 43 Pace J. Jeon, ‘The Scout Narrative (Numbers 13) as a Territorial Claim in the Persian Period,’ JBL 139 (2020) 255–274 (esp. 261), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 44 Pace E.  Otto, ‘Deuteronomium und Pentateuch,’ in id., Die Tora:  Studien zum Pentateuch: Gesammelte Schriften (BZABR 9; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2009), 168–228 (esp. 206), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 45 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 265. 46 Cf. I.  Kislev, ‘Joshua (and Caleb) in the Priestly Spies Story and Joshua’s Initial Appearance in the Priestly Source: A Contribution to an Assessment of the Pentateuchal Priestly Material,’ JBL 136 (2017) 39–55 (esp. 41).

168

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

idea of a homicide fleeing to the cities of refuge in the entire land of Israel (Deut 19:3d). The particular motif of the spies going to the hill country (+ ‫עלה‬ *‫ההר‬: Num 13:17) was borrowed from Deut 1:24.47 The subsequent idea of the spies seeing the people, whether he (‫ )הוא‬is strong or weak, whether he (‫ )הוא‬is few or numerous, whether the land (‫ )הוא‬in which he (‫ )הוא‬lives is good or bad, whether the cities in which he (‫ )הוא‬lives are like camps or like fortresses (Num 13:18–19), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a homicide being allowed to live if it can be seen that he killed unintentionally, not having hated the killed person (Deut 19:4). The particular motif of the spies seeing the people of Canaan, the land of Canaan being good, and the cities being fortified (‫ ערים‬+ ‫ *טובה‬+ ‫ הארץ‬+ ‫ עם‬+ ‫ראה‬ *‫ בצר‬+: Num 13:18–19) was borrowed from Deut 1:25.28. The subsequent idea of (a) the spies seeing whether the land is productive or gaunt, whether there are trees (‫ )עץ‬in it or not, as well as (b) the spies being strong and (c) taking of the fruit of the land (Num 13:20a–e) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the homicide going to the forest to cut trees and (b) putting his hand to an axe to cut down a tree, the iron detaching itself from the tree and killing the neighbour, and (c) the unintentional homicide fleeing to one of the cities of refuge, which were presumably located in the land (Deut 19:5; cf. 19:2). The particular motif of the spies taking of the fruit of the land (‫ מפרי הארץ‬+ ‫לקח‬: Num 13:20) was borrowed from Deut 1:25.48 The author of Exodus–Numbers reworked the idea of the quasi-symbolic ‘fruit’ of the land in the Valley of Eshcol (‘bunch of grapes’: Deut 1:24–25) into the specific one of first ripe grapes (Num 13:20). The subsequent idea of these days being the days of the first fruits of the presumably red grapes (Num 13:20f) graphically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the avenger of blood being now hot in anger, and the homicide not hating from yesterday or the day before yesterday (Deut 19:6). The subsequent idea of the spies going up and spying out the entire land (Num 13:21ab) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of setting apart three cities in the land of Canaan (Deut 19:7; cf. 19:2). The subsequent, quite surprising in the context of going to southern Judah (Num 13:22–24), idea of the spies spying out the land in its ideal territory

47 Cf. J. Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers (Westminster/John Knox: Louisville, KY 1994), 374. Pace J. Jeon, ‘Scout Narrative,’ 261, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 48 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 374.

Num 13:1–26 (cf. Deut 19)

169

reaching from the southernmost wilderness of Zin to the broad place (‫ ;רחב‬diff. Num 34:8 etc.) at the northernmost entrance of Hamath (Num 13:21b)49 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God broadening (‫ )רחב‬the territory of Israel and giving to Israel all the land which he promised to the fathers (Deut 19:8–10). The particular motif of the Israelites being unfaithful to Yahweh in the wilderness of Zin (‫מדבר־צן‬: Num 13:21) was borrowed from Deut 32:51. The motif of the territory of Israel reaching the entrance of Hamath (‫לבא חמת‬: Num 13:21) was borrowed from Ezek 48:1 etc. The subsequent idea of (a) going up (‫ )עלה‬in the Negeb and (b) coming to Hebron, so one of the cities of refuge (cf. Josh 20:7; 21:13), and (c) the threatening (cf. Num 13:33) Anakites being there (‫שם‬: Num 13:22a–c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) someone who hated his neighbour rising up (‫ )על‬against him and killing him, (b) fleeing to one of the cities of refuge, and (c) the elders of his city taking him from there (Deut 19:11–13; esp. 19:11–12). The particular motif of the spies seeing the Anakites (*‫ענק‬: Num 13:22) was borrowed from Deut 1:28 and conflated with the motif of Hebron being the city of the sons of Anak: Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai (‫ תלמי‬+ ‫ ששי‬+ ‫ אחימן‬+ ‫ *י הענק‬+ ‫חברון‬: Josh 15:13–14).50 The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) Hebron having been built seven years earlier than (b) Zoan,51 located on the north-eastern border of Egypt (Num 13:22d), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the border set by the first ancestors in (b) Israel’s inheritance which Israel should inherit in the land which Yahweh God gives to Israel to possess (Deut 19:14). The subsequent, somewhat surprising idea of (a) the spies cutting down a branch with merely one (‫ )אחד‬cluster of grapes, and (b) carrying it on a pole in two persons (‫)שנים‬,52 together with (c) some of the pomegranates and of the figs, and (d) calling the name of the place the Valley of Eshcol (Num 13:23–24) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent 49 Cf. L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 44; A. R. Roskop, The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of Torah (HACL 3; Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2011), 200–201; I. Kislev, ‘Joshua,’ 41. 50 Pace E.  Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch:  Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens (FAT 30; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 2000), 85, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 51 Cf. B. A. Levine, Numbers 1–20, 354–355. 52 Cf. C. Kupfer, Mit Israel, 144.

170

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

Deuteronomic idea of (a) merely one witness not rising against a man, and (b) by the mouth of two or (c) three witnesses (d) raising the word (Deut 19:15). The particular motif of the spies coming to the Valley of Eshcol (‫ויבאו עד־נחל‬ ‫אשכל‬: Num 13:23) was borrowed from Deut 1:24.53 The subsequent idea of (a) the spies returning (b) at the end of forty days (‫ )יום‬and (a’) coming to Moses and Aaron to the ‘sanctuary’ at Kadesh (Num 13:25–26b; diff. 13:3.26b: the wilderness of Paran) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) two men-witnesses standing before Yahweh, presumably in the sanctuary, and before the priests and judges who are (b) in those days (Deut 19:16–17). The somewhat surprising use of the motif of Paran (diff. Num 20:1 etc.: Zin) as related to Kadesh (Num 13:26; cf. 13:3),54 both illustrating the Deuteronomic idea of the sanctuary of Yahweh (Deut 19:17), was borrowed from Deut 33:2 (‫ קדש‬+ ‫)פארן‬. The subsequent idea of bringing the word (‫ )דבר‬to Moses and Aaron (Num 13:26c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the judges investigating the matter and punishing the witness (Deut 19:18–19), presumably for his evil word (cf. Deut 19:20). The concluding idea of all the congregation of Israel seeing (*‫ )ויראו‬the fruit of the land (Num 13:26d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the concluding, combined Deuteronomic ideas of the rest of the Israelites fearing (‫)ויראו‬, and the Israelite’s eye having no pity (Deut 19:20–21).

3.6.  Num 13:27–14:45 (cf. Deut 20:1–17) The section Num 13:27–14:45 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 20:1–17. The opening idea of (a) the spies coming to Canaan, (b) the people (‫ )עם‬living in the land being strong, the cities being fortified and very large, (c) the spies seeing (*‫ )ראי‬the descendants of Anak there (Num 13:28), the Canaanites living in plain regions, and (d) the enemy people (‫ )עם‬being (e) stronger than (*‫)ממ‬ the Israelites (Num 13:27–31; esp. 13:31) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel going out to war against (b) his enemies and (c) seeing horses and chariots, (d) a people (e) more numerous than Israel (Deut 20:1ab).

53 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 374. Pace J. Jeon, ‘Scout Narrative,’ 261, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 54 Cf. I. Kislev, ‘Joshua,’ 41.

Num 13:27–14:45 (cf. Deut 20:1–17)

171

The particular motif of the spies saying that the land which they were supposed to see is good, but the enemy people is strong, the cities are fortified and great, and the spies saw the descendants of Anak there (‫ עם‬+ ‫ הארץ אשר‬+ ‫ויאמרו‬ ‫ ענק* ראינו שם‬+ ‫ וגם־‬+ ‫ גדלת‬+ ‫ בצרות‬+ ‫ ערים‬+: Num 13:27–28) was borrowed from Deut 1:25.28.55 The motif of the Hittites, the Jebusites, and the Amorites living in the mountains, and the Canaanites living by the sea and in the east (+ ‫והחתי‬ ‫ ים‬+ ‫ הכנעני‬+ ‫ בהר‬+ ‫ והאמרי‬+ ‫והיבוסי‬: Num 13:29) was borrowed from Josh 11:3. The motif of Caleb acting faithfully (‫כלב‬: Num 13:30) was borrowed from Deut 1:36. The motif of persuading the Israelites to go up and possess the land (+ ‫עלה‬ ‫ירש‬: Num 13:30) was borrowed from Deut 1:21. The motif of the spies saying that the enemy people is stronger than the Israelites (‫ ממנו‬+ ‫ עם‬+ ‫אמר‬: Num 13:31) was borrowed from Deut 1:28. The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Num 13:28)56 idea of the Israelites exaggerating the power of the enemy, crying, and weeping (Num 13:32–14:1) in a negative way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel being called not to be afraid of the enemy (Deut 20:1c). The particular motif of the spies seeing there men of stature, the sons of Anak (*‫ בני ענק‬+ ‫ שם‬+ ‫ראינו‬: Num 13:33), was borrowed from Deut 1:28.57 The motif of the giants (‫הנפלים‬: Num 13:33) also occurs in Gen 6:4.58 The subsequent idea of all the Israelites, the whole congregation, wishing to have died in the land of Egypt (‫ )ארץ מצרים‬or in the wilderness (Num 14:2) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God bringing Israel up from the land of Egypt (Deut 20:1de). The subsequent idea of Yahweh bringing the Israelites to (‫ )אל־‬this land to fall by the sword or become booty (Num 14:3–4) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites drawing near to the battle (Deut 20:2ab). The particular motif of the Israelites saying that their little ones would become booty (‫ לבז‬+ *‫ יהי‬+ *‫וטפ‬: Num 14:3) was borrowed from Deut 1:39.59

55 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 374–375. Pace J. E. Harvey, Retelling, 10; J. Jeon, ‘Scout Narrative,’ 261–262, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 56 Cf. C. Kupfer, Mit Israel, 147. 57 Cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 55. 58 Cf. C. Carmichael, The Book of Numbers: A Critique of Genesis (Yale University: New Haven · London 2012), 64–65. 59 Pace E. Otto, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 68, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

172

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

The subsequent idea of Moses and Aaron falling before all the assembly of the Israelites, and Joshua and Caleb, so first the leader of the tribe of Ephraim, with its sanctuary on Mount Gerizim (diff. Num 13:30: only Caleb),60 and then the leader of the tribe of Judah, with its sanctuary in Jerusalem, tearing their clothes (Num 14:5–6) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the priest (presumably the high priest) coming near (Deut 20:2c). The contrasting image of the Judaean leader Caleb, whose disparaging name means ‘dog,’ as encouraging the Israelites to conquer the land of Canaan but in his persuasion not mentioning God (Num 13:30), and on the other hand the Ephraimite leader Joshua (cf. Josh 24:30; Judg 2:9), whose role resembles that of the priest (cf. the hypotext Deut 20:2c–3) and whose theophoric name refers to Yahweh,61 as together with Caleb pointing to the power of Yahweh (Num 14:6– 9)62 implies that Exodus–Numbers is an Ephraimite work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent idea of Joshua and Caleb (a) speaking (‫( )אמר‬b) to (‫( )אל‬c) all the congregation of the sons of Israel (‫ )ישראל‬that (d) Yahweh would bring them into the land and give it to them (Num 14:7–8) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the priest (a) speaking (b) to (c) the Israelites, to Israel, that (d) they draw near to the battle against their enemies (Deut 20:2d–3c). The particular motif of the spies saying that the land is good (‫ טובה הארץ‬+ ‫אמר‬: Num 14:7) was borrowed from Deut 1:25.63 The subsequent idea of calling the Israelites (a) not (‫ )אל־‬to rebel against Yahweh and (b) not to be afraid (‫ )אל־תיראו‬of the people of the land because (c) they are Israel’s bread and (d) their protection departed (e) from them (‫מ*הם‬: Num 14:9a–d) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of calling the Israelites, facing the enemies, (a) not to lose heart, (b) not to be afraid, (c) not to act hastily, and (d) not to be terrified (e) before them (‫מ*הם‬: Deut 20:3d–g). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh being with the Israelites, so that (b) they should not be afraid of their enemies, and (c) all the congregation wanting to stone the Israelite leaders, but the glory of Yahweh appeared to all the Israelites 60 Cf. T. R. Ashley, Numbers, 248; H. Seebass, Numeri, vol. 2, 114; S. Boorer, The Vision of the Priestly Narrative: Its Genre and Hermeneutics of Time (AIL 27; SBL: Atlanta 2016), 392. 61 Cf. H. Seebass, Numeri, vol. 2, 104. 62 Cf. G. Kugler, When God Wanted to Destroy the Chosen People: Biblical Traditions and Theology on the Move (BZAW 515; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2019), 29, 35. 63 Pace J. Jeon, ‘Scout Narrative,’ 261, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

Num 13:27–14:45 (cf. Deut 20:1–17)

173

(Num 14:9e–10), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God going with the Israelites (b) to fight against their enemies and (c) to save them (Deut 20:4). The subsequent idea of Yahweh speaking to (‫ )אל־‬Moses concerning this people (‫העם‬: Num 14:11.13–14), and Moses saying (‫אמר‬: Num 14:13) to Yahweh (Num 14:11–14d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the officials speaking to the people by saying (Deut 20:5ab). The particular motif of the Israelites disrespecting Yahweh (‫*נאצני‬: Num 14:11) was borrowed from Deut 31:20. The motif of Yahweh making of Moses a nation mightier than Israel (‫ ממנו‬+ ‫ עצום‬+ ‫ואעשה אתך לגוי־‬: Num 14:12; cf. Exod 32:10) was borrowed from Deut 9:14.64 The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh who (‫ )אשר‬is seen eye to eye, so in an intimate manner,65 and (b) his cloud stands above the Israelites, like above the sanctuary (Num 14:14ef; diff. Exod 33:9–10; Num 12:5: at the entrance to it), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a man who built a new house/temple but (b) not dedicated it (Deut 20:5c–e). The particular motif of Yahweh being seen, and the cloud standing above the tent, and Yahweh being in a pillar of cloud (‫ בעמד ענן‬+ ‫ על‬+ ‫ עמד‬+ ‫ ענן‬+ ‫ יהוה‬+ ‫ראה‬: Num 14:14) was borrowed from Deut 31:15. The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh going (‫ )הלך‬before the Israelites in a pillar of cloud by day and (b) in a pillar of fire by night (Num 14:14g) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the man going, presumably by day, and (b) returning to his house, presumably for the night (Deut 20:5fg). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh causing the people to die (‫( )מות‬b) as one man (*‫איש אח‬: Num 14:15) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the man dying in the war and (b) another man dedicating the house (Deut 20:5hi). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh bringing the people to the land which he swore to them, but (b) slaughtering them in (‫ )ב‬the wilderness (Num 14:16) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a man planting a vineyard, presumably in Israel, but (b) dying in the war (Deut 20:6). The

64 Cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 41–42; V. Sénéchal, ‘Quel horizon d’écriture pour Nb 14,11–25? Essai de sondage des soubassements de cette péricope,’ in T. Römer (ed.), The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (BETL 215; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, MA 2008), 609–629 (esp. 621). 65 Cf. T. R. Ashley, Numbers, 257.

174

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

particular motif of other nations, who have heard, saying that because Yahweh was not able to bring the Israelites to the land which he swore to them, therefore he killed them in the wilderness (‫ אל־הארץ‬+ *‫ מבל*י יכלת יהוה להביא‬+ ‫ אשר‬+ ‫אמר‬ ‫ במדבר‬+ ‫ להם‬+ ‫אשר־‬: Num 14:15b–16), was borrowed from Deut 9:28.66 The subsequent idea of (a) the power of Moses’ lord being great, (b) as he promised (Num 14:17), by means of the hypertextual procedure of transsexuation (in this case, masculinization)67 sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a man betrothing a woman, presumably becoming her lord, but (b) not yet taking her (Deut 20:7). The particular motif of Moses praying to his Lord that he might show his greatness (‫ אדני‬+ ‫גדל‬: Num 14:17) was borrowed from Deut 9:26. The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Exod 34:6–7)68 idea of (a) Yahweh being long-suffering and abounding in mercy, forgiving guilt and transgression, but (b) not leaving it unpunished (Num 14:18a–c) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a man having a tender heart, but (b) not melting the hearts of his brothers (Deut 20:8). The subsequent idea of Yahweh inspecting (‫ )פקד‬the guilt of the fathers on the sons (Num 14:18d) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the commanders of the army being leaders and inspecting the people (Deut 20:9). The subsequent idea of Yahweh forgiving the guilt of the people in his great mercy and according to Moses’ word (Num 14:19–20) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel drawing near to an enemy city but invoking peace to it (Deut 20:10). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh remaining alive, and (b) all the (*‫)כל־ה‬ land being filled with the glory of Yahweh (Num 14:21) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the city answering in peace and opening its gates, and (b) all the people performing forced labour and serving Israel (Deut 20:11). The particular motif of the whole earth being filled with the glory of Yahweh (‫ כל־‬+ ‫ יהוה‬+ ‫ כבוד‬+ ‫מלא‬ ‫הארץ‬: Num 14:21) was borrowed from Isa 6:3.

6 6 Cf. V. Sénéchal, ‘Quel horizon,’ 623–626. 67 See G. Genette, Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré (Seuil: [s.l.] 1982), 423–424. 68 Cf. B. A. Levine, Numbers 1–20, 366; C. Kupfer, Mit Israel, 155; G. Kugler, ‘The Threat of Annihilation of Israel in the Desert: An Independent Tradition within Two Stories,’ CBQ 78 (2016) 632–647 (esp. 644).

Num 13:27–14:45 (cf. Deut 20:1–17)

175

The subsequent idea of some people not (‫ )לא‬heeding the voice of Yahweh (Num 14:22) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a city not submitting peacefully to Israel (Deut 20:12a). The subsequent idea of Yahweh threatening the rebellious and complaining Israelites (Num 14:23–27) and making (‫עשה‬: Num 14:28) to the Israelites according to their words (Num 14:23–28) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel making war against the unyielding city and besieging it (Deut 20:12bc). The particular motif of the sinful Israelites not seeing the land which Yahweh swore to their fathers (*‫ לאבת‬+ ‫ אשר נשבעתי‬+ ‫ את הארץ‬+ ‫אם־יראו‬: Num 14:23) was borrowed from Deut 1:35.69 The following motif of Caleb being a person fully following Yahweh, to whom Yahweh would give the land in which he walked, and to his descendants (‫ הארץ אשר‬+ ‫ מלא אחרי‬+ ‫כלב‬: Num 14:24) was borrowed from the following text Deut 1:36.70 Likewise, the motif of ordering the Israelites to turn and set out into the wilderness by the way of the Sea of Reeds (+ ‫ וסעו‬+ ‫פנו‬ ‫ המדבר* דרך ים־סוף‬+ ‫לכם‬: Num 14:25) was borrowed from Deut 1:40.71 The motif of saying, ‘As I live, an oracle of Yahweh’ (‫חי־אני נאם־יהוה‬: Num 14:28) was borrowed from the prophetic texts Isa 49:18 etc. The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites’ corpses falling in the wilderness, and (b) all the (‫ )כל‬listed ones, in all (‫ )כל‬their number, from twenty years old and above, not coming to the promised land, presumably dying in the wilderness (Num 14:29–30; cf. 14:33), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh God giving the city into Israel’s hand, and (b) Israel killing all its male population (Deut 20:13). The particular motif of only Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun entering the promised land (‫ יהושע בן־נון‬+ ‫ כלב בן־יפנה‬+ ‫ בה‬+ ‫ הארץ‬+ ‫בוא‬: Num 14:30; cf. 14:6.38) was borrowed from Deut 1:36.38.72 The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Num 14:3.29)73 idea of (a) the little ones (‫)טף‬, (b) that (‫ )אשר‬the Israelites said (c) that they would be treated as plunder 69 Cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 46–47; L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 47. Pace J. E. Harvey, Retelling, 10, 12–13, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 70 Cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 46. Pace J. E. Harvey, Retelling, 10, 12–13, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 71 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 158; L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 41–42, 46, 49. Pace P. Y. Yoo, ‘Once Again: The Yam Sûp of the Exodus,’ JBL 137 (2018) 581–597 (esp. 592), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 72 Pace J. E. Harvey, Retelling, 10–11, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 73 Cf. T. R. Ashley, Numbers, 265; H. Seebass, Numeri, vol. 2, 123.

176

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

(‫)לבז‬, being brought in and knowing the land (Num 14:31), and all other dying (Num 14:31–32), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) only the women, the little ones, the livestock, and (b) all that was in the city, all its spoil, (c) being plundered (‫)תבז‬, so presumably surviving (Deut 20:14ab). The particular motif of the little ones, of whom the Israelites said that they would be treated as plunder, knowing something and coming to the land (‫ בוא‬+ ‫ ידעו‬+ ‫וטפכם אשר אמרתם לבז יהיה‬: Num 14:31) was borrowed from Deut 1:39.74 The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites’ sons being shepherds in the wilderness,75 (b) the Israelites’ bodies being consumed in the wilderness, the Israelites bearing their guilt for forty years and knowing Yahweh’s rejection, as (c) Yahweh said (Num 14:33–35a), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) eating the spoil, so presumably the livestock (cf. Deut 20:14a), of (b) the enemies, (c) which Yahweh God gave to Israel (Deut 20:14cd). The motif of Yahweh saying, ‘I, Yahweh, have spoken’ (‫אני יהוה דברתי‬: Num 14:35) was borrowed from the book of Ezekiel (Ezek 5:13 etc.). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh thus doing to all the (*‫ )*עשה לכל־ה‬congregation (b) which was (*‫ )ה‬evil in the wilderness, so far away from the present location of Israel (Num 14:35b–e), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel thus doing to all the cities (b) which are very far from Israel (Deut 20:15). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Num 14:29–30) idea of (a) the men whom Moses sent to spy out the land (b) bringing a bad report about the land, so (c) dying by a plague before Yahweh, only Joshua and Caleb living (‫חיה‬: Num 14:38), and Moses telling these words to (d) all (‫ )כל־‬the Israelites, who mourned greatly (Num 14:36–39; esp. 14:39), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic thought that (a) from the cities of the Canaanite peoples (b) which Yahweh gave to Israel as an inheritance (c) Israel should not let live (d) all that breathes (Deut 20:16). The concluding idea of the Israelites going up to the Canaanite mountains, without the ark of the covenant, and the Amalekites and the Canaanites (‫)הכנעני‬ striking them and scattering as far as ‘the Hormah/destruction’ (‫החרמה‬: Num 14:40–45; diff. Deut 1:44; Num 21:3; etc.: ‫)חרמה‬, a name which is related in Num

74 Pace E. Otto, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 68; J. Jeon, ‘Scout Narrative,’ 261, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 75 Cf. P. J. Budd, Numbers, 159; T. R. Ashley, Numbers, 265; H. Seebass, Numeri, vol. 2, 123–124.

Num 15:1–18:32b (cf. Deut 20:18–20)

177

21:2–3 to putting under a ban (‫)חרם‬,76 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of Israel putting the Amorites, the Canaanites, and other nations under the ban (‫החרם‬: Deut 20:17). The particular motif of the Israelites resolving to go up to the place of which Yahweh spoke, for they sinned, Moses saying that they transgress the command of Yahweh, so they should not go up because Yahweh is not among them, and they would be struck before their enemies, but the Israelites going up to the mountain, and the Canaanites dwelling in this mountain coming down and scattering them as far as Hormah (+ ‫ את־פי יהוה‬+ ‫ ויאמר‬+ ‫ חטאנו‬+ ‫ יהוה‬+ ‫ אשר‬+ ‫עלה‬ *‫ ויכתו‬+ ‫ הישב בהר ההוא‬+ *‫ ההר‬+ ‫ עלה‬+ ‫ בקרבכם ולא תנגפו לפני איביכם‬+ *‫ כי אינ‬+ ‫תעלו‬ ‫ עד־*חרמה‬+: Num 14:40–45) was borrowed from Deut 1:41–44.77

3.7. Num 15:1–18:32b (cf. Deut 20:18–20) The section Num 15:1–18:32b sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 20:18–20. The opening, repeatedly described idea of (a) Moses teaching the Israelites (b) to make (‫עשה‬: Num 15:3.5–6.8.11–14) (c) in this manner (‫ככה‬: Num 15:11– 13) an offering made by fire (d) to (‫ )ל‬Yahweh, a soothing odour to (‫ )ל‬Yahweh (Num 15:3–4.7.8.10.13–14), as well as other contributions to (‫ )ל‬Yahweh (Num 15:1–21; esp. 15:19.21) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites not learning (b) to make things (c) in the manner of all (‫ )ככל‬the Canaanite abominations which the Canaanite nations (b’) made (d) to their gods (Deut 20:18a–c). The particular motif of offering the first bread dough (‫ראשית ערסתיכם‬: Num 15:20–21) was borrowed from Ezek 44:30. The subsequent section Num 15:22–18:26d, with its repeatedly used key terms ‘sin’ and ‘sin offering’78 (*‫חטא‬: Num 15:24–25.27–28; 16:22.26; 17:3; 18:9.22), as well as ‘Yahweh your God’ (‫יהוה אלהיכם‬: Num 15:41), conceptually

7 6 Cf. P. J. Budd, Numbers, 160, 230; A. R. Roskop, Wilderness, 200. 77 Cf. J.  Van Seters, Life of Moses, 379–380; W.  Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 264. Pace E.  Otto, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 63–64, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 78 The traditional translation ‘sin offering’ may be retained here, even if other translations might be more adequate elsewhere; cf. J. Nolland, ‘Sin, Purity and the ‫חּטאת‬ Offering,’ VT 65 (2015) 606–620 (esp. 613 n. 23); cf. also W. K. Gilders, ‘‫ חּטאת‬as “Sin Offering”: A Reconsideration,’ in C. J. Hodge [et al.] (eds.), “The One Who Sows Bountifully,” Festschrift S. K. Stowers (BJS 356; Brown University: Providence, RI 2013), 119–128.

178

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites being called not to sin against Yahweh their God (Deut 20:18d). The topic of sin and avoiding sin is elaborated in the fragments concerning unintentionally or defiantly failing to observe all the commandments (Num 15:22–31);79 gathering sticks on the Sabbath day (Num 15:32–36);80 remembering all the commandments of Yahweh (Num 15:37–41); the rebellion of Korah and his fellows against Moses and Aaron (Num 16:1–17:5); the rebellion of all the congregation against Moses and Aaron (Num 17:6–28); bearing the guilt related to the sanctuary and the priesthood (Num 18:1–7); as well as Yahweh giving to the priests and to the Levites various contributions, so that the Israelites should not approach the tent of meeting and thus avoid a sin, and the Levites bearing the guilt of the Israelites (Num 18:8–26d). The particular motif of the Israelites making themselves tassels on the edges of the garments (*‫ כנפ‬+ ‫ על־‬+ ‫ ל‬+ ‫עשה‬: Num 15:38) was borrowed from Deut 22:12.81 The motif of Datan and Abiram being sons of Eliab, a son of Reuben, and the earth opening its mouth and swallowing them and all that was theirs in the midst of all Israel (+ ‫ בלע‬+ ‫ ופצתה ה* את־פיה‬+ ‫ בנ* ראובן‬+ ‫ אבירם בני אליאב‬+ ‫דתן‬ ‫ כל־ישראל‬+ ‫ אשר‬+ ‫ואת־כל‬: Num 16:1.30.32–34) was borrowed from Deut 11:6.82 The motif of Yahweh giving all the tithes to the Levites (‫ כל־מעשר‬+ ‫ נתן‬+ ‫לוי‬: Num 18:21.24.26) was borrowed from Deut 26:12.83 The concluding thought that (a) of it (‫ממנו‬: Num 18:26e.28–30.32b), that is, of the grain and wine/oil tithe (b) the Levites should offer a tithe and eat (‫אכל‬: Num 79 Cf. J. Sklar, ‘Sin and Atonement: Lessons from the Pentateuch,’ BBR 22 (2012) 467–491 (esp. 468–476, 482–484). 80 Cf. M.  Röhrig, ‘Gesetz und Erzählung in Num 15:  Redaktionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zum Sabbatsünder (Num 15,32–36),’ ZAW 131 (2019) 407–421 (esp. 408–413). 81 Cf. L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 59. 82 Cf. E. Appella, Autorità contestata e confermata: Ambizione umana e progetto divino nella storia di Core, Datan e Abiram (Nm 16) (AloNS 1; Il Pozzo di Giacobbe: Trapani 2013), 236. Pace E. Otto, ‘The Books of Deuteronomy and Numbers in One Torah. The Book of Numbers Read in the Horizon of the Postexilic Fortschreibung in the Book of Deuteronomy: New Horizons in the Interpretation of the Pentateuch,’ in C. Frevel, T.  Pola, and A.  Schart (eds.), Torah, 383–397 (esp.  392); K.  Pyschny, Verhandelte Führung: Eine Analyse von Num 16–17 im Kontext der neueren Pentateuchforschung (HeBS 88; Herder: Freiburg im Breisgau 2017), 288, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing. 83 Cf. C.  Nihan, ‘The Priestly Laws of Numbers, the Holiness Legislation, and the Pentateuch,’ in C. Frevel, T. Pola, and A. Schart (eds.), Torah, 109–137 (esp. 130).

Num 18:32c–19:22 (cf. Deut 21:1–23:1)

179

18:31) (c) it (‫אתו‬: Num 18:26e–32b; esp. 18:31) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic thought that (a) of it, that is, of the tree of the field (b) Israel should eat and (c) not cut it (Deut 20:19–20; esp. 20:19).

3.8. Num 18:32c–19:22 (cf. Deut 21:1–23:1) The section Num 18:32c–19:22 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 21:1–23:1. The opening idea of (a) not defiling/slaying (‫חלל‬: cf. Num 19:16.18) the holy things of the Israelites and (b) not (‫ )לא‬dying (Num 18:32cd) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) finding a defiled/slain one and (b) not knowing who killed him (Deut 21:1). The subsequent idea of (a) a statute of the law which Yahweh commanded, (b) the Israelites taking (‫( )ו*קחו‬c) a red cow (d) which (‫ )אשר‬has no blemish (e) with her (‫)בה‬, and (f) which did not carry (‫ )אשר לא־*ה‬upon itself (g) a yoke (‫על‬: Num 19:1–2) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) elders and judges coming, and (b) the elders of the city taking (c) a heifer (d) which has not been worked (e) with her, and (f) which did not pull in (g) a yoke (Deut 21:2–3).84 The subsequent idea of (a) giving the cow (b) to (‫( )אל‬c) Eleazar (‫ )*עזר‬the priest (‫)הכהן‬, (d) taking it outside the camp, and slaughtering it (e) before him, that is, Eleazar the priest (‫הכהן‬: Num 19:3–4a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) bringing the heifer (b) to (c) a valley not sown (‫)זרע‬, (d) breaking the neck of the heifer in the valley, and (e) the priests approaching, whom Yahweh God chose to decide (Deut 21:4–5). The subsequent idea of (a) the priest taking of the blood (‫ )דם‬and (b) with his finger sprinkling (c) towards the opposite of the front of the tent of meeting (d) with the blood (‫ )דם‬seven times (Num 19:4) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the elders of the city nearest to the slain one (b) washing their hands and (c) rejecting the charge by saying that (d) their hands did not shed this blood, repeatedly referring to it three times (Deut 21:6–8).

84 Cf. N. MacDonald, ‘The Hermeneutics and Genesis of the Red Cow Ritual,’ HTR 105 (2012) 351–371 (esp. 357–360).

180

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

The subsequent idea of (a) burning the cow (b) in the sight of (‫ )*עיני‬the priest (c) with its blood (‫דם‬: Num 19:5a) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) removing/ burning (c) the blood, thus (b) doing what is right in the sight of Yahweh (Deut 21:9). The subsequent idea of (a) being on (‫ ;על־‬diff. Exod 29:14 etc.: ‫ )את־‬the dung/ horseman, (b) burning, and (c) taking (*‫ )ולקח‬fragrant and colourful objects (Num 19:5b–6a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) going on to war on the enemies, (b) seeing an attractive woman, desiring her, and (c) taking her (Deut 21:10–11). The subsequent idea of throwing the fragrant and colourful objects into (‫אל־‬ ‫ )תוך‬the fire (Num 19:6b) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of bringing the attractive captive woman into the house, where she should shave her head and pare her nails (Deut 21:12). The subsequent idea of (a) the priest washing his clothes and (b) bathing (c) his body/flesh (d) in water (‫*מים‬: Num 19:7ab) by means of the hypertextual procedure of transsexuation (in this case, masculinization)85 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the woman taking away the dress of her captivity and (b) weeping (c) for her father and her mother (d) for a month of days (‫*מים‬: Deut 21:13a–c). The subsequent idea of (a) afterwards (‫( )ואחר‬b) coming in to (‫ )*בוא אל‬the camp and (c) being unclean until evening, like after sexual intercourse (Num 19:7cd; cf. Lev 15:18), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) afterwards (b) coming in to the woman and (c) being with her as a husband with a wife (Deut 21:13d–f). The subsequent idea of (a) the man who burned the cow (cf. Num 19:5b) (b) washing his clothes, bathing his body, and being unclean until evening, like after sexual intercourse (cf. Lev 15:18), and (c) a clean man taking the ash of the cow to a clean place (d) as the water of female genital bleeding and of a sin, and (e) likewise washing his clothes and being unclean until evening, like after sexual intercourse (Num 19:8–10c; cf. Lev 15:18), sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the formerly desiring man (b) sending the woman, presumably having had sex with her (cf. Deut 21:13f), (c) according to her wish (d) because she was sexually humbled, (e) presumably to be married by another man (Deut 21:14).

85 See G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 423–424.

Num 18:32c–19:22 (cf. Deut 21:1–23:1)

181

The subsequent idea of (a) the sons (‫ )בנים‬of Israel and likewise the foreigners who live among them (b) having an eternal statute (Num 19:10de) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) an Israelite having two wives and two sons, and not privileging the son of the loved one over the son of the hated one because the son of the unloved one (b) has the judgment of being firstborn (Deut 21:15–17). The subsequent idea of not touching anyone who died (‫מות‬: Num 19:11) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of stoning someone so that he dies, and hanging someone who deserves the penalty of death so that he dies (Deut 21:18–22). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelite freeing himself from sin (b) on the third day (‫)ביום‬, and on the seventh day (‫ )ביום‬being clean, and if not freeing himself from sin on the third day (‫ )ביום‬and on the seventh day (‫)ביום‬, then (c) being unclean (Num 19:12), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelite burying the corpse (b) on the same day because (c) the hanged one is cursed by God (Deut 21:23a–c). The subsequent idea of not rendering unclean (‫ )טמא‬the dwelling place of Yahweh by remaining unclean (‫ )טמא‬in uncleanness (‫)טמאה‬, and being unclean (‫ )טמא‬in the tent of a dead person (Num 19:13–14) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of not rendering unclean the land which Yahweh gave as inheritance (Deut 21:23de). The subsequent idea of (a) an open object (‫)כלי‬, which has no (b) cover cord on (‫ )על‬it, (c) this one being unclean (Num 19:15) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a male object not being (b) on a woman because (c) the one doing such things is an abomination to Yahweh God (Deut 22:5). The subsequent idea of (a) touching (b) on (‫ )על־‬the surface of the field (c) someone slain or (‫ )או‬dead (Num 19:16) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) encountering a bird’s nest (b) on the ground (c) a mother lying on the young ones or on eggs (Deut 22:6). The subsequent idea of (a) taking (‫ )לקח‬from the dust and (b) putting on it water of life (Num 19:17) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) taking the young ones, presumably from the ground (cf. Deut 22:6), so (b) prolonging days (Deut 22:7). The subsequent idea of (a) a clean person sprinkling the tent, as though dedicating it (cf. Exod 29:21 etc.), with (b) its utensils and (c) all living persons there, as well as (d) the one who touched the dead (Num 19:18) sequentially illustrates

182

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) building a new house (b) with a parapet and (c) not being guilty of the blood of (d) someone who fell from the roof (Deut 22:8). The subsequent idea of (a) the clean (b) sprinkling (c) the unclean (Num 19:19a) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) a stronger object (b) sanctifying (c) a weaker, differing object (Deut 22:9–11; esp. 22:9). The subsequent idea of a man on the seventh day purifying himself from a sin (Num 19:19b) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a man taking a wife but later hating her and covering his hate by falsely accusing her (Deut 22:13–17d). The subsequent idea of the man washing his clothes, bathing his body, and being clean in the evening, like after sexual intercourse (Num 19:19c–e; cf. Lev 15:18), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of spreading the cloth with the proofs of the husband’s sexual intercourse with the wife (Deut 22:17e). The subsequent idea of (a) cutting off the sinful man from the assembly (b) because (‫( )כי‬c) he defiled the holy place of Yahweh in the matter of the absence of the water of female genital bleeding (Num 19:20) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) punishing the guilty man (b) because (c) he slandered a virgin of Israel (Deut 22:18–19c). The subsequent idea of (a) this being (‫( )היה‬b) to (‫ )ל‬the Israelites (c) as (‫ )ל‬a statute (d) forever (Num 19:21a) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the woman being (b) to the man (c) as a wife, so that he will not be permitted to send her away (d) all his days (Deut 22:19d–f). The subsequent idea of the man who sprinkled the water of female genital bleeding washing his clothes, so presumably being clean (Num 19:21bc; diff. 19:19c–e: bathing his body and waiting until evening), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the man’s charge against the young woman being true, for the evidence of her virginity was not found (Deut 22:20). The subsequent idea of the one who touched the water of female genital bleeding being unclean until evening, like after sexual intercourse (Num 19:21de; cf. Lev 15:18), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a young woman playing a harlot (Deut 22:21). The concluding idea of the unclean man rendering everything unclean, and the person who touches the unclean man being unclean until evening (Num 19:22) illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of a man being guilty of having illicit sexual intercourse (22:22–23:1).

Num 20:1–22:1 (Deut 23:2–5b)

183

3.9. Num 20:1–22:1 (Deut 23:2–5b) The section Num 20:1–22:1 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 23:2–5b. The opening, partly repeated (cf. Exod 17:1–7)86 idea of (f ’) the whole congregation assembling (‫קהל‬: Num 20:2),87 the assembly of Yahweh (‫)קהל יהוה‬ complaining (Num 20:4),88 Moses and Aaron going away from the assembly (‫קהל‬: Num 20:6), assembling (‫ )קהל‬the congregation (Num 20:8), assembling (‫ )קהל‬the assembly (‫קהל‬: Num 20:10),89 and (a) Moses striking (b) the rock two times (diff. Exod 17:6: once),90 so that (c) water came out (Num 20:11), but (d) Moses would not (‫( )לא‬e) let come (‫( )בוא‬f) this assembly (‫ )קהל‬to the promised land (Num 20:1–13; esp. 20:12) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (d) not (e) coming of (a) a man with bruised and (b) crushed two testicles, as well as (c) his outpouring organ cut off, (f) to the assembly of Yahweh (Deut 23:2). The particular motif of the people dwelling in Kadesh (‫ בקדש‬+ ‫ישב‬: Num 20:1) was borrowed from Deut 1:46 and conflated with Deut 32:51 (‫)מדבר־צן‬. The particular motif of the promised land abounding in grain, fig, vine, and pomegranate, as well as water (‫ מים‬+ ‫ ורמון‬+ ‫ וגפן‬+ ‫ותאנה‬: Num 20:5) was borrowed from Deut 8:7–8. The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted into the story of Meribah (Num 20:1–13.22–24),91 idea of Edom being unreasonably rude, in contrast to his polite ‘brother’ Israel,92 and being hostile to Israel, so that Israel turned away from him (Num 20:14–21; diff. Deut 2:4–7),93 illustrates the subsequent

86 Cf. H. Seebass, Numeri, vol. 2, 271; L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 89; T. Römer, ‘Egypt Nostalgia in Exodus 14–Numbers 21,’ in C. Frevel, T. Pola, and A. Schart (eds.), Torah, 66–86 (esp. 79–81); S. Boorer, Vision, 399. 87 Cf. P. J. Budd, Numbers, 217. 88 Cf. H. Seebass, Numeri, vol. 2, 274, 280; L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 91. 89 Cf. L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 92. 90 Cf. R. P. Knierim and G. W. Coats, Numbers, 227–228. 91 Cf. R.  Albertz, ‘Die kompositionelle Bedeutung der Hexateuchredaktion:  Ein Zwischenergebnis,’ in id., Pentateuchstudien, ed. J. Wöhrle and F. Neumann (FAT 117; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 449–470 (esp. 459). 92 Cf. E. Bridge, ‘Polite Israel and Impolite Edom: Israel’s Request to Travel through Edom in Numbers 20.14–21,’ JSOT 35.1 (2010) 77–88 (esp. 79, 85–87). 93 Cf. M. Orian, ‘Numbers 20:14–21 as a Reply to Deuteronomy 23:4–9,’ VT 69 (2019) 109–116 (esp. 113–114).

184

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

Deuteronomic idea of a half-breed not coming to the assembly of Yahweh (Deut 23:3a). The particular motif of Moses sending messengers from the wilderness to an enemy king with a peaceful message (‫ אמר‬+ ‫ מלך‬+ ‫ אל־‬+ *‫ מלאכים מ‬+ ‫ו*שלח‬: Num 20:14) was borrowed from Deut 2:26.94 The motif of Israel being Edom’s brother (*‫אחיכ‬: Num 20:14) was borrowed from Deut 2:4. The motif of the Israelites’ fathers going down to Egypt (‫ירדו אבתי* מצרימה‬: Num 20:15) was borrowed from Deut 10:22. The motif of the Israelites being on the edge of the territory of Edom and wanting to pass through their land, but not drinking their water, and thus going on the fixed way, turning neither to the right nor to the left (+ ‫ עבר‬+ ‫גבול‬ ‫ ימין ושמאול‬+ ‫ לא‬+ ‫ הלך‬+ ‫ דרך‬+ ‫ מים‬+ ‫ שתה‬+ ‫ארץ‬: Num 20:16–17), was borrowed from Deut 2:4–7.27.95 Likewise, the following motif of the enemy king not letting Israel pass through his land (‫ ב‬+ ‫ עבר‬+ ‫לא‬: Num 20:18) was borrowed from the following text Deut 2:30. The motif of the Israelites paying for Edom’s water, because they only wanted to pass through on foot (+ ‫ ברגלי‬+ ‫ רק‬+ ‫ שתה‬+ ‫מים‬ ‫אעברה‬: Num 20:19), was borrowed from Deut 2:28 (cf. 2:29).96 The motif of the enemy with his armed people coming out against Israel (‫ עם‬+ *‫ לקראת‬+ ‫ויצא‬: Num 20:20) was borrowed from Deut 2:32. The subsequent idea of (a) Aaron dying and not coming (‫לא יבא‬: Num 20:24; diff. Deut 32:52: *‫( )בוא‬b) to the land which Yahweh gave to the sons of Israel, presumably to all the congregation, all the house of Israel (Num 20:22–29; esp. 20:27.29), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) not coming (b) to the assembly of Yahweh (Deut 23:3b). The particular motif of Aaron dying at Mount Hor, being gathered to his people, and not coming to the land which Yahweh gave to the sons of Israel because Moses and Aaron were unfaithful to Yahweh at the waters of Meribah, and Moses and Aaron going up to the mountain and dying there (‫ אהרן‬+ ‫בהר ההר‬ *‫ מי מריב‬+ ‫ על אשר *תם‬+ ‫ נת* לבני ישראל‬+ ‫ לא *בא אל־הארץ אשר‬+ *‫ אל־עמי‬+ ‫ אסף‬+ *‫ שמ‬+ ‫ מת‬+ ‫ עלה‬+: Num 20:22–28) was borrowed from Deut 32:50–52 and conflated with the thematically related text Deut 10:6 (‫ *מת‬+ ‫ אלעזר בנו‬+ ‫ אהרן‬+ ‫נסע‬ 9 4 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 387–388. 95 Cf. ibid. 388, 391; W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 267. Cf. also D. R. Nocquet, La Samarie, la Diaspora et l’achèvement de la Torah: Territorialités et internationalités dans l’Hexateuque (OBO 284; Academic: Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2017), 297–298, arguing more generally for the dependence of Num 20:14–21 on Deut 2:2–6. 96 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 388; L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 95; D. R. Nocquet, Samarie, 297–298.

Num 20:1–22:1 (Deut 23:2–5b)

185

‫ שם‬+). The motif of the house of Israel weeping for the Moses-related deceased hero thirty days (‫ ישראל‬+ ‫ שלשים יום‬+ ‫ את־‬+ ‫ויבכו‬: Num 20:29) was borrowed from Deut 34:8.97 The subsequent ideas of (a) a southern Canaanite people hearing that Israel came on the way (‫דרך‬: Num 21:1) and being put by Israel and by Yahweh (Num 21:3; diff. 21:2)98 under a ban (Num 21:1–3), (b) the Israelite people being impatient on the way (‫בדרך‬: Num 21:4) and saying (‫ )דבר‬that they were brought up from Egypt (‫)ממצרים‬, but there is no bread (‫ )לחם‬or water (‫מים‬: Num 21:5), the Israelites coming to the region of Moab (Num 21:11.13.15.20 :*‫)מואב‬, in which they received water (‫ )מים‬in a well from Yahweh (Num 21:16–18) and not from the Amorites (Num 21:22), the Israelites going on the way (‫בדרך‬: Num 21:22), taking the territory of the former king of Moab (*‫מואב‬: Num 21:26–30; diff. Deut 2:18–37: no such remark), and camping in the steppes of Moab (*‫מואב‬: Num 21:1–22:1; esp. 22:1) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrate the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) an Ammonite or a Moabite not coming to the assembly of Yahweh forever (b) because (‫ )דבר‬they did not meet the Israelites with bread and water on the way when the Israelites came from Egypt (Deut 23:4–5b). The particular motif of a pagan king fighting against Israel, Yahweh giving his people in the hands of Israel, and the Israelites putting its cities under a ban (*‫*לחמ‬ + ‫ עיר‬+ ‫ ו*חרם את‬+ ‫ עם‬+ ‫נתן‬: Num 21:1–3) was borrowed from Deut 2:32–34 and conflated with Judg 1:17 (‫ חרמה‬+ ‫ שם‬+ ‫ ויקרא‬+ *‫ ויחרמ‬+ ‫ ישב‬+ ‫)הכנעני‬. The motif of setting out by the way of the Sea of Reeds to skirt the territory of Edom (‫נסע‬ ‫ את־‬+ ‫ סבב‬+ ‫ דרך ים־סוף‬+: Num 21:4) was borrowed from Deut 2:1.99 The motif of the Israelites in the wilderness, in which there was no water, being threatened by fiery serpents, but Yahweh saving the Israelites from the fiery serpents through a serpentine/bronze100 serpent (*‫ נחש‬+ ‫ שרף‬+ ‫ נחש‬+ ‫ *אין מים‬+ ‫במדבר‬: Num 21:5–9)

97 Cf. P.  J.  Budd, Numbers, 227; L.  Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 98. Pace E.  Otto, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 221–222, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 98 The ambiguous syntax of Num 21:3 (‫ ויחרם‬...‫)ויתן‬, with the omission of the remark ‘into my/his hands,’ which clearly pointed to Israel as the subject of the verb ‫ חרם‬in Num 21:2, may suggest that it was Yahweh, and not Israel, who put the Canaanites under a ban. 99 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 266–267. Pace P. Y. Yoo, ‘Once Again,’ 593, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 100 Cf. A. Wénin, ‘Le serpent de Nb 21,4–9 et de Gn 3,1: Intertextualité et élaboration du sens,’ in T. Römer (ed.), Leviticus and Numbers, 545–554 (esp. 548 n. 9).

186

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

was borrowed from Deut 8:15101 and conflated with Jer 8:17 (‫ נחשים‬+ ‫ ב‬+ ‫שלח‬ *‫ ו*נשכו את‬+ ‫)*ים‬.102 The motif of the Israelites camping at Iye-abarim, that is, ‘the ruins of those crossing over,’ in the wilderness facing Moab (‫ מדבר‬+ ‫עבר‬ ‫ מואב‬+ ‫ פנה‬+ : Num 21:11), was borrowed from Deut 2:8103 and conflated with Deut 32:49 (‫)העברים‬. The motif of the Israelites camping in the Wadi Zered (‫נחל‬ ‫זרד‬: Num 21:12) was borrowed from Deut 2:13–14.104 The motif of the Israelites crossing the Arnon, which flows in the wilderness and constitutes a border of the Amorites (‫ האמרי‬+ ‫ *מדבר‬+ ‫ ארנן‬+ ‫*עבר‬: Num 21:13), was borrowed from Deut 2:24.26105 and conflated with the thematically related text Judg 11:18 (‫ויחנו* *עבר‬ ‫ מואב‬+ ‫ כי ארנון גבול מואב‬+ ‫)ארנון‬.106 The motif of the Israelites fighting a war of Yahweh in the wadis of the Arnon (‫ ארנון‬+ ‫ נחל‬+ ‫ את־‬+ ‫מלחמה‬: Num 21:14) was borrowed from Deut 2:24.107 The motif of Ar being on the border of Moab (‫ער‬ ‫ גבול מואב‬+: Num 21:15; cf. 21:28) was borrowed from Deut 2:18.108 The motif of being in the fields of Moab, on the top of Pisgah, which is opposite another region (‫ על־פני‬+ ‫ ראש הפסגה‬+ ‫מואב‬: Num 21:20), was borrowed from Deut 34:1.109 The motif of Israel sending messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, saying (‫ אמר‬+ ‫וישלח ישראל מלאכים אל־סיחן מלך האמרי‬: Num 21:21), was almost verbatim borrowed from Judg 11:19110 and conflated with Deut 2:26 (‫)לאמר‬.111 The motif of Israel wanting to pass through Sihon’s land, not turning aside, not drinking water from wells, and only going on the way until he passes through Sihon’s territory (‫ עד אשר־*עבר‬+ ‫ בדרך‬+ ‫ מים‬+ ‫ שתה‬+ ‫ לא‬+ ‫אעברה בארצך‬: Num 21:22) was borrowed

101 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 268; L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 105. Pace S. Z. Aster, ‘ “Bread of the Dungheap”: Light on Num. 21:5 from the Tell Fekherye Inscription,’ VT 61 (2011) 341–358 (esp. 357–358), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 102 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 226; C. Berner, ‘Die eherne Schlange: Zum lite­rarischen Ursprung eines »mosaischen« Artefakts,’ ZAW 124 (2012) 341–355 (esp.  349, 352–354). 103 Cf. H. Seebass, Numeri, vol. 2, 336. 104 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 159; W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 268; L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 109. 105 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 268; L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 109. 106 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 159. 107 Therefore, the enigmatic ‘book of the wars of Yahweh’ (Num 21:14) should be identified with Deut 2:24–3:7. 108 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 269. 109 Cf. L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 107; R. Albertz, ‘Kompositionelle,’ 461. 110 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 395. 111 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 269. Pace L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 112, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

Num 20:1–22:1 (Deut 23:2–5b)

187

from Deut 2:27–29.112 The motif of Sihon not letting Israel pass through his territory, and Sihon gathering all his people and coming out against Israel to Jahaz to fight against Israel (‫ *יחצה‬+ *‫ סיחן את־ישראל עבר בגבלו ויאסף סיחן את־כל־עמו וי‬+ ‫ולא־‬ ‫ *ישראל‬+ ‫וילחם‬: Num 21:23) was almost verbatim borrowed from Judg 11:20113 and conflated with Deut 2:32 (*‫ לקראת‬+ ‫)ויצא‬.114 The motif of Israel defeating Sihon and taking possession of his land from the Arnon to the Jabbok (+ *‫ויכ‬ ‫ מארנן *עד־יבק‬+ ‫ ארץ‬+ ‫ את‬+ ‫ ויירש‬+ ‫ישראל‬: Num 21:24) was borrowed from Judg 11:21–22,115 conflated with Deut 2:37 (‫)בני־עמון‬,116 and simplified as concerns the Jabbok (Num 21:24) and not Gilead beyond the Jabbok (Deut 2:36–37) as the northern border of the conquered territory. The motif of Israel taking all the Amorites’ cities (‫ עיר‬+ ‫ כל‬+ ‫את‬: Num 21:25) was borrowed from Deut 2:36117 and conflated with Judg 11:26 (‫ בנתיה‬+ *‫ בחשבון וב‬+ *‫ *בכל־*ערי‬+ ‫ ישראל‬+ ‫)ישב‬.118 The motif of Heshbon being the city of Sihon king of the Amorites (‫ סיחן מלך‬+ ‫חשבון‬ ‫האמרי‬: Num 21:25–26) was borrowed from Deut 1:4 etc. The motif of coming to Heshbon, fire coming out from Heshbon, a flame from Sihon consuming Moab, woe being to Moab, people of Chemosh perishing, and his sons and his daughters being given into captivity (‫ כי־אש יצא* מחשבון‬+ ‫חשבון‬ *‫ ובנתי* בשבי‬+ *‫ בני‬+ ‫ אוי־לך מואב אבד* עם־כמוש‬+ ‫ מואב‬+ ‫ אכל‬+ ‫*להבה מ* סיחן‬: Num 21:27–30) was borrowed from a prophetic oracle against Moab (Jer 48:45–46)119 and conflated with the thematically related oracle in Isa 15:2 (‫ מידבא‬+ *‫ נ‬+ ‫)דיבון‬. The motif of the Israelites turning and going up by the way to Bashan, and Og king of Bashan coming out against them, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei, and Yahweh saying to Moses, ‘Do not be afraid of him, for I have given him into your hand, with all his people and his land, and you shall do to him as you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who dwelt in Heshbon,’ the Israelites defeating him and all his people until not a single survivor was left him, as well as taking possession of his land (*‫ דרך הבשן ויצא עוג מלך־הבשן לקראת‬+ ‫ עלה‬+ ‫פנה‬ ‫ אל־תירא אתו כי בידך נתתי אתו ואת־כל־עמו‬+ ‫ ויאמר יהוה אל‬+ ‫הוא וכל־עמו למלחמה אדרעי‬

1 12 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 269. 113 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 396. 114 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 269. Pace J. E. Harvey, Retelling, 19, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 115 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 396–397. 116 Cf. ibid. 397. 117 Cf. ibid. 118 Cf. ibid. 397–398. 119 Cf. ibid. 398–402; B. Gosse, ‘Balaam et la dynastie davidique,’ BN, nf 169 (2016) 129–139 (esp. 134).

188

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

+ ‫ ואת־כל־עמו‬+ ‫ נכה‬+ ‫ואת־ארצו ועשית לו כאשר עשית לסיחן מלך האמרי אשר ישב בחשבון‬ ‫ ארץ‬+ ‫ את־‬+ ‫ ירש‬+ ‫עד־בלתי השאיר־לו שריד‬: Num 21:33–35) was borrowed from Deut 3:1–3.12.120 The motif of the sons of Israel being in the steppes of Moab across Jericho (‫בני‬ ‫ ירחו‬+ ‫ בערבות מואב‬+ ‫ישראל‬: Num 22:1) was borrowed from Deut 34:1.8 and conflated with Josh 13:32 (‫)בערבות מואב מעבר לירדן ירחו‬.

3.10.  Num 22:2–25:19 (cf. Deut 23:5c–9) The section Num 22:2–25:19 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 23:5c–9. The opening idea of (a) a Moabite king being afraid of Israel (Num 22:2–4) and sending messengers to (b) Bileam son of Beor (‫)בלעם בן־בעור‬, (c) to Pethor (‫)פתור‬, which is (d) on the river (‫)נהר‬, in the land of the sons of the river’s people (Num 22:5), so presumably in Aram (Num 22:2–5; cf. 23:7: ‫)ארם‬, conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) a Moabite (cf. Deut 23:4) hiring against Israel (b) Balaam son of Beor, (c) from Pethor in (d) Aram of the two rivers (Deut 23:5c).121 Likewise, the motif of the people who came out of Egypt covering the water sources of the land (‫יצא‬ ‫ ממצרים‬+: Num 22:5ef) was borrowed from Deut 23:5ab. The motif of Balak son of Zippor being king of Moab (‫ מואב‬+ ‫ מלך‬+ ‫בלק בן־צפור‬: Num 22:2–4) was borrowed from Josh 24:9; Judg 11:25. The subsequent idea of Balak and the elders of Moab asking Balaam to curse Israel (Num 22:6–7) illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of a Moabite asking Balaam to curse Israel (Deut 23:5d). The particular motif of Balaam practising divination (‫ בלעם‬+ ‫קסם‬: Num 22:7) was borrowed from Josh 13:22.

120 Cf. J. S. Baden, ‘The Narratives of Numbers 20–21,’ CBQ 76 (2014) 634–652 (esp. 643– 644); D. M. Carr, ‘Strong and Weak Cases and Criteria for Establishing the PostPriestly Character of Hexateuchal Material,’ in F.  Giuntoli and K.  Schmid (eds.), The Post-Priestly Pentateuch: New Perspectives on Its Redactional Development and Theological Profiles (FAT 101; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2015), 19–34 (esp. 21, 24); R. Albertz, ‘Kompositionelle,’ 460. 121 Cf. W.  Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 270. Pace W.  Bührer, ‘Die zweifache Nachgeschichte Bileams: Tradition, Redaktion und Rezeption von Num 22–24,’ ZAW 128 (2016) 594–611 (esp. 609), who suggests the reverse direction of literary dependence.

Num 22:2–25:19 (cf. Deut 23:5c–9)

189

The subsequent, repetitiously, apparently inconsistently122 formulated idea of (a) Balaam wanting to consult Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: Num 22:8.19; 23:3),123 (b) God (‫אלהים‬: Num 22:9.20; 23:4.27) on his own initiative coming to Balaam,124 and (c) God (‫אלהים‬: Num 22:12.22.38; 24:2; ‫אל‬: 23:8.19.22–23; 24:4.16.23)125 or Yahweh Balaam’s God (*‫יהוה אלהי‬: Num 22:18) or the angel of Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: Num 22:22– 35)126 or Yahweh (‫יהוה‬: Num 23:5.8.12.16–17; 24:1.11.13)127 rejecting the enemy curse (Num 22:11.17.22–35; 23:7–8.11.13.25.27; 24:10) and (d) saying that Israel is blessed (‫ברך‬: Num 22:8–24:25: esp. 22:12d;128 23:9–11.20–25; 24:1.5–10.17– 19)129 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent, likewise repetitiously formulated Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh (b) God not wanting to listen to Balaam, and (c) Yahweh Israel’s God turning the curse into (d) a blessing (‫ברכה‬: Deut 23:6a–c). Likewise, the motif of Balaam being from Aram (‫ארם‬: Num 23:7) was borrowed from Deut 23:5. The particular motif of God coming to a non-Israelite at night and speaking to him (‫ *לילה ויאמר לו‬+ ‫ויבא אלהים אל־‬: Num 22:20) also occurs in Gen 20:3; 31:24.130 The motif of opening the eyes and seeing a messenger of Yahweh standing with his drawn sword in his hand, and bowing down (+ ‫ וחרבו שלפה בידו‬+ ‫ וירא‬+ *‫עיני‬ ‫וישתחו‬: Num 22:31; cf. 22:23) was borrowed from Josh 5:13–14.131 The motif of Israel dwelling alone (‫ *ישכן‬+ ‫*בדד‬: Num 23:9) was borrowed from Deut 33:28.132 The motif of no one being able to count the dust of Jacob (‫ עפר‬+ ‫מנה‬: Num 23:10) was borrowed from Gen 13:16 and conflated with Gen 28:14 (‫)עפר‬.133 The motif of blessing someone as a wild ox (‫ראם‬: Num 23:22; cf. 24:8) was borrowed from 122 Cf. R. Achenbach, ‘How to Speak about GOD with Non-Israelites: Some Observations about the Use of Names for God by Israelites and Pagans in the Pentateuch,’ in F. Giuntoli and K. Schmid (eds.), Post-Priestly, 35–51 (esp. 50). 123 Cf. ibid. 124 Cf. ibid. 49–50. 125 Cf. ibid. 126 Cf. ibid. 50. 127 Cf. ibid. 128 Cf. W. Bührer, ‘Zweifache,’ 609. 129 Cf. B. Schöning, Drei Dinge sind es, die mir wunderbar sind, und vier, die ich nicht begreife: Bileams Segen über Israel (Num 21,41–24,25) (BTSt 132; Neukirchener: NeukirchenVluyn 2013), 94–95. 130 Cf. C. Carmichael, Numbers, 134. 131 Cf. W. Bührer, ‘Zweifache,’ 609. Pace R. Albertz, ‘Kompositionelle,’ 465–466, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 132 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 429. 133 Cf. ibid. 430; L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 136.

190

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

Deut 33:17.134 The following motif of blessing the Israelites as a lioness which devours the prey (‫ טרף‬+ ‫כלביא‬: Num 23:24; cf. 24:9) was borrowed from the following blessing Deut 33:20. The motif of blessing someone bowing down like a lion and like a lioness, so who would rouse him (‫ וכלביא מי יקימנו‬+ *‫ ארי‬+ ‫כרע‬: Num 24:9), was borrowed from Gen 49:9135 and conflated with Gen 27:29 (‫מברכיך ברוך‬ + ‫)ארריך ארור‬.136 The motif of smashing the temples of Moab, the scalp of the sons of Seth (*‫ בני ש‬+ *‫פאת* מואב וק*ק‬: Num 24:17), was borrowed from Jer 48:45 and slightly reworked.137 The idea of cursing the Judaean (cf. Judg 1:16) Kenites (Num 24:21–22) suggests that Exodus–Numbers is an Israelite work, and not a Judaean one, although the blessings in Num 23:22.24; 24:8–9 combine motifs related to the tribes of Joseph (Deut 33:17), Gad (Deut 33:20), and Judah (Gen 49:9). The subsequent idea of Israel sinning with the women of Moab, Phinehas punishing the Israelites for following a Moabite god and therefore, somewhat surprisingly, being given a covenant of peace (‫שלום‬: Num 25:1–12; esp. 25:12)138 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel not seeking the Moabites’ peace (Deut 23:7). The particular motif of Israel being in Shittim (‫ שטים‬+ ‫ישראל‬: Num 25:1) was borrowed from Josh 2:1; 3:1.139 The motif of Israel sinning with/in Baal of Peor (‫בעל פעור‬: Num 25:3.5) was borrowed from Hos 9:10;140 Deut 4:3.141 The subsequent idea of the covenant with Phinehas and his descendants being a covenant of priesthood forever (‫עולם‬: Num 25:13) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of all Israel’s days forever (Deut 23:7). The concluding idea of (a) the killed Israelite man being a son (‫בן‬: Num 25:14) of the prince of a father’s house in the closer southern tribe of the Simeonites,

1 34 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 432–433. D. R. Nocquet, Samarie, 132. 135 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 433; L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 127, 142. 136 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 434. 137 Cf. A. Kuśmirek, ‘ “Gwiazda Jakuba” (Lb 24,17) i jej interpretacje,’ VV 29 (2016) 41–65 (esp. 48 n. 29), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 138 Cf. C. Frevel, ‘Ending,’ 152–154. 139 Cf. H. Seebass, ‘Das Buch Numeri in der heutigen Pentateuchdiskussion,’ in T. Römer (ed.), Leviticus and Numbers, 233–259 (esp. 245), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 140 Cf. L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 147–149. 141 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 270. Pace L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 146–147, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

Num 26 (cf. Deut 23:10–30:20)

191

who were the Israelites’ brothers, and similarly (b) the killed Midianite woman being a daughter (‫בת‬: Num 25:15) of the head of a father’s house in the farther southern nation of the Midianites, in whose land Moses was a foreigner (cf. Exod 2:22: *‫)גר היית* בארצ‬, so that (c) the closer Simeonites and especially the farther Midianites were punished in the son and the daughter (‫ )בת‬of the second generation, but not further (Num 25:16–17; cf. 25:19), and (d) the Midianites assimilated their social organization (‘prince’: Num 25:18; cf. 25:14; diff. 25:15: ‘head’) to that of the Israelite Simeonites (Num 25:14–19),142 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) the closer southern nation of the Edomites, who were the Israelites’ brothers, and (b) the farther southern nation of the Egyptians, in whose land Israel was a foreigner, (c) in the sons of the third generation (d) entering the assembly of Yahweh (Deut 23:8–9).

3.11. Num 26 (cf. Deut 23:10–30:20) The section Num 26 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 23:10–30:20. The opening, partly repeated (cf. Num 1:2–3)143 idea of (a) taking a census of the Israelites who were able to go out (‫יצא‬: Num 26:2) (b) as an army in the steppes of Moab (c) opposite (‫על‬: Num 26:3; diff. 22:1: ‫)מעבר‬144 the Jordan and Jericho (Num 26:1–3) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel going out (b) as a military camp (c) opposite its enemy (Deut 23:10). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly inserted and formulated idea of (a) the Israelites doing just as (‫ )כאשר‬Yahweh commanded (‫ )צוה‬Moses and the Israelites, (b) who came out (‫ )יצא‬of the land (‫ )ארץ‬of Egypt (‫מצרים‬: Num 26:4),145 conceptually and linguistically, in a summarizing and partly sequential way illustrates the contents of the subsequent Deuteronomic section Deut 23:11–27:10,

142 Cf. A. Rees, ‘[Re]Naming Cozbi: In Memoriam, Cozbi, daughter of Zur,’ BibInt 20 (2012) 16–34 (esp. 23). 143 Cf. I. Kislev, ‘Numbers of Numbers,’ 190–191. He argues that the second census (Num 26) was narratively required after Num 1–2 and Num 14:26.35 (ibid. 202–203). 144 Cf. R. Albertz, ‘A Pentateuchal Redaction in the Book of Numbers? The Late Priestly Layers of Num 25–36,’ ZAW 125 (2013) 220–233 (esp. 229). 145 Cf. B. A. Levine, Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 4A; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 2000), 313; I. Kislev, ‘The Census of the Israelites on the Plains of Moab (Numbers 26): Sources and Redaction,’ VT 63 (2013) 236–260 (esp. 247).

192

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

with its ideas of (a) Israel and the Levitical priests doing just as Moses commanded them (Deut 24:8; cf. 24:18.22; 26:13–14.16; 27:1.10) and (b) remembering what Yahweh did when they came out of Egypt (Deut 24:9; cf. 24:18.22; 25:17; 26:8). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Gen 46:9–27)146 idea of the named ancestors of Israel, including the dying great-grandsons of Reuben (Num 26:9–10) and the not dying Levitical sons of Korah (Num 26:5–56; esp. 26:11),147 illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the named twelve tribes of Israel, including Reuben standing for the curse and Levi standing to bless (Deut 27:11–13). The particular order of the names of Israel’s ancestors: Reuben, Simeon, Gad, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin, Dan, Asher, and Naphtali (Num 26:5–51) was likewise, in a partly ‘zig-zag’ way, borrowed from Deut 27:12–13 and conformed to the arrangement into four standards (cf. Num 2:3–31; 10:14–27), which was reordered to place the standard of Reuben (with Simeon and Gad) traditionally at the beginning (cf. Deut 27:12–13; Num 1:20–43). The particular motif of the named descendants of the twelve Israel’s ancestors (Num 26:5–50) also occurs in Gen 46:8–24; 50:23.148 The motif of the named descendants of Manasseh: Makir the father of Gilead, Iezer, Helek, Asriel, Shechem, Shemida, and Hepher, with Zelophehad son of Hepher having no sons, but daughters, and the names of the daughters being Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah (‫ שמידע‬+ ‫ שכם‬+ ‫ אשריאל‬+ ‫ חלק‬+ ‫ א*יעזר‬+ ‫ גלעד‬+ ‫מכיר‬ ‫ מחלה ונעה חגלה‬+ ‫ בנות‬+ ‫ שם‬+ ‫ לא־היו לו בנים כי אם־בנות‬+ ‫ ו*צלפחד בן־חפר‬+ ‫ חפר‬+ ‫מלכה ותרצה‬: Num 26:29–33) was borrowed from Josh 17:1–3.149 The motif of the land being divided, and the ancestral tribes receiving the land as inheritance by lot (‫ אבת‬+ ‫ מטות‬+ ‫ בגורל‬+ ‫ נחלה‬+ ‫ הארץ‬+ ‫חלק‬: Num 26:53–56) was borrowed from Josh 19:51.

1 46 Cf. R. Achenbach, Vollendung, 451–456. 147 Cf. P. Pitkänen, Numbers, 168; I. Kislev, ‘What Happened to the Sons of Korah? The Ongoing Debate Regarding the Status of the Korahites,’ JBL 138 (2019) 497–511 (esp. 498–499, 502–506). 148 Cf. C. Levin, ‘Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels,’ in id., Fortschreibungen: Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (BZAW 316; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2003), 111–123 (esp. 114); C. Carmichael, Numbers, 141; I. Kislev, ‘Census,’ 238. 149 Pace P. Pitkänen, ‘The Use of Priestly Legal Tradition in Joshua and the Composition of the Pentateuch and Joshua,’ OTE 29 (2016) 318–335 (esp. 325), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

Num 27 (cf. Deut 31:1–8)

193

The fact that the sons of Joseph (Num 26:28–37) outnumber the sons of Judah (Num 26:20–22) implies that Exodus–Numbers is an Israelite work, and not a Judaean one.150 The subsequent idea of the Levites (*‫הלוי‬: Num 26:57–62; esp. 26:57) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Levites (Deut 27:14) cursing, as well as blessing and cursing the Israelites (Deut 27:14–28:68). The subsequent idea of (a) these (‫ )אלה‬being (b) the ones enrolled by Moses (‫)משה‬, (c) who enrolled the sons of Israel (‫( )את־בני ישראל‬d) in the steppes of Moab (‫)ב* מואב‬, (e) and among them there not being a man of those that (‫)אשר‬ Moses enrolled (f) the (‫ )את‬Israelites (g) in (‫ )ב‬the wilderness of Sinai (Num 26:63–64) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) these being (b) the words of the covenant which Yahweh commanded Moses (c) to make with the sons of Israel (d) in the land of Moab, (e) apart from the covenant that he made (f) with (‫ )את‬them (g) in Horeb (Deut 28:69). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh saying (‫( )אמר‬b) to them (‫)*להם‬, that is, to the Israelites that (c) they will die in the wilderness, and not a man (‫ )איש‬from among (‫ )מן‬them will be left (Num 26:65a–c) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses gathering the Israelites and saying (b) to them (Deut 29:1) that (c) if someone walks in the stubbornness of his heart, Yahweh will blot out the name of such a man from among the tribes of Israel (Deut 28:19–20), and the land will be burnt with sulphur (Deut 29; esp. 29:22). The concluding idea of the two positively evaluated Israelites, Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun, presumably possessing the land (Num 26:65d; cf. 14:30) illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of the obedient Israel returning to Yahweh and possessing the land (Deut 30).

3.12.  Num 27 (cf. Deut 31:1–8) The section Num 27 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 31:1–8.

150 Cf. J.  S.  Bergsma, ‘A  ”Samaritan” Pentateuch? The Implications of the ProNorthern Tendency of the Common Pentateuch,’ in M.  Armgardt, B.  Kilchör, and M.  Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm Change in Pentateuchal Research (BZABR 22; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2019), 287–300 (esp. 294).

194

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

The opening idea of (a) the approaching of the daughters of Zelophehad, who was (b) the son (‫ )בן־‬of a chain of five generations, and (c) the name of his firstborn daughter, Mahlah, referring to being ill (Num 27:1) by means of the hypertextual procedure of transsexuation (in this case, feminization)151 conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) the going of Moses, who was (b) the ‘son’ of 120 years, and who was (c) no longer able to go out of his house (Deut 31:1–2e). The particular motif of the coming near of the daughters of Zelophehad son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh, and the names of his daughters being Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah, and them standing before Eleazar the priest and before the leaders, saying that he should give them a possession among their father’s brothers, and Yahweh ordering that Moses should give them a hereditary possession among their father’s brothers, and the Israelites doing as Yahweh commanded Moses (‫ *צלפחד בן־חפר‬+ ‫ בנות‬+ ‫ותקרבנה‬ + ‫ ואלה שמות בנתיו מחלה *נעה *חגלה *מלכה ותרצה ות*נה לפני‬+ ‫בן־גלעד בן־מכיר בן־מנשה‬ + ‫ אביהן‬+ *‫ נחלה בתוך אחי אביה‬+ ‫ יהוה‬+ ‫ לנו‬+ ‫ נתן‬+ ‫ לאמר‬+ ‫ ולפני הנשיאם‬+ ‫אלעזר הכהן‬ ‫ את־משה‬+ ‫צוה‬: Num 27:1–2.4–7.11) was borrowed from Josh 17:3–4.152 The subsequent idea of (a) the daughters of Zelophehad standing before Moses and other Yahweh’s representatives at the entrance of the tent of meeting and (b) saying (‫)אמר‬, presumably to them (Num 27:2), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh (b) saying to Moses (Deut 31:2f). The subsequent idea of (a) the father dying in the wilderness, although not for a sin of the community but for his own sin, and (b) having no male heir (Num 27:3) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses not crossing over the Jordan, presumably dying in Moab for his own sin (cf. Num 27:13–14), and (b) Yahweh God, apparently with no Moses’ successor, crossing over before Moses and destroying the Canaanite nations (Deut 31:2g–3b). The subsequent idea of the daughters being given a hereditary possession, and the closest relative taking possession (‫ירש‬: Num 27:11) of it (Num 27:4–11) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Israel taking possession of the Canaanite nations (Deut 31:3c).

1 51 See G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 423–424. 152 Pace H.  Seebass, Numeri, vol. 3, Numeri 22,2–36,13 (BKAT 4/3; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2007), 206–207, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

Num 27 (cf. Deut 31:1–8)

195

The subsequent idea of (a) Moses not entering Canaan, so Yahweh telling Moses to set Joshua (‫יהושע‬: Num 27:18) (b) before (‫ )לפני‬the priest, before (‫)לפני‬ all the obedient congregation, and before (‫ )לפני‬the priest (Num 27:19–21a), (c) who shall inquire about Yahweh’s decision for him by means of an oracle, and Joshua and all the Israelites obeying the word of the oracle (Num 27:12–21) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Joshua, presumably as Moses’ successor, crossing over (b) before Israel, (c) just as Yahweh said (Deut 31:3de). The particular motif of Yahweh saying to Moses, ‘Go up into this Mount Abarim, and see the land which I give to the sons of Israel, and you will be gathered to your people, just as Aaron your brother was gathered, because you rebelled against me in the wilderness of Zin, at Meribah, to treat Yahweh as holy at the waters, which are the waters of Meribah at Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin’ (‫ לבני ישראל‬+ ‫ נתן‬+ ‫ אשר‬+ ‫ וראה את־*ארץ‬+ ‫ עלה אל־הר העברים הזה‬+ ‫וי* יהוה אל־משה‬ + ‫ קדש‬+ ‫ ב*מריבת‬+ ‫ במדבר־צן‬+ ‫ *אשר מ*תם *י‬+ ‫ אהרן אחיך‬+ ‫ כאשר‬+ ‫ אל־עמיך‬+ ‫ אסף‬+ ‫ מי־מריבת קדש מדבר־צן‬+ ‫במים‬: Num 27:12–14), was borrowed from Deut 32:48– 51.153 The motif of the flock of Israel having no shepherd (‫ רעה‬+ ‫ אין‬+ ‫צאן‬: Num 27:17) was borrowed from Ezek 34:8. The motif of Moses taking Joshua the son of Nun, in whom was the Spirit, and laying his hand on him (+ ‫ רוח‬+ ‫יהושע בן־נון‬ ‫ את־יד* עליו‬+ ‫סמך‬: Num 27:18) was borrowed from Deut 34:9. The subsequent idea of (a) Moses doing (‫( )עשה‬b) just as (‫( )*אשר‬c) Yahweh commanded (‫( )צוה‬d) him (*‫את‬: Num 27:22ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh doing to the Canaanites just as he did to Sihon and Og, and (a) the Israelites doing to them according to every commandment (b) that (‫( )אשר‬c) Moses commanded (d) them (Deut 31:4–6; esp. 31:5). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses taking Joshua (‫ יהושע‬+ *‫ )וי‬and (b) setting him before Eleazar and before all (‫ )כל־‬the congregation (Num 27:22cd) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses calling Joshua and (b) speaking to him in the sight of all Israel (Deut 31:7ab).

153 Cf. E. Otto, Deuteronomium im Pentateuch, 225. Pace J. Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (ABRL; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1992), 230; A. Roskop Erisman, ‘Transjordan in Deuteronomy: The Promised Land and the Formation of the Pentateuch,’ JBL 132 (2013) 769–789 (esp. 785–786), who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing.

196

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

The concluding idea of (a) Moses laying his hands on Joshua and commanding him, (b) just as (‫ )*אשר‬Yahweh (‫ )יהוה‬said (c) through Moses (Num 27:23), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses commanding Joshua to be strong and to go with the people to the land (b) which (‫ )אשר‬Yahweh swore (c) to the fathers (Deut 31:7c–8). The particular motif of Moses laying his hands on him, that is, on Joshua and doing just as Yahweh commanded Moses (+ ‫ את־ידיו עליו‬+ ‫סמך‬ ‫ משה‬+ ‫כאשר‬: Num 27:23) was borrowed from Deut 34:9.

3.13.  Num 28–31 (cf. Deut 31:9–32:45) The section Num 28–31 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 31:9–32:45. The opening idea of (a) Yahweh speaking to Moses, and (b) Moses commanding (‫( )*צו‬c) the (‫ )את‬sons of Israel (‫)ישראל‬, (d) saying (‫אמר‬: Num 28:1– 2b), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses writing the law of the covenant of Yahweh, and (b) Moses commanding (c) them, that is, the priests and the elders of Israel, (d) saying (Deut 31:9–10b). The subsequent idea of offering the offering of Yahweh at its appointed time (*‫במועד‬: Num 28:2cd) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of a festival at the end of seven years, at the appointed time (Deut 31:10c). The subsequent idea of celebrating appointed times during the year by offering year-old (‫שנה‬: Num 28:3.9.11.19.27; 29:2.8; diff. Ezek 45:22–24; 46:4–7.14–15: no such remark) young rams (Num 28:3–29:11) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the festive year (Deut 31:10c). The particular motif of a regular burnt offering, one being made in the morning, with a part of the ephah of fine flour as a grain offering and with a part of the hin of oil (+ ‫ שמן‬+ ‫ מנחה‬+ ‫ סלת‬+ ‫ האיפה‬+ ‫ בבקר‬+ ‫ עשה‬+ ‫ את־הכבש‬+ ‫ תמיד‬+ ‫עלה‬ ‫ עלת תמיד‬+ ‫ההין‬: Num 28:3–6), was borrowed from Ezek 46:14–15. Likewise, the motif of offering on the day of the Sabbath several young rams without blemish, as well as a grain offering and oil (‫ שמן‬+ ‫ מנחה‬+ ‫ תמימם‬+ ‫ כבשים‬+ ‫ביום השבת‬: Num 28:9) was borrowed from Ezek 46:4–5. The following motif of offering at the beginning of the month young bulls, a ram, and several young rams without blemish, as well as a grain offering, oil for a bull, a grain offering for a ram, and a grain offering with oil and a part of a hin for a young ram (+ ‫ בקר‬+ ‫ בן‬+ ‫ פר‬+ ‫חדש‬ ‫ הין‬+ *‫ לכבש‬+ ‫ שמן‬+ ‫ לאיל‬+ ‫ לפר‬+ ‫ שמן‬+ ‫ מנחה‬+ ‫ תמימם‬+ ‫ כבשים‬+ ‫ואיל‬: Num 28:11– 14) was borrowed from the following text Ezek 46:6–7. The motif of offering

Num 28–31 (cf. Deut 31:9–45)

197

during the Passover, as a burnt offering to Yahweh, young bulls, a ram, and other animals without blemish, as well as a grain offering with oil for a bull and for a ram, and a male goat as a sin offering, and doing this daily for seven days (‫עלה‬ ‫ ליום‬+ ‫ עשה‬+ ‫ חטאת‬+ ‫ שעיר‬+ ‫ לאיל‬+ ‫ לפר‬+ ‫ שמן‬+ ‫ ומנחה‬+ ‫ תמימם‬+ ‫ איל‬+ ‫ פר‬+ ‫ליהוה‬ ‫שבעת *ימים‬: Num 28:19–22.24) was borrowed from Ezek 45:22–24. The subsequent idea of greatly celebrating (*‫ )חג‬a festival (‫חג‬: Num 29:12), presumably that of booths (Num 29:12–39),154 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the remission of debts related to the festival of booths (Deut 31:10c). The particular motif of offering during the festival of booths a burnt offering, a grain offering with oil, and a sin offering (‫ חטאת‬+ ‫ שמן‬+ ‫ מנחה‬+ ‫עלה‬: Num 29:13–14.16) was borrowed from Ezek 45:25 (cf. the use of Ezek 45:22–24 in Num 28:19–24). Likewise, the motif of offering on the seventh day seven young bulls as well as rams, animals without blemish (‫ תמימם‬+ ‫ אילם‬+ * ‫ שבע‬+ ‫פרים‬: Num 29:32), was borrowed from Ezek 45:23.25. The surprisingly great but decreasing number of young bulls which should be offered (Num 29:13–36; diff. Ezek 45:23.25; Num 28:19.24: equal number), from the non-symbolic number thirteen (Num 29:13) down to the symbolic number seven (Num 29:32), which is prescribed in Ezek 45:23.25,155 and then to only one (Num 29:36), additionally illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the remission of debts (Deut 31:10c). The subsequent idea of (a) Moses speaking to the sons of Israel (‫( )ישראל‬b) according to all that Yahweh commanded Moses, and (c) Moses speaking to the heads of the tribes, and indirectly to the sons of Israel (‫)ישראל‬, that this (‫ )זה‬is the word which Yahweh commanded (Num 30:1–2) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) all Israel coming (b) to the place which Yahweh chooses, and (c) Moses reading this law before all Israel in their hearing (Deut 31:11). The subsequent idea of a man (‫ )איש‬making vows and a woman (‫ )אשה‬making vows (Num 30:3–4b) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of gathering men and women (Deut 31:12a). The subsequent idea of the woman being in the father’s house in her youth (Num 30:4b) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of children who are in Israel’s gates (Deut 31:12b).

1 54 Cf. B. A. Levine, Numbers 21–36, 389–390. 155 Cf. H. Seebass, Numeri, vol. 3, 262; N. Ayali-Darshan, ‘The Seventy Bulls Sacrificed at Sukkot (Num 29:12–34) in Light of a Ritual Text from Emar (Emar 6, 373),’ VT 65 (2015) 9–19 (esp. 9–10).

198

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

The subsequent idea of (a) the father hearing (‫ )שמע‬a binding obligation and (b) assuming responsibility for it (Num 30:5–6) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites hearing the law and (b) fearing Yahweh God in observing this law (Deut 31:12c–g). The subsequent idea of (a) the husband, that is, a member of the younger generation hearing (‫ )שמע‬a binding obligation and (b) assuming responsibility for it (Num 30:7–16) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the Israelites’ sons hearing the law and (b) fearing Yahweh God (Deut 31:13a–d). The subsequent idea of the statutes for all generations (Num 30:17) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the law for all the days of living in the land of Canaan (Deut 31:13e–g). The subsequent idea of Yahweh speaking to Moses (‫ אמר‬+ ‫)יהוה אל־משה‬, presumably before his death (Num 31:1; cf. 31:2b), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh speaking to Moses before his death (Deut 31:14–16b). The subsequent, somewhat surprisingly introduced idea of avenging (+ ‫נקם‬ ‫ )נקמה‬the Israelites on the pagan Midianites, who seduced the Israelites to sin (Num 31:2–3; cf. 25:6–18),156 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh’s vengeance on the pagan nations, who seduced the Israelites to sin (Deut 31:16c–32:35a; esp. 32:35a). The subsequent idea of preparing an army to fight against the Midianites (Num 31:4–5) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the day of the disaster of the pagan nations being near (Deut 32:35b–36). The subsequent idea of Moses sending to battle the holy vessels of Yahweh (Num 31:6) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh’s presence nullifying pagan gods (Deut 32:37–40). The subsequent idea of the Israelite army killing every male of the Midianites (Num 31:7–8a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh’s sword taking vengeance on those, presumably pagans, who oppose and hate him (Deut 32:41–42b).

156 Cf. U. Fistill, Israel und das Ostjordanland: Untersuchungen zur Komposition von Num 21,21–36,13 im Hinblick auf die Entstehung des Buches Numeri (ÖBS 30; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2007), 38; H. Seebass, Numeri, vol. 3, 290–291; K.  Brown, ‘Vengeance and Vindication in Numbers 31,’ JBL 134 (2015) 65–84 (esp. 69–72).

Num 32–33 (cf. Deut 31:46–32:51)

199

The subsequent idea of the Israelite army killing the kings of Midian, in addition to the slain ones (‫חלל‬: Num 31:8), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the blood of the slain pagans (Deut 32:42b). The particular motif of the Israelites killing the leaders of Midian: Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba (‫ את־אוי ואת־רקם ואת־צור ואת־חור ואת־רבע‬+ ‫מדין‬: Num 31:8) was borrowed from Josh 13:21.157 The subsequent idea of the Israelite army taking Midianite women and children into captivity (‫שבה‬: Num 31:9) and bringing the captives (‫שבי‬: Num 31:12.19) to Moses, and thereafter purifying them (Num 31:9–24) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of pagans in captivity (‫שביה‬: Deut 32:42b). The subsequent idea of counting the heads (‫ראש‬: Num 31:26) of the Midianite captives and dividing them (Num 31:25–47) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the heads of the pagan enemy taken into captivity (Deut 32:42b). The subsequent idea of (a) the officers of the army, considering themselves Moses’ servants (‫עבדים‬: Num 31:49), (b) stating that the Israelites suffered no losses, and therefore (c) bringing precious articles of gold to provide atonement (‫כפר‬: Num 31:50) for themselves (Num 31:48–50) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the blood of Yahweh’s servants (b) being avenged by Yahweh, and (c) Yahweh providing atonement for his people (Deut 32:43). The concluding idea of (a) Moses with Eleazar taking all the gold and letting it come (‫בוא‬: Num 31:54) to the tent of meeting (b) as a reminder (c) for the sons of Israel (‫ישראל‬: Num 31:54) before Yahweh (Num 31:51–54) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses, together with Joshua, coming to the people and speaking all the words of (b) the reminding song (cf. Deut 32:7: ‫)זכר‬, and thus (c) finishing speaking to all Israel (Deut 32:44–45).

3.14. Num 32–33 (cf. Deut 32:46–51) The section Num 32–33 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 32:46–51. 157 Cf. J. M. Robker, ‘The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch,’ in C. Frevel, T. Pola, and A. Schart (eds.), Torah, 334–366 (esp. 353). Pace L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 187 n. 134; H. Seebass, Numeri, vol. 3, 302, who suggest the reverse direction of borrowing.

200

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

The opening idea of (a) the sons (‫ )בני‬of Reuben and the sons (‫ )בני‬of Gad (Num 32:1–2) (b) having a very great multitude of livestock and seeing that (c) the land was a place for livestock (Num 32:1–4) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) teaching the law to the Israelites’ sons because (b) it is the Israelites’ life and (c) the prolonging of their days on the ground (Deut 32:46–47c). The particular motif of the Israelites having a multitude of livestock (‫*מקנה רב‬: Num 32:1) was borrowed from Deut 3:19.158 The subsequent idea of the sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad being called to cross over (‫עבר‬: Num 32:5.7.19.21.29–30.32) the Jordan (‫את־הירדן‬: Num 32:5.21.29; cf. 32:19.32) with all other Israelites (Num 32:5–32) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites crossing over the Jordan (Deut 32:47d). The particular motif of the Israelites wandering in the wilderness for many years until the perishing of all the disobedient generation (‫שנה עד־תם כל־‬ ‫הדור‬: Num 32:13) was borrowed from Deut 2:14. The motif of the land being subdued before Yahweh (*‫ לפני‬+ ‫ הארץ‬+ ‫נכבשה‬: Num 32:22) was borrowed from Josh 18:1.159 The motif of Moses commanding the Gadites and the Reubenites that their little ones, their wives, and their flocks should stay in their cities, but they should cross over as armed men before Yahweh (+ *‫ טפ‬+ ‫ צוה‬+ *‫ ראובנ‬+ *‫גד‬ ‫ לפני‬+ *‫ חלוצ‬+ ‫ *עברו‬+ *‫ בערי‬+ *‫ מקנ‬+ *‫נשי‬: Num 32:25–27) was borrowed from Deut 3:16.18–19.160 The motif of giving to the Gadites and the Reubenites the land of Gilead (‫ הגלעד‬+ ‫ נתן‬+ *‫ ראובנ‬+ *‫גד‬: Num 32:29) was likewise borrowed from Deut 3:12.16. The subsequent, somewhat surprising against the background of the preceding conditional statements Num 32:20–22,161 idea of the Gadites, the

158 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 442; W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 271. Pace S. Gesundheit, ‘Die Beteiligung der ostjordanischen Stämme an der westjordanischen Landnahme. Ein Vergleich von Num 32,1–33; Dtn 3,18–20 und Jos 1,12–15,’ ZAW 131 (2019) 58–76 (esp. 66), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 159 Pace L. M. Wray Beal, ‘The Past as Threat and Hope: Reading Joshua with Numbers,’ BBR 27 (2017) 461–483 (esp.  464–465), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 160 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 443. Cf. also D. R. Nocquet, Samarie, 154–155, arguing more generally for the dependence of Num 32 on Deut 3:12–22. Pace H. Seebass, Numeri, vol. 3, 339, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 161 Cf. L. M. Marquis, ‘The Composition of Numbers 32: A New Proposal,’ VT 63 (2013) 408–432 (esp. 410–412).

Num 32–33 (cf. Deut 31:46–32:51)

201

Reubenites, and half the tribe of Manasseh taking possession of Transjordan (Num 32:33–38), and the sons of Machir dispossessing (‫ירש‬: Num 32:39) the Amorites (Num 32:33–42) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites taking possession (‫ )ירש‬of the land (Deut 32:47e). The particular motif of Moses giving to half the tribe of Manasseh the kingdom of Og king of Bashan (‫ הבשן‬+ ‫ ממלכת עוג‬+ ‫לחצי שבט *מנשה‬: Num 32:33) was borrowed from Deut 3:13. The motif of the Transjordanian city of Jogbehah (‫יגבהה‬: Num 32:35) was borrowed from Judg 8:11.162 The motif of the sons of Machir son of Manasseh going to Gilead (*‫ גלעד‬+ ‫בני מכיר בנ־מנשה‬: Num 32:39–40) was borrowed from Josh 13:31 and conflated with the thematically related text Deut 3:15 (‫ למכיר‬+ ‫ את־הגלעד‬+ ‫)נתן‬. Likewise, the motif of Jair son of Manasseh capturing the villages in Transjordan and calling them ‘the villages of Jair,’ as well as Nobah calling his villages after his name (*‫ חות‬+ ‫יאיר בן־מנשה‬ ‫ *שמו‬+ ‫ חות יאיר‬+ *‫ ויקרא את‬+: Num 32:41) was borrowed from Deut 3:14.163 The motif of the Israelites dispossessing the Amorites who were in Transjordan (‫ירש‬ *‫ האמרי אשר ב‬+ ‫ את־‬+: Num 32:39) was borrowed from Deut 4:47. The motif of the Transjordanian city of Nobah (‫נבח‬: Num 32:42) was borrowed from Judg 8:11.164 The subsequent idea of the Israelites journeying, that is, going up (‫עלה‬: cf. Num 32:11) from the land of Egypt to Transjordan, so towards Canaan, under the leadership of Moses and Aaron (Num 33:1–47a) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh telling Moses to go up, presumably towards Canaan (Deut 32:48–49a). The particular motif of the Israelites setting out from a certain place and coming to Moseroth (*‫ מסר‬+ ‫ מן‬+ ‫נסע‬: Num 33:30) was borrowed from Deut 10:6. Likewise, the motif of camping at Bene-jaakan (‫בני יעקן‬: Num 33:31) was borrowed from Deut 10:6. Similarly, the motif of setting out from a certain place and camping at the mountain (Num 33:32 LXX)165 of Hagidgad, and then at Jotbathah (‫ יטבתה‬+ *‫ הגדגד‬+ ‫ מן‬+ ‫נסע‬: Num 33:32–33) was borrowed from Deut 10:7. The motif of camping at Ezion-geber (‫עציון גבר‬: Num 33:35) was borrowed from Deut 2:8. The motif of Aaron being 123 years old when he died (‫ ועשרים‬+ ‫בן־‬

1 62 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 272. 163 Cf. J. Van Seters, Life of Moses, 446. Pace L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 202, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 164 Cf. W. Johnstone, ‘Use,’ 272. 165 Cf. H. Seebass, Numeri, vol. 3, 366.

202

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

‫ שנה במתו‬+ ‫ מאה‬+: Num 33:39) was borrowed from Deut 34:7 and adapted to the idea of Aaron being Moses’ brother, three years older than Moses (cf. Exod 7:7). The subsequent idea of the Israelites camping in (a) the mountains (‫ )הר‬of the Abarim (‫)העברים‬, (b) before Nebo (‫נבו‬: Num 33:47b), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses going up to (a) the mountain of the Abarim, (b) Mount Nebo (Deut 32:49a). The subsequent idea of the Israelites camping in the steppes of Moab (‫מואב‬: Num 33:48–50) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of being in the land of Moab (Deut 32:49b). The subsequent idea of Yahweh speaking to Moses (a) across from (‫ )על‬Jordan and (b) Jericho (‫ירחו‬: Num 33:50b) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of being (a) across from and facing (b) Jericho (Deut 32:49c). The subsequent idea of Yahweh ordering the Israelites to cross over to the land of Canaan (‫ארץ כנען‬: Num 33:51; cf. 33:52) and destroy the idols there (Num 33:51–52) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh ordering Moses to see the land of Canaan (Deut 32:49d). The particular motif of the Israelites dispossessing the Canaanite inhabitants of the land (‫ ישבי הארץ‬+ ‫ירש‬: Num 33:52) was borrowed from Judg 1:32–33 (cf. 1:27). The subsequent thought that (b) to (‫ )ל‬the Israelites (a) Yahweh gave (‫ )נתן‬the land (c) to (‫ )ל‬possess it (Num 33:53–54; esp. 33:53) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh giving the land (b) to the Israelites (c) to be their possession (Deut 32:49e). The particular motif of the Israelites taking possession of the land and dwelling in it, a land which Yahweh gave them to possess it (+ ‫ את־האץ‬+ ‫ירש‬ ‫ אתה‬+ ‫ לרשת‬+ ‫ נתן‬+ ‫ לכם‬+ ‫וישבתם־בה‬: Num 33:53), was borrowed from Deut 11:33. The subsequent idea of the Israelites (diff. Josh 23:13: Yahweh) not (‫ )לא‬driving out the Canaanites and therefore being punished (Num 33:55–56) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses and Aaron not treating Yahweh as holy and therefore being punished (Deut 32:50–51). The particular motif of not driving out the Canaanites from before the Israelites, so the Canaanites being splinters in the Israelites’ eyes and thorns in their sides (+ *‫ מ*פניכם והי‬+ ‫ ירש‬+ ‫לא‬ ‫ בצדיכם‬+ ‫ ולצנינם‬+ ‫בעיניכם‬: Num 33:55), was borrowed from Josh 23:13.166

166 Cf. G. N. Knoppers, ‘Establishing the Rule of Law? The Composition Num 33,50–56 and the Relationship Among the Pentateuch, the Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History,’ in E.  Otto and R.  Achenbach (eds.), Das Deuteronomium zwischen

Num 34–35 (cf. Deut 32:52–33:29)

203

3.15. Num 34–35 (cf. Deut 32:52–33:29) The section Num 34–35 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding section Deut 32:52–33:29. The opening idea of (a) Moses predicting that the sons of Israel (‫)בני ישראל‬ will come (‫( )בוא‬b) into the land (‫ )אל־הארץ‬of Canaan (Num 34:2), (c) which (‫אשר‬: Num 34:2.13) (d) Yahweh commanded to give (‫ )נתן‬to the sons of Israel (‫בני‬ ‫ישראל‬: Num 34:13) (Num 34:1–15), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses seeing the land but himself not coming (b) into the land (c) which (d) Yahweh gave to the sons of Israel (Deut 32:52). The particular motif of the southern border of the land of Canaan extending from the wilderness of Zin, along the border of Edom, then the southern border extending from the end of the Salt Sea, turning to the south of the ascent of Akrabbim, passing along to Zin, going south of Kadesh Barnea, going on to Hazar Addar, passing to Azmon, then to the Wadi of Egypt, and its limits being at the sea (‫ מנגב למעלה עקרבים‬+ ‫ והי* ל*ם גבול נגב מקצה ים־המלח‬+ ‫ אדום‬+ ‫מדבר־צן‬ + *‫ נחל* מצרים והיו תוצאת‬+ ‫ ועבר עצמנה‬+ ‫ אדר‬+ ‫ חצר‬+ ‫ מנגב לקדש ברנע‬+ ‫ועבר צנה‬ ‫*ימה‬: Num 34:3–5) was borrowed from Josh 15:1–4167 and conflated with Ezek 47:19 (‫)פאת־נגב‬. The motif of the western border being the Great Sea, and this border being the border in the west (‫ גבול‬+ ‫ הימ* הגדול וגבול זה‬+ ‫וגבול ים‬: Num 34:6) was borrowed from Josh 15:12.168 The motif of this being the northern border: extending from the Great Sea, then going to Lebo Hamath, to Zedad, to Hazar-enan, and this being the border in the north (+ ‫ היה‬+ ‫ חצר עינן‬+ ‫ צדדה‬+ ‫ חמת‬+ ‫ לבא‬+ ‫ צפונ* מן־הים הגדל‬+ ‫ גבול‬+ ‫וזה‬ ‫ צפון‬+ ‫גבול‬: Num 34:7–9) was borrowed from Ezek 47:15–17.169 The motif of the eastern border going down to the eastern side of Chinnereth, to the Jordan, and to the Sea of Salt (‫ ים המלח‬+ *‫ הירדנ‬+ ‫כנרת‬: Num 34:10–12) was

Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (FRLANT 206; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2004), 135–152 (esp. 150). 167 Cf. P. J. Budd, Numbers, 365, 368; H. Seebass, Numeri, vol. 3, 399–400. 168 Cf. P. J. Budd, Numbers, 368. 169 Cf. ibid. 365, 368. Pace K.  van Bekkum, ‘Geography in Num 33 and 34 and the Challenge of Pentateuchal Theory,’ in K. Spronk and H. Barstad (eds.), Torah and Tradition: Papers Read at the Sixteenth Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap, Edinburgh 2015 (OtSt 70; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2017), 93–117 (esp. 109), who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing.

204

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

borrowed from Deut 3:16–17 and conflated with Josh 15:5 (+ *‫ הירדנ‬+ ‫*גבול קדמה‬ ‫ )ים המלח‬and Josh 13:27 (‫)ים־כנרת‬. The subsequent idea of (a) the people who assigned the land being a priest and (b) a secular leader (Num 34:16–17) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Moses blessing the Israelites with a priestly-style blessing, referring to the holy ones and to commanding the law, as well as to (b) a king in Jeshurun (Deut 33:1–5a). The particular motif of these being the ones who gave inheritance in the land: Eleazar the priest and Joshua son of Nun (‫*אלה‬ ‫ אלעזר הכהן ויהושע בן־נון‬+ ‫ *ארץ‬+ ‫ אשר־נחלו‬+: Num 34:16–17) was borrowed from Josh 14:1 (cf. 19:51). The fact that the Deuteronomic idea of a king in Jeshurun (Deut 33:5a) was illustrated with the use of the motif of the Ephraimite leader Joshua son of Nun (Num 34:17) implies that Exodus–Numbers is an Ephraimite work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent idea of (a) taking one leader of (b) every tribe (Num 34:18) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) assembling the leaders of the people, and (b) the tribes of Israel being together (Deut 33:5bc). The subsequent idea of listing the tribes of Israel (except Reuben and Gad as living in Transjordan) from Judah in the south to Asher and Naphtali in the north:170 (a) Judah, Simeon, (b) Benjamin, Dan, (c) Joseph including Manasseh and Ephraim, (d) Zebulun, (e) Issachar, (f) Asher, and Naphtali (Num 34:19–28), together with the names of their leaders containing references to the name of God/El (‫אל‬: Num 34:20–21.23–26.28), as well as referring to (g) the sons of Israel (Num 34:19–29; esp. 34:29) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of listing the tribes of Israel from Reuben in the south-east to Naphtali and Asher in the north-west: Reuben, (a) Judah, Levi, (b) Benjamin, (c) Joseph including Ephraim and Manasseh, (d) Zebulun, (e) Issachar, Gad, Dan, (f) Naphtali, and Asher (Deut 33:6–25), as well as referring to God of (g) Israel (Deut 33:6–26a; esp. 33:26a). The particular motif of locating the tribe of Dan south of the tribe of Joseph (Num 34:22) was borrowed from Josh 19:40–46; Judg 18:1–28. Likewise, the order Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali (Num 34:25–28) was borrowed from Josh 19:10–39.171 The fact that the names of the leaders of seven central Canaanite tribes (Simeon, Benjamin, Manasseh, Ephraim, Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali) are theophoric, containing references to the name of God/El, in contrast to the names of the leaders of the peripheral tribes of Judah, Dan, and Asher, of which

1 70 Cf. T. R. Ashley, Numbers, 644; H. Seebass, Numeri, vol. 3, 418. 171 Cf. L. Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 211.

Num 34–35 (cf. Deut 32:52–33:29)

205

Judah and Dan had their own, separatist (from the perspective of Shechem) sanctuaries of Yahweh, implies that Exodus–Numbers is an Israelite work, and not a Judaean one. The subsequent idea of Moses speaking in the steppes of Moab (Num 35:1) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of riding in the clouds of dust (Deut 33:26b). The subsequent idea of (a) the Israelites giving to the Levites cities to dwell, including cities of refuge (Num 35:6), and (b) places for cattle driving (‫*גרש‬: Num 35:2–5.7)172 surrounding the cities (Num 35:2–8) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic ideas of (a) a hiding place and (b) driving out (*‫גרש‬: Deut 33:27a–c). The particular motif of Yahweh through Moses commanding the Israelites to give to the Levites cities to dwell and places surrounding them for their cattle (*‫ לבהמת‬+ *‫ סביבתיה‬+ *‫ ערים לשבת ומגרש‬+ ‫ *לוים‬+ ‫ נתן‬+ ‫ צוה‬+ ‫ משה‬+ ‫*יהוה‬: Num 35:1–3) was borrowed from Josh 21:1–2.42. Likewise, the motif of all the cities given to the Levites being forty-eight (‫ ארבעים ושמנה‬+ ‫ *לוים‬+ *‫ ערי‬+ ‫כל‬: Num 35:7) was borrowed from Josh 21:41.173 The subsequent idea of killing a manslayer, but not one who was not an enemy (‫אויב‬: Num 35:23; cf. 35:21–22: ‫ ;איבה‬diff. Deut 19:4.6.11; Josh 20:5: ‫)שנא‬174 of the slain person (Num 35:9–33), conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of destroying the enemy (Deut 33:27cd). The particular motif of Yahweh ordering the Israelite leader to speak to the sons of Israel, saying that they should appoint for themselves cities of refuge, so that a manslayer who kills a person unintentionally might flee there, and they should be for them places of refuge from the avenger until the manslayer stands before the congregation for judgement (‫ ערי מלקט‬+ ‫ לכם‬+ ‫ אמר‬+ ‫דבר אל־בני ישראל‬ ‫ עד־עמדו לפני‬+ ‫ הרצח‬+ ‫ למקלט מגאל‬+ ‫ והיו לכם‬+ ‫ שמה רצח מכה־נפש בשגגה‬+ ‫ נוס‬+ ‫העדה למשפט‬: Num 35:10–12) was borrowed from Josh 20:2–3.5–6.175 Similarly, 1 72 Cf. P. J. Budd, Numbers, 376; T. R. Ashley, Numbers, 646. 173 Pace P. Pitkänen, ‘Use,’ 325, who suggests the reverse direction of borrowing. 174 This linguistic difference has not been noted by K. Mattison, ‘Contrasting Conceptions of Asylum in Deuteronomy 19 and Numbers 35,’ VT 68 (2018) 232–251. 175 Pace L.  Schmidt, Numeri 10,11–36,13, 217–218; F.  Cocco, The Torah as a Place of Refuge:  Biblical Criminal Law and the Book of Numbers (FAT 2.84; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 154–158, who suggest both directions of borrowing by postulating the presence of two redactional strata in Josh 20:1–9. Pace J. Berman, ‘The Legal Blend in Biblical Narrative (Joshua 20:1–9, Judges 6:25–31, 1 Samuel 15:2,

206

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

the following motif of appointing six cities of refuge, three of them beyond the Jordan, for the sons of Israel and for the stranger among them, so that anyone who kills a person unintentionally might flee there (‫ בני ישראל ולגר‬+ ‫ ל‬+ ‫מעבר לירדן‬ ‫ לנוס שמה כל־מכה־נפש בשגגה‬+ ‫ בתוכם‬+: Num 35:13–15), was borrowed from the following text Josh 20:7–9. Likewise, the motif of the avenger of blood killing the manslayer (‫ ימ*ת‬+ ‫גאל הדם‬: Num 35:19.21) was borrowed from Josh 20:9 (cf. Deut 19:12). Similarly, the motif of the manslayer remaining in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest, and after his death the manslayer returning to his land (‫ אל‬+ ‫ ישוב הרצח‬+ ‫עד־מות הכהן הגדול‬: Num 35:25.28) was borrowed from Josh 20:6.176 The motif of slaying a manslayer on the testimony of witnesses, but one witness not being sufficient to put to death (‫ מות‬+ ‫ לא‬+ ‫ *עד אחד‬+ ‫ עדים‬+ ‫*פי‬: Num 35:30) was borrowed from Deut 17:6. The concluding idea of (a) the Israelites living in the land (‫ )ארץ‬in which Yahweh dwells (‫)שכן‬, because Yahweh dwells (‫( )שכן‬b) among the sons of Israel (‫ישראל‬: Num 35:34) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) Israel dwelling safely an a fertile land and (b) Israel being blessed (Deut 33:28–29).

3.16. Num 36 (cf. Deut 34) The concluding section Num 36 sequentially illustrates the main ideas of the corresponding concluding section Deut 34. The opening, partly repeated (cf. Num 27:1–11)177 idea of the approaching of the leaders of Gilead (‫גלעד‬: Num 36:1a) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the opening Deuteronomic idea of Moses going up from the steppes of

28:3–25, 2 Kings 4:1–7, Jeremiah 34:12–17, Nehemiah 5:1–12),’ JBL 134 (2015) 105– 125 (esp. 111), who suggests the dependence of Josh 20:2.6 on Num 35. 176 The Deuteronomistic rule Josh 20:6 seems to present the Deuteronomic regulation concerning a second-instance judgement by the sanctuary priest and by the specialized judge ‘who will be in those days’ (Deut 17:9) as a possibility which would not be realized. The similar rule in Num 35:25.28 takes over the wording of Josh 20:6 without the Deuteronomic context of its idea. Pace R. Whitekettle, ‘Life’s Labors Lost: Priestly Death and Returning Home From a City of Refuge in Ancient Israel,’ HTR 111 (2018) 333–356 (esp. 344). 177 Cf. U. Fistill, Israel, 38–39; I. Kislev, ‘Numbers 36,1–12: Innovation and Interpretation,’ ZAW 122 (2010) 249–259 (esp.  249–250); C.  Frevel, ‘The Book of Numbers  – Formation, Composition, and Interpretation of a Late Part of the Torah:  Some Introductory Remarks,’ in C. Frevel, T. Pola, and A. Schart (eds.), Torah, 1–37 (esp. 29).

Num 36 (cf. Deut 34)

207

Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho, so drawing near to Canaan and seeing Gilead (Deut 34:1). The subsequent idea of the drawing near of a son of Manasseh (‫)מנשה‬, of the clans of the sons of Joseph (Num 36:1a), conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses seeing the land of Ephraim and Manasseh (Deut 34:2). The subsequent idea of speaking before the leaders of other tribes of the sons of Israel (Num 36:1b) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the territory of Judah and other tribes of Israel (Deut 34:2–3). The subsequent idea of saying (*‫ )ויאמר‬that Yahweh commanded to Moses (Num 36:2ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh saying to Moses (Deut 34:4a). The subsequent idea of Yahweh commanding (a) to give (‫( )נתן‬b) the land (‫ )הארץ‬as an inheritance (c) to (‫ )ל‬the sons of Israel (Num 36:2c) conceptually and linguistically, in a partly sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (b) this being the land of which Yahweh swore to the fathers (a) to give it (c) to Israel’s descendants (Deut 34:4b–d). The subsequent idea of (a) Yahweh commanding to Moses to give the inheritance of (b) the presumably deceased and sonless Zelophehad to his daughters (Num 36:2d) sequentially illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Yahweh telling Moses that he will not cross over to Canaan, and (b) Moses dying with presumably no male heir, since no one knows his grave (Deut 34:4e–8). The subsequent idea of (a) the daughters of the presumably deceased and sonless Zelophehad being married to one of the sons (‫ )בן‬of other tribes of the Israelites and (b) transferring the inheritance of their tribe to another tribe (Num 36:3–4) by means of the hypertextual procedure of transsexuation (in this case, feminization)178 conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) Joshua son of the Ephraimite (cf. Josh 19:49–50; 24:29–30) Nun (b) being the successor of the Levitical (cf. Exod 2:1) character of Moses (Deut 34:9a; cf. 34:9b). The subsequent idea of Moses (‫ )משה‬commanding the Israelites according to the utterances of Yahweh (Num 36:5ab) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of being full of the spirit of wisdom, similarly to Moses (Deut 34:9ab).

178 See G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 423–424.

208

Numbers as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Deut 17:14–34:12

The subsequent idea of the tribe of the sons of Joseph being reliable (Num 36:5c) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of Moses laying his hands on the Ephraimite Joshua (Deut 34:9b). The subsequent idea of the tribe of the sons of Joseph saying, transmitting the word which Yahweh commanded (Num 36:5d–6), illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of listening to the Ephraimite Joshua (Deut 34:9c). The subsequent idea of the inheritance not being transferred to the sons of Israel (‫ )בני ישראל‬from one tribe to another, the sons of Israel (‫ )בני ישראל‬clinging to the inheritance of their tribe, possessing inheritance in one of the tribes of the sons of Israel (‫)בני ישראל‬, the sons of Israel (‫ )בני ישראל‬inheriting the inheritance of their fathers, and the tribes of the sons of Israel (‫ )בני ישראל‬clinging to their inheritance (Num 36:7–9) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the sons of Israel (Deut 34:9c). The particular motif of every Israelite tribe having its own fixed inheritance (‫נחלה‬: Num 36:7–9) was borrowed from Josh 13:15–31; 14:6–17:18; 18:10–19:48. The subsequent thought that (a) just as Yahweh commanded Moses (‫כאשר‬ ‫)צוה יהוה את־משה‬, so (b) the daughters of Zelophehad did (‫*עשו‬: Num 36:10– 12; esp. 36:10) conceptually and linguistically illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of the sons of Israel (b) doing (a) just as Yahweh commanded Moses (Deut 34:9de). The subsequent, partly repeated (cf. Lev 27:34)179 idea of (a) the commandments and (b) the judgements (diff. Lev 27:34: no second noun) (c) which (‫ )אשר‬Yahweh commanded (Num 36:13ab) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of (a) the signs and (b) the presumably punishing wonders (c) which Yahweh sent Moses to do in Egypt (Deut 34:10–11). The concluding, partly repeated (cf. Lev 27:34)180 idea of Yahweh acting (a) by the hand (‫יד‬: diff. Lev 27:34: no such remark) of (b) Moses (‫( )משה‬c) to the sons of Israel (‫ישראל‬: Num 36:13b) conceptually and linguistically, in a sequential way illustrates the concluding Deuteronomic idea of (a) the mighty hand and the great terror which (b) Moses displayed (c) in the sight of all Israel (Deut 34:12). 179 Cf. T. R. Ashley, Numbers, 659; I. Kislev, ‘Numbers 36:13: The Transition between Numbers and Deuteronomy and the Redaction of the Pentateuch,’ in C. Werman (ed.), From Author to Copyist: Essays on the Composition, Redaction, and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible, Festschrift Z. Talshir (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2015), 113–124 (esp. 116–117); O. Artus, ‘Enjeux,’ 177. 180 Cf. T.  R.  Ashley, Numbers, 659; I.  Kislev, ‘Numbers 36:13,’ 116–117; O.  Artus, ‘Enjeux,’ 177.

General conclusions The analyses presented in this monograph demonstrate that Exodus–Numbers can be regarded as one literary work, which is a result of continuous, sequentially arranged, hypertextual, that is, highly creative reworking of Deuteronomy. In contrast to my earlier work on this subject, which revealed the presence of thirty-one sequentially organized correspondences between Exodus–Numbers and Deuteronomy,1 this monograph shows that there are around 1200 (!)2 sequentially arranged, hypertextual links between these two works. On average, there is approximately one correspondence per three verses of Exodus–Numbers (which contains 3356 verses) and per one verse of Deuteronomy (which contains 955 verses).3 The corresponding elements usually have a similar size in both works (one clause, one sentence, etc.). However, at times a large portion of material in Exodus–Numbers corresponds to a small element in Deuteronomy (Exod 19:3d–24:11 illustrating Deut 9:9a; Exod 25:1–31:17 illustrating Deut 9:9ef; Exod 36:8–37:29 illustrating Deut 12:5a–c; Lev 2 illustrating Deut 12:14bc; Lev 4:1–6:6 illustrating Deut 12:16b; Lev 6:7–7:15 illustrating Deut 12:17ab; Lev 12:6– 16:34 illustrating Deut 14:22a; Lev 21 illustrating Deut 14:29f; Lev 25 illustrating Deut 16:20b–d; Num 4 illustrating Deut 18:2b; Num 15:22–18:26d illustrating Deut 20:18d; Num 21:1–22:1 illustrating Deut 23:4–5b; Num 22:8–24:25 illustrating Deut 23:6a–c; Num 28:3–29:11 illustrating Deut 31:10c; etc.). Likewise, at times a small element in Exodus–Numbers corresponds to a large portion of material in Deuteronomy (Num 26:4 illustrating Deut 23:11–27:10; Num 26:57–62 illustrating Deut 27:14–28:68; Num 26:65a–c illustrating Deut 29; Num 26:65d illustrating Deut 30; etc.). Almost 700 of these sequentially arranged correspondences, so more than one-half of them, are not purely conceptual, but they also have some linguistic components.4 However, these linguistic correspondences rarely contain 1 B. Adamczewski, Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (EST 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012), 183–223. 2 In fact, I was able to count 1204 correspondences between Exodus–Numbers and Deuteronomy which follow a strictly sequential pattern. 3 For these verse count totals, see A. Messmer, ‘A Possible Chiastic Center for Primary History (Genesis–2 Kings),’ VT 69 (2019) 232–240 (esp. 238). 4 It is difficult to give even an approximate number of the sequentially arranged linguistic correspondences between Exodus–Numbers and Deuteronomy because it is difficult to

210

General conclusions

stereotypical Deuteronom(ist)ic language, compositional features, and/or theology, which would be convincing for scholars expecting such evident proofs of literary dependence of Exodus–Numbers on the Deuteronom(ist)ic literature.5 One of them is the phrase ‫‘( החקים והמשפטים‬the statutes and the judgements’: Lev 26:46), which is evidently typically Deuteronomic (Deut 4:45; 5:31; 6:1.20; 12:1; cf. 4:1.5.8.14; 5:1; 7:11; 11:32; 26:16; cf. 26:17). On the other hand, the correspondences which are purely linguistic are relatively rare (cf. ‫ עבריים‬in Exod 3:18 and ‫ עבר‬in Deut 2:27; ‫‘[ ע*ים‬two evenings’] in Exod 12:6 and ‫‘[ ע*ים‬two eyes’] in Deut 6:8; ‫ בעם‬in Num 11:33 and ‫ מעם‬in Deut 18:19; etc.). There are a few phrases or combinations of words which are used in Exodus– Numbers only once, but in Deuteronomy several times, so that they can be regarded as borrowed in Exodus–Numbers from Deuteronomy: (a) the combination ‫ עשה‬+ ‫ אשר‬+ ‫ירה‬, as an element of the priests-related motif of instructing what to do (Exod 4:15; cf. Deut 17:10–11; 24:8); (b) ‫‘( שגר‬offspring’), as an element of the motif of the offspring of the Israelites’ livestock (Exod 13:12; cf. Deut 7:13; 28:4.18.51); (c) ‫‘( לטוטפת‬to pendants’), as an element of the motif of something becoming a reminding sign for the Israelites (Exod 13:16; cf. Deut 6:8; 11:18); and (d) ‫‘( החקים והמשפטים‬the statutes and the judgements’: Lev 26:46; cf. Deut 4:45; 5:31; 6:1.20; 12:1). The particular usage of these phrases shows that they were most likely borrowed by the author of Exodus–Numbers from Deuteronomy, a fact which linguistically corroborates the hypothesis of the dependence of Exodus–Numbers on Deuteronomy. Moreover, there are also long strings of words which occur in both Exodus– Numbers and Deuteronomy in the structurally corresponding sections of both works (‫ראיתי את־העם הזה והנה עם־קשה־ערף הוא‬: Exod 32:9 cf. Deut 9:13; ‫על־הלחת את־‬ ‫הדברים אשר היו על־הלחת הראשנים אשר שברת‬: Exod 34:1 cf. Deut 10:2; ‫מפרסת פרסה‬ ‫ פרסת מעלת גרה בבהמה אתה תאכלו‬...‫ושסעת שסע‬: Lev 11:3 cf. Deut 14:6; ‫אך את־זה לא‬ ‫תאכלו ממעלי הגרה וממפריסי הפרסה‬: Lev 11:4 cf. Deut 14:7; ‫טמא הוא לכם מבשרם לא תאכלו‬ ‫ובנבלתם לא תגעו‬: Lev 11:7–8 cf. Deut 14:8; ‫את כל־ערב למינו ואת בת היענה ואת־התחמס‬ ‫ואת־השחף ואת־הנץ למינהו‬: Lev 11:15–16 cf. Deut 14:14–15; etc.). Other long strings of words occur in various parts of both Exodus–Numbers and Deuteronomy (‫*מחה את־זכר עמלק מתחת השמים‬: Exod 17:14 cf. Deut 25:19; ‫שלש פעמים בשנה יראה‬ ‫כל־זכורך את־פני‬: Exod 34:23 cf. Deut 16:16; ‫לא־תבשל גדי בחלב אמו‬: Exod 34:26 cf.

state what should be counted as linguistically matching between the two works: words, strings of words, verbal roots, or combinations of words, verbal roots, and/or phrases. 5 Cf. H. Ausloos, The Deuteronomist’s History: The Role of the Deuteronomist in HistoricalCritical Research into Genesis-Numbers (OtSt 67; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2015), 289–296.

General conclusions

211

Deut 14:21; *‫ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה לחם לא אכל* ומים לא שת‬: Exod 34:28 cf. Deut 9:18; etc.). Such long common strings of words also imply direct literary borrowing. As is consistently argued in this monograph, the direction of dependence runs from Deuteronomy to Exodus–Numbers. Much more important than these numerous but rarely specific linguistic signs of literary borrowing from Deuteronomy is the fulfilment of the criterion of order. The conceptual and/or linguistic correspondences between Exodus– Numbers and Deuteronomy, which are presented in this monograph, occur in both works in the same relative order, and their number exceeds 1200. Moreover, they cover each work in its entirety, so that the whole work of Exodus–Numbers, taken together, from its beginning to its end, sequentially illustrates the whole book of Deuteronomy, from its beginning to its end. Such a very long series of conceptual and/or linguistic correspondences, which follow one another in the same relative order in both complete works, cannot be a result of mere chance or of interpretative subjectivity in detecting similar themes in various fragments of both works. Another important criterion for detecting literary reworking, which is met by the analyses presented in this monograph, is the criterion of explaining numerous somewhat surprising features of Exodus–Numbers. These minor, somehow strange elements in Exodus–Numbers can be explained as illustrating various ideas contained in Deuteronomy. The strictly sequential, detailed reworking of the ideas of Deuteronomy in Exodus–Numbers led to the presence of some inconsistencies, ambiguities, strange expressions, and other surprising phenomena in the latter work. For example, in the book of Exodus, the surprising idea of the sons of Israel being mightier than the Egyptians (Exod 1:9) in fact illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the sons of Israel increasing a thousand times more than they are (Deut 1:11). The surprising idea of the midwives being commanded to look at the ‘stones’ (Exod 1:16) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the spies being sent to ‘dig’ the land (Deut 1:22). The surprising idea of listening to the voice of the sign (Exod 4:8) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of listening to all these statutes (Deut 4:6). The surprising idea of Yahweh encountering Moses on the way and trying to make him die (Exod 4:24) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh being angry with Moses and swearing that Moses will not cross over the Jordan to enter Canaan, so that he had to die (Deut 4:21–22). The surprising idea of the house of the fathers (Exod 12:3) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Israel’s fathers (Deut 6:3). The surprising idea of Moses pitching the tent of meeting outside the camp, so that the Israelites used to go out to it outside the camp (Exod 33:7), illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh making the Israelites go out

212

General conclusions

(Deut 9:28). The surprising idea of the skin of Moses’ face having horns/protrusions (Exod 34:29–30) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the rectangular ark/ chest (Deut 10:5). The surprising idea of the Israelites not kindling fire (Exod 35:3) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Moses getting up, going, and setting out on a journey before the people (Deut 10:11). In the book of Leviticus, the surprising idea of the priests justifiably not eating the sin offering (Lev 10:16–20) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Israel not eating anything abhorrent (Deut 14:3). The surprising idea of bringing to the tent of meeting all animals slaughtered on the surface of the field (Lev 17:3–5) illustrates the subsequent Deuteronomic idea of tithing everything that comes from the field (Deut 14:22). The surprising idea of making a vow which is extraordinary (Lev 27:2) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of a matter which is extraordinary in judging (Deut 17:8). In the book of Numbers, the surprising idea of Moses changing the simple name of Hoshea son of Nun to the Yahwistic theophoric name of Joshua with no patronym (Num 13:16) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God giving inheritance to Israel (Deut 19:3). The surprising idea of the spies spying out the land as far as the broad place at the entrance of Hamath (Num 13:21) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh God broadening the territory of Israel and giving to Israel all the land which he promised to the fathers (Deut 19:8). The surprising idea of Hebron having been built seven years earlier than the Egyptian Zoan (Num 13:22) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the border set by the first ancestors (Deut 19:14). The surprising idea of the spies cutting down a branch with merely one cluster of grapes and carrying it on a pole in two persons (Num 13:23) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of not merely one, but two or three witnesses (Deut 19:15). The surprisingly great but decreasing number of young bulls which should be offered (Num 29:13–36) illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the remission of debts (Deut 31:10). Some of these surprising elements reveal a particular sense of humour of the author of Exodus–Numbers. For example, the grotesque image of Moses holding the snake’s tail (Exod 4:4) in fact illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of the Israelites clinging to Yahweh God (Deut 4:4). According to the analyses presented in this monograph, the division of the material of Exodus–Numbers into Priestly and non-Priestly is misleading. In Exodus–Numbers, there are various repetitions, inconsistencies, changes of literary conventions, style, vocabulary, etc. The author of Exodus–Numbers was a gifted author, who modified his style according to his needs in a given fragment of his work. For example, he changed the narrative perspective and vocabulary in the two accounts of Moses’ call and coming to Pharaoh (Exod 3:1–6:1; 6:2–7:13)

General conclusions

213

in order to reflect the change of the narrative perspective and vocabulary in Deut 2:1–5:3; 5:4–16. However, the work of Exodus–Numbers in its entirety is a result of one literary-theological project, a systematic reworking of the contents of the book of Deuteronomy. The changes in style and literary conventions in Exodus– Numbers result from, among others, additional illustrative use of other materials and phraseology, taken from such different sources as the book of Ezekiel (mainly used in the fragments regarded as Priestly and H), the book of Judges (mainly used in the fragments regarded as non-Priestly), etc. From the theological point of view, one of the most important factors in the reworking of the contents of Deuteronomy in Exodus–Numbers is the substitution of the Deuteronomic model of theocratic kingship in Israel (Deut 17:14–15; 28:36) with that of more decentralized government. The author of Exodus– Numbers, writing in the late post-exilic period, reworked the idea of one king over Israel (Deut 17:14–15) into that of leaders of Israel’s secular tribes (Num 1:4–17). Likewise, he reworked the Deuteronomic idea of one charismatic leader as the spiritual successor of Moses (Deut 18:18) into that of Israel’s gerusia and the whole people as spiritual successors of Moses (Num 11:16–17.24–29). The notion of kingship in Israel is retained in Exodus–Numbers only for Yahweh (Exod 15:18; Num 23:21; cf. 24:7) and for a future, distant king (Num 24:17), although Exodus–Numbers repeatedly refers to kings of other nations (Exod 1:8; Num 20:14; 21:1.21.26.33; 22:4; 31:8; etc.). A  further important factor in the theological reworking of Deuteronomy in Exodus–Numbers is its essentially irenic character. For example, the Deuteronomic idea of Israel exterminating the whole pagan population of Canaan (Deut 7:1–2) was transformed in Exodus–Numbers into the more irenic one of Yahweh killing all the firstborn in the pagan land of Egypt, so that the Israelites were not directly involved in destroying them (Exod 12:29–30). Likewise, the same militant Deuteronomic idea of exterminating the Canaanites (Deut 7:24) was transformed in Exodus–Numbers into the more irenic one of Pharaoh’s warriors coming into the sea in consequence of their own stubbornness, with no active participation on the part of the Israelites, so that the pagans were destroyed not by the Israelites but by a natural disaster, in consequence of their own sin (Exod 15:19). In Exodus–Numbers, it is Yahweh himself, and not the Israelites (cf. Deut 7:2 etc.), as effacing and driving out the Canaanite nations (Exod 23:23.28–30; 33:2; 34:11; Num 14:9). The Israelites should only dispossess them (Num 33:52) and not put them under a ban (diff. Deut 7:2–5). The Deuteronomic idea of a destructive ban (Deut 7:2; 20:16–17; etc.) is applied in Exodus–Numbers on a local scale only (Num 21:1–3).

214

General conclusions

Another theological outcome of this study is the resulting therefrom image of God. Since the Bible is the word of God, which reveals not only God’s will but also God himself, then the highly creative, often astonishing, at times incredibly imaginative ways of hypertextual reworking of Deuteronomy in Exodus– Numbers reveal something of God’s majesty, splendour, and transcendence. Theologically and politically significant is also the way in which Exodus– Numbers continues the hidden rhetoric of Deuteronomy as a consciously Israelite (northern) and not a Judaean work. It presents the tribe of Ephraim, with its leader Joshua and its sanctuary on Mount Gerizim, in positive terms, but the tribe of Judah, especially in the allusions to its rival sanctuary in Jerusalem (but not to the Jerusalemite priesthood), in more negative terms, and the tribe of Dan, also presumably with its separatist sanctuary, in much more strongly negative terms. For example, Exodus–Numbers contains positive allusions to Shechem (Exod 12:34–35a) and Mount Gerizim (Exod 34:3) as the only legitimate place of worshipping Yahweh in full agreement with the law of Moses. On the other hand, Exodus–Numbers presents the tribes of Judah and Dan as called to abandon their separatist worship and contribute to the construction of the unique legitimate sanctuary of Yahweh, presumably located in central Canaan, in the region of Shechem (Exod 31:2.6; cf. 35:30–36:2; 37:1; 38:22–23). Exodus–Numbers also contains strongly negative allusions to the tribe of Dan as blaspheming Yahweh (Lev 24:11) and to the Judaean Kenites as cursed (Num 24:21–22). The chosen by Yahweh, central position of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (Num 1:10) in the list of the leaders of Israel’s secular tribes (Num 1:5–15), which illustrates the Deuteronomic idea of Yahweh choosing a king among the Israelites (Deut 17:15), presents the sons of Joseph as chosen by Yahweh to occupy the central, presumably leading position in Israel. Likewise, although the tribe of Judah is presented in Exodus–Numbers as the most numerous and the foremost tribe, the tribe of Ephraim occupies the privileged position reserved for the king (Num 2:1–32; 10:14–28). On the other hand, the position of Moses and Aaron in the same eastward direction as the tribe of Judah (Num 3:38) probably reflects the Israelite respect for the Judaean Levitical priesthood (cf. Gen 14:18–20; Neh 13:28; cf. also the link between Aaron and Nahshon in Exod 6:23). In Exodus–Numbers, the Ephraimite leader Joshua bears a theophoric name referring to Yahweh (Num 13:16) and believes in the power of Yahweh (Num 14:6–9). He is also presented as a secular leader of all Israel (Num 34:17). In contrast to him, the Judaean leader Caleb, whose disparaging name means ‘dog,’ in his persuasion does not mention God (Num 13:30). Likewise, only the names of the leaders of seven central Canaanite tribes (Simeon, Benjamin, Manasseh,

General conclusions

215

Ephraim, Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali), in contrast to those of the leaders of the peripheral tribes (Judah, Dan, and Asher), are presented as containing theophoric references to the name of God/El (Num 34:19–28). Accordingly, the origins of Exodus–Numbers can be traced in the secular and priestly6 elite of the Persian province of Samaria. It is our hope that this analysis of Exodus–Numbers, an important part of the Torah, which originates from (northern) Israel and not from Judah, which conveys the irenic ideology of the Israelites not exterminating their neighbours in Canaan, and which consequently does not oblige the Jews to take possession of the whole land of Israel, may contribute to finding peace in the land of Israel and in our modern world.

6 The narrative logic of Exodus–Numbers shows the increasing role of priestly leadership in Israel. Cf. C. Frevel, ‘Leadership and Conflict: Modelling the Charisma of Numbers,’ in K. Pyschny and S. Schulz (eds.), Debating Authority: Concepts of Leadership in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets (BZAW 507; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2018), 89–114 (esp. 93, 105).

Bibliography Primary sources General Hallo, W. W., and Younger, K. L., Jr. (eds.), The Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions, Monumental Inscriptions, and Archival Documents from the Biblical World, vol. 1–4 (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2003–2017).

Israelite-Jewish Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph [et al.] (5th ed., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 1997). Deuteronomy, ed. C. McCarthy (Biblia Hebraica Quinta 5; Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 2007). Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graece: Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, ed. A. Rahlfs and J. Ziegler [et al.], vol. 1–16 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1931–). Septuaginta: Editio altera, ed. A. Rahlfs and R. Hanhart (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 2006). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, ed. D. Barthélemy [et al.], vol. 1–40 (Clarendon: Oxford 1955–2011). Barkay, G. [et al.], ‘The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation,’ Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 334 (2004) 41–71.

Graeco-Roman Herodotus, Historiae, ed. H. B. Rosén, vol. 1–2 (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana; Teubner: Stutgardiae · Lipsiae 1987–1997).

Secondary literature Achenbach, R., ‘Grundlinien redaktioneller Arbeit in der Sinai-Perikope,’ in E. Otto and R. Achenbach (eds.), Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (Forschungen zur Religion

218

Bibliography

und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 206; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2004), 56–80. Achenbach, R., ‘How to Speak about GOD with Non-Israelites: Some Observations about the Use of Names for God by Israelites and Pagans in the Pentateuch,’ in F. Giuntoli and K. Schmid (eds.), The Post-Priestly Pentateuch: New Perspectives on Its Redactional Development and Theological Profiles (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 101; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2015), 35–51. Achenbach, R., ‘Lex Sacra and Sabbath in the Pentateuch,’ Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 22 (2016) 101–109. Achenbach, R., ‘The Post-Priestly Elohîm-Theology in the Book of Genesis,’ in S. Grätz, A. Graupner, and J. Lanckau (eds.), Ein Freund des Wortes, Festschrift U. Rüterswörden (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2019), 1–21. Achenbach, R., Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 3; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2003). Achenbach, R., ‘Zur Systematik der Speisegebote in Leviticus 11 und in Deuteronomium 14,’ Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 17 (2011) 161–209. Adamczewski, B., Deuteronomy–Judges: A Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.]) [forthcoming]. Adamczewski, B., Genesis: A Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 25; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2020). Adamczewski, B., The Gospel of John: A Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 17; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2018). Adamczewski, B., The Gospel of Luke: A Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 13; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2016). Adamczewski, B., The Gospel of Mark: A Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 8; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2014). Adamczewski, B., The Gospel of Matthew: A Hypertextual Commentary (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 16; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2017).

Bibliography

219

Adamczewski, B., Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010). Adamczewski, B., Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and SamuelKings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012). Adamczewski, B. ‘The Roles of Gerizim and Jerusalem in the Israelite Heptateuch Genesis–Judges,’ Revue Biblique [forthcoming]. Albertz, R., ‘Die Abschlüsse der ersten und zweiten priesterlichen Komposition in Lev 16 und 26,’ in id., Pentateuchstudien, ed. J. Wöhrle and F. Neumann (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 117; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 297–326. Albertz, R., ‘Der Beginn der vorpriesterlichen Exoduskomposition (KEX): Eine Kompositions- und Redaktionsgeschichte von Ex 1–5,’ in id., Pentateuchstudien, ed. J. Wöhrle and F. Neumann (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 117; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 79–111. Albertz, R., ‘Ex 33,7–11, ein Schlüsseltext für die Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch,’ in id., Pentateuchstudien, ed. J. Wöhrle and F. Neumann (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 117; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 225–248. Albertz, R., Exodus, vol. 1, Ex 1–18 (Zürcher Bibelkommentare AT 2.1; Theologischer: Zürich 2012); vol. 2, Ex 19–40 (Zürcher Bibelkommentare AT 2.2; Theologischer: Zürich 2015). Albertz, R., ‘Die Identifikation von nachexilischen Redaktionsschichten im Pentateuch,’ in id., Pentateuchstudien, ed. J. Wöhrle and F. Neumann (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 117; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 429–447. Albertz, R., ‘Die kompositionelle Bedeutung der Hexateuchredaktion: Ein Zwischenergebnis,’ in id., Pentateuchstudien, ed. J. Wöhrle and F. Neumann (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 117; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 449–470. Albertz, R., ‘A Pentateuchal Redaction in the Book of Numbers? The Late Priestly Layers of Num 25–36,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 125 (2013) 220–233. Alexander, T. D., Exodus (Apollos Old Testament Commentary 2; Apollos: London and InterVarsity: Downers Grove, IL 2017). Alonso Schökel, L., and Bravo Aragón, J. M., Apuntes de hermenéutica (Trotta: Madrid 1994).

220

Bibliography

Anderson, G. A., ‘ “Through Those Who Are Near to Me, I Will Show Myself Holy”: Nadab and Abihu and Apophatic Theology,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 77 (2015) 1–19. Appella, E., Autorità contestata e confermata: Ambizione umana e progetto divino nella storia di Core, Datan e Abiram (Nm 16) (Aloisiana: nuova serie 1; Il Pozzo di Giacobbe: Trapani 2013). Artus, O., ‘Enjeux passés et actuels de l’exégèse du livre de Nombres,’ Revue Biblique 132 (2016) 161–182. Artus, O., ‘Gouverner et parler au nom de Dieu: La question du pouvoir en Nb 11–12,’ Revue Biblique 124 (2017) 26–37. Ashley, T. R., The Book of Numbers (New International Commentary on the Old Testament; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 1993). Aster, S. Z., ‘ “Bread of the Dungheap”: Light on Num. 21:5 from the Tell Fekherye Inscription,’ Vetus Testamentum 61 (2011) 341–358. Ausloos, H., The Deuteronomist’s History: The Role of the Deuteronomist in Historical-Critical Research into Genesis-Numbers (Oudtestamentische Studiën 67; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2015). Ausloos, H., ‘The “Proto-Deuteronomist” Fifty Years Later,’ Old Testament Essays 26 (2013) 531–558. Averbeck, R. E., ‘Reading the Torah in a Better Way: Unity and Diversity in Text, Genre, and Compositional History,’ in M. Armgardt, B. Kilchör, and M. Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm Change in Pentateuchal Research (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 22; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2019), 21–43. Awabdy, M. A., ‘The Holiness Composition of the Priestly Blessing,’ Biblica 99 (2018) 29–49. Ayali-Darshan, N., ‘The Seventy Bulls Sacrificed at Sukkot (Num 29:12–34) in Light of a Ritual Text from Emar (Emar 6, 373),’ Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015) 9–19. Babcock, B. C., Sacred Ritual: A Study of the West Semitic Ritual Calendars in Leviticus 23 and the Akkadian Text Emar 446 (Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements 9; Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2014). Baden, J. S., The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library; Yale University: New Haven · London 2012). Baden, J. S., ‘The Deuteronomic Evidence for the Documentary Theory,’ in T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz (eds.), The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 327–344.

Bibliography

221

Baden, J. S., ‘The Lack of Transition between Genesis 50 and Exodus 1,’ in C. Berner, H. Samuel, and S. Germany (eds.), Book-Seams in the Hexateuch I: The Literary Transitions between the Books of Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/ Judges (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 43–53. Baden, J. S., ‘Literary Allusions and Assumptions about Textual Familiarity,’ in Z. Zevit (ed.), Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible (Equinox: Sheffield · Bristol 2017), 114–130. Baden, J. S., ‘The Narratives of Numbers 20–21,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 76 (2014) 634–652. Bauks, M., ‘Intratextualität, Intertextualität und Rezeptionsgeschichte: Was tragen “transpositional techniques” und “empirical evidences” zur literarischen Genese der Urgeschichte aus?,’ in M. Bauks [et al.] (eds.), Neue Wege der Schriftauslegung (Altes Testament und Moderne 24; Lit: Berlin 2019), 13–63. Bekkum, K. van, ‘Geography in Num 33 and 34 and the Challenge of Pentateuchal Theory,’ in K. Spronk and H. Barstad (eds.), Torah and Tradition: Papers Read at the Sixteenth Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap, Edinburgh 2015 (Oudtestamentische Studiën 70; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2017), 93–117. Bergsma, J. S., ‘The Biblical Manumission Laws: Has the Literary Dependence of H on D Been Demonstrated?,’ in E. F. Mason [et al.] (eds.), A Teacher for All Generations, Festschrift J. C. VanderKam, vol. 1 (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 153/1; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2012), 65–91. Bergsma, J. S., ‘A ”Samaritan” Pentateuch? The Implications of the ProNorthern Tendency of the Common Pentateuch,’ in M. Armgardt, B. Kilchör, and M. Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm Change in Pentateuchal Research (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 22; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2019), 287–300. Berman, J., ‘The Legal Blend in Biblical Narrative (Joshua 20:1–9, Judges 6:25– 31, 1 Samuel 15:2, 28:3–25, 2 Kings 4:1–7, Jeremiah 34:12–17, Nehemiah 5:1–12),’ Journal of Biblical Literature 134 (2015) 105–125. Berner, C., ‘Die eherne Schlange: Zum literarischen Ursprung eines »mosaischen« Artefakts,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 124 (2012) 341–355. Berner, C., Die Exoduserzählung: Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungslegende Israels (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 73; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2010).

222

Bibliography

Blenkinsopp, J., ‘The Earliest Persian Period Prophetic Texts,’ in R. J. Bautch and M. Lackowski (eds.), On Dating Biblical Texts to the Persian Period: Discerning Criteria and Establishing Epochs (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.101: Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2019), 11–29. Blenkinsopp, J., The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (Anchor Bible Reference Library; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1992). Blum, E., ‘The Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts: An Approach with Methodological Limitations,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 303–325. Blum, E., ‘Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen,’ in J. C. Gertz, K. Schmid, and M. Witte (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 315; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2002), 119–156. Blum, E., ‘The Literary Connection between the Books of Genesis and Exodus and the End of the Book of Joshua,’ in T. B. Dozeman and K. Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (Symposium Series 34; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2006), 89–106. Blum, E., ‘Noch einmal: Das literargeschichtliche Profil der P-Überlieferung,’ in F. Hartenstein and K. Schmid (eds.), Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte (Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 40; Evangelische: Leipzig 2015), 32–64. Boorer, S., ‘The Promise of the Land As Oath in Exodus 32:1–33:3,’ in T. B. Dozeman, C. A. Evans, and J. N. Lohr (eds.), The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 164; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 245–266. Boorer, S., The Vision of the Priestly Narrative: Its Genre and Hermeneutics of Time (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 27; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2016). Bosman, H. L., ‘Loving the Neighbour and the Resident Alien in Leviticus 19 as Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,’ Old Testament Essays 31 (2018) 571–590. Braulik, G., ‘Gott kämpft für Israel: Zur Intertextualität der Deuteronomistischen Landeroberungserzählung mit Exodus 1–14,’ Biblische Zeitschrift, nf 55 (2011) 209–223. Brett, M. G., ‘Permutations of Sovereignty in the Priestly Tradition,’ Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013) 383–392.

Bibliography

223

Bridge, E., ‘Polite Israel and Impolite Edom: Israel’s Request to Travel through Edom in Numbers 20.14–21,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35.1 (2010) 77–88. Brown, K., ‘Vengeance and Vindication in Numbers 31,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 134 (2015) 65–84. Budd, P. J., Numbers (Word Biblical Commentary 5; Word Books: Dallas, TX 1984). Bührer, W., ‘Die zweifache Nachgeschichte Bileams: Tradition, Redaktion und Rezeption von Num 22–24,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 128 (2016) 594–611. Butler, T. C., Judges (Word Biblical Commentary 8; Thomas Nelson: Nashville [et al.] 2009). Cardellini, I., Numeri 1,1–10,10: Nuova versione, introduzione e commento (I Libri Biblici: Primo Testamento 4,1; Paoline: Milano 2013). Carmichael, C., The Book of Numbers: A Critique of Genesis (Yale University: New Haven · London 2012). Carr, D., ‘Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,11–26 and its Parallels,’ in M. Köckert and E. Blum (eds.), Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 18; Chr. Kaiser: Gütersloh 2001), 107–140. Carr, D. M., ‘Method in Determining the Dependence of Biblical on NonBiblical Texts,’ in Z. Zevit (ed.), Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible (Equinox: Sheffield · Bristol 2017), 41–53. Carr, D. M., ‘Scribal Processes of Coordination/Harmonization and the Formation of the First Hexateuch(s),’ in T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz (eds.), The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 63–83. Carr, D. M., ‘Strong and Weak Cases and Criteria for Establishing the PostPriestly Character of Hexateuchal Material,’ in F. Giuntoli and K. Schmid (eds.), The Post-Priestly Pentateuch: New Perspectives on Its Redactional Development and Theological Profiles (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 101; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2015), 19–34. Cassuto, U., A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, trans. I. Abrahams (Magnes / Hebrew University: Jerusalem 1967). Chavel, S., ‘A Kingdom of Priests and its Earthen Altars in Exodus 19–24,’ Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015) 169–222.

224

Bibliography

Cholewiński, A., Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium: Eine vergleichende Studie (Analecta Biblica 66; Biblical Institute: Rome 1976). Chung, Y. H., The Sin of the Calf: The Rise of the Bible’s Negative Attitude Toward the Golden Calf (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 523; T&T Clark: New York · London 2010). Cocco, F., ‘ “Mors tua, vita mea”: Eleazaro e il sommo sacerdozio,’ Biblica 94 (2013) 509–533. Cocco, F., The Torah as a Place of Refuge: Biblical Criminal Law and the Book of Numbers (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.84; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016). Cross, F. M., ‘4QExod-Levf,’ in E. Ulrich [et al.] (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. VII: Genesis to Numbers (Discoveries in the Judean Desert 12; Clarendon: Oxford 1994), 133–144. Crüsemann, F., Die Tora: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes (Chr. Kaiser: München 1992). Darshan, G., ‘The Casuistic Priestly Law in Ancient Mediterranean Context: The History of the Genre and its Sitz im Leben,’ Harvard Theological Review 111 (2018) 24–40. DeLapp, N. L., Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch: Visions of YHWH (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 660; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2018). Dershowitz, I., ‘A Land Flowing with Fat and Honey,’ Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 172–176. Dohmen, C., ‘Decalogue,’ in T. B. Dozeman, C. A. Evans, and J. N. Lohr (eds.), The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 164; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 193–219. Dohmen, C., Exodus 1–18 (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2015); Exodus 19–40 (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2004). Dozeman, T. B., Commentary on Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 2009). Dozeman, T. B., ‘The Commission of Moses and the Book of Genesis,’ in T. B. Dozeman and K. Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (Symposium Series 34; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2006), 107–129.

Bibliography

225

Dozeman, T. B., Joshua 1–12: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Yale Bible 6B; Yale University: New Haven · London 2015). Durham, J. I., Exodus (Word Biblical Commentary 3; Word Books: Dallas, TX 1987). Edenburg, C., ‘Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of Readership: Some Preliminary Observations,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35.2 (2010) 131–148. Embry, R., ‘The Endangerment of Moses: Towards a New Reading of Exodus 4:24–26,’ Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 177–196. Findlay, J. D., From Prophet to Priest: The Characterization of Aaron in the Pentateuch (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 76; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Bristol, CT 2017). Finkelstein, I., ‘Major Saviors, Minor Judges: The Historical Background of the Northern Accounts in the Book of Judges,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 41.4 (2017) 431–449. Fischer, G., ‘A Need for Hope? A Comparison between the Dynamics in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28–30,’ in R. E. Gane and A. Taggar-Cohen (eds.), Current Issues in Priestly and Related Literature: The Legacy of Jacob Milgrom and Beyond (Resources for Biblical Study 82; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2015), 369–385. Fischer, G., ‘Time for a Change! Why Pentateuchal Research is in Crisis,’ in M. Armgardt, B. Kilchör, and M. Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm Change in Pentateuchal Research (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 22; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2019), 3–20. Fischer, G., ‘‫ותפשי התורה לא ידעוני‬: The Relationship of the Book of Jeremiah to the Torah,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 891–911. Fistill, U., Israel und das Ostjordanland: Untersuchungen zur Komposition von Num 21,21–36,13 im Hinblick auf die Entstehung des Buches Numeri (Österreichische Biblische Studien 30; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2007). Franz, M., Der barmherzige und gnädige Gott: Die Gnadenrede vom Sinai (Exodus 34,6–7) und ihre Parallelen im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 160; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2003). Frevel, C., ‘The Book of Numbers – Formation, Composition, and Interpretation of a Late Part of the Torah: Some Introductory Remarks,’

226

Bibliography

in C. Frevel, T. Pola, and A. Schart (eds.), Torah and the Book of Numbers (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.62; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 1–37. Frevel, C., ‘Ending with the High Priest: The Hierarchy of Priests and Levites in the Book of Numbers,’ in C. Frevel, T. Pola, and A. Schart (eds.), Torah and the Book of Numbers (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.62; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 138–163. Frevel, C., ‘Leadership and Conflict: Modelling the Charisma of Numbers,’ in K. Pyschny and S. Schulz (eds.), Debating Authority: Concepts of Leadership in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 507; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2018), 89–114. Frey, M., ‘Sabbath in Egypt? An Examination of Exodus 5,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 39.3 (2015) 249–263. Frolov, S., ‘How Old Is the Song of Deborah?,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 36.2 (2011) 163–184. Frolov, S. ’The Rings of the Lord: Assessing Symmetric Structuring in Numbers and Judges,’ Vetus Testamentum 66 (2016) 15–44 (esp. 31–41). Garton, R. E., Mirages in the Desert: The Tradition-historical Developments of the Story of Massah-Meribah (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 492; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2017). Geiger, M., ‘Synergie zwischen priesterlichem und göttlichem Handeln im Aaronitischen Segen (Num 6,22–27): Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Wendung ‫יִ שָ ּׂא יְ הוָה ָ ּפנָיו אֵ לֶיָך‬,’ Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018) 51–72. Genette, G., Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré (Seuil: [s.l.] 1982). Gerhards, M., Die Aussetzungsgeschichte des Mose: Literar- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Schlüsseltext des nichtpriesterlichen Tetrateuch (Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 109; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2006). German, B. T., ‘Moses at Marah,’ Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013) 47–58. Germany, S., ‘Die Bearbeitung des deuteronomischen Gesetzes im Lichte biblischer Erzählungen,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 131 (2019) 43–57. Germany, S., The Exodus-Conquest Narrative: The Composition of the NonPriestly Narratives in Exodus–Joshua (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 115; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2017). Germany, S., ‘The Literary Relationship between Genesis 50–Exodus 1 and Joshua 24–Judges 2,’ in Book-Seams in the Hexateuch I: The Literary Transitions between the Books of Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/Judges

Bibliography

227

(Forschungen zum Alten Testament 120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 385–400. Gertz, J. C., ‘Beobachtungen zu Komposition und Redaktion in Exodus 32–34,’ in M. Köckert and E. Blum (eds.), Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 18; Chr. Kaiser: Gütersloh 2001), 88–106. Gertz, J. C., ‘The Relative Independence of the Books of Genesis and Exodus,’ in C. Berner, H. Samuel, and S. Germany (eds.), Book-Seams in the Hexateuch I: The Literary Transitions between the Books of Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/ Judges (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 55–72. Gertz, J. C., Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 186; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2000). Gesundheit, S., ‘Die Beteiligung der ostjordanischen Stämme an der westjordanischen Landnahme. Ein Vergleich von Num 32,1–33; Dtn 3,18– 20 und Jos 1,12–15,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 131 (2019) 58–76. Gesundheit, S., Three Times a Year: Studies on Festival Legislation in the Pentateuch (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 82; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012). Gilders, W. K., ‘‫ חטאת‬as “Sin Offering”: A Reconsideration,’ in C. J. Hodge [et al.] (eds.), “The One Who Sows Bountifully,” Festschrift S. K. Stowers (Brown Judaic Studies 356; Brown University: Providence, RI 2013), 119–128. Gmirkin, R. E., Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 433; T&T Clark: New York · London 2006). Gosse, B., ‘Balaam et la dynastie davidique,’ Biblische Notizen, nf 169 (2016) 129–139. Gosse, B., ‘L’usage du terme yšw’h dans les livres de Samuel, en Genèse – 2 Rois et en 1–2 Chroniques,’ Revue Biblique 117 (2010) 210–222. Grabbe, L. L., ‘Exodus and History,’ in T. B. Dozeman, C. A. Evans, and J. N. Lohr (eds.), The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 164; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 61–87.

228

Bibliography

Greer, J. S., ‘The “Priestly Portion” in the Hebrew Bible: Its Ancient Near Eastern Context and Its Implications for the Composition of P,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 138 (2019) 263–284. Groß, W., ‘Das Richterbuch zwischen deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk und Enneateuch,’ in H.-J. Stipp (ed.), Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk (Österreichische Biblische Studien 39; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 177–205. Grund, A., Die Entstehung des Sabbats: Seine Bedeutung für Israels Zeitkonzept und Erinnerungskultur (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 75; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011). Hartley, J. E., Leviticus (Word Biblical Commentary 4; Word Books: Dallas, TX 1992). Harvey, J. E., Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic Historian’s Use of Tetrateuchal Narratives (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 403; T&T Clark: London · New York 2004). Hays, N., ‘The Redactional Reassertion of the Priestly Role in Leviticus 10–16,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 130 (2018) 175–188. Heckl, R., ‘The Aaronic Blessing (Numbers 6): Its Intention and Place in the Concept of the Pentateuch,’ in R. J. Bautch and M. Lackowski (eds.), On Dating Biblical Texts to the Persian Period: Discerning Criteria and Establishing Epochs (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.101: Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2019), 119–138. Hensel, B., Juda und Samaria: Zum Verhältnis zweier nach-exilischer Jahwismen (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 110; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016). Hepner, G., Legal Friction: Law, Narrative, and Identity Politics in Biblical Israel (Studies in Biblical Literature 78; Peter Lang: New York [et al.] 2010). Herzberg, B., ‘Deborah and Moses,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 38.1 (2013) 15–33. Hieke, T., Levitikus [vol. 1, 1–15; vol. 2, 16–27] (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament; Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2014). Hieke, T., ‘Priestly Leadership in the Book of Leviticus: A Hidden Agenda,’ in K. Pyschny and S. Schulz (eds.), Debating Authority: Concepts of Leadership in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 507; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2018), 68–88. Hoffmeier, J. K., ‘Egyptian Religious Influences on the Early Hebrews,’ in J. K. Hoffmeier, A. R. Millard, and G. A. Rendsburg (eds.), “Did I Not Bring Israel Out of Egypt?” Biblical, Archaeological, and Egyptological Perspectives on the Exodus Narratives (Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements 13; Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2016), 3–35.

Bibliography

229

Hossfeld, F.-L., Der Dekalog: Seine späten Fassungen, die originale Komposition und seine Vorstufen (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 45; Universitätsverlag: Freiburg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1982). Houtman, C., Exodus, vol. 1, trans. J. Rebel and S. Woudstra (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Kok: Kampen 1993); vol. 2, Chapters 7:14–19:25, trans. S. Woudstra (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Kok: Kampen 1996); vol. 3, Chapters 20–40, trans. S. Woudstra (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Peeters: Leuven 2000); vol. 4, Supplement (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Peeters: Leuven 2002). Howell, A. J., ‘The Firstborn Son of Moses as the “Relative of Blood” in Exodus 4.24–26,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35.1 (2010) 63–76. Hulster, I. J. de, ‘Imagination: A Hermeneutical Tool for the Study of the Hebrew Bible,’ Biblical Interpretation 18 (2010) 114–136. Hundley, M. B., ‘Before YHWH at the Entrance of the Tent of Meeting: A Study of Spatial and Conceptual Geography in the Priestly Texts,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 123 (2011) 15–26. Hurvitz, A., A Concise Lexicon of Late Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Innovations in the Writings of the Second Temple Period (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 160; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014). Invernizzi, L., “Perché mi hai inviato?” Dalla diacronia redazionale alla dinamica narrativa in Es 5,1–7,7 (Analecta Biblica 216; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2016). Jarrard, E. X., ‘Double Entendre in Exodus 34: Revisiting the ‫ קרן‬of Moses,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 131 (2019) 388–406. Jasinski, M., ‘Miriam – zapomniana bohaterka Exodusu,’ Verbum Vitae 19 (2011) 41–64. Jenni, H., ‘Fragen zum Verb mšj in der Kindheitsgeschichte Moses (Ex 2,10),’ in H. Jenni [et al.] (eds.), Nächstenliebe und Gottesfurcht, Festschrift H.-P. Mathys (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 439; Ugarit: Münster 2016), 151–175. Jeon, J., The Call of Moses and the Exodus Story: A Redactional-Critical Study in Exodus 3–4 and 5–13 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.60; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013). Jeon, J., ‘The Promise of the Land and the Extension of P,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 130 (2018) 513–528. Jeon, J., ‘The Scout Narrative (Numbers 13) as a Territorial Claim in the Persian Period,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 139 (2020) 255–274.

230

Bibliography

Jeon, J., ‘The Visit of Jethro (Exodus 18): Its Composition and Levitical Reworking,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 136 (2017) 289–306. Jericke, D., ‘Exodus Material in the Book of Genesis,’ in C. Berner, H. Samuel, and S. Germany (eds.), Book-Seams in the Hexateuch I: The Literary Transitions between the Books of Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/Judges (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 137–156. Johnstone, W., ‘From the Sea to the Mountain: Exodus 15,22–19,2: A CaseStudy in Editorial Techniques,’ in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction – Reception – Interpretation (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 126; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1996), 245–263. Johnstone, W., ‘Reading Exodus in Tetrateuch and Pentateuch,’ in T. B. Dozeman, C. A. Evans, and J. N. Lohr (eds.), The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 164; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 3–26. Johnstone, W., ‘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, and M. Witte (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 315; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2002), 247–273. Joosten, J., ‘Diachronic Linguistics and the Date of the Pentateuch,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 327–344. Jürgens, B., Heiligkeit und Versöhnung: Levitikus 16 in seinem literarischen Kontext (Herders Biblische Studien 28; Herder: Freiburg im Breisgau [et al.] 2001). Kaplan, J., ‘The Credibility of Liberty: The Plausibility of the Jubilee Legislation of Leviticus 25 in Ancient Israel and Judah,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 81 (2019) 183–203. Kartveit, M., ‘Samaritan Self-Consciousness in the First Half of the Second Century B.C.E. in Light of the Inscriptions from Mount Gerizim and Delos,’ Journal for the Study of Judaism 45 (2014) 449–470. Kelly, J. R., ‘Identifying Literary Allusions: Theory and the Criterion of Shared Language,’ in Z. Zevit (ed.), Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible (Equinox: Sheffield · Bristol 2017), 22–40.

Bibliography

231

Kilchör, B., ‘Did H Influence D on an Early or a Late Stage of the Redaction of D?,’ Old Testament Essays 29 (2016) 502–512. Kilchör, B., ‘The Direction of Dependence between the Laws of the Pentateuch: The Priority of a Literary Approach,’ Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 89 (2013) 1–14. Kilchör, B., ‘Frei aber arm? Soziale Sicherheit als Schlüssel zum Verhältnis der Sklavenfreilassungsgesetze im Pentateuch,’ Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012) 381–397. Kilchör, B., ‘Levirate Marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5–10 and Its Precursors in Leviticus and Numbers: A Test Case for the Relationship between P/H and D,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 77 (2015) 429–440. Kilchör, B., Mosetora und Jahwetora: Das Verhältnis von Deuteronomium 12–26 zu Exodus, Levitikus und Numeri (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 21; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2015). Kilchör, B., ‘Überlegungen zum Verhältnis zwischen Levitikus 26 und Ezechiel und die tempeltheologische Relevanz der Abhängigkeitsrichtung,’ Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 24 (2018) 295–306. Kilchör, B., ‘Wellhausen’s Five Pillars for the Priority of D over P/H: Can They Still Be Maintained?,’ in M. Armgardt, B. Kilchör, and M. Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm Change in Pentateuchal Research (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 22; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2019), 101–113. Kim, D.-H., Early Biblical Hebrew, Late Biblical Hebrew, and Linguistic Variability: A Sociolinguistic Evaluation of the Linguistic Dating of Biblical Texts (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 156; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2013). Kim, S.-J., ‘Les enjeux théologiques des bénéficiaires de l’année sabbatique (Lev 25,6–7),’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 122 (2010) 33–43. Kim, S.-J., Se reposer pour la terre, se reposer pour Dieu: L’année sabbatique en Lv 25,1–7 (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 430; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2012). Kim, Y. H., ‘The Jubilee: Its Reckoning and Inception Day,’ Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010) 147–151. Kislev, I., ‘The Census of the Israelites on the Plains of Moab (Numbers 26): Sources and Redaction,’ Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013) 236–260. Kislev, I., ‘Joshua (and Caleb) in the Priestly Spies Story and Joshua’s Initial Appearance in the Priestly Source: A Contribution to an Assessment of the Pentateuchal Priestly Material,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 136 (2017) 39–55.

232

Bibliography

Kislev, I., ‘Numbers 36,1–12: Innovation and Interpretation,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 122 (2010) 249–259. Kislev, I., ‘Numbers 36:13: The Transition between Numbers and Deuteronomy and the Redaction of the Pentateuch,’ in C. Werman (ed.), From Author to Copyist: Essays on the Composition, Redaction, and Transmission of the Hebrew Bible, Festschrift Z. Talshir (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2015), 113–124. Kislev, I., ‘The Numbers of Numbers: The Census Accounts in the Book of Numbers,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 128 (2016) 189–204. Kislev, I., ‘What Happened to the Sons of Korah? The Ongoing Debate Regarding the Status of the Korahites,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 138 (2019) 497–511. Klein, A., ‘Hymn and History in Ex 15: Observations on the Relationship between Temple Theology and Exodus Narrative in the Song of the Sea,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 124 (2012) 516–527. Knierim, R. P., and Coats, G. W., Numbers (Forms of the Old Testament Literature 4; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 2005). Knoppers, G. N., ‘Establishing the Rule of Law? The Composition Num 33,50–56 and the Relationship Among the Pentateuch, the Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History,’ in E. Otto and R. Achenbach (eds.), Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 206; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2004), 135–152. Konkel, M., ‘Exodus 32–34 and the Quest for an Enneateuch,’ in T. B. Dozeman, T. Römer, and K. Schmid, Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 8; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2011), 169–184. Konkel, M., Sünde und Vergebung: Eine Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte der hinteren Sinaiperikope (Exodus 32–34) vor dem Hintergrund aktueller Pentateuchmodelle (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 58; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2008). Koorevaar, H. J., ‘The Books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, and the Macro-Structural Problem of the Pentateuch,’ in T. Römer (ed.), The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 215; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, MA 2008), 423–453. Koorevaar, H. J., ‘Steps for Dating the Books of the Pentateuch: A Literary and Historical Canonical Approach,’ in M. Armgardt, B. Kilchör, and M. Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm Change in Pentateuchal Research (Beihefte

Bibliography

233

zur Zeitschrift für die Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 22; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2019), 227–242. Koosed, J. L., ‘Moses: The Face of Fear,’ Biblical Interpretation 22 (2014) 414–429. Kratz, R. G., ‘The Analysis of the Pentateuch: An Attempt to Overcome Barriers of Thinking,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 128 (2016) 529–561. Krause, J. J., Exodus und Eisodus: Komposition und Theologie von Josua 1–5 (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 161; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014). Kugler, G., ‘The Threat of Annihilation of Israel in the Desert: An Independent Tradition within Two Stories,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 78 (2016) 632–647. Kugler, G., When God Wanted to Destroy the Chosen People: Biblical Traditions and Theology on the Move (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 515; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2019). Kupfer, C., Mit Israel auf dem Weg durch die Wüste: Eine leserorientierte Exegese der Rebellionstexte in Exodus 15:22–17:7 und Numeri 11:1–20:13 (Oudtestamentische Studiën 61; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2012). Kuśmirek, A., ‘ “Gwiazda Jakuba” (Lb 24,17) i jej interpretacje,’ Verbum Vitae 29 (2016) 41–65. Langlois, M., ‘Dead Sea Scrolls Palaeography and the Samaritan Pentateuch,’ in id. (ed.), The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 94; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Bristol, CT 2019), 255–285. Lawlor, J. J., ‘The “At-Sinai Narrative”: Exodus 18–Numbers 10,’ Bulletin for Biblical Research 21 (2011) 23–42. Lee, B., ‘Unity in Diversity: The Literary Function of the Formula of Retaliation in Leviticus 24.15–22,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 38.3 (2014) 297–313. Lemański, J., Księga Wyjścia: Wstęp, przekład z oryginału, komentarz (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny: Stary Testament 2; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2009). Lemański, J., ‘Standardowe i specyficzne rozumienie słowa rûaḥ w tekstach Księgi Rodzaju i Księgi Wyjścia,’ Verbum Vitae 37 (2020) 11–34 (esp. 13). Lemański, J., ‘W poszukiwaniu najstarszej literackiej wersji “cudu nad morzem” (Wj 13,17–15,21),’ Biblical Annals 6 (2016) 5–44. Leonard, J. M., ‘Identifying Subtle Allusions: The Promise of Narrative Tracking,’ in Z. Zevit (ed.), Subtle Citation, Allusion and Translation in the Hebrew Bible (Equinox: Sheffield · Bristol 2017), 91–113.

234

Bibliography

Lepesqueux, G., L’exposition du nom divin dans le livre de l’Exode: Étude exégétique d’Ex 3,1–4,18; 6,2–7,7; 33–34 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.102; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2019). Leuchter, M., ‘The Ambiguous Details in the Blasphemer Narrative: Sources and Redaction in Leviticus 24:10–23,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 130 (2011) 431–450. Leuenberger, M., Segen und Segenstheologien im Alten Testament: Untersuchungen zu ihren religions- und theologiegeschichtlichen Konstellationen und Transformationen (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 90; Theologischer: Zürich 2008). Levin, C., ‘Die Priesterschrift als Quelle: Eine Erinnerung,’ in F. Hartenstein and K. Schmid (eds.), Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte (Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 40; Evangelische: Leipzig 2015), 9–31. Levin, C., ‘Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels,’ in id., Fortschreibungen: Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 316; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2003), 111–123. Levine, B. A., Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 4; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1993); Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 4A; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 2000). Levinson, B. M., ‘The Birth of the Lemma: The Restrictive Reinterpretation of the Covenant Code’s Manumission Law by the Holiness Code (Leviticus 25:44–46),’ Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005) 617–639. Levitt Kohn, R., A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 358; Sheffield Academic: London · New York 2002). Lohfink, N., ‘Deuteronomium 9,1–10,11 und Exodus 32–34: Zu Endtextstruktur, Intertextualität, Schichtung und Abhängigkeiten,’ in M. Köckert and E. Blum (eds.), Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 32–34 und Dtn 9–10 (Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 18; Chr. Kaiser: Gütersloh 2001), 41–87. Lunn, N. P., ‘Numbering Israel: A Rhetorico-Structural Analysis of Numbers 1–4,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35.2 (2010) 167–185. Lust, J., ‘Exodus 6,2–8 and Ezekiel,’ in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction – Reception – Interpretation (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 126; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1996), 209–224.

Bibliography

235

Lyons, M. A., From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 507; T&T Clark: New York · London 2009). Lyons, M. A., ‘How Have We Changed? Older and Newer Arguments about the Relationship between Ezekiel and the Holiness Code,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 1055–1074 (esp. 1072). MacDonald, N., ‘Edom and Seir in the Narratives and Itineraries of Numbers 20–21 and Deuteronomy 1–3,’ in G. Fischer, D. Markl, and S. Paganini (eds.), Deuteronomium – Tora für eine neue Generation (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 17; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2011), 83–103. MacDonald, N., ‘The Hermeneutics and Genesis of the Red Cow Ritual,’ Harvard Theological Review 105 (2012) 351–371. MacDonald, N., Priestly Rule: Polemic and Biblical Interpretation in Ezekiel 44 (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 476; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2015). MacDonald, N., ‘Ritual Innovation and Shavu’ot,’ in id. (ed.), Ritual Innovation in the Hebrew Bible and Early Judaism (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 468; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2016), 55–77. Mark, M., “Mein Angesicht geht” (Ex 33,14): Gottes Zusage personaler Führung (Herders Biblische Studien 66; Herder: Freiburg [et al.] 2011). Markl, D., ‘Zur literarischen und theologischen Funktion der Heiligtumstexte im Buch Exodus,’ in M. Hopf, W. Oswald, and S. Seiler (eds.), Heiliger Raum: Exegese und Rezeption der Heiligtumstexte in Ex 24–40 (Theologische Akzente 8; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2016), 57–87. Marquis, L. M., ‘The Composition of Numbers 32: A New Proposal,’ Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013) 408–432. Marx, A., Lévitique 17–27 (Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament 3b; Labor et Fides: Genève 2011). Marx, A., ‘The Theology of the Sacrifice According to Leviticus 1–7,’ in R. Rendtorff, R. A. Kugler, and S. Smith Bartel (eds.), The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 93; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2003), 103–120. Massmann, L., Der Ruf in die Entscheidung: Studien zur Komposition, zur Entstehung und Vorgeschichte, zum Wirklichkeitsverständnis und zur kanonischen Stellung von Lev 20 (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für

236

Bibliography

die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 324; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2003). Mathews, D., Royal Motifs in the Pentateuchal Portrayal of Moses (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 571; T&T Clark: New York · London 2012). Mattison, K., ‘Contrasting Conceptions of Asylum in Deuteronomy 19 and Numbers 35,’ Vetus Testamentum 68 (2018) 232–251. Mattison, K., Rewriting and Revision as Amendment in the Laws of Deuteronomy (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.100; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018). Messmer, A., ‘A Possible Chiastic Center for Primary History (Genesis–2 Kings),’ Vetus Testamentum 69 (2019) 232–240. Meyer, E. E., ‘Leviticus 17, Where P, H, and D Meet: Priorities and Presuppositions of Jacob Milgrom and Eckart Otto,’ in R. E. Gane and A. Taggar-Cohen (eds.), Current Issues in Priestly and Related Literature: The Legacy of Jacob Milgrom and Beyond (Resources for Biblical Study 82; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2015), 349–367. Meyer, E. E., ‘When Synchrony Overtakes Diachrony: Perspectives on the Relationship between the Deuteronomic Code and the Holiness Code,’ Old Testament Essays 30 (2017) 749–769. Michel, A., ‘Exodus – historisch, mythisch, theologisch,’ in C. Neuber (ed.), Der immer neue Exodus: Aneignungen und Transformationen des Exodusmotivs (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 242; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2018), 20–44. Mielnik, D., ‘Czym Mojżesz rozgniewał Boga? Problem przyczyny gniewu Bożego w narracji Wj 4,24–26,’ Verbum Vitae 33 (2018) 21–43. Milgrom, J., Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 3; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1991); Leviticus 17–22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 3A; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 2000); Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 3B; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 2001). Miller, G. D., ‘Intertextuality in Old Testament Research,’ Currents in Biblical Research 9.3 (2010) 283–309. Müller, R., ‘A Prophetic View of the Exile in the Holiness Code: Literary Growth and Tradition History in Leviticus 26,’ in E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin, The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and Its Historical Contexts (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 404; De Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2010), 207–228.

Bibliography

237

Niditch, S., Judges: A Commentary (Old Testament Library; Westminster John Knox: Louisville · London 2008). Nihan, C., ‘Ézéchiel 44,17–31 et la tradition sacerdotale,’ in H. Jenni [et al.] (eds.), Nächstenliebe und Gottesfurcht, Festschrift H.-P. Mathys (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 439; Ugarit: Münster 2016), 321–338. Nihan, C. L., ‘Ezekiel 34–37 and Leviticus 26: A Reevaluation,’ in W. A. Tooman and P. Barter (eds.), Ezekiel: Current Debates and Future Directions (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 112; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2017), 153–178. Nihan, C., ‘Ezekiel and the Holiness Legislation: A Plea for Nonlinear Models,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 1015–1039. Nihan, C., From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.25; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007). Nihan, C., ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz und Pentateuch: Traditions- und kompositionsgeschichtliche Aspekte von Levitikus 26,’ in F. Hartenstein and K. Schmid (eds.), Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte (Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 40; Evangelische: Leipzig 2015), 186–218. Nihan, C., ‘The Holiness Code between D and P: Some Comments on the Function and Significance of Leviticus 17–26 in the Composition of the Torah,’ in E. Otto and R. Achenbach (eds.), Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 206; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2004), 81–122. Nihan, C., ‘The Laws about Clean and Unclean Animals in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and Their Place in the Formation of the Pentateuch,’ in T. B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. J. Schwartz (eds.), The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 78; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 401–432. Nihan, C., ‘Leviticus 26:39–46 and the Post-Priestly Composition of Leviticus: Some Remarks in Light of the Recent Discussion,’ in F. Giuntoli and K. Schmid (eds.), The Post-Priestly Pentateuch: New Perspectives on Its Redactional Development and Theological Profiles (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 101; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2015), 305–329. Nihan, C., ‘Murder, Blasphemy and Sacral Law: Another Look at Lev 24,10–23,’ Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 17 (2011) 211–240.

238

Bibliography

Nihan, C., ‘The Priestly Laws of Numbers, the Holiness Legislation, and the Pentateuch,’ in C. Frevel, T. Pola, and A. Schart (eds.), Torah and the Book of Numbers (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.62; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 109–137. Nihan, C., ‘Das Sabbatgesetz Exodus 31,12–17, die Priesterschrift und das Heiligkeitsgesetz: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit neueren Interpretationen,’ in R. Achenbach, R. Ebach, and J. Wöhrle (eds.), Wege der Freiheit: Zur Entstehung und Theologie des Exodusbuches, Festschrift R. Albertz (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Altes und Neuen Testaments 104; Theologischer: Zürich 2014), 131–149. Nobile, M., ‘Il censimento e l’accampamento della comunità dell’esodo (Nm 1–2),’ in G. Borgonovo (ed.), Torah e storiografie dell’Antico Testamento (Logos: Corso di Studi Biblici 2; Elledici: Leumann, TO 2012), 517–532. Nocquet, D. R., La Samarie, la Diaspora et l’achèvement de la Torah: Territorialités et internationalités dans l’Hexateuque (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 284; Academic: Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2017). Nolland, J., ‘Sin, Purity and the ‫ חטאת‬Offering,’ Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015) 606–620. Notarius, T., The Verb in Archaic Biblical Poetry: A Discursive, Typological, and Historical Investigation of the Tense System (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 68; Brill: Leiden 2013). Olyan, S. M., ‘Are there Legal Texts in the Hebrew Bible that Evince Concern for Animal Rights?,’ Biblical Interpretation 27 (2019) 321–339. Orian, M., ‘Numbers 20:14–21 as a Reply to Deuteronomy 23:4–9,’ Vetus Testamentum 69 (2019) 109–116. Oswald, W., ‘Correlating the Covenants in Exodus 24 and Exodus 34,’ in R. J. Bautch and G. N. Knoppers (eds.), Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2015), 59–73. Oswald, W., ‘Defeating Amalek, Defending the Constitution: The Political Theory of Ex 17:8–16,’ in C. Berner and H. Samuel (eds.), The Reception of Biblical War Legislation in Narrative Contexts: Proceedings of the EABS research group “Law and Narrative” (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 460; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2015), 61–72. Oswald, W., ‘Genesis Material in the Book of Exodus: Explicit Back References,’ in C. Berner, H. Samuel, and S. Germany (eds.), Book-Seams in the Hexateuch I: The Literary Transitions between the Books of Genesis/

Bibliography

239

Exodus and Joshua/Judges (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 157–170. Otto, E., ‘The Books of Deuteronomy and Numbers in One Torah. The Book of Numbers Read in the Horizon of the Postexilic Fortschreibung in the Book of Deuteronomy: New Horizons in the Interpretation of the Pentateuch,’ in C. Frevel, T. Pola, and A. Schart (eds.), Torah and the Book of Numbers (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.62; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 383–397. Otto, E., ‘Das Bundesbuch und das “Kodex” Hammurapi: Das biblische Recht zwischen positiver und subversiver Rezeption von Keilschriftrecht,’ Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 16 (2010) 1–26. Otto, E., Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 30; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 2000). Otto, E., ‘Deuteronomium und Pentateuch,’ in id., Die Tora: Studien zum Pentateuch: Gesammelte Schriften (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 9; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2009), 168–228. Otto, E., ‘Innerbiblische Exegese im Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 17–26,’ in id., Die Tora: Studien zum Pentateuch: Gesammelte Schriften (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 9; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2009), 46–106. Otto, E., ‘Priesterschrift und Deuteronomium im Buch Levitikus: Zur Integration des Deuteronomiums in den Pentateuch,’ in F. Hartenstein and K. Schmid (eds.), Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte (Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 40; Evangelische: Leipzig 2015), 161–185. Pat-El, N., ‘Israelian Hebrew: A Re-Evaluation,’ Vetus Testamentum 67 (2017) 227–263. Pettit, D., ‘When the LORD Seeks to Kill Moses: Reading Exodus 4.24–26 in its Literary Context,’ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 40.2 (2015) 163–177. Pitkänen, P., A Commentary on Numbers: Narrative, Ritual and Colonialism (Routledge Studies in the Biblical World; Routledge: London · New York 2018). Pitkänen, P., ‘Reading Genesis–Joshua as a Unified Document from an Early Date: A Settler Colonial Perspective,’ Biblical Theology Bulletin 45 (2015) 3–31.

240

Bibliography

Pitkänen, P., ‘The Use of Priestly Legal Tradition in Joshua and the Composition of the Pentateuch and Joshua,’ Old Testament Essays 29 (2016) 318–335. Propp, W. H. C., Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 2; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1999); Exodus 19–40: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible 2A; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 2006). Pyschny, K., Verhandelte Führung: Eine Analyse von Num 16–17 im Kontext der neueren Pentateuchforschung (Herders Biblische Studien 88; Herder: Freiburg im Breisgau 2017). Rees, A., ‘[Re]Naming Cozbi: In Memoriam, Cozbi, daughter of Zur,’ Biblical Interpretation 20 (2012) 16–34. Rendtorff, R., Leviticus, vol. 1, Leviticus 1,1–10,20 (Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament 3/1; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2004). Rhyder, J., ‘Sabbath and Sanctuary Cult in the Holiness Legislation: A Reassessment,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 138 (2019) 721–740. Rhyder, J., ‘Unity and Hierarchy: North and South in the Priestly Traditions,’ in B. Hensel, D. Nocquet, and B. Adamczewski (eds.), Yahwistic Diversity and the Hebrew Bible: Tracing Perspectives of Group Identity from Judah, Samaria, and the Diaspora in Biblical Traditions (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2020), 109–134. Riffaterre, M., Fictional Truth (Parallax: Re-visions of Culture and Society; 2nd ed., The John Hopkins University: Baltimore · London 1993). Robker, J. M., ‘The Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch / Hexateuch / Enneateuch,’ in C. Frevel, T. Pola, and A. Schart (eds.), Torah and the Book of Numbers (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.62; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 334–366. Rogland, M., ‘ “Moses Used to Take a Tent”? Reconsidering the Function and Significance of the Verb Forms in Exodus 33:7–11,’ Journal of Theological Studies, ns 63 (2012) 449–466. Röhrig, M., ‘Gesetz und Erzählung in Num 15: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zum Sabbatsünder (Num 15,32–36),’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 131 (2019) 407–421. Roi, M., ‘The Law of the Sotah and the Cup of Wrath: Substantive and Adjective Law in the Hebrew Bible,’ Revue Biblique 124 (2017) 161–179. Römer, T., ‘Auszug aus Ägypten oder Pilgerreise in der Wüste? Überlegungen zur Konstruktion der Exodustradition(en),’ in R. Ebach and M. Leuenberger (eds.), Tradition(en) im alten Israel: Konstruktion, Transmission

Bibliography

241

und Transformation (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 127; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2019), 89–107. Römer, T., ‘Egypt Nostalgia in Exodus 14–Numbers 21,’ in C. Frevel, T. Pola, and A. Schart (eds.), Torah and the Book of Numbers (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.62; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 66–86. Römer, T., ‘Mose und die Frauen in Exodus 1–4,’ in R. Achenbach, R. Ebach, and J. Wöhrle (eds.), Wege der Freiheit: Zur Entstehung und Theologie des Exodusbuches, Festschrift R. Albertz (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Altes und Neuen Testaments 104; Theologischer: Zürich 2014), 73–86. Römer, T., ‘Von Moses Berufung zur Spaltung des Meers: Überlegungen zur priesterschriftlichen Version der Exoduserzählung,’ in F. Hartenstein and K. Schmid (eds.), Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte (Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 40; Evangelische: Leipzig 2015), 134–160. Römer, T., ‘Zwischen Urkunden, Fragmenten und Ergänzungen: Zum Stand der Pentateuchforschung,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 125 (2013) 2–24. Rooker, M. F., Leviticus (New American Commentary 3A; Broadman & Holman: Nashville, TN 2000). Rose, M., Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 67; Theologischer: Zürich 1981). Rosenberg, M., ‘The Conflation of Purity and Prohibition: An Interpretation of Leviticus 18:19,’ Harvard Theological Review 107 (2014) 447–469. Roskop Erisman, A., ‘Genre Conventions and Their Implications for Composition History: A Case for Supplementation in Exodus 16,’ in S. M. Olyan and J. L. Wright (eds.), Supplementation and the Study of the Hebrew Bible (Brown Judaic Studies 361; Brown University: Providence, RI 2018), 53–67. Roskop Erisman, A., ‘Transjordan in Deuteronomy: The Promised Land and the Formation of the Pentateuch,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 132 (2013) 769–789. Roskop, A. R., The Wilderness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the Growth of Torah (History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant 3; Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2011). Rothenbusch, R., Die kasuistische Rechtssammlung im ‘Bundesbuch’ (Ex 21,2– 11.18–22,16) und ihr literarischer Kontext im Licht altorientalischer Parallelen (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 259; Ugarit: Münster 2000).

242

Bibliography

Rothenbusch, R., ‘Zur Ausgestaltung der Sinaiperikope durch die Priesterliche Gebotsmitteilung,’ in E. Gaß and H.-J. Stipp (eds.), “Ich werde meinen Bund mit euch niemals brechen” (Ri 2,1), Festschrift W. Groß (Herders Biblische Studien 62; Herder: Freiburg [et al.] 2011), 3–28. 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 22,1–19 (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 452; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2017). Russell, S. C., ‘Biblical Jubilee Laws in Light of Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Period Contracts,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 130 (2018) 189–203. Russell, S. C., ‘The Structure of Legal Administration in the Moses Story,’ in T. E. Levy, T. Schneider, and W. H. C. Propp (eds.), Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience (Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences; Springer: Chum [et al.] 2015), 317–329. Ruwe, A., ‘The Structure of the Book of Leviticus in the Narrative Outline of the Priestly Sinai Story (Exod 19:1–Num 10:10*),’ in R. Rendtorff, R. A. Kugler, and S. Smith Bartel (eds.), The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 93; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2003), 55–78. Ryan, R., Judges (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; Sheffield Phoenix 2007). Samuel, H., Von Priestern zum Patriarchen: Levi und die Leviten im Alten Testament (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 448; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2014). Schafer, A. R., ‘Rest for the Animals? Nonhuman Sabbath Repose in Pentateuchal Law,’ Bulletin for Biblical Research 23 (2013) 167–186. Schart, A., ‘The Spy Story and the Final Redaction of the Hexateuch,’ in C. Frevel, T. Pola, and A. Schart (eds.), Torah and the Book of Numbers (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.62; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 164–200. Schellenberg, A., ‘More than Spirit: On the Physical Dimension in the Priestly Understanding of Holiness,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 126 (2014) 163–179. Schenker, A., ‘Das Gebot der Nächstenliebe in seinem Kontext (Lev 19,17– 18): Lieben ohne Falschheit,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 124 (2012) 244–248. Schenker, A., ‘Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch und Samareitikon: Zur Textgeschichte des Pentateuchs im 2. Jh. v.Chr.,’ in

Bibliography

243

M. Mor, F. V. Reiterer, and W. Winkler (eds.), Samaritans: Past and Present: Current Studies (Studia Judaica 53 / Studia Samaritana 5; De Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2010), 105–121. Schenker, A., ‘What Connects the Incest Prohibitions with the Other Prohibitions Listed in Leviticus 18 and 20?,’ in R. Rendtorff, R. A. Kugler, and S. Smith Bartel (eds.), The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 93; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2003), 162–185. Schmid, H. H., Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung (Theologischer: Zürich 1976). Schmid, K., ‘Distinguishing the World of the Exodus Narrative from the World of Its Narrators: The Question of the Priestly Exodus Account in Its Historical Setting,’ in T. E. Levy, T. Schneider, and W. H. C. Propp (eds.), Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience (Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences; Springer: Chum [et al.] 2015), 331–344. Schmid, K., ‘Exodus in the Pentateuch,’ in T. B. Dozeman, C. A. Evans, and J. N. Lohr (eds.), The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 164; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2014), 27–60. Schmid, K., Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible, trans. J. D. Nogalski (Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures 3; Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN 2010). Schmid, K., ‘Genesis in the Pentateuch,’ in C. A. Evans, J. N. Lohr, and D. L. Petersen (eds.), The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 152; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2012), 27–50. Schmid, K., ‘How to Identify a Persian Period Text in the Pentateuch,’ in R. J. Bautch and M. Lackowski (eds.), On Dating Biblical Texts to the Persian Period: Discerning Criteria and Establishing Epochs (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.101: Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2019), 101–118. Schmid, K., ‘Der Pentateuch und seine Theologiegeschichte,’ Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 111 (2014) 239–270. Schmid, K., ‘The Sources of the Pentateuch, Their Literary Extent and the Bridge between Genesis and Exodus: A Survey of Scholarship since Astruc,’ in C. Berner, H. Samuel, and S. Germany (eds.), Book-Seams in the Hexateuch I: The Literary Transitions between the Books of Genesis/ Exodus and Joshua/Judges (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2018), 21–41.

244

Bibliography

Schmid, K., ‘Taming Egypt: The Impact of Persian Imperial Ideology and Politics on the Biblical Exodus Account,’ in M. Popović, M. Schoonover, and M. Vandenberghe (eds.), Jewish Cultural Encounters in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern World (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 178; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2017), 13–29. Schmidt, L., ‘Sihon und Og in Num 21,21ff.* Dtn 2,24ff.*: Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung des Buches Numeri,’ in C. Frevel, T. Pola, and A. Schart (eds.), Torah and the Book of Numbers (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.62; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2013), 314–333. Schmidt, L., Das vierte Buch Mose, vol. 2, Numeri 10,11–36,13 (Das Alte Testament Deutsch 7/2; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Güttingen 2004). Schmidt, L., ‘Die vorpriesterliche Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus durch die Josefsgeschichte (Gen 37; 39–50*) und Exodus 1,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 124 (2012) 19–37. Schmidt, W. H., Exodus, vol. 1, Exodus 1–6 (Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament 2/1; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1988); vol. 2, Exodus 7–15,21 (Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament 2/2; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2019). Schmitt, H.-C., ‘Erzvätergeschichte und Exodusgeschichte als konkurrierende Ursprungslegenden Israels – ein Irrweg der Pentateuchforschung,’ in A. C. Hagedorn and H. Pfeiffer (eds.), Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition, Festschrift M. Köckert (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fúr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 400; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2009), 241–266. Schmitt, H.-C., ‘Die “Sinai-Ouvertüre” in Ex 19:3b–9 als nachpriesterliche Verbindung zwischen Pentateuch und Vorderen Propheten,’ in F. Giuntoli and K. Schmid (eds.), The Post-Priestly Pentateuch: New Perspectives on Its Redactional Development and Theological Profiles (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 101; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2015), 277–303. Schmitt, H.-C., ‘Das sogenannte jahwistische Privilegrecht in Ex 34,10–28 als Komposition der spätdeuteronomischen Endredaktion des Pentateuch,’ in J. C. Gertz, K. Schmid, and M. Witte (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 315; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2002), 157–171. Schmitt, H.-C., ‘»Versuchung durch Gott« und »Gottesfurcht« in Gen 22,1.12 und Ex 20,20,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 126 (2014) 15–30. Schmitt, H.-C., ‘Wie deuteronomistisch ist der nichtpriesterliche Meerwunderbericht von Exodus 13,17–14,31?,’ Biblica 95 (2014) 26–48.

Bibliography

245

Schöning, B., Drei Dinge sind es, die mir wunderbar sind, und vier, die ich nicht begreife: Bileams Segen über Israel (Num 21,41–24,25) (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 132; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2013). Schorch, S., ‘Dissimilatory Reading and the Making of Biblical Texts: The Jewish Pentateuch and the Samaritan Pentateuch,’ in R. F. Person, Jr. and R. Rezetko (eds.), Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 25; SBL: Atlanta 2016), 109–127. Schorch, S., ‘Der Pentateuch der Samaritaner: Seine Erforschung und seine Bedeutung für das Verständnis des alttestamentlichen Bibeltextes,’ in J. Frey, U. Schattner-Rieser, and K. Schmid (eds.), Die Samaritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen (Studia Judaica 70 / Studia Samaritana 7; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2012), 5–29. Scoralick, R., Gottes Güte und Gottes Zorn: Die Gottesprädikationen in Exodus 34,6f und ihre intertextuellen Beziehungen zum Zwölfprophetenbuch (Herders Biblische Studien 33; Herder: Freiburg im Breisgau [et al.] 2002). Screnock, J., ‘The Syntax of Complex Adding Numerals and Hebrew Diachrony,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 137 (2018) 789–819. Seebass, H., ‘Das Buch Numeri in der heutigen Pentateuchdiskussion,’ in T. Römer (ed.), The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 215; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, MA 2008), 233–259. Seebass, H., Numeri, vol. 1, Numeri 1,1–10,10 (Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament 4/1; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2012); vol. 2, Numeri 10,11–22,1 (Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament 4/2; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2003); vol. 3, Numeri 22,2–36,13 (Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament 4/3; Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2007). Sénéchal, V., ‘Quel horizon d’écriture pour Nb 14,11–25? Essai de sondage des soubassements de cette péricope,’ in T. Römer (ed.), The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 215; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, MA 2008), 609–629. Ska, J. L., Le passage de la mer: Étude de la construction, du style et de la symbolique d’Ex 14,1–31 (Analecta Biblica 109; 2nd ed., Pontificio Istituto Biblico: Roma 1997). Ska, J. L., ‘Some Empirical Evidence in Favor of Redaction Criticism,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 567–577.

246

Bibliography

Sklar, J., ‘Sin and Atonement: Lessons from the Pentateuch,’ Bulletin for Biblical Research 22 (2012) 467–491. Sklar, J., Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions (Hebrew Bible Monographs 2; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2005). Smith, D. C., The Role of Mothers in the Genealogical Lists of Jacob’s Sons (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 90; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Bristol, CT 2018). Smoak, J. D., The Priestly Blessing in Inscription and Scripture: The Early History of Numbers 6:24–26 (Oxford University: New York 2016). Stackert, J., ‘The Composition of Exodus 31:12–17 and 35:1–3 and the Question of Method in Identifying Priestly Strata in the Torah,’ in R. E. Gane and A. Taggar-Cohen (eds.), Current Issues in Priestly and Related Literature: The Legacy of Jacob Milgrom and Beyond (Resources for Biblical Study 82; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2015), 175–196. Stackert, J., ‘Mosaic Prophecy and the Deuteronomic Source of the Torah,’ in K. Schmid and R. F. Person, Jr. (eds.), Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.56; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 47–63. Stackert, J., Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 52; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007). Stackert, J., ‘The Sabbath of the Land in the Holiness Legislation: Combining Priestly and Non-Priestly Perspectives,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 73 (2011) 239–250. Stökl, J., ‘Innovating Ordination,’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 7 (2018) 483–499. Stoppel, H., Von Angesicht zu Angesicht: Ouvertüre am Horeb: Deuteronomium 5 und 9–10 und die Textgestalt ihrer Folie (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 109; Theologischer: Zürich 2018). Stuart, D. K., Exodus (New American Commentary 2; Broadman & Holman: Nashville, TN 2006). Teeter, D. A., ‘Textgeschichte, Fortschreibung, und Rechtshermeneutik: Das Problem der “profanen” Schlachtung in Lev 17,’ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 2 (2013) 287–314. Timmer, D. C., Creation, Tabernacle, and Sabbath: The Sabbath Frame of Exodus 31:12–17; 35:1–3 in Exegetical and Theological Perspective (Forschungen zur

Bibliography

247

Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 227; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2009). Tronina, A., Księga Kapłańska: Wstęp, przekład z oryginału, komentarz (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny: Stary Testament 3; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2006). Tucker, P. N., The Holiness Composition in the Book of Exodus (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.98; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2017). Utzschneider, H., and Oswald, W., Exodus 1–15 (Internationaler Exegetischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2013). Van Seters, J., ‘Creative Imitation in the Hebrew Bible,’ in id., Changing Perspectives I: Studies in the History, Literature, and Religion of Biblical Israel (Copenhagen International Seminar; Equinox: London · Oakville 2011), 307–320. Van Seters, J., ‘Cultic Laws in the Covenant Code and their Relationship to Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code,’ in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction – Reception – Interpretation (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 126; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1996), 319–345. Van Seters, J., ‘Dating the Yahwist’s History: Principles and Perspectives,’ Biblica 96 (2015) 1–25. Van Seters, J., A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code (Oxford University: Oxford · New York 2003). Van Seters, J., The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers (Westminster/John Knox: Louisville, KY 1994). Van Seters, J., The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary (2nd ed.; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London · New York 2015). Van Seters, J., ‘The Report of the Yahwist’s Demise Has Been Greatly Exaggerated!,’ in T. B. Dozeman and K. Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (Symposium Series 34; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2006), 143–157. Van Seters, J., ‘Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code and a Response to My Critics,’ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 21 (2007) 5–28. Wagenaar, J., ‘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.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction – Reception – Interpretation (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 126; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1996), 461–470.

248

Bibliography

Wajdenbaum, P., ‘Is the Bible a Platonic Book?,’ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 24 (2010) 129–142. Wal, A. J. O. van der, ‘Themes from Exodus in Jeremiah 30–31,’ in M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction – Reception – Interpretation (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 126; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1996), 559–566. Watts, J. W., Leviticus 1–10 (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, MA 2013). Wenham, G. J., The Book of Leviticus (New International Commentary on the Old Testament; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI 1979). Wénin, A., ‘Josué 1–12 comme récit,’ in E. Noort (ed.), The Book of Joshua (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 250; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, MA 2012), 109–135. Wénin, A., ‘Le serpent de Nb 21,4–9 et de Gn 3,1: Intertextualité et élaboration du sens,’ in T. Römer (ed.), The Books of Leviticus and Numbers (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 215; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, MA 2008), 545–554. Weyde, K. W., The Appointed Festivals of YHWH: The Festival Calendar in Leviticus 23 and the sukkôt Festival in Other Biblical Texts (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.4; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2004). Whitekettle, R., ‘Life’s Labors Lost: Priestly Death and Returning Home From a City of Refuge in Ancient Israel,’ Harvard Theological Review 111 (2018) 333–356. Widmer, M., Moses, God, and the Dynamics of Intercessory Prayer: A Study of Exodus 32–34 and Numbers 13–14 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.8; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2004). Wilson, I. D., ‘The Song of the Sea and Isaiah: Exodus 15 in Post-monarchic Prophetic Discourse,’ in E. Ben Zvi and C. Levin (eds.), Thinking of Water in the Early Second Temple Period (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 461; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2014), 123–147. Winkler, M., ‘Der Levit als totaler Stellvertreter: theologische Vorstellungen zum Levitentum im Ausgang von Num 3–4,’ Biblische Notizen, nf 162 (2014) 3–22. Wiśniewski, P. A., La discendenza di Aronne: Studio diacronico di Es 24*; Lv 10*; Nm 17*; Nm 27* (Supplementi alla Rivista Biblica 62; Dehoniane: Bologna 2017).

Bibliography

249

Wöhrle, J., ‘Jacob, Moses, Levi: Pentateuchal Figures in the Book of the Twelve,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 997–1014. Wray Beal, L. M., ‘The Past as Threat and Hope: Reading Joshua with Numbers,’ Bulletin for Biblical Research 27 (2017) 461–483. Wright, B. G., III, ‘Ben Sira, Book of,’ in J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow (eds.), The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI · Cambridge 2010), 436–438. Wright, D. P., Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (Oxford University: New York 2009). Wright, D. P., ‘Law and Creation in the Priestly-Holiness Writings of the Pentateuch,’ in K. Schmid and C. Uehlinger (eds.), Laws of Heaven – Laws of Nature: Legal Interpretations of Cosmic Phenomena in the Ancient World (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 276; Academic: Fribourg / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2016), 71–101. Wright, D. P., ‘Source Dependence and the Development of the Pentateuch: The Case of Leviticus 24,’ in J. C. Gertz [et al.] (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 111; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2016), 651–682. Wright, R. M., Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-exilic Date of the Yahwistic Source (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 419; T&T Clark International: London · New York 2012). Yoo, P. Y., ‘Armed for Battle? On the Meaning of ‫ חמשים‬in Exodus 13,18,’ Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 128 (2016) 42–48. Yoo, P. Y., ‘Once Again: The Yam Sûp of the Exodus,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 137 (2018) 581–597. Zahn, M. M., ‘Reexamining Empirical Models: The Case of Exodus 13,’ in E. Otto and R. Achenbach (eds.), Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk (Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 206; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2004), 36–55. Zehnder, M., ‘Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28: Some Observations on Their Relationship,’ in M. Armgardt, B. Kilchör, and M. Zehnder (eds.), Paradigm Change in Pentateuchal Research (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 22; Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden 2019), 115–175.

250

Bibliography

Zehnder, M., ‘Structural Complexity, Semantic Ambiguity, and the Question of Literary Integrity: A New Reading of Leviticus 26,14–45,’ in H. Jenni [et al.] (eds.), Nächstenliebe und Gottesfurcht, Festschrift H.-P. Mathys (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 439; Ugarit: Münster 2016), 503–530. Zenger, E., and Frevel, C., ‘Theorien über die Entstehung des Pentateuch im Wandel der Forschung,’ in C. Frevel (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1,1; 9th ed., W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2016), 87–135.

Index of ancient sources (selected) 

Old Testament Genesis 1:28  32, 42 4:2  33, 50 6:4 171 6:14–9:18 48 6:18 65 8:13–14 57 9:7 42 9:23  37, 80 11:3 63 12:6–7  38, 80 13:16 189 14:18–20  38, 155 n. 9, 214 15:7 65 15:13–14 81 15:13  43, 81 15:16 43 16:7 93 17:1 64–5 17:8 65 17:10–14 60 17:10 82 17:14 77 20:1 93 20:3 189 22:1–14  38, 80 22:2–3 73 22:8–9 73 22:11 51 22:12 73 22:15–17  32, 106 22:16–17 81 24:26 61 24:48 61 25:18 93

26:3–4  32, 81, 107 27:29 190 28:3 65 28:13 65 28:14 189 29:6–10 49 31:11 89 31:24 189 33:2  155 n. 10 33:17 81 34:19 73 35:9 65 35:11 65 35:23–26 41 36:4–17 49 36:43 92 38:7–10 32 38:18 55 41:8 69 41:35 69 41:46 42 41:49 69 42:11–34 70 43:28 61 43:32 70 45:10 70 46:2 51 46:8–24 192 46:8 41 46:9–27 192 46:9–10 67 46:11 67 46:26–27  32, 41 46:34 70 47:11 44

252 48:3 65 48:4  32, 107 48:22  37, 80 49:3 67 49:4–7 67 49:9 190 50:4–7 42 50:23 192 50:24  44, 53 50:25  32, 53, 86–7 Exodus 1 41–7 1:5 32 1:7 32 1:8 213 1:9  62, 211 1:11–12 143 1:13–14 59 1:14 63 1:16 211 1:23 59 2:1  67, 207 2:5 70 2:21–22 100 2:22 191–3 2:23 59 3:1–6:1 212 3  23, 50–5 3:1  33, 49, 58 3:2 88 3:15 99 3:18 210 3:22 80 4:1–17 55–8 4:3 69 4:4 212 4:8 211 4:14–16 68 4:15 210 4:18–31 58 4:21 69

Index of ancient sources

4:24 211 4:29 64 5:1–6:1 61–4 5:3 53 6:2–7:13 64–9, 212 6:9 63 6:16–20 43 6:23  38, 155 n. 9, 214 7:7 202 7:14–11:10 69–73 7:15 69 11:2 80 11:4–5 79 11:5 79 12:1–13 73–6 12:2  160 n. 28 12:3–7 78 12:3 211 12:6  140, 160, 210 12:8 77 12:10 95 12:11 160 12:12–13 78 12:12 79 12:14–28 76–9 12:16 141 12:23 76 12:24 160 12:29–51 79–82 12:29–30 213 12:34–35a 37–8, 214 12:40–41 43 12:43 160 13 23 13:1–16 82–5 13:12 210 13:16 210 13:17–14:31 85–90 13:19 32 14:6–9 214 14:11–12 94 14:23–24 92

Index of ancient sources

14:28 92 15 24 15:1–21 90–3 15:12 69 15:14–16 24 15:18 213 15:19 213 15:20 165 15:22–16:36 93–6 16:8 164 16:13 164 16:15 163 16:31 163 17 97–9 17:1–7  29, 183 17:6 183 17:8–16 27 17:14  29, 210 17:14d 27 18–31 99–105 18–20 23 18 21 18:3  49 n. 25 19–24 30 19:1 11 19:3–6 26 19:3d–24:11 209 19:12–13a 29 19:23–24 29 20–23  30 n. 93 20:12  30 n. 93 20:15 137 20:22–23:19 29–30 20:22–26 26 20:24–26 30 20:24  30 n. 93 21:12–14 30 21:23–25 145 22:28–29 30 23 23 23:10–11 146 23:19  30 n. 93, 113

23:20–33  20, 30 n. 93 23:23 213 23:28–30 213 23:31  86 n. 135 24:3–8 26 24:4–5  30 n. 93 24:4 99 24:11b 26 24:12 30 24:13b 30 24:18b 30 25:1–31:17 209 25 29 25:2 116 25:3–7 116 25:4 95 25:6 116–17 25:7 117 25:10–26:37 116 25:10–39 119 25:22 159 25:30 144 25:31–39  116, 159 25:37 159 26:1–32 119 26:30 121 26:31–33 121 26:35 121 26:36–37  117, 119 27:1–16 121 27:1–8 120 27:1 120 27:4 117 27:9–19  117, 120 27:20–21 144 28:1 126 28:2–42 120 28:2 120 28:8 120 28:12 120 28:28 120 28:34 120

253

254

Index of ancient sources

28:37 120 28:40 120 28:42 35 29:1–3 126 29:4–9  121, 127 29:4 126 29:10–26 127 29:21  127, 181 29:27 158 29:29–30 127 29:31–43 127 30:1–9 117 30:1–5 119 30:12–16 120 30:18–21  35, 121 30:18 120–1 30:25–31 121 30:25 119 30:28 117 31:2–6 118 31:2  37, 214 31:6  37, 214 31:8–11 117 31:15  115, 140 31:18 30 32–34  30, 102 n. 194, 105–10 32:9 210 32:10 173 32:13  32, 81 32:20 30 33:2 213 33:7–11 122 33:7 211 33:9–10 173 34 22–3, 111–14 34:1–5 21 34:1–4 30 34:1 210 34:3  38, 214 34:6–7  30, 174 34:11 213

34:23 210 34:26 210 34:28–29 30 34:28 211 34:29–30 212 35–40  102 n. 194 35 114–18 35:2 140 35:3 212 35:22 120 35:30–36:2  37, 214 35:31–36:1 35 36–40 119–22 36:8–37:29 209 37:1  37, 214 38:22–23  37, 214 39:28 35 40:1 123 40:12 126 40:17 11 40:21 114 40:34–38 161 40:35 123 Leviticus 1–7 123–6 1:2 11 2 209 4:1–6:6 209 4–5 22 6:3 35 6:7–7:15 209 7:16–18 136 7:35–38 11 8–9 126–8 8:33–36 11 9:1 11 10 128–31 10:16–20 212 11–16 22 11 21–2, 131–3

Index of ancient sources

11:1–21 25 11:3 210 11:4 210 11:7–8 210 11:15–16 210 12–22 133–9 12:6–16:34 209 15:18  180, 182 15:29 143 16 29 16:4 35 16:29–31 143 17–27 22 17:3–5 212 18:22 69 19:9–10 142 20:13 69 20:21 27 21 209 22:27 143 23 22 23:1–14 139–41 23:5  73, 160 n. 28 23:6–8 127 23:8 143 23:15–22 141–2 23:23–44 143–4 23:34–42 127 24–25 144–7 24 28 24:11  38, 214 25 23–4, 209 25:2–7  21, 23 25:8–55 21 26–27 147–51 26 26 26:36–45 26 26:36–38 26 26:39–45 26 26:46 210 27:1–11 27

27:2 212 27:34 208 Numbers 1–26 39 1–2 153–6 1:1  11, 123, 160 n. 28 1:2–3 191–3 1:4–17 213 1:5–15  38, 214 1:10  38, 214 1:18 11 1:20–43 192 2:1–32  38, 161, 214 2:2 109 2:3–31  167, 192 2:17–18 38 2:17  109, 161 3–8 156–60 3:24 73 3:38  38, 155 n. 9, 214 4 209 7:1–88 36 9:1–11:3 160–2 9:1–14 36 9:1 11 9:3–5 73 10:14–28  38, 214 10:14–27  167, 192 10:14 155 10:17 11 10:21–22  38, 155 10:22 155 10:29  49, 59 10:33 155 11  21, 23 11:4–12:16 163–6 11:7–8 96 11:16–17 213 11:24–29 213 11:28 167

255

256 11:33 210 12:5 173 13–14  25, 29–30 13:1–26 166–70 13:16  212, 214 13:21 212 13:22 212 13:23 212 13:27–14:45 170–7 13:30  39, 214 14:6–9 39 14:9 213 15:1–18:32b 177–9 15:22–18:26d 209 16 24 16:32 24 18:20–32 22 18:32c–19:22 179–82 19 22 20:1–22:1 183–8 20–21 22 20:1–13 29 20:1 170 20:14 213 21:1–22:1 209 21 25 21:1–3 213 21:1 213 21:2–3 176–7 21:3 176 21:4  86 n. 135 21:21–35 25 21:21 213 21:26 213 21:33 213 22:1 191–3 22:2–25:19 188–91 22:4 213 22:5 29 22:8–24:25 209 23:21 213 24:7  34, 213

Index of ancient sources

24:17 213 24:21–22  39, 214 25:6–18 198 26  39, 191–3 26:4 209 26:19 32 26:57–62 209 26:57–59 43 26:65a–c 209 26:65d 209 27–36 39 27  39, 193–6 27:1–11 206 28–31 196–9 28:3–29:11 209 28:16 73 29:1 143 29:12 143 29:13–36 212 31:1–54 36 31:8 213 31:17–18 69 31:35 69 32–33 199–202 32:1–33 24 32:13 42 33:5–49 11 33:38 11 33:52 213 34–35 203–6 34:17  39, 214 34:19–28  39, 215 36  39, 206–8 36:1 33 Deuteronomy 1:1–12:12 41–122 1–3  22, 29 1 30 1:1–39b 41–7 1:1  48, 50 n. 29, 86 n. 135, 161, 165

Index of ancient sources

1:2 50 1:3 11 1:3c 33 1:4 187 1:9–18 21 1:9 100 1:10 58 1:11 211 1:12–13 101 1:12 164 1:13 163 1:15–16 101 1:15  62, 86, 101, 163 1:17 101 1:19–46 25 1:19  50 n. 27 1:21–23 167 1:21 171 1:22–25 30 1:22–23 166–7 1:22 211 1:24–25 168 1:24 167–8, 170 1:25  168, 171–1 1:28  30, 168–9, 171 1:30 88 1:31  50 n. 27 1:32–33 87 1:35 175 1:36  167, 171, 175 1:37 167 1:38 175 1:39  171, 176 1:40 50 nn. 27–9, 71, 86, 175 1:41–44 177 1:44 176 1:46 183 2:1–5:3 213 2–3 50–5 2 25 2:1  86, 185 2:2–6  184 n. 95

2:4–7 183–4 2:4  33, 184 2:8  186, 201 2:13–14 186 2:14  42, 200 2:18–37 185 2:18 186 2:24–3:11 25 2:24 186 2:25  24, 92 2:26  184, 186 2:27–29 187 2:27  184, 210 2:28 184 2:29 184 2:30 184 2:32–34 185 2:32  184, 187 2:36–37 187 2:36 187 2:37 187 3:1–3 188 3:4–17 64 3:12  188, 200 3:13 201 3:14 201 3:15 201 3:16–17 204 3:16 200 3:18–20 24 3:18–19 200 3:19 200 4 25 4:1–18 55–8 4:1  150, 210 4:2 63 4:3 190 4:4 212 4:5  150, 210 4:6 211 4:8  150, 210 4:10–11 51

257

258 4:14  150, 210 4:16 124 4:18 138 4:19–35 58 4:21–22 211 4:24 113 4:26–31 26 4:28 66 4:31 112 4:34 54 4:35 62 4:36–5:3 61–4 4:38 113 4:43 167 4:45  150, 210 4:47 201 5 30 5:1  66, 150, 210 5:4–16 64–9, 213 5:6–21 102 5:9–10 112 5:12–15 62 5:12 136 5:13–14 113 5:17–31 69–73 5:19 137 5:20 96 5:22–26 60 5:24 110 5:31  150, 210 5:32–6:15 73–6 6:1  150, 210 6:3  53, 211 6:7–8 84 6:8  85, 210 6:10 52 6:15 98 6:16–25 76–9 6:16  29, 97–8 6:20–21 85 6:20  150, 210 6:22 69

Index of ancient sources

7:1–12 79–82 7:1–2  79, 112, 213 7:1 43 7:2–5 213 7:2 213 7:3–4 113 7:5 112 7:5ab 38 7:8 54 7:11  150, 210 7:13–15 82–5 7:13 210 7:16–21 85–90 7:16 112 7:18 100 7:21b–26 90–3 7:24 213 8:1–14 93–6 8:4 80 8:7–8 183 8:7 52 8:15–9:3 97–9 8:15  29, 186 8:19 113 9–10 30 9:4–11 99–105 9:5  52, 56 9:9–11 30 9:9a 209 9:9ef 209 9:10 70 9:12–12:12  102 n. 194 9:12–29 105–10 9:13 210 9:14 173 9:18  114, 211 9:21 30 9:22  29, 97, 162, 165 9:23 55 9:26  162, 174 9:28  88, 174, 212 10–11 25

Index of ancient sources

10:1–5  21, 30, 111–14 10:2 210 10:3  104, 119 10:4 107 10:5  57, 212 10:6–11:32 114–18 10:6  47, 57, 67, 184, 201 10:7 201 10:8  57, 119 10:9–10 30 10:11  30, 212 10:19 137 10:22 184 11 24 11:2 91 11:3–4 87 11:4  50 n. 29, 86 n. 135, 87 11:6  24, 69, 91, 178 11:18  85, 210 11:29–12:5  38, 80 11:30–12:5 159 11:32  150, 210 11:33 202 12–26  24, 26 12 30 12:1–12 119–22 12:1  150, 210 12:2–26:15 27 12:5a–c 209 12:6 151 12:13–17:13 123–51 12:13–18b 123–6 12:14bc 209 12:15 134 12:16b 209 12:17ab 209 12:18c–28 126–8 12:20 113 12:23 135 12:29–14:3 128–31 13:1 63 13:2 69

13:18 106 14 21–2, 131 n. 33 14:1 139 14:3–21 25 14:3 212 14:4–21e 131–3 14:6 210 14:7 210 14:8  125, 210 14:14–15 210 14:21  113, 211 14:21f–29 133–9 14:22–29 23 14:22 212 14:22a 209 14:29f 209 15:1–16:8 139–41 15  21, 23–4 15:1–18 23 15:1–11 21 15:1 146 15:9 146 15:12–18 21 15:12 147 15:13 54 15:18 147 15:19  79, 83 15:21 139 16 22 16:1–8 23 16:1  76, 82–3 16:2–3 75 16:2  74, 78, 113 16:3–4 77 16:3  75, 83 16:4  75, 113 16:5–8  38, 80 16:5–6 78 16:6  74, 84 16:7 75 16:8  75, 77, 83 16:9–11 141–2

259

260 16:10 113 16:12–17a 143–4 16:13 113 16:15 61 16:16  75, 113, 210 16:17b–20 144–7 16:20b–d 209 16:21–17:13 147–51 17:6 206 17:9  57, 206 n. 176, 212 17:10–11  58, 210 17:14–34:12 153–208 17:14–20 153–6 17:14–15 213 17:15  38, 214 17:18 57 18:1–7a 156–60 18:1 124 18:2b 209 18:6  49 n. 25 18:7b–14 160–2 18:10 137 18:11 137 18:15–22 163–6 18:18 213 18:19 210 19 166–70 19:3 212 19:4  48, 205 19:6 205 19:8  113, 212 19:11 205 19:12 206 19:14 212 19:15 212 19:21 145 20:1–17 170–7 20:1–2  155 n. 9 20:1 44 20:13–14 45–6 20:16–17 213 20:17 53

Index of ancient sources

20:18–20 177–9 20:18d 209 21:1–23:1 179–82 21 22 22:9–11 137 22:12 178 23:2–5b 183–8 23:4–5b 209 23:5c–9 188–91 23:6a–c 209 23:10–30:20 191–3 23:11–27:10 209 23:11–12 33 23:11 125 23:20 147 24:8  134, 210 24:9 166 24:14 137 25:1–2 48 25:3 48 25:5–10 27 25:11 48 25:15 138 25:17–19 27 25:17–18 98 25:19  99, 210 25:19e 27 26:1–11 141 26:6–7 53 26:6 44 26:7 70 26:12–15 23 26:12 178 26:16  150, 210 26:17  150, 210 27:4–8  38, 80 27:7 124 27:12–13 118 27:14–28:68 209 27:15 105 27:24 48 28–30 26

Index of ancient sources

28  24, 26 28:4  84, 210 28:15–68 148 28:18  84, 210 28:22 149 28:23 149 28:25 149 28:27 71 28:29 71 28:36 213 28:51  84, 210 28:53 149 28:68 88 28:69 103 29 209 29:1 100 29:13 112 30–31 25 30 209 30:20 52 31:1–8 193–6 31:2 69 31:7 98 31:9–32:45 196–9 31:9 57 31:10 212 31:10c 209 31:14–15 110 31:15  87, 173 31:16 113 31:17–18 52 31:19 90 31:20 173 31:22 90 31:23 53 31:25–26 57 32:6 92 32:12 87 32:13 29 32:15 29 32:46–51 199–202 32:48–51 195

32:48 57 32:49  167, 186 32:50–52 184 32:50  47, 57 32:51  97, 169, 183 32:52–33:29 203–6 32:52  167, 184 33:2  50, 94, 170 33:5a 39 33:8–9  67, 108 33:8  29, 97, 108, 127 33:11 108 33:16 50 33:17  83, 190 33:20 190 33:28 189 34 206–8 34:1  186, 188 34:7  69, 202 34:8  185, 188 34:9 195–6 34:10 110 34:11 100 Joshua 1:1 104 1:5 53 1:8 84 2:1 190 2:4 47 2:9–10 91 2:9 24 2:24  24, 91 3  89 n. 145 3:1 190 3:4 51 3:7 53 3:13 91 3:15–4:19 73 3:16–17 89 3:16  89, 91 4:7 77

261

262 4:12 86 4:16 96 4:18 89 4:19 73 4:20 98 4:22 88 5:2–3 60 5:10 74 5:11 75 5:13–14 189 5:13 161 5:15 51–2 6:16 161 6:20 161 7:26 106 8:11 101 8:18 98 8:19 88 8:26  88, 99 8:30–35  38, 80 8:33  38, 78, 111 9:1 53 9:18 93 11:3 171 11:20 59 12:8 53 13:15–31 208 13:21 199 13:22 188 13:31 201 13:32 188 14:1  39, 204 14:6–17:18 208 14:6 167 15:1–4 203 15:5 204 15:10 73 15:12 203 15:13–14 169 15:13 167 17:1–6 27

Index of ancient sources

17:1–3 192 17:3–4  27, 194 18:1 200 18:10–19:48 208 19:10–39 204 19:40–46 204 19:49–50 207 19:51  39, 192, 204 20:1–9  205 n. 175 20:2–3 205 20:2  206 n. 175 20:3 125 20:5–6 205 20:5 205 20:6  139, 206 20:7–9 206 20:7–8  63, 167 20:7 169 20:9  125, 206 21:1–2 205 21:4 57 21:10 57 21:13  167, 169 21:21 167 21:27 167 21:32 167 21:36 167 21:38 167 21:41 205 21:42 205 22:13 67 22:19 119 22:29 119 23:13 202 24:1–27  38, 80 24:6 87 24:7 88 24:9  42, 188 24:19 112 24:29–30 207 24:30  39, 172

Index of ancient sources

Judges 1:16  39, 190 1:17 185 1:27 202 1:32–33 202 2:8 43 2:9  39, 172 2:10 43 3:5 53 4:11  49, 59, 161 4:15–16 92 4:15 89 4:16 89 5:3 90 5:5 94 5:26 91 5:29 91 6:9 52 6:12 50 6:13 54 6:16 53 6:20 89 8:11 201 8:20 58 9:2 163–4 9:5 163–4 9:18 163–4 11:18 186 11:19 186 11:20 187 11:21–22 187 11:25 188 11:26 187 11:34 92 13:4–5 158 13:6 89 13:9 89 13:14 158 17:5 108 17:7  49 n. 25 17:12 108 18:1–28 204

18:30 49 21:16 125 21:21 92 1 Kings 6:4 75 7:4–5 75 7:14 35 7:23–39 35 Nehemiah 13:28  38, 155 n. 9, 214 Proverbs 2:1–6 118 Sirach 44–49 36 Isaiah 6:3 174 10:26 88 11:2 164 12:2 90 15:2 187 19:22 69 24:8 58 25:1 90 34:10 99 40:2 150 42:1 164 42:13 90 42:14 44 42:24 91 43:21 91 49:18 175 51:10 89 51:16 58 52:10 88 59:21 58 62:5 60

263

264 Jeremiah 2:28 106 8:17 186 10:7 34 14:12 62 22:3 137 26:4 94 26:12–13 107 26:19 107 29:23 138 31:4 92 31:9 83 31:34 112 34:8 146 34:15 146 34:17 146 48:45–46 187 48:45 190 49:21  50 n. 29, 86 n. 135 49:34 34 52:18–19 120 52:31 34 Ezekiel 1:28 104 3:17–19 100 4:5–6 82 4:14 126 4:16 149 4:17 149 5:12 62 5:13 176 5:16 149 6:5 149 8:11 163 9:5–6 76 10:2 71 14:13 149 16:62 65 18:6 136 20:41 124 20:42 66

Index of ancient sources

22:7 138 22:10 136 22:26  130, 138 22:29 137 24:7 135 24:23 149 28:13 120 30:14 76 30:15–16 94 30:19 76 31:15 90 33:24 66 34:4 147 34:8 195 34:25 148 34:27 148 35:4 149 37:26–27 148 37:26 148 37:27 119 40:43 123 43:18 123 43:19 125 43:24 124 43:26 108 44:15 123 44:18  35, 120 44:19 125 44:23 130 44:30 113 45:10 138 45:11 96 45:12 151 45:15 123 45:17 109 45:19 74–5 45:21 73–5, 77 45:22–24 196–7 45:23 197 45:25 197 46:4–7 196 46:4–5 196

Index of ancient sources

46:6–7 196 46:13 74 46:14–15 196 46:14  77, 124 46:17 146 47:7–12 94 47:15–17 203 47:19 203 47:22 78 48:1 169 48:31–34 154 Hosea 8:13 109 9:9 109 9:10 190 10:8 149 12:3–14 33 12:6 53 Joel 2:13 112 3:1 164

Amos 4:10 62 Micah 6:4  48, 92 6:5  89 n. 145 Habakkuk 2:18–19 66 Other sources Ketef Hinnom amulets 1:14–18 158 2:1–4 159 2:5–12 158–9 Herodotus, Historiae 7.40  38, 155, 161

265

European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski Vol.

1

Bartosz Adamczewski: Retelling the Law. Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy. 2012.

Vol.

2

Jacek Grzybowski (ed.): Philosophical and Religious Sources of Modern Culture. 2012.

Vol.

3

Bartosz Adamczewski: Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels. 2013.

Vol.

4

Edmund Morawiec: Intellectual Intuition in the General Metaphysics of Jacques Maritain. A Study in the History of the Methodology of Classical Metaphysics. 2013.

Vol.

5

Edward Nieznański: Towards a Formalization of Thomistic Theodicy. Formalized Attempts to Set Formal Logical Bases to State First Elements of Relations Considered in the Thomistic Theodicy. 2013.

Vol.

6

Mariusz Rosik: “In Christ All Will Be Made Alive” (1 Cor 15:12-58). The Role of Old Testament Quotations in the Pauline Argumentation for the Resurrection. 2013.

Vol.

7

Jan Krokos: Conscience as Cognition. Phenomenological Complementing of Aquinas's Theory of Conscience. 2013.

Vol.

8

Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of Mark. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2014.

Vol.

9

Jacek Grzybowski: Cosmological and Philosophical World of Dante Alighieri. The Divine Comedy as a Medieval Vision of the Universe. 2015.

Vol.

10 Dariusz Karłowicz: The Archparadox of Death. Martyrdom as a Philosophical Category. 2016.

Vol.

11 Monika Ożóg: Inter duas potestates: The Religious Policy of Theoderic the Great. Translated by Marcin Fijak. 2016.

Vol.

12 Marek Dobrzeniecki: The Conflicts of Modernity in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. 2016.

Vol.

13 Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of Luke. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2016.

Vol.

14 Paweł Rytel-Andrianik: Manna – Bread from Heaven. Jn 6:22-59 in the Light of Ps 78:2325 and Its Interpretation in Early Jewish Sources. 2017.

Vol.

15 Jan Čížek: The Conception of Man in the Works of John Amos Comenius. 2016.

Vol.

16 Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of Matthew. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2017.

Vol.

17 Bartosz Adamczewski: The Gospel of John. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2018.

Vol.

18 Tomasz Stępień & Karolina Kochańczyk-Bonińska: Unknown God, Known in His Activities. 2018.

Vol.

19 Joanna Kulwicka-Kamińska: Dialogue of Scriptures. The Tatar Tefsir in the Context of Biblical and Qur’anic Interpretations. 2018.

Vol.

20 Mariusz Rosik: Church and Synagogue (30-313 AD). Parting of the Ways. 2019.

Vol.

21 Magdalena Zowczac (ed.): Catholic Religious Minorities in the Times of Transformation. Comparative Studies of Religious Culture in Poland and Ukraine. 2019.

Vol.

22 Cezary Korzec (ed.): Bible Caught in Violence. 2019.

Vol.

23 Magdalena Zowczak: The Folk Bible of Central-Eastern Europe. 2019.

Vol.

24 Sławomir Henryk Zaręba / Marcin Zarzecki (eds.): Between Construction and Deconstruction of the Universes of Meaning. Research into the Religiosity of Academic Youth in the Years 1988 – 1998 – 2005 – 2017. 2019.

Vol.

25 Bartosz Adamczewski: Genesis. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2020.

Vol.

26 Bartosz Adamczewski: Exodus–Numbers. A Hypertextual Commentary. 2020.

www.peterlang.com