Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch 9780567679079, 9780567679093, 9780567679086

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Copyright
Dedication
Contents
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
Chapter 1. Seeing the Unseen in the Pentateuch
1. Introduction
2. The Lay of the Land
3. Place, Method, and Scope of the Present Study
a. Place within the Discipline
b. Methodological Questions and Controls
c. The Program of This Study
Chapter 2. To See or Not to See: The Appearances of God in Genesis
1. Introduction
2. Genesis and the “Appearances” (ראה) of God
a. God Appears to Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar
b. God Appears to Isaac
c. God Appears to Jacob
d. Summary
Chapter 3. Hidden in the Clouds: The Appearances of God in Exodus
1. Introduction
2. Theophanies in Exodus
a. God Appears to Moses Pre-Sinai
b. God Appears to Israel Pre-Sinai
c. God Appears at Mt. Sinai
d. God Appears at the Tent of Meeting/Tabernacle
3. The Canonical Interchange and Theological Implications
Chapter 4. Cultic Theophanies and the Levitical Theophanic Type-Scene: The Appearances of God in Leviticus
1. Introduction
2. Leviticus within a Theophanic Context
3. Theophanic Narratives in Leviticus
a. YHWH’s Kabod Appears After Aaron’s Proper Sacrifices
b. YHWH’s Kabod Appears After Aaron’s Sons’ Improper Incense
Chapter 5. Theophanies (Re)Contextualized: The Appearances of God in Numbers
1. The Theophanic Hook with Exodus
2. Theophanies for the Murmuring: Exodus Redux
3. Korah and Boundaries: Leviticus Redux
4. The Balaam Story: Genesis Redux
5. Conclusion
Chapter 6. “There Was No Form”: Re-Reading the Type-Scenes with Deuteronomy
1. Deuteronomy as sui generis
2. Rereading the Horeb Theophany
a. Memory #1: Deuteronomy 4
b. Memory #2: Deuteronomy 5
c. Memory #3 and Forecasting a Horeb-like Theophany in Deuteronomy 9
d. Memory #4: Horeb and Forecasting a New Prophet in Deuteronomy 18
3. Resumption of Narrative, the Tent of Meeting, and the Return of the Exodus Type-Scene
4. The Blessing of Moses and the Death of Moses
a. The Blessing Song
b. The Death Epilogue
5. Conclusion
Chapter 7. Conclusions
1. Summary of Argument
2. The Discourse
3. Suggestions for Further Research
Bibliography
Index of References
Index of Authors

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

660 Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn

Editorial Board Alan Cooper, John Goldingay, Norman K. Gottwald, James E. Harding, John Jarick, Carol Meyers, Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, James W. Watts

THEOPHANIC “TYPE-SCENES” IN THE PENTATEUCH

Visions of YHWH

Nevada Levi DeLapp

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2018 Paperback edition first published 2019 Copyright © Nevada Levi DeLapp, 2018 Nevada Levi DeLapp has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgements on p. ix constitute an extension of this copyright page. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: HB: 978-0-5676-7907-9 PB: 978-0-5676-8960-3 ePDF: 978-0-5676-7908-6 Series: Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, volume 660 Typeset by: Forthcoming Publications Ltd (www.forthpub.com) To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

τῇ Ἀληθείᾳ μου καί τῷ Εὐαγγελίω μου To my Truth and to my Good News Blessed be the One dwelling in fire and unapproachable light, who gave you both to me as gifts

C on t en t s Acknowledgments ix Abbreviations xi Chapter 1 Seeing the Unseen in the Pentateuch 1. Introduction 2. The Lay of the Land 3. Place, Method, and Scope of the Present Study a. Place within the Discipline b. Methodological Questions and Controls c. The Program of This Study

1 1 5 9 9 10 13

Chapter 2 To See or Not to See: The Appearances of God in Genesis 1. Introduction 2. Genesis and the “Appearances” (‫ )ראה‬of God a. God Appears to Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar b. God Appears to Isaac c. God Appears to Jacob d. Summary

15 15 17 17 29 31 42

Chapter 3 Hidden in the Clouds: The Appearances of God in Exodus 1. Introduction 2. Theophanies in Exodus a. God Appears to Moses Pre-Sinai b. God Appears to Israel Pre-Sinai c. God Appears at Mt. Sinai d. God Appears at the Tent of Meeting/Tabernacle 3. The Canonical Interchange and Theological Implications

43 43 44 44 50 56 67 75

viii Contents

Chapter 4 Cultic Theophanies and the Levitical Theophanic Type-Scene: The Appearances of God in Leviticus 1. Introduction 2. Leviticus within a Theophanic Context 3. Theophanic Narratives in Leviticus a. YHWH’s Kabod Appears After Aaron’s Proper Sacrifices b. YHWH’s Kabod Appears After Aaron’s Sons’ Improper Incense Chapter 5 Theophanies (Re)Contextualized: The Appearances of God in Numbers 1. The Theophanic Hook with Exodus 2. Theophanies for the Murmuring: Exodus Redux 3. Korah and Boundaries: Leviticus Redux 4. The Balaam Story: Genesis Redux 5. Conclusion Chapter 6 “There Was No Form…”: Re-Reading the Type-Scenes with Deuteronomy 1. Deuteronomy as sui generis 2. Rereading the Horeb Theophany a. Memory #1: Deuteronomy 4 b. Memory #2: Deuteronomy 5 c. Memory #3 and Forecasting a Horeb-like Theophany in Deuteronomy 9 d. Memory #4: Horeb and Forecasting a New Prophet in Deuteronomy 18 3. Resumption of Narrative, the Tent of Meeting, and the Return of the Exodus Type-Scene 4. The Blessing of Moses and the Death of Moses a. The Blessing Song b. The Death Epilogue 5. Conclusion Chapter 7 Conclusions 1. Summary of Argument 2. The Discourse 3. Suggestions for Further Research

79 79 80 81 82 87

96 96 102 113 121 127

129 129 135 135 142 148 150 151 153 153 156 157 158 158 162 164

Bibliography 172 Index of References 179 Index of Authors 185

A c k n owl ed g me nts

I am grateful to all of the people who have contributed in direct and indirect ways. To begin with I would like to thank David M. Gunn, who read several chapters and gave me encouragement and much needed feedback. Thanks are also in order to both R. Michael Fox and Jason Merritt for their conversation and fellowship as I worked through drafts of the first five chapters. Andrew Compton deserves a note of thanks as well for reading and commenting on the first chapter. Thank you also to Doug Gropp for the camaraderie over lunch and the continued encouragement to maintain a spirit of ad fontes. I also received helpful feedback from the Southwest Regional SBL on March 2015 and the Clericus meeting of the Diocese of Mid-America of the Reformed Episcopal Church. In particular I am grateful for Richard Bautch’s suggestion that the presence of foreign gods in Gen 35:2 could lend anxiety to the story and for Claudia Camp’s suggestion that I look into Susan Niditch’s work. Thanks also to the anonymous readers at Bloomsbury T&T Clark. You pressed me to make the book better. (Without you there would be no chapter on Deuteronomy!) I am also grateful to my editors, Andrew Mein and Claudia Camp, for their interest in the project. I also wish to thank Duncan Burns for his continued excellence in copy-editing. Thank you to Alethea and Evangeline, my daughters, who were born during the writing process and who alternately delayed and hurried it along. This book is dedicated to you! Finally, I cannot adequately express my gratitude to my wife Karin. You are always there, and the Almighty alone knows what you mean to me.

*** All translations in this work are my own unless otherwise noted.

A b b rev i at i ons

AB BBR BHS

Anchor Bible Bulletin for Biblical Research Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997 BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CTQ Concordia Theological Quarterly ETR Etudes théologiques et religieuses FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament HThKAT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual ICC International Critical Commentary JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series LHBOTS Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies LXX Septuagint MT Masoretic Text NCB New Century Bible NGTT Nederduitse gereformeerde teologiese tydskrif NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Edited by Willem A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997 OBT Overtures to Biblical Theology OTL Old Testament Library ResQ Restoration Quarterly SBL Society of Biblical Literature SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series SBLSymS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76 TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by John T. Willis et al. 8 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006

xii Abbreviations TLZ VT VTSup WBC ZAW

Theologische Literaturzeitung Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Chapter 1 S e e i ng t h e U n s een i n t h e P e ntat e uch

‫הן יעבר עלי ולא אראה‬ ‫ויחלף ולא־אבין לו‬ Behold, he crosses over beside me, and I do not see. He passes by, and I do not perceive. Job 9:11

1. Introduction In 1966 Marc Chagall produced a now-famous rendition of Moses’ experience at the burning bush. In a dialogue of complementary colors, the primitivist painter portrays the moment when YHWH appears to Moses in the fire-laced shrub and gives the prophet his divine name. The blue-robed Moses’ wide eyes look away from the writhing orange and red tones of the bush. Meanwhile, the orange splashes of fire dominate the portion of the bush closest to the blue-clad, glory-horned prophet. The result of this color juxtaposition not only creates a sense of aesthetic harmony but more importantly a sense of distance between Moses and the visible representation of YHWH. The warm tones of the fire contrast with the cool shades of the robe. Here two worlds have come together in a numinous instant: the divine and the human. But this is no vague theophany. Chagall has signaled the particularity of the deity with a haloed solar disc bearing the Tetragrammaton emerging from behind the top of the flaming shrub. The effect is brilliant in its theological subtly. YHWH is both manifested in the flames dancing among the branches (i.e., immanent) and distant from the manifestation itself (i.e., transcendent). Adding to the ambiguity is the Angel of YHWH flying to the upper right of the disc and the bush. Painted predominately in green, he is distinct from the red flames that engulf the top of the crackling briar. Once again, Chagall’s mastery of color is on

2

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

display. The red and the green complement each other even as they create a visible delineation between the Angel and the bush (and thus YHWH). The Angel and YHWH are not identical. They belong to opposite colors. One might be tempted to speculate from this that Chagall’s reading of Exod 3:2 excluded the possibility that YHWH and the Angel are one and the same. However, a second Chagall painting dated to 1966 presents a more complicated picture. Here the entire Exodus narrative is on display with scenes from the Red Sea, Mt. Sinai, and the burning bush side by side. In this version, Chagall offers the same basic design concept for the narrative of the burning bush but with one significant difference. The Tetragrammaton no longer stands at the center of the now red and yellow halo. Instead, the translucent, greenish Angel of YHWH takes its place with its arms and wings spread in announcement and benediction. And yet the nimbus and the Angel are still not identical. The complementary red of the halo and the green of the background behind the semi-transparent Angel insure that there cannot be full identification. When considered together, Chagall’s paintings present something of a case study of the ambiguities surrounding theophanies in the Hebrew Bible. When YHWH “appears” in a story, does he really appear or does something else visibly represent him? When the Angel of YHWH appears is he such a representation, or is he YHWH embodied? Why is it that YHWH seems to appear in different ways to different people? In Gen 18 YHWH walks into Abraham’s camp in the form of a man, yet in Exod 3 he is alternatively fire and/or the Angel. Over the centuries Christian theologians and Jewish Rabbis have struggled with these questions. For religions acutely conscious of the prohibition of graven images, the Hebrew Bible’s repeated descriptions of YHWH’s visible presence present something of a dilemma. How can the Ineffable, Invisible One be seen? The text itself seems to wrestle with this problem. When Moses asks to “see” YHWH’s “glory” (Exod 33:18), YHWH allows him to see his “back” but refuses to show him his “face” (v. 23). “You cannot see my face, for no human being is able to see my face and live” (v. 20). It seems that some “parts” of God (to put it crudely) can be seen, but others cannot. Elsewhere, in Num 12:8 Miriam and Aaron’s protest against Moses receives a lively rebuke from YHWH. Moses is special for he speaks with YHWH “mouth-to-mouth” and “looks upon” the mysterious “form of YHWH.” Moses does see something, but the text is reticent to explain what exactly he sees.

1. Seeing the Unseen in the Pentateuch

3

All of the stories of YHWH’s appearing share in this elusive (and allusive) quality. There is always a dialectic of Yes and No. Sometimes the dialectic is as simple as a narrative gap. Take the first official theophany of the Pentateuch: “And YHWH appeared to Abram” (Gen 12:7). Did YHWH visibly appear? Yes. Do we receive any information about what his appearance entailed? No. The story is content to let the reader ruminate and puzzle over a divine appearance that lacks any optical description. And, of course, that is the point. In its current canonical form, the text refuses to paint a picture. The seen YHWH cannot be re-seen through narrative description. The reader’s imagination is left to itself to construct the image of a faceless deity with only the available, muted fragments of his “back.” It is as if the final form has hedged YHWH about to keep prying eyes from seeing to their own destruction. And so masterpieces like Chagall’s that play the biblical game of indirection serve to drive us back to the narrative and force upon us the underlying question: What exactly is a biblical theophany? The answer may seem simple at first glance: the appearance of the Israelite God. But since we have strayed to the textual level of the narrative, we must complicate the question ever so slightly: What is a theophany as a textual event? To ask the question another way: How do theophanies exist in the story itself? Are the theophanic stories unique in any way, displaying a distinct pattern of narrative discourse? Or are they random unconnected narrative episodes? In the present study I will attempt to analyze the literary shape of theophanic narratives at this textual level. My interest is in observing their narrative quality and what that tells us about them. I am convinced that the “how” of their telling, their “discourse” (to use structuralist language1), tells its own tale. Just as Chagall’s patterned use of color and composition (his “discourse”) signals a way to read the tale of the burning bush, the narrative artistry of the theophanic stories teaches the willing reader to read the stories in a specific way. 1. Chatman offers the following helpful distinction based on structuralist theory: “each narrative has two parts: a story (histoire), the content or chain of events (actions, happenings), plus what may be called the existents (characters, items of setting); and a discourse (discours), that is, the expression, the means by which the content is communicated. In simple terms, the story is the what in a narrative that is depicted, discourse the how.” See Seymour Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978), 19. Granted, at its best the distinction is a heuristic device. However, even with the dicey waters surrounding the difficulty of distinguishing form from content, I still think there is a level at which the distinction is helpful and gives us insight into the different ontological aspects of a story.

4

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

When subjected to a close reading, the narrative discourse is surprisingly uniform and repetitive. There are narrative patterns afoot in the text! The theophanic narratives of the Pentateuch that I will examine display a variety of “type-scenes.” In this, of course, I am not proposing something completely new. My work in the following pages builds off of that of previous scholars, most notably George Savran. However, what is new is my analysis of the patterns of theophanic stories within the broader scope of their plotted narrative arc and my contention that there are multiple theophanic type-scenes in the Pentateuch itself (as opposed to a single type-scene for the entire Hebrew Bible). To my knowledge no one has read the Pentateuch theophanies in this synchronic, pluriform manner. Before turning to a genealogy of my project, a brief word is in order regarding my choice to limit this study to the Pentateuch. Oftentimes, studies of biblical theophanies span a variety of textual genres and books, including narrative, psalmic, and prophetic texts. While such studies are important in offering a sense of theophanies in the broader Hebrew Bible, they always run the risk of overgeneralizing and not allowing the particularities of the individual texts to come into play. For this reason, I have limited myself to theophanic narratives within one overarching plot in five parts. This allows me to focus on the distinctives of these stories in relation to one another. In the interests of completeness and canonical harmony, I have included an analysis of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy, of course, is “its own thing.” As Moshe Weinfeld established over twenty years ago, Deuteronomy has its own vocabulary and sage voice.2 Unlike the preceding Tetrateuch with its complex braid of sources, redactions, and perspectives, it has a remarkably consistent vision of reality and Israel’s history.3 It also has a very distinct style of discourse. It is not narrative proper but rather a Mosaic sermon retelling the narrative. In other words, it is not a story. It is a self-described homiletical history wedded to legal material placed in the mouth of Moses. It tells about someone telling rather than simply telling. However, the narrative framing in 1:1–5 and 34:1–12 place the sermon within the broader narrative arc of the canonical Torah. Intriguingly, while there is no narrative theophanic type-scene within Deuteronomy, there is a consistent pattern of interpretation of two of the preceding type-scenes (one directly and one indirectly). Deuteronomy’s Moses remembers the 2. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992). 3. This, of course, is not to suggest that there are no levels of redaction or editorial seams. Rather, even within such textual production, one senses the distinct lens of a single tradition or school at work.

1. Seeing the Unseen in the Pentateuch

5

theophany at Horeb (and its textual repercussions) in a specific way. In this way it provides a fitting close to the study, as it re-reads the preceding theophanies through the lens of its own concerns. 2. The Lay of the Land In his 1977 work Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Traditions: The Typology of Exaltation, Thomas W. Mann observed that discussions of divine presence and epiphanies/theophanies could be clustered into two schools emerging out of Herman Gunkel’s key study Schöpfung und Chaos published in 1895. On the one hand, a history of religions approach mined the ancient Near East for literary parallels of theophanic activity. The work of William Albright,4 Hans-Joachim Kraus,5 George Mendenhall,6 Frank Moore Cross,7 and Thomas Mann himself fell within this broad camp. In each instance, the attempt was made to compare biblical descriptions of theophanies with ancient Near Eastern descriptions of theophanies in both the Sumerian-Akkadian and Northwest Semitic languages. On the other hand, form-critical and tradition-historical approaches sought to explain the origin of biblical theophanies in terms of cultic Sitz im Leben in Israel’s liturgical life. Proponents of this view included Gerhard von Rad,8 Artur Weiser,9 Walter Beyerlin,10 Claus Westermann,11 Jörg Jeremias,12 4. William F. Albright, “The Psalm of Habakkuk,” in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, ed. H. H. Rowley (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950), 1–18, and “A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems (Psalm LXVIII),” HUCA 23 (1950/51): 1–39. 5. Hans-Joachim Kraus, Worship in Israel (Richmond: John Knox, 1966). Mann is right in his suggestion that Kraus tries to merge the two schools. R. E. Clements follows a similar line (though he leans in the direction of tradition-history and form-criticism). Cf. R. E. Clements, God and Temple (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965). 6. George Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973), 32–68. 7. Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973). 8. Gerhard von Rad, “The Form-critical Problem of the Hexateuch,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (New York: McGraw Hill, 1966), 1–78. 9. Artur Weiser, “Psalm 77: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Verhältnis von Kult und Heilsgeschichte,” TLZ 72 (1947): 133–40. 10. Walter Beyerlin, Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 146–8, 154–7. 11. Claus Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms (repr., Atlanta: John Knox, 1981 [1965]). 12. Jörg Jeremias, Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer Alttestamentlichen Gattung (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965).

6

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

J. Kenneth Kuntz,13 and Rolf Rendtorff.14 In contrast with the history of religions school, the form critics and tradition historians sought to ground biblical accounts of theophanies within Israelite religion itself rather than in relation to outside sources as instances of polemic or borrowing. An important exception was the work of the Princeton scholar, Geerhardus Vos. Though not well recognized outside of North American Presbyterianism, Vos offered a unique sacramental understanding of theophanies in the mid-twentieth century.15 Vos argued that theophanies in the Old Testament signal both an immanent and transcendent deity, who is sacramentally present in the theophanic visitation and yet still distant in terms of divine essence. Vos’s contribution is difficult to classify and remains something of a tertium quid. On the one hand, his work was partially in line with the general tenets of the form-critical and tradition-history trajectory in that he argued for the uniqueness of Israel’s theophanic experiences (over against those who would posit borrowing or polemics against extra-biblical ancient Near Eastern sources). However, his confessional Protestant posture meant that he was more interested in the revelatory, historical events behind the text than in the textualized versions of the events themselves. Thus, he was not a form-critic or tradition-historian in the traditional sense. In the thirty-odd years since Mann’s study, the field has seen the continued development of the history of religions trajectory. In 2004 Esther Hamori added to the discussion by proposing a new category of theophany, the “human” or “‫ ”איש‬theophany, to account for the similarities of Gen 18 and 32.16 Hamori’s work is important in breaking fresh ground in categorizing theophanic manifestations in Genesis. Likewise, while falling broadly within the history of religions trajectory, Hamori’s work contains an element of synchronic reading that reflects late twentiethcentury developments in rhetorical and narrative criticism (see more on that below).

13. J. Kenneth Kuntz, The Self-Revelation of God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967). 14. Rolf Rendtorff, “The Concept of Revelation in Ancient Israel,” in Revelation as History, ed. W. Pannenberg et al. (New York: Macmillan, 1968), 23–53. 15. Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (repr., Carlisle, PN: Banner of Truth, 1996 [1948]), 69–99. Though Vos’s work has an apologetic edge to it, it is still useful within the broader academy for the ways in which it conceptualizes theophanies. 16. Esther J. Hamori, “When Gods Were Men”: The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature, BZAW 384 (New York: de Gruyter, 2008).

1. Seeing the Unseen in the Pentateuch

7

Benjamin Sommer offered several new ways forward in 2009 with his stimulating The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel.17 Sommer proffered the thesis that various Israelite conceptions of the divine presence and divine embodiment are present in the Hebrew Bible. According to Sommer, the early JE sources (along with other material) seem to conceive of YHWH’s theophanic presence as “fluid” and capable of a multiplicity of embodiments in a manner similar to conceptions present among Mesopotamians and Northwest Semites. In contrast D and P reject the fluidity model and present a more unified understanding of the divine body. Sommer also fruitfully applies (and modifies, in the case of P) J. Z. Smith’s categories of divine presence as locative (i.e., sacred space as central and focused on immanence) or utopian (i.e., sacred space as peripheral and focused on transcendence). The confluence of these two streams opens up new ways of reading several theophanic texts within a history of religions approach.18 However, these have not been the only trajectories of scholarship. 1978 witnessed the development of a new synchronic, existential category with Samuel Terrien’s biblical theology, The Elusive Presence.19 Terrien broke new ground in tracing the theme of divine presence both in its theophanic and non-theophanic forms throughout the Christian canon. However, Terrien was reticent to admit (at times) the strikingly visual nature of many of the Old Testament theophanies. Determined to emphasize the elusive nature of the divine presence, he deemphasized the visual side of theophanies. For Terrien, the spoken word held preeminence. In 1988 Cecil P. Staton, Jr. presented a comprehensive overview of theophanies that paid attention to both the diachronic and synchronic dimensions of theophanies in the Hebrew Bible.20 Concerned with the 17. Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009). 18. Sommer’s work finds some precedent in Tryggve N. D. Mettinger’s illuminating study The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies, Coniectanea Biblica, OT Series 18 (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1982). While Mettinger’s study falls within the form-critical stream, it slides over into traditionhistory as well, which allows it to be useful for history of religions approaches. In a similar vein, Mark S. Smith’s recent article also falls broadly within a history of religions approach. Cf. Mark S. Smith, “The Three Bodies of God in the Hebrew Bible,” JBL 134, no. 3 (2015): 471–88. 19. Samuel Terrien, The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1978). 20. Cecil P. Staton, Jr., “And Yahweh Appeared: A Study of the Motifs of Seeing God and God’s Appearing in Old Testament Narratives” (D.Phil. diss., University of Oxford, 1988).

8

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

semantic domain of “seeing” God, Staton’s advancement was to analyze narrative theophanies in the Pentateuch and historical narratives. Aside from etiological studies and behind-the-text concerns (like cult or comparative religion), no one had analyzed these stories on the textual, semantic level. Thus, Staton’s work broke out of the form-critical impasse in a manner similar to and yet different from Terrien. Like Terrien, he was willing to look at texts that had been neglected since Jeremias’s definition of the theophanic Gattung, which restricted research largely to the poetic and prophetic texts.21 However, unlike Terrien, Staton focused specifically on Leitworten. This allowed him to observe narrative patterns that often got lost in source-critical reconstructions of the Pentateuch. Staton’s other key contribution was to recognize the singular narrative tension surrounding theophanies. In addition, Staton’s dissertation included a chapter on the broader ancient Near Eastern context of “seeing” gods. Given the comprehensive and ground-breaking nature of his work, it has been strangely neglected. Since the turn of the century, narrative-criticism has begun to offer other new ways forward. In one sense, the narrative-critical development could be considered an off-shoot of form-criticism, though without any concern for the Sitz im Leben behind the text or its oral pre-history.22 George Savran in particular has been at the forefront of this development and has offered his own synchronic, narrative studies of Old Testament theophanies.23 Savran’s key contribution has been the recognition of the theophanic “type-scene” operant within biblical narratives.24 Like Terrien, 21. See Staton’s critique of Jeremias, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 51–53. 22. Cf., e.g., Kuntz’s Theophanic Gattung in relation to Savran’s narrativecritical type-scene offered above. Kuntz finds the following theophanic pattern: (1) Introductory description, (2) Divine self-asseveration, (3) Quelling of human fear, (4) Assertion of gracious divine presence, (5) “Hieros logos,” (6) Concluding description. See Kuntz, The Self-Revelation of God, 59. 23. See the following works by George Savran: “Theophany as Type Scene,” Prooftexts 23, no. 2 (2003): 119–49; Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative, JSOTSup 420 (New York: T&T Clark International, 2005); “Seeing Is Believing: On the Relative Priority of Visual and Verbal Perception of the Divine,” Biblical Interpretation 17, no. 3 (2009): 320–61. 24. Frank Polak argues for a “supra-textual matrix” that resembles what Savran will later call a type-scene. One can even see Polak’s influence on Savran in a number of ways; however, Polak’s matrix is not a type-scene in the proper sense but rather a kind nodal framework around which disparate material coalesced. See Polak, “Theophany and Mediator,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction— Reception—Interpretation, ed. Marc Vervenne (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 116–17.

1. Seeing the Unseen in the Pentateuch

9

Savran analyzes the existential side of theophanic experiences. Much of his work surrounds the various postures and stances a given character exhibits in relation to the appearance of the divine. For Savran, the various stages—like separation, approach, reaction, and externalization— represent elements of the theophanic type-scene. Throughout it all Savran focuses on the transformation of the characters in the given theophanic scene. The characters’ “encounters” with the divine result in personal and communal change manifested in a variety of ways.25 “The protagonist who returns is not the same person as before, nor is the world to which he returns the same as it had been.”26 As a result, Savran works through multiple texts and narratives across the Hebrew canon to substantiate and illustrate his topoi. Though based on narrative-critical readings of texts, Savran’s work is methodologically systematic in its orientation. Around the same time that Savran first proffered his version of the theophanic type-scene, N. F. Schmidt and P. J. Nel offered their own independent take on the textual phenomenon.27 Schmidt and Nel moved beyond form-critical categories and suggested a supple type-scene with five elements: background, manifestation, dialogue, intrigue, and conclusion. In many ways, their work is similar to Savran’s; however, they have not developed it to the same extent and are less concerned with the existential reactions of the biblical characters. 3. Place, Method, and Scope of the Present Study a. Place within the Discipline Outside of Terrien and Savran, synchronic, narrative approaches to the study of biblical theophanies are rare. In addition, Terrien and Savran’s works, while useful, tend to be limited to psychological readings of texts and draw heavily on the categories of Rudolf Otto. The present study builds on Terrien and Savran’s efforts while also offering a canonical, close reading of the biblical texts that focuses more on narrative plotlines than character depiction. In the line of Terrien and Savran, I draw on a variety of studies in the service of synchronic 25. For a general summary of Savran’s model and its type-scene elements, see Savran, Encountering the Divine, Chapter 1 (see p. 21 for an excellent example of the psychological aspects of Savran’s work). For a helpful chart outlining the various aspects of the type-scenes (i.e., solitude, location, visual, message, response, lethal, skepticism, and externalization) in the texts Savran considers, see p. 30. 26. Savran, Encountering the Divine, 148. 27. N. F. Schmidt and P. J. Nel, “Theophany as Type-scene in the Hebrew Bible,” Journal for Semitics 11, no. 2 (2002): 256–81.

10

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

reflection. Thus, at times scholars of source-criticism, form-criticism, tradition-history, and history of religions will make appearances. However, their contributions will always be directed toward the goal of synthesis in the service of the flow of the narrative. Like Savran, I am convinced that theophanies in Old Testament narrative function as literary type-scenes. At the same time, Savran’s theory, for all of its explanatory power, focuses more on type-scenes as independent stories of character transition.28 The characters in the tales change because of their experience of the numinous divine. In a different but complementary way, I am more interested in the function of theophanic type-scenes within the broader narrative arc of the Pentateuch. In other words, my work here looks at the various theophanies as embedded stories within a larger narrative. As a result, I am more interested in plot development via theophanies than character development. This means that rather than drawing on theophanies from across the canon (or even across the Pentateuch), I will follow the flow of the story, book-by-book. In this way, the present work follows the general organization of Terrien and Staton. In addition, my argument diverges from Savran in finding a multiplicity of theophanic type-scenes in the Pentateuch. Savran argues for a single, overarching theophanic type-scene in the Hebrew Bible. In contrast, I am convinced that there are at least three theophanic type-scenes in the Pentateuch itself (let alone the entire Hebrew Bible). Thus, in some ways Staton’s work anticipates my own. He was the first to observe patterns (notice the plural) of theophanies in the Pentateuch. However, Staton only examines texts that include a verb of “seeing.” Thus, he does not analyze texts like Gen 15 or 28, which include a visual element but lack a specific seeing verb. In terms of method, Staton’s work leans heavily on source criticism and does not categorize the various theophanies in terms of type-scenes. Likewise, he does not look for synchronic, narrative ways of pulling the material together or explaining the progression of type-scenes within the Pentateuch. b. Methodological Questions and Controls In terms of method, I will seek to answer a specific cluster of questions in this study: what happens when one reads the Pentateuchal theophanies together synchronically in their narrative order? Do any patterns appear? Can a reader find not only diversity but also unity among the various 28. In this his work is similar to that of Susan Niditch, who focuses on the biblical characters’ experience of the divine in numinous encounters. Cf. Susan Niditch, Ancient Israelite Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 26, 34–49. I am grateful to Claudia Camp for pointing me towards Niditch’s work.

1. Seeing the Unseen in the Pentateuch

11

stories? Of course, all of these questions seek to illuminate biblical theophanies as textual events. Narrative content and discourse must go hand in hand. To answer these questions, I will sequentially examine texts that tell of a “visual” theophany within a Pentateuchal setting. In this I am roughly following Savran’s definition of a theophany: The term “theophany” is used here not in its figurative sense of “encounter with the divine,” but, in keeping with the Greek φαινειν, “to appear,” it implies the presence of a visual component in addition to verbal interaction. In all the texts we will consider the visual element is present in some form, though it is not necessarily the dominant manner of revelation.29

Only those passages that discuss a visible appearance of YHWH will receive treatment. Texts like Gen 3:8, which may allude to a theophanic encounter but lack an explicit reference to sight either verbally or by good and necessary consequence (e.g., YHWH’s “descent” signals a visible, vertical movement), will not be dealt with. Thus, one could say that my method is somewhat akin to rhetorical criticism, with its tracing of Leitworten and the clustering of themes associated with verbal and thematic play. Because my method is focused on the visual nature of the event, I would make one change to Savran’s paragraph above and excise the prepositional phrase “in addition to verbal interaction.” While nearly all Pentateuchal theophanies have a dialogical component, there is at least one instance (Exod 24:1–11) in which YHWH appears but does not speak. Thus, I am wary of older views like that of Kuntz that overstate the audial nature of “Hebrew” revelation in contrast to the visual.30 I am willing to grant that what Kuntz calls the hieros logos (i.e., the specific word for the specific historical situation) is usually essential to the theophanic visitation. However, the ways in which the theophanic texts emphasize the visual nature of the events ought to promote caution in too quickly assuming that the Hebrew Bible has no visio dei. 29. Savran, Encountering the Divine, 6. Cf. also Kuntz’s form-critical definition, which, though over-ambitious, is still helpful: “the theophany, then, may be defined as a temporal, partial, and intentionally allusive self-disclosure initiated by the sovereign deity at a particular place, the reality of which evokes the convulsion of nature and the fear and dread of man, and whose unfolding emphasizes visual and audible aspects generally according to a recognized literary form” (The Self-revelation of God, 45, emphasis original). 30. Kuntz, The Self-revelation of God, 18.

12

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

I should also note here that my analysis will include visual appearances of the so-called divine “theologoumena”: the Kabod, the Angel of YHWH, the Face, and the Back. The relationship between YHWH/Elohim and his varied visual manifestations is complicated and much debated. In brief, my own position falls in line with Benjamin D. Sommer’s suggestion that the Angel of YHWH (and to my mind the rest of the theologoumena) functions as a kind of avatar for the divine presence.31 As a result, I also like Vos’s application of sacramental language to the theologoumena. Thus, I categorize these appearances as legitimate divine appearances (and not something else). When the text says that the Angel of YHWH appeared or that the Kabod of YHWH descended, I read these statements as references to actual, visible divine appearances—not references to intermediate beings or agents. YHWH in se may be hidden, but it is still YHWH who appears. In all of this my definition of theophany differs, of course, from Claus Westermann’s proposal. Westermann argues that there are two kinds of divine appearances: epiphanies and theophanies. The former he identifies as appearances when God came “in order to aid his people.”32 The latter, theophanies proper, he argues are divine appearances intended to “reveal” God and “to communicate with his people through a mediator.”33 Given the limited number of texts and the predominantly poetic genre that Westermann analyzes, his approach makes sense. However, as will become clear in Chapter 3, YHWH’s actions are on display even in narrative texts like Exod 19 or 34. Revelation is not the sole component of the Exodus theophanic type-scene. YHWH also “acts” with power to preserve his people. One is hard-pressed to argue that the theophany at the Red Sea is only about revelation through a mediator. Thus, I disagree with N. F. Schmidt and P. J. Nel when they contend that “theophany contains elements of the epiphany; the epiphany excludes elements of the theophany.”34 Schmidt, Nel, and Westermann have created an artificial separation (at least when applied to narrative texts). I prefer, then, to use the term “epiphany” to refer to instances when YHWH speaks without visibly appearing and the term “theophany” to refer to any visual appearance of God in the Pentateuchal narratives. Thus, my category of theophany embraces any story where YHWH 31. Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 40. 32. Westermann, Praise and Lament, 99. 33. Ibid. 34. N. F. Schmidt and P. J. Nel, “Theophany as Type-scene in the Hebrew Bible,” Journal for Semitics 11, no. 2 (2002): 260.

1. Seeing the Unseen in the Pentateuch

13

appears visually whether it be at midday under a tree or late at night in a dream. The important element in defining a theophany is the visual aspect, nothing else. God has to appear visibly in some manner. This means, then, that I will include stories that reference the sight or appearance of the divine instantiations or avatars like the Kabod (‫)כבוד‬, Angel (‫)מלאך‬, or Face (‫)פנים‬/Back (‫ )אחר‬of YHWH.35 To put it simply, I define a theophany as any visual instantiation of YHWH. In terms of the actual analysis offered, my practice is to follow the narrative arc and see what happens. Rather than excavating a Gattung associated with a specific text and then using that framework for judging all other theophanic texts, I will work inductively through the narrative flow of each of the canonical books of the Pentateuch. This will allow the diversity of theophanic narratives to appear within specific native frameworks. So, for example, the unique Genesis theophanic type-scene clusters only in the book of Genesis (aside from one appearance in Numbers) and displays a framework or type-scene pattern unique to its book. One could say, then, that this method allows for both discovering the nuance of different theophanies while also being attentive to localized narrative patterns. To put it another way, unlike Savran, Schmidt, or Nel, the theophanic type-scenes that I discern are generally unique and cannot be pulled across the entire Hebrew canon.36 Theophanies in Genesis are simply different from theophanies in Exodus and Leviticus. The only similarities lie in the shared record of a visible “appearance” of God and in the fact that they share a typical narrative pattern associated with their own localized context (i.e., their individual book). Numbers and Deuteronomy are exceptions to this, but their reasons for reiterating and, in Deuteronomy’s case, re-reading previous type-scenes will become clear in due course. c. The Program of This Study In the following pages, the study will advance through the five Pentateuchal books—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy—in five chapters. In each chapter, I will offer a careful analysis of the theophanies found in the narrative plotline of that specific canonical book. It will become apparent that Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus each offer a unique theophanic type-scene. In contrast, Numbers uses the preceding 35. My method in this way is similar to that of Staton. See Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 39 n. 31. 36. Staton, then, is right to suggest that “On the whole it may be said that there was no slavish attempt to declare that God was seen with any one pattern or consistent form.” Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 42–44.

14

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

three type-scenes for its own purposes, and Deuteronomy re-reads the Exodus type-scene and (indirectly) the Genesis type-scene with a view to correcting any previous readerly misunderstanding. In the final chapter, I will not only offer a synthesis of my overall argument but also suggest possibilities for further research.

Chapter 2 T o S ee or N ot to S e e : T he A p p ea r an ces of G od i n G e ne si s

‫זרע אברהם עבדו בני יעקב בחיריו‬ ‫הוא יהוה אלהינו בכל־הארץ משפטיו‬ ‫זכר לעולם בריתו דבר צוה לאלף דור‬ O Seed of Abraham, his servant, sons of Jacob, his chosen. He is YHWH our God. In all the earth are his judgments. He remembers forever his covenant, the word he commanded to a thousand generations. Ps 105:6–7

1. Introduction “And YHWH appeared…” To those working out of aniconic religious traditions, these words can come as something of a surprise. They become even more challenging when readers realize that they come straight from the Pentateuch or Torah, that body of literature that includes strong negative statements regarding human efforts at visualizing God (cf. Exod 20:4; Deut 5:8). Given this apparent tension, some might ask: how is it possible that the God of the Hebrew Bible appears visibly? Whatever the answer to this particular question, there can be no denial of the fact that human beings “see” YHWH throughout the Torah. Time and again, the sprawling story of Israel relates that YHWH “appeared.” Usually the narrative moves quickly on with little to no comment on the actual visual components of the theophany, or God-appearance. But is there more to the story? What actually happens when YHWH appears and how does the discourse of the story illuminate that happening? In this chapter I offer a response to that question from the angle of narrative criticism. Through a close reading of the text, I will propose that a narrative pattern swirls around the various theophanies described in Genesis. Every time YHWH appears in the final form of the book,

16

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

two things are going on. First, there is a threat to the divine promise to Abraham and his descendants. The threat can be either real or imagined in terms of the plot. Usually, it involves an element of human doubt or worry. Second, YHWH’s theophanic appearance involves a reiteration of the promise. The sighting is always followed by divine assurances regarding YHWH’s reliability in fulfilling his promises. This pattern, then, can be summarized as follows: (1) the Genesis story presents a context of threat and human doubt, (2) YHWH visibly appears, (3) YHWH restates his promise. The sheer consistency of this pattern suggests that it is what Robert Alter calls a “type-scene.” In his seminal work, The Art of Biblical Narrative, Alter defines a “type-scene” as a “purposefully deployed literary convention,” “the manipulation of a fixed constellation of predetermined motifs.”1 In essence it is a repeated (and repeatable) story with a clearly defined narrative pattern. In terms of levels of discourse, the story’s patterning is only for the reader or hearer’s benefit. The characters themselves (at least in the biblical stories) generally seem unaware of the patterning.2 For the reader (or hearer) the pattern is so well known that the narrative interest lies in the variation that a specific type-scene plays on its general theme.3 In the case of biblical narrative, “the biblical type-scene occurs…at the crucial junctures in the lives of the heroes, from conception and birth to betrothal to deathbed.”4 In other words, a biblical type-scene is a formulaic story that occurs in pivotal narrative moments. This fits well with the theophanies occurring in the middle of narrative crises. Any time the deity’s promise to Abraham seems in doubt, YHWH appears out of nowhere like a jack-in-the-box.

1. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic, 1981), 50–51. 2. This is important. While the biblical characters often recall earlier episodes for comment or use, they are not aware of them as plotted devices. If they do recognize some pattern, they see it in terms of consistency of divine operations. However, for the reader, patterns hold a different meaning in that they illumine the genus and function of the story. In this way, the reader understands the coherence of the narrative in a way that the characters cannot. One could say that the narrator has let the reader in on the secret workings of the story. All of this is especially clear in cases where a given type-scene element occurs in a parenthetical statement. The characters have no knowledge of this information, but the reader (via the narrator) can see what is going on. In some cases, then, certain type-scene elements have more of a readerly direction or goal. Gen 12:6 is a case in point. See below. 3. Ibid., 52. 4. Ibid., 51.

2. To See or Not to See

17

2. Genesis and the “Appearances” (‫ )ראה‬of God a. God Appears to Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar Canonically, God’s first appearance is to the first key human character in Israel’s story: Abraham.5 Genesis 12:7 relates that “YHWH appeared to Abram” (‫)וירא יהוה אל־אברם‬. The verb is a passive form (niphal) of the common verb ‫ראה‬, “to see.”6 Intriguingly, God speaks to Abraham before he appears to the patriarch. Genesis 12 has both audio and visual components. The chapter begins with a trumpet of divine speech: “YHWH said to Abram” (‫)ויאמר יהוה אל־אברם‬. There is no record of a vision or sight.7 YHWH simply commands Abram to leave everything and follow him.8 Abram in good fashion leaves his country and kindred and sets up camp at Shechem. However, it is in Shechem that something interesting happens. YHWH “appears” to Abram. To quote Geerhardus Vos: “Here is something more than mere speech.”9 As part of the “appearance” of the divine presence, YHWH promises that Abram’s progeny will inherit Canaan. For good measure, v. 7 reiterates that YHWH was the one who “appeared to Abram.” In fact, God’s appearance at Shechem moves Abram to build

5. It is possible that Gen 3:8 is the first theophany. YHWH Elohim is said to be “walking about” (‫ )מתהלך‬and the primal pair hide themselves from “the face” of YHWH Elohim (‫ )מפני יהוה אלהים‬in the midst of the garden. Even if this is the case, the Genesis type-scene pattern explained above is still operant. YHWH appears in a moment of crisis and fear, and in response to the serpentine threat promises progeny (v. 15). 6. In literal fashion the LXX translates ‫ וַ ּיֵ ָרא‬as ὤφθη, a third singular aorist passive indicative from ὁράω. 7. Contra Hermann Gunkel, who strangely numbers the theophany in 12:7 as God’s “second appearance” to Abraham: “Nun aber erscheint ihm Gott zum zweiten Male und spricht zu ihm.” See Hermann Gunkel, Genesis: übersetzt und erklärt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 166. 8. As a point of method, I am taking the text in its final canonical form and have no interest in excavating the various strata of stories combined to create what we know of as the Pentateuchal book of Genesis. As Gerhard von Rad put it: “I feel that it is particularly important today that we should turn once again to exegesis of the texts in their present form, that is, that we should take up the question of the meaning that was gradually attached to them, not least through their incorporation into a great narrative complex with its specific themes… Furthermore, the exegete must take into account the fact that the sources are no longer separate from each other, but have been combined together.” Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 42. 9.  Vos, Biblical Theology, 69.

18

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

there an altar to YHWH, “the one who appeared to him” (‫)הנראה אליו‬. Of course, the story does not relate what Abram actually saw on this occasion, but it is insistent that he saw something.10 Not only that, but the incident was so powerful both in terms of the vision and the promise given on that spot that later generations would consider the story something of an etiology for the sanctuary of YHWH at Shechem.11

10. As Lindblom observes, “The verb used indicates that the narrator has thought of a vision. Because there is no hint of a dream or something similar, we have to think that in the narrator’s view a theophany was bestowed upon the patriarch while he was staying in the holy place where the Deity was present.” See Johannes Lindblom, “Theophanies in Holy Places in Hebrew Religion,” HUCA 32 (1961): 93–94. Cf. also Vos, Biblical Theology, 69–72, who argues for a shift from auditory to visual revelations in the patriarchal period. For this reason, I am not sure I completely agree with Samuel Terrien’s contention that “the Hebrew stories of ‘theophany’ make use of visual features in such a way that the deity is not really seen by man… In a Hebrew ‘theophany,’ Yahweh is not really ‘seen’ by man, but only ‘heard,’ although there are visible signs of his presence.” See Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 69. For a similar view see Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis ‫( בראשית‬Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 92. On the one hand, Terrien is correct that YHWH’s “essence” never appears. However, in the theophanies described in Genesis, God “appears” repeatedly. The visual component of the theophanies is front and center. This is evident from the contrast that can be drawn between God’s theophanic appearances and his regular visits with the patriarchs, which are almost exclusively auditory. (Contra Claus Westermann, who thinks that “there is no essential difference” between the theophanic ‫ וירא יהוה אל‬and the epiphanic ‫ויאמר יהוה‬. See Westermann, Genesis 12–36: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion S.J. [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985], 155.) As a result, I have no problem speaking of patriarchal “theophanies” in contrast with “epiphanies” (Terrien’s objections notwithstanding, cf. 68–71). For a similar position, see T. E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective, OBT 14 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 84–6, 101. For a discussion of the usual human-like “form” of God in theophanies, see James Barr, “Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament,” in Congress Volume: Oxford, 1959, VTSup 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1960), 31–38; Fretheim, Suffering of God, 101–6. For a unique and different perspective arguing that the “Word of YHWH” itself represents a divine hypostasis in the Hebrew Bible, see Richard A. Lammert, “The Word of YHWH as Theophany,” CTQ 73 (2009): 195–210. Cf. also Charles A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence, Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 42 (Boston: Brill, 1998), 103–14. 11. Westermann disagrees and instead argues that vv. 6–9 represent Abraham finding a previously established cultic area. See Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 154–55.

2. To See or Not to See

19

However, not only does the story become programmatic for worship at Shechem, it also becomes a canonical archetype or narrative typescene12 for all subsequent divine appearances in the final form of the book of Genesis.13 If a type-scene involves pivotal moments in the narrative that repeat a standardized pattern, Gen 12’s description of God’s appearance to Abraham is just such a story. It involves three formulaic ingredients that are replicated in nearly every theophany in Genesis: a “visual” appearance, a promissory divine speech (or its reiteration) associated with progeny (‫ )זרע‬and usually land (‫)ארץ‬,14 and a context of human worry or doubt. As Cecil P. Staton puts it: With the theophanies of the patriarchal cycles the norm is brevity and conciseness of speech. God appears, the divine communication is given, the patriarch responds, and there is usually no mention of the deity’s departure. One important element, common to the patriarchal theophanies is the Staton, of course, is correct in noting that one way or another “the founding of a cultic center is certainly not primary to the present story.” See Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 109. 12. In saying that Gen 12 represents an “archetypal” story or type-scene, I am not suggesting a diachronic priority to the story. I am simply highlighting the narrative reality that Gen 12’s description of a theophany occurs synchronically prior to all others and so shapes a reader’s expectations for all that will follow. 13. In using the term “type-scene,” my approach is similar to that of George Savran, who works to explicate the typical elements of a theophany across the Hebrew canon. However, in this section my claim is more modest and narrow than Savran’s. Here I am interested only in establishing the Genesis genre theophany as a unique type-scene in its own right. Dialogue across the canon (in particular the Pentateuch) must wait for the following chapters. For Savran’s approach, see “Theophany as Type Scene,” 119–49. Cf. also Savran, Encountering the Divine. 14. Arie Leder notes this in passing but does not develop it in his “Presence, Then the Covenants: An Essay on Narrative and Theological Precedence, Part One,” NGTT 53, no. 1 (2012): 188. Leder observes, “Once in the land, the Lord appears (rh) to Abraham (12:7; 15:1; 17:1; 18:1) to affirm the promise of land and progeny. Divine visitations to Isaac and Jacob recall and confirm the promises to Abraham (26:23 [rh]; 28:13; 35:1, 9 [rh]; 46:1), and encourage their imitation of Abraham’s submission to leave the confused culture of Babel and go to ‘the land’.” Similarly, in Part Two (NGTT 54, no. 3 & 4 [2013]), Leder observes that “The promise of land and a distinct form of divine self-disclosure are intertwined throughout the subsequent narrative… This divine self-disclosure at Bethel is the first of several such appearances to the patriarchs at altars built to commemorate the Lord’s elusive presence. Divine self-[dis]closures frame the patriarchal narratives and the patriarch’s itinerancy in a land not yet theirs; they also set the context within which the audience hears about the covenants with Abraham.” See “Part Two,” 212–13.

20

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch communication of the promises of relationship, land and progeny. In fact, the theophanies often seem to take place at times of tension with regard to the promises or at a time when the patriarchal family is threatened.15

This final ingredient suggests that the Genesis theophanies tend to be divine responses to human fear.16 When human beings begin to wonder at the efficacy of God’s promises, God tends to “appear.”17 As Walter Brueggemann observes: “The phenomena of divine appearance are vehicles for a promise.”18 In Gen 12, human anxiety is literally at the syntactical forefront. Verses 5–6 relate that when Abraham entered the “promised land,” it was the land of the Canaanites (‫ויצאו ללכת ארצה כנען‬, “They went forth to enter into the land of Canaan,” v. 5; ‫והכנעני אז בארץ‬, “At that time the Canaanites were in the land,” v. 6). God had promised Abraham the land in 12:1, and yet it turns out that the land is already 15. Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 36. Cf. also Rolf Rendtorff, “Offenbarung im Alten Testament,” TLZ 11 (1960): 834–38; Kuntz, The Self-revelation of God, 106; Fretheim, Suffering of God, 80. 16. This is similar to Van Seter’s suggestion that theophanies in general take place in a situation of stress. See John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), 261–62. Cf. also N. F. Schmidt and P. J. Nel’s category of “background”: “Information on turmoil, chaos, and the presence of evil is reported, which both precedes and leads to the manifestation of the deity. The manifestation should be seen in the light of both the divine initiative (that Yahweh is manifested) and the situation portrayed in the background (why Yahweh is manifested).” See Schmidt and Nel, “Theophany as Type-scene in the Hebrew Bible,” 265. 17. Savran notes that an “expression of doubt or anxiety” is typical in theophanies, but he takes the human skepticism to be a fundamental result of encountering the Wholly Other. As human beings come out of the experience, they lose their sense of overwhelming encounter and reassert their autonomy. Cf. Savran, “Theophany as Type Scene,” 132–34. Thus, to Savran the doubt or anxiety is a post-theophanic, subjective experience. However, I maintain the doubt is the a priori catalyst for the divine appearance. Likewise, because of the narrative cues in the stories, the reader herself will be worried about the substance of the divine promise. The theophanies, then, reflect not only a divine response to the characters’ anxiety but also a divine response to the reader’s anxiety as a reading participant in the biblical drama. From a slightly different perspective Susan Niditch writes: “It is significant that for the Israelite writers who compiled Genesis, times of psychological stress and life-altering decisions coincide with experiences of the numinous. It is at such flash points that the heavens may open, that one seeks a sign, that the world seems out of kilter and extraordinary.” See Niditch, Ancient Israelite Religion, 42. 18. Walter Brueggemann, Genesis, Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 244.

2. To See or Not to See

21

inhabited.19 It is within this context of Abraham and the reader’s doubt20 that God appears and states unequivocally that “to your progeny I will give this land” (‫לזרעך אתן את־הארץ הזאת‬, v. 7).21 As Cecil Staton, Jr. puts it, “the narrative tension which is highlighted by vv. 5b–6 is countered by the appearing of Yahweh.”22 With these three theophanic elements in play, all divine appearances in the book of Genesis can be described as pivotal moments in the human characters’ lives. Genesis 15 displays these three ingredients. After a bad episode in Egypt, where Abraham shows a self-serving streak (Gen 12:10–20) and a successful rescue mission that ends with a blessing from Melchizedek (Gen 13:1–14:24), Gen 15:1 states that “the word of YHWH came to Abram in a vision” (‫)היה דבר־יהוה אל־אברם במחזה‬. This was not simply an aural reception of revelation.23 There was prophetic sight24 involving 19. Cf. Brueggemann, Genesis, 123–24. John Calvin takes the reference in an analogous manner but focuses on the Canaanites as “no slight temptation” and Abraham’s fears for his own safety. See John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, vol. first, trans. John King, vol. 1 of Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 352. 20. Notice how the parenthetical statement in v. 6 (“At that time the Canaanites were in the land”) functions as a notice to the reader that a crisis is brewing. By providing background aside from the main story-line, it not only prompts the reader towards unease but also cues the reader to ponder Abraham’s reaction, which is not given. 21. One could plausibly argue that Abraham had not been told where the land was and that God’s appearance was to identify the land (i.e., the “showing” of v. 1). Such a reading might seem to preclude a sense of human anxiety over the divine promise. However, even in this case Abraham (and especially the reader) would need assurance that this was indeed the right land, all evidence to the contrary. At the same time, even if one is not convinced regarding this third theophanic element in Gen 12, it would then be the exception that proves the rule. Human doubt can only come later after the initial appearance and promise. 22. Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 115. Cf. also pp. 109–10, 114. Staton, then, observes that YHWH’s appearing is tied to the promised land (p. 116). 23. This also seems to be implied in v. 5’s description of YHWH bringing Abraham outside of the tent to look at the stars of the sky. While it is quite possible that the story envisions a vocal command or a kind of “magical” push out of the tent (i.e., the hiphil stem: ‫)ויוצא אתו החוצה‬, the various other visual elements (i.e., the “vision,” the “fire-pot,” and “torch/lightning”) suggest filling in the narrative gap with a visual, immediate theophanic manifestation talking with Abraham in the tent, taking him by the hand, and guiding him outside. 24. Gunkel was not the first to notice that the Hebrew phrase: ‫היה דבר־יהוה‬ ‫אל־אברם במחזה‬, is technical term used in prophetic revelation (cf. Gunkel, Genesis, 179). Calvin observes: “Moses says that God spake to him ‘in a vision,’…this was

22

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

a “vision” (‫ מחזה‬25).26 Once again the text is reticent to describe what Abraham saw; however, later in the chapter, v. 17 relates traditional theophanic elements. As God cuts a covenant with Abraham, the patriarch sees a “fire-pot of smoke and a torch/lightning of fire” (‫)תנור עשן ולפיד אש‬. The mention of fire and smoke is typical of other Old Testament theophanies, but canonically this is the first mention of the traditional cluster of images surrounding the “glory of YHWH” (‫)כבוד יהוה‬. Coupled with this “appearance” is a covenantal promise issuing from the divine lips: Abraham’s progeny (‫ )זרע‬will inherit the land (‫)ארץ‬ stretching from the Euphrates to the Nile (15:5, 7, 18–19). All of this occurs within the context of Abraham’s alternating faith and doubt.27 On the one hand, he believes God’s promise, but on the other hand, he worries that his faith might be misplaced. He and the reader28 have what von Rad one of two ordinary methods by which the Lord was formerly wont to manifest himself to his prophets.” Calvin, Genesis, vol. first, 399. Whether Gunkel is right that “Diese Art der Offenbarung ist in den Patriarchensagen jünger als die naive, von der Gen 2f. und 18f. erzählt, wonach die Gottheit leibhaftig auf Erden erscheint” (179), I leave to the reader’s own judgment. 25. It is interesting that the Masoretic pointing literally reads: “The word of YHWH came to Abram in the vision (‫)ּב ַּמ ֲחזֶ ה‬.” ַ It is tempting to suggest that the definite article indicates a set visionary form or state. However, the LXX simply adopts the anarthrous prepositional phrase ἐν ὁράματι. 26. Lindblom observes that ‫ מחזה‬is not used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to a dream but rather the opening of the inner eye to see divine realities. Assuming that Abraham has remained at Mamre, “the vision in vv. 1–6 is to be classed among the special group of visual theophanies which were bestowed upon pious men while sojourning at sanctuaries or in similar places.” In other words, this divine appearance was not a kind of epiphanic dream appearance. See Lindblom, “Theophanies,” 95. Here again Terrien is partially correct that the spoken word is important, but he overstates his case when he says that “The presence of the divine manifests itself in auditory rather than in visual ways even when the ‘word’ comes in a ‘vision.’” Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 76. While YHWH’s speech is undoubtedly the focus, it is important that the speech is accompanied by a visual element. 27. Calvin believes that Abraham’s fear likely was related to his recent military exploits: “Therefore, as the victory was an honour to him, so it cannot be doubted, that it rendered him formidable and an object of suspicion to many, while it inflamed the hatred of others… It is therefore not strange, that he should have been troubled, and should anxiously have resolved many things, until God animated him anew, by the confident expectation of his assistance.” Calvin, Genesis, vol. first, 398. 28. “We are struggling, as was Abraham, with the emergence of a certitude that is based not on human reasons but on a primal awareness that God is God.” Brueggemann, Genesis, 143. The enmeshment of the reader with the text is part of the genius of the narrative genre. In the act of narrative interpretation and gap-filling,

2. To See or Not to See

23

calls a “despondent scepticism” that “borders almost on blasphemy.”29 God has not given him a biological heir, and time is running out (vv. 2–3). This human worry or doubt regarding the divine promise proffered in Gen 12 rounds out the three typical elements of the theophanic type-scene in Genesis.30 Following hard on the heels of Gen 15 is Gen 16’s own replication of the theophanic type-scene. This time Hagar is the recipient of a divine appearance. After Sarah drives her from the Abrahamic household, the Angel of YHWH finds Hagar beside a spring of water in the desert.31 Typical of the type-scene, the Angel promises Hagar substantial progeny (‫זרע‬, v. 10). Similar to Abraham, she will have descendants beyond counting (‫)ולא יספר מרב‬. “Behold,” states the Angel, “even now you are pregnant and will bear a son. You shall call his name ‘God-listens’ (Ishmael) because YHWH listened to your affliction.” In an odd turn of events, Hagar then names YHWH, “El-roi,” Godseeing-me (‫אתה אל ראי‬, v. 13).32 In an ambiguous if playful turn of readers build an “aesthetic object” that challenges and changes them in the textual event. Cf. Wolfgang Iser, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980), 125–29, 135–40. 29. Von Rad, Genesis, 183. Brueggemann is more sanguine about the whole situation: “Following the fundamental statement of promise, Abraham protests, doubting that such a promise can be accomplished in the circumstances… The entire passage is one of sharp exchange in which Abraham stands face-to-face with God and seeks to refute the promise and resist the assurance. Clearly, the faith to which Abraham is called is not a peaceful, pious acceptance. It is a hard-fought and deeply argued conviction. Abraham will not be a passive recipient of the promise. He is prepared to hold his own.” Brueggemann, Genesis, 140–41. 30. Sarna recognizes this pattern of divine reassurance embodied in a theophany. However, he maintains that the pattern follows incidents of danger, in this case, Abraham’s war to rescue Lot. Commenting on Gen 15:1, Sarna writes, “The pattern of reaffirmation of the promises following moments of trial and danger, as in 13:14ff., is continued.” Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, 112. Cf. similar comments on Gen 26:23–25 on p. 186. In principle I am not opposed to such a reading, but I do not think that the human anxiety or fear has passed. 31. Calvin’s comment here is apropos: “Although Moses does not describe the form of the vision, yet I do not doubt, that it was clothed in a human body; in which, nevertheless, manifest tokens of celestial glory were conspicuous.” Calvin, Genesis, vol. first, 430. 32. This reading assumes repointing ‫ ֳר ִאי‬as a participle coupled with the first person pronominal suffix ‫ ר ִֹאי‬following the LXX, and the Vulgate (the Samaritan Pentateuch also reads a participle but without the pronominal suffix: ‫—ראה‬assuming, of course, the pointing: ‫)ר ֶֹאה‬. Reading ‫ ראי‬as a participle makes a great deal of sense

24

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

phrase, she asks “Have also I seen him here, after his sight of me?” or perhaps “Have not I seen him here, after his sight of me?” (‫הגם הלם ראיתי‬ ‫)אחרי ראי‬.33 The Angel, it turns out, is a manifestation of the presence of YHWH.34 Once again, a visual appearance is wedded to a promise of because it mirrors the participial form found in 13b and thus plays with the contrast set up by the latter (i.e., Hagar “sees” after being “seen”). Granted, this alternative pointing can also be read as simply the noun “appearance” (cf. 1 Sam 16:12). 33. The text here is notoriously difficult and quite possibly corrupt. The NRSV suggests: “Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?” Savran offers a similar translation: “Have I gone on seeing after seeing Him?” Cf. Savran, “Theophany as Type Scene,” 131. The LXX translates it: Καὶ γὰρ ἐνώπιον εἶδον ὀφθέντα μοι. Wellhausen suggests two emendations: “Have I seen God [‫ הלם‬to ‫]אלהים‬, and am I kept in life [insertion of ‫ ואחי‬before ‫ ]אחרי‬after my seeing?” Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1994), 326 n. 1. Westermann follows Wellhausen and BHS in emending ‫ הלם‬to ‫אלהים‬: “You are the God who sees me. She said indeed: Truly I have seen ‘God’ after he saw me.” Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 234. For a rather long and involved discussion, see Gunkel, Genesis, 189–90. Cf. also Booij’s unique (and not entirely convincing) proposal: “Would I have gone here indeed looking for him that looks for me?” See Thijs Booij, “Hagar’s Words in Gen xvi 13b,” VT 30 (1980): 1–7. 34. The identity of the Angel of YHWH is notoriously difficult to pin down given the ways in which he seems to be both YHWH and not YHWH. At the very least, it is possible that the ‫ מלאך יהוה‬is a representative of God. However, a more likely theory is that the Angel is a sacramental instantiation of the divine presence. Sommer puts it well: “In many passages, the word ‫( מלאך‬malakh—literally, ‘messenger,’ but usually translated ‘angel’) means a small-scale manifestation of God’s own presence, and the distinction between the messenger and God is murky. This malakh is something very similar to an avatar in Indian religions, and one wonders whether ‘avatar’ might not be a better translation of the term when used this way, rather than ‘angel.’ The malakh in these cases is not a being separate from Yhwh whom Yhwh sent on a mission; rather, it is a part of the deity that can act on its own. Alternatively, it is possible that Yhwh temporarily overlaps with some heavenly beings who do God’s bidding (which suggests a model different from that of an avatar). This conception also occurs in several passages in which Yhwh becomes ambiguously manifest to humans even without the use of the technical term malakh.” See Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God, 40. Regardless of one’s appreciation for the term “avatar,” Sommer has caught the ambiguity of the Angel of the LORD. Vos argues in a similar fashion: “we must assume that behind the twofold representation [i.e., the Angel as both distinct from and the same as YHWH] there lies a real manifoldness in the inner life of the Deity.” See Vos, Biblical Theology, 73. In addition, for Vos there is both a sacramental (i.e., immanent) and spiritualizing (i.e., transcendent) intent at work in the text. YHWH appears as the Angel to be near his people and yet still distant in majestic splendor: “The Angel is truly divine, for otherwise He could not have discharged the sacramental function of assuring man that God was with him. But the visible, physical

2. To See or Not to See

25

progeny. In fact, similar to Gen 15, Gen 16’s story occurs in the context of the characters’ worries over progeny. Hagar has been sexually active as a concubine, but now outside of the Abrahamic household the hope of more children is very much in doubt. Hagar is no longer marriage material. She is damaged goods and now unfit for wedlock. In a similar manner, Ishmael’s coming birth creates anxiety over the status of the divine promise, and YHWH’s appearance makes it clear that though a “son of Abraham,” he will not be a real threat to the promise since he will not inherit the land.35 In this way, Gen 16 maintains the standard three elements of the Genesis theophanic type-scene. In this instance of the type-scene, of special interest, then, is the lack of a “land” element in the promissory section. Unlike Abraham’s seed, Hagar’s seed is not promised land. In fact, Gen 16:12 suggests that Ishmael will be a landless nomad wandering the desert. This is most evident in the description of the boy being a “wild donkey of a man” (‫ )פרא אדם‬and one who pitches his tent “across from all his brothers” (‫ועל־‬ ‫)פני כל־אחיו ישכן‬. In an oblique sense, then, land is mentioned but only as a contrast to the promised Abrahamic seed’s land. form of meeting this need is not due to the nature of God” (74). Fretheim also uses sacramental language to describe theophanies in general. Cf. Fretheim, Suffering of God, 79, 84–86. In Gen 16 it seems clear that the malakh in question is YHWH because of Hagar’s act of naming. From a Christian perspective it is perfectly appropriate to identify the ‫ מלאך יהוה‬as a pre-incarnate Christophany. As von Rad observes, “The figure of the angel of the Lord has conspicuous Christological qualities… He is a type, a ‘shadow’ of Jesus Christ” (Genesis, 194). For arguments moving beyond von Rad and positing a real “presence” of Christ in the Old Testament, cf. Robert W. Jenson’s comments on the Ezekiel theophany in Canon and Creed (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2010), 84–85, and Charles A. Gieschen’s stimulating essay, “The Real Presence of the Son Before Christ: Revisiting an Old Approach to Old Testament Christology,” CTQ 68 (2004): 103–26. Calvin has a different take: “the word of the Lord is so precious to himself, that he would be regarded by us as present, whenever he speaks through his ministers.” Calvin, Genesis, vol. first, 475. For a more minimalist approach to the ‫מלאך יהוה‬, see Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 242–44. Cf. also René A. López, “Identifying the ‘Angel of the Lord’ in the Book of Judges: A Model for Reconsidering the Referent in Other Old Testament Loci,” BBR 20, no. 1 (2010): 1–18. For the traditional historical-critical perspective with its belief that the “Angel” represents a late religious development, see Gunkel, Genesis, 186–87. Cf. also the more general article of George B. Gray in Encyclopedia Biblica, a Critical Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4, ed. T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1903), s.v. “theophany” (5035–6). 35. Contra Staton’s suggestion that Ishmael’s status is unclear at this point in the narrative. See Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 122–23.

26

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

The next two theophanic appearances of YHWH occur in Gen 17 and 18. In each instance the waw-consecutive niphal imperfect form of ‫ ראה‬introduces the scene: “And YHWH appeared to Abram” (‫וירא יהוה‬ ‫אל־אברם‬, 17:1); “And YHWH appeared to him” (‫וירא אליו יהוה‬, 18:1).36 With the visual element in place, both stories offer the standard promissory speech about progeny and land. In the case of Gen 17, YHWH officially cuts a covenant with Abraham and his offspring. Abraham will be a father to a crowd of nations (‫והיית לאב המון גוים‬, v. 4; ‫כי אב־המון גוים נתתיך‬, v. 5) with kings hailing him as their ancestor (‫ומלכים ממך יצאו‬, v. 6). In addition, the “eternal covenant” (‫ )לברית עולם‬will be between not only Abraham and YHWH but also Abraham’s seed and YHWH (‫והקמתי‬ ‫את־בריתי ביני ובינך ובין זרעך אחריך‬, v. 7). As a token and reminder of the covenant (‫)לאות‬, YHWH commands Abraham to circumcise every male in his household (v. 11). The promise of land is found in v. 8: “I will give to you and to your progeny (‫ )ולזרעך‬after you the land of your sojourning (‫)ארץ מגריך‬, all the land of Canaan (‫ )כל־ארץ כנען‬for an everlasting possession (‫לאחזת‬ ‫)עולם‬, and I will be their God.” Once YHWH has finished speaking with Abraham, the text states that “God went up from him” (‫ויכל לדבר אתו ויעל‬ ‫אלהים מעל אברהם‬, v. 22). This detail highlights the visual, local nature of the theophany.37

36. Consistent with Gen 12:7, the LXX continues to translate the niphal form as ὤφθη. Cf. also Gen 26:2, 24; 35:9 and the aorist participial form ὀφθέντι in Gen 35:1 and the cognate dative noun ὁράματι in Gen 46:2. 37. It is also often considered a sign of the P strata in source-critical theory. While it is likely that Gen 17’s theophany is priestly (at least in final redaction) because of the concern with ritual, circumcision on the eighth day, and priestly vocabulary, I am not convinced by Kuntz’s suggestion that P’s theophanic encounters differ markedly from those of JE. See Kuntz, The Self-revelation of God, 111–12. Given the analysis proffered above, arguing for the repetition of the standard Genesis theophanic type-scene, it seems clear that the different strata have more in common than source critics would have one think. However, in fairness to Kuntz, he does recognize that “regardless of literary stratum and diversity of presentation, the J, E, and P strata alike affirm that the deity had a special purpose for the individual patriarchs, that he chose to make himself and his purpose known to them, and that he elected to mediate this divine purpose through repeated, if unanticipated, theophanic encounter. It was solely through theophanic visitation that the patriarchs learned that the deity intended that a particular people in history should receive the benefit of his concern and blessing, expand in numbers, and be augmented through the possession of a land that could presently be anticipated in promise but not realized in fact” (ibid., 106).

2. To See or Not to See

27

Genesis 18 records a more intimate encounter. YHWH appears38 to Abraham as he sits beside his tent near the holy oak trees of Mamre.39 Emphasizing the visual aspect of the theophany, the text states that Abraham glances up (‫ )וישא עיניו‬and sees (‫ )וירא‬three men standing beside him (v. 2). Without the narrative cue in v. 1 that it is YHWH who “appeared” to Abraham (‫)וירא אליו יהוה‬, the reader could not be immediately sure of the three men’s identity.40 The story unfolds in curious fashion with the YHWH-men asking as they eat of the fruits of Abraham’s hospitality, “Where is Sarah, your wife?” When Abraham states that she is in the tent, one of the YHWH-men utters the promissory statement, “Surely I will return to you at this time of life next year, and behold, there will be a son (‫ )והנה־בן‬for Sarah your wife” (18:10). When Sarah laughs in the tent at this absurd promise and tries to deny it, the narrative makes it clear that the YHWH-man speaking is most definitely YHWH himself. From here (v. 13) until the end of the chapter YHWH is the subject of the speaking verbs. 38. Strangely, Westermann is of the opinion that 18:1–16 should not be classified as a theophany. “There is no way in which one can consider the present event an appearance of God, though the majority of exegetes speak of it in this way. The narrative 18:1–16b does not belong to any of the types of divine appearance in the Old Testament. It follows from this that the title in v. 1a, ‘Yahweh appeared to Abraham,’ is redactional; so H. Gunkel and others. A later orientation has smoothed over the difference between the meeting with a divine messenger and an appearance of God.” Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 275. Cf. Gunkel: “1a ist eine Überschrift wie 22.1a II Reg 2.1a. Der Satz gehört nicht zur alten Sage; die Sage selbst beginnt erst mit 1b” (Gunkel, Genesis, 193). While it is possible that the material was originally independent of vv. 17-33, the current narrative is not nearly as riddled with textual seams as Westermann supposes. I find it amusing that v. 1a has to be redactional even though it fits well with the omniscient YHWH-men in the story. It is also unclear why v. 1a could not be a narrative ploy letting the implied reader in on a secret that the characters are unaware of. In addition, v. 1a offers one of the three standard elements in the theophanic type-scene. Thus, the unity of the genre suggests a unity of text. Furthermore, Westermann’s minimalist understanding of the identity of the “Angel of the Lord” plays into the discussion influencing what is possible in relation to theophanies. Cf. also Esther J. Hamori’s incisive critique of Westermann on this very point: “When Gods Were Men”, 5–7. 39. “The mention of the terebinths of Mamre aims at emphasizing the important fact that the theophany occurred in a holy place.” Lindblom, “Theophanies,” 96. 40. Westermann observes that “One must be clear that the heading, ‘Now Yahweh appeared to him,’ which was prefixed later, alters the narrative profoundly. It has a strong power of suggestion so that one reads the subject of the next sentence differently.” Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 277.

28

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

However, in relation to the promise of the land, Gen 18 is more indirect than earlier theophanies. It only offers an implicit reference as it relates the intra-divine dialogue between the three men as they walk with Abraham towards Sodom. YHWH asks himself whether he should tell Abraham his plans regarding Sodom and concludes that he should because he has chosen Abraham and his progeny with the intention of fulfilling the previous divine promises (‫למען הביא יהוה על־אברהם את‬ ‫אשר־דבר עליו‬, v. 19). Within the broader canonical and narrative context, the previous promises include the promise of the land of Canaan.41 After the famous interchange between Abraham and YHWH regarding the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, YHWH assures Abraham that he will not destroy the cities if there are ten righteous individuals present. With that assurance, YHWH walks away from the grizzled, old patriarch (‫וילך יהוה כאשר כלה לדבר אל־אברהם‬, v. 33) signaling once again the visual, local nature of the theophany. Finally, both stories of Abraham in Gen 17 and 18 contain the requisite human doubt or anxiety. In Gen 17:17–18, Abraham laughs (‫ )ויצחק‬at the ridiculous nature of the divine promise that Sarah will bear a son.42 “If only Ishmael might live before you,” the old man hints. “No,” responds God, “I will make my eternal covenant with Sarah’s son, whom you will name ‘He-laughs’ (‫)יצחק‬, and his progeny after him (‫)לזרעו אחריו‬.” Similarly, in Gen 18:12–15, Sarah laughs (‫ )ותצחק‬at the YHWH-man’s ridiculous prophecy that she will have a son within a year. YHWH is unimpressed and asks why Sarah has laughed in the tent (‫למה זה צחקה‬ ‫ )שרה‬when nothing is impossible for YHWH.43 Sarah’s ensuing protest, “I did not laugh” (‫ )לא צחקתי‬meets with an all-knowing reproof, “No! Surely you did laugh!” (‫)לא כי צחקת‬. Throughout both stories, the human anxiety 41. If one does not read ch. 18 within the context of the preceding chapters (i.e., canonically), then it is fair to say with Kuntz that “this final theophany to Abraham…excludes any mention of further acquisition of the land.” See Kuntz, The Self-revelation of God, 121. 42. Brueggemann captures the scene well: “The entire text of Gen. 17 concerns binding Abraham to God in radical faith. Yet by vv. 17–18, Abraham completely doubts the promise, laughs a mocking laugh, and appeals to the son already in hand. Abraham, the father of faith, is here again presented as the unfaithful one, unable to trust, and willing to rely on an alternative to the promise.” Brueggemann, Genesis, 156. Calvin is more restrained and positive in his view of Abraham’s faith but does admit that “his language, however, is that of a mind still perturbed and vacillating.” Calvin, Genesis, vol. first, 460–61. 43. “Abraham, and especially Sarah, are not offered here as models of faith but as models of disbelief. For them, the powerful promise of God outdistances their ability to receive it.” Brueggemann, Genesis, 158.

2. To See or Not to See

29

at the truth of YHWH’s promise is summarized in Sarah’s disbelieving cackle: “Will I really give birth when I am old?”44 The next few chapters in Genesis lack the theophanic type-scene. The story of the two angels in Gen 19 who destroy Sodom and Gomorrah flirts with the theophanic genre (i.e., Lot “sees” them approach [‫]וירא־לוט‬ and mimics Abraham’s earlier hospitality). However, the two are never formally identified as YHWH, and given the fact that 18:22 differentiates between them and the third YHWH-man as they leave for Sodom, the story of Gen 19 cannot be categorized as a theophany.45 Similarly, Abimelech’s dream of God in Gen 20:3–7 deals with the issue of progeny, but there is no mention of the visual element. YHWH simply entered Abimelech’s dreams at night (‫ויבא אלהים אל־אבימלך בחלום הלילה‬, v. 3). Hagar’s second encounter with God in Gen 21:17–19 also lacks the visual element. This time the Angel of God calls to her from heaven rather than appearing to her directly (‫ויקרא מלאך אלהים אל־הגר מן־השמים‬, v. 17). In addition, rather than seeing God, Hagar receives sight of a well from God to deal with the immediacy of Ishmael’s impending death of thirst (‫ויפקח אלהים את־עיניה‬ ‫ותרא באר מים‬, v. 19). Genesis 22 mirrors the narrative pattern of Gen 21 in that the Angel of YHWH calls to Abraham from heaven rather than appearing to him (‫ויקרא אליו מלאך יהוה מן־השמים‬, v. 11). Likewise, after the voice rings out Abraham “sees” a ram caught in the thicket to deal with the immediacy of Isaac’s impending death on the altar (‫וישא אברהם‬ ‫את־עיניו וירא והנה־איל‬, v. 13). In both of these stories, human anxiety is overflowing, and the divine call averts the death of the promised progeny. Yet there is no visual element. b. God Appears to Isaac The next legitimate theophanic type-scene occurs in Gen 26:1–6. Abraham is long dead, and Isaac his son is weathering a famine that threatens to destroy the family. The formulaic element of human doubt and worry is at the forefront of the story. The famine is so severe that Isaac is contemplating abandoning the promised land to live in Egypt.46 From the 44. For a similar perspective on ch. 17 but with more emphasis on Ishmael’s status, see Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 127–28. Likewise, in regard to ch. 18 Staton observes that “the tension of the barrenness of Sarah, now beyond the age of childbearing, is central to the story (vv. 9–15)” (ibid., 132; cf. also 134). 45. For a discussion of the problem of the relationship between YHWH and the “three men” of Gen 18, see von Rad, Genesis, 204–6, 211. 46. Staton agrees: “The story begins with a threat to the patriarchal family. There is famine in the land. This provides the occasion for Yahweh to appear and affirm the promises once more.” See Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 144.

30

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

perspective of Isaac and that of the reader, only one half of the divine promise can survive at best. If Isaac stays in the land, the promised progeny with die. If he saves his family by moving to Egypt, the promise of the land will be in jeopardy. It is in this context that YHWH again appears with the now standard waw-consecutive niphal imperfect form of ‫וירא אליו יהוה( ראה‬, v. 2). Not surprisingly, YHWH’s visual appearance coincides with reassurances regarding the promises of progeny (‫ )זרע‬and land (‫)ארץ‬. YHWH commands Isaac to abandon the idea of descending to Egypt. Instead, Isaac is to dwell in the land where YHWH tells him (‫שכן בארץ אשר אמר‬ ‫)אליך‬. “Sojourn in this land (‫)גור בארץ הזאת‬,” says YHWH in v. 3, echoing his promise to Abraham in Gen 12:1–7, “and I will be with you and bless you (‫)ואברכך‬. For I will give all of these lands (‫ )כל־הארצת אלה‬to you and to your seed (‫)ולזרעך‬. I will stand by my oaths, which I swore to Abraham your father.” The similarities with the Abrahamic theophanies continue. In v. 4, YHWH restates to Isaac his promise to Abraham from Gen 15:5: “I will multiply your progeny (‫ )זרעך‬like the stars of the heavens, and I will give to your progeny all these lands (‫)כל־הארצת אלה‬, and all the nations of the land will bless themselves and others in your progeny (‫)בזרעך‬.” It is almost as if Isaac is reliving his father’s life.47 His theophany pulls together all of the Abrahamic vocabulary and themes. In addition, when Isaac obeys YHWH’s theophanic revelation and resides in Gerar, he ends up following in his father’s footsteps and claiming that Rebekah is his sister. The replication of the three theophanic elements points once again to the way in which the story-pattern functions as a type-scene. The elements are so typical that Abraham’s name could be substituted in Gen 26, and the story would be plausible. At the end of the story, YHWH appears a second time to Isaac, this time after he has left Gerar and camped at Beer Sheba. The visual revelation (‫וירא אליו יהוה‬, v. 24) comes in the midst of Isaac’s quarrels with Abimelech over water rights in the promised land. Once again, then, human anxiety over the promise of land is front and center.48 YHWH offers Isaac reassurance a second time: “I am the God of Abraham your father. Do not fear, for I am with you, and I will bless you (‫)וברכתיך‬ and cause your progeny (‫ )זרעך‬to multiply on account of Abraham, my servant.” Not surprisingly, Isaac pitches his tent and digs a well on the very spot of God’s appearance (‫)וט־שם אהלו ויכרו־שם עבדי־יצחק באר‬. 47. Cf. Kuntz, The Self-revelation of God, 123–25. 48. Again Staton agrees: “[the present collocation of stories is] adopted into this larger story in order to increase the tension of the narrative concerning the threat to the patriarchal family.” See Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 145.

2. To See or Not to See

31

Almost immediately, Isaac’s problems with Abimelech are at an end (26:26–33). As Staton puts it, “in spite of the tension between Isaac and the Philistines Yahweh [is] at work to meet the needs and secure the future of the patriarchal family.”49 c. God Appears to Jacob With Jacob’s first theophany in Gen 28 things are slightly different.50 In his flight from Esau, Jacob unknowingly spends the night in a sacred place. That night he dreams of a great stairway stretching up into the heavens with the angels of God going up and down. At the top of the stairs, opposite Jacob, stands the visible YHWH (‫והנה יהוה נצב עליו‬, v. 13),51 who reiterates the patriarchal promises of land and progeny: “The land (‫ )הארץ‬you are lying on, I will give it to you and your progeny (‫)ולזרעך‬. Your progeny (‫ )זרעך‬will be like the dust of the land, and you will spread out to the west, east, north, and south. All the families of the earth will be blessed (‫ )ונברכו‬in you and in your progeny (‫( ”)ובזרעך‬v. 14). To assuage both Jacob’s anxiety over Esau’s wrath and the reader’s anxiety over the precarious position of the promises of descendants and the return to the land,52 YHWH states that in v. 15 he will be with Jacob wherever he 49. Ibid., 146. “This reading of the Isaac narrative suggests that the ‘appearing’ of Yahweh in vv. 2 and 24 are important to the narrative of ch. 26 with regard to the tensions surrounding existence in the land and threat to progeny” (ibid., 147). 50. Terrien observes that the “Traditions concerning Jacob differ markedly from those concerning Abraham and Isaac, for they picture Jacob, the eponymous father of Israel, with an unrelieved realism sometimes tinged with sarcastic humor.” Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 84. 51. Westermann argues that in the phrase ‫יהוה נצב עליו‬, “the suffix cannot refer to the stairway, as that would conflict with v. 12b; it refers to Jacob, “before him” or “opposite him,” because he is addressed in what follows.” Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 455. I cannot see why it cannot be both. The stairway leads to the heavens, with YHWH standing at the top and thus opposite Jacob, who lies at the base of the stairs. Gunkel suggests that the J source understood it as “Jahve erscheint vor Jaqob, auf der Erde stehend.” However in the present context, which he believes to be a merged JE, the suffix seems to refer to the ladder. See Gunkel, Genesis, 318. Such a reading seems needlessly speculative and over reliant on specific assumptions regarding the development of “primitive” religions. On a synchronic level, there are verbal connections here between Gen 18 and Gen 28. In both cases, the main character sees the divine presence “standing” beside him (‫נצבים עליו‬, 18:2; ‫נצב עליו‬, 28:13). 52. Esau cannot represent the chosen seed. He has taken wives from among the Canaanites (28:8), and so his children are not set apart. Likewise, he has despised his birthright and abandoned the right to the land. In contrast, Jacob is the lone hope for

32

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

goes and will bring the trickster back to this land: “For I will not abandon you until I have done what I said to you.” Jacob awakes from this theophanic dream and exclaims in fear “Surely YHWH is in this place (‫)אכן יש יהוה במקום הזה‬, and I did not know. What a fearful place this is (‫ !)מה־נורא המקום הזה‬This place (‫ )זה‬cannot be anything except the house of God! This is the gate of heaven (‫זה שער‬ ‫( ”!)השמים‬vv. 16–17). The text’s repeated emphasis on “this place” in addition to the Jacob’s sight53 of YHWH “standing” at the top of the heaven-to-earth ladder suggests that Jacob’s experience was more than a dream epiphany.54 Jacob had experienced a theophany in his sleep and so concludes that God is specially present at Bethel. Unlike Hagar and the continued promise of land and progeny. He has tricked Esau out of his birthright and is willing to marry within the appropriate clan boundaries (28:6). Calvin sees a different context of anxiety: “Moses here teaches how opportunely, and (as we may say) in the critical moment, the Lord succoured his servant. For who would not have said that holy Jacob was neglected by God, since he was exposed to the incursion of wild beasts, and obnoxious to every kind of injury from earth and heaven, and found nowhere any help or solace? But when he was thus reduced to the last necessity, the Lord suddenly stretches out his hand to him, and wonderfully alleviates his trouble by a remarkable oracle.” Calvin, Genesis, vol. second, 112. 53. I take all three instances of ‫ הנה‬in vv. 12–13 to be references to the immediacy of the visual images. One could translate vv. 12–13a, then, as: “He dreamed, and right there in front of him was a ladder standing earth-ward and its top reaching/touching heavenward, and right there in front of him were the angels of God ascending and descending on it. And right there in front of him was YHWH standing on it.” J. P. Fokkelman argues in a similar manner. Cf. J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975), 50–55. “[The narrator] withdraws behind his protagonist and in a subordinate position he records what his, Jacob’s, eyes see, hinnē…wehinnē… wehinnē” (51). Savran is more explicit, stating that the “term itself indicates visual perception, usually serving as syntactic shorthand for a fuller clause with a verb of seeing.” Savran, Encountering the Divine, 60. Here Savran follows Kogut who argues that “the meaning of ‫ )ו)הנה‬is the same as that of the root ‫ראה‬.” See Simcha Kogut, “On the Meaning and Syntactical Status of ‫ הנה‬in Biblical Hebrew,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 31 (1986): 133–54 (149). Staton is more reticent: “Jacob is never explicitly said to see God or the messengers in Gen 28, which at least implies seeing.” Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 149–50, cf. also 162 n. 140. For a discussion on the question of ‫ הנה‬functioning as a point of view marker, see Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 62–63, 91–95. 54. As Lindblom states, “Because Bethel was a ‫מקום‬, a sacred spot, where God was believed to have been present, we are here permitted to speak of a typical theophany in a holy place.” See Lindblom, “Theophanies,” 97. It is because YHWH appears at Bethel that it is a sacred spot. Cf. Savran, Encountering the Divine, 32.

2. To See or Not to See

33

Abraham’s angelic voices “from heaven” in Gen 21 and 22, Jacob’s dream implies YHWH’s repeated descents and ascents to earth via his angelic avatars.55 In other words, Jacob sees in his dream YHWH’s own dynamic comings and goings at Bethel. The key difference, of course, in this type-scene is that Jacob does not immediately obey the divine vision like Abraham and Isaac. Instead, he makes his allegiance to this God contingent upon the God’s promise to keep him safe and return him to his father’s household (vv. 20–22).56 If the God of Bethel, YHWH, will do this, then YHWH will be Jacob’s God (‫)והיה יהוה לי לאלהים‬, and the trickster will return a tithe on everything that God gives him. In his wheeling and dealing, Jacob hopes to offer incentives to encourage God to keep the promise.57 Apparently, God has not assuaged all of Jacob’s doubts and anxieties.58 After Jacob’s sojourn outside of the promised land with its various adventures and scandals, Gen 32 relates his return home. The return itself is the work of God. In a dream epiphany that Jacob relates to his wives (Gen 31:11–13),59 the Angel of God (‫ )מלאך האלהים‬commands him to leave his cheating father-in-law, Laban, and return home. Nor is this the last appearance of an Angel. In an aside reminiscent of Jacob’s earlier experience at Bethel, vv. 2–3 (1–2 in the English text) observe that upon leaving Laban, Jacob encounters “angels of God” (‫)מלאכי אלהים‬. Jacob sees them (‫ )ראם‬and says, “this is God’s camp” (‫)מחנה אלהים זה‬. Clearly, the story is etiological in that the narrative recounts how Jacob named the place “Two-camps” (‫)מחנים‬. Given that YHWH is not specifically mentioned, it is difficult to label this numinous experience a theophany. However, given the fluidity of identity between angelic messengers and Notice also how the narrative sets up the sacral nature of Bethel when Jacob comes upon it by repeating ‫ מקום‬three time in Gen 28:11. Cf. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, 49, 63; Savran, Encountering the Divine, 34. 55. Cf. Jacob’s comments in Gen 48:16 regarding “the Angel who is redeeming me” (‫)המלאך הגאל‬. 56. Vos points out that “this is the only case in patriarchal history of the promising of a vow.” See Biblical Theology, 97. 57. Contra Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, 76. 58. Contra Brueggemann, Genesis, 246–48. 59. It is interesting to speculate whether Jacob actually had this dream or not. The text itself simply says that YHWH told Jacob to return home in 31:3. However, when Jacob returns from the fields, he has quite the story to tell. Apparently God had come to him in a dream during the flocks’ mating season and commanded him to return home. This, of course, raised the question: Why did Jacob wait so long to reveal the dream and its command to his wives?

34

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

the divine presence, it is difficult not to conclude that the story functions as a hint of what is to come later in the chapter at Peniel.60 Likewise, the reference to angels recalls Jacob’s flight from the promised land and his vision at Bethel. Such intertextual connections suggest reading the story as a preparation for the coming theophany, which will function as a narrative bookend to Jacob’s travels (i.e., as he leaves the promised land he experiences a theophany, and as he returns he experiences a theophany61). With the stage set, Jacob prepares to meet Esau. Human doubt and anxiety are woven throughout the story. Upon receiving news that Esau is approaching with four hundred men, the text relates that Jacob was “very afraid and distressed within himself” (‫ויירא יעקב מאד ויצר לו‬, v. 8, Eng. v. 762). From both the character and reader’s perspective, Jacob’s life is in real jeopardy and thus the divine promise of land and progeny stands on the edge of a knife. If Esau kills Jacob and his family, the God of Abraham and Isaac, who revealed himself at Bethel, will have failed to keep his promises.63 Jacob is aware of the dilemma and divides his family and possessions into “two camps” (‫ )לשני מחנות‬echoing his encounter with the angels. Then the trembling trickster offers a prayer to the God of Bethel (vv. 10–13). He admits that God has filled his life with undeserved blessings. He left with only a staff in his hand, and now he returns with “two camps” (‫)לשני מחנות‬. However, Jacob is not bashful in reminding God of his promises at Bethel. “Please deliver me from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau,” he cries, “For I am afraid of him (‫כי־ירא‬ ‫)אנכי אתו‬, lest he come and kill me and the mothers beside the children” (v. 12). Jacob drives home the point in v. 13, “You yourself said (‫ואתה‬ ‫)אמרת‬, ‘I will surely make it go well with you, and I will make your progeny (‫ )זרעך‬like the sand of the sea, which is beyond counting’.” The implication is clear: it is time for YHWH to prove himself faithful.

60. Cf. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, 219: “Just as at Bethel angels preceded God’s appearance, and God blessed him after that, so in this situation angels have appeared first (at Mahanaim) as heralds of God; now God himself goes to meet ‘Jacob’ on the Jabbok in a unique manner and blesses him.” 61. Cf. von Rad: “The Jacob story in its ‘Jehovistic’ form is like a bridge supported from within by two pillars: by the Bethel story (ch. 28) on the one hand and the Peniel story (ch. 32.22 ff.) on the other.” Von Rad, Genesis, 39. 62. From this point following, I will follow the Hebrew versification for this story, which is one verse ahead of the English. 63. Staton does not set the narrative problem up in these terms, but he does recognize that the story is part of the “flight-return” pattern and all of the tensions that it entails. See Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 159–60.

2. To See or Not to See

35

Unsure of God or Esau’s temperament after all these years, Jacob sends gifts of livestock ahead of him to repay Esau’s stolen blessing and birthright. Finally, after helping his family cross the brook of Jabbok, Jacob is alone. Here Jacob’s second theophany occurs. However, to a first-time reader, it is not immediately apparent that this is a theophany. Earlier clues, of course, are there. Two of the formulaic elements of the type-scene are present: the human anxiety over the divine promise and an indirect reference to the divine promises of progeny and land via Jacob’s prayer. Nonetheless, the standard waw-consecutive niphal imperfect form of ‫ ראה‬is nowhere to be seen. Instead, the story states that after Jacob was left alone that night, a “man” (‫ )איש‬wrestled with him until the break of dawn.64 In a clever twist, it is the “man” who “sees” (‫ )וירא‬that he will be unable to prevail against the patriarch. With a powerful blow, he manages to dislocate Jacob’s hip65 and then beg Jacob to let him go because of the approaching dawn. Jacob, however, is suspicious of the identity of his antagonist and refuses to let the “man” go except on one condition: “If you bless me” (‫כי אם־ברכתני‬, v. 27). Given that YHWH is the one who has repeated his blessing (‫ )ברך‬upon the patriarchs throughout the theophanic appearances, this is telling. Jacob is no fool. He suspects that the “man” is really a YHWH-man.66 This is confirmed when the man asks for Jacob’s name. When Jacob tells him, the man, in a manner analogous to YHWH’s renaming of Abraham and Sarah, renames him “He-whostrives-with-God”—“Israel” (‫)ישראל‬. “Because,” says the YHWH-man, “you have striven (‫ )שרית‬with God and man and have prevailed.” Jacob is now sure that he is wrestling with YHWH. “Please, tell me your 64. Notice that Jacob’s second theophany mirrors the first in taking place at night. It is also tempting to speculate that the “man’s” determination to leave before first light suggests that Jacob will recognize him from a previous meeting. J. P. Fokkelman observes: “Night is also necessary to conceal the adversary’s identity. For he emphatically wants to disappear before broad day-light. If he had not launched the attack in the night Jacob would probably have seen that he was a very particular man, a man of a very special authority (v. 29!) and very special identity (v. 30b).” See Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, 213. 65. Terrien points out that “hip” or “thigh” could be “a euphemism for the seat of procreation, and the muscles of the thigh played a part in several sacrificial rites.” Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 89. 66. As Lindblom observes, this story is “a narrative of the same kind as the Mamre-Sodom story.” Lindblom, “Theophanies,” 98. Westermann, in bizarre contrast, is determined that the story as a whole does not relate an encounter between Jacob and YHWH. Cf. Westermann, Genesis 12–36, 519, 521.

36

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

name,” begs the newly named Israel. “Why do you ask this about my name?” replies the YHWH-man, and then as confirmation of his divine identity the YHWH-man blesses Jacob there beside the brook of Jabbok (‫ויברך אתו שם‬, v. 30). Jacob’s response is to name the holy site (‫)המקום‬ “Face-of-God” (i.e., Peniel, ‫)פניאל‬. “For,” he observes, “I have seen (‫ )כי־ראיתי‬God face-to-face (‫)פנים אל־פנים‬, and my soul was delivered.”67 Finally, the reader has confirmation that this was a visual theophany.68 In a cursory reading it may appear that YHWH himself never actually reiterates the divine promises in the standard type-scene fashion. This is true. However, two things in the story imply the promises of progeny and land. First, Jacob’s final word at Peniel hints that he is aware that YHWH will keep his promises. “I have seen God face-to-face,” he says, “and my soul was delivered (‫)ותנצל נפשי‬.” The verb used here for “deliver” (‫)נצל‬ is the same verb Jacob uses in his earlier prayer to the God of Bethel in v. 12: “Please deliver me (‫ )הצילני‬from the hand of my brother.” While it is undoubtedly true that Jacob is celebrating seeing God face-to-face and living to tell the tale, it seems likely that the choice of verb suggests that he is also aware that God will “deliver” him from his brother and avert the potential disaster.69 In other words, the intertextual echo brings 67. GKC reads the final clause as antithetical—i.e., “and (yet) my life is preserved.” Cf. §111e. 68. Once again, I am ambivalent about Terrien’s determination that the visual element is “immediately cancelled out by the total obscurity of the environment.” It is true that the theophanic appearance is elusive and that “face-to-face” can be metaphorical rather than a literal reference to “visual perception” (cf. The Elusive Presence, 90–91). However, part of the elusiveness rests in the fact that theophany has a distinctly visual element that comes and goes at the deity’s good pleasure. This is never to say, of course, that the recipient of a theophany receives a vision of the fulness of divine being. Rather, Terrien’s repeated contention undercuts the significance of the “appearance” as an appearance. Savran also strangely asserts that “the verb ‫ ראיתי‬here cannot refer to visual seeing, as darkness pervades this entire encounter.” Savran, Encountering the Divine, 195 (cf. also 196). For a brief overview of the specifics of a “face-to-face” encounter with God, cf. Ian Douglas Wilson, “ ‘Face to Face’ with God: Another Look,” ResQ 51 (2009): 107–14. 69. For a comparable interpretation, see Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, 220: “That he has been delivered comes home to him when seeing God face-to-face. Jacob now understands that because he has seen God face-to-face he will now also see his brother Esau properly, face-to-face, no longer afraid, and that therefore he has been delivered.” Cf. also Steven McKenzie’s comments, “Jacob has persevered. Assuredly, he will not come to harm or defeat at the hands of Esau. He has prevailed and is supremely blessed.” See Steven L. McKenzie, “ ‘You Have Prevailed’: The Function of Jacob’s Encounter at Peniel in the Jacob Cycle,” Restoration Quarterly

2. To See or Not to See

37

Jacob’s earlier prayer into the wrestling match at Jabbok and tells the reader that God will keep his promises. That this is the case can be seen by the response Jacob gives to Esau in Gen 33:10. Echoing the Jabbok theophany, Jacob tells Esau “I have seen your face like seeing the face of God and you were pleased with me” (‫)ראיתי פניך כראת פני אלהים ותרצני‬. The conclusion of the wrestling match had signaled to the trickster that God would keep his promises. Second, the YHWH-man changes Jacob’s name to “Israel.” Within the canonical context of the Pentateuch and the whole Hebrew Bible, the name reverberates with echoes of the divine promises. Israel is the people promised to Abraham, Isaac, and now Jacob. Israel is the people God will bring out of Egypt into the promised land. Israel is the people who will be gifted with Torah and the divine presence. Israel is the people who will bless the nations. Even the story’s folk etymology hammers home the survival of Israel. Israel the nation, like its patronymic Jacob/Israel, has struggled with God and man and survived. To the early readers (or hearers) of this tale, YHWH’s declaration that Jacob will now be Israel signals the triumph of the divine promises of land and progeny in the face of human weakness and evil. Neither Esau/Edom nor Egypt (nor the later Babylon) will be able to destroy the people who are like the sand on the seashore. They will strive and find deliverance even in the midst of divine punishment.70 Genesis 35 relates the second to last theophany associated with the patriarch Jacob. The chapter is something of a reiteration or recapitulation of Jacob’s former theophanic experiences. In v. 1 God commands Jacob to return to Bethel and make good on his vow to worship the God who has preserved him. Indeed, the cultic element is highlighted in a manner reminiscent of Abraham’s altar-building in Gen 12:7. Like his grandfather, Jacob must build an altar (‫ )ועשה־שם מזבח‬to the God who appeared to him (‫ )לאל הנראה אליך‬as he left his home (v. 1). Jacob tells his household that they must move to Bethel so that he can perform his cultic promise. 23 (1980): 229. The only problem with McKenzie’s reading is that it suggests that Jacob’s safety is the result of his own skill and prowess. I am much more inclined to read the intertextual connection as an assurance of divine favor and help in the face of threats to the divine promise of land and progeny. It is the hand of God that has and will accomplish Jacob’s deliverance. The niphal form of the verb in v. 31 (‫)וַ ִּתּנָ ֵצל‬ corroborates this reading. 70. “This narrative…is about the forming of Israel, no more no less. Israel’s identity is not only that he has to do with God, but that he has been peculiarly ‘victimized’ by the assault of God. That is what marks Israel in its obedience and its disobedience.” Brueggemann, Genesis, 270. Cf. also Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, 222.

38

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

God has been with him wherever he has gone, and the implication is clear: now it is Jacob’s turn to prove himself faithful. However, the move is not merely geographical nor a single liturgical act. Rather, Jacob takes his vow seriously and instructs his household to purge themselves of their foreign gods (‫אלהי הנכר‬, v. 2). From now on, Jacob and his household will worship the God of Bethel alone. So Jacob arrives at Bethel a second time and builds an altar. Once again he names the holy place (‫ויקרא למקום‬, v. 7), but this time he doubles the name of God. It is now “El-Bethel,” “God-of-the-house-of-God” (‫אל‬ ‫)בית־אל‬. He did this, says the text, because God had been “uncovered” or “disclosed” to him there (‫)כי שם נגלו אליו האלהים‬.71 With the previous Bethel theophany celebrated with cultic closure, Jacob receives another theophany in the same spot (vv. 9–15). The description of this divine appearance recapitulates and confirms Jacob’s previous two theophanies in Gen 28 and 32. This time the standard waw-consecutive niphal imperfect form of ‫ ראה‬is present: “God appeared (‫ )וירא אלהים‬to Jacob again when he came from Padan Aram and blessed him (‫)ויברך אתו‬.” Continuing to recapitulate and confirm the Jabbok theophany, God renames Jacob as Israel (v. 10). Then in a manner reminiscent of both the earlier Bethel appearance and his other appearances to Abraham and Isaac, God offers his now normal promissory chorus about progeny and land: “I am El Shaddai, be fruitful and multiply. A nation (‫ )גוי‬and assembly of nations (‫ )וקהל גוים‬will come from you, and kings will come from your loins. I will give to you the land (‫ )הארץ‬that I gave to Abraham and Isaac. I will also give the land (‫ )הארץ‬to your progeny (‫ )לזרעך‬after you.” Continuing to echo preceding theophanies, in this instance Gen 17:22’s description of God “going up from Abraham (‫)ויעל אלהים מעל אברהם‬,” the text states that “God went up from him in the place where he spoke with him” (‫ויעל מעליו אלהים במקום אשר־דבר אתו‬, v. 13). In response Jacob acts in a manner analogous to his actions in Gen 28:18–19. He sets up a stone, anoints it with oil and a libation, and calls the name of the place “Bethel,” “House-of-God.” Given the repetitions and apparent contradictions between the previous Jacobean theophanies and this one, it is not surprising that a sourcecritical perspective would suggest that the text of vv. 9–15 represents another tradition or document added to the larger Jacob-cycle.72 While this 71. The LXX translates is as the third person singular aorist passive indicative ἐπεφάνη from ἐπιφαίνω. 72. Regarding vv. 6–8 and 14–15, von Rad observes: “Our text is not a real saga with several acting persons, with moments of suspense and their release, but rather a formerly independent tradition which arose in close connection with an ancient cultic

2. To See or Not to See

39

is likely, the more important question is why the text is included in the canonical narrative and no attempt is made at harmonization. The answer to this conundrum comes from what seems to be missing in the type-scene. While “seeing” and promissory elements are clearly in play, the paradigmatic element of human anxiety or fear seems to be missing. Or is it? Thinking in terms of an ancient Near Eastern reader standing in front of the text, Jacob’s two preceding theophanies are odd to say the least. They end up having all three of the type-scene elements, and yet they could give the impression that Jacob received theophanies from other, local numinous deities: a certain “El-Bethel” and a folkloric river demon challenging those who cross the brook of Jabbok.73 In other words, an ancient Near Eastern reader (or a modern critical one!) might be uneasy with the Jacobean theophanies and wonder if they truly were “appearances” of YHWH/Elohim.74 The inclusion of vv. 9–15 puts this fear to rest in that it reaffirms in more traditional terms that it was the God of Abraham and Isaac who appeared to Jacob at Bethel and at Jabbok.75 This custom and which was then later inserted as a part of the narrative before Jacob’s departure from Laban… Since Jacob has now arrived in the vicinity of Bethel, this brief traditional element has been attached to the narrative.” Von Rad, Genesis, 337–38. Von Rad also argues that vv. 9–13 are some of the only P material dedicated to Jacob. 73. Regarding the latter: “The mysterious figure who assailed the man, who was about to cross the stream, shows every sign of being originally a place numen, attached to the holy place of Peniel and watching at the ford in order to attack travellers who for some reason displeased him. His demonic character appears clearly from the interesting feature that he must vanish at dawn, a motif well-known to every folklorist.” Lindblom, “Theophanies,” 98. Cf. also Nathaniel Schmidt, “The Numen of Penuel,” JBL 45, no. 3/4 (1926): 268–74. In contrast, Esther Hamori remains unconvinced by arguments for a river-demon and points out that Gunkel and others have been sloppy in too quickly comparing Gen 32 to “similar” events in other religious stories. Her point is well taken, but my own position leaves room for the possibility that the story could look like a traditional folkloric tale. See Hamori, “When Gods Were Men,” 13–19. 74. The seventeenth-century Reformed writer Andrew Willet observed that there were a variety of ancient authorities who thought that the Angel was actually evil. See Andrew Willet, Hexapla in Genesin & Exodum: That Is A sixfold Commentary Upon the Two First Bookes of Moses, Being Genesis and Exodus (London: John Haviland, 1633), 288. 75. A potential problem with this way of reading vv. 9–15 is that Abraham’s experience in Gen 18 is also regularly understood as problematic as an ‫ איש‬theophany (to use Hamori’s terminology), and some suggest that it is Canaanite in origin. Cf. Hamori’s discussion in which she disassociates Gen 18 and Ugaritic mythology,

40

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

explains both the apparent contradictions and the reiteration of themes and vocabulary associated with Abraham and Isaac’s theophanies.76 Another possibility, suggested by Staton, is that the story of Dinah’s rape in Gen 34 provides the narrative tension or anxiety. Simeon and Levi’s violent response has resulted in danger for the clan. The people of the land now look unfavorably upon Jacob and his family. “You have troubled me in making me stink (‫ )להבאישני‬to the inhabitants of the land… They will gather against me, strike me, and I will be exterminated—me and my house (‫( ”)אני וביתי‬34:30). This would also explain ch. 35’s early note that God put terror in the surrounding cities so that they did not chase after the sons of Jacob (35:5). In this reading, YHWH’s appearance(s) at Bethel reiterate(s) his providential care of Jacob.77 A third possibility is that Jacob’s entreaty to his family in v. 2 to remove their “foreign” gods (‫)אלהי הנכר‬, purify themselves (‫)הטהרו‬, and change their outer garments (‫ )החליפו שמלתיכם‬suggests an implied divine threat. YHWH has just commanded the trickster to return to Bethel and sacrifice, and the presence of alien deities in Jacob’s caravan would be inimical to such worship. Jacob may well fear that YHWH is displeased with such “When Gods Were Men,” 78–96. The problem, then, is that if Jacob’s theophanies give the reader pause, Abraham’s experience by the terebinths of Mamre could (or perhaps should) also create problems. However, one could argue that vv. 9–15 allay all of the “folkloric” concerns from Abraham to Jacob. After all, as I noted above, there are verbal connections between Gen 18 and Gen 28. In both instances, the main character sees the divine presence “standing” beside him (‫נצבים עליו‬, 18:2; ‫נצב עליו‬, 28:13). In contrast, one could also argue the reverse: that the verbal links between the two narratives are further attempts to deal with concerns regarding the Jacob theophanies (i.e., link the stories with Abraham, who could not possibly worship the wrong god, and all is well). None of this, of course, is indisputable, but if one follows Hamori in dismissing any connections between Gen 18 and Ugaritic mythology, the point is moot. 76. Nahum Sarna offers a different explanation. He believes that because the naming occurred on the opposite side of the Jordan at the hand of Esau’s angelic representative, “the new name ‘Israel’ needs to be confirmed and validated by God Himself in the promised land. The fact that God is said to appear ‘again’ and that, remarkably, no rationale for the new name is given here, shows a dependency on the earlier narrative.” Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, 242. 77. See Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 165–66. Later Staton seems to retract this when he writes: “There is no apparent tension in the narrative [i.e., Gen 35] except perhaps the need to fulfill the earlier vow. When one looks to the end of ch. 34, however, the patriarchal family is threatened by the inhabitants of the land. In ch. 35, however, the departure of the family is as a result of the direct command of Elohim” (ibid., 171).

2. To See or Not to See

41

activity. In a similar way, it would seem difficult for YHWH to bless Jacob and his progeny if Jacob and his progeny are divided in their loyalties.78 The final theophany of the book of Genesis occurs near the end of Jacob’s life in Gen 46:1–4. Jacob is now an old man, who has lived through joys and sorrows. In particular, he has lived through the (apparent) death and resurrection of his favorite child, Joseph. Now, he intends to venture forth from the promised land and visit his son in Egypt. However, leery of leaving the promised land and aware of God’s refusal to let Isaac leave in a time of famine (Gen 26:1–6), Jacob/Israel goes to the holy place at Beersheba and offers sacrifices to the God of his father Isaac. In response God speaks to him in “visions of the night” (‫במראת‬ ‫הלילה‬, v. 2).79 Assuaging Jacob’s fear of placing the twin promise of land and progeny in jeopardy, God identifies himself as the True God (‫אנכי‬ ‫האל אלהי אביך‬, “I am the God, the God of your father,” v. 3) and assures the patriarch that he will still become a “great nation” (‫ )לגוי גדול‬and be brought out of Egypt in due time (note the emphatic nature of the Hebrew in v. 4: ‫ואנכי אעלך גם־עלה‬, “I myself will most assuredly bring you up”). The old man (and worried readers) can rest easy. God will hold the land for his people and keep them from becoming assimilated into the melting pot of Egypt. With this assurance, Israel descends into Egypt. While this is the last official theophany in the book of Genesis, Jacob does reference his theophanies one final time in Gen 48. Roughly 17 years after the events recorded in Gen 46, Joseph learns that Jacob is nearing death, and so he brings his two sons to receive the patriarch’s blessing. As he prepares to bless Ephraim and Manasseh, Jacob recounts how El-Shaddai “appeared” to him at Bethel/Luz (‫אל שדי נראה־אלי בלוז‬, v. 3) and promised him land (‫ )הארץ הזאת‬and progeny (‫( )לזרעך‬v. 4). The feeble old man’s blessing then reverberates with all of the covenant promises associated with his visions of God. He asks that the God of Abraham and Isaac, who shepherded him and as the “Angel” protected him from all evil (‫)המלאך הגאל אתי מכל־רע‬, bless the boys and incorporate them into Israel while also multiplying them in the land (vv. 15–16). 78. I owe Richard Bautch the insight that the presence of the foreign gods in v. 2 could be the basis for human anxiety in the story. He kindly commented on my paper at the regional SBL in March 2015. 79. Once again Westermann proves insistent that the passage does not mean what it says. He writes: “the present passage differs from Gen. 28 in that here Jacob sees nothing. What is introduced is merely something that Jacob hears.” Claus Westermann Genesis 37–50: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion, S.J. (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986), 155. My only reply is that it is odd that the text bothers to mention a “visual” component when it does not elsewhere.

42

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

d. Summary Whether the character is Abraham (and Sarah), Hagar, Isaac, or Jacob, every person in Genesis who experiences a theophany receives a promise associated with their children. This promise, with the exception of the promise to Hagar,80 includes an assurance that their children will also inherit the promised land of Canaan. In addition, each theophany takes place at a moment of narrative tension when it appears that the promise is in jeopardy. Both the intratextual characters and the extratextual reader are in a state of doubt regarding God’s fidelity to his promises. All of this suggests that the “appearances” of God in Genesis represent a type-scene. The formulaic elements of sight, promises, and human anxiety all provide the narrative elements that create the parameters within which the individual stories are told. These parameters then allow for creativity within the narrative pattern. In terms of theology, the Genesis theophanic type-scene displays a specific tendenz: YHWH is a promising God. When he appears, he promises. Invariably the promises seek to assuage the human doubt or worry operant in the story. In a sense the Genesis stories present a futurefocused God, a God intent on an eschaton where Abraham’s numerous progeny will flourish in the land.

80. And perhaps Eve, if one includes Gen 3:8 as a theophany. See above n. 5.

Chapter 3 H i d d en i n t h e C louds : T he A p p ea r an ces of G od i n E xodus

‫פרש ענן למסך ואש להאיר לילה…כי־זכר את־דבר קדשו את־אברהם עבדו‬ He spread out a cloud for a covering and fire to lighten the night… Because he remembered his holy word with Abraham his servant. Ps 105:39, 42

1. Introduction Like its predecessor, the second book of Torah abounds with theophanies. To quote Frank Polak: The theophany theme dominates the entire book of Exodus. This overarching theme makes its first appearance in the revelation to Moses at the burning bush (Exod 3–4), reaches its climax in the Sinai theophany and comes to its final completion in the revelation to Moses on the mountain (ch. 33–34). The book closes with the descent of the cloud on the “Tent of Meeting,” as the radiance of the kābōd fills the tabernacle (40,34–35). The theophany theme, then, stands at the center of the book as a whole, and permeates all traditions, sources and redaction layers.1

However, these theophanies represent a new type-scene. Gone are the intimate encounters between YHWH and the individual. A shift has taken place. Within the narrative YHWH still appears, but his appearances are now public events, occasions for demonstrating his might and provision. Thus, in terms of the broader narrative, the new type-scene builds on the preceding. The theophanic God who promises now becomes the theophanic God who acts on those promises.

1. Polak, “Theophany and Mediator,” 113.

44

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

Literarily, the new type-scene functions as both a resolution to earlier narrative tensions and as an introduction to new complications. This loop-stitch of storytelling allows the appearing God to tidy up loose ends while also encountering new challenges in the fulfillment of the dual promise. The story is then driven forward with ever new problems seeking resolution. Each stage of promise-fulfillment requires a further stage. Outside impediments (i.e., Egypt, Pharaoh) pave the way for internal impediments (i.e., Israel’s rebelliousness). The people’s cantankerousness hampers YHWH’s design to have his own nation. YHWH’s theophanic appearances now result not only in the establishment of a constituted people but also in divine attempts at moral suasion and communal, spiritual formation. To be truly Abraham’s heirs, the Hebrews require a covenant and training within (or in relation to) that covenantal context. At a number of points, YHWH nearly gives up, and Israel’s salvation from Egypt rides on the (ironically) golden-tongued Moses, whose mediatorial cunning amuses YHWH. From beginning to end the Exodus theophanic type-scene drives the story forward. In its initial incarnation it echoes the Genesis type-scene while also pointing forward to its own unique ingredients. By the end of the book, it prepares for the narrative transition to Leviticus and Numbers. 2. Theophanies in Exodus a. God Appears to Moses Pre-Sinai The first appearance of God in Exodus echoes the standard Genesis typescene. Moses is tending his father-in-law’s sheep near Mt. Horeb when the Angel of YHWH “appeared to him” (‫ )וירא מלאך יהוה אליו‬in a flame of fire (‫ )בלבת־אש‬from the midst of a thorn bush (Exod 3:2). The visual element is prominent. Not only is the standard third masculine singular waw-consecutive niphal of ‫ ראה‬present,2 but the story explicitly states that Moses “looked” (‫ )וירא‬and “behold” (‫ הנה‬3) the bush was burning with fire yet not consumed. In addition, the narrator observes Moses’ visually driven curiosity: “Let me turn aside so that I may see (‫ )ואראה‬this great sight (‫( ”)המראה הגדל הזה‬3:3). Likewise, in a playful twist, when YHWH sees (‫וירא‬, 3:4) that Moses has turned aside “to see” (‫)לראות‬, he calls out 2. Following the translation pattern in Genesis, the LXX continues to translate ‫וַ ּיֵ ָרא‬ as ὤφθη, a third singular aorist passive indicative from ὁράω. 3. I take the ‫ הנה‬here to be a reference to the immediacy of the visual image. Thus, one could translate: “Moses looked, and right there, the bush was burning with fire, and yet was not consumed.” Cf. above, Chapter 2 n. 53.

3. Hidden in the Clouds

45

to the shepherd. When Moses realizes that this is a holy place (‫אדמת־קדש‬ ‫הוא‬, 3:5) touched by the presence of God, he hides his face “because he was afraid to look upon God” (‫כי ירא מהביט אל־האלהים‬, 3:6).4 The other two elements of the Genesis type-scene are also present. YHWH himself states that he has “most assuredly seen” (‫ )ראה ראיתי‬the afflictions of his people in Egypt and has come down to deliver them. As always, human evil threatens the dual promise of progeny and land and thus creates anxiety in the story’s characters and readers. The first two chapters of Exodus relate how Pharaoh systematically worked to destroy Abraham’s seed. Moses himself only escaped the flood of death in a miniature ark hidden among the reeds of the Nile. In a similar vein, the nation of Israel is trapped outside of the promised land. There can be no inheritance—no fulfillment of the promise—as long as Jacob’s children are slaves in Egypt. In response to this kairotic moment filled with human fear, YHWH reiterates his promise: “I have come down to deliver them from the hand of Egypt and bring them up from that land to a good and spacious land, to a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites” (3:8). In this way, the first theophany of Exodus links into the preceding theophanies in Genesis. In case there was any doubt, the God speaking from the burning bush states in v. 6: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” When Moses objects that the people will not believe and that they will demand a name for this “god,” God drives home the point by revealing his elusive name filled with mystery and riddles: “I am who I am” (‫)אהיה אשר אהיה‬. “Say to the children of Israel, ‘I am’ sent me to you” (3:14). “Thus, you shall say to the children of Israel: YHWH (‫)יהוה‬, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob sent me to you. This is my name forever, and this is my marker of remembrance from generation to generation” (3:15).5 To hammer home the point a third time, God commands Moses to gather the elders of Israel and tell them, “YHWH (‫)יהוה‬, the God of your fathers, appeared (‫ )נראה‬to me, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (3:16). If the Israelites still do not believe 4. For more on the importance of the visual aspect for the JE narrative, see Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 184. 5. For cogent discussions of the divine name, its possible origin, and meaning, see Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 113–19; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 60–71 (hereafter cited as CMHE); Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1976), 60–70.

46

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

that YHWH has “appeared” to Moses (‫נראה‬, 4:1, 5), YHWH gives Moses a series of spectacular signs to convince them that this new “YHWH” is indeed the God of their fathers. Like the patriarchs of old, Moses has seen God. After many years of hopelessness, YHWH has appeared bringing hope. However, for all of the similarities between the Genesis type-scene theophany and Exod 3, there are also differences. To begin with, in each of the Genesis theophanies the dual promise of progeny and land looks toward the future. In Exod 3, the fulfillment of the promises is at hand.6 As part of this, Moses’ vision of God has a distinct element of mediatorial commissioning. While it is true that YHWH commands (or perhaps, commissions) Abraham and the others in Genesis to do various things, he never commissions them to bring about the fulfillment of the promise. The patriarchs and matriarchs are called to live in faith, awaiting the time when YHWH will give their seed the land. In contrast, Moses’ theophanic experience is the catalyst for fulfillment. It is the first domino to fall in the fulfillment of Israel’s promises. In one sense, both type-scenes represent “theophanic disclosures as unfolding within a crucial historical moment.”7 However, the crucial moments differ in terms of promise and fulfillment. A second difference is the key visual element of fire (‫)אש‬. While Abraham sees a smoking firepot (‫ )תנור עשן‬and torch of fire (‫)לפיד אש‬ in Gen 15, the other Genesis theophanies lack the element of fire.8 Intriguingly, Gen 15 functions as a prophecy looking forward to the time of Moses when Israel will serve a foreign nation for four hundred years. As will become clear in what follows, the visible element of fire (usually 6. Staton puts it well: “Whereas the patriarchs received the promise of the land (Gen 17.1ff. P), Moses is now informed that Yahweh has remembered his covenant and will bring his promise to fulfilment. This message both begins and ends with the proclamation of the name: ‘I am Yahweh’ (6:2, 8). Yahweh is identified as the God who remembers his covenant and keeps promise with his people.” See Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 180–81. Cf. also pp. 184–85: “the purpose of the appearing is now to call a deliverer into action who with Yahweh’s help will lead the people out of Israel [sic] and to the land of the Canaanites. This is a new element, not found in the patriarchal traditions.” 7.  Kuntz, The Self-revelation of God, 72. 8. Though I disagree with his vocabulary choice, Samuel Terrien captures the distinction: “The theophany [i.e., the Mosaic theophany] differs from the epiphanic visitation [i.e., the patriarchal theophanies] on the one hand and from the prophetic vision on the other because it uses an element of nature in the context of tumult or of wonder as a starting point for an experience of the divine.” See Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 110. Cf. also p. 120.

3. Hidden in the Clouds

47

coupled with smoke and cloud) is indispensable in the Exodus theophanies and is often linked with the divine name.9 In this way, the appearance of God in Exod 3 functions as a liminal moment in the broader narrative. It connects itself with the previous stories of divine appearances but introduces a new visual element that will become normative throughout the remainder of the book.10 YHWH can still appear in a personal, faceto-face manner analogous to his appearances in Gen 18 and 32; however, even in these instances there is always a reference to the “Kabod” (‫)כבוד‬, the fiery Glory-cloud.11 Thus, one can say that in Exodus attention is given to the material shrouding of the divine presence. Whereas the theophanies of Genesis state that YHWH appeared but rarely offer any specific descriptions of the visual elements, the theophanies of Exodus are careful to observe the exact nature of how God cloaks himself from human eyes. God comes clothed in the elements of a storm.12 The Kabod appears to be both a 9. Cf. C. John Collins, “‫כבוד‬,” NIDOTTE, 2:577–87 (esp. 582); Moshe Weinfeld, “‫כבוד‬,” TDOT, 7:22–38 (esp. 36–7). 10. Frank Polak overplays the contrast between the fire in Gen 15 and in Exod 3: “Furnace and torch are substitutes for the divine presence, whereas the flame in the bush is said to embody a malak YHWH by way of synecdoche.” See Polak, “Theophany and Mediator,” 118 n. 14. This especially odd given the fact that Polak observes connections between both Exod 3 and 19–24 (cf. pp. 135–7) and Gen 15 and Exod 19–24 (p. 136 n. 67). While there are undoubtedly differences between Gen 15 and Exod 3, both offer a visual element of fire that represents/instantiates YHWH in some mysterious way. Thus, Kuntz’s suggestion that the Yahwist intentionally echoed Gen 15:17 to link together the Angel of YHWH and the Kabod merits attention. See Kuntz, The Self-revelation of God, 142–43. 11. Throughout, when I reference the “Kabod,” I am referring to the fiery Glorycloud even if the Hebrew word ‫ כבוד‬is not present. I realize that traditional critical scholarship has distinguished between the pillar of cloud in the wilderness traditions and the “Kabod” of the Priestly source. However, since I am working synchronically in this study and analyzing the canonical synthesis as it stands in its final form, I have chosen to group these two strands together because of their obvious similarities. In one sense, I am following the lead of P in its attempt to pull together the tabernacle and the tent of meeting and their attendant theophanic auras. 12. Cf. George Mendenhall’s discussion of the melammū and the puluḫtu associated with ancient Near Eastern conceptions of divine presence. See Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation, 32–56 (especially the summary on pp. 52–53). YHWH’s shrouding cloak of cloud is quite similar to the melammū in that it both reveals and “masks” the deity (for the specific connections between cloud and melammū, see especially ibid., 54–59). In a similar manner, the references to fire echo the puluḫtu, which is a kind of “garment of flame surrounding the god or king” (ibid., 53). So Weinfeld, TDOT,

48

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

physical, sacramental instantiation of the divine presence and a protective shield from the presence so that worshippers are not consumed by the fire of the Kabod. The liminal nature of Exod 3 is only exacerbated three chapters later in Exod 6. In a moment of difficulty, YHWH encourages the despondent Moses. He rehearses how he “appeared” (‫ )וארא‬to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Even though he appeared to them as El Shaddai and not as YHWH, YHWH assures Moses that he is the same God who cut a covenant with them and promised them progeny and land. Now is the time for action. The fulfillment of the promises is at hand. “I will take you to me for a people, and I will be God to you. Then you will know that I am YHWH your God, the one bringing you out from under the burdens of Egypt. I will bring you to the land (‫)הארץ‬, which I lifted up my hand in oath to give it to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I will give it to you for a possession. I am YHWH” (6:7–8). The “in-between” nature of Exod 3 is clear also from the theophanies that follow. Aside from YHWH’s personal appearances to Moses, the theophanies in the book of Exodus are decidedly communal. This explains the narrative logic of the predominance of the Kabod motif in each of the divine appearances. A YHWH-man theophany presents visual difficulties within a communal setting (i.e., Can all of Israel “see” the YHWH-man?). In contrast, the appearance of the Kabod can be observed at a distance by thousands of people.13 Likewise, in Exodus YHWH is a God of military 7:29–31; Fretheim, The Suffering of God, 96. Frank Moore Cross offered his own reflections on the difficulties surrounding the nature of the Kabod. See Cross, CMHE, Chapter 7, but especially 153 n. 30, 165–69. 13. In the mid-twentieth century, Yehezkel Kaufmann observed that the shift to the storm cloud theophany in Exodus and beyond was required by a need to disseminate “God’s revelation to a whole people or the entire world… In the stories of Genesis, however, public theophanies do not take place.” See Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, trans. and ed. Moshe Greenberg (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 72. Similarly, though Carey Walsh separates the Kabod of the burning bush and Sinai theophanies from the Kabod of the pillar of cloud in a diachronic fashion, her comment on the communal nature of the latter can be applied in general (synchronically) to Exodus theophanies: “it is addressed to the people en masse as audience, and not to a sole individual… The pillar of cloud, then, is a general revelation of God’s presence, directly available to all people, no longer restricted to the divine intermediary.” See Carey Walsh, “Where Did God Go? Theophanic Shift in Exodus,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 42, no. 3 (2013): 119; so also Fretheim, Suffering of God, 90, 95. At the same time, I am not convinced by Walsh’s contention that the pillar was “directly available to all people” with no need of a mediator (Exod 33:7 notwithstanding).

3. Hidden in the Clouds

49

might and danger—a God who acts against other nations within the public sphere.14 It is only fitting then that he takes on the public characteristics of an ancient Near Eastern storm god in the “typology of exaltation.”15 God must publicly gain glory. Even in the case of Moses, the communal nature of his relationship with YHWH is evident in the mediatorial role assigned to him. Thus, Moses himself stands as a liminal agent between Genesis type-scene theophanies and communal theophanies. As the representative of God, he is entitled to “face-to-face” encounters similar to those of the patriarchs, but his conversations with God are always in relation to the people of Israel.16 In many ways, Moses is the last of the patriarchs. Like Abraham, YHWH’s word comes to him in visions of fire. Like Jacob, he sees YHWH faceto-face. However, at the same time Moses is the first of Israel’s public prophets. He is both the final patriarch and the first prophet. His person is both retrospective and expective. As a result, the character of Moses embodies in his own person the very transition evident in Exod 3. Finally, Exod 3 differs from the Genesis theophanic type-scene in that there is an element of danger. God warns Moses to refrain from drawing near to the burning bush until he has removed his shoes. The presence of the Kabod sanctifies the ground and makes it dangerous to the uninitiated. 14. The public nature of the theophanies is especially evident at Mt. Sinai. As Polak puts it, “the Sinai revelation assumes entirely new dimensions: as a public event in human space and time, it transcends myth in order to become living history.” See Polak, “Theophany and Mediator,” 118 (cf. also pp. 129–30). 15. Mann has shown that the Red Sea narrative follows the typical ancient Near Eastern “vanguard motif” in which a god or goddess goes before, beside, or behind an army or procession to protect the people and gain honor and glory for himself/ herself and his or her divine representative. In addition, the vanguard motif often includes theophanic elements of a storm or fire as the destructive forces that defeat the enemy. In a number of instances, this motif includes a historical (as opposed to mythic) context. See Thomas W. Mann, Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Traditions: The Typology of Exaltation (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), especially Chapters 1–4. 16. Savran sees Moses’ commission as an example of “externalization”—i.e., a way of continuing or remembering the theophany in a tangible manner. “The appearance of the prophet in his social role reflects the continuation or extension of the divine presence into the social framework of the community in the form of prophecy. By bringing the words of YHWH before the people the prophet’s personal contact with YHWH is transformed into a public role. In this way the prophet is primarily identified with YHWH, reflecting the vertical axis of relationship between human and the divine. At the same time the prophet’s very humanness underscores the disparity between these two worlds.” Savran, Encountering the Divine, 159. Cf. also p. 163.

50

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

This is now “holy ground” (‫אדמת־קדש הוא‬, 3:5). Moses himself demonstrates his awareness of the danger when he hides his face (‫כי ירא מהביט‬ ‫אל־האלהים‬, 3:6). The danger of YHWH’s theophanic presence, hinted at in Genesis,17 is now in full blossom.18 In summary, the theophany related in Exod 3 functions as a narrative transition between the Genesis theophanic type-scene and the public, communal appearances of YHWH as the warrior and lawgiver shrouded in cloud. In what follows, it will become clear that the Exodus theophanies display their own narrative pattern or type-scene.19 The following elements are typical: the appearance of the dangerous Kabod, a communal setting, and divine action constituting or preserving Israel as a people in preparation for the Abrahamic inheritance. One could say then that whereas Genesis theophanies are about revelation as a context for action, the Exodus theophanies are about action toward the fulfillment of the promises.20 b. God Appears to Israel Pre-Sinai With the shattering consequences of the plagues and the sobering reality of the Passover, Pharaoh relents from his refusal to release Israel to worship YHWH in the wilderness. The people depart with the bones of Joseph in tow (Exod 13:19) and follow the visible, theophanic instantiation of the divine presence, the Kabod. Exodus 13:21–22 observes that “YHWH was walking before them by day in a column of cloud (‫ )בעמוד ענן‬to lead them in the way and by night in a column of fire (‫ )בעמוד אש‬to light their walking for both day and night. He did not cause the column of the cloud (‫ )עמוד הענן‬by day or the column of the fire (‫ )עמוד האש‬by night to depart from before the people.”

17. Cf. Gen 15:1; 26:24. 18. Savran notes the interesting contrast between the expressed danger of theophanies in the Hebrew Bible and the reality that few people actually die as a result. Cf. Savran, Encountering the Divine, 193. One could, of course, respond tongue-in-cheek that only those who survived told of their experience! 19. In a similar manner, Fretheim recognizes a multiplicity of theophanies centered around two main kinds: “human form” kinds and “meteorological activity” kinds. See Fretheim, Suffering of God, 89 (cf. also p. 80). 20. Kuntz recognizes this distinction in his own way when he observes that the patriarchal “narratives seem to relate to a different element within the total Israelite structure of faith than do many other Old Testament theophanic traditions that both reflect a vivid memory of the Sinaitic theophany and display in an overt manner vital cultic terminology.” Kuntz, The Self-revelation of God, 215–16 n. 1.

3. Hidden in the Clouds

51

That this is a theophany is clear both from the visible nature of the phenomenon and from the textual details that YHWH himself “was walking before them by day in a column of cloud…and by night in a column of fire” (‫ויהוה הלך לפניהם יומם בעמוד ענן…ולילה בעמוד אש‬, v. 21). In the story, YHWH has cloaked himself in a storm god’s garments to guide and protect the people on their journey. His special presence is literally walking before them inside the Kabod column of cloud and fire. In addition, one can see the active nature of the theophany. YHWH is “guiding” (‫ )לנחתם‬the promised people towards the promised land in a preservative manner. After relating that God did not “guide them” (‫ )ולא־נחם‬by way of the land of the Philistines, v. 17 relates God’s internal thoughts on the matter: “lest the people relent when they see battle and return to Egypt.” The point is clear. YHWH is preserving Israel for the promised inheritance in spite of Israel’s own follies and weaknesses.21 Not only this but the theme of divine guidance suggests moral formation and preparation before the actualization of the inheritance. Approximately a chapter later, the story mentions YHWH’s Kabod a second time. In YHWH’s providential hardening, Pharaoh has realized his mistake and has chased the slaves to the edge of the Red Sea. Death seems imminent, and the people begin to scream in despair: “was it because there were no graves in Egypt that you took us to die in the desert? What is this you have done to us to lead us out of Egypt?” (14:11). Moses commands the people not to fear but to stand fast and “see” the salvation of YHWH (‫וראו את־ישועת יהוה‬, v. 13) for the Egypt that they “see” today (‫ )כי אשר ראיתם את־מצרים‬they will never “see” again (‫לא תסיפו לראתם‬ ‫)עוד עד־עולם‬. Privately, YHWH tells Moses to stretch out his staff over the Red Sea. The waters will divide so that Israel may cross, but when Pharaoh’s troops try to follow, YHWH will gain “glory” over Pharaoh and his host (…‫ואכבדה בפרעה‬, v. 17; …‫בהכבדי בפרעה‬, v. 18). The walking God shrouded in cloud and fire is true to his word. As the people cross the Red Sea with a miraculous storm wind driving a path before them, “The Angel of God who walked in front of the camp of Israel, journeyed and walked behind them. The column of cloud (‫עמוד‬ ‫ )הענן‬journeyed from in front of them and stood behind them. It came between the camp of Egypt and the camp of Israel. It was the cloud (‫)הענן‬ and the darkness, and it lightened the night and did not allow either side to draw near to the other all night” (14:19–20). In essence, the Angel/ YHWH in the Kabod creates a barrier between the Egyptians and the 21. Mann finds this theme of “guidance” to be unique to the Hebrew Bible’s description of the “vanguard motif.” Cf. Mann, Divine Presence, 129.

52

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

Israelites, giving the latter time to cross the parted sea. However, as morning draws near the Egyptians manage to break through and follow the Israelites into the sea. The story then offers a remarkable detail in vv. 24–25: “And it happened in the morning’s watch that YHWH looked down (‫ וישקף‬22) into the camp of Egypt from inside/above the column of fire and cloud (‫ )בעמוד אש וענן‬and confused the camp of Egypt. He turned the wheels of the chariots and made them drive heavily (‫ בכבדת‬23).” The Egyptians realize what is happening and cry out in dismay “let us flee from before the face of Israel for YHWH is fighting for them against Egypt (‫)כי יהוה נלחם להם במצרים‬.”24 But the call to turn back is too late— YHWH commands Moses to stretch out his staff a second time and the parted waters return to their original state with a vengeance, killing the entirety of Pharaoh’s army (‫לא־נשאר בהם עד־אחד‬, “Not a single one was left!,” v. 28). Here the danger of the Kabod YHWH is on full display. The result of all of this divine protection is that Israel “sees” (‫)וירא‬ Egypt dead on the shoreline and “sees” (‫ )וירא‬YHWH’s great hand of victory over Egypt (v. 31). Because of this Israel “fears” (‫ וייראו‬25) and “trusts” (‫ )ויאמינו‬in the dangerous YHWH and his servant Moses. The echo of Exod 14:13 is clear.26 The visual appearance of God has resulted both in the preservation of Israel as a people (in accord with the dual promise to Abraham) and in faith in YHWH and Moses. With the strength of his hand, YHWH has won his people. He has earned the right in concrete, historical terms to be their king. His victory has exalted him as the true God of Israel. He has protected the vanguard of his people. There can be no more doubt whether this is the God of the fathers. Only Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’s God would act in such a way and with such determination to

22. One could find here an allusion to the cloud as YHWH’s storm chariot—i.e., YHWH looks down from his chariot. Cf. Cross, CMHE, 165. 23. Notice the play on words. YHWH will gain “glory” or “weight” (‫ )כבד‬over Pharaoh and his host. Part of this glorification comes in YHWH “weighing” down (‫ )כבד‬the Egyptian chariot wheels. 24. Mann suggests in an earlier work that the pillar of cloud functions in a manner analogous to the ark of the covenant—i.e., as a “war palladium” and “divine guide.” See Thomas Mann, “The Pillar of Cloud in the Reed Sea Narrative,” JBL 90, no. 1 (1971): 26. 25. Notice again the clever word play. Aside from their gender and number, the imperfect consecutive forms of the verbs for sight (‫ )וירא‬and fear (‫ )וייראו‬are quite close in spelling—separated in the unpointed Hebrew by only a yod. The “sight” of YHWH and his actions results in “fear.” 26. Mann, Divine Presence, 134.

3. Hidden in the Clouds

53

bring about the fulfillment of the dual promise.27 The exodus, then, is not only a military campaign to take the promised land but also a liturgical procession leading to YHWH’s enthronement as the king of Israel.28 As part of all of this Moses’ initial vision is confirmed as genuine. He has truly seen the God of the fathers, and his mission is legitimate.29 The concluding “Song of the Sea” clearly shows that YHWH is in fact the true God. Moses and the people sing that “Yah” is their strength and song (‫עזי וזמרת יה‬, 15:2). He has become their salvation. “This one is my God,” they sing, “and I will praise him, the God of my father” (‫זה אלי‬ ‫)ואנוהו אלהי אבי‬. The song continues and celebrates “YHWH the man of war, YHWH is his name” (‫)יהוה איש מלחמה יהוה שמו‬. The reference to YHWH’s name connects the song to Exod 3 and drives home the point. YHWH, the name-giving God who appeared to Moses and now publicly to all of the people, has proved that he is Israel’s God. Out of the theophanic cloud and fire, the breath of his nostrils and his devouring wrath have saved Israel and defeated the rival god, Pharaoh (15:7).30 Indeed, “who is like you among the gods, O YHWH” (‫מי־כמכה באלם יהוה‬, 15:11). The song then looks forward in faith to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. In his unswerving faithfulness (‫)בחסדך‬, YHWH will lead Israel to his “holy pasture” (‫נוה קדשך‬, 15:13). Furthermore, the peoples of the promised land and its surrounding territories will tremble when they hear the news. In the end, YHWH will bring Israel in safety and plant her in the

27. As Carey Walsh puts it when observing the Exodus theophanies as a whole, “The book of Exodus is ancient Israel’s foundation story of who God is, namely, YHWH, the ‘God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ (Exod. 3:6). Hence, its theophanies—how God’s presence is depicted—are crucial to establishing the relationship between God and Israel.” See Walsh, “Where Did God Go?,” 115. 28. Cf. Mann on the appearance of the vanguard motif in both military and cultic processions; Mann, Divine Presence, 88–89. 29. As Thomas W. Mann points out, “the question of Moses’ authority is directly linked to the validity of his witness to a theophany… The vacillation between his initial commission, the ensuing challenges to his authority, and the people’s confirmation of it, is finally resolved in the context of Yahweh’s saving presence at the Sea.” Mann, Divine Presence, 135. 30. Mann misses the point here. In his hurry to dismiss a cosmic battle between YHWH and Yam, he forgets that Pharaoh is the rival deity in the story. In this way the “historical enemy of Israel” is also a mythic enemy. See Mann, Divine Presence, 125. The historicized mythic pattern recognized by Cross is correct. However, the key is to remember that the text treats both deities as historical actors. Cf. Cross, CMHE, 143–44, 162–63.

54

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

mountain of his inheritance (‫)בהר נחלתך‬, the place he made for his own dwelling, the holy place (‫ )מקדש‬that his hands established (15:17). Not only has YHWH preserved his people in the present, but he will preserve them in the near future and bring them into the promised land. However, YHWH’s exaltation at the Red Sea is quickly forgotten. Within three days the people who have seen the Kabod and praised YHWH’s preserving hand are grumbling about the lack of water (15:22– 27). In the next month, they are grumbling about the lack of food. Their words echo their despair prior to the deliverance at the Red Sea: “Oh that we had died by the hand of YHWH in the land of Egypt when we sat beside a pot of flesh (‫ )סיר הבשר‬and when we ate bread (‫ )לחם‬until we were full (‫)לשבע‬. For you have brought us to this desert to kill this whole congregation with famine” (16:3). In response to the querulous people, YHWH promises Moses that he will rain down “bread from heaven” (‫לחם מן־השמים‬, 16:4). This shower of food will be a test for the people in which YHWH will determine whether they will walk in his Torah or not (‫)אנסנו הילך בתורתי אם־לא‬. Moses then tells the people that in the evening they will know that YHWH brought them out of Egypt. In the morning, when he listens to their murmurings against him, he says “you will see the Kabod of YHWH” (‫וראיתם‬ ‫את־כבוד יהוה‬, 16:7). In fact, states Moses, in the evening YHWH will give you “flesh to eat” (‫ )בשר לאכל‬and “bread in the morning to fill you up” (‫ולחם בבקר לשבע‬, 16:8). As Moses and Aaron remonstrate against the people, the whole company turns towards the desert and “behold, the Kabod of YHWH appeared in cloud” (‫והנה כבוד יהוה נראה בענן‬, 16:10). Within the communal setting of the “assembly” (‫ )קהל‬or “congregation” (‫)עדה‬, the theophanic Kabod appears. One exaltation was not enough. A second one is required. The first exaltation was against the external military threat of Pharaoh. The second exaltation will be against the internal threat of hunger and faithlessness. YHWH has come to act for and on his people. They will not die of starvation (i.e., preservation: “between the evenings you will eat flesh [‫]בשר‬, and in the morning you will be full of bread [‫]תשבעו־לחם‬,” 16:12), and YHWH will also use the opportunity to test their loyalty to his Torah (i.e., moral preparation). All of this is so that Moses and (especially) the people will “know that I am YHWH, your God” (‫)וידעתם כי אני יהוה אלהיכם‬.31 Just as in the first exaltation, YHWH 31. For more on the “recognition formula” and its intertextual connections with the book of Ezekiel, see my, “Ezekiel as Moses—Israel as Pharaoh: Reverberations of the Exodus Narrative in Ezekiel,” in Reverberations of the Exodus in Scripture, ed. R. Michael Fox (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014), 51–73.

3. Hidden in the Clouds

55

will prove both his worth and that the names YHWH and Elohim are synonymous. True to his word, YHWH sends quail in the evening and “manna” in the morning. When the people “see” (‫ )ויראו‬the manna and ask “what is it?” (‫)מה הוא‬, Moses tells them that it is “the bread” (‫ )הלחם‬that YHWH has given them to eat (16:15). He then relates how YHWH has commanded (‫ )צוה יהוה‬them to gather only their daily bread (16:16). Immediately, a portion of the people disobey and find that their hoarded manna rots. On the sixth day of the week, YHWH tells them to gather twice as much in preparation for the Sabbath (16:23). Once again a contingent of Israel refuses to obey and finds that no manna falls on the Sabbath. In response YHWH reprimands the people through Moses: “How long do you all refuse to keep my commandments and my instructions (‫( ”?)מצותי ותורתי‬16:28). Israel has failed the initial moral test, but YHWH is merciful and simply reiterates the Sabbath pattern of gathering manna. As a result, the people learn to keep the Sabbath pattern (16:30, ‫וישבתו העם ביום השבעי‬, “So the people sabbathed on the seventh day”). The entire theophanic episode follows the type-scene pattern specific to Exodus. The Kabod appears in a public setting, and YHWH not only exalts himself through preserving Israel from hunger but he also begins preparing Israel to be a people set apart. Even before the covenant at Sinai, YHWH is training Israel to be his people. Having proved twice that he is Israel’s God, YHWH goes about making Israel into his people. His fulfillment of the Abrahamic dual promise entails both physical and moral preservation and preparation. The next few chapters extend the lessons without specific references to the visual manifestation of YHWH’s Kabod. Israel grumbles for a second time over the lack of water in the desert (17:1–7). Though they are now traveling about in accord with the “mouth of YHWH” (‫על־פי יהוה‬, 17:1), they wonder aloud if YHWH is really “near them or not” (‫היש יהוה‬ ‫בקרבנו אם־אין‬, 17:7). The miracle of water from the rock puts such fears to rest through Moses’ staff. Indeed, Moses’ staff has become YHWH’s staff. A few verses further, when Amalek attacks Israel, it is YHWH/ Moses’ raised staff that gives the victory (17:8–16). YHWH continues to be exalted, and Israel continues to be preserved. In terms of moral preparation and national constitution, Jethro’s sudden appearance on the scene prepares the way for the highpoint of Exodus’ theophanies: Mt. Sinai. Jethro’s advice to Moses assumes the need for Israel’s moral preparation and juridical constitution. Moses is struggling to adjudicate the various legal and moral disputes among the people. Jethro’s suggestion foreshadows both Israel’s need of moral direction,

56

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

teaching, and legislation and Israel’s need of national organization and administration. That all of this is in accord with the “command” of God is implied in 18:23–24. Jethro states that “if you do this and God commands you (‫)וצוך אלהים‬, then you will be able to stand it, and all these people will enter their own place in peace.” In response, Moses obeys the voice of his father-in-law and does everything that he says. The implication, of course, is that God has so “commanded.” Even before the Sinai theophany, YHWH is busy preparing Israel to be his people. c. God Appears at Mt. Sinai The theophany at Mt. Sinai is the climax of the book of Exodus. It is literally the narrative mountain that overshadows everything else. It is paradigmatic for all of the other theophanies in the book. In some sense it is the burning bush writ large.32 YHWH has rescued, preserved, and prepared Israel to be his people. Now this relationship must be formalized through a suzerainty treaty. Mt. Sinai is the place where YHWH and Israel bind themselves together. Those who inherit the covenant promise to Abraham must also enter into a covenant with YHWH. It should not be surprising then that the Sinai theophany recalls Gen 15’s smoking firepot. The communal, covenantal nature of the event is signaled early on in Exod 19. As Moses ascends the mountain, YHWH calls to him and rehearses the events of Exod 1–18 in good suzerain fashion. “You yourselves have seen (‫ )ראיתם‬what I did to Egypt and that I lifted you up on eagle’s wings and brought you to myself. Now, if you all will truly obey my voice and keep my covenant (‫)בריתי‬, then you will be my special possession out of all the peoples, for all the earth is mine. You yourselves will be to me a kingdom of priests (‫)ממלכת כהנים‬, a holy nation (‫”)גוי קדוש‬ (19:4–6). For the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises within a national, communal setting, YHWH must formally become Israel’s king through treaty. Once he is Israel’s king, his legislation becomes legally binding. In solemnity, the elders of Israel agree to YHWH’s terms. “All that YHWH spoke, we will do” (19:8). Once Moses has reported their answer, YHWH reveals his theophanic plan: “Behold, I am coming to you in a dark cloud of cloud (‫ )בעב הענן‬so that the people might hear my speaking with you and so always trust in you” (19:9). In preparation for this public

32. Cf. Polak’s list of verbal intertextual connections between the two events, “Theophany and Mediator,” 135–37.

3. Hidden in the Clouds

57

theophany, Moses must “sanctify” the people (‫וקדשתם‬, 19:10) and make them wash their clothes. In addition, he must set up strict boundaries around the holy mountain. Any person or animal transgressing the boundaries is to be executed (19:12–13). However, when the trumpet sounds the people may draw near the mountain. So Moses sets about preparing the people for the theophany and manages to add an extra stipulation to the sanctification process: the people are not to engage in any sexual activity in the three days prior to the theophany.33 With all the preparations in place, the third day dawns with the terrible blast of a divine thunder storm. Thunder (‫ )קלת‬and lightning (‫ )ברקים‬play about the mountain as the Kabod descends upon the mountain in glory (literally in v. 16: ‫וענן כבד על־ההר‬, “and a heavy cloud was on the mountain”—one could also read the unpointed text as “and a glory cloud was on the mountain”). The loud trumpet sounds, and the people tremble. After Moses has led Israel to the foot of the mountain, the composite text reiterates the scene: “Now all of Mt. Sinai was enveloped in smoke (‫ )עשן‬because YHWH had come down upon it in fire (‫)באש‬. His34 smoke (‫ )עשנו‬went up like the smoke (‫ )כעשן‬of a furnace, and the whole

33. Childs (following Cassuto) suggests that “v. 15b should not be viewed as a supplement of [Moses’] own, but as an elucidation of the command of sanctification.” Childs, The Book of Exodus, 369. I am happy to follow this reading. However, I think it is important to highlight the fact that Moses commands something not recorded in the earlier divine speech. Thus, even if it is a divinely sponsored supplement, its placement on the lips of Moses suggests his authority as the mediator (i.e., he can concretize the command in specific ways). As Sternberg has repeatedly shown, how characters recount previous conversations or actions gives insight into the nuances and twists of the narrative. See Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1987). Cf. especially Sternberg’s discussion of the wooing of Rebekah on pp. 131–52. Dozeman takes the Mosaic elucidation as a priestly redactional addition that emphasizes “that cultic purity requires abstaining from sexual intercourse.” Thomas Dozeman, God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology, and Canon in Exodus 19–24, SBLMS 37 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 101. To my mind this suggestion drives home the point and highlights Moses’ divinely instituted cultic authority. 34. Most translations translate the word ‫ עשנו‬as “its smoke,” referring to Mt. Sinai. However, given the nature of the divine Kabod, it makes better sense to translate it as “his smoke.” After all, YHWH is the one shrouded in cloud and fire. The mountain is not a volcano (cf. Cross, CMHE, 167–69). The text states that it “was enveloped

58

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

mountain quaked violently” (19:18).35 Meanwhile, as the shophar is blowing, Moses and God are speaking in the sight and hearing of Israel. At this point the verbal links to Gen 15 are clear. Just as Abraham saw a “fire-pot of smoke” (‫ )תנור עשן‬and “torch of fire” (‫ )ולפיד אש‬going between the pieces of sacrificed animal, Israel witnesses YHWH’s descent in fire (‫ )אש‬and smoke (‫)עשן‬.36 The echoes make it clear that a covenant theophany is in progress. YHWH is fulfilling his covenant promise to Abraham and reassuring Israel that she will indeed inherit the land of the Canaanites (Gen 15:17–21). These are the people who will inherit the promise. These are the children of Isaac. These are the descendants of Jacob. A second time the text relates that YHWH came down upon the top of the mountain (19:20). There is almost a poetic parallelism here with a deepening of the idea (i.e., he came down upon it / he came down to the top of the mountain). This time, YHWH calls Moses up to speak with him and warns him a second time about the people (or the priests!) breaking through to get a glimpse of God (19:21: “Descend! Warn the people lest they tear down the barriers to YHWH to see [‫]לראות‬, and many fall because of it”). Moses reminds YHWH of their previous conversation and the preparations for the theophany, but YHWH is undeterred: “Go! Descend! Only you and Aaron may come up. But the priests and the people shall not tear down the barriers to come up to YHWH lest he burst out against them” (19:24). in smoke because YHWH had come down upon it in fire.” I suppose one could argue that YHWH’s fiery presence has ignited the vegetation on the mountain. However, given the consistent pattern of cloud and fire attached to the Exodus type-scene, this seems highly unlikely. 35. Dozeman argues that v. 18 represents a priestly redaction (along with vv. 16aa and 20–25). This makes sense given the vocabulary of “coming down” (‫)ירד‬. Though one could counter (following Noth) that it is J because of the use of the divine name and the connections between v. 18 and Gen 15 (see below). However, if one follows Cross in seeing P as R, the problem disappears. P is redacting J. See Cross, God on the Mountain, 101–3. For more on the composite nature of Exod 19 and the question of what exactly Israel saw and heard, see Benjamin D. Sommer, “Revelation at Sinai in the Hebrew Bible and in Jewish Theology,” Journal of Religion 79, no. 3 (1999): 422–51. 36. While Exod 19 is obviously composite in nature, I remain unconvinced by the suggestion that it contains a merging of storm imagery and earthquake imagery. Contra Edwin C. Kingsbury, “The Theophany Topos and the Mountain of God,” JBL 86, no. 2 (1967): 205–10. Anyone who has been near a lightning strike can attest to the trembling of the earth caused by the simultaneous roar of thunder.

3. Hidden in the Clouds

59

The story is keen to emphasize the dangerous nature of the public, Kabod theophany. Like the earlier scenes at Mt. Horeb (Exod 3) and the Red Sea (Exod 14), the theophany at Mt. Sinai is perilous.37 God’s public persona is deadly even in its veiled form. Not even consecrated priests can approach the visible divine presence without special permission. Moses (with Aaron tagging along behind) must act as the archetypal priestly mediator delimiting the spatial boundaries between the holy and the ordinary.38 Compared to the previous theophanies there is an extra level of danger associated with this mountain appearance. The people had “feared” YHWH before (cf. 14:31), but now the text tells us twice that they “trembled” (‫ )ויחרד‬before YHWH speaks (19:16) and “shook” (‫ )וינעו‬after he spoke (20:18).39 After the second time, the people “seeing” (‫ )ראים‬the Kabod beg Moses: “You—only you!—speak with us, and we will listen. But do not let God speak with us lest we die (‫ואל־ידבר עמנו‬ ‫( ”!)אלהים פן־נמות‬20:19). The divine fear that they will break through to gaze upon YHWH turns out to be groundless. The people can barely stand at the foot of the mountain, “see” (‫וירא העם וינעו‬,40 20:18) the Kabod, and listen to YHWH’s voice. There is something about the roiling smoke, fire, and cloud on Mt. Sinai that trumps the previous theophanic manifestations.41 It is as if more Kabod is on display. Moses himself implies that

37. I find Walsh’s contention that the pillar of cloud Kabod and the Sinai Kabod are distinct (i.e., the former arising out of “the cultic activity of incense offering” and the latter out of “meteorological upheaval”) unconvincing. See Walsh, “Where Did God Go?,” 121 (cf. also 117–19). As Booij puts it, “to a certain extent the theophany description of Exod 19–20 fits into a broader setting of texts in which, in the wilderness period, the coming and speaking of YHWH goes with atmospheric phenomena.” See Thijs Booij, “Mountain and Theophany in the Sinai Narrative,” Biblica Roma 65, no. 1 (1984): 14. In this sense, I fall more within the traditional school of interpretation that links the two phenomena. 38. Cf. Dozeman, God on the Mountain, 104. 39. In this the people parallel the trembling of Mt. Sinai. Cf. Dozeman, God on the Mountain, 101–2. 40. The Samaritan Pentateuch, the LXX, the Syriac, two targums, and the Vulgate point the text to read, “And the people were afraid.” 41. George Savran observes that one of the unique characteristics of the Sinai theophany is the “heightening of the lethal element.” See Savran, Encountering the Divine, 28. Frank Polak’s comments are also on target: “The revelation on the divine mountain, whether Sinai or Horeb, represents the theophany in all its aspects. As a concrete, audible and visible revelation of the divine presence, this scene is even more intense than the scene at the burning bush.” Polak, “Theophany and Mediator,” 129. According to Thomas Dozeman this heightened lethal element is the result of

60

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

this appearance of God was especially dangerous/terrifying when he tells the people: “Do not fear (‫ !)אל־תיראו‬For God has come for the purpose of testing you and for the purpose of placing his fear (‫ )יראתו‬before your face so that you will not sin” (20:20). Nonetheless, the people remain at a distance, and it is only Moses who “approaches the thick, dark cloud where God was” (‫ומשה נגש אל־הערפל אשר־שם האלהים‬, 20:21). Rounding out the Exodus type-scene is YHWH’s constitution of the people as his covenant people through the giving of his ten covenant words: the Decalogue (and its explication in the following chapters). Within the context of the narrative, YHWH is both dealing with the problem of Exod 18 and with the need to shape a faithful progeny who will be a blessing to the world both in the present and the future.42 For a people who have proved in need of constant adjudication, YHWH gives a law-code. This will accomplish two things. First, Moses and his assistants will have a specific standard against which to judge cases. Second, the people themselves will be aware of the divine standard. The testing and spiritual direction begun prior to Sinai must continue.43 The promised the third layer of redaction (priestly) in Exod 19–24 that emphasizes the need for preparation and boundaries. In fact, the priestly addition of vv. 12–13 gives Moses a word for word divine command regarding the boundaries around the mountain. The command is not general in any way. YHWH tells him exactly what to say (‫)לאמר‬. Likewise, the addition of vv. 20–25, which seem to impede the flow of the narrative, emphasizes the strict nature of the cultic boundaries. See Dozeman, God on the Mountain, 98–101, 103–4. From a strictly synchronic, literary standpoint, Arie Leder has pointed out that the fear of divine presence centers chs. 19–24: A: The mountain of self-disclosure and Israel’s vow: 19:1–25 B: Instruction: 20:1–17 C: Fear of God’s presence: 20:18–26 B1: Instruction: 21:1–23:33 A1: The mountain of self-disclosure and Israel’s vow: 24:1–18 See Arie Leder, Waiting for the Land: The Story Line of the Pentateuch (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2010), 109. 42. As Terrien puts it: “The covenant aims therefore at transcending the ravages of time, preventing the erosion of ancestral memories, and bringing to life for the children yet unborn the fathers’ ‘ancient rapture.’ It attempts to bridge the gap between generations. It is directed toward the future actuality of a past which risks inevitable oblivion. It constitutes a deed of truly ‘historical’ significance, for its purpose is far more embracing than the aims of imperial archives or historiography. It is to mold the Israel of tomorrow into the pattern of living with God as ‘a holy nation.’ ” Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 122. 43. The test is whether the fearful theophany has provoked Israel to keep the Decalogue, a test that Israel quickly fails (cf. Exod 32). I am not quite convinced

3. Hidden in the Clouds

61

people must act like the promised people, and YHWH’s gift of Torah stipulations is the means of this moral formation. Thus, the Decalogue (and its implications) is a teacher intended to shape Israel’s collective ethos and ethics. Given the importance of theophanies in the story as markers and makers of the dual promise, it makes sense that the covenant law revolves around the God who has “appeared.” The opening line recalls the theophanic exaltation at the Red Sea: “I myself am YHWH, your God, the one who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” On the basis of this exaltation, YHWH demands sole allegiance. He also denounces any Israelite attempt to make an image of him for worship. “Sightings” of God are to be at his own discretion. YHWH remains in control. In contrast, a visual token containing a sacral association can too easily be manipulated with proper incantations and use of the “name” (thus, the command against taking YHWH’s name in vain). God will remain elusive and unpredictable. Instead of a static, holy “image,” YHWH offers his people a “blessed,” “holy day” (‫ברך יהוה את־יום השבת‬ ‫ויקדשהו‬, 20:11). Not only will this mark out his people as a special possession, but it also accomplishes two additional things. First, it sanctifies temporal boundaries. Time rather than a cultic image overlaps with YHWH’s holiness. Second, the gift of the Sabbath recalls the theophanic actions of manna and quail, and so, in its own way, the Sabbath is forever connected with YHWH’s visual self-revelation on behalf of his people in fulfillment of the promise. As noted, the people’s response to all of this is one of terror.44 After Moses has approached the dark cloud (20:21), YHWH tells him to once again remind the Israelites: “You yourselves have seen (‫ )אתם ראיתם‬that by Moshe Greenberg’s suggestion that ‫ נסה‬means “give X experience of…” To me it makes a great deal of sense to connect the “test” with the Decalogue especially considering Israel’s quick failure. See Moshe Greenberg, “‫ נסה‬in Exodus 20:20 and the Purpose of the Sinaitic Theophany,” JBL 79, no. 3 (1960): 273–76. 44. For this reason I am not convinced by Kuntz’s suggestion that the people did not hear the divine voice utter the Decalogue. Their fearful plea for Moses’ mediatorial work does not mean that they did not hear anything besides the thunder. Rather, they had a taste of divine speech and begged for no more. See Kuntz, The Self-revelation of God, 88–89. I realize, of course, that part of Kuntz’s reason for separating Exod. 20:1–17 from what follows is based on source-critical considerations. However, in terms of the present, canonical form of the text, the people hear the Decalogue and then beg to hear no more. Dozeman agrees in his analysis of what he considers the Deuteronomistic redaction of Exod 19–24 as a text structured to emphasize the prophetic pronouncement of Torah to the people. However, when analyzing the later

62

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

I spoke with you from heaven. Do not make with me45 gods of silver nor shall you make for yourself gods of gold” (20:22–23). The sight of the theophany should dispel the desire to make other gods or images of YHWH. Added to this is the theophanic covenant meal that YHWH shares with Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel in Exod 24. As suzerain, YHWH ratifies Israel’s first formal, covenantal oath of allegiance in Exod 19:8 (i.e., ‫כל אשר־דבר יהוה נעשה‬, “all that YHWH spoke, we will do”) with a covenant banquet. After this, there can be no excuse for any attempts to make an image of YHWH. The story is really quite odd.46 After divine pronouncements on slaves, property laws, Sabbath regulations, and festivals (in addition to a promise to send the “hornet” ahead of Israel to drive out the Canaanites [23:28]), YHWH tells Moses to ratify formally the covenant. Moses relates all of YHWH’s words and laws to the people. In words nearly identical to Exod 19:8, the people swear a second time, “all the things that YHWH spoke, we will do” (‫כל־הדברים אשר־דבר יהוה נעשה‬, 24:3). After Moses has built an altar and presided over sacrifices, he takes the “book of the covenant” (‫ספר‬ ‫ )הברית‬and reads it to the people. A third time, the people’s words ring out: “all that YHWH spoke, we will do” (‫כל אשר־דבר יהוה נעשה‬, 24:7). With this Moses splashes the blood of the sacrifices on the people in a manner analogous to the priests’ sanctification ceremony in Leviticus.47 “Behold,” he says, “the blood of the covenant that YHWH cut with you according to all of these words” (24:8).

priestly redaction, Dozeman argues that 19:25 functions as a recitative frame for 20:1–17 (i.e., “Moses came down to the people and said to them, ‘God spoke all these words…’ ”). See Dozeman, God on the Mountain, 48–49, 105. I can appreciate Dozeman’s point, but one does not necessarily have to take 19:25 as a recitative frame for the Decalogue. Instead, it seems reasonable to take 19:25 as a record of Moses’ obedience in warning the people about the cultic boundaries (i.e., “Moses came down to the people and commanded them”—cf. BDB, s.v. ‫אמר‬, qal 4). 45. One could perhaps repoint ‫ ִא ִּתי‬as ‫—א ִֹּתי‬i.e., “Do not make me a god…” 46. Naturally, scholars have sought to emend it to make it more palatable. E. W. Nicholson has pointed out the problems with such emendations and Bernard P. Robinson concurs. See Nicholson, “The Interpretation of Exodus XXIV 9–11,” VT 24 (1974): 80–84; Robinson, “The Theophany and Meal of Exodus 24,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 25, no. 2 (2011): 157–58. 47. Dozeman, God on the Mountain, 106–18.

3. Hidden in the Clouds

63

The time has come for the celebration of a covenant feast.48 Moses, Aaron, Aaron’s two sons, and the seventy elders49 of Israel ascend the mountain, possibly at the sound of the ram’s horn,50 and “see the God 48. So Martin Buber, Moses: The Revelation and the Covenant (New York: Harper, 1958), 115–18, and contra Robinson and Nicholson, who argue that the meal has nothing to do with the covenant making. See Robinson, “The Theophany and Meal,” 158–59; Nicholson, “The Interpretation of Exodus XXIV 9–11,” 84–88. Given the surrounding covenantal context, it makes perfect sense to read vv. 9–11 as a “covenant meal” that “is now seen as a culmination of the rite in 3–8, and not as a rival ceremony.” Childs, The Book of Exodus, 502. After all, any concept/word/ phrase put in a new context immediately receives a new meaning (and reciprocally offers the context new meaning). Outside of the covenant-making context, a meal with YHWH is just a meal (or perhaps a worship service meal—cf. Dozeman, God on the Mountain, 113–16), but within the covenant-making context it seals the covenant. This also deals with the problem of “eating and drinking” in the presence of God (cf. 163–65). Nicholson and Robinson, however, use source-critical grounds to exclude vv. 3–8, which explicitly reference the covenantal nature of the event (‫ספר הברית‬, v. 7). While it is theoretically possible that vv. 3–8 represent a separate tradition, it is also possible that they function as the core of a rough ring composition (i.e., A, B, A1) and are thus highlighted by the bracketing verses. This construction would emphasize the covenant nature of the entire event. Furthermore, even if one grants the later insertion of vv. 3–8, one still has to grapple with the meaning of the final form. One way or another, in its final form, the meal refers to a covenantal meal. So implicitly Thijs Booij, “Mountain and Theophany,” 8. This is why Nicholson is so insistent that “sound method demands that we should seek to understand Exodus xxiv 9–11 on the basis of an examination of this passage itself without reference, at least in the first instance, to the surrounding material and the presuppositions which this material raises and prompts” (88). To my mind, such an approach is overly atomistic and misses the point of the canonical shape of the text as it is now. In a curious move, Nicholson does later attempt to read vv. 9–11 in a larger context, but only in relation to the theophany in Exod 19—not the immediate context of ch. 24 (94–6). I find this odd given the canonical work that Nicholson did in “The Decalogue as the Direct Address of God,” VT 27, no. 4 (1977): 422–33. To see how one might read the verses separately as part of different source strata, see Kuntz, The Self-revelation of God, 91–92 (E source: vv. 3–8), 97–98 (J source: vv. 1–2, 9–11). For a tradition-historical reading examining the priestly redaction of an earlier Deuteronomic version, see Dozeman, ibid., 106–18. 49. The elders function as representatives of the people. Robinson agrees. See Robinson, “The Theophany and Meal,” 170. 50. Cf. Kuntz, The Self-revelation of God, 97. Following Noth and Beyerlin, Kuntz suggests that there may be a connection between the leaders’ ascent and the command in 19:13b: “When the ram’s horn trumpets a long note, they shall come up on the mountain.”

64

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

of Israel” (‫ויראו את אלהי ישראל‬, 24:10)51 without hearing the usual theophanic speech.52 Beneath God’s feet it is like paved sapphire and the substance of the sky in purity.53 Though there is no reference to the Kabod, this odd detail suggests similar glory and danger.54 In fact, the very next verse marvels that God did not stretch out his hand against the nobles of Israel. Instead, they feast in sight of God (“They saw [‫ ]ויחזו‬God and ate and drank,” 24:11). Twice, then, the text emphasizes the visual nature of the public event.55 Eating at a distance from YHWH (cf. 24:1–2), the representatives of the people and the priests partake of the sacrifice and so seal the covenant pact. People and God are now bound together.56 51. Robinson (following Cassuto) observes that the avoidance of the divine name signals that “what the human visitors see is YHWH but the text is coy about spelling this out too explicitly.” Robinson, “The Theophany and Meal,” 161. 52. As Savran points out, “this is one of the few theophany narratives in which YHWH does not speak during the theophany itself.” See Savran, “Seeing Is Believing,” 329. Cf. also Kuntz, The Self-revelation of God, 40. 53. Savran suggests that the description of the pavement is a narrative way of eluding a detailed description of the divine: “In a text like Exod. 24.9–11 the seeing is explicit, but the corresponding description of what is seen in 24.10 describes only the bottom half of the picture: ‘under his feet was the likeness of sapphire stone.’ The characters saw something more, but the reader is not privy to their view.” Encountering the Divine, 54. Robinson (following Driver) offers the intriguing suggestion that the characters saw God through the pavement, like a kind of translucent screen. Robinson, “The Theophany and Meal,” 162–63. 54. Polak observes that “the shining floor is in the same semantic sphere as the fire of the theophany which they witnessed, but of solid stone and thus more stable and easier to look at than the divine fire.” See Polak, “Theophany and Mediator,” 139. Similarly, Mark S. Smith notes the similarities between this description and Ezekiel’s description of the kabodic divine throne. Cf. Smith, “The Three Bodies of God,” 483. Regarding the danger element, Dozeman points out how vv. 1–2 echo the spatial mediation of Moses in 19:20–25. Certain people can ascend with Moses, but because of the danger only Moses can approach YHWH. See Dozeman, God on the Mountain, 109. 55. Nicholson observes that early receptions of this text were particularly troubled by the visual aspect of the story and offered various rewritings. See Nicholson, “The Interpretation of Exodus XXIV 9–11,” 89–91. Cf. also Steven D. Fraade’s brief comments in “Hearing and Seeing at Sinai: Interpretive Trajectories,” in Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 504 and 504 n. 10. 56. Geerhardus Vos points out that the new formal relationship explains why the elders are not consumed: “Through the berith-making, Jehovah had become ‘the God of Israel’ in this new profound sense. The vision spoken of is not an ordinary vision to impart knowledge. It is the fulfillment of sacramental approach to and unusual union

3. Hidden in the Clouds

65

With the meal complete, YHWH calls Moses back up to the mountain to give him the covenant stipulations written on stone. Moses charges the elders to go to Aaron and Hur if they have any legal disputes while he is gone. They all now have a legal code to adjudicate cases.57 As Moses ascends, the Kabod of YHWH “tabernacles on Mt. Sinai, and the cloud covers it for six days” (‫וישכן כבוד־יהוה על־הר סיני ויכסהו הענן‬ ‫ששת ימים‬, 24:16). In good Sabbath-like fashion, YHWH calls to Moses on the seventh day. Meanwhile, the people observe the theophany from a distance. Verse 17 says that “the appearance of the Kabod of YHWH (‫ )ומראה כבוד יהוה‬was like devouring fire (‫ )כאש אכלת‬on the top of the mountain while the people looked on.” Likewise, they saw Moses enter the “midst of the cloud” (‫ )בתוך הענן‬when he went up on the mountain. For forty days and forty nights, Moses remains hidden on the mountain. Chapters 25–31 use Moses as a focalizer.58 The people are left behind, and narrator grants the reader access to Moses’ audio/visual experience of the divine blueprints for the tabernacle (i.e., 25:9: “According to all that I am showing [‫ ]מראה‬you, the blueprint of the tabernacle, and the blueprint of all the vessels—thus you shall do”). The God, who has appeared to the patriarchs, Moses, and now Israel, is keen to make a portable “sanctuary” (‫מקדש‬, 29:8) so that he may be “dwell” (‫ )ושכנתי‬with his people and so work out the Abrahamic promise (Gen 17:7). In a strange way, the tabernacle represents the attempt to make the theophanic presence semipermanent. In addition to a variety of fine materials, the tabernacle itself is to be made of gold (‫)זהב‬, silver (‫)כסף‬, and bronze (‫( )נחשת‬25:3). Chapter 32 shifts the reader’s focus back to the people at the foot of the mountain. While Moses is seeing the shape of the tabernacle, the people “see” (‫וירא העם‬, 32:1) that Moses has been delayed. In an impudent move of hubris, the people who have “seen” YHWH both personally (Exod 19–20) and through representatives (Exod 24), demand that Aaron make a god to go before them. The demand is a direct violation of YHWH’s words in 20:22–23. Because they have “seen” YHWH through his Kabod,

with Jehovah. How different it was from the ordinary vision of the Deity is indicated by the words: ‘And upon the nobles of the children of Israel, He laid not his hand’. Ordinarily it is considered dangerous or even fatal to get sight of the Deity. Through the berith this had now been changed.” See Vos, Biblical Theology, 124. 57. Unlike the situation in Exod 18. Cf. Robinson, “The Theophany and Meal,” 171. 58. For more on “focalization,” see Mieke Bal, Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative, 2nd ed. (Buffalo, NY: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 142–61.

66

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

they know better than to make an image of him (or an image of another god to compete with him). His fiery presence had terrified them a little over a month before. Similarly, Aaron and the elders had seen more of his dangerous beauty at the covenant banquet. Nonetheless, both priest and people decide that YHWH’s word in this instance is optional. Moses must have died on the mountain so they must take matters into their own hands. However, a modicum of fear remains in that they do not send anyone up onto the mountain to look for the body. A lingering unease about the taboo boundaries around the mountain keeps them back. They must reconnect with this “YHWH” but in a more convenient and safe way. Surely they can make a totem to march before them into the promised land. Ancient Near Eastern peoples had done this for over a thousand years.59 It was common practice, and surely YHWH would not mind. So Aaron fashions for the people a golden calf to represent YHWH. In an ironic twist, instead of giving their gold for the tabernacle, the people give their gold earrings (‫נזמי הזהב‬, 32:2–3) for the golden calf. Together people and priest chant: “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt” (32:4). When Aaron “sees” (‫ )וירא‬all of this, he builds an altar before the calf and proclaims a feast for YHWH on the following day. In an bizarre imitation of the covenant banquet on the mountain, the covenant people as a whole sit down to “eat and drink” (‫לאכל ושתו‬, 32:6; cf. ‫ויאכלו וישתו‬, 24:11) in the presence of their god. But unlike the dazzling, dangerous feast on the mountain, this sacral meal is filled with merriment (i.e., ‫ויקמו‬ ‫לצחק‬, “and they arose to play/laugh”). Since YHWH is only “present” in a carved image, his deadly theophanic Kabod is not present, and so the people are free to frolic without boundaries. With these actions the Israelites shatter the first words of the covenant law. As the narrative focus returns to the top of the mountain, it is clear that YHWH is not amused. He had granted Israel the privilege of witnessing his theophanic presence, and the people quickly demonstrated their folly. Rather than mimicking faith-filled, father Abraham’s response to theophanies, they choose the life of Egypt. The “Egyptian” nature of their folly is clear from YHWH’s response in that he “strikes the people with plague” (‫ויגף יהוה את־העם‬, 32:35)—an echo of his “plaguing” (‫ )נגף‬of Egypt (cf. Exod 7:27 [ET 8:2]; 12:13, 23, 27). Likewise, the Levitical retinue is to “pass over” (‫עברו‬, 32:27) the camp with death in a manner analogous to

59. Cf. Mann’s comments regarding the vanguard motif and ancient Near Eastern liturgical processions, Divine Presence, 155.

3. Hidden in the Clouds

67

YHWH’s “passing over” (‫ועבר יהוה‬, 12:23) the Egyptians.60 Similarly, YHWH describes the Israelites as “hard of neck” (‫עם־קשה־ערף‬, 32:9), a phrase comparable to Pharaoh’s divine “hardening of heart” (‫ואני אקשה‬ ‫את־לב פרעה‬, 7:3). However, in the end, Israel was more culpable than Pharaoh. She had seen the Kabod and yet chose her own visual aid for worship. She chose the calf springing out of the non-Kabod fire (‫ואשלכהו‬ ‫באש ויצא העגל הזה‬, 32:24) rather than the fiery, all-consuming God.61 With the story of the golden calf, the Sinai theophany proper comes to an end. YHWH’s appearance(s) throughout Exod 19–32 follow the Exodus type-scene pattern. All of the ingredients are present: the communal setting, the dangerous Kabod, and the divine actions to preserve, prepare, and constitute Israel. Throughout it all YHWH has been exalted. Even when Israel sins with the golden calf, Moses assuages YHWH’s wrath by reminding him not only of the Abrahamic promise but also the public repercussions of a such a move. “The Egyptians,” to paraphrase Moses, “will question your exaltation” (cf. Exod 32:12). Thus, in turning away his anger, YHWH maintains his exaltation as the God who has rescued Israel. d. God Appears at the Tent of Meeting/Tabernacle A careful reader may wonder why I have not included the theophanies of Exod 33 and 34 under the category of Sinai theophanies. After all, it is clear that chs. 32–34 constitute a rough unity centered around Israel’s idolatry and the remade covenant law. Furthermore, the Sabbath-related bookends in 31:12–18 and 35:1–3 set the material apart. Finally, the narrative itself makes it clear that YHWH appears again to Moses on Mt. Sinai in ch. 34. All of this I cheerfully grant. Clearly the events of Exod 33–34 happen on or near the mountain. With that said, my choice to place my analysis of these two chapters here hangs on two considerations. First, ch. 33 represents a shift in the narrative. Already mentioned in 32:34, the journey to the promised land now becomes the focal point. Everything that takes place at Sinai in these two chapters is related to what is to come. In fact, the burden of ch. 33 is whether YHWH will travel with his people

60. One cannot, of course, over-read the use of a common verb like ‫עבר‬. However, its presence remains suggestive. 61. As Polak puts it: “One of the most striking features of this tale is the role of the fire. The flames out of which the golden image arises as if by divine power (v. 24b, cf. v. 4), is the opposite of the fiery radiance of the Sinai theophany. The contrast is much strengthened by the fire in which Moses burns the artifact (v. 20), to grind it afterwards to dust.” See Polak, “Theophany and Mediator,” 141–42

68

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

to the promised land. The golden calf has given YHWH second thoughts about traveling with these people, and he suggests that he might lose his temper and destroy them along the way (33:3). They are, says YHWH, “a people hard of neck” (‫עם־קשה־ערף‬, 33:3, 5; cf. 32:9). Once again, Moses’ intercession reconciles YHWH’s anger and frustration leading to the assurance that he will travel with Israel. The second consideration is found in vv. 7–23. The shift towards Israel’s journey is physically encapsulated in the first theophany at the “tent of meeting” (‫)אהל מועד‬. While the appearance takes place near the mountain, it is not on the mountain proper. This is clear from YHWH’s instructions in 34:2 to “come up in the morning to Mt. Sinai” (‫ועלית‬ ‫)בבקר אל־הר סיני‬. Added to all of this is the fact that the narrative suffers a hiccup here in the plot’s timeline.62 The “tent of meeting” (‫)אהל מועד‬ has already been identified in chs. 25–29 with the “tabernacle” (‫)המשכן‬.63 In fact, Exod 29:42 says that the burnt offerings (‫ )עלת‬are to be offered continually throughout the generations at the door of this “tent of meeting” (‫)אהל־מועד‬. However, the “tabernacle/tent of meeting” (‫משכן אהל מועד‬: cf. 39:32; 40:2, 6, 29) will not be completed until Exod 39:32—several chapters beyond 33:7–12. The fact that we get a reference to this tent and its liturgical praxis prior to its actual construction suggests that from ch. 33 on, the focus of the divine presence (and thus, theophanies) will be on the tent. This makes narrative sense in that the tent is portable and made for travel whereas Mt. Sinai is inescapably stationary. It also signals that the key narrative problem to be resolved after Israel’s Adamic fall is the problem of divine presence. Will YHWH go forth with his people? 62. Von Rad notes dryly that Exod 33:7–11 is “strangely isolated from its context.” See Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, 2 vols. (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 1:235. 63. Again, my interest here is purely in the flow of the narrative as it is related to the final canonical form. Undoubtedly, there are source-critical or tradition-history issues at play. Haran has pointed out that E (and D) conceive of the tent of meeting as a prophetic institution while P conceives of the tabernacle as a priestly institution. P also has joined the two tents together even though the present context (vv. 7–11) suggests that the tent of meeting was outside the camp in contrast with the centralized tabernacle. See Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 260–75. For more discussion on the tent of meeting/tabernacle, see Kraus, Worship in Israel, 128–34; Clements, God and Temple, 35–39; von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:234–41, and Studies in Deuteronomy, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1953), 42–3; Sommer, “Conflicting Constructions,” 41–46, 56; Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 81–83.

3. Hidden in the Clouds

69

Coming then to the first “Tent” theophany, we find that it includes all of the standard Exodus type-scene elements. Moses, the text states, used to pitch the tent far outside the boundaries of Israel’s camp. Anyone seeking YHWH could approach the tent and receive moral or spiritual advice (i.e., divine preparation for life in the promised land), but when Moses approached the tent, all of the people would arise and stand at the doorways of their own tents “watching” (‫ )והביטו‬in anticipation. Whenever Moses entered the tent, the column of cloud (‫עמוד הענן‬, 33:9) would come down and stand at the door of the tent and speak with Moses. In case the reader missed the communal nature of the theophany, the text goes out of its way to make it clear in v. 10: “When all the people saw (‫ )וראה‬the column of cloud (‫ )עמוד הענן‬standing at the door of the tent, all the people would arise and worship—each at the door of his own tent.” Meanwhile inside the tent, YHWH speaks to Moses in a manner echoing Jacob’s experience at Penuel, “face-to-face” (‫פנים אל־פנים‬, 33:11) just as one might speak to a friend or companion. Both the retained presence of Joshua as a guard after Moses’ talks with God and the tent’s distance from the camp suggest the numinous danger. Given the juxtaposition of vv. 7–11 with what follows, it makes sense to read Moses’ conversation with YHWH in vv. 12–23 as one of the conversations passing between the interior and the door of the tent. Thus, according to the narrated timeline, what takes place in Exod 33 and 34 chronologically follows Exod 40.64 The conversation in vv. 12–23 is one of the most of profound in all of the Hebrew Bible. Moses observes at the outset that YHWH has been repeatedly telling him65 to begin the journey to the promised land. However, in Moses’ allusion to 33:2–3, YHWH has not been clear on who exactly he is going to send with Moses and the people for their protection. YHWH, of course, has been quite clear. He will send his Angel (‫מלאך‬, 33:2). Yet for the reader of the story who has read of the “Angels” in Genesis (and also Exodus—cf. Exod 3:2; 14:19), Moses’ question is legitimate. The ambiguity surrounding the identity of this “Angel” allows Moses to broach the subject of God’s continued vanguard protection and guidance. Twice Moses implores YHWH to “see” (‫ראה‬, 33:12, 13). Both calls allude to YHWH’s suggestion in 32:10 that he desires to destroy Israel and raise up a chosen nation from Moses’ own children. On the one hand, argues Moses, you yourself have said that you know me by name (‫ואתה אמרת ידעתיך בשם‬, 33:12), and if I have found favor in your eyes, I 64. One could argue, of course, that the whole of chs. 32–34 are an insertion. 65. Note the participial form of ‫ אמר‬in v. 12.

70

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

need you to show me “your way” (‫דרכך‬, 33:13). On the other hand, “see” that this nation is your people. In other words, please continue to watch over and preserve Abraham’s people (cf. 32:13). YHWH’s reply echoes his earlier proposal to make a nation out of Moses: “My presence (‫פני‬, 33:14) will go, and I will cause you alone to have rest (note the second singular pronominal suffix: ‫)והנחתי לך‬.” Moses, waxing eloquent in his mediatorial role, parries the thrust: “If your presence (‫ )פניך‬will not be going up with us (‫ )אל־תעלנו‬from this place, then how will it be known that I have found favor in your eyes, me and your people (‫)אני ועמך‬. Will not your going with us (‫ )עמנו‬distinguish us, me and your people (‫ )אני ועמך‬from all the peoples on the face of the earth?” (33:15–16). In v. 17 YHWH relents, but does it only for Moses’ sake: I will do this thing that you have spoke of because (‫ )כי‬you have found favor in my eyes and because I know you by name (‫)ואדעך בשם‬.” Pleased that he has just argued YHWH into continuing to protect and preserve Israel, Moses reverses his earlier reticence at the burning bush:66 “Please, let me see your glory/Kabod (‫( ”)הראני נא את־כבדך‬33:18).67 The request is stunning and puzzling at a number of levels. To begin with, Moses has “seen” YHWH’s “Kabod” repeatedly (cf. Exod 16:7, 10; 24:16–17).68 One could, of course, argue that in the previous encounters the cloud covered the Kabod. So, for example, in Exod 16:10 the Kabod appears in the cloud (‫)נראה בענן‬. Similarly, one could argue that the “it” that the cloud covered on Mt. Sinai in 24:16 was the Kabod. The antecedent of the pronominal suffix is unclear (‫וישכן כבוד־יהוה על־הר סיני‬ ‫)ויכסהו הענן‬. Either the cloud covered the mountain or the Kabod for six days. However, the following verse (24:17) makes it difficult to believe that the cloud is covering the Kabod. It states that the “appearance of the Kabod of YHWH was like devouring fire on the top of the mountain in 66. Rashi reads in a similar manner: “Moses saw that it was a time of favorable disposition, and that his words were being accepted, so he went on to request that the vision of His glory be shown to him.” See Rashi, ‫ ספר שמות‬Shemos/Exodus, vol. 2 of Sapirstein Edition Rashi: The Torah: With Rashi’s Commentary Translated, Annotated, and Elucidated, ed. Rabbi Yisrael Herczeg (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah, 2004), 469. 67. For more on the connections between this entire passage and Exod 3, see Polak, “Theophany and Mediator,” 142–47. 68. The problems and inconsistencies are not limited to this problem alone. Cf. Rachel Billings, “The Problem of the Divine Presence: Source-critical Suggestions for the Analysis of Exodus XXXIII 12–23,” VT 54 (2004): 427–44 (see especially p. 429).

3. Hidden in the Clouds

71

the eyes of the people.” Similarly, prior to the miracle of manna, Moses explicitly tells the people that “you all will see YHWH’s Kabod” (‫וראיתם‬ ‫את־כבוד יהוה‬, 16:7).69 Part of the problem, of course, lies in the composite nature of the text with different strata representing different relationships between the Kabod and cloud.70 The story itself in its present form recognizes the problem with a divine commentary on Moses’ request in vv. 19–20.71 Reading all of the material together in a synchronic fashion prompts one to translate Moses’ request along the lines of the LXX’s Vaticanus: “Make yourself visible to me” (ἐμφάνισόν μοι σεαυτόν).72 It is equally possible to read Moses’ request as a request for a vision of a greater quantity of Kabod.73 One way or another given what follows in vv. 19–20, it seems that Moses wishes to peer beyond the cloud and fire Kabod. He longs for literal in-sight into YHWH’s being.74 Here “the man of God, 69. As Savran puts it, “The k’vod YHWH is described consistently as a visible and palpable manifestation of the divine.” See Savran, Encountering the Divine, 49. 70. So, e.g., Cross argues that it is typical of P to have the cloud covering the Kabod. See Cross, CMHE, 166–67. However, I am not entirely convinced that the Priestly 24:17 distinguishes the Kabod from the cloud. The imagery is so mixed that it is difficult to determine where the cloud ends and the fire begins. Yet cf. Weinfeld, TDOT, 7:34 (see also p. 37 for the distinctions between P and D); and Gerhard von Rad, “‫ כבוד‬in the OT,” TDNT, s.v. δόξα, 2:238–42 (esp. p. 240 on P’s understanding of the relationship between the Kabod and the cloud). 71. As Billings puts it: “vv. 19–20 may best be understood as exegetical ‘commentary’ on the theological content of the theophany. They answer the questions, ‘what does it mean to see God’s glory? What exactly is Moses asking for?’ ” See Billings, “The Problem of the Divine Presence,” 441. 72. The Vulgate follows a line similar to Vaticanus: ostende mihi faciem tuam (i.e., “Show me your face”). Sadly, due to the fragmentary nature of Qumran’s 4Q22, the direct object of the sentence is missing and gives us no insight into possible alternatives. 73. This indirectly seems to be Rashi’s reading. Rashi argues that v. 20 refers to a limitation on the amount of glory Moses could see. Cf. Rashi, ‫ ספר שמות‬Shemos/ Exodus, 470. In fairness, Rashi never says that Moses’ request was illegitimate. 74. From a diachronic angle, it is possible that the sight and non-sight of the Kabod reflects different source material in a manner analogous to the way in which P and E conceive the presence of the Kabod in relation to the “tent of meeting” or “tabernacle.” Cf. Sommer, “Conflicting Constructions of Divine Presence,” 41–45. See also David Frankel, “Two Priestly Conceptions of Guidance in the Wilderness,” JSOT 81 (1998): 31–37 (especially pp. 31–32). See also Billings, “The Problem of the Divine Presence.” It should be noted that Sommer conceives of the Kabod as the glory shrouded by the cloud and resists what he considers a “conflation” of the Kabod and cloud.

72

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

already standing at the edge of the infinite realm, attempts to tilt the mystery. He yields to the lure of infinity.”75 YHWH’s response is characterized by a verbal playfulness. “I myself,” says YHWH, “will cause all my goodness to pass before your face (‫)על־פניך‬. I will call out in the name of YHWH before your face (‫)לפניך‬. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will be compassionate to whom I will be compassionate.” In a second wave of speech, YHWH adds: “You are not able to see (‫ )לראת‬my face (‫ )פני‬for no human can see me (‫ )לא־יראני‬and live.” The play between Moses’ “face” and YHWH’s “face” recalls vv. 7–11’s contention that YHWH would speak with Moses “face-to-face” (‫)פנים אל־פנים‬. While it is entirely possible that these verses represent a later attempt to tone down the extent of Moses’ “sight,” in the current canonical context they function as a qualification to ensure the reader does not misunderstand Moses’ “seeing” at either Mt. Sinai and the tent. Moses saw and yet didn’t see God. The final verses of ch. 33 elaborate on what will take place in ch. 34. “Behold,” says YHWH in an act of grace and mercy,76 “a place (‫)מקום‬ near me. You will station yourself77 beside the rock, and it will be when my Kabod (‫ )כבדי‬passes by that I will place you in a crevice of the rock and cover you with my hand until I pass by. Then I will turn aside my hand, and you will see (‫ )וראית‬my back. But my face (‫ )פני‬will not be seen (‫)לא יראו‬.” YHWH will allow Moses to see his Kabod (again).78 However, Moses’ implied hope to see more will not come to fruition. He will see YHWH’s back, but not his face. In a sense then, vv. 12–23 suggest that Moses’ talks with YHWH were really “back-to-face” discussions. In its present form, the narrative oscillates in a dialectical fashion between Moses seeing YHWH’s face and Moses seeing YHWH’s back.79 75. Terrien, The Elusive Presence, 144. 76. I.e., YHWH has chosen to be merciful and gracious to Moses—he will show him something! 77. Here I take the niphal to be reflexive. 78. Contra Terrien, who understands the Kabod to be the “face” and YHWH’s goodness to be the “back.” Terrien, Elusive Presence, 147. 79. While they refer to a different narrative dialectic within the reverse context of Moses hiding his face from the divine in Exod 3, Polak’s comments are still apropos: “Revealing implies concealing; the more the narrator reduces the gap between the human and the divine, the more he has to emphasize the distance.” See Polak, “Theophany and Mediator,” 120–21. Similarly, Dozeman observes that the entire Sinai complex of Exod 19–24 contains multiple theologies of divine presence (i.e., Deuteronomic, Priestly, Zionic). The biblical writers and editors “talk around” the issue through the means of repetition. The resulting oscillation requires the reader to

3. Hidden in the Clouds

73

This creates a deliberate ambiguity that unsettles the reader and shrouds YHWH from the reader’s view. Chapter 34 describes what happens. YHWH commands Moses to make two new stone tablets and return to Mt. Sinai. Moses dutifully obeys, and YHWH comes down in cloud (‫ )בענן‬and stands there beside Moses. Then YHWH calls out in the name of YHWH and passes by Moses’ “face” (‫)על־פניו‬. “YHWH, YHWH,” cries YHWH, “God of mercy and grace! Longsuffering! Full of faithfulness and truth! Keeping faithfulness to thousands! Forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin! Not at all acquitting the guilty! Visiting the iniquity of fathers upon children and upon the children’s children to the third and fourth generations!” (34:6–7). Continuing in his mediatorial role, Moses falls to the ground in worship and begs YHWH to take Israel to the promised land. His words echo back YHWH’s own proclamation. He asks YHWH to forgive his and the people’s “iniquities” and “sins” (‫לעוננו ולחטאתנו‬, 34:9). The people may be “hard of neck” (‫)עם־קשה־ערף‬, but Moses desires YHWH to taken them as his inheritance. YHWH mimics his previous actions on Mt. Sinai and cuts a covenant (‫כרת ברית‬, 34:10) before all the people. This covenant follows the previous in being summarized in ten commandments (vv. 10–26). In a similar manner, Moses stays on the mountain forty days and forty nights without food or drink as he writes these “words of the covenant, the ten commandments” (‫דברי הברית עשרת הדברים‬, 34:28) on the new stones. From the narrative’s perspective it is clear that this forty-day interchange constitutes the promised “passing by.” Indeed, when Moses returns from the mountain this time, something is different: the skin of his face shines. Verse 30 states that when Aaron and all the people “saw” (‫ )וירא‬Moses, “behold, the skin of his face (‫ )עור פניו‬shone.” Moses may not have seen the face of God, but now his own face radiates with God’s Kabod. Naturally, the people are “afraid” (‫ )וייראו‬to come near him. Just as the sight of YHWH was to bring about fear (20:20), the sight (‫ )ראה‬of Moses results in fear (‫)ירא‬. The pun continues, and now Moses functions as a theophany to the people. Just as he was to be “god” to Pharaoh (7:1), synthesize the material for herself. See Dozeman, God on the Mountain, Chapter 5 (esp. pp. 173–75). Cf. also Benjamin Sommer’s contention that there is a dialectical element in P’s theology of divine presence itself (transcendence vs. immanence— locative vs. locomotive). Sommer, “Conflicting Constructions of Divine Presence,” 41–63 (esp. pp. 60–63). All of these examples highlight the ambiguous and (often) gapped nature of the biblical text that presses the reader into an everchanging game of “yes-and-no.” One could say that there is almost something proto-Barthian (to use a highly anachronistic analogy) about the Exodus theophanies.

74

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

he now becomes “god” to the Pharaonic, hard-of-neck people. Just as YHWH “called” (‫ויקרא‬, 34:6) to him in YHWH’s name, so now Moses “calls” (‫ויקרא‬, 34:31) to the people and relays YHWH’s message to them. Once he has finished delivering YHWH’s message, Moses covers his “face” (‫על־פניו‬, 34:33) with a veil. Verses 34–35 then relate Moses’ habit when entering the tent to receive YHWH’s instructions. He would uncover his face whenever he entered “before the face of YHWH” (34:34, ‫)לפני יהוה‬. Then, with face still uncovered he would emerge from the tent shining and relay whatever YHWH had commanded him. Each time, the children of Israel “saw” (‫ )וראו‬the “face of Moses (‫ )פני משה‬that the skin of Moses’ face (‫ )פני משה‬shone” (34:35). Once he had finished delivering YHWH’s message, Moses would return the veil to its place in front of his face (‫ )על־פניו‬until the next time he entered the tent. Moses has become a permanent sign of God’s presence with Israel. Like Jacob who wrestled with God “face-to-face” and came away with a limp, Moses has spoken with God “face-to-face” (or perhaps “face to back”) and come away with a blazing face.80 It is important to keep in mind that all of this takes place at the tent. The final chapters of Exodus describe Israel’s construction of this tent/tabernacle and its sanctification with a theophany. Chapters 33 and 34 describe Moses’ habitual behavior in relation to this tent. Part of the reason for their current location in the story arises from the fact that they serve as a narrative bridge between the theophany on Mt. Sinai and the subsequent theophanies at the tent. Similar to Moses’ “patriarchal” theophany in Exod 3, the stories function as a transition to a new theophanic situation. This situation is outlined in detail in Exod 35–40. Mirroring the divine commands in chs 25–31, the Israelites build the tabernacle/tent. In contrast with the golden calf story, the narrative is at pains to emphasize that the children of Israel did “according to everything that YHWH commanded Moses” (‫ככל אשר צוה יהוה את־משה כן עשו‬, 39:32, 42–43). After Moses has inspected the people’s work, blessed them for their obedient craftsmanship, and set up the tabernacle with all of its trappings, YHWH’s Kabod appears for the final time in the book. The theophany is intentionally reminiscent of Exod 19. “The cloud (‫)הענן‬,” says the text, “covered the tent of meeting, and the Kabod of YHWH (‫ )כבוד יהוה‬filled the tabernacle” (40:34). The result is that 80. “The shining face of Moses is a metaphor of divine presence, for it represents a point of identification between himself and the fiery presence of God on Mountain Sinai… [Moses] not only mirrors the movement of God, he even carries the fire of the Kabod Yahweh in his face.” Dozeman, God on the Mountain, 140–41.

3. Hidden in the Clouds

75

“Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud (‫ )הענן‬tabernacled upon it, and the Kabod of YHWH (‫ )כבוד יהוה‬filled the tabernacle” (40:35). All of this brings to mind the cloud on Mt. Sinai and the taboo against approaching it when the divine presence was present. Likewise, given the habitual practices mentioned in 33:7–11 and 34:34–35, it is clear that this particular theophany is particularly potent in power in a manner analogous to the Sinai theophany. Moses himself cannot enter the tent, which is odd given his frequent comings and goings on Mt. Sinai. Nonetheless, the point is made. This tent is now a portable Mt. Sinai.81 As a result, the three final verses of the book (vv. 36–38) intimate what is to come in Leviticus and Numbers by drawing on the previous vanguard motif found in Exod 13:21–22; 14:19–25, and 16:10. Now, however, the cloud is specifically associated with the tabernacle and rests upon it. “In all their journeys, whenever the cloud (‫ )הענן‬lifted up from the tabernacle, the children of Israel would travel. But if the cloud (‫)הענן‬ did not lift up, they would not travel until the day it lifted” (40:36–37). Just as before the cloud of YHWH (‫ )ענן יהוה‬was a “cloud” (‫ )ענן‬by day and “fire” (‫ )אש‬by night, and in all of their journeys it was visible to all of the people (‫( )לעיני כל־בית־ישראל‬40:38). YHWH will again visibly walk with his people and protect them from their external and internal enemies. 3. The Canonical Interchange and Theological Implications When placed side by side, the theophanies of Genesis and Exodus represent different “visuals” of YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel. In Genesis, there is little actual description of the visual nature of the theophanies. However, throughout, there is a consistent typescene with YHWH responding to human fear with reiterations of the dual Abrahamic promise. YHWH’s appearances tend to be intimate. At times he is even mistaken for a “man” (‫ )איש‬in Gen 18 and 32.82 In essence, YHWH’s appearances in Genesis proclaim him the “Promiser.”

81. “Thus the P tradition stakes out its claim that the Tabernacle is equivalent to Sinai—indeed, is a portable Sinai—assuring Israel of God’s permanent presence in its midst.” Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, AB 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 58. Cf. also, pp. 142–43. 82. Cf. Polak’s comparison of the two kinds of theophanies: Polak, “Theophany and Mediator,” 117–18.

76

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

The Exodus theophanies offer a different, complementary vision of YHWH. This God, according to the Exodus theophanic type-scene, is a God of action. He wraps himself in the cloak of an ancient Near Eastern storm deity and comes down from the heavens to rescue his people. The cloud, smoke, and fire that attend him both conceal and reveal him. He is shrouded and yet in plain sight. In this type-scene YHWH exalts himself through his salvation of Israel from external and internal threats. He proves to Israel that he is indeed the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In all of this, YHWH’s proofs are public and enacted on the stage of world history. Both friend and foe can see him from afar. However, YHWH’s actions are not limited simply to military interventions against Pharaoh and the Amalekites. Rather, YHWH also acts to prepare and shape Israel into his covenant people. His appearance at Mt. Sinai initiates the formal ratification of the national covenant with Israel. In addition, his gift of Torah constitutes the lawless slaves as a nation. It also announces YHWH’s role as Israel’s king. In essence, YHWH’s Kabod appearances in Exodus proclaim him the “Actor”—the one who keeps his promises and acts upon them in due time.83 These two visions of God represent a narrative and theological progression. The God who promises in Genesis acts in Exodus to fulfill those promises. All of YHWH’s encouragement and reassurance of the frightened patriarchs turns out to be true. Within the narrative chronology, the lone man Abraham has become a nation hundreds of years later. When YHWH decides the time is right, he begins to act upon his promises in a public, communal manner. He appoints a mediator and sets about 83. Mendenhall concurs: “All of the references to the ānān [i.e., ‘cloud’] of Yahweh as an active agent in the past experiences of human beings have to do with the Exodus and Wanderings traditions regardless of the literary ‘source’—L, J, E, D, or P—and the ānān occurs in contexts assigned to all of them. There is no usage of the word in a narrative context after the death of Moses, and the only passages in which it is referred to as any kind of presently empirical reality in later contexts have to do with the Jerusalem cultus.” Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation, 57. R. E. Clements offers a similar take and points out that the Sinai theophany is inextricably bound up with the covenant. “Whilst we cannot elucidate clearly, therefore, from the Sinai narrative what actually took place on Mount Sinai, we can find within it evidence of the great importance of the idea of a theophany for the understanding of covenant in Israel. The covenant pointed to Yahweh’s active presence in Israel for salvation and judgment.” See Clements, God and Temple, 22. Naturally, then, I find Walsh’s contention that YHWH tends to be particularly “potent” or active only in the first half of Exodus to be incorrect. See Walsh, “Where Did God Go?,” 116–17. Walsh is correct that after Sinai there is a shift to more of a cultic Kabod. However, canonically speaking, the pillar of cloud remains active and dangerous.

3. Hidden in the Clouds

77

re-appearing. However, there is a practical problem. While YHWH can appear to Moses in an intimate setting, public theophanies require a new mode of visual representation. YHWH desires to walk and talk with his people, but now the individual Abraham (or Isaac or Jacob) has become a nation. There can no longer be intimate “face-to-face” conversations except with the mediator. Israel has come of age as a nation, and any theophany has to be visible to the whole people. The storm cloud theophany or Kabod solves the problem. In this way, all of the Israelites can “see” YHWH. The Kabod also allows YHWH to act publicly against Israel’s external enemies. YHWH’s triumph at the Red Sea, where he fought from the column of cloud against the beleaguered Egyptians, demonstrates to the nations his intentions for Israel. Again, gone are the days of intimate appearances to clan chieftains. YHWH is a dangerous force in the world of politics. This public, international presence requires human representation and mediation. On the local level, Moses functions in this role, shuttling back and forth between YHWH and the people. At one point in the narrative, he even becomes a literal beacon of YHWH’s shining presence as he expounds the divine law. However, on the scale of world politics, Israel itself holds a priestly vocation. The whole people have seen YHWH on the mountain. They have heard him speak, and they know how reality itself is configured in terms of divine presence. Israel is a kingdom of priests, a holy nation (Exod 19:6). All of the earth belongs to YHWH, but Israel is his means of international revelation, a “channel” for the presence of God.84 Even within the story-world, YHWH’s actions often require reporting. There was not one Egyptian left on the shore of the Red Sea to say what had happened. Only Israel could bear witness to the reality of YHWH’s theophanic presence acting to fulfill the Abrahamic promise. In this way, for all of its public, communal dimensions, the Exodus type-scene mirrors the Genesis type-scene in terms of privacy. Israel’s witness to YHWH’s public acts of redemption is analogous to Abraham’s, Isaac’s, and Jacob’s witness to YHWH’s private promises. The chosen people always reveal YHWH to the world. They mediate their both private and public visions of God to those who have not seen. This brings up another interesting point. Both type-scenes assume that YHWH is “see-able” in some form or fashion. The question then, is not whether or not God can be seen. Rather, the question is: How does God visually reveal himself and why does he reveal himself the way he does 84. See Dozeman, God on the Mountain, 93–98, 141–43.

78

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

in a particular narrative moment? Again, the discussion above suggests that a narrative and theological logic undergirds the shift from a Genesis theophanic type-scene to an Exodus theophanic type-scene. Finally, the type-scenes function theologically as re-presentations to the reader of YHWH’s divine appearances. Through the technology of the text, the type-scenes encourage the reader to enter the world of YHWH’s patterned sightings. The text itself has become a priest mediating between the story-world and the reader’s world. To use Wolfgang Iser’s language, the textual type-scenes play a narrative game with reader. They guide the reader in mentally re-creating, or “concretizing” the stories. They enmesh the reader and the text into an aesthetic object in the reader’s mind. The result is that these visions of YHWH change the reader.

Chapter 4 C u lt i c T h eop h a n i es a n d t he L e vi t i cal T h eop h a n i c T y p e - S ce ne : T he A p p ea r an ces of G od i n L e vi ti cus

‫יהוה מי־יגור באהלך מי־ישכן בהר קדשך‬ ‫הולך תמים ופעל צדק ודבר אמת בלבבו‬ O YHWH, who can sojourn in your tent? Who can dwell on your holy mountain? The one walking blamelessly, doing righteousness, and speaking truth in his heart. Ps 15:1–2

1. Introduction Unlike the preceding two canonical books of Genesis and Exodus, Leviticus is conspicuous for its numerical lack of theophanies. This, of course, is not surprising given the slowed narrative pace exemplified in the proliferation of various cultic and moral regulations. Simply put, there is very little narrative at all in Leviticus. However, what little there is does contain two narrative descriptions of theophanies. This may seem to present something of a problem for analyzing Pentateuchal theophanies according to type-scenes. With only two examples to draw from, it is more difficult to argue that the two represent a unique type-scene (i.e., a small sample size makes it harder to conclude that the samples constitute a specific narrative pattern, which by definition can only be observed through repetition). However, as we will see, Leviticus’ two theophanies are unique and represent a narratival building on the Exodus type-scene. Whether one wants to label these a specific Leviticus theophanic typescene or an extended variation of the Exodus type-scene matters little. What matters is the way in which these specific theophanies add new elements to the now standard Exodus type-scene. In addition to the

80

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

appearance of the dangerous Kabod within a communal setting as an action intended to constitute or preserve Israel, the Levitical theophanies occur within a liturgical context where a specific priestly action brings forth a theophanic response. Because of these additions and the way in which Leviticus shifts theophanies into the realm of the tabernacle cult, I will refer to a specific Levitical theophanic type-scene. 2. Leviticus within a Theophanic Context Before offering an analysis of the two specific theophanies in Leviticus, a comment or two about the book in general is in order. To begin with, the entirety of Leviticus appears to take place within the context of a theophany or at least regular theophanies at the tabernacle.1 This is evident from the first verse of the book, which implicitly calls to mind the tent of meeting tradition in Exod 33:7–11 and explicitly connects itself to the description of the priestly tabernacle in 40:34–38. YHWH, the text relates, “called” (‫ )ויקרא‬to Moses and “spoke” (‫ )וידבר‬to him “from the tent of meeting” (‫)מאהל מועד‬. Unlike the tent of meeting tradition, where it is Moses in the tent and God speaking to him from the pillar of cloud in front of the door, here YHWH speaks from the tent. The pillar of cloud now “dwells” (‫שכן‬, Exod 40:35) upon it, and the Kabod “fills” (‫ )מלא‬it. As a result, YHWH in theophanic splendor speaks from the tent. What follows then in Leviticus assumes this continual (or repetition of a) theophany. Each time YHWH speaks, whether to Moses, Aaron, or both together, he speaks from the Kabod-filled tabernacle. In this sense, one could argue that the entire book of Leviticus represents a large Exodus theophanic type-scene. YHWH appears in Kabod within a communal setting to give Israel instructions for its cultic constitution as the Abrahamic people of God. The various laws of sacrifices and holiness function as a corporate catechism of moral and social formation. Coupled with this is the recognition that YHWH’s presence will abide or “dwell” with Israel in perpetuity within the sacred precincts of the tent. As a result, the divine catechetical endeavors also function as a way of outlining boundaries between sacred and profane space and safe procedures for crossing those boundaries. In other words, YHWH is not merely constituting Israel, he is also protecting Israel from himself. Communal praxis must now reflect the continued kabodic presence within the camp. 1. On a more general level, Wenham observes that “the enduring presence of God is one of the theological presuppositions running through the whole book.” See Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 16.

4. Cultic Theophanies and the Levitical Theophanic Type-Scene

81

In addition to this general theophanic context, the book of Leviticus is structured in such a way that the two explicit, narrative theophanies function as something of a pivot between the laws of sacrifices in chs. 1–7 and the laws regarding holiness in ch. 11 and following. This arrangement suggests that the first theophany in chs. 8–9 corresponds with the laws of sacrifices and that the second theophany in ch. 10 corresponds with regulations for holiness. In terms of narrative arrangement, this makes sense. The first theophany comes after Aaron and his sons offer divinely ordained sacrifices. The second theophany relates an attempt to cross the liminal space in an unholy manner (i.e., boundary breaking). Thus, the remainder of the book relates Israel’s proper praxis in relation to the respective boundaries between holy and profane, and clean and unclean.2 

7KHRSKDQ\ 7KHRSKDQ\ &KDSWHUV±

&KDSWHUV±

&KDSWHU

 &KDSWHUV±

So while there are only two specific, narrative theophanies in the book, the theophanic presence pervades the entire book both in terms of content (i.e., YHWH speaking from the tent) and structure (i.e., the theophanic hinge).3 3. Theophanic Narratives in Leviticus The first appearance of a theophanic narrative occurs in chs. 8–9. Almost immediately, one recognizes a variation on the Exodus theophanic type-scene.

2. While ch. 17 is the official beginning of the “Holiness Code,” chs. 11–16 also contain material aimed at holiness. 3. Jacob Milgrom’s suggestion that Lev 1–7 is an insertion between Exod 40 and Lev 8 explaining “the dedicatory and inaugural sacrifices that follow,” lends weight to idea that chs. 1–7 intend toward chs. 8–9. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 61. In terms of the relationship between Lev 10 and 11–27, Baruch Levine agrees that the Nadab and Abihu narrative sets the stage for what follows: “To emphasize the necessity of precise compliance with all the ritual laws, this chapter preserves a brief narrative of the untimely death of two of Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu; having made an improper incense offering, they were struck down by God’s fire. Like the story of Korah in Numbers 16–17, the story about Nadab and Abihu served as an admonition and as an object lesson.” See Baruch A. Levine, The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus ‫( ויקרא‬New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 58.

82

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

a. YHWH’s Kabod Appears After Aaron’s Proper Sacrifices Chapters 1–7 signal their end with a colophon-like summary in 7:37–38: “This is the Torah for the burnt offering (‫)לעלה‬, the minchah (‫)למנחה‬, the sin offering (‫)לחטאת‬, the guilt offering (‫)לאשם‬, the ordination offering (‫)ולמלואים‬, and for the sacrifice of the peace offerings (‫)לזבח השלמים‬, which YHWH commanded Moses on Mount Sinai (‫אשר צוה יהוה את־משה‬ ‫ )בהר סיני‬on the day he commanded (‫ )צותו‬the children of Israel to bring near their oblations to YHWH in the desert of Sinai.” This scribal seam paves the way for the narrative material in chs. 8–10.4 With the commands in place, it is now time to recount the ordination of the priests. While ch. 8 is narrative, it immediately connects itself with the preceding Torah instructions. YHWH tells Moses to bring Aaron and his sons to the tent of meeting. Along with the soon-to-be priests, Moses is to bring priestly clothing, anointing oil, the bull of the sin offering and two rams (‫ואת פר החטאת ואת שני האילים‬, v. 2), and a basket of unleavened bread. Moses must now put to good use the previously revealed Torah. Indeed, not only does the bull meet the required sin offering, but the two rams will be offered respectively as the burnt offering (‫איל העלה‬, v. 18) and the ordination offering (‫איל המלאים‬, v. 22). Likewise, on the eighth day of the ceremony Aaron is to offer a sin offering (‫לחטאת‬, 9:2) and a burnt offering (‫ )לעלה‬while the Israelites present a sin offering/ burnt offering (‫לחטאת…לעלה‬, v. 3), a peace offering (‫לשלמים‬, v. 4), and a minchah offering (‫—)ומנחה‬all of this an echo of 7:37–38 and the previous seven chapters that it summarizes. In addition, the story is at pains to relate that all of this was done “just as YHWH commanded Moses” (‫ויעש‬ ‫משה כאשר צוה יהוה אתו‬, 8:4; ‫זה הדבר אשר־צוה יהוה לעשות‬, v. 5; ‫כאשר צוה‬ ‫יהוה את־משה‬, vv. 9, 13, 17, 21, 29; ‫כאשר עשה ביום הזה צוה יהוה לעשת‬, v. 34; ‫כי־כן צויתי‬, v. 35 [similarly v. 31]; ‫אשר־צוה יהוה ביד־משה‬, v. 36).5 Torah prescriptions and Torah-keeping abound! The entrance to the tent of meeting provides the setting for the ordination service as the premier locus of divine activity and presence in both prophetic and priestly senses.6 So Moses gathers the people and

4. For more on colophons as scribal seams, see Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), Chapter 5, especially pp. 125–32. Cf. also van der Toorn’s discussion of Deuteronomy’s colophons in Chapter 6, pp. 150–52. 5. Notice that the specific phrase ‫ כאשר צוה יהוה‬occurs seven times in the chapter. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 499. 6. I am assuming here the priestly merging of the tent of meeting and the tabernacle exhibited at the end of Exodus.

4. Cultic Theophanies and the Levitical Theophanic Type-Scene

83

begins the ritual actions required both to make Aaron and his sons liminal figures and to make the tabernacle (8:10, ‫ )המשכן‬an official liminal space. The service consists of a great deal of anointing with oil, sacrificing, manipulating blood and organs, and waiting seven days as Aaron and his sons remain in the tent. When the consecration is complete, Moses mediates to Aaron the command to begin his priestly role and offer all of the commanded offerings (9:1–4). Here the story begins to build towards its climax. Aaron must do all of this, says Moses, “because today YHWH will appear to you all” (‫כי היום‬ ‫יהוה נראה אליכם‬, 9:4).7 Like ch. 8, ch. 9 makes it clear that everything that happens takes place according to the previous Torah-stipulations. In fact, YHWH’s appearance depends upon the people approaching YHWH in the proper manner via the priests: “This is the thing that YHWH commanded you to do so that the Kabod of YHWH might appear to you” (‫זה הדבר אשר־צוה יהוה תעשו וירא אליכם כבוד יהוה‬, v. 6). The next few verses continue this emphasis, highlighting the proper ritual procedure. Aaron must offer the sacrifices for himself and the people “just as YHWH commanded” (‫כאשר צוה יהוה‬, v. 7). Nor does Aaron shirk his duty. He follows the Torah prescriptions to the letter for himself and for the people “just as YHWH commanded Moses” (‫כאשר צוה יהוה את־משה‬, v. 10), “according to the ordinance” (‫כמשפט‬, v. 16), and “just as Moses commanded” (‫כאשר צוה משה‬, v. 21).8 7. Because the text references YHWH’s Kabod two verses later, I have a hard time agreeing with Milgrom that the tabernacle theophany differed from the Sinai theophany in allowing the people to see God and not just his Kabod. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 574–75, 591. Instead, as I have suggested in the preceding chapters YHWH’s Kabod is an actual visual representation of himself. Though it shrouds YHWH’s hidden essence, it does offer a visible, sacramental token of his presence. Thus, those who see the Kabod truly see God. As Cecil P. Staton puts it: “[this] view, however, overlooks those texts in which the ‘glory’ and Yahweh are not clearly separated. In a number of texts the appearing of the glory of Yahweh is followed by ‘and Yahweh said’ (cf. Exod 16:10–11; Num 14:10–11; 16:19–20; 20:6–7). In these cases the ‘glory’ suggests that Yahweh is immediately present and does not seem to weaken the directness of the appearing. That there is no divine speech following this appearance is explained by the cultic interest of this text. The purpose of the appearing is the consuming of the burnt offerings.” See Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 213–14. 8. The LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch read “just as YHWH commanded Moses.” The Syriac takes a passive form: “just as Moses was commanded.” However, even if one refuses these suggestions, Moses functions in the narrative as YHWH’s vocal mediator so Moses’ words are effectively YHWH’s words.

84

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

With everything done in proper, ritual order, Aaron raises his hands and blesses the people before descending from the altar and his priestly work. By now 18 verses have passed since the narrative first signaled the coming theophany. The careful descriptions of Aaron’s vocational precision not only emphasize the propriety of his sacerdotal actions but they also function as an impediment to the narrative’s pace. The reader’s expectations have been building with each line describing blood, fat, kidneys, and livers. The blessing and completion of the sacrifices hint that the climax of the story is imminent. YHWH is about to appear! The final two verses of ch. 9 erupt with the Exodus theophanic typescene. Moses and Aaron enter the tent of meeting. When they step back out and bless the people, the Kabod of YHWH appears to all the people (‫וירא כבוד־יהוה אל־כל־העם‬, v. 23). Fire, then, breaks forth from before YHWH’s face (‫ )ותצא אש מלפני יהוה‬and consumes (‫ )ותאכל‬the burnt offering and the fat portions on the altar (v. 24). As a result, all the people “see” (‫ )וירא‬and give a ringing cry of joy as they fall upon their faces. All of the elements typical of the Exodus type-scene are present. YHWH’s dangerous Kabod appears9 in a communal setting intended to constitute Israel as a people being prepared for the Abrahamic inheritance. Indeed, Aaron’s ordination functions as a moment of liturgical formation for Israel in a few different ways. First, Moses cannot live forever. The priesthood represents a concrete method for insuring a continued mediation between YHWH and his people. The priests will teach Torah and will function as divinely ordained protectors of and from the second reality that the ordination service embodies: YHWH’s now continual kabodic presence with Israel. In Exodus, Moses had begged YHWH to guide the people from Sinai to the promised land. Initially, YHWH had refused because of the people’s sin with the golden calf. However, after wheeling-and-dealing Moses

9. As a side note, it is instructive that there is very little textual description of the Kabod here in the priestly account. As Hieke notes: “Auch hier ist der Text wieder sehr zurückhaltend mit konkreten Anhaltspunkten für die Vorstellungswelt. Nicht das »wie« der Gotteserscheinung ist entscheidend, sondern das »dass«.” See Thomas Hieke, Levitikus 1–15, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2014), 372. Cf. also Michael B. Hundley’s discussion of P’s allusive language for the Kabod in Keeping Heaven on Earth: Safeguarding the Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle, FAT 2/50 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 39–52. While I find Hundley’s description of a kind of graded relationship between the cloud and the Kabod unconvincing, I do believe he is correct regarding the guarded nature of the priestly terminology when referring to the divine presence.

4. Cultic Theophanies and the Levitical Theophanic Type-Scene

85

had managed to convince YHWH that he ought to go forth from Sinai with his people (Exod 33). The result had been that the construction of the tabernacle went forward with a theophanic appearance of the Kabod at the completion of the work (Exod 40:33–35). YHWH would go forth from the mountain with his people. However, the tabernacle still required priests to maintain its sanctity. In addition, the nation as a whole required instruction and a safe means of access to YHWH’s kabodic presence. Exodus 40 gives a brief comment that Moses ordained Aaron and his sons to the post (40:12–16). Leviticus 8 and 9 represent an elaboration of that account. The priests will function in the community as perpetual ritual incarnations of Moses. Just as Moses crossed the boundary surrounding Sinai and ascended to its heights to meet YHWH, the priests will cross the boundaries surrounding the tabernacle, the portable, “wandering” Mount Sinai,10 to meet YHWH. Whenever there is need to speak to God or placate his anger, the priests will cross the liminal space and act as mediators in good Mosaic fashion. Not only this, but they will keep YHWH’s presence clean from the accrual of moral depredation in the camp. The emphasis here, of course, is on the danger of YHWH’s kabodic presence. The priests are a buffer between the Holy One and the people in all of their gradations of sin, uncleanness and profaneness. All of this points to two unique ways in which the theophanic typescene in Leviticus adds to the standard Exodus type-scene to become a unique type-scene. First, priests are involved. While Moses functioned in the narrative as a priest long before Lev 8 and 9, the special consecration of Aaron and his sons signals a new step in the story. Second, in Leviticus the appearance of YHWH is connected with priestly action within a liturgical context. As Cecil P. Staton observes: Thus in this P context [i.e., Lev 8–9, 16] the appearing of Yahweh (9:4b; 16:2), or Yahweh’s glory (9:6b, 23b), is presented as an integral part of Israel’s sacrificial ritual and worship. Moses relays Yahweh’s prescriptions to Aaron with the promise that as a result Yahweh will appear. The people participate by bringing their offerings. Aaron and his sons carried out the sacrifices. Moses and Aaron enter the tent of meeting, then come out and bless the people. Their worship reaches its climax when the glory of Yahweh appears and fire from the presence of Yahweh consumes the offering. The visual aspects of the encounter are emphasized by the statement that “all the people saw it” (9:24), though it is the consuming fire which they see rather than Yahweh himself. The people respond to the appearing and the 10. Cf. Hieke, Levitikus 1–15, 366.

86

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch sight of the fire by shouting (‫ )רנן‬and bowing themselves to the ground, both responses of worship, reverence, and awe which are found in other seeing and appearing texts.11

Of course, what distinguishes the Levitical type-scene is the presence of priests. Other theophanic texts relate sacrifices, yet in Leviticus it is the priestly nature of the liturgical actions that comes to the fore. A specific narrative pattern is in play. Chronologically, the priests act and then YHWH appears. It is only after Aaron has accomplished his tasks that the Kabod breaks forth from the tent. Thus, not only priests but priestly action are crucial to the Levitical theophanic type-scene. Unlike the Genesis and Exodus type-scenes where YHWH appeared in times of threat to either protect the promise or the people, the Leviticus type-scene proclaims a theophany grounded in the liturgical context of Israel’s worship. Now YHWH “appears on a recurring basis following the proper cultic acts or at the proper moment in the cultic calendar.”12 YHWH’s kabodic presence now dwells in a special way with Israel. Within the narrative of the Pentateuch, this shift to a new theophanic type-scene heralds the continuing effects of the official constitution of Israel as the people of YHWH at Sinai. This is the fulfillment of the promises to the patriarchs and even to Moses himself (cf. Gen 17:7: “I will set up my covenant between me and you and your seed after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant to be God to you and to your seed after you”; Exod 29:45: “I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel and will be their God”).13 Now that YHWH has come down from Mt. Sinai to live with them in the camp, the people are by definition YHWH’s people. Thus, the addition of priests to the theophanic type-scene is the natural, narrative outgrowth of the movement of YHWH’s presence into Israel’s midst. After all, priests are only required when a holy space is established with its parallel requirements of protection and maintenance. In sum, the Leviticus theophanic type-scene builds on the Exodus typescene by adding priests and priestly, cultic action into the mix. YHWH’s appearances are now related to the cult centered around the tabernacle. The paradigmatic nature of these additions for Leviticus becomes even clearer in the book’s second theophany. 11. Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 215. Though Staton limits this to P, I think his remarks apply more broadly to the Levitical theophanic type-scene also represented in Lev 10 (though, of course, Lev 10 represents the dark side of the kabodic descent). 12. Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 216. 13. Cf. Staton’s helpful comments, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 217–18.

4. Cultic Theophanies and the Levitical Theophanic Type-Scene

87

b. YHWH’s Kabod Appears After Aaron’s Sons’ Improper Incense In the second and final theophany of Leviticus, the text includes these same two elements: priests and a divine appearance after a priestly action. However, the story takes a terrifying twist and comes to a different conclusion. Nadab and Abihu, Aaron’s sons and newly minted priests, take censers, place “fire” (‫ )אש‬in them, and add incense (‫קטרת‬, 10:1). Then with censers in tow, they bring near “a strange fire before the face of YHWH, which he had not commanded them” (‫ויקרבו לפני יהוה אש זרה אשר‬ ‫)לא צוה אתם‬. The results are swift. The Kabod of YHWH appears a second time with “fire” going out from before YHWH’s face and “consuming” them (‫ותצא אש מלפני יהוה ותאכל אותם‬, 10:2).14 In a moment of laconic understatement, the text then relates that “they died before the face of YHWH” (‫)וימתו לפני יהוה‬. In v. 3, Moses offers Aaron a theological explanation for what happened: “That is what YHWH spoke, saying, among the priests near me (‫ )בקרבי‬I will show myself sacred (‫)אקדש‬, and before all the people I will show myself glorious (‫)אכבד‬.”15 In the face of this display of terrible majesty and glory, Aaron is silent.16 His sons have recapitulated the

14. I find puzzling Milgrom’s contention that this was a fire different from its earlier counterpart. Surely, the absence of the definite article in the present context does not change the fire’s identity as a manifestation of the kabodic presence. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 599. Thus, rightly, Laughlin writes that “it is the same fire which under right circumstances indicated God’s pleasure in the sacrifice.” See John C. H. Laughlin, “The ‘Strange Fire’ of Nadab and Abihu,” JBL 95, no. 4 (1976): 562. Levine agrees. Commenting on 9:24, he writes: “The Sifra interprets this as fire from heaven. Rashbam more accurately identifies it as the fire of God that was inside the Tent, the same fire that would subsequently scald Nadab and Abihu, Aaron’s two sons, when they entered the Tent improperly, according to 10:2.” See Levine, Leviticus, 58, cf. also, 59. 15. As Wenham observes: “Moses’ words may be loosely paraphrased, ‘the closer a man is to God, the more attention he must pay to holiness and the glory of God.’ The unspoken implication is that the sons of the high priest ought to have known better than to act so presumptuously.” Wenham, Leviticus, 156. Kiuchi offers a slightly different take on the phrase: “The whole sentence essentially means: ‘When I am sanctified in those who are close to me, then I am honoured before all the people.’ ” In other words, YHWH’s glorification among the people is “contingent upon the fact that God is sanctified by priests.” See Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature, JSOTSup 56 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1987), 70. 16. Houston takes the silence as an indicator of family solidarity even in dishonor: “In the face of the apparently authoritative oracle quoted by Moses he cannot defend his sons, but he certainly cannot disown them: hence is only recourse must be

88

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

golden calf episode in sight of the new Mt. Sinai and have paid the price.17 Because priestly sin involves judgment upon the whole congregation, YHWH has preserved Israel through his quick blast of judgment. (Notice how the Exodus type-scene’s elements are still in play.) As Peretz Segal puts it, “God’s summary execution of Nadab and Abihu was an act of grace whereby he refrained from unleashing his wrath upon the children of Israel on the day that the tabernacle was consecrated.”18 Once Aaron’s nephews have removed the still-clothed bodies19 to a place outside the camp, Moses commands Aaron and his remaining silence.” See Walter J. Houston, “Tragedy in the Courts of the LORD: A Socio-Literary Reading of the Death of Nadab and Abihu,” JSOT 90 (2000): 34–35. In this sense, their sin is his sin, and so he cannot offer a rebuttal. 17. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 631. Similarly, Roland Grandwohl, “Das ‘fremde Feuer’ von Nadab und Abihu,” ZAW 75 (1963): 292–95. In a different way, Françoise Mirguet offers the stimulating suggestion that Nadab and Abihu, whatever their liturgical mistake in Lev 10, are really suffering for the sin of their father (i.e., making the golden calf—cf. the curse of the second commandment in Exod 20:5). She observes a similar narrative pattern in Exod 32 and Lev 10 and argues that Aaron’s refusal to eat the goat in Lev 10 may perhaps be a symbolic gesture analogous to not drinking the ground up golden calf’s remains in Exod 32. She also points out a number of important verbal resonances between the chapters. See Françoise Mirguet, “Essai d’interprétation de Lévitique 10. Le bouc brûlé et non mangé,” ETR 80 (2005): 261–72. 18. Peretz Segal, “The Divine Verdict of Leviticus X 3,” VT 39, no. 1 (1989): 94. 19. Gerstenberger’s objection that the presence of clothing (i.e., “tunics,” ‫)כתנת‬ contradicts death by incineration seems overly literalistic. See Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus: A Commentary, trans. Douglas W. Stott, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 120. Noth also reads the text in such a manner. Cf. Martin Noth, Leviticus: A Commentary, trans. J. E. Anderson, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 85–86. If one is to read this way, it seems better to follow the more interesting ingenuity of a pre-critical exegete. For example, Rashi sees the literal “contradiction” as an opportunity and looks for a creative solution: “This teaches us that their garments were not burned, but only their souls. Something like two threads of fire entered into their nostrils.” See Rashi, ‫ ספר ויקרא‬Vayikra/Leviticus, vol. 3 of Sapirstein Edition Rashi: The Torah: With Rashi’s Commentary Translated, Annotated, and Elucidated, ed. Rabbi Yisrael Herczeg (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah, 2003), 103. Likewise, the seventeenth-century Anglican bishop, Joseph Hall, saw the reference to the tunics as a reminder to Israel that priests had fallen for their sin: “It was an unusual sight for Israel to see a linen ephod upon the bier; the judgment was so much the more remarkable, because they had the badge of their calling upon their backs.” See Joseph Hall, Contemplations on the Historical Passages of the Old and New Testaments (Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1844 [repr. Otisville, MI: Baptist Book Trust, 1976]), 68.

4. Cultic Theophanies and the Levitical Theophanic Type-Scene

89

sons to refrain from mourning. They cannot remove the turbans from their heads (‫ )ראשיכם אל־תפרעו‬or tear their priestly garments (‫ובגדיכם‬ ‫לא־תפרמו‬, v. 6). If they mutilate their priestly persona as it stands constituted in its own vestured boundaries, they will die and the wrath of God will fall upon all of the whole congregation. Ripping their robes and throwing aside their turbans would functionally recapitulate Nadab and Abihu’s mistake—being present in the holy space in an inappropriate manner. Instead, the non-priestly, common people will mourn on their behalf. They will weep at the “burning that YHWH burned” (‫יבכו‬ ‫)את־השרפה אשר שרף יהוה‬. Aaron and his sons must remain at the entrance to the tent of meeting on penalty of death “because the oil of YHWH’s anointing” is upon them (‫כי־שמן משחת יהוה עליכם‬, v. 7). In other words, their ritual sanctity precludes breaking their priestly, liturgical posture. The remainder of the chapter details other perpetual commands for priests when they serve in the tent. In the span of a few verses, YHWH’s kabodic presence has appeared a second time. Like the preceding theophany, this story contains all the elements of the Exodus type-scene with the Levitical addition of priests and an appearance chronologically after the priests have performed a ritual action. The setting is communal, and YHWH’s fiery Kabod appears in all of its elemental danger. In fact, it is those (for all appearances) safest who perish in the blaze of divine glory. Thus, the story offers an element of surprise. Those who have been through the seven-day ordination/ recreation ceremony and received the right to serve at the altar are no safer than a common, presumptuous Israelite. All must respect the divine boundaries. In this way the theophany functions as formative moment in Israel’s national religious life. The newly constituted people receive a visual catechism in respecting the spatial and moral boundaries surrounding the tabernacle. It turns out that this holy tent is truly a miniature Sinai and that any priests or people who presumptuously push forward into YHWH’s presence will die (cf. Exod 19:20–25). Three times the story tells us that Nadab and Abihu were “before the face of YHWH” (‫)לפני יהוה‬. They had entered the holy space20 without following proper 20. This does not mean, of course, that they had managed to enter the adytum or precincts of the tent itself. Rather, they died in the tabernacle court. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 599–600. Given what I will argue below, I think that Nadab and Abihu intended to enter the tent to make atonement for Israel but died as they approached with the illegitimate fire. For a list of rabbinical suggestions as to why the two men died, see Levine, Leviticus, 59. Cf. also, Rashi, ‫ ספר ויקרא‬Vayikra/Leviticus, 101.

90

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

ritual procedure.21 They were those who “brought near” fire (‫ויקרבו‬, 10:1), those whom YHWH describes as “near” him (‫בקרבי‬, 10:3). Spatial sanctity requires the maintenance of strict boundaries. However, the deaths of Nadab and Abihu provide not only a teachable moment for the literary, intra-textual characters (i.e., the people of Israel in the story), but it also offers a narrative catechism for subsequent generations of readers and listeners. Here the boundaries between intra-textual characters and extra-textual readers begin to blur. Israel, both within and outside of the text, sees a model of boundary breaking and its terrible consequences.22 The second Levitical addition to the type-scene (i.e., a priestly ritual action followed by a theophany) drives home the point. YHWH will appear after the priests do their work, but the question now is: How will he appear? In blessing or in curse? Priests who follow Torah and its liturgical prescriptions may enter the holy space without fear of reprisal. If, however, a priest performs an unauthorized action, a theophany of death will be the result.23 It should not be surprising, then, that the following chapters in Leviticus deal with the various gradations of holiness and cleanness. Nadab and Abihu become the prime narrative examples of entering a holy space in an unfit manner. What follows is an attempt to explain the different levels of holy and common, clean and unclean. Moses’ explanation only confirms this when he reports that YHWH said, “I will show myself sacred/holy” (‫)אקדש‬. Likewise, in vv. 10–11, Moses observes that the priests must be able to distinguish or divide (‫ )ולהבדיל‬between holy (‫ )הקדש‬and common (‫)החל‬, unclean (‫)הטמא‬, and clean (‫ )הטהור‬while also teaching the children of Israel all of YHWH’s statutes. Thus, the narrative problem posed in 21. In all fairness, it is difficult to pin down exactly what Nadab and Abihu did wrong. Though I will argue below that their strange fire was from outside of the sacral zone and that they attempted an atonement ritual at the wrong time, there are still plenty of gaps in the story and several other possible scenarios. Cf. Bryan D. Bibb’s discussion of the narrative gaps at play and the ways in which they open the text up in “Nadab and Abihu Attempt to Fill a Gap: Law and Narrative in Leviticus 10.1–7,” JSOT 96 (2001): 83–99. 22. Milgrom also recognizes the exemplaric nature of the story, though he understands it to be a story inculcating the fear of private incense offerings. See Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 632–63. Cf. also Levine, Leviticus, 58. 23. As a result, Laughlin points out that the fire on the altar becomes a perpetual reminder of this dual nature of YHWH’s kabodic presence. “According to Priestly interpretation, the fire on the altar represented Yahweh’s constant presence within the temple in terms of grace and/or wrath.” Laughlin, “Strange Fire,” 562.

4. Cultic Theophanies and the Levitical Theophanic Type-Scene

91

Lev 10 provides the context for succeeding holiness legislation.24 If the priests are to know how to present themselves properly before YHWH in ritual holiness and accomplish their task of teaching common Israelites, they need a rubric. In fact, Lev 16 itself—the key chapter in the book of Leviticus—picks up on this paradigmatic narrative as the negative foil for the high priest’s work on the Day of Atonement. Verse 1 relates that the instructions for the high priest were given “after the death of the two sons of Aaron when they drew near (‫ )בקרבתם‬before the face of YHWH and died (‫לפני־יהוה‬ ‫)וימתו‬.” There is no mention here of strange fire, and the emphasis seems to be on the violation of the sacred spatial boundaries. Verse 2 confirms this when YHWH tells Moses “tell your brother Aaron that he must not enter at any time into the holy place (‫ )הקדש‬past the veil before the mercy seat (‫ )הכפרת‬that is beside the ark so that he may not die.” Aaron cannot just casually cross the boundary of the veil without dying in the same manner as Nadab and Abihu. The danger lies in the fact that YHWH will appear in a cloud over the mercy seat (‫כי בענן אראה על־הכפרת‬, 16:2). The theophanic appearance of YHWH in his Kabod brings with it an encircling sacral zone. To enter this holy space Aaron must bring sin and burnt offerings for himself and for the Israelites (vv. 3, 5). In addition, he must wear “holy” garments (‫קדש‬, v. 4 [×2]). A holy space requires holy shrouding. Once properly attired Aaron can “bring near” (‫והקריב‬, v. 6) the sin and burnt offerings and not suffer his sons’ fate when they “brought near” their strange fire.25 24. Bibb argues in an analogous manner: “It seems that the deaths of these two priests have given new vigor to Moses the lawgiver. His instructions continue beyond this chapter into the next section of the book (chs. 11–15) concerning the laws of purity. Chapter 16 about emergency purification rituals comes as a direct result of the Nadab and Abihu incident (16.1). Chapters 17–26 define more clearly the nature of Yahweh’s ‫קדש‬. In the narrative context of the book, the laws following this story are attempts by Moses to fill in the gaps that still plague their understanding of how to stand before ‘the holy’. How does one guard oneself against a real possibility of consumption when one is not sure what causes it? In the face of ambiguity and fear of the unknown, Moses establishes a law code that provides security and protection from the dreadful presence of Yahweh.” See Bibb, Nadab and Abihu, 93 (see also p. 96). 25. The question of the exact relationship between Nadab and Abihu’s strange fire and Exod 30:9’s prohibition of “strange incense” (‫ )קטרת זרה‬is difficult to gauge. Laughlin overstates his case when he states, “that this was not the offense of Nadab and Abihu is obvious from a reading of the MT… Whatever the nature of their sin, it had nothing to do with the type of incense burned, or at least the text gives no indication that this is so.” See Laughlin, “Strange Fire,” 560. The problem, of course, is that the text does seem to hint that the incense was incorrect. Especially when one

92

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

In fact the mechanics of the sin offering for Aaron and his house echo Nadab and Abihu’s earlier efforts. As he offers a young bull to make “atonement” (‫וכפר‬, v. 6) for himself and for his house, Aaron “brings [it] near” (‫והקריב‬, v. 11). Then Aaron takes a “censer” (‫המחתה‬, v. 12) full of “coals of fire” (‫ )גחלי־אש‬and full of “incense” (‫)קטרת‬, which he then brings past the veil and places before the face of YHWH (‫לפני יהוה‬, v. 13). The “cloud of incense” (‫ )ענן הקטרת‬will cover the mercy seat over the testimony, and Aaron will be safe from death when YHWH appears. In a similar manner, Nadab and Abihu each take a “censer” (‫מחתתו‬, 10:1) with fire (‫)אש‬, place “incense” in it (‫)קטרת‬, and “bring near the strange fire before the face of YHWH” (‫)ויקרבו לפני יהוה אש זרה‬. The differences, of course, are in the details.26 Nadab and Abihu’s failed liturgy lacks the specificity given to Aaron in ch. 16. Aaron’s coals of fire must be from the altar before the face of YHWH (‫מעל המזבח מלפני‬ ‫יהוה‬, 16:12). In addition, the incense must be a full double handful (‫ומלא‬ ‫)חפניו קטרת‬, sweet (‫)סמים‬, and finely ground (‫)דקה‬. Once past the veil, Aaron must place this special, smoking mixture “on the fire” (‫על־האש‬, v. 13) before the face of YHWH. Thus, the sacred, permissible (non-strange) fire originates on the altar outside the veil and finds its end on a second blaze of fire within the veil. Unlike Nadab and Abihu’s fire that was “strange” or “foreign” (‫זרה‬, 16:13) and of unknown origin,27 Aaron’s fire considers the parallels in Lev 16. (See my argument below.) Nonetheless, Laughlin is correct that the illegitimate nature of their “fire” seems to be the leading cause of their deaths. 26. Milgrom notes the similarity between the two incense offerings but does not take the next step of identifying Nadab and Abihu’s ritual action as a botched attempt at atonement. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 597. See my discussion below. 27. In a similar vein, Milgrom suggest that the coals “instead of deriving from the outer altar…came from a source that was ‘profane’ (Tg. Onq. on 16:1) or ‘outside’ (Tg. Yer.), such as an oven…” Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 598. Likewise, Laughlin in comparing Lev 10 with Num 16 observes that “apparently in both stories, those who burned the incense used fire taken from a source other than the fire on the altar. Why they did not know better is not recorded. Perhaps in the case of Nadab and Abihu, they were conceived by the tradition as having tried to offer incense to Yahweh before the instructions were given in Lev. 16:12–13. Consequently, the fire used by them was fire which ‘Yahweh had not commanded’ (10:1), while the fire from the altar is specifically commanded in 16:12.” See Laughlin, “Strange Fire,” 561. Cf. also, Grandwohl, “Das ‘fremde Feuer,’ ” 291; and Martin Noth’s brief, general comments regarding the fire in Leviticus, 84–85. Budd, following Gnana Robinson (and to a certain degree Milgrom, who thinks that the story may have been intended to thwart pagan incense offerings offered outside the temple by showing legitimate priests failing a proper incense offering because of common, extra-tabernacle fire—cf.

4. Cultic Theophanies and the Levitical Theophanic Type-Scene

93

begins and ends in the sacral domain of the tabernacle. It is sacred, altar fire, not common fire.28 Finally, while the dead priests failed to offer any blood, Aaron’s fire is explicitly tied to the manipulation of the bull’s blood around the mercy seat (v. 14). Aaron’s atonement work for the people of Israel contains more complicated ritual actions, but like its priestly counterpart, it emphasizes Aaron’s proper approach to YHWH’s theophanic presence. With two goats in tow, Aaron stations them “before the face of YHWH” (‫לפני יהוה‬, 16:7) at the entrance to the tent of meeting. Then in an act of holy gambling, Aaron casts lots on behalf of the two goats. One goat’s lot falls for YHWH, and it becomes a sin offering. The other goat’s lot falls for Azazel, and it must be stood alive “before the face of YHWH” (‫לפני יהוה‬, v. 10) to make atonement upon it before being sent into the wilderness to the mysterious 628–33), goes a step further and suggests that the fire was not simply common but “alien”: “The point would therefore be the difference between Yahweh’s fire and that of other cults.” See Philip J. Budd, Leviticus, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 151. Cf. also Robinson, “The Prohibition of Strange Fire in Ancient Israel: A New Look at the Case of Gathering Wood and Kindling Fire on the Sabbath,” VT 28, no. 3 (1978): 308–10; Grandwohl, “Das ‘fremde Feuer,’ ” 292–95; and similarly Richard S. Hess, who argues for Nadab and Abihu emulating the West Semitic practices of the city of Emar; see his “Leviticus 10:1: Strange Fire and an Odd Name,” BBR 12, no. 2 (2002): 187–98. See also the brief comments of Moses Aberbach and Leivy Smolar, “Aaron, Jeroboam, and the Golden Calves,” JBL 86, no. 2 (1967): 129–40 (esp. pp. 139–40). Budd, Robinson, and Hess’s arguments find a precursor in the writings of seventeenth-century Anglican bishop, Joseph Hall. Hall hints at the possibility that the strange fire was analogous to Baal worship since it was common fire and did not come from God. See Hall, Contemplations, 66. (Truly, there is nothing new under the sun!) Menahem Haran disagrees with such speculations and reiterates that it was simply because the fire came from the wrong place. Haran even references W. W. von Baudissin’s explanation, which follows Ibn Ezra’s suggestion that the fire was supposed to be the fire from the altar recently lit by the Kabod YHWH. See Haran, “The Uses of Incense in the Ancient Israelite Ritual,” VT 10, no. 2 (1960): 115. Cf. also W. W. von Baudissin, Geschichte des Alttestamentlichen Priestertums (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1889), 22: “Von Aarons Söhnen gehen Nadab und Abihu unter, weil sie auf den Altar fremdes Feuer bringen, d.h. nicht an dem heiligen, vom Himmel gefallenen Feuer entzündetes (Lev. 10, 1–7; vgl. 16, 1. Num. 3, 4; 26, 61).” 28. Mary Douglas offers similar thoughts: “It is very curious that concerning the execution of the sons of Aaron no one is sure what they did wrong. It is not clear what was wrong with the offending fire, translated as ‘unholy’ or as ‘strange’ fire. Perhaps the young priests had gathered up profane fire instead of taking it from the altar. Perhaps they did it because they were drunk, and perhaps their real offence was drunkenness…” Mary Douglas, Leviticus as Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 200.

94

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

Azazel. Various other careful prescriptions follow on how to manipulate the blood of YHWH’s goat and cast Israel’s sins upon Azazel’s goat, not to mention blood work at the altar outside the veil, restrictions on who can enter the tent’s precincts’ during the atonement ceremony, instructions for handling the remains of the sin offerings, and a command for all of the participants in the ritual to bathe (16:15–32). In the end, the day is a special sabbath: holy not only in space, but also in time—a further comment on Nadab and Abihu’s premature action. Aaron’s sons acted in the wrong way at the wrong time in the wrong place. Indeed, all of these parallels between Aaron’s offering of fire and Nadab and Abihu’s offering of fire suggest that the sons tried to make atonement for Israel before the appointed time.29 Their actions were not simply acts of liturgical randomness or improvisation. On the contrary, the narrative implies that they were trying to effect atonement. Their mistake was in doing so in an improper manner and at an improper time. In one sense, then, they seem to be trying to manipulate the theophanic comings and goings of YHWH. Nadab and Abihu recognize that Aaron’s sacrificial work in chs 8–9 has resulted in a blessed appearance of YHWH. In an attempt to manipulate a second (and in this case) atoning appearance, they find themselves confronted with the kabodic fire. YHWH will only appear in mercy on his own terms. YHWH will summon the priests. The priests will never summon YHWH. In terms of the narrative as a whole, ch. 10 corrects any theological misperceptions regarding the theophanic type-scene in chs 8–9. Because YHWH appears after priestly activity, a casual reader might get the 29. Milgrom also notes a connection between chs. 10 and 16 but thinks that ch. 16 offers information for the tabernacle “emergency purgation rites” that Nadab and Abihu’s corpses have precipitated. Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 607–8, 1011. Kiuchi argues in a similar manner but focuses on the need for priestly atonement in light of the Nadab and Abihu debacle. He thinks that Aaron and his remaining sons are those in need of atonement, an atonement that Lev 16 offers. See Kiuchi, The Purification Offering, 83. While it is possible that chs 11–15 are an insertion and that 10 and 16 originally abutted (as Milgrom suggests), I am not convinced that the only narrative connection between the two chapters is Nadab and Abihu’s post-mortem tabernacle and priestly pollution. To be sure, the impurity of their deaths creates ritual problems that need to be solved, and, of course, the rite of atonement does the solving. However, this simply points out the irony of the whole situation. Nadab and Abihu set out to atone for Israel and end up spoiling the sanctuary and the status of their sanctified kinsmen. Their “atonement” needs atonement. Intriguingly, Rashi sees Lev 9 as an atonement ritual for the golden calf incident (cf. Rashi, ‫ ספר ויקרא‬Vayikra/ Leviticus, 100), but only conceives of the connection between Lev 10 and 16 as a bad example to spur Aaron on to priestly precision (192).

4. Cultic Theophanies and the Levitical Theophanic Type-Scene

95

impression that theophanies are now dependent upon sacerdotal ministrations. However, the story of Nadab and Abihu dispels any such notion. Those who try to summon the theophanic presence without divine command and thus at the wrong time and in the wrong way will find that YHWH’s appearing will not be what they expected.30 The theology behind the story is evident: priests may now be tied to theophanies but theophanies are not tied to priests. YHWH is the subject and actor. Priests are the objects and reactors. To confuse that theological grammar and syntax is to invite destruction. Furthermore, YHWH’s connection with the tabernacle should not suggest that his kabodic presence is ritually tamed. YHWH remains free. At the same time, there is a clear effort to highlight YHWH’s role as a liturgical respondent. YHWH not only acts to save Israel from public threats like Egypt, but he also responds to human worship (within the Torah’s strictures, of course). As symbolized in the building of the tabernacle itself, YHWH comes near to his people. Living together in such proximity requires interaction and communion. When a priest crosses the boundaries between heaven and earth, YHWH comes. His advent will be either a boon or a curse depending on the priest’s actions. As Baruch Levine writes, “[the fire] was a blessing to those who pleased God but destructive to those who angered Him.”31 According to the larger context, all of this is based upon a script that YHWH himself has composed. He has commanded the building of the tabernacle. He has instructed Moses and Aaron in ways of priestly cutting and burning. He has made a way to live with his people. It should not be surprising then that when his appointed priests make a liturgical gesture YHWH comes to meet them personally and visibly. In terms of the type-scene itself, the Levitical modification adds a new wrinkle to Exodus’ theological tendenz of YHWH as “actor.” The Levitical theophanic type-scene presents a new way in which YHWH “acts” to constitute or preserve Israel: as an indwelling, liturgical respondent. As one who comes after a priest’s gesture, YHWH signals that he has marked this people and this camp as a locus of his presence. The point is the specificity and particularity. YHWH does not respond to just any priest anywhere. He responds to priests (or those seeking to serve as priests, cf. Num 16) serving within the context of the Abrahamic people. Thus, his liturgical response in a mark of election. 30. “Even when appearing becomes a recurring cultic event, it must not be manipulated or abused.” Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 218. 31. Levine, Leviticus, 58.

Chapter 5 T he op h a n i es (R e )C on t e xt uali ze d : T he A p p ea r an ces of G od i n N umbe r s

‫ותבער־אש בעדתם להבה תלהט רשעים‬ And fire burned in their congregation, A flame set ablaze the wicked ones. Ps 106:18

1. The Theophanic Hook with Exodus Like the book of Leviticus, the book of Numbers assumes a largely theophanic context for the large portions of Torah legislation. The opening verse is telling in the way in which it echoes Lev 1:1’s description of YHWH calling to Moses and “speaking” to him “from the tent of meeting” (‫)מאהל מועד‬: “YHWH spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai at the tent of meeting (‫ )באהל מועד‬on the first of the second month in the second year of their departure from the land of Egypt.” Each, of course, in their own ways recall Exod 33:7–11 with the Kabod descending to the sacral locus of the tent and proffering Moses divine counsel. Leviticus outlines the cultic Torah conversations between YHWH and Moses at the tent, while Numbers offers the civic Torah conversations at the tent.1 In any case, the books assume a theophany while YHWH speaks with Moses. Like Leviticus before it, Numbers’ repeated narrative descriptions of divine appearances builds on the Exodus theophanic type-scene with its emphasis upon the descent of the dangerous Kabod in a public setting to actualize the promise to Abraham. However, unlike Leviticus, Numbers does not present a new type-scene. It simply reiterates the various typescenes that have preceded it. Aside from a few instances towards the end of the book, the majority of these theophanies are classic Exodus 1. There are, of course, other subtle differences. Lev 1:1 assumes a Priestly “tabernacle” theology in which YHWH speaks from the tent, while Num 1:1 begins with a “tent of meeting” theology in which YHWH speaks to Moses in the tent.

5. Theophanies (Re)Contextualized

97

type-scenes. Naturally, the new narrative context of the journey from Sinai to the plains of Moab provides a novel way of hearing the Exodus type-scene (i.e., the same thing said in two different contexts has two different meanings). Nonetheless, the pattern remains that of Exodus. Initially it may seem surprising that Numbers does not offer its own theophanic type-scene. After all, each of the preceding books in the Pentateuch build on the narrative form according to their own advancement of the overarching plot. However, given the macro-structure of the exodus story in Exodus through Numbers, it really is not surprising at all. Exodus represents the journey to Sinai, while Numbers represents the journey away from Sinai. John Sailhamer offers the following schema:2 Exodus

Numbers

Manna

40

water

Joshua

battle

Manna

40

water

Eleazar

quail

years

from

next

with

quail

years

from

next

with

rock

leader

Amalek

rock

leader

Canaan-

20:1–12

20:23–29

21:1–3

Sinai

battle

ites 16:3–34 16:35

17:1–7

17:8-13 17:14–16

11:4–34 14:21–22

In a similar vein, Arie Leder posits a chiastic structure for the three internal Torah books:3 C Leviticus Sacrifice, Cleanliness, Holiness B Exodus Israel’s desert journeys, Apostasy and plagues, Pharaoh and magicians, First-born/Levites

B1 Numbers Israel’s desert journeys, Apostasy and plagues, Balak and Balaam, First-born/Levites

The narrative affinities between the journeys in Exodus and Numbers are clear. Both books stand in the narrative shadow of Sinai and represent the approach to and departure from the mountain. Whether one agrees with all of the details of Sailhamer or Leder’s proposals, it seems clear that 2. See John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 278. 3. For the full chart (which includes Genesis and Deuteronomy), see Leder, Waiting for the Land, 35. Cf. also Jacob Milgrom, Numbers ‫במדבר‬, The JPS Torah Commentary (New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1990), xviii.

98

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

the journeys on either side of the sacred peak mirror each other in good symmetrical fashion. It should not be surprising, then, that for the most part the theophanic type-scenes in Exodus and Numbers mirror each other as well. Fundamentally, Exodus and Numbers tell the similar tale of travel with the similar motifs. Where Numbers differs from its counterpart lies in its post-Sinai narrative context. This context not only assumes the giving of the Torah and the terrifying Sinai theophany, but it also assumes a martial situation. In the arc of the Pentateuch, Numbers stands as the montague-like description of the mustering of YHWH’s battalion as it marches out from Sinai to effect the second half of the Abrahamic promise: the inheritance of the promised land. The infamous and tedious numbering alluded to in the book’s Greek-inspired English title (LXX: Ἀριθμοί) is a military census designed to count the number of potential soldiers in the camp. Likewise, the detailed description of the camp’s order and structure mirrors typical ancient Near Eastern, particularly Egyptian, military formations.4 Thus, all of the theophanies described in the book reflect this martial context. It also explains why six of the ten theophanic narratives deal with internal revolts and the necessity of YHWH protecting the Abrahamic people from themselves. Whereas before, confrontations over water, food, and order took place pre-Sinai in a rag-tag assembly, now, postSinai, these same confrontations take on the function of insubordination within the ranks.5 Indeed, the “murmuring cycle” deals time and again with YHWH’s divinely instituted chain of command. Whether it is Aaron and Miriam complaining about Moses’ unique status or Korah contending 4. As Milgrom, Numbers, Excursus 3, p. 340, observes: “The closest parallel to Israel’s wilderness camp is the Egyptian camp of Ramses II (the probably Pharaoh of the Exodus). Pharaoh’s camp, like that of Israel, is also square in shape. Strikingly, his tent is in the center. Its walls clearly are thick, a remarkable fact since the camp, formed solely for the purpose of attacking the Hittite stronghold of Kadesh, was only temporary. But it must be remembered that Pharaoh was considered a god and his tent was a sanctuary (as is indicated in an illustration by the figures kneeling before his cartouche) and had to be protected against human and demonic defilement. Israel’s monotheistic faith abolished the world of the demons, but the residence of God still required protection against human agents of defilement—a protection supplied by the Levitical cordon (see Excursus 4). Thus the possibility must be recognized that Israel’s camp of the Exodus was modeled upon a contemporary Egyptian pattern.” 5. Budd draws a similar, if more reticent conclusion: “In the various stories of complaint in Exod 14–17 the problems are real and external, involving genuine dangers of death. Here, however, the problem is internal faithlessness. It may also be that since God has revealed himself in a new way at Sinai such fears and doubts

5. Theophanies (Re)Contextualized

99

that all the people of YHWH deserve the right to be priests, the target is always the same: YHWH’s newly founded authority structure based upon the Torah. It should come as no surprise, then, that the dangerous side of YHWH’s kabodic, visible presence comes to the fore. As the mutineers rebel and struggle against the divine strictures, YHWH responds with fire, and it is only Moses who keeps the community safe from complete annihilation.6 Nonetheless, in the end the rebellious army gets what it wants: death in the wilderness (cf. Num 14–16). The promised military take-over will be postponed for a generation. The narratives of Korah’s rebellion and Balaam’s blessing represent interesting contrasts with the predominate Exodus type-scene on display. Korah’s rebellion echoes Lev 10’s horrific story of Nadab and Abihu. As a result, it also offers the Levitical variant on the Exodus type-scene: a priest (or, in this case also, wannabe priests) offer(s) a liturgical act, and YHWH responds with a theophany. Balaam’s story, which is the last theophany in the book, hearkens back to the earlier Genesis type-scene with its reiteration of the Abrahamic promise in a context of human anxiety over an external threat. Likewise, in good ‫ איש‬theophany form, the enigmatic “Angel of YHWH” makes a reappearance in a private setting, while the public Kabod is nowhere to be seen. What are we to make of this aggregation of different type-scenes? At one level, scholars will, no doubt, point to Numbers’ supposed “haphazard” construction from “left-over” material. However, given the narrative symmetry that Numbers shares with Exodus, I am more inclined to suggest that the use of various type-scenes points to the narrative movement of the overarching Pentateuchal plot. In Genesis, YHWH walks and talks with his people and assures them of his promise. In Exodus, YHWH asserts himself publicly and acts on Israel’s behalf to actualize the promise. In Leviticus, YHWH responds to his hand-picked high priest’s invitation to come and dwell with Israel. In Numbers, YHWH dwells with his people as their commander and protector. In terms of narrative memory, the various theophanies of the preceding three books have accrued narrative interest, and it should not be surprising when the older type-scenes reappear. are no longer warranted.” And later: “For the author of Numbers the [theophanic] intervention is invariably the prelude to punishment.” See Philip J. Budd, Numbers, WBC 5 (Waco, TX: Word, 1984), 120, 160. 6. Comparing the Numbers theophanies with Exod 16, Cecil Staton points out that the murmuring stories follow a distinct narrative pattern: (1) introduction, (2) conflict, (3) appearing, and (4) resolution. See Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 219–25. While the categories are somewhat general, they do follow the specificity of the flow of each of the narratives.

100

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

This is especially true of the Genesis type-scene. In terms of plot, the Genesis type-scene makes its reappearance right before the people move to cross the Jordan and claim the promised land.7 The types-scenes have come full circle. The appearances that started in the promised land conclude right on the border of the promised land. It is as if the plotted nearness of the land results in a reiteration of the land’s type-scene. Indeed, it is interesting that YHWH only appears in the Genesis manner near or in the promised land. *** The first proper theophany occurs in Num 9:15–23. Like Num 1:1, it echoes of an earlier text in Exod 40:36–38 and thus functions as a narrative resumption marker.8 In fact, the text is explicit about this: “On the 7. The question of Deuteronomy, of course, complicates this. In brief, Deuteron­ omy’s long sermon functions very much like the giving of Torah in Exodus and Leviticus. The pace of the plot slows so that there is no real plotted progress between the end of Numbers and the beginning of Joshua. 8. David Frankel observes the connections between Exod 40:36–38, Num 9:15–23, and 10:11–13 as well. However, his concerns are directed toward diachronic questions of textual pre-history. See Frankel, “Two Priestly Conceptions,” 31–37. For a slightly different take on the diachronic differences (i.e., P = unceasing theophany, E = occasional theophany), see Sommer, “Conflicting Constructions,” 42–45; cf. also, the summary comments of Alan H. McNeile, The Book of Numbers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911), 49. Regardless of whether there might be different understandings of divine guidance in the wilderness stories (i.e., audible command vs. visible theophany) based on different understandings of the relationship between the divine presence and the tent of meeting, the text is still able to communicate its central story in its current final form: YHWH’s theophanic guidance of Israel through the wilderness towards the promised land. To put it simply, I think one can harmonize the stories enough synchronically to make sense of the general flow of the narrative. Problems, of course, still exist, but the textual discrepancies now function as narrative gaps that press the reader to ponder the story. (They also lend an air of dialectical mystery to the theophanic presence of YHWH—i.e., “His Kabod remained above the tent always!” “No, his Kabod only appeared from time to time!”) For more on narrative gaps and the ways in which they function, see my The Reformed David(s) and the Question of Resistance to Tyranny: Reading the Bible in the 16th and 17th Centuries, LHBOTS 601 (New York: T&T Clark International, 2014), 176–90. For those who still object that there is an insoluble contradiction between temporary theophanies at the tent of meeting and a permanent theophany at the tabernacle, I point them to Baruch Levine’s observation that ‫ תמיד‬in Num 9:16 does not necessarily imply that the cloud rested on the tent “always, forever.” It could also mean simply “regularly, daily.” See Baruch Levine, Numbers 1–20, AB 4a (New York: Doubleday,

5. Theophanies (Re)Contextualized

101

day when the tabernacle was set up (‫)וביום הקים את־המשכן‬, the cloud covered the tabernacle to the tent of testimony, and in the evening it was always above the tabernacle like the appearance of fire until morning” (9:15). All the material from Lev 1:1 to Num 9:14 involves Israel in a state of stasis waiting for the divine command to leave Sinai. With the resumption of the larger plot in Num 9:15, the journey to the promised land can finally begin. In terms of type-scenes, here Numbers reiterates the standard Exodus theophanic type-scene. The dangerous Kabod appears in a communal setting and goes about the business of constituting or preserving Israel for the Abrahamic inheritance. In this case, the preservation takes the form of deliberate guidance reminiscent of Exod 13:21–22. The narrative recounts the customary way in which the Kabod led Israel through the wilderness: “Thus it was continually (‫)כן יהיה תמיד‬: the cloud covered the tabernacle daily and the appearance of fire covered it at night” (9:16). Whenever YHWH’s mouth uttered a command, the cloud would ascend from the tent, and Israel would travel behind it to the place where the cloud would settle before making camp again. Time and again, the text is at pains to point out that all of the traveling and camping was done “at the mouth of YHWH” (‫)על־פי יהוה‬. In good, orderly fashion, seven times the phrase rings out (9:18, 20, 23). YHWH is directing Israel’s wilderness experience in a creative, constitutive manner. Not only was the tabernacle a new creation anchored in seven spoken words followed by sight and blessing (Exod 25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1, 12; 39:43), but Israel’s travel itself is a new creation experience as the people move across the liminal chaos of the desert to inherit the promised land. Numbers 10:11–13, 34 then relates the actual narrated travel under the supervision of the Kabod. Once again the language is reminiscent of Exod 13: “And it was in the second year in the month on the twentieth day of the month that the cloud went up from upon the tabernacle of the 1993), 299. The final editing or redaction of the text seems to have tried to make this point in an attempt to meld the two traditions in Num 9:15 and earlier in 3:25 (cf. also Exod 40:34, but see Num 4:25, which seems to differentiate the two tents). Gray reads this all as an attempt at a description of the tabernacle residing within the tent. See George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers, ICC (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1903), 86. Similarly, Rashi reads the conflation as “the tabernacle that was a tent for the testimony.” See Rashi’s ‫ ספר במדבר‬Bamidbar/ Numbers, vol. 4 of Sapirstein Edition Rashi: The Torah: With Rashi’s Commentary Translated, Annotated, and Elucidated, ed. Rabbi Yisrael Herczeg (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah, 2003), 102. More broadly, Rashi conceives of seven different “clouds” to explain the differences between the story’s descriptions of a cloud “above” and “before.” Cf. Rashi, ‫ ספר במדבר‬Bamidbar/Numbers, 115.

102

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

testimony (‫( ”)נעלה הענן מעל משכן העדת‬Num 10:11). With the Kabod on the move, the war camp sets out from Sinai for the wilderness of Paran, where the cloud stopped and “tabernacled” (‫וישכן הענן במדבר פארן‬, v. 12b). According to the story, the actual march follows the ark of the covenant with the cloud hovering over the army (‫וענן יהוה עליהם יומם‬ ‫בנסעם מן־המחנה‬, v. 34). YHWH’s visible presence guards and guides9 the orderly column of warriors (and people) according to the familiar “vanguard motif.” The stage is now set for more specific interactions between the people and YHWH’s theophanic presence. Up to this point, Numbers’ appropriation of the Exodus type-scene has been simply to reestablish the connection to Exod 40. Leviticus has functioned almost as a kind of narrative time-out, and Numbers’ description of the kabodic theophany links the book to the previous Sinai narrative and jump-starts the plot. Israel is traveling again under the direction of the visible presence of God. It is only a matter of time before characters of the story come into conflict. Israel may be YHWH’s reward and covenant vassal, but the newly formed army still retains vestiges of its Egyptian character. 2. Theophanies for the Murmuring: Exodus Redux The troubles begin with mutinous talk in the ranks. Numbers 11 recounts two stories about the descent of the Kabod YHWH in the context of YHWH’s provision of manna and quail for the grumbling Israelites. The first story, which is almost a model for what is to follow,10 assumes the presence of the dangerous Kabod within a communal setting for the discipline of the 9. There are, of course, questions regarding how the story conceptualizes YHWH’s guidance of Israel in the wilderness. In ch. 10 alone, it seems that the cloud, the ark, and Hobab all play a role in moving the war camp to the desert of Paran. 10. As Sherwood observes, “Numbers 11:1–3 is a miniature conflict story in three verses, which functions to set the tone and act as a preview of what is to come.” See Stephen K. Sherwood, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Berit Olam (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2002), 107. It also stands as the first of a triptych of stories spanning Num 11–12. Jacob Milgrom has shown how 11:1–3 and 12:1–15 mirror each other and stand as frames around the chiastic 11:4–34. See Milgrom, Numbers, Excursus 24, pp. 376–80. Cf. also Milgrom, “The Structure of Numbers: Chapters 11–12 and 13–14 and Their Redaction: Preliminary Groupings,” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel, ed. Jacob Neusner, Baruch Levine, and Ernest Frerichs (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004), 50. Contra Davies’s suggestion that “there is little evidence of any substantive connection” between 11:1–3 and the stories that precede and follow it. See Eryl W. Davies, Numbers, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 99.

5. Theophanies (Re)Contextualized

103

recalcitrant Abrahamic heirs. The people are “murmuring” (‫ )מתאננים‬and YHWH’s anger grows hot (‫ )ויחר אפו‬against them. The result is swift and terrible: “The fire of YHWH burned them, and it devoured the edge of the camp” (‫ותבער־בם אש יהוה ותאכל בקצה המחנה‬, 11:1). The people cry to Moses, and the prophet mediates on their behalf “so that the fire abated” (‫ותשקע האש‬, v. 2). Moses then names the place “Taberah” (‫תבערה‬, possibly: “You-caused-to-burn”; or perhaps: “they-burned”—assuming the elision of nun11) “because the fire of YHWH burned among them” (‫כי־בערה בם אש יהוה‬, v. 3).12 This is the constant danger of the tabernacle and the dwelling presence of the Kabod. YHWH had warned Moses that it would be difficult for him not to destroy the people if he traveled with them (Exod 33:3).13 However, no sooner has the fire settled than the people are at it again. This time the “riff-raff” (‫)האספסף‬14 in the midst of the people “crave a craving” (‫ )התאוו תאוה‬and the children of Israel weep a second time: “Who will give us flesh to eat?” (‫מי יאכלנו בשר‬, v. 4). The subtle irony should not be lost on the reader. The fire of YHWH has just “eaten” (‫ )אכל‬the edge of the camp, and now Israel demands to “eat” (‫)אכל‬. Nonetheless, the people are oblivious to the irony and pine after the delicacies of Egypt. They emphasize the variety of foods that they used to enjoy “for nothing” (‫חנם‬, v. 5): fish, cucumbers, watermelons, leeks, onions, and garlic. In contrast, their “life”15 has dried up (‫ועתה נפשנו יבשה‬, v. 6) with the monotony of the manna diet. All they see is manna all day long. 11. Levine translates it as “conflagration.” See Levine, Numbers 1–20, 320. Noth says “(place of) burning” but thinks that the text’s etiological etymology is incorrect and reflects a later misunderstanding. See Martin Noth, Numbers: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 84. Cf. also Gray, Numbers, 99. 12. Gray notes that the story envisages something more than mere lightning: “here and often something much more terrific and destructive is thought of—a fire that, unlike lightning, does not always burst out from the sky.” See Gray, Numbers, 99. 13. Rashi thinks that only the elders of the nation died at Taberah because they had seen YHWH in Exod 24 and failed to treat him reverently. This would explain, according to Rashi, why later in ch. 11 new elders have to be appointed. See Rashi, ‫ ספר במדבר‬Bamidbar/Numbers, 124–25. 14. Some commentators (like, e.g., Noth, Numbers, 85) wrongly conclude that the “riff-raff” refers to non-Israelites mixed among the people. Budd is correct in noting that “there is no clear warrant for the assumption.” See Budd, Numbers, 127. The “riff-raff” or “rabble” are simply the discontent within Israel itself. 15. The Hebrew word ‫ נֶ ֶפׁש‬can mean a variety of things including soul, life, self, living being, person, desire, appetite, emotion, and passion (cf. BDB, s.v. ‫)נֶ ֶפׁש‬. Noth and Davies prefer “throat,” which captures the literal sense of that through which the breath of life passes (keeping in mind the cognate denominative verb ‫נָ ַפׁש‬, which

104

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

Here the story offers a brief explanation of manna, its appearance, taste, and the ways in which the Israelites used to prepare it. In its current context, this aside serves the function of rebutting the murmuring people.16 This manna that comes down with the dew of heaven is not only a divine gift first offered in the context of a theophany, it is also tasty, like “an oil cake” (‫כטעם לשד השמן‬, v. 8).17 However, within the broader narrative context of the story, a second irony is also on display. The people say that they want meat, but within the story-world they actually have meat. As Rashi pointed out long ago, Exod 12:38 relates that when the people left Egypt, they brought out with them sheep, cattle, and a large number of livestock. Thus, to use Rashi’s words, “they were looking for a pretext.”18 Needless to say, neither Moses nor YHWH is impressed with the whining. Moses, the text tells us, hears the people weeping to their families as they sit “at the entrance to their tents” (‫איש לפתח אהלו‬, v. 10). This odd little detail could suggest an echo of Moses’ own dialogues with YHWH at the “entrance of the tent” (‫פתח האהל‬, Exod 33:9). If this reading is correct, the people’s posture is a form of rebellious liturgy, demanding of YHWH new food. Unsurprisingly, YHWH’s anger grows hot a second time (‫ויחר־אף יהוה‬, v. 10), and Moses himself sees the foolish evil of the situation (‫)ובעיני משה רע‬. YHWH has just struck the people with his fire for murmuring, and now they are complaining about his provision of their daily bread. However, what is surprising about the story is the fact that it is now Moses who has had enough of the people. YHWH’s fire does not lash out a second time. Instead Moses himself complains that YHWH has brought trouble upon him by placing the burden of the whole people on his shoulders alone. “Why have you brought evil upon your servant (‫ ?)למה הרעת לעבדך‬Why have I not found favor in your eyes that you place the burden (‫ )משא‬of all this people upon me?” (v. 11). Moses’ anger reaches a crescendo as he fires off a series of rhetorical questions means to breathe or refresh oneself). See Noth, Numbers, 86; Davies, Numbers, 106. I prefer “life” in the present context because it embraces a wider sense of Israel’s despair. Not only are their throats dry, but their very will to live is desiccated. 16. Rashi suggests that the verse represents a divine insertion to controvert the human whining. See Rashi, ‫ ספר במדבר‬Bamidbar/Numbers, 120–21. 17. Davies points out that the phrase “the manna was like coriander seed” (v. 7) also suggests that the manna was pleasant to eat: “The coriander was an umbelliferous plant whose seed (properly, ‘fruit’) had a pleasant, spicy flavour, and was regarded as particularly suitable for seasoning.” See Davies, Numbers, 107. 18. See Rashi, ‫ ספר במדבר‬Bamidbar/Numbers, 119.

5. Theophanies (Re)Contextualized

105

at YHWH in vv. 12–13: “Did I conceive this whole people or give birth to them that you should say to me, ‘Lift them up (‫ )שאהו‬to your breast like a wet-nurse lifts up (‫ )ישא‬a nursing infant,’ until we come to the land you swore to their fathers? From where am I going to get flesh to give to this whole people? For they cry to me saying, ‘Give us flesh so that we may eat!’ ” Moses’ point is clear. How is he going to provide food for this squalling infant? He is not able to deal with the “lifting-up” or “burden” (‫ )משא‬alone, and he states as much in v. 14: “I myself am not able to lift up (‫ )לשאת‬this whole people by myself because they are too heavy for me.” His final words in v. 15 are filled with all the drama of an orator: “If that is the way you are going to treat me, please kill me if I have found favor in your eyes, and do not let me see my ‘evil’ (‫)ברעתי‬.” YHWH appears to agree with Moses’ assessment. The work is too much for Moses, and so YHWH offers a solution. “Gather to me seventy men, elders of Israel whom you know are elders and officials of the people. Take them to the tent of meeting, and let them station themselves there with you. I will come down (‫ )וירדתי‬and speak with you there. I will set apart from the spirit that is upon you and place it upon them. Then they will lift (‫ )ונשאו‬with you in the burden of the people (‫)במשא העם‬, and you yourself will not lift (‫ )ולא־תשא‬alone” (vv. 16–17). The divine solution is a theophany in which YHWH transfers prophetic authority via the spirit to the seventy elders. The tone of the text is ambiguous. It is difficult to tell if YHWH is irritated with Moses for this request. The repetition of the verbal root ‫נשא‬ could be either a simple sign of acquiescence or a subtle rebuke (i.e., “You are tired of the ‘burden?’ Fine, I’ll deal with your ‘burden’”). Given the positive connotations of the dispersion of the spirit in the larger context of ch. 11, the former reading makes the most sense.19 Meanwhile, YHWH will also deal with the problem of “flesh” (‫)בשר‬. Mirroring the quail story in Exod 16, YHWH’s descent in Kabod will coincide with the miraculous appearance of food. However, unlike Exod 16’s focus on manna, here the narrative focuses on how the quail function as a response to the people’s growing distaste for manna. “Sanctify yourselves,” commands YHWH, “and you will eat flesh (‫)ואכלתם בשר‬.20 For your weeping has come to the ears of YHWH: ‘Who will give us to 19. Milgrom disagrees and argues that the appointment of the seventy elders is an act of judgment against Moses. Cf. Milgrom, Numbers, Excursus 24, 377–80. However, Rashi speaks in favor of a positive reading that does not diminish Moses. See Rashi, ‫ ספר במדבר‬Bamidbar/Numbers, 126. 20. The call for sanctity echoes Exod 19:10–15. Cf. Milgrom, Numbers, Excursus 27, 384–85.

106

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

eat flesh (‫)מי יאכלנו בשר‬. It was better for us in Egypt.’ YHWH will give you flesh (‫)בשר‬, and you will eat (‫—)ואכלתם‬not one, two, five, ten, or twenty days. No, you will eat it for a whole month of days until it comes out of your noses, and you detest it” (vv. 18–20). All of this is because “you have refused YHWH who is in your midst (‫ )בקרבכם‬and have wept before his face: ‘Why is it that we came out of Egypt?’” (v. 20). The story may mirror Exod 16, but the people’s murmuring is now inexcusable. Not only have they seen YHWH at Mt. Sinai, but he has also come to dwell in their midst at the tabernacle/tent of meeting. Their legal constitution as the Abrahamic people pushes them to a new level of responsibility.21 Moses is skeptical of YHWH’s promised provision. “I am in the midst of six hundred thousand footmen of the people, and you say, ‘I will give to them flesh (‫ )בשר‬so that they will eat a month of days (‫?)ואכלו חדש ימים‬ Will the sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them and found for them? Or will all of the fish of the sea be gathered up for them and found for them?” (vv. 21–22). This time Moses’ sarcasm clearly irritates YHWH as the deity retorts: “Is the hand of YHWH too short? Now you will see (‫ )תראה‬if my word will happen or not!” (v. 23). Seeing will be believing. Once again YHWH will appear in his glory/Kabod, and once again he will preserve his people despite their foolishness. All that is left now is for the theophanic descent on the following day. Moses in his usual posture of faithful, skeptical obedience relays the message to the people and selects seventy men from the elders of Israel. Once they are in place around the temple, the theophany occurs. YHWH comes down “in the cloud” (‫בענן‬, v. 25) and speaks to Moses. While he speaks with the prophet, he takes spirit from Moses and places it upon the seventy elders. The results are instantaneous. “When the spirit rested upon them, they broke forth in prophecy. However, they never did it again.” 21. For this reason I think that discussions regarding a conflict between a “positive” underlying tradition about God feeding Israel and a negative judgment feeding-tradition miss the point (cf. Davies, Numbers, 102–5). Perhaps something like Exod 16 was placed here and redacted accordingly. However, in its current narrative context, the story has no real source-critical tensions. In fact, it makes good narrative sense (i.e., the people repeat pre-Sinai requests and sins in a post-Sinai context). To be sure, the story wanders hither and yon with a surprise ending, but is this really a sign of conflation of conflicting sources? I remain unconvinced. To be clear, I am happy to countenance the reality of underlying sources and traditions with additional, later redactional glosses (cf., e.g., the editorial comment in Num 11:7–9). My problem is with a distinct kind of critical analysis that seems to have missed the unity and logic of the material as it now stands within its larger narrative context (like, e.g., McNeile, who is convinced that this particular manna story represents a doublet of the same story/tradition found in Exod 16; cf. McNeile, Numbers, 58).

5. Theophanies (Re)Contextualized

107

However, the spirit of prophecy is not limited to the sacral space around the tabernacle. It seems that two of the seventy had stayed behind in the camp despite being on the rolls (‫והמה בכתבים ולא יצאו האהלה‬, v. 26). Nonetheless, the spirit rests upon them as well, and they prophesy in the camp. When a young man brings the news, Joshua is outraged and commands Moses to forbid them. Moses is of a different mind. “Are you jealous for me? O that all of YHWH’s people were prophets—that YHWH would put his spirit upon them!” (v. 29). If all the people carried his burden, the grumbling would cease, and the internal threats to the Abrahamic heirs would be at an end. From a larger narrative perspective, the story describes a remarkable ritual describing the establishment of an authority structure that will outlast Moses. Just as the establishment of the priesthood in Leviticus insured the continued Mosaic mediation, the seventy elders receive the Mosaic judicial mantle. Thus, Jethro’s advice prior to Sinai is finalized after Sinai (cf. Exod 18). The seventy bear the burden of the people. They have a glimmer of the prophetic gift, if only for a moment. What follows is unsurprising. True to his word, YHWH proceeds to send flesh in the wake of the theophanic descent. The same “spirit” (‫ )רוח‬that breathed the prophetic gift upon the seventy elders now rushes forth and in a gale of holy wind throws thousands of quail upon the camp. At three feet-deep and a day’s journey in every direction, the dead birds represent a terrible divine provision. The people stay up two days collecting the meat but find that their desire brings death. Even as the “flesh” (‫ )הבשר‬is between their teeth, the anger of YHWH flares up, and he strikes them with a great slaughter. Thus, in both theophanic stories in Num 11, the Exodus type-scene is on display. Twice the dangerous Kabod YHWH descends in a communal setting, and twice it works judgment and blessing to preserve and shape Israel into an Abrahamic people. Those who grumble and murmur display the vestiges of Egypt. Their desires have remained in the past under the death-dealing of Pharaoh, and so YHWH gives them their desire: the dissolution of their flesh. In the same manner, the second theophany offers hope for the continued existence of the people in the establishment of a group of leaders capable of bearing Moses’ mantle. Both in judgment and blessing YHWH molds his people into Abraham’s heirs. Numbers 12 continues the theme of grumbling with a resulting theophany. However, this time Moses is the target and the grumblers come from within his own family. The occasion for complaint is Moses’ acquisition of a Cushite wife. Miriam and Aaron object to this and ask a question prompted by the events of Num 11: “Has YHWH only spoken through Moses? Has he not also spoken through us?” (v. 2)

108

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

The question at one level is legitimate. The Spirit of YHWH has just rushed from Moses onto the seventy elders, and as a result, they have prophesied. In other words, YHWH has spoken through them. While there is no mention made of Miriam and Aaron prophesying in the story, the very fact that lesser individuals in the camp speak in YHWH’s name (at least once) lends credence to their question: “So Moses can just go marry a Cushite, while the rest of us are forbidden to marry outsiders? What makes him so special that he gets a dispensation in the matter?” At a deeper level, of course, Moses’ marriage is only the catalyst for the underlying problem. Miriam and Aaron are displeased with the current leadership arrangement,22 and it is hard not to hear a hint of jealousy in their complaint: “Has not YHWH also spoken through us?” (‫הלא [יהוה] גם־בנו דבר‬, v. 2). Thus, readings of the story obsessed with its racial dimension miss the larger point within the cycle of murmurings. Internal mutiny threatens the order of the war camp, and the characters resent their divinely appointed divisions. Lest we misread the story, the narrative offers us a parenthetical statement regarding Moses’ character: “Now the man Moses was more humble than any person on the face of the earth” (v. 3). This statement insures that the reader understands Moses’ innocence in the ordeal. Contrary to Aaron and Miriam’s implicit complaint regarding his authoritarian leadership, Moses has actually not been seeking his own privilege.23 22. Thus, Staton is right to set aside the question of two independent stories being merged and note that “the narrative in its present form focuses upon the issue of Moses’ authority rather than his marriage.” See Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 226. From a more tradition-historical angle, Budd has questioned the supposed disunity of the story itself. Cf. Budd, Numbers, 133–34. 23. Because it is a parenthetical comment aimed at denying the efficacy of the complaint, I am unconvinced by Coats’ proposal that this “legend” in its present form “now focuses on the virtues of Moses” (emphasis mine). See George W. Coats, “Humility and Honor: A Moses Legend in Numbers 12,” in The Moses Tradition, JSOTSup 161 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 90. I appreciate Coats’ attempt to read the whole story as a unity centered around Moses’ unique status and virtue. However, given the parenthetical nature of the comment and the fact that the story sits within the larger cycle of rebellions, I find it hard to foreground Moses’ intercession for Miriam at the expense of the broader theme of murmuring (e.g., “And the final element shows the unit as a picture of an honorable man, a man whose virtue is exemplified by his intercession for his opponent” [p. 96]). No doubt, Moses has a unique relationship with YHWH in the story, and YHWH does spend a great deal of time praising him. However, at one level Moses’ intercession is simply part of that relationship—not necessarily a sign of good character! Even if one grants Moses’ exemplary status as a prophet (which I am happy to do), that is not the point of the story. The point of the

5. Theophanies (Re)Contextualized

109

Meanwhile, YHWH is listening and calls the three leaders suddenly (‫פתאם‬, v. 4) to the tent of meeting. When they have gathered, YHWH appears in his glory. He descends in the column of cloud (‫וירד יהוה בעמוד‬ ‫ענן‬, v. 5) and stands at the door of the tent (‫)ויעמד פתח האהל‬. YHWH’s theophany is upon them, and out of the cloud the deity calls to Miriam and Aaron. His words are harsh, and he chastises them for their rebellion. What follows is a brief divine monologue on the unique relationship between YHWH and Moses. For the purposes of our study, what is fascinating is the way in which YHWH contrasts his theophanies to Moses with his appearances to other prophets. “If there is a prophet among you, I YHWH24 make myself known to him in a vision (‫)במראה אליו אתודע‬. In a dream I speak with him (‫)בחלום אדבר־בו‬. Not thus my servant Moses! In all my house he is faithful. Mouth to mouth (‫ )פה אל־פה‬I speak to him and visibly (‫)ומראה‬, not in riddles. And he beholds the form of YHWH (‫( ”)ותמנת יהוה יביט‬vv. 6–8).25 The monologue is reminiscent of Exod 33’s description of YHWH and Moses’ speaking “face-to-face” (‫פנים אל־פנים‬, 33:11). Likewise, the story of Moses viewing YHWH’s “back” in 33:12–23 makes an oblique appearance: “Moses,” YHWH tells Aaron and Miriam, “looks upon the form of YHWH” (v. 8). He has seen and does see YHWH in some mysterious way. Other prophets only receive the divine word in visions (‫ )במראה‬or in dreams (‫)בחלום‬. They may “see” God but they do not really “see” God. They have “visions” (‫ )מראה‬but no “visible” (‫ )מראה‬encounter with YHWH. The wordplay here is as cheeky as it is brilliant. The other prophets are so close and yet so far with only a single vowel separating them from Moses (‫ ַמ ְר ָאה‬vs. ‫)מ ְר ֶאה‬. ַ 26 story is that once again Israel is struggling against YHWH’s chain of command within the war camp. The repetition of the murmurings and mutinies has the cumulative effect of prompting the reader to sympathize with YHWH’s frustration and ultimate judgment against the first generation (i.e., “The angry rabble is undisciplined, ungrateful, and unprepared to conquer Abraham’s land”). To put it another way: this story is a “wilderness story,” not primarily a “Moses story.” Cf. Davies’ brief comments, Numbers, 117. 24. For a discussion of the problems with the Hebrew text, see Levine, Numbers 1–20, 329–31, and (briefly) Davies, Numbers, 121–22. 25. Cf. Staton, “And Yahweh appeared,” 227 n. 113. The LXX softens the comparison and changes “form of YHWH” to the “Glory of the Lord” (καὶ τὴν δόξαν κυρίου εἶδεν). In this reading Moses alone sees the Kabod. 26. As Levine observes, “Here the feminine marāh designates the sort of vision normally seen by prophets, whereas masculine mareh, in v. 8, means “a clear vision,” something exceptional, by contrast, and reserved for Moses.” See Levine, Numbers 1–20, 331.

110

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

The implications of the theophanic monologue are clear. In the context of the visible presence of the divine Kabod, YHWH highlights the unique position of Moses. Anybody can “see” a theophany and receive a prophetic word, but not just anybody can go toe-to-toe with the visible YHWH and live to tell the tale. YHWH’s conclusion for Miriam and Aaron is chilling: “Why have you not feared to speak against my servant Moses?” Not surprisingly, YHWH’s anger burns against Aaron and Miriam (v. 9). By calling Moses’ leadership and authority into question, they have called YHWH and his ordering into question. The story then relates how YHWH “walks off” (‫וילך‬, v. 9) and the cloud departs from the tent (‫והענן סר מעל האהל‬, v. 10). The aftermath of the encounter offers a display of the lex talionis. Just as Miriam and Aaron challenged the boundaries of the house/camp of YHWH, even so Miriam’s house/skin boundaries are compromised. Twice in v. 10 the text states that “behold” (‫“ )הנה‬she was leprous” (‫)מצרעת‬. In the presence of YHWH’s Kabod, she had become like the half-formed stillborn child with its flesh eaten away. Meanwhile, Moses’ position is assured and in a moment of irony Aaron seeks help from the person whose intimacy with YHWH he had just questioned.27 Once again the theophanic type-scene represents its Exodus incarnation. The dangerous Kabod YHWH descends in a public setting (i.e., more than Moses is present) to deal with threats against the Abrahamic people—in this case an internal threat. Nevertheless, within the Number’s narrative setting one can see unique reverberations of the type-scene. Aside from the introductory stories in Num 9:15–23 and 10:11–13 and chs 22–24, the theophanies in Numbers represent a divine response to the specific internal threat of grumbling. Generally, when YHWH appears in the book, he appears to vindicate himself, his agents, and his divinely appointed order in the eyes of the mutinous war-camp. As post-Sinai narratives, the stories highlight the deadly nature of YHWH’s theophanic presence for Israel. The people as a Torah-catechized nation ought to know better, but they are keen to test the limits of YHWH’s Torah boundaries as embodied in the authority of YHWH’s agents (e.g., Moses). In each of these cases, YHWH descends and reaffirms his prescriptions and their mediating agents. Thus, one could say that YHWH’s glory tends to appear almost in the manner of a Deus ex machina, which delivers the mediating agents from the violent will of the people. As Cecil Staton puts it, “The appearing of Yahweh’s glory is the means whereby the divine becomes directly involved in the wilderness at these moments of crisis 27. Cf. Gray, Numbers, 127–28.

5. Theophanies (Re)Contextualized

111

and rebellion.”28 The following two theophanies in Num 14:10–35 and 16:19–50 are cases in point. Chapter 14 narrates the people’s response to the twelve spies’ bleak report regarding the promised land. When ten of the twelve proffer the three-fold claim that the people of the land are “stronger than us” (‫כי־חזק‬ ‫הוה ממנו‬, 13:31), that the land “devours” its inhabitants (a hint of what is to come for Korah and company—‫ארץ אכלת יושביה הוא‬, v. 32), and that the Nephilim or giants dwell there (‫אנשי מדות‬, v. 32; ‫הנפילים בני ענק‬ ‫מן־הנפלים‬, v. 33), the people break out in weeping (14:1). “If only we had died in the land of Egypt, or if only we had died in this wilderness!” (v. 2).29 This time Moses and Aaron receive the brunt of the people’s wrath (in addition to Joshua and Caleb). After the people have decided that it is better for them to return to Egypt (v. 3), Joshua and Caleb offer a counter-testimony based on a counternarrative. “Do not fear the people of the land for they are our food” (‫כי לחמנו הם‬, v. 9). Simply trust YHWH and the land of milk and honey will be ours. YHWH is with us. “Do not fear them” (‫אל־תיראם‬, v. 9). The people remain unconvinced and confer among themselves about stoning their leaders. After all, they have already decided to choose a new leader for the return trip to Egypt (v. 4). At this moment, YHWH appears in his Kabod. With the internal threat reaching a fevered pitch, the GloryCloud “appears” in/at the tent of meeting to all the children of Israel (v. 10). While the theophany is in the sight of all Israel, YHWH’s words are directed to Moses.30 In a speech reminiscent of Exod 32:10, YHWH rages against the mob:31 “How long will this people spurn me? How long will they refuse to trust me given all of the signs that I have done in their midst? I will strike them with plague and take the inheritance from them. I will make you, Moses, a great nation, mightier than them” (vv. 11–12). Moses, in typical fashion, calms the irate deity and reminds him that Egypt and the nations have heard of his theophanic presence among the descendants of Jacob: “They have heard that you, YHWH, are in the midst of this people (‫—)כי־אתה יהוה בקרב העם הזה‬that you, YHWH, appeared eye-to-eye 28. Staton’s comments refer specifically to Num 14, 16–17, and 20. See Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 225. 29. In Hebrew the phrase has a nice symmetry to it: (A) ‫( לו־מתנו‬B) ‫בארץ מצרים‬ (B1) ‫( או במדבר הזה‬A1) ‫לו־מתנו‬. The whole complaint is encapsulated in the refrain: “if only we had died.” 30. As Staton observes, “Yahweh’s glory may appear before the whole congregation, but Yahweh speaks only to Moses who continues to exercise a mediating role between the people and their God.” See Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 222. 31. Milgrom takes this raging as a divine test or cue for Moses to begin his intercessions. Cf. Milgrom, Numbers, 109–10.

112

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

(‫)אשר־עין בעין נראה אתה יהוה‬, and your cloud stands over them. You are a column of cloud walking before them daily and a column of fire at night (‫( ”)ועננך עמד עלהם ובעמד ענן אתה הלך לפניהם יומם ובעמוד אש לילה‬v. 14). Moses’ logic appeals to YHWH’s self-image: “Egypt and the nations are going to say that you were unable to fulfill your promise and slaughtered the people in the desert” (vv. 15–16). Once again, the language and argument is reminiscent of Exod 32:11–14. However, this time Moses draws on the theophanic events of Exod 33–34 to drive home the point: “[When you showed me your ‘back’,] you said that you were longsuffering, forgiving iniquity and sin, but not leaving the guilty unpunished. Please do as you have said and forgive the iniquity of this people according to your lovingkindness, just as you brought this people up from the land of Egypt to this place” (vv. 18–19). As before YHWH relents and promises to forgive Israel (v. 20). Nonetheless, he offers a caveat based on his theophanic presence with Israel: “However, as I live, the Kabod YHWH [i.e., the Glory of YHWH] will fill all the land (‫ואולם חי־אני וימלא כבוד־יהוה את־כל־הארץ‬, v. 21). For all the people seeing my Kabod32 (‫כי כל־האנשים הראים את־כבדי‬, v. 22) and my signs, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, still tested me these ten times and did not listen to my voice. They will not see (‫ )אם־יראו‬the land that I swore to their fathers. All those despising me will not see it (‫לא‬ ‫( ”)יראוה‬v. 23). The lex talionis is on display once again. Those who have “seen” promising YHWH will not “see” the promised inheritance that the theophanic presence has prepared and preserved them for. YHWH’s second speech in vv. 26–35 applies the principle from a different angle. “As I live, declares YHWH, just as you spoke in my ears, thus will I do to you. In this wilderness your corpses will fall, all your numbered ones to your whole number from the age of twenty years old and upward whoever murmured against me. You yourselves will not enter the land, which I lifted up my hand to make you dwell within” (vv. 29–30). Those who wished to die in the wilderness will die in the wilderness. Caleb and Joshua are exempted because of their faithfulness. In a clever twist, YHWH adds that it will be the children whom the Israelites worried would become the booty of the Canaanites (14:3) who will conquer the land (v. 31). In addition, following the analogical logic YHWH proposes that the people will wander 40 years in the wilderness, one year for each day spent spying out the land (vv. 33–35). It will be left to the children who may or may not have “seen” YHWH to enter the land. 32. Contra Staton, who says that Kabod here should “probably not be understood as a reference to having literally seen Yahweh.” Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 223.

5. Theophanies (Re)Contextualized

113

As usual, the people mourn over their mistake but then proceed to compound it by now attempting to take the promised land. Because YHWH’s presence does not go forth with them (i.e., the ark of YHWH remains in the camp—v. 44), they fall before the devouring giants whom they had feared. When the Kabod does not fight for Israel, there is no hope. 3. Korah and Boundaries: Leviticus Redux Numbers 16 continues the theme of a violent theophanic encounter between Israel and YHWH over the divine ordering of the nation but with a slight levitical twist. Once again YHWH’s agents are in the crosshairs. While Moses receives the usual anger, this time the malcontents seem to single out Aaron’s priestly status.33 Korah, a Levite, and three Reubenites, Dathan, Abiram, and On, stir up a rebellion among 250 leaders of the people. The charges against Moses and Aaron are simple: they have arrogated to themselves positions of power despite the fact that the whole community is “holy” and YHWH dwells among everyone (‫כי כל־העדה‬ ‫כלם קדשים ובתוכם יהוה‬, v. 3).34 Moses and Aaron have been “exalting” themselves over the assembly of YHWH (‫)תתנשאו‬. They have made themselves “great” (‫רב־לכם‬, v. 3). Just as in 14:5, Moses falls on his face in response to this charge. However, this time YHWH does not immediately appear to rectify the situation. Moses instead proposes to Korah and his rival “congregation”35 a kind of trial by ordeal. “In the morning, YHWH will cause us to know 33. Though it is interesting that all of the discussion is with Moses, and he too is accused of being part of the problem (v. 3). 34. Milgrom suggests that Korah’s argument is based on the logic inherent in the preceding command of tzitzit in 15:37–41. This command has a democratic impulse in that it clothes all Israel with “a priestly mixture in their garments.” Korah’s argument, then, is: if the Israelites are wearing priestly material, why shouldn’t they themselves be priestly material? Cf. Milgrom, Numbers, 131; Excursus 38, 414. 35. The use of the Hebrew word ‫ עדה‬suggests that Korah has established a counter-congregation of Israel. Cf. Budd, Numbers, 186. It is possible that Korah has also established a counter-tabernacle. When YHWH tells Moses to have the people separate themselves from Korah, Dathan, and Abiram in 16:24, the text literally says: “Go up from around the tabernacle of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram” (‫למשכן־קרח דתן‬ ‫)ואבירם‬. Usually this is translated as “dwelling” because of the parallel found in v. 26 where Moses commands the people to get away from the “tents of these wicked men” (‫)אהלי האנשים הרשעים‬. However, it is possible that v. 24 refers to a rival tabernacle. Again, cf. Budd, Numbers, 181.

114

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

who is his—who is the ‘holy one’ (‫הקדוש‬, v. 5), and he will bring him near (‫)והקריב אליו‬. Indeed, whomever he chooses for himself, he will bring near to himself (‫)ואת אשר יבחר־בו יקריב אליו‬.” Moses then instructs Korah and company to take “censers” (‫מחתות‬, v. 6) on the following day, place fire in them, and then add incense before the face of YHWH (‫לפני יהוה‬, v. 7). It will be that whomever YHWH has chosen, he will be “the holy one” (‫)הוא הקדוש‬. Moses offers an ironic warning that echoes Korah’s own charge against Moses and Aaron: “You have made yourselves great, O sons of Levi” (‫)רב־לכם בני לוי‬. The tone is ominous, especially considering the previous theophanic manifestations of YHWH. Moses continues with a stern statement regarding the Levites’s overreaching and showing discontent with their station. Apparently levitical service is not enough, only the priesthood will satiate their desire for upward mobility (vv. 9–10). Moses moves a step further in rhetoric and charges Korah and his cohort with opposing YHWH himself (v. 11). By taking a stand against Aaron (and Moses) in their divinely instituted capacities, the greedy Levites have taken a stand against YHWH. Moses then sends to Dathan and Abiram (and presumably On) and calls them to come up. Apparently, they have not been part of the Korah negotiations.36 However, the Reubenites refuse to come up37 and level 36. While it is likely that the Dathan and Abiram story was originally an independent narrative, in its current situation the story reinforces the theme of mounting internal rebellion against YHWH’s appointed agents through a clever use of narrative gapping. The interlacement of sources provides a kind of repetitive momentum to the story. Just when it seems that Moses has finished dealing with the issue (assuming as the reader does that Dathan and Abiram are part of the Korah contingent), vv. 12–15 reiterate the problem but focus on Dathan and Abiram. The literary effect is one of mounting antagonism. Everybody is against Moses and Aaron. Some are upset about the limits of the priestly caste. Others despise Moses’ leadership. Moses and Aaron are besieged on every side! The gapped seams of the text create this jarring almost montage-like effect. No doubt there are issues surrounding the sources and their respective historical provinces; however, at the end of the day, the final form of the text presents a beautiful display of narrative logic and repetition. For a discussion of the source-critical issues involved see Levine, Numbers 1–20, 405–7; Milgrom, Numbers, Excursus 39, 414–23; Davies, Numbers, 162–68; McNeile, Numbers, 85; cf. also the work of Martin Noth, despite his speculative and often dubious history of religions assumptions: Numbers, 118–31, and A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. Bernhard W. Anderson (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1981), 125–26, 273–74. 37. Levine has noted the possibility that their refusal to “come up” is a Reubenite refusal to go up across the Jordan and fight with the rest of Israel. Cf. Levine, Numbers 1–20, 424–45. The idea is intriguing, but within the present context, it is difficult to read the refusal as anything more than a direct response to Moses’ summons.

5. Theophanies (Re)Contextualized

115

another charge of self-appointment against Moses: “Is it a little thing that you brought us up from a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the wilderness, that you really will make yourself a master over us (‫( ”?)כי־תשתרר עלינו גם־השתרר‬v. 13). Moses cannot contain his anger at this statement and rages with YHWH: “Don’t accept their mincha. I have not taken a single donkey from them or done evil to a single one of them!” (v. 15). The narrative now returns to the dialogue between Moses and Korah. For a second time Moses repeats his instructions about censers and incense in a slightly expanded format (vv. 16–17). However, this time he emphasizes that all 250 men “bring near” their smoking censers with Aaron (‫והקרבתם לפני יהוה איש מחתתו חמשים ומאתים מחתת ואתה ואהרן איש‬ ‫מחתתו‬, v. 17). The ordeal is about to begin. The next day Korah and company follow Moses’ instructions, and Moses, Aaron, and the rebels take their stand before the door of the tent of meeting. As if to emphasize the democratic nature of his principled complaint, Korah assembles the entire congregation “against” Moses and Aaron at the door of the tent (‫ויקהל עליהם קרח את־כל־העדה אל־פתח אהל‬ ‫מועד‬, v. 19). The stage is set for a theophany, and YHWH does not disappoint. The story says that the “Glory of YHWH appeared to the entire congregation” (‫)וירא כבוד־יהוה אל־כל־העדה‬. Like in the preceding stories, the Kabod descends in wrath intent on destroying the mutinous horde. The Exodus type-scene with its Numbers’ reverberation is on full display as YHWH demands that Moses and Aaron separate themselves from the congregation so that he can destroy the people in the blink of an eye (‫ואכלה אתם כרגע‬, v. 21). This public theophany of YHWH’s dangerous presence highlights once again the unique status of YHWH’s agents. Despite Korah’s contention that all the people are “holy” in the same manner as Moses and Aaron, YHWH refuses to speak with any of the 250 or the congregation as a whole. Instead, YHWH speaks to Moses and Aaron and in practice once again reaffirms their position among the people. YHWH may be visible to all of the people, but he only speaks with his chosen ones. The remainder of the story follows the now familiar pattern. Moses and Aaron intercede on the people’s behalf. In this case, they blame everything on Korah (and thus implicitly Dathan and Abiram—On seems to have disappeared from the story by this point38), and beg for clemency for 38. McNeile suggests (perhaps rightly) that the phrase “and On” (‫ )ואון‬may actually represent a dittographic error in 16:1 for the last three consonants of “Eliab” (‫)אליאב‬. This, in addition to the possibility that “Peleth” is a corruption of “Pallu,” would explain his subsequent absence from the story. Cf. McNeile, Numbers, 86.

116

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

the rest of the people. YHWH, per usual, agrees, and Moses goes about separating the people from the real culprits. Dathan and Abiram manage to come out of their tents just in time to participate in a second trial by ordeal instituted at Moses’ behest. “In this you will know that YHWH has sent me to do all of these things and that they are not the product of my own mind,” states the angry prophet (v. 28). “If these people die the death of an ordinary person or are visited with the visitation an ordinary person, YHWH has not sent me. But if YHWH creates a new thing, and the earth opens its maw and swallows them and everything that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, then you will know that these men spurned YHWH” (vv. 29–30). Moses’ point is clear. His authority continues to be challenged, and he is tired of it. Either YHWH has sent him or he has not. If YHWH will back him up in this matter and punish Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, everyone will know once and for all that Moses and thus Aaron have their offices from YHWH. The second trial by ordeal mimics and completes the first. Without consulting YHWH, Moses has threatened the mutineers. He has put his reputation and standing on the line, and now it must be seen whether YHWH will back his play. But, of course, the story has already telegraphed the ending in v. 21. YHWH’s anger with the people mirrors Moses’ own, and since Moses is in essence YHWH’s friend (cf. Exod 33:11), it is not hard to guess the outcome of the second trial. The earth indeed opens its maw and swallows whole Dathan, Abiram, and all of their houses (vv. 31–33).39 Korah also suffers this fate almost as an afterthought (v. 32), though there is a nice symmetry on display in that Korah, the first to speak, is the last to die of the ringleaders. As Israel wails and mourns in fear of a similar fate, YHWH finishes the coup de main with a blast of fire, which incinerates the remaining 250 men who brought forward incense with Korah (‫ואש יצאה מאת יהוה ותאכל‬ ‫את החמשים ומאתים איש מקריבי הקטרת‬, v. 35). YHWH, in a theophanic blast of fury, has dealt with the internal threat to his Torah-forged people and his promise of land. Once again, he has removed the dross from Israel. Or has he? Here the story replays the theme of rebelliousness. As Eleazar collects the 250 censers and scatters the holy coals beyond the camp, anger simmers among the people. Even while the bronze censers are hammered into sheets and affixed to the altar as a reminder of the unique status of 39. Milgrom, with a nod to Numbers Rabba, observes the irony of their deaths. Because they would not “go up” to Moses, they “go down” to Sheol. See Milgrom, Numbers, 137.

5. Theophanies (Re)Contextualized

117

Aaron and his sons, the people quickly forget what has just happened. Indeed, on the following day they are back to their murmuring ways (17:6, Eng. 16:41), but now they have a new complaint against Moses and Aaron: “You caused the death of the people of YHWH!” Yet as the congregation assembles against YHWH’s agents for a second time, they turn towards the tent of meeting only to see the Kabod YHWH return (‫והנה כסהו הענן‬ ‫וירא כבוד יהוה‬, 17:7, Eng. 16:42). Once again YHWH commands Moses to withdraw from the people so that he might strike them in the blink of an eye (‫ואכלה אתם כרגע‬, 17:10). For a second time Moses and Aaron mediate on behalf of the people. However, this time it is action not words that saves the congregation. Moses presses Aaron to run quickly into the midst of the congregation bearing his “censer” (‫מחתה‬, v. 11) filled with “fire from the altar” (‫ )אש מעל המזבח‬and “incense” (‫)קטרת‬. Only in this way can Aaron “make atonement” for the people (‫ )וכפר עליהם‬and stop YHWH’s wrath, which has taken the form of a plague. Aaron follows Moses’ words to the letter and “makes atonement on behalf of the people” (‫ויכפר על־העם‬, v. 12). As the high priest, he stands between the living and the dead and holds back the plague (v. 13). According to the story, 14,700 people died beside Korah and his followers (v. 14). In an effort to settle the authority of Aaron once and for all, YHWH causes Aaron’s staff to blossom after the leaders of the twelve tribes place their staffs in a bundle before YHWH in the tent of meeting. The budding Aaronic staff is a sign to keep the Israelites from murmuring (v. 20) so that he does not destroy them (v. 25). YHWH’s order must be kept. Once again, YHWH has appeared to vindicate his agents and preserve the Torah-order given at Mt. Sinai. The deity continues to deal with the internal threats through theophanies. However, what is interesting about the story is the way in which it echoes the earlier Pentateuchal tale of Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10. It seems quite likely that we have a “Leviticus theophanic type-scene” on display. Like the Leviticus type-scene, the priest, Aaron, and those desiring the priesthood, Korah and company, do some­thing (offer incense on censers) that results in a theophany. More specifically, the parallels between Lev 10 and Num 16 are striking. In both stories, “incense” (‫)קטרת‬ on “censers” (‫)מחתה‬40 with “fire” (‫ )אש‬is offered in an inappropriate way “before YHWH” (‫ )לפני יהוה‬and the result is “fire” (‫“ )אש‬breaking out” (‫ )יצא‬from “before YHWH” (‫מאת יהוה‬/‫ )לפני יהוה‬and “consuming” (‫)אכל‬ the perpetrators of the misdeed (cf. Lev 10:1–2; Num 16:6–7, 16–21, 35). 40. Davies observes that the word “censer” (‫ )מחתה‬used in v. 6 is only used for an incense holder here and in Lev 10:1 and 16:12. See Davies, Numbers, 171.

118

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

Furthermore, the connection between Lev 10 and 16 finds an echo in the story’s concluding scene when Aaron rushes out into the congregation and “makes atonement” (‫ )כפר‬for the people with his incense-filled censer. Likewise, there is a verbal play on the “strange” fire (‫ )זרה‬that Nadab and Abihu offer in the latter half of the story. When YHWH commands Eleazar (via Moses) to “scatter” the coals of fire from the 250 censers, the word “scatter” (‫ )זרה‬looks a great deal like “strange.” While the two words come from different roots (‫ זור‬and ‫)זרה‬, an intertextual verbal pun seems to be in play. Nadab and Abihu offered “strange” fire on censers only to be incinerated, and in cleaning up one such incineration Eleazar “scatters” the coals from misused censers. However, the intertextual echoes do not stop there. A few verses later in 17:5 (Eng. 16:40), the story states that the pounded out bronze censers covering the altar function as a “memorial to the children of Israel so that no strange person (‫)איש זר‬, who was not from the seed of Aaron, might come near to offer incense before YHWH, and not be like Korah and his congregation.” Here the intertextual, verbal link is even clearer: “strangers” (‫ )זור‬offering incense to YHWH will die in the same manner as priests who offer “strange” (‫ )זור‬fire to YHWH. All of this suggests that within the canonical context of the story, which assumes knowledge of Lev 10:1–2, Moses’ trial by ordeal is clear to Korah and the people. If they believe that just anyone can approach YHWH with incense, let them put their own lives on the line and test the theory. Nadab and Abihu’s failed experiment (as priests no less!) stands behind Moses’ challenge. The result of the ordeal(s) simply reinforces the lesson of Leviticus and the preceding theophanies in Numbers: YHWH has appointed specific people to specific roles, and one ought not to tamper with the appointment. Numbers 20:1–13 rounds out the stories of theophanies in the murmuring cycle. It also represents the last Exodus theophanic type-scene in the book41 while paralleling the story of water from the rock found in

41. I have placed it in the Leviticus Redux section not only because of its narrative placement, but also because there is a sense in which it also displays concerns reminiscent of the Leviticus type-scene. YHWH complains towards the end of the story that the two leaders have not “sanctified” his name, and from a source-critical standpoint many scholars attribute the vast majority of the story to P. One could also argue that Moses and Aaron’s prostration functions liturgically (i.e., a priestly action before the descent of the Kabod). However, this seems to be a stretch, especially considering that only Moses falls on his face in 16:4 and that earlier in 14:5 a similar action by Moses and Aaron does not result in a theophany (though, in fairness, they appear to fall down before the congregation). There is also the problem of prostration

5. Theophanies (Re)Contextualized

119

Exod 17:1–7. Both stories take place in the wilderness—one at “Sin” (‫סין‬, Exod 17:1) and one at “Zin” (‫צן‬, Num 20:1). Likewise, both stories provide a narrative etymology for the name of the place, “Meribah” (‫)מריבה‬, because YHWH and Israel “strove” or “went to court” (‫)ריב‬ against each other.42 Aside from these details, the stories share a similar narrative arc while offering very different conclusions and details. Both stories relate a tale about the paucity of water in the wilderness. The people, thirsty and dissatisfied, grumble against Moses (and in Num 20 Aaron also), and in both stories YHWH provides water out of a rock. The differences between the two stories revolve around the post-Sinai narrative setting of Num 20.43 One of these differences is the presence of a theophany. Exodus 17 simply describes YHWH speaking with Moses, while Num 20 offers another tent of meeting theophany in line with the preceding murmuring cycle. In fact, the vocabulary links this story with the earlier narrative about Korah. Rather that mentioning “murmuring,” Num 20:2 says that the people “were gathered against Moses and against Aaron” (‫—)ויקהלו על־משה ועל־אהרן‬the same phrase used to describe Korah and company’s “gathering” in 17:3. In addition, the people actually reference the preceding theophany of Num 16: “If only we had died when our brothers died before the face of YHWH (‫( ”)לפני יהוה‬20:3). In response to the people’s complaints, Moses and Aaron throw themselves down on their faces before the door of the tent of meeting.44 occurring after the theophany in 16:22. Nonetheless, it does seem that “falling down” has resonances throughout P. See below, n. 44. 42. Exod 17:7 also calls the place “Massah” (‫ )מסה‬or “testing,” from ‫נסה‬. 43. Thus, I am reticent to suggest that they are simply the same story or tradition (cf., e.g., McNeile, Numbers, 106). While it is possible that multiple traditions of one story were separated and placed in their current contexts, I think that such assumptions can too quickly overlook the ways in which the separate stories function within the current Pentateuchal arc. In other words, regardless of their pre-history, the stories now are different stories. They reside in different contexts and so cannot by definition be the same story. 44. Coming at the text from a source-critical perspective, Levine suggests that “falling on their faces” is part of a larger pattern in P associated with the theophanic Kabod: “The appearance of the kābôd ‘glorious presence’ at a moment of crisis is a recurrent phenomenon in the priestly literature of the Torah and is associated with a crisis of leadership or faith, the very occasions on which Moses and Aaron usually fell on their faces (Exod. 16:10; Num. 16:19, 22; 17:7, 10). In fact, Num. 20:6 and 14:10 resemble each other considerably. A typology is formed: the leaders fall on their faces in an appeal to God’s rescue, and the divine kābôd appears in response.” See Levine, Numbers 1–20, 489.

120

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

The narrative then relates YHWH’s now typical response: “the Kabod YHWH [i.e., the Glory Cloud] appeared to them” (‫וירא כבוד־יהוה אליהם‬, v. 6). YHWH commands Moses to take his staff, to assemble the congregation, and with Aaron to “speak” to the rock in front of the people (‫ודברתם אל־הסלע‬, v. 8). This, of course, differs from the preceding instructions YHWH gave in Exod 17:6. There Moses was to “strike” (‫ והכית‬from ‫ )נכה‬the rock. Moses takes the staff (v. 9) but disobeys the new instructions. In a fit of anger at the rebellious people, he “raises his hand” and “strikes” the rock with his staff twice (‫וירם משה את־ידו ויך את־הסלע במטהו‬ ‫פעמים‬, v. 11). Just as in the first story, water comes forth to quench the people’s thirst. However, in this Meribah narrative, YHWH chastises Moses and Aaron for not obeying the explicit command and for simply falling back on established practice. YHWH’s sentence is severe: “Because you did not have faith in me (‫ )לא־האמנתם בי‬to sanctify me (‫ )להקדישני‬in the eyes of the children of Israel—therefore, you shall not enter with this assembly into the land, which I gave to them” (v. 12). Because the two brothers did not share in Abraham’s faith (‫והאמן ביהוה ויחשבה לו צדקה‬, Gen 15:6), they will not share in his inheritance. Furthermore, their explicit refusal to obey YHWH’s instruction—or Torah—places them in the category of Nadab and Abihu (and thus, at some level Korah). When Aaron’s two sons had perished for doing what YHWH had not commanded them, the deity had emphatically stated, “In those coming near me, I will be sanctified (‫בקרבי‬ ‫)אקדש‬, and in front of all the people I will be glorified” (Lev 10:3). After this, Aaron had stood silent (‫)וידם אהרן‬, and now in the same manner Moses and Aaron offer no recorded retort as they sit stunned in the ironically named region of “Kadesh” (‫)קדש‬.45 Again, it is important to keep in mind the narrative setting. Moses, Aaron, and the people now live after the giving of Torah, and so the misstep of both Moses and Aaron is inexcusable. They have become just like the murmuring generation. They have violated the boundaries of YHWH’s word, and so they will die in the wilderness like the first generation. Moses and Aaron’s punishment reiterates the theme consistent throughout Leviticus and Numbers: no one is above YHWH’s Torah. When YHWH instructs his people to behave in a certain manner, he expects them to obey. Everyone must stay in his or her appointed place and behave in a proper manner. The process of wilderness formation and catechism is dangerous even to YHWH’s favorite, Moses.

45. Cf. Budd’s comments, Numbers, 219.

5. Theophanies (Re)Contextualized

121

4. The Balaam Story: Genesis Redux The final theophany in the book of Numbers provides a startling contrast with its predecessors. Readers who have been lulled to sleep by the repetitions of the Exodus type-scene and its levitical variant will find themselves jarred. Unlike its compatriots, this theophany is a reappropriation of the Genesis type-scene,46 and the story that provides the narrative context for this reappropriation is none other than the story of Balaam and Balak. The story begins with Balak, the Moabite king, sending messengers to the prophet Balaam living near the Euphrates river. Balak has “seen” (‫וירא‬, Num 22:2) what Israel did to the Amorites, and his people recognize that the Israelites are numerous (‫כי רב־הוא‬, v. 3). Fearful like Pharaoh that Israel will overwhelm him and his people,47 Balak petitions Balaam to come and curse this dreaded host. His message in vv. 5–6 is reminiscent of YHWH’s promise to Abraham that the patriarch’s descendants would be like the stars of the sky: “Behold, a people has come forth from Egypt! Behold, they cover the face of the earth (‫ !)הנה כסה את־עין הארץ‬They are dwelling opposite me! Now come! Curse this people for me, for they are mightier than me (‫)ועתה לכה־נא ארה־לי את־העם הזה כי־עצום הוה ממני‬. Perhaps, I will be able to strike them, and drive them from the land. For I know that whomever you bless is blessed (‫)אשר־תברך מברך‬, and whomever you curse is cursed (‫)ואשר תאר יואר‬.” Balaam dutifully listens to the message but warns Balak’s envoys standing there with their divinatory equipment48 that he must first consult 46. N. F. Schmidt and P. J. Nel, using a different form of type-scene categorization (i.e., background, manifestation, dialogue, intrigue, and conclusion), couple Num 22–24 with several Exodus type-scenes. Following their model this would make sense. However, to my mind their model is too general to be overly helpful. The various categories of the type-scene are hard to distinguish from those of any other story (i.e., every story has a beginning, a conclusion, and intrigue, and most stories have dialogue). See Schmidt and Nell, “Theophany as Type-scene,” 268–69. 47. Cf. Van Seters’ comment: “The situation is very similar to that presented in Ex. 1:7ff., in which the Egyptian king and his people are threatened by the great increase of the Israelite people in Egypt. In both cases it is said of the Moabites/ Egyptians that “they were in dread of the Israelites” (Num. 22:3; Ex. 1:12).” See John Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 414. Similarly John Sailhamer observes Pharaoh’s three-fold attempt to decrease the fecund people parallels Balak’s three-fold attempt to curse Israel. See Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 405–9. 48. See R. W. L. Moberly’s discussion of ‫ וקסמים בידם‬in “On Learning to Be a True Prophet: The Story of Balaam and His Ass,” in New Heaven and New Earth: Prophecy and the Millennium. Essays in Honour of Anthony Gelston, ed. Peter J. Harland and Robert Hayward (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 3–4 n. 10.

122

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

with YHWH before giving them an answer. That night God (‫ )אלהים‬comes to Balaam and asks about the messengers staying with him. Balaam relays Balak’s message of the earth-covering people, noting that the Moabite wants him to come and “curse” these Israelites (‫קבה־לי אתו‬, v. 11) so that he might destroy them in battle.49 God’s response puts a damper on Balaam’s plans: “Do not go with them! You shall not curse the people (‫לא‬ ‫ )תאר את־העם‬because they are blessed (‫( ”!)כי ברוך הוא‬v. 12). The next morning Balaam breaks the news to Balak’s messengers: “YHWH refused to let me go with you.” The envoys return home to Balak with the bad news. However, Balak will not be dissuaded—clearly Balaam is bargaining for more. So the Moabite king sends a new retinue of officials “more glorious” than the first (‫ונכבדים מאלה‬, v. 15). These high-ranking messengers deliver an even more enticing offer: “Do not hold back from coming to me! For surely I will glorify you greatly (‫)כי־כבד אכבדך מאד‬, and whatever you say to me, I will do. Please come and curse for me this people (‫קבה־לי את העם‬ ‫( ”!)הזה‬v. 17). Once again Balaam warns the messengers that his hands are tied. Even if Balak were to offer him his palace full of gold and silver, Balaam would be unable to do anything small or great against the “mouth” of YHWH God (‫פי יהוה אלהי‬, v. 18). In parallel with the first episode in the story, the officials stay the night, and God comes to Balaam. This time the deity concedes that Balaam may go with the men. However, he must be sure to speak only the word that God has given him to speak. The implication, of course, is that Balaam cannot speak a curse against Israel.

49. Balaam, however, fails to mention Balak’s flattery in v. 6 (“For I know that whomever you bless is blessed and whomever you curse is cursed”). George Savran argues that this omission signals Balaam’s obliviousness towards YHWH’s omniscience. In this reading, the prophet seems to conceive of YHWH as a powerful but limited deity. Thus there is a moment of narrative irony when YHWH quotes the omitted material through Balaam in 24:9. YHWH knows all, as Balaam is slow to learn. As a result, Savran suggests that the character of YHWH serves a dual function in the story. He is both a character under the narrator’s control within the narrative framework and someone functioning within the narrator and reader outside of the framework. “God’s presence in the text is also discourse-oriented in its revelation of God’s omniscience directly to the reader. The irony of Balaam’s situation is shared not just by the narrator and the reader as they look upon his blindness from some great height, but by God as well.” See George Savran, Telling and Retelling: Quotation in Biblical Narrative (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988), 91–92 (92).

5. Theophanies (Re)Contextualized

123

All of this provides the setting for the theophany that follows. The text says that Balaam arose in the morning, saddled his donkey, and went with the captains of Moab. In a moment of narrative opacity, God’s wrath flares up against the prophet for going with them.50 So as Balaam rides along on his donkey with two servants in tow, the Angel of YHWH stations himself in the road to be Balaam’s adversary (‫ויתיצב מלאך יהוה בדרך לשטן לו‬, v. 22). What follows is remarkable for its irony and humor. The donkey, a simple beast of burden, “sees” the Angel of YHWH stationed in the road with his drawn sword in hand (‫ותרא האתון את־מלאך‬ ‫יהוה נצב בדרך וחרבו שלופה בידו‬, v. 23). Not surprisingly, she veers from the road to walk in the field. Balaam, blind to the situation, strikes the animal to bring her back onto the road. A second time the Angel takes a stand in Balaam’s path. This time he stands on the road between two walls with only a little room to either side. Once again the donkey “sees” the Angel of YHWH (‫ותרא האתון את־מלאך יהוה‬, v. 25) and struggles to

50. Savran suggests an elegant subtlety to the narrative by linking the episode with YHWH’s odd allowance for Balaam to enter Balak’s service: “the second part of the message, the command to obedience, is less than clear, for YHWH has not specified how Balaam is to conduct himself with his new employer… [I]t seems that the episode of the ass comes primarily to emphasize the second part of the statement, and through that, to explain why Balaam has been allowed to proceed.” See Savran, “Seeing Is Believing,” 333. In other words, the ambiguity of the command to obey YHWH while in Balak’s service sets up the story of the donkey, which functions as an elaboration or explanation of YHWH’s intentions. Contra Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 234, who claims that the “contradiction” between 22:20 and 22:22 “cannot be overcome” (similarly, in good source-critical fashion, Noth, Numbers, 178; McNeile, Numbers, 123–24, 127; Davies, Numbers, 236–38). In a different manner, Moberly reconciles the problem by arguing that the fact that Balaam returns a second time to ask YHWH’s opinion about going with Balak’s messengers suggests that he really has been negotiating a better deal only to be foiled by YHWH in the following narrative (though, of course, Moberly warns against an overly “moralistic” reading of the story). “God tells Balaam the very thing he wants to hear, but it will not mean for Balaam what he may think it will mean.” See Moberly, “On Learning to be a True Prophet,” 7–10 (10). Cf. also Franz Rosenzweig’s more personal comment: “With respect to God, ‘once’ means once and for all; and he who, like Balaam, after God’s first word, triest to find out whether this rule does really apply also to him will be punished. For if we do not take God’s first unequivocal word as being sufficient (‘Do not go with them’), then the next time God will without fail speak the words of the demon that is within us (‘You may go’).” Quoted in W. Plaut, Gunther, Bernard J. Bamberger, and William W. Hallo, The Torah: A Modern Commentary (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1981), 1185.

124

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

squeeze by while crushing one of Balaam’s feet in the process. A second time unseeing Balaam strikes the beast. For a third time the pattern repeats itself. The Angel crosses over and stands in a narrow place where there is no way to go around either to the right or left (‫ויוסף מלאך־יהוה עבור ויעמד במקום צר אשר אין־דרך לנטות‬ ‫ימין ושמאול‬, v. 26). “Seeing” YHWH’s Angel (‫ותרא האתון את־מלאך יהוה‬, v. 27) standing in the path with no way to get around, the donkey lies down under the irate Balaam. He strikes her a third time. But here YHWH, whose “mouth” Balaam claims to listen to (cf. v. 18), opens the “mouth of the donkey” (‫פי האתון‬, v. 28). “Why have you struck me these three times?” inquires the animal. Balaam, so angry that he does not seem to notice the oddity of the donkey talking, retorts that it is because she has treated him in a ruthless manner. “If only,” he adds, “I had a sword in my hand (‫ )לו יש־חרב בידי‬that I could kill you with right now (‫”!)כי עתה הרגתיך‬ (v. 29). The donkey responds with a reasoned rhetorical question asking whether she has ever treated him in this way before. Balaam can only answer with a stuttering “no.” It is time for the unseeing seer to finally “see.” YHWH opens his eyes (‫)ויגל יהוה את־עיני בלעם‬, and he “sees” the Angel stationed in the road with his unsheathed sword in hand (‫וירא את־מלאך יהוה נצב בדרך וחרבו שלפה‬ ‫בידו‬, v. 31).51 The one who wanted a sword to kill the donkey realizes that YHWH’s naked blade has nearly struck him three times, and so he falls to the ground and worships face-down.52 YHWH’s visible, angelic instantiation speaks: “Why did you strike the donkey three times? Behold, I went forth to be your adversary (‫ )לשטן‬because your way is perverse before me” (v. 32). “The donkey,” the Angel points out, “saw me (‫)ותראני‬ and turned from before my face (‫ )לפני‬these three times. If she had not turned from before my face (‫)מפני‬, I would have killed you by now (‫כי‬ ‫ )עתה גם־אתכה הרגתי‬and let her live” (v. 33). The words echo Balaam’s own spoken only moments before. Balaam’s response is filled with fear and repentance. The theophany has shaken him, and he wonders aloud if he ought to abandon his trip and return home.53 However, the Angel is willing to let him continue his 51. Moberly notes the symmetry of the two dialogues in the theophany. Both dialogues are “initiated by a divine action (opening the ass’s mouth, opening Balaam’s eyes) which enables the truth of the situation first to be expressed and then to be grasped (22:28–30, 31–35).” See Moberly, “On Learning to be a True Prophet,” 11. 52. For a list of several other possible ironies in the story that lampoon Balaam, see Milgrom, Numbers, Excursus 57, 469. 53. “[Balaam’s] fear is palpable in a way which was not sensed earlier. It is clear that seeing has made an indelible impression upon Balaam, one that is deeper

5. Theophanies (Re)Contextualized

125

journey, but Balaam must only speak the word he is given. There can be no improvisation. Balaam appears to have learned his lesson. When Balak comes out to meet him and remonstrates with him for delaying, the seer repeats YHWH’s directive: “Look, I have come to you now, but am I really able to speak anything? The word that God puts in my mouth (‫—)בפי‬that is all that I can speak” (v. 38). Balak, unaware of the theophany, continues to assume that Balaam is haggling over the price of the curse.54 With all of the proper sacrifices offered on the following day, he drags the uneasy prophet to the top of Bamot-Baal. From there the unseeing Balaam finally “sees” Israel’s camp spread out before him (‫וירא משם קצה העם‬, v. 41). Now the story unfolds along the lines of the preceding three-fold pattern of Balaam and his donkey. This time, however, Balaam plays the role of the donkey, and Balak plays the role of Balaam.55 Three times Balak struggles to goad Balaam into “cursing” Israel (‫קבב‬, cf. 23:11, 13, 25, 27; 24:10), and three times God opens Balaam’s mouth to bless Israel (23:1–12, 13–26; 23:27–24:14). The verbal echoes are insistent. Three times, the story tells us that YHWH put a word in Balaam’s “mouth” (‫פי‬, cf. 23:5, 12, 16). Nonetheless, Balaam is not as God-fearing as his donkey. After the first two failed attempts at cursing Israel, the story says that the unseeing Balaam “sees” that it is good in YHWH’s eyes to bless Israel (‫וירא בלעם‬ ‫כי טוב בעיני יהוה לברך את־ישראל‬, 24:1). He tries to evade speaking with and much more consequential than simply hearing the divine command… Perhaps Balaam the seer, with his ability to converse with many different deities, is not terribly moved by the verbal messages he receives from them. But seeing the divine emissary places YHWH’s words in a new light, illustrating once again the overwhelming power of the visual.” Savran, “Seeing Is Believing,” 335. 54. There is also the distinct possibility that the characters Balak and Balaam conceive of Balaam’s “powers” differently. Milgrom suggests that Balak believed Balaam to be a sorcerer (i.e., one who can change the future through cursing or blessing) while Balaam himself only claimed to be a diviner (i.e., one who can foresee the future but not manipulate it). Cf. Milgrom, Numbers, Excursus 59, 471–73. 55. Robert Alter’s comments here are helpful: “It seems fairly clear that the ass in this episode plays the role of Balaam—beholding divine visions with eyes unveiled— to Balaam’s Balak. The parallel between the two halves of the story is emphasized by the fact that in Balaam’s prophecies there are again three symmetrically arranged occurrences of the same incident, each time with greater discomfit to Balak. In Balaam’s prophetic imagery, first Israel is spread out like dust, then crouched like a lion, and finally rises like a star, so that the Moabite king, waiting for a first-class imprecation, is progressively reduced to impotent fury, quite in the manner of Balaam’s blind rage against the wayward ass.” See Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 106.

126

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

YHWH (24:1–3) in an attempt to forestall another blessing. However, the Spirit of YHWH comes upon him and compels him to bless Israel. The three “blessings” (‫ )ברך‬are filled with language reminiscent of the Abrahamic promise of multiplied progeny. After recounting Balak’s desire to “curse” Israel (‫ארר‬, 23:7) and stating that Balaam cannot “curse” whom God has not “cursed” (‫קבב‬, v. 8), the first blessing recounts the unique nature of Israel. “From the top of the rocks, I see him (‫)אראנו‬, and from the heights I gaze upon him. Behold, a people dwelling alone and not thinking itself part of the nations” (23:9). The oracle continues with words extolling the countless numbers of Israel: “Who can count the dust of Jacob or number the fourth part of Israel” (‫מי מנה עפר יעקב ומספר את־רבע‬ ‫ישראל‬, v. 10). The second blessing continues in the same theme: “Behold, I have received the order to bless (‫)ברך‬. He has already blessed (‫)וברך‬, I cannot turn it back” (v. 20). “YHWH is with this people” (‫יהוה אלהיו עמו‬, v. 21), states Balaam, “and the shout of a king is among them (‫ותרועת מלך‬ ‫)בו‬.” The blessing ends with an observation that God has brought Israel out of Egypt (v. 22, cf. Gen 15:12–21) and that they are as unstoppable as blood-thirsty lions. The final blessing again mentions the presence of a king (“Their king [‫ ]מלכו‬will be greater than Agag, and their kingdom [‫ ]מלכתו‬will be lifted up,” 24:7) before reiterating that God brought the people of Israel out of Egypt and that they will be like an unstoppable wild animal. It ends with a slightly revised version of the Abrahamic blessing given in Gen 12:3: “Those blessing you will be blessed, and those cursing you will be cursed” (‫מברכיך ברוך וארריך ארור‬, v. 9). The presence of Egypt and a king in the second and third blessings provides further connections with the Abrahamic narrative. In the theophany described in Gen 15, YHWH tells Abraham that his descendants will be slaves for four hundred years before returning to the promised land (Gen 15:12–21). Likewise, as he cuts the covenant of circumcision with the patriarch, YHWH promises Abraham that “kings” (‫ )מלכים‬will come forth from both him and Sarah as the progenitors of a royal line (Gen 17:6, 16). Given this emphasis upon the Abrahamic promise and its culmination in a king, it is not surprising that the Balaam story concludes with four more oracles, the first and longest of which is directed toward the kingproducing Israel (Num 24:15–19). The oracle proclaims the coming of a king who will destroy Moab and Edom: “I see him (‫)אראנו‬, but no now. I gaze upon him, but not near. A star marches out from Jacob, and a scepter arises from Israel. He will shatter the foreheads of Moab and devastate all the sons of Shet. Edom will be a possession, and Seir, his enemies, likewise. Israel will work efficiently. He will rule from Jacob and destroy

5. Theophanies (Re)Contextualized

127

the survivor from the city.” The message is clear. YHWH will be faithful to his promise. Those who curse Israel will be cursed! All of this prompts the question: What kind of theophany is this described in Num 22–24? The answer should be clear. The Genesis theophanic type-scene has made a reappearance. The standard three elements are clearly on display: (1) a threat to the Abrahamic promise of land and progeny (Balak’s plan to strike the numerous people), (2) YHWH appearing (the Angel of YHWH instantiation), and (3) the reiteration of the promises (via Balaam’s unwilling mouth). The final theophany in the book of Numbers brings the type-scenes full circle. The narrative effect is startling. For three pentateuchal books, the typescene has been based on the Exodus model with its public Kabod in action. Yet as the narrative draws toward re-entry into the promised land, the private Genesis theophanic type-scene resurfaces. The question is: Why? At one level, the answer reflects sacred geography. The growing nearness to the promised land demands a more intimate encounter with the divine. YHWH’s people are coming home. The closer they get to the Abrahamic inheritance (in terms of plot), the more likely it is that YHWH will appear in a manner reminiscent of his visits to Abraham. Another possibility is that the reversion to the Genesis type-scene enables the “author” to insert prophetic material into the narrative. Recall how the Genesis theophanies always work to insure faith in future promises. The emphasis upon a coming king can thus be embedded smoothly in the narrative. 5. Conclusion Stepping back from the narratives themselves, it is helpful to ponder how these stories would have been received in the exilic and post-exilic periods. Staton may well be right that To a later time they would have made a clear witness to Yahweh’s aid to his people and to the seriousness of rebellion and faithlessness and its consequences. In the larger narrative these very similar stories may have offered further theological justification for the tragedy experienced in the exile as Israel’s rebellion and faithlessness is clearly portrayed as part of even her earliest experiences as the people of Yahweh.56

Within the bleak world of post–589 CE the Numbers theophanies represent a prime example of Israel’s culpability. YHWH’s law-giving presence walked with the people in its occasional (or perhaps, permanent) 56. Staton, “And Yahweh Appeared,” 225.

128

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

theophanic manifestation, and yet, Israel refused to heed the Torah. The peccadillos of the pre-Sinai wilderness become the mutinous crimes of the post-Sinai wilderness. More and more, YHWH’s prime enemy as he works to fulfill the Abrahamic promise is Israel itself. Gone are the Egyptians. Now a rebellious Hebrew army refuses to countenance the chain of command and so threatens the viability of the conquest (and thus the fulfillment of the promise of land). The results are predictable: the first generation must die in the wilderness outside of Canaan. For the exilic generation this would have had ominous overtones. According to their prophets, they had despised the Torah and had been driven from Canaan into the wilderness of Babylon. Like their predecessors, they would die in the desert. However, an inkling of hope would have tempered complete despair. The second generation would be able to enter the promised land in a manner analogous to the second generation’s imminent conquest at the end of Numbers. Thus, for the post-exilic generations the stories within their larger context would have held out hope for reappropriation of the Abrahamic promise. The wilderness would not be the end of the story. From the perspective of the broader Pentateuchal narrative, Numbers redeploys the Exodus, Leviticus, and Genesis type-scenes to create a kind of mirror of pre-Sinai theophanies. The symmetry is not exact, but just as Genesis theophanies and Exodus theophanies are followed by Leviticus theophanies at Sinai, after Sinai Exodus theophanies and a Leviticus theophany are followed by a Genesis theophany. The result across the Tetrateuch is a kind of framing pattern of theophanic type-scenes (Genesis → Exodus → Leviticus → Exodus → Leviticus → Genesis). Sinai, of course, stands at the center, demanding a rough, narrative symmetry on either side.

Chapter 6 “T h er e W a s N o F or m …” : R e -R ea d i n g t h e T y pe - S ce ne s wi t h D eut eron omy

‫מן־השמים השמיעך את־קלו ליסרך‬ ‫ועל־הארץ הראך את־אשו הגדולה‬ ‫ודבריו שמעת מתוך האש‬ From heaven, he caused you to hear his voice to train you. And upon earth, he caused you to see his great fire. His words you heard from the midst of the fire. Deut. 4:36

1. Deuteronomy as sui generis What of Deuteronomy? That is the question now before us. While the so-called Tetrateuch displays a level of consistency with acceptable variations regarding divine appearances or theophanies, Deuteronomy is of another mind. Or is it? Scholars have long emphasized the differences between D and J, E, P’s understandings of divine presence, and to be sure there are differences. D is suspicious of visual representations of the deity, while the other sources seem less concerned with the problem.1 In particular D’s conception of divine presence is often contrasted with P’s conception. According to the traditional view, Deuteronomy believes that only YHWH’s “name” is present on earth. His Kabod is not theophanic. As Gerhard von Rad puts it: The Deuteronomic theologumenon of the name of Jahweh clearly holds a polemic element, or, to put it better, is a theological corrective. It is not Jahweh himself who is present at the shrine, but only his name as the 1. Note: I use the signifier “D” to refer to Deuteronomy as a whole. While there are undoubtedly layers of strata within the book itself, as part of my synchronic reading strategy I am reading for unity based upon the final form.

130

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch guarantee of his will to save; to it and it only Israel has to hold fast as the sufficient form in which Jahweh reveals himself. Deuteronomy is replacing the old crude idea of Jahweh’s presence and dwelling at the shrine by a theologically sublimated idea.2

Tryggve N. D. Mettinger’s influential study presented essentially the same view. However, in contrast to both the older Zion tradition of “Sabaoth theology” and P’s kabodic theophany, The Deuteronomistic theology is programmatically abstract: during the Sinai theophany, Israel perceived no form (tĕmûnâ); she only heard the voice of her God (Deut 4:12, 15). The Deuteronomistic preoccupation with God’s voice and words represents an auditive, non-visual theme… God became “relocated” to the heavens above.3

Ten years later Moshe Weinfeld offered the now standard line: In contradiction to this corporeal representation of the ‘Glory of God’ Deuteronomy promulgates the doctrine of ‘Yahweh’s Name’. The Deity cannot be likened to any form whatever, and he cannot therefore be conceived as dwelling in a temple. He has caused the temple to be called by his name or has caused his name to dwell therein, but he himself does not dwell in it. The expression ‫כבוד‬, when occurring in Deuteronomy, does not denote the being and substantiality of God as it does in the earlier sources but his splendour and greatness: ‘Behold the Lord our God has shown his glory (‫ )כבדו‬and greatness’ (Deut. 5: 24). That the glory and the greatness (‫)גדל‬ referred to here denote abstract and not corporeal qualities may be gathered from the deuteronomic account of the Sinaitic revelation.4

As Ian Wilson has observed, this understanding of Deuteronomy’s theology of divine presence “now commands a wide acceptance.”5 2. Gerhard von Rad, “Deuteronomy’s ‘Name’ Theology and the Priestly Document’s ‘Kabod’ Theology,” in Studies in Deuteronomy, 38–39. 3.  Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 46–47. 4.  Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 206. For a complete discussion of the traditionally understood differences between D and P’s understandings of divine presence, see pp. 190–209. Cf. also Benjamin D. Sommer’s more recent discussion of the various biblical conceptions of divine presence in Bodies of God. For distinctions between D and P in particular, see Chapter 3 of Sommer’s work. 5. Ian Wilson, Out of the Midst of the Fire: Divine Presence in Deuteronomy (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995), 4. cf. also pp. 5–9. See especially Wilson’s wide sampling of scholarship’s repeated emphasis on Deuteronomy’s unique theology of divine presence on p. 4 n. 21; pp. 5–6 nn. 22–4; pp. 89–90.

6. “There Was No Form…”

131

But as we shall see, such a stark separation between D and other sources and traditions is highly problematic. Deuteronomy itself recounts the kabodic theophany on Mt. Horeb without abstraction and seems quite comfortable with God speaking out of the kabodic fire. There is not simply a voice calling down from heaven; rather, heaven itself has come to earth shrouded in the Kabod. In addition, as Michael Carisik has suggested there is not so much an opposition between aural/oral and visual in Deuteronomy as an attempt to put aural/oral material on par with visual experience.6 In working with a stark opposition between D and J, E, and especially P, scholars tend to miss the canonical, narrative function of Deuteronomy’s explication of the theophanies in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Deuteronomy is not so much opposed to the idea of a localized visual theophany as it is desirous of qualifying that idea. Thus, when read synchronically with the previous four books, Deuteronomy represents a boundary-drawing commentary on the preceding theophanic type-scenes. Similar to Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus, there is a measure of consistency surrounding the individual book’s presentation of theophanies. Theophanies in Deuteronomy are sui generis. But as the final word in the Pentateuch on the subject, Deuteronomy creates a redactional (canonical) lens through which to read the other type-scenes.7 The issue is not simply diachronic in terms of the provenance of various sources. The diachrony on display in a synchronic, narrative reading is one of plotted diachrony. Deuteronomy comes further along in the story and so must pull together the narrative type-scenes into a coherent theological crescendo for what 6. See Michael Carasik, “To See a Sound: A Deuteronomic Rereading of Exodus 20:15,” Prooftexts 19, no. 3 (1999): 257–65, cf. esp. 261. 7. Sommer’s comments, though specifically in regard to the diachronic relationship between prior sources and D, are apropos: “The D authors are responsible for all of Deuteronomy 1–31, a few brief interpolations notwithstanding. These authors reformulate material found in earlier books of the Torah, and in so doing, they clarify ambiguous statements, revise material, and react to ideas the older sources express. Thus, Deuteronomy is the oldest Jewish commentary on the material we have examined from the book of Exodus.” See Benjamin D. Sommer, Revelation and Authority: Sinai in Jewish Scripture and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015), 64. Or, as Brevard S. Childs puts it: “Whatever its original role in the development of Israel’s history, the editor understood Deuteronomy’s role as a type of commentary to the preceding laws.” Childs, “The Old Testament as Scripture of the Church,” Concordia Theological Monthly 43 (1972): 717. This remains true even if one reads synchronically. As we will see, Deuteronomy’s final word clears up any possible misunderstandings regarding previously plotted theophanies.

132

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

comes later in the Deuteronomistic History.8 Deuteronomy is a liminal book on the boundary between the earlier, plotted story and the later plot of conquest and Davidic ascension. It also stands on the boundary between the Torah-proper and the Torah’s explication in the Wisdom and Prophetic literature. In essence, Deuteronomy takes the Exodus theophanic type-scene and indirectly the Genesis type-scene9 and places them within a new framework. Whenever the kabodic scene is recounted, there is still a strong sense of a communal, public event characterized by danger and YHWH’s past action to constitute or preserve Israel. However, now there are a few additional details in play. First, in Deuteronomy, theophanies are nearly always described in terms of memory. (Deuteronomy 9 is an exception.) At one level, this is the result of Deuteronomy’s discourse. As a self-styled speech of Moses given on the plains of Moab, the entirety of the book falls broadly within the genre of a recorded speech. Aside from the initial narrative segue (1:1–5) and closing (34:1–12), all of the “narrative” is recounted or embedded narrative. Thus, almost every mention of a theophany is memory in the service of proclamation. This, of course, is not to suggest that the first four books of the Pentateuch are

8. Thus, my predilection is to read Deuteronomy as a “complementary” document rather than a “supersessionist” one. From a synchronic and canonical point of view, Deuteronomy is not replacing the Covenant Code or the Tetrateuchal narratives. It is cueing the reader to read those stories and legislation in a particular way. For a helpful discussion, cf. Joshua Berman, “Supersessionist or Complementary? Reassessing the Nature of Legal Revision in the Pentateuchal Law Collections,” JBL 135, no. 2 (2016): 201–22. For a supersessionistic perspective, see Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), Chapter 1, especially pp. 15–17. 9. The Levitical type-scene makes no appearance in Deuteronomy’s memory. There are at least two possible reasons for this. First, from a synchronic perspective, the Levitical theophanic type-scene is a kind of variation on the Exodus type-scene. Thus, it is likely that Deuteronomy’s reframing of the Exodus type-scene is intended to include the Levitical as well. Second, from a diachronic, source-critical perspective, we could see this as indicative of the differences between the D and P sources. Given the fact that, as I will argue below, D is not as far from P on the issue of divine presence in theophanies as some might think, I am inclined to suggest that the reason for the absence of the Levitical type-scene is a combination of the two factors. D is both assuming the P-influenced Levitical type-scene and also pushing back against possible misunderstanding by avoiding specific references to theophanies that appeared after a liturgical act.

6. “There Was No Form…”

133

without a kerygmatic or homiletical focus or intent. Rather, it is to say that Deuteronomy is assertive, bold, and open about its use of the preceding stories.10 Deuteronomy is, one could say, aware of its own canonical status and function. All of this changes how a reader appropriates the material. Theophanies are no longer presented in the immediacy of story. They are now presented as past events that impinge on present and future obedience. The result is that the stories are consciously canonical, i.e., they present a traditioned reading of the theophanies that is aware of the preceding theophanies’ authoritative status. The embedded stories, then, direct the reader to read in the same, traditioned way. The theophanies of Genesis through Numbers must always be remembered in a particular, normed manner. They must always be remembered rightly. In this way, by providing cues for reading, Deuteronomy implicitly recognizes the possibility of other ways of reading the theophanies. To use narratological language, Deuteronomy recognizes narrative gaps and ambiguities and seeks to fill and resolve them in a particular direction.11 In this way, Bernard Levinson is correct that Deuteronomy is primarily a hermeneutical document.12 It is concerned with how a reader ought to read and apply the preceding

10. As S. R. Driver puts it: “The Deuteronomic discourses may be said to comprise three elements, an historical, a legislative, and a parenetic. Of these the parenetic element is both the most characteristic and the most important; it is directed to the inculcation of certain fundamental religious and moral principles upon which the Writer lays great stress: the historical element is all but entirely subservient to it… [T]he legislative element…is here viewed primarily by the Writer as a vehicle for exemplifying the principles which it is the main object of his book to enforce.” See Driver, Deuteronomy, xix. 11. As von Rad puts it: “We have in Deuteronomy the most comprehensive example of a theological re-statement of old traditions in which the later Israel could become at the same time the message of Jahweh.” See von Rad, “The Purpose of Deuteronomy,” in Studies in Deuteronomy, 71. 12. Levinson observes: “Central to Deuteronomy is the question of hermeneutics… Deuteronomy was already a complex hermeneutical work from the beginning; it was the composition of authors who consciously reused and reinterpreted earlier texts to propound and justify their program of cultic and legal reform, even—or particularly—when those texts conflicted with the authors’ agenda.” See Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics, 4. Levinson’s description, which assumes a supersessionistic Deuteronomic agenda, is a bit sinister for my taste. Nonetheless, it is true that Deuteronomy is a hermeneutical work determined to shape the reader’s practice.

134

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

pentateuchal narratives and legislation.13 Much of this stems from its underlying Wisdom theology: the wise read in a particular way.14 This brings us to the second detail that is almost always present in these memories of theophanic encounters. All of the theophanies remembered take place within a covenantal context. Given Deuteronomy’s covenantal structure, this is not surprising.15 The kabodic fire and/or cloud is only mentioned in relation to Mt. Horeb or the tent of meeting (the latter receiving a decidedly covenantal function in Deut 31:14–29). This covenantal context has a specific goal: the theophanies are remembered for present conduct. It is memory within the bounds of a continuing covenant, a covenant that demands all of life. Thus, the act of remembering gives way to the act of obedience.16 Memories of YHWH’s appearance within a covenantal setting give strong accreditation to the connected or resulting ethical imperatives. The life that Deuteronomy envisions for a faithful Israelite is a life founded on YHWH’s special presence. The covenant’s blessings and curses take on a particular urgency in light of the Sovereign who speaks out of kabodic fire.

13. For an elegant example of how Deuteronomy teaches one to (re)read the stories of divine presence in the Hebrew Bible, see Katherine Sonderegger, Systematic Theology. Vol. 1, The Doctrine of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), §1, “The Perfect Oneness of God,” 3–22. Sonderegger unapologetically reads the rest of scripture in light of Deuteronomy’s concept of divine presence. 14. Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 307ff. 15. Deuteronomy’s status as a covenant document has long been recognized. See, e.g., George E. Mendenhall, “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition,” Biblical Archaeologist 17, no. 3 (1954): 49–76; Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963); Moshe Weinfeld, “Traces of Assyrian Treaty Formulae in Deuteronomy,” Biblica 46 (1965): 417–27; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, AB 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 6–9. 16. Memory in Deuteronomy creates a kind of timelessness in which the reader participates in the eternal “now” of the commanding at Horeb. As Christensen puts it, “Remembering means making the past present. It suggests much more than a mere recall of data. It is a making present of the past that recreates the present through presence. Remembering signals the transmission of the norming presence from generation to generation. As M. Narucki has argued…Scripture is a symbolic theology in which symbols actually communicate the presence of what they symbolize. What really happened in history becomes present through symbol. The power is in the event itself, which becomes a transforming symbol actually making present the event through time.” See Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, rev. ed., WBC 6a (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 82.

6. “There Was No Form…”

135

But perhaps I am getting ahead of myself. I have referred a number of times to “theophanies” in Deuteronomy. Can one actually speak of “theophanies” in D? Does God “appear”? Keeping in mind the methodological criteria of this study (i.e., a theophany is any visible appearance of the divine whether in human or kabodic form), the answer is “yes.” This will become clearer in what follows. However, I hasten to add that Deuteronomy is very careful to emphasize that these theophanies were not appearance of the divine essence or Being (i.e., God in se). Rather, these theophanies are always appearances of a shrouded God. 2. Rereading the Horeb Theophany a. Memory #1: Deuteronomy 4 Deuteronomy 4:1–15 is not only the first mention of a theophany in the book, but it is also paradigmatic for the remainder of the theophanic recountings. The opening verses focus explicitly on the memorial nature of Israel’s theophanic encounter on Mt. Horeb. The character Moses commands Israel to “obey” (‫ )שמע‬all of the statutes and legal rulings that Moses has “taught” (‫)מלמד‬. All of this is so that Israel might “live” (‫)תחיו‬ in the present and take possession of the promised land. After a warning about adding to or taking away from the mitzvot in v. 3, the homily turns to what Israel has “seen.” “Your eyes have seen what YHWH did at Baal-Peor” (‫)עיניכם הראת את אשר־עשה יהוה בבעל פעור‬. To avoid a similar judgment, those who hear Moses’ words must “watch” (‫ )ראה‬his teaching in the land. If they do so, the surrounding nations will marvel at their wisdom and legal aptitude. “After all, what great nation has gods near to it (‫)כי מי־גוי גדול אשר־לו אלהים קרבים אליו‬, like YHWH our God whenever we call upon him” (v. 7). Verse 9 then sets the scene for the recounted theophany in vv. 10–15: “Keep yourself and your soul carefully, lest you forget the things that your eyes have seen (‫פן־תשכח את־הדברים אשר־ראו‬ ‫)עיניך‬. And lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. Make them known to your sons and to your sons’ sons.” Memory stands here as the living context within which the theophany must be known and re-known. Like Exod 19, Deut 4’s impetus for law obedience stems from what Israel saw. The only way to keep that obedience ever new is to keep the visio dei before Israel’s eyes in memorial. Likewise, YHWH’s remembered opening statement from Horeb demands the Israelites assemble before the deity so that “I might make them to hear (‫ )ואשמעם‬my words that they might learn (‫ )ילמדון‬to fear me all the days they live in the land and that they might teach their sons (‫( ”)ילמדון‬v. 10).

136

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

All of this offers a prelude for Moses’ recollection of what happened at Horeb. Verse 11 reads: “You all drew near (‫ )ותקרבון‬and stood beneath the mountain (‫)ותעמדון תחת ההר‬. Now the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven (‫—)וההר בער באש עד־לב השמים‬darkness, cloud, and heavy cloud (‫)חשך ענן וערפל‬.” The standard Exodus type-scene is recollected but with a caveat. The dangerous divine Kabod appears on Mt. Horeb in a public setting to constitute Israel as the elect people.17 Then comes the important caveat in v. 12: “YHWH spoke to you all from the midst of the fire (‫)וידבר יהוה אליכם מתוך האש‬. A voice of words you were hearing (‫)קול דברים אתם שמעים‬, but a form you all were not seeing (‫ותמונה‬ ‫—)אינכם ראים‬only a voice (‫)זולתי קול‬.”18 The Deuteronomic Moses is at pains to ensure that readers and hearers remember the Horeb theophany (the theophany par excellence) as an event of shrouded divine presence. YHWH was locally present,19 but his form was hidden behind the fire. Here I think the traditional readings of Deuteronomy stumble in their attempts to overemphasize D’s aniconic tendenz. The text is quite clear. YHWH spoke “from the midst of the fire” (‫)מתוך האש‬. Unlike Exodus’ more vague account, Deuteronomy is explicit and specific about YHWH’s location.20 YHWH was not absent. 17. Notice the change from second person singular to second person plural. There is an emphasis here upon the larger public, corporate nature of the event. 18. The ambiguity of the final clause is playful. One could either translate it as “only a voice was heard” (assuming the participle ‫)שמעים‬, or “only a voice was seen” (assuming the participle ‫)ראים‬. Working out of the Christian tradition, one can hear echoes of a “seen” Word. It is also tempting to see here a foreshadowing of D’s repeated use of the concept of the Divine Name as a cipher for the transcendent deity. Thus, the Israelites could be understood to have seen the “Name.” Von Rad himself admits that the “Name” in Deuteronomy “verges closely upon a hypostasis.” See von Rad, “Name Theology,” 38. For a historical-critical analysis of this verse arguing that is constitutes a midrashic insight for the transmission of textual/aural authority (as opposed to the immediate authority of visual experience), see Carasik, “To See a Sound,” 257–65. For more on the relationship between theophanies and the “Name,” see Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2, trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), 40–45. 19. Ian Wilson has pointed out that in 4:10 the people are remembered as “standing before” YHWH their God (‫)עמדת לפני יהוה אלהיך‬. In addition, YHWH himself had commanded Moses to “gather the people to me” (‫)הקהל־לי את־העם‬. As Wilson argues, this suggests that YHWH and the people are spatially close at Horeb. See Wilson, Out of the Midst, 45–53. 20. Cf. Wilson’s illuminating discussion in ibid., 53–57. Wilson summarizes on p. 57: “although Exodus as a whole contains closely related ideas, it is only in Deuteronomy’s account of the first giving of the law that reference is made to YHWH’s speaking ‘out of the midst of the fire.’”

6. “There Was No Form…”

137

He was present but hidden in the midst of the fire.21 In fact, it is likely that the author of Deuteronomy believes that Mt. Horeb functioned as an axis mundi. This would explain the odd phrase in v. 11, “the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven” (‫)וההר בער באש עד־לב השמים‬. At Horeb the divine and human realms overlapped with the liminal fire straddling the gap and protecting the Israelites from the sight of the Most High.22 As heaven and earth came together, fire shielded the divine presence. The result is a theophanic remembrance that has a great deal in common with JE and P’s conception of a shrouded presence. There are, of course, differences (one being D’s understanding of divine presence in the future temple),23 but there is more in common than some will admit. Perhaps the biggest difference lies in the emphatic declaration that Israel did not see a “form” (‫)תמונה‬. The emphasis is only heightened with a repetition of the 21. Contra Weinfeld, who suggests that the kabodic fire only “symbolizes [YHWH’s] essence and qualities.” See Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 208. It seems that in recognizing D’s emphasis upon the audial nature of Horeb, scholars overreact and posit no visible (albeit shrouded) presence. Elsewhere Weinfeld makes the mistake of confusing Deuteronomy’s adamancy over the lack of form with a proclamation that Israel saw nothing at all. Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 204: “God revealed himself by sound of words only.” S. R. Driver also overstates the case: “the stress lies on the fact that, though God revealed Himself by the sound of words, no form, no material, or even quasi-material, figure was seen: there was nothing to suggest a material presence of the Almighty.” See Driver, Deuteronomy, 66. What exactly this “spiritual” presence entails is unclear. If Driver simply means “not seen,” then we have no quarrel. However, one cannot reason from the visible absence of a form that no form was present behind the Kabod. Though Ian Wilson perhaps goes a step too far in suggesting divine corporality (depending on what he means by “corporeal”), he is correct when he states: “it is important to distinguish between the affirmation of YHWH’s absence and one of Israel’s non-perception of his Presence as corporeal.” Cf. Wilson, Out of the Midst, 63. Israel saw no form, but they did see the shrouding of the something in the Kabod. There was more than words! There was more than symbol! The text is explicit that Israel saw the fire out of which YHWH spoke. He was in the midst of the fire. His form was veiled, but the veil was seen. Strangely, Driver admits that ‫ תמונה‬can refer to a “nocturnal apparition, whose presence [can] be felt” and a “quasi-sensual manifestation of the Godhead.” See Driver, Deuteronomy, 66–67 n. 10. 22. Contra Mettinger, Dethronement of Sabaoth, 47. 23. The presence of YHWH’s “name” (‫ )שם‬instead of Kabod in the temple could be a signal of an original northern provenance for D. Horeb cannot be repeated. YHWH was present in his Kabod at the desert mountain, but this will not be repeated. There was only one constitutive event, one original covenantal context. This, of course, fits quite well with Jeremiah’s own Deuteronomic critique of the excesses of Zion theology in the sixth century.

138

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

negative declaration in v. 15: “You shall watch carefully over your souls (‫ )ונשמרתם מאד לנפשתיכם‬because you did not see any form (‫כי לא ראיתם‬ ‫ )כל־תמונה‬on the day YHWH spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire (‫)ביום דבר יהוה אליכם בחרב מתוך האש‬.” Again there are similarities here with Exod 19–20. Both texts base Israel’s allegiance to the first and second commands of the Decalogue on what Israel saw on Sinai/Horeb. However, here in Deuteronomy the absence of YHWH’s form (‫ )תמונה‬in the visio dei is the starting point for legal reasoning.24 Verses 16–24 work out the logic. Israel did not see a “form,” and the character Moses reasons that because of this the people must keep themselves from making “a carved form of any statue (‫פסל‬ ‫ )תמונת כל־סמל‬in the pattern of a male or female (‫”)תבנית זכר או נקבה‬ (v. 16). The list of forbidden “patterns” (‫ )תבנית‬continues in vv. 17–19. Nothing in heaven, on earth, or under the earth can be a pattern for an image of YHWH or another deity.25 After a brief recounting of YHWH’s past anger at Israel (vv. 20–22), Moses pulls together the themes of memory, form, and covenant: “Keep yourselves, lest you forget the covenant of YHWH your God that he cut with you (‫)השמרו לכם פן־תשכחו את־ברית יהוה אלהיכם אשר כרת עמכם‬, and you make for yourselves a carved form of anything that YHWH your 24. Here I agree with Weinfeld that the logic of the commandment derives from the Horeb experience. Cf. Deuteronomy 1–11, 204. See also J. A. Thompson, Deuteronomy: An Introduction & Commentary, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1974), 103–8; and especially Mark E. Biddle, Deuteronomy, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2003), 78–79, 84–86: who asserts that ch. 4 “from a rhetorical perspective…represents a learned reflection, syllogistic reasoning from the premise of the theophany on the mountain of God. It self-consciously develops theological assertions on the basis of historical experience” (78). However, it must be emphasized that it was not simply a verbal revelation that substantiated the commandment. It was the combination of a verbal and shrouded visual revelation that provided the substantiation. This, of course, differs from Exod. 20:22–23’s legal reasoning, which suggests that Israel must not make a carved image because the nation had seen YHWH speaking on the mountain. In essence, both texts affirm the same basic point: YHWH appeared in his Kabod on the mountain. The difference lies in Deuteronomy’s determination to make it explicit that the Kabod was in fact a shroud. The point, though, was clear. As Wright playfully puts it: “With such a memory and concept of God, any enticement to idolatry would be ‘playing with fire’—suicidal folly.” See Christopher J. H. Wright, Deuteronomy, NIBC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 50. 25. In an interesting turn Moses relates how it is Israel itself that has come out of a “furnace of iron” (‫כור הברזל‬, v. 20). The implication, of course, is that Israel is YHWH’s own image.

6. “There Was No Form…”

139

God has commanded you (‫”)ועשיתם לכם פסל תמונת כל אשר צוך יהוה אלהיך‬ (v. 23). The pericope ends with a climatic conclusion: “Because YHWH your God—he is a devouring fire, a God of jealousy (‫כי יהוה אלהיך אש‬ ‫( ”)אכלה הוא אל קנא‬v. 24). The God who spoke out of the fire now takes on the characteristics of his shrouding. Israel may have not seen YHWH’s form in se, but the nation did witness his radiant Kabod, which it seems is both a covering and a mysterious, dangerous extension (or perhaps synecdoche26) of his person.27 All of this emphasis upon YHWH speaking from behind a veil of fire serves an important canonical function. The author of Deuteronomy has redeployed the Exodus type-scene with an emphatic caveat. Israel did have a theophanic experience at Horeb. However, Deuteronomy’s memory of the type-scene includes a careful warning not to remember the scene as one including YHWH’s form in se. Given our earlier examination of Exod 19, it is understandable why Deuteronomy adapts the type-scene. Without a Deuteronomic warning, it would be possible to argue that Israel saw YHWH’s form on the mountain. By repeatedly emphasizing that no form was seen, Deuteronomy’s memory of the event creates boundaries for the believing imagination. “Yes,” says the prosopopoeiac Moses, “you saw something, but you only saw YHWH’s kabodic fire. You did not see YHWH’s essential form. You saw him, but you did not see him.” In terms of narrative categories, Deuteronomy closes potential narrative gaps in the Exodus theophanic type-scene. In so doing it proposes a specific reading strategy. So, while it itself is not a narrative proper, it provides a commentary for reading the narrative. The final Deuteronomic adaption of the Exodus type-scene is the explicit covenantal context. At one level, this is not a surprise. As has been known for some time, Deuteronomy itself is structured on the pattern of a typical ancient Near Eastern treaty. Nonetheless, it is worth mentioning, given the fact that in the preceding four Pentateuchal books there are many theophanies that are not covenantal. Even the Exodus type-scene (Deuteronomy’s closest analogue given its recounting of the covenant cutting at Sinai/Horeb and the subsequent journey to the plains

26. Cf. Ephraim Radner’s discussion of how God’s glory “is really a function of God’s hyper-formliness.” See his Time and the Word: Figural Reading of the Christian Scriptures (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 176. See also his careful discussion of the Christian tradition’s understanding of Christ as the expression of that glory/Kabod in the “Incarnational Synecdoche” on pp. 189–97. 27. It is tempting to see here an analog with Eastern Orthodoxy’s later theological distinction between the Divine essence and energies.

140

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

of Moab), while typified at Sinai, is not exclusively covenantal. However, in Deuteronomy any time divine theophanic activity is mentioned, it is always mentioned in relation to a covenantal context. Usually this means a remembrance of the covenant cut at Horeb. The majority of texts in Deuteronomy mentioning a theophanic event refer to Horeb (the exception being the tent of meeting in 31:14–29). Here in Deut 4 the covenantal context is explicit. We have noted already the covenant theme connected with the form and memory themes in 4:23. This continues in vv. 25–31. Moses makes provisions for Israel’s eventual covenant breaking. When (‫ )כי‬Israel makes a “carved form of anything” (‫)פסל תמונת כל‬, YHWH will give them their desire (v. 25). He will enact the covenantal sanctions and will scatter Israel among the nations to worship dumb, deaf, blind, and olfactorily challenged idols (v. 28). When the people come to their senses and return to YHWH their God, and “listen to his voice”—the voice that spoke from the fire at Horeb, the voice that was seen (‫ושמעת בקלו‬, v. 30)—YHWH will prove true to the covenant. “He will not forget the covenant of your fathers that he swore with them” (‫ולא ישכח את־ברית אבתיך אשר נשבע להם‬, v. 31). Once again the covenantal context weaves together with the remembrance of the formless voice out of the fire. The rhetorical question of vv. 32–33 ends in a recollection of the Horeb theophany: “Have a people ever heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fire like you yourselves heard and lived?” (‫השמע עם קול אלהים מדבר מתוך־האש כאשר־שמעת‬ ‫ אתה ויחי‬, v. 33). The allusion to and correction of possible misreadings of Exod 19–20 is clear. After a second rhetorical question aimed at stirring up a memory of the exodus event, Moses again appeals to Israel’s sight at Horeb but once again with the proper qualifications: “You yourself have seen28 to know that YHWH, he is God (‫)אתה הראת לדעת כי יהוה הוא האלהים‬. There is none comparable to him (‫( ”)אין עוד מלבדו‬v. 35). Deuteronomy’s Moses then draws a further distinction between the location of YHWH’s voice and the visible kabodic fire: “From heaven, he caused you to hear his voice to train you (‫)מן־השמים השמיעך את־קלו ליסרך‬. And upon earth, he caused you to see his great fire (‫)ועל־הארץ הראך את־אשו‬. His words you heard from the midst of the fire (‫( ”)ודבריו שמעת מתוך האש‬v. 36). At first sight this may seem like an emphatic rejection of any kind of divine presence in the Horeb theophany. Indeed, many scholars have come to the conclusion based upon this text that D’s conception of divine

28. Repointing the text from a hophal to a hiphil.

6. “There Was No Form…”

141

presence is one of spatial separation from the Kabod. However, this need not be the case. As mentioned previously, D seems to conceive of Horeb as an axis mundi where heaven and earth overlap. Thus, it is perfectly appropriate that YHWH’s voice comes from heaven, while his glory-veil covers him on earth. Horeb is a thin space between the divine and human realms. This is why the separate “heaven” and “earth” sides of the event come together in the final clause: “his words you heard from the midst of the fire.” For D, YHWH is both present and absent. The theophany is one of sacramental presence29 or kabodic synecdoche. This corresponds, then, to the final verse of the pericope, v. 39: “You shall know today and turn it to your heart (‫)וידעת היום והשבת אל־לבבך‬ that YHWH is God in heaven above and upon earth beneath (‫כי יהוה‬ ‫)הוא האלהים בשמים ממעל ועל־הארץ מתחת‬. There is no other (‫)אין עוד‬.” YHWH’s dominion over the merismus “heaven and earth” is heard and shown in the Horeb theophany. His voice speaks from heaven out of the formless, visible fire on earth. Again, there is a great deal here that is similar to JE and P’s understanding of the Kabod on display in the Exodus and Leviticus theophanic type-scenes. Careful circumlocutions and layers of expression serve to conceal the divine presence. Having said that, I am not suggesting that there are no differences. The Exodus and Leviticus type-scenes founded on P are “locomotive” (to use Benjamin Sommer’s term). YHWH’s kabodic presence moves from place to place. However, for D’s memorialized reworking of the scene, the presence is stationary because the theophany has to take place at an axis mundi. Heaven and earth have to come together in a thin place. It is only at a thin place that a theophany can take place. This is why in the tent of meeting scenes, the cloud has to descend and consecrate the area. In this sense, the tradition of scholarship is right to see in D a belief in God’s recession into heaven. For P and its type-scenes YHWH’s presence is actually local within the moving Kabod. For Deuteronomy YHWH is locally present only when heaven and earth overlap in a single place. This also explains Deuteronomy’s strong emphasis on a future single temple. YHWH can be present in his Kabod but only at the stationary axis mundi. The distinction is not so much between transcendence and immanence as between the three unique

29. Cf. Wilson’s discussion in Out of the Midst, 66–73. Wilson observes that the two clauses of v. 36 are parallel, which suggests YHWH’s ability to be in two locations. Drawing on previous scholarly nomenclature, Wilson argues that the verse presents a “mythical concept of space.”

142

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

thin places (the holy mountains of Horeb and Zion, and the portable “mountain” of the tent of meeting) and the common thick places.30 b. Memory #2: Deuteronomy 5 The second remembrance of Israel’s theophanic experience at Horeb comes within Moses’ Deuteronomic reiteration of the Decalogue. Once again the covenantal context looms large. Almost immediately within the new pericope that begins in 5:1, Moses reminds his listeners that “YHWH our God cut a covenant with us on Horeb” (‫יהוה אלהינו כרת עמנו‬ ‫ברית בחרב‬, 5:2). Nor is this covenant something that has receded into the distant past. While it is especially a living memory for those who were there in the flesh (i.e., Moses, Joshua, and Caleb), it also reverberates down into the future creating a vital memory and “now” moment for those who were there in the flesh of their ancestors. Verse 3: “YHWH did not cut this covenant with our fathers (‫)לא את־אבתינו כרת יהוה את־הברית הזאת‬, 30. Contra Geller’s contention that D conceives of YHWH only in heaven. Cf. Stephen A. Geller, “Fiery Wisdom: Logos and Lexis in Deuteronomy,” Prooftexts 14, no. 2 (1994): 113–14. Drawing on 1 Kgs 8, he argues that for the Deuteronomic Solomon (and by extension D in general), “God dwells not in the holiest place of the shrine, never rests as a numinous cloud on the outstretched wings of the cherubim in the adytum, but remains always in His heavenly palace, enthroned among the angels, joined to Israel only by the chain of spoken prayers heard by Him… In a Deuteronomic context ‘heaven’ always stands for transcendence, ‘earth’ for the opposed notion of immanence. The terms are emblems of those abstractions, implying a consequent superiority of ‘heaven’ over ‘earth.’” But as we have seen, YHWH is tangibly, immanently present in special places (i.e., Horeb, the tent of meeting, and the future temple). The Kabod is real in Deuteronomy. The difference is that D is insistent that the numinous cloud shrouded YHWH from sight. His form in se could not be seen. However, his own living voice could be heard. Again, in all of this I am not arguing that there are no differences between D and P. Hearing is emphasized to bring it up to the level of seeing. My concern is that scholars have read modern abstractions back into D. The problem is not in what they affirm (D’s emphasis on hearing and transcendence) but rather in what they deny (D’s interest in a localized, immanent divine presence). YHWH’s presence is not confined to heaven in D. In a thin place—the axis mundi—heaven and earth overlap so that YHWH is both in heaven and on earth. In fairness, Geller notes that Deut 5, as part of the older core of the book, does believe in the appearance of the Kabod (115). Likewise, he believes that the fire mentioned in 4:11 does connect heaven and earth, but he argues that it functions like a transmitter for the divine voice, not a shroud of the divine form (115). However, he can only maintain such a stark vision of transcendent Deuteronomic theology if he reads the chapters in tension. There is only tension if one is determined to find it.

6. “There Was No Form…”

143

rather with us ourselves—these alive here today—all of us (‫כי אתנו אנחנו‬ ‫”!)אלה פה היום כלנו חיים‬ Here the text offers the Deuteronomic rereading of the Horeb experience as the first part of an inclusio surrounding the recitation of the Ten Words:31 Face to face YHWH spoke with you all on the mountain from the midst of the fire (‫)פנים בפנים דבר יהוה עמכם בהר מתוך האש‬. I was standing between YHWH and you all at that time (‫)אנכי עמד בין־יהוה וביניכם בעת ההוא‬, to tell you all the word of YHWH (‫ )להגיד לכם את־דבר יהוה‬because you feared the presence of the fire (‫ )כי יראתם מפני האש‬and would not go up on the mountain (‫)ולא־עליתם בהר‬. (vv. 4–5)

There is no immediate prohibition here of imagining the encounter as a vision of the “form” of God. This is intriguing in that Deut 4 labors to counteract any misunderstanding.32 However, it is likely that the reader is expected to recall the earlier “memory” alluded to in the phrase “from the midst of the fire” (‫ )מתוך האש‬and couple that with the prohibition in v. 8 not to make an “image of any carved thing” (‫)פסל כל־תמונה‬. With the Decalogue finished the memory of the theophany resumes the inclusio in v. 22: These things YHWH spoke to all of your assembly on the mountain from the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the shrouding cloud—a great voice! (‫את־הדברים האלה דבר יהוה אל־כל־קהלכם בהר מתוך האש הענן והערפל קול‬ ‫ )גדול‬And he did not do it again. He wrote these things on two tablets of stones and gave them to me (‫)ולא יסף ויכתבם על־שני לחת אבנים ויתנם אלי‬.33 And it came to pass that when you heard the voice from the midst of the darkness and while the mountain was burning with fire (‫ויהי כשמעכם את־‬ ‫)הקול מתוך החשך וההר בער באש‬, you drew near to me—all the heads of your tribes and your elders (‫)ותקרבון אלי כל־ראשי שבטיכם וזקניכם‬. You all 31. Christensen takes vv. 1–5 and 22 as part of a larger chiasm centered around the commands to keep the Sabbath and honor one’s parents. See Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, 107. To my mind this arrangement seems a bit too neat and tidy for the material. 32. Geller has argued that “Deut. 5:4 apparently presents the view of revelation that 4:36 wants to ‘correct.’” Geller, “Fiery Wisdom,” 115. This is possible, but again the resulting canonical shape relativizes 4:36 as well. The result is a lack of tension. 33. J. A. Thompson observes the anthropomorphic nature of this sentence but is keen not to take it as a literal description of YHWH’s activity (i.e., Moses did the writing). Cf. Thompson, Deuteronomy, 119. However, this anthropomorphism could be another hint from D regarding YHWH’s spatial nearness on Mt. Horeb.

144

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch said: “Look, YHWH our God has caused us to see his Kabod34 and his greatness, and we have heard his voice from the midst of the fire (‫ותאמרו הן‬ ‫)הראנו יהוה אלהינו את־כבדו ואת־גדלו ואת־קלו שמענו מתוך האש‬. This very day we have seen that God may speak to a human being and the human remain alive (‫)היום הזה ראינו כי־ידבר אלהים את־האדם וחי‬. Now, why should we die because this great fire devour us? If we even continue to hear the voice of YHWH our God, we will die (‫ועתה למה נמות כי תאכלנו האש הגדלה הזאת‬ ‫)אם־יספים אנחנו לשמע את־קול יהוה אלהינו עוד ומתנו‬. For who out of all flesh has heard the voice of a living God speaking from the midst of the fire like us and lived (‫כי מי כל־בשר אשר שמע קול אלהים חיים מדבר מתוך־האש כמנו‬ ‫( ?)ויחי‬vv. 22–26)

There are a few things to note here about this theophanic inclusio. First, while the memory is of the Horeb theophany, the canonical, corrective lens stretches back to through the Exodus type-scenes in Num 12 and Exod 33:11 to the Genesis type-scene. The verbal play here is telling. Moses recounts that the Israelites spoke “face-to-face” (‫פנים בפנים‬, v. 4) with YHWH.35 He also notes that the people themselves exclaimed that a human being may speak with God and not die (Deut 5:25). This recalls and plays with Jacob’s theophanic experience at Peniel, where he saw YHWH “face-to-face” (‫פנים אל־פנים‬, Gen 32:31) and was amazed that he was spared. Here, however, the people “see” that God may speak with a person (‫ )ראינו כי־ידבר אלהים את־האדם‬and live, while Jacob actually “saw” God (‫ )כי־ראיתי אלהים‬and lived. Thus, “face-to-face” here, connotes more 34. Contra Weinfeld I am not convinced that ‫ כבדו‬here should be translated as a general or figurative “his glory” (“The glory and the greatness here are to be understood figuratively”; cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 323). With Walther Eichrodt I see this as a typical instance of YHWH’s theophanic manifestation in the elements of a thunderstorm. Cf. Eichrodt, Theology, 2:30. Nor am I convinced that v. 24 is secondary, contra Horst Dietrich Preuss, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1, trans. Leo G. Perdue, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 167. Such a supposition seems too convenient and wedded to a determination that Deuteronomy never had time for the Priestly Kabod in any sense. 35. Weinfeld notes the oddity of the phrase in its use of ‫ ְב‬in place of the usual ‫אל‬. ֶ Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 239–40. He suggests that it is possible that the author of Deuteronomy sought to obscure the usual phrase. This could be the case and another example of the way in which Deuteronomy emphasizes the shrouded nature of YHWH’s presence at Horeb. It is also possible that the author changed the preposition and intended the reader to read the phrase literally as “face in a face.” In this reading, both faces belong to YHWH, his hidden “real” face and his revealed “shrouded,” kabodic face. In other words, YHWH spoke with them from behind a fiery shroud.

6. “There Was No Form…”

145

than a metaphor.36 At the very least, it connotes an undefined theophanic experience where God is seen in some way, even if the vision is obscured by a kabodic shroud. The more immediate memory of Exod 33:11 also receives Deuteronomy’s gap filling. The tent of meeting tradition in Exod 33 speaks of Moses’ habitual act of entering the tent of meeting for an oracle. And it was that when Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down (‫)ירד עמוד הענן‬, stand at the door of the tent, and speak with Moses (‫ …)ועמד פתח האהל ודבר עם־משה‬YHWH would speak to Moses face-toface, just as a man might speak to his friend (‫ודבר יהוה אל־משה פנים אל־פנים‬ ‫)כאשר ידבר איש אל־רעהו‬. (vv. 9, 11)

Here we have a story that mirrors Deuteronomy’s own voice speaking out of the midst of the fire. Though in this instance only the kabodic cloud is mentioned, the repetition of “speak” (‫ )דבר‬in vv. 9 and 11 makes it clear that it is literally YHWH is speaking out of the Kabod. It is not surprising, then, that Deuteronomy indirectly “remembers” this scene through its intertextual web. If a careless reader should mistakenly think that Moses saw the unshrouded God in the tent of meeting, Deuteronomy’s memory of Sinai sets the record straight. “Face to face” refers to localized proximity and a vision of the divine face shrouded in Kabod. In the same way that YHWH spoke out of the wrapping of fire at Horeb, he spoke out of the wrapping of cloud at the Tent. Then there is the story in Num 12. Once again a careless reader could get the story wrong. When YHWH descends and rebukes Miriam and Aaron, his words suggest that Moses is unique in seeing the unmediated visio dei: “Face to face (‫ )פה אל־פה‬I speak with him—a sight (‫!)ומראה‬ Not in riddles! And he looks upon the form of YHWH (‫)ותמנת יהוה יביט‬. Why did you not fear to speak against my servant, against Moses?” (12:8). Deuteronomy 5:4 rushes to assure readers that YHWH did not say that Moses saw his divine essence. Instead, YHWH was speaking only of his shrouded presence, speaking near to Moses “out of the midst of the fire.” In each of these earlier cases, Deut 5 suggests that the danger was actually found in YHWH’s unmediated speaking. Since Jacob and Moses

36. Contra Eichrodt who speaks of this passage as a “heightened metaphor.” See Eichrodt, Theology, 2:37. I find it odd that a page later Eichrodt admits that the ‫פנים‬ does in some cases refer to something like a theophany and then turns around and states that “with the kābōd at any rate the pānīm had no connection” (p. 38). Surely, here in Deut 5 we have some sort of connection between the two!

146

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

only saw a covered deity speaking from behind a veil, it was the hearing of the divine voice that posed the most danger. The reading lens is clear. Those who study the broader Torah must always remember that not only is the sight of God dangerous but also his voice.37 This explains the odd apparent contradiction in vv. 25 and 26. Verse 25 notes that a human can hear God and live, while v. 26 relates how the same people refuse to keep hearing YHWH’s voice because they are sure that they will die. A few verses later, Moses relates how YHWH was pleased with the people’s speech: “YHWH said to me, ‘I have heard the voice of the words of this people that they spoke to you. All that they spoke is good’” (‫ויאמר יהוה אלי שמעתי את־קול דברי העם הזה אשר דברו אליך‬ ‫)היטיבו כל־אשר דברו‬. The people’s wariness of the divine voice is praiseworthy despite the fact that they know that they can hear and live. D thus adds to the level of danger associated with a theophany. Not only is the sight of YHWH dangerous, but the sound of his voice is as well. And yet, it is the sound of the voice that is survived, not the vision of YHWH’s form. There is no doubt that to D, the unhindered visio dei would be disastrous to a human. While an audio encounter with a shrouded visual can be survived, the unmediated audio/visual encounter is an impossibility. Thus, the visual hedging of YHWH’s form in the inclusio directs a reader to re-read theophanic texts like Gen 32 with an assurance that Jacob did not see God in se. He saw (and heard!) a shrouded, mediated form—an avatar, to use Benjamin Sommer’s term.38 Otherwise, he would have died. Keeping in mind the broader discussion in this project, part of what is intriguing here is the way in which Deuteronomy “remembers” the Genesis theophanic type-scene through the Exodus type-scene. This is accomplished through not only direct verbal echoes but also through an echo of Num 12:1–16 and of Exod 33:8–34:35. While in Numbers and Exodus the tent of meeting tradition is now embedded within a new context and functions in both cases as an Exodus theophanic type-scene, there can be no doubt that here in Deuteronomy the memory of Horeb as a tent of meeting-like experience calls the reader to re-read Num 12:6–8, Exod 33:8–11, and anything that they echo within the intra-narrative linear progression (i.e., previous material within the plot sequence). Once again there is a corrective lens here. 37. In this sense, then, Sommer is correct that in D “it is the sound of God’s voice rather than the sight of God’s body that poses a mortal danger to human beings.” Cf. Sommer, Revelation and Authority, 67. However, it is not an either/or. It is both YHWH’s voice and fiery shroud that pose a danger. 38. Cf. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, 41.

6. “There Was No Form…”

147

For a reader who has already read through Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, the verbal cue “face-to-face” (‫ )פנים בפנים‬recalls these previous three “face-to-face” (‫ )פנים אל־פנים‬occurrences.39 Again, the reader must now be sure to read the story of Moses’ experience at the tent of meeting at Sinai and in the wilderness as shrouded theophanies. Yes, Moses may have spoken regularly with YHWH face-to-face as a man speaks with his friend (‫ודבר יהוה אל־משה פנים אל־פנים כאשר ידבר איש‬ ‫אל־רעהו‬, Exod 33:11a), but the wise, mitzvot-minded reader will always remember it as a conversation through the barrier cloud. YHWH’s essence remained hidden. At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that there are still distinctions between Deut 5 and its plotted forebears. To begin with, the previous three “face-to-face” encounters were with specific individuals (though Exod 33:8–11 and Num 12:6–8 take place within a broader public setting) while Deut 5 is decidedly a corporate memory (v. 4, YHWH spoke with you all [‫ ]עמכם‬face-to-face). Second, to repeat a previous point, Deut 5 is a memory of a narrative, while Num 12, Exod 33, and Gen 32 are narratives proper. The inclusio and specifically the “face-to-face” (‫ )פנים בפנים‬comment in v. 4 create a further intriguing resonance within the Ten Words themselves. Notice how vv. 6–7 now have an added nuance foreign to Exod 20: “I am YHWH your God, who brought you from the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves. There shall not be for you other gods before my face (‫)על־פני‬.” While it seems clear that the commandment applies beyond the specific spatial range of the immediate presence of the Divine Kabod,40 it is instructive to ponder the way in which the theophanic frame creates an added depth to the prohibition. Those who have seen YHWH’s Kabod “face-to-face” have no business dallying with other deities before his “face.”41 The implication seems to be that such dalliances might well provoke another theophanic encounter devoid of mediation and mercy. 39. Num 12:8 offers the slightly different “mouth to mouth” (‫)פה אל־פה‬. 40. Cf. Rashi’s comments in his ‫ ספר דברים‬Devarim/Deuteronomy, vol. 5 of Sapirstein Edition Rashi: The Torah: With Rashi’s Commentary Translated, Annotated, and Elucidated, ed. Rabbi Yisrael Herczeg (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah, 2001), 65. Rashi is keen to emphasize that this refers to YHWH’s general presence. 41. It is also possible to read the general conception of presence here back into v. 4’s “face-to-face.” This would suggest that v. 4 is not speaking so much about a kabodic encounter as YHWH’s general presence with the fire. However, this line of reasoning does not do justice to the mention of the kabodic element of fire. Also, Deuteronomy appears to be aware of a specific kind of divine presence at Horeb. Otherwise, why all of the fear?

148

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

c. Memory #3 and Forecasting a Horeb-like Theophany in Deuteronomy 9 Here we come to the first theophanic passage that contains not only a memory of the Horeb theophany but also what appears to be a forecast of a future theophany. Set in the context of Mosaic admonitions regarding the conquest of the promised land under Joshua, the passage retains its strong covenantal dimension. Israel is not to imagine that YHWH’s dispossessing of the Canaanites is because of the nation’s righteousness. Instead, YHWH will do this because of the wickedness of the land’s inhabitants and on account of the word that YHWH swore to the fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (‫ולמען הקים את־הדבר אשר נשבע יהוה לאבתיך‬ ‫לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב‬, 9:5). The “word” here is, of course, the covenant. Just to emphasize the point, Moses recounts how Israel repeatedly provoked YHWH to anger and even sinned at Horeb while Moses was receiving the tablets, upon which YHWH had engraved the words that he spoke with Israel “on the mountain from the midst of the fire” (‫בהר‬ ‫מתוך האש‬, v. 10). In fact they had made for themselves a “molten image” (‫מסכה‬, v. 12), a nearly unpardonable offense, and Moses has to hurry down, as he describes it, “from the mountain, while it burned with fire (‫)וההר בער באש‬, and the two tablets of the covenant (‫ )ושני לחת הברית‬were in my two hands” (v. 15). It is only Moses’ intercession that saves Israel. After breaking the covenant tablets in anger, he “carves” (‫ואפסל‬, 10:3) a second pair, upon which YHWH writes the same words that he spoke “on the mountain from the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly” (‫בהר מתוך האש ביום הקהל‬, 10:4). All of this provides the background for Moses’ startling forecast that YHWH will go before Israel as a “devouring fire”: And you will know today that YHWH your God, who is crossing over before you, is a devouring fire (‫וידעת היום כי יהוה אלהיך הוא־העבר לפניך אש‬ ‫)אכלה‬. He himself will exterminate them, and he himself will subdue them before your face. He will dispossess them and destroy them quickly just as YHWH promised you. (9:3)

The difficulty here is whether this is actually a forecast of a theophany or a metaphor for the future conquest built upon prior memories. Commentators tend to brush past this forecast as if it were merely a metaphor.42

42. Cf., e.g., Thompson, Deuteronomy, 138; Biddle, Deuteronomy, 161. Yet cf. Wright, Deuteronomy, 130: “God would be in the vanguard, going ahead of them. The devouring fire that they had feared so much at Sinai (4:24; 5:25) would be turned against their enemies.”

6. “There Was No Form…”

149

However, given the mention of Taberah in 9:22 and the continual repetition that YHWH spoke “out of the midst of the fire” on Horeb, it is possible that D is forecasting an actual theophanic appearance during the conquest. Perhaps a way forward can be found in holding both possibilities in tension. Moses’ words are both a prophecy of a theophany insuring victory and a metaphor. This then poses the question for the synchronic, canonical reader: Where is this theophanic appearance in the Deuteronomistic history’s rendition of the conquest? Here we see the liminal character of Deuteronomy on display in the way in which it points forward to the subsequent narrative history. Joshua 5 and 6 provide the answer. As Israel prepares to take the strategic city of Jericho in the initial stage of the conquest, YHWH appears to Joshua in the form of the “captain of YHWH’s host”: And it came to pass that when Joshua was near Jericho, he lifted up his eyes (‫)וישא עיניו‬, looked (‫)וירא‬, and behold! a man standing before him with a unsheathed sword in his hand (‫)והנה־איש עמד לנגדו וחרבו שלופה בידו‬. Joshua approached and said to him: “Are you for us or for our enemies?” The man said to him,43 “I am the captain of the host of YHWH. Now I have come (‫)אני שר־צבא־יהוה עתה באתי‬.” Joshua fell to his face on the ground (‫ויפל‬ ‫)יהושע אל־פניו ארצה‬, and worshiped (‫)וישתחו‬. He said to the man, “What is my Lord speaking to his servant?” The captain of the host of YHWH said to Joshua, “remove your sandal from your foot, because the place where you are standing is holy (‫של־נעלך מעל רגלך כי המקום אשר אתה עמד עליו‬ ‫)קדש הוא‬.” And Joshua did so. (Now Jericho was shutting and being shut before the sons of Israel. There was no going out or coming in.) YHWH said to Joshua (‫)ויאמר יהוה‬, “Look, I have given Jericho, its king, and mighty warriors into your hand…” (Josh 5:13–6:2)

Some may object to calling this a theophany. However, the cumulative weight of the various signs of theophanic activity point to a theophany. When put together, the standard visionary formula (“lifting the eyes,” “looking,” “behold”), Joshua’s worship of the captain, the announcement of holy ground reminiscent of Moses’ burning bush theophany, and the fluid interchange of identity between the “captain” and “YHWH,”44 all point to a theophanic encounter.

43. Reading with the LXX ‫ֹלו‬, instead of ‫לֹא‬. 44. This assumes that 6:1 should be read as a parenthesis within the captain’s discourse rather than the start of a new pericope.

150

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

Intriguingly, with a return to the land, the Genesis theophanic typescene reasserts itself. In a moment of danger and/or doubt (i.e., can Israel conquer its promised land?), YHWH appears privately to an individual and offers a word of hope to allay any anxiety. In this scene, YHWH assures Joshua that he (i.e., YHWH) has already given the city into Joshua’s hand (6:2), and after fulfilling the divine provisions, the city falls. Also, in a move similar to Exod 3, Josh 5–6’s recounting of a theophany displays liminal qualities. In the first theophany in Exodus there were elements of both a Genesis and Exodus type-scene. Likewise, in the first theophany outside of the Pentateuch and synchronically after the desert years, Joshua’s sight of YHWH’s “captain” includes elements found in an Exodus type-scene and weds them to the Genesis type-scene. Admittedly, the lack of a kabodic element dampens the comparison. In this way, Deut 9’s theophanic imagery can function synchronically as both a forecast of a theophany (i.e., YHWH will appear as an Angel-like captain) and as a metaphor (i.e., YHWH’s appearance will be something other than the kabodic presence). Now as a forecast, Deut 9’s suggested theophany continues D’s insistence on reading the theophanic experience as a shrouded one. The metaphorical side of the forecast restrains overeager readers from assuming that the “captain of YHWH’s host,” who goes before Israel and gives victory, is a visible revelation of YHWH in se. YHWH’s essence remains remote. For a second time, a Genesis theophanic type-scene receives reading cues from Deuteronomy. d. Memory #4: Horeb and Forecasting a New Prophet in Deuteronomy 18 The fourth memory of the Horeb theophany occurs in Deut 18:16. The context is once again covenantal. In the midst of a list of stipulations, Moses contrasts the mantic practices of the Canaanite nations with YHWH’s gift of prophetic unction. In particular, Deuteronomy’s Moses envisions the arrival of a new Moses, who will offer new covenant words that must be obeyed. All of this, says Moses, is “according to all that you asked from YHWH your God at Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying: ‘I will not again hear the voice of YHWH my God (‫לא אסף לשמע את־קול‬ ‫)יהוה אלהי‬, nor will I see again this great fire (‫ואת־האש הגדלה הזאת לא־‬ ‫)אראה עוד‬, so that I do not die (‫( ”)ולא אמות‬18:16). The now standard Deuteronomic dual danger of word and fire for the sacramental presence of YHWH is once again on display. What is interesting here is that, like the third memory of Horeb, the present memory now offers a lens for something “future.” In this case, the lens is for “future” prophecy in relation to the narrative world. Like

6. “There Was No Form…”

151

the other recollections of the Horeb theophany, this one cues the reader to read other texts in a particular way. Here the reading strictures create an arena within which to judge prophetic texts. Any prophetic text (or prophet) that “acts presumptuously (‫ )יזיד‬to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die” (18:20). In case the Israelites are unsure about a particular prophet or prophetic text (keeping in mind Deuteronomy’s current location within a synchronic canon), Moses offers the “fulfillment test.” If a prophet’s words, spoken or written, do not come true, he (or she) is a false prophet. The Israelites have no need to “fear” (‫תגור‬, v. 22) him because he has acted in “presumption” (‫)בזדון‬. Notice once again that in all of this, the Horeb theophany provides the background and theological rationale for the acceptable boundaries of prophetic discourse. Prophecy finds its legitimacy and authority in its relation to Horeb and the Torah-giving Moses. The Horeb theophany grounds prophetic authority.45 The prophetic office and the texts that it produces have power within the community only because they are mediators of the theophanic presence. However, this not only gives prophecy authority, it also makes prophetic utterances accountable. In essence, Deut 18 offers a Mosaic criterion for judging other prophetic texts. True prophecy will point towards the true God heard and seen in shroud at Horeb. It will not lead Israel away from YHWH to “other gods” (‫אלהים‬ ‫אחרים‬, 18:20). In addition, like Moses’ forecasts, true prophecy will come true. 3. Resumption of Narrative, the Tent of Meeting, and the Return of the Exodus Type-Scene Deuteronomy 31 sees the resumption of the larger pentateuchal narrative. Moses’ sermon on the plains of Moab has come to an end, and chs 31–34 provide a segue into Joshua and the Deuteronomistic History. The memorial nature of the sermon is emphasized in the doubly noted “writing” of the Torah-homily (34:9, 24). The point of this exercise is to provide a liturgy for the septimal celebration of the Feast of Succoth:

45. Gerhard von Rad wryly observes that Deuteronomy takes “such elaborate trouble to prove the authority of this prophetic office.” He then sees the passages as a kind of lens to justify the prophetic office itself. Cf. Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, trans. Dorothea Barton, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), 123–24.

152

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch Moses wrote this Torah (‫ )ויכתב משה את־התורה הזאת‬and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi who lift up YHWH’s Ark of the covenant, and to all the elders of Israel. Moses commanded them: “At the even of seven years at the appointed time of the year of remittance at the Feast of Succoth when all of Israel appears before YHWH your God (‫בחג הסכות בבוא כל־‬ ‫ )ישראל לראות את־פני יהוה אלהיך‬in the place he will chose (‫במקום אשר‬ ‫)יבחר‬, you shall read aloud this Torah before all Israel (‫תקרא את־התורה‬ ‫—)הזאת נגד כל־ישראל‬in their ears (‫ !)באזניהם‬Assemble the people, the men, women, children, and your stranger who is in your gates to hear and to learn (‫)אשר בשעריך למען ישמעו ולמען ילמדו‬. They shall fear YHWH your God (‫ )ויראו את־יהוה אלהיכם‬and be careful to do all the words of this Torah (‫)ושמרו לעשות את־כל־דברי התורה הזאת‬. Their sons, who do not know, will hear and learn (‫ )ובניהם אשר לא־ידעו ישמעו ולמדו‬to fear YHWH your God (‫ )ויראה את־יהוה אלהיכם‬all the days that you all are alive on the land (‫)כל־הימים אשר אתם חיים על־האדמה‬, which you all are crossing the Jordan to possess. (31:9–13)

The oral sermon is now a text that can continue to reawaken the memory of the covenant and reactuate its performance. In this way Deuteronomy presents itself as a text conscious of its own reality and function. In one sense it is almost the written embodiment of the Mosaic mind. Not surprisingly, given the strong connection between theophany, memory, and covenant in Deuteronomy, the narrative moves to a theophany. In keeping with the resumption of the larger pentateuchal narrative, the theophany falls under the rubric of an Exodus theophanic type-scene. Moses’ death is at hand, and so YHWH prepares for a transition in leadership. Moses is to call Joshua, and the two men are to take their stand before the tent of meeting. When they are in place, a theophany breaks out: “Then YHWH appeared at the tent in a column of cloud (‫וירא‬ ‫)יהוה באהל בעמוד ענן‬, and the column of cloud stood before the door of the tent )‫( ”(ויעמד עמוד הענן על־פתח האהל‬31:15). As is typical for the Exodus type-scene, YHWH appears in a public setting to transition Israel’s leadership and so preserve Israel as a constituted people. Once again, though, the emphasis is upon memory. YHWH is skeptical about the people’s ability to keep covenant and predicts a mass abandonment of YHWH for other gods. To counter Israel’s penchant for forgetting, YHWH teaches Moses a song as a living testimony against the people “because it will not be forgotten from the mouth of the people’s seed” (‫כי לא תשכח מפי זרעו‬, 31:21). Moses and Joshua must “write” this song down, and then Moses will “teach” it to the people—place it in their mouth (‫ועתה כתבו לכם את־השירה הזאת ולמדה את־בני־ישראל שימה בפיהם‬, 31:19). Moses complies with YHWH’s command in writing it down

6. “There Was No Form…”

153

(‫ויכתב משה את־שירה הזאת ביום ההוא‬, 31:22) and teaching it to Israel (‫)וילמדה את־בני ישראל‬. With the song written and taught, the narrative reiterates—in case the reader had any doubt—that Moses “wrote” the Torah down in a book. “And it came to pass that when Moses finished writing the words of this Torah on a book to the end” (‫ויהי ככלות משה לכתב את־דברי התורה־הזאת‬ ‫על־ספר עד תמם‬, 31:24), that he commanded the Levites to deposit “this book of Torah” (‫ספר התורה הזה‬, 31:26) beside the Ark of the Covenant. Once again, memory is key. YHWH is preparing Israel to exist as a transgenerational reality. YHWH’s constitution of his people stretches beyond the generations that knew Moses and Joshua. The written Torah itself becomes an embodiment of a memory founded upon a theophany. 4. The Blessing of Moses and the Death of Moses a. The Blessing Song Deuteronomy 33 offers Moses’ final blessing of Israel before ascending Mt. Nebo to die. As a psalmic interlude between 32:52 and 34:1, the blessing contrasts with the Torah song of ch. 32.46 Whereas the Torah song focuses on Israel’s eventual sin and YHWH’s righteous judgement, Moses’ song of blessing focuses on YHWH’s goodness and grace towards Israel. In their current canonical placement the two songs create a dialectic of complementary ideas. On the one hand, Israel’s eventual sin will place the nation in exile. On the other hand, the hope for blessing and redemption comes from the same God. For the purposes of our study, it is instructive that Moses’ blessing roots itself in the Sinai theophany. Like the majority of the references to theophanies in Deuteronomy, this reference is embedded within a memory. Within the narrative this is Moses’ poetic remembrance of Israel’s constitutional event. In terms of structure the blessing follows Deuteronomy’s Decalogue and so begins and ends with a rough47 theophanic inclusio:

46. Clearly the psalm of Deut 33 predates Deuteronomy proper. However, as noted previously, I am only interested in how it contributes to the current overall shape of Deuteronomy in its final form. 47. I say “rough” because v. 2 really begins the larger unit of vv. 2–5 and v. 26 begins the larger unit of vv. 26–29. However, for the purposes of the present study, I am only focusing on the theophanic material that begins the initial material of the framing sections. Cf. Driver’s comments on the structure of ch. 33 in Deuteronomy, 385.

154

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch Deut. 33:2 Beginning

YHWH came from Sinai. He rose from Seir to him.48 He shone from Mount Paran. He came49 followed by ten thousand holy ones.50 From his right hand fire flew out51 towards him. Deut. 33:26 Ending There is none like God, Jeshurun, who rides the heavens with your help and in his majesty the clouds.

‫יהוה מסיני בא‬ ‫וזרח משעיר למו‬ ‫הופיע מהר פארן‬ ‫ואתה מרבבת קדש‬ ‫מימינו אש דת למו‬

‫אין כאל ישרון‬ ‫רכב שמים בעזרך‬ ‫ובגאותו שחקים‬

The theophanic imagery is clear. YHWH “rises” (‫ )זרח‬like the sun and “shines” (hiphil: ‫—)יפע‬a clear allusion to the Kabod YHWH. Likewise, the final line of the introduction alludes to YHWH’s dangerous Kabod flashing forth like lightning (‫)מינינו אש דת למו‬. The inclusio’s conclusion calls up images of YHWH as the “rider in the heavens” (‫ )רכב שמים‬whose majesty comes in the “clouds” (‫)ובגאותו שחקים‬. Once again the traditional storm-cloud theophanic imagery is on display. In between these two poetic recollections of YHWH’s theophanic presence lies ten blessings upon eleven of the twelve tribes of Israel. (Simeon is missing, and Zebulun and Issachar are combined in v. 18.)

48. I do not find the third person masculine singular suffix particularly jarring within the context here or in the fifth line. Israel is often referred to in the third person masculine singular. However, there have been difficulties with the reading. The LXX reads ἡμῖν for ‫לנו‬. Cf. the discussion in Theodore J. Lewis, “Divine Fire in Deuteronomy 33:2,” JBL 132, no. 4 (2013): 793 n. 3. It is also possible that originally the “him” referred to YHWH’s enemy (perhaps Egypt?). 49. The LXX reads σὺν μυριάσιν κάδης—“with thousands of Kadesh.” For a discussion of the problems involved, see Lewis, “Divine Fire,” 793 n. 4; Frank M. Cross and David Noel Freedman, “The Blessing of Moses,” JBL 67, no. 3 (1948): 198–99 n. 8. I am inclined to follow Cross and Freedman’s emendation: ‫ִאּתֹום ִר ְבבֹות‬ ‫“—קד ִֹׁשים‬with ְ him thousands of holy ones.” The mem in this case would be enclitic. 50. Cross and Freedman have suggested emending ‫ קדש‬to ‫ קדשים‬following Targum Onkelos. This seems to make good sense with the context and their suggestion of haplography is quite plausible. See “The Blessing,” 199 n. 9. 51. Richard C. Steiner and (later) Theodore Lewis have argued persuasively that ‫ דת‬here is actually a third person feminine singular QTL form of the verb ‫דאה‬. Cf. Richard C. Steiner, “dāt and ên: Two Verbs Masquerading as Nouns in Moses’ Blessing (Deuteronomy 33:2, 28),” JBL 115, no. 4 (1996): 693–96; Lewis, “Divine Fire.”

6. “There Was No Form…”

155

The number ten here is another link to the structure of the Decalogue in Deut 5. Because of the mirroring, twelve blessings do not fit, and so Simeon is left out and Issachar is moved into Zebulun’s blessing.52 Then the final lines of the poem in vv. 27–29 round out the blessing with an emphasis upon all of Israel finding safety and agricultural fecundity.53 However, once again it is the Sinai theophany that is the basis of the blessing. Moses’ memory of this event frames a word of peace upon Israel. At the Sinai theophany, YHWH came in his radiance like the sun and constituted Israel as his covenantal people. His Kabod then came from the mountain and settled on the tabernacle. YHWH’s glorious presence then went before Israel.54 In this way, not only the curses of the Song of Moses in Deut 32 but also the blessings of the present song find their bearings in the covenant. Once again the Deuteronomic lens is on display. YHWH’s theophanic presence comes in covenantal contexts. Verses 3 and 4 outline how Israel received or “lifted up” YHWH’s words (‫ישא מדברתיך‬, v. 3) and how Moses commanded the people Torah, “a possession of the assembly of Jacob” (‫תורה צוה־לנו משה מורשה קהלת יעקב‬, v. 4). The idea is that just as covenant infidelity leads to exile (cf. ch. 32), covenant keeping leads to blessing. Following this reading cue, the reader of Deuteronomy has a way to think about a possible reversal of exile. The Sinai theophany is the fountain of hope. In the presence of YHWH there is blessing for those who keep Torah. Indeed, the juxtaposition of these two songs provides the seeds for theological reflection. Only a return to the founding event of Israel’s constitutional life can reverse history. It is the dynamic appearance of YHWH in his kabodic presence that funds the possibility of Israelite redemption through the covenant. Covenant keeping is not the first step that leads to blessing. Blessing is also found in the prior gracious appearance of YHWH in his kabodic shroud. YHWH comes to save and constitute his people. They have not sought him out; rather, in good covenantal fashion, the suzerain has sought them out and reminded them

52. It is also possible that Simeon has disappeared simply because of its historical absorption into Judah. Cf. Duane L. Christensen’s comment in Deuteronomy 21:10– 34:12, WBC 6b (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2002), 855. 53. A bit ironic considering the missing two tribes. 54. Cf. Exod 40:34. Driver correctly pointed out that the “from Sinai” (‫)מסיני‬ suggests that this refers to the wilderness wanderings. However, he does admit that the preposition can also be translated as “on the side of=at.” See Driver, Deuteronomy, 390 and n. 2. Thus, it could be both a reference to the Sinai theophany and the subsequent appearances of the kabodic presence at the tabernacle.

156

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

of his preceding kindness towards them. YHWH loves Israel because he loves Israel. This love and kindness, on display at Horeb and recounted in the blessing song, is to be the foundation for their reciprocal obedience. YHWH’s theophanic act prepares for Israel’s act of faithful worship. b. The Death Epilogue With the final song come to an end, the narrative resumes. Moses climbs Mt. Nebo and sees the promised land. YHWH points out that this is all in fulfillment of his covenantal promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: “This is the land (‫ )זאת הארץ‬that I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (‫)אשר נשבעתי לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב‬, saying, ‘To your seed I will give it (‫( ”’)לאמר לזרעך אתנה‬34:4a). Ironically, Moses, the one who has spoken “face-to-face” with YHWH—the one who has “seen” YHWH’s theophanic manifestation—“sees” the land but cannot enter it (‫הראיתיך‬ ‫בעיניך ושמה לא תעבר‬, 34:4b). Here the story recounts Moses’ premature death (he had not lost his eyesight or vigor according to 34:7) and the transfer of prophetic authority to Joshua. However, Joshua is no Moses. The text is at pains to emphasize Moses’ unique status, a status founded on his relationship with the theophanic YHWH: “There has still not arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses (‫)ולא־קם נביא עוד בישראל כמשה‬, whom YHWH knew face-to-face (‫אשר‬ ‫( ”)ידעו יהוה פנים אל־פנים‬34:10). Moses’ other accomplishments follow in vv. 11–12, but v. 10 is the centerpiece of Mosaic distinction. What separates Moses from others is his visio dei. While Deuteronomy makes it clear that all of Israel saw YHWH’s Kabod, there is something unique about Moses’ sight of YHWH in terms of their relationship. There is a sense, then, in which Moses and the Exodus theophanic type-scene are joined together. In fact, it is prophets who are most like Moses who tend to have experiences of the Kabod (cf. Elijah in 1 Kgs 18–19 and 2 Kgs 1–2; Ezekiel in Ezek 1; 8–11; 4355). Once again, with the mention of YHWH’s theophanic presence, we find both memory and the Deuteronomic lens on display. Obviously, this is not a narrative of a theophany. It is a memory of repeated theophanies that functions as a tribute to Moses and his legacy. Likewise, the memory of Moses’ relationship with the kabodic presence of YHWH leads the author/editor(s) to cue readers to read later theophanies as qualitatively different from Mosaic theophanies. There is almost a lament here. Moses had promised another prophet “like himself” (‫נביא מקרבך מאחיך כמני‬, 55. For more on the similarities between Ezekiel and Moses, see my “Ezekiel as Moses—Israel as Pharaoh.”

6. “There Was No Form…”

157

Deut. 18:15), but none has arisen. But then again, maybe it is not a lament. Maybe the cue is a textual call for the prophet, or in stark contrast maybe it is a warning not to seek the dead among the living. Regardless, the epilogue is another memory for the present. 5. Conclusion In summary, Deuteronomy does not provide a new theophanic “typescene.” In fact it is striking that when compared with the preceding three type-scenes, Deuteronomy’s memory is not nearly as original as some might want to suppose. Deuteronomy remembers a carefully delineated Exodus type-scene. While many gaps have been filled in, the outline of the Exodus type-scene is still in play. From a diachronic, source-critical perspective one might say that D is much more like JE and P than previously thought. D is simply determined that no one misunderstand P, and so it cues the reader’s memory accordingly. There is a reason for this similarity. Given D’s strong desire to centralize the cult, it makes sense that D would utilize the combined JE and P story’s account of a centralized theophanic encounter. A shrouded kabodic theophany legitimates the priority of the Jerusalem temple. While the Genesis type-scene could be used to claim the sacral status of a place like Bethel, D requires a single-eyed focus on the Horeb/Sinai theophany for a place of worship. Yet despite this focus, it is intriguing that it also reads back through the Exodus’ type-scene to correct potential misreadings of the Genesis type-scene as well.

Chapter 7 C on c l u s i ons

‫לשמע־אזן שמעתיך‬ ‫ועתה עיני ראתך‬ I heard you through the hearing of the ear, but now my eyes have seen you. Job 42:5

1. Summary of Argument The preceding pages have laid out an argument for a plurality of theophanic type-scenes in the first four books of the Pentateuch and a careful (re)reading lens in the fifth book, Deuteronomy. Rather than an arena for a single theophanic type-scene, the unique shape of theophanies in Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus (and their reiterations in Numbers) suggests a more nuanced picture. YHWH appears in different ways in different books. There is no uniform type-scene in terms of plot. Now, in terms of characters and the development of characters in the Hebrew Bible, George Savran’s argument still holds and presents a useful tool for narrative analysis. Undoubtedly, when analyzed from more of an existential angle, one can posit a single theophanic type-scene. However, when focus shifts to the plotted discourse of the Pentateuchal narrative, there is simply too much diversity. It is true, of course, that all of the Pentateuchal type-scenes share broad characteristics: divine appearance and some connection to the Abrahamic promise. However, the devil is in the details. The divine appearances of the Angel of YHWH and other ‫איש‬ theophanies are quite different from Kabod theophanies. Likewise, within the Kabod theophanies of Exodus and Leviticus, the presence of priestly action separates the former from the latter. At the most basic level, the stories are simply different. The patterns of plot relate different kinds of appearances.

7. Conclusions

159

Not surprisingly, each of the theophanic type-scenes reflects the theological tendenz of its respective canonical “book.” The Genesis type-scene, found almost exclusively in JE material, is resolutely futurefocused. YHWH always “promises” future blessings. Aside from visible appearances and speeches, there is very little divine action within the actual theophanies proper. Rather, the theophanies represent islands of assurance within the chaotic twists and turns of the overall narrative arc. In a very real sense, these theophanies function (to use an anachronistic term) sacramentally as visible signs and seals of a yet to be realized promise. For the doubting characters (and the doubting readers), YHWH allows himself to be seen to buoy their faith. The Exodus type-scene celebrates an active deity. YHWH is the primary actor descending to actuate the Abrahamic promise. Within the intra-narrative timeline, the type-scene presents a more present-focused God. YHWH is no longer promising that in the future he will multiply Abraham’s descendants and give them the land. Instead, he is acting in the present to bring about that long-awaited promise. Nor are these divine actions hidden from the world. In the narrative’s world YHWH is making public his affection for Israel. Israel’s election is on display as the God clothed in fire and cloud publicly preserves and/or constitutes his people with a view to the Abrahamic promise. Likewise, YHWH’s public appearances serve as faith-enhancing events for the entire people. Unlike the private Genesis theophanies to the individual patriarchs, the Exodus Kabod theophanies allow YHWH to show himself to all in the assembly. Abraham has become a people, and YHWH’s theophanies reflect the change. Thus, when exterior threats like Pharaoh presume to attack the people and jeopardize the mission, YHWH appears before all the people to drive back the enemy. When interior threats like grumbling, hungry people suggest the possibility of a return to Egypt and the relinquishing of hope, YHWH’s Kabod is on display once again to purge the ranks. Throughout Exodus (and Numbers) whenever YHWH appears in the Exodus type-scene he is always in the act of bringing about the fulfillment of the promise proffered in Genesis in the presence of the assembly. Now, of course, there is still an eschatological element shot through each of the narratives. YHWH is acting to bring about the promise, but the promise has not officially been fulfilled. In fact, the Pentateuch itself ends before the complete fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. For this reason, the Exodus type-scene continues to weave in the thread of anxiety.

160

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

Leviticus’s theophanic type-scene moves the relational dynamic between Israel and YHWH to a new level. Set within the context of YHWH’s move from the mountain to the tabernacle and all of the ramifications of a continued divine presence in the camp, the two theophanies described in Lev 9 and 10 present a responding God, who acts in response to Israel’s liturgical gestures. The theophanies are pharmacological. They represent both medicine and poison. Even within the strictures of divinely appointed ritual and an institutionalization of the theophanic presence, YHWH is predictably unpredictable. He cannot be tamed. The camp has become both a place of blessing (due to his presence) and a place of curse (due to his presence). His acceptance of Aaron’s proper sacrifice signals his good pleasure, but his making quick work of Nadab and Abihu proclaims his anger and ambiguity. Nonetheless, the invocation of the theophanic presence through liturgy allows for Israel to approach YHWH on a regular institutionalized basis. Complaints, sins, impurities, and the like can be brought before the divine presence via the appropriate mediator bearing the appropriate sacrifice. In some ways, the Levitical type-scene presents YHWH as responsive to entreaty and thus prayer. He will live with his people and dialogue with them. He will do this even before they set foot in the promised land. But the people must beware. The entreaty must follow the bounds set forth within Leviticus itself. Otherwise the Kabod will devour them as Korah and his followers find to their chagrin. These three type-scenes, the Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus type-scenes, provide the framework for what follows in the final two Pentateuchal books. Numbers, as part of the story-line, appropriates and recycles each of the three type-scenes for its own purposes. The individual Genesis type-scene is present at the end of the book in the Balaam narrative, while the corporate Exodus and Leviticus type-scenes recur throughout. The result is a kind of narrative mirror, where pre-Sinai events recur within a new context. Similarly, Deuteronomy repeats the Exodus type-scene with its own twist. Because it is not a narrative, Deuteronomy functions as a kind of narrative pause that instructs the reader to go back and reread the previous Exodus theophanic type-scenes in an appropriate, orthodox (i.e., Deuteronomic) manner. The twist is that Deuteronomy’s appropriation of the Exodus type-scene is broadly patterned in its own right. Each recounting holds two further characteristics. To begin with, each retelling of a theophany is a self-identified, canonical “memory.” Second, every memory of the Exodus type-scene occurs within a covenantal context that

7. Conclusions

161

impinges upon present conduct. There is a sense, then, in which Deuteronomy appropriates Genesis through Numbers for continuing communal and moral significance. In its own way, Deuteronomy functions as a selfappointed gatekeeper for the Tetrateuch as paraenetic discourse. To put it a different way, Deuteronomy “canonizes” the Tetrateuchal theophanies and regulates how they can function as canon or scripture. One can see here a kind of plotted, narrative logic. The theophanic type-scenes build on each other. Genesis’ theophanies are private, passive events focused on assuring the patriarchs and matriarchs of Israel of the inviolability of the divine promise. In Exodus the theophanies shift to public events. The promise to Abraham is already being fulfilled. He is the father of a people, a nation. Thus, when YHWH appears, his appearance must be available to all of Abraham’s children. Likewise, YHWH is now acting in these theophanies to accomplish the promise and constitute Israel as his own. Leviticus’s type-scene represents the next move in the plot. It presents a picture of the new dialogical nature of the relationship between YHWH and his newly constituted people. YHWH now comes in response to the people’s corporate liturgical acts, and he responds to his people in blessing and judgment. Numbers, then, recycles each of these type-scenes, as the people leave Sinai and make their way towards the promised land. Numbers does not present a new type-scene because of the need for narrative symmetry post-Sinai. Events recounted before Sinai must now reoccur post-Sinai (e.g., two stories of manna, two stories of water from the rock, two stories of liturgical failure). The Exodus and Leviticus type-scenes recur in their proper order. However, once the people near the promised land, the Genesis type-scene makes its reappearance. It is almost as if the tantalizing presence of the promised land catalyzes the reappearance. Finally, Deuteronomy takes over the story at the plains of Moab. There Moses recounts everything that has happened since Egypt. This includes the theophany at Sinai/Horeb. Moses reminds the new generation what happened when YHWH appeared, and he does so in a way that there can be no misunderstandings or excuses for idolatry. YHWH came to his people shrouded. Here Moses alludes to Genesis type-scene theophanies as well. To succeed in the land, the people must not try to replicate visually the divine essence for the simple reason that YHWH’s presence was always shrouded in these earlier theophanies. In this way, the Pentateuch presents a plotted movement of theophanies with a final commentary on how they are to be understood.

162

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

2. The Discourse This now brings us back to the question of discourse, the “how” of the theophanic stories. In the first chapter, I stated that the discourse tells its own story. The question then is: How does the way in which the stories are told shed light on the broader commitments of the final redactor(s) in regard to the divine presence? The answer to that question hovers over two overlapping sets of dialectics: unity vs. diversity and predictability vs. unpredictability. In regard to the first dialectic, the deployment of various theophanic typescenes displays both unity and diversity. On the one hand, each of the stories shares a specific narrative mechanism with the others: the typescene. While there are differences between the theophanic type-scenes there is also a fundamental unity or similarity. All of the scenes display a divine appearance recounted in the shape of a type-scene, a specific kind of narrative mechanism. To put it another way, all of the stories share not only specific content (i.e., a theophany) but also a specific discourse (i.e., a type-scene). They are all unified in their deployment of a pattern to describe YHWH’s visible self-manifestation. This unity of kind of discourse reinforces the broader aggregate, canonical unity of divine identity. The repetition of type-scenes subtly reinscribes the notion that all of the stories are actually describing the same deity. Coupled with content, the absence of randomness and the presence of controlled plurality pushes the reader subconsciously to affirm that despite different patterns of theophanic manifestation, the same God is appearing in each instance.1 Consider if the converse were true. If YHWH’s theophanies were random and lacking in similarity at the level of discourse, one might wonder if the schizophrenic nature of the story suggested fundamental problems within the divine identity (e.g., Is this the same god?).2 One cannot, of course, push the argument too far. Hypothetically just about anything is possible, and by nature discourse is difficult to analyze because it is the structured means through which we see the content. Attempts to abstract it from its own narrative specificity and context can quickly go wrong. As I noted in the opening chapter, in many ways the 1. The canon also plays a role here. The juxtaposition of these various stories together within defined boundaries makes the same theological point. If one confesses the canon, then the stories must be read together as portraits of the same God. The differences must, by canonical definition, resolve themselves into some higher unity. 2. Also, the likelihood that some of the type-scenes are composed of various strands of material allows the type-scenes to function as unitive elements in the narrative itself and thus proponents of a unity of divine personhood.

7. Conclusions

163

distinction between content and discourse is simply heuristic. Dualistic attempts to separate form and content inevitably go awry. Nonetheless, the attempt to abstract one or the other into a kind of gegenstand relationship can prove useful and provide insight into the ways in which discourse is distinct from content and vice versa. Coming back to the dialectic of unity vs. diversity, the pluriform nature of the theophanic type-scenes also expresses something about the freedom of the deity in the stories. While the type-patterned nature of the stories reinforces the singular identity of YHWH, the variety of type-scenes reinscribes a view of YHWH as free and all powerful. In some instances, he appears as a “man” talking to Abraham or wrestling with Jacob. At other times, he appears before all of Israel in a fire-laced cloud and consumes his enemies. The diversity of the type-scenes heralds a God who is not only capable of diverse visible manifestations but also free to come and go as he pleases. YHWH is not bound to a single “body,” avatar, or instantiation. He comes as he wills when he wills. From a canonical perspective, it should not be surprising that this controlled variety of narrative depictions of YHWH’s theophanic presence echoes the theological themes found in the Psalmic theophanies (i.e., the “coming one”). This brings us to the second dialectic, which overlaps with the first: predictable vs. unpredictable. On the one hand, the patterned nature of YHWH’s appearances suggests that the deity described in the stories is at some level predictable. He has a way of doing things. When he shows up, the characters around him can be assured that he will act within the bounds of certain possibilities. In other words, he is not free to act in just any manner. He seems to have (at least within the world of the narrative) self-imposed strictures. So, for example, he cannot appear and disparage the Abrahamic promise. That would not only be out of character but would also cut the plotted thread that binds the various type-scenes together. Likewise, there seems to be a temporal element associated with this predictability. In patriarchal times, YHWH appears in one way. In the time of Moses, he appears in a different manner with two variations on the theme (i.e., the Exodus and Leviticus type-scenes). Even the return to the Genesis type-scene at the end of Numbers points to a kairotic moment: the promised land (where YHWH appeared to the patriarchs) is at hand! Thus, one could speak of Israel’s history of redemption as providing a degree of limitation regarding how YHWH can appear at a given time. On the other hand, YHWH’s predictability only goes so far. He is still free to act and innovate within the bounds of the type-scenes (cf., e.g., Gen 16, where YHWH promises progeny but not land). Likewise, he is not limited to a single type-scene. Within the rules of the narrative game

164

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

he can be predictably unpredictable. The limits of redemptive history are even fluid and cannot have the final say. The fact that YHWH does appear a final time in Numbers in the Genesis type-scene rules out complete predictability, while Deuteronomy’s reading lens insures that his unpredictability remains predictable. 3. Suggestions for Further Research All of this provides a starting point for further research. Given the consistency of the type-scenes as a narrative phenomenon, it makes sense to ask a further set of questions: What happens to the type-scenes after the Pentateuch? Do the various patterns reappear in subsequent biblical and apocryphal literature both in synchronic and diachronic terms? If so, in what ways do they appear? How were the type-scenes received, and how did they resonate during or after their composition?3 A complete answer to this set of questions would require a separate study, but perhaps I can offer a broad outline for the way forward. The simple answer is that the type-scenes do reappear but in collations and amalgamations. This seems particularly true in early exilic, Persian, and Hellenistic prophetic and apocalyptic contexts. What follows is not exhaustive but merely suggestive for future research. To begin with, in the early exilic period, the book of Ezekiel combines and/or redeploys the various type-scene elements found in the three Pentateuchal type-scenes and even could be read as giving a nod towards the Deuteronomic reading lens. Ezekiel 1 presents the celebrated “chariot vision.” By the river Chebar the prophet “sees” (‫וארא והנה‬, v. 4) YHWH in all of his glory. From the north comes a storm wind bearing aloft a “great cloud” (‫ )ענן גדול‬filled with “lightning” (literally, “fire taking hold of itself”—‫)ואש מתלקחת‬, brightness, and a gleaming of amber from “the midst of the fire” (‫מתוך‬ ‫)האש‬. Ezekiel observes four “fiery” cherubim4 made of various animal 3. All of this, of course, assumes that the type-scenes are not simply a product of reader reception but have historical anchorage in the rhetorical or narrative structure of the story. Authorial or textual intention is a slippery business, but the numerous repetitions of the individual type-scenes (especially the Genesis and Exodus typescenes) would suggest that they are an authorial/editorial or perhaps even an oral construct. 4. Note v. 13, “Now as to the likeness of the living creatures: their appearance was like burning coals of fire (‫)כגחלי־אש‬. It was like flashing torches that where going back and forth between the living creatures. The fire was shining bright (‫)ונגה לאש‬, and going forth from the fire (‫ )ומן־האש‬were bolts of lightning.”

7. Conclusions

165

and human components who fly the chariot wherever the spirit/wind wills. Beside them he sees the chariot’s wheels filled with eyes, and above them he sees a sapphire platform holding what looks like a throne. On this throne-like thing sits something that has the “likeness of the appearance of a man” (‫דמות כמראה אדם‬, v. 26). This “man” has the appearance of “fire” from his loins and below (‫וממראה מתניו ולמטה ראיתי כמראה־אש‬, v. 27) while the gleam of amber and the appearance of “fire” housing it all round (‫ )כמראה־אש בית־לה סביב‬appears from his loins up. Before the prophet falls upon his face in fear, he notes that all of this was “like the appearance of a bow that is in the clouds on the day of rain, thus was the appearance of the shining all around” (v. 28). But this is no ordinary vision: “That,” states Ezekiel, “was the appearance of the likeness of the Kabod YHWH” (‫)הוא מראה דמות כבוד־יהוה‬. Immediately, it should be clear that there is an interweaving of Pentateuchal type-scene elements. YHWH has appeared as both a “man” and as shrouded in his dangerous Kabod. Like the burning bush story, the scene is both private and public in that Ezekiel is commissioned as a mediatorial figure to speak YHWH’s words to a rebellious Israel. At first glance it might appear that the theme of the Abrahamic promise has been cast aside. After all, Ezekiel eventually sees YHWH’s Kabod depart from the temple (ch. 10). However, notice the reason for the departure. A Levitical type-scene element is on display. The house of Israel is perpetrating idolatry in the temple. In fact, Ezek 8:11 observes that not only are the levitical purity laws being breached but also that lay persons are offering incense on “censers” (‫)ואיש מקטרתו בידו ועתר ענן־הקטרת עלה‬. The word “censers” (‫ )מקטרת‬is not the same as the one translated similarly in Lev 10 and Num 16 (‫ ;)מחתה‬however, the idea is the same. Improper liturgy in terms of participants, means, and objects is on display, and YHWH’s theophanic presence will act in response. The key difference lies in a departure rather than in an incineration. Instead of consuming the idolaters, the Kabod YHWH leaves the temple. Nonetheless, YHWH does institute a new “passover” before he leaves.5 An angelic entourage will canvas the city and kill all who are not mourning the defilement of the temple. Though there is no scene like that of Nadab and Abihu or Korah, the effect is the same. YHWH is preserving Israel through purging. In addition, the loss of YHWH’s kabodic presence means a loss of safety and is its own judgment as Babylon marches towards the city. 5. For more on the reverse passover, see my “Ezekiel as Moses—Israel as Pharaoh,” esp. 70.

166

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

It is important to emphasize that YHWH’s actions here are disciplinary in nature. This is no annihilation of the house of Israel. It is a re-enactment of the murmuring cycle in Numbers. Many will die, but YHWH assures Ezekiel that a faithful remnant will return. He will give this remnant a single, soft heart and new spirit within them so that they may keep Torah. “Then,” states YHWH in good promissory fashion, “they will be my people, and I will be their God” (11:20). Not only that, but this chastened people will receive the promised “land of Israel” all over again (‫ונתתי לכם‬ ‫את־אדמת ישראל‬, 11:17; cf. also chs 47–48). The theme of return from exile and the reestablishment of Israel as a chosen people in their land carries throughout the entire book. Not only will YHWH bring back a Davidic Shepherd-King (ch. 34), but he will also rebuild the cities and make the people and land flourish (ch. 36). In fact, in a moment of Abrahamic largesse, YHWH says that he will multiply the house of Israel like sheep (v. 37)—like sheep filling Jerusalem during the feast days (v. 38). In addition to all of this, the temple will be rebuilt, and Ezekiel sees another vision of the Kabod YHWH (ch. 43). However, this time, the Kabod YHWH returns and fills the temple in a scene reminiscent of Lev 9. YHWH will now dwell with his purified people for eternity. In the end, then, the theophanic divine presence is acting to preserve and constitute a people. Despite the pain, suffering, and death that Israel and Judah will suffer, YHWH will bring them home and live with them in a blaze of glory. What looks like YHWH reneging on his promise will turn out to be (however paradoxically) him keeping his promise to Abraham. More controversially, I think there may also be a nod here to the Deuteronomic reading lens. While Ezekiel “sees” YHWH, he only “sees” his kabodic shroud. It is something of a truism by now to note that Ezekiel is reticent to describe what he sees. What he “sees” is the “similitude” or “likeness” (‫“ )דמות‬like” (‫ )כ‬the appearance of a man (Ezek 1:26). The compounding “likes” function in a manner analogous to Deuteronomy’s insistence that YHWH in se was not seen. YHWH is seen by the prophet, and yet he is not seen.6 More specifically, Ezek 1:4 recounts that the glorious shining of the kabodic colors is “from the midst of the fire” (‫מתוך‬ ‫—)האיש‬Deuteronomy’s favorite catch phrase to emphasize the veiled 6. I recognize that P itself shows a reticence towards displaying the divine “body” (to use Sommer’s term). Cf., e.g., Hundley, Keeping Heaven on Earth, 39, 45. Nevertheless, I find it intriguing that Ezekiel’s amalgamation of type-scenes includes something that resembles Deuteronomy’s willingness to promote the fiery shroud that draws near while hiding the divine essence. He sees a divine form, but not the divine form/essence.

7. Conclusions

167

nature of the kabodic shroud. These are tantalizing possible connections that deserve further exploration. This brings us to the second appropriation of the Pentateuchal theophanies. In the Persian period the prophet Zechariah prophesies of a renewed Exodus theophanic type-scene. In his third vision Zechariah sees a surveyor measuring the boundaries of Jerusalem. As the surveyor does his work Zechariah’s interpreting Angel goes out to meet him only to be overtaken by a second Angel who commands the first to give the surveyor an urgent message: Jerusalem will not have walls because it will not be able to contain all of the people and animals dwelling in its midst. Then the second Angel passes on a message from YHWH himself. “I myself will be for her, declares YHWH, a surrounding wall of fire (‫חומת אש סביב‬, 2:9, Eng. 2:5), and I will be Kabod in her midst (‫)ולכבוד אהיה בתוכה‬.” The divine message continues, calling on the exiles to flee from Babylon and escape to Zion. YHWH is about to bring low the city and give the Babylonian spoils to their slaves. Songs are called for because YHWH promises to tabernacle within Zion’s precincts once again (‫הנני־בא ושכנתי‬ ‫בתוכך נאם־יהוה‬, 2:14, Eng. 2:10) even as the nations pledge themselves to YHWH and become part of his people (2:15, Eng. 2:11). The vision ends on a thoroughly Abrahamic note: “YHWH will inherit Judah, his portion, beside the holy land, and he will choose again Jerusalem” (2:16, Eng. 2:12). What is striking throughout the vision is its promise of a future Exodus type-scene. Zechariah himself does not experience the type-scene, but he receives a promise that it will be reenacted. YHWH will surround Mt. Zion in fire and dwell there in his Kabod.7 He will protect/preserve and constitute Israel as his people with a view to fulfilling the Abrahamic promise. No longer will YHWH sit idly by as his people languish in the new Egypt of Babylon. He will act to save them and gather them from the four corners. In addition, this will be a public event as the nations of the world see and join themselves to the covenant people. The promised blessing to the nations in Gen 12:3 will find a resounding fulfillment as the goyyim receive the designation “my people” and receive YHWH’s kabodic presence as part of the people of God (‫והיו לי לעם ושכנתי בתוכך‬ 2:15). 7. There is a second possible reference to the Kabod in 2:12 (Eng. 2:8). However, the text is difficult, and even if left unamended, it has approximately eight different meanings. Cf. Al Wolters, “Confessional Criticism and the Night Visions of Zechariah,” in Renewing Biblical Interpretation, ed. Craig Bartholomew et al. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 95.

168

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

Notice the three type-scene elements: the visible, dangerous Kabod, a public, communal setting, and YHWH’s action to preserve or constitute his people with a view to fulfilling the promise to Abraham. Zechariah’s third vision is using the Exodus type-scene to bring hope to the inhabitants of Yehud and beyond. The message rings out: What happened before can happen again. The Hellenistic period provides the final example of an appropriation of the Pentateuchal theophanies. Here the much later vision recorded in Dan 7 presents its own riff on the theophanic type-scenes. The prophet Daniel dreams a dream in which four winds agitate the great sea. Out of the sea arise four beasts in succession. Each of the beasts is an amalgam of creatures: bears, lions, eagles, human beings, and so forth. While the beasts lay waste the earth, Daniel sees thrones set up in the heavens, and as he watches he sees the “Ancient of Days” (‫—עתיק יומין‬a circumlocution for YHWH, v. 9) sit down upon one of the thrones. Intriguingly, this Ancient One’s throne is “flames of fire” (‫כרסיה שביבין די־נור‬, v. 9) and its wheels are a “burning fire” (‫)גלגלוהי נור דלק‬. The echoes of Ezek 1 are hardly accidental. But there is more. A river of fire flows and goes out from before him (‫נהר די־נור נגד ונפק מן־קדמוהי‬, v. 10) while thousands stand in attendance. The day of judgment has arrived. Once the books are opened, the last and most dangerous of the beasts is put to death and its body given over to the burning fire (‫יהיבת ליקדת אשא‬, v. 11). The other beasts are allowed to live but lose their power and dominion. In the midst of retribution on display in the night visions, Daniel looks and “behold, with the clouds of heaven was one coming like a son of man” (‫וארו‬ ‫עם־ענני שמיא כבר אנש אתה הוה‬, v. 13). This son of man is brought before the Ancient of Days and receives eternal power and authority to rule over all people, nations, and tongues. His kingdom, says the vision, will not be destroyed. When the prophet asks for an interpretation of the vision, one standing nearby explains that the beasts represent kings that will arise before the “holy ones of the Most High” (‫קדישי עליונין‬, v. 18) receive the kingdom “forever and ever” (‫)עד־עלמא ועד עלם עלמיא‬. When Daniel inquires about the fearsome fourth beast, he sees an amplification of the vision with the “holy ones” (‫קדישין‬, v. 21) fighting a losing battle with the fourth beast until the Ancient of Days rules in their favor and the time arrives for the “holy ones” to possess the kingdom (‫ומלכותא החסנו קדישין‬, v. 22). The interpreter then explains how the fourth beast and its horns represent a fourth kingdom with ten kings who will fall before a final king who will blaspheme the Most High and persecute the “holy ones of the Most High” (‫קדישי עליונין‬, v. 25). In the end, his plans will come to naught, and all

7. Conclusions

169

power and dominion will be turned over eternally to “the people of the holy ones of the Most High” (‫לעם קדישי עליונין‬, v. 27). The interpreter ends with a note regarding the Most High’s kingdom: “His kingdom is an eternal kingdom, and all the authorities will serve and obey him.” Daniel then relates how he found the visions troubling but kept them to himself. Stepping back from the story, it becomes clear that several of the Genesis and Exodus (and perhaps Leviticus—cf. the abomination of desolation below) theophanic type-scene elements are on display. Notice how YHWH is associated visually with both fire and the figure of a man. Here is a collation of both Kabod and ‫ איש‬theophanies. Likewise, the strange Messianic figure of the “one like a son of man” comes to the Ancient of Days on the “clouds of heaven.” This individual seems to be both a representative of the “holy ones” who will inherit the kingdom and a mysterious divine instantiation. He comes to YHWH but also bears one of the Kabod symbols traditionally ascribed to YHWH. One could almost call it a kind of binitarian image. It is hardly surprising that New Testament authors would draw upon this imagery to describe Jesus as the “Son of Man.”8 To return to the point: here we have a visio dei that includes type-scene elements from Genesis and Exodus. There is also the possibility that there is an allusion to the Levitical type-scene as well. The Ancient of Days only opens the books in judgment after the final horn of the fourth kingdom has begun his blaspheming. Keeping in mind that the little horn refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, who is notorious for setting up an idol in the temple and sacrificing pigs to it, any reader with “ears to hear” would have recognized a liturgical misstep (to put it mildly) leading to divine fiery judgment. One must, of course, exercise care in drawing any conclusions from this given that there is no actual mention in the text of Dan 7 of these Levitical desecrations. However, if ch. 7 is read in concert with Dan 8, the scene is tantalizingly instructive (cf. Dan 8:11–13). It should be clear that Daniel’s throne vision represents a divine action to insure the security of the promise to Abraham. In his judgment of the final “horn,” the Ancient of Days gives dominion to the Son of Man as the representative of the “Holy Ones.” It seems a stretch to me to interpret the Holy Ones as angelic figures of the heavenly court. Rather, given the Maccabean provenance, the Holy Ones is a reference to the ‫צדיקים‬, 8. Cf. Richard B. Hays’ comments in Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014), 19, 116 n. 2. See also Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (New York: New Press, 2012), Chapter 1, “From Son of God to Son of Man.”

170

Theophanic “Type-Scenes” in the Pentateuch

the righteous ones, who wage war against Antiochus Epiphanes. These are the true Israelites, who stand against the oppressor. Once the Son of Man takes dominion, they will receive an eternal kingdom spanning the world and the nations. There is an oblique echo here of YHWH’s secondgeneration battalion in Numbers preparing to take their inheritance. Those who stand against the abomination of desolation will inherit the earth, and thus, the Abrahamic promise will find its ultimate fulfillment. In this vision, YHWH is acting to constitute and preserve his people. He is judging in their favor so that they will not only retake the promised land but also the whole world. Finally, it is noteworthy that the Deuteronomic reading lens is absent. Daniel’s sight of the Ancient of Days seems straightforward. The comparative ‫ כ‬is present, but the comparison is between the Eternal One’s robe and hair and their corresponding earthly approximations. There does not seem to be any attempt to shroud the deity. The kabodic fire is present, but it is described as constituting the Ancient of Days’ throne and flowing out of him. There is no mention of the fire functioning as a screen to prying eyes. At the same time a rush to judgment may be imprudent. The book of Daniel is, after all, apocalyptic in its genre. Its visions are full of strange beasts that represent other things (i.e., rulers, kingdoms, etc.). With this in mind, it is quite possible that the genre of the book itself functions as a kind of hedge against reading its icons too literally. *** These three examples offer an entrée into the intriguing ways that the typescenes and their various elements reverberated beyond the Pentateuch both in a synchronic and diachronic sense. Synchronically, the examples come “after” the Pentateuch in their canonical ordering. Diachronically, they likely come “after” some version of a redacted Pentateuch.9 In this way they point to the ways in which the type-scenes may have resonated with their first readers and receivers. 9. The examples suggest that theophanic type-scenes were either part of the compositional milieu of post 587-BCE or part of the canonical source material (oral or literary) that the authors/editors of Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Daniel drew upon. I find the latter possibility compelling. Cf., e.g., Risa Levitt Kohn’s argument regarding the relationship between P, D and Ezekiel, “A Prophet Like Moses? Rethinking Ezekiel’s Relationship to the Torah,” ZAW 114 (2002): 246–48. The appearance of the various elements across disparate books suggests a common storehouse of oral or literary imagery and motifs. This, of course, does not rule out later adaptation and editing back and forth between the Pentateuch and the prophets. With the patterned stories of YHWH’s appearances to the patriarchs and Moses existing before 587 BCE in either

7. Conclusions

171

Assuming that the type-scenes predate the prophets in some way, then it would seem likely that the various theophanic type-scenes in the Pentateuch helped exilic and post-exilic Jews deal with what Tryggve N. D. Mettinger calls the “cognitive dissonance” brought on by the destruction of the temple and the Babylonian captivity. Those imbued with a strong sense of the inviolability of Zion (based upon YHWH’s continued theophanic presence in the temple) would have struggled to make sense of the harsh historical reality of exile. For all intents and purposes, it looked like the older Zion-Sabaoth theology had failed.10 However, a rereading of the traditional theophanic stories offered an explanation. Not only do the stories display a plurality of ways in which YHWH appears to his people, but they also signal that at times the divine presence purges Israel with a view to the larger purpose of the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise. YHWH’s free, untamed presence is predictably unpredictable. Those who presume upon him and his visible presence find themselves caught up in his consuming, refining fire. At the same time, those who humbly approach him in need will find him ever responsive to their cry. They will see the theophanic salvation of their God. In this manner, the theophanic type-scenes likely provided a theological way of explaining what had happened. Israel/Judah had dealt presumptuously with YHWH. The people had replicated the boundary breaking of Korah, and Nadab and Abihu, and the insubordination of the “numbered” war camp on the way to the plains of Moab. At the same time, YHWH’s continued allegiance to the unruly people presented an element of hope. All was not lost. YHWH had come in judgment, but he would come again in mercy to preserve and constitute a people for himself. The next theophany could be on the horizon!

oral or written forms, it would make sense that the upheaval and theological crisis of exile would prompt later redactors to refine and continue to work the narratives into an appropriate homiletical shape. 10. See Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 16–17.

B i b l i og ra p h y

Aberbach, Moses, and Leivy Smolar. “Aaron, Jeroboam, and the Golden Calves.” JBL 86, no. 2 (1967): 129–40. Albright, William F. “A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems (Psalm LXVIII).” HUCA 23 (1950): 1–39. ———. “The Psalm of Habakkuk.” Pages 1–18 in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy. Edited by H. H. Rowley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Bal, Mieke. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Buffalo, NY: University of Toronto, 1997. Barr, James. “Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament.” Pages 31–38 in Congress Volume: Oxford, 1959. VTSup 7. Leiden: Brill, 1960. Baudissin, W. W. von. Geschichte des Alttestamentlichen Priestertums. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1889. Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Berman, Joshua. “Supersessionist or Complementary? Reassessing the Nature of Legal Revision in the Pentateuchal Law Collections.” JBL 135, no. 2 (2016): 201–22. Beyerlin, Walter. Origins and History of the Oldest Sinaitic Traditions. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965. Bibb, Bryan D. “Nadab and Abihu Attempt to Fill a Gap: Law and Narrative in Leviticus 10.1–7.” JSOT 26, no. 2 (2001): 83–99. Biddle, Mark E. Deuteronomy. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2003. Billings, Rachel M. “The Problem of the Divine Presence: Source-Critical Suggestions for the Analysis of Exodus XXXIII 12–23.” VT 54 (2004): 427–44. Booij, Thijs. “Hagar’s Words in Gen Xvi 13b.” VT 30 (1980): 1–7. ———. “Mountain and Theophany in the Sinai Narrative.” Biblica Roma 65, no. 1 (1984): 1–26. Boyarin, Daniel. The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ. New York: The New Press, 2012. Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982. Buber, Martin. Moses: The Revelation and the Covenant. New York: Harper, 1958. Budd, Philip J. Leviticus. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. ———. Numbers. WBC 5. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1984. Calvin, John. Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. Carasik, Michael. “To See a Sound: A Deuteronomic Rereading of Exodus 20:15.” Prooftexts 19, no. 3 (1999): 257–65.

Bibliography

173

Chatman, Seymour. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989. Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Louisville, KY: The Westminster Press, 1976. ———. “The Old Testament as Scripture of the Church.” Concordia Theological Monthly 43 (1972): 709–22. Christiansen, Duane L. Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9. Rev. ed. WBC 6a. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001. ———. Deuteronomy 21:10—34:12. WBC 6b. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2002. Clements, Ronald E. God and Temple: On the Idea of the Divine Presence in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965. Coats, George W. “Humility and Honor: A Moses Legend in Numbers 12.” Pages 88–98 in The Moses Tradition. JSOTSup 161. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993. Collins, C. John. “‫כבד‬.” Pages 577–87 in vol. 2 of NIDOTTE. Cross, Frank Moore, Jr. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Cross, Frank Moor, Jr., and David Noel Freedman. “The Blessing of Moses.” JBL 67, no. 3 (1948): 191–210. Davies, Eryl W. Numbers. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. DeLapp, Nevada L. “Ezekiel as Moses—Israel as Pharaoh: Reverberations of the Exodus Narrative in Ezekiel.” Pages 51–73 in Reverberations of the Exodus in Scripture. Edited by R. Michael Fox. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2014. ———. The Reformed David(s) and the Question of Resistance to Tyranny: Reading the Bible in the 16th and 17th Centuries. LHBOTS 601. New York: T&T Clark International, 2014. Douglas, Mary. Leviticus as Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Dozeman, Thomas B. God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology, and Canon in Exodus 19–24. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Driver, S. R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902. Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. Vol. 2. Translated by J. A. Baker. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967. Fokkelman, J. P. Narrative Art in Genesis. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975. Fraade, Steven D. “Hearing and Seeing at Sinai: Interpretive Trajectories.” Pages 501–22 in Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Frankel, David. “Two Priestly Conceptions of Guidance in the Wilderness.” JSOT 81 (1998): 31–37. Fretheim, Terence E. The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective. OBT 14. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984. Geller, Stephen A. “Fiery Wisdom: Logos and Lexis in Deuteronomy.” Prooftexts 14, no. 2 (May 1994): 103–139. Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Leviticus: A Commentary. Trans. Douglas W. Stott. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Gieschen, Charles A. Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence. Boston: Brill, 1998. ———. “The Real Presence of the Son Before Christ: Revisiting an Old Approach to Old Testament Christology.” CTQ 68 (2004): 103–26.

174 Bibliography Grandwohl, Roland. “Das ‘fremde Feuer’ von Nadab und Abihu.” ZAW 75 (1963): 292–95. Gray, George B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1903. ———. “Theophany.” Pages 5035–36 in vol. 4 of Encyclopedia Biblica: A Critical Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1903. Greenberg, Moshe. “‫ נסה‬in Exodus 20:20 and the Purpose of the Sinaitic Theophany.” JBL 79, no. 3 (1960): 273–76. Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis: Übersetzt und Erklärt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Hall, Joseph. Contemplations on the Historical Passages of the Old and New Testaments. 1614. Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson, 1844. Hamori, Esther J. “When Gods Were Men”: The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature. BZAW 384. New York: de Gruyter, 2008. Haran, Menahem. Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. ———. “The Uses of Incense in the Ancient Israelite Ritual.” VT 10, no. 2 (1960): 113–29. Hays, Richard B. Reading Backwards: Figural Christology in the Fourfold Gospel Witness. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014. Hess, Richard. “Leviticus 10:1: Strange Fire and an Odd Name.” BBR 12, no. 2 (2002): 187–98. Hieke, Thomas. Levitikus 1–15. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2014. Houston, Walter. “Tragedy in the Courts of the Lord: A Socio-Literary Reading of the Death of Nadab and Abihu.” JSOT 90 (2000): 31–39. Hundley, Michael. Keeping Heaven on Earth: Safeguarding the Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle. FAT 2/50 Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980. Jenson, Robert W. Canon and Creed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2010. Jeremias, Jörg. Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer Alttestamentlichen Gattung. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965. Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile. Trans. and ed. Moshe Greenberg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Kingsbury, Edwin C. “The Theophany Topos and the Mountain of God.” JBL 86, no. 2 (1967): 205–10. Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi. The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature. Sheffield: JSOT, 1987. Kline, Meredith G. Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1093. Kogut, Simcha. “On the Meaning and Syntactical Status of ‫ הנה‬in Biblical Hebrew.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 31 (1986): 133–54. Kohn, Risa Levitt. “A Prophet Like Moses? Rethinking Ezekiel’s Relationship to the Torah.” ZAW 114 (2001): 236–54. Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Worship in Israel. Richmond: John Knox, 1966. Kuntz, J. Kenneth. The Self-Revelation of God. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967. Lammert, Richard A. “The Word of Yhwh as Theophany.” CTQ 73 (2009): 195–210. Laughlin, John C. H. “The ‘Strange Fire’ of Nadab and Abihu.” JBL 95, no. 4 (1976): 559–65.

Bibliography

175

Leder, Arie. “Divine Presence, Then the Covenants: An Essay on Narrative and Theological Precedence, Part One.” NGTT 53, no. 1 (2012): 179–93. ———. “Divine Presence, Then the Covenants: An Essay on Narrative and Theological Precedence, Part Two.” NGTT 54, no. 3 & 4 (2013): 207–20. ———. Waiting for the Land: The Story Line of the Pentateuch. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2010. Levine, Baruch A. The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus ‫ויקרא‬. New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989. ———. Numbers 1–20. AB 4a. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Levinson, Bernard M. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Lewis, Theodore J. “Divine Fire in Deuteronomy 33:2.” JBL 132, no. 4 (2013): 791–803. Lindblom, Johannes. “Theophanies in Holy Places in Hebrew Religion.” HUCA 32 (1961): 91–106. López, René A. “Identifying the ‘Angel of the Lord’ in the Book of Judges: A Model for Reconsidering the Referent in Other Old Testament Loci.” BBR 20, no. 1 (2010): 1–18. Mann, Thomas W. Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Traditions: The Typology of Exaltation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977. ———. “The Pillar of Cloud in the Reed Sea Narrative.” JBL 90, no. 1 (1971): 15–30. McKenzie, Steven L. “ ‘You Have Prevailed’: The Function of Jacob’s Encounter At Peniel in the Jacob Cycle.” ResQ 23 (1980): 225–31. McNeile, Alan H. The Book of Numbers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911. Mendenhall, George E. “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition.” The Biblical Archaeologist 17, no. 3 (1954): 49–76. ————. The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies. Coniectanea Biblica, OT Series 18. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1982. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16. AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. ———. Numbers ‫במדבר‬. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1990. ———. “The Structure of Numbers: Chapters 11–12 and 13–14 and Their Redaction. Preliminary Groupings.” Pages 49–61 in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel. Edited by Jacob Neusner, Baruch Levine, and Ernest Frerichs. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004. Mirguet, Françoise. “Essai d’interprétation de Lévitique 10. Le bouc brûlé et non mangé.” ETR 80 (2005): 261–72. Moberly, R. W. L. “On Learning to Be a True Prophet: The Story of Balaam and His Ass.” Pages 1–17 in New Heaven & New Earth: Prophecy & the Millennium. Essays in Honour of Anthony Gelston. Edited by Peter J. Harland and Robert Hayward. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Nicholson, E. W. “The Decalogue as the Direct Address of God.” VT 27, no. 4 (1977): 422–33. ———. “The Interpretation of Exodus Xxiv 9–11.” VT 24 (1974): 80–84. Niditch, Susan. Ancient Israelite Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Noth, Martin. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Trans. Bernhard W. Anderson. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1981. ———. Leviticus: A Commentary. Trans. J. E. Anderson. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965. ———. Numbers: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968.

176 Bibliography Plaut, W. Gunther, Bernard J. Bamberger, and William W. Hallo. The Torah: A Modern Commentary. New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1981. Polak, Frank. “Theophany and Mediator.” Pages 113–47 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction—Reception—Interpretation. Edited by Marc Vervenne. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993. Preuss, Horst Dietrich. Old Testament Theology. Vol. 1. Translated by Leo G. Perdue. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. Rad, Gerhard von. “‫ כבוד‬in the OT” (s.v. Δόξα) in TDNT. ———. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Trans. Dorothea Barton. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966. ———. “Deuteronomy’s ‘Name’ Theology and the Priestly Document’s ‘Kabod’ Theology.” Pages 37–44 in Studies in Deuteronomy. ———. “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch.” Pages 1–78 in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. New York: McGraw Hill, 1966. ———. Genesis: A Commentary. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972. ———. Old Testament Theology. Trans. D. M. G. Stalker. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. ———. “The Purpose of Deuteronomy.” Page 70–73 in Studies in Deuteronomy. ———. Studies in Deuteronomy. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1953 Radner, Ephraim. Time and the Word: Figural Reading of the Christian Scriptures. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016. Rashi. ‫ ספר במדבר‬Bamidbar/Numbers. Edited by Rabbi Yisrael Herczeg. Vol. 4 of Sapirstein Edition Rashi: The Torah: With Rashi’s Commentary Translated, Annotated, and Elucidated. Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah, 2003. ———. ‫ ספר דברים‬Devarim/Deuteronomy. Edited by Rabbi Yisrael Herczeg. Vol. 5 of Sapirstein Edition Rashi: The Torah: With Rashi’s Commentary Translated, Annotated, and Elucidated. Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah, 2001. ———. ‫ ספר ויקרא‬Vayikra/Leviticus. Edited by Rabbi Yisrael Herczeg. Vol. 3 of Sapirstein Edition Rashi: The Torah: With Rashi’s Commentary Translated, Annotated, and Elucidated. Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah, 2003. ———. ‫ ספר שמות‬Shemos/Exodus. Edited by Rabbi Yisrael Herczeg. Vol. 2 of Sapirstein Edition Rashi: The Torah: With Rashi’s Commentary Translated, Annotated, and Elucidated. Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah, 2004. Rendtorff, Rolf. “Offenbarung im Alten Testament.” TLZ 11 (1960): 834–38. ———. “The Concept of Revelation in Ancient Israel.” Pages 23–53 in Revelation as History. Edited by W. Pannenberg et al. New York: Macmillan, 1968. Robinson, Bernard P. “The Theophany and Meal of Exodus 24.” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 25, no. 2 (2011): 155–73. Robinson, Gnana. “The Prohibition of Strange Fire in Ancient Israel: A New Look at the Case of Gathering Wood and Kindling Fire on the Sabbath.” VT 28, no. 3 (1978): 301–17. Sailhamer, John. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. Sarna, Nahum M. The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis ‫בראשית‬. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Savran, George W. Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative. New York: T&T Clark International, 2005.

Bibliography

177

———. “Seeing Is Believing: On the Relative Priority of Visual and Verbal Perception of the Divine.” Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches 17, no. 3 (2009): 320–61. ———. Telling and Retelling: Quotation in Biblical Narrative. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1988. ———. “Theophany as Type Scene.” Prooftexts 23, no. 2 (2003): 119–49. Schmidt, Nathaniel. “The Numen of Penuel.” JBL 45, no. 3/4 (1926): 268–74. Schmidt, N. F., and P. J. Nel. “Theophany as Type-Scene in the Hebrew Bible.” Journal for Semitics 11, no. 2 (2002): 256–81. Segal, Peretz. “The Divine Verdict of Leviticus X 3.” VT 39, no. 1 (1989): 91–95. Sherwood, Stephen K. Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2002. Smith, Mark S. “The Three Bodies of God in the Hebrew Bible.” JBL 134, no. 3 (2015): 471–488. Sommer, Benjamin D. The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. ———. “Conflicting Constructions of Divine Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle.” Biblical Interpretation 9, no. 1 (2001): 41–63. ———. Revelation and Authority: Sinai in Jewish Scripture and Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015. ———. “Revelation at Sinai in the Hebrew Bible and in Jewish Theology.” JBL 79, no. 3 (1999): 422–51. Sonderegger, Katherine. Systematic Theology. Vol. 1, The Doctrine of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Staton, Cecil P., Jr. “And Yahweh Appeared: A Study of the Motifs of Seeing God and God’s Appearing in Old Testament Narratives.” D. Phil. diss. University of Oxford, 1988. Steiner, Richard C. “dāt and ên: Two Verbs Masquerading as Nouns in Moses’ Blessing (Deuteronomy 33:2, 28).” JBL, no. 4 (1996): 693–98. Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1987. Terrien, Samuel. The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology. New York: Harper & Row, 1978. Thompson, J. A. Deuteronomy: An Introduction & Commentary. TOTC. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1974. Toorn, Karl van der. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009. Van Seters, John. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975. ———. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testament. Carlisle, PN: Banner of Truth, 1996. Walsh, Carey. “Where Did God Go? Theophanic Shift in Exodus.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 43, no. 3 (2013): 115–23. Weinfeld, Moshe. “‫כבוד‬.” Pages 22–38 in vol. 7 of TDOT. ———. Deuteronomy 1–11. AB 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991. ———. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992.

178 Bibliography ———. “Traces of Assyrian Treaty Formulae in Deuteronomy.” Biblica 46 (1965): 417–27. Weiser, Artur. “Psalm 77: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Verhältnis von Kult und Heilsgeschichte.” TLZ 72 (1947): 133–40. Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1994. Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Westermann, Claus. Genesis 12–36: A Commentary. Trans. John J. Scullion S.J. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985. ———. Genesis 37–50: A Commentary. Trans. John J. Scullion S.J. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986. ———. Praise and Lament in the Psalms. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981. Wright, Christopher J. H. Deuteronomy. NIBC. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. Willet, Andrew. Hexapla in Genesin & Exodum: That is a Sixfold Commentary Upon the Two First Bookes of Moses, Being Genesis and Exodus. London: John Haviland, 1633. Wilson, Ian Douglas. “ ‘Face to Face’ with God: Another Look.” ResQ 51 (2009): 107–14. ———. Out of the Midst of the Fire: Divine Presence in Deuteronomy. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995. Wolters, Al. “Confessional Criticism and the Night Visions of Zechariah.” Pages 90–117 in Renewing Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Craig Bartholomew, Colin Greene, and Karl Möller. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

I n d ex of R ef er e nce s Genesis 2 22 3:8 11, 17, 42 3:15 17 12 17, 19–21, 23 12:1–7 30 12:1 20 12:3 126, 167 12:5–6 20, 21 12:6–9 18 12:6 16, 21 12:7 3, 17, 19, 21, 26, 37 12:10–20 21 13:1–14:24 21 13:14 23 15 10, 21, 23, 25, 46, 47, 56, 58, 126 15:1–6 22 15:1 19, 21, 23, 50 15:2–3 23 15:5 21, 22, 30 15:6 120 15:7 22 15:12–21 126 15:17–21 58 15:17 47 15:18–19 22 16 23, 25 16:10 23 16:12 25 16:13 23, 24 17 26, 28, 29 17:1 19, 26, 46 17:4 26

17:5 26 17:6 26, 126 17:7 26, 65, 86 17:8 26 17:16 126 17:17–18 28 17:22 26, 38 18 2, 6, 22, 26–29, 39, 40, 47 18:1–16 27 18:1 19, 26, 27 18:2 27, 31 18:9–15 29 18:10 27 18:12–15 28 18:13 27 18:17–33 27 18:19 28 18:22 29 18:33 28 19 29 20:3–7 29 20:3 29 21 29, 33 21:17–19 29 21:17 29 21:19 29 22 29, 33 22:1 27 22:11 29 22:13 29 26 30, 31 26:1–6 29, 41 26:2 26, 30, 31 26:3 30 26:4 30 26:23–25 23

26:23 19 26:24 26, 30, 31, 50 26:26–33 31 28 10, 31, 32, 34, 38, 40, 41 28:8 31 28:11 33 28:12–13 32 28:13 19, 31, 40 28:14 31 28:15 31 28:16–17 32 28:18–19 38 28:20–22 33 31:3 33 31:11–13 33 32 6, 33, 38, 39, 47, 146, 147 32:1–2 Eng. 33 32:2–3 33 32:7 Eng. 34 32:8 34 32:10–13 34 32:12 34, 36 32:13 34 32:22 34 32:27 35 32:29 35 32:30 35, 36 32:31 37, 144 33:10 37 34 40 34:30 40 35 37, 40

180 Genesis (cont.) 35:1 19, 26, 37, 38 35:2 38, 40 35:5 40 35:6–8 38 35:7 38 35:9–15 38–40 35:9 19, 26 35:10 38 35:13 38 35:14–15 38 46 41 46:1–4 41 46:1 19 46:2 26, 41 46:3 41 46:4 41 48 41 48:3 41 48:4 41 48:15–16 41 Exodus 1–18 56 1:7 121 1:12 121 3–4 43 3 2, 46–50, 59, 70, 74, 150 3:2 2, 44, 69 3:3 44 3:4 44 3:5 45, 50 3:6 45, 50, 53 3:14 45 3:15 45 3:16 45 4:1 46 4:5 46 6 48 6:2 46 6:7–8 48 6:8 46 7:1 73 7:3 67

Index of References 7:27 66 8:2 Eng. 66 12:13 66 12:23 66, 67 12:27 66 12:38 104 13 101 13:17 51 13:19 50 13:21–22 50, 75, 101 14–17 98 14 59 14:11 51 14:13 51, 52 14:17 51 14:18 51 14:19–25 75 14:19–20 51 14:19 69 14:24–25 52 14:28 52 14:31 52, 59 15:2 53 15:7 53 15:11 53 15:13 53 15:17 54 15:22–27 54 16 105, 106 16:3–34 97 16:3 54 16:4 54 16:7 54, 70, 71 16:8 54 16:10–11 83 16:10 54, 70, 75, 119 16:12 54 16:15 55 16:16 55 16:23 55 16:28 55 16:30 55 16:35 97 17 119 17:1–7 55, 97, 119 17:1 55, 119

17:3 119 17:6 120 17:7 55, 119 17:8–16 55 17:8–13 97 17:14–16 97 18 60, 65, 75, 107 18:23–24 56 19–32 67 19–24 47, 60, 61, 72 19–20 59, 65, 138, 140 19 12, 56, 58, 63, 74, 135 19:1–25 60 19:4–6 56 19:6 77 19:8 56, 62 19:9 56 19:10–15 105 19:10 57 19:12–13 57, 60 19:13 63 19:15 57 19:16 57–59 19:18 58 19:20–25 58, 60, 64, 89 19:20 58 19:21 58 19:24 58 19:25 62 20 147 20:1–17 60, 61 20:4 15 20:5 88 20:11 61 20:18–26 60 20:18 59 20:19 59 20:20 60, 73 20:21 60, 61 20:22–23 62, 65, 138 21:1–23:33 60 23:28 62



Index of References 24

62, 63, 65, 103 24:1–11 11 24:1–2 63, 64 24:3–8 63 24:3 62 24:7 62, 63 24:8 62 24:9–11 63, 64 24:10 64 24:11 64, 66 24:16–17 70 24:16 65, 70 24:17 65, 70, 71 25–31 65, 74 25–29 68 25:1 101 25:3 65 25:9 65 29:8 65 29:42 68 29:45 86 30:9 91 30:11 101 30:17 101 30:22 101 30:34 101 31:1 101 31:12–18 67 31:12 101 32–34 67, 69 32 60, 65, 75, 88 32:1 65 32:2–3 66 32:4 66, 67 32:6 66 32:9 67, 68 32:10 69, 111 32:11–14 112 32:12 67 32:13 70 32:20 67 32:24 67 32:27 66 32:34 67 32:35 66

33–34 33

43, 67, 112 67–69, 74, 85, 109, 145, 147 33:2–3 69 33:2 69 33:3 68, 103 33:5 68 33:7–23 68 33:7–12 68 33:7–11 68, 69, 75, 80, 96 33:7–1 72 33:8–34:35 146 33:8–11 146, 147 33:8 109 33:9 69, 104, 145 33:10 69 33:11 69, 116, 144, 145, 147 33:12–23 69, 109 33:12 69 33:13 69, 70 33:14 70 33:15–16 70 33:17 70 33:18 2, 70 33:19–20 71 33:20 2, 71 33:23 2 34 12, 67, 69, 72–74 34:2 68 34:6–7 73 34:6 74 34:9 73 34:10–26 73 34:10 73 34:12–23 72 34:28 73 34:30 73 34:31 74 34:33 74 34:34–35 74, 75 34:35 74

181 35–40 74 35:1–3 67 39:32 68, 74 39:42–43 74 39:43 101 40 69, 85, 102 40:2 68 40:6 68 40:12–16 85 40:24 155 40:29 68 40:33–35 85 40:34–38 80 40:34–35 43 40:34 74, 101 40:35 75, 80 40:36–38 75, 100 40:36–37 75 40:38 75 Leviticus 1–7 81, 82 1:1 96, 101 7:37–38 82 8–10 82 8–9 81, 94 8 82, 83, 85 8:2 82 8:4 82 8:9 82 8:10 83 8:13 82 8:17 82 8:18 82 8:21 82 8:22 82 8:29 82 8:31 82 8:34 82 8:35 82 8:36 82 9 83–85, 94, 160, 166 9:1–4 83 9:2 82 9:3 82 9:4 82, 83, 85

182 Leviticus (cont.) 9:6 83, 85 9:7 83 9:10 83 9:16 83 9:21 83 9:23 84, 85 9:24 84, 85, 87 10 81, 86, 88, 91, 92, 94, 99, 117, 160, 165 10:1–7 93 10:1–2 117, 118 10:1 87, 90, 92, 117 10:2 87 10:3 87, 90, 120 10:6 89 10:7 89 10:10–11 90 11–27 81 11–15 91, 94 11 81 16 85, 91, 92, 94, 117 16:1 92, 93 16:2 85, 91 16:3 91 16:4 91 16:5 91 16:6 92 16:7 93 16:10 93 16:11 92 16:12–13 92 16:12 92, 117 16:13 92 16:14 93 16:15–32 94 17–26 91 Numbers 1:1 96, 100 3:4 93 3:25 101 9:14 101

Index of References 9:15–23 100, 110 9:15 101 9:16 100, 101 9:18 101 9:20 101 9:23 101 10 102 10:11–13 100, 101, 110 10:11 102 10:12 102 10:34 101, 102 11 102, 103, 105, 107 11:1–3 102 11:1 103 11:2 103 11:3 103 11:4–34 97, 102 11:4 103 11:5 103 11:6 103 11:7–9 106 11:7 104 11:8 104 11:10 104 11:11 104 11:12–13 105 11:14 105 11:15 105 11:16–17 105 11:18–20 106 11:20 106 11:21–22 106 11:23 106 11:25 106 11:26 107 11:29 107 12 107, 144, 145, 147 12:1–16 146 12:1–15 102 12:2 108 12:3 108 12:4 109 12:5 109

12:6–8

109, 146, 147 12:8 2, 109, 145, 147 12:9 110 12:10 110 13:31 111 13:32 111 13:33 111 14–16 99 14 111 14:1 111 14:2 111 14:3 111, 112 14:5 113, 118 14:9 111 14:10–35 111 14:10–11 83 14:10 111, 119 14:11–12 111 14:14 112 14:15–16 112 14:18–19 112 14:20 112 14:21–22 97 14:21 112 14:22 112 14:23 112 14:26–35 112 14:29–30 112 14:31 112 14:33–35 112 14:44 113 15:37–41 113 16–17 81, 111 16 92, 95, 113, 117, 119, 165 16:1 115 16:3 113 16:4 118 16:5 114 16:6–7 117 16:6 114 16:7 114 16:9–10 114 16:11 114

16:12–15 114 16:13 115 16:15 115 16:16–21 117 16:16–17 115 16:19–50 111 16:19–20 83 16:19 115, 119 16:21 115, 116 16:22 119 16:24 113 16:26 113 16:28 116 16:29–30 116 16:31–33 116 16:32 116 16:35 116, 117 16:40 Eng. 118 16:41 Eng. 117 16:42 Eng. 117 17:5 118 17:6 117 17:7 117, 119 17:10 117, 119 17:11 117 17:12 117 17:13 117 17:14 117 17:20 117 17:25 117 20 111, 119 20:1–13 118 20:1–12 97 20:1 119 20:2 119 20:3 119 20:6–7 83 20:6 119, 120 20:8 120 20:9 120 20:11 120 20:12 120 20:23–29 97 21:1–3 97 22–24 110, 121, 127 22:2 121

Index of References 22:3 121 22:5–6 121 22:6 122 22:11 122 22:12 122 22:15 122 22:17 122 22:18 122, 124 22:20 123 22:22 123 22:23 123 22:25 123 22:26 124 22:27 124 22:28–30 124 22:28 124 22:29 124 22:31–35 124 22:31 124 22:32 124 22:33 124 22:38 125 22:41 125 23:1–12 125 23:5 125 23:7 126 23:8 126 23:9 126 23:10 126 23:11 125 23:12 125 23:13–26 125 23:13 125 23:16 125 23:20 126 23:21 126 23:22 126 23:25 125 23:27–24:14 125 23:27 125 24:1–3 126 24:1 125 24:7 126 24:9 122, 126 24:10 125 24:15–19 126 26:61 93

183 Deuteronomy 1–31 130 1:1–5 4, 131 4 135, 138, 143 4:1–15 135 4:3 135 4:7 135 4:9 135 4:10–15 135 4:10 135, 136 4:11 136, 137, 142 4:12 129, 136 4:15 129, 138 4:16–24 138 4:16 138 4:17–19 138 4:20–22 138 4:20 138 4:23 139 4:24 139, 148 4:35 140 4:36 129, 140, 141, 143 4:39 141 5 142, 145, 147, 155 5:1–5 143 5:1 142 5:2 142 5:3 142 5:4–5 143 5:4 143–45, 147 5:6–7 147 5:8 15, 143 5:22–26 144 5:22 143 5:24 129, 144 5:25 144, 146, 148 5:26 146 9 131, 148, 150 9:3 148 9:5 148

184 Deuteronomy (cont.) 9:10 148 9:12 148 9:15 148 9:22 149 10:3 148 10:4 148 18 150, 151 18:15 157 18:16 150 18:20 151 18:22 151 31–34 151 31 151 31:9–13 152 31:14–29 134, 140 31:15 152 31:19 152 31:21 152 31:22 153 31:23 140 31:24 153 31:25–31 140 31:25 140 31:26 153 31:28 140 31:30 140 31:31 140 31:32–33 140 31:33 140 32 153, 155 32:52 153 33 153 33:2–5 153 33:2 153, 154 33:3 155 33:4 155 33:18 154 33:26–29 153 33:26 153, 154

Index of References 33:27–29 155 34:1–12 4, 131 34:1 153 34:4 156 34:9 151 34:10 156 34:11–12 156 34:24 151 Joshua 5–6 150 5 149 5:13–6:2 149 6 149 6:1 149 6:2 150 1 Samuel 16:12 24 1 Kings 18–19 156 2 Kings 1–2 156 2:1 27 Job 9:11 1 Psalms 15:1–2 79 105:6–7 15 105:39 43 105:42 43 106:18 96 Ezekiel 1 1:4

156, 164 164, 166

1:13 164 1:26 165, 166 1:27 165 1:28 165 8–11 156 10 165 11:17 166 11:20 166 34 166 36 166 37 166 38 166 43 156, 166 47–48 166 Daniel 7 168, 169 7:9 168 7:10 168 7:11 168 7:13 168 7:18 168 7:21 168 7:22 168 7:25 168 7:27 169 8 169 8:11–13 169 Zechariah 2:5 Eng. 167 2:8 Eng. 167 2:9 167 2:10 Eng. 167 2:11 Eng. 167 2:12 167 2:12 Eng. 167 2:14 167 2:15 167 2:16 167

I n d ex of A ut hor s Aberbach, M. 93 Albright, W. F. 5 Alter, R. 16, 125 Bal, M. 65 Bamberger, B. J. 123 Barr, J. 18 Baudissin, W. W. von 93 Berlin, A. 32 Berman, J. 132 Beyerlin, W. 5 Bibb, B. D. 90, 91 Biddle, M. E. 138, 148 Billings, R. M. 70, 71 Booij, T. 24, 59, 63 Boyarin, D. 169 Brueggemann, W. 20–23, 28, 33, 37, 49, 51 Buber, M. 63 Budd, P. J. 92, 93, 99, 103, 108, 113, 120 Calvin, J. 21–23, 25, 28, 32 Carasik, M. 131, 136 Chatman, S. 3 Childs, B. S. 45, 57, 63, 131 Christensen, D. L. 134, 143, 155 Clements, R. E. 5, 68, 76 Coats, G. W. 108 Collins, C. J. 47 Cross, F. M. 5, 45, 48, 52, 53, 57, 58, 71, 154 Davies, E. W. 102, 104, 106, 109, 114, 117, 123 DeLapp, N. L. 54, 100, 156, 165 Douglas, M. 93 Dozeman, T. B. 57, 59, 62–64, 73, 74, 77 Driver, S. R. 133, 137, 153, 155 Eichrodt, W. 136, 144, 145

Fokkelman, J. P. 32–37 Fraade, S. D. 64 Frankel, D. 71, 100 Freedman, D. N. 154 Fretheim, T. E. 18, 20, 25, 48, 50 Geller, S. A. 142, 143 Gerstenberger, E. S. 88 Gieschen, C. A. 18, 25 Grandwohl, R. 88, 92, 93 Gray, G. B. 25, 101, 103, 110 Greenberg, M. 61 Gunkel, H. 17, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 31 Hall, J. 88, 93 Hallo, W. W. 123 Hamori, E. J. 6, 27, 39, 40 Haran, M. 68, 93 Hays, R. B. 169 Hess, R. 93 Hieke, T. 84, 85 Houston, W. 88 Hundley, M. 84, 166 Iser, W. 23 Jenson, R. W. 25 Jeremias, J. 5 Kaufmann, Y. 48 Kingsbury, E. C. 58 Kiuchi, N. 87, 94 Kline, M. G. 134 Kogut, S. 32 Kohn, R. L. 170 Kraus, H.-J. 5, 68 Kuntz, J. K. 6, 8, 11, 20, 26, 28, 30, 46, 47, 50, 61, 63 Lammert, R. A. 18 Laughlin, J. C. H. 87, 90–92 Leder, A. 19, 60, 97

186

Index of Authors

Levine, B. A. 81, 87, 89, 95, 100, 101, 103, 109, 114, 119 Levinson, B. M. 132, 133 Lewis, T. J. 154 Lindblom, J. 18, 22, 27, 32, 35, 39 López, R. A. 25 Mann, T. W. 51–53, 66 McKenzie, S. L. 36, 37 McNeile, A. H. 100, 106, 114, 115, 119, 123 Mendenhall, G. E. 5, 47, 76, 134 Mettinger, T. N. D. 7, 68, 130, 137, 171 Milgrom, J. 75, 81–83, 87–90, 92, 94, 97, 98, 102, 105, 111, 113, 114, 116, 124, 125 Mirguet, F. 88 Moberly, R. W. L. 121, 123, 124 Nel, P. J. 9, 12, 20, 121 Nicholson, E. W. 62–64 Niditch, S. 10, 20 Noth, M. 92, 103, 104, 114, 123 Plaut, W. G. 123 Polak, F. 8, 43, 47, 49, 56, 59, 64, 67, 70, 72, 75 Preuss, H. D. 144 Rad, G. von 5, 17, 23, 25, 29, 34, 39, 68, 71, 130, 133, 136, 151 Radner, E. 139 Rendtorff, R. 6, 20 Robinson, B. P. 62–65 Robinson, G. 93 Sailhamer, J. 97, 121 Sarna, N. M. 18, 23, 40 Savran, G. W. 8, 9, 11, 19, 20, 24, 32, 33, 36, 49, 50, 59, 64, 71, 122, 125

Schmidt, N. 9, 12, 20, 39, 121 Segal, P. 88 Sherwood, S. K. 102 Smith, M. S. 7, 64 Smolar, L. 93 Sommer, B. D. 7, 12, 24, 58, 68, 71, 73, 100, 130, 131, 146 Sonderegger, K. 134 Staton, C. P., Jr. 7, 8, 13, 19–21, 25, 29–32, 34, 40, 45, 46, 83, 86, 95, 99, 108, 109, 111, 112, 123, 127 Steiner, R. C. 154 Sternberg, M. 57 Terrien, S. 7, 18, 22, 31, 35, 36, 45, 46, 60, 72 Thompson, J. A. 138, 143, 148 Toorn, K. van der 82 Van Seters, J. 121 Vos, G. 6, 17, 18, 24, 33, 65 Walsh, C. 48, 53, 59, 76 Weinfeld, M. 4, 47, 48, 71, 130, 134, 137, 138, 144 Weiser, A. 5 Wellhausen, J. 24 Wenham, G. J. 80, 87 Westermann, C. 5, 12, 18, 24, 25, 27, 31, 35, 41 Willet, A. 39 Wilson, I. D. 36, 130, 136, 137, 141 Wolters, A. 167 Wright, C. J. H. 138, 148