at the mountain of god_ story and theology in exodus 32-34.pdf

8/18/2019 At the Mountain of God_ Story and Theology in Exodus 32-34.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/at-the-mountain-of-god-story-and-theology-in-exodus-32-34pdf 1/259



J O U RN L

FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

SUPPLEMENT

SERIES

Editors

David J A Clines

Philip R Davies

David M

Gunn

Department of Biblical Studies

The University of Sheffield

Sheffield

S1

2TN

England



his page intentionally left blank



T

T H E M O U N T IN

OF

GO

Story

and

Theology

in Exodus 32-34

R.W.L

MO ERLY

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Supplement

Series 22



C o p y r i g h t

©

1983 JSOT Press

ISSN

0309-0787

I S B N 0 905774 44 2 h a r d b a c k )

I S B N

0

9 0 5 7 7 4

45 0

p a p e r b a c k )

Pub l i shed

b y

JSOT Press

D e p a r t m e n t o f B i b l i c a l S t u d i e s

T h e

U n i v e r s i t y

o f

S h e f f i e l d

S h e f f i e l d S 1 0 2 T N

E n g l a n d

Pr in ted

in reat

B r i t a i n

b y

R e d w o o d

B u r n L td

T r o w b r i d g e , W i l ts h i r e

1983

B r i t i s h L i b r a r y C a t a l o g u i n g

in

P u b l i c a t i o n

D a t a

M o b e r l e y , W a l t e r

A t

th e

m o u n t a i n

o f G o d

- - J o u r n a l

fo r the

s t u d y

o f

t he Old T e s ta m e n t , s u p p l e m e n t series

ISSN 0309-0787:

22 )

1 .

B i b l e - O . T .

E x o d u s

X X X I I

-

X X X I V

—

C r i t i c i s m , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , etc

I .

T i t l e

I I .

Series

2 2 2 M 2 B S 1 2 4 5 . 2

I S B N 0 - 9 0 5 7 7 4 - 4 4 -2



T A B L E

O F C O N T E N T S

P r e f a c e 9

I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 1

S O M E

C O N S I D E R A T I O N S

O F M E T H O D IN

N A R R A T I V E

I N T E R P R E T A T I O N 1 5

I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 5

Recent a r g u m e n t s f o r t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f i n t e r p r e t i n g

the

f i n a l

f o r m of the

text

1 8

L i t e r a r y a r g u m e n t s

1 8

T h e o l o g i c a l a r g u m e n t s 2 0

T h e

r e l a t i o n s h i p b e tw e e n

t h e

s t u d y

of the

f i n a l

text

a n d the s t u d y of i ts p r e h i s t o r y 2 2

A c o n s i d e r a t i o n

of

s o m e i m p l i c a t i o n s

of the

proposed approach

to the text 7

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

o f

H e b r e w n a r r a t i v e s ty l e

2 8

T he

ro l e

o f

a s s u m p t i o n

a n d a l l u s i o n in

n a r r a t i v e 3 2

I m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e o l o g i c a l p a r a d o x 3 3

T h e exegetical s i g n i f i c a n c e o f l i t e r a r y

g e n r e

an d

th e

v a l u e

of the c o n c e p t o f

s t o r y

3 4

S u m m a r y

a n d

c o n c l u s i o n

3 8

2

A N

E X E G E S I S

O F E X .

32 34

4 4

N a r r a t i v e

p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s

i n Ex .

3 2 3 4

4 4

32:1 6

46

3 2 : 7 1 4

48

3 2 : 1 5 2 0

5 3

3 2 : 2 1 2 4 5 4

32:25 29 5 4

32:30 33:6

5 6

33:7 11

63

3 3 :12 23 66

I n t r o d u c t i o n

to E x. 34 83

34:1 9 84

34:10 9 3

3 4 : 1 1 2 6 95

34:27 28 1 01

5



34:29-35

106

C onclusion 109

Excursus one: Ex.

32:18

111

E xc ur s us two: Gen. 8:21 113

3 E X .

32-34

A S A

C U L T

L E G E N D

116

In t roductory survey of the

cult

legend

hypothes i s 117

D e f i n i t i o n

of t e r m i n o l o g y 119

1 Legend 119

2 Cu l t

121

3 C u l t i c 124

The use of f o r m c r iticism

125

Analysis of Ex.

33:19,

34 :6f. 128

Analys i s of Ex. 34 :11-26 13 1

The p r o b l e m o f r e l i g i o u s l an g u ag e 13 5

Evidence

for the

i n f l u e n c e

o f

Israel s cu l t

upon

the

Sinai pericope 13 6

Conc lus ion 13 9

4 EX . 32-34 A S

L E G E N D

14 1

The Moses traditions as legend 141

A

p r e l i m i n a r y c l a r if i c a ti o n

14 2

O r a l l i t e r a t u r e

1 4 4

Criteria

for legend 14 8

Oral tradition 14 9

M i ra c l e s

14 9

Aet io logy 150

Tradi t ional mot i f s

151

Typica l s ign i f i cance

151

The lack o f d i s t inc t ion be tween

past

and

present

153

S u m m a r y

and

conclusion

154

5 S E L E C T I V E C R I T I C A L A N A L Y S I S O F E X . 32-34 1 57

An

analysis

of

34:1-28

157

An analysis of

32:1-6

161

An

analysis of 33 :7-11 17 1

An ana lys i s of 34:29-35 17 7

Br ief notes

on

three sections

180

1 3 2 : 25 - 29 180

2 3 2 :3 0 -3 3 :6 181

3)33:12-23 182

The

redaction

of Ex. 32-34 182

C o n c lu s io n

186

6



E p i l o g u e 1 8 7

N o t e s

1 9

A b b r e v i a t i o n s 2 2 8

B i b l i o g r a p h y

23

I n d e x

o f

A u t h o r s

2 5 3

I n d e x

o f B i b l i ca l

R e f e r e n c e s

25 6



T O M Y F R I E N D S IN

K N O W L E

Pr ov . 17 :17a)



P R E F A C E

T h i s

b o o k i s b a s ed u p o n a d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n e n t i t l e d

E O D S ilE L

6

.

A

n

A_^L

a

J^

t

^g^Q._J l^_^l

u

-

(

J-X-

o f _ _ ^ ^ b l t _ c a l N a r r a t i v e ; A

F r e s h A p p r o a c h to E x o d u s

32 3J

w h i c h w a s s u b m i t t e d to t he

U n i v e r s i t y

o f

C a m b r i d g e

i n

1 9 8 1 . S u b s t a n t i a l r e v i s i o n s h a v e

b e e n m a d e

to

p r e p a r e

t h e

w o r k

f o r

p u b l i c a t i o n .

T h r o u g h o u t t h e w o r k I h a v e t r i e d t o k e e p t h e f o o t n o t e s

u n c u m b e r s o m e .

C o n s e q u e n t l y r e f e r e n c e s t o s c h o l a r l y w o r k s

h a v e

u s u a l l y

b e en m a d e i n an a b b r e v i a t e d f o r m , a n d t h e f o o t -

n o t e s s h o u l d

b e

u s e d

i n

c o n j u n c t i o n

w i t h t h e

b i b l i o g r a p h y w h e r e

f u l l

d e t a i l s

a r e

g i v e n

o f

a l l w o r k s c i t e d .

T h e b i b l i o g r a p h y

a l so

c o n t a i n s c e r t a i n w o r k s w h i c h h a v e n o t b e e n c i t e d ( b r e v i t a t i s

c a u s a )

b u t

w h i c h

a r e

r e l e v a n t

t o t h e

d i s c u s s i o n

a n d

w h o s e

a r g u m e n t s h a v e b e en t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

T h e

s t u d y

h a s

be e n b a s e d u p o n

th e

H e b r e w text

in B i b l i a

H e b r a i c a S t u t t g a r t e n s i a ( S t u t t g a r t , 1 9 6 6 / 7 7 ) .

M a n y

f r i e n d s ar id s c h o l a r s h a v e h e l p e d , e n c o u r a g e d

a n d

a d v i s e d m e a l o n g t h e w a y . A m o n g t h e s e , D r

G I

W e n h a m , R e v .

G o l d i n g a y

a n d

P r o f e s s o r

E . W .

N i c h o l s o n

a l l r e a d c e r t a i n

s e c t i o n s a t an e a r l y

s t a g e

a n d o f f e r e d c o n s t r u c t i v e s u g g e s t i o n s .

A n d

I w o u l d l i k e to e x p re s s p a r t i c u l a r g r a t i t u d e t o D r G. I .

D a v i e s w h o s u p e r v i s e d m e f o r t h e g r e a t e r p a r t o f m y

r e s e a r c h .

F i n a l l y ,

I a m g r a t e f u l t o t h e s u c c e s s iv e w a r d e n s a n d l i b r a r i a n s

o f

T y n d a l e H o u s e L i b r a r y ,

w h o

p r o v i d e

t h e

i d e a l f a c i l i t i e s

a n d

s u r r o u n d i n g s

f o r

b i b l i c a l r e s e a r c h .

R . W . L .

M o b e r l y J a n u a r y

1982

S t . A n n e ' s C o t ta g e

K n o w l e

W e s t

M i d l a n d s



his page intentionally left blank



I N T R O D U C T I O N

In a recent r e vie w o f R . R e n d t o r f f s

i m p o r t a n t

w o r k D as

i i b e r l i e f e r u n g s g e s c h i c h t l i c h e P r o b l e m

d e s

P e n t a t e u c h

W .

M c K a n e w r it e s ,

T h e

a t t i t u d e

o f

r e s t l e s s i n t e r r o g a t i o n

w h i c h

m a r k s

th e

book

i s a h o p e f u l s i g n , f o r O ld T e s t a m e n t s c h o l a r s h i p

s u f f e r s

f r o m

th e b u r d e n o f too m a n y r e ce i v ed c r i t i c a l

a s s u m p t i o n s

h u n g

a b o u t

th e

n e c k s

of i t s

p r a c t i t i o n e r s l i k e

C o l er id g e s

a l ba t ro s s . I t n e ed s th e t r a n s f u s i o n o f a

k i n d

o f

s c h o l a r s h i p w h i c h i s no t a f u r t h e r

d e v e l o p m e n t

o f

c r i t i ca l

posi t ions

accepted

a s p remises bu t i s r a t h e r a n ab i n i t i o

i n v e s t i g a t i o n , u n b u r d e n e d b y t o o

m a n y

b i b l i o g r a p h i c a l

cares an d

c o n c e n t r a t i n g

a

f r e sh

e y e o n t h e

H e b r e w

B i b l e . 1

T h e

p rec ise

f o rm

t h a t s u ch a f r e sh i n v e s t i g a t i o n

m i g h t

mos t

p r o f i t a b l y

t a k e

i s no t

spec i fi ed . C lear l y

it is

n e i th er poss ib le

n or d e s i r a b l e to p rod u ce a n y s e r i o u s s t u d y o f t he OT t h a t w i l l

n o t b e h e a v i l y i n d e b t e d to m od e rn

critical

w o r k . T h e po i n t is

t h a t , w h a t e v e r o n e s i n d e b t e d n e s s to p as t w o r k , i t i s i m p o r t a n t

no t t o b e

t r a m m e l l e d

by i t bu t to

r em a i n open

t o n e w a n d f resh

poss ib i l i t i e s .

I t i s in the

b e l i e f

t h a t a f r e sh

a p p r o a c h ,

c o m b i n i n g

old an d

n e w ,

is

i ndeed

n e c e s s a r y in

m an y

areas o f O T

s t u d y ,

an d

in p a r t i c u l a r

th e

P e n t a t e u c h , t h a t t h i s p r e s e n t e s s a y

i s

o f f e r e d

as a c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the

debate.

T h e

s u b j e c t

o f the

p r e s e n t s t u d y

i s Ex .

32 -34 .

T h e

S i n a i

n a r r a t i v e i n t h e b ook o f Exo d u s h as b een t h e su b j e c t o f i n t e n -

s i v e i n v e s t i g a t i on in r e cen t y ea r s , a n d a v as t l i t e r a t u re ex i s t s .

Y e t , c u r i o u s l y , t h e r e is a s ense in w h i c h one of i t s m a j o r

sec t i on s , t h a t

i s Ex . 32 -34 , h as

b e en c o m p a r a t i v e l y n e g le c te d .

A

look a t the six m a j o r w o r k s on t h e e a r l y h i s t o r y o f I s r ae l t o b e

w r i t t e n in

r e ce n t y ea r s , t h ose

o f

N o t h , B r ig h t ,

d e V a u x ,

H e r r m a n n , H a y e s a n d M i l l e r , a n d G o t t w a l d , 2 r ev ea l s l i t t l e

r e f e r e n c e to t hese chap te rs . A t best o n e o r two a spec t s o f the

c h a p t e r s

a re

t aken

i n d i v i d u a l l y

a n d i n

i so l a t ion

f r o m

e ach o the r .

The re i s a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i on i f one c o n s u l t s O T t heo log ies , such

a s t hose o f E i c h r o d t , v o n R a d , Z i m m e r l i , a n d C l e m e n t s . ^

O n l y c e r t a i n v e r se s w i t h i n Ex . 32-34 are treated i n a n y o n e

w o r k , an d

t h e n o n l y

a s a

p a r t

o f a

l a rg e r t op i ca l d i s cu s s i on .



A t the

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

T h a t

Ex. 32-34 as a

c o h e r en t n a r r a t i v e m i g h t

be

s i g n i f i c a n t

either his to r ica l ly

o r t h e o lo g i c a l ly i s n o t

raised

a s a

possible

o p t i o n

i n a n y o f

these w o r k s .

T h e

reason

i s no t

d i f f i c u l t

to

d i s c o v e r .

I t is the

b e l i e f ,

based

u p o n i n t e n s i v e a n a l y s i s , t h a t E x .

32-34

i s a c o m p l e x o f f r a g -

m e n t a r y a n d c o n f l i c t i n g t r a d i t i o n s w h o s e p re se n t c o m b i n a t i o n

m a k e s l i t t l e a t t e m p t to c o n c e a l t h e i r d i v e r s i t y . A s such i t is

o n l y

th e

i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s

o f

t r a d i t i o n w h i c h

c a n b e

m e a n i n g f u l l y

i n t e r p r e t e d , a n d o n l y s o m e o f t he u n i t s a r e o f h i s t o r i c a l o r

t h e o l o g i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e .

T h e

f o l l o w i n g

s ta t e m e n t s ,

w h i c h c o u l d

b e m u l t i pl i e d w i t h o u t

d i f f i c u l t y ,

m a y b e t a k e n a s typ ica l :

M .

B u b e r :

...

t h i s

passage

[Ex.

32 ] .. . is

a p p a r e n t l y

th e

m o s t d i f f i c u l t i n t h e P e n t a t e u c h w h e n r e g a rd e d

f r o m

th e

t e x t u a l a n d l i t e r a r y v i e w p o i n t . ^

M . M o t h :

T h e

state o f t h e s o u r c e s i s

c e r t a i n l y e x t r e m e l y

c o n f u s e d i n t h i s c o m p le x . ̂ In v i e w of the g r a v i t y o f

w h a t i s n a r r a t e d h e r e i t i s q u i t e c o n c e i v a b l e that th e

n a r r a t i v e

o f t he S ina i e v e n t (Ex . 19-24, 32-34), t h r o u g h

e x p a n s i o n s

a n d

i n s e r t i o n s ,

h a d

a l r e a d y b e c o m e s u c h

a

c o m p l i c a t e d c o m p i l a t i o n

w i t h i n

t h e o ld

P e n t a t e u c h a l

t r a d i t i o n

t h a t

t o d a y

a n

i n t e l l i g i b l e a n a l y s i s

c a n n o

l o n g e r

b e s u c c e s s f u l l y u n d e r t a k e n . ^

J. M u i l e n b u r g :

W h e r e a s

th e

f i r s t [Ex. 19-24]

is a

recog-

n i z a b l e u n i t y ,

th e

second [Ex. 32-34]

h a s

eve ry a p p e a r a n c e

o f

b e i n g a

catena

o f o r i g i n a l l y

separate

pieces w h i c h

o r i g i n a l l y h a d l i t t l e o r n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h e a c h o t h e r . T h e y

a re m o r e p e r h a p s t h a n a d i s j e c t a m e m b r a

[sic],

b u t t h e

s e v e r a l p a r t s d o n o t c o he r e w e l l w i t h ea c h o the r . 7

R. de

V a u x :

Th ese [Ex. 19-24, 32-34

t o g e t h e r ]

a re

d i f f i c u l t passages e spec ia l ly w i th r eg a rd to l i t e r a r y criti-

cism

a n d

m o s t s c ho l a r s

a re i n a

state

o f

de s p a i r ,

so

great

i s th e u n c e r ta i n t y c o n c e r n i n g t h e m . ^

S .

T err ie n : ...

th e

c h a o t i c c l u s t e r

o f

m a t e r ia l d e a l i n g w i t h

th e

b r e a k i n g

o f t h e

f i r s t

s e t o f

s t o n e s

a n d t h e

g r a n t i n g

o f

the second set. 9

N . G o t t w a l d : T he

tw o

p e r i o d i z e d sets

o f

h i s t o r i c i z e d

cu l t ic a c t io n [Ex. 19-24 , 32-34] a r e n o t i n t e r n a l l y coher-

e n t .

T h e

r e s u l t a n t h o d g e po d g e s t ri k e s

th e

r e a d e r

a s a n

ill-

d ig es t ed

c o m p e n d i u m o f v e r y i m p e r f e c t l y h i s to r i c iz e d

l i t u r g i c a l

speeches

a n d r u b r i c s .... S u p r e m e l y w i t h i n th e

b o d y o f t he e a r l y I s r ae l i t e t r a d i t i o n s , th e shape o f t he

Reve la t ion a t S ina i

t r a d i t i o n s

s t r i ke s us a s a c o m p r o m i s e

f o r m a t i o n . 1 0




T h e m o s t


d i s s e n t i e n t v o i c e

is

t h a t

o f

B r e v a r d

C h i l d s , w h o

a r g u e s t h a t these cha p t e r s [ Ex . 32-34]

a r e

h e l d

t o g e t h e r b y a ser ies o f m o t i f s

w h i c h

a re s k i l l f u l l y w o v e n i n t o a

u n i f y i n g

p a t t e r n .

1 1

B u t t h e

d i s a g r e e m e n t ,

w h i l e

s t r i k i n g ,

i s

on ly

p a r t i a l

in

t h a t

C h i l d s

h e r e

is

c o n c e n t r a t i n g upon

th e

r e d a c t i o n a l

s h a p i n g o f t h e

c h a p t e r s i n t o t h e i r

f i n a l f o r m : h e

does

n o t

d i s p u t e

th e

a n a l y s i s

o f t he

m a t e r i a l

a s

b e i n g

o r i g i n a l l y

d i v e r s e a n d c o m p o s i t e .

T h e c o n s e n s u s of so m a n y s c h o l a r s is i m p r e s s i v e .

N o n e t h e l e s s ,

t h i s s t u d y h a s a

t w o f o l d

a i m : f i r s t , t o s e e w h e t h e r

t h e r e is not in the text as i t now s t a n d s a

greater

d e g r e e o f

u n i t y ,

bo t h l i t e r a r y

a n d

t h e o l o g i c a l , t h a n

i s

u s u a l l y a l l o w e d :

a n d

s e co n d ly ,

to ask

w h e t h e r

a n

a c c o u n t

o f

th i s

u n i t y

a s

r e d a c t i o n a l

is s u f f i c i e n t

t o d o

ju s t i c e

to i t , and

w h e t h e r

i t ma y be

poss ib le ,

o r even necessa ry ,

to

m a i n t a i n

that th e

u n i t y

w a s

s u b s t a n t i a l l y

i n h e r e n t

i n t h e

t r a d i t i o n

a t t h e

e a r l y stages

o f i t s

h i s t o r y .

T h e sugges t i on

o f

such

a

d i v e r g e n c e f r o m accepted v i e w s

wi l l

no t b e p u t

f o r w a r d l i g h t l y .

I t h a s

a r i s e n

ou t o f a

p r o lo n g e d s t u d y

o f th e

text,

a s t u d y i n w h i c h

a c c e p t e d

s c h o l a r l y p o s i t i o n s h a v e

b e e n a d o p t e d a s w o r k i n g h y p o t h e s e s b u t h a v e h a d t o b e a b a n -

d o n e d

a s b e i n g

u n a b l e

to

e x p l a i n

th e

text

s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . I t h a s

be e n ou t o f a d e e p e n i n g g r a sp o f t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e

t e x t

a n d

t h e n a t u r e o f th e t r a d i t i o n t h a t t h e r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e n e e d fo r a

f r e sh

a p p r o a c h to t he e xe g e t i c a l t a s k h a s a l s o b e c o m e clear.

T h e q u e s t i o n s o n e p u t s to t he

t e x t

d e t e r m i n e to a con-

s i d e r a b l e e x t e n t th e s o r t o f a n s w e r

that w i l l

b e r e c e i v e d . It is

i m p o r t a n t , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e o f e x e g e s is

shou ld

b e

c o m b i n e d w i t h r e f l e c t i o n u p o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n s i m p l i c i t i n that

e xe ge s i s . T h u s th e s t u d y b e g i n s w i t h a t h e o r e t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n o f

how

to

a p p r o a c h

a

l i te r a r y n a r r a t i v e s u ch

as Ex .

32-34,

a n d

t he n

s e e k s

to

s ho w

th e

p r a c t i c a l

f r u i t f u l n e s s o f t he

p a r t i c u l a r

a p p r o a c h a d v o c a t e d . I t is e s s e n t i a l that p r i n c i p l e a n d practice

b e

h e l d t o g e t h e r ,

for i t i s t h r o u g h th e

r e c i p r o c a l i n f l u e n c e

o f

t h e o n e u p o n th e o t h e r t h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g i s r e f i n e d a n d

a d v a n c e d .

O n e r e g r e t t a b l e

l i m i t a t i o n

o f t h e p r e s e n t w o r k m u s t b e

s p e c i f i e d

a t t h e

o u t s e t . C o n s i d e r a t i o n s

o f s p a c e

h a v e m e a n t

t h a t

i t ha s no t

be e n po s s i b l e

to

e x t e n d a n a l y s i s

b e y o n d E x .

32-34.

In

p a r t i c u l a r ,

i t h a s n o t

be e n po s s i b l e

to

o f f e r

a n y

t h o r o u g h

t r e a t m e n t o f E x . 19-24 , e v e n t h o u g h a n y c o m p r e -

h e n s i v e

r e a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e S i na i m a t e r i a l m u s t i n c l u d e t h is

s e c t i o n

w h i c h

i s so c lo se ly r e l a t ed t o ch s . 32-34. T h i s r e m a i n s

a s a task fo r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h .

13



At the

Mountain

of God

Several

recent

monographs

on the Sinai material especially

those of F.-E. Wilms J.

Halbe

and E. Zenger 12

offer useful

surveys of

modern research

on Ex. 32-34 and obviate the

need

to

cover

the

same ground

again. Indeed

as the

present

argument develops comparatively

littl

reference

will be

made

to the different advocates of the various

exegetical options.

This is not because

their positions

have not been

taken into

account but because the greater bulk of footnotes

arising

f rom

comprehensive documentation wou ld be cum bersom e and would

not significantly

further the main

discussion.

To conclude this introduction the provisional and exploratory

nature of

this work must

be

stressed. Although

it is

hoped

that

the

most

important part of the

study

the

exegesis proper

will

not prove unduly

controversial

it is not expected

that

the

suggestions for re-appraising the nature and origins of the

material

will

meet

with universal approbation.

The

purpose

of

the

study

is to

suggest

new

ways

of letting the light shine on old

issues and it is

hoped

that

a

fruitful debate

will

ensue.

Numerous problems even within Ex. 32-34 have not been dis-

cussed.

As such

this

study does not purport to be my let alone

the

final

word

on the

subject

but is

intended

to

contribute

to a

fresh understanding

of the biblical text. The extent to

which

such

a fresh understanding has been achieved

will

constitute

the

justification for the

approach adopted

and will

provide

the

incentive for yet further

study.

14



C h a p t e r

1

S O M E C O N S I D E R A T I O N S

O F

M E T H O D

I N

N A R R A T I V E I N T E R P R E T A T I O N


T h e o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t t h e r e is s o m e t h i n g o f a f e r m e n t a n d

u p h e a v a l i n c o n t e m p o r a r y p e n t a t e u c h a l s tu d i e s c a n h a r d l y la y

c l a i m

to

o r i g i n a l i t y . M a n y

f u n d a m e n t a l

q u e s t i o n s a b o u t

th e

u n d e r s t a n d i n g

o f

these

texts

a re

b e i n g

r e - o p e n e d .

T h e

source-

critical f o u n d a t i o n s

o f

m o d e r n p e n t a t e u c h a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ;

th e correct u s e o f t r a d i t i o - h i s t o r i c a l a n a l y si s;^ th e extent to

w h i c h

a n h i s t o r i c a l b a s i s c a n b e s a i d t o u n d e r l i e p e n t a t e u c h a l

t r a d i t i o n s ; ^

a l l t h e s e q u e s t i o n s , a n d o t h e r s , a r e n o w b e i n g

k e e n l y d e b a t e d a g a i n . ^ T h e r e

is a

sense

in w h i c h all these

q u e s t i o n s a re v a r i a t i o n s o n t h e t h e m e o f w h a t constitutes th e

correct a p p r o a c h t o t h e b i b l i c a l text. W h a t are the correct

m e t h o d s

to use to

u n d e r s t a n d

th e

m a t e r i a l ?

I n


a re

th e

cr i t ica l tools

in

g e n e r a l

u se

r e a l l y s h a r p e n o u g h

to

p r o d u c e

a c o r r e c t a n a l y s i s , o r d o t h e a r g u m e n t s te n d t o b e c i r c u l a r ,

b e i n g

d e t e r m i n e d l a r g e l y

b y t h e

p r e s u p p o s i t io n s i n h e r e n t

i n t h e

p a r t i c u l a r c r i t i c a l a p p r o a c h ?

A n d a r e t h e

d i f f e r e n t s c h o l ar ly

tools

w h i c h

a re

u s u a l l y treated

a s

c o m p l e m e n t a r y ,

in

f ac t

to

s o m e extent

i n c o m p a t i b l e ? ^

T h e s e q u e s t i o n s

a r e

b e i n g d e b a t e d

f o r t h e

m o s t p a r t a m o n g

s c h o l a r s w h o

accept

th e p r i o r i t y fo r exeges is o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l -

c r i t i c a l

m e t h o d ^

a s d e v e l o p e d o v e r th e l as t tw o c e n t u r i e s o r

s o . T h e re i s t h e r e f o r e n o d i s a g r e e m e n t a m o n g t h e m o v e r t h e

bas i c a s s u m p t i o n s i m p l i c i t in the i r approach to the

text.

T h e r e

is , h o w e v e r, a g r o w i n g debate over precisely these a s s u m p t i o n s .

D e sp ite m a n y v a r i a t i o n s o f e m p h a s i s , th e

debate

essent ia l ly

r e v o l v e s

a r o u n d th e a p p r e c i a t i o n of the t e x t in i t s f i n a l ,

r e c e i v e d f o r m .

W h e r e a s

h i s t o r i c a l - c r i t i c a l s t u d i e s h a v e b e e n

p r e d o m i n a n t l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h p e n e t r a t i n g b e h i n d th e p r e s e n t

t e x t a n d

h a v e a s s u m e d t h a t q u e s t i o n s

o f

s o u r c e s , h i s t o r y ,

t r a d i t i o n - h i s t o r y a n d r e d a c t i o n are of p r i m a r y i m p o r t an c e fo r


th e text th e

n e w e r a p p r o a c h stresses

th e

p r i m a c y o f a n a l y z i n g th e text as i t s tands , an ana lys is in

w h i c h

th e

r o l e

o f t h e

t r a d i t i o n a l c r i t i c a l ap p r o a c h e s

is of d o u b t f u l ,

an d

c e r t a i n l y a s y e t

i l l - d e f i n e d ,

r e l e v a n c e .

15



At The Mountain of God

Perhaps

the

most formidable recent exponent

of the

'critical

orthodoxy'

against which voices are now increasingly raised has

been Martin

Noth. His

magisterial

History of Pentateuchal

Traditions

has dominated recent study of

pentateuchal

narratives. Noth's work is

entirely

directed towards penetrating

behind the

final

text so as to reconstruct its origins and

development - a kind of

literary

archaeology. One looks in vain

for any discussion of the canonical text as itself meaningful and

of

interest.

Even scholars such as Gunkel and von Rad, who

gave

more thought than Noth to the literary and aesthetic

qualities

of the

text, tended

to direct

their literary

appreci-

ation towards reconstructed

sources or

isolated units

and so

focussed

on something other than the

text

as we now have it. In

reaction against this discounting

of the

final text there

has

been a growing swell of voices insisting that it is the

final

text? rather than its prehistory

that

is of primary

signi-

ficance.

The

difference of approach is most marked in the work of

structuralists, some

of whom speak of a paradigm

shift^

in

understanding,

the

change being from

a historical to a literary

approach

to the text^. It is

not, however,

limited

to structur-

alists

but is evident in the work of OT scholars who are also

practitioners

of the

historical-critical

method

and

show

no

sign

of

being attracted

to structuralism as

such. Amidst

the

growing

swell

of

studies

in

this area, notable recent contributions have

been from B.S. Childs,

10

D.J.A. Clines,

1

J.F.A. Sawyer

12

G.A.F. Knight,

13

D.J. McCarthy

1

^

and

B.W. Anderson,

15

who all, in one way or another,

stress

the priority of

interpreting the

received

biblical text

over

investigations into

its

prehistory.

One

way of

posing

the

issue

would

be to say

that

the

present

debate

is a

debate about

the continuing

value

and

role

of the

historical-critical

method. The term historical-critical

method is meant not to designate any particular exegetical

tool,

but

rather

to indicate a

type

of

approach

to biblical

study

in

which

the

posing

of historical

questions

of

various kinds

to

the biblical text has been the predominant concern of exegetes.

The

well-nigh

universal acceptance of this

method

of study has

been

the hallmark of the rise of modern

biblical

criticism.

The

irony

is

that

the

very

objectivity

which

made historical-

critical study initially so welcome is that characteristic which

now

seems

to cast doubts upon its

continuing

value. For this

historical

objectivity has had

little

to

offer

in

either

explaining

16



One: M e t h o d in N a r r a t i v e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n

o r

f u r t h e r i n g

t h e p r o f o u n d

r e li g i o u s i m p a c t t h a t

t h e

b i b l i c a l

w r i t i n g s h a v e m a d e u p o n coun t l ess

readers

d o w n th e

centuries.

W .

W i n k , in his p r o v o c a t i v e l i t t l e

w o r k ,

T h e Bible in

H u m a n

T r a n s f o r m a t i o n ,

h a s dec l ared t h e h i s t o r i c a l -c r i t ic a l m e t h o d to

b e

b a n k r u p t . 16 W h i l e m o s t s c h o l a r s w o u l d

n o t

e x p r e s s t h e m

selves

q u i t e so f o r c e f u l l y , there is

nonetheless

an unease that

an

h i s t o r i c a l - c r i t i c a l a p p r o a c h m a y b e i n s e n s i t i v e t o , a n d u n a b l e

t o d e al w i t h , t h o se d i m e n s i o n s o f t h e b i b l i c a l text w h i c h m a y b e

o f m o s t i m p o r t a n c e a n d v a l u e t o i ts r e a d e r s . T h e p r o b l e m i s a s

rea l

f o r t h e N T

scho l ar

as fo r t he OT

s c h o l a r. G . N . S ta n t o n ,

f o r

e x a m p l e , says , I t ak e o n e o f t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t t as k s f a c i n g

Biblical

a n d th e o l o g i c a l s c h o l a r s h i p t o d a y t o b e t o c l a r i f y th e

role of the historical critical method . 17 A lthough the

presen t d i scuss i on w i l l be w i t h i n th e c o n f i n e s o f o n e sect ion o f

O T s tu d y , it is a p p r e c i a t e d b o t h that th e issues a t stake e x t e n d

be y ond t h e O T a n d t h a t

m a n y

i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e

debate are b e i n g m a d e w i t h i n other f i e l ds .

Despi te th e f a r - r a n g i n g i m p l ic a t i o n s o f t h e debate, th e

necessar i l y l i mi ted scope o f t h i s p r e s e n t w o r k m u s t b e c l a r i f i e d

a t t he

outset.

In the

f i r s t p lace ,

n o

a t t e m p t

is

b e i n g m a d e

to

discuss any o v e r a r c h i n g f r a m e w o r k for t he

practice

o f bibl ical

exegesis. E x c e p t i n s o f ar a s t h e d e t a i le d a r g u m e n t r e q u i r e s i t,

i t is w i s h e d n e i t h e r to a f f i r m n o r d e n y a p p r o a c h e s l i k e t h a t o f

C h i l d s ,

w h o a r g u e s for the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f canon as p r o v i d i n g

th e

perspec t ive wi th i n wh i ch exeges i s shou l d

b e

u n d e r t a k e n ,

o r

that

o f Ri co eu r , wh o proposes a ph i l oso ph i ca l perspec t i ve w h i c h

o v e r c o m e s th e li m i t a t i o n s o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l - c r it i c a l m e t h o d . 18

S e c o n d l y , th e r e f l e c t i o n s w h i c h f o l l o w a re to be t a k e n

spec i f ica l ly

i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e c u r r e n t

debate

a b o u t b i b l i c a l

n a r r a t i v e .

T h e

rec i t a l

o f

h i s t o r i c a l ,

o r

h i s t o r y - l i k e ,

19

n a r r a -

t i v e ,

is

cen t ra l

t o t h e

Bi b l e .

It is

n a r r a t i v e

that

c o n t a i n s

th e

bibl ica l

p a r a d i g m s o f s a l v a t i o n , th e E x o d u s and Sinai c o v e n a n t

in the OT, and the l i f e , d e a t h and r e s u r r e c t i o n o f J e s u s in the

N T . N a r r a t i v e is also , o r p e r h a p s t h e r e f o r e , th e area

t h a t

h as

g i v en

rise

to

m o s t c o n t r o v e r s y

and is

m u c h

in

need

o f a

f re sh

a p p r o a c h .

Even w i t h i n

th e res t r i c t ed

f i e l d

o f b i b l i c a l n a r r a t i v e i t is not

possible a t pres ent to o f f e r a n y c o m p r e h e n s i v e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l

p r o g r a m m e .

Gi ve n

th e

e n o r m o u s d i v e r s i t y

o f

t y p e s

o f

n a r r a t i v e

w i t h i n t h e O T , a n y c o m p r e h e n s i v e statement o f m e t h o d

w o u l d

need to be l o n g , c o m p l e x a n d

f u l l

o f q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . T h e p r e s e n t

u n d e r t a k i n g i s m o r e m o d e s t i n scope. I t a i m s t o c o n c e n t r a t e

u p o n

o n e

i m p o r t a n t

a n d

p r o b l e m a t i c s e c t i o n

o f

b i b l i c a l

7



A t T h e M o u n t a i n o f G o d

n a r r a t i v e ,

E x .

32-34,

a n d t o j u s t i f y

a n a l y z i n g

i t in

h i t h e r t o

l a rge ly u n p re c e d e n t e d f a s h i o n . N o c la im i s b e i n g m a d e

that

o t h e r n a r r a t i v e s w o u l d y i e l d e q u a l l y

f r u i t f u l

r e s u l t s i f

a p p ro a c h e d i n t h e s a m e w a y . T h e y m a y d o . B u t

that

c a n

o n l y

b e

dec ided

i n t h e

l i g h t

o f a

t h o r o u g h s t u d y

o f t h e

characteristics

o f th e

respective n a r r a t i v e

in

q u e s t i o n .

F o r t h e

p a s s a g e b e i n g

s t u d i e d h e r e

i s n o t

n e c e s s a r i l y t y p i c a l

o f O T

n a r r a t i v e . In d e e d ,

th e p e c u l i a r i t y a n d d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s in m a n y w a y s o f E x .

32-34

e v e n w i t h i n

th e

M o s es t ra d i t i o n s ,

le t

a l o n e

th e

l a r g e r a r e a

o f

ea r ly O T t r a d i t i o n s , h a s been o n e o f t h e c o n c l u s i o n s to r e s u l t

f r o m t h is w o r k .

T h e

f o l l o w i n g

m e t h o d o l o g i c a l r e f l e c t i o n s , h o w e v e r , w h i l e

p r i m a r i l y

a n

i n t r o d u c t i o n

to t he

exegesis

o f E x . 32-34, a r e n o t

s o l e l y

a n

i n t r o d u c t i o n ,

a

j u s t i f i c a t i o n

fo r

d o i n g

i t m y

w a y .

Because they

a re

t a k i n g

place

w i t h i n

th e context o f a l a r g e r

debate o n e c a n n o t h e l p b u t r e f l e c t o n th e i s s u e s in m o r e

g e n e r a l t e r m s

a n d t r y t o

s u g g e s t w a y s

in w h i c h

t h o s e c o n s i d e r -

a t i o n s w h i c h h a v e b e e n

f o u n d h e l p f u l in

i n t e r p r e t i n g

E x .

32-34

m a y h a v e b r o a d e r a p p l i c a t i o n

a n d

r e l e v a n c e .

It i s

h o p e d ,

t h e r e -

f o r e ,

that

th i s w o r k w i ll , i n s o m e s m a l l w a y , c o n t ri b u t e t o w a r d s

p r o v i d i n g

f r e s h

p e r s p e c t i v e s

fo r t h e

s t u d y

o f O T

l i te r a t u r e m o r e

g e n e r a l l y .

R E C E N T A R G U M E N T S F O R T H E I M P O R T A N C E O F

I N T E R P R E T I N G T H E F I N A L

F O R M

O F T H E

T E X T

I t

w i l l

b e h e l p f u l t o s u r v e y b r i e f l y t h e a r g u m e n t s t h a t h a v e

been raised fo r g i v i n g p r i m a r y attention t o t h e

f i n a l f o r m

o f t h e

text s i n c e t h i s p r e s e n t s t u d y w i l l seek to b u i l d u p o n t h e m .

Literary

rguments

F i r s t ,

o n e m a y

n o t e c e r ta i n s c h o l a rs

o f

m o d e r n l i t e r a t u r e

w h o , w h i l e n o t c o n c e r n e d w i t h O T l i t e r a t u r e a s s u c h , s e t o u t

g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s o f li t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m w h i c h a r e n o t i n -

f r e q u e n t l y a p p e a l e d t o b y b i b l i c a l s c h o l a r s . D a m e H e l e n

G a r d n e r , fo r e x a m p l e , discusses a s h i f t a w a y

f r o m

e x a m i n i n g

t h e o ri g in s a n d s o u r c es o f l i t e r a r y w o r k s t o w a r d s a n a p p r e c-

i a t i o n o f a

w o r k

i n i ts o w n r i g h t a n d c o m m e n t s ,

T r e n d s

i n

l i te r a r y s c h o l a r s h i p t h u s gi v e s u p p o r t

to c r i t i c s

w ho

rega rd

i t a s

t h e i r d u t y

t o s e e

w o r k s

a s

i n t e g r a t e d

w h o l e s , a n d t h e b o d y o f a n

a u t h o r ' s w o r k

a s a

t o t a l i t y

p r o c e e d i n g

f r o m

a s i n g l e m i n d . 2 0

18



O n e : M e t h o d in N a r r a t i v e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n

A nd a g a i n ,

T h e

a s s u m p t i o n t o d a y

is

m o r e

an d

m o r e

in

f a v o u r

o f

s ing le

a u t h o r s h i p , u n l e s s t h e r e

is

c l ea r

e x t e r n a l e v i d e n c e

to the

c o n t r a r y , a n d o f t a k i n g w o r k s a s t h e y s t a n d a n d n o t

p o s t u l a t i n g e a r l i e r v e r s i o n s to a c c o u n t f o r incons i s -

tencies. 2 1

a

s i m i l a r v e i n ,

N .

F r y e w r i t e s ,

T h e

p r i m a r y u n d e r s ta n d i n g

o f a n y

w o r k

o f

l i t e r a t u r e

h a s

to be based on an a s s u m p t i o n of i ts u n i t y . H o w e v e r

m i s t a k e n s u c h

a n

a s s u m p t i o n

m a y

e v e n t u a l l y p r o v e

to

b e ,

n o t h i n g

can be

done unless

w e

start

w i t h

i t as a

h e u r i s t i c

p r i n c i p l e .

F u r t h e r , e v e r y

e f f o r t s h o u ld b e

d i r e c te d t o w a r d


th e

w h o l e

o f

w h a t

w e

r e a d .2 2

A nd R . W e l l e k a n d A .

W a r r e n say ,

N o b o d y ca n

d e n y t h a t m u c h l i g h t

h a s

b e e n t h r o w n

o n

l i t e r a t u r e by a p r o p e r k n o w l e d g e o f the c o n d i t i o n s u n d e r

w h i c h

i t has b e e n p r o d u c e d ; th e e x e g e t i c a l v a l u e o f such a

s t u d y

s e e m s i n d u b i t a b l e .

Yet i t i s

c lea r

t h a t c a u sa l s t u d y

can n e v e r d i s p o s e o f p r o b l e m s o f d e s c r i p t i o n , a n a l y s i s , an d

e v a l u a t i o n o f an ob jec t such a s a w o r k o f l i t e r a r y a r t .

C a u s e a n d e f f e c t a r e i n c o m m e n s u r a t e : t h e c o n c r e t e r e s u l t

of

t h e s e

e x t r i n s i c

c aus es

- the w o r k of a r t - i s a l w a y s

u n p r e d i c t a b l e .

2 3

F r o m

a m o n g t h o se b ib l i ca l scho la r s w h o h a v e a d v o c a t e d a

m ore t ru ly l i t e ra ry approach to the text i t m u s t s u f f i c e to cite

t h r e e e x a m p l e s . 3 . F . A . S a w y e r , in F r o m M o s e s to P a t m o s ,

v i g o r o u s l y

a f f i r m s

h is

i n t e n t i o n

to

l i b e r a t e

O T

s t u d y

f r o m

th e

g r i p

o f a r c h a e o l o g i s ts , p h i l o l o g i s t s , a n d l a t t e r - d a y M a r c i o n -

i t es . 2^ A l t h o u g h o n e m u s t m a i n t a i n a b a l a n c e b e t w e e n th e

s t u d y

o f t h e p r e s e n t

t e x t

a n d h i st o r i ca l i n v e s t i g a t io n ,

n o n e t h e l e s s

i t i s the

m e a n i n g

of the

t e x t t h a t

is

i m p o r t a n t ,

w h e t h e r

or not i t is

h i s t o r i c a l l y

t r u e . 2 5

Second ly

B . W . A n d e r s o n , a p p e a l i n g t o t h e w o r k o f H .

F r e i ,

a r g u e s t h a t T h e b e g i n n i n g

a n d e n d o f

exeges i s

is the t e x t

i t s e l f

- n o t

s o m e t h i n g b e y o n d i t . 26 F u r t h e r m o r e ,

s i n c e e f f o r t s

to r e c o v e r

p r e l i t e r a r y

s t a ge s

lead

u s

a w a y

f r o m the g ivenness o f t he

t e x t

i t s e lf i n t o t h e r e a l m o f

h y p o t h e s i s ,

i t is no t

v a l i d

to

r e g a r d

th e

r e c o n s t r u c t e d

U r f o r m

a s n o r m a t i v e f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o r a s h a v i n g s o m e



A t T h e

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

s u p e r i o r i t y

t o s c r i p t u r e i t s e lf . W h a t e v e r e x c u r s i o n s i n t o

t h e

p r e h i s t o r y

o f t h e text a r e

p o s s i b l e

o r

n e c e s s a r y ,

t h e

b e g i n n i n g

a n d e n d o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s a f r e e e n c o u n t e r

w i t h

a

w r i t i n g

i n i t s

f i n a l f o r m

1

( W i l d e r ) . 2 7

T h i r d l y , D.J.

M c C a r t h y , i n a d i sc u s si o n o f E x . 3:14, a r g u e s f o r

t h e i n d e p e n d e n c e o f t h e m e a n i n g o f a t e x t f r o m a n h i s t o r i c a l -

c r i t i c a l

a n a l y s i s .

C o n t r a r y

t o w h a t I h a v e h e a r d s a i d , i t i s p e r f e c t l y p o s s ib le

t o

u n d e r s t a n d

a

text w i th o u t k n o w i n g w h e th e r

i t i s E o r

w h a t e v e r .

I f I

i n s i s t

o n a

d o c u m e n t a r y s e t ti n g ,

o r a n

h i s t o r i c a l s e t t i n g

i n

w h i c h

t h e

text

w a s

c o m p o s e d ,

I a m

o f t e n , e v e n u s u a l l y ,

tied t o

p u r e h y p o t h e s i s :

t h e

c o n n e c t i o n w i t h a s o u r c e i s d u b i o u s , t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e

s o u r c e (E ) i s i n q u e s t io n . I n a n y case t h e h i s t o r i c a l s e t t i n g

o f th e passage s c o m p o s i t i o n i s l a r g e l y a

g u e s s .

A n d s t i l l

t h e t e x t i t s e l f i n i t s m o s t i m p o r t a n t s e tt in g , i t s a c t u a l

p l ace i n s c r i p t u r e , l ie s b e f o r e m e t o s t u d y a s a

g r a m m a t i c a l a n d l i t e r a r y s t r u c t u r e t h a t I c a n a n a l y z e

w i t h s o m e co n f i d e n c e w i t h o u t b e g i n n i n g w i t h a c h a n cy

g u e s s a b o u t

o r i g i n s . 2 8

L i t e r a t u r e h a s i ts o w n t r u t h t h a t m a k e s d e m a n d s u p o n t h e

reader.

A s a n y

l i t e r a r y classic m a k e s

a n

i m p a c t u p o n

t h e

r e a d e r

r e g a r d l e s s

o f

k n o w l e d g e

o f i t s

h i s t o r i c a l o r i g i n s

o r

r e f e r e n t ,

s o

to o

d o e s

th e

B ib l e . 2 9

A ll these l i t e r a r y a r g u m e n t s

f o r t h e

i m p o r t a n c e

o f t h e

f i n a l

text a r e c l e a r a n d , in m y o p i n i o n , b o t h u n c o n t r o v e r s i a l a n d

i r r e f u t a b l e . T h e s l i g h t l y p o l e m i c a l t o n e i n w h i c h t h e y a r e

c o u c h e d

i s

o c c a s i o n e d

b y t h e

n e e d

to

g a i n

a

h e a r i n g

f o r a

p o s i t i o n l o n g n e g l e c te d . B u t t h e p o i n t o n ce m a d e i s s e l f -

e v i d e n t . 3

T h e o lo g ic a l A r g u m e n t s

a d d i t i o n

t o t h e

l i t e r a r y a r g u m e n t s

f o r

d i r e c ti n g a t t e n t i o n

t o t h e

text

i n i t s

f i n a l

f o r m , t h eo l o g ic a l a r g u m e n t s h a v e a ls o

been

r a i s e d ,

m o s t n o t a b l y

b y C h i l d s . - ^

T h e o l o g i c a l

treat-

m e n t s , w h e t h e r s y n c h r o n i c o r d i a c h r o n i c , h a v e u s u a l l y b e e n

a p p l i e d

n o t t o t h e

f i n a l

t e x t

b u t

e i t h e r

t o i t s


s o u r c e s o r t o t h e

u n i t s

o f

m a t e r i a l co n s i d e re d m o s t h i s t o r i c a l l y

accurate. T h i s

h a s

p r e s u m a b l y b e e n c o n n e c t e d

t o a

c o n s i d e r a b l e

e x t e n t w i t h

a

d e s i r e

t o b a s e

t h e o l o g y

u p o n

h i s t o r y

i n

c l a s s i c

f a s h i o n . I f , h o w e v e r , i t i s accepted

t h a t

h i s t o r y i s n o t t h e so le




f a c t o r

o f

i m p o r t a n c e

in the

d e t e r m i n a t i o n

o f

t h e o l o g i c a l

v e r a c i t y ,

th e

t h e o l o g i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e

o f

sources needs

t o be

re-assessed.

T h e a t t e m p t t o l o o s e n , t h o u g h n o t d e n y , t h e

c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e o l o g y a n d h i s t o r i c i t y , a n d s o t o b e f r e e

to

f ind t h e o l o g i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e

in the

f i n a l

text, i s a

m a j o r

concern

in

C h i l d s w o r k .

T h e

d e t a c h m e n t ,

to a

g r e a t e r

o r

lesser

e x t e n t , o f

t h e o l o g y

f r o m

h i s t o r y

(o r

h i s t o r i c i t y )

i s

r e m i n i s c e n t

of vo n

R a d s

a p p r o a c h . B ut

C h i l d s

use of i t is d i s t i n c t i v e .

C h i l d s

appeals

t o t he p r o f o u n d l y

t h e o l o g i c a l s h a p i n g

o f t he

bibl ica l

m a t e r i a l

w h i c h

h e sees a s

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

o f t he

canonica l process. T h e b i b l i c a l l i t e r a t u r e w a s d e l i b e r a t e l y s o

m o u l d e d that

i t s

f i n a l f o r m w o u l d

f u n c t i o n a s a p e r m a n e n t l y

val id

t heo log ica l wi tness .

This

m e a n s

that

i t m u s t b e t h e

f ina l

f o r m

o f t he

text

w h i c h i s the l ocus o f t h e o l o g i c a l m e a n i n g a nd

a u t h o r i t y . W h a t e v e r s o u r c e s a n d d i f f e r e n t levels o f m e a n i n g

m ay

u n d e r l i e

a text, a n d C h i l d s h a s n o

a r g u m e n t w i t h

t h e

v a l i d i t y o f c u s t o m a r y h i s t o r i c a l- c ri t ic a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s , t h e y

shou l d b e a l lo w e d n o p r i o r i t y o v e r t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e

text

as i t

no w i s . On the c o n t r a r y , th e

f ina l text

p r o v i d e s th e n o r m fo r

cr i t ica l assessm ent o f ear lie r l eve ls o f m ea nin g . W h ate ve r t he

d i f f i c u l t i e s for the

o v e r a l l s i g n i f i c a n c e

o f

c a n o n

a s

a r g u e d

by

C h i l d s ,

h i s p o i n t a b o u t t h e t heo log ica l m o u l d i n g an d s i g n i -

f i c a n c e

o f t he

f ina l

text

is a

v a l u a b le i n s i g h t .

A s a

c o r o l l a r y

o f the

s i g n i f i c a n c e

o f the f i n a l text,

C h i l d s

also points o u t t h a t t h e f o c u s s i n g o f t h e o l o g i c a l s t u d y u p on

reconstructed sources m akes one s theologizin g inevitably

h y p o t h e t i c a l .

3 2

T h e f inal

text,

as an

ob jec t ive r ea l i ty wi th

d e f i n i t e

p a r a m e t e r s , p r o v i d e s

a f i r m f o u n d a t i o n fo r

t heo log ica l

s t u d y . D 3 M c C a r t h y l i k e w i s e a d v a n c e s a s i m i l a r a r g u m e n t :

H i s t o r ic a l c r i t ic i s m i s a c o n s t a n t s e a r ch f o r h y p o t h e t i c

h i s t o r i c a l r e f e r e n t s o r f o r s o u r c e s w h e r e t h e m a t e r i a l a t

h and i s

s i m p l y i n s u f f i c i e n t

t o

a l l ow a n y t h i n g

bu t

h i g h l y

specula t ive r esu l t s .

A s a

basis

fo r


(o r

o t h e r )

d e v e l o p m e n t s

i t has

b e c o m e

a

f o u n d a t i o n

o f sand.

33

It

can be seen , t hen ,

that

f o r b o t h l i t e r a r y a n d t h e o l o g i c a l

reasons m a n y s c h o l a r s a re

a r g u i n g

f o r t he i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e

s t u d y o f t he b ib l ica l text in i t s f i n a l f o r m . A n d , as a l r e a d y

stated,

th e p o in t once graspe d i s

s e l f- e v i d e n t l y

correct.

T h a t i s

why t h e m a j o r

p a r t

o f

t h i s s t u d y

w i l l be a

l i t e r a r y

an d theo-

logical

exegesis

of Ex.

32-34,

t aken as me a n in g fu l in itself , and

l ay i ng

a si d e ( t e m p o r a r i l y ) q u e s t io n s

o f t he

o r i g i n s

an d

c o m -

posi t ion o f t h e m a t e r i a l .

21



A t T h e

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

T H E

R E L A T I O N S H I P B E T W E E N

T H E S T U D Y O F

T H E F I N A L T E X T A N D T H E S T U D Y O F I T S P R E H I S T O R Y

T o

es t ab l i sh

th e

i m p o r t a n c e

o f

s t u d y i n g

th e

f i n a l f o r m

o f t h e

text i n it s o w n r i g h t is an i m p o r t a n t step. B u t i t d o e s n o t

c o n s t it u t e t h e a n s w e r t o t h e c u r r e n t q u e s t i o n i n g o f h o w best to

a p p r o a c h O T

n a r ra t i v e . R a t h e r

i t

poses

th e

i ssu e m o r e s h a r p l y .

F o r

n o n e

o f t h e

scho la rs cited w o u l d d e n y

th e

p r o p r i e t y

o f a

t r a d i t i o n a l

h i s t o r i c a l - c ri t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f t h e text; t h e y a r e

s e e k i n g r a t h e r t o r e l a t i v i z e i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e . I t is n o t t h a t e i t h e r

a l i t e r a r y o r a n historical-critical a ppr o a c h t o t h e

text

m u s t b e

chosen as the correct m e t h o d . F o r t h e y a re b o t h va l id a n d

l e g i t i m a t e a p p r o a c h e s t o t h e

text.

T h e p r o b l e m i s r a t h e r h o w t o

c o m b i n e a n d h o l d t o g e t h e r these tw o a p p r o a c h e s w i t h t h e i r

m a r k e d l y d i f f e r e n t w a y s o f h a n d l i n g a text. T h i s , I s u g g e s t , i s

th e crucial issue i n t h e c u r r e n t debate.

H a v i n g f i r s t e s t a b l i s h e d th e i n d e p e n d e n c e o f a l i t e r a r y a n d

t h e o l o g i c a l a p p r o a c h

f r o m

a n h i s t o r i ca l - cr i ti c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i t

i s o f c r u c i a l i m p o r t a n c e to take th e f u r t h e r step o f r e -

i n t e g r a t i n g t h e t w o tasks i f one i s t o h a v e a c o h e re n t u n d e r -

s t a n d i n g o f a n y

text.

O n e

m u s t

n o t

a l l o w

a

k i n d

o f

s c h i z o p h r e n i a w i t h i n

th e b i b l i c a l exegete w h e r e b y h e does h i s

h i s t o r i c a l - c r i t i c a l r e s e a r c h o n t h e o n e h a n d a n d h i s l i t e r a r y a n d

theolog ical exegesis

o n th e

other

a n d

e i the r does

n o t s ee

h o w ,

o r f e e l s h i m s e l f u n d e r n o o b l i g a t i o n , to b r i n g t o g e t h e r t h e se tw o

a p p r o a c h e s to f o r m a c o h e r e n t u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e

text.

T h e

p h o e n i x

o f a

c o n s e r v a t i s m w h i c h

s i m p l y

s t u d i e s

th e f i n a l text

a n d

eschews

a n y

k i n d

o f

h i s t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m

m i g h t

s w i f t l y a r i s e

f r o m th e ashes .34 -r

ne

re s p o n s i b le i n t e r p r e t e r m u s t d e a l w i t h

e v e r y

aspect

a n d

d i m e n s i o n

o f t h e

text

h e i s s e e k i n g to

i n t e r p r e t .

I t

is

possible

to

d e n y

that

there

i s a n y

p r o b l e m .

F o r o n e c a n

p o i n t o u t t h a t th e l i t e r a r y a n d t h e o l o g i c a l s t u d y o f t h e f i n a l

t e x t a n d t h e h i s t o r i c a l - c r i t i c a l s t u d y o f i t s a n t e c e d e n t s a re

d i f f e r e n t k i n d s

o f

s t u d y . T h e y

c a n b e seen , a s

e s s e n t i a l l y c o m -

p l e m e n t a r y

r a t h e r t h a n

in

c o n f l i c t w i t h e a c h o t h e r .

T o

a r g u e ,

fo r e x a m p l e , t h a t

a text

d i s p l a y s u n i t y

a n d

p a t t e r n

in i t s

pr e s e n t s h a pe i s p e r f e c t l y c o m p a t i b l e

w i t h a r g u i n g

f o r

d i s u n i t y

a n d

f r a g m e n t a t i o n

in i t s

p r e h i s t o r y .

N o

c o n t r a d i c t i o n

is in -

volved

since

in

each case

d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n s a re be i n g a s k e d

a n d a n s w e r e d .

T h e

d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n w h a t

a text i s a n d

w h a t

i t

o n c e

w a s

m u s t

be

c l e a r l y p r e s e r v e d . T h e y

a re

s e pa r a t e i s s u e s .

T h is d i s t i n c t i o n

is

i n d e e d correct

and i t i s

i m p o r t a n t

n o t t o



One: M e t h o d

in

N a r r a t i v e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n

lose s ight o f i t . N o n e t h e l e s s th e r e c o g n i t i o n that w e a r e d e a l i n g

w i t h

d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f s t u d y d o e s n o t a n s w e r th e q u e s t i o n o f

h o w

t h e o n e b e a r s upon th e o t h e r . A n d t h a t i s t he p o i n t a t issue.

T h e

h o l d i n g

t o g e t h e r o f

these

d i f f e r e n t a p p ro a c h e s i s a

c o m p l e x matter re q ui r in g e x te nde d d i scussion . O n e po in t , how -

ever , seems

clear.

T h i s is

that

t h e r e

w i l l

be no s ing le o r

i n v a r i a b l e

wa y of h o l d i n g

t h e m t o g e t h e r .

A

d i v e r s i t y

o f texts

w i l l

ne c e ssa r i ly re qui re a f l e x i b i l i t y o f t r e a t m e n t . O n e

p r o -

c rus te a n a pproa c h

w o u l d

n e c e s s a r i l y m u t i l a t e n u m e r o u s " incon-

v e n i e n t " texts.

G i v e n

this basic need

fo r

f l e x i b i l i t y ,

it is

s t i l l a p p r o p r i a t e

to

f oc u s

o n o n e p a r t i c u l a r w a y o f

h o l d i n g

th e two a pproa c he s

t o g e t h e r

- a way

w h i c h

h a s been

f o u n d

f r u i t f u l

in a n a l y z i n g E x .

32-3^

a nd w h ic h sho uld in pr in c ip le be a pp l ic a ble to a good

n u m b e r o f

o t h e r texts.

I t may be stated in

ge ne ra l t e rm s

as

f o l l o w s .

It h as already been seen

that

a l i t e ra ry and

t h e o l o g ic a l

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e text in i ts f i n a l f o rm a n d a n h i s t o r i c a l -

c r i t i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n of i t s p r e h i s t o r y a re d i f f e r e n t

k i n d s

o f

e x p l a n a t i o n

o f a

text

an d

n o t ,

in

t h e m s e l v e s ,

in

c o n f l i c t w i t h

o n e

a n o t h e r .

T h e

pre se n t

u n i t y

o f a

text

i s no t

i n c o m p a t i b l e

w i t h

c o m p l e x i t y

a n d

d i s u n i t y

in i ts

p r e h i s t o r y . W h a t

a

text

m ay

h a v e m e a n t o n c e d o e s n o t d e t e r m i n e w h a t i t m e a n s n o w . T h e

q u e s t i o n

that

arises h o w e v e r , i s h o w o n e c a n r e c o n s t r u c t ,

h o w e v e r h y p o t h e t i c a l l y , t h e p r e h i s t o r y o f a text; b y w h a t m e a n s

c a n

o n e p e n e t r a t e b e h i n d a text to i t s e a r l ie r

stages

a n d

u l t i m a t e l y , w h e r e

a p p r o p r i a t e ,

to the h i s to r ic a l events that

u n d e r l i e i t? When th e sources that a w r i te r use d s t i l l e x i s t

i n d e p e n d e n t l y

o f h i s w o rk , th e n th i s ta sk i s g re a t ly fa c i l i t a te d .

T h e

greater

th e

e x t e n t

o f

s u r v i v i n g

s o u r c e m a t e r i a l ,

th e

eas ie r

th e

task

o f

r e c o n s t r u c t i n g

th e

h i s t o r y

o f t h e


o f t h e

l i t e r a r y w o r k - t h o u g h

there

wil l a lways b e

p r o b l e m s

U n f o r t u n a t e l y ,

fo r t h e

m a j o r i t y

o f t h e

n a r r a t i v e p o r t i o n s

o f t h e

OT , a nd c e r ta in ly fo r a l l t he pe n ta te uc h a l na r ra t iv e s , no suc h

i n d e p e n d e n t s o u r c e s s u r v i v e . A ll sourc e s h a ve t o b e r e c o n -

s t r u c t e d f ro m

th e

w o r k i n t o w h i c h t h e y h a v e b e e n i n c o r p -

orated. 35 Such re c ons t ruc t io n o f sources is the re fo re e n t i re ly

d e p e n d e n t u p on une ve nne sse s

an d

d i f f i c u l t i e s

in t h e

present

text

-

d o u b l e t s , c o n t r a d i c t i o n s ,

a n a c h r o n i s m s , v a r i a n t l i n g u i s t ic

usages , d ive rge nt theo logica l em ph ases , etc . T h e p r o b l e m

o b v i o u s l y is to d e t e r m i n e w h a t c o n s t i t u t e s a g e n u i n e u n e v e n -

ness. T h is br ings

th e

propose d so lu t ion in to foc us .

It is

o n l y

a

r i g o r o u s e x a m i n a t i o n

of the

f ina l text treated

in i t s own

r i g h t

23



At The M o u n t a i n o f God

a s a l i t e ra ry a n d t heo log ica l com pos i t ion that w i l l enable o n e

to

p r o n o u n c e w i t h

a n y

c e r t a i n t y upon w h a t

a re

g e n u i n e

d i f f i c u l t i e s in the text such a s sugges t a c o m p l e x p r e h i s t o r y .

This l i t e ra ry

a n d

theological

an a lysi s w h i l e

n o t

c o n t r i b u t i n g

a s

such to t he ta sk o f s o u rce -c r i t i c a l r ed ac t i o n a l t r ad i t i o -

historical or h is tor ical an alys is no neth eless

f o r m s

a n i m p o r t a n t

p r e l i m i n a r y

in t h a t

o n l y

t h u s c a n o n e a ccu ra t e ly pe rce ive th e

c on t ou r s o f t h e

m a t e r i a l

b e h i n d w h i c h o n e

a i m s

to penetrate.

Th i s m e a n s that a n h i s to r ica l -c r i t i ca l an a lys is

w h i l e

a d i f f e r e n t

k ind o f a p p r o a c h

f r o m

th e l i t e r a r y a n d t h e o l o g i c a l m a y o f t e n

be

d e p e n d e n t

upon th e

resul ts

o f a

l i t e ra ry

a n d

theological

exegesi s. M e t ho do lo g ica l p r i o r i t y shou ld o f t e n b e accorded to

the exeges is of the

text

in i t s

f i na l

f o r m .

T h e

p o i n t

is

s e l f - e v i d e n t

an d

m o s t s cho l a r s

w o u l d

d o u b t l e s s

c o n c u r

w i t h i t . Why t h e n f ocus upon i t ? The r e a s o n s a re

t w o f o l d .

First, the concern to discover a

text s

p reh is to ry has

m e a n t that o f t e n

in

p r ac t ice l i t t l e m o re t ha n l ip - se rv ice

h a s

been paid to the p r e l i m i n a r y step o f exegesis o f the f i n a l text.

A m o n g

fo r e x a m p l e r e c e n t m o n o g r a p h s on the

S ina i

pericope 36 o n e looks in

va in

for any l i t e r a r y a n d t heo lo g ica l

exeges is o r apprec ia t ion o f the

text

a s a w h o l e . T h e a s s u m p t i o n

i s t h a t o n e starts d i r e c t l y w i t h th e a n a ly s i s o f i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s

o r

verses

an d m o ves im m ed ia t e ly i n t o t he t r ac in g o f t he i r


If the

p o i n t w h i c h

I

p r e su m e

to

l abe l

a s

s e l f -e v i d e n t

is indeed

correct,

t hen a practical appro ach w h i c h ignores i t

m u s t s u r e l y b e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y

d o u b t f u l ; ^ ?

a n d t h e w i d e

d i ve r s i ty

a n d d i s a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n a n a l y s e s so o b t a i n e d s u r e l y

sup p or t s t h is c o n t e n t i o n .

S e c o n d l y th e p r ac t i c a l

i m p l i c a t i o n s

o f t he p r inc ip l e n eed to

be spelt o u t m o re fu l ly t h an h i t he r t o . F o r t he practical h o l d i n g

t o ge t he r

o f t w o

such

d i f f e r e n t

a p p r o a c h e s

t o the

t ex t ra i ses

delicate

p ro b lem s . F o r w h i l e t h e l i t e r a r y a n d t h e o l o g i c a l

exegete w i l l be

l o o k i n g

f o r

u n i t y

a n d p a t t e r n fo r t h a t w h i c h

m a k e s

a n a r r a t i v e c o h e r e th e h i s t o r i c a l l y - o r i e n t a t e d c r i t i c

w i l l

t end to look fo r t ens ions a n d d is locat ions fo r t h a t w h i c h m a y

i n d i c a t e

th e

sources

a n d

t r a d i t i o n s

w h i c h u n d e r l i e th e

n a r r a t i ve .3

N o w these

appro aches n eed

n o t

n eces s a r i ly

b e

opposed

t o o n e

a n o t h e r .

In

G e n . 1 - 1 1

fo r

e x a m p l e

i t i s not

d i f f i c u l t

s i m u l t a n e o u s l y

to

a p p r e c i a t e

t h e

l i t e r a r y

a n d

theo log ica l pa t t e rn ing that b in ds

th e

m a t e r i a l i n t o

a

co he ren t

w h o l e a n d

also

to

perce ive

th e

d i s p a r a t e n a t u r e

o f t he

v a r i o u s

t r ad i t ions w h i c h is e l o q u e n t o f the ir d iverse or igins . B u t w h a t is

clear to see in

G e n . 1 - 11

may be f a r

l ess c lea r e l sewhere .

A n d

k



One : M e t hod in N a r r a t i v e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n

in E x .

32-34

i n p a r t i c u l a r , de s p i t e th e g e n e r a l l y - h e l d c o n s e n su s

a bou t t he e v i de n t d i s pa r i t y o f i ts s ou rc e s a nd t r a d i t i o ns , i t

b e c o m e s e x t r e m e l y

d i f f i c u l t , i f the

exeges i s he re o f f e r e d

i s

correct

to

d i s t i n g u i s h

p a r a d o x e s

a n d

t e ns i ons

t h a t

a re

de l i be r a t e stylistic d e v i c e s f r o m those that

m a y

i n d i c a t e

u n d e r l y i n g

f r a g m e n t a t i o n .

T h e

p r o b l e m s

invo lved

i n p e n e t r a t i n g

b e h i n d

a n a r r a t i v e

t e x t

ha ve o f t e n be e n i n s u f f i c i e n t l y a p p r e c i a t e d b o t h b y c r i t i c a l l y

o r t h o d o x s c ho l a r s a n d b y t h e i r f u n d a m e n t a l i s t

d e t r a c t o r s .

B e f o r e

th e a d v e n t o f h i s t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m , i t w as c u s t o m a r y to

ex p l a in double t s , d i sc repanc i e s an d o t h e r d i f f i c u l t i e s p u r e l y in

t e r m s

of the text as i t

s tood .

T h e

r i g h t a p p r o a c h

w as

a s s u m e d

to be

h a r m o n i z i n g .

T h e r e wa s no a l l o w a n c e fo r h i s t o r i c a l

dep th

in a

text. S ince

th e

a c c e p t a n c e

o f

h i s t o r i c a l - c r i t i c a l

s t u d y

i t has

b e e n c u s t o m a r y

to

e x p l a i n

th e

s a m e d i f f i c u l t i e s

in

t e rm s o f t he u s e o f d i f f e r e n t s ou rc es . T he r i g h t a pp ro a c h ha s

b e e n a s s u m e d t o b e f r a g m e n t a r y .

U n t i l r e c e n t

ye a r s a ny

a t t e m p t

to

e x p l a i n

th e t e x t as i t

s t a n d s t e n d e d

to

l a b o u r

u n d e r

o p p r o b r i o u s

e p i t h e t s - p r e c r i t i c a l , m i d r a s h i c , h a r m o n i s t i c , e tc .

I n s o f a r as the

p r a c t i t i o n e r s

of the

a p p r o a c h t e n d e d

to be

c ons e rva t i ve s c ho l a r s

w i t h

d o u b t s a b o u t

th e

p r o p r i e t y

o f

h i s to r i ca l ly -aware c r i t i c i sm

and an

i n s u f f i c i e n t a p p r e c i a t i o n

o f

th e

issues

a t

s t a k e ,

th e

e p i t h e t s w e r e

n o t

a l t o g e t h e r

u n d e s e r v e d .

N o n e t h e l e s s

i t

m u s t

b e

said

t h a t

t h e i r i n s t i n c t i v e

a w a r e n e s s

of t he

i m p o r t a n c e

of t he f i n a l t e x t a nd t he

p r i o r i t y

of exeges i s o f i t was a sound ins t i nc t .

good e xa m pl e of the r e c o g n i t i o n of the p r o b l e m w i t h

o n l y

a

par t i a l explora t i on

of i ts

r a m i f i c a t i o n s

is

p rov i de d

by the

recent

work o f

J.

L i c h t , S t o r y t e l l i n g in the B i b l e .

A f t e r p r o d u c i n g

m a n y

v a l u a b l e e x a m p l e s o f a l i t e r a r y a n d

aesthetic

a p p r e c i a t i o n

of

th e

b i b l i c a l t e x t L i c h t a d v e r t s b r i e f l y ,

in an ep i log ue ,3 9 to

th e q u e s t i o n o f i n t e g r i t y v e r s u s f r a g m e n t a t i o n in l i t e r a r y

n a r r a t i v e s . L i c h t

i s no t

c o n c e r n e d

to

d e n y

a

p o s s ib l y c o m p l e x

p r e h i s t o r y to any g i ve n text. H e c o n c l u d e s that

o n e shou ld n e v e r u se one 's a e s t h e t i c o b s e r v a t i o n s to

e v a l u a t e

th e

t e x t u a l

[ in

c o n t e x t t h i s m e a n s s o u r c e -

c r i t i c a l ] i n t e g r i t y o f a passage . T h e d a n g e r t h a t

one ' s

p r e c o n c e p t i o n s

a n d

e xpe c t a t i ons

in one

f i e l d wi l l

d i s t o r t

one 's j u d g m e n t

in

a n o t h e r

i s g r e a t e r

t h a n

th e

a c t u a l

p r o f i t

to be

g a i n e d f r o m

th e

m e t h o d .

Or , to put i t

m o r e b l u n t l y ,

i t i s far too easy to f i n d s o m e a e s t h e t i c p e r f e c t i o n w h e n

o n e

looks

for i t

b e c a u s e

o n e

n e e d s

i t as an

a r g u m e n t

to

25



At The

M o u n t a i n

o f God

establish th e

in tegr i ty

o f a

given

s tory .^0

U n d o u b t e d l y

so. But

t h a t

i s on ly h a l f the prob lem . I t is indeed

easy

to

f ind

some

aesthetic

p e r fec t ion because o n e w a n t s to

argue for in tegr i ty . But i t i s equal ly easy to over look or dismiss

aesthetic

qua l i t i e s

and to

p roduce discrepancies because

o n e

w a n t s t o de m o n s t r a t e

u n d e r l y i n g sources .

The tu quoque i s in -

escapable.

H ow

t he n is one to proceed? H ow can the h is tor ica l

p e n e -

t r a t i o n ,

b e h in d a text b e c o m b in e d w i t h t h e l i t e r a ry and theo-

logical search

f o r the text s

p a t t e r n

a n d

cohe rence , especia l ly

w h e n

th e

f o r m e r

is to a

cons ide rab le

e x t e n t

d e p e n d e n t upon

th e

resu l t s of the

latter?

C l e a r l y

t h e r e

c a n b e n o s im p l e

r u l e - o f -

t h u m b . T h e

role

o f t he

l i t e r a r y c r i t i c

is

p e r ha p s a n a l o g o u s

to

that o f the

h is tor ian .

T h e

s i tua t ion

o f the

his torian

is

described

by

G.R. El ton thus :

H o w e v e r

wise

i t may be to

q u e s t io n m o t iv e

a t al l

t im e s ,

and

ho w e v e r c a p a b l e o f de l ibe ra t e pe rve rs ion a l l men may

be, i t

r e m a i n s

a

f ac t

o f

e x p e r i e n c e t h a t s i m p l i c i t y ,

s t ra igh t fo rwardness

an d

t r ansparency

also exist.

T h e

h i s t o r i a n

c anno t t he re fo re p roceed

on any

s ing le l ine

o f

j u d g m e n t ; h is

m i n d m u s t

b e

fo rever open

t o the two

possibi l i t ies

that th e

e v ide n c e m e a n s w ha t

i t

says

a n d

t h a t

it does not

m e a n w h a t

it says. To achieve as

secure

a

j u d g m e n t a s

poss ib le ,

th e

h i s t o r i a n he r e r e q u i r e s

h is

m o s t

r a r e

a n d

a l m o s t m o s t da n g e r o u s g i f t :

a n a l l - e m b r a c i n g

s y m p a t h y wh ich

e n ab l e s h i m , c h a m e l e o n - l i k e ,

t o

s t a n d

w i t h

each

man in

t u r n

to

look

upon th e

s i t u a t io n .

T h e

g i f t

is

dangerous because

i t m ay in the en d

b r i n g

h im to a

total

i na b i l i t y to ju dg e o r even to m ake up h is

m i n d ;

i t

need

not do so bu t i t

o f t en

does.^1

This is a

s a l u t a r y

statement o f the

c r i t ica l

task. In

l i t e r a r y

t e r m s

i t

m e a n s t ha t

th e

c r i t i c inc l ined

to

source ana lys is mus t

b e

open

to a l i t e r a ry

solut ion

w h i c h m a y

exc lude

sources,

w h i le

th e

critic

who i s

looking

f o r

l i t e r a r y

u n i t y

m u s t

b e

open

to

recognize th e

possible

presence

o f

d iverse

sources. A f i n e

j u d g m e n t is ca l led for . This is p e r ha p s m a de a l l the m o r e

d i f f i c u l t

b y t h e

f a c t

that,

s ince

l i t e r a r y u n i t y r a t he r t ha n

d i s u n i t y

m u s t

b e one s

i n i t i a l h e u r i s t i c a s s u m p t i o n ,

th e scales

a re

n a t u r a l l y s o m e w h a t w e i g h t e d

in

f a v o u r

o f

a r g u m e n t s

fo r the

f o r m e r . A l t h o u g h these

a r g u m e n t s a b o u t m e t h o d a r e s u g g e s t i n g

t h a t

h is tor ica l -cr i t ica l ana lys is shou ld o c c u p y a m o r e m o de s t

26



One:

M e t h o d in

N a r r a t i v e I n t e rp r e t a t i o n

pos i t ion

t h a n is c u s t o m a r y in the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a

text

and

that i t

s h o u l d o f t e n

b e p r ac t is e d a f t e r r a t h e r t h a n b e f o r e a

r e a d i n g o f t h e text in i t s own

r i g h t t h e re

is no

i n t e n t i o n

to

banish

i t a l t o g e t h e r ; o n t h e c o n t r a r y th e h o p e is to set i t

upon

a

f i r m e r f o u n d a t i o n so

that

there s h o u l d be less arbi t rar iness and

v a r i a t i o n in i ts resu l t s . T h e p rac t i ca l

o u t w o r k i n g

o f t h i s

c o m b i n i n g h i s t o r i c a l l y - a l e rt c r i t i c i s m

w i t h

s e n s i t i v e l i t e r a r y

and theological exeges is

w i l l be a d e m a n d i n g

task.

A

C O N S I D E R A T I O N

OF S O M E

I M P L I C A T I O N S

O F T H E

P R O P O S E D

A P P R O A C H T O T H E

T E X T

W h a t

w i l l

be t h e

p rac t i ca l resu l t s

o f

p r e f a c i n g h i s t o r ic a l

p e n e t r a t i o n o f a text w i t h l i t e r a r y an d t heo log ica l exeg es i s?

H e r e are o f f e r e d a few p r e l i m i n a r y o b s e r v a t i o n s o n p r i n c i p l e s

to be

observed

an d

p r o b l e m s t h a t

m ay

arise.

It

i s l i ke ly

that

t he s tudy o f t he

text

in i ts o wn r ig h t wi l l

s o m e t i m e s

s i m p l y

i n v a l i d a t e a n d s o m e t i m e s t o a g r e at e r o r

lesser extent m o d i f y a l r e a d y - e x i s t i n g a n a l y s e s

of i t s


T h e e x t e n t to w h i c h t h i s w i l l h a p p e n c a n n o t be p red ic ted in

a d v a n c e

w h e n

as yet c o m p a r a t i v e l y l i tt l e

w o r k

h as b e e n d o n e

w i t h th is perspective. Th e na ture o f t he s h i f t may perhaps be

sugges ted

by t he t w o

recent ar t ic les

o n t h e

f l o o d n a r r a t i v e

by

B . W . A n d e r s o n ^

2

an d

G.J. W e n h a m . ^

3

E a c h w r i t e r a r g u e s

fo r

th e

d y n a m i c c o h e r en c e

o f t h e

n a r r a t i v e

in i t s

p resent f o r m

and

on the basis o f th is each sugges ts a m o d i f i c a t i o n in the

g enera l ly

accepted source-critical

analysis o f t h e chapters;

ins tead o f i n d e p e n d e n t and P n a r r a t i v e s l a t e r c o m b i n e d by a

reda c to r each sug g est s t h a t

to

pos i t

a

separate

P

n a r r a t i v e

b e c o m e s u n n e c e s s a r y an d t h a t P a n d t h e r e d a c t o r

s h o u ld

b e

i d e n t i f i e d ; ins tead

o f t w o

sources combined they sug g es t

o ne

source r e w o r k e d a priest ly

recasting

o f t r a d i t i o n a l

epic

m a t e r i a l .

I t i s no t the

present purpose

to

a rg ue

th e

cor rec tness

o f t he i r ana lys i s . I t is the t e n o r o f t h e i r a r g u m e n t s t h a t i s of

s i g n i f i c a n c e .

The way in w h ich exegesis o f t he f ina l text m ay bear upon

historical-critical

e n q u i r i e s w i l l o f c o u r s e v a r y c o n s i d e r a b l y

d e p e n d i n g

upon which sor t

o f

c r i t i ca l ana lys i s

is

u n de r

considerat ion.

It

w i l l

bear

mo st s tro ng ly upon source cri t icism

and r e d a c t i o n c r i t i c i s m w h e r e one i s m o s t d e p e n d e n t u p on

f i n d i n g unevennesses

and

seams

in t he

p resent

text. I ts

r e l a t i o n

to t r a d i t i o - h i s t o r i c a l an d h i s t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m wi l l be m o r e

n e bu l ou s since

th e

scho lar

in

these

areas

necessar i ly w o r k s w i t h



A t T h e

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

l a r g e r

a n d less

t a n g i b l e c o n s i d e r a t io n s s u ch

a s

c o h e r e n c e

a n d

l i ke l i hood , a n d h i s

o v e ra l l h i s t o r i c a l

u n d e r s t a n d i n g m a y

l ead

h im

t o h y p o t h e s i z e a n o r i g i n a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f a text fo r w h i c h

t h e r e

i s

l i t t l e

direct

e v i d e n c e

i n t h e

text

i t s e l f .

B u t

w h i l e

o n e

m u s t d e f e n d t h e h i s t o r i a n s r i g h t t o w o r k i n th i s w a y , i t m a y

also b e a p p r o p r i a t e t o s o u n d a c a u t i o n a r y note espec i a l ly w i th

r e g a r d

t o

t r a d i t i o - h i s t o r i c a l a n a l y s is .

T r a d i t i o - h i s t o r i c a l study ^

b y i t s

v e r y n a t u r e , relates

s o m e w h a t o b l i q u e l y

t o t h e

d a t a

o f t h e

text.

I n t h e

P e n t a t e u c h

i t

treats

o f a process n o

l onge r v i s ib le , w ho se

e n d r e s u l t i s the

o n l y

f i r m e v i d e n c e w e have.^ W h e n th e


o f

t r a d i t i o n i m a g i n e d i s , as i s g e n e r a l l y th e

case

a p ro ce s s n o t

o n l y

o f

a g g l o m e r a t i o n

b u t

a lso

o f

t r a n s f o r m a t i o n ,

i t may

l e g i t i m a t e l y b e asked h o w o n e c an k n o w w h a t th e e a r l i e r stages

o f th e t r ad i t i on

were.^

6

A n o t h e r w a y o f pos i ng th e q u e s t i o n

is

t o a s k w h a t t e x t u a l

d a t a

w o u l d c o u n t a s

f a l s i f y i n g

a

traditio-historical theory; or are many traditio-historical

r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n f a c t i m p e r v i o u s t o s u c h c r i ti c i s m s ? I n s o m e

recent

w o r k

that

i s l e f t a m b i g u o u s , a n d s u ch a m b i g u i t y a f f e c t s

th e

s t a t u s

o f t h e c l a i m o f t r a d i t i o n - h i s t o r y to c o n s t i t u t e , i n

s o m e

s e n s e ,

a n e m p i r i c a l a n d i n d u c t i v e , r a t h e r t h a n a n a p r i o r i ,


of the t e x t .^ 7

j

o s v

t h i s is not to d e n y the

l eg i t imacy

o f

t r a d i t i o n h i s t o r y

i n t h e P e n t a t e u c h . B u t i t i s to

u r g e c a u t i o n i n i t s

practice;

th e m o r e s o si n ce t r a d i t i o n h i s t o r y

s h o u l d ,

i d e a l l y ,

t a k e

o ve r w h e r e s o u r c e a n a l y s i s e n d s , a n d a n y

g r e a t e r

u n c e r t a i n t y c o n c e r n i n g t h e l i t e r a r y s o u r c e s m u s t

n e c e s s a r i l y e n t a i l

greater

u n c e r t a i n t y c o n c e r n i n g th e p re -

l i t e r a r y

stages.

A f r e s h p e r c e p t io n o f l i t e r a r y a n d t h e o l o g i c a l

c o h e r e n c e

i n t h e f i n a l

text

m a y t h e r e f o r e h a v e a c e r t a i n

b e a r i n g

u p o n

t ra d i t i o - h i s to r i c a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s .

Given t h i s

v a r i a b i l i t y o f

poss ible

e f f e c t w h e n p r e f a c i n g

historical-critical analysis with literary and theological

e x e g e s i s , i t i s n o t

possible

to

p r e d i c t

th e

s o r t

o f

r e s u l t s t h a t

m a y e n s u e . B u t i t i s w o r t h b r i e f l y c o n s i d e r i n g

t h r e e

a r e a s w h e r e

i n t e r e s t i n g p r o b l e m s

m a y

arise.

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f J -Jebrew

N a r r a t i v e

S t y l e

th e f i r s t p l a c e , i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o a n a l y z e t h e

characteristics

o f

H e b r e w

n a r r a t i v e .

T h e r e

h a s

been

a n i n -

c r e a s i n g v o l u m e

o f

w r i t i n g

i n

t h i s

area r e c e n t l y ,

b u t

m u c h w o r k

r e m a i n s

t o b e d o n e . ^ 8

T h e r e

i s a

p a r t i c u l a r d a n g e r

o f i m -

p o s i n g

a n a c h r o n i s t i c c r i t e r i a

b y w h i c h to assess a

n a r r a t i v e .

T h i s i s t h e c o m p l a i n t o f R . N . W h y b r a y i n h i s d i scuss ion of the

28



One: Method

i n

N a r r a t i v e I n t e rp r e t a ti o n

Joseph story

in w h i c h he sees an

i r r econc i l ab l e t ens i on be tween

the s tand ard source-c r i t ica l ana ly s i s of the m ate r i a l and the

n e w e r

appr ec i a t i on

of the

s tory

as a w i s d o m

nove l

o f

g e n i u s .

Inc l in ing

to the

latter

as sessment he c o m m e n ts

that

there is an

i n su f f i c i e n t u n d e r s t a n d i n g

of the gap

w h i c h exists

b e t w e e n ou r m o d e r n s t a n d a r d s o f cons i s tency o f n a r r a t i o n

and

those of the

anc i en t world.

T he

observat ion is not n e w . It cons t i t u t ed an i m p o r t a n t p a r t of

the

cr i t ic ism

of I.

Engne l l

and the

Scandinavians agains t

the

d o c u m e n t a r y

h y p o t h e s i s .

5 0

But in the

absence

o f a

tho rough

d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f

w h a t s t a n d a r d s

o f

cons i s tency

c an

r eas onab ly

be expec ted o f Heb r ew na r r a t i v e , t h i s po i n t l acks c u t t i n g

edge.

Thr ee examples

of

this p rob lem

may be

g i ven .

T he

f i r s t

is of

his tor ical

in te r e s t as it is f r o m the w o r k o f

R i c h a r d S i m o n ,

the

found ing

f a t h e r o f m o d e r n b i b l ic a l s tu d y . In his H i s to i r e c r i t i que

du

V i e u x

Testament, Simon

sought to show

that

Moses could not

have been the so le author of the Penta teuch . A m o n g o the r

a r g u m e n t s

f o r c o m p o s i te a u t h o r s h i p h e

cited

t he r epe t i t i ous

c h a r a c t e r of cer ta in nar ra t ives :

T a k e

fo r

e x a m p l e

th e

a c c o u n t

of the

f lood

in the

seventh

chapter

of

Genesis;

in

ver se

1 7 w e

r ead , "The water s

inc reased , an d ba r e up the a r k , and i t w as

l i f t

u p above

the earth . In verse 18,

" A n d

the

waters

prevai led

and

wer e i nc r eas ed g r ea t l y

upon th e ea r th : and the ark

w e n t

upon the

f ace

of the waters . In

verse

1 9 w e

h a v e , " A n d

the w a t e rs p r eva i led exc eed i ng ly

upon

the ear th , and a l l

th e

h igh

h i l l s

that

w e r e u n d e r t h e w h o l e h e a ve n w e r e

covered ,

w h i c h

is

again

repeated in verse 20,

w h i c h

reads ,

"Fi f t een cubi t s

u p w a r d

d id the

w a t e r s p r e v a i l ,

and

the

m ou nta in s w ere covered" .

Is i t not

r easonable

to

suppose

t h a t

i f one and the

s a m e w r i t e r

had

been

desc r ib ing that even t ,

h e

w ou ld have done

so in far

f e w e r

words ,

especially in a h i s to ry?

5

1

(Some d i s u n i t y in this same passage has ge ne ra l ly been fe l t by

m o d e r n

scholars

also. It is

cus tomar y

to ascribe vv .

17a, 18-20

to P and v . 17 b to J.

Thi s dec i s ion however

has

been a lmo s t

ent i r e ly

dictated

by the larger

source

divis ion of the flood

n a r r a t i v e

as a

w ho le , r a the r t han

by the

charac ter i s t i c s

o f these

four

verses as s uch . T he m o d e r n

d iv is ion

is t h e r e f o r e no t

r e l e v a n t

to the

present point . Even

the

r econs t r uc t ed

P

ver s ion

w o u l d

doub t less hav e seemed

p ro l ix

to Simon )




A d o p t i n g a m o r e l i t e r a r y p e r s p e c t i v e , B . W . A n d e r s o n c o m -

m e n t s

t h a t

th e s w e l l i n g

o f t h e

w a t e r s

is v i v i d ly

p o r t r a y e d

by

the repeated use of the key

wo rds the

waters

preva i l ed

to

create

a n a s ce n d i n g e f f e c t .

w a y y i g b e r u

h a m m a y i m (v . 18 )

w e h a m m a y i m

gaberQ

(v . 19 )

ga berG h a m m a y i m

( v . 20) . ^2

O n e sho u l d a lso in c lud e v . 17 w i th in th i s total e f f e c t s o that o n e

h a s

f o u r

successive stages of the increase o f t he flood; a

f o r c e f u l a n d a e s t h e t ic a l ly s a t i s f y i n g d e p i c t i o n .

I f this

l i t e r a r y p e r ce p t i o n i s correct, tw o f u r t h e r o b s e r v a t i o n s

m a y b e m a d e . First,

a l t h o u g h

th e present

l i te r a r y u n i t y

i s n o t


w i t h c o m p o s i te a u t h o r s h i p , o n e ca n n o t

take

t h i s

o n e

factor

i n t h e

text,

that is the

f o u r f o l d

repetition, a n d

a r g u e

that i t

s h o w s b o t h u n i t y

a n d

d i s u n i t y .

I f t he

l i t e r a r y a s s e s s m e n t

o f t h e re p e t i t i o n a s a u n i t y is s o u n d , t h e n t h e f a c t o f r e p e t i t i o n

in itself

provides

n o e v i d e n c e o f

c o m p o s it e a u t h o r s h i p ; that

c o u ld o n l y be a r g u e d o n t h e bas is o f o t h e r c r i t e r i a in the l a r g e r

context.

Se co n d l y ,

th e

w e a k n e s s

in

S i m o n ' s a p p r o a c h

i s no t

s i m p l y that

o f l i t e r a r y i n s e n s i t i v i t y , b u t t h e f a c t

that

h i s

i n s e n s i t i v i t y

seems to be based

u p o n

a n a n a c h r o n i s ti c a p p l i-

c a t io n o f t h e n o t i o n o f l i t e r a r y c o h e r e n c e a n d a p p r o p r i a t e

style.

H e begged a m o s t i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n , a n d a s such se t an u n f o r -

t u n a t e p r e c e d e n t .

A

second issue

in the

assessment

o f

H e b r e w n a r r a t i v e s t y l e

is

th e

poss ible

u s e o f

c o m p o s i t i o n a l t e c h n i q u e s

i n a w a y n o t

dis -

s i m i l a r

t o t h e e f f e c t a c h i ev e d b y m o d e r n p u n c t u a t i o n

devices.

Fo r

e x a m p l e

th e

occurrence

o f a n

i n t r o d u c t o r y

speech f o r m u l a

in

th e m i d d l e o f a speech is

f r e q u e n t l y

t a k e n a s e v i d e n c e o f

d i v e r s e s o u r c e s a n d / o r r e d a c t i o n a l o v e r w o r k i n g .

T h e

c o m m e n t s

o f

N o t h

a n d

C h i l d s

o n t h e

t h r e e f o l d w y ' m r

in Ex .

33:19-21

a re

typical.

But s ince each f o r m u l a i n t r o d u c e s so m e

d i f f e r e n t

aspect

w i t h i n

Y a h w e h ' s

s p e e ch , w h i c h y e t f o r m s a c o n t i n u o u s

whole,^ may it not be

that t h e y

are

i n t e n d e d

to f u n c t i o n as,

so to

s p e a k , p a r a g r a p h

m a r k e rs ? A n d i f so , how is

t h i s

to be

w e i g h e d a g a i n s t

t h e

c l a im

that t h e f o r m u l a e

r e f l e c t l i t e r a r y

tens ion

a n d

disunity?^

t h i r d ,

a n d f a r

m o r e p r o b l e m a t i c , i ss u e

in

H e b r e w s t y l e

is

th e p h e n o m e n o n of the so-ca lled do uble t . A s O . K a i s e r p u t s i t ,

T h e

o n e m o s t b a s i c c r i t e r i o n for a d iv i s i on i n t o s o u r ce s is

th e repeated occurrence o f t he

s a m e m a t e r i a l

in

d i f f e r e n t

v e r s i o n s , that

i s , d o u b l e ts . 5 7

30



One: Method

in

N a r r a t i v e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n

A s im i l a r v i e w

is

also expressed

by N o t h ^ S

anc

j b y R ic h t e r ,

w ho

calls th e p resence o f doub l e t s das wich t i g s t e K r i t e r i u m

fo r

d i s c e r n i n g d i f f e r e n t

sources.59 -r

na

i: there m a y b e

d i f f i -

cul t ies

w i t h

a

doub l e t a na l y s i s

is a

p o i n t

that

h as

rece ived

i n s u f f i c i e n t

a t t e n t i o n .

A l t h o u g h

R i c h t e r ,

fo r

example , does

discuss

th e

d i s t i nc t i on b e t we e n

a

r e p e t i t i o n w h i c h

is

s t y l i s t i c

an d o n e which re f l ec t s sources , th e e x a m p l e s h e gives o f

s ty l i s t ic repe t i t ion , Gen.

1 and the

r e d a ct io n a l f r a m e w o r k

o f

J udge s , are too easy an d o b v i o u s to

o f f e r

an y h e l p in m o r e

p r o b l e m a t i c contexts .60

T he no t i on o f a doub l e t , t hough s e e m ing l y

clear

is in fact

s o m e w h a t v a g u e .

I t was

d e ve lo p ed p r i m a r i l y w i t h i n

th e

ana lys i s

of

G enesi s w i th re fe ren ce

to

s uch ob v ious l y s im i l a r na r r a t i ve s

as the

expul s ions

of

Ha ga r (Ge n .

16; 21 :8 -21 ) or

the ancestress

of

Israel in da ng er (G en . 12:10-20; 20:1-18; 26:6-11) . I ts app l i -

cab i l i t y e l sewhere

is far

less clear .61

For

e x a m p l e ,

Ex. 34,

wi t h its t h e o p h a n y an d l a w - g i v i n g , is genera l ly cons idered the 3

vers ion of the E t h e o p h a n y an d l a w - g i v i n g in Ex.

19-20.62

Does

it

t h e r e f o r e q u a l i f y

as a

d o u b l e t ?

In fac t Ex. 34 is so

d i f f e r e n t

in

certain s ignif icant respects f r o m

Ex. 19-20^3

that

it is

d o u b t f u l

w he t he r doub le t

is a

use f u l

c a t e g o r y .

A n o t h e r

w a y o f

pu t t i ng t h i s po in t

is to say

that

th e

doub l e t

analysis necessarily focusses on the similarities b e t w e e n tw o

nar ra t ives . Di f fe rences t end

to be

cons ide red secondary

an d

u n i m p o r t a n t .

T h e

p o i n t

a t

w h i c h

th e

d i f f e r e nce s b e t we e n

tw o

stories s imi l a r in some respects become as s ign i f ican t as the

s imi l a r i t i e s cannot

b e

gene ra l ly p re scr ibed

o r

q u a n t i t a t i v e l y

assessed; i t m u s t b e l e f t to the j u d g m e n t of the

critic

a ccord ing

to each

situation.

None the less there

r e m a ins

in

pr inciple

a

g e n u i n e

d i f f i c u l t y

w h i c h

is

in s u f f i c i e n t l y

r e cogn i z e d .

W h a t

dis t ingu i shes

o n e

s tory to ld

in two

va r i a n t t r a d i t i ons f rom

tw o

d i f f e r e n t stories e i t he r s om e wha t s im i l a r

in

t he m s e l ve s

o r

told

in such a way as to b r i n g out a s i m i l a r i t y b e tw e e n t h e m ? It is

a rgue d b e l ow, f o r e x a m pl e , that E x.

34

wa s m os t l ike ly neve r an

a c c o u n t of an i n i t i a l c o v e n a n t m a k i n g bu t w a s a l wa y s a

cove na n t r e ne wa l . W h e n

it is

objected that ( inte r a l ia )

it

looks

so

s i m i l a r

to an

i n i t i a l c o v e n a n t m a k i n g ,

o n e m a y

respond

b y

a s k ing ,

H o w else

wou l d

a

cove na n t r e ne wa l

appea r ?6 4

A

f u r t h e r

d i f f i c u l t y

in the d ou b le t ana lys i s has to do w i th t he

basic pa t t e rn

o f

l i te r a r y d e v e l o p m e n t w h i c h

th e

scholar

is to

a s s um e .

T he

pa t t e rn a s s um e d

in a

s t anda rd doub le t ana lys i s

is

that

o f o n e st o ry b e i n g d i v e r s i f i e d i n d i f f e r e n t l i t e r a r y

t ra d i ti o n s . W h a t , h o w e v e r ,

of the


o f a

s t o r y t e l l i n g

31



A t T h e M o u n t a i n o f G od

t e c h n i q u e s u c h

a s O l r ik s

n i n t h

epic

l a w ,

t h e L a w o f

P a t t e r n i n g ,

a c c o r d i n g

to w h i c h

d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e

a n d

s i t u a t i o n s

a re

d e p i c t e d

in such

a way as to

s h o w s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n t h e m ? 6 5

T h e

d e v e l o p m e n t i m a g i n e d

h e r e

i s

that

o f

d i v e r s e e v e n t s b e i n g

u n i f i e d . O n e

m i g h t p e r h a p s d e sc r i be

i t as a

l i t e r a r y t y p o l o g y .

T h e d i f f i c u l t y

is that t h e t w o

a p pr o a c h e s p re s u pp o se d i f f e r e n t

p a t t e r n s

o f

l i t e r a r y d e v e l o p m e n t ;

u n i t y t o

d i v e r s i t y , d i v e r s i t y

t o

u n i t y . T h i s i s no t to a rgue

that

o n e approach is r i g h t and t h e

o t h e r w r o n g . B o t h a r e d e m o n s t r a b l e l i t e r a r y p h e n o m e n a . T h e

point

is

s imply

to

u rge

c au t i on

over

th e

sort

o f source-critical

or traditio-historical patterns w hich may be assumed to

u n d e r l i e a text.

T h e R o l e o f A s s u m p ti o n a n d A l l u s i o n in N a r r a t i v e

a d d i t i o n t o the need t o be s e n s i t i v e to s p e c if i c n a r r a t i v e

t e c h n i q u e s , there

is

also

a

m o r e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e

o f

n a r r a t i v e

w r i t i n g t o be

o b s e r v e d .

A

w r i t e r

w i l l

f r e q u e n t l y

b e

a l l u s i v e

in

style.

H e

w i l l

n o t

w a n t

o r

n e e d

to

e l a b o r a t e

o n

m a t t e r s

o f

w h i c h th e

r e a d e r

is

p r e s u m e d a l r e a d y

to

possess k n o w l e d g e ,

e i t h e r t h r o u g h g e n e r al k n o w l e d g e

o r

t h r o u g h w h a t

t h e

w r i t e r

h i m s e l f

h a s

p r ev ious ly sa id .

T h e

p r eoccup a t ion

o f

h i s t o r i c a l -

c r i t i ca l a n a l y s is w i th p e n e t r a t i n g b e h i n d

t h e

text m a k e s

d i f f i c u l t an

apprec ia t ion

o f t h i s

aspect

o f

l i t e r a r y

style.

Si lence

a b o u t , o r o n l y a b r i e f r e f e r e n c e t o , s o m e f e a t u r e i n the pre-

ce d i ng na r r a t i ve i s

c u s t o m a r i l y

t a k e n a s

s h o w i n g

either

i g n o r a n c e

o f

t h i s f e a t u r e , t h u s c o n s t i t u t i n g e v i d e n c e

fo r t he

d i s c e r n m e n t o f

sources

or

else

a

s ec o n d a ry gloss

o r h a r m o n i z -

a t i o n , t h u s p r o v i d i n g e v i d e n c e f o r r e d a c t i o n a l c o m p i l a t i o n . T o

i n t e r p r e t

silences o r

a l lus ions

a s

a s s u m i n g

a k n o w l e d g e o f the

p r e c e d i n g n a r r a t i v e m a y h a v e f a r - r e a c h i n g i m p l i c a t i o n s . I n t h e

exeges i s o f Ex. 32-34 i t is

proposed

t h a t

f r e q u e n t l y s en se

m ay

best

b e

m a d e

on the

a s s u m p t i o n

o f a

k n o w l e d g e

o f the

pre-

c e d i n g n a r r a t i v e in Ex. 19-24; (25-31); an d m o r e g e n e r a l l y E x.

1 -1 8 . Th i s p o in t i s a coro l l a ry o f t he imp or t ance o f c o n t e x t fo r

exegesis.

T h e

m o r e

a

w r i t e r a s s u m e s

t h a t t h e

c o n t e x t m a k e s

h i s

m e a n i n g clear th e less h e n e e d s p e c i f y i n d i v i d u a l p o i n t s . I t is

h a r d l y s u r p r i s i n g , t h e r e f o r e ,

t h a t t h e

less

th e

c o n t e x t

i s

t a k e n

into a c c o u n t ,

th e

w i d e r

th e

r a n g e

o f

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s

o f an y

g iv e n

u n i t

that

b e c o m e s a v a i l a b l e .

T h e


o f

c o u r s e ,

is

that

w h i l e

o n e

m u s t

b e

open

to a

w r i te r s u s e o f h i n t , a l l u s i o n a n d a s s u m p t i o n

w h i c h

p resupposes

b o t h b a c k g r o u n d a n d context o n e m u s t e q u a l l y b e

a w a r e

o f the

pos s ib i l i ty

o f

p r o d u c i n g

a

f a l s e l y h a r m o n i z i n g e xe g es is

w h i c h

32



One: M e t h o d

in

N a r r a t i v e I n t e rp r e t a t i o n

g losses ov er g en u in e d i f f i c u l t i e s .

A g a i n , t h e r e is no

s i m p l e

r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e p r o b l e m . T h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f an ap p ea l t o t h e

w r i t e r ' s

tacit a s s u m p t i o n s w i l l

b e

f o u n d

in t h e

p ersu as iv en ess

o f

t h e r e s u l t i n g

e xe g e s i s .

I m p l i c a t i o n s o f

T h e o l o g i c a l P a r a d o x

f u r t h e r

d i f f i c u l t i s su e c on c ern s t h e w a y i n w h i c h

t h e o l o g i c a l c o h e r e n c e in t h e f i n a l text b e a r s upon th e possible

d i s c e r n m e n t

o f s o u r c e s . S i n c e t h e o l o g i c a l d i s u n i t y h a s f r e q u e n t -

ly

been c i ted

a s

e v i d e n c e

f o r

l i t e r a r y

d i s u ni t y , th e

c on v erse

c an

h a r d l y b e o b j e c t e d t o . B u t h o w w i l l t h i s w o r k in

practice?

W e

m ay

b r i e f l y

c o n s i d e r

o n e

p o t e n t i a l l y p r o b l e m a t i c i s s u e . T h i s

i s

t h e

f a c t

that

m u c h


w r i t i n g

m a y

i n v o l v e

t h e u s e o f

p a r a d o x a n d

a n t i n o m y .

Such i s t he

i n h e r e n t l y m y s t er io u s n a t u re

o f G o d a n d h is

w a y s w i t h

m en t h a t i t is

o f t e n

d i f f i c u l t to

m a k e

a s t a t e m e n t i n a t h e o l o g i c a ll y r e f l e c t i v e w a y w i t h o u t w i s h i n g to

q u a l i f y

i t ,

s o m e t i m e s

b y t h e

asse r t ion

o f a n

a p p a r e n t l y o p p o s i t e

t r u t h . T h e f a c t

t h a t

o n e w r i t e r m a y m a k e t w o s e e m i n g l y i n -

c o m p a t i b l e

statements

66

in

a t t e m p t i n g

to

express

a

para-

d o x i c a l t h e o l o g i c a l t r u t h r a i s e s tw o p r o b l e m s . T h e f i r s t is t h a t

o n e m a y

s i m p l y

fa i l

to

r e c o g n i z e

t h a t

a

p a r a d o x

is

b e i n g

elaborated.

Take ,

fo r

e x a m p l e ,

th e presence of Ex.

33:11

in the

same n ar ra t iv e wi th 33 :2 0

(33:14

a l s o b e l o n g s t h e o l o g i c a l l y

w i t h

these . In t h e

exegesis

it is

a r g u e d

that

w e

h a v e h e r e

a

t y p i c a l

t h e o l o g i c a l p a r a d o x s t r a i n i n g t o e x pr e ss t h e p o s s i b i li t i e s a n d

l i m i t a t i o n s

i n m a n ' s a p p r o a c h t o G o d . T h e o n e c o m p l e m e n t s t h e

other. T o

a r g u e , t h e r e f o r e ,

that these

r e f l e c t c o n f l i c t i n g c o n-

c ep t ion s

o f

m a n ' s a p p r o a c h

t o G o d a n d s o

b e l o n g

to

d i f f e r e n t

s o u r c e s

6

'

7

w o u l d b e a

m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g ,

or a t least a

gross

ov ers i m

p l i f i

cation.

T h e

s e c o n d p r o b l e m is t h i s . I f one has r e c o g n i z e d th e

c o m p l e m e n t a r i t y

o f the two p o les o f the p a rad o x , on e sh o u ld

b e w a r e

o f

a s s u m i n g

t h a t

t h e i r

u n i t y

m u s t

be, o r i s

e v e n m o r e

l i k e l y

t h a n

n o t t o b e , t h e

w o r k

o f a r e d a c t o r ; that th e

e m p h a s e s

w e r e o r i g i n a l l y d i s t i n c t

a n d o n l y

s e c o n d a r i ly c o n j o i n e d . H e r e

a

scho la r ' s

g e n e ra l t h e o lo g i c al u n d e r s t a n d i n g i s a n i m p o r t a n t

f a c t o r .

V o n

R a d ,

f o r

e x a m p l e , t e n d s

to

d i sso lv e theo log ic a l

ten s ion s

in t h e

p resen t

text

in to d iv e rse

t r a d i t i o - h i s t o r i c a l

dev e lop men ts . A n o tab le

instance

is h is

presentation

o f t h e

d i f f e r e n c e

b e t w e e n

th e tent a n d t h e a r k .

6

& T h e tent

presents

a th e o l o g y o f Y a h w e h ' s i n t e r m i t t e n t m a n i f e s t a t i o n , w h i l e t h e

ark rep resen ts

Y a h w e h ' s

a b i d i n g

p r e s e n c e .

T h e t w o t h e o l o g i e s

a r e

c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t .

6

T hese

t w o

h e t e r o g e n e o u s

33




s t r e a m s o f t r a d i t i o n w e r e

later

coalesced

( i m p e r f e c t l y ) i n t h e

Pr ies t ly concept ion

o f the tabernacle T h e

details

o f v o n

Ra d s

a r g u m e n t

h a v e m e t w i t h v a r i o u s

c r i t i c i s m s , ™

b u t

that

n e e d

n o t

c o n ce r n

u s

here

W h a t

i s o f


i s

that

vo n

R a d s

a r g u m e n t i s cont rol led by the a s s u m p t i o n o f t he

essential

i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f t h e

n o t i o n s

o f

presence

a n d

v i s i t a t i o n . T h i s

r e s u l t s i n h i s t r e a t i n g a passage s uch a s Ex . 29:42-45, w h e r e t h e

t w o a r e

ju x t a p o s e d w i t h o u t

a n y s ense o f

i n c o n g r u i t y ,

a s o f n o

s i g n i f i c a n c e ; th e

idea

o f

presence

in v. 45 is

d i smissed

a s an

u n i n t e n d e d

h a n g o v e r

f r o m

a s u pe r s e d e d t r a d i t i o n . 7 1 B u t

m i g h t

i t n o t b e that E x .

29:42-45 s h o u l d

b e

t a k e n

a t i t s

f ace

v a l u e

a s a n attempt to express a

pa r adox ica l

theological t r u t h ,

a n O T

v e r s ion

o f t he

p a r a d o x

o f

i m m a n e n c e

a n d

t r a n s c e n d e n c e ?

A nd

i f so , does i t no t

u n d e r m i n e

t h e a s s u m pt i o n b a s i c t o v o n

R a d s a r g u m e n t , a s b e i n g b a se d o n t o o n a r r o w l y lo g i ca l a n


o f t h e

issue

a t stake?

T h e

p r o b l e m h e r e is t h e t h e o l o g i ca l co u n t e r pa r t o f g e n e r a l

l i t e r a r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . J u s t

a s o n e

m u s t f i r s t d e t e r m i n e w h a t

constitutes H e b r e w l i t e r a r y

consistency

b e f o r e p r o n o u n c i n g

a

text

t o b e

i n c o n s i s t e n t ,

s o t o o o n e

m u s t d e t e r m i n e w h a t

constitutes

t h e o lo g i c a l co n s i st e n c y b e f o r e p r o n o u n c i n g o n t h e

matter

o f in c o n s ist en c y . A f i n e j u d g m e n t i s

called

f o r .

T H E E X E G E T IC A L

S I G N I F I C A N C E

O F L I T E R A R Y G E N R E

A N D T H E V A L U E O F T H E C O N C E P T O F S T O R Y

O n e f i n a l

i s sue

to treat o f in

t h i s b r ie f ske tch

o f

m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

i s the


o f

l i t e r a r y

genre for


the text The

m o m e n t ,

relative to the

exegesis o f t h e text a n d t h e

d iscuss ion

o f i t s

p r e h i s t o r y ,

a t

w h i c h o n e s h o u l d co m e t o a d e c i si o n co n ce r n i n g g e n r e is

d i f f i c u l t t o prescr ibe . I n

practice

t h e r e wi l l i n e v i t a b l y b e a

ce r t a i n o s c i l la t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t w o .

g e n e r a l l i t e r a r y s t u d y

th e

m o r e

o n e k n o w s

a b o u t

t h e

l i t e r a r y c o n v e n t i o n s w i t h i n w h i c h a n a u t h o r w a s o p e r a t i n g , t h e

better o n e c a n appreciate th e m e a n i n g a n d i m p l i ca t i o n s o f h i s

w o r k . B u t f o r t h e

e a r l y H e b r e w w r i t e r s

i n

t h e i r I s r ae l i t e

a n d

a n c i e n t N e a r E a s t e r n

c o n t e x t w e k n o w a l l too l i t t l e

a b o u t

th e

l i t e r a r y c o n v e n t i o n s

w i t h i n w h i c h

t h e y w r o t e . M o r e o v e r s u c h

l i t e r a r y c o n v e n t i o n s

a s

t h e y

h a d

w o u l d h a v e b e e n q u a l i f i e d

i n

s i g n i f i c a n c e b y t h e g i v e n n e s s o f t h e t r a d i t i o n s o f I s r ae l w h i c h

t h e y

h a d t o handle/2 j is

m e a n s

that t h e

m o d e r n re a d e r

h a s

to accept y e t a n o t h e r i m p o n d e r a b l e e le m e n t i n h i s a ssessment

34




o f t h e

a n c i e n t H e b r e w

texts

I t m a y b e

s u g g e s t e d , h o w e v e r ,

t h a t f o r

m a n y n a r r a t i v e

p o r t i o n s

o f t h e O T ,

i n c l u d i n g

E x .

3 2 - 3 4 ,

q u e s t i o n s o f l i t e r a r y

g e n r e a r e o f c o m p a r a t i v e l y l i t t le s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r a r r i v i n g a t

t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e s t o r y , a n d a ss u m e m o r e im p o r t a n c e in

d i s c us s i ons o f t he

s t o r y ' s

o r i g i n s o r h i s t o r i c i t y . O b v i o u s l y o n e

m u s t m a k e s o m e k i n d o f g e n r e a s s e s s m e n t a t t h e o u t s e t , b u t

t h i s is t r u e o f an y l i t e r a t u r e and is no d i f f i c u l t y i f o n e h as been

p r o p e r l y t a u g h t to read

I t

is in t h i s c o n n e c t i o n t h a t

t h e

c u r r e n t l y f a sh i o n a b l e n o t i o n

of

s tory i s o f

a s s i s t a n c e .

O n e o f t h e a d v a n t a g e s o f t h e t e r m

s to ry i s that it is c o n v e n i e n t l y v a g u e a b o u t th e precise n a t u r e

o f

th e

m a t e r i a l

to

w h i c h

it is

a p p l i e d

b u t

f o c u s s e s r a t h e r

o n

t h o s e e l e m e n t s w h i c h b r i n g

a

n a r r a t i v e

t o

l i f e

-

p l o t ,

i r o n y ,

s us pe ns e , c l i ma x , e t c . - a n d w h i c h i n v o l v e t h e r ea d e r i m a g i n -

a t i v e l y

i n t he

m a t e r i a l .

T h e

i m p o r t a n t t h i n g

is to

g r a s p w h a t

i s

b e i n g

s a i d . Q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t r u t h

c o n t e n t ,

process

o f

c o m p o s i t i o n ,

o r

h i s t o r i c a l r e l i a b i l i t y

m a y

i nde e d

b e

a ddre s s e d

to

a s t o r y , a n d s o m e s t o r i e s p o s i t i v e l y i n v i t e s u c h q u e s t i o n s , b u t

t h e y a r e d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e ta sk o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d e n t e r i n g

i n t o w h a t t h e s t o r y i s s a y i n g a n d m a y , i n g e n e r a l , b e l e f t a s i d e

u n t i l th e p r i m a r y t as k o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g h a s be en a c c o m p l i sh e d .

O n e s h o u l d

n o t , h o w e v e r ,

s e p a r a t e th e

q u e s t i o n s

o f

u n d e r -

s t a n d i n g a n d t r u t h t o o s h a r p l y , fo r i t i s o f t e n p r e c i s e l y b y

a p p e a l i n g to a

r e a d e r ' s sense

o f w h a t is t rue to l i f e that th e

s t o r y i nvo l ve s th e r e a d e r in w h a t is be i ng

said

U t i l i z i n g , t h e n ,

th e

n o t i o n

o f

s t o ry

o n e c a n c o n c e n t r a t e i n t h e

f i r s t i n s t a n c e

o n a s t ra i g h t f o r w a r d r e a d i n g o f th e

text

a n d p o s t p o n e e x p l i c i t l y

a d d r e s s i n g th e issue o f t h e precise n a t u r e o f t h e

s to ry ' s

c o n t e n t s .

T o c a r r y o u t s u c h a p r o c e d u r e w i t h E x . 3 2 -3 4 f i t s w e l l w i t h

th e

t e n o r

o f t h e a r g u m e n t so f a r . Fo r m o s t

p e n t a t e u c h a l g e n r e

d i s c u s s i o n s

t e n d

t o b e

c o n c e r n e d w i t h e i t h e r

th e

h i s t o r i c i t y

o r

th e

t ra d i t io - h i s t o r ic a l d e v e l o p m e n t

o f t h e

m a t e r i a l r a t h e r t h a n

i l l u m i n a t i n g

th e

m e a n i n g

o f

w h a t

is

b e i n g

said

T hi s

m a y b e

seen by b r i e f l y c o n s i d e r i n g t h e t w o m a i n g e n r e c l a s s i f ic a t i o n s

that ha ve be e n s ugge s t e d f o r t h e S i na i m a t e r i a l .

T h e f i r s t c l a s s i f i c a t i on is

that

o f Sage o r l e g e n d . 7 3

A l t h o u g h

th e

n o t i o n

o f

Sage

m a y

direct

one to

aspects

o f

s t o r y - t e l l i n g h i t h e r t o u n a p p r e c i a t e d ,

f o r

e x a m p l e

b y t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n o f O l r i k ' s E p i c L a w s , i n t e r e s t in Sage t e n d s to b e

c o n c e r n e d w i t h

th e

f a c t that

if a

s t o r y

is Sage

t h e n

o n e

m u s t

b e

c a u t i o u s

in

s e a r c h i n g

f o r u n d e r l y i n g

h i s t o r i c i t y ;

fo r

s uc h s t o r i e s

35



A t T h e

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

w i l l

t e n d

to

cons i s t

o f

l a r g e l y

u n h i s t o r i c a l

a c c r e t i o n s

u p o n a

poss ib ly h i st o r ic a l n u c l e u s , a l t h o u g h

th e

d e gr e e

to w h i c h a

Sage

i s c o n s id e r ed u n h i s t o r i c a l m a y v a r y considerably.^

T h e d e s i gn a t i o n o f

cult

l e g e n d h a s a l so be e n su gge s t e d . T h i s

is a p a r t i c u l a r l y s l i p p e r y n o t i o n to g r a s p a n d i s d i sc u ss ed a t

l e n g t h

in ch . 3 . S u f f i c e i t t o say a t

p r e se n t

that

l a n g u a g e a b o u t

a n a r r a t i ve r e f le c t in g a cu l t - f es t iva l in t h e l i f e o f Israel ca n

eas i ly l ead to

c o n f u s i o n

b e t w e e n w h a t th e

text

n o w i s a n d s a y s

a n d w h a t i t o n ce m a y h a v e b e en a n d said. So m e su c h

c o n f u s i o n

m a y perhaps be d i scerned in M o w i n c k e l ' s p i o n e e r in g w o r k o n t he

g e n r e o f t h e S ina i m a t e r i a l

w h e n

h e says ,

C e q u e e t E r a p p o r t e n t c o m m e

recit

d e s e v e n e m e n t s d u

S i n a i n'est a u t r e c ho se q u e l a d e sc r i p t i o n d

1

u n e f e t e

c u l t u e l l e celebree a u n e e p o q u e p l u s recente, p l u s

p r e c i s e m e n t d a n s le t e m p l e d e J e r u s a l e m . 7 *

T h e S ina i n a r r a t i v e is an a c c o u n t o f h a p p e n i n g s a t S i n a i . It is

n o t a d e sc r i p t i o n o f a c u l t i c f e st i v a l i n t h e J e r u s a l e m t e m p l e .

Even i f the constituent e l e m e n t s o f t he narrative w e r e e n t i r e l y

d r a w n f r o m

t h e J e r u s a l e m c u l t , t h i s w o u l d n o t

alter

th e f a c t

that

n o w

t h e y

a re

b e i n g u s e d

to

descr ibe

a

c e r e m o n y

a t

S i n a i ;

that

is w h a t th e

text

is

about.

If M o w i n c k e l w e r e r i g h t , h is v iew

w o u l d h a v e m a n y i m p l i c a t i o n s fo r o n e ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e

o r i g i n s a n d


o f t h e text. B u t f o r

u n d e r s t a n d i n g w h a t

th e text n o w i s a n d i s sa y i n g h is

statement

is m i s l e a d i n g .

V on

Rad ' s

d i scuss ion

o f t he

g e n r e ? 6

is

m o r e n u a n c e d t h a n

M o w i n c k e l ' s . H e a r g u e s n o t t h a t t h e n a r r a t i v e i s a n a c c o u n t o f a

post-Sina i cultic c e r e m o n y

b u t

that cultic

practices

h a ve d e e p ly

i n f l u e n c e d th e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e n a r r a t i v e . Ye t f o r a l l t he

c u l t i c i n f l u e n c e s

w h i c h

v o n R a d

d i sc e r n s

in t he

S ina i

p e r i c o p e

a n d

elsewhere in

J,

h e says:

T h e r e i s a w e a l t h o f a n c i e n t c u l t i c m a t e r i a l b u i l t i n t o t h e

w o r k of the J w r i t e r , but it w o u l d be true to say that

t h e r e i s n o t o n e s i n g l e i n s t a n c e in w h i c h th e o r i g i n a l

c u l t i c interest h a s be e n p r e se r ve d . T h e m a n y h i e r o i

l o g o i

h a v e n o l o n g e r t h e f u n c t i o n o f l e g i t i m a t i n g a n d

g u a r a n t e e i n g th e h o l i n e ss o f a n a c t u a l site, n o r h a v e th e

c u l t l e g e n d s

o f

E x o d .

1-14

o r

E x o d . 1 9 f f .

a n d

2 4

r e t a i n e d

th e i r ancient

sacral

p u r p o s e , w h i c h w a s e xc lu s i ve ly

c o n c e r n e d w i t h p r o v i d i n g

th e

bas i s

a n d

s h a p i n g

th e

p a t t e r n

o f a n

a n c i e n t Y a h w i s ti c f e s t i v a l .

T h e

m a t e r i a l s

h a ve be e n historicized : th e i r i n n e r

content h a s

a c t u a l l y

36



One: M e t h o d in N a r r a t i v e I n t e rp r e t a t i o n

b een r e m o v e d

b o d i l y

f r o m i t s n a r r o w s a c ra l c o n t e x t i n t o

t h e f r e e r a t m o s p h e r e o f c o m m o n h i st o ry . ?'

7

T h e

r e c o g n i t i o n

o f t h e

h i s t o r i c i z e d n a t u r e

o f t h e

text

an d

o f

t h e f a c t

that

a n y

o r i g i n a l

s a c ra l c o n t e x t h a s r ec e d e d i n t o t h e

b a c k g r o u n d m e a n s t h a t d i s c u s s i o n

o f t h e

Sinai m a t e r i a l

as a

c u l t

l e g e n d w i l l

n e c e s s a r i l y f o c u s

o n t h e

p r e h i s t o r y

o f t h e text

r a t h e r t h a n

on i t s

p r e s e n t

f o r m .

I n s o f a r

as one is

i n t e r e s t e d

in

th e

o r i g i n s

an d


o f t h e

S i n a i t r a d i t i o n s

it is

v a l u a b l e

to ask in

w h a t s e n s e t h e y

m ay b e a

c u l t l e g e n d .

But as

l o n g

as

one i s

concerned w i th

th e basic

task

o f

u n d e r s t an d i n g w h a t

th e

pr esen t

text

i s s a y i n g , s uc h t r a d i t i o - h i s t o r i c a l c o n c e r ns m a y b e

a p p r o p r i a t e l y

p o s t p o n e d .

T h e

concept

o f

s t o r y

i s o f

v a l u e

in

h e l p i n g

to r e l e a s e th e

s c h o l a r

f r o m

u n d u e

c o n c e r n w i t h q u e s t i o n s

o f

g e n r e

an d

pre-

h i s t o r y .

But i t w o u l d b e

w r o n g

to

acquiesce

in an

u n d i s -

c r i m i n a t i n g appea l t o s to r y

w h i c h

d o e s n o t d i f f e r e n t i a t e t y p e s

o f

s t o r y

an d

s to r y - te l l ing .

In


i t is

i m p o r t a n t

t o b e

s e n s i t i v e

t o

d i s t i n c t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e s

w h i c h m a y

m o u l d

t h e

t e l l i n g

o f a

s to r y

an d

especial ly

th e

th eo lo g ica l

per spec t ives


o f

m a n y

H e b r e w w r i t e r s .

E x.

32-34,

f o r

e x a m p l e , t h e r e

are m a n y o f t h e

e l e m e n t s

o f

d r a m a t i c s t o r y - t e l l i n g , t h e c la s h o f c o n t r a s t s , t h e c r ea t io n o f

s u s p e n s e ,

t h e u s e o f

c l i m a x , e tc .

In t he

l i g h t

o f these o n e m a y

j u s t i f i a b l y suppose that a d r amat ic pr esen ta t i o n is integral to

t h e s t o r y . Y e t i n t h e m i d s t o f s u c h a n a r r a t i v e t h e r e i s t h e

block o f laws in

34:11-26

w h i c h

f r o m

a l i t e r ar y

perspective

d o

n o t

e n h a n c e

b u t detract f r o m th e

d r a m a

o n t h e

s u m m i t

o f

S ina i .

T h e

f a c t t h a t

th e

w r i t e r

w a s

p r e p a r e d

t o

s a c r i f i c e

th e

p r i n c i -

ples

o f

g oo d s t o r y - t e l l i n g w h e r e

h e

d e e m e d

i t

n e c e s s a r y s h o w s

that h is

p u r p o s e

w a s n o t

s i m p l y ,

o r

even p r i m a r i l y ,

to

te l l

an

i n t e r e s t i n g s t o r y .

H is

c o n c e r n

is p r o f o u n d l y

t h e o l o g i c a l ,

t o d o

w i t h th e

n a t u r e

o f

Y a h w e h

a n d t h e

n a t u r e

a n d

basis

o f Y a h w e h ' s

co venant wi th

Israel.

For such the inclu s io n o f the laws is o f

f i r s t

i m p o r t a n c e .

A g a i n , th e c lear d ep ic t i o n o f a cen t r a l f ig ur e , a h er o , i s

a n o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

o f

go o d

s t o r y - t e l l i n g / ̂ i

n O

n e

sense

th i s can be seen in Ex. 32-34 in

that

M o s e s i s the l e a d i n g ,

i n d e e d t h e

o n l y

s i g n i f i c a n t ,

h u m a n

p r o t a g o n i s t t h r o u g h o u t .

T h e

r o l e

o f

M o s e s

as

m e d i a t o r

and

in ter cesso r

is a

c o n s t a n t t h e m e

al l t h r o u g h th e

chapters

a n d t h e closing scene (34:29-35) r ight ly

leaves h im in so le possess ion o f the st ged Y et in t h e mo s t

i m p o r t a n t

part o f t h e

n a r r a t i v e

as a

w h o l e ,

i ts

d r a m a t i c

an d

37




t heo log ica l c l imax,

i t is Y a h w e h

a l one

to

w h o m

a t t e n t i o n i s

d i r e c t e d (33:18-34:9).

Y a h w e h s

s e l f - r e v e l a t i o n

i s the

h i g h l i g h t

o f

th e

n a r r a t i v e .

I t is

r e m a r k a b l e

h o w i n t h e

in tercess ion

o f

M o s e s

( 33 :12-23) ,

a l th o u g h

a t

f i r s t

a l l t h e i n i t i a t i v e s e e m s t o li e

w i t h M o s e s

i n h i s

e f f o r t s b o l d l y

t o w i n a concess ion

f r o m

Y a h w e h ,

y e t a t t he

c u l m i n a t i o n

o f t h e p r a y e r ( 33 :18f f . ) Y a h w e h

c o m p l e t e l y t kes o ve r

a n d

M o s e s

recedes f r o m

v i e w ;

th e

h e r o i c

i n t e r c e s s o r b e c o m e s

t h e

p a s s i v e r e c i p i e n t

(33:22f . ) . W h o

t h e n

i s

th e h e ro , Moses o r Y a h w e h ? T h e a n s w e r i s b o t h . O n e i s c o n -

f r o n t e d i n E x . 32-34 w i t h a f i n e t h e o l o g i c a l b a l a n c e b e t w e e n

th e

h u m a n

a n d t h e

d i v i n e .

T h e

s to r y f u n c t i o n s

c o n s i s t e n t l y o n

b o t h t h e h u m a n a n d d i v i n e l eve l ; i t is the s t o r y o f b o t h G o d a n d

m a n .

O f

c ou rse

h u m a n

a n d

d i v i n e

a re

i n t e r m i n g l e d

i n

m u c h

a n c i e n t N e a r E a s t e r n l i t e r a t u r e .

B u t t h e f i n e

b a l a n c e b e t w e e n

t he two in such a w a y th t th e n a r r a t i v e is f o r c e d o u t o f

c o n v e n t i o n a l l i t e r a r y p a t t e r n s i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o n e m u s t b e

pa r t i c u l a r l y s e n s i t i ve

t o in

t h i s n a r r a t i v e

i f one i s t o do

j u s t ice

t o i t s n u a n c e s a n d p a r t i c u l a r i t ie s .

S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I O N

A f t e r

t h i s

b r i e f

g e n e r a l o u t l i n e

o f

m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c o n -

s i d e r a t i o n s , a s u m m a r y s t a t e m e n t o f e x e g e t i c a l a p p r o a c h , w i t h

s pe c i a l r e f e r e n c e t o t h e f o l l o w i n g exeges i s o f Ex . 32-34 , may be

o f f e r e d .

F i r s t , i t is c l e a r t h a t s o m e


m u s t b e

o f f e r e d

f o r

d e c i d i n g

u p o n

j u s t t h r e e c h a p t e r s a s t he s e c t i o n f o r s t u d y .

U p o n

w h a t

g r o u n d s

m a y t h e y b e tre ted a s d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e i r

s u r r o u n d i n g c o n t e x t ? T h i s d e c i s i o n

i s n o t

ba sed u p o n

t h e

c u s t o m a r y

s o u r c e - c ri t i c a l a n a l y s i s

o f t he

S i n a i

p e r i c o pe .

I t is

i m p o r t a n t t h a t o n e s d e c i si o n s h o u l d , a t

le st

i n i t i a l l y ,

c o n f o r m

t o t h e

d i v i s i o n s t h a t

t h e

t e x t i t s e l f p resen ts .

A s

s u c h t h e r e

c a n

b e n o q u e s t io n t h a t t h e c o n t e n t , s t r u c t u r e a n d s ty l e o f E x .

32-34

a re d i s t i n c t

f r o m

t h a t o f t h e s u r r o u n d i n g m a t e r i a l . A n d a

c o m p a r a t i v e l y s u p e r f i c i a l r e a d i n g o f E x . 32-34 revea l s tha t i t

c o n t a i n s a r o u n d e d , a n d t o

c e r t a i n e x t e n t s e l f - c o n t a i n e d ,

s t o r y . I t is r e a s o n a b l e , t h e r e f o r e , i n t e r m s o f t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n

w i t h i n E x o d u s to tre t E x . 3 2 -3 4 a s a n a r r a t i v e i n i t s o w n r i g h t ,

w h o s e

c o n t e n t s a r e t o b e i n t e r p r e t e d

p r i m a r i l y

i n r e l a t i o n s h i p

t o

t h e m s e l v e s .

A t t h e

s a m e t i m e , h o w e v e r ,

t h e

n a r r a t i v e m u s t

b e

t a k e n

as i t is

p r e s e n t e d

a s a

p a r t

o f a

l a r g e r w h o l e .

O n e

m u s t

c o n s i d e r th e e x e g e t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , i n o r d e r o f p r i o r i t y , o f t he

l a r g e r S i n a i c o n tex t , Ex . 19-24 , 25-31 , 35-40; the pre ced in g

38



One: Method in N a r r a t i v e I n t e r p re t a ti o n

exodus

n a r r a t i v e , E x .

1-18;

th e

larger p e n t a t e u c h a l context;

th e

l i t e r a t u re o f Is r a e l a s a w h o l e ; a n d a n c i e n t N e a r Ea s t e rn

l i t e r a t u r e o f non-Israe l i te o r i g i n .

6 U

H a v i n g

dec ided

upon

th e

co mp a ss

o f

m a t e r i a l u n d e r

considera t ion (a decision subject to poss ib le modif ica t ion in the

l i g h t

o f a f u r t h e r


of t he t e x t ) , th e

p r i m a r y

exege t ica l

task is to d e t e r m i n e the m e a n i n g of the

text.

This is

m a i n l y a c h ie v e d t h r o u g h a l i t e r a ry , t h e o l o g ica l a n d h i s t o r i c a l

exegesis

of the

u n i t s

o f

m e a n in g

in

the i r

c o n t e x t .

T he w o r k

o f

t e x t c r i t i c i s m , w h i c h

is a

p r e r e q u i s i t e

o f

exegesis, need

no t be

d iscussed s ince

its

ro le

i s not

c o n t ro v e r s i a l. A d m i t t e d l y n o t a l l text-critical w o r k is pr ior to

exeges i s ,

fo r

so m e t im e s e x e g e t ica l co n s id e ra ti o n s

a re

d e t e r m i n a t i v e fo r t e x t - c r i t i c a l co n c l u s io n s . B u t th is is not of

s i g n i f i ca n ce for t he p resen t d i scuss ion .

T h e

exegesis of th e

text w i l l

b e l i t e r a ry i n

t h a t

i t

w i l l

a t t e m p t

to t a k e s e r io u s l y th e n a r r a t i v e a s a w o r k o f l i t e r a t u r e .

T h e

u n i t y

of the

w o r k w i l l

be

assumed , un t i l shown o t h e r w i s e .

O n e wi l l

a t t e m p t to d i sce rn a plo t o r t h e m e and to d iscover

those e leme n t s w h ich impo se s t ruc tu ra l p a t t e r n on the

m a t e r i a l . L i t e r a r y d e v ic es s uch a s f o r e s h a d o w i n g ,

i r o n y ,

suspense , c l imax , symbol i sm, e tc . wi l l constitute p a r t

of the

n a t u r e

and

m e a n i n g

of the

n a r r a t i v e .

A ll

th is

is in

p r i n c i p l e

s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . S o me t ime s i t m ay lead later to c o n t r o v e r s y

w ith source-critical interests g iv en the p ossib le role of

a s s u m p t i o n a n d

a l l u s io n o u t l i n e d

above . ̂

S o m e t i m e s ,

as

Lich t observes ,

o n e

w i l l

run the

risk

o f

m i s i n t e r p r e t i n g

a

scr iba l e rror as a de l ibe ra te s ty l i s t ic fea tu re , o r a w k w a r d

e d i t o r i a l m a n i p u l a t i o n s as s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e s . O n l y

exper ience

as a

l i t e r a ry

cr i t ic

can

lessen

th e

d a n g e r s .

B u t

even

w h e n o n e d o e s mi s in t e rp re t t e x t u a l d a t a it is s t i l l th e case

that

as L ich t pu t s i t , one i s s t i l l co m m en t in g upon a c t u a l

phenom ena i n an actua l text w h i c h is c e r t a i n l y p r e f e r a b l e to

c o m m e n t i n g upon h y p o t h e t i ca l co n s t ru c t io n s o f one's own .83

The exegesis

w i l l

b e theologica l in

that

th e exegete

w i l l

b e

open

to theo log ica l m ea n in g bo th in the con ten t o f the

n a r r a t i v e

a nd in i t s

p r e s e n t a t i o n . This requires sen sit ivi ty

to the

perspec t ives

an d

e mp h a se s w h ich

m a y b e


o f a

theologica l

m i n d .

Fo r

in s t ance ,

th e

tendency

o f

theologica l

l a n g u a g e

to

reso r t

to

p a r a d o x

h a s

a l r e a d y b e e n me n t io n e d .

Theological

exegesis

n a t u ra l l y ru n s th e

s a m e

risk as l i t e ra ry

exeges i s o f

f i n d i n g

s ig n i f i ca n ce w h e re n o n e sh o u l d

b e

f o u n d .

B u t

this is no less than the risk o f den y in g s ign i f icance wh ere it is

39




present.

T h e

l i t e r a r y

a n d

t h e o l o g i c a l m e r i t

o f t h e

p e n t a t e u c h a l

n a r r a t i v e s i s u n q u e s t i o n a b l y

great.

In e x e g e s i s i t is p r e f e r a b l e

t h a t t h e r e b e n o b i a s o r e r r o r a t a l l. B u t i f o n e i s t o e r r i t

w o u l d

s e e m t o m e le ss r e p r e h e n s i b l e t o e rr i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f s e e i n g

to o

m u c h

i n t h e

text, t h a n

in

see ing

to o

little.

T h e

exegesis

w i l l

b e

h i s t o r i c a l

n o t i n t h e sense o f

a t t e m p t i n g

t o r e c o n s t ru c t t h e u n d e r l y i n g h i s t o r i c a l e v e n t s b u t i n t h e sense

t h a t

t h e

m e a n i n g a t t r i b u t e d

t o t h e text

m u s t

n o t b e

h i s t o r i c a l ly

a n a c h r o n i s t i c . T h i s w i l l b e o n t h e w h o le s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d , g iv e n

a s o u n d o v e r a l l g ra s p o f th e h i s t o r y o f I sr a e l i n i t s e n v i r o n m e n t ,

b u t

o c c a s i o n a l l y

w i l l b e

c o n t ro v e r s ia l w h e r e

th e

r e s o l u t i o n

o f a n

h i s t o r i c a l p r o b l e m i s a t i s sue . F o r e x a m p l e , o n e c o n t e n t i o n o f

t h e p r e s e n t e x e g e s i s o f E x . 32-34 i s t h a t th e n a r r a t i v e

p r e s u p p o s e s i n s t r u c t i o n s t o b u i l d a m o v a b l e s a n c t u a r y . I t i s t h i s

m o v a b le s a n c t u a r y w h i c h i s r e f e r re d t o w h e n Y a h w e h speaks of

h is presence go ing w i th I srae l (E x . 33 :14 ,16) an d

also

w h e n

M o s e s p r a y s

fo r t he

a c c o m p a n y i n g pre se n c e ( E x .

34:9a). If

such

a m e a n i n g i s t o be h i s t o r i c a l ly v a l i d , th e n th e c o n c e p t o f a

m o v a b l e s a n c t u a r y m u s t

b e

f a m i l i a r

a n d m e a n i n g f u l a t t h e

p e r i o d w h e n th e w r i t e r w a s c o m p o s i n g h is w o r k ( i n s o f a r a s t h i s

c a n b e

d e t e rm i n e d w i t h

a n y

l i k e li h o o d ) . T h i s

does n o t

m e a n

that

t h e r e m u s t a lso

b e a n

a c t u a l h i s t o r i c a l r e f e r e n t

i n t h e

p e r i o d

t h e

n a r r a t i v e

relates.

N o n e t h e l e s s

th e

ve rses w o u l d c o n s t i t u t e

e v i d e n c e , a v a i l a b l e

t o b e

assessed h i s t o r i c a l l y ,

in

f a v o u r

o f

such

a n

actual

m o v a b le s a n c t u a r y .

T h e s e steps o u t l i n e d c o n s t i t u t e t h e p r i m a r y e x e g e t i c a l t a s k

o f a s c e r t a i n i n g

th e

m e a n i n g

o f t h e

text.

A s a

r e s u l t

o f t h e

exeges is

th e exegete

w i l l t u r n

t o a n

i n v e s t ig a t i o n

o f t h e

o r ig i n s ,

p r e h i s t o r y

a n d

c o m p o s i t i o n

o f t h e

text, i n s o f a r

a s t h e

t e x t u a l

d a t a p e r m i t t h i s . T h e r e w i l l

b e

seve ra l goa l s

i n

v i e w .

T h e

f i r s t

w i l l

b e t o a d d a d e pth d i m e n s i o n t o th e r e a d i n g o f t h e

f i n a l

t e x t t h r o u g h d i s c e r n i n g

t h e

u n d e r l y i n g t r a d i t i o - h i s t o r i c a l

d e v e l o p m e n t w h e r e v e r t h i s i s poss ib l e . Once i t i s accepted that

th e

p r e s e n t text

i s t he

e n d - p o i n t

o f a

process

o f

c o m p o s i t i o n ,

t h e n , w h e t h e r t h e p r o c e s s b e

l o n g

o r s h o r t , i t

w i l l c l e a r l y

a d d

n u a n c e t o o n e 's r e a d i n g t o h a v e s o m e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h i s

process, a n d t o b e a b l e to

locate

th e n a r r a t i v e w i t h i n th e

h i s t o r i c a l e x p e r i e n c e o f

Israel.

T h i s i s

best

a p p r o a c h e d b y

f o c u s s i n g

u p o n

th e g e n r e o f t h e

m a t e r i a l ,

a n d t h u s g a i n i n g a

c l e a r e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e s o r t o f m a t e r i a l o n e i s d e a l in g w i t h .

S e c o n d l y , t h e p e n e t r a t i o n b e h i n d th e

text

m a y b e p a r t o f a

s t u d y

i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f e a r l y I s r a e l i t e l i t e r a t u r e a n d

t r a d i t i o n s

f o r i t s o w n sake,

w i t h

less

r e g a r d

t o h o w

t h i s

m a y



One: M e t h o d in N a r r a t i v e I n t e r p r e t a t io n

i l l u m i n a t e

t h e

f i n a l

text.

T h i s

i s p r i m a r i l y t h e

d o m a i n

o f t h e

t e c h n i c a l a r t i c le a n d l ie s b e y o n d t h e s c o p e o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y .

T h i r d l y , o n e m a y e n q u i r e i n t o th e h i s t o r i c a l v al u e o f t h e

t r a d i t i o n s

c o n t a i n e d

i n t h e

text.

T h i s

m a y b e

d o n e

f r o m

m o r e

t h a n o n e perspective. I t m a y b e t h e concer n o f t h e h i s t o r i a n

w h o seeks t o

r e c o n s t r u c t

th e

e a r l y h i s t o r y

o f

I s r ae l

f o r i t s o w n

s a k e .

E q u a l l y o n e m a y a p p r o a c h

f r o m

t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e

class ica l

f o r m

o f b i b l i c a l t h e o l o g y , that i s t he a t l eas t p a r t i a l

d e p e n d e n c e o f t h e o l o g i c a l c o n t e n t u p o n h i s t o r i c a l f a c t u a l i t y .

Such

a d e p e n d e nc e b o t h j u s t i f i e s a n d r e q u i r e s an e n q u i r y i n t o

t h e

n a t u r e

o f t h e

t e x t s o r i g i n s

a n d


a n d a n e n q u i r y

a s t o w h e t h e r s o m e h i s t o r i c a l b a s i s t o t h e text in q u e s t i o n c a n

r e a s o n a b l y

b e m a i n t a i n e d . I f i t a p p e a r s

t h a t

n o h i s t o r i c a l b a s i s

c an

p l a u s i b l y

b e m a i n t a i n e d in t e r m s e i t h e r o f t h e e v i d e n c e o f

th e

s o u r c e s

o r o f t h e

l i t e r a r y genr e , t hen t h i s constitutes

an

i s su e f o r o ne s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e tw e e n

t h e o l o g y

a n d h i s t o r y , a q u e s t i o n

w h i c h

r e q u i r e s separate treat-

m e n t . I t h a s n o t y e t been poss i b l e t o p r oceed t o t h e stage o f

d r a w i n g

c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t t h e h i s t o r i c a l w o r t h o f t h e t r a d i t i o n s

in E x. 32-34, f o r m u c h p r e l im i n a ry g ro u n d w o r k r e m a i n s t o b e

d o n e . B u t t h e g e n e ra l t e n o r o f th e a r g u m e n t s i n t h i s s t u d y i s t o

a l l o w

a t

least

a

g r e a t e r

o p e n n e s s

t o t h e

p o s s i b i l i t y

o f

d i s c e r n in g

u n d e r l y i n g

h i s t o r i c a l e v e n t s t h a n

i s

o f t e n

t h e case.

T h i s

s t a t e m e n t o f

m e t h o d

a n d

a p p r o a c h , w h i l e p r i m a r i l y

a

j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e

f o l l o w i n g

t re a t m e n t o f E x. 32-34, a l so goes

f ar b e y o n d t h e s c o p e o f t h e p r e s en t w o r k . F o r w h i l e t h e

exegesis o f t h e text i s

i n t e n d e d

t o be

f a i r l y t h o r o u g h (a lt h o u g h

n u m e r o u s

t e c h n i c a l d e t a i l s w h i c h d o n o t a f f e c t t h e

f l o w

o f t h e

s t o r y a re pas sed over ) , t h e t r e a t m e n t o f t h e s e c o n d a r y

q u e s t i o n s

t o d o

w i th

t h e

s o u r c e s , d e v e l o p m e n t

a n d

h i s t o r i c i t y

o f

t h e

m a t e r i a l c a n n o t c l a i m

t o b e

m o r e t h a n

a


a n d

selective c l ear ing o f t h e g r o u n d , l e a v in g a vast a m o u n t o f

f u r t h e r

w o r k t o be

d o n e .

T h e

p u r p o s e

o f

t h i s s e l e c t i v e

d i s c u s s i o n i s t h r e e f o l d .

F i r s t , i t i s an a t t e m p t t o s h o w th e s o r t o f d i f f e r e n c e

that

i t

may make to preface historical-critical analysis with an

exegesis

o f t h e f i n a l text. W h i l e th e d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f a l i t e r a r y

and t h e o l o g i c al c o h e r e n c e i n t h e f i n a l

text

o b v i o u s l y c a n n o t b e

a l l o w e d

t o p r e j u d g e o r o b v i a t e t h e n e e d f o r p e n e t r a t i o n b e h i n d

t h e text i t e q u a l l y o b v i o u s l y m u s t h a v e s o m e b e a r i n g u p o n t h e

w ay t h i s p e n e t r a t i o n

i s

d o n e , e s p e c i a l l y w h e n

one i s l o o k i n g f o r

s igns

o f t h e

i n c o r p o r a t i o n

o f

d i f f e r e n t sources.

In the

d i scu ss i on

o f w h e t h e r E x. 34

s h o u l d

be seen a s the J p a r a l l e l t o the E



At The

M o u n t a i n

of God

theoph any /covenan t in E x . 19-20 i t i s a r ha t the

cohe rence and d is t inc t iven ess of Ex. 34 as seen in the

exegesis

r e m o v e

th e

suppor t

fo r

m a n y

of the

a r g u m e n t s c o m m o n l y

a d d u c e d . 8 4 A l t e r n a t i v e l y ,

in the

discussion

of Ex.

33:7-11

a t t en t i on is

d r a w n

to the way in wh ich ana lys i s var i es accord ing

to how far contex t i s a l low ed to d e t e r m ine

m e a n i n g . ^ ^

T h e

discussion i s t ry ing no t s imply to re so l ve ou t s t and i ng p rob l e m s

but also to

show

how the reso lu t ion one proposes may be

i n f luenced by the a s s u m p t i o n s i m p l ic i t in the way one tackles

th e qu es t i o n .

Se cond ly , t h i s s t ud y a t t e m pt s t o re cons i d e r q ue s t i ons w or t h y

of re cons i d e ra t i on

in

themse lves , even though

th e

t e x t ua l

exegesis

m a y

h a v e

only

i n d i r e c t b e a r i n g

upon

t h e m .

T h e

cul t

l egend hypothes i s , fo r example , a l though wide ly he ld , has never

received s u f f i c i e n t c l a r i f i c a t i o n . T h e p r o b i n g of the a s s u m p -

tions

of the

hypothesis

is not

dependent upon

the exegesis of

th e p re ce d i ng ch ap t e r . Yet the

exegesis

sti l l h as som e be a r i ng

upon

th e hypothesis by insist ing that th e

postulated

complex

t rad i t i o -h i s t o r i ca l d e ve l opm e n t shoul d take in to account

th e

l i t e ra ry and theological coherence of the f ina l product .

A l t e r n a t i v e l y ,

t h e a rg um e n t s fo r t h e an t i q u i t y o f t h e t r ad i t i on

in

E x .

32:1-6

are

qui t e independent

of the

exegesis,

apart f rom

th e fact t h a t i t w a s the

r ea l i z a t i o n

t h a t

th e plura l

these

a re

your

e loh im in 32:4 w as

most l ike ly dependent upon

its

context

and not on 1 K i ng s 12:28

t h a t

p r o m p t e d th e e n q u i r y in the f i r s t

place. In genera l i t m ay be said

that

w h i l e th e l i t e ra ry and

theological co herence of Ex.

32-34

of i tse l f says no th ing abo ut

th e

a n t i q u i t y

an d


of i ts

t rad i t ions ,

it is

none the less

a latent, an d

som e t i m e s po t e n t , f ac t o r

in

d i scuss ions about

these

fac tors . For one m us t be ab le to show not

only

h ow, i n t h e

l i g h t of the

evidence

of the

text,

th e

n a r r a t i v e

m a y b e

composed

from d i f f e r e n t

e l e m e n t s

f rom d i f f e r e n t

per iods ,

b u t

also

h ow these

d i ve r se e l e m e n t s h a ve be e n m ou l d e d i n t o

a

coh e re n t w h o l e . T h i s w i ll be no easy task.

Final ly ,

it

wi l l

be noted

that m u c h

of the

a r g u m e n t a t i o n

is

s o m e w h a t n e g a t i v e , w i t h m o r e stress

on

s h o w i n g

th e

i n a d e q u a c y

of com mo nly-advanced a rgum ents than on rep lacing the m wi th

pos i tive a l t e rna t ive s . Th i s is pa r t l y to clear th e g r o u n d . B ut

a l though

demol i t ion

is

easier

than

cons t ruc t ion ,

construct ion

is

u l t i m a t e l y m o r e i m p o r t a n t

and so i t is

u n s a t i s f a c t o r y

to

l eave

the

matter

there. Some tentative proposals are t h e re fo re

a d v a n c e d

as to the sort of

d i rec t ion

that

f u r t h e r s tu d y m i g h t

take. But the lack of more thorough proposals

does

not s i m p l y



One : M e thod in N a r r a t i v e I n t e r p r e ta t i o n

r e s u l t

f r o m

t h e e x i g e n c i e s o f space. I t

also

r e s u l t s

f r o m

a

g r o w i n g

une a se

as to t he

a b i l i t y

o f o u r

m o d e r n c r i t i c a l too l s

to

p e r f o r m

th e

task they

a r e

e m p l o y e d f o r . T h a t

i s , t he

p r o l o n g e d

s t u d y

o f t h e

c o n t e n t s

o f E x .

32-34

h a s

l e f t t h i s

r e a d e r

a t

l e a s t

w i t h a g r o w i n g sense o f t h e ir i m p e n e t r a b i l i t y . T h i s is not to say

that

th e

c h a p t e r s c o n s t i t u t e

a k i n d o f

s e a m le s s

r o b e f o r they d o

n o t , a l t h o u g h th e s e a m s a r e f e w e r t h a n is c o m m o n l y t h o u g h t .

B ut it is to w o n d e r w h e t h e r th e text r e a l l y a f f o r d s s u f f i c i e n t

e v i d e n c e f o r t h e

k i n d

o f t h o r o u g h g o i n g c r i t i c a l a n a l y s i s

t h a t

is

c u s t o m a r i l y

a t t e m p t e d .

Th i s is no t to d e n y

that

d i v e r s e s o u r c e s

a n d

t r a d i t i o n s

m a y

u n d e r l ie

th e text but i t i s to ask

w h e t h e r

w e

a re

s t i l l

in a

pos i t i on

to

r e c o v e r t h e m

a n d d o

m o r e t h a n p o i n t

to

poss ib l e h in t s o f the i r

p r e s e n c e .

N o d o u b t n u m e r o u s su ch

a n a l y s e s w l l c o n t i n u e t o b e p r e s e n t e d . B u t t h e r e a r e t i m e s

w h e n

i t m a y

p e r h a p s

b e

best

to say W e

jus t

d o n o t

k n o w .

4 3



Chapter

2

A N E X E G E S I S O F E X . 32-34

W e

m ay

t u r n

now to a

pract ica l de m on st ra t io n

of the exe-

getical approach advocated. E x. 32-34 wil l be interpreted as a

l i terary narrat ive, meaningfu l in itself. Discussion of genre and

prehistory wil l

be

postponed

to

subsequent chapters .

S ince a t t e n t i o n is

being

directed to the

f inal

form of the

text

t he non -spec i f i c t e rm the w r i t e r

wil l

be used for con-

venience throu g ho ut . This is not in tended to beg ques t ions of

composit ion and redact ion, but s imply to postpone them on the

grounds that such questions

are not part of the

p r i m a r y

task of

i n t e rp re ta t ion .

In the

course

of the

exegesis reference will also

be

m a d e

to

other par t s of Exodus as presupposed by Ex .

32-34.

For it is

consistent to treat the book as a whole as an enti ty in i ts own

right.

A g a i n

it

m u s t

be

stressed

that

this

exegesis

of the

f i n a l

form

of the

text

is not

intended

to

pre judge

the

his tor ical-

critical ques t ions

which

m ay b e raised.

N a r r a t i v e Presupposi t ions

in Ex .

32-34

O ne

of the principles of interpretation outlined above is that

one m u s t be open to things which a wri te r did not make explicit

because he assumed them . In i t ia l ly , there fore , i t is approp r ia te

to specify those presupposi t ions

which

m ay plausibly be seen to

under l ie the

wr i t e r ' s t r ea tment

of his

s tory

in Ex .

32-34.

A

prolonged study of the story has suggested four part icular

assumptions which can i l luminate the reading of the text. T he

ju s t i f i ca t ion for these a s sumpt ions will lie in the i r heur is t ic

va l ue in the sub sequen t r ead ing of the text.

Fi r s t , E x. 32-34 presupposes the substance o f Ex . 19-24. That

is,

Y a h w e h , h a v i n g b ro u g h t

the

people

of

Israel

out of

E g y p t

and

led

them to Sinai, has

there entered

into a new and formal

relat ionship with t h e m . * A t t h e heart of this new relat ionship

stands the

g iv ing

of the decalogue, a revelat ion of the ch ar-

acter o f

Yahweh

and the m o r a l and rel ig ious basis of the

f u t u r e

l ife

of the people. In ad ditio n to this a selection of laws pro -

vides

in

greater detail than

the

decalogue

the

paradigmat ic

basis

for the

just

and

orderly l i fe

of

the newly-const i tuted



T w o :

A n Ex eg es i s o f E x o d u s 3 2 -3 4

p e o p l e

o f

Y a h w e h .

T h e

p e o p l e h a v e t h e n a c c e p t e d the i r ro le

a s

th e exc lus ive people o f Y a h w e h .

T h e s e c o n d p r e s u p p o s i t i o n

i s t h a t

a f t e r

th e

c o v e n a n t r a t i f i -

ca t io n c e r e m o n y i n E x . 2 4 , t h e p e o p l e w e r e i n p r i n c i p l e r e a d y t o

m o v e

o f f

f r o m

S i n a i t o t h e l a n d w h i ch Y a h w e h

w o u ld

g i v e t h e m

w h e r e t h e y w o u l d l i v e a s h i s p e o p l e . A l r e a d y i n E x . 23 , a f t e r th e

l a s t o f t h e d e t a i l e d l a w s i n v . 1 9 , a t t e n t i o n s h i f t s t o t h e f u t u r e

j o u r n e y i n g s o f th e p eop le o f I s r ae l an d th e i r c on s eq u en t

occu

p a t i o n

o f t he l a n d w h i ch Y a h w e h i s

g i v i n g

t h em ( v v . 2 0 - 3 3 ) .

A s th e people a re r e a d y to l e a v e S in a i , th ey wi l l n e e d certain

t h i n g s

a s they j o u r n e y o n . T w o s u c h t h i n g s i n p a r t i c u l a r a r e

a s s u m e d i n E x . 3 2 - 3 4 . T h e f i r s t

a r i s e s f r o m

the fac t t h a t ,

a l t h o u g h

th e

people

a r e to l e a v e th e

p l ace w h e r e t h e i r c o m m i t -

m e n t to Y a h w e h w a s m a d e , t h e r e i s to be a p e r m a n e n t r e m i n d e r

o f i t s m e a n i n g a n d s i g n i f i c a n c e . W h e n th e c o v e n a n t r a t i f i c a t i o n

is c o n c l u d e d , Y a h w e h s a y s t o M o s e s that h e

w i l l

g iv e h im t a b l e s

o f

s t o n e

w h i c h w i l l c o n t a i n th e l aws ju s t g iv en (24:12) . T h e

r e c o r d i n g o f t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s w i l l g i v e t h e m a p e r m a n e n t

v a l i d i t y . A s L . A l o n s o

Schokel

p u t s i t ,

A c c o r d i n g

to a n c i e n t c u s t o m , th e w r i t i n g o f a c o n t r a c t

c o n f e r r e d

on i t a

j u r i d i c a l

s t a t u s

. . .

T h u s

th e

w r i t i n g

o f a

text i s no t m e r e l y th e g r a p h i c n o t a t i o n o f w h a t is spoken :

i t i s a new act c o n s t i t u t i v e a n d

m e a n i n g f u l ,

w h i c h m a k e s

a w o r d in t o a j u r i d i ca l i n s t r u m e n t , a n i m m u t a b l e n o r m , o r

a

w i t n e s s

f o r t h e

f u t u r e . 2

It m a y b e sugges ted t h a t th e t a b l e s o f the l aw are to be

seen

a s

in s o m e w a y a n a l o g o u s i n s i g n i f i c a n c e t o t h e

s t o n e

o f w i t n e s s

erected b y J o s h u a a t Shechem ( J o s h . 24:26f . ) .

F i n a l l y ,

b e c a u s e

th e

r e l a ti o n s h i p b e t w e e n Y a h w e h

a n d

I s rael

h a s n o w b ee n r e g u l a r i z e d a nd se t o n a f o r m a l bas is , a n e w ^

s y m b o l o f Y a h w e h s p r e s e n c e a m o n g t h e p e o p l e i s n e e d e d . T h i s

is

to be a

p o r tab le s h r in e .

T h e

p r e s e n c e

o f

Y a h w e h a m o n g

h is

p eop le is a

c e n t r a l

c on c er n i n the OT.^ S in c e , a t least i n the

e a r ly p e r i o d , Y a h w e h s p r e s e n c e w a s n o t s o mu c h c on c e iv ed

a b s t r a c t l y

a s c o n n e c t e d w i t h s o m e v i s i b l e s y m b o l o r m a n i f e s t -

a t i o n

(cf . e .g . N u m . 5:3, 10:35f. ,

2

Sam. 7:6) ,

a n d

s i n ce Y a h w e h s

r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h I s r a e l

h a s

been

s e t

u p o n

a

p e r m a n e n t

a n d

r e g u l a r b a s is , s o m e p e r m a n e n t s y m b o l o f Y a h w e h s

p r e s e n c e

a m o n g

I s rael

i s now

a p p r o p r i a t e .

I t i s the ark and

tabernacle

( E x . 2 5 - 2 7 ) wh ic h u l i l t h i s role.

5

W i t h

a

k n o w l e d g e

o f

t h e se p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s ,

i t is now

possible

to t u r n t o the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f E x . 32-34 .

4 5



At the M o u n t a i n o f G o d

Ex. 32:1-6

T h e o p e n i n g p a r a g r a p h sets th e

scene

a n d desc r ibes th e s in o f

A a r o n a n d t h e

people.

T h e t r u c u l e n t m o o d of the people is

c o n v ey ed b y t h e i r e m p h a t i c i m p e r a t i v e to A a r o n , U p , m a k e u s

^

e

loh i m ,

a n d b y t h e t h r e a t e n i n g i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e

e x p re s s i o n to g a t h e r to ( q h l

c

l,

c f . N u m . 16:3, 20:2). T h e

people

exert

p r e s s u r e u p o n A a r o n .

A l t h o u g h Ex . 32

stresses

A a r o n ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the c a l f , the

people

are im p l i c a t e d

too.6 The ra p i d succession o f ve rbs in v . 6 expresses th e

restless a n d orgiastic nature o f t he proceedings. ̂ A c a l f ̂ i s

m a d e , 9

a n d t h e

p eo p le w o r s h i p b e f o r e

it 10 - a n a c t

r e g a rd e d

in

later times

( a s

indeed

i n t he

p re s e n t

text, a s

w i l l

b e

s e e n )

as the

p a r a d i g m

o f a p o s t a s y . i l

T h e p r o b l e m

arises

o u t o f t h e p ro l o n g e d

absence

o f M o s es o n

t h e m o u n t a i n . T h e p eo p le 's r e q u e s t f o r

'

e

l o h i m

o n t h e g r o u n d s

that M o s e s

h a s n o w

d i s a p p e a r e d

i s

n o t a b l e

in that i t

i m p l i e s

that

the '

e

lohim are a replacement, in some

sense,

for Moses.

A s i m i l a r i m p l i c a t i o n

c a n b e

seen

in t he

p a r a l l e l i s m

o f v .

I b B

w i t h v .

4b:

v .

1.

... T h i s M o s e s , t h e m a n w h o b r o u g h t u s u p o u t o f t h e

l a n d

of

E g y p t ...

v.

4.

... Here are

y o u r ^

e

lohim,

O Israel, who

b r o u g h t

yo u up ou t o f the l a n d o f E g y p t .

A

s im i l a r an t i t h e s i s i n v v . 7 -8 a ls o p o in t s t o t h e s u p p l a n t i n g o f

M o s e s

b y t h e '

e

lohim.

T h a t the ^

e

l o h i m a r e a s u b s t i t u t e fo r Moses need n o t i m p l y

that Moses h imse l f had been to the

people

as an '

e

l o h T m . l 2

T w o

p o i n t s , r a t h e r ,

a re

clear.

T h e

f i r s t

i s

that M o s e s

i s t he o n e

w h o u n i q u e l y

mediates

Y a h w e h ' s guidance and leadership to the

people.

I t i s in and

t h r o u g h M o se s that Y a h w e h

is

k n o w n

an d h i s

sav ing deeds e x p e r i e n c e d . The second is that the calf is a chal-

l enge to M o s e s ' l e ad e r s h ip ; it is a r i v a l m e a n s o f m e d i a t i n g

Y a h w e h ' s p resence to t he people. I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t that b o t h

these ideas w i l l b e p icked u p a g a i n i n t h e c l o s i n g scene o f the

n a r r a t i v e ,

34:29ff . ;

M o s e s , w i t h

h i s s h i n i n g

f a c e ,

i s t h e m a n

t h r o u g h w h o m God ' s g l o ry

is

seen,

a n d t he u s e o f

qeren (34:29,

30,35) echoes

th e

ca l f

a n d

sugges t s that M o s e s

is to the

people

w h a t

the calf had been

i n t e n d e d

to

be.

13

w i t h

this use of the

M o s e s t h e m e a t b e g i n n i n g a n d e n d t h e w r i t e r constructs a n

i nc lu s io f o r t h e n a r r a t i v e .

A l t h o u g h th e

cal f

f u n c t i o n s a s a

c h a l l e n g e

to

M o s e s ,

th e


i s n o t

exact,

n o r

does

i t

b e g i n

to

e x h a u s t

th e

ca l f ' s

46



Two:

A n

Exegesis

of

Exo dus 32-34

s i g n i f i c a n c e .

For i t

s eems c lea r tha t

th e

c a l f

w a s

a c t u a l l y

in tended a s a s y m b o l of the d i v i n e p resence in a m o r e r e a l a n d

d i r e c t

w a y

than Moses could

be .

T h a t

the

c a l f

w a s

seen

a s a

r e a l e m b o d i m e n t

o f the

d iv ine

presence

is

i n d i c a t e d

by v. 5

( ha g

l yhwh) , a n d also the de s igna t ion a s _ ^ l o h _ i m in vv . 1 , 4 , 8 . ^

n

vv. 4f . the a c c l a m a t i o n o f the c a l f a s the d i v i n e a g e n t o f the

e x o d u s m a y se em s l i gh t l y d i s c o r da n t w i th th e c o n c e r n f o r

h a v i n g

^

e

5h i m to go b e f o r e the people . But the poin t is to

es tabl ish a c o n t i n u i t y b e tw e e n the people s pas t exper ience a n d

th is n ew r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the d e i t y . T h e calf does n o t r e p r e -

s e n t a n y n e w god , but is i den t ica l w i th th e one , that is Y a h w e h ,

w ho h a s b r o u g h t the people to

S ina i

a n d e n te r e d i n to a r e l a t i o n -

ship

w i th the m

on the

basis

o f

w h i c h

he

w i l l

c o n t i n u e

to go

w i th

t h e m

in

f u t u r e .

I t m a y b e

s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t

th e

o n l y p r e v i o u s

usage o f the phrase in v . 4 f . is in the p r e a m b l e to the d e c a l o g u e

in

Ex. 20:2 (echoed also in

29:46).

If the shout is taken as a

d e l i b e r a t e r e m i n i s c e n c e o f 20:2, ̂ t h i s suppor t s th e v i e w t h a t

th e

pe o p l e w e r e c o n c e r n e d

to

a f f i r m

th e

c o n t i n u i t y b e tw e e n

th e

ca l f

a n d

Y a h w e h

the G od of the

exodus

w h o h a d

revea led h im -

self

a t S ina i .

O n e

f u r t h e r

a spec t

o f the

ca l f l ies

in

some no tab le pa ra l l e l s

between 32:1-6 a n d 25:1-9, th e p r e l i m i n a r y

d i r e c t ion s

fo r b u i l d -

ing

t he a rk and

t a b e r n a c l e .

In

25 : 1 - 9 Y a hw e h p r o v i de s

t h a t a

s y m b o l

o r veh ic le o f his presence sh ou ld be c o n s t r u c t e d ou t o f

o f f e r i n g s f r o m th e people, w i l l i n g ly c o n t r i b u t e d , a n d c o n t a i n i n g

gold a n d o the r prec ious subs tances . T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n should

fol low

h is

s pe c i f i c a t i o n s

a nd so he

w i l l d w e l l a m o n g

th e

people

(25:9).

In c h . 32 ,

a l t h o u g h t h e y

a re no t

o b e y i n g

the

c o m m a n d s

in

E x. 25 , the people do

w i l l i n g l y

o f f e r o r n a m e n t s o f gold (32:3).

A a r o n ,

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e

o f

Moses (and

also

designated

a s

pr ies t ,

28:1

f f . ) ,

and so in a posi t ion to ac t w i t h Y a h w e h s a u t h o r i t y ,

f a sh ions t he ob jec t w h i c h i s t he n i n t e r p r e t e d a s c o n v e y i n g the

d i v i n e

p resence (32:4b,5b) . T h e c a l f t hus f un c t i o n s n o t o n l y a s a

para l le l to Moses , b u t also to the a r k / t a be r n a c l e . T hes e t wo a r e

n ot i n c o m p a t i b l e fo r Y a hw e h s p re s e n c e is m e d i a t e d in m o r e

ways than one .

It is c lear t h a t a l t h o u g h the ca l f is i n t e n de d a s a s y m b o l o f

Y a h w e h ,

this

is to be

u n d e r s t o o d

a s a

gro tesque parod y. This

is

m ad e m ost c lear by the u se of

Riorum

w i th p lura l ve rb and

demons t ra t ive in 32 :1 ,4 ,8 . For i t i s cus tomary in the OT to

convey a pagan unders tanding o f de i ty by the use o f ^lohim

w i t h a p l u r a l v e r b , as in , for e x a m p l e , 1 Sam. 4:8, the w o r d s in

th e

m o u t h

o f the

P h i l i s t i n e s ,

o r

G e n . 2 0 :13 , A b r a h a m s w o r d s

to



At the M o u n t a i n of God

th e

P h i l i s t i n e k i n g , p e r h a p s

o u t o f

d e f e r e n c e

to

A b i m e l e c h ' s

presum ed po ly the i s t i c v iews . Th is i s no t indeed the o n l y

s i g n i f i -

cation

o f

^ l o h i m

wi th p lura l ve rb or predicate. In

several

contexts,

e.g., G en . 35:7, D eu t. 4:7, 2 Sa m . 7:23, an y pa g an im-

p l i c a t i ons w o u l d be ou t o f

place.'°

But in the presen t con tex t

th e i n t e n t i on is clear. When the present phrase is u s e d w i t h o u t

p o l emi c a l i n t e n t , a s i n N e h . 9:18, i t can be used wi t h a n

o r d i n a r y

s i n g u l a r v e r b . This p a g a n i m p l i c a t i o n is best conve ye d

in Eng l i sh by the r e n d e r i n g god . For i t is not p l u r a l i t y o f gods

bu t

a

f a l s e conce p t i on

of the one God

th a t

the

w r i t e r

is

con -

veying.^

Th e wh o le a ccoun t

o f

32:1-6

can

t h u s

be

seen

a s

h e a v i l y

ironic.

This

is

clearest

in the

jux t a pos i t i on

o f

32:1-6 with

25:1-9.

N o t o n l y is th e re i r o n y h e r e bu t a l so theo log ica l r e f l ec t ion o n

t h e na tu r e o f s i n . Th e pe op l e wa n t a sy m b o l o f

Yahweh ' s pres-

ence.

In the i r impa t ience they dem an d a n d m a k e fo r themselves

w h a t Y a hw e h ha s a l r e a d y ma d e p rov i s i on fo r and i s a b o u t to

g i v e t h e m .

W h a t A a r o n and the

people

do is in

m a n y w a y s

s i m i l a r to w h a t Y a h w e h h a s speci f ied . Y et

because

they push

a h e ad w i t h o u t w a i t in g

fo r

Y a h w e h ' s d i r e c t i ons t h rough M ose s

th e i r work

is but a

p a r o d y w h i c h ,

fa r f r o m

a s s u r i n g

Y a hw e h ' s

presence

a n d

a c c o m p a n i m e n t , s i m p l y f o r f e i t s

i t .

L i k e w i s e

th e

people's attempt

to a f f i r m th e id e n t i ty of the ca l f w i th Y ahw eh

by echo ing Ex . 20 :2 i s to be seen a s a pa ro dy of the t ru e na tu re

an d purpose s o f Y a h w e h .

Fina l ly it is w o r t h n o t i n g the request for a god that wi l l g o

ahead of the peop le

( Ipnynw ) .

In the presen t con tex t it is j u s t

a ge ne r a l r e que s t f o r d i v i n e l e a d e r sh ip . La t e r i n t h e na r r a t i ve a

pa r t i cu l a r s i gn i f i c a nce accrues to the n o t i o n o f go ing a h e a d ; the

an ge l w ho goes a head

( Ipny,

33:2, cf . 23:20,23) beco m es an in-

a d e q u a t e s u b s t i t u t e f o r Y a h w e h in the m id s t (33:3,5) . Bu t the

d i f f e r e n c e

be tween

ahead an d in the

mid s t o n ly be com e s

s ign i f ican t in the context o f Y a h w e h 's j u d g m e n t o n Israel's s in

w h e n o r d i n a r y c o n d i t i o n s d o n o t p e r t a i n . It s h o u l d no t be r e a d

back in to 32:1 . One may perhaps say that 32:1 in t roduces a

m o t i f in

an t ic ipa t ion

of i ts later

s ign i f icance . Forms

o f

p n y m / p n y a r e a l so o f impor t a nce i n Ex .

32-34,

a nd a t a pu re ly

v er b a l leve l 32:1 in t roduces

these.

E x.

32:7-14

The second pa ra g ra ph , 32:7-14 , p resen t s

a

d r a m a t i c c o n t r a s t

to the f i r s t . T he t h e m e o f

contrast

b e t w e e n w h a t h a p p e n s o n

th e m o u n t a in , w h e r e th e d i v i n e perspective is seen, a n d w h a t

48



Two:

A n Exegesis of Exo dus

32-34

happen s

down

b e l o w , w h e r e h u m a n

sin and

wea knes s

is

ev i den t ,

f o r m s

a n i mp o r t a n t p a r t o f t h e l i t e r a r y

s t r u c t u r e

of the

ch a p t e r .

1 ^

T he pa ragraph a l so in t roduces the t h e m e of Moses

as

intercessor,

and

provides

a

theological

f r a m e w o r k

for the

su b seq u en t

n a r r a t i v e .

T he

w o r d s

o f Y a h w e h in vv. 7-10

fa l l into

tw o pa r t s . In vv.

7-8 he

c o m m a n d s M o s e s

to

descend

f r o m th e

m o u n t a i n

an d

describes

th e

people's

sin,

w h i l e

vv . 9-10

r eco un t Y a h w eh ' s

reaction to the sin and w h a t he wi l l do w i th th e

people.

The use

of

a second in t roductory

f o r m u l a

(v. 9a)

w i t h i n

the same speech

func t ions

to

s ignal

th e

s h i f t

o f content.^

Y ah weh ' s

c o m m a n d to Moses to descend is s o m e w h a t

brusque ly

exp r es s ed , r e f l ec t i ng

th e

u r g e n c y

of the

s i tua t ion

a n d

the sha t te r ing of the

calm

on the

m o u n t a i n

that h ad existed

h i t h e r t o . 20

T he

s i tua t ion

is that th e

people

h as

acted

sin-

fully J h _ t ,

Pi.)

and quickly turned aside f rom the way (drk)

...

T he

word derek

in the OT

character i s t ica l ly re f er s

to

Y a h w e h 's

c o m m a n d m e n t s and the

p r o c l a ma t i o n

of h is w i l l

wh i ch

pre-

scribes the w ay of

l i fe

for his

people.

It is in this

sense t h a t

it is

used h e r e ,

2

* and so

points

to the sin as

b e i n g

a

t ransgress ion

of

th e

laws already given

a t

Sinai,

in

part icular

th e

f i r s t

tw o

c o m m a n d m e n t s of the

decalogue

(cf.

E x .

20:4a, 20:23).

Al though

o ne mi gh t a r gue

that

Israel 's s in w as on ly aga inst the second

c o m m a n d m e n t ,

2 2

the p roh ib i t ion o f ido la t ry , i t i s l ike ly

t h a t

for

th e w r i t e r th e f i r s t tw o c o m m a n d m e n t s w e r e r eg a rd e d as in

practice inseparable.

2

^

Such

a

close connection betwe en

the

f i r s t

tw o c o m m a n d m e n t s is most clear ly vis ible in Deutero-

n o m y ,

especial ly

in

D e u t . 6-11.

2

̂ This l inkage need

not be

label led as speci f ica l ly

d e u t e r o n o m i c

for there i s no ev idence

of

any

other

O T

w r i te r

w h o

w o u l d

have disagreed

an d

m a d e

an y

s h a r p separa t ion betw een the two co m m a n d m e n ts .

2

^

T he des i gna t i o n of the people as s t if f - necked , which f o r m s

the

basis

fo r Y a h w e h ' s

anger

and

j udgment , i n t r o duces

one o f

the key

m o t i f s

2 6

o f

32-34

(cf.

33:3,5,

34:9),

which

wi l l be

dis-

cussed

at 34:9.

T he

p r o b l em which 32:7-14 deals with

is

w h e t h e r

or not

I s rael ,

in the

l i g h t

o f

thei r

sin, can

co n t i nue

to be the

people

o f

God. The way in which i t is resolved is important for the

n a r r a t i v e o f 32-34 as a w h o l e .

Y a h w e h

s e e m s to repudia te th e

people

by

r e f e r r i n g

to

them before Moses

as 'Vour

people

(

c

a m m

e

k a , v. 7) w h o m

yo u b r o u g h t

up

(he

ce

leta)

2

'

o r

else

as

th is people , a des ig na t ion w hich f r e q u e n t l y ca r r i es hos t i l e

o v e r t o n e s .

2

^

Moses responds

to

th i s

by

p l ea d i ng

th e

fact

t h a t



A t t h e

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

I s r a e l i s Y a h w e h ' s p e o p l e , t h y p e o p l e (

c

a m m

e

k a , v v .

1 1 , 1 2

w h o m ' y t h o u d i d s t b r i n g ( h o s e ' t a )

o u t o f

E g y p t . T h a t t h i s

v a r i a t i o n

i n s u f f i x e s i s s i g n i f i c a n t ̂ i s i n d i c a t e d b y t h e c lo s i n g

w o r d

o f t h e

p a r a g r a p h

t o h i s

p e o p l e ( I

e c

a m m 6 )

w h i c h

th e

w r i t e r u s e s t o i n d i c a t e Y a h w e h ' s

a c c e p t a n c e

o f M o s e s

1

p l e a .

Y a h w e h accepts t h a t I s r a e l

i s h i s

p e o p l e

a n d s o n o t t o b e

d e s t r o y e d o r cast o f f .

T h e

t h e o l o g i c a l b a s i s

fo r

t h i s acceptance

o f

I s r a e l

b y

Y a h w e h

i s

p r e s e n t e d

a s

l y i n g

w i t h i n th e c h a r a c t e r o f Y a h w e h h i m s e l f , a

t h e o l o g i c a l t r u t h w h i c h i s l a t e r d e v e l o p e d a s t h e f u n d a m e n t a l

m e s s a g e o f t h e w h o l e s t o r y ( c f . 3 3:1 9, 34:6f . ,9) . I t i s r e m a r k a b l e

t h a t

a t t h e

s a m e t i m e

a s

Y a h w e h a n n o u n c e s

h i s j u d g m e n t o f t h e

p e o p l e ,

h e

m a k e s

h i s

a c t i o n

i n

s o m e

w a y

d e p e n d e n t

o n t h e

a g r e e m e n t o f M o s e s - N o w t h e r e fo r e l e t m e a l o n e t h a t . . . I

m a y c o n s u m e t he m - a n d s o p a r a d o x i c a l l y l ea v e s o p e n a

p o s s i b l e

e s c a p e . T h i s p a r a d o x i n n o w a y d i m i n i s h e s th e

s e r i o u s n e s s

o f t h e

s i t u a t i o n

o r t h e

r e a l i t y

o f t h e

w r a t h

a n d

j u d g m e n t

i n c u r r e d , 3 0

5

ut

r e f l e c t s r a t h e r t h e c h a r a c t e r o f

Y a h w e h a s a G o d b o th o f j u d g m e n t a n d o f

m e r c y .

F u r t h e r , t h i s

p o s s i b l e w a y o f escape i s d e v e l o p e d in 32:10 b y Y a h w e h m a k i n g

a p r o m i s e to M o s es a l m o s t i d e n t i ca l i n w o r d i n g t o t h e o r i g i n a l

p r o m i s e to

A b r a h a m

i n

Gen . 12 :3 .

Gen. 12:3: w

e

e

c

eska

l

e

g o y

g a d o l

E x. 32:10:

we ece

se

h

6t

e

ka l

e

g o y g a d o l

Y a h w e h ' s f a i t h f u l n e s s t o h i s p r o m i s e , t o w h i c h M o s e s a p p e a l s i n

v . 1 3 ,

b e c o m e s

th e

rea son

w h y

Y a h w e h s p a r e s

th e

peop le :

a n d

t h i s t h e m e

o f

p r o m i s e

i s

i n t r o d u c e d

b y

Y a h w e h h i m s e l f .

T h e f a i t h f u l n e s s o f Y a h w e h a s t h e b a s is f o r m e r c y i s f u r t h e r

d e v e l o p e d i n t h e c o u r s e o f

M o s e s '

in t e r ce s s i o n . N o w h e r e d o es

M o s e s

e x cu s e o r m i t i g a t e w h a t t h e p e o p l e h a v e d o n e , b u t

b a s e s

h is a p p e a l e n t i r e l y

o n t h e

c h a r a c t e r

a n d

p u r p o s e s

o f

Y a h w e h , 3 1 t h e G o d w h o b r o u g h t th e p e o p l e o u t o f E g y p t (v .

1 1 ) , t h e G o d w h o s e r e p u t a t i o n i s a t s t a k e (v . 1 2 ) , t h e G o d w h o

h a s m a d e p r o m i s e s to h i s p e o p l e (v . 13 ) . In v . 13 M o s e s a p p e a l s

t o b o t h th e m a i n e l e m e n t s o f Y a h w e h ' s p a t r i a r c h a l p r o m i s e s ,

b o t h d e s c e n d a n t s

a n d

p o s s e s s i o n

o f

l a n d ,

a n d

a l so u se s

th e

s p e c i a l

n a m e I s r ae l i n s t e a d o f J a c o b , 3 2 t h u s c l a i m i n g G o d ' s

p r o m i s e

in a l l i t s

f u l l n e s s .

T h e

f a c t

t h a t

Y a h w e h

accedes

to

Moses ' p l ea

o n

these t e r m s r e v e a l s

a

t he o l o g i ca l u n d e r s t a n d i n g

o f m e r c y ,

a s

d e p e n d e n t

o n

God ' s c h a r a c te r

a n d h i s

p r o m i s e s .

I n

a d d i t i o n to t h i s a p p e a l to G o d ' s f a i t h f u l n e s s , a n o t h e r

s t r i k i n g aspect

o f Y a h w e h ' s w o r d s i n 32 :10 l i es i n t h e f a c t

t h a t ,

50



T w o : A n E x e g e s i s o f E x o d u s 3 2 -3 4

a p a r t f r o m t h e p a r a d o x o f j u d g m e n t a n d m e r c y w i t h i n Y a h w e h

h i m s e l f

w h i c h t h e y r e v e a l , t h e y o p e n t h e w a y f o r t h e m a n

Moses to p l ay a dec is ive

r o l e

w i t h i n th e purposes o f G o d . A

f u r t h e r

p a r a d o x .

I t is

G o d s

f a i t h f u l n e s s

a l o n e w h i c h

i s the

b as i s

fo r

f o r g i v e n e s s ; a n d y e t t h i s f a i t h f u l n e s s i s o n l y r e v e a l e d a n d

m a d e

actual

w h e n Mose s bold

i n t e r c e s s i o n calls

i t f o r t h . T h i s

d i v i n e - h u m a n

b a l a n c e p l a y s a c e n t r a l r o l e i n t h e f o l l o w i n g

n a r r a t i v e .

T h e

i m p o r t a n c e

o f Moses r o l e in these c h a p t e r s an d

e l s e w h e r e h a s f r e q u e n t l y b ee n u n d e r e s t im a t e d t h r o u g h a

s l i g h t l y

e x a g g e r a te d e m p h a s i s o n d i v i n e s o v e r e i g n t y . A t y p i c a l

posi t ion is that o f von Rad:

N ot a s ingle one o f a l l these

stories

in w h i c h M o s e s i s the

c e n t r a l f i g u r e , w a s r e a l l y w r i t t e n a b o u t M o s e s. G r e a t a s

w a s t h e v e n e r a t i o n o f t h e w r i t e r s f o r t h i s m a n t o w h o m

G od h a d been p leased to

r e v e a l

H i m s e l f , i n a l l t h e s e

stories

i t i s not

M o se s h i m s e l f , M o s es

th e

m a n ,

b u t G o d

w h o

i s t he c e n t r a l f i g u r e . G o d s w o r d s a n d G od s d eed s -

t h e se

a r e t h e

t h i n g s t h a t

th e

w r i t e r s i n t e n d

t o s e t

f o r t h . 3 3

A s i m i la r s ta t e m e n t i s m a d e b y P.P. E l l i s :

T h e r e i s no h u m a n h e r o i n the Y a h w i s t

saga

- n o t

A b r a h a m o r J a c o b o r

J o s e p h

o r M os es . T h e r e i s n o h u m a n

h e r o

b e c a u s e

th e p r o t a g o n i s t o f t h e saga i s the L o r d

G o d . 3 4

G . W .

C o a t s35

h a s

a t t e m p t e d

to

r e d r e s s

th e b a l a n c e b y

p o i n t i n g

o u t t h e

f i n e

th e o l o g i c a l t e n s i o n b e t w e e n t h e d i v i n e a n d

h u m a n

w h i c h

e x i s t s

i n m a n y o f t h e M o s es

s t o r i e s .

I t i s n e i th e r

G o d a l o n e

n o r

Moses

a l o n e w h o i s

r espons ib le

for the

w e l f a r e

o f

I s r ae l b u t b o t h t o g e t h e r :

F o r P e n t a t e u c h a l t h e o l o g y th e b a l a n c e i s c r u c i a l . M o s e s i s

n o t s i m p l y t h e b l in d s e r v a n t , d a n c i n g h i s m i n u e t o f

o b e d i e n c e to the s o u n d o f an a l l -e n c o m p a s s in g d i v i n e

d r u m b e a t . T o t h e c o n t r a r y , f o r P e n t a t e u c h a l t h e o l o g y

M o se s i s b o t h s e r v a n t o f G o d a n d h e r o i c g i a n t . 3 6

A d m i t t e d l y s o m e E x o d u s n a r r a t i v e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y

t h e o r y

a t the Red Sea

(14:1-15:21) ,

d o stress Y a h w e h s

a c t i o n

t o the

e x c l u s i o n o f h u m a n i n v o lv e m e n t . C o a t s w a r n s a g a i n s t a n e x -

c l u s i v e

stress

o n Y a h w e h s a c t a n d

sees

a t e n s i o n b e t w e e n c h .

15 w h i c h

d e sc r i b e s

th e e v e n t t o t a l l y in t e r m s o f d i v i n e a c t i v i t y

51



At the M o u n t a i n o f Go d

a n d

ch .

4

in

wh ich

M ose s e n t e r s

the

a c c o u n t

as an

e f f i c i e n t

agent.

Y et

even

i n ch. 14 the o v e r w h e l m i n g

e m p h a s i s

is on

Y a h w e h s

ac t i on

a n d w h e n

M oses does

act i t is a t Y a h w e h s

behes t a n d n o t o n h i s o w n

a c c o u n t . 3 8

T h e

f ac t

that

t h i s

n a r r a t i v e ,

a t the

c u l m i n a t i o n

o f the

p a r a d i g m

a c t o f

s a l v a t i o n ,

so stresses

Y a h w e h s

a c t i on a l one c ons t i t u t e s

th e


except ion w h i c h p roves the ru le . In the last resort i t is Y a h w e h

a l o n e

u p o n w ho m

s a lv a t i on d e p e nd s .

Y e t

th is shou ld

n o t

over

r u l e b u t r a th e r h e i gh te n th e s i gn i f i c anc e o f t h ose na r r a t i v e s i n

w h i c h

b o th d i v i ne

an d

h u m a n

a c t i on p l ay

a n

i n t e g r a l

role.

It h a s f r e q u e n t l y b e e n no te d th a t there is a c e r ta in tens ion

b e twe e n 32:7-14 and the

rest

of ch. 32, p a r t i c u l a r l y in M o s e s

s e e m i n g u n a w a r e

o f the

people s

s in as he

descends

th e

m o u n t a i n despite

h is

h a v i n g been to ld

by

G o d ,

a nd i n h i s

seek ing

forgiveness (vv.

30 f f . )

a s t h o u g h i t had no t ye t been gran ted (v .

1 4 ) .

Ch i ld s h as

s h o w n ,

h o w e v e r , t h e n e c e ss ity o f a t

least

s o m e

e a r l i e r

f o r m

o f t h e t ra d i t i o n a s i n t e g r a l to t h e n a r r a t i v e , a n d

h a s

a l so a rgued persuas ive ly

that th e

l i t e r a r y

m o u l d i n g o f t he

s tory in to a p a t t e rn o f c o n t r a s t i n g

scenes

g ives character to

t h e n a r r a t i v e

wh ich

m a k e s i t s o m e w h a t

i m p e r vi o u s

t o c r i t i c i sm s

b ase d on l og i c a l and c h rono log i c a l

considerations.^

T h r e e

f u r t h e r observa t ions m a y b e ad d e d to th is .

Fi rs t , jus t

a s

32:1-6 presents

a

p a r a d i g m

o f s in an d

apos tasy ,

so

32:7-14

c an be

seen

to

p resent

a

p a r a d i g m

o f

j u d g m e n t ,

i n te rcess ion , a n d f o rg iveness . Both

scenes

h a v e a c e r ta i n e x e m -

plary

q u a l i t y ,

th e

j u x t a p o s i t i o n

o f w h i c h f o r m s a n

e f f e c t i v e

contrast.

Secondly , th e

t h e m e

o f

Y a h w e h s f a i t h f u l n e s s

t o h i s

p r o m i s e

despite

s e e m i ng ly i m p oss i b l e

obstacles

is

e v i d e n t

in

o t h e r

JE

stories

m o s t n o t a b l y

th e A b r a h a m cycle

( G e n .

12-25) a n d

probably

also

th e

B a l a a m

cycle

( N u m . 2 2 -2 4 ) w h e r e N u m . 22:6

i nd i c a t e s an i n t e rp re t a t i on o f t h e

cycle

i n t e rm s o f a c h a l l e nge

to

Y a h w e h s p ro m i se

in

Gen. 12:3

and the w ay i n

w h i c h

the

c h a l l e n g e

is

o vercom e. Th is sugges ts

a n

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

o f Ex.

32-34 also

in

t e r m s

o f a

cha l l enge

to

Y a h w e h s p ro m i se

and the

vind ica t i on o f h i s f a i t h f u l n e s s . T he

c h a l l e nge

is

p a r t i c u l a r l y

p o te n t

in that i t

arises

n o t f r om

e x t e r n a l d a n g e r ,

as in

N u m .

2 2 -2 4 ,

bu t

f r om

th e

s i n fu lness

o f

God s

o w n

people

a n d

t he i r

i n h e r e n t i n a b i l i t y

to

l ive

i n t he way that G o d h a s

p rescr ibed.

T h a t

Y a h w e h c a n

dea l wi th th i s p rob lem

is

i nd ica ted

a t the

outset

o f the n a r ra t iv e (v. 14 ) . Ye t th i s need in no wa y lessens

the d ra m a or tens ion o f see ing h i s

f a i t h fu l n e ss

b e i n g tested a n d

52



Two: An Exegesis o f

E x o d u s

32-34

c o n f i r m e d t h r o u g h th e

rest

o f t h e

story.

T h i r d l y , 32:7-14

n o t

on ly p resen ts ,

in

n u c e ,

th e

m a j o r t h e m e s

of

s in ,

intercession, a n d

f o rg iveness ,

th e

m e r c y

o f G o d a n d th e

ro le

o f

Moses

w h i ch

the

rest

o f the

n a r r a t i v e g o e s

on to

d e v e l o p

bu t it a lso provides a t heo l og ica l perspective f r o m w h i c h th e

rest o f the

n a r r a t i v e s h o u l d

be

read.

For i t

presents

a

c o n t e x t

of God s grace in which the

episodes

o f j u d g m e n t i n 32:15-33:11

are to be

r e a d .

In pa r t i cu l a r th i s c a n b e seen i n the j u x t a -

posit ion of v. 14 w i t h v v .

15-20.

T h e s m a s h i n g o f t h e

tablets

by

Moses

i s gene ra l l y cons ide red to

s i g n i f y

th e t e r m i n a t i o n o r

a n n u l m e n t o f the covenan t re l a t ionsh ip .

N o t h ,

f o r e x a m p l e ,

s ays ,

Moses

1

b r e a k i n g o f the

t ab l e s

... m e a n s that h e n o w

declares th e c o v e n a n t b e t w e e n G o d a n d th e people to be

b r o k e n a n d

t h e r e f o r e

n u l l a n d

v o i d . ^ 0

i t se l f

th e

ac t ion w o u l d suggest such

a

f i n a l i t y g i v e n

th e

s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the

tablets

o u t l i n e d

above.^

Yet in the l i g h t

of v . 14 the reade r kn ow s that Y a h w e h h a s n o t r e j e c te d h i s

people. T h e r e f o r e th e covenant i s n o t

abrogated,

despite th e

people s

u n f a i t h f u l n e s s ,

bu t

s o m e h o w

G o d

w i l l

be

m e r c i f u l

a n d

restore h is people.

Ex.

32:15-20

The th i rd pa ragraph , 32 :15-20 , recoun ts

Moses

d e s c e n t

f r o m

Mt. Sinai .

T he

reader

ha s

seen

the

people s

s in

be low

the

m o u n t a i n .

He h a s

also seen

th e

d i v i n e per spect ive

on the

m o u n -

tain top. B u t w h a t w i l l h a p p e n w h e n t h e tw o

meet?

T h e p a r a g r a p h

is

sho r t , cons i s t ing

o f

o n l y

92

words.

A f t e r

a n


o f 5

w o r d s ,

23

w o r d s ,

that

is a

q u a r t e r

o f

th e total, a re

g iven

to a

de sc r ip t ion

o f the tables o f

s t o n e ,

a n d

2 5 w o r d s a re given to the d i s t i n c t bu t t h r e a t e n i n g s o u n d f r o m

th e

c a m p .

A f t e r a f u r t h e r 5

w o r d s r e c o u n t i n g Moses f i n a l

a p p r o a c h ,

th e

a c t u a l c o n f r o n t a t i o n

is

told s w i f t l y

a n d

b r u s q u e l y

in 34 w o r d s .


r e a d e r k n o w s

o f

I s rae l s

s in

w i t h

th e

c a l f ,

h is

a t t e n t i o n is

d i rec t ed

f i r s t to the d i v i n e s pl e n d o u r o f the tablets,

d e s c r i b e d m o r e f u l l y h e r e t h a n a n y w h e r e else. It is stressed t h a t

they

a re the

w o r k

o f G o d a n d

that

the

w r i t i n g

o n

them

is the

w r i t i n g o f God. There i s pe rhaps a c o n t r a s t i m p l i e d b e t w e e n

these

a nd t h e

m a n - m a d e i d o l

o f the people.

Then

a

noise

is

h e a r d

f r o m

t h e c a m p w h o s e m e a n i n g i s u n c l e a r . J o s h u a g u e s se s

w r o n g l y a t i ts

s ign i f i cance , thus se rv ing

a s a

fo i l

fo r

Moses

53




w h o s e

s u p e r i o r i n s i g h t

i n t o

th e c h a r a c t e r o f the peo p le i s

b r o u g h t o u t .

Moses

responds^ wjth a play on words which

s h o w s

t h a t h e u n d e r s t a n d s th e t r u e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e

s o u n d

even

t h o u g h

a l l de t a i l s a re s t i l l

unclear.^

T h e m e t r i c a l c o l a

o f

v . 18 , by

a t t r a c t i n g a t t e n t i o n

t o t he w o r d p l a y , c o n t i n u e to

b u i l d

u p

s u s p e n s e

f o r t h e

m o m e n t

o f

a c t u a l c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h

th e p e o p l e . W h e n th e c o n f r o n t a t i o n c o m e s i ts

i n i t i a l

p r e s e n t -

a t i o n

is

b r i e f

a n d cons i s t s of the

b r u s q u e

a c t i o n s of Moses in

s m a s h i n g th e t a b l e t s - desp i t e th e d i v i n e w o r k m a n s h i p ^ - a n d

t h o r o u g h l y d e s t r o y i n g th e calf ^ th e r e m a i n s o f

wh ich

a r e

scattered

o n t h e

w a t e r

for the

p e o p l e

to

d r i n k

a s p u n i s h -

ment.^ T h e

le ss d r a m a t i c a c c o u n t

o f

D e u t .

9

t a k e s t i m e

to

des i gn a t e

th e

calf

a s a

s in fu l

t h i n g

a nd t o

e x p l a i n t h a t t h e r e

w a s a

b r o o k that

f l owed ou t o f the

m o u n t a i n (D eu t. 9:21); su ch

e xp a n s i o n i s ex t r an eo u s to t he taut n a r ra t iv e o f Ex. 32:20.

Ex. 32:21-24

T h e s t o ry t u r n s n e x t

to the

ro l e p l ayed

b y

A a r o n .

A s

C h i l d s

h a s s h o w n ,

i f o n e c o m p a r e s A a r o n ' s a c c o u n t o f the

m a k i n g

o f

th e c a l f w i t h th e e a r l i e r a c c o u n t in 32:1-6, the way in w h i c h

A a r o n

d e s i g n a t e s

th e

people

a s

set

o n

e v i l

a n d

d w e l l s

o n

t h e i r

r o l e a t l e n g t h w h i l e m i n i m i z i n g h i s o w n

i n v o l v e m e n t

r e v e a l s

A a r o n a s g u i l t i l y t r y i n g to e v a d e h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . T h e c o n t r a s t

b e t w e e n h i m a n d M o s es c o u l d h a r d l y b e g rea t e r :

A a r o n

s a w th e peo p le b en t o n evil : M o s e s d e f e n d e d t h e m

b e f o r e

God's h o t a n g e r (v . 11) . A a r o n e x o n e r a t e d

h i m s e l f

f r o m

a l l

ac t ive i n v o l v e m e n t ; M o s es

p u t h i s o w n l i f e o n t h e

l i n e

fo r I s rae l ' s sake . A a r o n w a s t o o w e a k to r e s t r a i n th e

peop le ; M o s es

w a s s t r o n g

e n o u g h

to r e s t r a i n e v en

G o d . ^ 8

It i s o f f u r t h e r i n t e r e s t t ha t

there

i s a c e r t a i n p a r a l l e l

b e t w e e n th e m a n n e r o f A a r o n ' s exc u se a n d t h a t o f

A d a m

in

G e n . 3.^9

T h e r e

a r e n o

v e r b a l l i n k s ,

bu t t h e b e h a v i o u r o f

A a r o n c o r r e s p o n d s to t h a t o f t he a r c h e t y p a l p a t te r n in G e n . 3 .

A s in G e n . 3, the a t t e m p t to excuse does n o t m i t i g a t e bu t i n -

creases

g u i l t ;

a n d a s i n G e n . 3 the s t o r y m o v e s o n

f r o m

A d a m ' s

exc u se

t o t he w o m a n w h o

i n c i t e d h i m ,

s o

h e r e

th e

s t o r y m o v e s

f r o m A a r o n ' s e x c u s e to the p e o p l e w h o i n c it ed h i m .

Ex.

32:23-29

T he episode o f the Levi tes i s to ld w i t h a b r e v i t y that leaves

some o f i t s details u n c lea r , i n pa r t i c u l a r t he p ro b l em a t i c v . 29 ,

a l t h o u g h

the genera l t enor i s u n a m b i g u o u s . I t con t inues the

54



Two:

A n Exegesis of E x o d u s

32-34

t h e m e o f

Y a h w e h ' s

j u d g m e n t

u p o n

th e pe o p l e , a n d a ga i n the use

of

contrast is

evident ,

th e contrast

be t w e e n

the f a i t h f u l

Levites

a n d

f a i t h l e s s A a r o n , a n d a l so

i m p l i c i t l y

t he c o n t r a s t be t w e e n

th e

f a i t h f u l

f e w

( r e m n a n t ? )

a n d t h e

d i so b e d i en t m a n y .

T he key to u n d e r s t a n d i n g the episode is to

appreciate that

its

cen t ra l c once rn i s a l i f e -o r -d ea th f a i t h f u l n e s s to Y ah w eh . I t i s a

classic

e x a m p l e

of the

f a i t h f u l n e s s c o m m a n d e d

in

D e u t .

1 3 .

This t he m e w i l l recur aga in , espec ia l ly in Ex. 34:1 I f f .

T h a t


is the issue in 32:25-29 (cf . Deut. 33:8-9)

c a n a lso b e a p p r e c i a t ed t h r o u g h a c o m p a r i s o n w i t h N u m . 25:6f f .

U n l i k e

that

n a r r a t i ve , w he r e Ph i n e ha s ' s l a y i n g of the

u n f a i t h f u l

Is rae l i te a n d

M i d i a n i t e

is g i v e n a t o n i n g s i g n i f i c a n c e , t h e r e is no

h i n t

i n E x . 3 2 o f suc h a m e a n i n g

g iven

to the

Lev i t e s '

a c t i o n .

Indeed th e

w o r d s

o f

M o s e s

in v. 30

a b o u t

h is

s e e k i n g

to

m a k e

a t o n e m e n t

h i m s e l f

e x c l u d e

i t . The

p r i m a r y s i g n i f i c a n c e

o f the

story

is to

show that dea th

is the

pe n a l t y

fo r

u n f a i t h f u l n e s s

to

Y a h w e h

and the

c o v e n a n t , w h e r e a s b l e s s i n g

(v .

2 9 b )

is the

r e w a r d

fo r

f a i t h f u l n e s s . A l t h o u g h

th e

a e t i o l o g i c a l e l e m e n t

o f

the ord ina t ion of the Levi tes is

p r e s e n t

in v . 29a, little w e i g h t

is la id u p o n

i t by the

n a r r a t o r ( o n e

m a y

c o n t r a s t D e u t .

33:8-10);

i t is the

L e v i t e s '

f a i t h f u l n e s s ,

a n d t he

cost

of th i s , to

w h i c h

a t t e n t i o n is

directed.

T h e r e is so m e a m b i g u i t y o v er w h ich pe o p l e w e r e s l a i n by the

L e v i t e s , w he t he r fe l low Levi tes or Is rae l i tes f r o m o th e r t r ibes .

W h i l e the w o r d s of v. 29,

each

one at the cost of his son and of

h is b r o t he r , in themse lves sugges t a s l a u g h t e r w i t h i n th e r a n k s

of

th e Levi tes , th e c o m m a n d to go r i g h t t h r o u g h th e c a m p (v .

27) , a s

w e l l

as the

s e t t i n g

of the

scene

a s a

w h o l e

(v .

2 5 ) ,

suggests t h a t o f f e n d e r s in e v e r y t r i b e a re p u n i s h e d . T h e r e is

some

e v i d e nc e

that

everyone

w h o

stood

w i t h i n

th e

c o v e n a n t

w a s a b r o t he r o r k i n s m a n to his f e l l o w , e.g. Lev. 25:46, D e u t .

3:18, 24:7, J d g . 2 0 : 1 3 , N u m .

25:6,

50

a nd the p oin t of des ig-

n a t i n g those slain a s b r o t he r s a n d sons ̂ m a y b e to stress th e

cos t l iness o f


to Y a h w e h . ^ 2

It is i n t e r e s t i n g to r e f l e c t on this ro le of the Levi tes in the

l ight of the larger

p e n t a t e u c h a l

context. T h e violence of the

Levi te s i s a them e in Gen es is , bu t the re i t is co n de m n ed (G en .

3 4 ,

49:5ff . ) .

H e r e , b y c o n t ra s t , i t i s c o m m e n d e d . W h a t is the

di f fe renc e? In a no t

w h ol ly

d i s s i m i l a r w a y G . W .

Coats

ha s

sh ow n how in Ex. 32-34 both Moses and the pe o p l e in s o m e w ay

resist the

wi l l

o f

Y a h w e h ,

an d y et i t is on ly Moses '

o ppo s i t i o n

in

t he way in

w h ich

h e

b o ld ly i n te rc e d e s w i th Y a h w e h ,

a n d n o t

that of the pe o p l e ,

w h i c h

i s c o m m e n d e d . 5 3

Su ch a m b i g u i t y

55



A t t h e M o u n t a i n o f G o d

s u g g e s t s t h a t f o r t h i s w r i t e r i t i s n o t s o m u c h t h e a c t i o n

p e r f o r m e d a s t h e m o t iv e u n d e r l y i n g i t w h i c h i s o f c e n t r a l


W h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e s

t h e L e v i t e s

s l a y i n g

i s t h a t i t i s

d o n e

o u t o f


t o

Y a h w e h (3 2:2 6), w h i l e M o s e s a p p e a l s

t o Y a h w e h s g l o r y a s b o u n d u p w i t h th e f a t e o f t h e p e o p l e

(32 :12 ,

3 3:1 6 ), s h o w i n g c o n c e r n

f o r Y a h w e h a n d n o t f o r

h i m s e l f .

I t i s l o y a l t y t o Y a h w e h t h a t f o r t h i s w r i t e r i s t h e c r u c i a l f a c t o r

in

a s s e s s i n g t h e w o r t h o f a n a c t i o n .

T h r e e n o t e s o n v . 25 m a y b e a d d e d . F i r s t , a l t h o u g h t h e r e i s

s o m e u n c e r t a i n t y o v e r t h e

p r e c i s e

m e a n i n g o f

p a r u a

c

a n d

s i m s a h , t h e

c o n t e x t m a k e s th e i r g e n e r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e

c l e a r .

S e c o n d l y t h e r e i s a w o r d p l a y i n t h e d o u b l e u s e o f pr

c

i n v .

w h i c h

e c h o e s

t h e

p r e c e d i n g

narrative;^

c f . v . 2 2 ,

b

e

ra

c

^

v . 1 7 ,

b f r _ e £ o h ,

v .

1 4 , h a r a

c

a h ,

v . 1 2 ,

b

e

ra

c

ah.

T h e

a r c h a i c

s p e l l i n g w i t h

a t t h e e n d i n v . 2 5 a n d v . 1 7

se e m s d e l i b e r a t e l y

t o f o c u s a t t e n t i o n o n t h e w o r d

p l a y . ^ 6

T h i r d l y ,

e m p h a s i s

i s

l a i d

o n

A a r o n s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

f o r t h e

p e o p l e (v . 2 5 b ) , a s i n v . 21 . I t i s r e m a r k a b l e

t h a t

d e s p i t e t h i s

e m p h a s i s t h e r e i s n o m e n t i o n o f a n y p u n i s h m e n t f o r A a r o n . A

r e s o l u t i o n

to

t h i s

i s

p r o v i d e d

b y

D e u t . 9 :2 0, w h i c h p o s s i b l y

r e p r e s e n t s a n e le m e n t o f o l d t r a d i t i o n o m i t t e d b y t h e w r i t e r o f

E x.

32-34

w h o s e c o n c e rn

i s f o r t h e

f a t e

o f t h e

p e o p l e

a s a

w h o l e .

T h e

p o s i t i o n i n g

o f v v .

25-29

i s


f o r t h e

l i t e r a r y


o f t h e

s t o r y .

O n e

m i g h t e xp e c t

t h e

a c c o u n t

o f a

d r a m a t i c p u n i s h m e n t

t o

f o l l o w i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r

M o s e s

i n i t i a l

c o n f r o n t a t i o n w i t h

t h e

p e o p l e ,

a n d t h a t

o n l y

l a t e r

w o u l d M o s e s

r e m o n s t r a t e w i t h A a r o n . Y e t b y h o l d i n g b a c k t h e a c c o u n t o f t h e

s l a y i n g o f t h e p eo p le w h i l e A a r o n s e x c u s e s a re m a d e f i r s t , i t s

i m p a c t

a n d t h e

c o n t ra s t w i t h A a r o n

i s

h e i g h t e n e d . T h e r e

i s

a l s o

t h e n

a n

a l t e r n a t i o n

o f

t h e m e s

i n t h e

n a r r a t i v e b e t w e e n h i g h -

l i g h t i n g t h e r o l e o f M o s e s ( v v .

2 1 - 2 4 )

a n d t h e e x e c u t i o n o f

j u d g m e n t

(vv . 25-29) ,

th e

r o l e

o f

M o s e s ( v v . 3 0 -3 4 ) ,

a n d

Y a h w e h s w o r d s

o f

j u d g m e n t (32:34-33:6).

E x. 32:30-33:6

T h e

n e x t t w e l v e v e r s e s a r e n o t

e a s y

t o i n t e r p r e t . I n t h e f i r s t

p l a c e t h e l i t e r a r y d i v i s i o n s a r e u n c l e a r , a n d t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f

t h e s e v e r s e s a p p e a r s t o b e lo o s er t h a n a n y w h e r e e l s e i n E x .

3 2 - 3 4 . T h e r e

i s

i n d e e d

a

c e r t a in t h e m a t i c c o n t i n u i t y

i n t h e

m a t e r i a l .

T h e

b a s i c f r a m e w o r k

i s a

d i a l o g u e b e t w e e n M o s es

a n d

Y a h w e h . T h e i s s u e a t

s t a k e

t h r o u g h o u t i s t h e f u t u r e o f I s r a e l

w h i c h i s

u n d e r Y a h w e h s d i s f a v o u r :

i n

p a r t i c u l a r

t h e

q u e s t i o n

i s

h o w

I s r a e l w i l l e x p e r i e n c e Y a h w e h s

p r e s e n c e a s i t

m o v e s

o n

56



Two: A n

Exegesis

of

E x o d u s

32-34

f r o m

Sinai

to

C a n a a n .

T he precise

division

o f

m ate r i a l depends l a rge ly

upon the

i n t e rp re t a t i o n

of

32:35.

O n the one

h a n d

v. 35 may be

taken

as

th e conclusion o f the n a r r a t i v e r e c o u n t i n g th e calf and i t s

i m m e d i a t e a f t e r m a t h b e f o r e th e f o cu s sh i f t s in ch. 33 to a

second problem caused

by the

cal f ,

the f o r f e i t i n g o f

Y a h w e h 's

presence in the m ids t of the people. O n the other ha n d,

32:34

i n t roduces the them e of I srae l's depa r tu r e

f r o m

Sinai , a the m e

developed

in

33:1,

and 32:34

h an d l es th i s th em e

in a way

s im i la r

to 33:1 ff . by l i n k i n g th e j o u r n e y i n g wi th th e expression o f

Yahweh ' s

di s fav ou r . 32 :35

can be

seen then

as a

p a ren t h e t i ca l

n o t e r eco rd i n g

the f u l f i l m e n t o f

32:34b wi th in

a

deve l o p i n g

sequence in i t ia ted

by

32:34a

an d

c o n t i n u e d

in

33:1

f f .

Such a d i f f icu l ty in div id ing th e

m a t e r i a l m e a n s

that

an y

proposed

divis ions are s om ew hat ar t i f icia l . 32:35 does con clude

the

sequence

o f

p un i s h m en t s d i r ec t ly i n f l i ct ed

o n

Israe l (the

p u n i s h m e n t

i m p li e d

b y 33:3f.,5 is of a

d i f f e r e n t o rde r ) ,

yet the

c o n t i n u i t y

into

ch. 33

sho uld also

be appreciated.

T he sect ion beg ins w ith M oses' intercession in 32:30 33. T he

scene

r e s u m e s

th e

n a r r a t i v e

contrast

between

th e

h a p p e n i n g s

on the

m o u n t a i n

top and in the

va l l ey b e l o w .

The s in

w h i ch

Israel has co m m it ted i s a ser ious on e

( h t * h gdlh ,

vv. 30,31, cf . v.

21) an d Moses recount s it in w o r d s r e m i n i s c e n t of the proh i -

bit ion

in Ex.

20:23:

32:31,

w y

c

sw

Ihm

'Ihy

z hb

20:23,

w' lhy

zhb 1

tc§w

1km

In the l igh t o f th is Moses can o f f e r n o plea except to p res en t

h i m s e l f

as a

recipient

o f

God 's jud gm en t a long w i th

the

people.

Moses

declines to be part of a

f u t u r e

which does not include

Israel

also.^7

This

is

s i m i la r

to

32:10-14 where

also

Moses

decl ines a f u t u r e fo r h i m s e l f which does n o t i n c lu d e c o n t e m -

p o ra ry

Israel.

Such

a total

c o m m i t m e n t

o f

Moses

to

Israel

is a

cen tr a l f ea t u r e o f h i s ro l e a s m ed i a t o r an d

intercessor.

In te res t ingly , however ,

th e

w r i t e r

does n o t

dw el l

on i t a t

this

point , a l tho ug h he develops i t

later

(33:1

I f f . ) ,

but di rects

attention

to the response o f Y a h w e h , w h e r e concession is

m i n g l e d

w i th w a r n i n g .

T he

precise

force

o f

32:33

is

again d i f f i cu l t

to

d e t e r m i n e .

T h e r e

a re t w o

m a i n a l te r n a t i v e s.

The on e i s that th e

w o r d s

represent

a concession w hich l im i ts fu tu r e jud gm en t to some

t h i n g

less than

a

total

e li m i n a t io n

o f

I s rae l ,

y e t

they

are a t the

57



At the M ou nta in o f God

s a m e t i m e a s t r o n g s t a t e m e n t of the r i g h t e o u s n e s s o f G o d such

as seems to leave little room for m e r c y to the gu i l t y a

p rob l e m wh i c h is re so lved in the fo l l owi ng na r r a t i ve (33 : 19 ,

34:6f.) .

T h e

o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e

is

that

th e

w o r d s

a re to be

i n t e rp r e t e d w h o l l y in the l igh t of v . 32b. That is , the words a re

not a

ge ne ra l s t a t e m e n t a b o u t

God's

r i g h t e o u s

c h a r a c t e r , b u t an

a ns we r

to

Moses

1

p r a y e r , u s i n g

th e

t e r m s that Moses

h a d

i n t roduc e d .

A s

such they cou ld r e p r e s e n t

an

access ion

to Moses

1

p le a .

For

Moses dec l ined

to

l i ve un l e s s I s r a e l

d id

a l so .

G od

responds that

h e

cannot b lo t

o u t

Moses

fo r

Moses

has no t

s i n n e d

a ga i ns t

him ( to

p a ra p h ra s e

v .

33).

V. 33b

could re fe r back

not to

the s in of Is rae l b u t s i m p l y to the lack of sin in Moses . If the n

Moses ,

w h o h a s

b o u n d

h is

f u t u r e

to

Israel 's

f u t u r e ,

is to

live

then i t wou l d fo l lo w

t h a t

Is rae l

w i l l

l i ve

also.

G od r e s p onds

f a v o u r a b l y to Moses '

s a c ri fi c i a l c o m m i t m e n t

to

I s rae l . Th i s

latter i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h o u g h less obvious than th e f i r s t ,

dese rves cons ide ra t ion . I t

w o u l d r e c e i v e f u r t h e r

s u p p o r t f r o m

th e fac t that v . 34 , w i th its d i rec t ions to lead th e p e op l e a wa y

f r o m Sinai ,

seems to

presuppose that Israel

has a

f u t u r e

as a

na t ion and a s such could

f o l low

f r o m a f a v o u r a b l e i n t e r -

p re t a t i on

of v . 33 . On

b a l an c e , h o w e v e r ,

th e

f i r s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

seems

more l i ke ly .

H o w e v e r

o n e

i n t e rp r e t s

th e

prec i se e m p h a s i s

of v . 33, the

poin t

a t

issue s e e m s

to be that Israel is to

h a v e so m e f u t u r e

y e t

i s subjec t to

God's

d i s f av ou r . Tha t i s , I s rae l' s s in has

f u r t h e r


and i ts r e s to ra t io n , i f the re i s to be one , w i l l be in

several

stages.

Even i f one gave th e m ore f a voura b l e

i n t e rp r e t a t i on

to

Y a hw e h ' s r e sp ons e

to

Moses ,

o n e

could s t i l l

compare va r ious o the r passages

in the OT

w h e r e p a r d o n

for s in

is

accomp anied

b y

f u r t h e r p u n i s h m e n t

for i t ,

e.g . N u m .

14:20ff . ,

2 S a m . 12:13f . I t i s impor tan t no t to impose an a l i en or

a n a c h r o n i s t i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f f o r g i v e n e s s upon th e text.^

Yahweh ' s

acceptance of s o m e f u t u r e fo r Israel is i m p l i e d b y

32:34a. Yet Israel wi l l s t i l l

s u f f e r

for i t s s in as the sudden

w a r n i n g in v. 34b makes

clear.

Th e p o i n t is r e i n f o r c e d b y a p l a y

on the

m e a n i n g

o f pqd ,

f i r s t

in a

neu t ra l , then

in a hos t i l e sense.

This is best

c onve ye d

in Engl ish b y

visi t

...

visi t s in .

It

ga ins

e f f e c t

f rom ea r l i e r

uses

of pqd in Ex.

3:16,

4:31,

13:19 (cf. Gen.

50:24f . ) w h e r e it is

u n i f o r m l y

used o f God ' s v i s i t i ng I s rae l in a

f a v o u r a b l e sense. Because o f Israel 's s in, God's act ion with

Israel is

changed

f rom

blessing

to

curse.

The

idea of Y ah w eh v i s i t ing I srae l in t ro du ces the the m e of

th e

d i v i n e

p re sence

w h i c h

is

c e n t r a l

to ch . 33 . The tacit

58



T w o :

A n Exegesis of

E x o d u s 32-34

a s s u m p t i o n is

t h a t

Israel 's s in has

caused

th e

w i t h d r a w a l

of the

d iv ine presence. B u t as Go d

beg i n s

to

draw close

to

Is rael again ,

in response

to

Moses

1

i n t e r ces s i o n ,

his

presence , even

if

o n l y

par t ia l ,59

c a n n o t

b u t

ha v e s e r i o u s co n s equ en ces

f o r

s i n f u l

I s rae l .

Tha t v .

34b

i s no id le w ar n in g i s bro u gh t ou t b y v . 35 . The

p u n i s h m e n t ,

A n d

Y a h w e h

s m o t e

th e

p eo p l e

(w i th a p lag ue )

f i t s

a

c o m m o n

pattern o f

d i v i n e j u d g m e n t

in the

wi lderness na r ra -

tives.

A l t h o u g h

it is

possible

that

this

is to be

v i e w e d

a s a

s u m m a r y o f

w h a t

h a s

happened thus f a r ,

it is

more l ike ly

that it

is

a n a d d i t i o n a l ac t o f j u d g m e n t w h i l e th e peop le were s t i l l a t

S ina i ,

since v . 34b i m p l i e s s o m e t h i n g s u b s e q u e n t to the t i m e o f

s p e a k i n g .

It is

o f t e n f e l t

that

v .

34b

i m p l i e s

an

i n d e f i n i t e

f u t u r e

t ime such as m a k e s v. 35 an a w k w a r d c o n t in u a t io n . B u t this

need no t be so . The c loses t pa ra l l e l in co n s t ru c t ion , w he re

b

e

y o m

is

fo l low ed

by a

p e r f ec t co n s ecu t i v e ,

is

Gen. 3:5a

w h e r e th e s e r p e n t ' s s t a t e m e n t is

f o l l o w e d

by an i m m e d i a t e

f u l f i l m e n t . T h e

w o r d

a nd a c t o f

j u d g m e n t

in v v . 34b-35

con-

c lu d es Y a hw eh 's i m m ed i a t e r es p o n s e

to

Israel 's sin.

T w o

no tes

m a y b e

a d d e d

on the


o f

32:35. First ,

th is p u n i s h m e n t w h e r e Y a h w e h

acts

a s

d i r e c t

a g e n t h a s o f t e n

been con t ras ted

w i t h

3 2 :2 0 , w he r e M o s es

is

a g e n t ,

a n d

32:25-29,

w h e r e

the

Levites

are agents, as

represen t ing

alternative

t rad i t ion s . It is ha rd to see th i s a s a ge n u in e

d i f f i c u l t y .

T h a t

j u d g m e n t

shou ld be ad m ini s t e red in m ore than on e w ay i s no t

u n n a t u r a l . A n d g i v en th e d i v i n e - h u m a n b a l a n c e in the n a r r a t i v e ,

there n eed be n o p r o b l em in t he f a ct o f j u d gm en t a d m i n i s te r ed

t h r o u g h

bo th

d i v i n e a n d h u m a n

a gen cy .

Secon d ly , t h e r e

i s the p ro blem of the

last

t h r e e w o r d s o f v .

35 which

are

w i d e l y

r e g a r d e d

as a

gloss

o n

a c c o u n t

o f

t he i r

c o n t r a d i c t o r y c o n t e n t ;

d id the

people

o r

A a r o n m a k e

th e

c a l f ?

A g a i n , th e d i f f i c u l t y m a y b e m o r e a p p a r e n t t h a n

real.

F o r

a l t h o u g h th e

w r i t e r

h a s

m a d e

A a r o n p r i m a r i l y

r es p o n s i b l e

f o r

the ca l f , i n 32:1 -6 the in i t i a t ive and in v o lv em en t o f the peop le

in

the c a l f - m a k i n g is c lea r ly p resen ted . A s s u m i n g

that

v. 35b is

to be

t rans la ted

because

t hey m a d e

th e

ca lf w hich A aro n

m a d e , 6 0 th e

s e e m i n g c o n t r a d i c ti o n

c a n b e

seen

a s an a t -

t e m p t to

express

th e

dual respons ibi l i ty

for the

ca l f ,

that

n e i t he r A a r o n n o r t he p eo p le a l o n e bu t bo t h t o ge t he r a r e

responsible fo r their s i n f u l beha v i o u r . U n d er l y i n g this is perhaps

r e f l e c t i o n o n t h e

q u e s t i o n

o f the

i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n ,

a n d

res-

pective respons ibi l i ty

of , a

people

a n d i t s leader.

T he

d ia l o g u e b e tw e e n Y a h w e h

a n d

M o s e s r e s u m e s

in

33:1.

59




A l t h o u g h i t picks u p a n d deve lops th e t h e m e i n t r o d u c e d in

32:34a, it is p e r h a p s t o b e e n v i s a g e d a s a separate occas ion

f r o m

M o s e s

1

i n t e r c e s s i o n in

3 2 : 3 I f f . ,

b e c a u s e o f the i n t e r v e n i n g

note

in

32:35.

In

th is sec t ion

o f t he

narra t ive (32:30-33:6) ,

h o w e v e r ,

th e

w r i t e r s h o w s

n o

i n t e r e s t

in

d e v e l o p i n g

th e

s t o r y

in

terms o f space a n d

time.

A ll attention is

directed

to Y a h w e h ' s

w o r d s

a n d

t h e i r c o n s e qu e n c e s .

33:l-3a r e s u m e s t h e t h e m e o f t h e pe o p le l e a v i n g S i n a i f o r t h e

p r o m i s e d l a n d . U n l i k e th e b r i e f t r e a t m e n t o f th i s i n 32:34a, here

i t i s a t f i r s t descr ibed i n t h e richest co lou rs

poss ib le .

I n v .

I b

th e

l a n d

i s

that w h i c h

G o d h a s

promised

t o t h e

patriarchs. T h i s

i s pe rh a p s d e l i be r a t e ly t a k i n g u p a n d a c k n o w l e d g i n g M o s es ' plea

in

32:13;

Y a h w e h

n o w

a c k n o w l e d g e s I s r a e l

a s h i s

people

a n d a s

th e

i n h e r i t o r s

o f t h e

p r o m i s e . S e c o n d l y there

i s the

p r o m i s e

o f

d i v i n e g u i d a n c e a n d assistance a s t h e y travel a n d o c c u py th e

l a n d . T h i s r e a f f i r m s th e o r i g i n a l p r o m i s e o f 23:20ff . It is

also

stated m o r e

f u l l y ,

a n d so m o r e e m p h a t i c a l l y , t h a n i n

32:34.

T h i r d l y , t h e r e

i s a f u r t h e r

d e s c r i p t i o n

o f t h e

l a n d

i n

i d e a l t e r m s ,

a

l a n d " f l o w i n g w i t h

m i l k a n d

h o n e y " . T h i s r eca l l s

th e

p r o m i s e s

of Moses

1

o r i g i n a l c o m m i s s i o n i n g ( E x . 3:8,17). The re is a certain

u n e ve n n e s s

i n t h e

r e s u m p t i v e

l- rs

i n v . 3a .

Th is probab ly

r e f l e c t s t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n h e r e n t i n t h e p i l i n g u p o f d i f f e r e n t

phrases to c o n ve y a f a v o u r a b l e i m p r e ss i o n . O n e m a y c o m p a r e

E x.

3:17 where

there

is

also

a r e s u m p t i v e " to a l a n d f l o w i n g

w i t h m i l k

a n d

h o n e y " a f t e r

a

list

o f t h e

i n h a b i t a n t s

o f t h e

l a n d .

T h e

d i f f e r e n c e

in 33:l-3a i s

t h a t

th e

p r e c e d i n g p r o m i s e s

a re

e x p a n d e d .

T h e

i m p a c t

o f

33:l-3a

i s

s t r o n g l y f a v o u r a b l e .

Y e t

s u d d e n l y

th is is countered in v. 3b by a w o r d o f d e n i a l a n d w a r n i n g . S u c h

is

the

n a t u r e

of the

people

-

" s t i f f -necked"

-

that,

despite

his

pr o m i s e s , w e r e Y a h w e h to be " i n t h e i r m i d s t " t h e n h e c o u l d n o t

bu t

d e s t r o y t h e m . T h e p r o m i s e d l a n d a n d t h e d i v i n e g u i d a n c e to

i t i s no t d e n i e d ; but i t i s se v e re l y q u a l i f i e d by the a b s e n c e o f

s o m e pa r t i c u l a r l y i n t i m a t e

role o f

Y a h w e h ' s

presence " in

the i r

m i d s t " that o t h e r w i s e m i g h t be expected.

A f t e r t h i s h a r d w o r d th e pe o p l e r e s po n d w i t h g r i e f a n d d o n o t

pu t

o n t h e i r o r n a m e n t s . G e n . 35:4 r e c o u n t s t h e s t r i pp i n g o f

o r n a m e n t s

i n t h e

context

o f t h e

r e n u n c i a t i o n

o f

f o r e i g n deities,

a n d

th e

action

h e r e

probab ly

h a s a

s i m i l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e .

T h e

people r emove t h o s e ob jec t s

c o n n e c t e d

w i t h th e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f

th e c a l f . T h e

people ' s

" m o u r n i n g " ('bl, H i t h p . ) s h o u l d n o t , a s i s

s o m e t i m e s s u g g e s t e d , ^

be

i n t e r p r e t e d

a s

s h o w i n g r e p e n t -

ance; for the para l le l use o f t h e verb in

N u m . 14:39,

w h e r e th e

60



Two: A n

Exegesis

of

E x o d u s 32-34

people con t inue to be d i s o b e d i e n t , s ho w s that it is r e m o r s e

r a t h e r than repentance that is e n v i s age d . A l t ho u g h th e people's

a t t i t u d e h as

i m p r o v e d ,

i t is no t ye t

r i g h t .

T he

impor tance

o f

this

denia l

of

Yahweh ' s

presence

in the

m i d s t

is

e m pha s i z e d

by vv. 5-6

w h i c h

repeat an d

e x p a n d

th e

contents o f vv .

3b-4.

T h e crucial factor that the people are

s t i f f - n e c k

ed62

j

s

stressed

again.

63

A s a

r e s u l t Y a hw e h

c a n n o t

go in the m i d s t of the

people

even for a single

m o m e n t , w h i c h s t r e n g t h e n s th e previous den ia l of v . 3b.

Moreover th e

people s

action o f v . 4 , which might have s ign i f i ed

at

least some change

for the

better a m o n g

th e

people

i s no w

cons t rued as the r e s u l t o f

God's

d i s f a v o u r t o w a r d s the people.

S o

th e

sec t ion ends wi th

a

r e pe t i t i o n

of the

fact

that

the

people

s t r ipped them selve s , and i t i s no w given a f u r t h e r m e a n i n g . F o r

th e

ve r b

nsl

( H i t h p . )

is

u s e d , w h i c h

h as

been used t w i c e

p rev i ou s l y in the n a r r a t i v e o f E x o d u s for the spoil ing of the

Egypt ians (3:22, 12:36; the Pi. f o r m is used each t i m e ) . T he

s u g g e s t e d m e a n i n g is that th e t r i u m p h a n t character of the

Israelites w ho

spoiled o t h e r s

lasted

o n l y

till

S ina i ; hence fo r th

m e ha r h o r e b , beca use o f the i r s in , they are , in themse lves , n o

better

o f f

than

th e

Egypt ians .

I t s h o u l d b e n o t e d , h o w e v e r , that a l t h o u g h th e p r e d o m i n a n t

note of 33:1-6 is that of Yahweh ' s d i s favour , yet there is

still

a

no te o f hope im pl ic i t in v .

5 bB .

The fac t

that

Yahweh is s t i l l

u n d e c i d e d w ha t

to do

leaves

the way

open

fo r

Moses

1

inter-

cession

that

fo l l o w s ;

as wil l be seen, in

3 3 : 1 2 f f . M oses prays

fo r

th e res tora t ion of the presence denied in

33:3,5.

T h e theological

balance of 33:5 is thus closely akin to that in 32:10.

the l ight of this

exeges is

it is possible to ask in what way

Y a h w e h ' s presence i s envisaged as be ing am on g, o r r em ov ed

f r o m , the people of

Israel.

The ques t ion i s usua l ly posed wi th

r e f e r e n c e to the angel (ml k)^ w h o i s p r o m i s e d (32:34, 33:2).

In

the

original promise

the

angel embodies

the

d i v i n e presence

(23:21,23),

yet

here this does

n o t

seem

to be so,

i n as m u c h

as the

presence of the angel is com pat ib le w i th a denia l o f Yahweh's

presence a m o n g (bqrb) th e

people . C hi lds65

r i g h t l y criti-

cizes a harmoniza t ion which d i s t ingu ishes

between

tw o d i f f e r -

en t

k i n d s

o f

a n g e l ,

o n l y

o n e o f

w h i c h

is a

f o r m

of the

d i v i n e

presence,

as

go ing beyond

th e

biblical text,

bu t

h i m s e l f leaves

t he p r o b l e m u n r e s o l ve d , t he ge n e r al sense o f Y a hw e h 's w i t h -

d r a w a l

of his presence be ing in any

case clear.

B e f o r e

o f f e r i n g

an y

de ta i led d i scuss ion

of the

p r o b l e m ,

it is

61



At the Mountain of God

important

to set it in a broad

theological

context, a context

necessary for ch. 33 as a whole. This context is the

theological

problem

of the

presence

of

God.

The

presence

of

God, while

of

central

importance both in

religious

experience and theology, is

extremely

difficult either to

conceptualize

or to

systematize.

Theologically

reflective

accounts of the

divine

presence

will

frequently

resort

to the

language

of

paradox.66

The

problem

is how to

describe

God

both

as

omnipresent

and yet as

present

in some ways and

places more,

or

differently, than

in

others.

Insofar as

theological

language reflects religious experience

this problem

will be

inescapable and,

at the conceptual

level,

in

some ways insoluble. When God s

presence

is

associated

in some

special way

with

physical objects the problems in offering

rational

theological

explanation

are acute. The debates over

Christian

eucharistic

doctrine are a classic illustration of this.

Ex. 33 is the most extended treatment of the issue of God's

presence in the OT. Although the writer is thinking of God s

presence primarily in

specific terms

of

angel

or

shrine,

the

subtly allusive language

used shows

that

the

writer

is at the

same

time wrestling with the larger

theological

problems in-

herent in giving an account of God's presence. An nter-

pretation must take account

of

these

difficulties.

eyond these general theological consideration the

narrative context

of Ex. 32:30-33:6 is an important

factor

for

interpretation.

The

meaning

of

what

is

said will

be

affected

by

the situation in

which

it is

said.

When the promise of the angel from 23:20ff. is re ated in

32:34,

33:2, there are two

significant

differences from its

original giving. The first is the sin of

Israel

and the rupture of

the

covenant. This

introduces

an

abnormal dimension

into

Israel's relationship with Yahweh. This abnormal dimension

may

mean that

that which usually

conveys Yahweh s

presence

will

not now do so, or will not do so in the

normal way.

The

angel,

therefore, will not necessarily mediate Yahweh's presence in

the

same

way as in 23:20ff.

Secondly,

instructions concerning

a

shrine

as the means of

Yahweh s

presence among Israel

introduce

a factor not present

in ch. 23.

This

shrine,

whereby Yahweh

will be

present

in

Israel's

cult,

means

that

Yahweh

will

be in the

midst

of Israel

(w

e

§akantT b

e

tokam,

25:8,

cf. 29:45f.; cf.

also Num.

14:42,44

for the ark). On any reckoning the shrine is a mode of

Yahweh s

presence

distinct from that

in the

angel.

Given these

two

contextual considerations,

the

references

to

62



Two:

A n

Exegesis

of

E x o d u s 32-34

Y a h w e h ' s

presence in 32:34-33:6 m a y b e c o h e r e n t ly i n t e r p r e t e d .

In 23:20f f .

a

genera l promise

o f

Y a h w e h ' s

presence an d

h e l p

is

g i v e n , expressed in the f o r m m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e for a people

a b o u t

to

j o u r n e y

a n d

enter

a n e w

land .

T h e

fac t

that

th e

angel

goes a he a d ( I p n y k ) i m p l i e s

n o

d i s t a n c i n g

f r o m th e

people;

it is

s imply

an

ap pro priate expression

o f

gu idance .

In

32:34ff. ,

a l-

t h o u g h Y a h w e h

h a s

accepted

Israel for the

f u t u r e ,

the people

a re

sti l l

in his

d i s f a v o u r .

H e w i l l

indeed gu ide

th e

people

in a

genera l w a y - th i s is the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t he a n g e l h e r e . But the

special presence o f Y a h w e h in his sh r i n e in the m i d s t of the

people is now d e n i e d , t h e d i r e c t io n s fo r th e sh r i n e a r e a b r o -

gated.

A l t h o u g h

Y a h w e h

ca n

g i v e

a

s i n f u l people genera l

g u i d a n c e

w i t h o u t


h e c a n n o t b e sp e c i a l l y p r e se n t

a m o n g t h e m w i t h o u t t h e i r

s i n f u l n e s s

p r o v o k i n g h i m t o a c t

a g a i n s t t h e m .

O n e m a y

c o m p a r e N u m . 1 6-1 7 ( t e n t

o f

m e e t i n g )

and 1

S a m .

6:19f. , 2

S a m . 6:6f f . ( a r k )

for the

d a n g e r s

o f

Y a h w e h ' s presence in a s h r i n e a m o n g s t th e people . Yet the

special

presence

o f Y a h w e h a m o n g I sra e l is one of the m a j o r

signs o f their

c o v e n a n t

status (cf. 33:16, 34:9), and to depr ive

t h e m

o f

th is w o u l d l e a v e t h e m w i t h

n o

s i g n i f i c a n t f u t u r e .

Israel 's

s i n i n m a k i n g

the i r

o w n veh ic le o f t he d iv ine

presence

h a s m a d e t h e m f o r f e i t the t rue one . For t h i s reason they m o u r n

and w a i t

to see

w h a t

G o d

w i ll

d o

w i th t h e m .

Ex. 33:7-11

In th is next sect ion Moses erects

a

tent

a s a

t e m p o r a r y

m e d i u m o f Y a h w e h ' s p re se n c e p r i o r to the

u l l

r e s t o r a t i o n of

t he d iv in e presence fo r w h i c h h e s u b s e q u e n t l y

intercedes.

This

u n i t lie s a t t h e m i d - p o i n t o f 3 2 - 3 4 a n d m a r k s t h e t u r n i n g

p o i n t

in the

s t o r y .

I t

c o n t i n u e s

a n d

c o n c l u d e s

th e

t h e m e

o f

Israel

a s u n d e r

God's j u d g m e n t

a n d

p r e p a r e s

for the

r e v e l a t i o n

of

God 's g race as the the m e of w h a t fo l low s . Th e cen t ra l i ty o f

Moses ' role i s carr ied f u r t h e r ; indeed i t may be t h a t

33:11,

w h e r e Y a h w e h speaks wi th Moses face

to

face

is the

specific

m o m e n t o f t r a n s i t i o n i n t h e n a r r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e a s a w h o l e . '

The cont inua t ion

of the

t h e m e

o f

j u d g m e n t

is seen in the

p o s i t i o n i n g o f the tent f a r o f f ( h r h q ) f r o m th e c a m p . T h e

s imple fac t

of the tent

be ing ou t s ide

th e

c a m p w o u ld

not in

it se lf n e c e ssa r i ly h a v e s i g n i f i c a n c e . B u t w h e n t h e w o r d s o u t -

side

th e

c a m p

a re

r e p e a t e d w i t h i n

o n e

verse ,

a n d t h e

tent

is

said

t o b e n o t o n l y

o u t s i d e

th e

c a m p

b u t f a r o f f

f r o m

it , the

w r i t e r is c lea r ly d r a w i n g a t t e n t i o n to th i s

f a c t .

A s a

c o n t i n u a t i o n of t he preced ing verses w h ich h av e s tressed that

63



At the

M o u n t a i n

o f Go d

G o d c a n n o t

be in t he

m i d s t

of the

people les t

h e

d e s t r o y

them, th i s d i s t anc ing

o f

God's presence

f r o m th e

c a m p f i t s

n a t u r a l l y . F u r t h e r , th e preced ing

verses

have e f f ec t i ve l y re -

pealed

the

i n s t r u c t i o n s g i ven

i n E x .

2 5 f f .

for the

c o n s t r u c t i o n

o f

t he s h r i n e des i gn a t ed a s the

tent

o f m e e t i n g ( 'h i m w

c

d) . 6&

So

w h e n M o s e s

calls

this tent the

tent o f

mee t i n g ( 'hi m w

c

d ,

t w i c e

in v. 7) , i t is

n a t u r a l

to see

th i s

a s a

s u b s t i t u t e

for the

p rop e r tent in t h e

m i d d l e

o f t h e

c a m p , p e n d i n g

th e

r e s t o r a t i o n

o f

Y a h w e h ' s

f a v o u r

an d t he r en e w a l o f the co ve n a n t . Fo r t he

reader

f a m i l i a r w i t h

th e idea o f ch . 2 5 f f .

that

th e tent o f

m e e t i n g w a s i n t h e m i d s t of t he c a m p t h e r e is

i r o n y

a n d

r e f l e c t i o n

o n t he

r es u l t

of s in in the

w o r d i n g A n d e v e r y

o n e

w ho

so u g h t Y a h w e h w o u l d go ou t to the

tent

o f mee t i n g , wh i ch

was o u t s i de th e camp .

T h e

i den t i t y

o f

t h i s tent

is

m u c h deba ted

b u t

e i t he r

o f t w o

alternatives

w o u l d

f i t

w e l l .

T h e

f i rs t poss ibi l i ty

is that th e tent

is Moses ' o w n t e n t ^ ̂ w h ich has been men t ioned earlier in Ex .

18:7.

7

0

Thi s might be suppor ted by the express ion w

e

n a t a h -

jo

w h e r e

the p r o n o u n

p r o b a b l y r e f e r s re f l e x i v e l y

to Moses.-

7

Al terna t ive ly th e d e f i n i t e article in

ha 'ohe l

could be i n d e f i n i t e

in

sense

a n d

s ho u l d

be

r en de r ed

a

tent .

7

^

T h i s w o u l d

fi t

w e l l

w i t h

th e context

73

s ince

th e

p o i n t

i s

precisely

t h a t

t h i s

tent is a

provis ional

substitute for the

promised

tent o f ch .

2 5 f f . , a n d n o t a

p e r m a n e n t s a n c t u a r y

in i t s ow n r i g h t .

7

^

E i t h e r w a y t h e

p r o b l e m o v e r

th e

a p p a r e n t l y a b r u p t

a n d u n -

precedented r e f e r e nce t o t h e tent in v . 7

need

no t b e a

problem

if o n e

takes

s e r i o u s l y

th e c o n t e x t o f

33:3,5 w he r e a dm i t t ed l y

n o

e x p l i c i t

r e f e r e n c e

i s

m a d e

to a tent b u t t h e

w r i t e r

m a y s i mp l y

pr esu ppo s e f a m i l i a r i t y w i th the n o t i o n o f a s h r i n e des ign a t ed

tent

o f mee t in g w h i ch co n veys Yahw eh 's

presence

in the

m i d s t

o f h is

people .

A n o t a b l e f e a t u r e of the sect ion is i ts u se t h r o u g h o u t o f verbs

in

th e

i mp er f ec t w h i ch have

a clearly

f r equ en t a t i ve

force.

Thi s

is


f o r t w o reasons.

Fi r s t ,

th e

ve r bs

i m p l y that th e

tent w a s c o n s t a n t l y p u t u p a n d t a k e n d o w n . A l t h o u g h th i s i s

u s u a l l y

taken

to

re fer

to

M o ses' h a b i t u a l practice

at successive

e n c a m p m e n t s i n t h e w i l d e r n e s s ,

there

a re d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h s u ch

a n

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .

7

-* T h e ve r bs in co n t ex t s u gges t th e i m -

p e r m a n e n c e of the

tent.

A l t h o u g h

th e

tent

i s no t t aken

d o w n

a s

soon

as

Moses

has

f i n i s hed w i t h

it the

i mpl i ca t i o n

is that it is

se t up on ly fo r

l i m i t e d p e r i o d s

o f

t i m e . T h i s g a i n s p o i n t t h r o u g h

t he co n t r a s t w i t h t h e s h r i n e t h a t s ho u l d h a v e p e r m a n e n t ly

med i a t ed

Y a h w e h ' s presence

in the

mids t

of the

pe op le .

This

64



Two: An Exegesis o f E x o d u s 32-34

tent is a t e m p o r a r y s u b s t it u t e w h i c h i s no t o n l y o u t s i d e th e

c a m p

but i s

o n l y a v a il a b le i n t e r m i t t e n t l y

to

seek Y a h w e h ;

it is

n o t p e r m a n e n t l y e s t a b l i s h e d a s Y a h w e h 's o f f i c i a l s h r i n e w o u l d

be.

S e c o n d l y ,

th e

i m p e r f e c t v e r b s c o n v e y

th e

sense

o f a

p a s s i n g

of

t im e , a n d a r e a l i t e ra ry dev ice to slow th e n a r r a t i v e a t th i s

t r a n s i t i o n a l

p o i n t . A f t e r

t h e

t e n s e

a n d

s o m b r e n a r r a t i v e

p reced ing , th i s s ec t i o n p r o v i d e s

a

p a u s e b e f o r e

th e

r e n e w e d

he igh ten ing o f t ension in the in te rcess ion o f Moses. The im p l ied

pa ss ing o f t i m e , c o m b i n e d w i t h a p i c t u r e o f the l i f e o f the

p e o p le a s r e t u r n i n g t o a n o r d e r l y a n d r e v e r e n t p a t t e r n o f

existence conveys

a

c e r t a i n

sense o f

ca l m

an d

gives

th e

i m p r e s s i o n

t h a t

Y a h w e h ' s

d i s f a v o u r

w i l l

no t be h i s

f i n a l

w o r d

b u t

t h a t t he way i s o p e n for a r e s t o r a t i o n o f I s rae l .

T h e t r ans i t ion f r o m j u d g m e n t to m e r c y ,

sugges ted

b y t h e

g e n e r a l t e n o r o f 33:7-11 , is b a s e d l a r g e l y on the ro l e o f M o s e s .

N o t o n l y is he t r e a t e d w i t h g r e a t d e f e r e n c e by the people (v . 8)

- a

contrast

to 32:1 - b u t , m o s t i m p o r t a n t , h e e n j o y s th e f a v o u r

o f

a

u n i q u e

an d i n t i m a t e r e l a ti o n s h i p w i t h Y a h w e h (v. 1 l a ) . It is

th i s w h i c h f o r m s th e bas is for a r e n e w e d i n t e r c e s s i o n o f

u n p a r a l l e l e d boldness.^

T h a t Y a h w e h shou l d speak to M oses " face to face"

( p a n i m

e l - p a n i m ) i s no t o n l y o f d e e p s i g n i f i c a n c e fo r u n d e r s t a n d i n g th e

r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n Moses

an d

Y a h w e h ( c f . N u m . 1 2 : 8 , D e u t .

34:10),

b u t a ls o h a s m o r e g e n e r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e r e l a t i o n -

s h i p

b e t w e e n G o d a n d m a n . T h a t t h e w r i t e r h a s th i s la r g e r i ss u e

i n m ind is

e v i d e n t

f r o m th e


o f

33:11 with 33:20:

33:11,

" A n d Y a h w e h s po ke w i t h M o se s

f a c e

to fa ce ..."

33:20, " B u t ( Y a h w e h ) sa id , ' You c a n n o t

s e e m y

f a c e ,

fo r

m an

s h a l l

no t see m e a nd

l ive ' . "

Thi s

j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f a p p a r e n t l y c o n f l i c t i n g s t a te m e n t s h a s l o n g

t r o u b l e d c o m m e n t a t o r s .

T h e

f a c t that

t h e L X X

u se s d i f f e r e n t

w o r d s f o r " face" i n vv . 1 1 , 2 0 ^ 7 p r o b a b l y r e f l e c t s a n a t t e m p t

to r e s o l v e th e c o n t r a d i c t i o n . L i k e w i s e th e T a r g u m s to 33:11

r e p la c e " fa c e " b y speech

( m r n l Q

a n d r e n d e r th e id iom

"speech

fo r speech" .78

s

c o m m o n a m o n g m o d e r n c o m m e n t a t o r s to

a r g u e th a t t h e s e tw o v e rs es r e p r e se n t c o n f l i c t i n g c o n c e p t io n s

of

m a n ' s

access

t o G o d a n d

t h a t

these

d i f f e r e n t c o n c e pt io n s

b e l o n g

to

d i f f e r e n t s o u r c e s

o r

t r a d i t i o n s . 7 9

Such e x e g e t ic a l m o v e s a re s u r e l y u n n e c e s s a r y o nc e th e v e r s e s

are se t in the

c o n t e x t

o f the

t h e o lo g i c al p r o b l e m s i n h e r e n t

in

d i s c u s s i n g the presence of G od . Fo r i t i s ne ces sary to a f f i r m

65



A t

th e

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

both that G o d c a n b e k n o w n a s i n t i m a t e l y present a n d that he i s

b e y o n d

h u m a n r e a c h a n d k n o w l ed ge . Th i s p r o b l em , that i s

i m m a n e n c e a n d t r a n s c e n d e n c e , i s i n h e r e n t i n la n g u a g e a b o u t

G o d

a n d c a n n o t , a s s u c h , be r e so l v e d . I n d e e d w h a t m a t t e r s i s

n o t to d isso lve th e t e n s i o n bu t to r e c o g n i z e i t as a p a r a d o x a n d

to describe it

correctly.

It is precisely such a theological

r e f l ec t i o n

o n t h e

problem

o f

i m m a n e n c e

a n d

transcendence that

33:11

p o i n t s t o . A s such i t is an i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f t he total

t h e o l o g i c a l t r e a t m e n t

o f the

p resence

o f God in ch . 33 . I t i s

c h a r a c t e r i st i c a lso o f t h e su b t l e n a r r a t i v e t ec h n i qu e o f E x .

32-34 that i t i s no t made expl ic i t a s a r e f le c t iv e c o m m e n t

u p o n

th e s t o ry b u t i s integrated s m o o t h l y i n t o th e d e v e l o p m e n t o f

t h e

n a r r a t i v e .

The use o f

p a n i m

i n

33:11

i s


n o t

o n l y

in

j u x t a p o s i t i o n wi th 33:20.

For the use of

p a n i m

in 33 :14f . is

also

clear ly par t o f t h e s ame theo log ica l treatment. A n d th e p a n i m

m o t i f r e c u r s

i n t he

f i n a l s ec t ion

o f t h e

s t o r y ,

34 :29f f . T h e


o f

n u a n c e s

a n d


o f

p a n i m

i s an

i m p o r t a n t aspect

o f t h e

p r e s e n t n a r r a t i v e .

F i n a l l y

i t may be n o t ed that th e access o f Moses to G o d i n

the tent

suggests

that it is the tent

w h i ch s h o u l d

be

u n d e r s t o o d

as the s e t t i n g f o r t he p r a y e r o f 33 :12f f .

( a l t h o u g h

th e q u e s t i o n

o f

l o c a t i o n i s of l i m i t e d s i g n i f i c a n c e ) . T h e

o n l y

e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t

t h i s

w o u l d

b e v .

2 l a h i n n e h

m a q o m itti w h i c h cou ld be

i n t e r p r e t ed

d e m o n s t r a t i v e l y ,

t h u s i m p l y i n g

th e presence O f

M o s e s o n t h e

m o u n t a i n .

B u t h i n n e h

n e e d

n o t

h a v e d e m o n s t r a t i v e

f o r c e ,

a n d i f

M o se s w e r e a l re a d y

o n t h e

m o u n t a i n

o n e

w o u l d

expec t th e t h e o p h a n y t o t a k e p l a c e d i r ec t l y r a t h e r t h a n f o r

d i rec t ions abou t i t to be g i ven . W h en eve r M o ses is

f o u n d

o n t h e

m o u n t a i n , t h i s i s preceded by a r e f e r en c e t o h i s g o i n g u p there

(

c

l h ) f i r s t . Th e r e

i s no

s u c h r e f e r e n c e

i n

33 :12 , r a ther

a

n a t u r a l

s e q u e n c e g i v i n g c o n t e n t t o t h e close r e l a t i o n s h i p i n t h e

tent

o f

33:11.

Ex.

33:12-23

T h e

con te n t o f the n ex t sec t ion , 33 :12-23 ,80 i s the m os t

d en se a n d compressed i n t he w h o l e o f

32-34.

I t r e c o u n t s th e

bo ld

a n d successfu l i n t e rcess ion o f M o se s b e f o r e Y a h w e h , a n d

w h i l e

th e

genera l t enor

i s n o t

d i f f i c u l t

to

d iscern some

o f t he

detail is p r o b l em a t i c a n d s o m e o f t he t e r m i n o l o g y is

d e l i b e r a t e l y

m u l t i v a l e n t . T h e s ect io n d i v i d e s i n t o tw o m a i n

pa r t s ,

vv .

1 2 - 1 7

a n d v v .

18-23.

T h e

f a v o u r a b l e re sp o n s e

t o G o d

in v . 17 conc ludes th e f i r s t par t o f M o ses p r a ye r , w h i l e th e

66



T w o A n Exegesis o f

E x o d u s

3 2 - 3 4

r e n e w e d p e t i ti o n o f v . 18 m a r k s a n e w stage of the i n t e rcess ion .

T he c h a r a c t e r of the s e c t i o n , a t

leas t

o f v v . 1 2 - 1 7 , 1 8 , a s a n

i n t e rcess ion is clear. A correct u n d e r s t a n d i n g is less i m m e d -

i a t e l y o b v i o u s

a n d

d e p e n d s

o n

f i r s t

d e t e r m i n i n g

th e

p r o b l e m

w i th w hich th e in tercess ion in c o n c e r n e d . T h e p rob lem is

f r e q u e n t l y c o n s i d e r e d to be

t h a t

o f w h e t h e r o r n o t Y a h w e h c a n

leave Sinai: such

was the

spat ia l menta l i ty

of the

a n c i e n t N e a r

Eas t ,

w h i c h

s a w a n i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n g o d s a n d t h e i r

holy places

that

i t was

d i f f i c u l t

to co n ce i v e o f

Y a h w e h

as

l e a v i n g

h is h ol y m o u n t a i n o f S i n a i . ^ 1 Thi s sam e essen t i a l

p r ob l em c a n b e d i f f e r e n t l y n u a n c e d b y s a y i n g that t h e c o n c e r n

o f

th e

n a r r a t i v e

is f r o m th e

p e r s p e c t i v e

o f

l i fe

in

C a n a a n ,

s e e k i n g

to

es tabl i sh

t h a t

t h e G o d w h o

o n c e r e v e a l e d h i m s e l f

f u l l y a n d f o r th e

f i r s t

t i m e o n S i na i w a s n o w p r e s e n t w i t h h is

p eop le in C a n a a n

to o .8 2

T h e r e a re o b v i o u s


w i t h

th i s

v i e w , ° ^ ~ t h e

m o s t i m p o r t a n t

o f w h i c h is the

t r a d i t i o n

o f

th e e x o d u s in w h i c h Y a h w e h r e v e a l e d h is m i g h t in E g y p t a n d i s

dep ic t ed

as

b e i n g s u p e r i o r

to the

E g y p t i a n g o d s e v en

o n

the i r

o w n g r o u n d ( c f . E x . 7 :8 -13) . I t may f u r t h e r b e a s k e d w h e t h e r

an y anc ien t N ear Eas te rn h ig h-g od w as c o n s i d e r e d to be

s p a t i a l l y

res t r i c t ed

to a

l i m i t e d

a r e a ;

a

p a r t i c u l a r a t t a c h m e n t

to a locali ty need n o t i m p l y a n y r es t r i c t i o n to i t . If the a n s w e r

to t h i s q u e s t i o n is n e g a t i v e , t h e n it b e c o m e s less l ikely

t h a t

th e

God

of the Israel i tes w as ever conceived of in such a

restricted

w a y .

In

a d d i t i o n to these d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h th e sup p os i t i on that th e

pr o ble m o f 3 3 : 1 2 f f . is w h e t h e r o r n o t Y a h w e h w a s able to leave

Sinai , th e m a i n o b j e c t i o n to th i s p remise is that it arises largely

t h r o u g h d i s c o u n t i n g

th e

p r e s e n t c o n t e x t w h i c h

h a s

p r o v i d e d

good

r e a s ons

o f i t s o wn fo r

Y a h w e h ' s

r e l u c t a n c e

to go

w i th

the

p eop le . The p ro b lem in the p resen t co n tex t i s no t sp a t i a l o r

m e t a p h y s i c a l ,

c o n c e r n i n g the p oss ib i l i ty of Y a h w e h ' s

p r e s e n c e a w a y f r o m S i n a i ,

no r i s i t t o d o

w i t h

th e

a f f i r m a t i o n

o f

th e

i d e n t i t y

o f t he

I s rae l i t e s '

G o d i n

C a n a a n w i t h

th e

de i ty

o f

Sin a i , but i t is the m o r a l p r o b l e m o f h o w a

h o l y

G o d c a n a b i d e

w i t h a s i n f u l people . T h e r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h i s e n a b l e s a c o h e r e n t


o f t he m a t e r i a l a s a w h o l e.

T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f M os es ' i n t e r c e s s i o n m a y b e

o u t l i n e d

a s

f o l l o w s .

3 3 : 1 2 - 1 7 a r e

M o s e s '

resp onse t o 33 :1 -6 a f t e r the w ay

h as

b e e n p r e p a r e d

b y

33 :7 -11 . Moses seek s

th e


o f

Y a h w e h ' s

a c c o m p a n y i n g

presence

w i t h th e peo pl e . A l th o u g h t h is

is

c o u c h e d i n a l l u s i v e t e r m s , i t i s r e a s o n a b l y c le a r t h a t a

concrete

rea l i za t i on o f

Y a h w e h ' s presence that

is a s h r i n e , is

67



At the

M o u n t a i n

o f God

e nv i s age d . T he te rm used fo r Y a h w e h ' s presence in vv. 1 4 f . is

p a n i m ,

a wo rd

cha racter ist ica l ly used

of the

divine presence

in

the cult. ̂ It is such a d i v i ne presence

that

makes Israel

dis t inct ive , and

this

Ya hw eh grants (v. 17). Y et this fav o u rab le

response st i l l does not resolve Moses

1

pro blem . For the


fac t of the

s in fu lness

o f Israel , which was the

cause of all the t ro u b l e , r e m a i n s u n c h a n g e d . T he possibi l i ty is

thereby ra ised that the renewed presence o f Y a h w e h w i th h is

people w ou ld s im ply lead to h is f u r t h e r w r a t h a n d j u d g m e n t

against them as the inevi table resul t of any f u t u r e s in. The

res tora t ion

of the s h r i ne as the

m e a n s

o f

Y a h w e h ' s presence

could

o f i tself ye t lead to the des t ruc t ion o f Israel.^

Someth ing

f u r t h e r

is

ne e de d ,

an d

this Moses seeks

in vv.

18ff. ;

th is

is

n o t h i n g less than

a

deeper

an d ful le r

revelation

of the

character

o f

Y a h w e h

as a God

w hose very na ture

it is to be

grac ious an d m e r c i f u l (33:19, 34:6f.). Only o n this basis can the

c o v e n a n t

be

r e ne we d be cause

n o w

even

the s in of

Israel

can be

accoun t e d

fo r

w i t h i n

the

me rcy

o f G od and

need

n o t

lead

to the

people's

des t ruc t ion . Hence the need for the theo pha n y in which

God reveals his graciou sness and m ercy; hen ce also Moses

1

f ina l

response in 34:9 in w hic h, on the basis o f this revelat io n , he

prays

f ina l ly

for the

presence

o f

Y a h w e h

even

wi th

a

c o n t i n u i n g l y s infu l people.°7

In the l ight of this general outline ^

m o r e detailed

analysis of the intercession may be u n d e r t a k e n . It has of ten

be e n que r i e d whe the r an y c o h e r e n t d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h o u g h t can

be traced w i t h in 33:12ff .89 i

t

j

s

i m p o r t a n t

to

r e cogn i ze that

t he l og i c and de ve l opme nt o f Moses ' prayer corresponds to the

logic of plea and pet i t ion, not

that

of sober , ra t ional discourse ,

an d

m u st be judg ed accordin gly. A s Chi lds pu ts i t ,

P e r h a p s

the logica l con sistency of the d ia log u e sho uld no t

be overworked. There is an e mot i ona l tone of the highest

i n t e ns i t y t h roughou t

the

conversa t ion

as

Moses seeks

u n s w e r v i n g l y

to w r e s t f r o m G o d a

f u r t h e r concession 9®

M ui l e nb u r g 9 J l ikewise stresses the urgency an d passion

w h i ch

cha r ac t e r i ze

the p rayer .^2

T he

s t r u c t u r e

of the

intercess ion

in vv.

1 2 - 1 7

fa l ls

i n to

tw o

par ts .

V v.

12-13 cons t i t u t e

th e

f i r s t plea w h ic h me e t s w i t h

a

f a v o u r a b l e ,

b u t

st i l l part ial

a n d

some wha t e n i gma t i c , r e sponse

in v. 14 . In vv. 15-16 Moses renews his

plea

s t r e ng the n i ng it by

appea l to th i s concess ion and deve lop in g i t ye t fu r th e r , and th is

68



T w o :

A n E x e g e s i s o f E x o d u s 32-34

p le a i s g r a n te d in v . 1 7 .

T h e

s i t u a t i o n p r e s u p p o s e d

i n v v .

1 2 f f .

h a s

b e e n o u t l i n e d t h u s

f a r . M o s e s

in v . 1 2

r e f e r s b a ck

to

G o d 's c o m m a n d

to

l e a v e

( 3 3 : 1 ) . T h e w o r d s w i t h w h i c h h i s

s t a t e m e n t

o f t h e p r o b l e m

c o n t i n u e s , Y o u h a v e n o t t o l d m e w h o m y o u w i l l s e n d w i t h m e

(so, r o u g h l y , m o s t E V V ) , h a v e

o c c a s i o n e d

d i f f i c u l t y .

I n

a n o t h e

c o n t e x t

th e w o r d s c o u l d s i m p l y c o n s t i t u t e a

r e q u e s t

f o r a

h u m a n c o m p a n i o n

o r

g u i d e

w h o

w o u l d k n o w

t h e w a y

t h r o u g h

th e

w i l d e r n e s s . 9 3 S i n c e , h o w e v e r , s u c h a n issue h a s n o t been

r a i s e d h i t h e r t o , e i t h e r i n t h e S i n a i p e r i c o p e o r i n th e

j o u r n e y i n g s

to S i n a i , nor i s i t r a i s e d a t a n y l a t e r

s t a g e

i n t h e

w a n d e r i n g s , 9 4

i t i s

u n l i k e l y

t o b e t h e c o n c e r n

h e r e .

T h e r e is also a n a p p a r e n t t e n s io n w i t h th e p r o m i s e o f t h e

a n g e l

in

32:34, 33:2.

G o d h a s

sa id

h e

w i l l s e n d

a n

a n g e l .

But in

f a c t th e p r o b l e m h e r e i s the s a m e as in

3 2 : 3 4 f f . , t h a t

is t h e r e is

a d i s t in c t i o n b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t m o d e s o f Y a h w e h ' s

p r e s e n c e ,

o n e m o r e a n d t h e o t h e r less i n t i m a t e . T h e a n g e l r e p r e s e n t s

Y a h w e h ' s

g e n e r a l g u i d a n c e

o f h i s

p e o p le w h i c h , w h i l e

i m p o r t a n t , i s i n a d e q u a t e i f n o t c o m b i n e d w i t h h i s spe c ia l

p r e s e n c e i n h i s s h r i n e . I t w a s t h i s s h r i n e

t h a t

w a s d e n i e d in

33: 3b-6 a nd whic h M o se s no w s e e k s to r e s t o r e . I t i s m i s l e a d i n g

to r e n d e r

33:12a^

et

a

ser

t iS lah

c

i r n m T b y . . . whom y o u

w i l l s e n d w i t h

m e f o r t h e

H e b r e w

i s n o t

s p e c i f i c a l l y p e r s o n a l

a n d c o u l d e q u a l l y w e l l

b e

i m p e r s o n a l : ... w h a t

y o u w i l l

s e n d

w i t h

m e , w i t h r e f e r e n c e

to a

s h r i n e

o f

Y a h w e h ' s

p r e s e n c e .

T h e u s e o f t h e

p r e p o s i t i o n w i th

( ^ i m ) in v. 12

( c f .

v. 16

' i m m a n u )

i s also o f s i g n i f i c a n c e in d e t e r m i n i n g th e n a t u r e o f

M o s e s ' r e q u e s t . T h e p r e p o s i t i o n i m p l i e s c l o s e p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t ,

b e i n g r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e w o r d s a t

M o s e s

1

c o m m i s s io n i n g ( E x .

3:12),

B u t I

w i l l

b e w i t h y o u (k y

' h y h

c

m k ) .

F u r t h e r , i t

p r o b a b l y h a s a f o r c e , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n v . 1 6 , s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f

b q r b in 33:3,5. T h e p r e p o s i t i o n s in 33:12-17 , as in

33:1-6,

c a r r y

g r e a t w e i g h t .

A

g e n e r a l p r o m i s e

o f

g u i d a n c e , w h i c h c o u l d s t i l l

i m p l y s o m e d i s t a n c e

b e t w e e n

G o d a n d t h e

p e o p l e

(c f . I p n y ) is

i n a d e q u a t e . N o t h i n g less t h a n t h e i m m e d i a t e a n d c l o s e p r e s e n c e

o f

G o d ( b q r b ,

c

m)

w i l l s u f f i c e . W i t h t h i s i n s i g h t o n e c a n

u n d e r s t a n d

th e d i f f e r e n c e b e tw e e n t h e t w o r e s p o n s e s o f G o d i n

v v . 1 4 ,1 7 . In v . 14 h e p r o m i s e s to go ( h l k ) b u t t h e

p r e c i s e

n a t u r e o f t h i s g o i n g i s s t i l l u n c l e a r ; n o p r e p o s i t i o n i s u s e d , t o

d i s t i n g u i s h w h e t h e r Y a h w e h w i l l g o

a h e a d

o f o r a m o n g s t th e

p e o p l e . S o M o s e s p r a y s

f u r t h e r

t h a t Y a h w e h

w i l l

n o t o n l y g o ( v .

15), b u t w i l l g o w i t h u s (

c

i m m a n u ) . I t i s t h i s e x t r a f a c t o r

(g m ' t - h d b r

h z h ) 9 5

w h i c h

i s

t h e n f i n l l y g r a n t e d

(v .

17) .96

69



A t

the

M o u n t a i n

of God

A f t e r stating the

problem

in v.

12a, Moses goes

on in v. 12b

to

appea l

to his special re l a t i onsh ip wi th Yahweh , wh ich is

m a d e

the basis for his

f o l l o w i n g plea.

T he special

posit ion

o f

Moses i s based on two th ings : f i r s t ,

that

Y a h w e h k n o w s h im b y

name , and second ly t h a t he has

f o u n d

f avo u r in his s ight . Th i s

latter is the key

express ion

in the

p ra y e r , oc c u r r i ng f i v e t i me s

an d

b i n d i n g

th e

p ra ye r

t o g e t h e r by i t s use a t

b o t h b e g i n n i n g

a n d

e nd .

W h a t d o these

e xp re s s ions m e a n ?

A n d

to w h a t

d o

they

r e f e r ? T he i n t rod uc t i on o f t h e m b y yet y o u h a v e said

(w

e

'attah ' a m a r t a ) i mp l i e s s o m e prev ious occasion a t wh i c h

Y a h w e h des igna ted Moses

in this

w a y .

T he

verb

to

k n o w

in

Hebrew id iom

has a var ie ty o f

me a n i ngs ,

one o f

wh i c h

is to

k n o w

a

person

in an

i n t i m a t e

r e l a t i ons h i p . W h e n used

of God's

r e l a t i o n s h i p

to man i t can

h a v e

the

fo r c e

of to

elect ;

cf.

Gen. 18:19,

A m .

3:2, H os . 13:5, Jer.

1:5.97 L i k e w i s e b y n a m e i m p l i e s i n t i m a t e k n o w l e d g e o f a

person

and his

character

cf. Is.

43:1

( I

ha ve ca l led

you by

n a m e

(b

e

§ i m k a) - you are

m ine ) , 45:3, 4 9 : 1 . Th i s c ombi na t i on

o f

k n o w and by n a m e is w i tho ut pa ra ll e l e l sewhere in the OT

an d

po i n t s

to the

u n i q u e l y i n t i m a t e r e l a t i ons h i p be t we e n M os e s

a n d Y a h w e h .

T he idiom to f ind f a v o u r in N's eyes is

h igh ly

f lexible and

can convey a v a r i e t y of d i f f e r e n t c o n n o t a t i o n s , being used of

both man and

God.98

Some t i me s if I have

found

fa v our in

your eyes m a y b e s i m p l y an express ion o f

d e fe r e nce ,99 o r

m ay

b e a f o r m u l a fo r

s t r e n g t h e n i n g

a

r e q u e s t .

100 I t m ay b e a

reques t not to be

a n g r y .

10 i I t may mean pos i t ive ly e n j o y i n g

someone 's goodwil l

a n d

approva l . 102 ^n d ^ mav refer to such

goodwill with an eye specifically towards its practical

consequences . 103 jt mav ajso refer to some specific word or

deed o f goodwi l l a l ready bes towed u p o n the recipient. 10

W i t h such a wi d e r a n g e o f nua nc e s , v a r i ab l e acco rd i ng to

s i tua t ion an d i n t e n t i on , o n e need n o t expect the phrase to be

univoca l

in its

usage

in

33:12ff .

Of the

f i v e occurrences

in

33:12ff . ,

the u se in v .

13a

a

r e s e m b l e s th e pure ly de fe ren t i a l

e xp re s s i on , wh e re a s

the u se in v. 13a

c

is

s i m i l a r

to the

uses

in

Gen. 32:5,

33:8,

s e e k i ng

a

g o o d w i l l w h i c h w i l l h a v e p r a c

tic

e x p r e s s i o n .

In v. 16a the

e xp re s s i on me a ns

the

e n j o y m e n t

o f

goodwi l l

and

a p p r o v a l .

V. 17b is a

r e - a f f i r m a t i o n

of v. 12b and

has a s imi l a r fo rce . T he in i t i a l use of the phrase in v. 12 b is the

m o s t i m p o r t a n t . It has a

close

para l le l in G e n . 6:8. The l ink of

Ex.

33:12 wi th Gen.

6:8 is the

m o r e notable

because these are

the

on l y

tw o

instances

in the OT

w h e r e

it is said

absolutely

of



T w o : A n Exe ge s i s o f E x o d u s

32-34

i n d i v i d u a l s

that they

f o u nd

f a v o u r w i th

G o d .

1 ^5

o f the

u s a g e

in

G e n .

6 :8 Z i m m e r l i

c o m m e n t s t h a t

it

i m p l i e d

th e

m y s t e r y o f t he

f r e e

d i v i n e dec is ion . 106 In Ex .

3 3 : 12 , t he n ,

a s

in

Gen. 6 :8 , what

is set

f o r w a r d

is

e f f e c t i v e l y

th e

spe c i a l

election

of Moses by God.

T o w h a t p re v i ou s oc c as ion ( ye t you ha v e sa i d ) doe s t h i s

r e f e r ? T h e r e

a re

f o u r

poss i b i l i t i e s . F i r s t ,

i t

c o u l d r e f e r

to

s o m e

pre v i ous say i n g

o f

Y a h w e h whi c h use d these s a m e w o r d s .

Se c on d ly ,

it

c o u l d i n t e n d s o m e p r e v i o u s s a y i n g

n o t

u s i n g these

w o r d s , b u t t h e t e n o r o f w h o s e c o n t e n t c o u l d b e a p t l y c o n v e y e d

t h u s .

T h i r d l y , i t

c o u l d r e f e r m o r e g e n e r a l l y

t o t h e

spec ia l

pos i t ion

e n j oy e d by M ose s s in c e h is c om m i ss i on i n g i n Ex . 3 .

F o u r t h l y

it

c o u l d r e f e r

to the

i m m e d i a t e c o n te x t

o f

33:1

la .

th e

f i r s t

p o s s i b i l i t y is a d o p t e d , th e n t h e r e a r e tw o

a l t e r n a t i v e s . E i t h e r o n e h a s t o s a y that th e t r a d i t i o n h a s n o t

pre se rve d t h i s w ord ,

o r

that Y a h w e h ' s w o r d s

in

3 3 : 17b o r i g i n a l ly

pre c e de d t hose o f M o s e s in 33 :12b b u t w e r e s u b s e q u e n t l y

r e - a r r a n g e d . T h i s l a t t e r a l t e r n a t i v e f a c e s

th e d i f f i c u l t y n o t o n l y

o f

th e

g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e that

o n e

s h o u l d

n o t

r e a r r a n g e

th e

text

( w h e r e

th e

p r o b l e m

i s n o t

that

o f

t e x t u a l c o r r u p t i o n ) u n l e s s

it

c a n n o t m a k e s a t i s f a c t o r y se n s e in i ts p r e s e n t o r d e r

(which

is

yet to be

d e m o n s t r a t e d ) ,

b u t

a l s o t h a t

i t

creates

n e w

p ro b l e m s

of its

o w n .

For i f the

w o r d s w e r e t ra n s p o s e d

to the

b e g i n n i n g

o f

th e p r a y e r , e v e n t h o u g h in the p r e s e n t text t h e r e is no o b v i o u s

l o c a t i o n

f o r

t h e m , t h e y w o u l d d i s r u p t

th e

w h o le m o v e m e n t

o f

th e n a r r a t iv e . H i t h e r t o Y a h w e h ' s w o r d s h a v e b ee n w o r d s o f

j u d g m e n t ;

n o t s o le ly j u d g m e n t f o r

n o t e s

o f hope have be e n

s o u n d e d (32 :1 0 , 32:33, 33:5), b u t w o r d s o f d i s f a v o u r h a v e b e e n

th e co n s i s te n t t h e m e . T o h a v e a n e x p l i c i t

w o r d

o f

Y a h w e h ' s

f a v o u r

a t t h i s po i n t , w he n t h i s i s w ha t M ose s i s se e k i n g t o

elicit w o u l d g r e a t l y w e a k e n th e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e i n t e r -

c e ss i on .

T h e se c on d p o s s i b i l i t y

c o u l d

a l l o w t h a t M o s e s is r e f e r r i n g

back

to

3 2 : 1 0 w h e r e

th e

A b r a h a m i c p r o m i s e

is

o f f e r e d

to

h i m .

A

p r o m i s e o f

s u ch i m p o r t c o u l d

w e l l b e

seen

a s a

spe c i a l e l e c t i on

o f M o s e s . T w o c o n s i d e r a t i o n s s u p p o r t t h i s . F i r s t , i t h a s b e e n

s e e n t h a t f i n d i n g

f a v o u r

c a n r e f e r b a c k to s o m e w o r d o r d ee d

of go od w i l l a l r e a dy be s tow e d (c f . Ge n . 19 :19),

a nd so t h e r e

c o u l d

b e a

s i m i l a r

i n t e n t i o n

h e r e .

It is

poss i b le

to o

t h a t

G e n .

6 :8

m a y c o n t a i n s o m e r e f e r e n c e b a c k t o t h e o r a c l e c o n c e r n i n g

N o a h ' s f u t u r e s i g n i f i c a n c e in G e n . 5 : 2 9 , t h o u g h t h i s c a n n o t b e

pressed , p a r t i c u l a r l y s i n c e

th e

oracle

i s n o t

p r o n o u n c e d

b y G o d

h i m s e l f . S e c o n d l y ,

th e

o f f e r

o f

3 2 : 1 0 b

i s n o t

t a k e n

u p by

M o s e s

7 1



At the

M o u n t a i n

of God

in the intercession at 32:11-13. He does appeal to God's

f a i t h fu l n e s s to his

promises

to the

patriarchs (32:13),

but

does

not

l ink

this w i t h the o f f e r just made to him, unless perhaps by

i m p l i c i t l y

d e c l i n i n g

i t . In 33:12ff . ,

however,

the wa y in

w h i c h

Moses seeks to

b r i n g

th e people into th e same f a v o u r e d position

that

he

e n jo y s (cf. below

o n vv .

13b, 14b, 15b,

16)

makes good

sense if interpreted as Moses having accepted God's o f f e r but

i ns i s t i ng that it should be precisely the historic people of Israel,

a n d

not

anyone else,

who

should

be the

f u l f i l m e n t

of the

p r o m i s e

of the great nation. Th e fact that Moses seeks to b r i n g

the

people

to

share

in h is

f a v o u r e d position

is

clear

and i s no t

d e p e n d e n t upon p re s u p p o s i n g 32:10.

But the

interpretation

o f

Moses

1

plea

in

terms

o f

32:10 undoubtedly adds force

an d

point.

The third possibility, of a reference to Moses ' special position

since Ex. 3, may also be present and need not be set in contrast

to the second interpretation. Fo r Mos e s ' receipt of the promise

in 32:10 ca n

e seen

a s focuss ing a n d

d is t i l l i ng

the

role

which he

p l ay s elsewhere.

The

fo u r t h possibility, of a reference back to 33:11, is

l i k ewi s e no t

exclusive

of the

previous

tw o

interpretations.

In

terms

of the

narrative development

of the

story

Moses

1

special

r e l a t i o n s h i p in

33:11

clearly prepares for the

f o l l o w i n g

inter-

cession, and the account of the intercession adds content to

33:11.

In this

sense

v. 12b is linked with v. 11. But inasmuch as

v . can be interpreted no t as i n t r o d u c i n g something n e w b u t

a s crystallizing th e

f a v o u r e d

role that Moses already

e n j o y s ,

i ts

presence does

n o t

exclude w id e r reference back

to

both 32:10

a n d th e role o f Moses

t h r o u g h o u t

th e narrative hitherto.

These considerations suggest that the fact of

Moses'

being

k n o w n

b y G o d a n d

h a v i n g

f o u n d

f a v o u r

in h i s

sight refers

to the

grace

o f Go d

bestowed

o n

Mos e s

in

h a v i n g admitted

him to a

u n i q u e l y

intimate relationship, p r o b a b l y

w i t h

special reference

to the promise o f 32:10. It is this that

f o r m s

the

g r o u n d

fo r

Moses ' f o l l o w i n g plea

and is the

g r o u n d also

o n

wh i ch

G o d

f i n a l l y

grants

it.

The

actual plea

o f

Moses

in v. 13

begins with

the

adversative

wCjth, preparing fo r some contrast

wi t h

what ha s gone

b e f o r e . 0 There is also perhaps a wor d - p l a y wi t h v. 12,

'attah

...

w

e

'attah

...

w

e

'attah

...

w

ec

attah

....

As

observed

above, Moses'

second

use of the f i nd ing

favour

expression is

ak i n

to the familiar deferential usage

which

i n t r o d u c e s

a

petition.

Bu t the use in the

previous verse lends

i t

extra s i g n i f i c a n c e here

as the

writer develops

d i f f e r e n t

nuances

72



Two: A n Exeges i s o f Exodus 32-34

of

m e a n i n g in the e x p r e s s i o n . It is n o t a b l e to o

that

th e v e r b

yd

c

is

used

t w i c e in

th i s v e r s e ,

as i t w as in v. 1 2, and so

cou ld

b e

said

to

f o r m

one o f the

l e i t m o t i f s

of the

p ra y e r

a s a

w h o l e .

1^8

Moses asks

to be

s h o w n God ' s ways (d

e

rakeka).^^

W a y s o f t e n denotes a person 's character or the c o u r s e o f

b e h a v i o u r t h a t h e

a d o p t s ,

1

1 °

a n d s o t h e

r e q u e s t w o u l d a p p e a r

to be to

k n o w G o d ' s

c h a r a c t e r .

T h i s

is

ind icated a l so

by the

f o l l o w i n g

w

e

'eda

ca

ka,

that

I m a y

k n o w

thee .

( T h e re m a y ,

h o w e v e r , b e a d o u b l e e n t e n d r e in the use o f d e r e k , h i n t i n g at i ts

l i t e r a l m e a n i n g

o f r o u t e for a

j o u r n e y ; M o s e s seeks

to k n o w

th e r o u t e b y

w h i c h Y a h w e h w i l l

g o

w i t h

h is peop le .

Such

a

n u a n c e

i s no t

i m p o s s i b l e . )

f a r e q u e s t to k n o w G o d ' s c h a r a c t e r is the m e a n i n g o f Moses '

p e t i t i o n , it

m i g h t

b e asked h o w

th i s

con ce r n fo r

r e v e l a t i o n f i t s

in th e c o n t e x t o f s e e k i n g G o d ' s a c c o m p a n i m e n t . Bu t to c o n t r a s t

r e v e l a t i o n

a n d

a c c o m p a n i m e n t

as in any

s e ns e

a n t i t h e t i c a l

w o u l d b e i n s e ns i t i v e to the f u n d a m e n t a l concern n o t on ly o f

th i s

prayer b u t also of t he s u r r o u n d i n g c o n t e x t w h i c h is the m o r a l

p r o b l e m o f r e c o n c i l i n g God to a

s i n f u l

peop le , a g e n e r a l

p r o b l e m

o f

w h i c h

the

q u e s t i o n

o f

G o d ' s a c c o m p a n i m e n t

of the

p e o p le i n h i s s h r i n e i s a s p e c i f ic m a n i f e s t a t i o n .

Moses

1

r e q u

s t

shou ld b e


as an

a t t e m p t

to

p r e s s b e h i n d

th e

i m m e d i a t e p r o b l e m to the

h e a r t

o f t h e m a t t e r ; t o solve th e

i m p a s s e

o f Y a h w e h ' s

r e f u s a l

in

t e r m s

o f

seek in g

a f u l l e r a n d

d e e p e r k n o w l e d g e

o f

Y a h w e h ' s

c h a r a c t e r

a n d

p u r p o s e s t h a n

h a s

h i t h e r t o been r e v e a l e d , c o n f i d e n t

that

this w i l l lead t o a deepe r

r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i m ( t h a t I m a y k n o w yo u ) and th e p r a c t i c a l

e n j o y m e n t

o f h i s g o o d wi l l ( an d f i n d f a v o u r in your s igh t ) . W h o

G od

is d e t e r m i n e s h o w h e

wi l l

act.

f

M o s e s

is

a l r e a d y

k n o w n by God and has f o u n d f a v o u r

w i t h

him i t may

s e e m s t r a n g e

t h a t

t h i s s h o u l d

be the

o b j e c t

of h i s

p e t i t i o n .

Y e t th is is in

k e e p i n g w i t h

the

logic

o f

p r a y e r e v i d e n t

e l s e w h e r e i n t h e O T , m o s t n o t a b l y 2 S a m .

7 : 1 8 f f .

T h e r e , N a t h a n

h a s j u s t b r o u g h t a p r o m i s e

f r o m

Y a h w e h , t he f u l f i l m e n t o f

w h i c h is not

c o n t i n g e n t u p o n D a v i d 's

r e s p o n s e . Yet in

both

v. 25

a n d v . 28f . Dav id p rays for the c o n f i r m a t i o n a n d e s t a b l i s h m e n t

o f

t h i s p r o m i s e ,

m

T h i s a t t i t u d e f o l l o w s f r o m a n u n d e r -

s t a n d i n g

o f a

r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Y a h w e h

a s n o t

static

b u t

d y n a m i c . T h a t i s , past f a v o u r s c a n n o t be appea led to w i t h o u t

t h e ir b e i n g c o n t i n u a l l y r e a p p r o p r i a t e d

a n d

m a d e

a n

e x i s t e n t i a l

r e a l i t y . It is such a p r e s e n t e x p e r i e n c e o f Y a h w e h and h is

g o o d w i l l that Moses

seeks.

7 3



A t

th e M o u n t a i n o f G o d

In

v. 13

M o s e s seeks

th i s

experience p r i m a r i l y

fo r

h i m s e l f ,

in

terms o f t h e f a v o u r h e

a l ready en joys .

Y e t

s i g n i f i c a n t l y

h e

a d d s

t o t h e e n d o f h i s request a nd cons i d e r that t h i s n a t i o n is y o u r

people (u r

e

'e h

k T

c

amm

e

ka

h a g g o y

h a z z e h ) . M o s e s

seeks

t o ex t end t h e scop e o f

God 's

f a v o u r b e y o n d h i m s e l f t o i n c l u d e

th e

people .

H e appea l s to Y a h w e h to cons ider I s rae l a s y o u r

people

i n a w a y

s i m i l a r

to the

p ra y e r

o f

32:1 I f f .

A t

th is stage

n o specia l f a v o u r fo r t he people is s o u g h t ; s i m p l y a

r e a f f i r m a t i o n o f t h e f a c t

that

t h e y a r e

Y a h w e h ' s

people .

Tire response in v .

4

h a s o f t e n b e e n t a k e n a s a q u e s t i o n bu t

th e context

d e m a n d s r a t h e r that

i t

s h o u l d

b e a

posi t ive

a f f i r m a t i o n . ' 1 2

Y a h w e h g r a n t s Moses ' p rayer . Yet , a s

n o t e d

a b ov e , t h e re i s a d e l i b e r a t e v a g u en ess a b o u t th e

a f f i r m a t i o n

in

t h a t

n o

p rep os i t i on

is

u s e d a f t e r

wi l l g o t o

i n d i c a t e

th e

n a t u r e

o f Y a h w e h ' s g o i n g , w h e t h e r w i t h

th e

people

in

t h e i r m i d s t ,

o r

n o t . T o say , a s E i ch rod t

does,'13

that p a n a y

ye leku

s h o u l d be

comple ted

by the

a d d i t i on

o f l

e

paneka is

en t i r e l y

to

miss

th e

s u b t le t y o f t h e o m i s s i o n a n d t o m i s s t h e c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n I p n y

a n d

c

rn. L i k e w i s e

th e

a d d i t i o n

of the

w o r d s w i th y o u ,

as in

a ll Engl i sh t r a n s l a t i o n s , m a k e s a c o n c e s s i o n w h i c h i s a b sen t

f r o m

th e H e b r e w . M o r e o v e r th e p rom i se o f

restH^

is g iven

to M oses a l one Oa k , second person s ingu l a r s u f f i x ) , a n d Moses is

s e e k i n g th e d i v i n e f a v o u r n o t f o r

h i m s e l f a l o n e

bu t fo r t he

people too . There

i s

n e e d t h e r e f o r e

to

p r a y f u r t h e r

to

o b t a i n

a

f u l l e r concession f r o m Y a h w e h .

This g ene r a l

sense

o f the

verse

is clear, w h a t e v e r th e

precise

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Y a h w eh 's p re sence ( p a n i m ) . l

The use of

p J S n i r n i s s i g n i f i c a n t fo r t he s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t n u a n c e s that th e

w o r d ca n convey.' ̂ F i r s t , i t can c o n v e y th e p e r sona l sense

o f

Y a h w e h 's a c c o m p a n i m e n t , fo r g a n i m w i t h a

s u f f i x

is used

e l se w h e r e a s a p e r i p h r a s i s f o r th e p e rs o n a l p r o n o u n . A s t r i k i n g

e x a m p l e is 2 S a m . 17:11 w h e r e H u s h a i u r g e s A b s a l o m that he go

( to b a t t l e ) H 7 i n p e r son ( u p a n e k a h o l

e

k i m

b aq r ab ) . 113

W h e n

p a n i m i s used thus o f God , i t stresses h is direct p e r s o n a l

i n v o l v e m e n t . S u c h a usa g e , in the context o f

33:11,20,

w o u l d

a p p r o p r i a t e l y

f i t

i n t o

a

th eo l og i ca l re f l ec t i on

o n th e presence

o f G o d .

O n t h e o t h e r h a n d i t h a s a l r e a d y b een

s e e n l l ̂ that p a n t m

i s

f r e q u e n t l y

used in c o n n e c ti o n w i t h th e c u l t , so

that

s h r i n e ,

a place for the d i v i n e presence (cf . E x. 29:42-46), is p rob a b l y

b e i n g a l l u d e d

t o . l ™

M o r e o v e r ,

i t is because th e

s h r i n e

is

m o v a b l e that i t i s p oss i bl e t o sp ea k o f Y a h w eh ' s p a n i m

"going".

21



Two: A n Exeges is of E x o d u s 32-34

M o s e s '

r e q u e s t t h u s fa r has rece ived a f a v o u r a b l e r e s p o n s e ,

b u t this concession is

s t i l l

o n l y

p a r t i a l

a n d s o h e r e s u m e s h is

in te rcess ion again

to

seek

a

ful l

concess ion f r o m

G od .

First, h e

t a k e s

u p a n d

c l a i m s

th e

p ar t i a l conces sion a l r e ad y m ade (33 :15).

H e uses

th e

s a m e w o r d s t h a t Y a h w e h

h a s

u s e d , b e i n g c o n t e n t

a t

th is

stage t o ad d n o p r e p o s i t i o n an d t o leave vague th e

r e la t ions h ip of the d i v i n e

p r e s e n c e

to the people ; th is

concess ion in i t se l f i s a m ajo r step. But on the bas is o f th is

M oses i m m e d i a t e l y e x te n d s h is r e q u e s t - I f y o u r ' p r e s e n c e '

d o es

n o t

c o m e ,

d o n o t t ake us up

f r o m here .

H i t h e r t o M o s es h i m s e l f

has been g iv en the task of taking up the people (vv . 1, 12). H e

n o w so s m o o t h ly that it is

easy

no t to

notice

it, m a k e s Y a h w e h

the s ub jec t o f the v e rb , and no t s o

m u c h

reques ts as

t a k e s

fo r

g r a n t e d t h a t

i t is

Y a h w e h

w h o

w i l l t a k e t h e m

u p .

F u r t h e r ,

th e

s u f f i x a f t e r th e v e r b is p l u r a l , us . T h i s r e s u m e s Moses

1

t h e m e ,

in t roduce d in v . 13b and n o t taken up in the concess ion of v .

14,

that n o t jus t h e b u t

also

th e

people

as a w hole s hou ld be the

r e c i p i e n t s o f

Y a h w e h ' s

f a v o u r . G a t h e r i n g b o l d n e s s , M o se s th e n

t akes t h i s f u r t h e r

and in v . 16

t w i c e l inks h i m s e l f w i t h

th e

people I and y o u r peop le C ^ n T w

ec

amm

e

ka), uses a

p l u ra l

s u f f i x

with

u s a n d a

p l u r a l v e r b

w e a re

d i s t i n c t ,

s t r e s s in g

that

they

b e

d i s t i n c t

as

a peop le among o t h e r

peop les . J22

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h i s M o s e s t a k e s u p a g a i n t h e p r o m i s e

t h a t

Y a h w e h ' s p resen ce

w i l l

go , w h ich p rev iou s ly (v . 15 ) he w as

c o n t e n t

to

leave

v a g u e ,

bu t now in h i s

c l i m a x

h e

specif ies

as

going

w i t h u s (

c

i m m a n u ) . N o t h i n g less than th e p resen ce o f

Y a h w e h in the s h r i n e in th e m i d s t o f Is rae l

w i l l

s how t h a t Is rae l

is the r e c i p i e n t of the d i v i n e f a v o u r and i s se t a p a r t

f r o m

a l l

o t h e r

peop le . M os es app ea l s

to no

d e s e r t

o r

r e p e n t a n c e

on the

p a r t of the people b u t solely to G o d ' s f a v o u r and h i s g r a n t i n g o f

h is p res ence in e m p i r i c a l an d a c c e s s ib l e f o r m . T o t h i s r e q u e s t

Y a h w e h g r a n t s

a

f u l l conces s ion

(v . 17 ) and

g i v e s

as

reason

th e

s pec ia l pos i t ion o f Mos es . F rom a l i t e ra ry po in t o f v iew

this

f o r m s

an

inc lus io w i th

v. 12 and

r o u n d s

of f the

u n i t .

Theo log ica l ly

i t no t

o n l y c o n f i r m s Moses

1

s p ec i a l status,

b u t

m a k e s

th e f a v o u r e d

pos i t ion

o f

I s r a e l b o t h m e d i a t e d t h r o u g h ,

an d d e p e n d e n t u p o n , M o s e s . A s w i l l b e seen l a t e r , 1 2 3

tn


o f

Is rae l

and the

r e n e w a l

of t he

c o v e n a n t

does

n o t

put Israel in a pos i t ion ident ica l to that b e f o r e its s in .

H e n c e f o r t h it is d e p e n d e n t u p o n th e m e r c y o f G o d m e d i a t e d

t h r o u g h

M o s e s

as the

p r i m a r y r e c i p i e n t

o f t h a t

m e r c y .

M oses '

bo ld

i n t e r c e s s i o n h a s t h u s f a r b e e n g r a n t e d . Y e t , a s

75



A t the

Mounta in

of G od

observed

above, this is still no t

s u f f i c i en t ,

for the


problem of the s infulness of Israel, which would most l ikely

provoke Yahweh again

to destroy

them

in anger , still

remains .

Moses therefore mak es

one

f ina l supreme

request

that

Yahweh

should

reveal

himself in a ful ler w ay than

hitherto;

only in the

very depths

of G od can a

final solution

to the people s sin be

found .

Moses makes

one

final short

request and then,

s igni f i cant ly ,

has to say no

more.

At the s u p r e m e m o m e n t of answer ing

Moses'

prayer

and

under t ak ing

to reveal

h ims e l f Yahweh

completely takes over.

No

longer

does

Moses need boldly

to

wrest concessions

f r o m

God. God now

takes

the in i t i a t ive

h i mse l f

and

Moses becomes

the

passive

r ec ip ien t .

W h e n

G od

prepares

to

s h o w h i m s e l f ,

Moses '

role

is

s u d d e n ly t r a n s f o r m e d

f rom

d a r i n g i n t e rl o c u t o r

to r ecep t ive

s e r van t .

T he

whole

of

33:18-23

constitutes a

r ich t r easury

of

t e r m s

for

express ing the character of God. T he v a r i e t y of t e r m i n o l o g y -

g lo ry , goodness , name, face -

represents

an a t t e m p t to express

the inexpress ib le , the exper ience of God. This a t t e m pt s t r a ins

the or d in ary usage of l angu age , and the w r i te r br ings toge ther

such

var ied te rms as

wil l

best

convey the

sense

of t he impor -tance

and

depth

of

w h a t Y a h w e h

is

reveal ing

of h i m s e l f . 124

Moses asks to see 25 Yahweh 's glory (kabod). T he

precise

nuance of the

t e r m, wh ich

in

genera l means God ' s majes ty ,

those

qual i t ies which

call

for th worsh ip , mus t

be

de termined

from

the

context.

T he

wor d

appears

again

in v. 22

where

it is

ef fec t ive ly synony m ous wi th God h im sel f , for the

context

is

descr ibing Yahweh himsel f pass ing

by and

ba

ca

b5r k

e

b5di

is

parallel

to

c

ad-

c

obri.

Moses thus asks

to see

Y a h w e h

h i m s e l f .

Another nuance in the

request

m ay possibly be

seen

in

connection with the

concern

for the

restoration

of the shr ine.

Elsewhere

the

glory

of G od is connected

wi th

the tabernacle

(29:43) and

s igni f ies

the presence of God there (29:42-46,

40:34-35).

Perhaps Moses

is

seeking

an experience of God

such

as

will later

characterize th e

regular

cult

wh er e Yahw eh wi ll

meet

wi th

h is people in

bo th j udgm ent

and mercy.

T o

this

Y a h w e h

responds

a f f i r m a t i v e l y in v. 19 and yet alters

the w o r d i n g of the concession at the same t ime in

that

he w i l l

m a k e

all his

goodness ( tu b) pass be fo re M oses.

Al t h o u g h

there

is

no exact

paral lel

to

this usage

of tub

elsewhere

in the OT, the

w o rd

is

genera l ly used

to

s ign i fy God's benefi ts exper ienced

by

Israel,

126 ancj sucn a meaning fits w ell the present context.

For a

cer ta in

s y n o n y m i t y

be tw een goodness

and

glory

is

76



Two:

A n Exegesis of Exodus 32-34

i n d i c a t e d

by t he

pa r a l l e l ism be tween

v . 19 , ^ a £ a b _ r

k o l - t u b T

and v . 22

w

e

h a y a h ba

ca

bor

k

e

bodi. T h e point is that

Y a h w e h

is

p r e sen t ing

an


of the

d iv ine

glory in

t e r m s

of the

d iv ine

goodness. God's

g lory

is

expe r i enced

in his

grac iousness . This is the m o r e s i g n i f ic a n t in

that

e l sewhere in

th e

p e n t a t e u c h a l n a r r a t i v e s

th e

a p p e a r a n c e

o f Y a h w e h ' s

g lory

is

characteristically in the context o f j u d g m e n t on the

people (e.g.

N u m .

14:10-12, 16 :19 f f . ) , a l t hough in Ex . 16 :9f f . th e

expec ted

j u d g m e n t does n o t m a t e r i a l i z e and the people a re g iven manna

instead. T h e

fac t

that a t the

sup r emely

critical

m o m e n t

in

Israel 's existence i t is Y a h w e h ' s "goodness" ra ther than

j u d g m e n t which is b r o u g h t to the f o r e is of

great

theological


Y a h w e h wil l a lso procla im

h is

n a m e (sem) b e f o r e Mo ses . Th i s

prepares

for the

t h e op h a n y

of

34:6f.

It

also

echoes

vv. 12, 17

w h e r e

t h e r e

h as

been

m e n t ion of Moses'

n a m e .

(This link is

verba l , on the l i t e r a r y l eve l , and no co nnec t io n o f theo logica l

co n ten t i s i n t ended . )

The use of the f o r m u l a qr ' bsm

y h w h 2 7 w i th Y a h w e h

himsel f

as subject is mo s t s t r i k ing and is u n i q u e to

this

verse

and

34:5f.

E l s e w h e r e

it is

a lways used

of the

worsh ipper

ca l l i ng

u p o n Y ah w eh (c f . Gen . 4:26 etc. .

And i t

does in i t i a l ly seem

odd

to

have Y ahw eh ca l li ng

h is own

name . Co nsequen t ly

i t has

been

suggested 128 tnat t^e tex1: should be emended here to m ake

Moses

th e

sub jec t ,

and that

Moses should

b e

construed

as the

su b j ec t

in

34:5f.

B ut s u c h e m e n d a t i o n is u n n e c e s s a r y , a nd indeed

misses th e po in t . For the poin t su re ly l ies p recisely in the

inversion o f the usua l use o f the fo rm ul a . Th e w r i te r

reverses

t he cus to mar y use o f t he f o r m u l a so as to stress t h e i n i t i a t i v e

of

Y a h w e h h e re ;

men can

only

cal l

upon

the

n a m e

of God and

r ehea r se h i s a t t r i b u te s , a s t hey cu s to m ar i l y do in t he cu l t ,

because

a t the

c r i t i c a l m o m e n t

in

Israel 's h i s t o r y Y a h w e h

revea led h imsel f

an d

p r o c l a imed

h is

name f i r s t .

It is a

s t r i k i n g

concept ion

of the

basis

o f

I s rae l 's w o r sh ip .

In

v . 19b Y a h w e h gives Moses a so l emn a s su r ance abo u t th e

m e a n i n g

of h is n a m e and the c h a r a c t e r which i t revea ls which

b o t h f o r m s a p r e v i e w , as it w e r e , o f 34:6f . an d also f o r m s p a r t

of

an

immedia te answer

to the

reques t

to see

God's glory.

T h e

u se

o f the j d e m per

idem

f o r m u l a

is

notable.^9

j^g

repe t i t ion o f the v erb em ph as izes the v erb a l idea . "The second

v e r b serves as a predicate, an d t h u s , l i k e a cogna te accusa t ive ,

e mp h a s i z e s t h e v e r b a l ac t ion" . 1™

W h e n ,

a s h e r e , th e f o r m u l a

is

repeated

w i t h

two ve r bs o f related m ean ing , t hen the



A t

the M o u n t a i n o f G o d

statement

of the

v e r b a l m e a n i n g

- the

m ercy

of God - is as

e m p h a t i c as the H e b r e w l a n g u a g e ca n m a k e i t . At the sa m e

t i m e

th e

e x p r e s s i o n c o n t a i n s

a

cer ta in a m b i g u i t y

o r

i n d e t e r -

m i n a c y

w h i c h

preserves th e idea o f f r e e d o m a n d choice o n t he

p a r t of the a c t i ng agent. A s Dr iver pu ts i t , the id iom is

em p loyed wh ere either

th e

m ea ns ,

o r t he

desire,

to be

m o r e

e x p l i c i t does n o t exist". 1 31 W h i l e F r e e d m a n m a y b e

correct

in

a r g u i n g

that

th e

e l e m e n t

o f

a r b i t r a r y c h o i c e

i s no t

i n h e r e n t

in the express ion and that in 33:19 "there a p p ea r s t o be no

suggest ion o f w i l f u ln ess o r a rb i t r a ry f r ee

choice

in the

Hebrew , 132 th i s does no t mean that th e idea o f f r e e d o m a n d

choice

i s n o t

p resen t

a t

a l l . Choice

c a n b e

f re e w i t h o u t b e in g

e i t h e r

w i l f u l

o r

a r b i t r a r y .

133

y

ne

f o r m u l a

in

33:19

n o t

o n l y

stresses that Y a h w e h wi l l

b e

gra c ious

b u t

that there

is a

m y s t e r y

a b o u t

i t

such that

i t

depends en t i re ly upon Y a h w e h

h i m s e l f a s t o w ho wi l l be the r e c i p i e n t o f h i s grace. T h e c o n t e x t

m a k e s clear tha t Israel wi l l r e c e i v e Y a h w e h ' s grace -

e m p h a t i c a l l y so; yet th i s is so expressed as to m a k e clear

that

t h i s i s no t s o m e t h i n g a u t o m a t i c a l l y g ra n t e d w h i c h c a n i n a n y

w a y

b e p r e su m e d u p o n .

F u r t h e r ,

t h e r e i s a ce r t a i n

f i n a l i t y

a b o u t th e express ion . A n

i dem

pe r

idem

f o r m u l a is o f t e n u s e d to t e r m i n a t e d e b a t e (c f.

That ' s that ").

13^

A s such th e

f o r m u l a

f i t t i n g l y c o n c l u d e s

w h a t the presen t

section

has to say a b o u t the grac ious

character o f G o d

b e f o r e s h i f t i n g

to a

d i f f e r e n t t h e m e

in v. 20.

The use o f t he id em per i d e m f o r m u l a h e re is r e m i n i s c e n t o f

E x. 3:14, a n d

p r o b a b l y

a d e l ibe r a t e r eco l l ec t i on o f t he e a r l i e r

passage is in tended . Both verses come a t c r u c i a l m o m e n t s o f

Yahweh 's

self-revelation.

E x.

3:14 reveals

th e G od wh o i s

a b o u t

to ac t on

b e h a l f

of h is

people

in

b r i n g i n g

t h e m

o u t o f

E gyp t .

In

t h e a c c o u n t o f t h e e x o d u s i t i s r e m a r k a b l e that there i s l i t t l e

e x p l i c it m o r a l c o n c e rn ;

th e

e m p h a s i s

is on

Y a h w eh ' s t r iu m p h a n t

acts o f de l iveran ce . Ne i ther th e

g r u m b l i n g s

of the Israelites n o r

th e oppos i t ion o f P h a r a o h a re des ignated a s sin. (The

exceptions

w h i c h

p r o v e

th e r u l e a re

P h a r a o h ' s s e l f - a c c u s a t i o n s

in

9:27,

10:16f.,

a n d t h e c o m m e n t in 9:34, bu t little w e i g h t i s attached

to these . ) The wr i te r stresses th e a c t i ons o f Y a h w e h on Israel 's

b e ha l f

a n d t h e

glory which accrues

to h im f o r

this.

P h a r a o h

is

an

oppo nen t whose oppos i tion i s ove r ru led by the t rue Lord of

th e Is rae l i t es . T h e Is rae l i t es a re w e a k a n d f e a r f u l a n d th e i r

God 's

acts o f

p o w e r

are the

g r e a t e r

by

c o n t r a s t .

In Ex. 5

Ya h we h ' s sa lva t i on (y§w

c

h ' v. 2) is p o r t r a y e d e n t i r e l y in n o n -

m o r a l t e rm s , th e deeds that h e h a s d o n e o n Israel's be h a lf .



T w o : A n

Exeges i s

o f E x o d u s 32-34

Y a h w e h ' s

character

is v e r y m u c h

that

o f the v i c to r i ou s w a r r io r ;

Y a h w e h i s a m a n o f w a r ,

Y a h w e h

is his n a m e (15:3).

T he

c o v e n a n t

a t

S inai

h a s

c h a n g e d

th e

s i t u a t i o n

a n d

a d d e d

a

m o r a l

d i m en s i o n . ,

b o t h e x te n s i v e a n d

p r o f o u n d ,

i n t o t he

r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n Y a h w e h

a n d

Israel

a n d

this gives

th e

p r o b l e m

of s in a new

m e a n i n g

an d i m p o r t a n c e . T h e

m a k i n g

o f

the ca lf m ay be d escr ibe d as

Is rael ' s

f i r s t s in . H en ce in 33 :19, in

th e

c o n t e x t

o f

Israe l ' s

s in as the

p r o b l e m

to be

d e a l t w i t h ,

Y a h w e h ' s c h a r a c t e r i s r e v e al e d e n t i r e l y i n m o r a l t e r m s , s h o w i n g

ho w h e

de a l s wi t h

s in and the

need

fo r

f o r g i v e n e s s

in the

l i fe

o f

I s ra e l .

O n e c a n s e e

t he n t h a t t h e r e

is an

e sse n t ia l c om p le -

m e n t a r i t y

b e t w e e n

these tw o s t a g e s o f

Y a h w e h ' s s e l f -

r e v e l a t i o n

in Ex. 3:14 an d

33:19.

I f thi s ana lys i s

is

correct

i t has

i m p o r t a n t i m p l ic a t io n s .

H i t h e r t o

E x .

3:14

h a s

re c e i ve d

fa r

m o r e a t t e n t i o n t h a n 33 :1 9

in

a t t e m p t s

to e x p l i c a t e th e m e a n i n g o f t h e

d i v i n e

n a m e . Y e t

s i nc e it s e e m s c le a r t h a t 3:14 i s n o t o f f e r i n g a n a c c o u n t of the

or i g i ns

o r e t y m o l o g y o f Y H W H in

t e r m s

of the v e r b h y h b u t

p o i n t i n g t o a n u n d e r s t o o d c o n n e c ti o n o f m e a n i n g b e t w e e n th e

tw o in t e r m s o f d y n a m i c a c t i v i t y , ^ ̂ t he r e i s no good re a son

fo r

c o n c e n t r a t i n g o n t h i s p a s sa g e t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f o t h e r s

w hich also d e v e l o p aspects of the character o r n a m e o f

Y a h w e h . For the m e a n i n g of the n a m e is the m e a n i n g i t was

g i v e n in H e b r e w t h o u g h t an d u s a g e as r e f l e c t e d in E x . 3:14,

33:19, 3 4 : 14

a n d

e l s e w h e r e ,

a n d n o t

s o m e basic m e a n i n g

d e r i v e d

f r o m th e

v e r b

h y h .

I n v. 19 Y a h w e h has g i v en the p o s i t i v e a n s w e r n e e d e d by

Moses ;

Y a h w e h i s t o r e v e a l h i s g o o d n e s s a n d m e r c y a n d th is

w i l l

a n s w e r

th e

p r o b l e m

o f

Israel 's

s in .

In v . 20 ,

a l t h o u g h

there

is a

c o n t i n u i t y

w i t h

v. 19 in

that

it is the

s am e t h e o p h a n y b e i n g

t r e a t e d , th e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t s h i f t o f t h e m e . I t h a s a l r e a d y

b e e n n o t e d

t h a t

t h e i d e m p e r

i d e m

f o r m u l a

c a n t e r m i n a t e t h e

t r e a t m e n t o f a

p a r t i c u l a r topic.

A

c h a n g e

o f

s u b j e c t

is also

i n d i c a t e d by the i n t e r p o s i t i o n o f a s ec o n d i n t r o d u c t o r y speech

f o r m u l a 3 c >

T h a t t h e r e

is a d u a l i t y o f

t h e m e

w h i c h

creates

a

c e r t a i n t e n s i o n

in the

n a r r a t i v e

is

i m p o r t a n t

to

r e c o g n i z e

for a

c o r r e c t u n d e r s t a n d i n g

o f t he

f l o w

o f

t h o u g h t . T h i s

m a y b e

c ons i de re d

in

r e l a t i o n

to 3 .

Barr ' s

s t a te m e n t

that

in Ex. 33 ,

t h e p r o b l e m w h i c h i n t e r e s t s t h e w r i t e r i s n o t t h a t o f

a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m a n d t r a n s c e n d e n c e b u t that o f s i n a nd

a t o n e m e n t

in

r e l a t i o n

to (a) the

a c c o m p a n y i n g p r e s e n c e



At the

M o u n t a i n

o f G od

and (b) the v i s ion o r a p p e a r a n c e o f Y ah w e n . 1 37

As the d i scu ss i o n of Ex. 33 as a w h o l e , an d o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p

o f 33 :18 f f .

t o t he

p r ece d i n g i n t e r cessi o n

i n


h a s

a t t e m p t e d

to

s h o w ,

th e

f u n d a m e n t a l c o n c e r n

i s

i n deed that

o f

sin

a n d

f o rg iveness .

B u t

th is need

n o t

exc lude

a

concern wi th

th e

q u es t i o n

o f

i m m a n e n c e

a n d

t r a n s c e n d e n c e

also; o r , in

o t h e r

t e r m s , t he qu es t i o n o f t he access i b i l it y o f Go d t o m an . T he


o f the d i f f e r e n t

uses

o f

p a n i m , c o m m e n t e d

o n

a l r e ady , po i n t s t o su ch an interest. T h i s interest may a r i se

f r o m

th e

f a c t that a l t h o u g h

th e

t h e o p h a n y

i s on

b eha l f

o f

s i n f u l

Israel , i t is r evealed to Moses whose r e l a t i on to Y a h w e h i s no t

d i s t u r b e d

by s i n . O n e c o u l d sa y

that

v. 19

p resen ts

the

t h e o p h a n y a s i t relates t o t he mo r a l cha r ac t e r o f Y a h w e h in

r e l a t i o n to

I s rae l s

s i n , w h i l e vv . 20-23 concern th e access to

G o d b y

m o r t a l

man an d t he

l i m i t a t i o n s i m p o s e d

b y h u m a n

f i n i t u d e

a s s u ch . Even whe n man s r e la t i o n to G o d i s n o t

h i n d e r e d b y s i n , w h i c h i s t h e f u n d a m e n t a l cause o f Y a h w e h s

w r a t h

a n d h i s

d i s ta n c i n g h i m s e l f f r o m

h i s

people , there

a re

s t i l l

l i mi t s upon m a n s access t o G o d , n o t b e c a u s e m a n is i n h e r e n t l y

s i n f u l

b u t

b ecau se

he i s

ma n

a n d n o t

G o d .

Of co u r se o ne m u st no t pose th i s d i s t i n c t i o n be tween v . 19

a n d

vv .

2 0 f f .

to o

s h a r p l y , either theo logica l ly

o r i n

t e r ms

o f the

pr esen t c o n t e x t . T h e o l o g i c a ll y t h e r e

i s a

c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n

th e

t wo co n ce r n s . T he r em o va l o f si n mu s t co me f i r s t , bu t t h i s

l eads

o n

i n e v i t a b l y

t o the

q u e s t i o n

o f

w h a t a p p r o a c h

t o , a n d

r e l a t i o n w i t h , G o d i s poss ible once s in ceases t o be the p r o b l e m .

T h e m o v e m e n t f r o m v. 19, w h e r e s in i s treated is smoo th a n d

na tu r a l theo log ica l ly . In t e r m s o f t he n a r r a t i ve vv . 20 f f . sho u l d

n o t b e t oo s h a r p l y s e p a ra t e d

f r o m

v . 19 s ince th e f a c t

that

Moses is o n l y p e r m i t t e d a p a r t i a l o r l i m i t e d v i s ion o f God i s

p r o b a b l y i n t e n d e d to

relate

t o t he r eve l a t i o n o f t he m o r a l

character o f G od s o a s to c o n vey th e m e a n i n g that the

r eve l a t i o n of the grace a n d mercy o f Y a h w e h in 33:19, 34:6f. is

b u t a g l i mpse o f t he d i v i n e c h a r a c t e r a n d that th e f u l n e s s i s yet

m o r e e x t e n s i v e a n d

p r o f o u n d

(cf .

Jo b 26:14).

It i s d i f f i c u l t to c o m m e n t u p o n the c o n t e n t o f 33:20-23

w i t h o u t l a y i n g s o l e m n l y p ro s a i c h a n d s u p o n o ne o f t h e mos t

p r o f o u n d

a n d m y s t e r i o u s

passages

in the w h o l e OT. The

verses

u se

r e s o n a n t

a n d

memo r ab l e i mage r y , su ch

a s a r e

c l ea r ly

i n t e n d e d

to

a p p e a l

t o t h e

i m a g i n a t i o n .

T h e

l i t e r a r y i m p a c t

i s

poetic.

Such

a n i m a g i n a t i v e a p p ea l is all the m o r e s t r i k i n g in

t he l i gh t o f t he c u s t o ma r y r e se rve o f t he OT i n desc r i b i n g



Two:

A n

Exegesis

of

Exodus

32-34

Y a h w e h and h i s ac t iv i ty . The emp has i s i s us ua l ly on the ve rba l

content

conveyed by the d iv ine reve la t ion .138 Yet the

s i n g u l a r im po r tan ce of the con text a l lows the use of a d a r i n g

a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m

in an

a t t e m p t

to

describe

th e

presence

a nd

exper ience of Y ah w eh in the concrete w a y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the

H e b re w

m i n d .

33:20-23 recount h ow Y a h w e h w i l l so revea l h im se l f to Moses

t h a t

t h e r e

wi l l

b e a ge n u in e r e ve l a t i on and yet i t w i l l b e b u t

par t i a l , both b r i n g i n g Moses close

a n d

p r e s e r v i n g

th e

dis tance

at the

s a m e

time. This tension is expressed by saying that

Moses

wil l see Y ahw eh ' s back and not h is f a c e . T h e a n t h r o p o -

m o r p h i s m

h e r e

is

un pa r a l l e l e d e l s e w h e r e

in the OT . Y et a t the

s a m e

t i m e

it is

used with

a

certain restraint.

A s

Ch i lds puts

it,

Of course a t r e m e n dous a n th r opom or ph i s m is involved,

but the ex trem e caut ion w ith w hich i t i s used is an

e loquen t te s t imony to the H e b r e w u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f God.

Even to be a l lowed to catch a g l im ps e of h is pass ing

f r o m

th e r e a r is so a w e s o m e to the man Moses

that

G od h i m s e l f

-

note

the strange pa radox - must sh ie ld him w i th his own

h a n d . 1 3 9

The use o f

p a n i m

h e r e

reca l l s

th e

ear l ie r uses

in vv.

11,

14,

15 a n d ,

a s

a l ready obse rved , conveys

th e

p a r a d o x i n h e r e n t

in

attempts

to speak of man ' s com m un ion wi th God. Moses can

speak wi th G o d in t im a te ly , f ace to face . Y a h w e h ' s presence ,

or face , in his s h r i n e in the m i d s t of Israe l is a rea l poss ibi l i ty.

Moses '

request

for a ful le r divine revela t ion than h i t h e r t o is

g r a n t e d . A nd yet . .. the d is tance be tween G o d a n d m a n m u s t b e

preserved. Even Moses th e m e d ia to r , w h os e r e l a t i on s h ip w i th

God

w as

un pa r a l l e l e d

in the OT

(cf. Deut.

34:10)

mus t obse rve

th e l im i t a t i on s i n h e r e n t i n

h u m a n i t y .

1^ 0 j

n

33:20f. the

general ized f o r m man (h a ' ad am)

is

used, rather than

a

specific

address to Moses in the second person , so t h a t a genera l

theologica l po int i s c lea r ly be in g m ad e. I t is s t r ik in g how the

O T, in this and related passages resists moves towards

myst ic i sm o r d i v i n i z a t i o n b y in s i s t i n g on the q u a l i t a t i v e a n d

onto logica l d i f f e r e n c e be tw e e n G od a n d m a n . Y e t th e pa r a do x

is clear

in the

fact that

it is

precisely those

passages

which

say

that

man cannot see or hear God

which

a f f i r m

that

jus t such

h as indeed happened. So too Ex. 33:20 provides th e necessa ry

theologica l ba lance

to

w h a t

h a s

preceded.

^

It is

d i f f i c u l t

to say why the idea of seeing God's

back

w as

in t roduced here. T h e closest O T pa ra l le l is Gen. 16:13, b u t this

81




is of little

help. 142 Ther e

is no

b a c k g r o u n d

o f

anc ien t Nea r

Eastern paral lels such a s could provide a m a t r i x w i t h i n w h i c h ,

o r

aga ins t w h ic h , to i n t e r p r e t i ts H e b r e w

c o n t e x t u a l i z a t i o n .

M o s t

l ikely the idea o f

Ya hweh ' s

back w as i n t r o d u c e d fo r this

pa r t i c u l a r con text w her e Y ahw eh ' s face i s g iven such

p r o m i n e n c e , a s f o r m i n g a

n a t u r a l

contrast to i t ,

given

th e

licence

of the

b o l d a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m .

It is i m p o r t a n t to appreciate the way in w h ic h the c on t r a s t

be tween face a n d back is developed. Th e u n m e d i a t e d i m p a c t

of the

div ine

face w ou l d be fa ta l . Yet the wr i te r does no t say

that

Y a h w e h

wi l l t h e r e f o r e h i d e

h is

face

o r

t u r n

h is

back ,

fo r

these a re c u s t o m a r i l y f i g u r e s o f speech conveying dis-

approva l .

1 4 3

/\

n

y

static

i m a g e r y , h o w e v e r ,

wh i c h

p ic tured

Y a h w e h befo re M oses as a k i n g before h is sub jec t o r

else

re ta ined th e i m a g e r y of 33:11, c ou l d h a r d l y descr ibe Yahweh ' s

ave r t i ng

h is

fa c e w i t h o u t c o n v e y i n g

th e

m i s le a d i n g i m p l i ca t i o n s

o f

the

i d i o m .

Th e

d y n a m i c i m a g e r y

o f

pass ing

by

avoids th is

d i f f i c u l ty . It preserves th e sovere ign f reedom an d ac t iv i ty o f

Y a h w e h

a n d

need

n o t

describe

h is

t u r n i n g a w a y ,

for the

p ic tu r e

is r a t h e r o f Y a hw e h l ead ing o n ahead w i t h m an capable on ly o f

fo l l owing

an d

l ook ing

o n

f r om

b e h i n d .

The

s p l e n d o u r

o f

Y a h w e h

is present in all i ts fu lnes s bu t M oses needs to be protec ted

f r o m th is

for h is own

sake.

But a s Y a h w e h

d y n a m i c a l l y m o v e s

o n ,

M oses ma y look a f te r h im an d see the a f te rg low .

In te res t in g ly , the w ord for Y ahw eh ' s back ( 'ahor) is not the

usua l te rm for back in the physical or anatomical sense ( g a w ,

gew) ,

bu t

m or e vagu e l y m ean s h ind e r

part , 1 4 4

thus con-

veying th e idea o f a v iew

f rom

beh in d , w hi l e be in g less e xpl ic i t

abou t exac t l y w ha t

is seen. A s Y a h w e h presses on

ahead Moses

ca n

on ly

see the

traces

l e f t b e h i n d .

Thus

th e

i m p a c t

of the

i m a g e r y is to

e n h a n c e

the

q u a l i t a t i v e s u p e r i o r i t y

o f G od

over

m a n .

Beyond

th i s gene r a l im por t

of the

i m a g e r y

o f

33:20-23, there

is

little

that need

be

said here about o ther deta i l s

in the

verses.

V . 2 0

states

the

genera l p r inc ip le

o f

God's

d is tance f ro m m a n ;

vv .

2 1 - 2 3 t e l l

in concrete

t e r m s

h o w Y a h w e h w i l l

m a k e

provision fo r

Moses

upon the

m o u n t a i n

so

t h a t

he may to

som e

degree

see

h i m . T h e r e

a re

som e s im i l a r i t i e s

to

a c c o u n t s

o f

t h e oph an i e s

e l s ewhere ,

1 4 5

bu t such a re

on l y

to be

expected

an d do no t grea t ly i l l u m i n a t e the par t icu lar i t i es o f the presen t

a c c o u n t .

O n e

p e c u l i a r i t y

of the

p r esen t t ex t

is

t h a t

i t may

e n v i s a g e

t he theophany in two par t s . F i r s t , in v . 21 , Moses

en joys

th e

82



T w o : A n

E x e g e s i s

o f E x o d u s 32-34

close

p r e s e n c e o f

Y a h w e h

( m a q o m

i t t T )

a n d

t a k e s

h i s

s t a n d

in

th e op en , u p on th e rock (

c

a l - h a s s u r ) . In s o m e

sense

M o s e s is

a l r e a d y w i t h Y a h w e h .

B u t

w h e n

th e

m o m e n t

o f

passing

b y

c o m e s ,

Y a h w e h

has to

h i d e

a n d

p r o t e c t

M o s e s

w i t h i n

th e

r o c k .

A s i m i l a r p a t t e r n

m a y b e seen in 34:5f .

w h e r e f i r s t M oses

s t a n d s

in Y a h w e h ' s

p r e s e n c e (34:5a$)' ̂ a n d

t h e n s u b s e q u e n t l y

Y a h w e h

passes

b y

(34:6a

a

). Each

t i m e it is

u n c le a r w h e t h e r

a n

a c t u a l c h r o n o l o g i c a l s e q u e n c e is e n v i sa g e d o r w h e t h e r t h i s is

a g a i n a n a t t e m p t to r e l a t e th e theo logical tens ion that Moses

w a s b o th w i th Y a h w e h , i m p ly i n g a close r e l a t i o n , a n d

t h a t

h e

w a s t h e pass ive a n d p ar t i a l on look er be f or e th e d y n a m i c m o t i o n

o f

th e

d i v i n e s p le n d o u r ,

in

w h i c h

th e

g u l f

b e t w e e n

G o d a n d m a n

is

s t r e s s e d .

B u t

t h i s s l i g h t u n c e r t a i n t y

d o e s

n o t

a f f e c t

th e

g e n e r a l t e n o r

o f t h e

a c c o u n t w h i c h r e m a i n s

c l e a r . '^'


to Ex. 3 4 -

T h e

i n t e n s i t y

o f

33 :1 2-23 , w i t h

i ts

d eep t h eo log i ca l

c o n t e n t ,

f o r m s

on e o f t h e

h i g h

p o i n t s o f th e n a r r a t i v e . B y t h e e n d , w h e n

Y a h w e h has s o c o m p l e t e l y t a k e n th e i n i t i a t i v e a n d t h e t h e o -

p h a n y

i s evoca t ive ly

d e s c r i b e d ,

o n e h a s a l m o s t f or g o t t en

that

t h i s

is a ll

p a r t

o f

Y a h w e h ' s r e s p o n s e

to the

u r g e n t i n t e r c e s s i o n

o f

Moses o n b e h a l f o f

s i n f u l

Is rae l w h o h a v e broken th e

c o v e n a n t .

Yet it is the

issue

o f

c o v e n a n t b r e a k i n g

a n d

r e n e w a l

w h i c h r e m a i n s f u n d a m e n t a l an d i t i s w i t h this

that

the s to ry

c o n t i n u e s . Moses i n t e r ces s i on

h a s

been

m e t

w i t h

th e

r es p on s e

that Y a h w e h w i l l

r e v e a l th e grace a n d

m e r c y w h i c h

a re

i n h e r e n t i n h i s b e i n g a n d w h i c h w i l l c o n s t i t u t e the bas i s for the

r e n e w e d c o v e n a n t

re la t ion sh ip ; i t

r e m a i n s

to

tell

h o w

th i s

p r o m i s e is f u l f i l l e d . T h e w r i t e r r e v e r t s to the s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d

n a r r a t i v e

style

ap p r op r i a t e

f o r

s u ch .

T h e

o u t l i n e

o f .the

m a t e r i a l

is as

f o l lo w s :

v v .

1-4

M o s e s ' p r e p a r a t i o n s f o r t h e t h e o p h a n y .

v v . 5-7 Th e

t h e o p h a n y .

vv . 8 - 9

M os es ' r e s pon s e

to the

t h e o p h a n y

a n d f i n a l

p r a y e r ,

v. 10

Y a h w e h ' s re s po n s e

to

Moses ' prayer :

th e

r e n e w a l o f the

c o v e n a n t ,

v v .

11-26

C o v e n a n t

s t i p u l a t i o n s ,

v v . 27-28

T h e

r e c o r d i n g

o f the

c o v e n a n t c o n d i t i o n s

a n d

th e

w r i t i n g

o n t h e tablets,

v v .

29-35 Moses f i n a l d e s c e n t f r o m S i n a i .

83



T w o :

A n

E x e g e s i s

o f

E x o d u s 32-34

m u s t

be

alone.

S e c o n d l y , in Ex . 19 the p h e n o m e n a a c c o m p a n y i n g th e theo-

p h a n y are al l

a p p r o p r i a t e ( a n d n e c e s s a r y )

f o r a

p u b l i c

t h e o p h a n y . V o l c a n i c

an d

t h u n d e r s t o r m p h e n o m e n a

ar e

w i d e l y

vis ib le .

In Ex . 3 4 ,

a l t h o u g h

th e

c l o u d

is

m e n t i o n e d ( 3 4 : 5 a ) ,

n o

stress is

laid upon

i t . The

e m p h a s i s

is on the c lose ,

e v e n

i n t i m a t e ,

p r e s e n c e o f

Y a h w e h

(34:5a&

w a y y i t y a s s e b

C

i m m 6

s a m ; w h e t h e r M o s e s o r Y a h w e h i s t h e su b je c t o f t h e ve r b does

n o t a f f e c t th e po i n t ) . In the c l i m a x o f the theophany (34 :6) n o

vis ib le

p h e n o m e n a

are

m e n t i o n e d .

T h e

de t a i l s

o f c h . 34 are all

a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a p r i v a t e t h e o p h a n y . E v e n t h e p a r t i a l v i si o n o f

33:20-23 is

s t ri k in g l y d i f f e r e n t f r o m

th e

v i s i b le phen om en a

o f

E x . 1 9 , b e i n g ag a in m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e p r i v a t e n a t u r e o f

t h e o c c a s i o n .

T h e t h e o p h a n y i tself i s r e c o u n t e d i n

34:5-7.

T h e r e a r e t h r e e

es s en t i a l

e x e g e t i c a l

q u e s t i o n s . F i r s t ,

w h o a r e t h e

s ub jec t s

o f

th e v e r b s

( w y t y s b ,

w y q r ' , v. 5 ; w y q r ' , v. 6)? E i t h e r Y a h w e h o r

Moses could be the subjec t o f each v e r b . Secondly , h ow does v .

5 r e l a t e to v. 6? Is v. 5 p l e o n as t ic w h e n f o l lo w e d by v. 6?

T h i r d l y ,

h o w d o v v . 5 - 7 r e l a t e to

33:18-23?

V v . 5 -7 a re n o t a

s i m ple f u l f i l m e n t

of all that is

p r o m i s e d

in 33:18-23.

In o r d e r r i g h t l y to a n s w e r t h e s e q u e s t i o n s it is n e c e s s a r y f i r s t

t o a p p r e c i a t e th e n u m e r o u s v e r bal an d s u b s t a n t i v e l i n k s

between 34 :5-7

an d 33:18-23:

v . 5a

a

w a y y e r e d y h w h b e

c

a n a n

c f .

33 :18 ,22 . There

i s no

e x p l ic i t m e n t i o n

o f

c

nn in t h e s e

v e r s e s bu t k b w d i s c u s t o m a r i l y l i n k e d w i t h ^hn w h i c h

s u r r o u n d s i t

( c f .

E x .

16:10, 24:15-18),

s o t h a t

r e f e r e n c e

to the

l a t t e r

m ay

i m p l y

t h e

f o r m e r

also ,

v . 5 a3

w a y y i t y a s s e b

C

i m m 6

s am

c f . 33:21, h i n n e h m a q o m 'itti w

e

n i s s ab t a

c

al-hassur

34:2b,

w

e

n i s s a b t a T sam

C

al-r5's

h a h a r

v. 5b w a y y i q r a

1

b

e

s e m

y h w h

c f .

33:19, w

e

qara'ti b

e

sem y h w h l

e

p a n e k a

v . 6a w a y y a

c a

b 5 r y h w h

c

a l - p a n a y w

c f .

33:19,

'

a

n T

'a

ca

bir

k o l - t u b

c

a l - p a n e k a

33:22, w

e

h a y a h ba

ca

bor k

e

b o d i ...

c

ad-

c

obrt

v. 6a

w a y y i q r a

1

y h w h y h w h

c f .

33:19,

w

e

qara't

b

e

S em y h w h

l

e

p a n e k a

v. 6a 'e l r a h u m

w

e

h a n n u n

c f . 33:19b, w

e

h a n n o t

'et-'

a

§er

'ah5n w

e

r i h a m t T ' e t - '

a

s e r

"

a

r a h e m

85



At the

M o u n t a i n

of God

1 I f one al lows th e c o n t e x t to h a v e d u e w e i g h t t h e n these

p a r a l l e l s m a k e c l e a r t h a t M o s e s is to be t a k e n a s t h e s u b j e c t o f

w y t y s b (v. 5) and Y a h w e h as the s ub j e c t o f w y q r ' (vv . 5, 6).

A l t h o u g h

t h i s m e a n s

t h a t

t h e r e

is


o f

s u b j e c t a m o n g

th e t h r e e ve rbs o f v . 5 , t h i s ne e d no t be t oo d i f f i c u l t i f the

w r i t e r c o n s i d e r s t h a t

t h e c o n t e x t

w i l l m a k e

h i s

m e a n i n g clear.

T h e r e i s n o i n h e r e n t o b j e c ti o n t o Y a h w e h b e i n g t h e s u b j e c t o f

w y t y s b . A f t e r th e a n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m o f 33:21-23, this a n t h r o -

p o m o r p h i s m w o u l d

b e m i l d , a n d i s

attested else w h e r e . ' *

B ut w he n t he ve rb fo r s t and i ng (nsb in 33:21, 34:2, ysb in 34:5)

h a s b e e n u se d h i t h e r t o o n l y o f M o s e s, a n d

t h a t

in the con text o f

w h a t M o s e s w i l l d o o n t h e m o u n t a i n to p , it is m o s t n a t u r a l to

t a k e

v . 5 a s t h e

f u l f i l m e n t

o f

w h a t

h a s

been

d i r e c t e d .

L i k e w i s e ,

i f M o s e s

w a s t h e

s u b j e c t

o f

w y k r '

in v. 5

t h i s w o u l d accord w i t h

th e usage o f t h e f o r m u l a q r ' b s m y h w h e l s e w h e r e i n t h e O T . O n e

c o u l d t h e n i n t e r p r e t

v .

5a

as an

a n t ic i p a ti v e s u m m a r y

o f v v .

6-7, wi th

v .

5b l o o k i n g f o r w a r d

t o v v .

8-9.

N o t

o n l y , h o w e v e r ,

d o e s

th e

f low

o f t h e

n a r r a t i v e

in v . 6

d e m a n d

t h a t

Y a h w e h

s hou l d be the subject o f

w y q r V ^ l

and i t w o u l d be d i f f i c u l t to

h a v e

a

d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t

f o r w y q r ' in v . 5 , but

also

th e

c l e a r

i n s t a n c e in 33:19a o f Y a h w e h a s s u b j e c t o f t h e f o r m u l a

q r '

bsm

y w h w m u s t b e d e c is iv e f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g Y a h w e h a s t h e s u b j e c t

o f w y q r ' in

bo t h

v . 5 and v . 6 .

2) The r e l a t i on o f v . 5 t o v . 6 has a l r e ad y be e n ra i s e d i n t he

d i s c u s s i o n

o f

3 3 : 2 1 - 2 3 , ^ 2

a n

< j

n o t h i n g n e ed b e a d d e d h e r e

once it is a p p r e c i a t e d that i t is the s a m e t w o - s t a g e t h e o p h a n y

b e i n g

de s c r i be d

in

bo t h

c o n t e x t s . In v. 5b w y q r '

doe s

n o t

e n v i s -

a g e a p r o cl a m a t io n d i f f e r e n t f r o m that o f v . 6 . By u s i n g th e

s a m e

f o r m u l a

as in 33:19 i t f u n c t i o n s a s

s h o w i n g

t h a t t h e t h e o -

p h a n y

is the

f u l f i l m e n t

of t h e

p r o m i s e

in

33:19.

It

also

states

in

i n t r o d u c t o r y f o r m w h a t v v . 6 f . w i l l e x p l a i n a n d e x p a n d - t h e

m e a n i n g o f t he

n a m e

o f

Y a h w e h .

3 ) T h e r e

a r e t w o

m a i n f a c t o r s

w h i c h

m a k e

34:6f .

d i f f e r e n t

f r o m

3 3 : 1 8 f f . F i r s t ,

th e

t h e o p h a n y

o f

33 : 21-23

i s no t

r e c o u n t e d

a s

s u c h . T h e r e

is no

r e f e r e n c e m a d e

to

v i s i b l e p h e n o m e n a ( a p a r t

f r o m t he c l oud o f v .

5a) ,

n o r to M o s e s s e e i n g a n y t h i n g .

Se cond l y ,

th e

c o n t e n t

of v . 7b is to do

w it h ju d g m e n t ,

a

t h e m e

a p p a r e n t l y a b s e n t f r o m 3 3 : 1 9 . T h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s p r o b a b l y a r i s e

l a r g e l y f r o m

th e

d e m a n d s

o f t h e

d e v e l o p i n g n a r r a t i v e .

W h e n

t h e

v e r b a l l i n k s m a k e c l e a r t h a t 3 4 : 5 f f .

i s the

f u l f i l m e n t

o f

3 3 : 1 9 f f .

i t w o u l d be poor s t y l e to

r e p e a t

th e d e t a i l s o f 3 3 : 2 1 - 2 3 w h e n

n o t h i n g

o f s u b s t a n c e c o u l d b e a d d e d to t h e m ; th e r e a d e r is to

t a k e f o r g r a n t e d t h a t Y a h w e h d i d w h a t h e s a id h e

w o u l d

d o .

86



Two:

A n

Exe ge s i s

o f

E x o d u s 3 2 - 3 4

M o r e o v e r i t has b e e n s e e n t h a t th e c e n t r a l t h e m e o f 33:20-23 i s

n o t

t h a t

o f s i n and

f o r g i v e n e s s

but a

f u r t h e r i s s u e a r i s i n g

ou t o f

i t , t h a t of the

d e g r e e

o f p r o x i m i t y t o G o d w h i c h m a n m a y

a t t a i n

w h e n

s in i s no

l o n g e r

a t

i s s u e .

T h i s h a s , h o w e v e r , a l r e a d y

b e e n s u f f i c i e n t l y tre ted b y t h e w r i t e r in c h . 33 . T he n a r r a t i v e

m u s t r e t u r n to a c o n c e r n w i t h th e p r i o r a n d m o r e u r g e n t

p r o b l e m

o f s i n and f o r g i v e n e s s , and i t s r e l a t i o n to the c o v e n a n t

w i t h I s rae l . T o d w e l l f u r t h e r o n Mose s

1

ccess t o G o d w o u l d

d e t r a c t f r o m

t h i s . T h e r e f o r e th e w r i t e r e x c l u d e s i t .

T h e j u d g m e n t th e m e o f 34:7b i s no t w h o l l y l a c k i n g in 33:19

i n a s m u c h

as the

f o r m u l a used

there h as

b e e n seen

to

l eave open

the f r e e d o m o f Y a h w e h to be m e r c i f u l as he c h o o s e s i n a way

th t

c a n n o t

b e

p r e s u m e d u p o n .

T h e

r e a l

poss ib i l i t y

o f

i n c u r r i n g

j u d g m e n t

is

i m p l i c i t l y p r e s e n t

in

33:19. F u r t h e r m o r e ,

th e

c o n t e x t o f E x . 32-34 as a w h o l e , in p a r t i c u l a r the j u d g m e n t

t h e m e

o f 32:15-33:11,

s h o w s

th t th e

e x p e r i e n c e

o f

d i v i n e w r a t h

in

a l l it s se r iousn ess i s a rea l p os s ib i l i ty for I s rae l . B oth 33:19

an d

3 4 : 6 f . s t r o n g l y e m p h a s i z e t h e m e r c y o f G o d , y e t d o s o i n

such a way as not to d e n y o r a b r o g a t e h is w r a t h an d j u d g m e n t .

T h e p o i n t i s n o t t h a t th e p e o p l e e x p e r i e n c e e i t h e r w r a t h o r

m e r c y ,

b u t

t h a t

b o t h w r a t h

a n d

m e r c y

ar e in the

c h a r a c t e r

o f

G o d t h o u g h it is his m e r c y w h i c h is u l t i m a t e l y p r e d o m i n a n t in

his d e a l i n g s w i t h h i s

p e o p l e .

It

i s u n n e c e s s a r y f o r p r e s e n t p u r p o s e s t o o f f e r d e t a i l e d

e x a m i n a t i o n of the t e r m i n o l o g y e m p l o y e d in

34:6f. ,

th e g e n e r a l

m e a n i n g

b e i n g c l e a r .

1^ 3

j j j

s

W O

r t h

n o t i n g , h o w e v e r ,

t h a t

K . D . S a k e n f e l d , w h o ha s p r o v i d e d th e m o s t r e c e n t t r e a t m e n t o f

on e o f the ke y t e r m s ,

h e s e d ,

says th t th e m e a n i n g o f hesed in

34:6f . m a y b e i n t e r p r e t e d as s i g n i f y i n g

t h a t

Y a h w e h is so g r e a t

in


th t

he i s

w i l l i n g

e v e n t o f o r g i v e b r e a c h o f

r e l a t i o n s h i p . ' 5 4 T h i s a c c o r d s w e l l w i t h

th e

t h e o l o g y

of t he

s e c t i o n .

T he t h e o l o g i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f 34:6f. can be best a p p r e c i a t e d

t h r o u g h

a c ompa r i son wi t h Ex . 20 :5 f . S in c e 34 :6 f . i s u s u a l l y

t ak e n a s t he p r i m a r y f o r m o f a c u l t i c f o r m u l a u p o n w h i c h

20:5b-6, together w i t h m a n y o t h e r

p ss ges

e l s e w h e r e in the OT

w h i c h

e c h o

th e f o r m u l a , i s s e c o n d a r i l y d e p e n d e n t ,

20:5b-6

h a s

been in t e rp re t e d in t he l ig h t o f 34 :6 f . r a t h e r t ha n v ic e v e r s a . If

o n e

r e t a i n s t h e

t e x t u a l

o r d e r

as the

b a s i s

fo r


th e

i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e t w o

p a s s a g e s ,

t h r e e p o i n t s

e m e r g e .

F i r s t , th e s e q u e n c e of the two po les o f j u d g m e n t an d

m e r c y

is

r e v e r s e d , m e r c y b e i n g

p u t

f i r s t

i n E x . 3 4 .

S e c o n d l y ,

t h e m e r c y th e m e i s g r e a t l y e x p a n d e d i n E x . 34 ove r t he

b a s i c

87




statement

o f

20:6a.

T h i r d l y , a n d p e r h a p s m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t l y , th e

s t ipu la t ion

of an

obedient response

on the

pa r t

of

Israel

as the

cond i t ion fo r r e c e iv ing Y a h w e h ' s

hesed

(20:6b to those w h o

love

m e a n d

k e e p

m y

c o m m a n d m e n t s )

is

a b s e n t

f r o m

34 :6f . In

th e c o n t e x t of

Y a h w e h ' s

reac t ion to

Israe l ' s

sin of Ex. 32 t h i s is

of

f u n d a m e n t a l i m p o r t a n c e , for i t m e a n s

t h a t

Y a h w e h ' s m e r c y

t o w a r d s

Israe l

is

i n d e p e n d e n t

o f

t h e i r

r e s p o n d i n g in the r i g h t

w a y .

E v e n w h e n

Israe l is d i s o b e d i e n t it is s t i l l th e r e c i p i e n t o f

th e d iv ine goodness. T h e c o m p a r i s o n w i th 20 :5 f . s how s p o i n t e d l y

how p r o f o u n d

a

s t a t e m e n t

of

God ' s g r a c e

is

c o n t a i n e d

in 34:6f .

Moses '

re sponse to t h i s r e ve l a t i on of God is in two pa r t s .

First,

h e b o w s d o w n a nd w or s h ip s . Suc h i s t he a pp r op r i a t e

response

of man

be fo r e God .

In

a dd i t i on

to

this Moses

o f f e r s

o n e f ina l praye r . This praye r g a t h e r s t o g e t h e r m a j o r t h e m e s

f r o m

th e

preceding na r ra t ive :

9a

a

,

' im -na ' masat hen b

ec

eneka '

a

d5nay; cf.

33:12-17.

F o r m a l l y th e usage of the idiom is a k i n to the m e r e l y d e f e r -

en t ia l in t roduc t ion to a reques t . Ye t to th i s , as to

33:13a,

th e

use in

33:12b lends

a

po t e n t i a l l y m or e s ign i f i c a n t nua nc e .

A s in

33:12ff . Moses '

special posit ion is the basis of his p r a y e r .

9a$,

y e le k -n a '

'

a

d o n a y

b

e

q i r b e n u ; the use o f

b q r b n w

echoes

33:3,5

w i t h its r e f e r e n c e to the shr ine . S ince 33 :3 ,5 were t aken

up

in

Moses ' in t e r c e s s ion

o f

33 : 12 f f . ,

one may see

h e r e

a

f u r t h e r

r e f e r e nc e ba c k

to

t h i s e a r l i e r i n t e r c e s s ion . Th is

is

s u p p o r t e d

b y

the use in

34:9a$

of the

v e r b h lk

w h i c h w as

used

in 33:14,

15,16 whereas in 33:3 ,5

c

lh w a s u s e d .

9b

a

, k i

c

am-q

e

Seh-

c

orep

hu ' ; c f . 32:9,

33:3,5.

T h i s is the m o s t

s i g n i f i c a n t phrase and w i l l b e d i s c us s e d be low .

9b$, w

e

salahta

la

c a

w o n e n u Q l

e

h a t t a ' t e n u u n

e

h a l t a n u ; t h e r e

are no

special

l inks

be t w e e n

these

w o r d s

and t he

p r e c e d ing

na r r a t i ve , a l t hough

j f i t ^has

been used several t imes (32:30,31,33,

cf. 32:21). It is of no t e

that

Moses seeks no t on ly fo r g ive ne s s

bu t also

th e posi t ive res tora t ion o f Israel in a r igh t r e la t ion

u n d e r

Y a hw e h s uc h a s i s im p l i e d i n be ing t ake n a s Y a h w e h ' s

possession.

1^ 5

It is pe r ha ps i n i t i a l l y a little s u r p r i s in g that Moses prays fo r

Y a h w e h ' s presence in the s h r i n e a g a in , a f t e r th e f a v o u r a b l e

r e sponse in 33:17 to his e a r l i e r i n t e r c e s s i o n . 1^ 6 Yet i t i s not

i n a p p r o p r i a t e ,

s ince

th e

logic

o f

p r a y e r

an d

p e t i t i o n

is not

t h a t

of sober d i scourse , a n d r e p e t i t i o n a n d a s s u r a n c e

p l a y

an im-

po r t a n t r o le . M or e ov e r t h i s r e q ue s t is not i d e n t i c a l to t h a t in

33 :12-17 . There

th e

s h r i n e

w a s

s o u g h t

a n d

g i v e n ,

bu t i t

b r o u g h t

th e po t e n t i a l da nge r o f Y a h w e h ' s r e n e w e d j u d g m e n t , w h i c h h a d



Two: An Exegesis of E x o d u s 32-34

to be met by s o m e t h i n g f u r t h e r , the reve la t ion o f God's char-

acter as g r a c i o us an d m e r c i f u l . T h i s has now b e e n g i ve n . S o

Moses l i nks these

tw o

t h i n gs

in his

p r a y e r , L et

the

L o r d ,

I

p r a y ,

go in the

m i d s t

of us . . . and

f o r g i v e

our

i n i q u i t y

an d

sin .

It is

for God ' s presence an d f o r g i ve n e s s t o ge t he r t ha t M o se s p r a y s .

T he m o s t c r uc i a l w o r ds in the p r a y e r are the r e f e r e n c e to

Is rae l

as a s t i f f -necked people . Each o f the t h r e e p r e v i o u s

occurrences o f this phrase h as been at an i m p o r t a n t m o m e n t in

the na r ra t ive . Each t ime i t has been made the expl ic i t r eason

for

Yahweh ' s

j u d g m e n t u p o n Is rae l .

In

32:9f.

it is the

reason

w hy

Y a h w e h

pur po s e s to de s t r o y th e n a t i o n . A t 33:3

Y a h w e h

wi l l

n o t

go in the

m i d s t

of the

people because

( k y )

t he y

are

s t i f f - n e c k e d .

A t

33:5, apart

f r o m

th e

e m pha t i c r e pe t i t i o n

of the

i m p o s s i b i li ty

of

Y a h w e h g o i n g w i t h

th e

people ,

it is

m a d e

th e

reason

w h y

Y a h w e h

despoils Israel , as the Eg ypt ian s w ere despo iled .

W h a t

is

r e m a r k a b l e a b o u t

the

phr a s e

in

34:9

is

t h a t

n ot

o n l y

is it

used

in

th e

context

o f

Y a hw e h ' s m e r c y , a f t e r

th e th e op h a n y ,

b u t ,

a p p a r e n t l y , it is the reason fo r Y a h w e h ' s m e r c y to be ex-

perienced

in the

res tora t ion

of the

s h r i n e

in

Israel 's m idst

as a

sign

of the

r e n e w e d c o ve n a n t , s i n c e

the

c o n n e c t i ve pa r t i c l e k y _

is

c o m m o n l y

c a us a t i ve

in

f o r c e .

One i s

t he r e b y p r e s e n t e d w i t h

th e

p a r a d o x , v e r g i n g

o n

c o n t r a d i c ti o n ,

t h a t th e

s a m e f a c t o r ,

th e

s in o f I s r a e l ,

w h i c h

causes

Y a h w e h ' s

w r a t h , a l s o

b r i n g s

a b o u t h is

m e r c y .

T h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the pa r t i c l e ky i s c l e a r l y o f grea t

s ign i f icance ;

yet it is

prob lema t ic . There

are at least three

possible w a y s o f c o n s t r u i n g it. 157 1 ) I t may be causa t ive ,

for ,

o r

because .

N o t

on ly

is

this

its

m o s t c o m m o n m e a n i n g ,

but i t has a l ready been used in this sense in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h

s t i f f -necked people

in

33:3. Since

34:9

presupposes th i s ea r l i e r

us a ge ,

an d

s ince

a w o r d

p lay

o n a

pa r t i c l e

may be

de e m e d

to be

u n l i k e l y , th i s w o u l d sugges t th e same causa t ive sense in

34:9

as

in 33:3.1^8 2) The pa r t i c le may be concess ive , a l thoug h .

This i s le ss c o m m o n tha n the cau sa t ive sense but i s s t i l l

attested. 159 j j j

s

p r e f e r r e d by several t rans la t ions (e.g., R S V ,

N I V C hi l ds , Exodus , p . 602 ) . 3 ) T h e pa r t i c l e may be an em-

phat ic concess ive ,

to be

rendered however mu ch

o r

a l though

indeed . This is a r gue d for by V r i e z e n ^ O w h o s e G e r m a n r en -

d e r i n g

is

wie sehr

auch .

Such

an


is

c o n ve y e d

in

J B a n d N E B .

O f these r e n d e r i n g s t h e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d c o nc es siv e h a s least

to c o m m e n d it. It is adopted o n

account

of the apparen t in -

a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the causa t ive sense . B ut

w h e n

it is i n d i s -



A t t h e

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

p u t a b l e

t h a t s o m e p a r a d o x i s i n t e n d e d , th e c o n c e s s i v e t e n d s to

e v a d e th e i s s u e . B e t w e e n th e c a u s a t i v e a n d e m p h a t i c co n -

cessive senses i t is h a r d e r , b u t p e r h a p s less i m p o r t a n t , to

c h o o s e .

Both

d r a w a t t e n t i o n t o t h e f a c t

t h a t

Is rae l s t i l l i s

s t i f f -

n e c k e d , a n d t h e stress o n th i s i s t h e i m p o r t a n t f a c to r . P r o b a b l y

th e e m p h a t i c c o n c e s s i v e o f f e r s th e best E n g l i s h r e n d e r i n g -

A l t h o u g h

t h e y a re i n d e e d a s t i f f - n e c k e d p e o p l e , y e t f o r g i v e ... .

T h e p a r a d o x i s s t r i k i n g . S u p e r f i c i a l l y , i t w o u l d seem to m e a n

e i t h e r t h a t Y a h w e h i s i n c o n s i s t e n t o r t h a t o n e s h o u l d s in i n

o r d e r

that grace

m i g h t a b o u n d .

Closer

c o n s i d e r a t i o n ,

i n t h e

l i g h t o f t h e c o n t e x t a n d t h e o l o g i c a l e m p h a s e s d i s ce r n e d t h u s

f a r , s h o w s t h i s p h r a s e

to

c o n t a i n

a

t h e o l o g y

o f t h e

g r a c e

o f G o d

u n s u r p a s s e d

in the OT. A

central

c o n c e rn

o f E x .

32-34

i s s in and

f o r g i v e n e s s . W h e n Is rae l s i ns ,

ca n

t h i s m e a n

t h e e n d o f t h e

c o v e n a n t ?

If

n o t , t h e n

o n

w h a t t e r m s

c a n t h e

c o v e n a n t

b e

r e n e w e d a n d c o n t i n u e ? T h e a n s w e r o f 34:9 i s t h a t t h e t e rm s l i e

e n t i r e l y i n the

character

o f G o d . T h e p o i n t

t h a t

is m a d e by the

f o r c e f u l k y i s t h a t I s r a e l h a s n o t c h a n g e d b u t r e m a i n s a s s i n f u l

a s a t t h e t i m e o f

m a k i n g

t h e c a l f . A n y c h a n g e

w h i c h

c o u l d

h e r a l d so m e t h i n g o t h e r t h a n t h e i r b e i n g cast

o f f

m u s t t h e r e f o r e

b e o n t h e p a r t o f G o d . T h e p e o p l e r e m a i n s i n f u l y e t n o t o n l y d o

t h e y r e c e i v e f r o m G o d t h e j u d g m e n t t h e y d e s e r v e , b u t a l s o t h e y

receive

th e

grace

a n d m e rc y t h e y d o n o t d e s e r v e . G o d

wi l l

s h o w

m e r c y , a m e r c y e x p e ri e n c ed s u p r e m e l y i n h i s a c c o m p a n y i n g

p re s e n c e , b e c a u s e i t l ies w i t h i n th e c h a r a c t e r o f G o d n o t

o n l y

to i n f l i c t j u d g m e n t b u t

a lso

to s h o w m e r c y - even to a

c o n t i n u i n g l y s i n f u l p e o p l e .

T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

o f 34:9 i s

s u p p o r t e d

by t h e

f a c t t h a t

n o w h e r e i n

32-34

i s a n y

r e f e r e n c e m a d e

to a

r e p e n t a n c e

o f

I sr a e l w h i c h m i g h t o c ca si o n Y a h w e h ' s r e n e w e d f a v o u r . I t h a s

a l r e a d y b e e n

n o t e d

' ^ 1 t h a t

th e m o u r n i n g o f

33:4

i s

r e m o r s e

r a t h e r th a n re p e n t a n c e , a n d n o w h e r e else i s a n y w o r d f o r

r e p e n t a n c e , such a s sw b o r n h m , used o f I s ra e l . The l ack o f

r e p e n t a n c e s u p p o r t s

th e

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t I s r a e l

i s

c o n t i n u -

i n g l y s i n f u l - y e t i t i s t o s u c h t h a t Y a h w e h i s m e r c i f u l .

T h e

c o n n e c t i o n

in

34:9 be tween Y a h w e h ' s g o i n g

i n t h e

m i d s t

o f th e people a n d t h e f a c t

that

t h e y a re s t i l l a s t i f f - n e c k e d

p e o p l e r e f l e c t s th e s a m e c o n c e r n as i s in 3 3 : 1 2 - 1 7 , 1 8 - 2 3 w h e r e

th e

p r o b l e m

i s

t h a t

i f the

s h r i n e w e r e

t o be i n t h e

m i d s t

o f

Is ra e l t h e n Y a h w e h m i g h t b e p r o v o k e d a g a i n to w r a t h a g a i n s t a

s i n f u l

p e o p l e . T h e a n s w e r w a s seen t o be i n a d e e p e r r e v e l a t i o n

o f th e c h a r a c t e r o f God. 34:9 t a k e s t h i s f u r t h e r , i n t h e l i g h t o f

th e a c t u a l r e v e l a t i o n , b y p o s i n g th e s a m e p r o b l e m a n d i n v e r t i n g



T w o : A n

Exe ge s i s

o f E x o d u s

32 -34

i t t h ro u g h p l e a d i n g I s ra e l s s i n a s in some sen se t he re a son w hy

Y a h w e h s h o u l d g o w i t h I s ra e l an d f o r g i v e t h e m . T he s a m e p o i n t

is

m a d e

as in

33:19,

but in

m o r e s t r i k i n g

an d

p a r a d o x i c a l f o r m .

N o t

o n l y

is i t the

c h a r a c t e r

o f G o d t o b e

m e r c i f u l ,

but i t i s

p re c i se l y t o the s i n f u l w h o o u g h t t o be d e s t r o y e d t h a t t h i s

m e r c y i s

e x t e n d e d .

T h e

t h e m e

o f t he

g ra c e

an d

m e r c y

o f

G o d ,

a l r e a d y

se t

f o r w a r d

in 32:14,

33:19, 34:6f. ,

is

b r o u g h t

to i ts

c l i m a x

in 34:9.

T he bold t h e o l o g i c a l c o n c e p t i o n o f 34 :9 , a l though

u n s u r p a s s e d ,

i s n o t

u n p a r a l l e l e d

in the O T . I t

o c c u r s

i n on e

o t he r pa ssa ge a l so , in the c o n t e x t o f the

f lood

n a r r a t i v e o f G e n .

6 -9 . I t c a n b e see n i n t he j u x t a po s i t i o n o f G e n . 8:21 w i t h Ge n .

6:5. Gen.

6 :5

g i ve s

th e

r e a s o n

w h y

Y a h w e h b r i n g s

th e

f l o o d ,

that

is the

ev i l

o f

m a n s heart,

an d

Gen. 8:21 tells

w h y i n

f u t u r e

Y a h w e h

w i l l

show me rc y :

6:5,

w k l - y s r m h s b w t Ibw rq r

c

k l - h y w m

8:21,

k y

ysr Ib h d m

r

c

m n

c

r y w

T he

w o r d i n g is less e m p h a t i c in 8:21 than in 6 :5 -

Id ,

rq ,

k l - h y w m a re

o m i t t e d . T h i s

is

a p p r o p r i a t e

in the

context

o f ch. 8

w h e r e th e n a t u r e o f m a n n e e d n o t b e d w e l t on i n t he s a m e w a y

as in ch . 6 . But the b a s ic p o i n t r e m a i n s th e s a m e . H e r e t h e r e i s

th e

s a m e p a r a d o x

as in Ex. 34 . The

c a use

o f

G o d s j u d g m e n t

a p p a r e n t l y b e c o m e s th e cause o f h i s m e r c y - the s a m e ky i s

used in Gen. 8:21 as in Ex. 34:9. That the ky clause in Gen. 8:21

is

m e a n t

to

h a v e

th e

s a m e f o r c e

a s i n Ex .

34:9

c an h a r d l y b e

d i s p u t e d ,

once

th e


i s s e e n . 6 2 jh

e

p a r a d o x

in

G e n e s i s

h a s

o f t e n b e e n

n o t e d , 163 t h a t in E x o d u s

o c c a s i o n -

ally.

1 6 4

g u t h i t h e r t o

n o


o f

b o t h t o g e t h e r

h as

b e e n o f f e r e d .

I n a d d i t i o n to the pa ra l l e l pa ra dox in Gen. 8:21 a n d E x . 34:9,

o t h e r p a r a l l e l s b e t w e e n t h e f l o o d a n d S i n a i n a r r a t i v e s c a n b e

s e e n .

T he

o v e r a l l s t r u c t u r e

o f Ex .

32-34

i s s in and

j u d g m e n t

f o l l o w e d b y

m e r c y

an d

r e n e w a l .

S o t oo i n the

f l o o d

n a r r a -

£

tive.

lb:>

2) T h r o u g h o u t E x . 32 -34 th e f a v o u r e d p o s i t i o n o f M o s es b e f o r e

Y a h w e h

is a c on s t a n t f a c t o r . So t oo d oe s

N o a h

e n j o y a

f a v o u r e d

pos i t ion

f r o m

s t a r t

t o

f i n i s h .

3)

N o a h s

f a vo u re d pos it ion m a rk s t he spe c if i c t u rn i n g po i n t i n

the s t o r y ,

Gen. 8:1;

G o d

r e m e m b e r s N o a h

an d

t hen

the

waters

begin to

recede. 66

s i m i l a r l y o n e m a y s e e E x .

33:1

la as the

spe c i f i c t u r n i n g p o i n t i n E x . 3 2 - 3 4 ; h e r e a f t e r G o d r e v e a l s h is

91



T w o : A n E x e g e s i s o f E x o d u s 32-34

h e n c e f o r t h I s r a e l is as d e p e n d e n t as the rest of th e

w o r l d

u p o n

th e m e r c y o f G o d . Yet i t i s t h r o u g h th e f a i t h f u l m a n o f G o d

that t h i s m e r c y is g i v e n . God ' s m e r c y d o e s n o t o v e r r i d e m a n ,

b u t ma n i s

g i v e n

a n

i n d i s p e n s a b l e r o l e

w i t h i n

G o d ' s

p u r p o s e s .

Such

is the


o f

Y a h w e h ' s d e a l i n g s w i t h

h is

people

ex p ressed by Ex . 32-34.

Ex. 34:10

A f t e r

M ose s

1

p r a y e r , Y a h w e h ' s

f i n a l

a n s w e r is g i v e n ; th e

c o v e n a n t is r e n e w e d . T h e c o n n e c t i o n of v . 10 w i t h w h a t p r e-

cedes is

g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d

t o b e

s o m e w h a t

loose .

C e r t a i n l y

th is

is the

f i r s t t i m e

i n E x .

32-34

t h a t th e

t e c h n i c a l t e r m

fo r

c o v e n a n t ,

b e r l t ,

is

u sed .

B u t

th i s

is

b e c a u s e

th e

n a r r a t i v e

is

c o n c e r n e d

n o t

w i t h

th e

w o r d

b u t

w i t h

th e

c o n t e n t

o f

w h a t

a c t u a l l y constitutes th e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h G o d , a n d th is is

s u p r e m e l y tw o

th ings : God 's

p r e s e n c e in h is

s h r i n e

an d h i s

law s .

G o d ' s w o r d s i n 3 4 : 1 0 b r i n g

t h e s e

tw o t o g e t h e r , f o r t h a t I s r a e l

s ho u l d

hav e God ' s p r e s e n c e (34:9a) a nd h i s laws (34:1 I f f . m e a n s

t h a t

t h e y

ar e in a

c o v e n a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p . W h e n

G o d

g r a n t s

these h e t h e r e b y r e n e w s th e

c o v e n a n t .

T h e s p e c i f i c d e s i g n a t i o n c o v e n a n t is in f a c t p r e p a r e d for in

th e last w o r d of v . 9 ,

Q n

e

h a l t a n u .

B e i n g Y a h w e h ' s possession

is v e r y m u c h a c o v e n a n t a l idea , i m p l y i n g th e status o f a v assa l

u n d e r

i ts o v e r l o r d . 1 6 9 M o s es e f f e c t i v e l y p r a y s

t h a t

Y a h w e h

sh ou ld r e n e w

th e

c o v e n a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p .

A n d

Y a hw e h

does .

T h e r e

is

s o m e u n c e r t a i n t y o v e r

who is the

a d d r e s s e e

in v . 10 .

In v . lO a it is c le a r ly Moses; th e pe o p l e a re y o u r peop le

(

c

a m m

e

k a ) . 1 7 0 T h e L X X r e a d s e g o

t i t h e m i

s o i

d i a t h e k e n ,

t h u s m a k i n g M o s es t h e p r i m a r y r e c i p i e n t o f t h e c o v e n a n t . T h i s

a g r e e s w i t h

v . 27, bu t i s

p r o b a b l y

n o t

o r i g i n a l

to v .

l O a .

It is ,

h o w e v e r , n o t o u t o f k e e p i n g w i t h th e

f l o w

o f v . l O a . I n v .

l O b ,

by contrast i t seems

that Israel

is the addressee. It is m o r e

n a t u r a l to t h i n k o f I s r a e l r a t h e r t h a n M o s e s a s b e i n g in th e

m i d s t o f o the r p eop les , an d the f i n a l w i th y o u

( i m m a k )

r e a d s

m o r e

eas i ly

a s I s rae l .

171

T h a t

t h e r e

s h o u l d

b e a

t r a n s i t i o n

f r o m

M o s e s

to

Israe l

is in

f a c t

a p p r o p r i a t e . Fo r

Moses

is

b e i n g

a ddr e s s e d o n

beha l f

o f

I s rae l to

w h o m

he is to p r o c l a i m th e

f o l l o w i n g

c o v e n a n t s t ip u -

l a t i o n s ,

and so , in a

s e n s e ,

I s rae l

is

b e i n g a d d r e ss e d t h r o u g h

Moses .

T h e

r e f e r e n c e

to

all

th e

e a r t h

a n d

e v e r y n a t i o n

e n a b l e s a s m o o t h t r a n s i t i o n to I s rae l th e p e o p l e a s

a d d r e s s e e .

M o r e o v e r , th e s h i f t to Israel in v . 10 e n a b l e s a s m o o t h

trans-

i t i on

to th e

p a r a e n e s i s

o f v v .

l l f f . , w h i c h

is al l in the

secon d

9 3



At the

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

p e r s o n s i n g u l a r ,

as w as the

d e c a l o g u e ,

a n d w h i c h i s fo r the

b e n e f i t

o f

Is rae l

r a t h e r than M oses .

T h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of v . 1 0 d e p e n d s o n t h e m e a n i n g g i v en to

th e

m a r v e l s

( n p l ' w t )

a n d t h e

f e a r f u l

t h i n g

( k y - n w r *

h w ' )

w h i c h

Y a h w e h

i s t o d o .

These w o r d s c u s t o m a r i l y r e f e r

to

Y a h w e h ' s m i g h t y acts b r i n g i n g s a l v a t io n t o Is ra e l a n d j u d g m e n t

on

her

enemies , 1 ^2 ancj jf that js their significance here then

th e m e a n i n g w o u l d b e that Y a h w e h

w i l l

r e s u m e h is acts o f

s a l v a t i o n

o n

b e h a l f

o f h i s

c o v e n a n t p e o p le . T h i s

is a

poss ib le

i n t e r p r e t a t i

o n .

An a l t e r n a t i v e

r e n d e r i n g m a y , h o w e v e r , b e p r e f e r a b l e . T h i s i s

t h a t th e


s t a te m e n t i s

B e h o l d ,

I

m a k e

a

c o v e n a n t ,

a n d

th e

rest

o f t he v e r s e

s i m p l y

sets

o u t t he

u n i q u e

a n d

m a r v e l l o u s n a t u r e

o f

th i s fact. T h e r e

i s n o

exact p a r a l l e l

e l s e w h e r e to a f e a r f u l t h i n g i n t he s i n g u l a r ( v . l O b ) , and i t i

s o m e t h i n g Y a h w e h

d o e s

w i t h (

c

m ) h i s pe o p l e J

7

^ T h j

s

sug -

gests t h a t i t i s t h e f a c t o f c o v e n a n t r e n e w a l w i t h a s i n f u l

people w h i c h is the f e a r f u l t h i n g . T h e w o r k o f

Y a h w e h

w h i c h

people wi l l see is the r e s t o r a t i o n

of

s i n f u l

I s r a e l . If th i s is so

t h e n m a r v e l s

w o u l d

h a v e

a

s i m i l a r m e a n i n g

- t h e

m a r v e l l o u s

acts

o f m e r c y a n d r e s t o r a t i o n . T h i s s l i g h t l y

u n u s u a l

sense i s n o t

i m po s s i b l e f o r t h e

r e n e w a l

o f the

c o v e n a n t w i t h

a

s i n f u l

pe o p l e

c a n b e

seen

as the q u i n t e s s e n c e o f

Y a h w e h ' s

w o n d e r f u l

acts.

It

i s

n o t a b l e t h a t

th e u n u s u a l

w o r d b j r ^ i s used

in l O a , a

w o r d w h i c h

sugges ts

t h a t that

w h i c h Y a hw e T T c re a t e s ha s t he

c h a r a c t e r

o f

th e w o n d e r f u l , o f t h e e n t i r e l y

n e w . ' ^ ^

T h e r e s t o r a t i o n o f

I s r ae l cou ld we l l be so d e s c r i b e d . T h e v e r b s i n t h e v e r s e , th e

i m p e r f e c t 'e

ce

seh ( l O a ) a n d t h e p a r t i c i p l e (

c

o s e h ) r e f e r

e i t h e r

to t h a t

w h i c h

i s a t

p r e s e n t h a p p e n i n g

o r i s

c o n c e i v e d

o f

a s i m m i n e n t . S i n c e th e par t i c i p le k 5 r e t i s p r o b a b l y a

p r e s e n t

tense, a s i m i l a r m e a n i n g i s

l i k e l y

fo r

c

oseh a s w e l l : a s

Y a h w e h

r e n e w s th e c o v e n a n t , he i s in the process o f d o i n g

s o m e t h i n g m a r v e l l o u s . T h a t Y a h w e h m a k e s th e c o v e n a n t

b e f o r e a l l y o u r p e o p l e r e f l e c t s t h e fa c t t h a t t h i s a c t i o n i s

b e i n g d o n e

o n M t .

S i n a i w i t h I s r a e l e n c a m p e d a r o u n d b e l o w .

I f t h i s a n a l y s i s is

correct

o n e m a y p a r a p h r a s e th e

ve r s e

t h u s .

T h e r e n e w a l o f a c o v e n a n t w i t h a s i n f u l p e o p l e i s s o m e t h i n g

q u i t e w i t h o u t p a r a l l e l

i n

h i s t o r y

( v .

l O a ) .

It

w i l l , t h e r e f o r e ,

c o n s t i t u t e

a

p o w e r f u l

t e s t i m o n y

to t he

c h a r a c t e r

o f G o d a n d

th e

n a t u r e

o f h i s

d e a l i n g s w i t h p e o p le

( v .

l O b .

F i n a l l y , t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f 34:10 t h u s i n t e r p r e t e d i s

f u r t h e r

e n h a n c e d b y a c o m p a r i s o n

w i t h

2 0 :2 , t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e

f i r s t l a w - g i v i n g . T h e r e th e i n t r o d u c t i o n i s f a c t u a l i n f o r m ,



T w o :

A n Exeges is o f E x o d u s 3 2 - 3 4

r e c o u n t i n g that s e q u e n c e

o f

events w h i c h

l ed u p to , a nd

f o r m e d

th e

b a s i s f o r ,

th e f o l l o w i n g

d e c a l o g u e .

I n

k e e p i n g w i t h

th e

c o n t e x t

t h e r e i s n o u n n e c e s s a r y e la b o r a t i o n o f t h e p o i n t . B u t

th e

c o n t e x t

o f

34 :10 ,

w h i c h

s e r v e s

as an


t o the

l a w s

o f vv .

1 1 - 2 6 ,

is

q u i t e d i f f e r e n t

- the s in o f

I s r a e l

h as

i n t e r v e n e d . T h a t G o d s h o u l d a g ai n m a k e a c o v e n a n t a n d g i v e

l a w s to

s u ch

a

people

i s n o w n o t

s i m p l y

stated bu t i s

a p p r o -

p r i at e l y d e s i g n at e d a s a n u n p a r a l l e l e d m a r v e l .

E x .

34 :11-26

T h e

s t a t e m e n t

t h a t

th e c o v e n a n t i s b e i n g r e n e w e d i s f o l lo w e d

by an e x p o s i t i o n o f t h e s t i p u l a t i o n s w h i c h a re i n t e g r a l to i t .

F i r s t ,

t h e r e

is a

g en e r a l p a r a en es i s ( vv .

1 1 - 1 6 ) ,

t h e n

a

s e r i es

o f

d e ta i led p r es c r ip t io n s ( vv . 17 -2 6 ) . A d e ta i l ed

t r e a t m e n t

o f th e

l a w s l i es beyond

th e

scope

o f t he

p r e s e n t task w h e r e

th e

p u r p o s e

i s to

d e t e r m i n e t h e i r l i t e r a r y

a n d

t h e o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n

w i t h i n th e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e n a r r a t i v e . 1 7 5

\

f

ew

b r i e f

o b s e r va ti o n s m u s t s u f f i c e .

T h e i n c l u s i o n

o f a

l ega l corpus

a t

t h i s p o i n t

m a y b e

o b j e c t e d

t o o n b o t h l i t e r a r y an d t h e o l o g i c a l g r o u n d s . T h e l i t e r a r y

a r g u m e n t

i s

t h a t

t h e in c lu s io n o f th e la ws d es t r oy s th e f l o w o f

t h e n a r r a t i v e . F a r

f r o m

p r o l o n g i n g t h e c li m a c t ic m o m e n t o f

c o v e n a n t

r e n e w a l ,

i t

seems

to

d e a d e n

i t . For m o s t m o d e r n

r e a d e r s

t h i s m a y w e l l b e t h e

case

N o n e t h e l e s s , a s a r g u e d

a b ove , 176

- - h e

l a w s

are of g r e a t

i m p o r t a n c e

fo r the

w r i t e r

an d h is

c o n c e p t i o n

o f

w h a t matters

i n the

story

I t

m i g h t also

b e said t h a t th e f e e l i n g

t h a t

th e l a w s a re a n t i - c l i m a c t i c i s

l a r ge ly

a

c u l t u r a l d i f f i c u l t y .

A J e w w h o

d e l i g h t e d

in

T o r a h

m i g h t w e l l f i n d

th e

ob jec t ion d i f f i c u l t

to

g rasp .

T h e o l o g i c a l l y

th e

p r o p r i e t y

o f

th is legal corpus

h e r e

h as

b een

q u e r i e d b y D r i v e r a n d M c N e i l e . D r i v e r cites w i t h a p p r o v a l

M c N e i le s c o m m e n t that a f r e s h b o d y o f l a w s i s n o t r e q u i r e d

b eca use

a

c o v e n a n t h a v i n g b e en f o r m e d ( 2 4 : 7 f . ) ,

an d

b a s e d u p o n

la ws wh ich a re g iven

e a r l i e r

in the book (20:22-23:33), an d

t h e n h a v i n g b e en b r o k e n b y s i n , a l l

t h a t

c a n c o n c e i v a b l y

b e r e q u i r e d i s r e p e n t a n c e a n d f o r g i v e n e s s . T h e o r i g i n a l

c o v e n a n t l a w s m u s t u n a l t e r a b l y h o l d

g o o d . 7 7

This is i n s e n s i t ive to th e s e r iou s n e s s o f th e s in o f I s ra e l a n d th e

w r i t e r s a w a r e n e s s o f I sr ae l s c o n t i n u i n g l y s i n f u l n a t u r e . T h e

p o i n t

o f

t h e s e l a ws

i s not to

r e n e w

th e

c o v e n a n t

o n

c o n d i t i o n s

d i f f e r e n t

f r o m

th o se p r e v i o u s l y o b t a i n i n g ( E x . 2 0 - 2 4 ) - t h e i r

95



A t t h e

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

c o n t i n u i n g v a l i d i t y i s t a k e n fo r g r a n t e d - bu t t o

select

a n d

e m p h a s i z e t h o s e p a r t i c u l a r spects w h i c h re r e l e v a n t ̂t o t h e

s n u l t e n d e n c i e s w h i c h I s r a e l

h a s

d i s p l a y e d . T h a t

i s ,

I s r ae l

h a s

been

u n f a i t h f u l

t o

Y a h w e h

a n d

s i n n e d a g a i n s t

t h e

f i r s t

t w o

c o m m a n d m e n t s o f t h e

d e c a l o g u e

i n p a r t i c u l a r ,

'7 8

nc

| oth

t h e p a r a e n e s i s a n d t h e p r e s c r i p t i o n s o f

34:1

1-26 a re , i n

d i f f e r e n t w a y s , m o r e o r le ss r e l e v a n t t o t h e o b s e r v a t i o n o f

t h e s e

sa m e c o m m a n d m e n t s . T h a t

i s w h y t h e

l a w s

o f 3 4 : 1 1 - 2 6

a r e c u l t i c i n e m p h a s i s . T h e f i r s t t w o c o m m a n d m e n t s a r e c u l t ic

c o m m a n d m e n t s a n d I sr a e l's si n w i t h t h e c a l f w a s a c u l t i c s i n . A s

Y a h w e h

r e n e w s t h e c o v e n a n t h e d o es s o b y d e m a n d i n g

o b e d i e n c e

i n t h e

a r e a w h e r e I s r a e l

h a s

a l r e a d y f a i l e d

a n d

w h e r e

i t

w i l l

be

u n d e r c o n t i n u a l t e m p t a t io n

i n t h e

p r o m i s e d

l a n d

to s i n

a g a i n .

T h e o l o g i c a l l y t h e d e m a n d f o r I sr a e l 's o b e d i e n c e a t t h i s p o i n t

i s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e . F o r i t c o m e s d i r e c t l y a f t e r t h e e x p o s i t i o n o f

t he m e r c y o f Y a h w e h w h i c h i s a s a b so l u t e a n d u n c o n d i t i o n a l a s

i t c o u l d b e . W i t h o u t a n y s e n s e o f

i n c o n g r u i t y

t h e w r i t e r

j u x t a p o s e s

w i t h t h i s a s t r o n g d e m a n d f o r

t o t a l

o b e d i e n c e o n t h e

p a r t o f I sra e l . T h e w r i t e r t h u s r e v e a l s a s t r i k i n g u n d e r s t a n d i n

o f f a i t h a n d w o r k s . O n t h e o n e h a n d I sr a e l 's p o s i t i o n i s e n -

t i r e l y d e p e n d e n t u p o n Y a h w e h a n d M o s e s a n d i n n o w a y u p o n

t h e m s e l v e s ; e v e n t h e i r

s in

d oes

n o t f o r f e i t

t h e i r p o s i t i o n .

O n t h e

o t h e r h a n d t h e y c a n o n l y l i v e a s t h e p e o p le o f Y a h w e h i f t h e y

f a i t h f u l l y obey

h i m i n a l l

t h e y

d o .

T h e o l o g i c a l ly

i t i s n o t a c se

o f e i t h e r - o r b u t o f

bo th

-

a n d .

T h e

p a r a e n e s i s

o f v v . 1 1 - 1 6 st rts by l o o k i n g a h e a d t o t h e

f a c t

t h a t

Y a h w e h i s g o i n g to lead th e p e o p l e i n t o th e p r o m i s e d

l a n d .

A s

m e n t i o n e d a b o v e ,

th e

a s s u m p t i o n

t h a t

o n c e

th e

c o v e n a n t m a k i n g a t S i n a i i s c o m p l e te th e peop le a r e t o m o v e o n

i n t o th e p r o m i s e d l a n d u n d e r l i e s t h e n a r r a t i v e . I t i s a p p r o p r i a t e

t h e r e f o r e t o

t a k e

u p t h e t h e m e h e r e , p a r t i c u l a r l y b ec a u se i t

r a i s e s w h a t i s l i k e l y t o b e t h e n e x t m o m e n t o f a c u t e t e m p t a t i o n

fo r

Israe l

to

a p o s t a s i z e

f r o m

Y a h w e h ,

th e

t i m e

o f

c o n t a c t w i t h

t h e

c u l t u r e

a n d

r e l ig i o n

o f

C a n a a n .

T h e w o r d i n g , B e h o ld I

w i l l

d r i v e o u t ...

( h i n n i g 5 r e s )

i s

s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h e l i g h t o f w h a t h a s p r e c e d e d . T h e p r o m i s e o f

2 3 : 2 0 f f .

w a s

t h a t

t h e a n g e l , m e d i a t i n g t h e p re se n c e o f Y a h w e h

h i m s e l f ,

w o u l d le a d t h e p e o p le a s t h e y m o v e d o n . A f t e r Israe l ' s

s i n ,

n o t o n l y

w o u l d

t h e a n g e l n o l o n g e r m e d i a t e Y a h w e h ' s

p r e s e n c e i n t h e

s a m e

w a y a s

b e f o r e ,

b u t t h e

c ruc i a l i s sue

b e c a m e th e r e s t o r a t i o n o f Y a h w e h ' s p re se n c e i n t h e s h r i n e i n

96



T w o : A n E x e g e s i s o f E x o d u s

3 2 - 3 4

t h e m i d s t o f I s r a e l . N o w I s r a e l ' s s i n h a s b e e n d e a l t w i t h , t h e

c o v e n a n t r e n e w e d , a n d p e r m i s s i o n to b u i l d t h e s h r i n e r e s t o r e d .

T h e r e f o r e t h e

f u t u r e g u i d a n c e

o f

I s r a e l

i s n o

l o n g e r

a

p r o b l e m .

B ec au s e

Y a h w e h

is in the

m i d s t

o f

Israe l

h e ca n

also

lead the m

a n d f i g h t f o r t h e m . T o s t r e s s t h e p o i n t , t h e a n g e l i s n o t

m e n t i o n e d h e re e ve n t h o u g h i t

w o u l d

f u l l y m e d i a t e t h e d i v i n e

p r e s e n c e a g a i n , s i n c e a f t e r

32 :34 ,

3 3 : 2 f .

i t

m i g h t s t i ll

b e

t a k e n

t o i m p l y a s e c o n d - b e s t . N o n e b u t Y a h w e h h i m s e l f ( h n n y ) w i l l

f i g h t f o r t h e p e o p l e .

V v. 1 2 - 1 6 p r e s e n t a s t r o n g d e m a n d f o r e x c l u s i v e c o m m i t m e n t

to Y a h w e h a l o n e . T h i s i s n o t a n o v e l e l e m e n t w i t h i n E x .

3 2 - 3 4

s i n c e t h i s d e m a n d is a p r e s u p p o s i t i o n f o r I s r a e l ' s s in in Ex . 32 . In

p a r t i c u l a r

i t ha s

b e e n

se e n t h a t

in

3 2 : 2 5- 2 9

t h e r e

is a

d e u t e r o n o m i c t h e o l o g y o f


t o Y a h w e h . T h i s spect

o f

th e

co v en a n t c o m m i t m e n t

i s

m o r e f u l l y d e v e l o p e d

i n t h e

p r e s e n t c o n t e x t .

34 :1 4 is an i m p o r t a n t v e r s e . T h e c o m p a r i s o n o f

3 4 : 1 4 b

w i t h

2 0 : 5 b

a

s h o w s

a


a n d

e x p a n s i o n

o f t h e

e a r l i e r t e x t

n o t

d i s s i m i l a r to

t h a t

i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f 3 4 : 6 f . to 20:6:

34:14: k y y h w h q n '

§ r n w

1

q n ' h w '

20:3:

ky

' n k y

y h w h ' I h y k

1

q n '

T h e b a s ic p r i n c i p l e i s e n u n c i a t e d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e

d e c a l o g u e . I t i s n o w

r e i t e r a t e d

i n f a r

m o r e e m p h a t i c f o r m ,

a s

w a s

th e p r i n c i p l e o f

Y a h w e h ' s h e s e d ,

b e c a u s e o f t h e s i t u a t i o n

o b t a i n i n g a f t e r I s ra e l 's s i n . N o w h e r e e l se i n t h e O T is Y a h w e h ' s

j e al o u s y m a d e

so

e m p h a t i c ( c o m p a r e D e u t . 4:24, 6 : 1 4 f . , 3 o s h .

2 4 : 1 9 f . ) .

T h e f a c t o f Israe l ' s


c a l l s f o r t h t h e

e m p h a t i c

r e s t a t e m e n t

t h a t su c h u n f a i t h f u l n e s s i s i n c o m p a t i b le

w i t h t h e n a t u r e o f Y a h w e h , 17 9

nc

j

t h e r e f o r e w i t h b e in g

Y a h w e h ' s

c o v e n a n t p e o p le . F a i t h f u l n e s s to Y a h w e h m u s t b e a l l

o r n o t h i n g . T h i s d e v e lo p s th e w r i t e r ' s t h e o l o g i c a l b a l a n c e

m e n t i o n e d a b o v e .

O n t h e o n e

h a n d

Y a h w e h ' s

m e r c y

is

r e v e a l e d

m o r e f u l l y t ha n h i t h e r t o , b u t o n t h e o t h e r h a n d h is d e m a n d u p o n

I s r a e l

is

l i k e w i s e i n t e n s i f i e d .

O n e o t h e r

i n t e r e s t i n g

f e a t u r e

in v. 14 is i ts

r e f e r e n c e

to

a n o t h e r g o d

( 1

* h r )

in the s i n g u l a r .

18 0

-]-

n

j

s

s i n g u l a r

is

u n i q u e

in th e O T , t h e c u s t o m a r y d e s i g n a t i o n b e i n g p l u r a l , ' j h y m ' h r y m .

I t i s poss ib le

t h a t

t h i s r e f l e c t s t he sp e c i f ic s in w i t h t he c a lf i n

c h . 3 2 , f o r w h i c h t h e g e n e r a l i z i n g p l u r a l w o u l d b e s l i g h t l y less

a p p r o p r i a t e . T h e f a c t t h a t th e calf w a s d e s i g n a t e d w i t h a p l u r a l

v e r b a n d d e m o n s t r a t i v e i n ch . 3 2 d o e s n o t t e l l a g a i n s t t h i s ,

s i n ce th t w a s t h e m o s t e f f e c t i v e w a y in c o n t e x t o f c o n v e y i n g



A t the M o u n t a i n of God

t he pa ga n na t u r e o f t he occas ion .

The laws

which fol low in vv.

17-26

are to be

unders tood

as an

i l l u s t r a t i o n of the ge ne ra l p r in c ip les of vv . 11-16. Th ey seek to

ensure pu r i ty of theo logica l m ea nin g and r i tu a l

practice

w i th i n

th e

c u l t

o f

Is rae l .

It is

t r u e that t h e r e

is

l i t t l e ex pl ic i t

r e f e r e n c e

to a

concern

fo r

p u r i t y

in vv.

17-26 ,

bu t

t h i s

can be

seen as a f u r t h e r case w h e r e th e wr i t e r a ssumes

that

th e

c o n t e x t

wi l l

m a k e

h is

m e a n i n g clear

T h e

con t ex t

of vv.

11-16

has set f o r w a r d the d is t inc t iveness of

Y a h w i s m f r o m

C a n a a n i t e

re l ig ion in s t r o n g t e r m s . If t h e r e is a close connec t i on b e t w een

vv. 11-16

and vv. 17 -26, and such a conn ect ion is ev id en t a t

least in v. 17, then the w ay to i n t e r p r e t th e laws w ou ld

n a t u r a l l y

be in

t e r m s

o f

t he i r b e i ng

a

de ta i l ed appl ica t ion

of the

genera l p r inc ip les preced ing .181

i t may be

attempted

to

reconstruct

th e

wri ter ' s

theological


as r e f l e c t e d in vv.

11-26

w i t h o u t , I hope , s i m pl y

produc ing a m o der n m i d r ash ,

182

tn

p a t t e r n

o f t h o u g h t m a y

be r o u g h l y a s f o l l ow s .

Israel 's

s in fu l

t e n d e n c y

to

c o m p r o m i s e

i t s

c o m m i t m e n t

to

Y a h w e h and to e x p r e ss its

fa i th

in the

symbols

of the

s u r r o u n d i n g r e l i g i ous cu l t u r e r a t he r t ha n in the wa y prescr ibed

by

Y a hw eh ha s a l r ea dy becom e ev i den t ev en w h i l e t he peop le

a re s t i l l a t Sina i . N o w that th e c o v e n a n t is b e i n g r e n e w e d th e

people a re to move on to the l and of Canaan

w h i c h

Y a h w e h h as

promised to g ive them (v . 11). B u t here th e pressure to fo rm

treaties w i t h t he C a na a n i t e s , w i t h t he i nev i t a b l e a dop t i on o f , o r

a t

least

a c c o m m o d a t i o n to , a l i en re l ig ious

practices

(vv. 12,15) ,

wi l l

lead to a r e l i g i ous com pr om i se una ccep t a b l e to Y a h w e h

w h o

d e m a n d s e x cl us iv e co m m i t m e n t f r o m h is people (vv.

13 , 1^ ) .

T h e

t e m p t a t i o n s

in Canaan wi l l be fa r greater than those

e x p e r i e n c e d

a t

S i n a i . T h e y m u s t t h e r e f o r e

b e

resist ed un com -

promis ing ly if Israel is to su rv iv e as the people of Y ah w eh (v.

13). Even socia l in te rcourse l ead ing

to

i n t e r - m a r r i a g e

wi l l

be

d e s t r u c t iv e o f c o m m i t m e n t t o Y a h w e h a n d m u s t b e r e je c te d ( v.

16).

It is one

t h i n g

to enunc i a t e gene r a l p r i nc i p l es . It is a n o t h e r to

w o r k t h e m

out in

practice

It is in

o f f i c i a l cu l t i c

w o r s h i p

t h a t

Israel 's c o m m i t m e n t

to

Y a h w e h

is

necessar i ly focussed

and

f inds

i t s t rue express ion . Therefore the de ta i l s o f th i s

w o r s h i p ,

or

a t

least

a

r ep r esen t a t i v e select ion

o f

t h e m , 1^3 m u s t

be

c a r e f u l l y prescr ibed so

t h a t

Is rae l ' s worsh ip m a y b e t r u e to

Y a h w e h . It is i m p o r t a n t in the f i r s t instance that t h e r e should

be no cu l t i c idols, fo r such idols, l ike th e ca l f , a re a n t i t h e t i c a l

98



T w o :

A n E x e g e s i s o f E x o d u s

3 2 - 3 4

t o t h e b a s ic n a t u r e o f

Y a h w e h s

r e v e l a t i o n o f h i m s e l f ( v . 1 7).

T h i s

p r a c t i c a l p r e s c r i p t i o n

f o r

t r u e w o r s h i p

i s

m a d e

t h a t

m u c h

m o r e

d i f f i u l t b y t h e

f a c t

t h a t

t h e r e

w i l l

i n e v i t a b l y

b e

c e r t a i n

f o r m a l

s i m i l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n t h e c u l t i c

w o r s h i p

o f I s r a e l a n d

t h a t

o f

th e

C a n a a n i t e s . A l t h o u g h

th e

C a n a a n i t e m o d e

o f

w o r s h i p

i s

t o b e

r e j e c t e d ,

th e

f r a m e w o r k

o f

f e a s ts t h r o u g h

th e

y e a r

i s a

r i g h t

a n d

n e c e s s a ry p a t t e r n

o f

w o r s h i p

f o r a

p e o p l e

w h o w i l l b e

l i v i n g i n a n

a g r i c u l t u r a l s o c i e ty ( v v . 1 8 , 2 2 ,2 3 ) . S i n c e

Y a h w e h i s

th e

g i v e r

o f t h e

l a n d

(v .

2 4 ) ,

i t is

r i g h t

f o r the

p e o p l e

t o

o f f e r

b ack t o h i m t h e f r u i t s o f t h e l a n d . T h e m e a n i n g o f t h e s e f e a s t s

w i l l b e

d i f f e r e n t

f o r

I s rae l than

f o r t h e

C a n a a n i t e s .

T h e

f e a s t

o f

u n l e a v e n e d

b r e a d w i l l n o l o n g e r b e o f p u r e l y a g r i c u l t u r a l


b u t

w i l l

r e c a l l Y a h w e h s

acts

o f s a l v a t i o n o n

b e h a l f

o f I s rael (v . 18c) .

D e s p i t e t h e r e j e c t i o n o f C a n a a n i t e p r a c t i c e s , i t m u s t b e

s t r es s ed

t h a t Y a h w e h m a k e s n o less d e m a n d

u p o n

I s r ae l t h an

t h e C a n a a n i t e g o d s d o u p o n t h e i r a d h e r e n t s . A l t h o u g h Y a h w e h

d o e s

n o t

r e q u i r e h u m a n s a c r i f i c e ,

th e

f i r s t

a n d b e s t o f

I s r a e l

i s

h i s b y r i g h t ( v v . 1 9 ,2 0 ) . T h e n eed t o p r o v i d e an

o f f e r i n g

f o r

Y a h w e h

( v .

2 0 b ^ ) d o e s

n o t

m e a n t h a t w o r k m u s t o v e r r id e

Y a h w e h s

p r o v i s i o n

f o r

r e s t

( v .

2 1 ) .

T h e

o t h e r

tw o

m a j o r

f e s t i v a l s o f t h e

y e a r ,

in

a d d i t i o n

to t h a t o f

u n l e a v e n e d b r e a d ,

a re a l so t o b e o b s e r v e d ( v . 2 2 ) , a s p a r t o f t h e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e

o f

r e g u l a r l y c o m i n g b e f o r e Y a h w e h

in

w o r s h i p

(v .

2 3 ) . Th er e

n e e d b e n o p r a c t i c a l

d i f f i c u l t y

o v er c o m i n g b e f o r e Y a h w e h a t

f e s t i v a l

t i m e b e ca u s e Y a h w e h

i s G o d o f t h e

l a n d

a n d w i l l

protect a m a n s i n h e r i t a n c e d u r i n g h is

a b s e n c e

( v . 24 ) . A n

a p p e n d i x

o f

f o u r

b r i e f c u l t ic c o m m a n d m e n t s i s a d d e d t o

s t r e s s

t h e

i m p o r t a n c e

o f

c o r r e c t Y a h w i s t i c p r a c t i c e

a t t h e

f e s t i v a l s

( v v . 2 5 , 2 6 ) .

T h i s

o u t l i n e i s n o t t h e o n l y w a y t o i n t e r p r e t t h e s e l a w s , a n d

i t s

a c c u r a c y

i n

d e t a i l

i s

s e c o n d a r y

t o th e t a sk o f

s h o w i n g

a t

least a c e r t a in o v e r a l l c o h e r e n c e i n t he s e l e c t i o n o f t he l a w s . A

f e w p o i n t s

o f

d e t a i l

d o ,

h o w e v e r , r e q u i r e f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t i o n

i n

s u p p o r t

o f t h e

o u t l i n e o f f e r e d .

F i r s t , i t is n o t a b l e t h a t t h e p r o h i b i t i o n w h i c h s t a n d s f i r s t , i n

th e

p o s i t i o n

o f

i m p o r t a n c e , r e l a t e s s p e c i f i c a l l y

t o t he s i n o f

I s r a e l i n E x . 3 2 . T h i s e m e r g e s t h e m o r e c l e a r l y f r o m a c o m -

p a r i s o n w i t h th e p a r a l l e l i n E x . 20:4.

34:17:

e

lohe

m a s s ek a h

15

ta

c a

g e h - 1 5 k

20:4: 15 ta

c

aseh l

e

ka

p e s e l

T h e

m o r e g e n e r a l t e r m

p sl i s

r e p l a c e d

b y m s k h . 1 8 4

n

£

x

. 3 2

99



aT TEH mOUNTAINf God

Israel 's

sin has

been

to

m a k e

a

mol ten ca l f

c

gl

mskh) to

which

they refer

as

'Ihym

(32:4). T he

specif ic pro hibit io n

of 'Ihy

ms kh

relates

to the s i n f u l

tendency towards fa l se

w o r s h i p

al ready displayed.

Secondly ,

the inc lus ion of the

dedica t ion

of the f i r s tbo rn to

Y a h w e h

makes sense

as an

e x a m p l e

of the

dis t inct ion

to be

preserved be tween

Y a h w i s m a nd

Canaani te r e l ig ion even

wh e n

t he r e a r e s im i l a r i t i e s . Canaan i t e r e l ig ion cou l d invo l ve the

practice of

sacr i f ic ing

no t

on l y

the

f i r s tbo r n

o f

an im al s

bu t also

a f i r s tbo rn son.1^5 Such a h u m a n

s ac r i f i ce

is


w i t h

Y a h w i s m .

But the

poin t

is that

Y a h w e h d e m a n d s

no

less

than

the Canaanite gods, and so if he chooses to forego his

c la im then the Israe l ite m u s t s t il l r em em be r tha t his son is to

be

redeemed

and

belongs

to him not by

r i g h t

bu t by

gi f t .

Yah w eh ' s

a u t h o r i t y o v e r l i fe is e m p h a s i z e d by the

statement

that

the

f i r s tbo r n

o f

a n i m a l s

are al l

his.

T he o f f e r i n g of the f i r s t b o rn is

a l s o m en t ioned

in Ex.

13:2,12f.

H er e

Y a h w e h ' s

r i g h t

to the f i r s t b o r n is

connected w ith

his h a v i n g

slain

the f i r s tbo rn o f

E g y p t

b u t

spared

the f i r s t b o rn

of

Israel . A l t h o u g h

no t

made expl ic i t

in 34:19f .

th is t r ad i t ion

is

probably presupposed. This

is suggested by its

placing af ter

the

reference to the exodus in v. 18c. Is rael ' s response to

Y a h w e h

is

charac ter i st ica l ly l inked w i th

the

tradi t ion

of Yahweh 's

saving

acts.

T h i r d ly ,

the

pos i t i on ing

of the

s a b b a t h c o m m a n d m e n t

m a y

w el l be to

deal wi th

a

possible

d i f f i c u l t y occasioned by the

d e m a n d

of v.

20b ,

in a way not

d i s s i m i l a r

to the link

between

v. 24 and v. 23. The

im por t ance

of

pr ov id ing

an

o f f e r i n g fo r Y a h w e h

c o u l d

b e

taken

to i m p l y a

need

a t

t im es

to

neglec t Y ahw eh ' s provis ion

fo r

rest

if the

o f f e r i n g

is to be

b r o u g h t . V. 21

denies

that

th is shou ld

be the case. Even at the

i m p o r t a n t

t i m e s

o f p l o u g h i n g and

h a r v e s t

rest

is to be

observed .

This observance o f rest wi l l no t m e a n

that

the Israelite w i l l no t

b e

able

to br ing a s u f f i c i e n t o f f e r i n g at the

r equ i s i t e t im es .

O n

th e c o n t r a r y , it

wil l

e n s u r e it.

F o u r t h l y , a

possible

link

b e t w e e n

34:26b and the

U g a r i t i c

text

1.23:14

ha s

long

been noted.

This

U g a r i t i c text, taken to r e f e r

to

boi l ing

a kid in

m i l k ,

w o u l d

sugges t

that the

force

of the

He b r e w

prohib i t ion

lies

in an

an t i -C ana an i t e po l em ic ; even

t h o ugh Israel is to keep the s am e

feasts

as the Canaani tes , their

r i t u a l practice

at the feas t is to be d i f f e r e n t - perhaps speci f -

ica l ly

in the

reject ion

o f

f e r t i l i t y m a g i c .

In three recent

s tud ie s , 1^ 6

both the genera l ly

accepted



T w o :

A n

Ex eg es i s

o f

E x o d u s 3 2 - 3 4

r e s t o r a t i o n o f t h e U g a r i t i c t e x t a n d t h e c u l t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f

th e text a s a wh ole h av e b een se r iou s ly q u e s t i o n e d , a n d i t n o w

a p p e a r s

t h a t

t h e p a r a l l e l

w i t h

t h e b i b l i c a l i n j u n c t i o n i s

i n v a l i d .

18 7

H a r a n a r g u e s

t h a t

t h e p o i n t o f t h e b i b l i c a l

t e x t

is

to

p r e v e n t

a

p r a c t i c e c o n s i d e r e d

m o r a l l y

r e v o l t i n g

o n t h e

basis

o f h u m a n e c o n s i d e ra ti o n s . B u t even if t h i s is correct, s o m e

i m p l i c a t i o n o f a n t i - C a n a a n i t e p o l e m i c m a y n o t b e e n t i r e l y

l a c k i n g i n t h e b i b l i c a l p r e c e p t , in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e t e n o r o f

th e l a w s as a w h o l e .

E x . 34 :27-28

W e

see in vv .

1 1 - 2 6 t h a t

as the

c o v e n a n t

is

r e n e w e d Y a h w e h

d e m a n d s


to

h i m s e l f

a s a

n e c e s s a r y p a r t

o f t h e

c o v e n a n t . V v . 2 7 - 2 8 t h e n b r i n g t o a c o n c l u s i o n M o s e s'

s o j o u r n

o n

M t. S i n a i .

A

p e r m a n e n t w r i t t e n r ec o rd

o f the

c o v e n a n t

is to be

p r o v i d e d ,

to

s e r v e

as a

r e m i n d e r

a n d

w i t n e s s

in the f u t u r e . 188

These

tw o

verses

m a y a t

f i r s t s ig h t a p p e a r

t o b e straight-

f o r w a r d . G o d te l ls M o s e s to w r i t e d o w n th e l a w s h e h a s j u s t

g i v e n , a n d M o s e s c o m p l i e s . S u c h w o u l d b e a s i m p l e a n d

a p p a r e n t l y a p p r o p r i a t e c o n c l u s i o n t o t h e p re c e d i n g n a r r a t i v e .

This

s e e m i n g l y o b vio u s r e a d i n g , h o w e v e r ,

raises

tw o

p r o b l e m s

w h e n

t a k e n in the c o n t e x t o f E x . 34 as a w h o l e .

T h e

f i r s t p r o b l e m a r i s e s f r o m th e f a c t

t h a t

v . 2 8 b sp ec i f i e s

t h a t th e te n w o r d s

c

srt

h d b r y m ) w e r e w r i t t e n o n t h e

tablets, y e t v . 2 7 clear ly

e n v i s a g e s

that th e t e r m s f o r t h e

r e n e w a l o f t h e c o v e n a n t w h i c h a r e t o b e r e c o r d e d a re t h o s e

s p e c i f i e d i n t h e p r e c e d i n g

s e c t i o n ,

v v . 1 1 - 2 6 . A n d t h e r e i s no

d e c a lo g u e o b v i o u s l y p r e s en t

in these

v e r s e s .

H o w

th en

can t h e

ten w o r d s

b e r e l a t e d t o

w h a t p r e c e d e s ?

T h e second p r ob lem l i e s

in the

t e n s i o n

created

b e t w e e n

v .

2 8 b

a n d v . I b . If M o s e s is the s u b j e c t o f

w y k t b

in v. 2 8 b , h o w i s

th i s t o b e reco nc i led w i th v . 1 w h e r e i t i s said t h a t Y a h w e h wi l l

w r i t e

u p o n

th e tablets? A l t h o u g h o n e c o u l d i n t e r p r e t v . 28 b in

the l i g h t of v . 1 as s h o w i n g M o ses f u n c t i o n i n g as the w r i t i n g

f i n g e r

o f

Y H W H , 1 8 9

̂ls js no t a natural reading of the text.

I t

is the

f i r s t

o f t h e s e

p r o b l e m s ,

in

s o m e

f o r m , t h a t h as

m o s t

o c c u p ie d m o d e r n s c h o la rs

s i n c e G o e t h e ;

1°^ w h a t

is

i n t e n d e d

by the

te n

w o r d s , w h e n t h e y

are se t in

c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h

v v .

1 1 - 2 6 ? T h i s

wi l l

t h e r e f o r e

b e t h e

best

p o i n t

a t

w h i c h

to

b e g i n

o u r

s t u d y

o f v v .

2 7 - 2 8 .

T h e

g r e a t m a j o r i t y o f

s c h o l a r s h a v e

accepted th e

r e f e r e n c e

to the te n w o r d s a s o r i g i n a l to the text. It is poss ib le that th e

w o r d s are a m a r g i n a l g lo s s. I f s o , t h e y

w o u l d

best b e u n d e r s t o o d




a s a n

a t t e m p t

to

express

th e

d e u t e r o n o m i c c o n c e p t i o n

o f t h e

d e c a lo g u e a s s t a n d i n g a p a r t f r o m a l l o t h e r la w s a n d c o n s t i t u t i n g

b y i t s e l f t h e b a s i s o f t h e c o v e n a n t , a d i s t i n c t i o n w h i c h d i d n o t

e x i s t

i n t h e e a r l i e r

t r a d i t i o n . ' 9 1

T h e

m a i n

m o t i v e , h o w e v e r ,

fo r se e i n g the w o r d s a s a gloss is the bel ie f that t h e y d o n o t

c o h e r e

w e l l w i t h t h e i r c o n text.

92

j

t mus

t

t h e r e f o r e

b e d e -

c i d e d w h e t h e r

o r n o t

t h i s

is

a c t u a l ly

th e

case.

O f t h o s e s c h o l a r s

w h o

accept th e

te n

w o r d s

a s

o r i g i n a l ,

s o m e h a v e a r g u e d o n t h a t b a s i s fo r t he p r e s e n c e o f a d e c a l o g u e

in v v . 11-26 a s t h e y n o w s t a n d . 1 93 others h a v e a r g u e d t h a t ,

a s t h e r e i s n o d e c a l o g u e t o b e f o u n d i n v v . 11-26 th e r e f e r e n c e

to th e te n w o r d s i s e v i d e n c e

t h a t

a d e c a l o g u e , i d e n t i c a l o r

s i m i l a r

to

t h a t

in Ex. 20 , d id

o n c e

s t a n d i n t h e

text

o f E x .

34

b u t

t h a t i t w a s d i sp l aced a n d that th e p r e s e n t l a w s a r e a

s u b s t i t u t e f o r i t .

1

9 4

R a t h e r t h a n assess

t h e s e

a r g u m e n t s

in

d e t a i l ,

tw o

p o i n t s

m a y

b e

m a d e . F i r s t , s u c h

is the

v a r i e t y

o f

pr o p o se d r e c o n s tr u c t i o n s

o f

a

d e c a l o g u e

i n v v .

11-26

t h a t th e

w h o l e a t t e m p t

to

f i n d

o n e

b e c o m e s

u n c o n v i n c i n g .

195 -r

ne

s i tu a t i o n i s i n n o w a y c o m -

p a r a b l e

to

t h a t

i n E x . 2 0

w h e r e , a l t h o u g h

t h e r e h a s

a l w a y s b e e n

d i f f i c u l t y

o v e r

th e

p re c i se

n u m b e r i n g

o f t h e

d e c a l o g u e ,

i t h a s

h a r d l y ever be e n s e r i o u s l y d o u b t e d that i t is a

d e c a l o g u e

w i t h

w h i c h

o n e i s

d e a l i n g . 19 6 j

n

i

aw

s

o f E x .

34

d o n o t , h o w e v e r ,

look

l i k e a d e c a l o g u e . A n d w e r e i t no t fo r the te n w o r d s o f v .

2 8 i t is

u n l i k e l y

that m u c h a t t e m p t w o u l d h a v e b e e n m a d e to

f i n d

o n e .

S e c o n d l y ,

th e

p r o p o s a l s

fo r

e i t h e r

a

p r e s e n t

o r a

d i sp l aced

d e c a l o g u e b o t h s h a r e o n e c ru c i a l a s s u m p t i o n , that v . 2 8 b ( w h a t

w a s w r i t t e n o n t h e t a b l e t s ) i s t o be r e a d as t he

f u l f i l m e n t

o f v .

27

( w h a t M o s e s

w a s

c o m m a n d e d

to

w r i t e ) .

B u t i s

t h i s

neces-

s a r y ? T h e t e n s i o n b e t w e e n v . 2 8 b a n d v .

I b

h a s a l r e a d y b e e n

n o t ed . I n t he l ig h t o f v . 1 i t w o u l d be poss ib l e t o r ead v . 28b

w i t h Y a h w e h , n o t M o s e s , a s

s u b j e c t . 1 9 7

A n d i f

Y a h w e h

w r o t e , t h e n

o n e w o u l d e x p e c t h i m t o

w r i t e s o m e t h i n g o t h e r

t h a n w h a t h e h a s j u s t t o l d M o s e s to w r i t e . T h a t i s , t h e w o r d s o f

th e c o v e n a n t , t h e t e n w o r d s i n v . 2 8 b m a y r e f e r to s o m e t h i n g

o t h e r t h a n t h e la w s o f v v . 11-26

w h i c h

Moses i s t o l d t o wr i t e i n

v . 2 7 .

T h i s p o s s i b i l i t y d e m a n d s

a

c a r e f u l r e a p p r a i s a l

o f t h e


o f v . 28b to v . 27 .

f a v o u r o f t h e v i e w

that

v . 2 7 a n d v . 2 8 b a r e t o b e t a k e n i n

close

c o n j u n c t i o n , w i t h

th e

latter

a s t h e

f u l f i l m e n t

o f t h e

f o r m e r , t h e r e a r e t h r e e m a i n a r g u m e n t s . F i r s t , i t s e e m s n a t u r a l

in c o n t e x t that v . 28b s h o u l d s p e c i f y th e c a r r y i n g o u t o f t h e

2



T w o : A n

E x e g e s i s

o f E x o d u s 3 2 - 3 4

p r e c e d i n g c o m m a n d in v . 27 ( c f . 34:4 w i t h 3 4 : 1) . S e c o n d l y , t h e r e

is t h e u s e o f b e r i t h in

b o t h v e r s e s . T h i r d l y , s i n c e M o s es

i s t he

s u b j e c t i n v .

2 8 a ,

h e

s h o u l d

n a t u r a l l y

s t i l l

b e t h e

s u b j e c t

i n v .

2 8 b .

n s u p p o r t o f th e i n d e p e n d e n c e , o f v . 2 8 b

f r o m

v . 27 there a re

also good

e x e g e t i c a l

a r g u m e n t s . F i r s t ,

v . 2 7

t w i c e d e s i g n a t e s

t h e w o r d s M o s es is t o l d t o w r i t e a s t h e s e w o r d s ( h d b r y m

h ' l h ) .

n v . 2 8 b w h a t i s w r i t t e n i s n o t t h u s d e s i g n a t e d , b u t a s t h e

w o r d s

o f t h e c o v e n a n t a n d t h e t e n w o r d s . V . 2 7 , b y t h e u s e o f

h ' l h , c l e a r ly i d e n t i f i e s t h e w o r d s t o b e w r i t t e n w i t h t h e

p r e c e d i n g l a w s

o f v v . 1 1 - 2 6 . B u t

n e i t h e r w o r d s

o f t h e

c o v e n a n t n o r th e t e n w o r d s i n t h e m s e l v e s n e c e s s i t a t e

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

w i t h

vv . 1

1 - 2 6 .

S e c o n d l y ,

v . 2 7 d o es n o t m e n t i o n t h e t a b l e t s o f s t o n e w h e r e a s

v . 2 8b does V. 27 , in i t s e l f , c o u l d e n v i s a g e M o s es w r i t i n g o n a

s c r o l l

o r

s o m e c o v e n a n t d o c u m e n t ( c f . 2 4 :7 ) , w h i l e t h i s

is

e x c l u d e d i n v . 28 b .

T h i r d l y , t h e r e i s t h e i n t e r p o s i t i o n o f v . 2 8 a s e p a r a t i n g t h e

s u r r o u n d i n g r e f e r e n c e s

t o t h e

c o v e n a n t .

V . 2 8 a

r e a d s n a t u r a l ly

a s t h e c o n c l u s i o n t o t h e p r ec e d in g n a r r a t i v e , r o u n d i n g o f f t h e

t i m e o f M o s e s '

s o j o u r n

o n S i n a i . If M o s es is the s u b j e c t in v . 28b

a n d

h e i s f u l f i l l i n g t h e c o m m a n d o f v . 2 7 , o n e w o u l d expect th e

n o t e i n v . 2 8 a a b o u t t h e d u r a t i o n o f h i s s t a y o n S i n a i t o c o m e

a f t e r v . 2 8 b a n d n o t b e f o r e . V . 2 8 b , c o m i n g a f t e r v . 2 8 a, r e a d s

l ike

a n

a d d i t i o n a l

n o t e ,

a d d e d

to t i e u p a

r e m a i n i n g loose

e n d i n

t h e n a r r a t i v e , r a t h e r t h a n a s a c o n t i n u a t i o n a n d

f u l f i l m e n t

o f v .

2 7 . A s

s u c h ,

th e

f o c u s

in v . 28 b

c o u l d h a v e m o v e d a w a y f r o m

M o s e s , r e f e r e n c e t o w h o m i s n o w c o m p l e te , t o

Y a h w e h .

F o u r t h l y ,

t h e a l t e r n a t i o n o f v e r b a l s u b j e c t i n v . 2 8 , c h a n g i n g

f r o m

M o s es as s u b j e c t in v . 28a to Y a h w e h as s u b j e c t in v . 2 8 b ,

w o u l d n o t b e u n n a t u r a l . A p a r a l l e l c a n b e se en i n

34:5,

w h e r e

t h e r e

is

l i k e w i s e

an


o f

v e r b a l s u b j e c t .

T h e

s u b jec t

is

n o t s p ec i f i ed e a c h t i m e , for i t i s a s s u m e d t h a t t h e c o n t e x t o f

t h e p r e c e d i n g v e r s e s m a k e s s u f f i c i e n t l y c l e a r w h o d o es w h a t .

T h e

c o n s id e r a t io n s r e l e v a n t

to

i n t e r p r e t i n g 3 4 : 5

c a n

ap p l y a l s o

to 34:28.

F i f t h l y ,

there i s t h e

verb a l p a ra l l e l b e t w e e n

v . I b a n d v .

28b:

34:1:

w k t b t y

c

l

h l h w t ' t - h d b r y m

3 4:2 8: w y k t w b

c

l

h l h w t

' t

d b r y h b r y t

T h i s v e r b a l p a r a l l e l is c lose r t h a n that b e t w e e n v . 2 7 a n d v . 2 8 ,

a n d

a r g u e s

f o r


v . 2 8 b i n t h e

l i g h t

of v . 1

r a t h e r

t h a n v

27

l98

T h e b a l a n c e o f e x e g e t i c a l p r o b a b i l i t y , s i m p l y c o n s i d e r i n g v .

10 3



T w o : A n E xe ge s i s o f E x o d u s 3 2 - 3 4

w o r d s (i.e.

th e

e x h o r t a t i o n s

a n d

l a w s r e q u i r i n g f a i t h f u l n e s s )

I

h a v e m a d e a c o v e n a n t

... . T h i s

t h e m e is t h e n

d r a w n

to a

c o n c l u s i o n b y the

n o t e a b o u t

th e

d u r a t i o n

o f M o s es

1

s t a y

o n

Si na i

a n d t h e c o n d i ti o n s h e e n d u r e d . T h e w r i t e r t h e n a d d s a

c o n c l u d i n g

n o t e s t a t i n g t h a t th e d e c a l o g u e o n t h e

t a b l e t s ,

w h i ch

Y a h w e h

h a d p r o m i s e d to w r i t e a g a i n ( 3 4 : 1 ) , w a s i n fa c t w r i t t e n

by

him.

T h a t

these a r e

s t i l l

th e

h e a r t

o f t h e

c o v e n a n t

is

t a k e n

fo r g r a n t e d

b y t h e

w r i t e r

w h o

d e s i g n a t e s t h e m the w o r d s

o f

th e c o v e n a n t . T h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n h a s b e e n e s s e n t i a l l y a n

e x p o s i t i o n , a p p r o p r i a t e

t o t h e

p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n ,

o f t h e

d e m a n d fo r c o v e n a n t f a i t h f u l n e s s to Y a h w e h a s e n s h r i n e d

e spe c i a l l y

i n t h e

f i r s t

tw o

c o m m a n d m e n t s .

T h e

w r i t e r t h u s a d d s

t h i s n o t e

to

m a k e

c l e a r t h a t

in

a d d i t i o n

to

g i v i n g

th e

pre sc r i p t i ons f o r t h e pa r t i c u l a r s i t ua t i o n o f r e n e w a l , Y a h w e h

also

f u l f i l l e d h is

p r o m i s e

o f 34:1 to

r e s t o r e

th e

t a b l e t s ,

w h i c h

are a

w i t n e s s

to a l l the

d e m a n d s

o f t h e

c o v e n a n t .

T o

m a k e c le a r

t h a t

these w o r d s

o f t h e

c o v e n a n t

a r e n o t t o b e

i d e n t i f i e d w i th

th e

w o r d s

of v . 27 , t he

w r i t e r a d d s

th e

c l a r i f y i n g n o t e t h a t

th e

w o r d s

o n th e tablets^ ̂ a r e t h e

a l r e a d y - k n o w n

ten

w o r d s .

T h e r e r e m a i n s o n e o t h e r p o i n t o f i n t e r e s t in vv . 2 7 - 2 8 , a n d

t h a t is the

w o r d i n g t h a t Y a h w e h

is

m a k i n g

th e

c o v e n a n t w it h

y o u

a n d

w i t h I s r a e l

( v .

27b, k r t y

'tk

b r y t w ' t - y s r ' l ) .

T h e

p o s i t i o n i n g

o f

and w i t h I sr ae l s e em s a w k w a r d .

W a s t h e

c o v e n a n t o r i g i n a l l y w i t h M ose s a l one , so

t h a t

and w i t h Is rae l

is a

l a t e r gloss?

Or i f the

r e f e r e n c e

to

I s r a e l

is

o r i g in a l ,

w h y i s

i t p l a c e d se c onda ry to M o s e s ?

T h e

f i r s t

s u g g e s t i o n

h a s

l i t t l e

to

c o m m e n d

i t . On t he one

h a n d i t

d i s r e g a r d s

th e

i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t s in c e t h e r e

i s no

r e a s o n f o r

Y a h w e h

to m a k e a c o v e n a n t w i t h M o s e s a c co r d i n g

to

these

w o r d s w h e n

th e

c o n t e n t

o f

t h e s e

w o r d s

is the in-

j u n c t i o n s a n d

l a w s c o n c e r n i n g f a i t h f u l n e s s

to

Y a h w e h ,

w h i c h in

Mo se s

1

case h a s n o t

been

in

d o u b t .

O n t h e

o t h e r

h a n d it

d i s r e g a r d s

th e

l a r g e r c o n t e x t w h e r e

th e

p r o b l e m

is

t h a t

o f

I s r a e l ' s c o v e n a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p a n d t h e w a y Is rae l h a s b r o k e n th e

c o v e n a n t .

T h e p r e s e n t w o r d i n g

w i t h

I s ra e l in s e c o n d a r y p o s i t i o n p o i n t s

t o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t he r e n e w e d c o v e n a n t a s b e i n g n o t o n l y

m e d i a t e d t h r o u g h , b u t i n s o m e

sense

n e c e s s a r i l y d e p e n d e n t

u p o n ,

M o s es . T h i s c o h e r e s w e l l w i t h 3 3 : 1 2 - 1 7 ,

34:9

w h e r e t h e

spec ia l pos i t ion o f M o s e s is essent ia l to the r e s t o r a t i o n o f

I s ra e l. T h e o r i g i n a l c o v e n a n t - g i v in g w a s it se lf m e d i a t e d t h r o u g h

M o s e s ,

b u t w a s n o t d e p e n d e n t u p o n h im in th e w ay i t no w i s

105



At th e M o u n t a i n o f G o d

w h e n M o s e s a l o n e h a s s tood o u t a g a i n s t th e people 's s i n . S o t h e

posi t ion

o f

Israel

in the

restored c o v e n a n t

i s n o t

i d e n t i c a l

to

w h a t i t

w o u l d

h ave been h a d t h e p e o p l e n e v e r s i n n e d .

H e n c e f o r t h

t h e i r

l i f e

a s a

p e o p l e d e p e n d s

n o t

o n l y u p o n

th e

m e r c y o f G o d b u t also u po n t h e i n t e rces s io n o f G o d 's ch os en

m e d i a t o r . T h i s

a c c o r d s

w i t h t h e

f i n e

d i v i n e - h u m a n b a la n ce

a l r e a d y o b s e r v e d i n t h e n a r r a t i v e . It a l s o prepa res f o r t h e

c l o s i n g scene

in

w h i c h

th e

people

see the

g l o r y

o f G o d o n t h e

f a c e o f M o s e s .

E x .

34:29-33

T h e f i n a l scene 34:29-35, b r i n g s th e

n a r r a t i v e

t o t h e q u i e t

c l o se t h a t

is a

c o m m o n


o f a

good

s t o r y .

T h e

p r e s e n c e o f G o d i s re s to r e d a m o n g th e people a n d t h e p r e v i o u s

t e n s i o n s

a re

res o lved .

It

i s n o t a b l e h o w s e v e r a l i m p o r t a n t t h e m e s o f t h e p re c ed i n g

n a r r a t i v e a re w o v e n in . F i r s t , there i s t h e d e s c e n t f r o m th e

m o u n t a i n , a

s t r i k i n g

c o n t r a s t to 32 : 1 5f f .

Each t i m e M o s e s

descends w i t h th e tablets i n h i s h a n d . B u t w h e r e a s th e f i r s t

t i m e h e w a s c o n f r o n t e d b y s i n a n d a p o s t a s y , n o w h e i s m e t w i t h

a w e a n d

r e v e r e n c e .

A r i g h t r e l a t io n b e t w e e n

Y a h w e h ,

M o s e s

a n d th e people h a s been r e s t o r e d .

Second ly

th e

m o t i f

o f fac e ( p a n i m ) , so

c e n t r a l

in

33:11 ,12-23, is echoed h e r e . M o s e s s o u g h t n o t o n l y t h a t

Y a h w e h ' s f a c e

s h o u l d g o w i th th e people b u t

that

h e m i g h t s e e

Yah w eh ' s g lo ry . Th i s

latter w a s

p a r t i a l l y

granted. N o w t h e

i m p l i c a t i o n

is

that

th e

I s r a e l i t e s

see the

g l o r y

o f

Y a h w e h

in the

f a c e

o f

M o s e s .

A s

M o s e s

w a s n o t

a b l e

to see the

face

o f

Y a h w e h ,

s o t h e

I s r a e l i t e s

ca n

h a r d l y e n d u r e

to

look

o n t h e

f a c e

o f

M os es (v. 30 ); t h o u gh i n s o f a r a s M os es i s ma n an d no t G o d ,

a n d

th e g lo ry i s

r e f l e ct e d ,

t h ey a re a b l e to b e h o l d h i m .

T h i r d l y , t h e r e i s a c o n t r a s t w i t h th e tent

sec t ion

in

33:7-11

w h e r e i t w a s stressed that th e peop le beh e ld a n d w o r s h i p p e d

f r o m a f a r o f f . N o w t h e p eo p le c a n d r a w close to Moses (vv.

3 l a , 3 2 a - th e r e p e t i t i o n m a y b e i n t e n d e d to e m p h a s i z e th e fac t

o f a p p r o a c h ) ,

a n d w h e n M o s e s

goes

i n a n d o u t

o f

th e tent (v. 34)

n o m e n t i o n i s m a d e o f t h e p e o p l e h a v i n g to m a i n t a i n a n y

d i s t a n c e . S i n c e , h o w e v e r , a l l the e m p h a s i s i s u p o n th e ro le o f

M o s e s

a n d t h e

people

serve

as , i n a

s e n s e ,

a

f o i l

to

h i m ,

o n e

c a n n o t

la y

m u c h w e i g h t u p o n

t h i s .

F o u r t h l y , t h e r e a r e t h e s i g n i f i c a n t i m p l i c a t i o n s o f M o s e s

1

s h i n i n g ( l i t e r a l l y h o r n e d ) f a c e , d i scuss ed be lo w .

A p a r t f r om these echoes o f t h e p r e c e d i n g n a r r a t i v e , these

106



T w o : A n

E x e g e s i s

o f

E x o d u s

3 2 - 3 4

v e r s e s

a re

i m p o r t a n t

fo r t h e

c e n t r a l r o l e

o f

M o s e s .

It is a

p r i n c i p l e o f

p o p u l a r n a r r a t i v e t h a t

t h e

s t o r y

s h o u l d e n d

w i t h

r e f e r e n c e

t o t h e

h e r o ,

a n d

t h a t

i s the

case

h e r e . A l t h o u g h th e

h i g h

p o i n t s i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e n a r r a t i v e f o c u s o n Y a h w e h

(33:18-23,

34:6f . )

r a t h e r m o r e t h a n o n Moses (32:30-33), in the

f i n a l

s c e n e i t i s M o s es a l o n e wh o h o l ds t h e stage A g a i n o n e i s

a w a r e

o f t h e

b a l a n c e b e t w e e n

th e

r e s p e c t i v e h u m a n

a n d

d i v i n e

ro l es i n E x .

3 2 - 3 4 .

B o t h Y a h w e h a n d M o s e s a r e t h e c e n t r a l

c h a r a c t e r s . I t i s the

m a r k

o f M o s e s ' u n i q u e

r e l a t i o n s h i p w i th

Y a h w e h t h a t he i s the s o l e i m p o r t a n t

c h a r a c t e r

i n t h e c l o s i n g

s c e n e , w h i c h h as n o r e a l d u a l i t y o f p e r s o n s a s i n s o m e o t h e r

s c e n e s i n t h e

n a r r a t i v e .

T h e passage n o t

o n l y

s t r e s s e s

th e

s t a t u s

o f M o s e s in

h i m s e l f ,

b u t d r a w s a t t e n t i o n a g a in

t o h i s

r o l e

a s

m e d i a to r t h r o u g h w h o m

Y a h w e h ' s

g l o r y

i s

s een (v v . 29 , 30 )

a n d h i s

c o m m a n d m e n t s g iv e n

v v .

3 4 f . ) .

I t has o f t e n b e e n n o t e d

t h a t

w h e r e a s v v . 29-33

r e c o u n t t h e s in g l e e v e n t o f M o s e s ' d e s c e n t a n d e n c o u n t e r w i t h

th e

p e o p l e ,

v v . 3 4 f . a re

i m p e r f e c t

in

t e n s e w i t h

a

f r e q u e n t a t i v e

m e a n i n g , d e s c r i b in g a r e c u r r i n g s i t u a t i o n . T h e i m p l i c a t io n i s

t h a t

M o s e s '

m e d i a t in g r o le w as o n g o i n g . H is access to G o d a n d

r e c e i p t

o f

c o m m a n d m e n t s

w a s n o t

l i m i t e d

t o t h e

t i m e s p e n t

o n

M t.

Sina i

b u t w a s a

c o n t i n u a l r e a l i t y

in the

l i f e

o f the

p e o p l e .

T h e u s u a l f o c u s o f i n t e r e s t in vv . 29-35 has been on two

i n t e r r e l a t e d i s s u e s ,

f i r s t t h e

v e i l

m a s w e h Q ^ O O

w h i c h M o s e s

p u t s o n a n d o f f , a n d s e c o n d l y t h e o d d w o r d f o r

s h i n i n g ( q r n ,

l i t e r a l l y to h a v e h o r n s ) u s e d o f M o s e s ' f a c e . I t has b e c o m e

c u s t o m a r y to i n t e r p r e t th e v e i l in t e r m s o f t h e w i d e s p r e a d

a n c i e n t

practice

o f t h e p r i e s t

w e a r i n g

a

m a s k

-

the p r i e s t

a s s u m e s t h e

' f a c e '

o f h i s d e i t y an d i d e n t i f i e s h i m s e l f w i t h

h i m . 2 0 1

Such a m a s k

w o u l d

c o m m o n l y h a v e b ee n a h o r n e d

m a s k .

T h e r e

a r e

t h r e e d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h

t h i s .

F i r s t , s u c h

a

m a s k

is

u n a t t e s t e d e l s e w h e r e i n t h e O T . 2 0 2 S e c o n d l y , a n d m o r e im -

p o r t a n t ,

th e

v e i l

h e r e

f u n c t i o n s

i n t h e

o p p o s i t e

w a y t o

pr ies t ly

m a s k s , i n

t h a t

M o s e s t a k e s i t o f f w h e n s p e a k i n g b o t h t o G o d a n d

t o the

p e o p l e

a n d

p u t s

i t on

a g a i n o n l y w h e n

h e ceases to

p e r f o r m

h is m e d i a t o r i a l f u n c t i o n . T h e p r e s e n t p a s s a g e c a n o n l y

b e a s s i m i l a t e d

t o t h e p r a c t i c e

attested e l s e w h e r e

a t the

cost

o f

prec i s e ly

that

e l e m e n t

to

w h i c h

th e

w r i t e r d r a w s

a t t e n t i o n .

T h i r d l y ,

it is i m p o r t a n t t o b e

c l e a r

a t w h i c h l e v e l o n e i s


t h e

text W h a t e v e r

t h e

a n c i e n t N e a r E a s t e r n

p a r a l l e l s ,

t h e r e c a n b e

l i t t l e d i s p u t e

t h a t th e t e x t a s i t n o w

s t a n d s i s n o t d e s c r i b i n g e i t h e r a p r i e s t l y m a s k o r h o r n s . I n

7



T w o :

A n

Exe ge s i s

o f

E x o d u s

32-34

th e u n u s u a l q r n w h e n th e m o r e c o m m o n v e r b ^ w r w a s a v a i l a b l e .

W h i l e it is c u s t o m a r y to seek r e l i g i o - h i s t o r i c a l p a r a l l e l s o u t s i d e

t h e O T , one

need

no t go so f ar

a f i e l d ,

for a s u f f i c i e n t

r e a s o n

is

p rov id e d

by the

c o n t e x t

o f E x .

3 2 -3 4 ,

t h a t

is the

a c c o u n t

of the

c a l f w i t h w h i c h t h e n a r r a t i v e o p e n s. I t h a s a l r e a d y be en n o t e d

t h a t

3 2 : 1-6 i mpl i e s that th e c a l f w a s a c h a l l e n g e to M ose s a n d

h is a u t h o r i t y . T h i s c l o s i n g s c e n e h a r k s b a c k t o t h e o p e n i n g

sc e n e of the

s t o r y .

In the

a n c i e n t w o r l d

th e

p o w e r

o f a b u l l w a s

f r e q u e n t l y s y m b o l i z e d b y it s h o r n , i n d e e d , In c u l t th e h o r n

t e n d s to s t a n d f o r t h e b u l l a n d t o s u p p l a n t

i t .207 j

n

w r i t e r ' s

use o f q r n , t h e r e f o r e , is a c l e a r echo of the c a l f a n d c o n s t i t u t e s

a

d a r i n g p a r a l l e l i s m

o f

Moses wi th

th e c a l f . It is

d a r i n g

to take

th e s y m b o l of the f a l s e god and use i t o f M o s e s , but the t r u e

r o l e

o f

Moses

h a s

a l r e a d y b ee n m a d e c l e a r

to the

r e a d e r

so

t h e r e s ho u ld be no

d a n g e r

o f m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g . 2 0 8

T h e w r i t e r

m a k e s th e

p o i n t

t h a t

M o s e s

w a s t o t h e

p e o p l e w h a t t h e y w a n t e d

th e c a l f to be - a l e a d e r a n d m e d i a t o r o f t h e d i v i n e

p r e s e n c e .

T h e fa c t t h a t Y a h w e h , a n d h is p r e se n c e i n h i s sh r i ne , i s a l so th i s

to the people i n n o w a y exc ludes th e a t t r i b u t i o n o f a s i m i l a r


to

Moses , such

is the

h a r m o n y b e tw e e n M o ses

a n d

Y a h w e h in t he

w r i t e r ' s

u n d e r s t a n d i n g .

The use of q rn i s t h u s m o s t r e v e a l i n g of the w r i t e r ' s m e t h o d

a n d i n t e n t i o n . F r o m a l i t e r a r y p o i n t o f v i e w t h e e c h o i n t h e

f i n a l scene o f a

m o t i f

in the

o p e n i n g

s c e n e

c o n s t i t u t e s

a

s k i l f u l

s t r u c t u r i n g

o f t h e

s t o r y . T h e o l o g i c a l l y

i t

p o i n t s a g a i n

to t he

i m p o r t a n c e o f Moses a s l e a d e r a n d m e d i a t o r a n d f u r t h e r h i g h -

l i g h t s th e n a t u r e of the c a l f a s a gr oss pa r ody o f Y a h w e h ' s t r u e

i n t e n t i o n s fo r h i s pe op le .

C o n c l u s i o n

O n

t h i s n o t e

th e

n a r r a t i v e

o f E x .

3 2 - 3 4 d r a w s

to a

close. O n l y

o n e o r t w o o b s e r v a t io n s s t i l l n e e d to be m a d e . A l t h o u g h E x .

32-34

c o n s t i t u t e s a

c o h e r e n t

a n d

c l e a r l y d e f i n e d u n i t

i t has

been seen

that it

does

n o t

s t a n d

in

i s o l a t i o n

f r o m th e c o n t e x t in

E x od u s

w h i c h p r e c e d e s i t , bu t

that

t h e r e a r e m a n y l i n k s w i t h

th e

n a r r a t i v e

e l s e w h e r e ,

i n c l u d i n g

E x .

25-31.

It is

r i g h t , there

f o r e ,

b r i e f l y

to c ons i de r E x . 35-40 a l s o , i n s o f a r a s these

c h a p t e r s relate to Ex . 32-34.

F i r s t , t h e r e

i s the

o b v i o u s f a c t

that

these

c h a p t e r s r e c o u n t

th e

b u i l d i n g

o f t he

s h r i n e , that

is the

t a b e r n a c l e , w h i c h

is

m a d e

poss ib le

b y t h e


o f

I s r ae l

w i t h i n th e

c o v e n a n t .

P e r h a p s th e e x t e n s i v e r e p e t i t i o n

f r o m

E x . 2 5 - 3 1 r e f l e c t s th e

s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e f a c t that th i s c on s t r uc t ion sh ou ld b e possible

9




a t a l l a f t e r

Israe l ' s

s i n .

S e c o n d l y ,

w h a t

i s o f

i m p o r t a n c e

i n t h e

c o m i n g

o f

Y a h w e h ' s

g l o r y

t o t h e

t a b e r n a c l e ( 4 0 : 3 4 f . )

i s

t h a t

i t

serves

to

e x t e n d

th e

S i n a i

e x p e r i e n c e , 2 0 9

that

i s, th e p re s e n c e o f G o d w h i c h h a d

o n c e d w e l t

o n

S i n a i

n o w

a c c o m p a n i e s I s r a e l

i n t h e

t a b e r n a c l e

o n

h e r desert j o u r n e y . 21 0

T h i s

is in direct

c o n t i n u i t y w i th

o n e

o f

th e c e n t r a l t h e m e s o f E x . 3 2 - 3 4 , t h a t o f Y a h w e h ' s accom-

p a n y i n g p r e s e n c e as t he p e o p l e m o v e o n

f r o m

S i n a i . I t was th i s ,

a s a

b a s i c p a r t

o f t h e

c o v e n a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p ,

t h a t w a s

j e o p a r d i z e d b y Israel ' s s in , a n d i t i s f o r t h i s

that

M o se s u r g e n t l y

p l e a d e d , t h a t d e s p i t e th e people ' s s in Y a h w e h s h o u l d ye t go w i t h

t h e p e o ple i n a m o v a b l e s h r i n e a n d b e p r e s e n t i n t h e i r m i d s t .

A f t e r

Y a h w e h

h a s

g r a n t e d t h i s p r a y e r

o f

M o s e s

i t is

r i g h t

that

i t s h o u l d t h e n b e to ld h o w th i s w a s a c t u a l ly c a r ri e d o u t . T h e


o f

I s r ae l

is

t h e n c o m p l e t e

w h e n th e

c o v e n a n t

is

r e n e w e d

a n d th e e m p i r i c a l s y m b o l o f t h e c o v e n a n t be c o m e s a

r e a l i t y .

T h i r d l y ,

t h e r e

i s a s t r i k i n g e m p h a s i s i n E x .

35-40

o n th e

eager

r e a d i n e s s

o f t h e

peop le

to

c o n t r i b u t e

t o t h e

w o r k (35:20-29,

36:2-7 .

N o e x p la n a t i o n o f th i s i s o f f e r e d w i t h i n E x . 3 5-4 0 .

C o u l d

i t b e b e c a u s e o f E x . 3 2 - 3 4 ? T h e n o t a b l e f e a t u r e

that

n o

r e f e r e n c e is m a d e t o a n y

repentance

o n t h e p a r t o f t h e

people

h a s b ee n m e n t i o n e d a l re a d y . T h i s s ile n c e h i g h l i g h t s t h e

present-

a t i o n , o f

Israel's

restoration a s

e n t i r e l y

th e

w o r k

o f

Y a h w e h .

C o u l d t h e n t h i s p i c t u r e

o f t h e w i l l i n g o f f e r i n g o f t h e

people

b e

i n t e n d e d

a s

the i r response

to

w h a t Y a h w e h

h a s

d o n e ?

I t is a t

least

poss ible

that th e

peop le ' s f r ee

o f f e r i n g

r e f l e c t s

a

t h e o l o g i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g

that

i t i s the

experien e

o f

God ' s

m e r c y w h i c h

el ic i t s

a

t r u e

a n d

w o r t h y re sp o n se

o n t h e

p a r t

o f

Israel .

I n

conc lus i on i t m a y b e said that i f t he

exegesis

o f f e r e d h e r e

i s

a t least

s u b s t a n t i a l l y correct, t h e n

th e

i m p o r t a n c e

o f E x .

32-34

emerges i n a n e w

l i g h t .

T h e chapters c a n b e

f r e s h l y

a p p r e c i a t e d

a s a

l i t e r a r y c o m p o s i t i o n

o f

c o n s i d e r a b l e

ski l l a n d a

t heo log i ca l w o r k

o f great d e p t h .

T h e r e r e m a i n m a n y q u e s t i o n s t o b e a s ke d c o n c e r n i n g t h e

o r i g i n s a n d f o r m a t i o n o f t h e chapters, th e e x a m i n a t i o n o f w h i c h

wi l l

n o w b e

c a r r i e d

o u t i n t h e

l i g h t

o f t h e

p e r c e p t i o n

o f t h e

b a l a n c e

a n d

pattern

o f t h e

f i n a l text,

a

p e rc e p ti o n w h i c h

m a y

w e l l

r e q u i r e a r e - a p p r a i s a l o f c e r t a i n e x i s t i n g a n a l y se s . B u t

w h a t e v e r

th e r e s u l t s o f t h e

m o r e s p e c u l a t i v e

task o f

e n q u i r i n g

b e h i n d th e text,

s u c h

a

task s h o u l d

n o t b e

a l l o w e d

to detract



T w o : A n E x e g e s i s o f E x o d u s

3 2 - 3 4

f r o m t h e

a p p r e c i a t i o n

o f t h e

l i t e r a r y

a n d

t h e o l o g i c a l a c h i e v e -

m e n t

w h i c h t h e p r e s e n t t e x t o f E x .

3 2 - 3 4

r e p r e s e n t s .

E x c u r s u s

One:

E x .

3 2 : 1 8

T h e

e x e g e t i c a l

p r o b l e m o f E x .

3 2 :18 l ie s

i n t h e


o f

c

n w t

i n t h e

t h i r d

s e c t i o n o f t h e v e r s e . T h e r e a r e b a s i c a l l y

t h r e e a p p r o a c h e s t h a t h a v e b e e n a d o p t e d . '

i

O n e m a y

r e t a i n

t h e

M T

a n d i t s

p o i n t i n g .

T h is

m e a n s th a t

t h e r e i s a

p l a y

b e t w e e n th e

Q al

a n d P i . o f

c

n h ,

a

c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n n o is e a n d s o m e sp e c ia l k i n d o f n o i s e o r

s i n g i n g (c f . I s . 27 :2 , Ps . 88:1

).

2

i i

O n e m a y r e t a i n t h e M T , b u t

r e p o i n t

i t . O ne c a n t h e n r e a d

th e

n a m e

o f t h e

g o d d e s s

A n a t h . 3

i i i O n e c a n

e m e n d

th e

t e x t

o n t h e

a s su m p t io n t h a t

a w o r d

h a s d r o p p e d out.

N u m e r o u s

c a n d i d a t e s f o r t h e

m i s s i n g

w o r d h a v e b e e n s u g g e s t e d , o f w h i c h a f e w are:

w i n e / d r u n k e n n e s s ,

Heb.

y y n : ^

h a r l o t r y , Heb.

z n w n y m ; 5 r e v e l r y , Heb. s h w q h ; ^ so m e s u b s t a n t iv e

d e n o t i n g c u l t i c s i n g e r s d e r i v e d f r o m

c

nh o r a

h o m o n y m ; ? f e s t i v a l ,

Heb.

hg;8

in h o n o u r o f A n a th ,

H e b . l

c

nt.

9

It is no easy task to choose between these, but at least one can

i n d i c a t e w h ic h a l t e r n a t i v e s

a r e

less u n l i k e l y ,

i) E s t im a t i o n s

o f t h e

e f f e c t i v e n e s s

o f t h e

w o r d - p la y v a r y .

D i l l m a n n ca l l s

i t

das f e i n e

Spiel .

1 0

E d e l m a n n , o n t h e

o t h e r h a n d , s ay s th a t i n h i s

h i g h l y

e m o t io n a l o u t c r y

M o s e s

w o u l d h a r d l y h a v e t h o u g h t o f g r a m m a t i c a l

subtleties ,

a n d

H o l z i n g e r c o n s i d e r s t h a t Das W o r t -

spiel

m i t

z w e i m a l i g e n

ca

not

u n d

c

a n n & t

. . . is t

s e l b s t

f u r e i n e n

p u n k t i e r t e n

T e x t f a s t

z u d u n k e l ' V ^ G i v e n t h e

H e b r a i c f o n d n e s s f o r i n t r ic a te w o r d - p l a y , a n d t h e

e v id e n c e o f w o r d - p l ay e ls e w h e r e in E x .

32-34,^

th e

o b j e c t i o n to a w o r d - p l a y o f t h is k i n d h e r e i s n o t v e r y

c o g e n t .

ii)

T h e

a d v a n t a g e

in

r e a d i n g A n a t h

is t h a t

t h is a p p a r e n t l y

f i t s

w e l l w i t h I s r a e l ' s a p o s t a s y in 32 :1-6 . F o r A n a t h w a s

o f t e n r e p r e se n t ed b y a c o w o r h e i f e r . T h e r e

are,

h o w e ve r ,

tw o

d i f f i c u l t i e s w i th

t h i s .

F i r s t ,

there

i s n o

r e a s o n

to

i n t r o d u c e a f e m a l e d e i ty a t t h i s p o i n t . T h e b u l l - c a l f w a s a

s y m b o l

o f m a le d e i t y , a n d t h e b u l l - c a l f o f 32 :1-6 w a s

i n t e n d e d

to

r e p r e s e n t

th e

m a le d e i ty Y a h w e h . S ec o n d ly

th e s p e l l i n g i n th e M T i s

c

n w t a n d n o t

c

nt,

a n d o n e




h a s

to

a c c o u n t

for the e x t r a

w a w . S i m p l y

t o s a y

t h a t

th e

e x t r a

w a w

m u s t

b e a

s e c o n d a r y a d d i t i o n m a d e

b y t h e

s o f e r i m f o r s o m e

reason ^

i s u n s a t i s f a c t o r y .

W h y b r a y

o f f e r s

t h e

e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t

c

n w t

r e p r e s e n t s

a

d i a l e c t -

i c a l v a r i a n t o f

c

nt, as in

J o s h .

15:59, b y t -

c

n w t . But i f

t h i s

w e r e s o , a n d t h e p o i n t i n g w e r e o r i g i n a l l y

c

nwt,

t h e n t h i s

t h i r d

r i o t

w o u l d s i m p l y b e

i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e

f r o m

t h e p r e v i o u s t w o , a n d

t h e r e

w o u l d b e n o w a y o f

t e l l i n g t h a t

i t w a s

m e a n t

to be the

n a m e

o f a

goddess

r a t h e r t h a n t h e i n f i n i t i v e o f a v e r b . O r i f t h e s p e l l i n g

w e r e o r i g i n a l l y C n t , t h e r e w o u l d be no r ea son subse -

q u e n t l y to rnodiTy t h i s to a v a r i a n t s p e l l i n g w h i c h

o b s c u r e d

th e

p o i n t

-

u n l e s s

i t w a s

d o n e

b y

a c c i d e n t

or the

p o i n t h a d a l r e a d y b e c o m e o b s c u r e. T h i s i s no t a

s a t i s f a c t o r y e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e w a w .

i i i )

T h e

a d v a n t a g e

o f a t e x t u a l

e m e n d a t i o n

is

that

o n e c a n

p r o v i d e s o m e d e f i n i t e c o n t r a s t t o t h e p r e c e d i n g gbwrj i . . .

h l w s h . T h e r e w o u l d t h e n

b e n o

w o r d - p l a y

o n

C n w t ,

b u t

a l l

th e

e m p h a s i s

w o u l d

f a l l

o n t h e

m i s si n g w o r d . T h e r e

a re

tw o d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h t h i s s o l u t i o n . F i r s t t h e r e i s l i t t l e

MS S

s u p p o r t f o r t h e o m i s s i o n o f ' a w o r d . T h e v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e

e a r l y v e r s io n s lo o k l i k e a t t e m p t s

to

e x p l i c a t e

a

d i f f i c u l t y

r a t h e r t h a n e v i d e n c e

f o r a n

a l t e r n a t i v e r e a d i n g . S e c o nd l y ,

i f th e

w h o l e

p o i n t of v . 18 d e p e n d e d o n t h i s e x t r a w o r d , i t

is

d i f f i c u l t to e x p l a i n h o w i t c o u l d h a v e d r o p p e d out o f the

text.

I f t he

w o r d

w a s

s i m i l a r

in

f o r m

to

c

n w t , t h i s

m i g h t

p r o v i d e a n e x p l a n a t i o n ; h e n c e t h e s u g g e s t io n s o f a

s u b s t a n t i v e

f r o m

a

h o m o n y m

o f

c

n h , o r l

c

nt. T h e

latter

fa c e s t h e s a m e o b j e c t i o n to the m e n t i o n o f a

f e m a l e d e i t y a l r e a d y s p e c i f i e d .

T h e

f o r m e r , t h o u g h

a t t e s t e d

in U g a r i t i c , is w i t h o u t p a r a l le l i n t h e O T .

C o n c l u s i o n

O f th e t h r e e a p p r o a c h e s , th e p r o p o s a l to r e p o i n t th e t e x t to

i n t r o d u c e a r e f e r e n c e to A n a t h h a s

l e a s t

to c o m m e n d i t and

m a y ,

i n m y j u d g m e n t , b e d i s c a r d e d . B e t w e e n t h e o t h e r t w o i t i s

h a r d e r to

c h o o s e .

T h a t a w o r d h a s f a l l e n ou t o f the t e x t c a n n o t

b e r u l e d o u t . N o n e t h e l e s s , th e r e t e n t i o n o f t he M T and i t s

p o i n t i n g

e n c o u n t e r s f e w e s t


a n d o f f e r s a w o r d p l a y

w h i c h

m a y

w e l l h a v e b e e n m o r e e f f e c t i v e

fo r an

a n c i e n t

H e b r e w

a u d i e n c e o r r e a d e r s h i p t h a n i t has been s i n c e .



Two : A n

Exegesis

of E x o d u s 32-34

E x c u r s u s

Tw o; Ge n . 8:21

T h e s t u d y of ky in Ex.

34:9

h as

sh o wn

t h a t th e par t i c le sh o u ld

h a v e

either

causa t ive

o r

else

e m p h a t i c

concessive

force. Since

th e

p a r a d o x i c a l

use of ky in

Gen. 8:21

is an

exact p a r a l l e l

to

that

in Ex. 34:9, th e m e a n i n g o f the

par t i c le

m a y

r e a s o n a b ly

be

a s s u m e d to be i d e n t i c a l in each ins t an ce . T h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s

e x c u r s u s is , t h e r e f o r e , t w o f o l d . F i r s t , it is to c h e c k w h e t h e r th e

m e a n i n g of Gen. 8:21, decided on the basis of a paral lel , can

also

be

s u s t a i n e d

by a

s t u d y

of the

G en esis passage

in i ts own

r i g h t . S e c o n d l y ,

th e


o f

Gen. 8:21

in its

c o n t e x t ,

especially w h e n th i s h as been m u c h discussed, wil l serve as a

test

for the exegesis of Ex. 34:9

w h i c h

h as n o t , as yet , been

subjected to a s imi la r i n tens ive sc ru t iny .

T h e d e b a t e a b o u t

th e


o f

Gen. 8:21

is

c o m p l e x

because

it has

focussed

o n

8:21

n o t o n l y in

r e l a t i o n

to 6:5 but

also

in

relat ion

to the

larger context

of the

p r i m e v a l h i s t o r y

an d th e c u r s e o f 3:17.

T h e

cen t ra l exege ti ca l p roblem i s w he ther to co ns t ru e the ky

c lause

in

8:21

as

epexeget ic

o f

h ' d m

o r Iq l l . T h e

f o r m e r

possibi l i ty w h i c h m a k e s the ky c l a u s e d e s c r i p t i v e o f m a n , te n d s

to m i n i m i z e its theo logica l s ign i f i cance , whereas the

latter,

w h i c h m a k e s

th e

c lause

th e

r e a s o n

fo r

Y a h w e h ' s d e c i s i o n ,

sees

i t as t heo logica l ly c ruc ia l .

T h a t th e k y c l a u s e is to be t a k e n w i t h h ' d m h as b e e n a r g u e d

by R e n d t o r f f , w h o

sees 8:21

as the

c o n c l u s i o n

of the Y a h w i s t i c

pr imeval h i s t o r y w hi ch repeals the curse of 3:17 and ini t iates a

n ew age o f bless ing; Y a h w e h w i l l n o m o r e treat th e e a r t h a s

a c c u r s e d as he has d o n e h i t h e r to . T h e k y _ c l a u s e is of l i t t le

theo logica l im po r ta n ce s ince i t is re t rospec t ive , d escr ib in gm a n ' s state

in the

pas t

as the

c a u s e

o f j u d g m e n t , a n d

does

n o t

represen t

a

s ign i f i can t pos t - f lood assessment

o f

m a n k i n d .

T h e

theo log ica l e m p h a s i s is on the r e p e a l of the curse . Despi te


i ns i gh t s

in R e n d t o r f f ' s

thesis ,

th e

thesis raises

serious d i f f i c u l t i es , bo th l in gu i s t ic and con tex tu a l . F i rs t , it is

d u b i o u s to i n t e r p r e t q i l le l in a d ec la ra t ive sense ( t rea t a s

cursed ) , when i t does not bear

that

mean ing in i t s

only

o ther

o c c u r r e n c e in 3 ( G e n .

12:3).

S e c o n d l y , th e v a r y i n g pos i t ion o f

c

w d

in

8:21a,b

a f f e c t s

i t s mea n i ng . I n

8 :2la

it

q u a l i f i e s

q l l

a n d m u s t m e a n t h a t t h e c u r s e r e m a i n s v a l i d b u t wi l l n o t b e

a d d e d

to. In

8 :2 Ib

it q u a l i f i e s

j - sp

a n d

m e a n s t h a t

G o d

wi l l

n o t

d e s t r o y a g a i n ,

wi l l no t ac t in the

s a m e

wa y f o r a

second t ime.

O n l y if

C w d

q u a l i f i e d l '- 'sp in v.

2 l a

could i t b e a r t h e m e a n i n g

113



C h a p t e r

3

E X . 32-34 A S A

C U L T

L E G E N D

It is t i m e now to t u r n

f r o m

th e apprec i a t ive s t udy o f the text

an d t o ap p ro ach i t an a ly t i ca l l y , p u t t i n g q u e s t i o n s o f an

h is to r ica l -c r i t i ca l na tu re . I t has a l r e ad y b een a rg u ed t h a t th e

unders tanding

o f the

f i n a l

f o r m o f the

text mus t

constitute th e

s t a r t i n g -p o in t f o r t h i s s tudy . Bu t i t wi l l b e w o r t h w h i l e to

spec i fy more precisely

th e

n a t u r e

o f the

t ask

that

l ies

a h e a d .

It

h a s

been seen t h a t

E x . 32-34 is, in a

rea l

sense , a

u n i t y .

O ur task n ow is to accou nt for that u n i t y an d t o q u e s t i o n h o w

deeply it penetrates the

ma t e r i a l .

Is it the case

that

there was

an ancien t t rad i t ion con ta in ing a sequence f r o m s in and

j u d g m e n t ,

t h rough in te rcess ion , t o r e n e w a l a nd t h a t t h i s u l t i -

mate ly accounts

for the

u n i t y ?

Or is i t the

case that o r ig ina l ly

d iverse t rad i t ions have been crea t ive ly combined and m o u l d ed

to

make

th e

p resent s tory?

A nd i f so , how far can one

recon-

s t r uc t th e

p rocess

b y wh ich th is took

p l ace?

T h e

p resent mode

o f

i nves t iga t ion wi l l

d i f f e r f r o m

t h a t

genera l ly

adopted.

For in

place

o f the cus tomary assumpt ion o f

a co m p i l a t io n o f d iv e r se f r ag m e n t s , t h e h eu r i s t i c a s su m p t io n

under ly ing

th e

s tudy wi l l

b e that o f

u n i t y . T h a t

is , the

u n i t y

o f

th e

m a t e r i a l

in the

course

of i ts


and

composi t ion

wil l b e assumed un t i l rendered

u n l i k e l y ,

r a the r than v ice v e r sa .

U n i t y wil l be an h eu r i s t ic assumpt ion , not an inviolable

d a t u m . T h a t

is , it is

i m p o r t a n t

t h a t

one s

h eu r i s t i c a s su m p t io n

should

no t be s u b t l y t r an s fo rm ed in to a co n t ro l l i n g p re j u d ice ,

w h e r e b y t h e u n i t y o f Ex . 32-34 a t the various levels of the

t r ad i t i o n becomes less

a

f a c to r

to be

a n a ly zed t h an

a

case

to be

dem o n s t r a t ed . T h e

ba lance

becomes p a r t icu la r ly ha rd to

mai n t a i n

w h e n

the issue of the possible dependence of theolog-

ical veraci ty upon h is tor ica l content

is

i n t r o d u c e d ,

f o r

t h e n

one

has a p a r t icu la r mot ive f o r w a n t in g to discover at

least

a basic

coherence in the t r ad i t ion , such a s co u ld r e f l ec t a g e n u i n e

histor ical

sequence.

A l t h o u g h u l t im a t e l y

th e

quest ion

o f

histor-

ic i ty

m u s t

b e p u t t o Ex .

32-34,

and the

theo log ica l impl ica t ions

of th e answer

assessed

fo r the p resen t th e m a t t e r

wi l l

b e l e f t

in

abeyance ,

fo r space does no t p e rm i t a su f f ic ien t reso lu t ion of

th e p r e l i m i n a r y l i te r a r y a n d t rad i t io-h is tor ica l i ssues to m a k e

1 1 6



Three: E x o d u s 32-34

as a

C u l t Le ge nd

th e d r a w i n g o f

h i s to r ica l co nclus io ns poss ib le . H i s to r ica l ques-

t ions w i l l

only be

t ouched

o n

i n so f a r

as

t he y a f f e c t

the

a s s u m p -

tions o f t rad i t i o -h i s to r ica l a rgu m ents .

T he

d i scuss ion even

o f

l i t e r a r y

an d


a r g u m e n t s w i l l be selective. 1 It m u s t be s t ressed that the

f o l lowin g d i scuss ion is i n tended as a demons t ra t ion of the

k ind

of d i f f e r e n c e that th e exeget ical m ethod he re proposed mak es .

I t w i l l b e r e p r e s e n t a ti ve r a t he r t ha n e x h a u s t i ve , t ho u g h i t w i l l

seek to touch on all the

central

and m o s t d i f f i c u l t analyt ical

p r o b l e m s c o n f r o n t i n g

the

m o d e r n i n t e r p r e te r

o f E x .

32-34.

Since there i s s u c h a mass o f ex i s t in g cr i t i ca l analys es , m u c h o f

th e a r g u m e n t

w i l l

necessarily be s o m e w h a t negative suggest ing

weaknesses in

these

ana lyses

w i t h

l e s s emphas i s o n a l te rnat ive

pr oposa l s fo r r e c o ns t r u c t i o n . S o m e s u gge s t i o ns w i l l be m a d e ,

however , ind ica t ing the d i r ec ti o n w h i ch f u r t h e r w o r k m i g h t

m o s t

p r o f i t a b l y

take.

The f i r s t step in the d i scuss ion must be an examinat ion of the

l i t e r a r y genre o f Ex . 32-34. For i t i s d i f f i c u l t to pe netra te the

or ig ins and d e v e l o p m e n t o f a text u n t i l one has a r easonable


o f what type o f mater ia l i t i s and what sort o f

r e s u l t s

o n e

should

expect

to

f i n d .

In the

i n e v i t a b ly h y p o t h e t i c a l

pe ne t r a ti o n be h i nd a text w he r e t he i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f e v i d e nc e

becomes harder

to

cont ro l , one s pre-und ers tand ing

of the

sort

o f a n s w e r o ne expects to f i n d w i l l p lay a s i g n i f i c a n t , an d

s o m e t i m e s decis ive, ro le in one s evalu a t io n . One s pre-

u n d e r s t a n d i n g ,

however , wi l l i t sel f arise out of the

text

and the

o ne w i l l

i n f l u e n c e

the

o t he r

in

c i rcles

o f

success ive approx i -

m a t i o n .

In m u c h of the f o l l owi ng d i scuss ion reference

w i l l

be to the

w h o l e 3E

S inai per icope,

E x .

19-24, 32-34, since m o d e r n debate

h as

u s u a l l y

d e a l t w i t h these chapters together ; indeed ra ther

m o r e w i th 19-24 than wi th

32-34.

Deta i led analys i s , however ,

w i l l be d i rected p r i m a r i l y to chs. 32-34, in k e e p i n g w i t h the

l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h i s s t u d y .

I N T R O D U C T O R Y S U R V E Y O F

T H E C U L T

L E G E N D

H Y P O T H E S I S

In

i ts

present

f o r m the text o f E x .

1 9 f f . p u r p o r t s

to be a

na r r a t i ve t r a d i t i o n c o nc e r n i ng e ve n t s

a t

S i n ai . U n c e r t a i n t y

a s

to the prec i se n a tu re o f th i s t rad i t i o n and the ex tent o f i t s

his tor ic i ty does not a f f e c t its basic na t u r e as a nar ra t ive

117



At the

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

t r a d i t i o n .

T h e

q u e s t i o n r a i s e d h e r e

i s

w h e t h e r

th e

t e x t

a l w a y s

w a s s o m e s u c h n a r r a t i v e t r a d i t i o n e v e n

in i ts

ear l i es t s t ages

o r

w h e t h e r

i t w a s

o r i g i n a l l y s o m e t h i n g q u i t e d i f f e r e n t .

T he

m o s t w i d e s p r e a d a s s es sm e n t

o f the

g e n r e

o f the

S i n a i

m a t e r i a l i s

t h a t

i t is a

cu l t l e ge nd .

V a r i o u s

o t h e r t e r m s

a re

also used, such a s fes tiva l l egend o r l i t u r g i c a l t r a d i t i o n , ^

b u t n o s i g n i f i ca n t d i f f e r e n c e in

m e a n i n g

i s i n t e n d e d . F o r c l a r i t y

th e

t e r m c u l t l e g e n d

w i l l b e

a d h e r e d

to i n

t h i s d i s c u s s io n .

T h e t w o s e m i n a l ̂ w o r k s fo r e s t a b l i s h i n g th e g e n r e a s c u l t

l egend a re those o f S . M o w i n c k e l a nd G . von R a d , ̂ and t o

these r e f e r e n c e m u s t b r i e f l y

b e

m a d e .

M o w i n c k e l ' s

a n a l y s i s

o f the

c h a p t e r s c o n c e n t r a t e d

o n th e

presence

i n t h e m o f r i t u a l s a n d c e r e m o n i a l

practices

s i m i l a r t o

t h o s e r e c o u n t e d e l s e w h e r e

i n t h e O T ,

espec ia l ly

i n the

p s a l m s .

U s i n g th e m e t h o d o f f o r m c r i t i c i sm a n d s e a r c h i n g fo r the S i tz

im

Le b e n o f

these

e l em e n t s c o m m o n to b o t h S i n a i a n d t h e

psa lms , M o w i n c k e l r e c o n s t r u c t e d t h e c o n t e n t s o f a c u l t i c

f e s t i v a l ,

t h a t

o f t he N e w

Year ( seen a l so

as the

f e a s t

o f

e n t h r o n e m e n t

a n d o f c o v e n a n t r e n e w a l ) . In the l i g h t o f t h i s

M o w i n c k e l des igna ted the S ina i pericope as fo l low s:

C e q u e

e t E

r a p p o r t e n t c o m m e

recit

d e s e v e n e m e n t s d u

S i n a i n ' es t au t re chose q u e l a d e s c r i p t i o n d ' u n e f e t e c u l t u -

elle

celebree a u n e

e p o q u e p lus

recente

p l u s p r e c i s e m e n t

d a n s le t e mple d e

J e ru s a l e m . ^

M o w i n cke l ' s

ana lys i s o f t he n a r r a t i v e i s deve loped and

m o d i f i e d

b y v o n R a d . ̂ V o n R a d c r i t i c i z e s th e d e s i g n a t i o n o f

th e

S i n a i n a r r a t i v e

a s a

d e s c r i p t i o n

o f a

c u l t i c c e r e m o n y

o n

th e g r o u n d s that t h e re cou ld b e n o o b v i o u s p u r p o s e in

p r o d u c i n g

such a descriptive account. Nor is it the case that the n a r r a t i v e

i s

such

a

d e sc r i p t i on , e ve n

a

f r e e p o e t i c o n e ,

o r a

late t r a n s -

pos i t i on o f the

c o n s t i t u e n t e l e m e n t s

of the

c e re m o n y i n t o

l i t e ra ry terms. R a t h e r th e S i n a i n a r r a t i v e is pr i o r to t h e c u l t

a n d n o r m a t i v e

fo r i t ;

b e ca use

th e

n a r r a t i v e p r o v i d e s

th e

a u t h o r i t y

fo r a p a r t i c u l a r c u l t i c o c c a s i o n , i t is the c u l t l e g e n d

o f that occasion. T h e legend preceded th e c u l t a n d gave th e

c u l t

i ts

sh a pe

i n t he f i r s t

place t h o u g h t h e r e

w a s

a l so subse-

q u e n t l y a re c i p roca l

i n f l u e n c e

o f the c u l t u p o n th e f o r m a t i o n o f

th e

l e g e n d .

T h e

pa t t e rn

of the

fes t iva l which

is

ref lected

in Ex.

1 9 f f .

ca n

b e r e c o n s t r u c t e d a s

fo l l ows :

1.

E x h o r ta t i o n (E x .

19:4-6)

w i t h a n h i s t o r i c a l a c c o u n t of the

S ina i

even t s (Ex.

19ff.) .

118



Three:

E x o d u s 32-34 as a

C u l t Le g e n d

2. Proclamat ion of the law (Decalogue and Book of the

Covenant ) .

3. Promise o f bless ing (Ex . 23:20ff .) .

4. R a t i f i c a t i o n

of the

c o v e n a n t ( E x .

2 4 ) .

The

fact

that

this same pattern can be discerned in Deutero -

n o m y and also, less clearly, in Pss. 50 and 81 , c o n f i r m s the

correctness

o f

this analysi s

of the

E x o d u s m a t e r i a l .

V on R ad then proceeds to trace the or ig in s and d e v e l o p m e n t

o f

th i s covenant fes t iva l ,

wh ic h he locates in the

a u t u m n f e a s t

o f Tabernac les at S h e c h e m . H e

o f f e r s

no f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n o f

the or igins and d e v e l o p m e n t of the Sinai n a r r a t i v e

beyond

s o m e

genera l o b s e r v a t i o n s a b o u t

th e

process

o f

t r a n s i t i o n

f r o m

t r a d i t i o n

to

literature/

W h i l e

v o n R a d

d i f f e r s f r o m

M o w i n c k e l

in

t rac ing the origins of the

f e s t i v a l

ref lec ted in Ex . 1 9 f f . to

the

p r e - m o n a r c h i c a l p e r i o d ,

he

does

no t

address

the

q u e s t i o n

o f

w h a t in the Sinai n a r r a t i v e is or i g i na l and c o n s t i t u t i v e , and

w h a t r e f l e c t s th e later i n f l u e n c e of the c u l t .

These gaps have been largely

filled

by subsequent l i t e ra tu re .

A l t h o u g h N o t h ' s t r e a t m e n t ^

is d i s a p p o i n t in g l y

b r i e f ,

a

t h o r o u g h

analysi s has been provided by BeyerlinT ̂ The m o s t recent

s u b s t a n t i a l

work

in the

area that

o f Halbe, -

1

again

c o n f i r m s

a

cultic

Sitz im

Leben, even though

the

su ggested location

at

Shechem is q u e r i e d . W hil e such l a te r d i scu ss io ns hav e add ed

detai l

t o v o n

Rad 's analysi s ,

his

basic

thesis h as n o t

been

ques t ioned bu t t a k e n as es tab l i shed .

D E F I N I T I O N

O F T E RM I N O L O G Y

Before one can o f f e r any a s s e s s m e n t o f this u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f

the Sinai na rra t iv e as a cult legend , it is im pe ra t iv e

c a r e f u l l y

to def i ne the m e a n i n g of the te rm s cu l t and legend s o tha t

it is clear what is be ing asserted.

i)

Legend

T he

w o r d

legend can c o n v e y

s ig n i f ic an t ly

d i f f e r e n t

meanings and has been used

a m b i g u o u s l y

and incons i s ten t ly in

m u c h r e c e n t l i t e r a t u r e . ' 1 B r o a d l y , one can f ind three mai n

usages

of the

t e r m . F i r s t ,

a

legend

can be an

u n h i s t o r i c a l ,

o r

l a rge ly

u nh is to r ical , s tory se t in an his to r ical co ntex t , perhaps

r e f l e c t i n g

or ig in a l hi s to r ica l event s which h a v e s i n c e

disappeared beneath later developments; such developments

tend

to

accrue

in

snowbal l

f a s h i o n . The

Epic

o f

Gi lg am e sh

o r

th e A r t h u r i a n stories cou ld come under th i s heading.^Secondly

119



At the

M o u n t a i n

o f Go d

a

legend

can be a

v i r t u e e m b o d i e d

in a deed . 3

ne

classic

e x a m p l e o f th i s is m e d i e v a l h a g i o g r a p h y w h e r e th e s a i n t wi l l

ac t i n su ch a w ay a s t o p ro v i d e a p e r f e c t e xa m pl e o f so m e

p a r t i c u l a r m o r a l v i r t u e , a n d t h e s t o r y i s to ld to

e d i f y

an d t o

i n s p i r e . I '* T h i r d l y , a l e ge n d can be the a c c o u n t of the

f o u n d i n g o f a

s h r i n e

or the b e g i n n i n g o f a

r i t u a l cu s t o m , w h i c h

i s read a t that

pa r t i c u l a r sh r i n e

or on t h e

occasion

of the

r i t u a l

c u s t o m . T h is

is a technical

usa ge , i n t ro d u c e d

by

f o r m critics.^

I t i s in the

t h i r d

o f

these senses tha t

th e

t e r m

is

used

by von

Rad . Ha l s obse rves tha t th e f o r m - c r i t i c a l d e s i g n a t i o n o f l e ge n d

i n ' t h i s sense is bas i c a l l y u n re l a t e d to l i t e r a r y f o r m . 16 T h a t is ,

o n e o f a

n u m b e r

o f possible l i t e ra ry types cou ld co n s t i t u t e the

n a r r a t i ve fo r t h e pa r t i c u l a r d ay o r o c cas io n . T h e n a r r a t i v e

could

be either

e n t i r e l y m y t h o l o g i c a l

o r

e n t i r e l y

historical, o r

s o m e w h e r e in

b e t w e e n .

For the f u n c t i o n o f be ing read a t a

par t i cu l a r sanc tuary

does

n o t

prescr ibe

th e genre o r content o f

w h a t

i s

be i n g r e ad

-

b e y o n d

th e

f a c t t h a t

i t

m u s t

relate t o t h e

s a n c t u a r y

in

q u e s t i o n .

I f the

S in a i n a r r a t i v e

w a s

read

ou t a t a

f e s t i v a l o f c o v e n a n t r e n e w a l a t S h e c h e m , G i l g a l , o r J e r u s a l e m ,

th i s w o u l d n o t o f i t se l f reveal a n y t h i n g a b o u t th e n a t u r e of the

n a r r a t i v e .

I t is of course possible to des igna te the n a r r a t i v e a s

l egendary

in the

f i r s t

of the

senses o u t l i n e d abo ve

on t he

gro u n d s

that the event is w r a p p ed in m y s t e r y , a n d w e a r e even

in th e d a r k a b o u t i ts h i s t o r i c a l b a c k g r o u n d a n d con tex t , 1 7

a n d be c au se a l m o s t

a l l the

p r e se n t n a r r a t i v e r e p r e s e n t s l a te r

e l a b o r a t i o n s . B u t su c h a c o n c lu s i o n m u s t be based o n h i s t o r i c a l

a n d

l i te r a r y a r g u m e n t s , w h i c h a r e q u i t e i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e

des igna t i on

a s

legend

in the

t h i r d

sense.

I t i s

i m po r t an t c l e a r l y

to

d i s t i n gu i sh

these tw o

d i f f e r e n t

senses

o f

legend.

It is

possible

to

ho ld that

a

n a r r a t i v e

is

l e ge n d a ry i n bo t h these senses tog e the r , bu t t he use o f t he sam e

w o r d w i t h tw o

d i f f e r e n t

s i g n i f i c a t i o n s i s l ike ly to lead to

c o n f u s i o n . V o n

Ra d ' s d i scuss ion uses

th e

t e rm c o n s i s t e n t l y

in i ts

f o r m - c r i t i c a l

sense, a l t h o u g h w h e n h e r e f e r s to the l e g e n d a s

b e i n g m o u l d e d a n d f o r m e d by th e cul t i t i s d i f f i c u l t no t t o

i m p o r t

no t i ons o f l egend i n the sno wbal l

sense.

A c lea r con-

fus ion

can be

seen

in the

treatment

o f

M .

N e w m a n w h o sa ys o f

th e

J

a n d E covenan t t r ad i t i ons that

t hey bo th can be ca ll ed legends because i n the i r p resen t

f o r m t h e y n o t o n l y r e f l e c t th e o r i g i n a l e v e n t bu t a l so h ave

2



t the Mountain of God

Eichrodt , f o l l o w i n g G . Q u e l l , takes the term cult (o r cul tus )

to m e a n

th e

express ion

of

r e l i g i o u s e x p e r i e n c e

in

c o n c r e t e

ex -

t e r n a l a c t i o n s

p e r f o r m e d w i t h i n th e

c o n g r e g a t i o n

o r

c o m m u n i t y , p r e f e r a b l y b y

o f f i c i a l l y

a p p o i n te d e x p o n e n t s

an d in set f o r m s . 2 1

B oth these

d e f i n i t i o n s lay

stress

on the

c o m m u n a l

an d ins t i -

t u t i o n a l n a t u r e of the c u l t , an d w i t h such a d e f i n i t i o n there is

n o

d i f f i c u l t y . W h e n cul t

is

u s e d w i t h o u t f u r t h e r

q u a l i f i c a t i o n

in

th e

subsequen t d i scuss ion , th i s

w i ll be the

m e a n i n g in t e n d e d .

I t

is

p o s s i b l e , h o w e v e r ,

to

o f f e r

a

d i f f e r e n t sor t

o f

d e f i n i t i o n

of

the same t e rm.

M o w i n c k e l

wr i t es :

T h e c u l t is not o n l y by i t s o r i g i n , but in a l l places a nd a t

a l l t i m e s , d r a m a .

T h e

cu l t

is

sacred ar t .

B ut a t the

s a m e

t i m e

it is

sacred rea l i t y ,

n ot

m e r e l y

an

acted

d r a m a

or a

p l a y ,

b u t a r e a l d r a m a a n d o n e that m a n i f e s t s r e a l i t y , a

d r a m a which rea l i zes th e d r a m a t i c e v e n t

w i t h

r e a l p o w e r ,

a rea l i t y

f r o m

w h i c h r e a l f o r c e s e m a n a t e , in o t h e r w o r d s

it is a s a c r a m e n t . T he c u l t of p r i m i t i v e man i s th i s , an d

n o t h i n g

less

.. . The

basic idea

is

this: that

t h r o u g h

th e

d r a m a t i c , s y m b o l ic p r e s e n t a t io n , r e a l i z a t i o n

a nd r e -

a n i m a t i o n of the par t i cu lar even t th i s even t is a c t u a l l y

an d r e a l l y

r e pe a t e d ;

it repeats i t se l f , happens a l l over

aga in

a n d

exerc ises

a f r e s h t h e s am e m i g h t y , r e d e m p t i v e

e f f e c t that

it

exercised

for our

salvation

on the

f i r s t

occasion at the

d a w n

o f t im e or i n the d i s t an t

pas t .22

T he

f i rs t pai r

o f

d e f i n i t i o n s

of

cul t presents

a

m o r e

static

concept ion than th e

latter

one; that is , t h e y a re c o n c e r n e d

p r i m a r i l y w i t h

th e

i n s t i t u t i o n

o f

w o r s h ip , w h e re a s

th e

d e f i n i t i o n

of c u l t a s d r a m a e m p h a s i z e s t h e a c t u a l

practice

a n d i n n e r

m e a n i n g

o f w o r s h i p . T h e r e is no a b s o l u t e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n

these

tw o d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g s , a n d s o m e t i m e s in

p ra c t i c e

i t may

b e

u n n e c e s s a r y

to

d i st in g u i sh b e t w e e n t h e m .

Yet the

d i f f e r e n c e

is

s ig n i f ic an t . For i t is to cul t in the sense of the actu al

practice o f w o r s h i p t h a t one c a n m o s t m e a n i n g f u l l y r e f e r in

t e r m s

of its

e n t a i l i n g d r a m a t i c i n v o l v e m e n t

an d reenactment. A

l egend

a u t h o r i z i n g

the

i n s t i t u t i o n

of

w o r s h i p

or the

f a c t

of

r i t u a l a t

some par t i cu lar cu l t i c

place is a u t h o r i z i n g

s o m e t h i n g

u n c h a n g i n g

w h i c h

it is

h a r d

to

conceive

of as

cons tan t ly

m o u l d i n g

i ts

a u t h o r i z i n g l eg e n d . T h a t

is, i t

says

w h y

r a t h e r t h a n

how w o r s h i p is car r i ed on a t a p ar t i c u l ar

place.

W h e n , h o w e v e r ,



Three : Exodus 32-34 as a Cul t Legend

a

legend

is

used

in the c o n t e x t of a

specific f o r m

o f

worsh ip ,

as

a

p a r t

of an

a ct u al c e r e m o n y ( a u t h o r i z i n g

th e

h o w ra t h e r

t h an t h e w h y ) , t h en t h e i n h e re n t l y d y n a m i c n a t u r e o f w o rs h i p

could

m or e easi ly be conceived of as

m o u l d i n g

a n a r r a t i v e

w hi c h w as used in the course o f t h a t w o r s h i p . T h i s w o u l d m e a n

t h a t

a

l e g e n d a u t h o r i z i n g

a

s a n c t u a r y

w o u l d

h a v e

an

i n h e r e n t

s tab i l i ty w h i c h w o u l d not neces sar i ly be shared by a lege nd used

as a par t of the c e r e m o n y at

that

s a n c t u a r y . Jdg 17-18 as the

cul t legend of Dan

w o u l d

be a legend in the fo rm e r sense T h e

Sinai

pericope is envisaged as a cu l t legend in the latter sense

I t

w o u l d s e e m t h e r e f o r e that cul t in the te r m cul t legend as

appl ied

to the S i na i m a t e r i a l , w h e n th e t e r m is i n t e n d e d to

des igna te

th e

l i t e r a r y

f o r m

a n d n o t

m e r e l y

th e

f u n c t i o n

of t he

m a t e r i a l , m u s t m e a n t h e

a c t ua l p r ac t i ce

o f w or sh ip in it s

d r a m a t i c

an d

s y m b o li c sense

A

few

w o r d s m u s t

b e

said

o n

t h i s d r a m a t i c

an d c r e a t i v e

u n d e r s t an d i n g

o f

Israel 's worsh ip , par t i cu la r ly

in the

s t rong

f o r m in

which

it is set ou t by

M ow i nc k e l ; a l t h o u g h

an y

substantial discussion lies b e y o n d

o u r

p r e s e n t scope

F i r s t , th e d r a m a t i c concep t of the cul t , especial ly as

M ow i nc k e l deve lops it , d e r i v e s m a i n l y

f r o m

p h e n o m e n o l o g y o f

r e l ig ion

in

genera l

and f r o m the

w o r l d

o f

M e s o p o t a m i a

in


and has

been app l i ed

to

Israe l largely

b y

an a l o g y .

In

th e realm o f re l ig ious practices a nd t he m e a n i n g a t t r ib u t e d to

t hem , such

a

c o m p a r a t i v e a p p r o a c h m u s t

b e

u s e d w i t h e x t r e m e

cau t ion .

W h i l e

the re l ig ion o f Israel m u s t b e unders tood wi th in

it s a n c ie n t N e a r E a s te r n e n v i r o n m e n t , i t i s m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y

proper

that

o n e should

attempt

to c o m p r e h e n d

Israelite

re l ig ion

f i r s t on i t s own

t e r m s ,

as a

p a r t i cu l a r co h e re n t r e l i g i o u s

sy s t e m , b e fo re ad d u c i n g t r an s cu l t u ra l p a ral le l s

an d

a p p l y i n g

t h e m heur i s t i ca l ly .23

Secondly ,

th e fac t is

that

w e k n o w r e g r e t t a b l y l i tt l e a b o u t

th e p r ac t i ce s ch a r ac t e r i s t i c o f Israel ' s fes t iva l s , or the m e a n in g

t h a t these p rac t ices h a d f o r t h e w o r s h i p p e r s . W e k n o w so m e -

th ing about th e practice o f sacr i f ice , though little abou t its

m e a n i n g ,

s o m e t h i n g a b o u t h y m n o d y ,

a n d

s o m e t h i n g a b o u t

th e

natu re

o f

homi le t ic .

B u t

beyond th is

we a re

const rained

to

h y p o t h e s i z e . O n e m a y i n d e e d

o f f e r

an h y p o t h e s i s a b o u t a t y p e

of

w o r s h i p w h i ch

w o u l d

have incorpora ted

a

cul t

legend

in

such a w ay as to

m o u l d

a n d t r a n s f o r m i t a n d th e n a p p l y t h e

h y p o t h e s i s h e u r i s t i ca l l y to the f i n a l f o r m of the legend in

ques t ion . Bu t the

t e n t a t i v e

and specu la t ive n a tu re o f such an

u n d e r t a k i n g

sh o u l d

no t be

f o r g o t t e n .

123



Three: E x o d u s 32-34 as a C u l t L e g e n d

of the term to go

u p

qy in Ex . 34:2 (cf . Ex. 19:3,24, 24:1,9,

32:30) is signif icant for the

cultic

mi l ieu of the passage,

because e l sewhere in the O T the

w o r d

is the technical term fo r

going

up to a sanctuary.26 Such a sugges t ion

takes

no a c c o u n t

of the obvious fac t that the use of the w o r d m ay h a v e - b e e n

d e t e r m i n e d by the wri ter ' s need to portray Moses physically

ascend ing

M t.

Sinai.

W h a t else

could he say but

that

Moses

went up , fo r which

c

lh is the n a t u r a l H e b r e w v e r b ?

W h e n

the

w o r d

can be n a t u r a l l y e x p l a in e d in this way it is i l l e g i t i m a t e

to deduce a cultic mil ieu f r o m the term.

It is

t rue that Beyerlin

and W i l m s

h a v e

other

weight ie r

evidence

which

they adduce

to

sh o w

the l inks of the Sinai

pericope

with

th e

cult.

T h e a r g u m e n t s d i sc u s se d a b o v e w e r e

adduced secondar i ly , as par t o f a total c u m u l a t i v e case, to

su ppo r t a position already

reached

o n

other

g r o u n d s , and their

lack

o f

validity need

no t

d i s t u r b

the

general posit ion.

B u t

such

q u e s t i o n - b e g g i n g a r g u m e n t s , w h e r e

th e

cen t ra l t e rm s legend ,

cult

and

cul t ic have

n o t

been care fu l ly de f ined

b u t

used

equ ivocal ly ,

are

u n f o r t u n a t e l y

no t

u n c o m m o n

in

discussions

o f

the Sinai material. A f res h exam inat ion , wi th m ore care fu l u se

of

terms,

is in o r d e r .

TH E

U S E O F

F O R M

CR I T I CI SM

Before t u r n i n g to discuss specific features which are adduced

as evidence for the cu lt as the Sitz im Leb en of the Sinai

pericope, it wi l l b e u s e f u l to cons ider th e m o r e g e n e r a l

principles

upon which

t h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the m a t e r i a l has

been based.

The

di f f icul ty

o f establishing a sound method and approach is

cons iderab le .

H.-3.

K r a u s has w r i t t e n ,

The cultic legend

presents

u s with special d i f f i c u l t i e s .

Rel iable cr i ter ia are s t i ll la ck ing in this fie ld - and it is

no t l ikely

that

they will ever emerge . W h e n , fo r e x a m p l e ,

it is stated that the Sinai pericope wa s a festival legend ,

this i m m e d i a t e l y

raises

the ques t ion what the actual

re la t ionship be tween

th e

epic

account and the

c u l t i c

event was . It i s too easy to avo id ans w er in g th i s qu es t ion

by

asser t ing

that

t h e r e w a s a m u t u a l in te r act io n .27

And G.E.

W r i g h t ,

in a d i sc u s s i o n of the r e l a t io n s h i p b e tw e e n

c u l t a n d h i s t o r y , o b se r v es ,

125



A t th e

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

I n v o l v e d

a r e

p ro c e d u r a l a s s u m p t i o n s

w h i c h

d e t e r m i n e

c o n c l u s i o n s , b u t

w h i c h

i n t h e m s e l v e s c a n n o t b e tested

except a s th e q u e s ti o n o f c u l t a n d h i s t o r y i s s t u d i e d i n a

later

p e r i o d w h e r e

t h e

e v i d e n c e

c a n b e

m o r e a d e q u a t e l y

c o n t r o l l e d . ^ ^

T h e

critical approach u p o n w h i c h m o s t a n a l y s i s

o f t h e

S i n a i

pericope a s cu l t l egend h a s been based i s

f o r m

c r i t i c i s m . S o m e

b r i e f c o m m e n t s o n th e n a t u r e a n d scope o f f o r m c r i t i c i s m a r e

t h e r e f o r e

i n o r d e r . 29

T h e b a s i c a s s u m p t i o n o f

f o r m

c r i t i c i s m i s t h a t a n c i e n t N e a r

E a s t e r n

m a n w a s

i n f l u e n c e d

i n h i s

speech

a n d

l i t e r a r y c o m -

pos i t i on by

c u s t o m

a n d

c o n v e n t i o n ;

a n d

t h e s e c u s t o m s

a n d

c o n v e n t i o n s

c o r r e s p o n d

t o

c e r t a i n r e g u l a r l y r e c u r r i n g e v e n t s

i n

l i f e . A s a g e n e r a l iz a t i o n t h i s i s q u i t e acceptable. Bu t as a

u n i v e r s a l l y b i n d i n g p r i n c i p l e

i t m a y

b e c o m e q u e s t i o n a b l e .

O n

t h e o n e

h a n d

i t m a y

leave i n s u f f i ci e n t r o o m

f o r

i n d i v i d u a l i t y

a n d i n n o v a t i o n . O n t h e o t h e r

h a n d

i t can e a s i l y

o v e r s i m p l i fy

th e

r e l a t i o n s h i p b e tw e e n l i t e r a r y f o r m s a n d t h e d a i l y i n s t i t u t i o n s

w h i c h ,

i n

s o m e w a y , c o r r e s p o n d

to

t h e m .

Both o f

t h e s e p o i n t s

r e q u i r e

a m p l i f i c a t i o n .

First

t h e e m p h a s i s

upon

c u s t o m a n d c o n v e n t io n m e a n s t h a t

a n i n e v i t a b l e w e a k n e s s i n t h e f o r m - c r i t i c a l a p p r o a c h i s that i t

h a s t e n d e n c y t o f i n d g e n e r a l a n d t y pi c a l p a t t e r n s a t t h e

expense

o f t h e

i n d i v i d u a l

a n d t h e

u n i q u e . 3 0 j

t

j

s

a r g u e d t h a t

t h e S i na i

p e r i c o p e r e f l e c t s

a

r e g u l a r f e s t i v a l

i n

I s r a e l b e c a u s e

o f s i m i l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n i t a n d aspects o f t h e l a t e r w o r s h i p i n

I s rae l s cult. I f , h o w e v e r , o n e i m a g i n e s f o r t h e sake o f a r g u m e n t

that a t ra d i t i o n t o ld o f a n e n c o u n t e r a t S i n a i b e t w e e n Y a h w e h

a n d

c e r t a i n f o r e r u n n e r s

o f t h e

l a t e r p e o p l e

o f

I s r a e l ,

a n

e n c o u n t er u n i q u e i n

nature

31

a n d s i g n i f i c a n c e , a n d

that

t h i s

i n v o l v e d

a

t h e o p h a n y ,

a

r e v e l a t i o n

o f t h e

w i l l

o f

Y a h w e h ,

a n d a

c o m m i t m e n t b y t h e people t o Y a h w e h , a n d

that

t h i s e x p e r i e n c e

b e c a m e

t h e

bas i s

f o r

s u b se q u e n t e n c o u n t e rs b e t w e e n

Y a h w e h

a n d I s r a e l , s i m i l a r

i n

s o m e r e s p e c t s

t o , b u t n o t

i d e n t i ca l w i t h ,

th e

i n i t i a l e x p e r i e n c e

- i t

m u s t

b e

a sked

h o w f a r a

s t a n d a r d

f o r m - c r i t i c a l a p p r o a c h w o u l d b e a b l e to g i v e a n a d e q u a t e

a n a l y s i s o f

such

a

u n i q u e

a n d

c o n s ti tu t i v e t ra d i t i o n .

T o s a y

that

such

a t r a d i t i o n c o u l d n o t b e descr ibed except i n t h e l i g h t o f

s i m i l a r s u b s e q u e n t e v e n t s

w o u l d

be t o beg the

q u e s t i o n .

T o s a y

that such a t r a d i t i o n h a s n o t been descr ibed except i n t h e l i g h t

o f s i m i l a r s u b s e q u e n t c u l t i c e v e n t s a l so b e gs t h e q u e s t i o n . F o r

such

a p o s i t i o n c o u l d

o n l y

be e s t a b l i s h e d o n t h e bas i s , n o t o f

126




A N A L Y S I S O F E X . 33:19, 31:6f

t E P R O n o u n c e m e n t s in 33:19,

34:6f.

a re c l a s s i f i ed by

E i s s f e l d t

a s s o le m n c u l t s a y i n g s

w h i c h

h a d t h e i r s e t t i n g i n

p a r t i c u l a r p u b l i c f e s t i v a l s

fo r t he

w h o l e p e o p l e

o r t h e

w h o l e

c u l t - c o m m u n i t y . ^ ^ W e i s e r

c l a s s i f i e s

th e

ve r ses

a s

e p i p h a n y -

f o r m u l a s recited b y a priest w h e n th e p eo p l e c a m e together

fo r r e g u l a r l y r e c u r r i n g

c u l t i c

p u r p o s e s

a t t h e

s a n c t u a r y

o f t h e

covenant .^ j

n

a r g u m e n t a p p e a r s to be

t h a t t h e s e

s a y i n g s

h a v e

a

f o r m

w h i c h c a n b e

seen

to

c o r r e s p o n d

to

t h a t f o u n d

in

o t h e r s i m i l a r s a y i n g s e l s e w h e r e i n t h e O T , a n d t h a t t h i s f o r m

h a d i ts Si tz i m L e b e n i n t h e

cult.

I t m a y b e o b s e r v e d , f i r s t ,

t h a t

t h e r e i s s o m e

d i f f i c u l t y

i n

c l a s s i fy ing these tw o s a y i n g s a s b e i n g o f t h e s a m e f o r m . T h e y

h a v e i n c o m m o n

t h a t

t h e y a r e b o t h d i v i n e p r o n o u n c e m e n t s , b u t

th e s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n t h e m i s o n e o f c o n t e n t , ^ ? j

n

that t h e y

b o t h r e v e a l Y a h w e h a s b e i n g g r a c i o u s a n d

m e r c i f u l .

T h e y d i f f e r

f r o m o n e a n o t h e r in s h a p e

( f o r m )

a n d d i f f e r b o t h in sh ape a n d

c o n t e n t f r o m

o t h e r d i v i n e p r o n o u n c e m e n t s su c h

a s E x .

2 0 : 2 / / D e u t . .5:6, o r t h e o f t - r e p e a t e d I a m Y a h w e h i n L e v .

17-26.38

S e c o n d l y

t h e

f a c t

t h a t

s o m e d i v i n e p r o n o u n c e m e n t s

m a y

o r i g i n a t e i n t h e c u l t does n o t entail that a l l do . Th ere is great

d i v e r s i t y o f f o r m a n d

c o n t e n t

i n

d i v in e p ro n o u n c e m e n t s

recorded i n t h e O T . S i n c e , m o r e o v e r , t h e O T h a s m a n y

t r a d i t i o n s

o f

Y a h w e h a p p e a ri n g

a n d

s p e a k i n g o u t s id e

th e

s p h e r e

o f th e

c u l t ,

th e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f a d i v i n e p r o n o u n c e m e n t to a

c u l t i c

s e t t i n g

i s

c o m p l e x .

A re t h e r e clear

c r i t e r i a

o f

e i t h e r

f o r m o r c o n t e n t w h i c h d i s t i n g u i s h a s a y i n g w h i c h o r i g i n a t e s in

th e

c u l t f r o m

a

s a y i n g w h i c h o r i g i n a t e s

i n a

n a r r a t i v e t r a d i t i o n ?

I t m a y also be a s k e d h o w f a r i t i s j u s t i f i a b l e to t a k e a s a y i n g

such a s 33:19 a s a n i n d e p e n d e n t s a y i n g ,

s e p a r a b l e f r o m

th e

rest

o f Y a h w e h ' s s p e e c h . A l t h o u g h

i t i s

poss ib l e

to se t the

w o r d s

o u t

a s a n

i n d ep e n d en t p r o n o u n c e m e n t ,3 9

i t is

clear that w h a t

m a k e s t h e w o r d s r e m a r k a b l e i s t h e i r s o l e m n a n d e m p h a t i c

c o n t e n t , w h i c h i s m o s t n a t u r a l l y e x p re s se d in a f o r m a l

p a r a l l e l i s m .

T h e

a s s u m p t i o n

o f th e

o r i g i n a l i n d e p e n d e n c e

o f

s u ch a s a y i n g u s u a l l y p o s t u l a t e s a c e r t a i n l o o s e n e s s o f t h e

s a y i n g

in i t s

p r e s e n t

c o n t e x t , ^ °

so

t h a t

th e

s a y i n g c o u l d

b e

s e c o n d a r i l y i n t r o d u c e d . I f e x e g e si s r e v e a l s i n t i m a t e

l i n k s

b e t w e e n

th e

s a y i n g

a n d i t s

n a r r a t i v e

context, th e

a s s u m p t i o n

o f

o r i g i n a l

i n d e p e n d e n c e b e co m e s m o r e p r o b le m a t i c .

I t

m u s t

b e

ask ed

h o w f a r

bo th

th e

f o r m

a n d

content

o f

33:19,

34:6f . may be

128



Three : Ex odu s 32-34 as a C u l t Le g e n d

i n f l u e n c e d b y l i t e r a r y an d con tex tua l co ns ide ra t ions . In genera l

t e rms t h e o p h an ie s a re a l w ay s s e r i o u s occasions.^ B u t E x .

32-34 presents

the

p a r t i c u l a r l y g rav e

context o f

Israel 's

sin

ag a in s t

Y a h w e h

and the i r danger o f

t o t a l

d e s t ru c t i o n ; t h e i r

forg iveness

an d restoration is no

l igh t

matter b u t

possible on ly

t h r o u g h a reve la t ion o f the ve ry be ing o f God as a God who i s

g r ac i o us a n d m e r c i f u l . H o w else cou ld the t rad i t ion convey th i s

ad e q u a t e l y e x c e p t b y p r e s e n t i n g these w o r d s as a so l e mn d iv in e

p r o n o u n c e m e n t ?

Since the f o r m o f 34:6f. is mo re l i k e that of an in d e p e n d e n t

r i t u a l

p r o n o u n c e m e n t t h a n is the case with 33:19 , a few

e x t r a

c o m m e n t s on i t are in p l a c e .

F i r s t ,

t h e r e

i s d i s ag re e m e n t o v e r w h a t

k i n d

o f cu l t say ing i t

is ,

w h e t h e r

it is

spoken

to God or

b y

G od

(that

is , by his

r ep re sen ta t ive ) .

3. S c h a r b e r t interprets the verses as a

l i t u rg i c a l p ray e r o r

B e k e n n t n i s f o r m e l

s ince the u se of the

t h i r d pe rson s in gu la r ra th e r than the f i r s t pe rson , as i s

c u s t o m a r y in r e v e l a to r y f o r m u l a e , is d e e m e d a w k w a r d , and ou t

of

th e p re se n t c o n t e x t th e w o r d s a re n a t u r a l l y t ak e n as a

v o c a t i v e p ray e r

formula.^

E i s s f e l d t an d We i se r , on t he o the r

h a n d ,

i n t e r p r e t

th e

w o r d s

not as a

p r a y e r

bu t as a

p ro n o u n c e me n t b y t h e priest in l i eu o f God .^3 For them,

ap p a re n t l y , t h e t h i rd p e r so n f o r m u l a t i o n p re se n t s n o p ro b l e m.

Th e re

is ,

t h e r e f o r e ,

n o

obv ious

use of the

f o r m u l a

in the

regu la r cu l t

o f

Israe l .

B u t

su c h d i s ag re e me n t

is

p e rh ap s

in e v i t ab l e w h e n a s a y i n g is i n t e r p r e t e d in an h y p o t h e t i c a l

context an d does n o t show that th e w o r d s a re not a

p r o n o u n c e m e n t in the cu l t o f some sort.

Second ly , a l tho ug h i t i s ob v io us ly poss ib le to in t e rp re t

34:6f .

in

isolat ion

f r o m

i t s

p resen t

c o n t e x t

-

n u m e r o u s d i s c u s s i o n s

h av e d o n e so - the e x e g es i s sh o w e d s t r i k in g l y t h e aptness of the

w o r d i n g to the

p r es en t

context; so

m u c h

so

that

i t may be

correct t o c o n c l u d e t h a t th e w o r d i n g was in f ac t des igned fo r

th e

c o n t e x t .

Bu t i f the

s a y i n g

i s

t h u s ,

a t

least

to

so me

e x t e n t ,

c o n t e x t - d e p e n d e n t , t h e n t h e r e a re p a r t i c u l a r p ro b l e ms i n

o f f e r i n g an


in

i so la t ion

o f

t h a t

c o n t e x t .

T h e l i k e l y i n f l u e n c e

o f the p r e s e n t

context

on the

f o r m u l a t i o n o f 34:6f . st i l l does not show t h a t i t s con ten t s cou ld

n o t ,

in

s o m e

f o r m ,

h a v e

had a

p r io r

h i s t o r y

in the

c u l t .

O ne

also

h as t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e n u m e r o u s o t h e r p a ssag e s i n t h e O T w h e re

p a r t s

o f t he

f o r m u l a

of 34:6f .

recur.^

M a n y o f

t h e s e

passages most no tab ly

those in the

psa lms ,

are

u n q u e s t i o n ab l y

c u l t i c in the sense o f o r i g i n a t i n g in , and be ing used in, the

9



At the

Mounta in

of God

f o r m a l w o r s h i p

of I s rae l .

W h a t is at issue

here,

and indeed lies at the h e a r t of the cult

legend analysis ,

is the

h az i ly -de f ined r e l a t i ons h ip be tw een cu l t

and

n a r r a t i ve t r ad i t i on .

If the

contents

o f

34:6f. originated

in

the

cul t

bu t

have been t ransposed into

th e

l i t e ra ry

context o f

the Sinai tradition, how is this process to be envisaged? ^

T he

hypothes i s tha t

the

t radi t ion

of Ex. 32-34

existed

in a f o r m

r o u g h l y r e s e m b l i n g that which

i t has a t

p r esen t ,

bu t

w i t h o u t

33:19, 34:6f.,

which

were only added into the t radition at a

c o m p a r a t i v e l y late

stage o f deve lopmen t i s un t enab le w hen the

l i te rary and theologica l development of Ex.

32-34

as a whole is

considered.

The verses are integral and

constitute

the h igh-

point

upon which

th e

s u r round i ng

n a r r a t i v e

is

dependent

and up

to which it

leads;

33:19 and 34:6f. m us t be r egarded as p r i m a ry

to the

t radi t ion.

If this is so, and yet it is

mainta ined

that the

verses had their or igin in the cul t , then the

wh o le

Sinai

t radi t ion of Ex.

32-34

m us t have been bu i l t up a round them a s a

special creation to

give

these

p ronouncements

a new existence

in

a na r r a t i ve setting. This c reat ion could have ut i l ized exis t ing

e l emen t s

o f

t r ad i t i on ,

but

they could

not

p r ev ious ly have

existed

in

anything l ike thei r

present

shape.

Some such

ex t r e m e ly com plex deve lop m en t o f t he t r ad i t ion m us t be env is -

aged, given

the

c en t r a l i t y

of

33:19, 34:6f.

to it . And

s om e

f o rm

of such complexi ty of ten is envisaged, though with less weight

attached

to the significance of 33:19, 34:6f. But w h i l e this is

possible,

one

m u s t

ask

w h e t h e r

it is

e i ther necessary

or

even

likely as an

account

of the

material.

A

d e v e l o p m e n t in the opposi te di rec t ion,

f r om

n a r r a t i v e

tradi t ion to use in the cult, p resents

less

d i f f i cu l ty . A t r ad i t ion

as

i m p o r t a n t

as Ex.

32-34

for

w h a t

it

says

about

the character

of

God and the

n a t u r e

of

Israel w ou ld n a t u r a l l y

be

taken

up in

the wo r s h i p of

I s rael .

Al l the

o ther

O T

uses

of the

e l emen t s

in

34:6f.

can be

understood

as

der ivative

f r o m , and

explici t ly

reca l l ing ,

the

sup r eme in s t ance

of God s

s e l f - r eve la t ion .

F or

w h a t

wou ld be mo re na tu r a l t han to u t i l ize th e t radi t ion and to

call

upon

Y a h w e h as being of the

character

which he h i m s e l f

had

r evealed

to

Moses?^°

T he

o r ig ina l i ty

of the f o r m u l a to

the na r ra t ive t r ad i t ion i s in no way incompat ib le w i t h its

f r e q u e n t usage thereafter

in the

cult.

T he

adoption

o f a

t r ad i t ion

o f


i m p o r t a n c e i n t o

the

con tex t

o f

w o r s h i p i s not only a

p a t t e r n

o f

d e v e l o p m e n t r e a d i l y u n d e r -

standable

in itself, but also can be

paral leled

elsewhere - not

least

in the h i s to ry o f the Ch r i s t i an

Church.

130



Three: E xo du s 32-34

as

C ul t L e ge nd

S o m e c o m p r o m i s e

on the

re la t ion

of the

na r r a t i ve t r a d i t i on

to the

c u l t

is

a l so poss ible . That

is , the f o r m u l a o f

34 :6f .

m ay

h a v e o r i g i n a t e d w i t h i n th e Sinai t r a d i t i o n a n d b e e n i n c o r p o r a t e d

in to

th e

c u l t p r i o r

to i t s

p r e s e n t l i t e r a r y

f o r m u l a t i o n ,

bu t i t s

p r e s e n t f o r m u l a t i o n c ou l d r e f l e c t t he c u l t i c u s a ge . Such a


is

read i ly conce ivab le

and has an

obvious pa ra l l e l

in the t r a d i t i on o f the e u c h a r i s t i c w ord s o f Je s us . T he re a r e ,

h o w e v e r , t w o d i f f i c u l t i e s w i th t h i s . Th e f i r s t i s t he l ack of c l ea r

ev idence in i t s f a v o u r

g e n e r a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a p a r t ) . T h e r e

a re

no pa ra l l e l a c c oun t s o f 34:6f . , as t he re a re of t he euchar i s t i c

w o r d s

o f Jesus , to

p rove d i ve r s i t y

o f

w o r d i n g

in the

t r a d i t i on

an d

i n d i c a t e s o m e s u c h d e v e l o p m e n t .

N o n e

of the passages

re la ted

t o Ex .

34:6f .

ca n be

s h o w n

to be

pa ra l l e l

to i t , r a t h e r

t h a n d e p e n d e n t

u p o n

it or e ve n p r i o r to i t ) , and so show

e v i d e n c e o f

d i v e r s e c u l t i c u s a g e

of the o r i g i n a l

t r a d i t i o n .

S eco n d ly , th e i n f l u e n c e th t can most eas i ly b e a r g u e d to h a v e

shaped the w o r d i n g o f 34 :6f . is the c o n t e x t of the S i n a i

t r a d i t i on . N one t he l e s s , ne i t he r

o f t h e s e

fac tors dec i s ive ly ru l e s

o u t i n f l u e n c e f r o m th e

c u l t upon

th e w o r d i n g of the

s a y i n g .

I n s u m ,

t he se

b r i e f r e f l e c t i o n s s u g g e s t t h a t

th e

i m a g i n e d

d e v e l o p m e n t o f E x .

34:6f .

f r o m

c u l t

to

n a r r a t i v e t r a d i t i o n

is

less l i ke ly t h a n

th e

d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m n a r r a t i v e t r a d i t i o n

to use

in th e c u l t . W i t h i n t h i s de ve l opm e n t s om e r e c i p roc a l i n f l ue nc e

of th e c u l t

upon

th e f o r m u l a t i o n of the

s a y i n g

c a n n o t b e

d i s c oun t e d . B u t s u c h i n f l u e n c e , if it d id t ke p l a ce , w o u l d be a

s e c o n d a r y d e v e l o p m e n t

a n d

w o u l d

be f a r

f r o m

s h o w i n g

t h a t

th e

c u l t w a s t h e o r i g i n a l

s e t t i n g

for t he f o r m u l a a s a

w h o l e .

A l t h o u g h f u r t h e r w o r k i s ne cess a ry , i t m ay be sugges t ed th a t t o

v i ew the cul t as the Si tz im Leben for 34:6f . , or 33:19, is a less

l i ke ly

hy po t he s i s t ha n

th t

t h e y w e r e o r i g i n a l l y

a

p a r t

of the

n a r r a t i v e

t r a d i t i o n i n

w h ic h t h e y

n o w

s t a n d .

A N A L Y S I S O F E X .

34:11-26

I t i s ge ne ra l l y he l d t h a t th e l a w s o f 34 :11-26^8 r e f l e c t a

cu l t i c S i t z

im

L e b e n , t h a t

is ,

t h e y r e f l e c t

a

r i t e

o f

p r o c l a m a t i o n

of l a w s a t a c e r e m o n y o f c o v e n a n t r e n e w a l . T h e f o r m - c r i t i c a l

a r g u m e n t s

used to s u p p o r t t h i s t a k e m o r e t h a n o n e f o r m .

O ne

a r g u m e n t

is

t h a t

one can

d i s c e r n

in Ex. 34, as in Ex.

19 /20 , a c o v e n a n t - t r e a t y s t r u c t u r e p a r a l l e l to o t h e r a n c i e n t

N e a r E a s t e rn va s s a l t r e a t i e s , e s p e c i a l l y t hos e o f t he H i t t i t e s .

W

Beyer l in , ^9 fo r

e x a m p l e , f o l l o w i n g G . E .

M e n d e n h a l l , 5 0

pre-

s e n t s a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the

S ina i

p e r i c op e a l on g t he s e l i ne s .

3



Three: E x o d u s 3 2 -3 4 as a C u l t Legend

For the

p re sen t ,

w e w i l l

s i m p l y f o c u s

o n o n e

cons idera t ion

that

has

received little attention

in d i scuss ions o f 34:11-26, that

i s

the

c lose re la t ion

o f the

sec t ion

to i t s

n a r r a t i v e context. This

contextual approach

h a s

rece ived l i t t le

attention-^

p a r t l y

because

the

o r i g i n a l l y i n d e p e n d e n t e x i s t e n c e

o f the

l aws

has

been as sumed , an d pa r t l y b ec a u se

m o s t

i n t e r e s t has focussed o n

the q u e s t i o n s o f w h e t h e r or not a decalogue can be re-

cons t ruc ted

f r o m these

verses and o f how they

relate

as a

paral le l to the deca logue o f Ex . 20 . Despi te the assert ion that

this sect ion

w as

i n t r o d u c e d i n to

the

t e x t

o f

w i t h o u t

an y

r e f e r e n c e t o the n a r r a t i v e context, i t i s c lear

that

the

oppos i te i s the case. The exeges i s has s h o w n t h a t the overa l l

tenor of

34:11-26

i s

f u l ly

i n ha rm o n y w i th the concerns o f

32-34. In de tai l , the depend ence of 34:17, and perhaps also

34:14, upon ch. 32 is s t r i k ing .

G i v e n the cons iderable l i n k s between 34:11-26 an d the

context

o f 32-34 , how i s one to in te rpre t t h i s?

There

a re two

poss ib i l i t ies .

T he

f i r s t

i s to

ho ld t h a t w h i l e

the

l aws

a re

appropr ia te to the

n a r r a t i v e

in certain respects, they do no t as

a w ho le a r i se ou t o f the n a r r a t i v e s i t u a t i o n , an d the i r o r ig ina l

i n d e pe n d e n c e , f o l low e d by secon dary inc orpora t io n in to the

Sina i

t r a d i t i o n , i s t o b e m a i n t a i n e d . S e c o n d ly , o n e c o u ld a r g u e

t h a t the l a w s w e r e c o m pi l e d s pe c i f i c a l l y f o r thei r present

c o n t e x t , l a r g e ly ou t o f o ther laws a l ready con ta ined w i t h i n the

trad i t ion ( i .e . E x . 20-23) .

B e f o r e one can

choose

betw

een

these s o m e f u r t h e r

c l a r i f i c a t i o n i s req u i red . In the f i r s t p lace , g iven that legal and

paraenetic ma ter i a l a re d i f f e r e n t

l i t e r a r y

t ypes f r o m na r ra t ive ,

o n e m u s t a s k w ha t

s o r t

o f co r respondence o f c o n t e n t one cou ld

reasonably expect to f i n d be tween the two d i f f e r e n t

genres

i f

they were composed t o g e t h e r . C l e a r ly

i t

w o u l d

no t be the

s ame

as

that be tween

tw o i n t e r r e l a t ed

n a r r a t i v e

ep i sodes . 56

Nei ther paraenes i s

n o r

l aws cou ld

be

ex pec ted

to

s h o w f r e q u e n t

verba l l i nks t o the n a r r a t i v e ; a s i m i l a r t h e m a t i c c o n c e rn w o u l d

be

m o s t i m p o r t a n t .

A body o f l a w s can be c o n n e c ted w i th i ts n a r r a t i v e c o n t e x t i n

a

v a r i e t y

o f

w a y s .

O n e m a y

c o n s i d e r

the


o f

N u m .

to

N u m . 13-14 . H e r e t h e r e

i s a

rea l re la t ion

of the

l a w s

to

the

p reced ing nar ra t ive , seen

i n

the

concern

for the

p r o m i s e d

l a n d ,

j e o p a r d i z e d bu t r e a f f i rm e d ( 15 :2 ) , and for the e ve n t o f the

w h o l e people being involved

i n s in

(15:26).^ N o n e the le s s ,

the

t h e m a t i c i n t e r e s t of ch. 15 bears n o i n t e g r a l c o n n e c t i o n to the

c o n t e x t and the present l inks m a y b e

seen

as a redact ional

133



A t the M o u n t a i n o f God

re o rd e r in g o f t h e m a t e r i a l . T h e c o n t e n t o f Ex .

34:11-26

is far

more closely connected to its context t han is the case w i t h

N u m . 1 5 .

I t m us t

also b e a s k e d w h e t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e h y p o t h e t i c a l

contexts for the laws wou ld expla in the i r pecu l iar i t ies m ore

e f f e c t i v e l y

t han the i r p resen t

context. O n e wou ld

h a v e

to

i m a g i n e a s i t u a t i o n in

which

(a) the s t r o n g w a r n i n g s a g a i n s t

unf a i t h f u lnes s

were appropr ia te ,

(b) the cultic

emph as i s

o f the

l aws was a p p r o p r i a t e , and (c) the spec i f ic w o r d i n g o f an

i nd iv idua l u n i t

such

a s 34:17

c o u l d

be

a c c o u n t e d f o r .

T he

context o f a

fes t ival

in

Canaan

in , for

e x a m p l e ,

the

pre-

m o n a r c h i c a l

period

could

a c c o u n t

fo r the f i r s t two - t h o u g h

h a r d l y

b e t t e r t h an the t r ad i t ion o f Ex.

3 2 f f .

-

wh i l e

for the

th i rd poin t one would ha ve to confess igno rance of the poin t of

the

prohibition ^ or offer a speculative account of the

proh ib i t i on o f d i f f e r e n t types o f i d o l a t r y in I s rael s h i s t o ry .^9

And

even if 34:17 be d iscounted as a secondary addi t ion when

th e

laws wer e i n t r od uced i n to th e i r p r e s en t con tex t , t h e r e

i s no

o ther de ta i l

i n any

o t h e r

law which

g a ins expl ic i t po in t

t h ro u g h

the

pos tu la t ion

o f

such

an

a l t e rna t ive

setting. In

o the r wo rds ,

a

se t t ing fo r the laws a t a r egu la r f es t iva l seems to ex pla in th em

n o

better

t h a n t h e i r p r e s e n t n a r r a t i v e c o n t e x t .

To suggest

that the

laws

o f

34:1

I f f .

were assembled

fo r

the i r

con text does no t m ean tha t they had no p r io r existence.60

Fo r t h e y a re exp l ic i t ly a r e c a p i t u l a t i o n o f l aws a l ready g iven -

pa r t i cu l a r ly Ex . 23:12,14ff .

(13:12f.)

bu t

presuppo sing also

th e

f i r s t

tw o

(and

f o u r t h )

c o m m a n d m e n t s

o f

the d eca logue .

T h e

laws as an

expl ic i t response

to the

cu l t i c

s in of Ex. 32 can be

und e r s tood a s fo l lows. F i rs t , a gene r a l

h o m i l e t i c

w a r n i n g

a g a i n s t

u n f a i t h f u l n e s s (34:11-16)

d e v e l o p i n g th e w a r n i n g s o f

23:23ff. , a n d

t hen

a

r epe t i t i on

o f the

cu l t i c

laws

a l r e a d y

g iven

(23:14ff.) ,

the pa r t i cu la r selection o f l aws be ing de te rmined

less

by the

s i t ua t i on

of Ex. 32

t h a n

by the

f ac t tha t the y we re

the

m a i n

cu l t i c

laws

c o n t a i n e d

a t an

e a r l i e r po in t

in the

S ina i

t r ad i t ion , and the repe t i t i on o f such laws was seen as


a f t e r

I s rael s

cu l t i c s i n . A pa r t

f r o m th e

presence

o f

the

l aws

o f

13:12f.,

th e m a j o r d i f f e r e n c e o f

c o n t e n t b e t w e e n

23:14ff . a n d 34 : 17 f f .

6 1

is 34:17, which expl ic i t ly harks back to

Ex.

32 .

Such

a con gr uen ce b e tween

these

l aws and the i r

context

a t

least

p u t s

a

que s t i on

mark

a g a i n s t

th e

hypo thes i s tha t these

laws

we r e o r ig ina l ly

a n

i nd epe nd en t co llec ti on an d ,

if

t hey

wer e , t h a t t h ey r e f l ec t

th e

r e g u l a r c u l t

o f

I s rae l .

Much wo rk on the

q u e s t i o n ,

and in

p a r t i c u l a r

a p rob ing of the

134



Three: Exodus

32-34 as a

Cul t Legend

socio logica l as sumpt ions o f se t t ing th e laws in the r egu la r cu l t ,

r e m a i n s

to be done T he

above a r gu m ent s

are an attempt not to

resolve

the

ques t ion

but to set i t in a new

l igh t .

T H E

P R O B L E M

O F

R E L I G I O U S L A N G U A G E

I t

i s t ime now to turn to a rguments about the Sina i pericope

as a

whole r e f l ec t i ng

the

regular cu l t

of

Israel .

To do

this

r i g h t l y , one f u r the r m ethod ological discuss ion is in order . This

is to do

w i t h

the

n a t u r e

o f

re l ig ious l anguage .

F o r

parts

of the

text

have f re qu en t ly been in t

erpreted

in a way that is

insensi t ive to the

t y p e

o f

l anguage be ing

used .^2

T he

attempt

to

describe

an encounter w i th G od w i l l

necessar i ly s t ra in

the

resources

o f

l a n g u a g e

an d wi l l necessitate

the use of me tapho r , im age ry and paradox by the w r i ter in the

a t t e m p t to convey h is m ean in g . Th i s m eans , fo r e x a m p l e ,

that

w hen

the wr i t e r uses the l anguage o f volcanic o r s torm

phe nom ena, as in Ex. 1 9, he m ay

have l i t t l e in tent ion

o f

t r y i n g

accur a t e l y

to

describe such, sti l l less

o f

ac tua l l y

g iv ing an

account

of a

volcanic erupt ion

or a

t h u n d e r s t o r m .

His a im

r a the r

is to

c o n v e y

the

awes omenes s

of the

c o m i n g

of

Y a h w e h

to his people, and for the ancient m an there were no p h e n o m e n a

m o r e

a w f u l

than

th e

vo l cano

an d

t h u n d e r s t o r m .

T h e

w r i t e r

could h a rd l y express

h is

m ean ing w i thou t such l anguage ,

and

such l anguage

is

p r i m a r i l y evoca t ive

and

only s e c o n d a r i l y ,

if at

al l , des cr ipt ive . T he acc ou nt , th ere fo re , i s not such as to a l low

us

to

reco ns t ru c t what r ea l ly happ ened . Indeed

to

a t t e m p t

to

do

such

is to

m i s u n d e r s t a n d

the

wr i t e r ' s

use of

l a n g u a g e .

A s

Buber

puts

it, when w r i t i n g of Ex. 19,

Every

a t t em pt to pen et ra te to some fac tu a l process

which

is

concealed behind

th e

a w e - i n s p i r i n g p i c t u r e

is

q u i t e

in

v a i n .

W e are n o longer in a pos i t ion to replace

that

i m m e n s e

im age by ac tua l

data °3

Y et n u m e r o u s m o d e r n t r e a t m e n t s

take little

cognizance of

this

aspect o f

r e l i g i o u s l an g u a g e . N o t h ,

fo r

e x a m p l e , a s s u m e s

tha t

Ex. 19

s hows

that

S ina i

was an

active

volcano

and a t t e m p t s

to locate it.6^ V on R ad , in a discussion of E x. 33:18ff. ,

i n t e r p r e t s th e passage as h a v i n g b ee n

or ig ina l ly

a cul t aet iology

which

jus t i f ied a theophan y r i tua l :

T he

congregat ion

would

ca l l upon Yahweh , Yahweh would

pass

by and

dec l a r e

h is

n a m e

an d

a t t r i bu t es ,

and the

135



At the

M o u n t a i n

of G od

congrega t ion w o u l d pros t r a t e themse lves .65

V on

R ad

adds

in a

f o o t n o t e ,

It is

d i f f i c u l t

to say how we

o u g h t

to

i m a g i n e

th e

cu l t i c

process

by

w h ic h Y a h w e h

'passed

by

1

,

b u t

o f f e r s

a

t e n t a t i v e suggest ion

o f a

r i t u a l

of the

c a r r y i n g past

o f

c u l t i c e mb le ms .

B u t

s u r e l y

th e

ques t ion

i s no t how bu t

w h e t h e r

w e

sh ou ld

a t t e m p t

to i m a g i n e

th is cu l t i c

process. I. B a r b o u r h as

a rgue d

fo r

in t e rp re t ing

certain

rel igio us lang uag e seriously

b u t

no t l i t e r a l ly ,6o and he

w r i t e s ,

A n

a d d i t iona l s a fe gua rd

aga ins t l i t e ra l i sm is provided by the sense o f awe an d m y s t e r y

associa ted w i t h r e l i g i ous experience .^

Yet i t is

d i f f i c u l t

to

see how the evocation o f awe and my s t e ry , so c lea r ly central in

33:18ff.,

receives

suf f i c i en t recogni t i on

by von

R a d .

If one

takes

th e

l a ngua ge

o f 33:18ff .

se r ious ly ,

but no t

l i t e r a l l y ,

it is

d o u b t f u l w h e t h e r i t

cons t i t u t e s

th e

sor t

o f ma t e r i a l

f r o m

w h i c h

von

Rad's type o f r e c ons t ruc t i on c ou ld j us t i f i a b ly b e attempted.

E V I D E N C E F O R T H E I N F L U E N C E O F

I S R A E L ' S

C U L T U P O N

T H E

S I N A I

P E R I C O P E

It is in the l i gh t of such con sidera t ions abou t re l ig iou s

language

that

o n e

should

assess

th e

signi f icance

o f

those

f e a t u r e s

i n E x .

1 9 f f .

w h i c h a re

supposed

to

r e f l e c t

th e

i n f l u e n c e

of Israel 's c u l t . B e y e r l i n , w h o provides a t h o r o u g h g o i n g cu l t i c

i n t e rp re

tation of the

Sinai pericope, lists

th e

f o l l o w i n g

s ign i f i can t features:^

1 . P u r i f i c a t o r y rites (19:10-1

la ,

14-15a, 15b) re f lec t ing

th e preparat ion fo r w o r s h i p and the epiphany o f

Y a h w e h

in the festa l cult.

2. C lou d of smo k e (19 :9 ,16,18) . T his has i ts basis in an

incense rite, cf. Le v. 16 :2,1 2,1 3, Is. 6:4, 1 Kg. 8:10.

3. The

t r u m p e t blast (19:13b,16,19 , 20:18) , which

corresponds

to the

b l o w i n g

of the

t rump e t

at the

c u l t i c t h e op h a ny .

4. P r o c l a m a t i o n of n a m e of Ya h w e h (3 3 : 1 9 ,

34:6f.).

T h i s

re f lec t s th e practice o f i n v o k i n g th e d i v in e n a m e to

actualize th e t h e o p h a n y .

5. Th e act of obeisance

(33:10;

34:8).

6.

E a t i n g

o f a

c ove na n t me a l

(24:9-11) .

7. Ri te of

spr ink l ing

b lood of sac r i f ic ia l v ic t ims on

people

an d

a l t a r (24:3ff .) .

8. Proc lamat ion of c o v e n a n t law (20:2-17, 34:10-26).

9 . Th e f ix ing o f a t i m e an d

place

fo r Y a h w e h ' s

epiphany

136



Three : Exodus 32-34 as a C ul t Legend

(19:10L,

32:2,4, 19:12-13a, 20-24,

34:3).

10.

A p p o i n t m e n t a n d r o l e o f a c o v e n a n t m e d i a t o r

(20:18-21,

cf.

19:9).

T he

va lue of these indica t ions

va r i e s .

It has already been

a r g u e d a bove that an ac t ion l ike ob e isance (no. 5) is not cultic

in

an y

s i gn i f i c a n t sense. M o r e o v e r , m a n y

o f

these fea tures

(1 ,5 ,6 ,7 ,9 ,10)

c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d w i t h o u t

d i f f i c u l t y

to be par t of

an a c tua l S i nai t r a d i t ion . A s s u m i ng t h a t

t h e r e

were ea r ly

t r a d i t i o n s

of an

e n c o u n t e r w i t h

Go d a t

S ina i ,

it is

h a r d

to

c o n c e i v e w h a t

these

t r a d i t i ons c ou l d ha ve c on t a i ne d ,

i f not

some such prac t i ces a s

these.

A n y t r a d i t i o n o f a n e n c o u n t e r

w i t h

Y a h w e h

w o u l d

necessa r i l y be expressed in

the se

cul t ic

t e r m s .

Fe a tures 4 and 8 hav e a l rea dy been d i scussed , and they l i ke -

wi se

c ons t i t u t e

an

i n t e g ra l pa r t

of the

S ina i t rad i t i on

and f i t a t

least as w e l l in

t h a t

t r a d i t i o n , as a

Sinai

t r a d i t i o n , as t h e y

w o u l d e l sewhere ;

indeed

one

might c l a im

on the

basis

of the

exeges i s

t h a t

t h e y f i t

b e t t e r

he re t ha n e l s e whe re .

T he

c loud

and

smoke ( they

can be

d i s t i ngui shed) need

not be a

p r o b l e m ,

for i t is h a r d l y j u s t i f i a b l e to

s e pa ra t e

th e

r e f e r e n c e s

to

them f rom

th e

o t h e r s torm

an d

vo l c an i c phe n om e na ( t hunde r

an d l i gh t n i ng , f i r e an d

q u a k i n g ) ,

th e p u r p o s e o f w h i c h is to

evoke

awe a t

Y a h w e h .

T he

or ig ins

o f

such language

are in

a c t ua l s t o rm s a nd vo l c a noe s a nd t he e f f e c t t he y ha ve on pe op l e ,

not in c l o u d s o f i nc e ns e , and the f u n c t i o n of the i m a g e r y is

m o r e e m o t i v e t h a n r e f e r e n t i a l .

G i v e n a

t r a d i t i o n

of an

a w e s o m e

e n c o u n t e r w i t h Y a h w e h

a t

S i na i ,

th e

l a n g u a g e

is


an d e x p l i c a b l e in t e rm s of the t r a d i t i o n .

T h e

t r u m p e t b l as t i s t h e o n e f e a t u r e w h i c h c a n n o t s o r e a d i l y

b e

a c c oun t e d

fo r p u r e l y in

t e r m s

o f a

Sinai t ra d i t io n . N e w m a n ,

for

e x a m p l e , w r i te s ,

the t rad i t i on is v i e we d s i m p l y as an a c c o u n t of the

e x p e r i e n c e

a t

S ina i ,

th e loud

t r u m p e t b l a s t w i t h

th e

t h u n d e r s , l i g h t n i n g s ,

and

thick c loud

is

mos t p e rp l ex ing .

W h o ,

o n e m i g h t a s k , w as b l o w i n g th e t r u m p e t on the top

of the

m o u n t a i n ?

W as i t t he

L o r d ?

But i f the

l e ge nd

is

associated w i t h

th e

c u l t ,

th e

t r u m p e t

ca n b e

u n d e r s t o o d

as a

c u l tic i n s t r u m e n t w h i c h

w as

blown

in

c o n n e c t i o n w i th

a l a t e r c o v e n a n t c e r e m o n y a n d w a s absorbed in to th e

l e ge nd .^ 9

It

is possible

that

th e t r u m p e t r e f e r e n c e s d o show

that

th e

137



At the

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

t h e o p h a n y has t o some

extent

been w r i t t en u p i n a w ay that

ref lects th e

later

cu l t i c

practices

o f Israel . If so, i t

w o u l d

n o t

fol low

that

a ny o f t h e o ther details in the nar ra t ive shou ld a l so

be

expla ined thus

nor

that

the

n a r r a t i ve

as a

w h o l e

reflects

a

cu l t i c

Sitz

im L e b e n . M o r e o v e r , t h is m a y b e s o m e t h i n g p e c u li a r

to Ex. 1 9, a cha pter w i th several d is t in ct ive characteristics n o t

shared by the rest o f t he Sinai

pericope. The

t r u m p e t

refer-

ences do n o t recu r o u t si de t he cha p t e r , an d n eed show n o m o r e

t h a n

that

th e r e c o u n t i n g of Ex. 19 h a s been pa r t i a l l y i n f l u e n c e d

by th e experiences o f Israel s cult.

Even s o , h o w e v e r , t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e t r u m p e t r e f e r -

ences

n e e d s

f u r t h e r

i n ves t i ga t i o n . H o w a r e t hey to be

un ders tood ? I f they a re i n t e rpre ted l i t e ra l ly , t hen the que s t ion

of w ho blew the t r u m p e t can be

asked.

To say

that

G o d h i m s e lf

s o u n d ed th e t r u m p e t i s no t a s i m p l a u s i b l e a s N e w m a n impl ies;

cf . Zech.

9:14.

No n e t he l es s , su ch a n a n s w e r fi t s a w k w a r d l y w i t h

the

narrative.

V a r i o u s n o n - li t e ra l i n t e r p r e t a t io n s h a v e t h e r e f o r e b ee n

advan ced . C assu t o , fo r exam ple , s ays ,

It [ the sound o f a h o r n ] s i g n i f i e s th e s t r o n g w i n d that

blows v io len t ly through

th e

gorges

between

th e

m o u n -

t a i n s , r en d i n g t he a i r wi th a great no i se l ike the s o u n d o f

a h o rn . 7 0

This seems a s o m e w h a t r a t i o n a l i s t e x p l a n a t i o n . ? 1 G .

Friedr ich argues that the soun d o f horns probably denotes th e

i nexpress ib le

voice o f G o d a n d p o i n t s to Ex. 19:19 for the

t r u m p e t a n d God's vo ice a s

pa ra l l e l . 72

T|-,J

S

a lso hard ly does

just ice to t he c o n t e x t w h e r e th e t r u m p e t is a d i s t i nc t sound

which precedes a n d accom panies God's speech.

Th e

u n s a t i s f a c t o r y n a t u r e o f

these

i n t e rp re t a t i o n s sho w s

that

th e p r o b l e m i s no t eased bu t exacerba ted by po s i n g it in t e r m s

o f

a

literal

o r

non- l i t e ra l interpretation.

Th e

aw kw ardn ess

o f

a n s w e r i n g th e

qu e s ti o n W h o b l e w

th e

t ru m pe t ? su gges ts that

th is is an i n a p p r o p r i a t e q u e s t i o n to ask , a n d this is s i g n i f i c a n t

fo r

th e

gen re

o f t h e

m a t e r i a l .

T w o

th ings become clear.

First,

th e t r u m p e t references c a n n o t be taken in isolat ion

f rom

th e

s t o r m

a n d

v o l ca n i c p h e n o m e n a ; t h e y

are a l l o f a

piece.

Secondly ,

th e

t ru m pe t r e f e ren ces a r e , li ke

th e

rest

o f t he

n a r r a t i v e ,

evocative

rather than re feren t i a l . They are included

in th e

t h e o p h a n y a c c o u n t because

of the p r o f o u n d a n d

e m o t i v e

e f f e c t

that

a so l em n t ru m pe t b l a s t c an have o n a hea re r . I f t h i s

i s so , and one may no t u se such language to reconstruct events

138



T h r e e : E x o d u s 32-34

a s a

C u l t L e g e n d

at Sinai, then it w i l l also be an i l l eg i t ima te u se o f the m a t e r i a l

to

attempt

t o r e c o n s t r u c t o r

d iscern

aspects o f the

r e g u l a r cult

o f

I s rael f r o m i t .

I t

m a y s t i l l b e as ked w hy the t r u m p et b la s t w a s co ns id er ed a n

a ppr o pr ia te e lement

of the

t h e o p h a n y

a n d

w h e t h e r t h i s does

n o t

s t i l l , in s o m e w a y , r e f le c t the r egu la r cu l t ic ex per iences o f

I s r a e l . Tha t

the u se o f the

t r u m p e t d o e s r e f l e c t s o m e p r i o r

e x p e r i e n c e

of its


is

l i ke ly .

B u t

t h o u g h t h i s

ex -

perience m ay have been in the r e g u l a r c u l t o f Israel in C a na a n

i t c a n n o t be r e s t r ic ted to i t . The t r u m p e t w a s c o m m o n in the

a n c i e n t N e a r E a s t , w e l l attested

in the

t h i r d

a n d

second

m i l l e n n i a / ^ j

n

s o u n d o f t h e

t r u m p e t

m a y

wel l have been

a

c o m m o n e l e m e n t

in

m a n s e n co u n t e r w i t h

th e

d i v i n e t h r o u g h o u t

th e a n c i e n t N e a r

East.

T h e u s e , t h e r e f o r e , o f t he t r u m p e t a s a

s i g n i f i c a n t s y m b o l i n E x . 19 m a y r e f l e c t the r e g u l a r c u l t o f

Israel , but i t need no t . T h e q u e s t io n m u s t be decided in the

c o n t e x t o f

one s o v e r a l l u n d e r s t a n d i n g

of the

n a t u r e

of the

S ina i

t r a d i t i o n , n o t b eca u s e n o s a t i s f a c t o r y a c co u n t o f the t r u m p e t

can be g i v e n in d i f f e r e n t t e r m s .

To co nc lu d e , it can be said

that

n o n e of the cultic f e a t u r e s

o f

th e

S inai per ico p e r eq u i r es

an


in

t e r m s

of the

r e g u l a r

c u l t o f I s r a e l . A n d e v e n i f s o m e e l e m e n t s of the r e g u l a r

cu l t ma y ha ve in f lu en ced pa r t o f the d es c r ip t io n in Exodus., th i s

is far f r o m s h o w i n g that th e cu l t w a s t h e Sitz

im

Leben for the

c o n t e n t . A n

a l t e rn a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n

o f the

s a m e data,

t h a t

t h e y

n o t o n l y a r e b u t a l w a y s w e r e p a r t o f a n a r r a t i v e t r a d i t i o n

a t t e m p t i n g to relate an e n c o u n t e r w i t h G o d a t S ina i o f fe r s a

c o h e r e n t a n d c o m p r e h e n s i v e u n d e r s t a n d i n g . T h is d o es n o t m e a n

t h a t t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e i s correct. Bu t o n the pr in c ip le o f O cca m s

r a z o r ,

that

fo r p u r p o s e s o f e x p l a n a t i o n t h i n g s n o t

k n o w n

to

exist s ho u ld no t , u n les s it is a b s o lu te ly necessary, be p o s t u l a t e d

a s e x i s t i n g , th e c o m p a r a t i v e s i m p l i c i t y , y e t c o m p r e h e n s i v e n e s s ,

o f th e h y p o t h e s i s g i ve s i t a p r i m a f a c i e c l a i m to acceptance.

T h e a l t e r n a t i v e h y p o t h e s i s , w h i c h r e q u i r e s a l ong a n d c o m p l e x


and

t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

o f the

m a t e r i a l

in

q u e s t i o n ,

n o t o n l y d o e s n o t e x p l a i n t h e text a n y m o r e

u l l y

but a lso

p o s t u l a t e s

a

l a r ge

n u m b e r o f

f a c t o r s

which a re a t

b e s t i n v i s i b l e

an d a t w o r s t i l l u s o r y .

C O N C L U S I O N

T he

a r g u m e n t o f this c h a p t e r h as been to present a

c u m u l a t i v e case

in

f a v o u r

o f the S inai

m a t e r i a l

a s a

n a r r a t i v e

139



A t the M oun ta in of God

t rad i t ion concern ing S ina i r a the r than as a cult legend , in the

sort

o f

sense

in

w h i ch

t h a t

t e r m

has

b e en c o m m o n l y u n d e r st o o d .

There

a re

perhaps

six

main e l e m e n t s

in the

a r g u m e n t .

There

has

been confusion

in the use of the

terms legend

and

cult in such a w ay as to be misleading.

2 ) A form -c r i t i ca l ana lys is has somet imes been used in such

a way as to beg the

ques t ion

of the

n a t u r e

of the

t r a d i t i on .

3 )

A n o r i g i n a l l y i n d e p e n d e n t ex i s t en c e in the c u l t fo r some

of the m os t cultic

e l e m e n t s

in the n a r r a t i v e is not

necessarily th e most l ike ly explana t ion.

4) T he adoption of a n a r r a t i v e t radi t ion for use in the cu l t is

a

process

a t least as

l ike ly

to

u n d e r l i e Ex. 32-34

as a

pos tu l a t ed h i s to r i c i z a t i on

o f

cul t ic r i tua l s .

5)

T oo l i t e ra l i s t an approach to the p rob lem of re l ig ious

language has resulted in

i l l eg i t ima te

inferences being

based on the material.

6 ) The cu l t legend hy po thes is does not in fac t exp la in any

e lements in the text w h ic h c a nno t equ a l ly be exp la ined by

the

acceptance

of the t r a d i t i on as g e n u i n e l y a Sinai

t rad i t ion .

If

these

points

are

accepted,

then serious doubts

are

cast

upon

the analysis of the Sinai pericope as a

cult legend.

A d m i t t e d l y

these a r g u m e n t s

do no t

d isprove

th e

cul t legend

hypothes i s . But that is la rgely because in this sort of problem

the a r g u m e n t s are no t such as to a d m i t o f proof ra ther than

probabi l i ty . It is also d i f f i c u l t to discuss an issue when many of

th e

a rguments advanced

a re

somewhat in tangible . This

is

p a r t i c u l a r l y th e case w h e n o n e

attempts

to interact w i t h v o n

R ad

an d

N o t h ,

the two

m os t i n f l u e n t i a l scholars

in

recent

pen ta teu cha l s tud ies. Both m a in ta in

that there

w as a

long

and

complex cultic t rad i t ion-h is to ry und e r ly ing th e Sinai pericope,

bu t ne i th e r o f f e r s m uc h a rgum en t as to why this should be the

case. R a th e r t h ey

t a k e fo r

g ra n ted

that it

m us t hav e been , th i s

a s su mp t i o n

be in g based on the i r l a rge r un de rs tan d in g of the

e a r l y h i s to ry o f Israe l and the g r o w t h o f pen ta t euc h a l

t rad i t ions . B u t w h a t e v e r m ay be t he case e lsewhere in the

Pentateuch, that should

no t be

allowed

to

pre judge

the

assessment of the Sinai material. Such dif f icul t ies attend the

ana lys i s

of Ex .

32 -34

as

cul t legend

that

it

becomes

a

d i f f i c u l t

h ypo th es i s to m a i n t a i n . A reasonable a l te rna t ive is to hold that

the

m a te r i a l

i s , and was f rom th e start, a

n a r r a t i v e t r a d i t i o n

te l l ing o f Israel's encounte r w i th Yahw eh a t Mt. Sina i .

4



C h a p t e r

t

E X . 32-34 A S L E G E N D

It has been argued th t E x. 32-34 is a genuine S inai t r ad i t ion .

It

r e m a i n s

to

e x a m i n e

f u r t h e r

w h a t k ind

of

t r a d i t io n

it is.

Th is

is imp o r t a n t for i ts own sake , to f u r t h e r ou r overal l

apprec ia t ion o f the na tu re o f the t rad i t ion . I t wi l l also bear

upon th e quest ion of how far i t may be p ro p e r to see the

na r ra t ive a s poss ib ly p re se rv ing ge nu ine ly h i s to r ica l t rad i t ion .

T H E

M O S E S T R A D I T IO N S

A S

L E G E N D

The discussion wi l l be approache d by ask ing w he the r the S ina i

m a t e r i a l

m ay

a p t l y

b e

d e s ig n a t e d

a s a

l egend

-

l egend

in the

genera l sense

of a

large ly unhis tor ica l

story set in an his tor ica l

con tex t

(Sage) .

T h e

v iew

th t

m a n y

of the

e a r l y n a r r a t i v e s

of the OT are

l egend

ra th e r than h is to r y w as sys te m at ica l ly deve loped in the

ea r ly yea rs of the 20 t h c e n t u ry , mo s t n o t a b l y b y H . G u n k e l an d

H . G r e s s m a n n in th e

c o n t e x t

of a history of re l igion s app roach

to the

O T . 2

w h i l e G u n k e l direc ted h is a t ten t ion

p r i m a r i l y

t o w a rd s Genes i s ,3 Gressmann p roduced a comprehens ive


of the

M oses s tor ies

in

M o s e

u nd

seine Zei t .

Since then legend h as cont inued to play an impor tan t ro le in

t he ana lys i s o f ea r ly O T t r a d i t i o n s . ̂ A s such it has m ade the

q u e s t

f or

historical

e v e n t s

u n d e r l y i n g

th e

t radi t ions

a

so me w h a t

ne bu l o us

u n d e r t a k i n g , e v en t h ou g h th e

last

t h o ro u g h in t e rp re t -

at ion of the M oses

stories

as

saga,^

M . Buber 's M oses , was

c o m p a r a t i v e l y o p t imis t i c a b o u t th e h i s t o r i c a l c o n t e n t of the

t r a d i t io n s .

T he use of l egend to designate Israe l ' s ear ly t radi t ions has

n o t b e en u n c h a l l e n g e d . I n p a r t i c u l a r , i n th ose

re s

w h e r e t h e

b ib l ica l t heo logy movement wi th its e mp h a s i s on the cen t r a l i t y

of h is to ry wa s s t rong the use o f the t e rm l egend , w h i l e no t

e xp l i c i t l y

denied ,6

receded

into

th e

b a c k g r o u n d .

B u t

th t

m o v e m e n t fa i l ed to p rov ide a s u f f i c i e n t l y c o h e re n t a n d c o m-

prehens ive approach o f i t s own. '

7

A s t r o n g r e s t a t e m e n t of the l e g e n d a r y n a t u r e of I s rae l ' s ea r ly

t r a d i t io n s ,

w i t h a

c o r r e s p o n d i n g d e n i a l

of

t h e i r h i s t or i c a l v a l u e ,




is to e

f o u n d

in the recent Is rae l i t e an d Jud ae an His to ry in

w h i c h T.L. Th o mp s o n a n d D .

Irv in

c o n t r i b u t e th e discuss ion o f

th e Joseph a n d Moses n a r r a t i v e s . 8 T h o m p s o n a r g u e s for the

n o n - h i s t o r i c a l n a t u r e

of the

M o s e s t r a d i t i o n s p a r t l y b e c a u s e

o f

th e p o v e r t y o f h i s t o r i c a l a n d a r c h a e o l o g i c a l e v i d e n c e , bu t m o r e

f u n d a m e n t a l l y

b e ca u s e o f t h e na t u r e o f t h e t ra d i t i o n s a s h e ro i c

tales :

The

hero ic

tale a s a

n a r r a t i v e ty p e

is

m a r k e d l y

ah is to r ica l bo th

in

s t ru c t u r e

a n d d e v e l o p m e n t .9

I f t h e l i t e r a r y t yp e i s that o f h e r o i c

tale,

a n d t h e h e r o i c

tale

is

a

g e n r e

that

s h o w s

n o g e n u i n e

h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l interest, t h e n

there

s i m p l y

does not exis t the

k i n d

o f m a t e r i a l

f r o m

w h i c h

h i s t o r i c a l r e cons t r uc t i on cou l d be u n d e r ta k e n :

T h e

p r o b l e m

i s n o t

s i m p l y

that th e

na r r a t i v e s l a ck

h i s t o r i c i t y , b u t r a t h e r that th e p e n t a te u c h a l n a r ra t i v e s

a re i m p e r v i o u s a n d i r r e l e v a n t t o q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e

h i s t o r i c i t y o f

e v e n t s

o r f i g u r e s of the past. N o t h i n g

m o r e

h i s t o r i c a l l y

c o n c r e te a b o u t th e h i s t o r i c a l M o s e s a n d

Y a h w e h c an b e k n o w n

t h a n a b o u t

th e

his tor ica l

Tarn m u z

a n d

Ishtar ;

n o r is o u r k n o w l e d g e a b o u t t h e w a n d e r i n g i n

t h e w i ld e r n e s s q u a l i t a t i v e l y

d i f f e r e n t

f r o m w h a t w e k n o w

o f

Od y s s e us ' j o u r n e y .

10

I rv in

treats

th e M os e s s to r i e s a s c o m p a r a b l e

w i t h

o t h e r

a n c i e n t N e a r E a s t e r n m a t e r i a l

w h i c h sh e

c l ass i f i es

a s

f i c t i on

o r

fo l k t a l e .

H er p r i m a r y

c o n c e r n

i s no t

h i s t o r i c a l

bu t

l i t e r a r y , s e e k i n g

to

g a i n i n s i g h t i n t o

th e f u n c t i o n a n d m e a n i n g

of t ra d i t i o n a l m o t i f s i n t h e i r

respective

contexts. But she t oo

c o n c l u d e s

by

r e f e r r i n g

to t he

q ue s t i on

o f

h is to ry

a n d a f f i r m i n g

t h a t

t h e l i t e r a r y f o r m o f t h e

n a r r a t i v e s

i s

s u c h t h a t

o n e

c a n n o t

a s s u m e

t h a t

a n y

s o r t

o f

h i s to r i c a l e v e n t s u n d e r l i e t h em .

12

Such a n

e x t r e m e d e n i a l

o f

h i s t o r i c i t y d o e s

n o t

r e p r e s e n t

a

s ch o l a r l y cons e ns us . N one t h e l e s s th e a p p r o a c h to t h e p r o b l e m ,

by w h i c h

d e t e r m i n a t i o n

o f

po ssib le h i s to r ica l w o r th shou ld

f o l lo w

u p o n

a n a l y z i n g th e l i t e r a r y t yp e a n d i n t e n t i o n o f the

m a t e r i a l ,

is

su re ly

correct.

It is

t h e r e f o r e

to the

q u e s t i o n

o f

l i t e r a r y

t y p e t h a t

w e

m u s t g i v e

f u r t h e r

a t t e n t i o n .

A

P R E L I M I N A R Y

C L A R IF I C A T I ON

Th e

p r o b l e m s

a n d

is sues

a t

s t a k e

a re

m a n i f o l d .

I f a ny

c l a r i f i c a t i o n is to

e m e r g e , c e r t a i n p o t e n t i a l s o u r c e s

o f

c o n -

4



F o u r : E x o d u s 3 2 3 d

f u s i o n

m u s t

be dealt

w i t h

at the outset.

Fi r s t ,

it is

d a n g e r o u s

to

g e n e r a l i z e . T h o m p s o n ,

f o r

example ,

n o t o n l y treats th e

Joseph

an d

Moses na r ra t ives t oge ther

as the

same

k i n d

o f

ma te r i a l w i th

n o

r ega r d

f o r

the i r

d i f f e r e n c e s , ^

bu t also he a l lows fo r no d i f fe rences wi th in the Moses na r ra -

tives.

I r v i n

l i k ew i se s eems

to

a s s u m e

that th e charac te r i s t i c s

di scovered in the ear ly chapters o f E x o d u s d e t e r m i n e the g e n r e

o f the

r e m a i n d e r

o f the

Mo ses n a r r a t i ve s .

B u t

d i f f e r e n t

nar ra tives and trad i t i on s shou ld be s tud ied in the i r o w n r i g h t .

T he

Sina i na r ra t ive

i s i n

m a n y w a y s d i s t i n c t

f r o m

o ther Moses

n a r r a t i v e s

and i t s

g e n r e

s ho u ld n o t be

s u b s u m e d

u n d er that o f

o the r n a r r a t i ve s .

Secondly ,

there

is much diverse usage, wi th resu l tan t

c o n f u s i o n , o f

te rmin o log y . Terms li ke legend , saga ,

epic ,

hero ic

tale ,

fo lk tale , etc., ten d

to be

u sed

w i t h

i n s u f f i c i e n t

d e f i n i t i o n

an d

d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n .

I r v i n

de l ibera te ly e schews

the

d i s cu s s i o n

o f

t e r m i n o l o g y

o n

the

g r o u n d s

that th e

modern d i s t i nc t ion s

o f

l i terary type

were no t k n o w n or adhered to in the per io ds

f r o m

which

o u r stories date,

an d

modern appl ica t ion

o f

these

t e r m s

is

apt to be s o m e w h a t a r b i t r a r y , b e c a u s e i t i s no t clear

w hi c h

a n c i e n t

charac te r i s t i c s

deserve

w h i ch mo d e rn

labels. 1*

B oth these

p o i n t s

m ay

r ead i l y

be

gran ted . None the les s

th e

precise

d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n

o f

genre

can

ha r d l y

be a

mat te r

o f

i n d i f f e r e n c e . ' F o r

w e i g h t y h i s t o r i c a l

an d

t r ad i t i o - h i s t o r i ca l

c o n c l u s i o n s

are m a d e to d e p e n d o n t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f gen r e ,

an d th e d i f f e r e n t gen res a re n o t iden t ical i n the i r h i s t o r ica l

impl ica t ion s . Legends ,

fo r

example ,

centre

o n

real

people

s et

w i t h i n h i s t o r i c a l t i m e ;

an d

a l t h o u g h

an

h i s t o r i c a l n u c l e u s

m ay

be so

o ve r l a id

as to be

u n r e c o v e r a b l e

i t may

also

be

poss ible

to

gain

d e f i n i t e h i s t o r i ca l k n o w l ed g e

f r o m

a legend .15 Fo lk ta le s ,

by contrast, a l t ho u gh

s et

w i th i n h i s to r i ca l t ime ,

d o n o t

deal

w i t h

real people

and are charac te r i zed by

t r i c k e r y

an d

i n g e n u i t y

as c e n t r a l concerns; ̂ o n a l m o s t n o r e c k o n i n g o f

f o l k t a l e w o u l d o n e be j u s t i f i e d in

t r e a t i n g

a

f o l k t a l e

as an

hi s to r ica l

source.

T h o m p s o n

bases

the ahi s to r ica l n a tu re o f the Mo se s t r ad i t i o n s

o n th e

fac t tha t they

are

hero ic

tales . B u t C .

C o n r o y ' -

7

a n a l y z e s

th e

character i s t ics

o f

h e r o i c l i t e r a t u r e

an d

s h o w s

that

nei ther

the

pat r iarchs

n o r

Moses

can be

cons idered hero ic

f i gu r e s in the technical sense. Fo r the m i l ieu o f hero ic

14 3



A t

the Mounta in of G od

literature is

aristocratic,

the content is to do with banquets and

battles,

and the

purpose

is

p r imar i ly entertainment. Thompson

uses the t e rm in a compara t ive ly loose sense, to designate a

story

which

focusses

on one

chief

character,

irrespect ive

of

w h e t h e r

h is

stature

and qua lit ies are he roic in the technica l

sense.

Such

a

usage

of

heroic

may be legitimate. But it is

h a r d

to see why such a n a r r a t i v e should necessari ly be ahistorical ,

since i t does not en tail the use of t rad it io na l the m es and m ot ifs

in the way tha t t echn ical ly hero ic l i t e ra tu r e does. A hero ic

tale

( in

Thompson 's

sense)

m ay

indeed

by

ah i s to r i ca l ,

bu t that

m u s t

be decided on other grounds than the s imple fact

that

it is

heroic .

18

It is

obviously

beyond

the

scope

of

th is s tudy

to

of fe r

any

resolut ion

to the te rminolog ical p rob lem. Rather it wil l be

assumed that

the

de sign ation legend (Sage)

in

some sense

would be general ly agreed to be applicable to the Moses

t radi t ion

and may at least be

heurist ically applied

to the

Sinai

material. The discussion, however, will seek to fo cu s on

ana l yz i ng characteristics of the material rather than

build

a

case upon

debatable terminology.

O R A L

L I T E R A T U R E

It

would

be

helpful ini t ial ly

to

broaden

the scope of the

debate. Rather than discuss the applicabili ty of, and criteria

for ,

the designation legend , prior question is to ask w h e t h e r

the literature is oral

literature,

in the

sense

of

literature

which has come in to existence in an oral cul ture or group

w i t h ou t the use of writing .

19

Oral literature is a broader

category

than legend and subsumes i t . On most understandings

of legend, legendary material w as or ig inal ly composed and

t r ansmi t t ed o ra l ly

and it is in the

course

of

constan t re te l l ing

that

th e

h is to r ica l nucleus

( if

a n y )

wh i ch

orig ina l ly gave r ise

to

the legend is ove rlaid . I f, the ref ore , i t seems l ikely that the

material was not oral , i t

would

also be

unl ikely

that the

m a t e r i a l

is

legendary .

If it was

most

likely

oral,

it would not

t h e r e f o r e

follow

th at i t is leg en da ry, since the precise n at ur e of

th e

m a t e r i a l

would

still need

to be

decided;

though

legend

would

be the

mos t

l ikely

candidate

for the

major i ty

of

early

O T

n a r r a t i v e s .

T he

possibility

of

oral t radi t ion bears direct ly

upon the

quest ion of

historicity. O ral t rad it ion tends

to

m a k e

th e

historical value

o f a

t rad i t ion com para t ive ly l imi ted . Al though



Four : E x o d u s 32-34 as Legend

oral t radi t ion

can

preserve

mater ia l accurately

and

unchanged ,

it can also change it beyond recognition. The problem of course

in

any

given

case is to know

which ,

and it is

uncer ta in ty here

that

largely accounts for the d i v e r s i t y o f v i e w s c o n c e r n i n g the

his tor ical re l iabi l i ty of Israel ' s ear ly t radi t ions . It can h a r d l y be

d e n i e d ,

h o w e v e r , that a c o n s i d e r a b l e d e g re e o f t r a n s f o r m a t i o n

is character is t ic of ora l t r ad i t ion , and as such necessitates

caution in histor ical

assessment.20

Significant though

the

implicat ions

o f

oral tradit ion are,

the

chief

d if f icu l ty

is to show that any par t icular t ra d i t ion does

genuinely represen t ora l tr ad i t ion . The problem of d i s t inguish -

ing

ora l

f rom

w r i t te n l i te r a t u r e

is

great

w i t h

n o

clear

consensus

as to the

d e m a r c a t i o n . 2 1 S u c h

is the

p r o b l e m a t i c

nature

of the

distinction

that

a r g u m e n t s a b o u t

an y

par t icular

text

wi l l

usual ly fal l shor t of demons t rab i l i ty . The argu-

m e n t a t i o n m u s t

be

c u m u l a t i v e

an d

applied heu rist ically.

First one is l o o k i n g fo r o r a l

characteristics

in a w r i t t e n text.

This obvious poin t in w o r t h e m p h a s i z i n g . For a l t h o u g h it is

possible

that th e

w r i t t e n

text is

s imply

a

d i rec t t r a ns cr ip t ion

o f

an oral t radi t ion,

the

t ransposi t ion into wr i t ing

can

introduce

scribal characteristics and obscure oral characteristics in the

t r ad i t ion . A l low ance m us t be m a d e for the possible loss of ora l

characteristics;

their absence

from

a

w r i t t e n

text does not

prec lude

the poss ibi l i ty of their or iginal

presence.

E q u a l l y ,

h o w e v e r ,

i t i s impor tan t not to a rgue f r o m a presupposed idea

of o r a l t r a d i t i o n to the pos i t ion that o r a l f e a t u r e s m u s t h a v e

o r ig ina l ly charac te r ized a par t icu lar s tory , even though mos t

s i gn i f i ca n t traces are no longer present in the text.22 Unless

there

r e m a i n s

a

subs tan tia l am ou nt

o f

oral

criteria

in the

w r i t t e n

text 23

then either the supposed oral original lies so

far behind w r i t ten recensions

as to

become

o f

m i n o r i m p o r t -

ance or else i t may be the case that the pos tu la t ion of ora l

origins

is s imply incor rec t .

The re la t ion o f ora l to w r i t te n t r ad i t ion i s var iab le .2^

Par t icular ly d i f f icu l t

to

assess

is the

possible transit ional

text

a text f rom a t i m e w h e n a l iving t radi t ion o f oral com-

position is g iv ing w ay to l i terary composi t ion and w h e n aspects

of

both modes of composit ion

wo u ld

be incorporated into the

text. Such a possibil i ty wo u ld m a k e

criteria

f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g

ora l from w r i t t e n characteristics

d i f f i c u l t

to establish f i r m l y .

Final ly , at this general level of d i s c u s s i o n , it m u s t be s t ressed

that

a r g u m e n t s a b o u t t h e

likelihood

of ora l t r ad i t ion , e spec ia l ly

145



A t

the M o u n t a i n o f Go d

in

th e

context

o f

bibl ical literature w h e r e there

is little

e v i d e n c e o t h e r t h a n th e f i n a l

f o r m

o f t h e w r i t t e n

text,

wi l l

necessari ly

be

closely connected

to

one's ov era l l unders t and i ng

o f

the na tu re o f e a r l y I s r ae l and i t s cu l t u r e and the

l ike ly

extent of the use o f

w r i t i n g

a n d literacy.25

Such consider-

a t ion s p layed a no table ro le i n the p ion eer in g work o f G u n k e l ,

a n d

cons t i t u t e bo th

th e

s t r e n g t h

a n d t h e

w e a k n e s s

of h i s

w o r k .

They

are a s t r eng th in the c o m p r e h e n s i v e n e s s of the p i c tu re

that t h e r e b y emerges. T h e y are a weakness in

that

i f the

g ene ra l con s i de r a t i ons becom e susp ect , t h en

so

does

th e

w h o l e

posi t ion

that is

b u i l t a r o u n d t h e m .

S.M.

W a r n e r ,

fo r

e x a m p l e ,

s t rong ly criticizes the an th rop o l og i ca l a s sump t i ons that played

a p r o m i n e n t ro le in the f i r s t ed i t i on o f

G u n k e l ' s

Genes i s

commentary;^

O

n th e basis o f these G u n k e l a rg ued

that

bre vi ty an d lack of sophist icat ion we re sure ind icato rs of ea r ly

a n d

o r a l m a t e r i a l .

This

p o s i t i o n , h o w e v e r , s e e m s

to be

q u i t e

u n f o u n d e d , 2 7

f

ac

t which

raises

ser ious ques t ions abou t

Gunke l ' s

wh o l e p a t t e rn

o f

a rg u m e n t .

In the search for specif ic

criteria

to d i s t i ngu ish ora l f r o m

wri t ten t r ad i t i on , scholars have

n o t

i n f r e q u e n t ly e m p lo y e d

A .

Olrik's

f a m o u s epic

laws .28

These th i r t een

laws

o r

principles designate broad

characteristics o f a

type

o f

literature

which

Olr ik

called

Sage in i ts

broades t

sense.

Insofar

as the

laws

ar ise o u t o f

Olr ik ' s wide exper ience

o f folk

literature,

they

usefu l l y

conv ey th e feel o f a par t i cu lar type

o f p o p u l a r literature. I t has been i nc reas i ng l y q ues t i oned ,

h o w e v e r ,

whe the r Ol r i k ' s l aws

d o

g e n u i n e l y enab l e

o n e t o

d i f f e r en t i a t e be tween o r a l

a n d

w r i t t e n literature.29 There

are perhaps

f o u r

m a in cr i ti c i sm s o f the i r u se in th i s rega rd .

First,

Olr ik

worked

m a i n l y

wi t h E u r o p e a n

m a t e r i a l ,

a n d

th i s

will

no t necessar i ly be represen ta t ive o f l i t e ra ture

f ro m

d i f f e r e n t

cultures.

Secondly,

the

laws

are not

laws; they

are

genera l -

i z a t i o n s which

a d m i t

o f m a n y

excep t i ons .

Th i rd ly ,

m a n y

of the

laws are p rinc ip les va l id i n m os t l i t e ra ry com pos i t ion s .

F o u r t h l y ,

it is

u n c le a r

how to use t he

laws

in the sense that it

is

le f t u n c e r ta i n w h e t h e r

th e

presence

of few or m a n y of the

specified

characteristics

is necessary for the n a r r a t i v e to

q u a l i f y

a s

b e l o n g i n g

to the

genre

in

q u e s t io n .

Cer t a i n

o f

Olr ik ' s p r inc ip les

a re

c l ea r l y ap p l i cab l e

t o E x .

32-34. The Law of Two to a Scene can be seen in ch. 32: vv. 1-6,

A a ron and the

people;

vv. 7-14, Y a h we h a n d

Moses;

vv.

15-20,

M o s e s

a n d

J o s h u a ;

vv.

2 1 - 2 4 , Moses

a n d

A a r o n ;

vv.

25-29,

Moses

146



F o u r :

E x o d u s 32-34 a s

Legend

and th e

Lev i tes ;

vv . 3 0 f f . , Moses and

Y a h w e h .

The Law o f

C o n t r a s t can p e r h a p s be seen in

32:21-24,

25-29. T h e

I m p o r t a n c e

o f

Final Posi t ion

is

e x e m p l i f i e d

in the wa y the

m ed iator M oses i s the object of a l l

attention

in

34 :29f f .

Other

principles a re only par t ia l ly appl icable . T h e Logic o f the Sage

for e x a m p l e , d e m a n d s

a n

i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y

a n d

cons i s tency

in

th e

s t o r y ;

and

w h i l e t h e r e

is a

c o n s i s t e n c y

in E x .

32-34

it is a

highly t heo logica l , even parad ox ica l , cons i s tency , h a r d l y

th e

k i n d

o f

logic character is t ic

o f popular stories. T h e

p r inciple

o f

Concentra t ion on a L e a d i n g

Character

cannot real ly d o jus t ice

to the

f i ne

ba lance between Moses

a n d

Y a h w e h t h r o u g h o u t

th e

narrative.

30

Thi s

pa r t i a l appl icabi l i ty

o f O l ri k s

l a w s

i s not

w i t h o u t

s i gn i f i cance f o r t he n a t u r e o f t he n a r r a t i v e , b u t c o u l d h a r d l y be

said w i t h o u t f u r t h e r a do t o cons t i tu te ev id ence o f o r a l t r a d i t i o n

in

E x .

32-34.

D . M .

G u n n a rgues fo r p a t t e r n i n g in n a r r a t i v e as evidence o f

oral t r a d i t i o n . 31 T h e r ecur rence o f stereotyped and

c o n v e n t i o n a l d e s c r i p t i o n s r e f l e c t s

that

c o n s t a n t u s e o f

t r a d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l

which

is a m a r k e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t he

ora l s to ry- te l le r . W h e t h e r s u c h p a t t e r n i n g in H e b r e w n a r r a t i v e

r e f l e c t s o r a l

o r

l i t e r a r y t e c h n i q u e

is un c lear .32 One of i t s

d r a w b a c k s

is

that

it is

only appl icable

to parts o f

n a r r a t i v e

t r a d i t i o n and not the whole ,33

anc

j

real ly needs the s u p p o r t

of o ther

criteria as

we l l .

E v e n if p a t t e r n i n g be

accepted

as a val id i nd ica to r o f o r a l

t r a d i t i o n , i ts a p p l i c a b i l i ty t o E x . 3 2 -3 4 i s q u e s t i o n a b l e . T h e

chief p r o b l e m h e r e , o f c o u r s e , i s t h e e x t r e m e l y l im i t e d c o m p a s s

of m a t e r i a l u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , w i t h i n w h i c h o ne wou ld h a r d l y

expect

to

f ind

such

repetition

a s

G u n n

posits.

Such pa t t e rn ing

could only be d i scerned in the compar i son o f E x . 32-34 wi th th e

l a rger con tex t o f E x o d u s , ye t h e r e th e d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s o f E x .

32-34 b e c o m e s e v i d e n t . T h e r e

a re

c e r t a i n p a r a l l e l s

t o E x .

3 2 - 3 4

e l s e w h e r e

in

E x o d u s ,

f o r

e x a m p l e

E x .

10:28f. , 17:1-7,3^

bu t

in s o fa r

a s the pa ral le l i s m is d el ibera te i t i s l ik ely , esp ecia l ly in

17:1-7,

to be a

l i t er a r y r e w o r k i n g d e p e n d e n t

on the

Sinai

tradition. T h e s t r i k ing para l le l ism be tween E x . 32-34 and G e n .

6-9 r e m a i n s to be invest igated , but in any case does no t show

that

k i nd

o f

s t e re o t y pe d p a t t e r n i n g

wh ic h

i s the

concern

here .35

T h e

a t t e m p t to

f i n d

o r a l c r i t e r i a i n E x . 32 - 34 is n o t ,

t h e r e f o r e , p a r t i c u l a r l y

f r u i t f u l .

T h e t enor o f t he a r g u m e n t s t h u s

far sugges ts the u n l ik e l ihood o f o ra l t rad i t ion c lose ly un d er ly in g

147



A t

the M o u n t a i n of G od

the

material. Such

a suggestion is

fur ther supported

by Cuiley 's

i m p o r t an t

observat ion that

th e

phase

o f

oral composi t ion

is


to the

sm a l l e r u n i t , th e prose

s t o r y ,

th e ind iv idua l p o e m , o r

possibly even

a cycle o f stories, but not to

collections

c o n t a i n i n g d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f m a t e r ia l h a v i n g d i f f e r e n t

styles

an d

language . Larger

co l l ec t i ons o f

m i x e d m a te r i a l

w o u l d

presuppose t h a t

th e

i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s

h a d

become

f ixed b e fo re b e in g b ro u gh t toge the r .

Al though

Ex. 32-34 is h a rd l y a larger collection of m a t e r i a l ,

the

variety

of i ts contents is notable.

Only

in ch. 32 is

there

co n t i n u o u s n a r r a t i v e (w h i ch

i s why Olrik 's

pr inc ip les

a re

m o s t

readily applicable there, r a t h e r th an in 33-34). In 33:12ff . ,

34:1 I f f . the

in tercession

and the l a w s are a d i f f e r e n t type o f

mate r i a l w i th a d i f f e r e n t style f r o m th e s u r r o u n d i n g n a r r a t i v e .

Yet i t has also

become

clear ho w

closely in te rw ove n

these

d i f f e r e n t types a re w i th th e i r n a r r a t i v e context. If th e y w e re

independent uni ts jo ined

to g e th e r

stil l

a t the

oral stage

o n e

w o u l d

expect

th e a r r a n g e m e n t to be s o m e w h a t loose,

characterized by ca t ch w o rd s o r

t h e m a t i c

g r o u p i n g . In fac t the

re l a t ionsh ip be tw een un i t s

is

close,

t h e r e

are no

catch-

words,

an d t h e r e is a co h e ren t d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h o u g h t

t h r o u g h o u t . T he

tight l inkage

of the

d i f f e r e n t

types o f

m a t e r i a l

is a

clear l i te ra ry ac hievem ent . This s ti ll leaves

the

possibi l i ty

that th e r e were independen t o ra l un i t s jo ined by a l i t e r a r y

process, bu t

th i s mus t

lie so far

below

th e

present

text

that

it is

doub t fu l

w h e t h e r i t can still be i n t e l l i g i b l y d i sce rned . In

conclus ion , then ,

there are no

clear i n d i ca t i o n s

o f

ora l t rad i t ion

u n d e r l y i n g

Ex .

32-34. This

is not to

d e n y

the

poss ib i l i ty

o f

or ig ina l

ora l t rad i t ion ,

but i t is to

q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r

the

hyp oth esis of oral or igin s is at al l i l l u m i n a t i n g fo r the t rad i t ion

as we now

h av e

it.

C R I T E R I A F O R L E G E N D

the case for ora l t rad i t ion in Ex. 32-34 is t e n u o u s , and i f

legend presupposes ora l t rad i t ion , then one might s i mp l y

c o n c l u d e w i t h o u t f u r t h e r a d o

t h a t

th e n o t i o n of Ex . 32-34 a s

legend is e q u a l l y t e n u o u s . B u t such is the d i f f i c u l t y in th i s

k in d

of discussion o f p r o d u c i n g d e m o n s t r a t i ve a r g u m e n t s r a t h e r t h a n

on l y probabi l i t ies o r possibili ties

that

it wi l l not be out of

place

to

consider

the question o f legend afresh f rom a d i f f e r e n t angle.

8



Four:

Exodus 32-34 as

Legend

This d i f f e r e n t approach w i l l be to list a n u m b e r of criteria

which

are

generally considered

to be

indicative

of

legendary

material, and see how far Ex.

32-34

conforms to them. The list

of

criteria

o f f e r ed

here is not intended to be exhaustive but

representative,

and

w i l l

be

based largely

on the work of

those

scholars who have dealt specifically with the OT and are alert

to its

peculiarities.38

M a n y scholars have indeed made

much

use of

Olrik's Laws

in

this context,

and if

they

are

taken

as

indicative

of a type of narrative

w i t h o u t

p r e jud i ce to the

question

of

oral tradition then they

may

still

be

used with

p ro f i t . But

since Olrik's Laws

are not

orientated towards

OT

narrative,

and

since

not all

scholars make

use of

them, they

w i l l

not occupy the

f o r e f r o n t

of the discussion.

The f o l l ow i ng six features are generally considered as

indicative of legend. They are not listed in any order of

precedence.

First, oral tradition. Secondly, the presence of

miracles.

Th i r d l y , the

presence

of

aetiological motifs. Fourthly,

the use of

traditional motifs. F i f t h l y ,

a

typical dimension.

Six th ly ,

the lack of a

clear

distinction between

past

event and

subsequent

experience and interpretation.

1

Oral tradition

This has already been discussed. This is not based on any one

specific

trait but

represents

rather an

overall assessment

of the

nature of the material. A l though it has featured p r om inen t l y in

discussions since Gunkel,

its

significance

for Ex.

32-34 would

appear

to be

small.

The

fact

of

oral tradition

is

sometimes

connected

with

a n o n y m i t y

of

authorship, this

a n o n y m i t y

reflecting the

anonymous totality

of the

tribes

and

their

several

clans

at

those

times

w hen

they were gathered

together, that

is,

preeminently

on

cultic occasions .39 ot only, however,

is it the

case

that

a n o n y m i t y

does not require corporate and oral

a u t ho r sh i p

as

opposed

to

individual

and scribal, but also

anonymity

is so

widespread

in ancient literature

that

it cannot

f unc t i on

as a

distinguishing

characteristic of

legend.

2

Miracles

The presence of miracle is one of the most widely agreed

characteristics

of legend and other non-historical narrative. To

say this is not, of course, to

p r e j udge

whether or not miracles

actually occur, for such an issue cannot be decided on literary

grounds ;

nor can it be

said that miracles appear on ly

in the

context

of

legend.

The

point

is s imp l y that it is characteristic

9



At the

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

o f a pa r t i cu l a r t ype o f s t o r y to attract to itself

accounts

o f

m i r a c u l o u s

h a ppe n i n gs .

T h e r e a re i n d e e d m a n y m i r a c l e s i n t he n a r r a t i v e s o f E x o d u s

a n d

N u m b e r s . T h i s m a k e s t h e i r a b s e n ce

f r o m

th e

S i n a i

per icope

t h e m o r e s t r i k i n g . T h e l o n ge s t u n i t o f n a r r a t i ve

action

E x . 3 2 ,

i s e n t i r e ly u n m i r a c u l o u s . T h e t h e o p h a n y o f E x .

33-34

is

e x t r a - o r d i n a r y bu t i s

h a r d l y

a

m i r a c l e

i n t he

c u s t o m a r y

sense; i n

c o n t e n t ,

p r e s e n t a t i o n a n d r e s u l t i t is q u i t e d i s t i n c t i v e , a n d i t s

ethos

i s n o t that o f t h e l e ge n d a r y m i r a c l e . T h e r e is t he f a c t

that G o d wr i t es u p o n th e tablets

(34:28b),

a n d also th e descent

o f

M o s e s wi th

th e s h i n i n g

f a c e

(34:29f f . ) , b u t

t h e s e c a n n o t

b e

c o n s i d e re d d e t e r m i n a t i v e fo r t h e n a r r a t i v e a s a wh o l e .

3)

A e t i o l o gy

A e t i o l o g y

m a y b e i n d i c a t i v e o f l e g e n d

w h e n

th e a e t i o l o g y is a

p r i m a r y f a c t o r i n t h e t r a d i t i o n a n d n o t a s e c o n d a r y a d d i t i o n to

i t , as i s

o f t e n

th e

case

i n t h e

O T . ^ 0 T h e r e

i s ,

h o w e v e r , l i t t l e

that is

i n d i s p u t a b l y

aetiological i n E x . 32-34. T h e

a p p r o a c h

o f

B e y e r l i n , w h o

a r g u e s

f o r

a e t i o l o g i e s t h r o u g h o u t

th e

n a r r a t i v e ,

r a i s e s a c u t e l y

th e

p r o b l e m

o f

c r i t e r i a . T h e r e

i s no f o r m u l a

such

a s t o t h i s d a y . A l t h o u g h , f o r e x a m p l e , B e y e r l i n a r g u e s t h a t

t h e w o r d s

f rom

H o r e b o n w a r d s

( m e h a r

h S r e b )

a r e i n d i ca t i ve o f

th e f u n c t i o n o f 33 :3b-6 as ae t i o log ica l o f a l a t e r ce remony a t

S h e c h e m , th e w o r d s i n f a c t f u n c t i o n a s p a r t o f t h e p a r a l l e l

be t w e e n I s r a e l a n d t h e

E g y p t i a n s . ^ 1

There

is no

sho r t age

o f

m a t e r i a l

i n E x .

32-34 w h i c h

m a y b e

i n t e r p r e t e d a e t i o l o g i c a l l y .

T h e

go l d e n ca l f

m a y b e

c o n s i d e r e d

a e t i o l o g i ca l for the e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f

J e r o b o a m ' s

ca l ve s (o r fo r

t h e o p p o s i t io n t o t h e m ) ; t h e i n c i d e n t o f t h e L e v i t e s m a y b e

aetiological

fo r

later

Levi t i ca l pr iv i l ege ; th e

ro le

o f M o s e s m a y

b e

a e t i o l o g i c a l

fo r

s u b s e q u e n t c u l t i c f u n c t i o n a r i e s ;

a n d s o o n .

B u t

t h e r e

i s

l i t t l e f o r m a l i n d i c a t i o n

o f

s u ch co n ce r n s

i n t he

text. A n d whi le

th i s does

n o t

r u l e

o u t

a e t i o l o g i c a l i n t e r e s t

i n

th e

n a r r a t i v e ,

i t

d o e s m a ke

i t d i f f i c u l t to

d e c i d e

h o w f a r

ae t i o logy

h a s

g e n u i n e l y c o n t r o l l e d

th e


o f t h e

t r a d i t i o n . In g e n e r a l , th e r e s o l u t i o n o f such i s sues m u s t b e

s u b s e q u e n t to o n e ' s d e t a i l e d h i s t o r i c a l a n d t r a d i t i o - h i s t o r i c a l

s t u d y o f th e m a t e r i a l a n d ca n n o t be d e c i d e d i n a d va n ce o n

l i t e r a r y g r o u n d s .

T h e r e is a sense in w h i ch th e t r a d i t i o n o f E x . 32-34, a s a S i n a i

t r a d i t i o n , f u n c t i o n s

a e t i o l o g i c a l l y .

It is

b e c a u s e

Y a h w e h

revealed

h i m s e l f

a n d

m a d e

a

c o v e n a n t w i t h I s r a e l

a t S i n a i

t h a t

I sr ae l su bseq u en t ly kn o ws i ts e lf a s the people o f Y a hwe h an d

15 0



Four: Exodus

32-34 as

Legend

worships him in the cult. In particular, it is because Yahweh

f i r s t proclaimed

his

name

as

gracious that Israel

can

call upon

him as such.^ QU ^ to say this js to say no more tha

n that Ex

32-34

may

f u n c t i o n

as a cult legend in the technical

form-critical sense;^

anc

j

since such

a

f u n c t i o n

is

quite

independent

of

literary type,

it

cannot

be a

factor

in the

determination

of

literary type,

w h i c h is the

present concern.

4 )

Traditional M o t i f s

A

certain type of content is characteristic of legendary and

other non-historical narrative. The standard

w o r k

in this area is

S. Thompson's Mot i f - Index of Folk Literature w h i c h is a massive

compilation of the

content

and

m o t i f s

of

f o l k l o r e

(in the

broadest sense of the term). The work needs to be used with

care in that m a n y of the m o t i f s it contains, w h i l e present in

f o l k l o r e ,

are not

peculiar

to

f o lk lo re

and so are of

limited value

fo r i den t i fy ing it.

In this context the distinctiveness of the Sinai pericope f r o m

the rest of Exodus again becomes apparent.

3 G

Frazer,

T.H.

Caster and D. Irvin, ̂ all of

w ho m

cite abundant

folkloristic

parallels to the early chapters of Exodus, o f f e r no such parallels

to the narrative of Ex. 19-20,

24,

32-34. Ex. 32,

w i t h

its

continuous

narrative action, might seem

the

most likely locus

fo r

traditional motifs.

Yet

G r e s s m a n n

cites

parallels

on ly to the

book of life (32:32f.), w h i c h is an incidental

motif .**

5

Elements

of Ex.

32-34

can be

f ound

in

T h o m p s o n s I ndex ,

but

the significance of these is unclear. The m o t i f s of a b u l l -

god ̂ or a god assuming the

f o r m

of a calf' reveal little

about 32:1 ff. Fratricide is a c o m m o n folk

motif,^

anc

j may

be

discerned

in

32:29.

It

plays only

a minor

role, however,

in the

u n i t

and does not constitute a

g e n u i n e m o t i f

since it does not

f u r t h e r

the story in any way.^

9

Perhaps the two most s ign i f i -

cant

m o t i f s are the taboo on seeing the

deity

5

^

(cf. Ex.

33:20),

and the

Holy

man

radiant

51

(cf. Ex. 34:29ff.). Both

of these, however,

f u n c t i o n in a

s t r i k in g l y theological way,

and

their distinctive ethos is not directly suggestive of traditional

material.

5) Typical Significance

V on

Rad

argues

that

whi le

history

w r i t i n g

presents events

in

their isolated particularity, their historical contingency, legend

presents people

and

events

as

types:

W h a t e v e r tradition we select - the story of Cain, the

151



A t t he M ou n ta in o f G od

b e t r a y a l of Sa ra h , the m a n n a , B a l a a m , or the Bless ing o f

Moses ( E x . 1 7 ) - it is p e r f e c t l y

clear

t h a t , w h i l e t h e y r e f e r

us to the

rea lm

of

h i s to ry , ye t ,

in

sp i te

of all the

concreteness

o f

the i r

p r e s e n t a t i o n ,

there

is

a lw a ys

at the

same

t im e a

certain

typica l s igni f icance . Co r respondingly ,

the men and w om en invo lved in the event are also to a

l a rge ex t en t types ,

in

t h a t

th e

w a y s

in

w h i c h t h e y

act are

not to be rega rded as h a v i n g o c c u r r e d on ly once : wha t

m a k e s t h e m i m p o r t a n t

is

p rec i s e ly t he i r m ore gene ra l

va l id i ty . They therefore possess a c o e f f i c i e n t o f present -

day

re l evance w h i c h th e doc um en ta ry p r e s en t a t i on o f

his tory

lacks.

There

is no

d o u b t

that certain

t rad i t ions

se t

o u t

to

relate

an e v e n t

w h i c h

o c c u r r e d

on ly

once,

ye t

g ive

i t the f o r m o f one w h i c h oc c ur r ed ove r an d over

again.

T h e

pe rc ep t ion t ha t c e r t a in

O T

t r a d i t i o n s h a v e

a

typ i c a l

s i g n i f i can ce i s i m p o r t a n t . I t is p r e s u m a b l y t h is t h a t i s in tended

by re fe rence to the poetic q u a l i t y o f such t radi t ions . A s K oc h

puts

it,

T he

k n o w l e d g e

that

a b ib l ica l s tory is l egenda ry does n o t

detract

f rom

its

s ignif icance.

Sagas

a re

r e a l i t y

po e t ic ized .53

Nonethe less , i t i s aga in s t r ik ing how little E x . 32-34 c o n f o r m s

to

such

a c r i t e r i o n .

First, typica l na r ra t ives t end

to

h a v e

a

c e r t a i n spac ious qu al i t y abou t them -

there

a re o n l y o n e o r

tw o c h a r a c t e r s , a l l u n n e c e s s a r y d e t a i l

fa l l s

o u t , t h e r e is an

u n h u r r i e d fee l in the ac t ion of the n a r r a t i v e . In Ex .

32-34,

by

c on t r a s t , th e c o n t e n t an d a c t i on is too dense; th e scenes

s h i f t

to o

q u i c k l y ,

th e

fee l

of the

n a r r a t i v e

is too

u r g e n t

to

c o n v e y

m u c h

typica l

o r

poetic

q u a l i t y .

Secondly,

there is a

s pec i f i c i t y a bou t m uc h

of Ex. 32-34

w hi c h depr ives

it of

typica l s ignif icance.

O n e m a y

c om pa re

Moses '

in te rcess ion in 33:12ff .

w i t h

the Bless ing of Mos es (Ex .

17 :8 f f . ) .

T h e

latter

indeed p r e s en t s a n a r c he typa l p i c tu r e , bu t

how

d i f f e r e n t

is the a g o n i z e d i n t e n s i t y o f 33:12f f . , c e n t r i n g on

the spec i f ic prob lem of the res tora t ion of God 's sh r in e in the

m i d s t

o f

s infu l

Is rae l .

N o w h e r e

in Ex.

32-34, except pe rha ps

34:29ff. , is Moses a typ i c a l f i gu re . T he p a r t i c u l a r i t y of the

promise to h im in

d i s t i nc t i on

f r o m

the

people

o f

Israel (32:10) ,

th e

harsh role

o f

j u d g m e n t (32:19f . , 25f f . ) ,

th e

u r g e n c y

of the

intercessions (32:1 I f f . , 30f f . , 33:12f f . )

and the

u n i q u e m e d i a ti o n

b e t w e e n Y a h w e h and Israel are no t such as one can eas i ly

i den t i fy wi th . There

is

e x e m p l a r y s i g n i f i c a n c e ,

b u t

that

is a

1 52



Four : Exodus 32-34

as

Legend

d i f f e r e n t

matter.

E x . 32-34

does present

a

p a r a d i g m a t i c

accoun t

of sin and forg iven ess and the depen dence of Israel

upon the mercy of God, ̂ and the use of the genera l iz ing

expression s t i f f -neck

ed

people

is

perhaps

del ibe

rately

i n t ended

to genera l ize the s ign i f i cance and appl ica t ion of the

na r r a t i ve . B u t again th is i s q u i t e

d i f f e r e n t f r o m

a t y p i c a l

depict ion

of either

people

or events.

T h i r d l y , E x .

32-34

is d i f f e r e n t f r o m

mos t typ ica l nar ra t ives

in

that i ts bas ic presuppos i t ion is the pa r t i cu l a r i t y an d

exclus iveness of M osaic Y ahw ism . I t i s no table

that

those

t r a d i t i o n s

are

mos t typ ica l

in c ha r ac t e r

w h e r e

the

theology

o f

the Mosaic covenant is least in

evidence.

This is par t icular ly so

in

the

pa t r i a r cha l t r ad i t i ons wher e

the

absence

of any

exclus iveness

is a

s ign i f i can t

aspect of the e v e r y m a n

charac ter

of the

stories.

55

E x .

32-34 presupposes thro ug ho ut

a rel igio us exclus iveness , a

un i que

p h e n o m e n o n in the h i s t o r y of

r e l ig ion ,

5

^ and the

need

for

obedience

to the

mor a l

and

r i tua l

laws of the decalogue. Such concer ns are q u i t e d i f f e r e n t in

ethos

f r o m the

t y p i c a l

o r poetic.

6 ) T he Lack of Di s t i nc t i on b e t w e e n Past and Present

T he na rra to r of legend does not d is t in gu ish presen t and pas t

in a s t r i c t ly h i s tor ica l way. Ra ther , as von Rad puts i t ,

th e

na r r a to r

-

h i s to r i ca l cons ide r a ti ons no tw i th s t an d in g

-

repor t s

the

e v e n t s

as he

h imse l f conceives them

as h a v i n g

happened

... The event is

na iv e ly p laced w i th i n

the

hor izon of the

na r r a to r ' s

ow n

f a i t h ,

and he is of a

la ter

generat ion

...

Saga

is

qui te unable

to

sa feguard

its

or ig ina l

c o n t e n t

f r o m

la ter a l tera t ion s . On the co n tra ry , i t i s a

ready

vessel for new conten t s , i t adapts i t sel f to new

possibil i t ies

of interpretation, and in the

process

i t

o f t e n

leaves

i t s

or ig ina l subjec t

f ar beh ind .

W i t h

such legends

it is u n h e l p f u l to

d i s t ingu i sh be tween

an

authentic

his tor ical kernel

and a

f ic t ional over lay;

fo r

subsequen t

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s

and

exper iences

are

also his tor ical

and

bear wi tness

to God 's

con t inua l dea l ings w i th

h is people.

5

^

T he

concept

involved

in this criterion is

readi ly

c o m p r e -

hens ib le .

T he

d i f f i c u l t y

is to

know

how and

w h e r e

it is

g e n u i n e l y

appl icable.

Fo r to

recognize e lements

o f a

t rad i t ion

as

anachronis t ic presupposes

a

good knowledge

of the

respec t ive

per iods

in

ques t ion

so that one can be

reasonably sure what

is

appropr ia te

to

each. W i t h

ear ly

O T

t rad i t i on s

th is puts

one in a

153



At the M o u n t a i n o f God

s o m e w h a t

paradoxical pos i t ion . O u r ch ie f , an d some t imes o u r

o n l y ,

source o f i n f o r m a t i o n fo r

Israel s

ear ly h is to ry is Israel s

ear ly traditions.^ A nd yet i t is on the basis o f these

t r ad i t ions ,

which

are

considered

to

present

an

inaccura te

his tor ical p icture , that one can apparen t l y acqu i r e a c o m p e t e n t

knowledge

of the periods in ques t i on . The logic o f this posit ion

should

not be

pushed

to o f a r . A c a r e f u l a t t e n t i o n to

peculiarities in

texts

and compar i son be tween d i f f e r e n t texts

can lead to l ike ly recons t ruc t ions . No ne the less , the tentative

an d

hypo the t i ca l n a tu r e of the task is a p p a r e n t a n d allows fo r

widely d ivergen t recons t ruc t ions . The problem is wel l

i l lustrated by the divers i ty o f v iews on the ques t i ons o f w h a t

k i nd

o f

m o n o t h e i s m ,

if

a n y ,

is

a t t r ibu t ab l e

to

M o s e s

an d

w h e t h e r the re lig iou s an d e th ical tea chin g of the decalogue can

be accepted as h a v ing existed as ear ly in Israel 's history as the

t ime o f Moses.

It

follows f rom

th is

that

it will be a scholar 's general

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f

early Israel

in i ts

an c ien t Ne ar Eas te rn

context that will play a

m a j o r

role in the assessmen t of w he the r

a n d to

w h a t

extent a

t r ad i t i on con t a in s anachron i s t i c

a n d

unh i s t o r i ca l

elements . This obviously i n t r o d u c e s majo r issues

that

l ie beyon d ou r presen t pu rv iew .

Su ff ice

i t to say a t present

that

there

is

n o t h i n g p a t e n t l y a n a c h r o n i s t i c

in Ex.

32-34 that

could not f i t in i ts supposed h is tor ical context.60 if th is

con t en t i on is

correct,

then th e present cr i ter ion fo r

d i s t i ng u i s h i ng legend becomes d i f f i c u l t to apply

f r u i t f u l l y

to Ex.

32-34.

S U M M A R Y

A N D

C O N C L U S I O N

The above rapid rev iew o f c r i t e r i a fo r legend appl ied to Ex.

32-34 p ro d u c e s a n i n t e r e s t i n g conc lus ion - t ha t t he re i s

r e m a r k a b l y

l i t t le in Ex. 32-34 tha t wou ld

q u a l i f y

th e m a t e r i a l

fo r th e des igna t i on l egend .

Obvious ly

th e discuss ion h a s

h a r d l y

been

e x h a u s t i v e

an d i s

m o r e

in the

n a t u r e

of a few


sound ings . N o n e t h e l e s s ,

s u f f i c i e n t

h a s been sa id to j u s t i f y

d r a w i n g a

c onc lus i on

i n a t

leas t t en ta t ive te rms.

For the

discuss ion h a s enabled th e d i s t i nc t iveness of the chapters to

come more c l e a r l y i n t o f ocus .

Some

m a y

i n d e e d

f ee l

t h a t

th e

discussion

h a s

been

to

some ex ten t l a b o u r i n g

th e

obv ious .

For i t

m ay be a t least in par t because o f a r e c o g n i t i o n of the

d is t inc t iveness o f the

chap te r s t ha t

the

special

de s i g n a t i o n o f

cul t l egend ha s been so

wide ly

a d o p t e d . If, h o w e v e r , the

154



Four: E x o d u s

32-34

as

Legend

designat ion of cult legend (in a sense which denotes the li terary

type

of the

nar ra t ive)

is

cons idered d ou bt fu l ,

it is

appropr iate

to consider al ternat ives , especial ly when th e te rm legend h a s

been applied so

f reely

to the M o s e s t r a d i t i o n s .

W h a t s ign i f icance m a y o n e

attach

to the conclus ion

that

th e

characteristics of legend are largely lacking in Ex.

32-34?

A

fe w suggest ions may b e made . F i r s t , a l though d i scuss ion of

legend tends to focus on the poss ible his tor ical value of the

con tent of legen d , the ch ief va lue of the above discus s ion has

been the i l luminat ion of aspects of Ex .

32-34

which were not

brought

out by the exegesis. One's und er s tan d ing of Moses

1

intercession in Ex. 33, for ex am ple , wh i le based p r i m a r i l y upon

th e

exegesis

in

c o n t e x t ,

is

f u r t h e r e d

b y

a p p r e c i a t i n g

h o w

d i f f e r e n t it is in ethos f rom a story l ike E x . 17:8ff .

Secondly, al though the discussion has argued the inadequacy

of the t e r m s "cult legend and legend , it is not

part

of the

present purpose to

replace these

b y some a l te rnat ive des ig-

nat ion

of any degree of precis ion. For any precise and specif ic

des ignat ion would proba bly have to be a rather baroq ue and

ungainly

term, coined for the purpose. A s such it would be of

l imited

value.

A term such as

"theological

story"

would be

possible, but is i n h e r e n t l y s o v a g u e

that

it c o u l d c o m p r i s e a

w i d e

var ie ty o f

d i f f e r e n t

types o f nar ra t ive . Bes ides , th e t e r m

has already been used by W e s te rm a n n , in his discussion of types

of

n a r r a t i v e

in Genesis,^ with a

specific m eaning ; that

is, a

s tory which i s e f fec t ive ly nar ra t ive theo logy , whereby some o ld

t r a d i t i o n h a s b e e n t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o a vehicle fo r p r e s e n t i n g

theological ques t ions

and

statements.

A nd

since

it is

u n c e r t a i n ,

or

at

least

u n p r o v e d , that such a process under l ies Ex. 32-34

(the

theological

shaping

of the

mater ia l

is

unques t ioned ,

bu t

t h e r e

is

more than

one way of

e x p l a i n i n g i t) ,

it

would

only

confuse

matters

to use a te rm w i t h p o t e n t i a l l y m i s l e a d i n g , o r

quest ion-begging, implicat ions . For the presen t , it

wil l

be

suff ic ient to acquiesce in us ing the general term "story". N o t ,

indeed, in a wholly

undi f fe ren t ia ted

sense, for many pecul i -

ar i t ies

of the

n a r r a t i v e h a v e e m e r g e d

in our

d i s c u s s i o n .

T he

i m p o r t a n t t h i n g

is so to

read

the

s to ry

that o ne

becomes aware

of

its

characteristics,

even if one lacks any precise term for

class i fying

it.

T h i r d l y ,

there is the bea r ing of l i terary genre upon th e

d e t e r m i n i n g of historici ty. I t has been seen that Ex. 32-34

general ly lacks cer tain

characteristics that

would tend

to

disqual i fy it

f r o m

bein g historical in inten t or content. But i t

15 5



At the

M o u n t a i n

o f God

w o u l d

b e

p r e m a t u r e

to

conc lude t ha t

th e

n a r r a t i v e t h e r e f o r e

i s

his to r ica l

a t

least

in

i n t e n t i o n w h e t h e r

o r no t in

a c t ua l f ac t .

For the

b e a r i n g

o f the

l i t e r a r y

an d

t he o log i ca l d i m e n s i o n s

o f

th e s tory

upon

i ts poss ib le h i s to r ica l i n t en t has no t ye t be e n

su f f i c i en t ly e x a m i n e d .

In

t e r m s

of the

d iscussion thus

far i t

w o u l d be appropr ia te to leave open the quest ion o f h is tor ica l

intent.

Th e n a t u r e of the ma t e r i a l a s t hu s fa r perce ived is st i l l

open to the

poss ib i l i ty

o f

g e n u i n e h i s to r ica l concern

in the

m a t e r i a l b u t cou ld no t be

said

t o r e q u i r e i t no r t o be

i n c o m p a t i b l e w i th i ts abse nce .

In

an y case

discuss ions

o f

l i t e r a ry ge n re

a re o n l y a

p r e l i m i n a r y t o the t ask o f h i s to r ica l s tudy proper . The ad-

vanc ing of any

h i s t o r i ca l conc lu s i ons

m u s t

be

based

upon

spec i f i ca l ly h i s to r ica l a rguments .

It is

appropr i a te t he r e fo re

to

tu rn aga in f r om l i t e rary considera t ions

to

consider f u r t h e r

some

of the

h i s to r ica l ly-or ien ta ted ques t ions

that may be put to

E x.

32-34.

156



C ha p t e r

5

S E L E C T I V E C R I T I C A L A N A L Y S I S

O F E X .

32-34

In this f i n a l sect ion

w e

sha l l cons ide r some

of the

m os t

impor t a n t p rob l ems

that

c o n f r o n t

th e

i n t e r p r e t e r

a s he seeks to

discover

th e

o r i g i n s

a n d


o f E x .

32-34

i n the

l i gh t

of the f i n a l

f o r m

o f the

text. E v en

i f Ex . 32-34

does

no t owe i t s

s t r u c t u r e o r m a j o r e l e m e n t s t o th e h i s t o r i c i z a t i o n o f a r e gu l a r

cultic

r i t ua l , an d even if it does n o t show

clear

s igns o f

l e genda ry deve l opmen t , i ts i n t eg r i t y a s a n a r r a t i v e t r ad i t i on

m ay s t i l l b e ca l l ed in que s t i on o n a v a r i e t y o f g r o u n d s . I n

pa r t i cu l a r , w e ig h ty source -c ri ti c a l a n d t r ad i t i o -h i s to r i c a l

a rgumen t s have been adduced

to

show

the

c ompos i t e n a t u r e

o f

th e

material.

T he f o l l owing , necessa r i l y partial e x a m i n a t i o n o f

prev ious a n a l y t ic a l w o r k w i l l seek to d e t e r m i n e h o w f a r such

a r g u m e n t s

a f f e c t th e e s sen t ia l p lo t o f E x . 32-34 a n d a lso how

they

bea r o n e l e m e n t s

wh ich

a re

s econdary

to the

central

concern.

A N A N A L Y S I S

O F E X .

34:1-28

T h e r e a re two

central

issues in ex is t ing

treatments

o f E x .

32-34 . O n e i s the m a in ly l i t e ra r y ques t ion o f E x . 34 as a

c o v e n a n t r e n e w a l , * the other i s the

m a i n l y


quest ion of the o r i g i n s of the golden ca l f s tory i n Ex . 32 .

A l t h o u g h

d i s t i nc t

issues

they

a re

inter-related.

For i f the

people s apos tasy w as o r i g i n a l to the t r a d i t i o n , t h e n s om e

r e n e w a l o f the

r u p t u r e d r e l a ti o n s h i p

w ou ld b e

r e q u i r e d .

I f the

c ove n a n t r e n e w a l w a s o r i g i n a l , t h en s om e t h i n g m u s t h a ve

required such a r e n e w a l . Conve r s e l y , th e d e n i a l that either

e l e m e n t w a s o r i g i na l c a r r i e s th e n a t u r a l c o r o l l a r y

that

th e

o t he r e l e m e n t

i s

l i kewi se

u n l i k e l y t o be

o r i g i n a l . G i ve n

th e

i n h e r e n t c o m p l e m e n t a r i t y o f the s tor ies a n d t h e close l i t e r a r y

an d theologica l

l i nks be tween t hem

i n t he p r e s e n t text th e

he u r i s t i c a s s um p t i o n

w i l l

b e

that

t h e two

s tor ies

d o

i n d e e d

b e l o n g

t oge the r to the s ame t r ad i t i on , un l e s s good r e a son c an

be f o u n d to d e n y

th i s .

F i r s t ,

E x . 34 a s a c o v e n a n t r e n e w a l . I t is w ide ly agreed that

E x . 34 was

o r i g i na l l y

the

a c c oun t

o f an

i n i ti a l c oven a n t

157



A t

the M o u n t a i n o f Go d

m a k i n g ,

paral lel

to the E

vers ion

in Ex .

19-20; when

th e J a n d E

Sina i na r r a t i ve s we r e combine d ,

th e J

c o v e n a n t

w a s

preserved

bu t

r e d a c t i ona l l y t r a ns fo r me d i n t o

a

cove na n t

r enewa l .2

Five

pr inc ipa l cons ide ra tions can be advanced in f av o u r o f

this

pos i t ion.

First th e

hypothes i s

is part of the

l a r g e r d o c u m e n t a r y

ana lys i s

of the P e n t a t e u c h , th e

S ina i pe ri cope be in g con s id e r e d

a

s t r i k i n g e x a m p l e

o f

pa r a l l e l

J and E

ve r s i ons be ing p r e s e r ve d

t o g e t h e r ,

as can

also

be

obs e r ve d e l se wh e r e .

Secondly ,

the

s pe c i f i c r e f e r e nce s

to

r e n e w a l

in vv .

1 ,

4, 9 can

e a s i ly be r e cog n i ze d a s s e con d a r y m o d i f i ca t i o n s . Th e se

re fe rences a re :

v. 1. l ike the

f i r s t

( k r s V i y m )

... to the end o f the

verse.

v. 4 .

l ike

th e

f i r s t .

v. 9. E v e ry phrase in th is verse h a r k s ba ck to s ome pa r t o f

th e p r e c e d i n g n a r r a t i v e , a n d s o m u s t b e e n t i r e l y

s e c o n d a r y .

T h i r d l y , i t may be a r g u e d t h a t th e ch a p t e r r e a d s l ike a n

i n i t i a l

c o v e n a n t m a k i n g .

F o u r t h l y ,

the l a ws o f 34:11-26 have been seen as an

a l t e rn a t ive or pa ra l l e l t r ad i t io n to the deca log ue of Ex . 20 (or

even a J

para l le l

to the E

Book

of the

C o v e n a n t ) . T h i s

is u s u a l ly

suppo r ted by an appea l t o the ten w ords in

34:28,

u n d e r s t o o d

as in

s ome

w a y

d e s ig na t i ng

the

fo r e g o ing l a ws .

F i f t h l y , if the

s tory

of the

golden calf

is , on

o t h e r g r o u n d s ,

considered as a late addi t ion to the Sina i t r ad i t ion , yet the

covenant renewal presupposes it , then th e renewal mus t a l so b e

a late

a d d i t i on .

T h e s e a r g u m e n t s

a re

m a i n l y

to do

w i th broad con s ide ra t ions

of the role of Ex. 34 w i t h i n the Sina i

pericope.

C o m m e n t a t o r s

have indeed argued

in detail

pa r t i cu l a r l y conce r n ing

vv.

5-7,

9-10, 27-28

that

there

is

i ncoh e r e nce

in these verses a n d

that

m u c h is seconda ry. B ut the

exegesis

o f f e r e d a bove ^ h a s

shown that

m o s t

of the

d i f f i c u l t i e s f e l t

in

these

verses a re

u n f o u n d e d once

t h e d e ve l opme n t o f t h e na r r a t i ve a s a wh o l e i s

a ppr e c i a t e d . Th e r e is a s m o o t h n e s s a n d c o h e r e n c e w h i c h m o r e

l i ke ly sugges t s

o r i g i n a l u n i t y

t h a n s e c o n d a r y m o d i f i c a t i o n .

W h i l e

th e latter

pos s ib i l i t y

ca n

n e v e r

b e

ru l e d o u t ,

th e

exeges i s

o f

Ex . 34 may

we l l

be

t a k e n

to

e x e m p l i f y

ho w a

f r e sh

pe r ce p t i on

of the

f i n a l

text ca n

r e n d e r u n n e c e s s a r y c e r t a i n

a r g u m e n t s

for a

c o m p l e x

p r e h i s t o r y . ̂ A s s u m i n g

t h e r e f o r e

th e

s u b s t a n t i a l

co r rec tness o f the exeges i s , the presen t

d i scuss ion

wi l l

c o n c e n t r a t e

o n t h e

m o r e g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n s t h a t

m a y b e

raised.

158



At the

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

to pos tu la te Ex. 34 a s th e para l le l to Ex. 20. But t h i s c a n n o t

be pu r su ed at present.

2)

M o t h

asserts that

the

r e f e r e n c e s

to

r e n e w a l

in vv. 1 ,

4,

9

are inse r ted

o n l y

lo o se ly an d can eas i l y b e sepa r a t ed a s

secondary .

7

Bu t i n fac t they f i t n a t u r a l l y a n d s m o o t h l y

wi t h i n

t he dev e lo pm en t o f t he s t o ry an d a r e n o t i n t hem se lv es

prob lemat ic . They

o n l y

need to be u n d e r s t o o d a s seco n da ry

w he n a

decision

h a s

a l ready been reached abo u t

the

chapter

o n

o t h e r g r o u n d s .

3) C h i l d s a r g u e s t h a t

Ex.

34 reads l ike

a n

i n i t i a l c o v e n a n t

m a k i ng . 8

Th e

n a tu ra l response

is to

ask,

H o w

else

w o u l d

o n e

expect

the account to appear? Unless one can plaus ib ly

d e m o n s t r a t e

wh ich

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s c o u l d

be

expected

to

d i s t i n gu i s h

a

c o v e n a n t re n e w a l f r o m

a n

i n i t i a l m a k i n g , t h i s

p o i n t lacks cogency.

9

In f a c t , o n e

w o u l d

n a t u r a l l y expec t th e

tw o

occas ions to be s i m i l a r . T h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n i n i t i a t i o n

a n d r e n e w a l

would

be m a d e clear c h i e f l y in two w a y s: t h r o u g h

th e o v e ra l l

context

a n d through spec i f ic references. W h e n th e

c o n t e x t

of Ex.

32f .

is

d i s c o u n t e d

a n d the

s p e c i f ic r e f e r e n c e s

in

vv .

1, 4, 9 are

c o n s i d e r e d s e c o n d a r y ,

it is h a r d l y

s u r p r i s i n g t h a t

there

m a y seem little i n d i c a t i o n o f r e n e w a l i n t h e c h a p t e r .

H av i n g

said th is , however , o n e c a n p o i n t o u t that

there

a re

i n deed v a r i o u s d i s t i n gu i sh in g

characteristics

of Ex. 34 that

appea r

i n t he

exegesis:

th e

p r i v a c y

o f t he

t h e o p h a n y

t o t he

f a i t h f u l

m e d i a t o r , a s opposed to the

pu b l i c i t y

o f Ex. 1 9; the

p a r t i c u l a r stress

upon

th e grace o f Y a h w e h in 34:6,9 as the

f o u n d a t i o n for a ren ewed co v en an t , a n em phas i s u n n ecessa ry in

Ex. 19-20 when the problem of

Israel's

sin had no t been ra i sed ;

th e h e i g h t e n e d e m p h a s i s

u p o n f a i t h f u l n e s s

to Y a h w e h i n

34:11-16; t h e c u l t i c l a w s a p p r o p r i a t e t o

Israel 's

cu l t i c s i n ; t he

absence , a f t e r I s rae l ' s u n f a i t h f u l n e s s , o f a n y a c c o u n t of the

people ' s response ( such as in Ex. 24) , appropr i a t e t o the

e m p h a s i s u p o n th e sovereign action o f Y a h w e h to w a r d s a n

u n f a i t h f u l

people. In context, these a r e a l l i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e s

o f

c o v e n a n t r e n e w a l a n d

w o u l d

n o t r e a d m o r e n a t u r a l l y a s an

i n i t i a l c o v en a n t m a k i n g .

4) The next i ssue i s the re la t ionsh ip o f the l aws in

34:11-26

to

th e Decalogue a nd th e Book of the C o v e n a n t . Th e exegesis h a s

m a d e

t h e i r f u n c t i o n clear.

T h e

l aws

a re a

r e c a p i t u l a t i o n

o f t h e

e a r l i e r l a w s , s e le c ti n g th o s e r e l e v a n t t o t h e s i t u a t i o n . W h i l e i t

160



F i v e : C r i t i c a l

A n a l y s i s

o f

E x o d u s 32-34

i s

p o s s i b l e

to

v i e w

th e

l a w s

a s a n

a l t e r n a t i v e

to

t h o s e g i v e n

e a r l i e r , t h e r e

i s n o

n e e d

t o d o s o . N o w

t h a t

th e

u n h e l p f u l

a n t i t h e s i s b e t w e e n a r i t u a l a n d e t h i c a l d e c a l o g u e h a s l o n g s i n c e

b ee n a b a n d o n e d , a n d t he p a r t i c u l a r e m p h a s i s o f t he l a w s o f E x .

34 c a n b e f u l l y

e x p l a i n e d

b y t h e

c o n t e x t , t h e r e

i s

l i t t l e r e a s o n

t o s e t u p t h e l a w s o f E x . 34 a s t h e m s e l v e s t h e o r i g i n a l bas i s o f a

c o v e n a n t .

I t has

b ee n s u g g e s t e d , m o r e o v e r ,

in the

e x e g e s i s

t h a t

th e

a t t e m p t

to

f i n d

a

d e c a l o g u e

in

3 4 : 1 1 - 2 6

o n t h e

b a s i s

o f

34:28

r e s t s u p o n a m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h a t l a t t e r v e r s e . D e s p i t e a

c e r t a i n i n i t i a l p l a u s i b i l i t y

in

i d e n t i f y i n g

th e

l a w s

o f v v . 1 1 - 2 6

w i t h t h e c o v e n a n t w o r d s o f v v . 1 , 2 8 , t h i s cre tes t h e d o u b l e

t ens io n o f v . 28 wi th bo th vv .

1 1 - 2 6

an d v . 1 . S i nce b o th


a r e s o s m o o t h l y s o l v ed b y t h e e x e g e s i s p r o p o s e d , i t

b e c o m e s

d o u b t f u l

w h e t h e r one i s s t i l l

j u s t i f i e d

in p o s t u l a t i n g

th e d i s p l a c e m e n t o f m a t e r i a l , a d i f f e r e n t d e c a l o g u e , o r

c o n f l i c t i n g t r a d i t i o n s . ^

T h e

l a w s

o f

3 4 : 1 1 - 2 6 p r o v i d e

i n -

s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n to d o u b t th e n a t u r e o f t h e c h a p t e r a s a n

o r i g i n a l

r e n e w a l .

5 F i n a l l y , t h e r e i s the f a c t th t E x . 3 4 a s c o v e n a n t r e n e w a l

p r e s u p p o s e s t h e s t o r y o f E x . 3 2 . I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , to a n e x a m i n -

a t i o n o f t h e g o l d e n c a lf

t h a t

w e m u s t n o w t u r n . B e c au s e t h e

tw o stories a r e t o a

c o n s i d e r a b l e e x t e n t i n t e r d e p e n d e n t ,

i t is

n o t

o n l y th e

c se

t h a t i f the c a l f s t o r y c a n b e s h o w n t o b e

l a t e

a n d s e c o n d a r y , t he n d o u b t s

a re c st

u p o n

E x . 3 4 a s a r e -

n e w a l .

F o r , e q u a l l y ,

i f t h e r e i s

g o o d r e a s o n

to

s u p p o s e t h a t

E x . 3 4 a s a r e n e w a l is o r i g i n a l , t h i s c o n s t i t u t e s a n a r g u m e n t i n

f a v o u r o f

r e g a r d i n g

the s in

t h a t c a u se d

th e

renewal , i . e .

E x . 3 2 ,

a s

a l s o o r i g i n a l

to the

t r a d i t i o n .

A d m i t t e d l y ,

i f o n e a b a n d o n s t he g e n e r a l l y h e ld v i e w

t h a t

E x .

34 c o n t a i n s

an

e a r l y t r a d i t i o n ,

on e can see E x . 34 a s

i n d e e d

w r i t t e n a s a r e n e w a l b y i n t e r p r e t i n g i t as a d e u t e r o n o m i s t i c

l i t e r a r y

c o n t e x t cre ted f o r t h e

go lden ca l f

s t o r y . 1 2 B u t t h e

g e n e r a l t e n o r

o f t h e

a r g u m e n t s

i n

t h i s s t u d y w o u l d

n o t

s u p p o r t

s u c h

a l a t e d a t e for the c r e a t i o n o f E x . 32-34 a s a w h o l e , g i v e n

i t s i m p o r t a n c e w i t h i n t h e t r a d i t io n s a n d w o r s h i p o f I s r a e l w h i c h

a r e

d e p en d e n t u p o n

i t .

A N A N A L Y S I S

O F E X .

32:1-6

T h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f the s t o r y o f the go lden ca l f i n E x . 3 2

i n v o l v e s

a c o m p l e x o f l i t e r a r y , h i s t o r i c a l , a n d t r a d i t i o - h i s t o r i c a l

i s s u e s .

6



A t

the Moun t a i n of God

Taken by itself the story is, at f i rs t s igh t , s t ra igh t forward .

There are no real l i terary

unevennesses

in 32:1-6 such as m i g h t

suggest the

presence

of diverse trad i t ion s. Despite variou s

arguments

for

literary disunity,

13 tne narrative is in fact

clearly of one piece .

The cen t ra l

problem^

is posed by

ask ing w h a t

is the

re la t ionsh ip

o f Ex. 32 to the

story

o f

Jeroboam's golden calves in 1 Kg. 12:26-32. There is a certain

s imi la r i ty of o u t l in e be tween the two stories and also some

s imi l ar i ty

o f detail,

^

6

th e

most no tab le be ing

th e

ident ical

phrase, This is y o u r god, O Israel , w ho b r o u g h t you up out of

the

land

o f

E g y p t

1 7

in

both

Ex.

32:4,8

and 1 Kg.

12:28. That

there is some re l a t i onsh ip be tween the two narra t ives seems

clear.

Bu t the l i t era ry re la t io ns hip, no t in i tse lf com plex, is

genera l ly

considered as but a p o i n t e r to a com plex t rad i t i o -

his tor ica l

d e v e lo p m e n t u n d e r ly i n g Ex. 32.

T he

s ign i f ican ce of the s im i lar i t i es be tw een the two n ar ra -

tives, and in p a r t i c u l a r its b e a r i n g upon d e t e r m i n i n g the

re la t ive pr io r i ty o f the two texts, con s t i tu tes the m a i n prob lem

a t

issue.

T he

s im i l a r i ty

c a n n o t

o f

itself resolve

the

ques t ion

o f

pr io r i ty e ithe r wa y . Th e re l a t i on sh ip be tween the two na r ra -

t ives

may be

cons t rued

in a n u m b e r o f d i f f e r e n t

ways. Firs t ,

Ex.

32:1-6

in i t s

presen t

f o r m

may be t he

ea r l i e r na r r a t ive ,

th e

r e semblances in 1 Kg. 12 be ing i n t ended as d e l ib e r a t e ly r e m i n -

iscent.^ Secondly ,

whi le the

basic substance

of Ex. 32 may

be

ea r ly , its l i te rary presen ta t ion re f lec ts later po lemic aga ins t

J e r o b o a m . 19 Thi rd ly ,

the

c o n t e n t

and

presen t a t i on

of Ex. 32

m ay

have been en t i r e ly

created o u t o f

polemic aga ins t

Je ro bo am.20

F o u r t h l y ,

a n d

most complex ,

a

subs t an t i a l ly

d i f f e r e n t version

of Ex.

32:1-6

may be

o r i g i n a l ,

a

t r a d i t i o n

or ig ina l ly f avourab le

to

both

A a r o n an d the ca l f , and i t was to

such

a

f avourab le p receden t

that

Je roboam

w as

appea l i ng .

1

Kg. 12 is thus ear l i e r than Ex. 32 in its presen t f o r m , Ex. 32

being

a

ma j o r rew ork ing -o f

the

o lder ca l f t rad i t ion

a s

par t

o f a

po lemic a g a i n s t t h e n o r t h e r n k ingdom.21 Final ly , an alter-

na t ive

fo rm

of the preceding would be the more general

thesis

that

in

early Israel cultic calves were qui te acceptable

a n d

that

Jeroboam based himself upon such a t rad i t ion , th e connect ion

of

a calf with A a r o n (and Sinai) , as well as the polemical

presentation,being the retrojection of post-Jeroboa

m con-

flicts.

22

It

is one of

these

last three opt ions, par t icular ly the last two,

that the

substance

of Ex. 32 is

dependen t

upon the

Jeroboam

trad i t ion bu t that both reflect some early calf tradi t ion, n o w

162



Fi v e : C r i t i c a l A n a l y s i s o f E x o d u s 32 -34

l o s t ,

t h a t

is

m o s t

w i d e l y

he l d t o d a y . S i n c e

3 e r o b o a m ' s c u l t i c

a c t i o n s c a n b e d a t ed w i t h r e as o n a b le c o n f i d e n c e to the

p e n u l t i m a t e d e c a d e o f the t e n t h c e n t u r y , t h i s w o u l d e n t a i l a

t e r m i n u s

p os t

q u e r n

fo r the Ex . 32

t r a d i t i o n

of the end of the

t e n t h c e n t u r y , a n d w o u l d m a k e i t a c o m p a r a t i v e l a te c o m e r i n t o

the

n a r r a t i v e t r a d i t i o n s

o f th e

P e n t a t e u c h .

It is n e c e s s a r y to e x a m i n e E x . 32 and i ts r e l a t i o n to 1 K g. 12

d e

n o v o .

T o

start w i t h

the

m o s t s t r i k i n g

l i nk

b e t w e e n

t h e t w o

n a r r a t i v e s , o n e m u s t d e t e r m i n e the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the sacral

c r y ,

'el leh

( h i n n e h )

e

loheka y i s r a ' e l

a

ser he

ce

luka

m e ' e r e s

m i s r a y i m . ( This

is

[ b e h o l d ] y o u r god,

O

I s r a e l ,

w ho

b r o u g h t

y o u

u p

o u t o f t he l a n d o f E g y p t ) . I t is c u s t o m a r i l y a r g u e d

t h a t

the

u n u s u a l

p l u r a l f o r m

o f the

v e r b a f t e r '

e

l o h i m

is


to the c o n t e x t o f 1 K g . 12 w h e re

t h e r e

is a p l u r a l i t y o f

c a l v e s

b u t i n a p p r o p r i a t e to the s i n g l e c a lf o f E x . 3 2 . T h e r e f o r e the

r e f e r e n c e in 1 K g. 12 is

o r i g i n a l

an d

that

in Ex . 32

d e p e n d e n t

u p o n

it .

T h e r e

a r e t w o

d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h t h is .

T he

f i r s t

is t h a t the

p l u r a l

v e r b

i s no t i n

f a c t a p p r o p r i a t e

to the

s i t u a t i o n p i c t u r e d

in

K g. 12 . I t i s e v i d e n t that J e r o b o a m w a s n o t t r y i n g to

i n t r o d u c e

s om e n e w p o l y t h e i s m i n t o t he n o r t h e r n

k i n g d o m ,

b u t

r a t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r

f o r m

of the

w o r s h i p

o f t he o n e d e i t y

Y a h w e h . O n l y o n a c r a s s l y m a t e r i a l i s t i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g w o u l d a

p l u r a l i t y o f i m a g e s b e s ee n a s e n t a i l i n g a p l u r a l i t y o f go d s; a n d

o n e c a n

h a r d l y a sc r ibe such

a n


to

3 e r o b o a m .

3eroboam w a s s e t t i n g u p tw o c u l t ob jec t s for the w o r s h i p o f o n e

d e i t y .

T he p l u r a l

v e r b , w h e n

th e o n e

d e i t y

is

s u b j e c t ,

i s n o t

a p p r o p r i a t e .

S e c o n d l y , it has been seen in the exegesis^ that a p l u r a l

v e r b a f t e r

^ g l o h i m c a n b e

e m p l o y e d

b y a

w r i t e r

w i s h i n g to

c o n v e y

a

p a g a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g

o f

G o d , w h i c h

is best

r e n d e r e d

in

E n g l i s h by g o d , an d

that

this is the l i k e l y s i g n i f ic a n c e of the

p l u r a l f o r m

i n E x . 3 2 .

This

is also the

l i k e l y s i g n i f i c a n c e

of the

v e r b

i n 1 K g .

12:28 w h e re ,

as in Ex. 32, the

w r i t e r c l e a r l y

d i s a p p r o v e s . T h i s m e a n s

that

in bo th E x . 32 and 1 K g. 12:28 the

p lu ra l ve rb conveys the w r i t e r ' s t h e o l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f

the i n c i d e n t s .

W h a t

of the

a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s

of the cry

i t s e l f ?

T he

r e f e r e n c e

to the i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g e x o d u s f i t s w e l l in the context o f

E x . 3 2 .

L e a v i n g

as ide the h i s t o r i c a l problems,

the l i t e r a ry

p r e s e n t a t i o n o f E x . 3 2 p r e s u p p o s e s b o t h

t h a t

Y a h w e h ha s

b r o u g h t

the

I s r a e l i t e s

to

S i n a i

a n d

that

he w i l l

l e a d t he m a w a y

16 3



At the Mo u n t a i n o f God

a g a i n .

A

sacral

c ry wh i ch

i d en t i f i e s

the

ca l f wi th

the God w ho

leads the people is app ropr i a t e .

T he sacral cry is less a p p r o p r i a t e to the s i t ua t ion o f

J e r o b o a m because , s t r ic t ly speaking,

i t

wo u ld

n o t be

r e l evan t

to

his a ims . Je robo am s gen e ra l con ce rn was t o p rov ide a r iva l to

th e

J e rusa l em t empl e ,

wh i ch

spec i f ica l ly inv olved es t abl i sh ing

a

r iva l to the J e r u s a l e m ark.25 S ince t he a rk was by t h en

settled

i n t he t empl e and may we l l have been seen less as a

sy m b o l o f the God who m o ved a ro u n d w i t h a n d gu ided h is people

a n d m o r e a s s i gn i fy ing t he one who protected th e chosen ci ty by

his p resence , an appeal t o the exodu s t ra d i t io n seems s l igh t ly

misplaced a s n o t p r o v i d i n g a t h eo l og ica l equ iva l en t t o the

s ignif icance of the ark.26

Given these

cons iderat ions ,

the

na tura l conclus ion

is that the

sacral

cry is o r ig ina l to Ex. 32 w h e re the w r i t e r ha s mod i f ied i t

slightly to

convey

h is

i n t e rp re t a t i on

of its

s ignif icance.

In 1 Kg.

12:28

the whole phrase represents the

interpretative

w o r k o f

the

redactor

w ho

w a n t s

to

show

ho w

Je roboa m s

a c t w as no

better t han the notor ious apostasy of Israel at Sinai.

Beyond the l i t e rary ques t ion , it r e m a i n s to discuss the

his tor ica l a n d

traditio-historical

p ro b l em s c o n c e r n i n g Ex. 32

an d 1 Kg. 12. These a re best a p p r o a c h e d by a sk ing f i r s t why i t

w a s that Je roboam chose t o se t up

cultic

calves, a n d secondly

w hy t h i s appa ren t l y d rew

n o

protes t u n t i l

the

t i m e

o f

Hosea ,

a p p r o x i m a t e l y 170 y e a r s

later.

For i f t h e re w a s a n a n c i e n t

t r a d i t i o n o f Israel s apostasy at Sin ai , an apostasy ce nt red o n

th e w o r s h i p o f a c a l f , i t is p r i m a f a c ie r e m a r k a b l e that

J e r o b o a m should

have chosen a k n o w n symbol o f apos t asy to

establ ish

h is

c u l t

o f

Y a h w e h ,

a n d

s t i l l m o r e r e m a r k a b l e

that

such c o m m i t t e d Y a h w i s t s a s E l i j ah , E l i sha , J e h u (2 Kg.

O

10:28-31)

a n d

A m o s ^

7

should , apparen t ly , have

registered n o

protest.

The clue to un de rs t and in g Je roboa m s po li cy lies in the

c o n t e m p o r a r y r e l i g i o u s e n v i r o n m e n t . T h e bu l l was the mos t

w idespread re l ig iou s sym bo l in the re l ig io n of the Levan t . No t

only i n C anaan , bu t also i n Egypt , Ugar i t and Mesopotamia the

bull

w as

the s ymbol ,

pa r

excellence

o f

male de i ty ,

and i s

a b u n d a n t l y

attested

in the

literature

a n d

i conography

o f

these

areas. Je roboam had to p roduce an e f fect iv e r ival to the

Jerusalem temple.

W i t h i n h is

k i n gd o m

h e had

many d iverse

elements some

on ly

r ecen t ly inco rpora ted in to Y a h w i s m u n d e r

Dav id .

Fo r

m a n y

such i t is un l ike ly that t h e i r Y a h w i s m w a s

164



Five: C r i t i ca l

A n a l y s i s o f

E x o d u s

32-3^

m o r e than a v e n e e r ; t h e i r b as i c r e l ig i o u s u n d e r s t a n d i n g

w o u ld

s t i l l

have been l a r ge l y

in the

t e r m s

o f

t r a d i t i o n a l C a n a a n i t e

re l ig ion .28 T O

w

j

n

the i r a l l eg iance , a pr e sen t a t i on o f

Y a h w i s m

in t e rm s o f the re lig iou s sym bol s a l ready fa m i l i a r to

t h e m ,

w o u l d

have seemed

th e o bv io u s

s o l u t i o n . H e n c e

th e

calves o f Bethel an d D a n .

W h a t


w o u l d

h a v e

attached

to

these

calves?

It is

general ly h e ld^ ̂ that

the

calf (bu l l )

w as

in tended

as a

th r on e

o r

pedes t a l

for the inv i s ib le

de i t y above

it.30 This w o u l d

pr ov id e

a n exact pa ra l l e l t o the ark ( c f . Jer. 3:16f . ) a n d

cor respond w i th n u m ero u s i con ographic concept ions o f the

de i t y . 31

A s

N o t h p u t s

it ,

A s th e

an c i en t Near

E a s t ( in contrast to

E g y p t) k n o w s

n o

t h e r i o m o r p h i c

dei t i es

bu t o n ly th e

associat ion

o f

beas t s

w i t h de i t i e s p i c t u r ed

in h u m a n f o r m

w h o se c o m p a n i o n s

an d

bearer s they are ,

the

golden

calves of the

r o y a l

sanc tuar ies

o f

Jeroboam

are

also su r e l y m ean t m er e l y

as

pedes ta l s

fo r the G od w ho i s i m a g i n e d to be

s t a n d i n g

i nv i s ib ly

upon

t h e m . 3 2

T he

s i t u a t io n is n o t , h o w e v e r , s o clear-cut. Fir s t , i t i s not the

case that

th e a n c i e n t N e a r E a s t

k n e w

n o t h e r i o m o r p h i c

de i t ie s

or, at least,

deities that

could be the r i om or ph i ca l l y

con ce ived .33

A n i m a l s

were seen

to

e m b o d y

a

dei ty ' s attri-

bu tes such

as

s t rength , speed

o r

f e r t i l i t y ,

and an

a n i m a l i m a g e

could

be the

object

o f

worsh ip .3 ̂ Second ly ,

the

texts

o f E x .

32, 1 K g. 1 2 (and a l so the

bu l l

r e f e r e n c e s in

Hosea35)

gj

ve

o

h i n t

tha t the ca lves w ere con ceived of as

p e d e s t a l s .

Of cou r s e

s i lence does

n o t

e x c l u d e

the

pos s ib i l i t y ,

an d t he

p o r t r a y a l

of the

calf

a s

i den t i f i ed w i th

th e

dei ty

m ay

s i m p l y

represent

th e

T e n d e n z of the

w r i t e r . N o n e t h e l e s s

the absence o f

spec i f i c

ev iden ce should no t be f o r g o t t e n .

W h a t shou ld

be clear is that it is

d a n g e r o u s

to

dogm at i ze

o r

general ize about

an

issue such

as the

re la t ionship

o f a

dei ty

to

h is

cu l t ob jec t . A t t em pt s t o d e f i n e th e d i v i n e presence in the

cu l t

are

n o t o r i o u s l y

d i f f i c u l t an d con t rove r s i a l . 36

S o m e

m ay

have un de r s t ood

the

calf

as pedestal,

others

as an

actual

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o r m ate r i a l i za t i on of the de i t y , an d o the r s m i g h t

have had

d i f fe r e n t

con cep t i on s o r n o coh eren t con cept ion a t al l .

Even

i f Jeroboam conceived of the calves as pede s ta l s , it is

d o u b t f u l w h e t h e r the o r d i n a r y Israelite w o u l d have shared h is

u n d e r s t a n d i n g . 3 7

W h a t

pr eceden t ,

if

a n y ,

w i t h i n

I s r ae l i t e t r ad i t i on

w o u l d

165



Five: C ritical

Analys is

of Exodus 32-34

t i s m ,

th e

incorpora t ion into

Y a h w i s m o f

n o n - Y a h w i s t i c

rites

and pract ices) is not possible ; i l legi t imate w o r s h i p c a n n o t , by

de f i n i t i on , be

w o r s h i p

of the t rue God . This i s why a l thou gh th e

present text

of Ex. 32

c lear ly revea ls

the

i n t e n t i on

of the

people as syn cre ti s t ic , for the w r i te r th i s is tan tam o u n t to

total

apos tasy . T he d i s t i nc t ion be tween sync re t i sm an d fe t i sh i sm or

polytheism

is

alien

to

h i m . Such

a

perspective

is

basic

n ot only

to Ex.

32:1-6

bu t

also

to the

whole

of

chs. 32-34.^°

T he

issue

is not one of

v a ry i n g estimates

of the

ca l f ,

but of

the- particular

perspective of Mosaic Y ahw ism.

It has

been

fu r the r

ques t ioned whether

a

calf tradition

is

in tel l igible

as a Sinai

t rad i t ion

on the

g r ounds tha t

it

pre-

supposes the

se t t l emen t

in

C anaan ; po lem ic against

a

calf

wou ld

n o t

m ake sense ou ts ide

th e

c on t e x t

of the

s t ruggle aga ins t

Canaan i t e fe r t i l i ty re l ig ion .

S o

w i d e s p re a d , h owe v e r ,

w as the

calf as a religious symbol that a calf t radi t ion ,

wh i l e

of great

re levance wi th in Canaan , can hard ly be localized or

l imited

to

Canaan. Rather than asking h o w a ca l f t rad i t ion could make

sense outside Canaan, the d i f fe ren t ques t ion may be put: If the

Israelites even

at

Sinai, wished

to

express their Yahwis t ic fa i th

in an image of the de i ty , wha t would be more natural than for

them

to

choose

a

bu l l?

T he

tradit io-historical suggestion of an early calf tradit ion

probably favourable

to the

calf

an d probably

associated w i t h

either Bethel

or Dan is hard to

assess

in the

absence

of

f i rm

evidence, e i ther in Ex. 32 or elsewhere , that could be adduced

in suppor t .

T he

suggest ion depends ent i re ly

on a

general

unders tand ing of early

Israelite

religion and tradition. There

are , however, at

least

two serious diff icul t ies with regarding

E x.

32 as o riginally the cult

legend^

1

of

either

Bethel of Dan.

First Bethel

and Dan

already have cult legends recorded

in

Gen. 28,

Jdg.

17-18. M ore than one cult legend, in the

technical

sense of the

o f f ic ia l

story of the

fo und ing

of a par t icu la r

s an c t u a r y ,

w o u l d be inappropr ia te for any shr ine . A d m i t t e d l y

one could a rgu e that E x. 32 w as the cu lt legend of the object at

the

shr ine ,

as

N u m . 21:4-9 m i g h t

be for the

serpen t

in

Jerusalem (cf . 2 Kg. 18:4), distinct f rom the cult legend for

Jeru salem itself . B u t this m eets a second d i f f i cu l t y .

From

a

form-cri t ical

perspective

Ex. 32

lacks

the

char-

acteristics of a

cult legend.

The

calf

is

localized

not at

Bethel

or Dan bu t at Sinai, an d , w ith the possible exception o f N u m .

21:4-9, no other cu lt legend fo r X is

located

at Y. The story is

no t

linked

to any sanctuary at Sinai; and there is little evidence

167



A t the

M o u n t a i n

o f God

of S ina i

f u n c t i o n i n g

a s a r e l i g i ous c en t re i n OT t imes , apa r t

f rom i n f e r e n c e s w h i c h

m a y

possibly

b e

d r a w n

f r om the j o u r n e y

of E l i j a h in 1 K g. 19 or the w i ldern ess i t i ne ra r ies , espec ia l ly

N u m .

33:1-49.^2

There

i s no

statement,

even impl i c i t , about

c o n t i n u i t y

o f

re l ig ious practice f rom w h a t

w a s

established

in

E x. 32 to the w ri ter s day. Indee d, suc h i s impossible wh e n the

cu l t ob j ec t created

i n the

s tory

is

destroyed.

B u t

then

E x . 3 2

could only

f u n c t i o n

a s the aet iology of the

idea

o r i n s t it u t i on o f

ca l f

wo r sh i p , no t the

w o r s h i p

o f s ome a c tua l c a l f ; a n d such a

t heore t i c a l a e t i o logy

w o u ld

h a v e n o exact pa ra l le l i n the OT.

O n e c o u l d o f c o u r s e a r g u e that a n e a r l i e r f o r m o f E x . 32

c on t a i ne d the necessa ry charac ter i s t i c s . Bu t s uch a n h y p o t h e s is

is

h a rd

to

c on t r o l i n a sm uc h

as i t has no

f o u n d a t i o n

in the

text.

T he most re levant para l le l , N u m .

21:4-9,

a lso argu es ag a inst

such a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f the

text.

W e k now that the serpent

fell i n to d i s repute

( 2 K g .

18:4),

ye t no

later po lemic

ha s

been

re ad b ac k i n t o N u m . 2 1 ,

w h ic h

p resent s th e s e rpen t in a w h o l l y

f a v o u r a b l e l i gh t . T he h ypo thes i s o f Ex . 32 as a cu l t l egend has ,

in shor t , l i t t le to c o m m e n d i t .

There r e m a i n s the l a rge i ssue of the use of images , and o f

oppos i t ion to them,

w i t h i n

ear ly

Israelite

r e l i g ion .

Even

i f

Jerobo am s

calves

needed little Yahwi s t i c

precedent, it may

still

b e

a sk e d wh y ,

if the

s e c ond c om m a nd m e n t ,

a nd Ex . 32

w h i c h

presupposes i t , is ea r ly , va r ious imag es w ere somet imes

used in ear ly Israelite r e li g ion (N u m . 21 :4 -9 , 2 K g . 18:4, Jdg.

8:24-27, 17f.) a n d there i s no recorded protest o r host i le ac t ion

of E l i j ah , E l isha , Jehu o r A m o s a g a i ns t Je robo am s calves.

It m u s t b e f r a nk ly a dmi t t ed

that

t here i s no en t i r e ly

s a t i s f a c t o r y e xp l a na t i on

o f

t h i s .

A t the

s ame t ime , a l t e rna t i ve

theor ies , accord ing

to

w h i c h

the

p r o h i b i t i o n

o f

i m a g e s

w a s a

c o m p a r a t i v e l y late

i n t r o d u c t i o n , a r e a lso

beset

w i t h d i f f i c u l ti e s .

M uc h of the problem

lies

i n our unce r t a i n ty a s t o t he mean ing

and scope of the proh ibi t io n of images; for th is i s ha rdly

self-evident . It is l ikely that t h i s unce r t a i n ty w a s also fe lt

wi th in

ea r ly Israel.

T he

s i ng u l a r i ty

o f

t h i s proh ib i t i on

w i th i n the

a n c i e n t wor ld should no t be o v e rloo k e d . As von R ad pu t s i t ,

He r e b ecomes m a n i f e s t s o m e t h i n g

o f the

m y s t e r y

o f

Israel ,

s o m e t h i n g

o f her

n a t u r e

a s a

s t r anger

a n d a

so jou rne r

a m o n g

th e

r e l i g ions . A n y o n e

w ho

se r ious ly

devotes

h imse l f to a s tudy o f r e l i g ions a s they appear a n d

to

t he i r worsh ip

o f

images

c an

f i nd absolu te ly

n o w a y o f

t rans i t i on f r o m t hem to

Israel s

p roh ib i t i on o f images.^

168



Five: C ri tical Analys i s

of

E x o d u s

32-34

Given such

an

unnatura l p roh ib i t ion ,

it is

hard

to say how

ei ther

th e

o r d i n a r y ,

or the

theological ly aware , I s rael i te would

have comprehended it. On ly once does the OT o f f e r an y

exp lana t i on

of the

p r o h i b i t i o n ,

in

D eu t .

4:9f f . ,

and we

c a n n o t

k n o w e i ther

h ow

ancien t

or how

wide sp read

th e


concept ion

was . T he

scope

of the prohibi t ion is not

se l f -ev iden t

in t h a t n o ob jec t ion is m a d e to the ark or the c h e r u b i m in the

off ic ia l cu l t o f Y a h w e h . B u t w hy these and no t

o t h e r s ?

T h e

answer probably l ies at least pa r t l y in the dis t inct ion between

those images

an d

r i t ua l s wh ich

are

o f f i c i a l ly prescribed

b y

Y ah we h and so are

l eg i t ima te ,

and

those

which are not

prescr ibed and are the re fo re illegitimate.^ B u t j u s t as no

single

accoun t

can be

given

of the

imagined relationship

of the

de i ty to a cult object such as a b u l l , so it is

d o u b t f u l

t h a t an y

un ivoca l

un d ers tan d in g o f the p roh ib i t ion o f im ages ex i s ted

w i t h i n

Israel.

T h e

s i n g u l a r i t y

and the

po ten t i a l amb igu i ty

of the

p r o h i b i t io n

m ay accoun t for the chequered history of its observance. A

h i s to ry in wh ich th e c o m m a n d m e n t w as con s tant ly ign ored , mis-

unders tood

o r

vary in g ly in t e rp reted

is

read i ly com prehens ib le .

T h e ma j o r d i f f i c u l t i e s o f theories which sugges t a

compara t ive ly late i n t roduc t i on

for the

p roh ib i t i on

o f

images

are twofo ld . First, there are

legal

texts

which contain th e

prohib i t ion an d

which

are

genera l ly cons idered

ear ly ,

especially

E x . 34:17,

Deu t .

27:15.

Secondly,

and

m o r e

s igni f icant ly , such

theories

f ind

it d i f f i c u l t to give a sat i s factory

a c c oun t

o f how a

c o m m a n d m e n t so out of k eeping wi th general ancient N ear

Eastern re l ig ious

pract ice w as

e i ther in trod uced

o r

accepted

wi th in

Israel. If the c o m m a n d m e n t was no t par t o f

t h a t

in i t i a l

creative

m ovement wh ich

gave

Y ah wi s m

a

dis t inct ive

exist-

ence, then whence c a m e it? It was clearly not the crea t ion o f

Hosea,

for his

l anguage

(8:5f.,

10:5, 13:2)

in no way

sugges ts

a

ma j o r theo log ical innovat ion . Tho ug h the d enu ncia t ion o f bu l l

worsh i p

is a s ig n i f ican t concern w i th in Hosea, its presen ta t ion

is not one of the m a j o r

t h e m e s

of the prophecy, as would be

natura l wi th a subs tan t ive inn ovat ion . T h e b u l l references are

all m a d e en passan t , and the

tone

of them is one of

scorn

-

A

w o r k m a n m a d e it; it is not G od ... Men k iss calves

Such bul l

wo r sh ip i s un w or th y o f the I s rae l i te , w ho shou ld k now

better. If

Hosea

presupposes ̂ th e


and the

O T gives no h in t of anyone else prior to Hosea w ho m i g h t have

been respons ible ,

th e

least d i f f i c u l t so lut ion

m ay

indeed

be to

9



At the M oun t a i n o f God

a t t r i b u t e i t to the

b e g inn ings

o f

Mosa ic Y a h w i s m .

H ow t hen does one expla in the l ack o f any n i n t h c e n t u r y

oppos i t ion to Jeroboa m s ca lves? Severa l f a c to r s m u s t be t aken

in to account here . F i r s t , there i s a s i lence in our ev idence for

t h i s p e rio d c o n c e r n i n g a l m o s t a l l the p a t r i a r c h a l a n d M o s a i c

t r ad i t i ons ; the

p roh ib i t ion

o f

i m a g e s

and Ex. 32

shou ld

not be

t aken in i so la t ion . A n d w hi le the a t t e m p t i s s o m e t im e s m a d e to

l ower th e date o f the

m a j o r p e n t a t e u c h a l t r a d i t i o n s

to

n e a r

the

t ime o f t he

Exile,*^

t h i s

creates

m ore prob lem s than i t so lves

in exp la in in g the ea r ly h i s t o ry o f Israel. Secondly, i t is possible

(a l though

t h e a r g u m e n t i s a d m i tt e d ly c o n j e c t u r a l ) t h a t m o s t

t r ad i t i ons o f Israel s o r i g in s wh ich d id exist a t the t i m e of the

division

o f the

k ingdom

were , i n i t i a l ly

a t

least,

con f ined

to the

sou the rn k i n g d o m , th e w r i t ten acc ou n t be ing ava i lab le only in

J e r u s a l e m ; in the n o r t h e r n k ingdom they m ay have been largely

u n k n o w n . The

hypothesis

o f a selective

a ccoun t

o f

ear ly

Israelite

t r ad i t ions cur ren t

in the

no r the rn

k i n g d o m ,

such

as the

E d o c u m e n t would represent, i s not in

itself

un l ike ly but can

only be

u sed w i th cau t ion . Thi rd ly ,

the records

give

n o

evidence

of

any approval of the calves. It is not un reasonab le to s u rmi se

that

d isapproval

was

f e l t , wi thout be ing fe l t

as

s trongly

as by

the

deu teronomis t i c

redactor

of

K ings .

If,

therefore, the E x. 32 t radi t ion w i th i ts co nde m na t ion of

the calf was an ancient tradition antedating Jero

boam,

Jeroboam s es tab l ishm ent of the

calves

and the lack of

recorded

opposit ion

to h im

would

n o t

thereby

be

rendered un intel l ig ible .

Jerobo am s ac t ion

can be

seen

a s a

p laus ib le syncre t i sm.

The

u n f o r t u n a t e p recedent o f

Aa ron

cou ld e i ther be i gnored , i f the

t r a d i t i o n w a s n o t w ide ly

k n o w n ,

or to

some ex ten t j u s t i f i ed ,

de pe nd ing upon the

i n t e rp re t a t i on g iven

to the .prohibit ion o f

images , o r

ruled

out as i r relevant , i f a theological ly

crass

i n t e rp re t a t i o n w as g iven to Aa ron s ca l f wh i l e a theolog ica l ly

sophis t i ca ted in terpre ta t ion

w as given to

Jeroboam s.

This

b r ie f

discussion o f a

h igh ly

p r o b l e m a t i c

area

does no t , o f course ,

c la im t o have re so lved a l l t he p rob lems . The above a rg u m en t

ha s s o u g h t to re-open, rather than resolve, the genera l ly -

discounted poss ib i l i ty

of E x. 32 as an

an c ien t an t i -ca l f

t r ad i t i on . The r e su l t an t p i c tu re i s by no m e a n s f r e e

f rom

di f f icu l t ie s

( though

g rea ter o r

lesser

p r o b l e m s

c o n f r o n t

a ll

proposals) , bu t does possess a r easonab le overa l l coherence . A nd

it

wou ld

m e a n

that

the poss ib i l i ty of a t radi t ion of apostasy and

renewal in the early levels o f Ex . 32-34 wou ld r equi re ser ious

attention.

7



Five: Critical Analysis of Exodus

32-34

Argum ents for the ant iqui ty of the t radi t ion are as such

i ndependen t of the exege t ica l a rguments for the coherence of

th e text. Th e re is no inh eren t reason why a uni f ied text should

be

early rather than

late.

Nonetheless

there

is

still

a

certain

re la t ionship between the two concerns. For i t was the

exegetical

s tudy

of Ex .

32:4 which prompted

a

reassessment

of

th e re la tionsh ip be tween it and 1 K g. 12:28 and so led on to a

discussion

of the

larger issues.

And it is at

least salutary

to be

reminded that proposals of a complex t rad i t ion h i s to ry of pro-

and

anti-calf polemic

un de r ly in g

Ex . 32 have rea l ly no

foundat ion

in the

present text. That does

not

mean that such

proposals are necessarily wrong , given tha t o ne must take in to

account

the

larger historical issues.

But i t

should

urge caut ion

in

advocat ing such proposals ,

and at

least

allow an

openness

to

an a l te rna t ive way of u nde r s t and ing th e t rad i t ion .

A N A N A L Y S I S O F E X . 33:7-11

The paragraph E x . 33:7-11 is almos t universa l ly agreed to be

an ind e p e nd e n t f r a g m e n t of t rad i t ion , now only loosely

connected to its present context by the c omm on t h eme of the

divine presence.

As

such

it

preserves

an

ancient ,

and

pro bably

historical, trad ition o f a tent of meeting much s impler than the

e labora te s t ruc ture of P. The fol lowing discussion

will

suggest a

d i f f e r e n t u nd e r s t a nd ing of the verses

which wil l

throw into

sharp

relief the problem of exegetical m etho d and the

di f f i cu l t i es

of

assessing

the

same mater ia l

in

terms both

of

l i terary unity and of underlying diversity.

A r g u m e n t s conce rn ing the origins of 33:7-11 are var ious ,

some based

on

fea tures

of the

text

others

on

larger

reconst ruct ions of early t radi t ions into

which

33:7-11 as an

independent uni t can be seen to f i t . The problem h as little to do

with

the

ques t ion

o f

sources. From

a

literary perspective there

is no

real unevenness

in the

p ara gr ap h , despi te occasional

suggestions that diverse traditions have been

combined.^

Source-crit ically the un i t is usually ascribed to E , bu t the re are

no

clear criteria

for

this

and

d isagreement

has remained. ^

The

problem is best approached through looking at those

e lements

in

33:7-11

which

are

held

to be

discordant with their

context. The mo st no table of these is the use of the verbs in the

imper f ec t

th rou gho u t the section. This is

usual ly

taken to

describe the habitual

practice

of Moses th roughout the wilder-

ness wander ings a t eve ry encampment that was set up.^9

171



A t the

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

Such a n in terpre ta t io n is possible but i t i s no t the o n ly, no r even

th e obviou s , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . In the

exegesis

i t was suggested

t h a t th e f r e q u e n t a t i v e f o r c e o f t h e i m p e r f e c t o n t h e o n e h a n d

c o n v e y e d

th e

i m p e r m a n e n c e

o f t h e

a r ra n g e m e n t

-

t h i s

tent

w a

a

t e m p o r a r y e x p e d i e n t p e r i o d i c a l ly

p u t u p a n d

t a k e n

down a t

Sina i ,

p e n d i n g

th e r e s t o r a t i o n o f God's presence in the mi ds t

o f the people ; an d on the o the r

h a n d

that this is a

stylistic

device

to

slow

the

n a r r a t i v e

and

create

a

lull

and a

sense

of

t r a n s i t i o n

pr i o r to t h e i n t e n se i n t e r c e ss i o n o f M o ses.

H o w do e s

o n e

weigh t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e ,

a n d

m u t u a l l y

e x c l u s iv e ,

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ? Bo th e n t a i l d i f f i c u l t i e s .

T h e

sug-

g est io n o f i m p e r m a n e n c e may b e c o u n t e r e d b y ap pe a l t o t he

f a c t

that

the

tent

o u t s i de

the

c amp was ,

on the

c o n t r a r y ,

a

p e r m a n e n t i n s t i t u t i o n , w h i c h i s r e f e r r e d to i n o t h e r c o n t e x t s

( N u m . 11:16,24-26,30; 12:4;

cf. D e u t .

31:14f.).50

i m p e r f e c t verbs descr ibe

th e

h a b i t u a l prac t i ce

o f

Moses

a t

every

e n c a m p m e n t , th e n th e prob lem is no t so

m u c h that

t h e y

a re i n c o n g r u o u s bu t

that

t h e y m a y e n t a i l a p u z z li n g i n c o n -

s is ten cy on the par t o f a redactor. If the un i t i s indeed an

a n c i e n t

t ra d i t i o n in c o rp o r a t ed w i t h o u t m o d i f i c a t i o n

o r

a d d i t i o n

by

th e

redactor

51

t h e n t h e r e

is no p ro b le m,

g r a n t e d

th e

g e n e r a l

c o n g r u i t y

of the

re-use

of the

t r a d i t i o n .

But i f i t

becomes

clear

that par t s o f the u n i t were composed for the i r

present context i.e. that

at

least some

of the details of the

u n i t

a re s p e c i f i c a l l y m a d e to f i t in t h e i r la r g e r c o n t e x t , t he n i t

b e c o me s implaus ib le to su p p o se t ha t t he r e dac t o r shou ld h a v e

a t t h e

same t i me r e t a i n e d

a n

obv ious i n c o n g r u i t y w i t h o u t

m a k i n g th e ap p r o p r i a t e

m i n o r

a d j u s t m e n t s .

Both

o f

these

d i f f i c u l t i e s d i rec t o n e t o t h e l arger ques t i ons o f t h e in te rpre t -

a t i o n of the u n i t , a n d c a n n o t be dec ided in i s o la t i o n .

T he

se c o n d m a i n c au se o f de b a t e i s t he r e f e r e n c e to t he t e n t

ou ts ide the c a m p . T o a r g u e o n t h e basis o f t h i s a l o n e t ha t t h i s

i s a

d i f f e r e n t sort

o f

t e n t which r e p r e se n t s

a n

a l t e r n a t i v e

t r ad i t i o n to the P

tent

i n t h e m i d s t o f t h e c a m p ,

would

be w i d e

o f th e m a r k . T h e contrast be tween th e t e m p o r a r y

tent

o u t s i de

(v. 7

th e

c a m p , b e c a u s e

th e

people have f o r f e i t e d Y a h w e h 's

presence

in

the i r midst (vv. 3 ,5 , b

e

q j rb

e

k a )

is one o f the

m a i n p o i n t s o f t h e s e c t i o n . T h e a r g u m e n t s m u s t a p p e a l

s i m u l t a n e o u s l y

t o t h e o t h e r

tent

p a ssa ge s ( N u m .

11:16,24-26,30,

12:4) w h i c h , t a k e n in c o n j u n c t i o n wi th Ex. 33,

show

th e

existence o f a n a n c i e n t t r a d i t i o n o f a

tent

o f me e t i n g , d i f f e r e n t

f r o m

the P t e n t of Ex . 25-31, 35-40. This t e n t is m u c h s impler

t h a n th e c o m p le x s t ru c t u r e of P. I t is s i t u a t e d o u t s i d e th e

7

f the



A t

the

M o u n t a i n

o f Go d

b u i l d i n g of the a rk and tent w i t h i n E x. 25-3.1, 35-40 a re

secondary , then

a n

ea r l i e r accoun t bo th

o f

i n s t r u c t i o n s p r i o r

to

Ex.

32-34

a n d o f c o n s t r u c t i o n s u b s e q u e n t l y ha s been displaced.

T h e

appropr ia te locus

for the

los t accoun t

w o u l d

n o t b e

between 33:6

and

33:7.

F i f t h l y , a l t h o u g h th e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f Deu t . 9 -10 to Ex . 32-34

is a top ic r e q u i r i n g separate t r e a t m e n t , it is d o u b t f u l t h a t the

D e u t e r o n o m y

passage,

wh ich

i s c lea r ly a secondary homi le t ic

recas t ing o f e a r l i e r t r a d i t i o n , c a n b e used a s evidence to

d e t e r m i n e s o m e o r i g i n a l l y

d i f f e r e n t

sequence o f even ts in Ex .

32-34.

O n e f u r t h e r po in t i s that th e

tent

c o n t a i n i n g t h e a r k w o u l d

have been kep t i n s ide the camp , and any

tent

ou t s ide the camp

w o u l d n o t con t a in the a rk and m u s t b e d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m the

tent

t h a t

did ̂ In

c o n c l u s io n ,

th e

a r g u m e n t

is

essent ia l ly

o n e

f r o m

si lence; a n d w h e n the re a re posi t ive reasons w h y t h e

cons t ruc t i on

of the ark w o u l d b e

i n a p p r o p r i a t e

a t

th is po in t ,

t hen the h ypo thes is becomes un ne cessary.

This st i l l leaves th e u n q u e s t i o n a b l e r e f e r ences to a

tent

in

N u m . 11-12

t o b e

accoun ted f o r ;

E x.

33:7-11 should

n o t b e

exp la ined

w i t h o u t s o m e r e f e r e n c e

to these If the


b e t w e e n

these

passages

is to be

exp la ined sa t i s f ac to r i ly ,

two

po in t s

o f

p r i nc ip le mu s t

b e

c l a r i f i e d .

F i rs t , a l l a c c o u n t s of the n a t u r e of the anc ien t p re-P tent

d e r i ve t h e ir u n d e r s t a n d i n g a l m o s t e n t i re l y

f r o m

E x . 33:7-11.

N u m . 11-12 and Deu t .

31 ) add n o n e w

i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t

th e

tent

b u t

c o n f i r m ce r t a i n de t a i l s

o f t he

p ic tu re der ived f r o m

33:7-11,

v iz . tha t the

tent

was ou t s ide the c a m p and

that

the

c loud descended

at i t s

en t r ance .

If ,

h o w e v e r ,

th e

u n d e r st a n d i n g

of

33:7-11

w a s

based

o n a n

exegesis

wh ic h

d iscoun ted

its

c o n n e c t i o n s

w i th

i t s con text , then the

wh o l e

concept ion o f the

tent m u s t b e e x a m i n e d a f r e sh in the l i g h t of the new percept ion

o f th e

text

The r e fe r ences i n N u m . 11 -12 a r e ba s ica l ly s il en t

wi tnesses w h i ch

in

themselves y ie ld i n s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n

to

ga i n

a n y cl ea r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e n a t u r e o f th e

tent

env i saged . They c a n n o t b e used to suppor t a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f

Ex. 33:7-11, w h i ch 33:7-11 i tself n o longer suppor ts .

Secondly, it is

correct

m e t h o d i n i t i a l l y to i n t e rp re t the

tent

r e f e r ences

in

N u m . 1 1 -1 2

in

t h e i r

o w n

c o n t e x t , w i t h o u t

cross-reference

to Ex. 33. To o

r ap id

a n

appea l

t o an

a p p a r e n t

para l le l ma y preven t sen s i t iv i ty to the pecu l i a r n ua nce s o f the

text in que s t ion . I f the re ferences to the tent i n N u m . 11-12 a re

n o t

read

in the

l i g h t

of Ex. 33,

t h e n

it

becomes possib le ,

a n d

7



A t the

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

while it certainly does not rule out the possibility of traditio-

h i s to r i c a l dev e lop men t ,

raises

the qu es t ion o f how fa r such an

h y po th es i s is

n ecessary

to

expla in

the

ma te r i a l ?

a d d i t i o n

to

th e se c o n s id e r a t i o n s a b o u t

th e


o f

E x. 33:7-11 to N u m .

11-12 ,

it is necessa ry to e x a m i n e t h o s e

e l e m e n t s i n E x . 33:7-11 w h i c h w e r e m o s t

l ike ly

c omp osed fo r

t he i r p resen t c on tex t . F i r s t , th e e m p h a s i s o n t h e tent a s n o t

o n l y

ou t s i de th e c a m p

( m i h us

l a m m a h

a

neh , tw i c e in v. 7) bu t

fa r o ff f rom i t (harheq~

m i n -h a m m a h

a

n e h ,

v. 7) is sure ly

d e p e n d e n t

upon

t h e s i t u a t i o n o f t h e u n i t in

its

present context

f o l l o w i n g o n t h e d e n i a l o f Y a h w e h ' s presence in t he

m i d s t

o f t he

people (vv . 3,5 .*

9

Such a n e m p h a s i s s u g g e s ts a theo log i c a l


in the

p os i t i on

o f the

tent,

a n d

w o u l d

be

h a r d e r

to

a c c o u n t f o r i f th e p o s i t i o n i n g o f t h e tent i s cons idered to be

descr ip t ive o f w h a t h a p p e n e d a t successive e n c a m p m e n t s

w i t h o u t i m p l i c a t i o n s o f

Y a h w e h ' s

d i s fa v o u r .

Secondly, it is probable that v. l l a was composed for its

c o n t e x t .

O n t h e on e

h a n d

t h e r e

is the


o f

Y a h w e h

s p e a k ing

w i t h

M oses f a ce to f a c e

( p a n i m ' e l - p a n i m ) .

This is

th e f i r s t

p a r t

o f t h e

p r o f o u n d t r e a t m e n t

o f t h e

t h e m e

o f

m a n ' s

appr o ach t o t h e

presence

o f

G o d , c o n t i n u e d

in vv .

14f. ,20

w i t h

f u r t h e r

uses

of pan

i m .

In


vv. 11,20

b e long together

as the two

poles

o f a

paradox .

O n t h e

o t h e r h a n d

v.

l l a

is

i m p o r t a n t

fo r the l a r g e r s t r u c t u r e o f t h e n a r r a t i v e . I t i s no t

on ly t h a t

th e f a v o u r

shown h e r e

to

M o s e s p rep a res

t h e w a y fo r

th e

bold

a n d

suc c ess f u l i n t e rc ess i on which

fo l l ows ,

t h o u g h that

is

the case, bu t also 33:11 can be seen as the h i n g e of the w h o l e

na r r a t iv e . oO j

n

p i v o t a l s i g n i f i c a nc e

of the

f a i t h f u l m e d i a t o r

is

part

o f

that

f i n e

d i v i n e - h u m a n b a la n ce wh i c h

h a s

been

seen

to be

c e n t r a l

to Ex .

32-34.

In

b o t h

these

w a y s

33:1 la

f i t s

so

i n t e g r a l l y i n to i t s c on tex t t ha t i t b ec omes a l ike ly a s s u m p t i o n

th a t i t wa s c omp osed for . i t .

It is these c o m p o s i t i o n a l e l e m e n t s i n v v .

7,11

that

cast

d o u b t

o n

the hyp o thes i s o f v v. 7 -1 1 a s a u n i t i nc o rpora t ed w i tho u t

a l t e r a t i on i n to th e l a rg e r t r a d i t i on . Bu t i f i t be

accepted

that

so me elements of vv. 7-11 presuppose thei r present

context,

t h e n i t m u s t be a sked why the f r e q u e n t a t i v e v e rb s, i f i m p l y i n g

s u c c e s s i v e e n c a m p m e n t s i n a w a y i n c o n g r u o u s w i t h th e p r e s e n t

c o n t e x t ,

shou ld

ha v e b een

l e f t

u n a l t e r e d .

It

does sug g es t

a n

i nc on s is t enc y on the p a r t o f t he redactor. O n e m i g h t a r g u e

that

th e

verbs or ig in a l ly impl ied

successive

e n c a m p m e n t s ,

bu t that

th e redactor sa w that they could be re-interpreted, perhaps

a l o n g th e l i nes sugges ted i n t h e exegesis , a n d t h u s t h e y w e r e

176



Five: Cri t ical Ana l y s i s

o f

E x o d u s 32-34

retained.

But i t must be asked how far such an hypothesis is

still

necessary to

explain

the

text.

The

above d i scuss ion has no t dem on s t ra ted that Ex. 33:7-11

did

n o t have an i n d e p e n d e n t

existence

p r io r to its

inc lus ion

in

its present context. But i t has shown

that

the a r g u m e n t s

cus tomar i ly adduced

in fa vo u r of its

independence

are of

l imited cogency, an d that the lin ks betw een 33:7-11 and i ts

contex t requi re

a

m ore ca re fu l exp l ana t i on than they have

y e t

rece ived .

Un l ik e the

a r g u m e n t s c o n c e r n in g

E x .

34

as an or igina l

r enewa l

which are ,

in my

j u d g m e n t , r e la ti v el y clear-cut, one's

verdic t on the or igins o f

33:7-11

mus t , at the present t ime, be

non liquet. B u t

such

a

conclus ion,

in

contrast

to the

cus tomary

asses sment , does i l l us t ra te

well

the

k ind

o f d i f f e r e n c e

that

the

exeget ical approach here adv ocated m akes .

A N A N A L Y S I S

O F E X . 34:29-35

This is the one u n i t in Ex .

32-34

which has

cons is tent ly been

a t t r ibu ted

to P. The

basis

fo r

this

is the

presence

o f

vocabu la ry

characteristic

of P, in par t icular A a ron , the leaders of the

congregation (hann

e

si 'Tm

ba

c

edah ,

an d the

tables

of the

t e s t i mo n y

(lufrot ha

c

edut .

b

*

T he

presence

o f

these

t e r ms

raises m a n y ques t ions . Are they so characteristic of P that

the i r occur rence

in

non-P ma te r i a l becomes

un l i ke l y? If so, do

they ind icate m ore than a second ary P rew o rkin g of an older

t r ad i t i on?62 Even if the uni t as a whole did derive

f r om

P,

could

it

s t i l l have been composed

for its

context^

_

d e p e n d i n g on how one u n d e r s t a n d s the n a t u r e of P and P's

relat ion

to

ear l ie r t r ad i t ion ?

First,

i t may be

noted

that

against

these

a r g u me n t s

f r om

vocabulary, cons iderat ions

of content

suggest

close

connections

be tween

the un i t and i ts context. I n

p a r t i c u l a r

one may

po in t

out the use of qrn to

recal l

the

calf

and to

fo rm

an

i nc l u s i o

fo r

chs. 32-34 as a who le , the f u r t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t of the

p a n i m

m o t i f , and the s igni f icance

attached

to Moses wh ich so aptly

conc ludes h is un iq ue

med ia to r i a l r o l e t h roughou t

E x .

32-34.

I f ,

as i s cus tomary , the un i t i s sa id

or iginal ly

to have

fo l lowed

the

end of Ex. 31,

n o n e

o f

these fac tor s

would

reta in thei r

significance. This

raises

the

prob lem

of the

criteria

according

to

which

source-critical

ana lys i s

can

best

be

carried ou t .

Second ly ,

the

vocabu la ry ev idence

is of

d i f f e r i ng

v a l u e .

T he

r e fe r ence t o Aaron is the least s i g n i f i c a n t .

Al though A a r o n

appear s mos t f r equen t l y in P m ate r ia l , he i s no t res t ric ted to i t



At the M o u n t a i n o f God

an d

a l ready be longs

to the

n o n - P t ra d i t i o n

o f Ex. 32. The

t ab le t s

a re

called

Ih t h

c

dt in 32:15, a n d

a l t h o u g h t h i s

could be

a P gloss, i t may more

l ikely

be tha t th is i s evidence for a pre-P

t r a d i t i o n d e s i g n a t i n g the t ab le t s a s

c

dt.

6

^

The use of

j d h

is the

s t r o n g e s t a r g u m e n t ,

fo r

t h i s t e rm

i s

s t rongly ch a rac -

teristic

o f P a n d n o w h e r e else i n the Penta teuch i s i t t o be

f o u n d in

n o n - P material.

65

A l t h o u g h o n e wou ld be

r e l u c t a n t

to

base

a

sou rce-cri ti ca l a rg u m e n t essent i a l ly

o n o n e w o r d , th e

presence of th i s d i s t inc t ive ly P t e rm m u st be g iven i t s due

weigh t ; a l though , aga in , o n e cou ld a rgue that th is is ev idence

fo r a

pre-P

t rad i t ion which r e fe r red to Israel a s ^dh .

The

suggestion

that

the P t e rminology represent s a secondary

gloss

raises

p roblems.

Fo r

wh i le

it is

possible

to

conceive

of the

story wi th

a

s l i gh t ly d i f f e re n t word i ng ,

i t is

h a rd

to see

w h y ,

given such a s tory, it should be glossed in the suggested way

when no clear point , theological or o therwise , is conveyed by it.

O n e

c o u l d t a k e

th e

t e r m s

a s

i n d i c a t i v e

o f a

m o r e t h o r o u g h g o i n

r e w r i t i n g o f the

t r a d i t i o n

by P, but

t h a t

wou ld u n d e r m i n e t h e

a r g u m e n t

t h a t

th e

t r a d i t i o n

a s a who le

does

n o t

fee l char-

acteristic

o f P.

6

Th e re

is no

good reason , the re fore ,

to

separate th e

t e r m i n o l o g y u n d e r d i scussion f r o m

th e

rest

o f the

u n i t .

These br ief considera t ions leave

o n e w i th tw o ma in

op t i ons .

O n e

cou ld

m i n i m i z e the

s i gn i f i cance

o f the

t e r m i n o l o g i c a l

a f f i n i t i e s

t o P and

a rgue

that th e content

shows

th e

u n i t ,

in i ts

present f o rm ,

to stand close to the basic t rad i t ion of Ex. 32-34.

Alte rna t ive ly , th e proposal

that

th e u n i t

stems f r o m

P bu t was

composed

for i ts

present

context would

expla in

all the

re levant

data. T he

f o r m e r

o f

these

is , in my

j u d g m e n t ,

the

more l ike ly .

Whatever th e source-critical

a r g u m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g

34:29-35

m a y s h o w ,

th e

rea l interest

in

m o s t

recent s t u d y h a s

been

i n the

t r ad i t i o -h i s t o r i ca l

i nve s t i ga t i on

o f

poss ib le ea r l i e r

f o r m s

o f the

t r ad i t i on , and i t i s these that m u s t n o w b e

b r i e f ly

cons i d e re d .

For the

s t ory

is

usua l ly


in the

l i gh t

o f the

widespread

r e l ig io-h i s tor ica l ev idence fo r pr iests

masks .

6

7

As

such the

passage

w as o r ig ina l ly a n

a e t i o logy

fo r

such

a mask

wi th in th e

ea r ly cul t

o f

Israel .

T h e

f ac t t h a t

i n the

p re se n t

text

it is c lear ly a veil a nd no t a m a s k t h a t is env i saged and the ve i l

f u n c t i o n s

d i f f e r e n t l y

f r om

a pr iest ly m ask ref lec ts the re-

in te rpre t a t ion

o f t he

t r ad i t i on accord i ng

to later Y ahw is t i c

s e n t i m e n t which n o longer f o u n d the mask acceptable.

Such

an hypothesis is

d i f f i cu l t

to assess l a rgely

because

it is

d i f f i c u l t to see

what evidence would

be

a l lowed

to fa ls ify i t ; o r,

178



Five: Critical Analysis of E s 32-34

to put it

d i f f e r e n t l y ,

it is

u nc l ea r w ha t

are the

ob jec t ive

cr i ter ia

w h ich

could serve as a contro l

upon

such hypothes iz ing .

T he hypo thes i s is bu i l t upon tw o genera l cons idera t ions . T he

f i r s t

is an under s t and ing of the ear ly history o f

Israelite

re l ig ion .

T he

second

is the

s i gn i f i cance

o f

r e l ig io -his to r ica l

para l l e l s

to OT

practices f rom

d i f f er e n t cu l tu res . These

a re

both

vast issues

on

wh ich

it is not

possible here

to o f f e r

m o r e

than two

b r i e f c o m m e n t s .

First

the

na tu re

o f

ear ly

Israelite

r e l igion

is a

subject about

which

w e

k n o w

a l l too little.

G iven

th e k n o w n r e l ig ious

plura l ism o f the p rem on arc hic al per iod, the quest ion of the

degree

o f

r e l igious dis t inct iveness

a nd

theological depth that

m ay

r eason ably be ascr ibed to the ear l iest t rad i t ion s of M osaic

Yahwism is

d i f f i cu l t

to

answer .

For the present i t m ay

s im p ly

be observed

that

the the olog y and con ten t of Ex. 34:29-35

stands close to the theology and content of Ex. 32-34 as a

whole . I t would be dub ious , the refo re , to treat the q uest ion of

34:29-35

in

isolation.

E x .

32-34 ref lects

a

s t rong

and

d is t inct ive

Mosaic Y ahwi s m

t h r o u g h o u t . A nd if it is p l aus ib le to v iew the

substance of Ex. 32-34 as represent ing an ear ly t radi t ion, then

the

s am e

m ay

wel l

be

true

o f

34:29-35

a s

well .

At the

very

least

one should ask again whether i t is necessary or even

he lp fu l

to

postula te the

section

a s

r e f l ec t ing

a practice f ound

d i scordant

in later

Y a h w i s m .

Secondly ,

the interpretat ion of rel igio-histor ical paral le ls is a

co m p l ex

matter. If one is to

e m e rg e successful ly f rom

the

m aze , the one f u n d a m e n t a l p r inc ip l e that m us t be observed is

that

apparent s im ilar it ies should

no t be isolated f rom

their

cu l tu ra l context. A n

a tom is ti c app roach

wh ich f i nd s trans-

cu l tu r a l s im i la r i ti e s by in t e rp r e t ing ind iv id ua l

practices

in -

dependen t ly o f

t he i r cu l tu r a l m i l i e u

is

m e t ho dol o g ica l ly

unsound.°8 Jhi

s

b e i ng

so, the

r e l evance

o f

p r i e s t l y m ask s

to

Ex.

34:29ff .

is

h igh ly

p r o b le m a ti c . T he assertion o f a

real

para l le l in 34:29ff . i nvo lves not only t a k i n g the verses out of

their

larger

O T

context

bu t

a l so discounting Yahwist ic

elements

with in th e

un i t

i tself . It is

d i f f i c u l t

to see how this does o ther

than

to

d e m o n s tr a te w h a t

is

i n i t i a l l y a ssum ed ; that

i s , the

a r gu m e n t

i s c i r cu lar . The

exegesis

has suggested that par t of

the point of

34:29ff .

m ay l ie in the s pec if ic con trast to the idea

of the

de ity s r epresenta tive be ing m asked .

If

such

a

m ean i ng ,

re f lec t ing the p r esuppos i t ion o f

Y a h w eh s close

and per sonal

revela t ion

t o m en and

t h ro u g h m e n ,

is a

co he ren t e l em en t

o f

Mosaic Y ahwi s m a s a who le , t hen it is h a r d to

j u s t i fy ,

even

179



Five: Critica l Ana ly s i s of E x o d u s 32-34

characters

i nc lud ing Aaron w ho

af ter 32:25 on ly appears ag ain

in 34:30, are only m e n t i on e d

when they

are

appropr ia te

to the

s tory. The s toryteller n atu ral ly focuss es attent ion on Moses and

Yahweh

as the central protagonis t s .

It

is

within

a

larger

OT

context

that the

story becomes

prob lemat ic . Tw o par t icu lar d i f f i cu l t i e s m a y be singled o u t .

First

the s to ry s tands in some tension with Deut . 33:8-11. Deut .

33:9

would

seem to r e f e r to the same episode as in Ex. 32, yet

33:8 locates this

at

Massah/Meribah,

n o t

Mt. Sinai . Secon dly ,

there

is a

tension with

the

s u r r o u n d i n g

P

ma t e r i a l

in Ex .

25-31,

35-40. In Ex . 28-29 Aaron and his sons are des i gna ted as priests

an d

their ord ina t ion rite is descr ibed , an d this is taken u p

again

in

E x .

39:1-31,4 1, 40 :12-15, Le v. 8-9.

H ow

does

th e

ord ina t ion

o f

th e Levi tes

relate

to th i s?

Both

these d i f f i cu l t i e s are

f u n d a m e n t a l l y

aspects

of the

larger p rob lem,

one of the

m o s t

complex

in OT s tu d y , of the o r i g i ns an d d e v e l o p m e n t of pries ts

and Levites. N o deci s ion about E x . 32:25-29 can be reached in

isolation o f a t r ea t men t o f this issue. A n d that lies far

beyond

the

scope

o f

th i s p resen t s t udy . Suf f ice

it to say

that there

are

considerable historical and

traditio-historical

di f f icu l t ies with

the s to ry o f Ex . 32:25-29 in its Sinai context such as make it a

n o t

unlikely

candidate

fo r

being

a

secondary addi t ion

to the

t r ad i t i on .

2) E x. 32:30-33;6

Little will be said about this section at the present t ime. As

has been seen , the section is reasonab ly un i f i ed with the

intercession o f Moses leading to the depar t u re o f Israel

f rom

Sinai, y et still u n d e r Yahweh ' s d i s f a v o u r .

The

sect ion plays

an

im po r t an t ro le

in the


of the

nar ra t ive ,

for the

res torat ion

o f

Yahweh ' s presence

in the

mid s t of the

people, here denied (33:3,5),

is

basic

to

33:7-34:9.

There

are also two of the f o u r occurrences of the s t i f f -necked

people mot i f

which is

cen t ra l

to the

theological m e a n in g

of the

narra t ive

as a

who l e .

The

co n t en t

of the

section

is

w i th o u t

ques t ion d eeply rooted in the Sinai tradition.^

None the le s s ,

the

u n i t y

of the sect ion seems s l ight ly

art i f ic ia l , and i t

lacks that coherence

which is

character i s t ic

o f

other uni t s

i n Ex .

32-34,

an

except ion

which

a d m i t s

of no

obvious exp l ana t i o n . W h a t sor t of d e v e l o p m e n t of the ma t e r i a l

is thereby indicated is unc lear , an d f u r t h e r s t udy will be needed

before ser ious proposals can be adv anced .

181




3) Ex.

33:12-23

T h r e e

p o i n t s m a y

b r i e f l y

b e m a d e a b o u t E x . 33 :12-23.

First

th e exegesis h a s s h o w n a co h e r e n ce a n d d e v e lo p m e n t

w i t h i n

th e

sect ion

such

a s

m a k e s

i t

u n c l e a r

w h e t h e r

i t is

n e ce ssa r y to p o s t u l a t e i n t e r n a l d i v e r s i t y a t t h e s o u r c e - c r i t i c a l

l eve l ,

i n t h e

sor t

o f w a y that i s

o f t e n p r o p o se d .

Second ly , the sect ion is l i n k e d to i ts c o n t e x t b o t h in c o n t e n t

a n d

v o c a b u l a r y .

D e V a u x ' s

s t a t e m e n t t h a t "T h i s t e x t a l so

h a s

n o t h i n g t o co n n e c t i t w i t h t h e co n t e x t " -

7

j

s

h a r d l y

w e l l

f o u n d e d . T h e

m a j o r

d i f f i c u l t y is the

d i f f e r e n c e b e tw e e n

th e

t h e o p h a n y

f o r e t o l d

i n

33:19,20-23

a n d t h e

t h e o p h a n y

r e c o u n t e d

i n 34 :5 f f . N o n e t h e l e s s

th e

v e r b a l

l i n k s

b e t w e e n

t h e t w o

passages

show

that

th e

w r i t e r

o f

34:5ff

u n d e r s t o o d

th e

passage

a s a

f u l f i l m e n t

o f t h e f o r m e r ; a n d t h e

e xe g e t i ca l d i scu ss i o n

su g g e s t e d t h a t

th e d i f f e r e n c e s

b e t w e e n

t h e t w o

a c c o u n t s

m a y

in

f a c t

b e

e x p l i c a b l e

in

t e r m s

o f

l i t e r a r y

a n d

t h e o l o g ica l

cons ide ra t ions .

W h e t h e r o r n o t

t h e r e

is an u n d e r l y i n g

c o m -

p l e x i t y a t a

t r a d i t i o - h i s t o r i c a l l e v e l r e m a i n s

a d i f f i c u l t

issue

r e q u i r i n g

f u t h e r

c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

T h i r d l y ,

such a re the l i nks b e t w e e n 33:12ff a n d t h e si tu a t io n s

as dep ic ted in the

s u r r o u n d i n g

c o n t e x t t h a t i t b e c o m e s

q u e s t i o n a b l e

w h e t h e r

o n e

s h o u l d

p o s t u l a t e s o m e

o r i g i n a l l y

i n d e p e n d e n t

setting

f o r t h e p r ay e r . M u i l e n b e r g , f o r e x a m p l e ,

genera l izes 33 :12-17 in to a n " in t e rcess ion o f the c o v e n a n t

m e d i a t o r " ,

th e

p assag e be i n g

a l i t u r g y

u se d

a t

a m p h i c t y o n i c

centres in

C a n a a n

to celebrate th e

f a c t

that

Y a h w e h

h a s

a c c o m p a n i e d th e p e o p l e i n t o Can aan . 7 2 T o m a i n t a i n t h i s , th e

d e v e l o p m e n t o f

33:12-17

a s

o u t l i n e d

i n the

e xe g e s i s w o u l d n e e d

to a

c o n s i d e r a b l e e x t e n t

t o be s e t

as ide

a n d

r e i n t e r p r e t e d .

It

m a y b e m o r e n a t u r a l to suppose

that

th e p r ay e r is o r ig i n a l to i ts

p r e s e n t l i t e r a r y

context.

TH E

R E D A C T IO N O F E X . 32-34

A f t e r

th is

b r i e f

s u r v e y

o f

s o m e

o f t he i n d i v i d u a l u n i t s o f E x .

32-34 which h as a t t e m p t e d t o se t t h e i r p r o b l e m s i n a

fresh

l igh t ,

w e wi l l

t u r n , e v e n m o r e b r i e f l y ,

t o t he

qu e s t i o n

o f

r e d a c t i o n . T h e s t u d y t h u s fa r has sugges ted that a good case

c a n b e m a d e fo r a t r a d i t i o n

w h i c h

c o n t a i n s b o t h a p o s t a s y a n d

r e n e w a l

a s u n d e r l y i n g E x .

32-34.

T h e

l i t e r a r y

a n d

theo log ica l

co h e r e n ce

o f the

f i n a l text

i s n o t

s i m p l y

a

r e w o r k i n g

o f

d iscre t e

a n d

f r a g m e n t a r y t r a d i t i o n s , e ve n

t h o u g h

s o m e e l e m e n t s

m a y

i ndeed

b e

se co n d a r y ,

a n d n o attempt h a s

b e e n m a d e

to

discuss

18 2



Five: C ri t ica l Analys i s o f E x o d u s 32-34

all d i f f i c u l t i e s . T h e f o l l o w i ng d i s cu s s i on w i ll seek not to e x h a u s t

th e ques t ion o f redac t i ona l ac t i v i t y , bu t ra the r to focus on the

r edac t i ona l con t r i bu t i on t ha t

is

both mo s t c learly d i scern ib le

an d

probably

also

the

f i na l

level

o f

redac t ion

in

tha t

it

presupposes the c o n t e n t o f m o s t of the rest o f E x . 32-34. Three

e lement s s t and ou t .

T he

f i r s t

i s Ex . 33:1 la.

Some re fe rence

to God

speaking

w i th

Moses

is

d e m a n d e d

by the

story.

But the way in wh ich

this

is

expressed

w i t h

the u se of face to face i n t roduces t he

theo logica l deve lopment o f p a n i m in w h at fo l lows . Whether the

use of

p a n i m

in

ei ther 33:14f.

or

33:20

is

a l so redac t iona l

is

less

clear in that both re ferences a re w e l l - e m b e d d e d in the

t r ad i t i on ,

a n d m a y

have sugges ted

to the

redac tor

th e

p a r a d o x -

ical h eig h ten in g of on e of the theolog ical issues a t stake. E i the r

w a y ,

th e in te res t in the pa radox i ca l na t u re o f man's possible

access to God

wh i ch

is indicated by 33:1 la may reason ably be

ascribed to a redactor.

Secondly ,

the re is the paragraph 32:7-14. A l t h o u g h some

or igina l

e l emen t

o f

d i alog ue be tw een M oses

an d

Yahweh upon

th e m o u n t a in is d e m a n d e d by t h e story/3 the section in its

present

fo rm

i s l a rge ly redac t iona l . The exeges i s showed

that

32:7-14

contains , in n u c e, m a n y of the

ma jo r

theological themes

m o re fu l ly developed elsewhere

in the

na r ra t i ve .

Its

p re sen t

pos i t ion ,

e n d i n g w i t h

the

note

o f

mercy

in v. 14,

provides

the

theological context in

w h i c h

• the fo l low ing na r ra t i ve of

j u d g m e n t

is to be read. Fo r these reasons the section may be

i n te rpre ted

as a

piece

o f

na r ra t i ve t heo logy whereby

the

redac tor eschew s o ver t co m m en t bu t

o f f e r s

a p r o g r a m m a t ic

in te rpre ta t ion

of the

m e a n i n g

of the

na r ra t i ve

by

deve lop ing

some ear l ier t radi t ion

o f

Y a h w e h ' s

d i scourse w i th M oses .

T he

section a lso int rod u ces the m o t i f of a s t i f f -ne cked people

(32:9),7^

an d

this const i tutes

th e

th i rd redac t iona l e leme n t .

The use of the

s t i ff -necked people mot i f

in

34:9 bears

the

mark of theo logica l re f lec t ion on the m e a n i n g of the Sinai

t radi t ion in con j u nc t ion w i t h the

flood

t r ad i t i on . It focusses the

theological s igni f icance al ready present , especial ly in 33:19,

34:6f. The

intercess ion

of

Moses

in

34:9 r ead s sm oo th ly w i t ho u t

th e clause ky

c

m-qs h-

c

rp

hw

1

an d co uld hav e exis ted

w i t h o u t

i t; the oth er e lem en ts of 34:9 ref le ct the co n cern s

deeply

e m b e d d e d

in ch. 33 and

r e a d n a t u r a l l y

as

pa r t

of the

t rad i t ion .75 T he intercession provided a convenien t locus fo r

th e in te rp re ta t ive phrase .

Which other uses o f s t i f f -neck ed people are redac t i ona l is

183



A t the M o u n t a i n o f Go d

d i f f i c u l t to d e c i d e . T h e o c c u r r e n c e in 32:9 in a h i g h l y - re d a c t e d

s ec t i o n is m o s t l i k e l y p a r t of the r e d a c t i o n . In 33:3,5 th e p h r a s e

m a y

b e r e d a c t i o n a l or i t may be

o r i g i n a l

t o t he t r a d i t i o n .

F u r t h e r

s t u d y

o f

32:30-33:6

m a y h e l p

c l a r i f y

th e

p o i n t . T h a t

it is

th e u s a g e of the phr as e in 34:9 that m a k e s i t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e

w i t h i n th e t r ad i t i o n is , in any case clear.

I t is probab le that these t h r e e r e d a c t i o n a l e l e m e n t s a re a l l

the

w o r k

o f o n e

person.

T he

theo l o g i c a l pe r s pec t i ve

of 32:7-14

i s a k i n to t h a t o f 34:9. A n d t h e a u t h o r o f t he p a r a d o x i c a l

t r e a t m e n t

of the

pr es en ce

of God i n

33:11

is

e a s i l y i d e n t i f i e d

w i t h

th e a u t h o r o f t h e p a ra d o x i c a l t r e a t m e n t o f t h e gr ace o f

G od in 34:9.

T h e q u e s t i o n t h e n a ri se s w h e t h e r it is poss ib le to

locate

o r

i d e n t i f y th i s theo log i ca l redactor. One sugges t ion

w o u l d

be to

locate

h im in


(o r

d e u t e r o n o m i s t i c )

circles.

L ing u i s t i c a l l y ,

s t if f -n ec k e d peo p l e c a n b e descr ibed a s a

d e u t e r o n o m i c / d e u t e r o n o m i s t i c

express i o n ,

76

a n d

s o m e

of the

t e r m i n o l o g y

o f 32:7-14 h a s d e u t e r o n o m i c / d e u t e r o n o m i s t i c

p a r a l l e l s . / /

M o r e

g e n e r a l l y , a l so , t h e r e

is

m u c h

i n E x .

32-34

t h a t

is

a p p a r e n t l y d e u t e r o n o m i c .

F o r

e x a m p l e , t h e r e

is the

r e q u i r e m e n t

o f

e x c l u s i v e


to

Y a h w e h ;

th e

r o l e

o f

Moses a s m e d i a t o r ; t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e d e c a l o g u e ; t h e

p r o h i b i t i o n

o f i m ages , e s pec i a l l y t he c a l f , w h i c h receives i ts

m a j o r

O T

treatment

in


a nd t h e

d e u t e r o n o m i s t i c

r e d a c t i o n o f Kings ; a n d t h e v e r y m e n t i o n o f c o v e n a n t

(34:10,27,28) m a y b e d e e m e d d e u t e r o n o m i c . T h e d e u t e r o n o m i c

a f f i n i t y o f

m u c h

of t he

S i n a i

m a t e r i a l h a s b ee n e x t e n s i v e l y

a r g u e d

in

r e c e n t t i m e s

by

P e r l i t t , 7 8 w n o n a s b e en f o ll o w e d b y

Schmid/9

a n d

N i c h o l s o n .

T h e r e a r e se ri o u s d i f f i c u l t i e s , h o w e v e r , w i t h su c h a s e t ti n g

fo r

th e

redactor.

On the gene ra l l eve l the re a re co nc erns o f Ex .

32-34 n o t r e f l e c t ed in D e u t e r o n o m y o r d e u t e r o n o m i s t i c

l i t e r a t u r e . T h e c o n c e r n for the

m o v a b l e s h r i n e

o f Y a h w e h ' s

presence is no t in

D e u t e r o n o m y ; ^ ^

th e c l ea r d e u t e r o n o m i c

d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n th e d e c a l o g u e a n d a l l o t h e r l e g i s l a t i o n is

l a c k i n g

i n E x . 32-34; th e f i n e

d i v i n e - h u m a n

b a l a n c e o f E x . 32-34

i s no t

p a r a l l e l e d

in

D e u t e r o n o m y w h e r e t h e re

is a

m o r e

s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d

e m p h a s i s upon th e s o ver e i gn ty o f Y a h w e h .

Fu r the r , w ha tever t he p rec i se r e l a t i o n s h i p b e tween E x . 32-34

a n d

D e u t .

9:6-10:11,

it is clear

that

t h e y d o n o t e m e r ge

f r om

th e s a m e h a n d (o r schoo l ) .

N o n e

of the c e n t r a l t h e o l o g i c a l

c o n c e r n s o f Ex . 32-34 is

given

a n y s pec i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e in the


r e n d e r i n g

o f t h e

t r a d i t i o n , e x c e p t

th e

im p o r t a n c e

184



Five: C r i t i ca l A na ly s i s

o f

E x o d u s 32-34

o f M oses a s in te rcesso r . An d D eu t . 9 -10 conta ins e lem en ts

a bo u t w h ic h E x . 32-34 is silent e.g. Deut.

9:20).

Li n g u i s t i c a l l y t he s i t u a t i o n i s a ls o u nc l e a r . G e n e ra l l y

s pe a k ing ,

a f f i n i t i e s

w i t h d e u t e r o n o m i c l a n g u a g e , u n l e s s

e x t e n s i v e

and

close

m ay

i nd i c a t e p re -

o r

p r o t o - d e u t e r o n o m i c

t r a d i t i o n . ^ 2

\

s

fo r the

cent ra l phrase

c

m-qsh-

c

rp

i t in

f a c t only occurs

six

t imes

in the OT: f o u r

t imes

i n E x .

32-34

and

tw ic e

in the

D e u te ro no m y pa ss age D e u t . 9 :6 ,13 ) w h i c h

is

expl ic i t ly

a

recapi tula t ion

of the

o lder t radi t ion.

T h e

i n f l u e n c e

o f

E x o d u s

upon

D e u t e r o n o m y , r a t h e r t h a n th e r e ve r s e , w o u l d b e

th e

na tu ra l ded uc t ion . T here a re ,

o f course

occurrences

o f the

v e r b q§h

in

c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h

c

rp in d e u t e r o n o m i s t i c l i t e r a t u r e

b u t

t he y

a re

n e i t h e r e x t e n s i v e

n o r

c o n f i n e d

to

t h a t

l i t e r a t u r e . 8 3 T he ph ra s e o lo gy is a g e n e r a l H e b r e w , no t a

spec i f i ca l ly d e u t e r o n o m i s ti c , i d i o m .

Pe rha ps th e de c i s ive a rgum e n t a ga ins t th e d e u t e r o n o m i c

i d en t i ty o f the r e d a c t o r o f E x . 32-34 is the p a r a l l e l i s m of the

pa ra do x i c a l k _ I

clause in

both

E x .

34:9

and

Gen. 8:21 which

one

can

h a r d l y conce ive

o f as no t

be ing

f r o m th e

s a m e h a n d .

N o w

t he c o m po s i t io n a nd r e da c t i o n o f t he F lo o d na r r a t i v e i s a

q u e s t i o n w h i c h

th e

r e c e n t

s t ud i e s

o f

A n d e r s o n

an d

W e n h a m

h a v e r e -opened ,8 4 so t h a t one can no t appea l to an ana lys i s o f

that n a r r a t i v e w i t h t h e c o n f i d e n c e u s u a l l y

shown

in the

past.

N one the less no one to the best o f m y kn o w le d ge ) ha s s u gge s te d

a deu te ronomic redac t ion of the Flood t radi t ion o r

that

Gen.

8:21, even

wi th

its i n t e r p r e t a t i v e

|

c lause , does n o t b e l o n g to

th e older levels o f the t r ad i t ion . Unt i l th e accepted u n d e r -

s t a n d i n g

o f

Gen. 6:5, 8:21

is

o v e r t h r o w n ,

it

p ro v ide s s t r o n g

evidence f o r t h e n o n - d e u t e r o n o m i c i d e n t i t y o f the E x . 32-34

r e d a c t o r .

Since

the

r e da c to r

o f

Gen. 8:21

is

h e l d

to be the

Y a h w i s t ,

th i s means t h a t the reda c to r o f E x . 32 -34 w o u l d be the

Y a h w i s t .

w o r d o f c l a r i f i c a t i o n is in o r d e r

h e r e .

R e f e r e n c e has been

m a d e

to the

c u r r e n t que s t i o n ing

o f the

n a t u r e ,

an d existence o f

t h e Y a h w i s t , a n d t h e p r e s en t s t u d y h a s a rg u e d t h e i n a d e q u a c y

of the cu s to m ary 3 and E source ana lys i s , a t leas t in Ex. 32-34 .

I n w h a t sense t h e n , m a y o n e j u s t i f i a b l y a ppe a l t o t he Y a h w is t

as r e d a c t o r ?

T h e r e

i s no t

space

to

enter into

th e

d e b a t e

a b o u t

th e

Y a h w i s t . A ll t h a t w e wish to sugges t a t present i s tha t the

f i n a l

r edac t ion o f E x .

32-34

is to be

i d e n t i f i e d w i t h that level

o f

p e n t a t e u c h a l r e d a c t i o n

which is

ge ne ra l l y c o ns i de r e d

to be the

earliest

and

w h ic h

is

genera l ly cons idered

to be

d i s t inc t f r o m

185



A t

the M o u n t a i n o f God

th e


redaction. M a j o r i t y

o p i n i o n w o u ld locate this

r e d ac t i o n

i n

e i t h e r

th e

t e n t h

o r the

n i n t h c e n t u r y

a n d

w h i l e

w e

w o u l d

i n c l i n e

t o t he

f o r m e r

8 5

w e

c a n n o t p u r s u e

th e matter

here.

E v e n

a

n i n t h

c e n t u r y

f i n a l

r e d a c t i o n

w o u l d

show

a

g r e a t e r

a n t i q u i t y in the c o n t e n t o f E x .

32-34

t h an is o f t e n r e c o g n i z e d .

C O N C L U S I O N

G i v e n th e

u n c e r t a i n

state o f

c u r r e n t p e n t a t e u c h a l c r i t i c i s m

a n d t he fac t

that

E x . 32-34 ca nn o t be cons idered in co m ple te

isola t ion

f r o m

o th e r p e n t a t e u c h a l m a t e r i a l t h e a n a l y t i c a l

discussion o f

th is

chapter in

p a r t i c u l a r

th e

a t t e m p t

to locate

th e

f i na l

r e d a c t o r

o f E x .

32-34

m u s t b e re g a r d e d a s

t e n t a t i v e .

T h e re a re m o r e o v e r n u m e r o u s u n a n s w e r e d q u e s t io n s a b o u t

th e

o r i g i n s

a n d


o f E x .

32-34 which

w e

h a v e

n o t

e v e n

attempted

to

discuss

a n d these r e m a i n a s a

task

fo r f u r t h e r

s t u d y . A s a l r e a d y stated the a im of th is d iscuss ion ha s been to

give a practical d e mo n s t r a t i o n o f the k ind o f approach to

cr i t i ca l ana lys i s wh ich t h i s s t udy

advocates. I t i s

i n t e n d e d

n o t

to

foreclose

bu t to stimulate

f u r t h e r s t u d y

a n d t o

suggest

some

l ines a long

wh ich

that

s t u d y m i g h t m o s t

p r o f i t a b l y

d e v e l o p .

186



E P I L O G U E

O ur revels now a re ended. B u t b e fo r e w e conc lude i t wi l l be

appropr ia te to add a few f ina l c o m m e n t s t o relate the f indings

of this s tudy to one or two areas o f c u r r e n t O T

debate.

Obvious ly th e p r e s e n t a r g u m e n t h as impl ica t ions fo r m a n y

issues in the l i t e ra tu re , t r ad i t ions and h i s t o r y o f I s rael , bu t only

tw o

wil l

be

s i ng led o u t .l

Fi r s t , the p r ob lem o f pen ta teucha l c r i t i c i sm. A l t h o u g h it is

peri lous

to

generalize

conclusions

based

on a

provisional

reassessment o f p a r t of the S inai ma te r ia l , ce r ta in indica t ions

e m e r g e . O n the one hand, l i t t l e suppor t is o f f e r e d for a

t rad i t iona l

do cu m en ta r y ana lys is .

A t

least

i n Ex . 32-34, the

major nar ra t ive sect ion in the Sinai t r ad i t i on , the hypothes i s o f

an

i ndependent

and E ,

whe the r documen t s

o r

t radi t ions,

has

no t been f ound h e u r i s t i c a l l y u s e f u l . I n so fa r as i t has seemed

he lp fu l

to r e ta in the des igna t ion

3 ,

this is not to denote a

l i t e ra ry source ,

b u t

r a the r

a

theological redactor

o f

sub-

s t a n t i a l l y

p r e - ex i s t i ng t r ad i t i on .

O n

the

o ther hand, R en d to r f f s a r g u m e n t s

fo r

i ndependent

blocks o f t radi t ion, as opposed to cont inuous threads, blocks

which a re l inked by a secondary Bea rbe i tung , h ave no t

c o m m e n d e d

n a t u r a l ly themse lves

either. The

s i gn i f i c a n t

l inks

betw een E x. 32-34 and G en. 6-9, w hich seem m ore than a

Bearbe i tung , do not in themselves dis turb h is posi t ion, which

cou ld

b e modi f ied a cco rd ing ly . M o r e ser ious are the implica-

tions

of a

literary

approach

in

which allusion

or

silence

is

al lowed to p r e suppose knowledge o f o ther t radi t ions. Since

R e nd to r f f s

approach depends cons ider ably

on

a r g u m e n t s

f r om

si lence and the supposi t ion that connect ive l inks r ep r esen t

secondary Bearbe i tung

i t w o u l d be

d i f f i c u l t ( t hou g h

no t

impossible) to adopt h is approach in conjunct ion with the

l i t e r a r y approach advoca ted .2

The p roblem

is that a new

comprehens ive mode l

o r

p a r a d ig m

for pen ta teucha l t r ad i t ions is r e q u i r e d . The old d o c u m e n t a r y

hypothes i s used the model o f h i s to r i ca l documen t s and sources.

Such a model has co-existed somewhat uneasi ly wi th the

g r o w i n g perception o f

d i f f e r e n t

l i t e ra ry types and also an

interest in

t radit ion history. W i t h

a consistent

approach

to the

mate r i a l

a s

l i t e r a t u r e ,

th e

documenta ry model becomes s t i l l

187



At the

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

less a p p r o p r i a t e . L i t e r a r y w o r k s

d o n o t

e m p l o y so u r ce s

i n t he

s a m e w a y a s historical d o c u m e n t s. E v e n w h e n i t is l i ke ly

that

a

g e n u i n e l y

a n c i e n t s o u r c e

h a s

b e e n u t i l i z e d

as i n Ex .

32-34

i ts

r e l a t i o n

t o t h e

p r e s e n t

text

i s

such

as to

m a k e

i t

d o u b t f u l

w h e t h e r i t c an s t i l l b e i sola ted a n d i d e n t i f i e d .

I t i s h a rde r t o spe c i fy the k i n d o f m o d e l t h a t w o u l d b e

a p p r o p r i a t e . C l e a r l y

a n y

m o d e l m u s t take se r ious ly

th e

n a t u r e

o f

m u c h p e n t a t e u c h a l n a r r a t i v e a s l i t e r a t u r e a n d

a l low

f o r t he

w a y s

in

w h i ch s t o r y t e l l i n g co n ce r n s

m a y

m o u ld t ra d i t i o n a l

a n d

h i s t o r i c a l m a t e r i a l . B u t i f a n y n e w c o m p r e h e n si v e m o d e l f o r

p e n t a t e u c h a l t r a d i t i o n s

is to be

p r o p o s e d t h e r e

is m u c h


g r o u n d w o r k still t o b e

d o n e .

S e c o n d l y t h e

t h e o l o g y

of Ex. 32-34 is

i m p o r t a n t

fo r the

ques t i on

o f t h e

r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n

th e

M o s a i c

a n d

D a v i d i c

c o v e n a n t s . I t is c u s t o m a r y to pose a n a n t i t h e s i s b e t w e e n these

tw o c o v e n a n t t r a d i t io n s th e M o sa ic c o v e n a n t b e in g c o n d i t io n a l

w h i l e t h e D a v i d i c i s u n c o n d i t i o n a l . 3 Ye t E x .

32-34

is the

t r a d i t i o n

p a r

e x c e lle n c e

w h i c h

dea ls w i t h

th e

q u e s t i o n

o f

w h a t

h a p p e n s a f t e r Israel i s

u n f a i t h f u l

t o h e r co v e n a n t o b l i g a t i o n s . I t

p r e se n t s a t h e o l o g y o f t h e M o s a i c co v e n a n t i n w h i c h th e

c o v e n a n t

i s

r e n e w e d p r e c i se ly b e ca u se

i t

d e p e n d s

u p o n

th e

character o f Y a h w e h a s g r a c i o u s a n d m e r c i f u l a n d n o t o n t h e

p eo p le w h o c o n t i n u e t o b e s t i f f - n e c k e d a n d u n r e p e n t a n t .

A cco r d i n g t o o u r present text th e M o s a i c c o v e n a n t a s th e

D a v i d i c rests u l t i m a t e l y u p o n th e f a i t h f u l n e s s o f

Y a h w e h

a n d

a s such ca n h a r d l y b e less e n d u r i n g . ^

This i s n o t o f co u r se t o assert a n i d e n t i c a l t h e o l o g y f o r b o t h

c o v e n a n t s . M u c h d i f f e r e n c e o f e m p h a s i s r e m a i n s . T h e D a v i d i c

c o v e n a n t rests u p o n t h e e x p l i c i t w o r d o f Y a h w e h i n a w a y t h a t

th e

M o s a ic co v e n a n t d o e s n o t ;

th e

M o sa i c c o v e n a n t

stresses

th e

mo r a l o b l i g a t i o n s

o f t h e r e c i p i e n t i n a w a y

that

th e

Dav id ic

co v e n a n t d o e s n o t ; a n d t h e M o sa i c c o v e n a n t i s g i v e n t h r o u g h a

m e d i a t o r

i n a w a y

w h i c h

th e

D a v i d i c c o v e n a n t

is

n o t .

T h e

p o i n t

i s t h a t

i n

b o t h

th e

u l t i m a t e c o n t i n u a t i o n

o f t h e

c o v e n a n t e v en

w h e n th e r e c i p i e n t h a s

acted

in such a w a y a s t o f o r f e i t i t is

e n s u r e d because

i t

d e p e n d s u p o n

th e


o f

Y a h w e h

h is

r e v e a l e d character o r h i s w o rd o f p ro m ise . As such the re i s a

deep theological c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n

t h e t w o

covenants.

It

w o u l d

be


to see

w h e t h e r s u c h

a

t h e o l o g y

o f the

M o s a i c c o v e n a n t c a n b e d i s ce r n e d i n t h e l a t e r p r o p h e t i c

p r e a c h i n g . T h e r e i s

m u c h

i n Hosea t h a t s u g g e st s a s i m i l a r

theo log ica l p e rspec t ive an d pe rha ps i t i s t o be

f o u n d

i n

188



E p i l o g u e

J e r e m i a h

an d

E z e k i e l

also

T .

R a i t t ,

fo r

e x a m p l e ,

in h is s t u d y o f

J e r e m i a h

a n d E z e k i e l , 5

m a k e s

m u c h o f the s h i f t

a f t e r

th e

j u d g m e n t o f ex i le t o a p roc lamat ion o f sa lva tion in wh ich God s

f o r g i v e n e s s i s

u n c o n d i t i o n a l

an d

does

n o t

s p e c i f y r e p e n t a n c e

o r

m o r a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a s a n e c e s s a r y p r e c o n d i t i o n o r a c c o m -

p a n i m e n t . Th is h e s ays t o be d i s c o n t i n u o u s w i t h e a r l i e r

c o v e n a n t t h e o l o g y

an d

w i t h o u t p r e c e d e n t

i n the OT. Yet i n

f a c t

E x.

32-34

contains prec ise ly such

a

t heo logy

of the

Mosa ic

c o v e n a n t ,

a n d

J e r e m i a h

a n d

E z e k i e l

m a y

h a v e b e e n e x p l i c i t l y

t a k i n g t he i r s t and w i t h i n

th e

a n c i e n t t r a d i t i o n . A m i d s t

a l l the

r i ch d iver s i ty o f OT theo logy ,

there

is

also

p r o f o u n d c o n t i n u i t y .

189



N o t e s to I n t r o d u c t i o n

1 .

V T 28 (1978 ) , p .

3 8 1 .

2 . M . N o t h , T he H i s t o r y o f Is rae l ;

3 B r i g h t ,

A

H i s t o r y

o f

I srae l ; R . de

V a u x ,

T he E a r l y H i s t o r y of Is rae l ; S . H e r r m a n n , A

H is tory o f I s rae l i n Old T es t am ent T im es ;

J .H .

Ha ye s ,

J . M .

M i ll er (ed.) , I s rae l i t e an d J u d a e a n Hi s t o ry ; N . G o t t w a l d , T h e

Tr i be s o f Y a h w e h .

3 . W E i c h r o d t , T h e o l o g y of the Old T e s t a m e n t : G. von R a d ,

O ld

T e s t a m e n t The o log y ;

W .

Z i m m e r li ,

O ld

J estament T h e o l o g y

in Out l ine ; R .E .

C l e m e n ts ,

O ld

T e s ta m e n t T h e o lo g y .

4. Moses p.

149

5.

Exodus

p.

243

6 . A

H i s t o r y

of

P e n t a te u c h a l T r a d i t i o n s ,

p . 3 1 , n.

1 1 5 .

7 .

The Inte rcess ion

of the

C o v e n a n t M e d i a to r , E x o d u s

3 3 : l a , 1 2 - 1 7 , p . 1 6 2 .

8 .

H i s t o r y

I , p.

399 .

9 . T h e E l u s iv e P r e s e n c e , p . 158 , n. 63 .

L O

Tribes ,

p .

113.

1 1 . E x o d u s , pp . 557 f

1 2 .

F. -E . W i l m s , D as

J a h w i s t i s c h e

B u n d e s b u c h in

E x o d u s 34; 3

H a l b e ,

D a s P r i v i l e g r e c h t J a h w e s , E x . 34 .10-26 ; E . Z e n g e r , D ie

S i n a i t h e o p h a n i e .

N o t e s

to

C h a p t e r

O n e

M E T H O D IN

N A R R A T I V E

I N T E R P R E T A T I O N

1 .

See,

fo r

e x a m p l e ,

R .

R e n d t o r f f ,

P r o b l e m ; H . H .

S c h m i d ,

Per s o g e n a n n t e J a h w i s t ; JS OT 3

( 1 9 7 7 ) c on t a i n s a r t i c le s

discuss ing

th e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f R e n d t o r f f ' s an d

S c hm i d ' s

p roposa l s .

2 .

See,

fo r

e x a m p l e , D . A .

K n i g h t ,

R e d i s c o v e r i n g

th e

T r a d i -

t ions of Is rae l ;

J.

v a n Seters, A b r a h a m i n H i s t o r y a n d T r a d i t i o n ,

esp. p p .

139 f f . ;

R . P o l z in , M a r t i n N o t h ' s 'A H i s t o r y o f

P e n t a t e u c h a l

Trad i t ions ' ; S . M . W a r n e r , P r i m i ti v e S ag a M e n ;

W .

M c K a n e ,

S tud ie s

in the

P a t r i a r c h a l N a r r a t i v e s ,

p p .

1 0 5 f f . ,

e sp . p . 1 9 4 . The p ro b l e m i s c om p l i c a t e d by the l ac k o f

a g r e e m e n t

as to the

n a t u r e

o f

t r a d i t i o n h i s t o r y .

R e n d t o r f f ' s

c o n c e p t i o n , w h e r e b y d i f f e r e n t

stages o f t he

t rad i t i on

c a n

s t i l l

b e seen in the l i t e r a ry sources , is s i g n i f i c a n t ly d i f f e r e n t

f r o m

t h a t o f N o t h .

190



N o t e s to

Chap t e r

O ne

3 .

See,

for

e xam p l e ,

T.L.

T h o m p s o n ,

The

Hi s t o r i c i t y

of the

Pa t r i a r cha l Nar r a t i ves ;

J.H.

H aye s ,

J . M . Mil le r

(ed.) , Israel i te

and

Judaean

His tory , pp . 7 0 f f .

4 .

3.H.

Hayes ,

A n

I n t r o du c t i o n

to Old

T e s t am e n t

Study

(1979) ,

pp . 1 9 4 f f . o f f e r s a

br ie f survey

of

cur ren t i s sues

in

pen ta teucha l s tudy.

5 . The tension betw een source cr i t ic ism and t radi t io-

his tor ical cr i t ic ism

is

pa r t i cu l a r l y

acute; c f . R e n d t o r f f ,

P r o b l e m .

6. The

term his tor ical -cr i t ical m ethod

is a

conven i en t

sho r t hand

for a w i d e va r i e t y o f analy t i ca l approaches which

share

certain general characteristics. Such

a use of the

term

has

been pop u la r i zed pa r t i cu l a r l y

t h r o u g h the

w ork

o f

B r e v a rd

Chi lds .

7 . It is apprec ia ted that

expressions such

as

th e final fo rm

of the text can raise

prob l ems bo th

on the

text-critical

level

of

es t ab l i sh ing wha t

the text

ac tua l l y

is, and

w i t h

respect

to

es tab l i sh ing

the f inal level of redact ion and re lat ing this to

subsequent glosses.

Nonethe less ,

the d i f f i c u l t y is not of

significance

for the

discussion.

For in genera l the

notion

of the

f ina l or

received

text is

pe r f e c t l y

clear. A nd

when

a

concern

for the

f ina l

text is

co m pa r e d

to the

inves t iga t ion

of i ts

prehistory, again

the

intent ion

is

clear.

The

fact

that

d i f f i cu l t i e s m ay ar ise in the

t r e a t m e n t

o f

spec i f i c p rob l emat i c

texts

need

no t

de ta in

us a t

this poin t .

8. Cf. the

in f luen t i a l work

of T.

K u h n ,

The

S t r u c t u r e

o f

Sc ien t i f i c

R e vo l u t i o n s . Al though

K u h n ' s

thesis

is

di rected

towards

th e sciences and

cannot

be

t ransfer red

s i m p l i c i t e r to

th e arts, its

suggest ive qual i t ies have gained

i t a

widespread

cu r r e n cy .

9. Cf. D.

R obertson, The Bible

as

Literature ,

p.

548;

3.D.

Crossan, Perspect ives

and

M e t ho ds

in

Co n t e m po r a r y B i b li ca l

Cr i t i c i sm ,

p. 40.

10 .

Chi lds ' fu l les t exposi t ion

of his

approach

is in his

In t roduc t ion

to the Old

T e s t am e n t

as

Scr ip ture ;

cf . ,

mos t

recen t ly , O n R e a d i n g the E l i j a h N a r r a t i ve s (1980) , and in

pa r t i cu lar , R esponse to R eview ers of In t ro du ct io n to the Old

T e s t am e n t

as

Scr ip tu r e ( 1980) .

11. The Them e of the

Pentateuch;

Story and Poem: The Old

T e s t am e n t as L i t e r a t u r e and as Scr ipture .

12. From M oses

t o

Pa t m o s .

13. Theology as N a r r a t i o n .

14.

E xo du s

3:14:

H i s t o ry , Ph i l o logy

and

Theology .

1 5.

From A na lys i s

to

Synthesis:

The

In t e rp r e t a ti on

of

Genesis

191



At the

M o u n t a i n

o f G od

1 11 .

16. P. 1.

17 .

In t e rp re t i ng the N ew Tes t am en t Today , p . 4 .

18. A

use fu l


to

R i c o e u r ' s w o r k ,

w i t h

b i b l i o -

g r a p h y ,

is p rov ided by the

a r t i c l e s

in Seme i a 4 (1975) .

1 9 .

The des igna t ion h i s to ry- l i k e w as sugges ted by Fre i

(Ecl ipse, p. 10) an d a wider use for i t has been advoca ted: c f. J.

B arr , S tory and H i s tory in B ib l i ca l Theo lo gy ,

J.J.

C o l l i n s , T h e

'H i s tor i ca l Charac te r

1

of the Old T e s t a m e n t in R ecent Bibl ica l

Theo logy .

20. The

Business

of

Cr i t i c i sm ,

p. 99.

21 . Ibid., p. 27.

22.

Li terary C r i tic i sm ,

p . 63 . M y

italics.

23.

Theory

of

L i t e r a t u r e ,

p. 73.

k

P. ix.

25. P. 9.

26 .

F r o m A n a l y s i s

to

Synthes i s ,

p. 26 .

27 . Ibid. , p. 27.

28 . E x o d u s 3:14 , p. 319 .

29. Ibid. , pp . 320 f.

3 0 . R e g r e t t a b ly c o n s i d e r a t io n s o f s p a e

at ion

o f

s t r u c t u r a l i s m

and i ts

r a p i d l y b u r g e o n i n g l i te r a t u r e .

A s

a g e n e r a l c o m m e n t , h o w e v e r , i t ma y be said

t h a t

a l t h o u g h

structuralists eschew the historical critical appro ach , the i r ow n

methods t end

to

ra i se

n o t

e n t i r e l y d i s s i m i l a r p r o b l e m s . T h a t

is ,

i nsofa r a s their p r i m a r y

interest

is to discern the

deep

s t r u c t u r e s o f a

work

and the w a y s in

which

the s t r u c t u r e s of the

m i n d are ref lected in i t ,

there

is a

s imi l a r tendency

to

d i scount

the

work

a s m e a n i n g f u l in i tself and to r e d u c e the t e x t to be ing

a

means

to the end of

d i scover ing meaning

e l sewhere

than

in

w h a t the

w ords a c tu a l l y s ay .

31 . S ee esp. Int ro duc t ion, pass im.

32. Cf.

The Sensus L i te ra l i s

o f

Sc r i p tu re ,

pp .

9 0 f .

33.

Exodus

3:14 , p.

319.

34. C f. the

p r e m o n i t i o n s

o f

J. B a r r ,

T he Bib le in the Mo de rn

W o r l d ,

p . 65;

idem , Chi lds

1


to the O ld

T e s t a m e n t

as

Sc r i p tu re ,

p.

15.

35. An

excep t i on

may l ie in the

ea r l y chap te r s

o f


in the i r r e l a t i on sh ip t o the na r r a t i ve t r ad i t ion s o f

Exodus a n d N u m b e r s . T he d e u t e r o n o m i c f o r m u l a t i o n o f t r a d -

i ti on presents pecu l i a r p r ob lem s of i t s ow n w hic h need no t be

considered

here .

3 6 . W . Beye r l i n , O r i g i n s and H i s t o r y of the Oldes t

S ma i t i c

9



N o t e s t Chap te r One

T r a d i t i o n s ;

E . Z en ge r , D i e S in a i theo phan i e ; F .-E . W i l m s , D as

Jahwis t i s che Bu n de sbuch in Exodus 34 ; E .W . N icho l son , Exo dus

and Sinai in H i s t o r y and T r a d i t i o n ; 3 .

H a l b e ,

D as P r i v i l e g r e c h t

Jahwes ;

cf .

a lso

E .

O t t o ,

D as

M a z z o t f e s t

in

G i l g a l ,

pp.

1 9 9 f f . ;

D.3 . M c C a r t h y , T r e a t y

and C o v e n a n t ,

2

pp.

2 4 3 f f . ;

H .

V a l e n t i n , A a r o n ,

p p . 2 0 5 f f .

37 . A t the ve ry le st these scho la rs have to o q u i c k l y a s s u m e d

t h a t

the

f r a g m e n t a r y n at u re

of the

ch a p t e r s

h as

been con-

c l u s i v e l y d e m o n s t ra te d w i t h o u t b o t h e r i n g t o v e r i f y f o r t h e m -

s e l ve s whe the r

or not

th i s ac tua l l y

i s so .

3 8 .

K . K o c h ,

fo r

e x a m p l e , d e s cr ib e s

the

task

of the

source

c r i t i c thus:

The l i t e ra ry critic .. . approaches the text w i t h , so

t o say , a d i s s e c t in g

k n i f e

in his h a n d , l o o k s o u t p a r t i c u l a r l y fo r

b r e a k s in c o n t i n u i t y , o r m i s s i n g

l i n k s

in the t r a i n o f t h o u g h t

( G r o w t h ,

p.

69) .

3 9 . S t o r y t e l l i n g , p p. 1 4 4 - 1 4 9 .

40 . Ibid . , p . 146 .

4 1 . T he

P r a c t i c e

o f H i s t o r y , pp. 1 0 3 f .

4 2 . F r o m A n a l y s i s to Syn thes i s .

4 3 .

The

C o h e r en c e

of the

Flood N a r ra t i v e .

4 4 . S ee above , p. 6, n. 2, for a b r i e f b i b l i o g r a p h y on the

n a t u r e

and p r a c t i c e o f

t r a d i t i o n h i s t o r y .

4 5 . T h i s is not the u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t r a d i t i o n h i s t o r y h e l d b y

R e n d t o r f f ,

but i t i s

t h a t w h i c h

i s

w i d e l y h e l d , m o s t i n f l u e n t i a l l y

b y N o t h .

46. Cf . M c K a n e , S t u d i e s , p. 1 9 4 : 3 . B a r t o n , R e v i e w o f D . A .

K n i g h t

( ed . ) , T rad i t ion and T h e o l o g y in the OT, p. 242.

47 . Cf .

t h e T t r T c t u r e s

of van S e t e r s ,

A b r a h a m ,

pp . 1 3 9 f f . ,

esp.

p. 1 4 2 .

48. A u s e f u l b r i e f b i b l i o g r a p h y is p rov ided by S . B a r - E f r a t ,

An a ly s i s o f S t r u c t u r e in B i b l i c a l N a r r a t i v e , p . 1 5 4 , n. I . One

m ay no te a l so , S .

M c E v e n u e ,

T h e N a r r a t i v e S t y l e o f t h e

P r i e s t l y W r it e r; D . I r v i n ,

M y t h a r i o n .

49 . The 3oseph S to ry an d Pe n ta t eu cha l Cr i t i c i sm , p . 528 .

Some o the r scho la rs

a re

a l so re j ec t ing t rad i t iona l

sou rce

c r i t i c i s m

in

the i r a s s e s smen t

of the

3oseph s to ry ;

cf .

G . W .

Co a t s ,

F r o m C a n a a n to E g y p t ; H . D o n n e r , D i e l i t e r a r i s c h e

G e s t a l t

d e s a l t t e s t am e n t l i c h e n 3 o s ep h g e s c h i c h t e .

5 0 . S e e t he

con ven i en t d i s cus s i on

in

C .R . N o r t h ,

Pe n ta t eucha l Cr i t i ci sm .

5 1 .

Ci ted

in P .

H a z a r d ,

T he

E u r o p e a n i n d 1 6 8 0 - 1 7 1 5 ,

pp.

2 2 5 f .

5 2.

F r om A n al y s i s

to

Syn thes i s ,

p . 35 .

1 9 3



At the

M o u n t a i n

of G od

5 3 .

G en. 7:17 does

no t use the

v e r b

gbr bu t

r a t h e r r b h .

A r g u a b l y i t e nh a nc e s th e e f f e c t to start th e a c c oun t w i t h th e

less

d r a m a t i c w o r d rbh and then to

replace

it , in two

stages

b y

th e m o r e

f o r c e f u l

gb r . T h us in v . 17 the

w a t e r s

inc reased

( rbh) ;

in v. 18 t h e y p r e va il e d ( gb r ) and i n cr e as e d ( r b h ) g r e a t l y (m'd) ;

t h e n ,

v. 19, the

waters preva i led (gb r ) exceed ing ly

g r ea t l y

(m 'd

m ' d ) ,

u n t i l

f i n a l l y , v . 20 , the y pre va i l e d (gbr ) over the

m o u n t a i n s , f i f t e e n

c ub i t s d e e p .

54.

N o t h , E x o d u s ,

p .

257; C h i l d s , E x o d u s ,

p .

595.

55. See the

exegesis

for a jus t i f i ca t ion of this.

5 6 .

L i c h t , S t o r y t e l l i n g ,

p p .

103-105, d i scusses

aesthetic an d

d r a m a t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s w h i c h

ma y

a l s o i n f l u e n c e

the use o f

s pe e c h - i n t r od uc i ng f o r m ul a e .

One may

also

c o m p a r e

the use of

w k

c

n t in

A r a m a i c .

57 . I n t r o d u c t i o n to the Old T e s t a m e n t, p . 9 1 .

58 .

H P T ,

p p .

2 1 f .

59. E x eg es e , p. 51. In n. 6 R i c h t e r lists o t h e r scholar ly

r e f e r e n c e s

to the

i m p o r t a n c e

of the

d oub l e t c r i t e r i on .

60. Ibid. , pp .

54f .

61 .

N o t h ( H P T ,

p. 23)

c o m m e n t s that W h a t

is

ve r y clear

in

th e A b r a h a m t r a d i t io n c a n b e c o n f i r m e d in a less s t r i k i n g w a y

in th e

e n t i r e

o ld

P e n t a t e uc h a l t r a d i ti on ,

b u t o f f e r s n o f u r t h e r

discuss ion. Three examples would b e genera l l y

cited

E x .

1 6 / / N u m . 11:4-35; E x . 17 : l - 7 / / N um . 20 :1 -13 ; E x . 20 / / E x .

34:11-26.

62 . Such 3 e l e m e n t s as are discerned in Ex. 19 are us ua l l y

c o m b i n e d w i t h th e n a r r a t i v e o f Ex .

34:1

ff .

63. See the

exeges i s ,

pp .

8 4 f ,

for a


o f th i s .

64. See

f u r t h e r

the

d iscuss ion,

p .

160.

65. A.

Ol r ik, Epic Law s

of

Folk

N a r r a t i v e ,

p .

137.

66. Cf .

C a i r d , L a n g u a g e

a n d

I m a g e r y ,

p p . 1 1 7 - 1 2 1 , fo r the

H e br a i c p r e d i l e c t ion f o r pa r a t a x i s , t h e j u x t a p os i t i on o f

a ppa r e n t l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y

usages

o f a w o r d .

67. See p. 200 , n. 79 for r e f e r e n c e s fo r such a sugges t ion .

68. OT

T h e o l ogy

I, pp.

2 3 4- 2 41 .

69. Ibid. , p . 237.

70 . See e .g . C lem en ts , G od and T e m p l e , pp. 37, 136.

71.

OT

T h e o l o g y

I, p.

239,

n.

115.

72 . Cf . L i c h t , S t o r y t e l l i ng , pp .

1 4 f f .

73. Cf. below p. 119 for further discussion of term and

also th e genera l d i scuss ion in ch. 4.

7 4 . M . B u b e r , fo r e x a m p l e , is c o n s i d e r a b l y m o r e o p t i m i s t i c

a b o u t th e h is tor ica l w or th of the Moses trad i t ion s (M oses, esp.

194



N o t e s

to

C h a p t e r

T w o

p p . 13 - 19 ) t h a n is , s ay , K . K o c h in h is r e f l e c t i o n s on the n a t u r e

of

ea r ly I s r ae l i t e t r a d i t i o n s ( G r o w t h ,

pp. 148-158). See

f u r t h e r

be l ow ,

p p .

1 4 1 L

75 . Le

Deca l ogue ,

p .

120 .

7 6 . F o r m - C r i t i c a l P r o b l e m , p p . 2 0 f f .

77. Ibid. , p. 68.

78. C f . the t h i r t e e n t h o f O l r i k 's Ep i c L aw s , C onc en t r a t i on o n

a

L e a d i n g

C h a r a c te r .

79. C f . the s even t h of Olr ik ' s L a w s , T he I m p o r t a n c e o f F i na l

Pos i t i on .

80 . T h i s h i e r a r c h y is no t , o f c o u r s e , a r ig id ru le bu t a gene ra l

g u i d e l i n e

w h i c h

in p r a c t i c e w i l l

a d m i t

o f

m u c h v a r i a t i o n .

81 . C f . pp .

32 f .

82 . S t o r y t e l l i n g , p . 146 .

83.

]b_id.

84.

See be lo w, pp . 1 5 7 f f .

85. See

b e l o w ,

p p . 1 7 I f f

esp.

p .

175.

N o t e s

to

C h a p t e r

T w o

A N E X E G E S I S

O F

E X O D U S 32-34

1 . On l y in 19:5 and 24:8, and perhaps 24:7, is any

t e c h n i c a l

or

f o r m a l

des i gna t i on g i ven to t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p , w h e r e th e t e r m

b e r i t

is used .

2. The

In sp i r ed

W o r d , p. 245.

3 . The re fe re nc e in Ex . 16 :34 wh ich p resupp oses t he a rk i s

a n a c h r o n i s t i c

o r

a n t i c i p a t o r y

o f a

l a t e r s i t u a t i o n .

4. C f . the

r e c e n t t h eo l ogy

of S.

T e r r i e n ,

T h e

E l u s i v e

P r e s e n c e ,

w h i c h is a r r a n g e d a r o u n d t h is

t h e m e .

5 .

S ince

th e

p r e s en t t a s k

is to

i n t e r p r e t

th e

t e x t

in i ts

f i n a l

f o r m , th e

ques t i on

of the

o r i g i n s

o f E x .

25-31 (35 -40) ca nn o t

b e

ra i sed

h e r e .

It w i l l , h o w e v e r , b e c o m e

c l e a r

t h a t even i f the

p r e s e n t

f o r m o f E x .

25-31

is

late s om e o t h e r , e a r l i e r

a c c o u n t

of

a

m o v a b l e s h r i n e

o f

Y a h w e h

is an

i m p o r t a n t p r e s u p p o si ti o n

for u n d e r s t a n d i n g E x . 32 -34 .

T h e a r g u m e n t t h a t

Y a h w e h ' s

a c c o m p a n i m e n t o f Is r a el i n a

s h r i n e is a m a j o r

c o n c e r n

o f Ex .

32 -34

w i l l be one of the

m o s t

n o v e l

f e a t u r e s

o f

t h i s

exeges i s .

R e c e n t w o r k s

o n

Y a h w e h ' s

p r e s ence w i t h , and ac co m pa n i m en t o f , Is r a e l i n t h e e a r l y p e r i o d

m a k e c o m p a r a t i v e l y l i tt le r e f e r e n c e

t o E x .

32 -34

a n d

n o n e

to a

s h r i n e t h e r e ; c f . e.g. H .D . P re us s , ... ic h w i l l m i t d ir

se in l ;

T . W . M a n n , D i v i n e P r e s e n c e a n d G u i d a n c e in I s rae l i t e Trad i -

t i on s ; Te r r i en ,

T h e E l u s i v e P r e s e n c e .

9



A t t h e M o u n ta in o f G o d

6. This does n o t m e a n

th t

in v. 5 one shou ld fo l low th e

S y r i a c a n d read w a y y i r a ' ( so

N E B )

r a t h e r t h a n w a y y a r ' o f M T .

7 . The o r g ia s ti c n a tu r e of t he w o r s h i p h a s been ques t ioned

by

J . M .

Sasson, Th e

W o r s h i p

o f the Go lden Ca l f . Sas son a rgues

t h a t

th e

w o r s h i p

w a s a n

o r d e r l y r i t u a l

f o l l o w i n g k n o w n

p r a c t i c e s .

On t h e

basis

o f

para l l e l s

in

o t h e r c u l t u r e s

h e

a r g u e s

t h a t shq

(P i . ) ,

u s u a l l y c o n s i d e r e d

to

h a v e s e x u a l c o n n o t a t i o n s

o n

th e

basis

o f Gen. 26:8, 39:14, s im p ly m ea n s r i tu a l s p o r ti n g

b e f o r e

a

d e i t y ,

a n d t h a t

m h l t ( E x . 3 2 : 1 9 ) m e a n s p r o b a b l y

a n t i ph ona l s in g in g , a d o u b l e g r o u p o f p e r f o r mer s w h ic h

i n c l u d e s f e m a l e s a n d m u s i c a l a c c o m p a n i m e n t , a n d r i t u a l

s p o r t i n g .

W h i l e

it is possible

t h a t

these t e r m s are in f a c t

n e u t r a l

in

i m p l i c a t i o n , t h e i r

use in

t h i s c o n t e x t w h e r e

th e

w r i t e r d i s a p p r o v es o f t h e w o r s h ip ( c f . v . 25) w o u l d sugges t t h a t

th e t r ad i t iona l in te rp re ta t io n is to be p r e f e r r ed . If the people

c st o f f r es t r a in t in the

p r e s e n c e

o f an i m a g e w h i c h w a s t h e

s y m b o l o f f e r t i l i t y , th e imp l i c a t i o n s a re obvious .

8 . The

H e b r e w

c

gl

is

t r a d i t i o n a l l y r e n d e r e d c alf .

It is

genera l ly ag reed th t in f a c t bul l o r y o u n g b u l l w o u l d b e

mo r e s t r i c t l y a c c u r a t e ; c f . Ps . 106:19f. w h e r e , in r e f e r e n c e to

th i s inc iden t ,

c

gj

a n d

sw r

a re

used

in

p a r a l l e l i s m .

F o r

con-

v e n i e n c e , h o w e v e r , t h e t r a d i t i o n a l r e n d e r i n g

w i l l

b e m a i n t a i n e d

h e r e .

The ques t ion o f w h e t h e r th e cal f wa s a f r e e - s t a n d i n g o b j e ct ,

and

if so of

w h a t s i ze ,

o r

w h e t h e r

i t was a

s t a n d a r d

o n a

pole

(cf . E iss fe ld t , Lade u n d

S t i e rb i ld ) ,

is of l i t t l e r e l e v a n c e to the

exeges i s , b u t

w i l l

be d iscussed la ter (be low , p . 221

n .29 ) .

9 . T he t echn i ca l p r o b l em c o n c e r n in g th e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the

cal f need no t be

d e a l t

w i t h

h e r e .

A c o n c i s e s t a t e m e n t of the

i ssues ,

w i t h

basic

b i b l i o g r a p h y ,

is

p r o v id ed

b y

C h i l d s , E x o d u s ,

555f .

10. The

v e r b s

in

32:6a

a re

p l u r a l

in the M T. In the

L X X ,

h o w e v e r , t h e y a r e s i n g u l a r , i n d i c a t i n g A a r o n a lo n e a s s u b j e c t .

T h e

r ea s o n

fo r

t h i s v a r i a t i o n

is

p e r h a p s

th e

l a t e r e m p h a s i s upon

A a r o n a s

p r i e s t

w h i c h s ugges t ed th t h e a lone , and no t t he

p eo p le g en e r a l l y , s h o u l d o f f e r sac r i f i ce s . T he re is no r eason to

p r e f e r t h e L X X r ea d in g to th t o f t h e M T .

11.

Cf . M .

A b e r b a c h ,

L .

S m o l a r , T h e G o l d e n C a l f E p i s o d e

in

Pos tb ib l i ca l

L i t e r a t u r e .

12 . E x c e p t p e r h a p s in the sense of Ex. 7:1.

13. Cf .

b e l o w ,

p p .

1 0 8 f .

14. For a d i s c u s s io n o f w h e t h e r or not the

b u l l

w as i n t e n d e d

a s a

pedes ta l

for the

d e i t y ,

a nd h ow

p r e c i s e l y

i t was

seen

to

9



N o t e s

t o C h a p t e r T w o

e m b o d y

th e d i v i n e p resen ce , see be lo w , pp . 165 .

15.

A d m i t t e d l y t h e ve rb a l p a ra l l e l i s no t

exact

in

that

20:2

uses h w s y ' whereas 32:1,4 uses

h^Ui .

W h e th e r one m ay d i s ce rn

an y

systematic

d i s t i nc t ion

between

the two

w o r d s

is an

open

q u e s t i o n .

T h e a t t e m p t b y 1 W i j n g a a r d s , hwsy ' an d h

c

lh, A

T w o f o l d A p p r o a c h to the E x o d u s , to s ho w d i s t i n c t m e a n i n g s

an d

o r i g i n s for the two f o r m u l a e

d e p e n d s

on a n

a t o m i s t i c

a p p r o a c h w h i c h

treats

t h e m i n i s o l a t i on

f r o m

t h e i r c o n t e x t a n d

o t h e r m o t i f s .

16. F or a d i scu ss ion o f t he va ry i n g i m p l i c a t i on s o f

e

lohim

w i t h

p lu ra l ve rb o r predicate, see esp. H . D o n n e r , Hier s i nd

d e i n e Cotter,

Israel : : also

G K § 145 i ,

S . R . D r i v e r , D e u t e r o -

n o m y ,

6 5 .

17 . For the

b e a r i n g s

o f 1 K g .

12:28

u p o n Ex. 32, see

b e l o w ,

pp .

1 6 3 f .

18 . Cf .

C h i l d s , E x o d u s , 5 6 2 f .

19.

On the possible use of the i n t r o d u c t o ry f o r m u l a as a

device necessitated by t he

absence

o f p u n c t u a t i o n o r para-

g r a p h s , c f . a b o v e , p. 30.

20 . Cf . C h i l d s , E x o d u s , 563, 567.

21 . C f . W . M ic h a e l i s ,

hodos ,

5 I f f . ; c o n t ra K o c h , de r ek ,

283, who in te rpre ts derek in 32:8 as

s i g n i f y i n g

the

course

o f

sa lva t ion h i s to ry , a d i f f i c u l t m e a n i n g i n context.

2 2 . Th i s a s sumes that E x . 20:3 represents the f i r s t


wi th 20:2

as

p r e a m b l e ,

an d 20:4 is

d i s t i n c t

as a

s e c o n d c o m m a n d m e n t a n d n o t p a r t o f the sam e c o m m a n d m e n t

as

20:3.

23 . Cf .

b e l o w ,

pp .

1 6 6 f .

24. Cf . S. K a u f m a n ,

The S t ru c tu re

of the

D e u t e r o n o m i c

Law , esp. 12 1, 145.

25 . Cf . W . Z i m m e r l i ,

D as zw e i t e G e b o t ,

for the

close con-

n e c t i o n b e t w e e n th e f i r s t tw o c o m m a n d m e n t s e n t a i le d b y t h e

e x p a n s i o n of the

second

c o m m a n d m e n t in E x .

20:4-6.

26. The o m i s s i o n of v . 9 in the LX X is d i s cu s s e d b e l ow, p. 224

n . 74 .

27. In

32:8

on e

H e b .

M S , L X X a n d

V u l g a t e r ea d s i w w T t a m

rather th an

s i w w i t i m o f

M T.

Th i s

r e p o i n t i n g w o u l d

f i t

we l l w i th

v . 7 , and

EhrTich, R a n d g l o s s e n

I ,

3 9 1 , o b s e r v e s t h a t

th e f i r s t

person

s i n g u l a r

in

d e f e c t i v e s c r i p t

i s

e x t r e m e l y

rare.

On the

o t h e r h a n d t h e d e c a lo g u e i s d i s t i n c t i v e l y p r e s e n t e d a s t h e d i r e c t

a d d r e s s

o f G o d

b o t h

in


and in E x . 20

( c f .

N ic ho l s o n , The Deca logue

as the

D i r e c t A d d r e s s

o f

G o d )

-

w h ic h

supp orts the M T. The para l le l in D eut . 9 :12 does no t h e lp

197



A t t h e

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

a s t h e s a m e p r o b l e m s a p p l y t h e r e . O n e c a n n o t b e s u r e w h i c h

p o i n t i n g i s

o r i g i n a l ,

n o r

d o e s

i t

m a t t e r g r e a t l y .

2 8 .

C f.

N u m . 1 4 : 1 1 ; also

E x .

32 :1 , Th is

M o s e s .

2 9 .

T h i s

h a s

b e e n d i s p u t e d .

E v e n

C a l v i n c o n s i d e r e d

th e

s u g g e s t i o n

to o s u b t l e

( H a r m o n y ,

I II , 338). T h e re a re o t h e r

passag es in 3 2 - 3 4 w h e r e t h e u s e o f t h e s u f f i x i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t

(e .g . 33:1 , 34 :1 0) .

3 0 . C f . C h i l d s ,

Ex o d u j ; , 567

f

3 1 . A n a p p e a l o n th e s e t e r m s is o f c o u r s e

characteristic

o f

m a n y

o t h e r i n t e r c e s s i o n s

i n t h e O T . B u t

th is

i n n o w a y detracts

f r o m

i ts s i g n i f i c a n c e in t h e p r e s e n t context.

32. The r e a d i n g in S a m .

Pent

a n d L X X i s a n a c c o m m o d a t i o n

t o t h e

m o r e u s u a l

f o r m u l a .

T h e u s e o f

Israel

in a

p r a y e r

o f

p a r t i c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e is also f o u n d i n 1 K g . 18 :36, where i t

e m p h a s i z e s G o d ' s n a t i o n a l r o l e ( C h i l d s , E l i j a h N a r ra t i v e s ,

133).

33.

M o s e s ,

8 f.

3 4 . T h e Y a h w i s t , 1 5 8. C f . a ls o

G . A . F . K n i g h t ,

T h e o l o g y a s

N a r r a t i o n , i x - x .

35 .

M o s e s v e r su s A m a l e k ,

3 7 f f .

36.

Ib i d . ,

4 1 .

37 . I b i d . , 4 0 . C f .

i d e m , H i s to r y

a n d

T h e o l o g y

i n t h e S e a

T r a d i t i o n .

3 8 .

T h i s

i s

t r u e

n o t o n l y o f t h e

t e x t

i n i t s

p r e s e n t f o r m

bu t

a l s o ,

w i th o n l y s l i g h t l y v a r y i n g

e m p h a s e s ,

i n t h e


a n d

P

a c c o u n t s .

39. E x o d u s , 559, 563.

4 0 . E x o d u s ,

2 4 9 :

c f .

C o a t s , R e b e l l i o n

i n t h e

W i l d e r n e s s , 188.

4 1 . P . 4 5 .

4 2 .

T h e d e ci si o n a s t o w h a t c o n s t i t u t e s a s e p a r a t e

w o r d

i s

p r o b l e m a t i c . H e r e p r e p o s i t i o n s a n d

particles

a re t a k e n a s

separate

w o r d s , e v e n

w h e n j o i n e d b y a

m a q q e p h .

4 3.


s p e a k e r

i n v . 1 8 i s n o t

s p e c i f i e d , c o n t e x t u a l

c o n s i d e r a t i o n s m a k e i t l i k e l y t h a t t h e s p e a k e r i s M o s es a n d n o t

J o s h u a .

4 4 .

Th e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e c r u x o f v . 1 8 n e e d n o t b e discussed

here.

S i n c e , h o w e v e r , t h e e x e g e s i s i s o f

interest

a n e x c u r s u s i s

a p p e n d e d a t t h e e n d o f th e c h a p t e r , pp . I f .

4 5 . T h e

p u z z l i n g

s e q u e n c e o f v e r b s i n v . 2 0 - h o w c a n g o ld b e

b u r n t ? - i s best

u n d e r s t o o d t h r o u g h

a

c o m p a r i s o n w i t h

th e

U g a r i t i c

t e x t

1 .6

11:31-37. ( T h e

n u m b e r i n g i s

t h a t

o f M .

D i e t r i c h ,

O .

L o r e t z ,

J.

S a n m a r t i n ,

D i e k e i l a l p h a b e t i s c h e n

T e x t e

a u s

U g a r i t . F o r a n E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t i o n se e

A N E T ^ ,

1 4 0 , o r

J.

1 98



Note s to C h a p t e r T w o

G i b s o n , C a n a a n i t e

M y t h s

an d L e g e n d s , 7 7 ) .

W h e n

A n a t h k i l l s

M ot th e

v e r b s a p p e a r

in the

s e q u e n c e

o f

b u r n ,

g r i n d ,

scatter

an d seem to be a

l i t e r a r y i d i o m

fo r

exp r e s s i ng t ho roughnes s

o f

d e s t r u c t i o n .

It is

poss ib l e tha t

t h e r e

a re

a l so ove r t one s

o f a

f e r t i l i t y r i t u a l . C f . S . L o e w e n s t a m m , The M a k i n g an d Des-

t r u c t i o n

o f t h e G o l d en Ca l f ; F .C . Fe ns ham , The

B u r n i n g

of the

G o l den Ca l f and U g a r i t .

46 . The

s u p e r f i c i a l s i m i l a r i t y

o f

32:20

to the

o r d e a l

in

N u m .

5:1 I f f h as f r e q u e n t l y b e e n n o t e d . Th e r i t u a l in N u m . 5 does

n o t , h o w e v e r , g r e a t l y i l l u m i n a t e

th e


of the action

in

th e

present

context w h e r e th e conce r n is to a d m i n i s t e r

p u n i s h m e n t

r a t h e r t h a n d e t e r m i n e g u i l t .

4 7 .

E x o d u s ,

570 .

48. Ib i d .

49 . Cf . G r e s s m a n n , M o s e , 2 0 2 .

5 0. Cf . H . R i n g g r e n , ~ ^ f c h , 1 9 0 .

5 1 .

T h e r e

is

l e s s ev i dence

for

bn b e i n g u s ed

in an

e x t e n d e d

sense than there

is for

_ | h _

One may a t least

note

its use for a

s u b o r d i n a t e w i t h i n

a

p r e s c r i b e d r e l a t i o n s h i p ,

cf . 2 K g.

16:7; also

A r a d Ost r aca

2 1 , 40

( L e m a i r e , I n s c r i p t i o n s Heb r a ' i ' q u e s , 1 8 6 ,

207) .

5 2. I t is of course possible that the t r a d i t i o n - h i s t o r y of the

s t o r y

m ay

a c c o u n t

for i t s i n n e r

t en s i on s .

Bu t t h e

p resen t t a sk

i s

to e x p l a i n th e t e x t as far as p o s s i b l e in i t s own r i g h t w i t h o u t

r e cou r se

to

q u e s t i o n s

of i ts

h i s t o r y

u n t i l a

second

stage

u n l e s s

n o

sa t i s f a c to r y

sense can b e

m a d e

of the f i n a l f o r m of the text.

5 3 . The K i n g ' s

L o y a l

O p p o s i t i o n , p a s s i m .

5 4 . C f .

C a s s u t o , E x o d u s , 4 2 1 .

5 5 . A n

a l t e r n a t i v e r e a d i n g

in the

S a m . P e n t ,

is prw

c

as in

v. 25 .

5 6. I t i s

p r o b a b l y

u n n e c e s s a r y t h e r e f o r e to e m e n d

b r

c

ji

in v .

17 to pr

c

even

shou l d

i t be correct to a d o p t

pr

c

in v . 22

( c o n t r a E h r l i c h ,

R a n d g l o s s e n ,

393 , G ressm an n , M ose, 200).

5 7. I t is u n n e c e s s a r y to f i n d th e i dea o f v i c a r i o u s

s u f f e r i n g

in

v. 32.

58 . On

t h i s q u e s t i o n ,

see

3 .3 . S t amm, E r l 5 sen un d V e r g e b e n

jmnjYT, an d r e c e n t l y T. R a i t t , T h e o l o g y o f E x i l e , 1 8 5 f f .

5 9. On the p r o b l e m s r ai se d b y th i s so r t o f l a n g u a g e , c f . b e l o w

p p .

6 1 f .

6 0 .

C h i l d s shows that

on s y n t a c t i c a l

g r o u n d s

on e c a n n o t

t r a n s l a t e

th e

w o r d s

b y

fo r wh a t t h ey

d id

w i t h

th e

c a l f

that

A a r o n m a d e ( E x o d u s , 557 ) .

61 . C f . N o t h ,

E x o d u s ,

2 5 4 , a s i n c e r e a n d l a s t i n g r e p e n t a n c e .

199



At the

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

6 2 . T h e f u l l


o f

t h i s m o t i f w i l l b e co m e a p p a r e n t

at

34:9.

6 3. T h e r e i s a s l i g h t v e r b a l v a r i a t i o n in t h a t t h e 2 n d p l u r a l ,

• t n n

i s

u s e d i n s t e a d

of the 2nd s i n g u l a r ,

_ ^ t h .

S i n c e

th e

rest

of the

verse

r e v e r t s

t o t h e 2 nd s i n g u l a r ,

there

i s no s i gn i f i c a n c e i n t h e

use o f t he

p l u r a l p r o n o u n , w h i c h

h a s be e n pu t i n t he p l u r a l u n d e r

th e

i n f l u e n c e

o f t h e

p l u r a l s u b s t a n t i v e i m m e d i a t e l y p r ec e d in g .

6 4. A n g e l i s n o t a w h o l l y s a t i s f a c to r y r e n d e r i n g o f

ml ' k

as i t

i s d i f f i c u l t to e s c a p e

o v e r t o n e s

o f l a t e r

a n g e l o l o g y .

It is

d o u b t f u l ,

h o w e v e r , w h e t h e r a m o r e n e u t r a l t e r m li k e m e s-

s e n g e r w o u l d e s c a p e b e i n g m i s l e a d i n g in a

d i f f e r e n t

w a y . A n d

so ,

w i t h r e se r v a t io n s , a n g e l w i l l

b e

r e t a i n e d .

6 5.

E x o d u s , 588.

66. Cf .

a b o v e ,

p. 33.

6 7 . S e e b el o w , p p .

9 i f .

68 . Fo r 'h i

m w C d

cf . Ex . 27:21; 28:43; 29:4,10,11 ,30,32 ,42;

30:16,18,20 ,36;

31:7.

6 9 . T h e L X X r e a d i n g , te n s k e n e n a u t o u , s h o w s t h a t th is w a s

t h e L X X i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . T h e r e a d i n g i s m o s t l i k e l y a n a t t e m p t

to e x p l i c a t e a n

a m b i g u i t y r a t h e r t h a n e v i d en c e

f o r a n alter

n a t i v e t e x t u a l t r a d i t i o n .

70. Cf. B u b e r , M o s e s , 133, 215, n. 193.

71 .

See b e l o w , p. 173.

72 . F o r t h e u se o f t h e

d e f i n i t e

a r t i c l e

w i t h i n d e f i n i t e

sense

see

G K

§ 126 ,

q, r , s .

73. C o n t r a e.g . D r i v e r , E x o d u s , 35 9, C h i l d s , E x o d u s , 5 84.

74. See f u r t h e r b e l o w , p p . 1 7 1 f f .

75. See

f u r t h e r be lo w ,

p p . 1 7 1 f f .

76. See a l s o b e l o w , p . 72 and also p .

91 .

77. V. 11 ,

e n o p i o s

enop id i ; v . 20 ou

d u n e s e i

i d e i n

m o u

to

p r o s o p o n .

78. So

T a r g u m s O n k e l o s, Jo n a t h a n

ben

U z z i e l

a n d

N e o f i t i

I .

O n

the i n t e rpre t a t i o n o f Ex . 33:11 in the LX X an d T a rg u m s , c f .

M . R . D ' A n g e l o , M o s es

i n t h e

L e t t e r

t o t h e

H e b r e w s , l O l f f .

79. So e.g. 3.E. H u e s m a n , E x o d u s , 6 5;

W .

Z i m m e r l i , OT

T h e o l o g y

in

O u t li n e ,

74;

A .W . J e n k s ,

T h e

E l o h i s t ,

53.

8 0 .

T h e r e

a re

p a r t i c u l a r

t e x t - c r i t i c a l

p r o b l e m s

i n

th i s sec t i on

a s t h e L X X

d i ve r ge s f r o m

th e

M T

a t

n u m e r o u s

a n d


p o i n t s .

T h i s

i s a

s u b j e c t

fo r

s t u d y

i n i t s o w n

r i g h t ,

a n d f o r t h e

p r e s e n t

o n l y a f ew b r i e f

c o m m e n t s

w i l l b e

m a d e .

A u s e f u l

rev iew of the issue is p r o v i d e d by D.P.

N i l e s ,

T h e N a m e o f G o d ,

1 4 7

n. 1 .

T h e f o l l o w i n g

c o n c l u s i o n s e m e r g e f r o m

a

c o m p a r i s o n

of the

200



N o t e s to C h a p t e r T w o

M T a n d L X X :

i )

T h e M T i n i t s e l f p r e s en t n o p r o b l e m s . T h e r e i s no c r u x

w h i c h

t h e L X X h e lp s r e s o l v e ,

i i)

T h e s u b t l e d e v e l o p m e n t of the in te rces s ion i n t he M T (see

exeges i s ' be low) i s lost in the L X X .

i i i )

N o

s ing le

m p t i v e f o r t he L X X

d i v er g e n c e s

i s

d i sce rn ib le .

T h e L X X r e a d i n g s a r e s o m e t i m e s

less

a n d s o m e t i m e s

m o r e a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c ,

iv) T h e L X X b o t h s i m p l i f i e s a n d i n t e r p r e t s t h e M T .

F o r t h e s e

r ea so n s t h e M T w i l l b e a c c e p t e d as the bas is for

exeges i s .

81 . So e.g . N o th , E x o d u s , 2 5 7 ; R . C l e m e n t s , G o d a n d T e m p le ,

27;

3 .

M u i l e n b u r g ,

I n t e rc e s si o n , 1 7 3 f .

8 2 .

B e y e r l i n ,

O r i g i n s , 1 0 1 .

83 . For a

d i s c u s s i o n ,

see

B e y e r l i n , i b i d . , 1 0 2 .

84 . The

t r e a t m e n t

o f

man ' s p o s s i b l e access

to God i n 33 :11 ,

2 0 - 2 3 i s i n d e e d c o n c e r n e d w i t h a m e t a p h y s i c a l p r o b l e m , bu t o f

a d i f f e r e n t

k i n d ,

an d i t i s n o t t he t h e m e o f p r i m a r y i m p o r ta n c e

in t h e n a r r a t i v e .

8 5 . T e r r i e n c o m m e n t s o n th i s ve r s e , A m o d e o f p s y c h o l o g i ca l

c o m m u n i o n i s t h e r eb y im p l i ed , f o r t h e p h r a s e

c a r r i e s

n o h i n t o f

th e

l a t e r p r i e s t l y m o t i f

of the

c o l u m n

o f

f i r e

or of the

c l o u d

w h i c h jo u r n ey ed i n t h e w i l d e r n e s s ah ead o f th e p eo p l e ( E x o d .

1 3 : 2 I f . ,

etc.) ( E l u s i v e P r e s e n c e ,

1 4 0 ) .

U n f o r t u n a t e l y h e does

n o t

ra i s e th e p o s s i b i l i t y

t h a t

s o m e c o n c r e te m a n i f e s t a t i o n o t h e r

t h a n t h e f i r e a n d c lo u d m i g h t b e e n v i s a g e d .

8 6 . C f . a b o v e , p. 63 for the d a n g e r s o f Y a h w e h ' s s h r i n e .

87. Fo r the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f

34:9,

see

b e l o w ,

p p . 8 9 f f .

88 . I t ha s b een s u g g es t ed

t h a t

t h e r e a re s t r u c t u r a l p a r a l le l s

b e t w e e n

E x .

33:1-34:10

an d

G e n .

15:7.-21. S ee

D .P . N i l e s ,

T h e

N a m e

o f G o d , 1 4 2 f f . 1 5 5 , w h o d e v e l o p s a r g u m e n t s o f

Seebass ,

L o h f i n k , a n d B . W . A n d e r s on . In f a c t th e s i m i l a r i t i e s a r e n o m o r e

t h a n

o n e

w o u l d e x p e c t f r o m

tw o

a c c o u n t s

o f

Y a h w e h ' s g r a c io u s

d e a l i n g s

w i t h a c h o s e n i n d i v i d u a l . T h e p r e s en t exeges i s shows

th e t e n o r a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f E x . 33-34 to be f u n d a m e n t a l l y

d i f f e r e n t

f r o m t h a t

o f

G e n . 15.

89 . So e.g. D . N . F r e e d m a n , T h e N a m e of the Go d of M o s e s ,

153: scho la r s r eso r t

to

d e s p e r a t e m e a s u r e s

to

s ecu r e co n -

t i n u i t y .

9 0 . E x o d u s ,

5 9 4 .

9 1 .

I n t e r ce s s i o n , 1 6 8 , 1 7 3 .

9 2 . N . M .

W a ld m a n ,

G o d ' s W a y s , 67 , n . 2 , n o t e s th e s t y l i s t i c

use o f c h i a s t i c p a t t e r n s in 3 3 : 1 2 f f . W h e t h e r t h e r e i s d e l i b e r a t e

20 1



At the M o u n t a i n o f Go d

chiasm is

u n c l ea r ,

bu t

tha t t he re

a re

r e c u r r e n t

a n d

i n t e r lo c k i n g

m o t i f s

in no

str ic tly logical progressio n

is

ev iden t .

93. It is

som et im es suggested tha t

these

wo rds o r ig in a l ly

re fe r red to H o b a b , c f . N u m .

10:29ff .

94.

The them e o f N u m . 10 :29-32 i s no t Israel 's need of a

gu ide ,

bu t

w h e t h e r

or no t

H o b a b

wil l

share

in

Israel's good .

The

poss ibi l i ty

o f

Ho bab s e rv in g

as

eyes

is

i n t r o d u c e d o n l y

secondar i ly

i n t o

Moses '

request ,

giving

H o b a b

a

reason

to

s tay

by

v i r t u e

of his

sense

o f

be ing needed

an d

valued

by the

Israel i tes, a s M o s e s d e fe r e n t i a l l y p u t s it.

M o r e o v e r , the j u x t a p o s i t i o n of the ark

passage

in

10:33-36

w i t h th e

p rec ed in g v e rs es (both u s u a l l y as c r ibed

to the

s a m e

s o u r c e , e i t h e r

J

o r

JE )

s u g g es t s t h a t , t o o n e wr i t e r a t l e a s t , an y

h u m a n g u i d a n c e a n d h e l p w a s n o t i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h , a n d w a s

c e r t a i n l y n o t a s u b s t i tu t e f o r , d iv in e g u i d a n c e .

95.

C.J. L a b u s c h a g n e , T h e e m p h a s i z i n g p a r t i c l e

ga m

and i t s

c o n n o t a t i o n s ,

2 0 0 , s u g g e s t s t h a t ga m i n E x . 33:17

f u n c t i o n s

a s

a p a r t i c l e o f em p h as i s . The exeg es i s i n d ic a t e s t h a t t he

c u s t o m a r y

m e a n i n g

also

shou ld be

r e t a i n e d .

96. It m ay also be possible to

detect

the presence of a w o r d

play

b e t w e e n

c

im

a n d

c

am;

cf .

W a l d m a n ,

God's

W ays ,

68 ,

n .

2 .

97. Cf.

M u i l e n b u r g , Intercession , 177.

W a l d m a n n ,

God's

Ways , 68, n. 3, o f f e r s

s eve ra l M es o p o tam ia n p a ra ll el s.

A

m o r e

general d iscuss ion

of the

issues

is

prov ided

by

H .H . R o w l e y ,

The

Biblical

Do c t r i n e

o f

Elec t i o n .

U n f o r t u n a t e l y R o w l e y

does

n o t

discuss ei ther

the

present passage

o r

G e n .

6:8

(see below ).

98. Cf.

E .A .

Speiser, Genesis , LXVI I ; W .

Z i m m e r l i ,

Ch ar i s ,

380.

99. E .g. G en . 18:3, 30:27,

50:4,

N u m . 32 :5, 1 Sam. 27:5, 2 Sam .

16:4,

Esth. 5:8,

7:3,8:5.

100. 1

Sa m . 20:29;

a n d wi th

s t ri k i n g p a r a d o x

in

N u m .

11:15.

1 0 1 . 1

Sa m . 1:18.

102 .

E.g.

1

Sa m . 16:22, 20:3,

2

S a m . 14:22,

R u t h

2 :1 0 ,1 3 .

103.

G en . 32:6 (ET 32:5), 33:8, 1 Sam. 25:8, 1 Kg. 11:19, R u t h

2:2.

104. G e n . 19:19; perhaps a l so Jdg. 6:17,

w h i c h is a k i n t o Ex .

33:13.

105.

See

f u r t h e r

b e l o w ,

p .

91

f.

106. C ha r is , 380.

107.

Cf . A . L a u r e n t i n ,

Wec

atta

h-Kai

n u n ,

1 7 1 .

108. Cf.

M u i l e n b u r g , Intercess io n , 1 76; G .A .F. K n i g h t ,

Theology a s N a r r a t i o n ,

195.

20 2



N o t e s

to

C h a p t e r

T w o

109. It is possible that the word shou ld be poin ted in the

s i n gu l a r , c f .

G K

§

9 1 k .

A

p l u r a l

is

s u p p o r t e d

by the

S a m a r i t a n

text, bu t t h e S y r i a c ha s a s i ngu l a r . The LX X and V u lga t e

p resen t a

d i f f e r e n t w o r d i n g

in the

request.

Since derek in the

s i n g u l a r

(as app l i ed to G od) t ends to r e f e r to the way o f l i f e

G od app roves

o f ,

th i s

is

l ess appropr i a t e

in

context than

the

p l u r a l .

110 . C f. Deut . 32:4, Is. 55:8f., 58:18. One may a l so compare Ps.

103:7, H e m a d e

k n o w n

h is w a y s

( d r k y w )

to Moses ... . A l t ho u g h

th e

para l l e l

to

ways

is deeds (

c

l y l w t y w ) , th e

gene ra l

context, esp. v. 8, echoes Ex. 33-34 and i nd i c a t e s an i n t e r -

p r e t a t i o n of ways in t e r m s o f

God ' s

g r a c i o u s

character.

1 1 1 .

For a surv ey o f

recent research

on 2 Sam. 7 , see T .N.D.

M e t t i n g e r ,

K i n g and

M e s s i a h ,

4 8 f f . M e t t i n g e r ' s own

ana lys i s

o f

vv . 1 8 f f . is t h a t v v . 18-22a, 27-29 f o r m a p r e - d e u t e r o n o m i s t i c

u n i t y , w h i l e

v v .

2 2 b -2 6

are a

d e u t e r o n o m i s t ic e x p a n s io n .

112 . C f .

N o t h ,

E x odu s , 2 57 ; C h i l d s , E x odu s ,

594.

113. Theo logy ,

II, 38, n. 1.

114 . I t ha s been sugg ested that

w a h

a

n i h 5 t i

s h o u l d b e

e m e n d e d

to

w a h i n h e t T , and

I

w i l l lead y o u ( Eh r l i c h ,

Ra ndg l os s e n , 4 0 5; E i c h r od t , Theo logy

II , 38, n. 1). Th e

c h a n g e

is

unneces sa ry , and i s a t odds wi t h t h e con t ex t whe re d i v i n e

leadersh ip i s not the i ssue . The idea of g iv ing rest i s h a rd l y

imposs ib l e

in the

c o n t e x t

(so

Eh r l i c h ) , s ince nwl j

is

used

e l s e w h e r e

o f G o d g iv i ng rest in the

p r o m i s e d l and ( c f . D e u t .

3:30, 12:10, Josh . 1:13,15, etc.),

and is an

a p p r o p r i a t e w o r d

of

a s su rance .

115 . O n p a n T m , s e e A .R . Johnson , Aspec t s of the use of the

t e r m

P a n i m

in the Old Tes t am en t ; E i ch rod t , Theo logy I I , 35-39.

116 .

C f .

G . B . C a i r d , L a n g u a g e

an d

I m a g e r y ,

1 0 3 f f . , for a

d iscuss ion o f

d i f f e r e n t t ypes

o f

d e li b er a te a m b i g u i t y .

117 .

T he t ex t h e re is u n c e r t a i n . O n e s h o u l d p r o b a b l y

fol low

L X X ,

Pesh . ,

V u l g . in

r e a d i n g

b^irbarn (so

S .R . Dr i v e r , N o t e s ,

322). The para l le l to Ex. 33 w o u l d then be even closer.

118. C f.

Deut . 4:37,

Is .

63:9 , Lam. 4:16; perhaps also

Ex.

20:3

//

Deut . 5:7, Ps. 21 :10 .

119 .

A b o v e ,

p. 68.

120. Ex. 2 5 f f .

uses

th e

t e r m

p n y m on ly in

connec t i on wi t h

Y a h w e h ' s

presence in the t aberna c le in the

case

of the

shewbread , o r b read o f the Presence (25:30

Ihm

p n y m ) . Such a

pas s i ng r e f e rence

to the

she wbread p rob ab ly p re suppose s

th e

no t ion

of the

d i v i n e p n y m

in the

sanc t ua ry wh i ch need

not be

e labora ted s ince th e ex p re s s i on to see /appea r be f o re th e f ace

203



A t

th e M o u n t a i n o f G o d

o f Y a h w e h i s a l r e a d y u s e d a s a s t a n d a r d e x p r e s s i o n fo r v i s i t i n g

a

s a n c t u a r y

i n

w h a t

a re

p o s s i b l y

th e e a r l i e s t

texts r e l a t i n g

to

th e

s u b j e c t ,

E x .

23:15,17,

34:20,23; cf.

N o t h , E x o d u s , 1 9 2 .

121 .

N o t h

( E x o d u s ,

2 57 ) c o m m e n t s

t h a t

I t i s n o t

sa id

h o w t h e

'presence',

th e s ide o f t h e

d i v i n e b e i n g p r e s e n t e d

t o m e n

w h i ch

g i v e s a p a r t i c u l a r l y d i r e c t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h i s b e i n g is to

m a n i f e s t i t s e l f

... ,

a n d s u g g e s t s that P e r h a p s th e t h o u g h t h e r e

i s o f t h e w o r s h i p o f Y a h w e h i n t h e c u l t a t t h e s a n c t u a r i e s o f

I s r a e l , to w h i c h m e n g o t o 'see' th e d i v i n e 'face' . Th is sug-

g e s ti o n , h o w e v e r , i g n o r e s t h e i m p o r t a n t d e t a i l o f G o d 's

p r e s e n c e

o n t h e

m o v e , w h i c h m u s t e n v i s a g e

a

p o r t a b l e

a n d n o t

a

f i x e d

s a n c t u a r y .

122.

F o r the use o f

p l h ,

to be d is t i n ct , c f . Ex. 8:18, 9:4,

11:7.

123. B e l ow, pp . 1 0 5 f .

124 . It is interesting to co m pare P s. 2 7 w here the psalm ist

seeks

G o d i n t h e s a n c t u a r y . T h e p s a l m is r e m i n i s c e n t of Ex. 33

a n d d r a w s o n s i m i l a r t e r m i n o l o g y . O n e m a y n o t e th e f o l l o w i n g

p a r a l l e l i s m :

v. 8 ' t p n y k y h w h 'bqs

c f .

Ex . 33 : 11 ,14 ,15 ,20 ,23 .

v .

h w r n y y h w h d r kk

cf . Ex . 33:13.

v. 13

I r ' w t

b t w b

y h w h

cf . Ex .

33:19.

v . 4

I h z w t b n

c

m - y h w h

cf . Ex. 33: 18 ,22 .

V . 4 is pu t last f o r t w o r e a s o n s . F i r s t , th e c h a n g e in t o n e

b e t w e e n v v . 1 - 6 a n d v v . 7 f f . h a s m a d e th e l i t e r a r y u n i ty o f t h e

psa lm a m a t t e r o f debate. S e c o n d l y , t h e r e i s no exact

p a r a l l e l

to

n

c

m

i n E x . 3 3 . V o n

R a d , h o w e v e r , c o m m e n t s t h a t

n

c

m i s

m o re o r less s yn o n y m o u s w i t h t h e 'g lory o f Y a h w e h ' (kbd

y h w h ) ,

( ' R i g h t e o u s n e s s ' a n d

' L i f e ' , 2 5 7 f . ) . N

c

m

i s a r a r e

w o r d

w h o s e p r e ci se m e a n i n g i s

d i f f i c u l t

t o a s c e r t a i n , b u t v o n

R a d ' s s u g g e s t i o n i s n o t

i m p l a u s i b l e

a n d e n h a n c e s th e p a r a l le l i s m

to Ex. 33.

125.

I t is

d i f f i c u l t

t o b e s u r e h o w f a r t h e r e q u e s t t o se e

Y a h w e h ' s

g l o r y p o i n t s

to a

d e s i r e

fo r a

v i s i b l e m a n i f e s t a t i o n

o f

Y a h w e h

a s s u c h . F o r i t i s a l w a y s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e g l o r y to

b e h i d d e n i n t h e c l o u d , a n d b o t h th e c l o u d a n d t h e g l o r y a re

v i s ib le p h e n o m e n a . O n e w o u l d n e c e s s a r i l y r e f e r t o t h e g l o r y i n

t e r m s o f s e e i n g i t , w h e r e a s i n v . 1 3 M o s e s a s k s t h a t

G o d ' s

w a y s

b e

m a d e

k n o w n

to

h i m ,

s i n c e

th e

d i v i n e w a y s

a re

m o r e

n a t u r a l l y r e f e r r e d to i n t e r m s o f k n o w l e d g e r a t h e r t h a n v i s i o n .

126.

Cf.

Hos. 3:5, Jer. 3 1 : 1 2 , 1 4 ,

Ps.

27:13.

127.

O n t h i s f o r m u l a , se e D.P. N i l e s , T h e N a m e o f G o d , 5 2 f f . ,

1 2 3 f f .

4



Note s to Chapter Two

128 . Gre s smann , Mose , 225.

129. O n

th is f o r m u l a ,

see

S .R . Dr ive r , Notes ,

185f. ;

i d e m ,

Exodus , 352 f . ; D . N . F r e e d m a n , T he N a m e of the Go d of

Moses ,

153L;

3 .R .

L u n d b o m ,

God's

Use of the

Idem

per

Idem

to

T e r m i n a t e Deba t e .

130. F r e e d m a n , ibid .

131 .

N otes , 186.

132.

N a m e o f G o d , 154; co nt ra e .g . G ress m an n , M ose , 229 ,

who characterizes

the

saying

as

showing

abso lu te Wi l lk i i r .

133.

Cf. the

i m p l i c a t i on s

of its

usage

in Ex.

4 :13,

1

Sam. 23 :13 ,

2 Sam. 15:20, 2 Kg. 8:1.

134.

Cf .

L u n d b o m ,

o p.

cit.

135.

On E x .

3:14,

see

m os t r ec en t ly B .3 . B e i t ze l , E xo du s 3 :14 ,

who argues agains t f i n d i n g any e tymologica l i n t e re s t i n the

passage.

136.

O n the

prob lem

o f

in t e rpre t ing this f o r m u l a ,

c f .

above ,

p.

30.

137.

Theophany and A n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m in the O T , 36.

138. Cf. Bar r , _ ib id . , 32 .

139.

Ex odu s , 596 .

140. Cf. Gen. 32:30, Deut . 4:33, 5:24,26,

Jdg.

6:22f . , 13:22, Is.

6:5.

141 .

In 33:20 there is perhaps

also

an

echo

o f Ex . 10:28f. There

Pharaoh says

to

M oses , N eve r

s ee my

face ( i . e . come into

m y

presence ) again ; fo r in the d ay tha t you see m y face you shal l

die . P haraoh , in c l a iming that to see his face m eans d ea th ,

pre t ends

to be God and so

becomes

the

a r che t ype

o f

h u m a n

hybr i s . Ex . 33 presents by contrast the true G od whose face

m ay i ndeed

not be

seen

bu t who

none the l e ss grac ious ly does

a l low some

access

to his

se rvant s .

142 .

F or

r e c e n t

discu ss ion s of Ge n. 16:13 , see H.C.

W h i t e ,

The

I n i t i a t i on

Legend

of I shm ae l ,

285f . ;

C.

W e s t e r m a n n , G e n es is

12-50, 296L; T. Booi j ,

Hagar 's

W o r d s

in Gen . 16:13b .

l i t e r a l r ende r i ng

of the M T of

G e n .

16:13b

w o u l d

be,

For

she said, Have I even here ( l i t . hi ther) seen af ter him that sees

m e ?

o r

... seen

the

back

of h im

that

sees

m e ?

In the f i r s t

case ^hry a f t e r

is

used

in a

spa ti al r a the r than t em po ra l sense ,

s om e w h a t r e m i n i s c e n t

o f Ex .

33:23.

The

a l t e r na t i ve , cons t r u i ng

'hry

as a

s u b s t a n t i v e ,

wou ld

m a k e

the

pa ra l l e l

t o E x .

33:23 close

indeed.

The i n t e rp r e t a t i on

is ,

h ow e ve r , p r ob l e m a t i c . F i r s t ,

the

t e x t

is

possibly cor rup t . The ch ie f d i f f i c u l t y is wit h h

a

l o m wh i ch

m ean s hi ther ra the r than here an d t h i s f i t s a w k w a r d l y . If

205




o n e

e m e n d s

this,

a s o f t e n

suggested,

to

> e

l o h T m t h e n , w i t h o r

w i t h o u t

f u r t h e r e m e n da t i o n s , t he r e a r e tw o conse quence s:

' I h y m , a n d n o t

'h ry

a s a

s u b s t a n t i v e , m u s t

be the

ob j e c t

o f

r ' y t y ;

a n d

'bry as an a d v e r b m u s t h a v e a t e m p o r a l r a t h e r t h a n a

s p a t i a l s ign i f icance . T h is w o u l d rob the paral le l with Ex. 33:23

of

its force.

S e c o n d l y , th e

c o n t e x t

o f

Gen. 16:7-16 bears

n o

r e s e m b l a n c e

to Ex. 33.

Gen. 16:7-12 lays

n o stress o n a n y

m a r v e l l o u s

a p p a r i t i o n

o f Y a h w e h ' s

a n g e l ,

w h o i s treated in a

m a t t e r - o f - f a c t

w a y .

It is

the r e f o r e

n o t clear h o w f a r t h e

play

o n seeing (r 'h), presen t in bo th

M T

a n d m o s t e m e n d a t i o n s ,

c o n v e y s th e

n u a n c e

o f

phys ica l s igh t

o r an

in t e r e s t

i n t h e o p h a n y

a s s u c h .

God ' s

see ing seems to m e a n h is p r o v i d e n t i a l c a r i n g

fo r

Ha ga r , wh i l e

H ag ar ' s seeing

s e e ms

to

r e f e r

t o h e r

g r a d u a l l y - d a w n i n g

awareness

of the

n a t u r e

of the

person

w h o

s po k e t o h e r . T h e r e i s t h u s n o c o n n e c t io n w i t h t h e e x p l i c i t

t h e o p h a n y

of Ex. 33.

143. Fo r

h i d i n g

one ' s

f a c e ,

cf .

Deut . 31:17,

Is. 53:3, Ps.

13:1,

Jo b 13:24,

etc.

Fo r t u r n i n g

one ' s back ,

cf. Jer.

2:27,

32:33, 2

Chr. 29:6.

144.

Cf. Ex.

26:12,

1 Kg.

7:25, Ezek. 8:16.

145.

C f.

M .

H a r a n , N a t u r e

of the

' Ohel

M p C e d h ,

57.

146. See

b e l o w ,

p. 86.

147. T he r e

a re

in te res t ing l inks b e t w e e n

33:18-23 a n d E x .

17:1-7,

th e m u r m u r i n g a t Massah a n d

M e r i b a h .

T h e

re fe rence

to

th e rock a t H o r e b (17:6) h a s occas ioned m u c h d i s cus s ion .

G e o g r a p h i c a l l y

it is d i f f i c u l t ,

u n l e s s

i t

de s igna t e s Hor e b

a s a

large district,

and i t i s u s u a l l y

deleted

a s a

gloss.

Bu t wh y

shou ld

a n y o n e h a v e

so glossed th e story? A t

Horeb

m a y b e a

r e da c t i ona l no t e o f t ypo l og ica l r a the r t ha n ge ogr a ph ica l

s i g n i f i c a n c e ,

s e e k i n g

to

po in t pa r a l l e l s be twe e n

th e

rock

a t

M a s s a h

a n d

that

a t

S i n a i . I n t e r e s t i n g l y ,

a t

M a s s a h

Y a h w e h

s tands be fore Moses

on the

rock (17:6),

a s

Moses

stands

b e f o r e

Y a h w e h (33:21,

34:2). Moses

passes (

c

br)

b e f o r e

th e

people

(17:5),

a s

Y a h w e h passes (

c

b r)

be fore Moses (33:19 ,22) . The

c o n c e r n

of the

people

in

17:7

is

sa id

to be

w h e t h e r

o r n o t

Y a h w e h is in

th e i r m ids t (bqr b ) , e ve n th o u gh th i s

is

n o w h e r e

expl ic i t

i n t he

preced ing n a r r a t i v e .

I t m a y b e a deliberate echo

of

Ex. 33,

esp.

33:3,5,

cf.

34:9a.

A t a

d i f f e r e n t l e v e l

there

is the

f a c t t h a t D e u t . 33:8f., w h i c h a p p e a r s to r e f e r t o t he s a m e

i n c i d e n t as Ex .

32:25-29,

locates

t h i s i n c i d e n t

i n t h e

t e s t i ng

a t

Massah

a n d M e r i b a h (cf . Ex. 17:7). Since the OT identif ies

M e r i b a h

w ith K ad esh (N u m . 20:1,13,14, 27:14, De ut . 32:51), th is

206




assessed in

excursus

2.

163. See the

b i b l i o g r a p h y

c i t ed in excur sus 2 .

164.

Buber

Moses

89.

165. For the s t r u c t u r e of the

f l ood

n a r r a t i v e , see B . W .

A n d e r s o n , F ro m A n a l y s i s to Syn thesis ;

G.J.

W e n h a m ,

Coherence .

166.

S ee A n d e r so n ,

ib id . ,

36, 38; W e n h a m ,

jbid.,

339f .

167. See ab o ve , pp . 7 0 f .

168.

For a

poss ib l e fu r the r par a l l e l i sm

between

N o a h

a n d

Moses in Ex .

1-2,

se e J.S.

A c k e r m a n , L i t e ra r y C o n t e x t ,

91.

169. C f. 1

H a l b e ,

D a s P r i v i l e g r e c h t J a h w e s , 283.

170.

T h e r e

is no

reason

to

s u p p o s e that

a n y

t he o l o g i ca l

s ign i f i cance , such

as in 32:7-14, is

i n t e n de d

in the use of the

s u f f i x here.

171. The use o f b q r b

h e r e

is

p e r h a p s

a

p u r e l y

l i t e r a r y e c h o

o f

t he p r e v i o u s u s e o f b q r b . I t is u n l i k e l y

that

there i s an y

s u b s t an t i ve i m p l i c a t i o n , s u ch

as

that

Israel

wi l l

be

d i s t inc t ive

in

th e m i d s t o f other peop le because Y a h w e h is in the m i d s t o f

t h e m .

172. Fo r

n p l ' w t

cf. Ex.

3:20, Josh. 3:5, Jer. 21:2,

Ps.

78:32,

105:2, etc.

For

n w r '

cf.

Deut.

10:21,

2

Sam. 7:23,

Ps.

65:5

(66:3,5). The two w o r ds are c o m b i n e d in Ps. 106:22 and,

d i f f e r e n t l y , in Ex.

15:1

Ic.

173. A d m i t t e d l y n o t

m u c h

c a n b e

b u i l t

o n t h i s us e o f

c

m fo r

in

e.g. Deut. 10:21

| t

is used in a way s i m i l a r to Cm h e r e to

denote

th ings done o n Israel's b e h a l f .

174. K . - H . B e r n h a r d t ,

bara ',

248.

175. See

f u r t h e r

b e l o w , p p .

131

ff . Fo r

recent

de t a i l e d

treatments, see E.

Otto,

Das

M a z z o t f e s t , 199ff . ; F.-E. Wi lms ,

B u n d e s b u c h ,

137ff. ;

and

esp. J. H a l b e ,

Privilegrecht, passim.

176. A b o v e , p. 37.

177.

E x o d u s ,

364.

178.

C f.

a b o v e ,

p. 49 .

179. On the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f Y a hw e h ' s n am e b e i n g je a lo u s , cf.

a b o v e ,

p. 79.

180. T h e

p l u r a l

in the

L X X

is an a c c o m m o d a t i o n to the

c u s t o m a r y f o r m u l a t i o n .

181. Such

a pattern o f

p r i n c i p l e

a n d

ap p l i c a t i o n

is

e v i de n t

e l s e w he r e

in the OT,

n o t a b l y

in

D e u te ro n o m y .

182. Cf.

C h i l d s ,

E x o d u s ,

6 1 4 .

183.

T h e

p a r t i c u l a r s e l e c t i o n

is to be seen a s

l a r g e l y

r e c a p i t u l a t i o n

o f

those l aw s a l r e ady co n t a i n e d

in the

S ina i

n a r r a t i v e , esp . 23:14f f . S e e f u r t h e r b e l o w , p p .

1 3 1 f f .

208



N o t e s

t o C h a p t e r T w o

1 8 4 . W h e n

t a k e n

in

i so l a t i on

f r o m i t s

c o n t e x t , t h i s v e r b a l

c h a n g e has a p p e a r e d p u z z l i n g , an d has o f t e n b e e n t a k e n a s

e v i d e n c e

f o r d i f f e r e n t stages o f


o f

I s rae l i t e

oppos i t ion

to i m a g e s. T h e i n t e r p r e t a ti o n i n c o n t e x t

casts

d o u b t s

upon the

v a l i d i t y

o f

c e r t a i n s u c h r e c o n s t r u c t i o n s .

O n t h e

proh ib i t i on

o f

images

in

Israel ,

see

be low,

pp.

1 6 4 f f .

185. Cf . R . de

V a u x ,

Studies i n O ld T e s t am e n t S a c ri f i ce ,

5 2 f f .

186. P.C. C r a ig i e , D e u t e ro n o m y an d U ga r i t ic Studies , 156-

159; J.C.L.

Gibson , Canaan i t e M y t h s an d Legends , 29 f . , 123 ; M .

H a r a n , See th ing

a Kid in i t s

Mothe r ' s Mi l k .

187. A n i n t e r e s ti n g m ode r n pa r al le l is g iven by N . G l u e c k , T he

Other Side

o f the Jo rdan , 9 . Bu t one

should also

note H a r a n ' s

s ce p ti ca l c o m m e n t

o n

Glu eck ' s

expe r i en ce ( See th in g ,

3 1 , n .

24)1

188 .

Cf . above , p . 45 .

189. So

Bub e r ,

Moses , 139; cf .

K n i g h t ,

T h e o l o g y as N a r ra t io n ,

203 .

190 .

A

h i s t o r y

of

m o d e r n s t u d y

of Ex. 34 is

c o n v e n i e n t l y

prov ided

by

W i l m s ,

B u n desb u ch , 1 5-1 35; see also Halbe,

P r i v i l e g r e c h t , 1 3 f f . T h e c o m p r e he n s iv e d o c u m e n t a ti o n p ro v i d ed

there

m a k e s

it

unneces sa r y

to list the

a d h e r e n t s

of the

v a r i o u s

v i e w p o i n t s

cited

in the presen t br ie f d i scuss ion .

191 . So

Chi lds , E xodu s , 608 . I n t e r e s t i ng ly ,

Perlitt w ho

a r gues

for 34:1-28 as a d e u t e r o n o m i c c o m p o s i t i o n in i t s e n t i r e t y an d

does

n o t

f i n d

a

d e c a l o g u e a n y w h e r e

i n vv .

1 1 - 2 6 ,

sees

the

ten

words

as a

s econdar y deu t e r on om is t ic g loss

o f n o specia l

s ign i f icance (Bundes theologie , 2 2 9 f . ) .

192 .

I t m ay also be n o t e d

that

t h e r e i s no o m i s s i o n or

d i s p l a c e m e n t of the w o r d s i n t h e MSS t r a d i t i o n . T h i s

w o u l d

a t

least

r u l e

o u t

t h e i r b e i n g

a v e r y

late gloss.

193. Se e the t ab l e in

W i l m s ,

B u n d e s b u c h , 2 0 0 - 2 0 5 . T he q u e s t i o n

of

s e c o n d a r y e x p a n s i o n

of the

laws does

n o t

a f f e c t

the

bas ic

p o i n t .

194. So

e.g. B e ye r l i n , O r ig in s , 7 7 f f .

195.

Cf . the

c o m m e n t s

an d

c i t a t i o n s

o f Perlitt

B u n d e s -

theo log ie ,

223 .

T he

table

in

W i l m s ,

B u n d e s b u c h ,

2 0 0 f f . ,

we l l

i l l u s t r a t e s

the

d ive r s i t y

o f

r econs t r uc t i on s .

196.

See

Halbe , Pr iv i l egrecht ,

23 , n . 65 , fo r

r e f e r e n c e

to on e

or two such doubts .

197.

T he

proposal

that i t was Y a h w e h w ho

wr o t e

on the tablets

i s no t

nove l ;

see

e.g. Ke i l

&

De l i tz s ch , D i l lm an n , H er t z , B ee r,

an d

Chi lds ,

ad loc. But the

a r g u m e n t

has

t ended

s i m p l y to

appeal

to

34 :1 w i t h o u t d e t a i le d c o n s i d e r a t io n

o f the

re la ted

2 09



At the M ou nta in of God

issue of the re la t ionship between v. 28b and v. 27 and the laws

of vv. 11-26.

It is also possible

that

the ve rb w yk tb c ou ld be in t e rp re t e d in

an

i m p e r s o n a l

sense

( and

t h e r e

w as

wr i t t e n ) , t h e r e by in t e nd -

ing a more obl ique r e f e r en c e to Y a h w e h .

198. Prof. E . W . Nicholson h as suggested to me

that

the

uniqueness of the decalogue resides no t only in its being spoken

by G od

(cf .

h is

Decalogue

as

D irec t Add ress ) ,

bu t

also

in its

be i ng w r i t t e n

b y

h i m ;

th e

speaking

and the

w r i t i n g b e l o n g

together. I f th is is so, i t w o u l d f u r t h e r suppor t the conten t ion

that

in v. 28b the

writer need

n o t

ac tua l ly spec i fy Yahweh

as

w r i t i n g the ten words , on the g round s that h e takes fo r granted

that

it is

o n l y Y a h w e h

w h o

wou ld w r i te

the ten

words .

199. T h e wr i te r need n o t descr ibe th e

tablets

m o r e f u l ly

because tha t was a l ready done in 32:15f . and i t is assu m ed tha t

these r e ne we d t a b l e t s a re s i m i l a r . T h e r e is of course th e

d i f f e r e nc e

that th e

f o r m e r tablets

a re

said

to

have been

t hemse lves God's h a n d i w o r k , w h i l e w i t h the new tablets o n l y

th e

w r i t i n g

is

God's.

But no special

s igni f icance attaches

to

this

in th e na r r a t ive . A t mos t

there

m a y b e

tacit

sugges t ion

that

Israel 's s in has f o r f e i t e d s o m e t h i n g o f

u n i q u e

v a l u e an d t h a t the

covenant renewal does

n o t

s i m p l y

restore

th e

s t a tus

q u o

ante.

O ne

m ay

compare

the

discussion

in the

n e x t

three

pa ragraphs

about

th e

s igni f icance

of the

renewal be ing w i th

you and

w i t h

Israel .

200. The w ord occurs only h e r e , in vv. 33,34,35.

201. N oth , E xod us , 267 .

202. C on je c tu r e s a bo u t the t e r aph i m h a v i n g b e e n s o m e k ind o f

mask are precar ious .

203. Cf. K.

JaroS, D es

Mose

' s t rah l end e Haut ' , 2 7 5 f f .

204. Below, pp. 177ff.

205. The verb qrn appears

on ly

in Ex . 34:29,30,35 (Qal) and Ps .

69:32 (Hiph. ptc.). Since the Hiph . m e a n i n g in Ps . 69 is br ing

f o r t h h o r n s

it is

n a t u r a l

to

i n t e r p r e t

the Qal as

have horns .

The n o u n in the OT a lway s m eans horn . Even the a p p a r e n t

exception in Hab. 3:4 is p r o b a b l y no exception aft er a l l , cf.

Jaros,

o p .

cit., 277 . L inguis t i ca l ly , the re fore ,

the evidence in

favour of the ve rb m e a n ing to be h orne d is o v e rw h e l m i n g .

206. Th is m ea ni ng i s a l ready p resent in the LX X , dedox as ta i he

opsis.

207. J.P. Brow n, The Sacr i f ic ia l Cu l t and i t s C r i t i q u e in Gre e k

and Hebrew (I) , 171.

208.

J . M .

Sasson

sees

in Ex. 34:29-35 a f r a g m e n t of old pagan

2



Notes t o Chap t e r Two

wor s h i p o f

S i n ,

a

m o o n

g od

r epresen t ed

by a

b u l l , h e r e s y m -

bo l i zed by

Moses

who is now

c o n f r o n t e d

by the new

de i ty

Y H W H w h o

g ives orders

an d

h e n c e f o r t h

asserts h is

d o m i n a n c e

( Bovine

S ym bol i sm in the Exo du s N ar ra t ive , 387). One cannot

bu t

feel

that

this

is a classic

e x a m p l e

o f

su ch m i s u n d e r s ta n d i n g .

209. The transit ion

f r o m

Y a h w e h ' s revelat ion on Sinai to his

revelat ion

in the tent h as

been p r epared

for by the

sub t l e

change to the f r e q u e n t a t i v e i m p e r f e c t in 34 :34f .

210 . Ch i lds ,

I n t r o d u c t i o n , 1 7 5.

Notes to E x c u r s u s O ne

1.

For

recent

discussions,

see F.

Ander sen ,

A

lexico-

graphical

note on

Ex od u s 32:18 ;

R .

E d e l m a n n ,

To

c

nwt

Exodus

32:18 ; R. W h y br ay , C

n

w t in E xo du s 32:18 ; H .

V a l e n t i n ,

A a r o n ,

2 1 2 f .

2. So

e.g. D i l l m a n n , E x o du s

u nd

L e v i t i c u s ,

340;

D r i v e r ,

Ex o dus , 353.

3. So

E d e l m a n n ,

op.

cit.;

W h y br ay , op .

cit .

4 . Cf . L X X ,

phonen

exarchon ton

oinou .

5.

G ressm ann, M ose, 202.

6. Ander sen ,

op.-cit., 111 .

7.

And ersen , ib id .

8 . V a l e n t i n , op . cit., 213 .

9 .

V a l e n t i n , i b i d .

10.

Loc. cit.

11. Loc. cit .

12.

E x o d u s ,

111 .

13.

Cf. the

play

on

pr

c

/br

c

h (above,

p.

56);

also the

deve lopment

of

pny m

in the narrat ive; and the subt le


of

m o t i f s

in 33 :12f f .

14. E d e l m a n n , loc.cit.

N o t e s

to E x c u r s u s T w o

1 .

A m o n g th e n u m e r o u s

treatments,

the fo l l owing m ay be

noted: R .

R e n d t o r f f ,

Genesis

8:21

und d ie

Urgeschichte

des

Jahwis ten ;

W . M .

C lark , The Flood

and the

S t r uc t u r e

of the

Pre -pa t r i a r cha l

H i sto ry ,

204-209;

O . Steck, Gen esis 12:1-3 u nd

d ie U rgesch ichte des Jahw is ten ; D .L.

Petersen,

T he Y a h w i s t

on the Flood ; R . A . F . M ackenz ie , The D i v i n e So l i l oqu ies in

Genesis ;

D.3 .A.

Cl ines , Theme , 70-72 .

A m o n g th e

c o m -

m e n t a r i e s ,

G. von R a d ,

Genesis^;

U . C a s s u t o , C o m m e n t a r y

21 1



At the

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

o n

G e ne s i s II; B. V a w ter , On Genes i s ; C . W e s t e rm a n n , G e n e si s

1 11

2. W e s t e r m a n n , o p. cit ., 61 2.

No t e s to C h a p t e r Thre e

E X O D U S 32-34

A S A C U L T

L E G E N D

1.

A m o n g

th e n u m e r o u s i n t e r e s t i n g i s s u e s w h i c h m u s t b e

s h e l v e d ,

bu t

w h i c h

i t i s

h o p e d w i l l

b e

d i scussed

i n the

f u t u r e ,

three m a y b e

s i ng l e d

o u t f o r

m e n t i o n . First,

th e


o f

E x.

32-34

t o E x .

19-24

m a y b e

f r u i t f u l l y r e - e x a m i n e d

in the

l i g h t o f t h e n u m e r o u s i ns t a nc e s w he re t he e xe g e s i s ha s

sug g ested th a t chs . 32-34 presu ppo se

th e

g e n e r a l c o n t e n t ,

a n d

som e t i m e s

th e precise w o r d i n g , o f

chs. 19-24. Secondly,

th e

exegesis h a s

suggested l i n k s b e t w e e n

E x.

32-34

a n d E x .

25-31

closer

t h a n h i t h e r t o

appreciated.

S u f f i c e

it at

presen t

to say

that

i f the

p r e s e n t f o r m

o f E x .

25-31

is

late, s o m e e a r l i e r

a c c o u n t o f a t

least

t h e a r k a n d s o m e k i n d of sacred tent m u s t

be

presupposed. This

is

s i m i l a r

to the

f r e q u e n t l y - m a d e

sugges t i on that some

earlier ( J E ) account o f t he a r k wa s

displaced

by the

later

a n d

more deve loped

P account.

T h i r d l y ,

i t

ha s b e e n sh own

that

t h e r e a r e s t r i k i n g

para l l e l s

i n l a n g u a g e ,

s t r u c t u r e

a n d

t h e o l o g y b e t w e e n

E x .

32-34

a n d

Gen. 6-9.

T h e

l i n k a g e of

these

two

stories

in the t r a d i t i on p rov i de s the

basis

fo r a n

i m p o r t a n t traditio-historical

a n d

redactional s t udy . Tha t

to o r e m a i n s a task for the f u t u r e .

2 . C f . No t h , HP T , 142; E i c h ro d t , C o ve n a n t a n d La w , 308;

P.P. E l li s , T h e Y a h w i s t , 8 7 .

3. J.

H a lb e calls the i r

w o r k

epoch m a k i n g

( P r i v i l e g r e c h t ,

325).

4. S. M o w i n c k e l , L e

D e c a l o g u e , 113ff . ;

G. von

R a d , T h e

F o r m - C r i t i c a l P r o b l e m o f t h e

H e x a t e u c h ,

esp. 20-26.

5 . D e c a l og u e , 12 0.

6. See

also above ,

p. 36.

7. Problem , 4 8 f f .

8. H PT , 59-62, 141-14 5.

9 . O r i g i n s a n d H i s t o r y o f t h e O l de st S i n a i t ic T r a d i t i o n s .

10. D a s P ri v i l e g r e c h t

J a h w e s .

11.

For a

su rve y

o f

recent

usages wi th

c o n s t r

uctive

c l a r i f i c a t i on , s ee R . M . Ha l s , Le g e nd : A C a se -S t u dy i n O T

F o r m - C r i t i c a l T e r m i n o l o g y .

12.

Th e G e r m a n te r m fo r th is is

Sage .

13.

Cf . A . Jolles, E i n f a c h e F o r m e n , 23-61.

212



N o t e s

to

C h a p t e r T h r e e

1 4 .

T he

G e r m a n t e rm

fo r

thi s

is Legende .

15 . The G e r m a n t e r m fo r this is

K ul t (us)sage .

16 .

Legend ,

1 7 1 .

1 7 .

N o t h ,

H i s to r y ,

128 .

18 . The People o f t he C ov en an t , 54 .

19. Ibid.

20. The P s a l m s in Israel 's W o r s h i p , I, 15 .

21 .

The o logy

I, 98.

22 . P s a l m e n s t u d i e n II , 21,

ci ted

b y

H. 3.

K r a u s ,

W o r s h i p

in

I s r a e l , 9 .

23. For an

impor t an t d i scuss ion

of the

methodologica l

p r o b l e m , see S . Ta lm on , The ' C o m p a r a t i v e

M e th o d

1

in Bibl ical

I n t e r p r e ta t io n , A n o t h e r s i g n i f ic a n t t r e a t m e n t ,

w h i c h

i l l u s t -

rates

th e

p ra c t i c a l c onse que nc e s

of the

a p p r o a c h p r o p o s e d ,

is

M . N o t h , G o d , K i n g and N a t i o n in the OT .

24 .

T h e

same

is

t rue

of the

te rm cu l t

in the

phrase cul t

legend .

Al though a

subs t an t ive ,

it is

adjec t iva l

in

fo rc e .

25 .

Olde st S i na i t ic T ra d i t i on s ,

138.

26 . B u nd es bu ch ,

139.

27 .

Worsh ip ,

23.

28. Cul t and H i s t o ry , 14 .

29 . The

s t a n d a r d a c c o u n t

o f

f o r m

c r i t i c i s m

is

K o c h , G r o w t h ;

see also 3 .H . Ha y e s ( e d . ) , O l d _ T e s t a m e n t F o r m C r i t i c i s m . F o r

an

i m p o r t a n t c r i t ic a l a p p r a i s a l , s e e R . K n i e r i m , Old Te s t a m e n t

Form C r i t i c i s m R econs ide red ; a lso B .O. L on g, R e c e n t Field

Studies i n Ora l L i t e r a tu re and the Q ues t ion of Si tz im Leben ;

i d e m ,

R e c e n t F i e ld S t ud i e s in O r a l L i t e r a t u r e a n d t h e i r

B e a r i n g

on OT

C r i t ic i s m ; M . 3 . Bu ss , The Idea

of

Si tz

im

Leben ;

D .A . K n i g h t ,

T he U n d e r s t a n d i n g

o f 'Sitz im Leben

1

in

F orm C r i t i c i sm .

30. Cf . the c r i t i c i sms of 3 . M u i l e n b u r g , F orm C r i t i c i sm and

Beyond , 5 .

R i c h t e r ( E x e g e s e , 7 2 f f . ) a t t e m p t s

to

m e e t

th e

o b j e c t i o n b y d i s t i n g u i s h i n g

b e t w e e n F o r m

a n d

G a t t u n g :

D a m i t

bezieht s ich hie r

'Fo r m ' au f

e inen E inze l t ex t ,

' G a t t u n g ' au f

e inen

T e x t t y p u s ( 7 4 ) . A l t h o u g h th i s obv i a te s some d i f f i c u l t i e s ,

i t

raises

the new

p r o b l e m

of the

re l a t io n s h i p b e t w e e n F o r m

and

G a t t u n g . T h a t

is, the

p r o b l e m

of the

r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n

th e

ge ne ra l a nd t he p a r t i c u l a r i s r e d e f i n e d r a t he r t ha n so lve d .

31 .

T h is n a t u r a l l y

does

n o t

m e a n

that

t h e r e

a r e no t

s imi -

l a r i t i e s be tween th i s expe r i ence a n d o t h e r e nc oun t e r s w i t h

Y a h w e h , w i t h i n or ou t s ide the cu l t , bu t t h a t the ove ra l l course

an d

i m p a c t of the e n c o u n t e r is w i t h o u t s u b s e q u e n t p a r a l l e l .

32 .

See esp . R ece nt F i e ld S tu die s . .. Si tz im Leben .

2 1 3



At the

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

33.

Ibid. ,

4 1 .

34.

Ibid. ,

44 .

35. I n t r o d u c t i o n , 73.

36.

j n t r o d u c t i o n ,

31 .

37. The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n f o r m a n d c o n t e n t h a s a l w a y s

b e e n a n u n r e s o l ve d t e n s i o n i n f o r m c r i t i c i s m; c f .

J.A.

W i l c o x e n ,

N a r r a t i v e , 88.

38. On

these

say ings , see \V. Z i m m e r l i , Ich bin Ja h w e .

U n f o r t u n a t e l y

Z i m m e r l i m a k e s n o r e f e r e n c e t o E x . 33:19, 34:6f.

in h is d i s c u s s i o n .

39. Cf . E i s s f e ld t , I n t r o d u c t i o n , 73 .

40. See f u r t h e r b elo w , p. 130.

41 .

For a

ge n e r a l

t r e a t m e n t

of the

t o p i c ,

see

J.

Jeremias

Th e o ph a n i e .

J e r e m i a s

o f f e r s a

u s e f u l

s u r v e y o f a l l the r e l e v a n t

O T

m a t e r i a l ,

but the

v a l u e

o f

m u c h

o f h i s

a r g u m e n t a t i o n

a n d

c o n c l u s i o n s d e p e n d s l a r g e l y o n t h e a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e f o r m -

critical

a n d t r a d i t i o - h i s t o r i c a l a p p r o a c h

w h i c h

u n d e r l ie s t h e m .

H e

does c l e a r l y s h o w , h o w e ve r ,

th e

d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n

th e

Sina i t h e o p h a n y a n d

o t h e r

O T t h e o ph a n i e s (105f f . ) , a l t h o u g h

h a v i n g s h o w n

th e

o r i g i n s

o f t h e

l a t t e r i n d e p e n d e n t l y

o f t h e

f o r m e r

h e

o f f e r s

n o c o m p a r a b l e d i s c u s s i o n as t o the o r i g i n s o f

th e

f o r m e r .

H is

c r i t i c i sm s

o f t h e

c u l t

a s t h e

Sitz

im L e b e n fo r

t h e o p h a n y

( 1 1 8 f f . )

a re also r e l e v a n t t o t he p r e s e n t d i scuss ion .

4 2.

F o r m g e s c h i c h t e

u n d Exegese v o n E x . 3 4 .

6f. ,

esp.

1 3 I f .

4 3. Lo c. c i t . (n n . 34 , 35).

44 . See the

l i s t i n g

a n d

d i s c u s s i o n

o f

these passages

in

S c h a r b e r t ,

Joe,

cit.; R .C . D e n t a n , T h e L i t e r a r y

A f f i n i t i e s o f

Ex. 34:6f.

M

.

4 5. A l t h o u g h v o n R a d f r e q u e n t l y asserts that such a

t ra n s p o s it io n (a n d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n )

h a s

ta ke n p lace (e.g . Fo rm -

Cr i t i ca l Pro b lem , 68 ; T he o lo gy I , 39) , i t i s

u n f o r t u n a t e

t h a t h e

o f f e r s n o d et a ile d a c c o u n t o f h o w t h i s s h o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d to

h a v e t a k e n place.

46. See a b o ve , p. 77, for the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the u n p a r a l l e l e d

usage o f the q r ' b s m f o r m u l a w i t h Y a h w e h a s s u b je c t.

47. Cf .

a b o v e ,

p p .

1 2 5 f ,

fo r

G . E . W r i g h t ' s c o m m e n t

o n t h e

i m p o r t a n c e o f u s i n g a c o n t r o l w h i c h c a n b e

tested.

48 . F o r

p r e s e n t p u r p o s e s

th e

d i f f e r e n c e b e tw e e n

th e

paraenetic

vv.

11-16

and the laws of vv. 17-26 i s o f no

s i gn i f i c a n c e .

4 9 . O l d e st S i n a i t i c T r a d i t i o n s , e sp .

51

f f . , 63f . , 1 4 5 f f . C f. also

H a l b e , P r i v i l e g r e c h t ,

4 3 f f .

5 0 . C o v e n a n t F o r m s i n I s ra e l i t e T r a d i t i o n .

4



Notes to Chapter Three

51. See

D.3.

M c C a r t h y , O ld

Tes tament Covenant ;

A

Su rvey

of

Current Opin ions ; idem. , Trea ty

and

Covenant^ ; E.W. Nichol -

son, Exodus

and

Sinai

in

History

and

Tradit ion;

B.

Childs,

Exodus,

3 4 4 f f .

52. Co venant ,

184.

53 . See the

h i s to ry

o f

research

in

Wi lms , Bundesbuch , 15-135.

54.

O f all the

scholars discussed

in Wilms

1

his tory

of

research

only

H.L. Strack,

cited

on B u n d e s b u c h , 29, argued that the

context was the

de te rmining fac tor

for the content of

34:1 I f f .

55. So

3.A. Soggin, A nc ient Is ra e l i te Po etry

and

A n c i e n t

'Codes'

of

L a w ,

and the

Sources

'3' and 'E' of the

Penta teuc h ,

191:

There

is no

d i f f i cu l t y

in

ascer ta in ing

that there is a

lack

of

connection between

the

narrat ive

sections

of [3] and Ex.

34:10-25

[sic] .

56 . It is a

weakness

of

Soggin's discussion

(ibid. )

that

he

does

not raise the ques t i on of w h a t kind of connec t ion be tween

d i f f e r e n t types

of

ma te r i a l migh t reasonably

b e

expected.

57. Cf.

Chi lds , I n t ro du c t io n , 198 .

58. So N oth, Exodu s , 263 .

59. So e.g.

Mowinckel ,

Le Decalogue,

6 3 f f .

See most recently

Halbe , Pr iv i legrecht ,

2 1 5 f f . ,

for a res t ra ined account , bu t an

account s t i l l

in

these te rms .

If a cu l t ic co ntex t su b seque nt to 3eroboam were sugges ted ,

then

it would be

possible

to

interpret 34:17

in

t e rms

of

3eroboam's calves. A decision on this issue will depend largely

on one's view

of the

re la t ionship

of Ex. 3 2 to 1 K g.

12:26ff . ,

for

a

discuss ion

of which see

be low,

pp. 1 6 1 f f .

60. The

possibi l i ty

of a

pre-Israelite existence

for

some

of the

laws is nei ther a f f i rm e d nor denied . The issue is not the

originali ty

of the

laws

but how

they

became

a

part

of the

tradition of Ex. 32-34.

61. The present argument does not attempt to account for the

d i f f e r ences

in

order

and

w ord ing be tween

the

sets

of

laws.

The

hyp othesis that they w ere or igin al ly inde pen den t col lec tions, or

else two

recensions

of one

collection,

could explain the d i f f e r -

ences in

general terms,

but

still

leaves one in the

dark

as to

specif ic

reasons

for

d e t a i l e d d i f f e r e n c e s .

In any

case,

the

quest ion of the in t e rna l dev e lopm ent of the legal complexes and

thei r in terre la t ionship in detai l is dis t inc t

f ro m

that

of their

general relationship and incorporat ion into their

present

context.

62. For a general d iscuss ion of the n a t u r e of re l ig ious

language, see I . Barbour ,

Myths , Mode ls

and

P a r a d i g ms .

For a

215



At the

M o u n t a i n

o f G od

discussion related speci f ica l ly

to the use of

l a n g u a g e

in the

Bible ,

see

G.B . C a i r d ,

T h e

L a n g u a g e

an d

I m a g e r y

of the

Bib le .

63.

Moses,

111 .

64.

H is tory , 131:

c f .

HPT, 204 ,

n .

553. A d m i t t e d l y N o t h

do es

al low t h a t it is jus t poss ib le

t h a t

a m o n g th e t ri b e s w a n d e r i n g

a b o u t i n s o u t h e r n a n d e a s t e r n P a l e st in e v o l c a n i c m a n i f e s t a t i o n s

w h i c h

w e r e w e l l k n o w n

in

n o r t h - w e s t e r n A r a b i a w e r e

t r a d i t i o n a l l y t h o u g h t of as p h e n o m e n a a c c o m p a n y i n g t h e o -

p h a n i e s , a n d t h a t t h e y w e r e m e n t i o n e d e v e n w h e n th e

t h e o p h a n y o c c u r re d i n a

p l a c e

w i t h n o v o l c a n o es . But even th i s

r e c o g n i t i o n ,

t o g e t h e r

w i t h

M o t h ' s

m o s t c a u t i o u s d i s c u s s i o n

o f

the i ssue in E xo du s , 157 , 160 , do es n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y c o m e t o

t e r m s

w i t h

th e

q u e s t i o n

o f

w h a t t y p e

o f

l a n g u a g e

it is

t h a t

is

u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

65 . ' R ig h t e o u s n e s s ' an d 'Li fe ' ,

258.

66.

M y t h s ,

5 0 .

67 .

Ib id .

68. Fo r a

c o n v en ie n t s u m m a r y

o f

B e y e r l i n ' s a r g u m e n t ,

se e

E . W .

N i c h o l s o n , E x o d u s a n d

S ina i ,

43f .

69. People o f t he Co v en a n t , 5 2 .

70 .

Ex odus , 231.

7 1 .

A l t h o u g h

t h e r e a re i n s t a n c e s in

G r e e k

l i t e r a t u r e of the

t r u m p e t

as the

s o u n d

o f

t h u n d e r , e . g .

I l i ad 2 1 .

388,

a m p h i d e

s a l p i n x e n m e g a s

o u r a n o s , s u c h

a n

i d i o m

i s

u n p a r a l l e l e d

a n y w h e r e i n t h e O T , le t a l o n e E x . 1 9 w h e r e th e t r u m p e t b l a s t

does n o t f u n c t i o n i n a n a t u r a l i s t i c w a y . S i m i l a r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

a p p l y to the p r o p o s a l o f 3 K o e n i g ( L a L o c a l i s a t i o n d u S ina i ,

17) t h a t th e

t r u m p e t b l a s t a t t e m p t s

to

d e s c r i b e

a n

a s p e c t

o f a

v o l c a n i c e r u p t i o n . T h e a p p a r e n t p a r a l l e l i n D i o C a s s i u s ' a c c o u n t

o f V e s u v i u s ,

k a i

s a l p i n g 5 n

t is

b o e

e k o u e t o ,

p r o v i d e s

n o

real

para l l e l

to the

f u n c t i o n

of t he

t r u m p e t b l a s t

in Ex . 19 .

7 2 .

Sa lp inx ,

8 0 .

73. Cf . G . Fr i ed r i ch , ib id . , 7 3.

N o t e s to C h a p t e r F o u r

E X O D U S

32-34 A S L E G E N D

1.

Cf.

a b o v e ,

p.

119.

2. See

also

J G

F r a z e r , F o l k l o r e

in the Old

T e s t a m e n t

(3

vo l s . ) .

3. See

esp.

th e


to the

f i r s t e d i t i o

of the

G e n e s i s c o m m e n t a r y w h i c h

w a s

p u b l i s h e d s e p a r a t e l y

a n d

recen t ly r e - i s sued

in

t r a n s l a t i o n ,

T h e

L e g e n d s

o f

G e n e s i s

( 1 9 6 4 ) .

2 1 6



Notes to Chapter Fou r

4. See the discussions in all the s t anda rd I n t roduc t ions .

5. For Buber ' s unders tand ing of the t e r m , see Moses,

13-19.

T he

term saga appears to be

s y n o n y m o u s

w i th legend as a

render ing

of the

German

Sage.

6. See e.g. A l b r i g h t ' s i n t r od u c t i on to the re- issue of The

Legends

of

Genesis , v i i - x i i .

7. Fo r a

survey

and

analys is

of the

bib l ical theology

m ov e m e n t , see B.S. Childs, Bibl ical Theology in

Cris is .

8. Pp.

149-212.

N.

Got twa ld ' s Tr ibes

of

Yahweh l ikewise

attaches

l i t t l e

h is tor ica l va lue to the Moses tradit ions (e.g. p .

32).

H is

d i s t i n c t i ve

an d

comprehens ive approach cannot

b e

treated

here, but i t may be ques tioned w hether h is c om m e n t s at

least

on the Sin ai trad it i on (c f . abo ve, p. 12 ) do not show an

i n su f f i c i en t appreciat ion

of the

na ture

of the

ma te r i a l .

9.

H istory , 173.

10 .

Ibid . ,

177.

11.

Ibid. ,

182.

12. jb id . , 210 .

13. Cf. the cr i t i c i sms of 3.B. G e y e r , The Joseph and Moses

Narrat ives: Folk-Tale

and

His tory ,

55.

14 .

His to ry ,

184.

15. So espec ial ly Buber ; cf. above , p. 141.

16. Cf. G.S.

K i r k ,

M y t h, 38.

17. H ebrew Epic: His tor ica l Notes

an d

Cr i t i ca l R eflections ,

19-22.

18 . A l t h o u g h i t m ig h t b e objected to th i s a rgumen t tha t the

de f i n i t i ons

o f f e r ed

of

legend , folk tale

an d

heroic tale

b eg

the ques t ion , the

essent ia l

po in t r ema ins

tha t

i t canno t b e

assumed that

the

d i f f e r e n t genres

are al l a l ike in

their

i m p l i c a t i o n s for the

his tor ical

an d

t rad i t io-h is tor ica l n a tu re

of

th e m a t e r i a l.

19. T he de f i n i t i on is tha t of R.C . Cul ley , A n A pp roac h to the

Problem

of Ora l Trad i t ion , 118.

20 . Amid the numerous discussions of this subject , see esp.

R .C . Cul ley , Ora l Trad i t ion an d Histor ic i ty , which also has a

usefu l b ib l iog raphy .

21. F or r e c en t ca re fu l d i s cuss ions , w i th b ib l iog raphy , see esp.

R .C . Cul ley , S tud ies in the S t ru c tu re of Heb rew Na rra t iv e ;

D. M .

G u n n , T he Story of

K i n g

Dav id ,

37-62.

22 . Cf . V an

Seters ' cr i t i c i sms

of

t rad i t i on - h i s to r y ( A b r a ham ,

139ff.) .

23. The

q ues t ion

of

w h a t co ns t i t u t e s

a

subs tan t ia l amount

is

of course

a

ma t t e r

for

d eb a t e ,

but the

general not ion

is

c lear .

217



At the

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

2k

S e e t h e li s t i n g o f a l t e r n a t i v e s i n C u l l e y , A n A p p r o a c h t o

th e P r o b l e m o f O r a l T r a d i t i o n , J 2 4 f . ; c f . G u n n , K i n g D a v i d , 5 9 .

2 5 . F o r t h e e v i d e n c e fo r w r i t i n g a n d l i t e r a c y , se e A . R .

M i l l a r d ,

The

P r a c t i c e

o f

W r i t i n g

i n

A n c i e n t I s r a e l .

2 6 . P r i m i t i v e Sa ga M e n ,

3 2 5 f f .

2 7 . C f .

G u n n ,

K i n g D a v i d , 5 9 f .

2 8 . A . O l r i k , E p i c L a w s o f F o l k N a r r a t i v e , E T o f Epische

Gesetze d e r

V o l k s d i c h t u n g

( 19 09 ). O n t h e qu e s t i o n o f o r a l

criteria,

c f . also

V o r l a n d e r ,

E n t s t e h u n g s z e i t ,

2 4 f .

2 9. Cf . e .g . K . K r o h n , Fo l k lo r e M e t h o d o l o g y ,

108 f f . ;

W . O .

H e n d r i c k s ,

F o l k l o r e

a n d t h e

S t r u c t u r a l A n a l y s i s

o f

L i t e r a r y

Texts ,

9 9 f f . ;

D . M . G u n n , O n O r a l T r a d i t i o n , 159; R . C . C u l l e y ,

S t u d i e s , 2 9 f .; S . M .

W a r n e r ,

P r i m i t i v e S ag a M e n , 3 3 2 f .

3 0 . Cf . a b o v e , pp . 3 7 f .

3 1 . N a r r a t i v e P a t t e r n s a n d O r a l T r a d i t i o n in J u d g e s a n d

S a m u e l , 3 1 I f f . ; K i n g D a v i d , 3 7 f f . This i s no t d i s s imi l a r t o

Olr ik 's

L a w o f

P a t t e r n i n g .

3 2 . C f . t h e d e b a t e b e t w e e n G u n n a n d V a n Seters in Senne ia 5 ,

1 3 9 f f .

3 3 . A s G u n n h i m s e l f f u l l y a d m i t s , K i n g D a v i d , 5 9 .

34 . Se e a b o v e , p .

205 ,

n .

HI;

p .

2 06 ,

n .

147 .

3 5 . T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p be t w e e n 1 K g . 19 a n d th e S i n a i t ra d i t i o n

i s l ikewise n o t t o b e e x p l a i n e d in t e r m s o f c o n v e n t i o n a l

p a t t e r n i n g .

3 6 . A n A p p ro a c h to the P r o b l e m o f O r a l T r a d i t i o n , 1 2 2 f .

3 7 . T h e r e c u r r e n t p a n i m m o t i f i s , o f course, q u i t e d i f f e r e n t

f r o m a c a t c h w o r d .

3 8 . S e e H . G u n k e l , L e g e n d s , p a s s im; H . G r e s s m a n n , M o s e ,

pass im; E . A u e r b a c h , M i m e s i s , 3 -2 3 ; M . B u b e r , M o s e s , 13 f f . ; O .

E i s s f e l d t ,

I n t r o d u c t i o n ,

3 2 f f . ; G . v o n

R a d , G e n e s i s ^ ,

3 I f f . ;

i d e m , T h e o l o g y

II ,

4 1 0 f f . ;

K .

K o c h , G r o w t h , 1 4 8f f . , 1 9 5 f f . ; B.O.

L o n g ,

T h e

P r o b l e m

o f E t i o l o g i c a l

N a r r a t i v e

in the Old

T e s ta m e n t ; R . M . H a l s, L e ge n d : A C a s e - S t u d y i n O T

F o r m - C r i t i c a l T e r m i n o l o g y ;

O .

K a i s e r ,

jn t r o d u c t i o n , 4 5 f f . ;

3

A .

W i l c o x e n ,

N a r ra t i v e ; J.

V a n

Seters,

A b r a h a m , 1 2 5 f f . ;

C .

W e s t e r m a n n , T h e P r o m i s e s

to

th e

F a t h e r s , 1-94;

i d e m , G e n e s i s

12-50, 4 0 f f . ; W . M c K a n e , S tu d i es i n t h e P a t r i a r c h a l N a r r a t i v e s ,

p a s s i m .

I t

wi l l

b e

n o te d t h a t

th e

m a j o r i t y

o f

d i s c u s s i o n s

a re

d i r e c t e d

t o w a r d s

th e

p a t r i a r c h a l n a r r a t i v e s . T h i s

i s a

p o t e n t i a l d r a w b a c k

in

th e d i s c u s s i o n , s i n c e o n e m u s t b e w a r e o f p r e j u d g i n g th e

e x t e n t to w h i c h

o t h e r e a r ly t ra d i t i o n s h a v e

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n

c o m m o n w i t h

th e

p a t r i a r c h a l

stories.

2 18



N o t e s to Chapter Four

39.

N o t h , H PT ,

44.

40. Cf. B. Childs, A

S tudy

of the

F o r m u l a ,

'Un t i l

This

Day

1

;

B.O. L ong , Pro blem , esp .

8 7 f f .

41.

C f.

above ,

p . 61.

42. Cf. abov e, p. 7 7 .

43. Cf.

above,

p.

120.

44 .

3.G. Fraze r , Fo lk lore ; T .H.

Caster,

M y t h , L e ge n d , an d

Cus to m

in the Old

T e s t a m e n t

(a

m o d e r n F r aze r ) ;

D . I r v i n ,

Israeli te

an d J u d a e a n

H i s t o r y , 180 f f .

45.

Mose ,

199f f . ,

esp. 203.

46. I n d e x , A . 132.9.

47 . I n d e x ,

D .I

33.4.1.

48 .

I n d e x ,

S.73.1.

49. For a recent

discussion

of

w h a t

constitutes a

m o t i f ,

see

D .

I rv in ,

M y t ha r io n ,

2 f f .

50 .

I n d e x ,

C .311 .1 .8 .

51 . I n d e x ,

F.574.3.2.

52.

Theology

II ,

420.

53. Gro w th, 156.

54. Cf .

above ,

pp . 9 0 f f .

55. For the

m arked ca tho l i c i t y

an d

lack

of

r e l ig ious

exclus iveness in Genesis, see B. Gem ser , God in Genesis ; G.

W e n h a m , The R eligion of the

Patriarchs .

A n

apparen t excep t ion

to

th is pr inc ip le ,

the E l i j ah

s tor ies ,

is

not in

f a c t

an

excep t ion .

For the

t heo logy

o f

M os a i c

Y a h w i s m

plays a

smal l ro le

in the stories. The

presenta t ion

is in

t e r m s

o f

the

so l i t a ry defender

o f

t r u t h

aga ins t the

hordes

o f

falsehood.

56. Cf . von

R ad , Theo logy

I , 2 0 3 f f .

57 .

Theology

I I ,

4 2 1 .

58 .

Ibid.;

cf.

G .W.

Coats,

H istory and Theo logy in the Sea

Tradit ion .

T he

impor t an t impl i ca t ions

of the

d i f f e r e n t

senses

in which historical is used here cannot be discussed a t th is

po in t .

59.

T.L. Thompson ( His tory

an d

Trad i t ion ,

58 )

r e f e r s

to

the

growing

abi l i ty o f historians an d

archaeologists

to w r i t e a

his to ry

of

I s rae l' s o r ig ins l a rge ly indep en den t

of

bib l ica l

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ,

an d

says that

In

a p p r o a c h i n g

the or ig in o f

I srael , one can no longer t ake one ' s s t a r t ing-poin t f r o m w i t h i n

Israel's

traditions .

But it is

doub t fu l

whether such an approach

can in

f ac t

be

sustained.

60. The mos t obv ious


the n a t u r e an d a n t i q u i t y o f

the ca l f t r ad i t ion , is br i e f ly discussed in the fo l lowing chap t e r ,

pp. 1 6 I f f . But see also the

br i e f comment s

on

32:25-29,

219



At the

M o u n t a i n

o f G od

below,

pp . 1 8 0 f f .

61 .

P r o m i s e s

to the F a t h e r s ,

71-73.

W e s t e r m a n n ' s

t e r m

is

" theo log ische E r z a h l u n g e n " , w h i c h

h e cons i d e r s ap p l i cab l e t o

Gen. 22:1-19, 18:17-33, 12:1-3, 15:1-6.

N o t e s to Ch ap t e r F i ve

C R I T I C A L A N A L Y S I S

O F E X O D U S

32-34

1 .

For the fo rm -cr i t i ca l an d t r ad

itio-hist

orical p r o b l e m s

concerning 34:6f . , l

1-26,

see above, pp . 128 f f , 1 3 1 f f .

2. T his w as f i rs t suggested by

W e l l h a u s e n ,

D i e Comp os i t i on

d es

Hexa t euch s ,

pp .

8 5 f f . ,

a n d h a s c o m m a n d e d a scholar ly

cons ens us s i nc e .

3. Pp.

8 4 f f .

4. Cf.

above ,

p . 27.

5 . E v e n R u d o l p h w h o

a t t e m p t s

to

d i s p ens e

w i t h E

a l t o g e t h e r

g ives

n o

s e r i ous cons i d e r a t i on

to the

poss ibi l i ty

that

J

cou l d

h ave con t a i ned bo th a n i n i t i a t i on a n d r e n e w a l , a n d a r g u e s

that

the renewal i s

redactional,

E x.

34

h av i ng o r i g i na l l y f o l l owed E x .

19

("Der

A u f b a u

vo n

E x o d u s 19-34";

cf.

Per

"Eloh is t" ,

pp .

40-61) .

6 . S ee the

c o n v e n i e n t

table in

Zenge r , S i n a i t h e o p h a n i e ,

p p .

2 0 6 -2 3 1 . A n d t h a t i s o n l y a r ep r e s e n t a t i ve s e lec ti on

7. E xod us , p .

260.

8 . E x o d u s , p.

607.

9. Cf.

above ,

p . 31.

1 0 .

C o n t r a C h i l d s ,

E x o d u s , p p . 6 1 5 f .

11 . Cf . de V a u x, E a r l y H i s t o r y I, p.

447.

1 2.

S o

e.g.

Perlitt,

B u n d e s th e o l o g i e ,

pp .

2 0 3 f f .

13 . S ee

e.g.

S i m p s o n ,

Ea r ly

T r a d i t i o n s , pp .

204f f . ;

N o t h ,

Exodus ,

pp .

244f .

14. So Ch i lds , Exo dus , p . 559.

1 5 . A n o t h e r p r o b l e m b r o u g h t

to the

f o r e

by the

mos t

ex t ens i ve

r e c e n t w o r k on Ex. 32 ,

that

of H. V a l e n t i n

( A a r o n ,

pp .

205-303), con cerns the ro le o f Aa ro n . D esp i te the l i t e r a ry

i n t e g r i t y o f t h e

r e f e r e n c e s

to A a r o n pp. 2 1 6 - 2 3 1 , 266), V a l e n t i

cons ider s Aaron ' s ro le

w i t h i n th e

t r a d i t i o n

to be a

s e c o n d a r y

d e v e l o p m e n t . S p a ce f o r b i d s

a n y

de ta i l ed d i scuss ion

o f

V a l e n t i n ' s

an a lys i s . Bu t s ince V alen t in ' s t r ad i t i o -h i s to r ica l hy po thes i s i s a

co r o l l a r y

o f the

cu l t l egend i n t e r p r e t a t i on

of Ex. 32, the

cr i t i c i sms

above

o f that

i n t e r p r e t a t i on h ave we i gh ty i mp l i ca t -

ions

for the

a s su m p t io n s u p o n w h i c h V a l e n t in ' s

case rests.

1 6.

Th e r e

is a list o f

t h i r t e e n s imi l a r i t i e s ,

o f

v a r y i n g degrees



Notes to Chapte r

F ive

of subs tance , be tw een the two accoun ts in M . A berb ach , L .

Sm o l a r ,

A aron , 3eroboam , and the G olden Calves .

1 7 .

There

is a

var ia t ion on ly

in the

i n t r odu c t o r y w o r d :

in Ex .

32:4,8,

this

is Celleh), in 1 K g.

12:28, behold

(h inneh) .

18. Cf .

Cassu to , Exodus ,

pp.

408f . ; Buber , Moses ,

pp.

1 4 7 f .

19. Cf . Chi lds , Exodus, pp. 559-561; de V a u x , T he Rel ig ious

Schism of 3eroboam I , p. 101.

20. Cf . Noth , HPT , p. 143; idem , Ex odus, p. 246; T.L.

Thompson, The Joseph

and

Moses Narra t ives ,

p.

162.

21 . Cf . M . N ew m an , The People of the Cov enan t , p . 182; 3.P.

H y a t t , E x odu s , p. 301; W . Z i m m e r l i , D as B i l d e rv e rb o t in der

Gesch i ch t e

d es

A l t e n Israel ,

pp . 2 5 I f f . ; A . W .

3enks ,

T he

Elohis t , p . 51 ; P .M . Cross , Can aan i te

M y t h

and Hebrew Epic , p .

7 4 .

22 . Cf . G .W . Coats R ebel l ion in the W ilderness , pp. 185f .

23.

Above ,

p. 47.

24 . The

histor ical connect ion

of the Sinai tradit ion with the

exodus tradit ion is too big an issue to

discuss here.

S u f f i c e it to

say that von

Rad 's

a r gu men t s for the original separateness of

the

themes

are now

w ide l y criticized. See,

f or

example ,

E . W .

Nichol son , E xo d us and S in ai, esp. p. 84; de

V a u x ,

Ea r l y H i s to ry ,

I , pp.

4 0 I f f .

25. Cf .

B ub er , M oses,

p.

147; N ew m an , People

of the

Covenant , p . 182 .

26 . Cf .

Buber , i b id . Th i s pa r t i cu l a r a rgumen t

is

necessari ly

very tentative.

27. The

ev idence

of A m o s is amb iguous . A l though he makes

no specif ic reference to the

calves

he is never theless

st rong

in

his denun ciat ion of Bethel (A m . 4 :4 ,

5:5f.) .

28. Cf . A .

A l t , The Form a t ion

of the

Is rae l i te

State

in

Pales t ine , pp. 224L ; 3 .

Br igh t , H i s to ry

of Israe l? , pp.

2 1 9 ,

234 , 242;

3 .A .

Sogg in , Der o f f i z i e l l

g e f o r d e r t e

S y n k r e t i smu s in

Israel w a h r e n d

des 10 .

3ah rhun de r t s ,

pp.

1 7 9 f f .

29. A

m i n o r i ty

of

scholars have argued

tha t the b u l l was not a

f r ee - s t and ing

ob jec t but a s tandard on a pole; see O. E i s s fe l d t ,

Lade und

St ierbi ld ;

T .W. Ma n n , D iv i n e

Presence

p. 155. Such

a suggestion has two

ad van t ag e s .

Fi rs t , there is good icono-

graphic ev idence

for

bu l l s tand ards . Secondly , this w ou l d

b e a

paral lel

to the se rpent of

N u m .

21:4-9.

th is were accepted discussion about

the

b u l l

as a

throne

or

pedestal

wou ld

b e c o m e r e d u n d a n t .

T he

t r a d i t i on a l u n de r -

s t a n d i n g

of the b u l l as a f r ee - s t an d in g ob jec t shou ld , how ever ,

b e r e t a i n ed . The i conograph ic ev idence f or f r e e - s t an d i n g b u l l s ,

221



A t

the M o u n t a i n o f G od

espec i a l ly in c u l t i c c o n t ex t s , i s c o n s id e ra b ly m o r e a b u n d a n t

t h a n

th e ev i d en c e fo r s t a n d a r d s . A n d n e i t h e r Ex . 32 no r 1 K g .

12 g i ves an y h i n t

that

a s t a n d a r d i s i n t e n d e d .

3 0.

This

w a s

o r i g i n a l l y

sugges ted

by

H . T . O bb i n k ,

Jahwe-

bi lder , a n d w a s f u r t h e r d e ve lo p ed a n d p o p u l a r iz e d b y A l b r i g h t ,

F r o m th e S t o n e A g e t o C h r i s t i a n i t y , pp. 2 9 9 - 3 0 1 .

3 1 . Cf . J.B. P r i t c h a r d , T h e A n c i e n t N e a r E a s t i n P i c t u r e s , p .

170 , n o s. 500, 501; cf. p. 163, p. 1 8 1 , no . 537.

3 2 . E x o d u s , p.

2 4 7 .

33. Cf . L.R. Ba i l ey , The G olden C a l f , p. 100.

3 4. C f. A N E P , p. 2 0 2 , n o . 616.

35. Cf . H. W o lf f, H ose a , p. 1 4 1 .

36. Cf .

abo ve ,

p. 62.

3 7 . Cf . N o t h , H i s t o r y , p . 2 33 ; P . M . C r o s s , C a n a a n i t e M y t h , p.

73 , n . 1 1 7 .

38 . See e .g . H a lpern , L e v i t i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n , p. 36.

39. E x o d u s , p. 566.

40 . It is also characteristic o f E l i j a h , Hosea , a n d D e u -

t e r o n o m y .

41. Cf . a b o v e , pp. 1 1 9 f f . , esp. p . 1 2 3 , for the m e a n i n g o f cul t

legend . Ex. 32 w o u l d , i n t h i s c o n t e x t , be a cu l t l egend in the

s a m e sense a s J d g .

1 7 - 1 8 .

4 2 . C f . N o t h , D er W a l lf a h r ts w e g z u m S in ai ( N u m .

33) .

43. Old

T e s ta m e n t Theo logy ,

I, pp.

2 1 4 f .

44. C f. J. F a u r , The Bibl ical Idea o f

Ido la t ry ,

p. 1. See also

th e

discuss ion

in

R . P . C a r ro l l, T h e A n i c o n i c

G o d a n d t h e

C u l t

o f Images , pp.

5 I f f .

45 . It is po ssible t h a t Hosea 's w o rd s cou ld a l so be t a ke n in the

o p p o s i t e way , to a r g u e a g a i n s t th e e x i s t e n c e o f such a


th e

Israelites'

behav iou r be ing l abe l l ed

a s

s t u p i d

r a t h e r t h an s i n f u l . Bu t the context o f the verses does

stress

t h a t the ca lves a re s i n f u l a n d n o t m e r e l y f o o l i sh .

46. In

a d d i t i o n

to the

s t a t e m e n t s

o f

s o m e s u c h p o s i t i o n

by H.

S c h m i d , D e r s o g e n a n n t e J a h w i s t , a n d

3

V a n Se te r s , A b r a h a m in

H i s t o r y a n d

T r a d i t i o n , t h e r e

i s the recent

a r g u m e n t

fo r a

post-exilic date fo r

J

f r o m H .

V o r l a n d e r ,

D i e E n t s t e h u n g s z e i t

d es jehowis t ischen G e sch i ch t swe r k e s .

47. So e.g. H . G r e ss m a n n , M o se , p. 240 ; Beyer l in , Or ig ins , pp.

2 2 ,

1 1 2 f f

48 . Cf . G o r g , Z el t , p. 151 . See the t ab le i n Ze n ge r , D ie

S i n a i t h e o p h a n i e ,

pp .

2 2 4 f .

49 .

T . W . M a n n

( D i v i n e P r e s e n c e , p. 1 4 4 ) cites E x . 13 :21-22 ,

N u m .

9:15-23

a s

paral le ls

t o E x .

33 :7 f f .

B u t

these

passages a re



Not e s to Chap ter F ive

expl ic i t summar ies of what happened as Israel travelled, which

could not be

under s tood o the rwi se ,

which is not the case

w i t h

E x.

33:7ff.

50. So

e.g.

M c N e i l e , Exodus ,

p.

212 ; No t h , Exodus ,

p.

255;

Chi lds , Exodus , p. 590.

51. So

Chi lds , Exod us ,

p . 591.

52. Cf.

M .

H a r an , T he N a t u r e of the

Ohel M pC

e

dh .

53. In the

earliest

f o r m of the

suggest ion

that

there

was an

accoun t which told of w h a t w as cons t ruc ted wi th the o r n a m e n t s

and which o r ig ina l l y

fo l lowed

33:6, i t was proposed

that

a

tent,

perhaps containing

the

ark ,

was the

object

constructed

(Knobel ,

Exodus , pp . 32 I f . ; c f. D i l l m a n n and D r i v e r ad loc.). R e c e n t l y ,

however , commenta tor s have usual ly

suggested

that

i t was jus t

the ark t h a t w as m ad e (e.g . E issfe ldt , Lad e und St ierbi ld , pp .

19I f . ; von

R a d ,

O T

Theo logy

I, p.

237; B ey er l in , Or ig ins,

p. 110;

de V a u x ,

A rk

of the

Covenan t ,

p . 141 ) ,

though some have

expressed reservat ions as to the l ikel ihood of the whole

hy pothesis (e.g. N oth , E xo du s, p. 254; Clem ents , God and

T e m p l e ,

p. 36;

Zenger ,

Sinai theophanie , p . 89;

Chi lds ,

E xodus, p.

585;

Fritz,

Tem pel und

Z el t,

pp .

10 I f . ) .

54 . C f. H aran , 'Ohel M pCedh , pp . 53ff . ; F r i t z , T empe l und

Zelt, p. 102.

55. Cf. D .

Jobl ing,

The

Sense

of

Bibl ical Narrat ive,

pp.

50-52.

The

va l i d i t y

of

this point

is

i ndependen t

of 3obling's

overa l l

approach

and

analys is which

is not

a lways

persuasive.

56. The locat ion of the

tent

envisaged by N u m .

11 -12

canno t ,

of course, be co nclu s ively resolved by those

texts

alone, and so

it is r i gh t to appeal to other

passages.

T he ques t i on is w h e th e r

E x. 33:7-11 is the

passage

to

appeal

to . Al though it is

c u s to m a r y

to exclude any

perspective

characteristic

o f P

f r o m

N u m .

11 -12 ,

it is

qui te poss ible

that the

no t ion

of a

shr ine

in the

mids t

of the

camp belonged

to pre-P

t radi t ions

and so may be

app r op r i a t e

to

N u m . 1 1 - 1 2 e ve n w h e n ta k e n

in

isolat ion

f r o m

the P

ma t e r i a l .

A t least it is

app r op r i a t e

to t ry out the

perspective

heur is t ical ly in

one s

r ead i ng o f Num.

11-12.

57 . It is , of

course, poss ible

that

there could

be

r e l i g ious

reasons

fo r locating a sanctuary outs ide a camp, analogous to

the s i tua t ion of sanctuar ies out s ide

cities.

The possible

s ign i f icance o f

posi t ion requires

f u r t h e r

s t udy .

58. The

proposal

to

r egard

the tent of 33:7-11 as a

t e m p o r a r y

sanc tua ry i s no t n e w . See e.g. Kei l & Del i t zsch and Cassuto ad

loc.

Bu t the

a r g u m e n t

has

no t previous ly cons idered

the

ques t ion o f

m e t h o d .

The

presen t

discussion is

concerned

not

223




w i t h h a r m o n y

f o r i t s o w n sake b u t

w i t h

th e

g r o u n d s

u p o n

w h i ch

one ' s a s ses smen t

s h o u l d

be b a s e d .

59 . T h e p h r a s e m h w s I m h n h m a k e s c le a r t h a t a lo c a t i o n

o u t s i d e

th e

p e r i m e t e r

o f t h e

c a m p

i s

e n v i s a g e d ,

u n l i k e

th e

l a n g u a g e o f N u m .

1 1 - 1 2

w h e re n o s i m i l a r p h r a s e is used .

60. See

a b o v e ,

p . 91.

61. See

e .g . H o l z i n ge r ,

E x o d u s , p . 116 ;

B e e r , E x o d u s ,

p .

163;

N o t h , E x o d u s , p . 267 ; B e ye r l i n , O r i g i n s , p . 3.

62. See N o t h , ibid. ; d e V a u x , E a r l y H i s t o r y I , p . 394; cf . also

E i s s f e l d t , H e x a t e u c h - S y n o p s e , p p . 56f .

6 3 . S o C r o s s, C a n a a n i t e M y t h , p . 3 1 4 .

64 . C f . C r o ss , C a n a a n i t e M y t h , p p . 314 , 322 .

65. On

P s

u s e o f

c

dh,

cf.

D r i v e r, E x o d u s ,

p. 88.

6 6. A s a r gu e d b y N o t h a n d d e V a u x (n. 62) .

6 7 . C f . e .g . G r e s s m a n n , M o s e , p p . 2 4 6 f f . ; N o t h , E x o d u s , p .

267; K . Ja roS , Des M o s e

's t ra h l e n d e

H a u t

1

; L . R . B a i l e y , H o r n s

o f

M oses , p p . 4 1 9 f . For a s i gn i f i c a n t d i s s e n t i e n t v o i c e , see F.

D u m e r m u t h ,

M o s e s s t ra h l e n d e s G e s ic h t ;

cf .

also E . G . S u h r ,

T h e H o r n e d M o s e s .

68. Cf. a b o ve , p . 2 1 3 , n . 23 .

69 . There a r e e x c e p t i o n s , o n e o f t h e m o s t n o t a b l e b e i n g th e

h yp o t h e s i s

o f

E i s s f e l d t

o f a

s h o r t

o r i g i n a l ve r s i o n

of the

S i n a i

c o v e n a n t

w h i c h

i n c l u d e d t h i s p e r ic o p e . E i s s f e l d t ' s r e co n -

s t r u c t i o n i s c o n v e n i e n t l y o u t l i n e d ,

w i t h

b i b l i o g r a p h y , i n d e

V a u x ,

E a r l y H i s t o r y I , p . 4 00 . T h e re c o n s t r u c t i o n i s, h o w e v e r ,

s o m e w h a t a r b i t r a r y a n d h a s w o n little acceptance.

70. The

a r g u m e n t t h a t

th e

t h e m e

o f

t r a v e l

a n d

g u i d a n c e

is

o u t o f p l a c e in t he S in a i t r a d i t i o n (so e.g . N o t h , H P T , p p . 1 4 4 ,

2 04f . ) r a i s e s th e q u e s t i o n o f h o w b r o a d l y o r n a r r o w l y o n e s h o u l d

d e f i n e

th e

t h e m e s p r o p e r

to

Sina i .

I t i s

i m p o r ta n t

n o t t o

a d o p t

a

n a r r o w

d e f i n i t i o n w h i c h

begs th e q u e s t i o n .

71 . E a r l y H i s t o r y I , p . 399.

7 2 .

In t e rcess i on ,

p p .

168, 181;

cf .

T e r r i e n , E l u s i v e P r e s e n c e ,

p . 138.

73. Cf .

C h i l d s , E x o d u s ,

p p .

559, 567.

74 .

T h e r e

i s a

t e x t u a l p r o b l e m

in

t h a t 32:9

is

o m i t t e d

by the

L X X . Si n ce t h e v e r s e i s p r e s e n t i n th e a l t e r n a t i v e r e n d e r i n g o f

th e s t o ry in D e u t . 9:13, i t may be

sugges ted

that th e verse is

s e c o n d a r y a d d i t i o n i n t o

i ts

E x o d u s

c o n t e x t

a s

p a r t

o f

h a r m o n i z a t i o n

w i t h (o r u n d e r th e i n f l u e n c e o f ) D e u t e ro n o m y .

T h e r e a r e , h o w e v e r , s e v e ra l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s in

f a v o u r

o f t h e

M T. First,

th e

s t i f f - n e c k e d p e o p l e m o t i f

i s an

i m p o r t a n t

c o n n e c t i v e l i nk w i t h i n E x . 32 - 34 , a n d t h e s i gn i f i c a n c e i t i s g i ve n



N o t e s

to

Chap te r F ive

in 34:9 p resupp oses ear l ie r usage of the ph rase . In ad di t ion to

33:3 5 i ts use in ch. 32, in the

in i t i a l

context of Israel 's

s i n ,

is

par t icu la r ly approp r ia te . Secondly , the way in which th e phrase

f u n c t i o n s

in

32:9

as a

g r o u n d

fo r Y ahweh 's

j u d g m e n t

is

cong ruous w i t h its usages in 33:3,5. T h i r d l y , 32:7-14 is a

ca re fu l l y r edac t ed u n i t in which v . 9 f i t s smoo th ly ( even t hough

its

omiss ion

is not

d i s rup t ive )

an d

which conveys

an


o f Y a h w e h 's m e r cy s i m i l a r to

t h a t

conveyed b y

34:9.

F o u r t h l y ,

w hen the

s t i f f - n eck ed peop le ph ra se ca r ri e s

a

deep s ign i f ican ce in Ex . 32-34 and no special s ig n i f ican ce a t a l l

in Deut . 9-10 which is a loose recas t ing of ea r l ie r t r ad i t io n , its

or ig ina l i ty to the context in which it is of s ign i f icance is l ike ly.

Fi f t h l y ,

t h e r e

is no

o t h e r

M SS

e v i d e n c e

in

s u p p o r t

of

32:9

as an

i n t e r p o l a t i o n .

A d m i t t e d l y

this leaves

th e

L X X o m i s s i o n u n e x p l a i n e d .

B u t

that is less of a d i f f i c u l t y than the supposit ion of 32:9 as a

late

in te rpola t ion .

75. The

fac t t h a t

the

k _ clause

is

a t tached

to the

w o r d s

of

M o ses and so

d i f f e r s f rom

Gen. 8:21 where the k _ clause is

a t t a c hed

to the

w o r d s

o f

Y a h w e h s u p p o r t s

th e

c o n t e n t i o n t h a t

i t was

added

to an

already-exist ing

e l e m e n t in the

t rad i t ion .

76. So G .W .

Coats

Rebel l ion , p. 69.

77. See e.g. H. Holz i nge r , Exodus , p . 108.

7 8 .

Bundes theo log i e ,

pp .

156ff .

7 9 .

Per s o g e n a n n t e Jahwis t ,

pp .

8 3 f f .

80 .

Exodus

an d

Sinai ,

pp . 6 I f f . ;

idem , The Decalogue

as the

d i r ec t

address

of

God ,

pp .

4 2 2 f f .

81 . Deu t . 4:37 uses p a n i m in a way r e m i n i s c e n t of Ex. 33:14

but in

f a c t m o r e abstract

in

con n o ta t ion . Such

a

usage

o f

p a n i m

is a lso w i tho ut other para l le l in D e u te r o n o m y . D e u te r o n o m y

characteristically

expressed

Yahweh ' s presence in t e r m s of his

n a m e .

82. Cf . C. B r e k e l m a n s , Die s o g e n a n n t e n d e u t e r o n o m i s ti s c h e n

E l e m e n t e

in

Genes is

b is

N u m e r i .

E in

Be i t r ag

zu r

Vorge sch ich t e

des

D e u t e r o n o m iu m s ;

k le m ,

Elemen ts d e u t e r o n o m i q u e s dan s

le

Pen ta t euque ; W . Z i m m e r l i , Erwagun gen zum 'Bund' ; d ie

Aussagen i iber

die

3 a h w e - b r y t

in Ex.

19-34 ;

3 .

Ha lbe ,

P r iv i l eg rech t ,

p p .

256f f .

83 .

A p a r t

f rom

the

sole ad j ec t i va l usage

of

q a j e h

w i t h

c

orep in Dt .

31:27,

occurrences of the

verb qsh with

c

rp a re

equal ly d ivided be tween d t . an d

non-dt.

literature:

Dt. lit.; Dt. 10:16, 2 K g.

17:14,

3er. 7:26, 17:23, 19:15.

225



A t t he M o u n t a i n o f G o d

N o n - D t . lit.: P r o v .

29:1,

N e h .

9:16,17,

2 C h ro n . 30:8, 36:13.

T h e r e a r e e x a m p l e s o f s t u b b o r n n e s s b e i n g d e p ic te d b y t h e u s e

o f

e i t h e r

qSh

o r

c

rp

in

c o n j u n c t i o n

w i t h o t h e r w o r d s ,

b u t

t h e y

a r e n o t r e l e v a n t t o t h e p r e s e n t po i n t .

84.

C f. a b o v e , p. 27.

85. A t e n t h c e n t u r y r e d a c t i o n o f Ex .

32-34

f aces n o o bv i o u s

d i f f i c u l t y . I f b o t h th e h i s t o r i c a l c o n t e n t a n d t h e l i t e r a r y

p r e s e n t a t i o n o f 1 K g . 12:26ff . is m o s t l i k e l y s u b s e q u e n t to Ex.

3 2 , a n d n o t

v i ce ve r sa ,

there i s no

e l e m e n t

i n Ex .

32-34,

except

perhaps 32:25-29, which n eed be t a k e n to s h o w k n o w l e d g e o f a n

h i s t o r i ca l s i t u a t i o n l a t e r t h a n t h e t e n t h c e n t u r y . I n d e e d , m u c h

o f

the c o n ten t o f Ex . 32-34, e spec i a l ly the con ce rn f o r a

m o v a b l e s h r i n e , f i t s n a t u r a l l y i n t o t h e earliest p e r i o d o f Is rae l ' s

h i s t o r y .

N o t e s

to E p i l o g u e

1.

E n o u g h h a s a l r e a d y be e n s a i d o n t h e g e n e r a l

m e t h o d o l o g i c a l i s s u e s , a n d t h e y n e e d n o t b e r e c a p i t u l a t e d h e r e .

2. If the d i s s o c i a t i o n o f Ex . 32-34 f r o m a d e u t e r o n o m i c

redactor is correct and yet these c h a p t e r s are the m o s t

a p p a r e n t l y d e u t e r o n o m i c sec t i o n in G e n . - N u m . , th i s sugges t s

t h e n e e d f o r a r e - e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e n a t u r e a n d e x t e n t o f

d e u t e r o n o m i c r e d a c t io n o r B e a r b e i t u n g e l se w h e r e i n t h e

Tetrateuch.

3 . S e e e.g. J. B r i g h t , C o v e n a n t a n d P r o m i s e , p a s si m ; D . N .

F re e d m a n , D i vin e C o m m i t m e n t a n d H u m a n O b l i g a t i o n ; T .

Raitt

T h e o l o gy

of Exi l e , pp . 2 I f . ; S .

T e r r i e n , E l u s i v e

Pr e s e n c e ,

pp .

23f. ;

W .

B ru e g g e m a n n ,

T r a j e c t o r i e s

in

OT

L i t e r a t u r e . J.D.

L e v e n s o n ( T h e D a v i d i c C o v e n a n t

a n d i t s

M o d e r n I n t e r p r e t e r s )

c a u t i o u s l y a r g u e s a g a i n s t a s s e r t i n g a n y s i n g l e o r d e f i n i t i v e

r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e c o v e n a n t s b u t d o es n o t d e n y th e

d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s

o f the i n d e f e a s i b i l i t y o f the D a v i d i c c o v e n a n t .

4. The

c o n d i ti o n a l n a t u r e

o f the

M o s a ic c o v e n a n t

is

f r e q u e n t l y based

u p o n a n

a p p e a l

to Ex .

19:5 w i t h

i ts

c o n d i t io n a l

if .

B u t

a l t h o u g h

th e

g r a m m a t i c a l f o r m

o f

19:5

is

co n d i t io n a l ,

that

n e e d

n o t

d e t e r m i n e

i ts

m e a n i n g .

In

f a c t

i t is

d o u b t f u l

whether 19:5 is t r u l y c o n d i t i o n a l in

sense

(cf . D . Pa t r i c k , T h e

C o v e n a n t C o d e S o u r ce , p . 149). In the t yp i ca l c o n d i t i o n a l s o f

D e u t . 2 8 t h e p r o t a s i s states a c o n d i t i o n a n d t h e a p o d o s i s th e

r e s u l t o f m e e t i n g th e c o n d i t i o n - A n d i f you o be y th e voice o f

226



Notes to E p i l o g u e

Y a h w e h

y o u r

God .. .

Y a h w e h y o u r

G od

w i l l

set you on

h i g h ... .

In

E x . 19:5, ho w ev er , the re la t ionsh ip betw een obeying God s

voice

and

be ing

h is

possession

i s not

t h a t b e t w e e n

an

ac t ion

and

a subsequent r esu l t . The p ro tas i s i s a

d e f i n i t i on

o f the

r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e

pos i t ion

o r

voca t i on des i gna t ed

by the

titles

o f the

apodosis;

i t

exp la ins w h a t be ing God s peop le

m e a n s .

To break the requ i rem ents o f the p ro tasi s (obey ing God s

voice

a nd

k e e p i n g

h i s

c o v e n a n t )

w o u l d no t

m e a n s u b s e q u e n t ly

ceas ing to be God s peop le . R a th er the ac t o f


i tsel f w o u l d be a den ia l o f t he i r pos i t ion a s God s peop le. B u t

such

a

denia l

o f

t he i r

status

need

not

en ta i l

th e

abroga t ion

o f

that status

5.

T h e o l o g y

o f

E x i l e , esp .

p p .

1 0 6 f f .



LIS T O F A B B R E V I A T I O N S

A n c i e n t N e a r E a s t e r n T e x t s R e l a t i n g t o t h e O l d

T e s t a m e n t , e d .

J.B. P r i t c h a r d 3rd ed., P r i n c e -

ton, 1969).

A l t e r O r i e n t u n d

A l t e s

T e s t a m e n t

A n n u a l o f the Swedish Theolog ica l In s t i t u te

T he

B i b l i c a l A r c h a e o l o g i s t

B u l l e t i n

of the

A m e r i c a n S c ho ols

o f

O r i e n t a l

R e s e a r c h

B o n n e r

B i b l i s c h e B e i t r a g e

A H e b r e w and Eng l i sh Lex icon of the Old

T e s t a m e n t ,

ed . F . B r o w n , S.R. D r i v e r , C . A .

B r i g g s ( O x f o r d , 1953 [1907]).

B u l l e t i n o f the

J o h n R y l a n d s L i b r a r y

Bib l i c a l R e s e a r c h

B e i t r a g e z u r W issenschaf t

v o m

A l t e n u n d N e u e n

T e s t a m e n t

B e i h e f t e

z u r

Z e i t s c h r i f t

f u r d i e

alttesta-

m e n t l ic h e W i s s e n s c h a ft

C a t h o li c B i b li c a l Q u a r t e r l y

C a th o l ic B i b li c a l Q u a r t e r l y M o n o g r a p h S e r ie s

Eng l i s h T rans la t ion

E x p o s i t o r y T i m e s

F o r s c h u n g e n z u r R e l i g i o n u n d L i t e r a t u r d e s

A l t e n

u n d N e u e n T e s t a m e n t s

G e se n iu s H e b re w G r a m m a r a s

e d i t e d

a n d e n -

larged

by the

late

E .

K a u t z s c h ,

e d .

A . E .

Cowley

( 2 n d e d . , O x f o r d ,

1910).

H a n d b u c h z u m A l t e n T e s t a m e n t

M . N o t h , A H i s t o r y o f P e n t a t e u c h a l T r a d i t i o n s ,

E T

( E n g le w o o d

C l i f f s ,

N . J . , 1972)

H a r v a r d

T h e o l o g i c a l R e v i e w

H e b r e w U n i o n Col lege A n n u a l

T h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l C r i t i c a l C o m m e n t a r y

( E d i n b u r g h )

T he

I n t e r p r e t e r s D i c t i o n a r y o f t h e B i b le , e d .

G .A . B u t t r i c k , e t

al.

( N e w Y o r k , N a s h v i l le , 1 96 2)

T h e I n t e r p r e t e r s D i c t i o n a r y o f t h e B i ble ,

S u p p l e m e n t a r y V o l u m e , e d . K . C r i m , e t a l .

( N a s h v i l l e , 1976)

228

A N E J 3

O T

STI

SOR

O

B 3 R L

B R

W N T

Z W

C Q

C B Q M S

E T

Exp T

F R L A N T

GK

H A T

H P T

H T R

HUC

ICC

I D S

I D B S u p p l .



A b b r e v i a t i o n s

I E 3

3 B L

3 3 S

3 Q R

3 S O T

3 S O T S u p p l .

3 SS

3 TS

LXX

MT

N E B

N I V

NT

OBO

OT

O TS

PE Q

R H P B

R S V

SANT

SB L

S3 T

ST

TDNT

T D O T

Th.LZ.

T y n d . B .

TZ

V T

V T S u p p l .

WMANT

Z A W

I s r a e l E x p l p r a t i o n 3 o u r n a l

T h e

3 e r u s a l e m

B i b l e ( L o n d o n , 1 9 6 6 )

3 o u r n a l o f B i b l i c a l L i t e r a t u r e

3 o u r n a l

o f

3 e w i s h S t u d i e s

3 e w i s h

Q u a r t e r l y Re v i e w

3 o u r n a l

f o r t h e S t u d y o f t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t

3 o u r n a l f o r t h e S t u d y o f t h e

Old

T e s t a m e n t ,

S u p p l e m e n t

S e r i e s

3 o u r n a l

o f

S e m i t i c Studies ;

J o u r n a l

o f T h e o l o g i c a l S t u d i e s

S e p t u a g i n t

M a s o r e t i c

T e x t

N e w

E n g l i s h B i b le (O x f o r d

C a m b r i d g e , 1 9 7 0 )

N e w I n t e r n a t i o n a l V e r s i o n ( L o n d o n , 1 97 9)

N e w T e s t a m e n t

O r b u s B i b l i c u s

e t

O r i e n t a l i s

Old T e s t a m e n t

O u d t e s t a m e n t i s c h e

Stud i e ' n

P a l e s t i n e E x p l o r a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y

R e v u e d ' H i s t o i r e e t d e P h i l o s o p h i c R e l i g i e u s e s

R e v i s e d S t a n d a r d V e r s i o n ( L o n d o n , 1 9 5 2 )

S t u d i e n

z u m A l t e n u n d N e u e n

T e s t a m e n t

S o c i e ty o f B i b l i c a l L i t e r a t u r e

S c o t t i s h J o u r n a l o f J T h e o l o g y

S t u d i a T h e o l o g i c a

T h e o l o g i c a l D i c t i o n a r y o f

t h e

N e w T e s t a m e n t

( G r a n d R a p i d s , 1 9 6 4 - 7 4 ) .

E T

f r o m T h e o l o g i s c h e s

W o r t e r b u c h z u m N e u e n T e s t a m e n t , e d . G .

K i t t e l

( V o l s .

I ^ V) ,

G .

F r i e d r i c h ( V o l s .

V - I X

( S t u t t g a r t ,

1 9 3 3 - 7 3 )

T h e o l o g i c a l D i c t i o n a r y o f t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t ,

I - I I I ( G r a n d R a p i d s , 1 9 7 4 , 1977 1978 ) . ET f r om

T h e o l o g i s c h e s W o r t e r b u c h z u m A l t e n T e s t a m e n t ,

e d .

G . 3 . B o t t e r w e c k ,

H . R i n g g r e n ( S t u t t g a r t ,

1970 75 .

T h e o l o g i s c h e L i t e r a t u r z e i t u n g

T y n d a le B u l l e t i n

T h e o l o g i s c h e Z e i t s c h r i f t

V e t u s

T e s t a m e n t u m

S u p p l e m e n t s

t o

V e t u s T e s t a m e n t u m

W i s s e n s c h a f t l i c h e

M o n o g r a p h i e n

z u m

A l t e n

u n d

N e u e n

T e s t a m e n t

Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r d i e a l t t e s t a m e n t l i c h e W i s s e n s c h a f t

229



B I B L I O G R A P H Y

A b e r b a c h , M .,

&

S m o l a r,

L .

A a r o n ,

J e r o b o am, and the Golden Calves , JB L 86 (1967) , pp.

129 140

The Golden Calf Episode

in

Postbiblical Literature , H U C A

39 (1968), pp. 91-116.

A c k e r m a n , J.S.

The L i te ra ry C onte xt o f the M oses B i r th S tory

( E x o d u s

1-2) ,

in

K . R . R . G r o s L o u i s e t al.

(ed.).,

L i t e r a r y I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of

Bibl ical

N a r r a t i v e s ( N a s h v i l l e , 1974) ,

pp. 7 4 - 1 1 9 .

A l b r i g h t ,

W . F .

From th e Stone A ge to Chr i s t i an i ty (N ew Y ork , 1957).

Alonso Schokel, L .

The

Inspired Word (London, 1967).

ET f r o m L a Palabra

jnspirada (Barcelona, 1966).

H e r m e n e u t i c a l

P r o b l e m s

of

L i t e r a r y S t u d y

of the

B ible ,

V T

Suppl .

28

(1974) ,

pp.

1-15.

A l t ,

A .

T h e F o r m at i o n

of the

I s rae l i t e State

in

Palestine ,

in his

Essays on O ld Te s tam ent H is tory and R el ig ion (O xfo rd, 1966),

pp. 171-237. Or ig inal ly publ ished in German in 1930 and later

in his

Kle ine

Sch rif ten II (M u nic h, 1953), pp. 1-65.

The O r ig ins

of

Israelite L a w ,

in his

Essays

on O ld

Testament

His tory

and

Religion (Oxford, 1966),

pp. 79-132.

O r i g i n a l l y p ub l i s h ed in G e rm a n in 1934 and later in his K l e i n e

Schr i f ten I

( M u n i ch ,

1953),

pp.

278-332.

A n d e r s e n ,

F.I.

A L ex i co g r ap h i ca l N o t e on Exodus 32:18 , V T 1 6 (1966) , pp.

108-112.

A n d er s o n , B . W .

From A nalys is

to

Synthesis:

T he

In te rpre ta t ion

of

Genesis

1-11 , O BL

97

(1978),

pp.

23-29.

A u e r b a c h , E .

Mi mes i s

(Princeton, 1953).

A u l d ,

A . G .

Keeping up wi th Recent Stud ies : V I . The Pentateuch , Exp .T .

91 (1980),

pp. 297-302.

Baen tsch , B .

Das B un d es b u ch E x . X X . 2 2 - X X I I I . 3 3 (H alle, 1892).

230




E x o d u s ,

L e v i t i c u s ,

N u m e r i

( G o t t i n g e n ,

1903) .

B a i l e y , L . R .

T h e G o l d e n C a l f ,

H U C A

4 2 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , p p . 9 7 - 1 1 5 .

H o r n s

o f

M o s e s ,

ID B

S u p p l . , p p .

4 1 9 - 4 2 0 .

B a r b o u r ,

I .

M y t h s ,

M o d e l s a n d P a r a d i g m s ( L o n d o n , 1 9 7 4) .

B a r - E f r a t , S .

S o m e O b s e r v a t i o n s

o n t h e

A n a l y s i s

o f

S t r u c t u r e

in

B i b l i c a l

N a r r a t i v e s , V T 3 0 (1980) , p p . 154-173.

B a r r , 3 .

T h e o p h a n y a n d

A n t h r o p o m o r p h i s m

in t h e O ld Testament ,

VT S u p p l .

7

( 1 9 5 9 ) ,

p p .

3 1 - 3 8 .

T h e

S e m a n t i c s

o f

B i b l i ca l L a n g u a g e ( O x f o r d , 1 9 6 1 ).

C o v e n a n t , i n H a s t i n g s ' D i c t i o n a r y o f t h e B i b l e ( 2 n d ed .:

E d i n b u r g h , 1963 ) , pp . 183-185 .

T h e B i b l e i n t h e M o d e r n W o r l d ( L o n d o n , 1 9 7 3 ) .

R e a d i n g th e B i b l e a s

L i t e r a t u r e ,

B J R L 5 6 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , p p .

10-33.

S to ry

a n d H i s t o r y in B i b l i c a l T h e o l o g y , J o u r n a l o f R e l i g i on

56 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , p p . 1 - 1 7 . R e p r i n t e d in h i s E x p l o r a t i o n s in T h e o l o g y

7 (Lo nd on , 1980),

p p .

1-17.

H i s to r i c a l R e a d i n g

a n d t h e

T h e o l o g i c a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n

o f

S c r i p t u r e , in h i s E x p l o r a t i o n s in T h e o l o g y 7 ( L o n d o n , 1 9 8 0 ) ,

p p . 30-51.

C h i l d s

1


t o t h e O l d

T e s t a m e n t

a s

S c r i p t u r e ,

3SOT 16 (1980) , pp . 12-23.

B a r t h , H . & Steck, O . H .

Exegese d e s

A l t e n

Testaments: L e i t f a d e n d e r M e t h o d i k

( N e u k i r c h e n - V l u y n ,

1978) .

B a r t o n ,

3

R e v i e w o f

D . A .

K n i g h t

(ed . ) ,

T r a d i t i o n a n d T h e o l o g y i n t h e

O ld T e s t a m e n t , JT S 3 0 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , p p . 2 4 0 - 2 4 3 .

B e e r , G .

E x o d u s , H A T 3 ( T u b i n g e n , 1 93 9).

B e i t z e l , B.3.

E x od us 3 :1 4 and t he D i v in e N a m e : A Case o f B i b l i c a l

Paronomasia , T r i n i t y

J o u r n a l

I ( N S ) (1 9 8 0) , p p . 5-20.

B e r n h a r d t ,

K . H .

bara , T D O T

I I , p p .

2 4 5 - 2 4 8 .

B e y e r l i n ,

W .

O r i g i n s a n d H i s t o r y o f t h e Oldest S i n a i t i c T r a d i t i o n s ( O x f o r d ,

1965) , E T f r o m H e r k u n f t u n d G e s c h i c h t e d e r altesten S ina i -

t r a d i t i o n e n ( T u b i n g e n , 1961)^

B o o i j , T .

231




H a g a r ' s W o r d s in Gen. 1 6 : 1 3 b , V T 3 0 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , p p . 1-7.

B r e k e l m a n s ,

C .

D ie s o g e n a n n t e n

d e u t e r o n o m i s t i s c h e n

E l e m e n t e

i n

G e n e s i s

b is

N u m e r i .

E i n

B e i t r a g

z u r V o r g e s ch i c h t e d e s

D e u t e r o -

nomiums , VT Suppl. 15

1966 ) ,

pp. 90 -96 .

E l e m e n t s d e u t e ro n o m i q u e s d a n s le P e n t a t e u q u e , R e -

c h e r c h e s

B i b l i q u e s 8 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , p p . 7 7 - 9 1 .

B r i g h t , J.

E a r l y I s r ae l

i n

Recent H i s to r y W r i t i n g ( L o n d o n ,

195 6) .

A

H i s t o r y o f Is r a e l (2n d ed.; Londo n , 1 9 7 2) .

T h e A p o d i c ti c P r o h i b i t i o n : S o m e O b s e r v a t i o n s , J B L 9 2

1973) ,

pp. 185-204.

C o v e n a n t

a n d

P ro m i se ( L o n d o n , 1 9 7 7 ).

B r o d i e , L.T.

A g a i n th e G o l d e n C a l f : S h a d e s o f Hosea , Exp/[. 9 1 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ,

pp.

19-20.

Brown, J.P.

T h e S a c r i f i c i a l C u l t a n d i t s C r i t i q u e i n G r e e k a n d H e b r e w

(I) , JSS k ( 1 9 7 9 ) , p p . 1 5 9 - 1 7 3 .

B r u e g g e m a n n , W .

Presence

o f

God,

C u l t i c ,

ID B

S u p p l . ,

p p .

680-683.

T r a je c to r i e s i n O l d T e s t a m e n t L i t e r a t u r e a n d th e S o c i o lo g y

o f A n c i e n t I sr a e l , J B L 9 8 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , p p . 1 6 1 - 1 8 5 .

B u b e r ,

M .

M o s e s ( O x f o r d

&

L o n d o n ,

1 9 4 6 ) .

Buss, M . J .

T he Ide a

o f

S i t z

i m

L e b e n

-

H i s t o r y

a n d

C r i t i q u e , Z A W

9 0

1978) , pp. 157-170.

Caird,

G.B.

T h e L a n g u a g e a n d I m a g e r y o f t h e B i b l e ( L o n d o n , 1 9 8 0 ).

C a l v i n ,

J.

C o m m e n t a r i e s o n t h e F o u r

Last

B o o ks o f M o s e s A r r a n g e d in

th e

F o r m

o f a

H a r m o n y , I II ,

ET

( E d i n b u r g h ,

1 8 5 4 ) .

C a m p b e l l , A.F.

T h e Y a h w i s t R e v i si t e d , A u s t r a l i a n B i b l i ca l R e v i e w 2 7

( 1 9 7 9 ) ,

p p . 2-14.

Carpenter,

J.E.

&

H a r f o r d - B a t t e rs b y ,

G .

T h e H e x a t e u c h , 2 v o l s. ( L o n d o n , N ew Y o r k < c B o m b a y , 1 9 0 0) .

C a r p e n t e r ,

J.E.

T h e

C o m p o s i t i o n

o f t h e

H e x a t e u c h ( L o n d o n ,

N e w

Y o r k

&

B o m b a y ,

1902) .

C a r r o l l , R.P.

T h e A n i co n i c G o d a n d t h e C u l t o f I m a g e s , ST 3 1 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , p p .

2 3 2




51-64.

C h i l d s a n d

C a n o n ,

I r i s h

B i b l i c a l S t u d i e s

2

( 1 9 8 0 ) ,

p p .

2 1 1 - 2 3 6 .

C a n o n i c a l C r i t ic i s m :

A

R e c e n t

T r e n d

in

B i b l i c a l

S t u d i e s ? ,

E x p . T . 9 2 ( 1 9 8 0 / 8 1 ) , p p .

73-78.

C a s s u t o , U .

A

C o m m e n t a r y on the Book o f G e n e s i s I I ( J e r u s a l e m , 1964).

E T

f r o m th e H e b r e w ( J e r u s a l e m , 1 9 4 9 ) .

A C o m m e n t a r y on the Bo o k o f E x o d u s

( J e r u s a l e m ,

1967). E T

f r o m

th e H e b r e w

( J e r u s a l e m ,

1951).

G a z e l l e s , H .

A l l i a n c e d u S i n a i , A l l i a n c e d e 1 'Horeb e t R e n o u v e l l e m e n t d e

r A l l i a n c e , i n H .

D o n n e r ,

e t

al.

(ed.) , B e i t r a g e zu £

A l t t e s t a m e n t l i c h e n T h e o l o g i e ,

W . Z i m m e r l i

F e s t s c h r i f t

(Got t ingen , 1977) ,

p p .

69-79.

la R e c h e r c h e d e

M o i s e

( P a r i s ,

1979).

C h i l d s ,

B.S.

A S t u d y of the F o r m u l a ' U n t i l th i s

Day ' ,

JB L 82 (1963) , p p .

279 292

B i b l i c a l

T h e o l o g y

in

C r i s i s ( P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1 9 70 ) .

E x o d u s ( L o n d o n , 1974)^

T h e

S e n s u s L i t e r a l i s o f S c r i p t u r e : A n A n c i e n t a n d

M o d e r n

P r o b l e m ,

i n H .

D o n n e r

e t a l .

(ed. ) , B e i t r a g e

zu r

Alttestamentlichen Theologie W. Zimm erli Festschrift

( G o t t i n g e n , 1 9 7 7 ) , p p . 80-93 .

T h e E x e g e t i c a l S i g n i f i c a n c e o f C a n o n fo r t he S t u d y o f t he

O ld T e s t a m e n t , V T Sup p l . 2 9 (1978) , p p . 66-80.


t o t h e O l d

T e s t a m e n t

a s

S c r i p t u r e ( L o n d o n ,

1979

O n R e a d i n g th e

E l i j a h

N a r r a t iv e s , I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 3 4 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ,

p p . 128-137.

R e s p o n s e

to R e v i e w e r s o f I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e O l d T e s ta m e n t

as S c r ip tu re , 3SO T 16 (1980) , p p . 52-60. C h i l d s is r e s p o n d i n g

to se v er al i m p o r t a n t r e v i e w s o f h i s I n t r o d u c t i o n a ls o c on -

t a i n e d in the s a m e n u m b e r o f 3SOT.

C l a r k ,

W . M .

The F lood a n d t h e S t r u c t u r e o f t h e

P r e - p a t r i a r c h a l

H i s t o r y ,

Z AW 83 (1971) , pp .

184-211.

L a w i n

J . H .

H a y e s

(ed . ) ,

O l d T e s t a m e n t F o r m C r i t i c i s m

(San

An to n io , 1974) ,

p p . 99-139 .

C l e m e n t s , R.E.

G o d an d

T e m p l e ( O x f o r d , 1965) .

E x o d u s ( C a m b r i d g e , 19 72 ).

2 3 3



At the

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

O ld T e s t a m e n t T h e o l o g y ( L o n d o n , 1978).

P e n t a t e u c h a i P r o b l e m s , in G . W . A n d e r s o n ( e d . ) , T r a d i t i o n

a n d I n t e r p r e t a t i o n ( O x f o r d , 1979), pp. 96-124.

C l i n e s ,

D.J .A.

Th e

T h e m e

of the

P e n t a t e u c h , J S O T

Supp l . 10

( S h e f f i e l d ,

T978T

In t ro d u c t i o n to the Pentateuch' , in G.C.D. Ho wley et al.

(ed.), A B i b l e C o m m e n t a r y fo r

T o d ay ( L o n d o n

G l a s g o w ,

1979), pp.

97-103.

Story a n d Poem: The O l d T e s t a m e n t a s L i t e r a t u r e a n d a s

Scr ipture , I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 34 (1980), pp. 115-127.

Coats, G . W .

Rebel l i on i n the

W i lde rness (N a shv i l l e , 1968).

M o se s V e r s u s A m a l e k : A e t i o lo g y a n d Legend in E x o d u s

17:8-16 , VT Suppl . 28

(1974),

pp.

29-41.

His to ry

a n d

T he o l o g y

in the Sea

Trad i t i on , S tud i a Theo-

Jogica

29 (1975), pp. 53-62,

F r o m C a n a a n t o E g y p t , C BQ M S 4 (W ash in g to n , 1976).

The

K i n g ' s

Loyal Opposi t ion : Obedience a n d A u t h o r i t y in

E x o d u s

32-34 , in G . W . Coats, B.O. Long

(ed.),

C a n o n a n d

A u t h o r i t y

(Phi lade lphia , 1977) , pp. 91-109.

C o d y ,

A .

A

H i s t o r y

of Old

T e s t a m e n t P r i e s t h o o d , A n a l e c t a

Bibl ica 35

( R o m e ,

1969).

Coggins , R.J .

H i s t o r y

a n d S to r y in O ld T e s t a m e n t S t u d y , JS O T (1979) ,

pp. 36-46.

Co le ,

A .

E x o d u s

( L o n d o n , 1973).

C o l l i n s ,

3.3.

Th e 'His to r ica l C h a r a c t e r ' of the Old T e s t a m e n t in R e c e n t

Bibl ical

T he o l o g y , CBQ 41 (1979) , pp. 185-204.

C o n r o y , C .

Hebrew E pi c: H i s t o r i c a l N o te s a n d C r i t i c a l R e f l e c t i o n s ,

Bibl ica 61 (198 0), pp. 1-30.

Craigie , P.C.

D e u t e r o n o m y a n d U g a r i t i c S tu d i e s , T y n d .

B.

28 (1977) , pp.

155-169.

Cross , P . M.

C a n a a n i t e M y t h a n d H e b r e w E p i c ( C a m b r i d g e ,

Mass . ,

1973).

Crossan, J .D.

Perspectives a n d M e th o d s in C o n t e m p o r a r y B ib li ca l

Cr i t ic ism ,

BR

22 (1977), pp.

39-49.

234




W a k i n g th e B i b le : B i b l i c a l H e r m e n e u t i c a n d L i t e r a r y

I m a g i n a t io n , I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 32 (1978) , p p .

269-285.

C u l l e y , R . C .

A n

A p p r o a c h to the P r o b l e m o f O r a l T r a d i t io n ,

V T

13

(1963) ,

p p .

113-125 .

Oral

T r a d i t i o n a n d H i s t o r i c i t y , in D . B . R e d f o r d , 3 . W .

W e v e r s

( e d . ) , S t u d i e s o n t h e A n c i e n t P a l e s t i n i a n

W o r l d

Toronto 1972 , pp. 102 -116 .

O r a l T r a d i t i o n

a n d t h e O T :

S o m e

Recent

Discuss ion , Sem eia

5

(1976) ,

pp.

1-33.

S tu d i e s i n t h e S t r u c t u r e o f H e b r e w N a r r a t i v e ( P h i l a d e l p h i a ,

T976T

D ' A n g e l o , M . R .

Moses in the

Letter

to the H e b r e w s , SBL Dissertations 42

( M i s s o u l a , 1979).

D a v i e s ,

G.I.

T h e W a y o f t h e

W i l d e r n e s s ( C a m b r i d g e , 19 79 ).

Davies , G.H.

E x o d u s ( L o n d o n , 1 9 6 7 ) .

D e n t a n , R . C .

T h e L i t e r a r y

A f f i n i t i e s o f E x .

34:6f. ,

V T 1 3

(1963) ,

p p .

34-51.

D i e t r i c h ,

M ., Loretz, O., &

S a n m a r t i n ,

3.

D i e K e i l a l p h a b e t i s c h e n Texte a u s

U g a r i t

I , A O A T 24

( N e u k i r c h e n - V l u y n , 1976).

D i l l m a n n , A .

E x o d u s u n d

Leviticus

(Le ip zig , 1880).

D o n n e r , H .

' Hier

s ind

deine Cotter, Israel:

1

in H. Gese,

H.-P.

R u g e r

(ed.) ,

W o r t un d

Geschichte,

K . E l l i g e r F e s t sc h r i f t ; A O A T 18

( N e u k i r c h e n , 1973), pp. 45-50.

D ie

literarische Gestalt des

alttestamentlichen

Joseph-

geschichte (Heidelberg, 1976).

D r i v e r , S . R .

D e u t e r o n o m y ,

IC C

( 3 r d

ed.:

E d i n b u r g h , 1 90 2).

Th e

Book

o f

E x o d u s ( C a m b r i d g e ,

1911) .

N o t e s

o n t h e

H e b r e w T e x t

o f the

B o o k s

o f

S a m u e l ( 2 n d

ed.:

Oxfo rd , 1913) .

D u m e r m u t h ,

F.

Z u r

d e u t e r o n o m i s c h e n

K u l t t h e o l o g i e u n d

i h r e n V o r a u s -

setzungen , Z A W 70

(1958) ,

p p . 59-98.

Moses

strahlendes

Gesicht , TZ 17 (1961) , p p .

241-248.

Josua in Ex .

33:7-11 ,

TZ 19 (1963) , pp . 161-168.

235



At the Mountain of G od

Eakins, Jf.K.

Moses , Review

and

Expositor

74 (1977), pp. 461-471.

Edelmann, R.

To

c

anngt

Exodus

32:18 ,

V T

16

(1966) ,

p.

355.

Ehrlich, A.B.

Randglossen

zur

hebra'i'schen Bibel

I (Leipzig, 1908).

Eichrodt, W .

Theology of the Old

Testament,

2 vols.

(London, 1961,

1967).

E T from Theologie

des

Alten Testaments (Gottingen, 1959,

1964).

Covenant

and

Law , Interpretation

20 (1966), pp. 302-321.

Eissfeldt, O.

Hexateuch-Synopse

(Leipzig,

1922).

Lade und Stierbild ,

Z A W

58 (1940), pp. 190-215. Reprinted

in his Kleine Schriften II (Tubingen, 1963), pp. 282-305.

The Old Testament: An Introduction (Oxford,

1965).

ET from

Einleitung

in das

Alte Testament (3rd ed.: Tubingen, 1956).

Israels

Fiihrer in der Zeit vom Auszug aus Agypten bis zur

Landnahme ,

in

Studia

Biblica et Semitica, T.C.

Vr iezen

Festschrift (Wageningen, 1966), pp. 62-70.

Die Komposition der

Sinai-Erzahlung

Ex. 19-34 , Kleine

Schriften IV (Tubingen, 1968), pp. 231-237.

Ellis

P.P.

The

Yahwist: The

Bible's First Theologian (London, 1969).

Elton, G.R.

The

Practice of History (Glasgow,

1969).

Faur,

3

The

Biblical Idea of Idolatry , 3QR 69 (1978), pp. 1-15.

Fensham,

F.C.

The Burning of the Golden Calf and

Ugarit ,

IE3 16 (1966),

pp. 191-193.

Frazer,

3.G.

Folklore in the Old Testament, 3 vols. (London, 1918/19).

Freedman,

D.N.

The Name of the God of Moses ,

JBL

79

(1960),

pp. 151-156.

Divine Commitment and Human Obligation , Interpretation

18 (1964),

pp. 419-431.

Frei, H.W.

The

Eclipse

of

Biblical

Narrative

(New

Haven

&

London,

1974).

Friedrich, G.

Salpinx ,

TDNT VII, pp. 71 -88 .

Fritz, V.

6




Tempel u n d Zelt,

W M A N T

4 7 ( N e u k i r c h e n , 1 97 7).

F r y e , N.

L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m , i n 3 . T h o r p e ( ed .) , T h e A i m s a n d

M e th o d s o f S c h o l a r s h i p in M o d e r n

Languages

and

Literature

( N e w Yo rk , 196 37 T p p . 57-69.

G a r d n e r ,

H .

T h e B u s i n e s s o f C r i t i c i s m ( O x f o r d , 1 9 59 ).

Gaster,

T.H~

M y t h , L e g e n d , a n d C_ustom_ i n t h e O l d

Testament

( N e w Y o r k

&

Lond 'on , 1969).

G e m s e r ,

B.

Go d in G e n e s i s , O T S 1 2 ( 1 9 5 8 ) , p p . 1 - 2 1 .

Gerstenberger, E.

W e se n u n d

H e r k u n f t

d e s ' A p o d i k t i s c h e n Rechts', W M A N T 2 0

( N e u k i r c h e n , 1965) .

C o v e n a n t

a n d

C o m m a n d m e n t ,

3 B L 8 4 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , p p . 38-51.

Gese, H.

B e m e r k u n g e n z u r S i n a i t r a d i t i o n , Z A W 7 9

( 1 9 6 7 ) ,

p p .

137-

154.

T r a d i ti o n a n d B i b l i c a l T h e o lo g y , i n D . A . K n i g h t (ed.),

T r a d i t i o n a n d

T h e o l o g y

i n t h e Jgld Testament

( P h i l a d e l p h i a ,

1977),

p p .

30 1-32 6 .

G e y e r , 3.B.

T h e 3o s ep h

and

M o se s N a r r a t i v e s : F o l k - T a l e

and

H i s t o r y ,

3SOT 15 (198 0) , pp .

51-56.

G i b s o n ,

3.C.L.

Canaanite M y t h s a n d L e g en d s

( E d i n b u r g h ,

1978).

G l u e c k , ~ N L

The Other Side of the 3o rd a n

(Cambridge,

Mass., 1970).

G o l d i n g a y ,

3.

'That Y o u M a y K n o w That Y a h w e h is God

1

: A S t u d y in the

R e l a t i o n s h i p

between

T h e o l o g y and H i s to r i c a l T r u t h in the

O ld Testament , T y n d . B. 23 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , pp. 58-93.

G o r d o n , C . H .

H o m e r , C a p h t o r

a n d Canaan ,

A n a d o l u Arastir m a l a r

i I

1955 ) ,

pp . 1 39 - 1 46 .

Gordon,

R P

E x o d u s , in

G.C.D.

H o w l e y et al. (ed.), A B i b le C o m m e n t a r y

fo r

T o d a y ( L o n d o n & Gl a s g o w , 1979), p p . 1 7 0- 2 1 1 .

Gorg,

M .

D a s Z e l t d e r B e g e g n u n g , B B B 2 7 ( B o n n , 1 9 6 7) .

G o t t w a l d ,

N .

T h e T r i b e s o f Y a h w e h ( L o n d o n , 1 9 8 0 ) .

237



A t

th e

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

G r a d w o h l , R .

Die V e r b r e n n u n g des J u n g s t i e r s , Ex. 32.20 ,

TZ

19 (1963), pp.

50-53.

G r e e n w o o d , D .

Rh e t o r i c a l Cr i t i c i s m a n d

Formgeschichte:

S o m e M e t h o d o -

log ica l Cons ide ra t i ons , JBL 89 (1970), pp. 418-426.

G r e ss m a n n , H.

M o s e

u n d

s e i n e Z e i t , F R L A N T 18 ( G o t t in g e n , 1913).

G u n k e l ,

H .

T h e

L e g e n d s

o f

G e n esis ( N e w Y o r k ,

1964).

G u n n ,

D .M .

N a r r a t i v e

Patterns

a n d Ora l T rad i t i on in

Judges

a n d

Sa m ue l ,

V T

24

(1974),

pp.

286-3-17.

On

Or a l T r a d i ti on : A Response to J o h n V a n

Seters ,

Semeia 5

(1976), pp.

155-163.

T h e S t o r y o f K i n g D a v id ; G e n r e a n d I n t e r p r e t a t i o n , J S O T

Suppl . 6


1978).

G u t m a n n ,

J.

T h e

'Second

C o m m a n d m e n t

1

a n d t h e I m a g e in J u d a i s m ,

H U C A 32

(1961),

pp. 161-174.

H a l b e ,

J.

D a s Pr i v i le g r e c h t J a h w e s , E x. 34.10-26,

F R L A N T

114

( G o t t i n g e n , 1975).

H a l

p e r n , B.

L e v i t ic P a r t i c i p a t i o n in t he R e f o r m C u l t o f J e r o b o a m I ,

JBL 95

(1976),

pp. 31-42.

H a l s, R . M .

L e g e nd : A Case S t u d y in OT F o r m - C r i ti c a l T e r m i n o l o g y ,

CBQ 34

(1972),

pp.

166-176.

H a r a n ,

M .

The N ature of the 'O hel Mocedh' in Pentateuchal

Sources , JSS 5 (1960), pp. 50-65.

Se e t h i ng a K id i n i t s M o t h e r ' s

M i l k ,

JJS 30 (1979) , pp. 23-35.

H a r r e l s o n , W . J.

C a l f , G o l d e n ,

JOB

I, pp. 488-489.

H a r v e y ,

V a n A .

T h e H i s t o r i a n a n d t h e B e l ie v e r ( L o n d o n , 1 96 7).

Hayes , J .H. (ed.)

Old

Testament

Form Cr i t i c i sm (San Anton io , 1974) .

Hayes , J .H. & M il ler , J .M . (ed .)

Israelite

a n d

J ud a e a n H i s t o r y (L on d o n , 19 77 ).

Hayes , J .H.

A n I n t r o d u c t i o n to Old T e s t a m e n t S t u d y ( N a s h v i l l e , 1 97 9).

238




H a z a r d ,

P.

T h e

E u r o p e a n

M i n d 1 6 8 0 - 1 7 1 3

( H a r m o n d s w o r t h ,

1 9 6 4 ) . E T

f r o m

L a C r i s e de l a c o n s c i e n c e e u r o p e e n e ( P a r i s ,

1935) .

H e i n i s c h ,

P.

D a s

Buc h

E x o d u s ( B o n n ,

1934 ) .

H e n d r i c k s , W . O .

F o l k l o r e a n d t h e S t r u c t u r a l A n a l y s i s o f L i t e r a r y T e x t s ,

L a n g u a g e

a n d

S t y l e

3

( 1 9 7 0 ) ,

p p .

8 3 - 1 2 1 .

H e r r m a n n ,

S .

A

H i s t o r y o f I s ra e l i n O ld T e s t a m e n t T ime s ( L o n d o n , 1 9 7 5 ) .

E T f r o m G e s c h i c h t e

I s r a e l s

i n a l t t e s t a m e n t l i c h e r Z e i t

( M u n i ch ,

1973) .

H e r t z ,

3.H.

E x o d u s ( T h e

P e n t a t e u c h

a n d H a f t o r a h s ) ( L o n d o n , 1 9 3 0 ) .

H o l l i n g e r , D . A .

T.S. K u h n ' s T h e o r y o f Science and I t s I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r

H i s to r y , A m e r i c a n

H i s t o r i c a l

R e v i e w

7 8

( 1 9 7 3 ) ,

p p . 370-393.

H o l z i n g e r ,

H .

E x o d u s

( T u b i n g e n , 1 9 0 0 ) .

H o n e y c u t t , R . L .

J r .

A a r o n ,

t h e

P r i e s t h o o d ,

a n d t h e

G o l d e n C a l f , R e v i e w

a n d

E x p o s i t o r 7 4 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , p p .

5 2 3 - 5 3 5 .

H u f f m o n ,

H.B.

Th e Ex o d u s , S i n a i

a n d t h e

Credo ,

C B Q 2 7

( 1 9 6 5 ) ,

p p .

1 0 1 - 1 1 3 .

H u e s m a n ,

I E

Ex o d u s ,

in

R . E . B r o w n

e t

al. ( ed . ) , 3 e r o m e B i b l i c a l

C o m m e n t a r y ( L o n d o n , 1 9 6 8 ) ,

p p . 47-66.

H y a t t ,

J.P.

E x o d u s ( L o n d o n , 1 9 7 1 ) .

I r w i n , D .

The Joseph a n d

M o se s

Narratives , in J.H. H a y e s , J.M .

M i ll e r

(ed . ) , I s r a e l i te a n d J u d a e a n H i s t o r y , pp . 180 -212 .

M y t h a r i o n ,

A O A T

3 2 ( N e u k i r c h e n , 1 9 7 8) .

Jaros*, K .

Des

M o s e ' s t r a h l e n d e H a u t ' . E i n e N o t i z z u E x . 34:29, 3 0 , 35 ,

ZAW

8 8 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , p p . 2 7 5 - 2 8 0 .

J e n k i n s , A . K .

A

Great

N a m e : G e n e s i s

12:2

a n d t h e

E d i t i n g

o f t h e

Pentateuch , JSOT

1 0 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , p p . 4 1 - 5 7 .

Jenks,

A .W .

T h e E l o h i s t a n d N o r t h Israelite T r a d i t i o n s , S B L M o n o g r a p h s

2 2 ( M i s s o u la , 1977 ) .

239



At the

M o u n t a i n

of God

Jeremias,

3.

Theophan ie , W M A N T 1 0 ( N e u k i r c h e n , 1 965).

J o b l i n g ,

D .

T he

Sense

of

Bib l ica l N ar ra t ive , 3SOT

Supp l . 7


1978).

J o h n so n ,

A . R .

Aspects of the Use of the

Term P a n T m

in the Old

T e s t a m e n t ,

in 3.

Fuck ( ed . ) , Fes t sch r i f t Otto E i s s f e l d t

Halle, 1947 ,

pp. 1 5 5 - 1 5 9 .

Jolles,

A.

E i n f a c h e F o r m e n ( T u b i n g e n , 1958) .

3ones, H.

The Concep t

of

S to ry

and

Theo log ica l Discourse ,

S3T 29

(1976) ,

pp .

4 15 -4 3 3 .

Kaiser , O . & K u m m e l , W .G .

Exegetical M e t h o d ; A S t u d e n t ' s H a n d b o o k , E T ( N e w Y o r k ,

1967 .

Kaiser, O.

I n t r o d u c t i o n to the Old T e s t a m e n t ( O x f o r d , 1975) . E T f r o m

the German, 1970, 1973.

K a p e l r u d , A.S.

Some Rece n t P o in t s o f View on the Tim e and O r igin of the

Decalogue ,

Studia Theologica

18

(1 964) ,

pp.

81-90.

K a u f m a n , S .

The Stru ctu re of the D eute rono m ic Law , M aarav 1 (1978/9) ,

pp. 105-158 .

Kearney, P .3 .

Creation and L i tu r gy : The P R e d a c t i o n of Ex . 25-40 , Z A W

89

(1977) ,

p p.

375-387.

Kei l , C.F.

& Delitzsch, F.

Biblical C o m m e n t a r y on the Old Testament: V o l . I I , The

P e n t a t e u c h ,

E T ( E d i n b u r g h , 1864).

Kessler,

M.

A n In t r o d u c t i o n t o R h e to r i c a l C r i t i c i sm o f t h e B ib le :

Prolegomena , Semitics 7 (1980) , pp . 1-27.

K e y , A.F.

Traces

o f W o rs hi p of the

M o o n - G o d S i n a m o n g

the

E a r l y

Israelites ,

3BL 84

(1965) ,

pp.

20-26.

K i r k ,

G.S.

M y t h :

I ts

M e a n i n g s a n d F u n c t i o n

in

A n c i e n t

and

Other

C u l t u r e s ( C a m b r i d g e , 1970) .

K i t c h e n ,

K . A .

Ancient Orient, ' Deu t e r onom is m

1

,

and the Old

Testament ,

24 0




in 3.B. Payne ( ed . ) , N ew P e r s p e c t i v e s o n t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t

(Texas , 1970), p p . 1-24.

K l i n e ,

M . G .

Th e

Tw o

Tab les

o f t he

C o v e n a n t ,

W e s t m i n s te r T h e o l o g i c a l

J o u r n a l

22 (1 9 6 0 ) , pp. 133-146.

K n i e r i m ,

R .

The O ld Tes tam en t Fo rm C r it ic i sm R econs ide red ,

I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 27 (1973) , p p . 435-468.

K n i g h t , D . A .

R e d i s c o v e r i n g th e T r a d i t i o n s o f Is r a e l , S B L D i s s e r t a t i o n s 9

(Missou la ,

1973).

Th e U n d e r s ta n d i n g

o f 'Si tz im

L e b e n '

i n

Fo rm C r i t i c i sm ,

SB L

1 9 7 4 S em ina r

P a p e r s

I , pp . 105-125.

K n i g h t , D.A.

(ed.)

T r a d i t i o n

a n d

Theo l ogy

i n t h e O ld T e s t a m e n t

( P h i l a d e l p h i a ,

WnT .

K n i g h t , G .A .F .

Theo logy a s N a r r a t i o n ( E d i n b u r g h , 1 9 7 6 ) .

K n o b e l ,

A .

D ie Bu 'cher Exodus u n d Lev i t i cus ( L e i p z i g , 1857).

K o c h ,

K .

The G row th o f t h e B i b l i c a l T r a d i t i o n (Lond on , 1 9 6 9 ) . E T f r o m

W as

ist

F o r m g e s c h i c h t e ? ( N e u k i r c h e n , 1 9 6 7 ) .

' ohe l ,

TDOT I , pp . 118-130 .

d e r e k h , TDOT II I ,

p p .

270-293 .

K o e n i g , 1

L a

Loca l i s a t i o n du

S i n a i

e t

les

T r a d i t i o n s

d es

Scribes ,

R H P R 43 (1963) , p p . 2-31.

K o s m a l a , H .

The

So-Ca l l ed

R i t u a l

D e c a l o g u e ,

ASTI

1

( 1 9 6 2 ) ,

p p .

31-61 .

K r a u s , H.-3.

W o r s h i p i n

I sr a e l (O x f o rd , 1 9 6 6 ).

E T

f r o m

th e

G e r m a n

( M u n i c h , 1962).

K r o h n ,

K .

F o l k l o r e M e t h o d o l o g y , E T ( A u s ti n & L o n d o n , 1 9 7 1 ).

K u h n , T.S.

T h e S t r u c t u r e o f S c i e n t i f i c R e v o l u t i o n s ( 2 n d

ed.: C h i c a g o ,

___^

L a b u s c h a g n e ,

C.3.

Th e E m p h a s i z in g P a r t i c l e g a m a n d i t s C o n n o t a ti o n s , i n

Stud i a B ib l i ca

e t

S e m i t i c a , T .C . V r i e zen F es tsch r i f t (W age-

n i n g e n , 1 9 6 6 ) , p p .

193-203.

L a k a t o s , I. M u s g r a v e , A . (ed.)

4

1970



At t h e M o u n t a i n o f G o d

C r i t i c i s m a n d t h e

G r o w t h

o f K n o w l e d g e

( C a m b r i d g e , 1 9 70 ).

L a u r e n t i n ,

A .

W

ec

attah - K a i n u n . F o r m u l e c a r a c t e r i s t i q u e d e s

textes

j u r i d i q u e s

e t l i t u r g i q u e s (a propos d e

Jean

17:5) , Bibl ica 45

(1964), pp. 168-197.

L e h m i n g , S.

Versuch zu Ex .

32 ,

VT 10

(1960) ,

. 16-50.

L e i b o w i t z ,

N .

S t u d i e s

in

S h e m o t ,

E T

( J e r u s a l e m , 1 9 76 ).

L e m a i r e , A .

I n s c r i p t i o n s H e b r a i q u e s I

(Pa ris , 1977).

L e v e n s o n , J.D.

T h e D a v i d i c C o v e n a n t a n d i t s

M o d e r n

Interpreters ,

C B Q

41

(1979),

pp.

205-219.

L e w y , I.

The S tory o f the G olde n Cal f Rea n a lyzed , V T 9 (1959) , pp.

318-322.

L i c h t , J.

S t o r y t e l l i n g i n t h e

Bi b l e ( J e r u s a l e m , 1978).

L i n d b l o m , J.

T h e o p h a n i e s

in

H o l y

Places in

H e b r e w R e l i g i o n , H U C A

32

(1961),

pp.

91-106.

L o e w e n s t a m m , S.E.

The M a k i n g an d Des t ruc t i on o f the G olden Ca l f , B ib l ica 48

(1967) ,

pp.

481-490.

T h e M a k i n g a n d

D e s t r u c t i o n

o f t h e

G o l d e n C a l f

- a

R e j o i n d e r ,

Bib l i ca

56

(1975) ,

p p.

330-343.

L o n g , B.O.

T h e P r o b l e m o f E t i o l o g i c a l N a r r a t i v e in the

Old

T e s t a m e n t ,

B Z A W

108

(Be r l in , 1968).

Recent

Fie ld Stud ies

in

O r a l L i t e r a t u r e

a n d t h e

Qu e s t i o n

o f

Sitz

i m L e b e n ,

Semeia

5

(1976),

pp. 35-49.

Recent Fie ld Stud ies

in

O ra l L i t e r a t u r e

a n d their

B e a r i n g

o n

O T

C r i t i c i s m ,

VT 26

(1976),

pp.

187-198.

L o z a , J.

E x o d e 32 et. la

r e d a c t i o n

JE , V T 2 3

( 1973) ,

pp. 31-55.

L u n d b o m ,

J .R.

God 's

U s e o f t h e I d e m pe r

I d e m

t o T e r m i n a t e

D e b a t e ,

H T R

71

(1978),

pp.

193-201.

M a c K e n z i e , R . A . F .

The Div in e So l i loqu ies in Genesis , CBQ 17 (1955), pp.

277-286.




M a n n ,

T .W .

D i v i n e P r e s e n c e a n d G u i d a n c e i n I s r a e l i te T r a d i t io n s

( B a l t i m o r e & L o n d o n , 19 77 ).

M c C a r t h y ,

D.3.

O ld

T e s t a m e n t C o v e n a n t :

A

S u r v e y

o f

C u r r e n t O p i n io n s

( O x f o r d , 1972).

T r e a t y a n d C o v e n a n t , A n a l e c ta B i b l i c a 2 1 A ( 2 n d ed.: R o m e ,

1978).

E x o d u s

3:14:

H i s t o r y , P h i lo l o g y

a n d

T h e o l o g y ,

C B Q 4 0

(1978) ,

p p .

3 1 1 - 3 2 2 .

M c C o n v i l l e , 3.G.

God ' s ' N a m e ' a n d G o d 's 'G lo r y ' , T y n d . B . 30 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , p p .

149-163 .

M c C u r l e y ,

F .R .

G e n es is , E x o d u s , L e v i t i c u s , N u m b e r s , P r o c l a m a t i o n C o m m e n -

tar ies

( P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1 9 7 9 ) .

M c E v e n u e , S.E.

T h e N a r r a t i v e S ty l e o f th e P r i e s t l y W r i t e r , A n a l e c ta B i b l ic a

50 (R o m e , 1971).

M c K a n e , W .

R e v i e w o f R .

R e n d t o r f f ,

D a s u b e r l i e f e r u n g s g e s c h i c h t l i c h e

P r o b l e m

des

Pentateuch,

V T

28

(1978) ,

p p .

371-382.

S t u d i e s

i n t h e

P a t r ia r c h a l N a r r a t i v e s ( E d i n b u r g h , 1979) .

M c K n i g h t , E .V .

M e a n i n g

in Texts

( Ph i l a d e l p h i a , 1 97 8 ).

M c N e i l e , A . M .

T h e B o o k o f E x o d u s ( L o n d o n , 1 90 8).

M e n d e n h a l l , G.E.

C o v e n a n t F o r m s

in

I s r a e l i te T r a d i t i o n ,

B A 1 7

( 1 9 5 4 ) ,

p p .

50-76.

M e t t i n g e r , T . N . D .

K i n g

a n d

M e ss i a h :

T h e

C i v i l

a n d

S a c ra l L e g i t i m a t i o n

o f t h e

I s r a e l i t e K i n g s , C o n i e c t a n e a B i b l ic a , O T Se r i e s 8 ( L u n d , 1976).

M i c h a e l i s , W .

hodos , T D N T V , p p . 4 2 f f .

M i l l a r d ,

A . R .

T h e Prac t ice o f

W r i t i n g

in A n c i e n t

I s r ae l ,

B A 3 5

(1 9 7 2) ,

p p .

98-111 .

M o r g e n s t e r n , 3.

T h e O l d e st D o c u m e n t o f t h e

H e x a t e u c h ,

H U C A

4 ( 1 9 2 7 ) ,

p p . 1-138.

M o w i n c k e l , S.

L e D e ca l ogu e ( Pa r i s , 1 9 2 7 ) .

T h e P s a l m s in I s r ae l ' s W o r s h i p , I ( O x f o r d , 1962) . E T f r o m

243



A t

the

M o u n t a i n

of God

O f f e r s a n g

og Sa n go f f e r (Oslo, 1951).

M u i l e n b u r g ,

3

The

L i n gu i s t i c

and R h e to r i c a l U s a g e s of the Pa r t i c l e K I in

the Old

Testament ,

H U C A

32

(1961) ,

pp . 135-160.

Th e In t e r c e s s ion

of the

C o v e n a n t M e d i a t o r ,

E x o d u s 33: la ,

12-17 , in P.R. A ck roy d, B. L indar s

(ed.), Words

and

Meanings : Essays

... to D. W i n t o n

Thomas (Cambr idge , 1968) ,

pp. 159-181.

Form C r i t i c i s m and Beyond , 3BL 88 (1969) , pp . 1-18.

N a vone ,

J.

T o w a r d s

a Theology of S tory (Slough, 1977) .

N e w m a n ,

M . L .

T h e

People

o f t h e C o v e n a n t ( N a s h v i l l e ,

1962).

N i c h o l s o n , E .W .

E x o d u s and S ina i in

H i s to r y

and

Tra d i t i on (O x f o r d , 1973) .

The Decalogue as the Direct Address of God , V T 27 (1977),

pp. 422-433.

Niles, D.P.

T he

N a m e

of God in Israel's

Worship:

The Theological

I m p o r t -

ance

of the N a m e Y ahwe h (Michigan, 1979) .

N o r i n ,

S.I.L.

E r Spaltete

Das Mee r , C on iec t a nea

Bib l i ca ,

OT Ser ies 9

( L u n d ,

1977).

orth

C R

Pentateuchal

C r i ti c is m ,

in

H . H . R o w l e y

(ed.), The Old

Tes tament and M o d e r n S t u d y ( O x f o r d , 1951), pp . 48-83.

The Essence of I do la t ry , in

3

H em p e l , L . R os t

(ed.),

V on

Ugarit nach Q u m r a n , O . E i s s fe ld t Festschrift, B Z A W 77

(Ber l in ,

196 1) , pp . 151-160.

N o t h ,

M .

The Laws in the

Pentateuch:

Th e i r A s s um p t ions and

Meaning , in his The

La w s in

the Pentateuch and Other

Studies

( E d i n b u r g h

& London, 1966) , pp. 1-107. E T f r o m Die

Gesetze i m Pentateuch ( I h r e

V o r a u s s e t z u n g e n und ih r

Sinn)

( H a l l e ,

1940).

D er

W a l lf a h r t s w e g z u m S in ai ( N u m . 33) , P a l a ' s t i n a j a h r b u c h

36

(1940),

pp. 5-28.

A H is to r y o f P e n t a te u c h a l T l e w o o d C l i f f s N e w

Jersey,

1972).

E T

f rom

U b e r l i e f

erungsgeschich

te des

Pentateuch (Stuttgart,

1948).

God, K i n g ,

and

N a t ion

in the Old Testament , in his The

La w s

in the Pentateuch and Other

S tud i e s (E d inb u rg h

&

London, 1966) .

E T

f r o m Gott, K o n i g , Volk

im

Al t en

244




Te s t am e n t ,

Z e i t s c h r i f t

u r T h e o l o g i e

u nd K i r c h e 4 7 ( 1 9 5 0 ) ,

157 191.

The Hi s to ry o f I s r a e l ( 2 nd ed ., L o nd o n, 1960 ) . E T f r o m D ie

G e s c h i c h t e

I s r a e l s (Go t t ing en , 1956).

Z u r A n f e r t i g u n g d es ' G o l d e ne n

K a lb e s' ,

V T 9 ( 1 9 5 9 ) , p p .

4 1 9 4 2 2 .

E x o d u s ( L o n d o n , 1 9 6 2 ) . E T f r o m D a s

z w e i t e

B u c h M os e ,

E x o d u s (Go t t inge n , 1959).

O b b i n k ,

H.T.

J a h w e b i l d e r ,

Z A W

47

( 1 9 2 9 ) , p p . 2 6 4 - 2 7 1 .

O l r i k , A .

E p i c

La w s

o f

Folk

Narrative , in A.

Dundes

(ed.), Th e

S t u d y

o f

F o l k l o r e ( N e w

Jersey,

1965) , p p . 1 2 9 - 1 4 1 . E T

f r o m

E p i s c h e

Gesetze d er V o l k sd i c h t u ng , Z e i t s c h r i f t f u r

D eu t sc hes A l te r t u m 51 (1909) , pp . 1 -12 .

Otto, E .

D a s M a z z o t f e s t i n Gi l

g a l , B W A N T

1 0 7 ( S t u t tg a r t ,

1975) .

P a t r i c k , D .

The C o v e n a n t Code Source , V T 2 7 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , p p . 145-157 .

Perdue , L . G.

Th e

M a k i n g a nd

D e s t r u c t i o n

o f t h e

G o l d e n C a l f

- a

R e p l y ,

B i b l i c a

54 (19 73 ) , pp . 237 -246 .

P e r l i t t ,

L .

B u n d e s t h e o l o g i e i m

A l t e n

T e s t a m e n t ,

W M A N T

3 6 ( N e u -

k i r c hen , 1969) .

Petersen, D.L.

T h e Y a h w i s t on the F l o o d , V T 26 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , p p . 4 3 8 - 4 4 6 .

P i p e r ,

3

P r o l e g o m e n a

to

U n d e r s t a n d i n g R o m a n s 9 :1 4 -1 5 :

A n

I n t e r -

p r e t a t i o n

o f

E x o d u s 3 3:1 9 , J o u r n a l

o f t he

E v a n g e l i c a l

T h e o -

l og ica l Soc iety

2 2

( 1 9 7 9 ) ,

p p .

2 0 3 - 2 1 6 .

P o l z i n ,

R .

M a r t i n N o th ' s A H i s t o r y o f Pentateuchal T r a d i ti ons ,

B A S O R 2 2 1 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , p p .

1 1 3 - 1 2 0 .

Poy th res s , V .

A n a l y z i n g a B i b l i c a l T e x t : S o m e I m p o r t a n t L i n g u i s t i c

Dis t inc t i ons , S JT 3 2 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , p p . 1 1 3 - 1 3 7 .

Preuss , H.D.

...

ich

w i l l

mit d i r

seinl ,

Z A W 8 0

( 1 9 6 8 ) ,

p p .

139-173 .

P r i t c h a r d , J.B.

T h e A n c i e n t N e a r East i n P i c t u r e s ( P r i n c e t o n , 1 9 5 4 ) .

vo n R a d , G .

D o x a , T D N T

I I , p p . 2 3 8 - 2 4 2 .

2 4 5



At the

Mountain

of God

The

Form-Critical

Problem of the

Hexateuch

in The

Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh &

London, ~1966), pp. 1-78. ET from Das formgeschichtliche

Problem

des

Hexateuchs,

B W A N T

78

(Stuttgart,

1938).

Studies

in

Deuteronomy (London, 1953).

ET

from

Deuteronomium-Studien (Go'ttingen, 1948).

' Righteousness

1

and

'Life'

in the Cultic Language of the

Psalms , ET, in The Problem of the Hexateuch, pp.

243-266 .

Reprinted from Festschrift fur Alfred Bertholet (Tubingen,

1950),

pp. 418-437 .

Old Testament Theology, 2 vols. (London, 1962, 1965). E T

from Theologie

des

Alten Testaments

(Munich,

1957, 1960).

Moses

(London,

1960).

Genesis (3rd ed.: London,

1972). E T

from

Das

erste Buch

Mose, Genesis (9th ed., Gottingen, 1972).

Offene Fragen im Umkreis einer Theologie

des

Alten

Testaments ,

ThLZ. 88

(1963),

pp. 402ff. ET in his Old

Testament

Theology II (London, 1975), pp.

410-429 .

Raitt,

T.

A Theology

of

Exile (Philadelphia, 1977).

Rendtorff,

R.

Genesis 8:21 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten , Ke ryg m a

und Dogma 7 (1961), pp. 69-78.

Der

'Jahwist

1

als

Theologe?

Zum Dilemma der Pentateuch-

kritik

VT

Suppl.

28

(1975),

pp.

158-166.

ET in JSOT 3

(1977),

pp.

2-10.

JSOT 3

also contains several

responses to

Rendtorff's work

by

other scholars.

Das uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch,

B Z A W

147 (Berlin, 1977).

Reventlow, H.G.

Basic Problems in Old Testament Theology , JSOT

11 (1979),

pp. 2-22.

Richter,

W .

Exegese a ls

Literaturwissenschaft

(Gottingen, 1971).

Ricoeur, P.

The Narrative Function ,

Semeia

13 (1978), pp. 177-202.

Ringgren, H.

' ach , TDOT I, pp. 188-193.

Robertson,

D.

The Bible as

Literature ,

IDB Suppl., pp.

5 4 7 -5 5 1 .

Rogerson,

J.W.

The Changing Context of Old Testament Studies , in

Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Papers 1979 (Manchester:

246




U n i v e r s i t y o f M a n c h e s t e r , F a c u l t y o f T h e o l o g y , 1980 ) , p p .

55-76.

Ro w l e y , H .H .

T h e B i b l i c a l D o c t r i n e o f E l e c ti o n ( L o n d o n , 1 9 5 0 ).

Moses a nd the Decalogue , B 3 R L 34 ( 1 9 5 1 ) , p p . 8 1 - 1 1 8 .

R e p r i n t e d

in h is Men o f God (London &

E d i n b u r g h , 1963) ,

p p .

1-36.

R u d o l p h ,

W .

D er A u f b a u v o n E x o d u s

19 -34 ,

in P. V o l z e t

al.

(ed.),

W e r d e n

und Wesen d es A l t en Testaments (Ber l in , 1936) , p p .

41-48 .

D er

' E l o h i s t '

vo n

E x o d u s

b is

Josua ( B e r l i n , 1 9 3 8 ) .

R y k e n ,

L.

L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m o f th e B i b l e: S o me Fallacies , i n K . R . R .

Gros Louis et al. (ed.), L i t e r a r y Interpretations of Bib l i ca l

N a r r a t i v e s ( N a s h v i l l e , 1 9 74) ,

p p .

24-40.

S a k e n f e l d ,

K.D.

Th e M e a n i n g o f Hesed in the H e b r e w B i b le ; A N e w

E n q u i r y

Missoula, 1978 .

Sanders,

3.A.

T o r a h

a n d

C a n o n ( P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1 9 7 2 ) .

Sasson, 3 .M.

B o v i n e S y m b o l i s m

in the

Exo dus

N a r r a t i v e , V T 1 8 ( 1 9 6 8 ) ,

p p .

380-387.

The W or sh ip o f t he G o lden Ca l f , i n H . A . H o f f n e r (ed.),

O r i e n t an d O cc i d e n t , A O A T 2 2 , C .H . G o r d o n F e s t s c h r i f t

( N e u k i r c h e n - V l u y n , 1 9 7 3 ) , p p . 1 5 1 - 1 5 9 .

S a w y e r , 3.F.A.

From

Moses

to

Patmos London, 1977 .

Scharbert,

3

F o r m g e s c h i c h t e

und

Exegese

von Ex .

34.6f. , B i b l i c a

38

(1957) ,

pp . 130-150.

S c h m i d , H.H.

D e r

s o g e n a n n t e J a h w i s t ( Z u r i c h , 1 9 7 6 ) .

Schmid , H.

Mose; U b e r l i e f e r u n g u n d Geschichte,

B Z A W

1 1 0

( B e r l i n , 1 9 6 8 ).

S i m o n , U .

S t o r y

a n d F a i t h ( L o n d o n , 1 9 7 5 ).

S i m p s o n ,

C.A.

T h e E a r l y T r ad i ti o n s o f

Israel

( O x f o r d , 1 9 4 8 ) .

Soggin ,

3 .A .

Der o f f i z i e l

g e f o r d e t e

S y n k r e t i s m u s in I s r ae l w a h r e n d d e s

247



At th e M o u n t a i n o f G o d

O

J a h r h u n d e r t s , Z A W

7 8 (1966) , p p . 179-204 .

A n c i e n t

Israelite P o e t r y a n d

A n c i e n t

'Codes' o f

L a w ,

a n d t h e

So u r c e s J and 'E ' o f the P e n t a t e u c h , V T

S u p p l .

28 ( 1974) , p p .

85-195.

Spe i s e r , E .A .

'People' and 'Nation' of Israel , 3B L 79 (19 6 63.

G e n e si s ( N e w Y o r k ,

1964).

S t a l k e r ,

D . M . G .

E x o d u s

in

M . B lack , H .H . R owle y (ed.) , Peake's C o m m e n t -

a ry on t he

B ib l e ( r e v i se d

ed.:

L o n d o n , 1 9 6 2 ) ,

p p .

208-240.

S t a m m ,

3.J.

Erl5sen

u n d

V e r g e b e n im A l t e n

T e s t a m e n t

( B e r n , 1 9 4 0 ) .

S t a m m ,

J.3.

&

A n d r e w , M . E.

The Ten

C o m m a n d m e n t s

in R e c e n t

R e s e a r c h ( L o n d o n , 1 9 6 7 ) .

S t a n t o n , G . N .

I n t e r p r e t i n g t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t T o d a y , I n a u g u r a l L e c t u re ,

K i n g ' s C o l le g e , L o n d o n ( L o n d o n , 1 97 9 ).

S t e c k , O.H.

Ge n e s is 12:1 -3 un d d i e U rge s ch ich te de s

J a h w i s t e n ,

in H . W .

W o l f f

(ed.), Prob le me b ib l i s che r The o log ie , G . v o n R a d

F e s t s c h r i f t ( M u n i c h , 197~T), p p . 525-554.

S t u h l m a c h e r ,

P.

H i s t o r i c a l C r i t i c i s m

a n d

T h e o lo g i c a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n

o f

S c r i p t u r e ( P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1 9 7 7 ) ,

E T

f r o m H i s t o r i s c h e K r i t i k

u n d

t h e o l o g i s c h e

S c h r if ta u s l e g u n g ,

i n h i s

S c h r i f t a u s l e g u n g

a u f d em W e g e zu r

b ib l i schen

T h e o l o g i e ( G o t t i n g e n , 1975).

Suhr , E .G .

T h e H o r n e d M o s e s , F o l k l o r e 7 4 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , p p . 387-395.

T a l m o n , S .

The ' C o m p a r a t i v e M e t h o d ' in B i b l i c a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n -

Pr inc ip l e s

a n d P r o b l e m s , VT

S u p p l .

29

(1978) ,

p p .

320-356.

T e r r i e n , S .

Th e E l u s i v e P re s e n c e (San F r a n c i s c o , 1978) .

T h i s e l t o n , A . C .

Tru th , i n C .

B r o w n (ed . ) , N e w

I n t e r n a t i o n a l D i c t i o n a r y o f

N e w

T e s t a m e n t T h e o l o g y ( E x e t e r , 1 97 8 ),

p p .

894-902 .

T h e T w o H o r iz o n s

( E x e t e r ,

1980).

T h o m p s o n , R.J.

M o s e s a n d t h e L a w i n a C e n t u r y o f C r i t i c i s m s i n c e G r a f , V T

S u p p l . 1 9

( L e i d e n , 1 9 7 0 ).

T h o m p s o n ,

S.

M o t i f - I n d e x o f F o l k L i t e r a t u r e , 6

v o l s .

( B l o o m i n g t o n , 19 55).

Th e F o l k t a l e (B erke ley , 1977).

T h o m p s o n , T . L .

248




T h e

H i s t o r i c i t y o f t h e P a t r i a r c h a l N a r r a t i v e s , B Z A W 1 3 3

( B e r l i n

& N e w Y o r k , 19747.

Th e

J o s e p h

a n d

M o s es N a r r a t i v e s ,

in

3 . H . H a y e s ,

3 . M .

M i l l e r

(ed.) ,

jsraelrte

a n d

J u d a e a n

H i s t o r y ,

p p .

1 4 9 - 1 8 0 ,

2 1 0 - 2 1 2 .

H i s t o r y a n d T r a d i t i o n : A R e s p o n s e to

3 .B . G e y e r , JSOT

1 5

( 1 9 8 0 ) ,

p p . 5 7 - 6 1 .

T o l k i e n , 3 . R . R .

O n F a i r y - S t o r i e s , E s s a y s P r e s e n t e d

to

C h a r l e s

W i l l ia m s

( O x f o r d ,

1947) . R ep r i n ted

in Tree a n d

Leaf

( L o n d o n 7 ~ l 9 6 4 ) ,

p p .

1 1 - 7 0 .

T s e v a t , M .

C o m m o n

Sense

a n d

H y p o t h e s i s

in O ld

T e s t a m e n t

S t u d y ,

V T

S u p p l .

2 8 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , p p . 2 1 7 - 2 3 0 .

U t l e y , F.L.

F o lk L i t e r a t u r e : A n O p e r a t i o n a l D e f i n i t i o n ,

J o u r n a l

o f

A m e r i c a n F o l k l o r e 7 4 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , p p . 1 9 3 - 2 0 6 . R e p r i n t e d i n A .

D u n d e s

(edT),

T h e S t u d y o f F o l k l o r e ( N e w J e r s e y , 1 9 6 5 ) , p p .

7 - 2 4 .

V a l e n t i n ,

H .

A a r o n ,

O B O 1 8

( G o t t i n g e n , 1 9 7 8 ) .

V an Seters,

3 .

A b r a h a m

i n

H i s t o r y

a n d

T r a d i t i o n ( N e w H a v e n

&

L o n d o n ,

1975

O r a l Patterns

o r

L i t e r a r y C o n v e n ti o n s

in

B i b l i c a l N a r r a -

tive ,

S e m e i a 5 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , p p . 1 3 9 - 1 5 4 .

V a u x ,

R. de

T h e R e l i g i o u s S c h i s m o f

J e r o b o a m

I , B i b l i c a e t

O r i e n t a l i a ,

M e l a n g e s V o s te ( R o m e , 1 9 43 ) ,

p p .

7 7 - 9 1 . R e p r i n t e d

i n h i s T h e

B i b l e

a n d t h e

A n c i e n t

N e a r

East

( L o n d o n , 1 9 7 2 ) ,

p p . 9 7 - 1 1 0 .

A r k o f t he

C o v e n a n t

a n d

T e n t

o f

R e u n i o n ,

A la

R e n c o n t r e

de

D i e u , M e m o r i a l

A . G e l i n (L e

P u y ,

1 9 6 1 ) , p p . 55-70~

R e p r i n t e d i n T h e B i b l e a n d t h e A n c i e n t N e a r

Eas^t ,

p p .

1 3 6 - 1 5 1 .

S tud ies i n O l d Testament S a c r i f i c e ( C a r d i f f , 1964) .

M e t h o d i n t h e S t u d y o f E a r l y H e b r e w H i s t o r y , in

J.P.

H y a t t

(ed . ) ,

T h e B i b l e i n M o d e r n S c h o l a r s h i p ( L o n d o n , 1 9 6 6 ) , p p .

15-29.

Is

i t

P o s s i b l e

to

W r i t e

a

' T h e o l o g y

o f t he O ld

T e s t a m e n t

1

? ,

M e l a n g e s C h e n u ( P a r i s , 1967) , p p . 4 3 9 - 4 4 9 . R e p r i n t e d i n T h e

B i b l e

a n d T h e

A n c i e n t N e a r East,

p p .

4 9 - 6 2 .

T h e

E a r l y

H i s t o r y o f I s r a e l , I ( L o n d o n , 1 9 7 8 ) . E T f r o m

H i s to i r e A n c i e n n e d ' Is r a e l

I ( P a r

is ,

1 9 7 1 ) .

249



At the

M o u n t a i n

o f G o d

V a w t e r , B .

O n

Genesis:

A N e w R e a d i n g ( L o n d o n , 1977).

V o r l a n d e r , H .

D ie E n t s t e h u n g s z e i t

des

j e h o w i s t i s c h e n

G e s c h i c h t s w e r k e s

( F r a n k f u r t a m

M a i n , B e r n ,

L a s

Vegas ,

1978^

Vriezen, T.C.

E i n i g e N o t i z e n

zu r

U b e r s e t z u n g

d e s

B i n d e w o r t s K I ,

in

J.

H e m p e l ,

L .

Rost (ed.),

V o n U g a r i t

n a c h

Q u m r a n , O .

E i s s f e l d t

Festschrift, B Z A W 7 7 ( B e r l i n ,

1961),

pp. 266 273.

W a g n e r, N . E .

A b r a h a m

a n d Da v id? , in

D . B . R e d f o r d ,

J .W .

W e ve rs (ed.) ,

Stud ies

o n t h e

A n c i e n t P a l e s ti n i a n

W o r l d

( T o r o n t o , 1 9 7 2 ) ,

pp .

117-140 .

W a ld ma n , N . M .

God's

W a y s - A C o m p a r a t i v e N o t e , 3 Q R 70 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , pp.

67-72.

W a lk er ,

N .

C o n c e r n i n g E x o d . 34:6 , JB L

79

(1960) ,

p.

277.

W a rn e r,

S .M.

P r i m i t i v e S a g a M e n , VT 29 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , pp. 325-335.

W e in f eld , M .

berith ,

T D O T

II, pp.

253-279.

W e is er , A .

I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t ( L o n d o n , 1961) . E T f r o m

E i n l e i t u n g in das Alte Testament (4th ed.: Gottingen, 1957).

W eiss, M .

E in iges iiber d ie

B a u f o r m e n

d es E r z a h l e n s in der Bib el , VT

13

(1963), pp.

456-475.

W e ll ek , R . & W a r r e n , A .

T h e o r y o f

Literature

( H a r m o n d s w o r t h , 1 95 6).

W e llh a u s e n ,

J.

D i e C o m p o s i t i o n

d e s

H e x a t e u c h s

u n d d e r

h i s t o r i s c h e n B u c h e r

des

Al t e n Testaments (2nd ed.; Ber l in , 1889^

W e n h a m , G.J.

T he

Coherence

o f t he F lood N a r ra t ive , VT 28 (197 8) , pp .

336-348.

The Rel ig ion of the Patriarchs , i n A . M i l l a r d , D . W i se m an

(ed.),

Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives (Leicester,

1980),

pp .

157-188.

W e ste rm a n n ,

C.

Genesis 1-11

( N e u k i r c h e n ,

1974).

T h e

Promises to the

Fathers

(Ph ilad elph ia , 1980). ET f r o m

D ie

V e r h e i s s u n g e n

a n d i e V a t e r ( G o t t i n g e n , 1976).

250




Ich b i n J a h w e ,

G e s c h i c h t e u n d

A l t s

T e s t a m e n t ,

A . A l t

F e s t s c h r i f t ( T u b i n g e n , 1 95 3),

p p .

1 7 9 - 2 0 9 . R e p r i n t e d

i n h i s

G o t t e s

O f f e n b a r u n g ( M u n i c h , 1 9 6 3 ) ,

p p . 1 1 - 4 0 .

E r w a g u n g e n

z u m

' B u n d ' ;

d i e A u s s a g e n u b e r d i e J a h w e - b e r i t h

in E x . 19-34 , in H.3. S t o e b e

( e d . ) , W o r t , G e b o t , G l a u b e ,

W .

E i c h r o d t F e s t s c h r i f t ( Z u r i c h , 1 9 7 0 ) ,

p p .

1 7 1 - 1 9 0 .

D as B i l d e r v e r b o t i n d e r G e s c h i c h t e d e s A l t e n I s r a e l , i n K . H .

B e r n h a r d t

(ed . ) , S c h a l o m , S t u d i e n

z u

G l a u b e

u n d

G e s c h i c h t e

I s r a e l s ,

A .

J e p s e n

F e s t sc h r i f t ( B e r l i n ,

197D7

R e p r i n t e d

i n h i s

S t u d i e n z u r

a l t t e s ta m e n t l i c h e n T h eo l o g ie

u n d _ P r o p h e t i e

(Munich

1974 7

pp.

2 4 7 - 2 6 0 .

O ld T e s t a m e n t

T h e o l o g y

i n

O u t l i n e ( E d i n b u r g h , 1 97 8).

E T

f r o m

G r u n d r i s s d e r a l t t e s t a m e n t l i c h e n T h e o l o g i e ( S t u t t g a r t ,

1 9 7 5 .

T h e

H i s t o r y

o f

I s ra e l i te R e l i g i o n ,

i n

G . W . A n d e r s o n (e d .) ,

T r a d i t i o n a n d I n t e r p r e t a t i o n

( O x f o r d , 1979) ,

p p .

3 5 1 - 3 8 4 .

2 5 2



INDEX OF

AUTHORS

51,

55, 193n49,

198n40, 219n58,

221n22, 225n76

192nl9

1 3

209nl86

221n21,

222n37

224nn63 64

191n9

148,

217nnl9,

20,21, 218n24,

218nn29,36

200n78

214n44

211n2, 221nlO,

223n53

193n49, 197nl6

78, 95,

197nl6,

200n73

2 0 3 n l l 7

205nl29 211n2

2 2 3 n 5 3 2 2 4 n 6 5

224n67

2 1 i n n l 3 l l 1 4

197n27

11

7 4

122

2 0 3 n n l l 4 1 1 5

212n2

1 2 8 f 2 1 4 n 3 9

2 1 8 n 3 8 2 2 1 n 2 9

2 2 3 n n 5 3 6 2

2 2 4 n 6 9

5 1 2 1 2 n 2

26

29

222n44

199n45

151

2 1 6 n 2

219n44

78,

201n8 9

2 0 5 n n l 2 9 1 3 0

2 2 6 n 3

19 192n l9

138

2 1 6 n 7 3

2 2 3 n n 5 3 5 4

19

18 19

151 2 1 9 n 4 4

219n55

2 1 7 n l 3

2 0 9 n l 8 6

209n l 87

2 2 2 n 4 8

11 12

2 1 7 n 8

253

Aberbach, M .

A c k e r m a n

1

A l b r i g h t W . F .

Alonso

S c h o k e l L .

Ande r se n F . I .

A n d e r s o n B . W .

A u e r b a c h

E.

B a i l e y

L.R.

Barbour, I.

B a r - E f r a t S.

B a r r J.

B a r t o n

1

Beer, G.

Beitzel, B.J.

B e r n h a r d t K . - H .

B e y e r l i n W .

Booi j T.

Brekelmans,

C.

B r i g h t J.

B r o w n

3.P.

B u b e r

M .

Buss

M I

Caird, G.B.

Calvin,

J.

Carroll, R.P.

Cassuto,

U.

Childs, B.S.

Clements, R . E .

Clines,

D.J.A.

1 9 6 n l l 2 2 0 n l 6

2 0 8 n l 6 8

217n6

45

2 1 1 n n l 6 7 2 1 7 n 6

16 19 27 30

2 0 8 n n l 6 5 1 6 6

2 1 8 n 3 8

222n33 224n67

136, 215n62

193n48

79, 132, 192nnl9,

34 205nl38,

209nl89

193n46

224n61

205nl35

208nl74

119,

124f, 1 3 1

150,

192n36,

201nn82,83,

209nl94, 216n68,

222n47

223n53

224n61

205nl42

225n82

1 1 221n28,

226n3

210n207

12,

135, 14 1, 194n

74 200n70

208nl64,

217nn5,15, 218n38,

221nnl8,25,26

213n29

203nll6,

216n62

198n29

222n44

138,

199n54,

221nl8, 223n58

13, 16, 17, 20f 30

52, 54, 61,68, 81,

160,

166,

49nnl8,20,

50n30

191n6,

198n32, 199n60,

200n73,203nll2,

208nl82,

209nl91,

211n210, 215nn51,57,

217n7, 219n40,

220nnlO,14,73,

221nl9, 223nn50

51,53,

224n73

1 1

194n70,

201n81,

223n53

16

Coats, G . W .

C ol l in s

1 1

C o n r o y C.

Craigie,

P.C.

Cross, F.M.

Crossan l D

Culley

R.C.

D Angelo, M . R .

Dentan, R . C .

D i l l m a n n

A .

Conner H.

Driver S.R.

D u m e r m u t h

F.

E d e l m a n n R.

E h r l i c h

A .

E i c h r o d t W .

E i s s f e l d t

O.

E l l i s

P.F.

Elton, G.

E n g n e l l I .

Faur,

1

Fensham, F.C.

Frazer,

J.G.

Freedman, D . N .

Frei, H.

Friedrich, G.

Fritz,

V .

Frye,

N .

G a r d n e r

H.

Caster, T .H.

Gemser, B.

Geyer,

J.B.

G i b s o n l C L

G l u e c k

N .

Gorg, M .

G o t t w a l d N .



t the Mo od

25

Gressmann,

H.

Gunkel, H.

Gunn, D.M.

Halbe,

J.

Halpern,

B.

Hals,

R.M.

Haran,

M.

Hayes,

J.H.

Hazard, P.

Herrmann, S.

Holzinger, H.

Huesman, J.E.

Hyatt, J.P.

Irvin,

D.

Jaros,

K.

Jenks,

A.\V.

Jeremias,

J.

Jobling, D.

Johnson, A.R.

Kaiser,

O.

Kaufman,

S.

Kirk,

G.S.

Knierim, R.

Knight, D.A.

Knight,

G.A.F.

Knobel, A.

Koch,

K.

Koenig, J.

Kraus, H.-J.

Krohn,

K.

Kuhn,

T.

Labuschagne,

C.J.

Laurentin, A.

Lemaire, A.

Levenson, J.D.

Licht,

J.

Loewenstamm, S.

Long, B.O.

Lundbom,

3

Mackenzie, R.A.F.

1 1 , 1 5 1 , 122n 7,

199nn 9,56, 205nn

128,132,

211n5,

218n38, 22 n67

1 1 ,

1 6, 1 9,

218n38

1 7, 217n21,

218nn2 ,27,29,32

1 ,119,193n36,

208nnl69,175,

209nnl90,196,

212n3, 215n59

222n38

120, 2 1 2 n l l , 218n38

206nl 5, 209nl86,

209nl87,

223nn52,5

1 1 ,

191n3, 191n ,

2I3n29

193n51

22 n61,

225n77

n79

221n21

1 5 1 , l 2f, 193n 8,

219n

210n203,

22 n67

200n79,

221n21

21 n 0

223n55

203nll5

30,

218n38

197n2

217nl6

213n29

190n2, 213n29

16,

202nI08,

209nl89

223n53

152, 193n38,

197n21, 213n29,

218n38

2I6n71

125

218n29

191n8

202n95

202nl07,

205nl3

199n51

226n3

25, 39, 19 n56,72

199n 5

127, 213n29,

218n38, 219n 0

2 0 5 n l 2 9

11

Mann, T . V V .

McCarthy, D.J.

McEvenue,

S.

McKane, W .

McNeile,

A.

Mendenhall, G.E.

Mettinger,

T.N.D

Michaelis,

W .

Millard, A.R.

Miller, J.M.

Mowinckel,

S.

Muilenburg,

J.

Newman,

M.

Nicholson,

E .W.

Niles,

D.P.

North,

C.R.

Noth,

M.

Obbink, H.T.

Olrik,

A.

Otto, E.

Patrick, D.

Perlitt, L.

Petersen,

D.L.

Piper, J.

Polzin, R.

Preuss, H.D.

Pritchard,

J.B.

195n5, 207n l56,

221n29, 222n 9

16 ,

20f,

193n36

215n51

193n 8

11, 190n2,

193n 6,

218n38

223n50

3

2 3 n l l l

197n21

218n25

11, 191n3

36, 118, 121 ff,

215n59

12, 68,

201n81,

202nn97,108,

207nl57, 213n30

120f ,

137f,

221nn2I,25

18 ,

193n36,

197n27, 210nl98,

213n51,

216n68,

22In2

200n80, 201n88,

20 nl27,

207nl51

193n50

11, 12, 16, 30,

31, 53,

119, 1

0

165, 190n2,

193n 5, 19 n61,

199n61,

201n81,

203nnll2,120,

20 nl21, 210n201,

2l2n2, 2I3nl7,23,

2I5n58, 216n6 ,

219n39, 220nl3,

22ln20,

222nn37,

2,

223nn50,53,

22 nn6 1,62,66,67,

70

222n30

32, 35,

1 6f,

l 8f,

195n78,

218nn28,31

193n36, 208nl75

226n

18 , 209nnl91,

195, 220nl2

1 1

207nl53

190n2

195n5

222n31

122

UELL G.



Inde x o f A u t h o r s

255

von Ra d , G .

Raitt T.

R e n d t o r f f ,

R.

Richter W .

Ricoeur

P.

R i n g g r e n ,

H .

Robertson D.

Ro w l e y , H . H .

R u d o l p h , W .

Sa ken fe ld , K .

Sasson J.M.

S a w y e r , 3.F.A.

Scharbert 3.

Schmid, H.H.

Simpson,

C.A.

S i mo n , R.

Smoler L.

Soggin 3.A.

Speiser E.

Stamm 3.3.

Stan

ton,

G . N .

Strack H.L.

Suhr, E.G.

T a l m o n , S.

Terrien S.

Thompson, T.L.

V a l e n t i n ,

H.

11 ,

21 ,

33i

36,

51 ,

1 1 8 f , 1 2 0,

135f , 1 0 , 1 5 1 ,

153, 168,

2 0 4 n l 2 4 ,

2 1 4 n 4 5 ,

2 1 6 n 6 5 ,

218n38

21 9n56 ,

223n53

189, 1 99n58, 226 n3

1 1 , I 1 3 f , 187,

1 9 0 n l , 1 9 1 n 5 ,

193n45

31 ,

2 1 3 n 3 0

17

199n50

191n9

202n97

220n5

87

196n7, 210n208

16, 19

129

184 190nl

2 2 0 n l 3

29

2 2 1 n l 6

2 1 5 n n 5 5 , 5 6 , 2 2 1 n 2 8

202n98

199n58

17

2 1 5 n 5 4

224 n67

2 1 3 n 2 3

1 2,

I 9 5 n n 4 , 5 ,

2 0 1 n 8 5 , 226n3

1 4 2 f f , 1 5 1 , 1 9 1 n 3 ,

2 1 9 n 5 9 , 2 2 1 n 2 0

1 9 3 n 3 6 , 2 1 1 n n l , 8 , 9 ,

2 2 0 n l 5

W e s te r m a n n ,

C.

W h i t e ,

H.C.

W h y b r a y ,

R . N .

W i j n g aa r d s , 3.

W i lc o x e n ,

3.A.

W i l m s ,

F.-E.

W i n k , W .

W o l f f ,

H . W .

W r i g h t ,

G.E.

Zenger E.

Z i m m e r l i , W .

Van Seters, 3.

de Vaux,

R.

Vorlander,

H.

Vriezen, T.C.

Waldman N.

Warner, S.M.

Warren,

A.

Weiser,

A.

Wellhausen, 3.

Wellek, R.

Wenham

G.3.

lUf

155,

205nl42, 218n38,

220n61

205nl42

28,

2 1 1 n l

122

197nl5

214n37, 218n38

1 , 124f,

193n36,

208nl75,

209nnl90,193,195,

215nn53,54

17

222n35

125f, 2l^n 7

14,

193n36,

207nl60

220n6

222n48 223n53

1 1 197n25,

200n79

202nn98

106,

214n38,

221n21

190n2,193n47,

217n22, 218nn32,38,

222n46

1 1

12, 182,

209nl85, 220nll,

221nnl9,24,

223n53,

224n62 66 69

218n28,

222n46

89

207nl57

201n92,

202nn96 97

146,

190n2,

218n29

19

128f

220n2

19

27, 208nnl65,166,

219n55



I N D E X O F B I B L I C L R E F E R E N C E S

256

Genesis

1: 26

3

3:5

4:26

5:29

6-9

6:5

6:8

7:17-20

8:21

1 2 - 25

12:

3

12:10-20

1 6

1 6 : 1

3

20:1-18

20:13

21:8-21

26:6-11

34

35:4

35 :

7

37-50

49:5ff

Exodus

1 - 1 8

1 - 1 4

3

3 : 1

2

3: 14

3:22

7:8-13

9:27

9:34

10:16f

10:28f

12:36

1 3 : 1 2 f

1 4 : 1 - 1 5 : 2 1

15:

2

15:3

1 6 : 9 f f

16:34

1 7 : 1 - 7

1 7 : 8 f f

18:7

19 -24

19 20

24

108

54

59

77

7 1

27, 9If, 147, 187

91

70,

71,92,

202n97

29f

91, 1 1 3 f f 185, 225n75

52

50, 52

3 1

3 1

81, 205nl42

3 1

47

3 1

3 1

55

60

48

29

55

32

36

7 1 f

69

20, 78f

6 1

67

78

78

78

1 47 205nl41

6 1

134

5 1 f

78

79

77

195n3

1 4 7

206nl47

1 5 2

155

64

1 2 13, 32, 36,

44,

HSf,

159

3 1 1 3 1 f 1 6 0

Exodus cont.)

1 9

19:

55

19:13,16,19

20:2

20:3

20:4

20:5

20:5 f

20:18

20:23

23:12,14ff

23:20-33

23:20,23

24

24:7,8

24:1

2

2 5 - 3

1

25-27

25:1-9

25:8

29:42-45

29:45f

29:46

32

32:1-6

32 :

1

32:4

32:7-14

32:8

32:9

32:10-14

3 2 : 10

3 2 : 1 1 - 1 3

32:15-20

32:15

3 2 : 18

32:1

9

32:21-24

32:25-29

32:25

32:29

32:30-35

32:33

32:34

32:35

33

33:1-6

33:1

33:2

84f 135

1 9 5 n l 226n4

1 3 6 f f

47,94, 128

197n22

49, 99

97

87f

1 3 6 f f

49, 57

134

45, 60, 62f, 134

48, 61

45

1 9 5 n l

45

32 64

172ff,

181,

195n5, 203nl20

45

47

62

34, 74, 76

62

47

1 2

146,

150

42, 46ff, 54, 59

1 6 1 f f

1 8 0

198n28

42, 47, 162,171

48ff, 183f

197n27

1 8 3 224n74

57

7 1 f

72, 74

53f

178

l l l f

196n7

54, 56, 147

54ff, 147, 180

226n85

56

1 5 1

56ff, 1 8 1

57f

71

69

57, 59

58, 62

60ff, 67, 69, 1 8 1

69, 75, 198n29

69



I n d e x

of

Biblical References

N u m b e r s

5:3

5:1 I f f

6:23-26

10:29-32

10:33-36

10:35f

1 1 : 1 6

24-26,

30

12:4

1 2 :

8

1 3 - 1 4

1 4 : 1 0 - 1 2

14 : 17 f

1 4:20f f

1 4 :

3 9

14:42, 44

15

1 6 - 7

1 6 : 1 9 f

f

21:4-9

22-24

2 2 :

6

25:6

ff

33:1-49

Deuteronomy

4:7

4:9 ff

4:37

6 - 1 1

9-10

9:

:

10:1-4

13

27:15

3 1 : 1 4 f

33 :8 f f

3 4 :

Joshua

24:26f

Judges

8:24-27

1 7 - 1

I Samuel

4:8

6 : 19 f

45

199n46

12 4

2 2nn93 94

1 7 3 2 0 2 n 9 4

45

1 7 2 1 7 4 f f

172,

1 7 4 f f

65

133

77

2 0 7 n l 5 1

58

60

62

13 3

63

77

1 6 7 f 2 2 1 n 2 9

52

52

55

16 8

48

169

225n81

49

1 7 3 f 184f

56 185

54

1 4

55

16 9

1 7 2

I 7 4 f f

5 5 1 8 1 206nl47

65 81

45

16 8

1 2 3

166f, 168,

2 2 2 n 4 1

47

63

257

E x o d u s cont.)

33:3,5

33:3-6

3 3 :6

33:7-11

3 3 :

7

33:11

33:12-23

3 3 : 12

33:13

3 3 : 1

4

3 3 : 15

3 3 : 1

6

3 3 : 17

33:18-34:9

33:18-23

3 3 : 18

33:19-21

3 3 : 19

33:20-23

33:20

33:22

34

34:1-28

34:1-9

3 4

:1

3 4 :1 4

3 4 :2

34:5-7

34:6

f

3 4 :8

3 4 :9

3 4 : 1

34:11-26

34:11

3 4 : 1

4

34:17-26

3 4 : 1

7

34:27-28

34:28

34:29-35

35-40

40:3 4f

48, 69,

172, 176,

1 8 4 2 2 4 n 7 4

6 9 1 5 0

1 7 3

4 2 6 3 f f 6 7 106,

1 7 1 f f

1 8 0

1 7 3

176

33, 63, 65, 72, 82,

9 1 176, 1 83

38,

6 6 f f

90,

152,

1 5 5 182

6 9 f

71 f , 75,92

7 0 7 3 f

33, 40, 66,

68f,

74,

183, 203nll4, 225n81

69, 75

40,

56, 63, 69f, 75

66,

6 8 f f

75

38

68, 76f,

8 5 f f

107, 135f

76

30

58, 68,

7 6 f f

80, 87,

1 2 8 f

13 6

7 9 f f

8 5

3 3 6 5 8 1 151, 176,

183,

2 0 5 n l 4 1

7 6f

3 1

41f ,

8 3

131f

1 5 7 f f

1 8 0

8 4

f f

l O l f f 1 6 1

84 103, 158, 160f

125

7 7 8 3 8 5 f f 1 8 2

58, 68, 77, 80,

87f, 107,

1 2 8 f f 136, 150,

1 6 0

124

40, 63, 68, 8 8 f f 158,

1 6 0

183f, 185

9 3 f f 184, 198n29

3 7 5 5 9 5 f f 1 3 1 f f 158,

1 6 0 f 180

96

7 9 9 7 1 3 3

9

8ff

9 9 f

133f , 169,

2 1 5 n 5 9

l O l f f

158,

1 8 4

l O l f f

150, 158,

1 6 1

37, 46, 66,

1 0 6 f f

147,

1 5 0 f

1 7 7 f f

1 80

1 0 9 f

1 7 2 f f 1 8 1

7 6 1 1 0



I I

Samuel

6:6ff

7:6

7 : 18 f f

7:23

63

45

73

48

At

the M o u n t a i n of God

Psalms cont.)

103:7f

10

6:19f

jsaiah

2 3nllO

96n8

at the mountain of god_ story and theology in exodus 32-34.pdf

Documents