Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map: Constructing Biblical Israel's Identity (JSOT Supplement)

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

361

Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R. Davies Executive Editor Andrew Mein Editorial Board Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, John Jarick, Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick D. Miller

Sheffield Academic Press A Continuum imprint

This page intentionally left blank

Egypt on the Pentateuch's

Ideological Map Constructing Biblical Israel's Identity

F.V. Greifenhagen

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 361

Copyright © 2002 Sheffield Academic Press A Continuum imprint Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX 370 Lexington Avenue, New York NY 10017-6550 www. continuumbooks .com All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Bookcraft Ltd, Midsomer Norton, Bath

ISBN 0-8264-6211-1

CONTENTS Acknowledgments Abbreviations

vii ix

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1

Chapter 2

EGYPT IN GENESIS

24

Chapter 3

EGYPT IN EXODUS

46

Chapter 4

EGYPT IN LEVITICUS, NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY

158

Chapter 5

THE PRODUCTION AND PROMULGATION OF THE 'FINAL TEXT FORM' OF THE PENTATEUCH

206

Chapter 6

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT: EGYPT AND ISRAEL

225

Chapter 7

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

256

Appendix:

THE TERM C'HSD AND ITS OCCURRENCES IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND THE PENTATEUCH

272

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

277 307 321

This page intentionally left blank

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study is a revised version of my dissertation, 'Egypt in the Symbolic Geography of the Pentateuch: Constructing Biblical Israel's Identity' (Duke University, Durham, NC), completed in the summer of 1998. Parts of the dissertation have been extensively rewritten or reorganized. However, with the exception of a few additional references, the material has not been updated. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to many people who in various ways made this study possible. Teachers and mentors at the University of Manitoba, and at the Lutheran Theological Seminary and Graduate Theological Union in Saskatoon, especially William Klassen, Erwin Buck, Roger Uitti, Terence Donaldson, Michael Poellet and David Jobling, sparked and nourished my interest in biblical studies and provided encouragement on the way. My doctoral advisor, James L. Crenshaw provided gentle guidance, unfailing support, and an exemplary model of engaged scholarship. Other faculty at Duke University, especially Bruce Lawrence, Carol Meyers, Eric Meyers, Melvin Peters, Regina Schwartz and Orville Wintermute, contributed in various ways to this project and to my development as a scholar, and Gay Trotter, secretary of the graduate program in religion, expedited many matters. Special thanks are due to many classmates, especially Karla Bohmbach, Ann Burlein, Charles Carter, Sandra Gravett, Barry Jones, Raymond Person, and Donald Polaski, for their gracious friendship, collegiality and support. It was difficult to continue to research and write my dissertation, and then to revise it for publication, while carrying a full teaching and administrative load. My sincere appreciation to my employer Luther College, and its faculty and staff, for providing as congenial and supportive an environment as possible, with special thanks to the academic dean, Bryan Hillis, for his friendship and exceptional encouragement. Also thanks to Brian Sveinson for helping to put things into perspective, to Leona Anderson and William Stahl for coming to the rescue in the midst of computer problems, and to Marion Lake and the staff at inter-library loans at the University of Regina.

viii

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

My greatest debt is to my family. My parents always had faith in my academic abilities. My sons, Isaak and Jakob, have lived with this project since their birth. But most especially my wife, Susan, has had to endure much to allow me to follow this path, and I hope has also enjoyed much on the way. It is with deep love and gratitude that I dedicate this project to her.

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABD AfO AJSL ANET3

BA BARev BASOR BDB

BHS Biblnt BN BZ BZAW CAH CBQ CD CRBS DBAT DJD EvT GKC HBD HOTTP

HTR

Anchor Bible David Noel Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992) Archivfur Orientforschung American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures James B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (3rd edn with supplement; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969) Biblical Archaeologist Biblical A rchaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907) Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia (4th rev. ed., 1990) Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches Biblische Notizen Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur ZA W Cambridge Ancient History Catholic Biblical Quarterly Codex Damascus/Damascus Document Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Dielheimer Blatter zum Alten Testament und seiner Rezeption in der Alten Kirche Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Evangelische Theologie Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (ed. E. Kautzsch, revised and trans. A.E. Cowley; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910) PJ. Achtemaier et al. (eds.), Harper's Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985) Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. I. Pentateuch (New York: United Bible Societies, 2nd rev. edn, 1979). Harvard Theological Review

x HUCA IBC IDB IDBSup IEJ JANESCU JAOS JBL JEA JJS JNES JSJ JSOT JSOTSup LXX

MT NIB NICOT NJPS NRSV OBO OrAnt OTG OTL DTP OTS PEQ RB REB ResQ RevQ SBL SBLDS SBLMS SJOT SP ST S WB A

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map Hebrew Union College Annual Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching George Arthur Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (4 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962) IDB, Supplementary Volume Israel Exploration Journal Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Aucoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gotlingensis editum (ed. John W. Wevers) Masoretic Text New Interpreters Bible New International Commentary on the Old Testament New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh New Revised Standard Version Orbis biblicus et orientalis Oriens antiquus Old Testament Guides Old Testament Library James Charlesworth (ed.). Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Oudtestamentische Studien Palestine Exploration Quarterly Revue biblique Revised English Bible Restoration Quarterly Revue de Qumran Society of Biblical Literature SBL Dissertation Series SBL Monograph Series Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Samaritan Pentateuch Studia theologica Social World of Biblical Antiquity

Abbreviations TDOT Th WAT

TTod TU TynBul UF VT VTSup WBC ZAH ZA W

xi

G.J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament GJ. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theologisches Worterhuch zum Alten Testament (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1970-) Theology Today Texte und Untersuchungen Tyndale Bulletin Ugarit-Forschungen Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Zeitschrift fur Althebraistik Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION The Old Testament is full of the shadows cast by Pharaoh's sun, and the result—a mixture of admiration, distrust, envy and emulation, often at the same time—shows through its pages, from the nostalgia of the Children of Israel in Sinai to the denunciations of Ezekiel and Jeremiah (Ray 1995:17).

These shadows are particularly long in the Pentateuch, which contains over half of the explicit references to 'Egypt' (cnUQ) or 'Egyptian' (nUD) in the Hebrew Bible.1 Evidently, at least on the basis of vocabulary, Egypt appears as an especially important topos in the Pentateuch. The purpose of this work is to explore this topos and to inquire as to its particular significance in the ideology embodied in the rhetoric of the Pentateuch. Egypt as Place At first glance, the significance of Egypt in the Pentateuch seems obvious. Egypt is a place in the northeast corner of the African continent with a distinct people, history, culture and literature. It is to this Egypt—a determinable and distinct ancient geographic, cultural and historic entity that can be translated into a spatial referent on a map—that the term 'Egypt' in the Pentateuch, or in other parts of the Hebrew Bible, is generally assumed to refer.2 But this assumption itself has a history, beginning 1. A total of 376 times, constituting 53% of the 711 explicit references to 'Egypt' (D'HUD) or 'Egyptian' (HUD) in the Hebrew Bible. The density of these references in the Pentateuch is 0.47 occurrences per 100 words, over twice the average density in the Hebrew Bible as a whole. Similarly, over half the occurrences in the Hebrew Bible of related terms, such as 'Pharaoh' (niHS) or 'Nile' ("IN"1), are found in the Pentateuch, with two to three times the average density of these words elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. See Table 1 in the Appendix. 2. This geographical reification of the Egypt of the Bible is evident, for example, in the standard Bible dictionaries, which, in their entries, present Egypt as first and foremost a geographically locatable and limitable entity (e.g. Huffmon 1985; Plumley

2

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

in the nineteenth century with the rise of critical methodology, and especially of the disciplines of archaeology, Egyptology, and other ancient Near Eastern studies, a time when information on Egypt was becoming increasingly available from sources outside of the Bible itself. On the one hand, the availability and use of this extrabiblical information made it possible to study Egypt apart from Egypt's importance in the scriptural heritage of the Western world. However, on the other hand, it also shifted scholarly interpretation of 'Egypt' in the Bible towards historically and geographically verifiable realia. A genre of writing arose in the late nineteenth century, mainly among German and French scholars, that attempted to gloss the biblical text with the textual and archaeological discoveries of the emerging autonomous field of Egyptology.3 In the early twentieth century, this genre appeared in several English books aimed at the general public: for example, W.M.F. Petrie's Egypt and Israel (1911) and Thomas E. Feet's Egypt and the Old Testament (1922). These works could be quite critical of the portrayal of Egypt in the Bible, seeing it as too general, inaccurate or anachronistic in comparison with the rich data uncovered by Egyptology.4 But there was also clearly an impetus to ground the biblical portrayal in the realia of an actual ancient Egypt, an impetus that resulted in some attempts to 'prove' the Bible's historical veracity on the basis of evidence from Egyptology.5

1993; and the various articles on Egypt \nABD II: 321-412). An exception is the article by Philip S. Alexander, under the heading' Geography and the Bible', on 'Early Jewish Geography' ABDII: 977-88, which includes an awareness of mental maps; i.e. maps that exist in the consciousness of individuals, groups or cultures. 3. Examples include Georg Ebers' Aegypten und die Biicher Moses. Sachlicher Commentarzu den aegyptischen Stellen in Genesis und Exodus (1868) and Wilhelm Spiegelberg's Agyptische Randglossen zum Alien Testament (1904). For a comprehensive account of this history, see Engel (1979). I am indebted to Engel's book for the broad framework of the history of research concerning Egypt and the Bible. 4. For example, Feet's judgment on the portrayal of Egypt in the Hebrew Bible is that 'It is all the sort of vague general knowledge which any ancient tourist spending a few weeks in Egypt at almost any date after about 1600 BC might have acquired from his dragoman' (1922: 93). 5. A very early example is E. W. Hengstenberg's Die Biicher Mose 's undAgypten nebst einer Beilage Manetho und die Hyksos (1841), translated into English as Egypt and the Books of Moses or The Books of Moses Illustrated by the Monuments of Egypt (1845). In this century, see especially A.S. Yahuda, The Accuracy of the Bible: The Stories of Joseph, the Exodus and Genesis Confirmed and Illustrated by Egyptian Monuments and Language (1934).

1. Introduction

3

Building on this scholarly legacy, investigation of Egypt and things Egyptian in the Hebrew Bible during the twentieth century generally proceeded in three overlapping areas of concern: history, society and literature.6 First, the relationship between Egypt and ancient Israel7 has been investigated as an important component of the historical reconstruction of the origins, development, demise and postexilic transformation of the nations of Israel and Judah. Those who argue for the historical veracity of the Joseph story8 and/or for a historical 'kernel' in the Exodus account9 see a significant Egyptian involvement in the origins of ancient Israel. Even those who accept the growing scholarly conviction that the origins of ancient Israel are to be located in Palestine recognize that Israel emerged in the wake of Egyptian imperial control of this area.10 And, of course, ancient Israel historically developed, came to an end, and was reconstituted within the bipolar system of political contestation in the Fertile Crescent between Egypt, on the one hand, and various Mesopotamian and Syrian states, on the other (Malamat 1975, 1982, 1988). Secondly, Egypt's influence on the institutions of ancient Israelite society has been investigated. For example, Egyptian influences on the administration and political organization of the Israelite monarchies have been seen in the titles of various state officials and in the bureaucratic constitution of a central government (e.g. Fox 1996). Furthermore, it has been argued that Egypt also influenced the development of writing, scribal

6. See Williams (1971, 1975), Talmon (1983), Redford (1985), and Kitchen (1988) for convenient summaries. 7. The term 'ancient Israel' is deliberately used, in the sense suggested by P.R. Davies (1992), to designate the scholarly amalgam of the Israel found in the biblical texts and the historical Israel that can be reconstructed from contemporaneous archaeological and textual evidence. 8. For example, Vergote( 1985,1959) and Kitchen (1973,1966) argue that details of the Joseph story indicate accurate knowledge of Egyptian custom and environment. For a more nuanced view, see Humphreys (1988: 154-75). 9. There are many examples, among them Stiebing (1989—see especially pp. 19799) and Bright (1981—see especially p. 120). 10. On the Late Bronze Age Egyptian empire in Palestine, see Weinstein (1981) and Na'aman (1981). While Redford (1992a) claims that the emergence of Israel in the highlands occurred without any essential contact with Egypt, Coote (1990) equates the appearance of Israel with a tribal military force in the lowlands that acted as a proxy of Egypt. On the problems of interpreting the so-called 'Israel Stela' of Pharaoh Merneptah (ANET3), which describes some level of contact between Egypt and an entity called Israel in the 13th century BCE, see the comprehensive analysis by Hasel (1994).

4

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

practice, numbers and weights, and iconography in ancient Israel (e.g. Wimmer 1990; Giveon 1978).11 Egyptian influence on Israel's religious institutions has also been claimed, especially on the Jerusalem cult and temple,12 but also on Israel's concept of God.13 However, these Egyptian influences on Israel were likely mediated by the Phoenicians and reflected earlier emulation of Egyptian customs and habits by Canaanite elites during Ramesside control of Palestine.14 Thirdly, relationships of possible influence and dependence between the extant languages and literatures of Egypt and ancient Israel have been explored. Egyptian loan words in the Hebrew Bible have long been recognized (Lambdin 1953; Williams 1969); various names, titles and concepts in the Hebrew Bible have also been attributed to Egyptian origins or influence.'5 The strongest degree of relationship is seen to exist in the area of wisdom literature16 (especially proverbs and instructional literatures),

11. Possible Israelite or Canaanite influences on Egypt in these areas have been explored to a lesser extent. For the unconventional view that the Nile delta was part of ancient Canaan, see Nibbi (1988). 12. See especially Gorg, who sees Egyptian influence on the architecture of Solomon' s temple (1981 b, 1985a, 1991), on the priestly classification system evident in the first creation story (1984b), on the Azazel ritual (1986a), and on the etymology of HOB (1988), among many other suggestions. According to Gorg, these influences supposedly emerged due to the close relationship between Egypt and Israel during the Solomonic era, signified by Solomon's marriage to a daughter of the Pharaoh. On this possibility, see also Bryce( 1979). 13. For example, the Egyptian idea of the sun god has been seen in the Hebrew Bible (Dion 1991; Rendsburg 1988); see also the debate between Taylor (1996) and Wiggins (1996, 1997) on the possibility that YHWH was seen as a solar deity. 14. Giveon (1978) points out the near absence of polemic against Egyptian religion in the prophets and yet the frequent portrayal of Egyptian gods on imported and locally made seals found in Palestine. Furthermore, there is very little evidence of Egyptian temples in Palestine, even during the period of Egyptian imperial control in the Late Bronze Age (although Barkay [ 1996] claims to have found evidence for a Late Bronze Age Egyptian temple in Jerusalem). 15. Gorg finds Egyptian derivations for names such as Goliath (1986c), Sabaoth (198 5b), Tahpenes/Genbath (1987a), Nehushtan (1981 a), and Ahuzzath/Phicol (1986d), among others. Egyptian connections have also been posited for the biblical terms 'righteousness' plH (Shirun-Grumach 1985) and 'magicians' DQQ~in (Quaegebeur 1985), and for the biblical concept of the heart (Shupak 1985). 16. 'Hebrew and Egyptian wisdom literature from the late New Kingdom onwards can be shown, ceteris paribus, to share a similar vocabulary, and even to be constructed on parallel lines' (Ray 1995: 24, referring to Shupak 1993).

1. Introduction

5

but relationships are also posited in the genres of hymns and songs, and in political propaganda.17 Egypt as Place: Critique Thanks to these studies of the historical, societal and literary connections between ancient Israel and Egypt, scholars have claimed to be able to flesh out in more detail the 'Egypt' to which the Pentateuch points but which it rarely describes. In the process, it is assumed that the term 'Egypt' in the Hebrew Bible is a simple geographic reference, one that can be translated unproblematically into a spatial referent on a modern map.18 This assumption reflects the concerns of biblical geography, which seeks to identify actual locations, roads, regions and political boundaries by correlating the Bible with the data of archaeology and other ancient documents.19 However, is the Egypt that emerges from such studies the Egypt of the Pentateuch? Let us take a specific example. It has often been asked whether the installation of Joseph to a high leadership position in Egypt described in Gen. 41 matches actual ancient Egyptian practice. Some answer affirmatively, pointing to parallels from the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties (e.g. Vergote 1959,1985;Kitchen 1966,1973); others find more compelling parallels in later Assyrian examples of investiture (e.g. Redford 1970). But should the primary question be whether the ancient Near Eastern sources support the historical authenticity of the ceremony described in the biblical text?20 W.L. Humphreys (1988), for instance, concluded that the ceremony 17. Particularly striking examples include the Wisdom of Amenemope and its relationship to Prov. 22.17-24.22 (Ruffle 1977), the Hymn to the Aten and Ps. 104 (Tobin 1985), and Egyptian lyric poetry and the Song of Songs (Fox 1985). For recent translations and discussions of these Egyptian parallels, see Hallo (1997). However, the affinity between the Joseph narrative and Egyptian wisdom-literature (von Rad 1966a) has been largely demolished by the critiques of Crenshaw (1969), Redford (1970) and Whybray (1974), G.W. Coats (1973), however, claims to have salvaged a wisdom influenced core in the Joseph story, originating, he thinks, in the Solomonic period or even in Egyptian circles prior to Solomon. 18. SeeSoja(1971:9-ll)onthe modern Western bias of rigidly and geometrically defined territorial 'property' (epitomized by the nation-state) which affects readings of the geography and spatial organization of ancient and non-Western societies. 19. E.g. G.A. Smith (1931), Holscher (1949), Simons (1959), Baly (1974, 1979), Avi-Yonah (1977), Aharoni (1979), G.I. Davies (1979), Kallai (1986), Brown and North (1990). A convenient overview is found in Ben-Arieh (1982). 20. Westermann suggests that too much can be made of parallels, since 'the rites

6

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

in Gen. 41 is not primarily a mirror of some actual existing practice, but is a finely designed literary construct in which historical accuracy is subordinated to the logic or ideology of the narrative. This conclusion is emblematic of a realization that, through their literary rhetoric, biblical texts construct the world to which they also respond. 'Egypt' in the Pentateuch, in this view, then, is not only or primarily a pointer to a determinate location or people, but functions more as a multivalent metaphor or symbol in which the geographic or ethnographic referent is overdetermined by the values or ideology of the producers of the document.21 The interpretation of the biblical text that follows from this perspective displaces the referential concern with a concern for the biblical text's own rhetoric and ideology, resulting in quite a different biblical geography—one that takes into account the symbolic meanings of place and space.22 And, in fact, there have been a spate of studies on various biblical texts that speak of 'symbolic topography' (Gorg 198 Ic), 'symbolic geography' (Wyatt 1987), 'ideological geography' (Jobling 1986), 'narrative geography' (Deurloo 1990), 'geographically dressed-up theology' (Niemann 1994), and so on.23 are similar across a broad cultural area throughout the world. Hence the parallels say no more than that the investiture narrated here is similar to many others known from elsewhere' (1986: 94). 21. On symbols, see Ollenburger( 1987: 18-21). The technical term 'overdetermination', borrowed from psychoanalysis, indicates here a linguistic formation that acts as a vehicle for a number of different meanings and associations, each having its own coherence at a particular level of interpretation. My argument is that the ideological valuation of the geographic and ethnographic referents in the Hebrew Bible, by the producers of the text, on the level of the text's rhetoric, overshadows the simple denotative meaning of these terms. 22. Precursors for this sort of symbolic geography can be found in investigations of the various notions of space in the ancient Near East, particularly in Egypt and particularly in pictorial representations. See Brunner-Traut (1990), Baud (1989), Keel (1977), Leclant (1969), Duchesne-Guillemin (1969), Cassin (1969), Brunner (1954-56,1957), Groenewegen-Frankfort (1987). 23. J. Levenson has written: 'we must not understand Biblical geography as a statement of a scientific nature. Rather, to the unscientific mind of Israel...geography is simply a visible form of theology' (1985: 116). Carroll speaks of the 'symbolic geography whose ideology underwrites so much of the Hebrew Bible' (1992: 83-84), and argues forcefully that the representations of geographical space in the biblical literature on the occupation of, and exile from, the 'land' are mythic means of undergirding the specific postexilic ideologies of the Jerusalem temple. Gorg speaks of the Bible's 'theological' (1980)or'cultic' (1987b) geography, and argues for the symbolic

1. Introduction

7

Cognitive Maps To understand what 'Egypt' in the Pentateuch is or might be from the perspective of the Pentateuch's rhetoric and ideology, the notion from human geography24 of'cognitive maps' or 'mental maps' is useful. Such maps consist of the ideas of space that one carries in one's head, so to speak, somewhat accurate regarding the known territory in which the one lives, but becoming increasingly fuzzier as one moves away from this known space.25 Cognitive maps are the product of a selective perception which actively excludes, augments, distorts and schematizes in the service of a variety of purposes such as identity and preference.26 They 'include notions of preference as well as vague ideas and value judgements about places that speakers and authors have never seen' (Michalowski 1986: 131). Such maps exist not only as purely mental constructs—they also appear inscribed in literature, media, artifacts of popular culture, and so on. Geographers have explored people's cognitive maps by asking them to literally draw maps—of their neighbourhood or even of the world. Invariably, such maps place a more detailed and disproportionately large depiction of the person's own familiar lived space in the center; around this center the map becomes increasingly distorted (in relation to 'real' geographical space) by notions of preference and alienness, by stereotypes and so on, that are more informative of the person's own concerns and situation (often bound by class and ethnicity) than of what is actually out nature of various biblical toponyms, such as the four rivers ofParadise (1977b, 1987b), Ophir and Tarshish (1981c), and Uz (1980)—often finding Egyptian connections. Other examples are found in Blok (1996), Lemche (1991), Frye (1990, 1982), Josipovici (1988), Cohn (1981), and Brueggemann (1977). 24. Human geography takes seriously the largely subjective geographic ideas, and their effects, of all kinds of people—whether those ideas are true or false. See Wright (1947). 25. 'Often "mental maps" consist of fuzzy conceptualizations of the space that surrounds the known territory in which everybody lives, a territory, which in some cases may include places that do not even exist' (Michalowski 1986: 131. See also Billinge 1981). For example, Gorg (1981 c) argues that biblical Ophir and Tarshish are 'ideal-typical' toponyms designating rather general 'far away rich lands' rather than specific locations. 26. Downs and Stea (1973 and 1977) describe mental maps as functioning to construct and maintain identities and to provide a framework for the preservation of memories. In their view, although mental maps have a relationship with 'reality', they do not simply reproduce 'reality' but represent it in a selective and oblique fashion.

8

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

there.27 A particularly interesting example is a world map drawn by Richard Nixon when he was 17, on which a solid wall separates Europe from Asia, and on which Vietnam constitutes a prominent peninsula attached to the United States in the place of Florida (Saarinen 1973). From such a map one learns very little about the actual Vietnam, but one learns much about Richard Nixon. This notion of cognitive or mental maps is useful for conceptualizing the meaning of 'Egypt' in the Pentateuch. If one can imagine the Pentateuch as a complex inscribed cognitive map, one can ask where or how Egypt appears on that map. The answer will not necessarily reveal much about an actual Egypt but it will be very informative about the ideology of the producers of the map. And it is that particular ideology, centered on the name 'Egypt', which will be manifested and investigated in this work. Origins: Identity and Ethnogenesis If cognitive maps function ideologically to support particular constructions of identity, then it can be argued that the cognitive map of the Pentateuch functions ideologically to support a particular construction of biblical Israel's identity.28 The Pentateuch narrates the origins and composition of biblical Israel; its major task, arguably, is to answer the question 'who or what is Israel?' After a preface outlining the universal history of the world (Gen. 1-11), the focus of the Pentateuchal narrative in Gen. 12 quickly 27. Billinge (1981) notes the emotional charge that is part of mental maps, and that their accuracy (in regard to actual geophysical space) is generally very localized and declines with distance from the egocentric space of the 'map maker'. Examples include the different maps drawn of Los Angeles by upper-middle-class whites, blacks, and Spanish-speaking residents (Gould and White 1974) and various joke maps, such as those depicting a New Yorker's or a Bostonian's view of the United States, or a Londoner's view of Great Britain (Gould and White 1974). 28. It is convenient to use P.R. Davies's (1990,1992) designation 'biblical Israel' to denote the people of Israel as portrayed in the biblical texts, 'historical Israel (and Judah/ Yehud)' to denote the entities that can be reconstructed strictly from contemporaneous archaeological and textual remains, and 'ancient Israel' to denote the scholarly amalgamation of the biblical and historical Israels. However, often in this work simply the term 'Israel' will be used, especially in the analysis of the Pentateuchal texts, with the understanding that the Israel of and in the text is meant, and not some extratextual referent. Similarly, while the term 'biblical Egypt' would properly be used to refer to the Egypt portrayed in the biblical text, in the analysis of the Pentateuchal texts, simply the term 'Egypt' will be used.

1. Introduction

9

narrows to one family: that of Abraham and Sarah, the direct ancestors of biblical Israel. From this point on, the Pentateuch concerns itself with the development of this family into a people. By the end of the Pentateuch, biblical Israel is a full-fledged reality: 'This very day you have become the people of the Lord your God' (Deut. 27.9). Thus the Pentateuch fittingly ends with the death of Moses, whose biography is inextricably intertwined with the genesis of biblical Israel.29 With the death of Moses, the work of forming Israel has been completed. In other words, what we have in the Pentateuch is an account of ethnogenesis: the emergence of biblical Israel as a self-conscious people or ethnic group. Egypt is a very significant component in this process of ethnogenesis. An essential element of the construction of ethnic identity is the contrast between 'us' and 'them'; ethnic identity is constructed over against an 'other' or 'others'.30 While Philistines and Babylonians are prominent as 'others' elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, in the Pentateuch it is Egypt that is the major 'other' over against biblical Israel.31 In fact, at times the 29. This ending of the Pentateuch, with the death of Moses and with Israel outside of the Promised Land, has seemed inconclusive in light of the stress of the Pentateuch on the divine promises to the ancestors. Thus, scholars have often postulated an original Hexateuch (Genesis through Joshua) in which the narrative culminates on a more satisfying note with the conquest of the land (e.g. von Rad 1966b). However, see the critique of the concept of a Hexateuch in Clines (1978: 81-83), who rather finds the overriding theme of the Pentateuch to be, quite purposively, the partial fulfillment— implying also the partial non-fulfillment—of the divine promises to the ancestors. This theme allows the Pentateuch to be viewed as an open-ended document. I am largely persuaded by Clines's analysis but tend to see the genesis of biblical Israel itself as completed by the end of the Pentateuch. The open-ended question at the end of the Pentateuch then becomes one of whether Israel will now live up to what it is—see especially the blessings and curses in Deut. 28, and the choice offered between life and death in Deut. 30.15-20. (See also Mann [1988], who sees the ending of the Pentateuch as a suspended movement of departure.) 30. A bountiful literature exists on the construction and function of ideologies of ethnicity. I have depended especially on the accounts in A.D. Smith (1992, 1994), Eriksen (1993), de Vos and Romanucci-Ross (1982), Royce (1982), R. Cohen (1978), and Earth (1969). 31. See Table 1 in the Appendix. Brueggemann(1994a) argues for the overriding significance of the image of Babylon in the Hebrew Bible. However, this significance is largely confined to the prophetic literature (the Latter Prophets) and to the historical works on the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (the Former Prophets). Polemic against Babylon is noticeably absent from the Pentateuch. On the Philistines and Israelite identity in the Former Prophets, see Jobling and Rose (1996).

10

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Pentateuch insists with great vigor on the difference between Israel and Egypt.32 Therefore, where and how Egypt appears on the cognitive or symbolic map of the Pentateuch will provide essential information as to the 'identity polities' of the producers of the text. Furthermore, ethnic identity is invariably characterized by an ideology of the kinship of the members of the group, undergirded by the myth of a common origin. An ethnohistorical consciousness oriented towards the mythic past and ritually represented in the present functions to create a sense of belonging within the ethnic boundary and a sense of unique difference across the ethnic boundary.33 The mythic past often includes the story of a paradigmatic leader or hero who goes through an identity crisis. The Pentateuch provides for biblical Israel just such a narrative of common origin and kinship in the story of the ancestors, and of a paradigmatic leader or hero in the story of Moses. One can, in fact, speak of the master origin narrative of the Pentateuch: biblical Israel has its roots in Mesopotamia and finally is ready to possess its Promised Land in the Cisjordan. On the way, however, there is a detour through Egypt: the ancestors, coming from Mesopotamia, live only as temporary residents in the land promised to them in the Cisjordan by the deity, but then migrate to Egypt. In Egypt, the ancestors become a people, and the stage is set for the possession of the Promised Land. In terms of this master origin narrative, Egypt occupies the ambivalent status of being both an unfortunate detour that postpones the possession of the land and a necessary detour for Israel as a people to come into being. What is the rhetorical and ideological purpose of this master origin narrative within the context of the initial production and circulation of the Pentateuch? In contrast to increasing archaeological evidence for a moreor-less indigenous origin for historical Israel in the Cis- and Transjordan,34 32. See especially the plague account in Exodus, discussed below in Chapter 3. 33. Once ethnic identity is triggered, cultural rationalizations to undergird this identity are created by the groups involved; these include the creation of histories, which, although containing authentic traces or seeds, must be read as ideologically aimed origin myths that reveal more of how the present of the history's composition creates the past than how they authentically report on mat past. 34. The interpretation of the archaeological data for the emergence of Israel in the central hill country of the Cisjordan is vigorously debated, as exemplified in the discussions of Dever (1995) and Finkelstein (1996) on just when and how a historical Israel can be identified in the archaeological record. Since ethnicity resides principally in a complex sociological and psychological process of establishing and maintaining a group's sense of social boundaries rather than in the cultural stuff these boundaries

1. Introduction

11

the Pentateuch generally attempts to distance Israel from anything Canaanite (i.e. indigenous) and insists on an origin in Mesopotamia. But why the detour through Egypt? Here is a hypothesis, to be evaluated in light of the literary analysis of the Pentateuch in the following chapters; namely, that the Egyptian detour is a means to include and absorb yet a third possible origin tradition that begins neither in the Cisjordan nor in Mesopotamia but in Egypt. What all this suggests is that the difference between Egypt and Israel, insisted upon quite vigorously in parts of the Pentateuch, is not self-evident but is a part of the ideology of which the Pentateuch seeks to persuade its audience, and is therefore likely being asserted in opposition to alternate views. Furthermore, when difference is strongly asserted, the lines are usually being drawn between 'near neighbours' who could otherwise be confused.35 This suggests that the audience towards which the Pentateuch was directed included those for whom the difference between Israel and Egypt was not important or self-evident, or was of a different nature altogether. Most likely the context for the contestation of these various views would not be one of distance and isolation from Egypt, but of proximity to and interaction with it. Investigations of ethnicity and ethnic discourse support such suggestions. Basic to a sense of ethnic distinctiveness is the contrast between 'us' and 'them'; however, this distinction does not depend as much on the actual traits of the particular groups as on the perceived boundary between them.36 The diacritics,37 or traits, that mark this boundary are highlighted enclose, it is notoriously fluid and multiple and difficult, if not impossible, to detect in material remains. See Excursus One, p. 13. 35. As Jonathan Z. Smith has observed, 'Difference is rarely something simply to be noted; it is, most often, something in which one has a stake' (Smith 1985:4). Moreover, differences or distinctions that matter most are those drawn between 'near neighbours'—'the radically "other" is merely "other"; the proximate "other" is problematic, and hence of supreme interest' (Smith 1985: 5)—making'"Otherness"... not so much a matter of separation as... a description of interaction' (Smith 1985: 10). 36. Such a boundary is typically doubled in at least two ways. (1) It is a boundary both constructed by the group from within as well as imposed from outside; both selfconstructed and imposed elements are part of the functioning of ethnic identity (Royce 1982: 29-31). (2) It is a boundary that appears differently when viewed from inside than when viewed from outside. To the outside world, an ethnic boundary is constructed to appear as a relatively homogenous mask, whereas from the inside, the boundary is idiosyncratic and reveals far more heterogeneity (A.P. Cohen 1986: 13). 37. R. Cohen (1978: 386-87, 397) speaks of socioculturally significant diacritics'

12

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

while other traits, often widely shared with other groups, are ignored.38 Moreover, the boundaries constructed by ethnic discourse are not nearly as impervious, isolating and absolute as they are made out in that discourse to be.39 Interaction across the boundary commonly takes place, and, in such interaction, the extent and shape of the boundary is constantly negotiated and manipulated.40 Thus, although the Pentateuch largely portrays Egypt in negative terms as that against which Israel is defined, the Hebrew Bible hints at alternative views in that it does not present a monolithic conception of Egypt as always inimical to Israel. P.A.H. de Boer has highlighted what he calls 'a twofold and ambivalent assessment of Egypt' (1991: 166) in the Hebrew Bible: on the one hand, a place of nourishment and refuge; on the other hand, the 'house of slavery'.41 So also in the Pentateuch one finds a positive view of Egypt: it is a well-watered place with plenty of food,42 an which are used in ethnic discourse to trigger ethnicity and to define membership in ethnic groups. 3 8. The signals used to mark an ethnic boundary can vary widely depending on the particular situation, but generally they have to do with blood, bed, territory, and culture: (1) Ethnic identity is invariably characterized by an ideology of the kinship of the members of the group, undergirded by a myth of common origin. (2) Ethnic boundaries nearly always are constructed to facilitate ideologies of endogamy. Certain rules of behavior are meant to safeguard the purity of the group. At the same time, however, ethnic anomalies, such as mixed marriages, must be accounted for. (3) Ethnic boundaries often include an ideology of space; a space, territory or homeland with which the particular group is associated. This space need not be inhabited by the members of the group, nor need it necessarily be a 'real' space. (4) Ethnic boundaries usually include cultural markers, which can include language, names, cultic participation, distinctive dress, distinctive occupations, and other culturally specific behaviors. However, only such behaviors as are deemed especially distinctive will be singled out as marking an ethnic boundary. 39. The very constitution of such boundaries involves interaction across them: the group inside presents a certain profile to be 'read' by outsiders, and outsiders respond in ways that support or modify the boundary. 40. This point is especially highlighted by Earth (1969). See also Eriksen (1993: 30-32), and the critiques described by Brah (1994). 41. According to de Boer, a generally positive assessment of Egypt predates the more dominant negative view of Egypt. Thus de Boer dissolves the tension in the Hebrew Bible between these two views through the typical historical-critical procedure of separating out the variant views and assigning them different dates. From an ideological-critical perspective, conflicting viewpoints can coexist in the same text as markers of contemporaneous ideological tensions. 42. The well-watered Jordan Valley is compared favorably to Egypt (Gen. 13.10),

1. Introduction

13

acceptable and welcoming refuge in times of threat and disaster,43 and its inhabitants are a people with whom intermarriage takes place.44 However, admittedly the dominant view is negative: Egypt means oppression for Israel, especially in Exodus and Deuteronomy.45 This two-sided and ambivalent evaluation of Egypt suggests that establishing the boundaries of identity with reference to the 'other' can proceed in two ways, only one of which insists on contrastive difference. Certainly, the boundaries of identity are often marked by negation or contrast, in which the 'other' is what one is not and what one must reject in order to be who one is.46 But the boundaries of identity can also be marked by sublimation or preservation, in which the other is what is complementary to one's identity.47 And neither do these two ways need to be mutually exclusive; in fact, the actual establishment of boundaries for identity most likely operates dialectically between these two poles. And so the Pentateuch's evaluation of Egypt will be seen to be both positive and negative. However, the Pentateuch's negative evaluation clearly aspires to be dominant, and it is this dynamic in particular which will be explored in the analysis in the following chapters. Excursus One: Ethnicity in the Archaeological Record Whether or not archaeological data can indicate ethnicity is vigorously debated in the context of the emergence of Israel in the central hill country of the Cisjordan, as exemplified in the discussions of Dever (1995) and Finkelstein (1996). Dever argues that an ethnically distinct proto-Israel can be identified in the archaeological remains of an and the traditions of 'murmuring in the wilderness' provide many vignettes of the attractiveness of Egypt as a land of plenty (eg. Exod. 16; Num. 11 and 20). 43. Abram finds Egypt a refuge during a time of famine (Gen. 12.10) as do also Jacob and his sons (Gen. 45-^47). 44. Abram took Sarai's Egyptian maid Hagar as a concubine (Gen. 16), Joseph married the daughter of an Egyptian high priest, and his father Jacob blessed the offspring of this mixed marriage. 45. See the characterization of Egypt as D'TUB JTD ('house of bondage') in Exod. 13.3, 14; 20.2, and Deut. 5.6; 6.12; 7.8; 8.14; 13.6,11. 46. One identifies oneself or one's group over against the 'other'. The 'other' becomes the mirror image of what one does not want to be. In psychoanalytic terms, the 'other' is the projection from out of one's self or one's group of undesirable traits or qualities. 47. One identifies oneself or one's group with the 'other'. The 'other' becomes the mirror image of what one wants to be. In psychoanalytic terms, the 'other' is the introjection within oneself or the group of desirable traits and qualities from outside.

14

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Early Iron Age I (thirteenth century BCE) wave of new settlements in the highlands of the Cisjordan. Finkelstein argues that the material culture of the area does not display characteristics that can be attributed to a distinct Israelite ethnicity, rather than to socio-economic or environmental factors, until the Late Iron II period (late ninth and eighth centuries BCE). Finkelstein argues that uniquely Israelite ethnic features were introduced and developed by the monarchy as a means of uniting vast areas with mixed populations in the face of conflict with other emerging polities. Ethnicity is very difficult to identify in the archaeological record. Since ethnicity resides principally in a complex sociological and psychological process of establishing and maintaining a group's sense of 'we-ness' internally and 'they-ness' externally, and thus focuses on social boundaries rather than the cultural stuff these boundaries enclose, it is notoriously fluid and multiple. Although ethnicity may be expressed by language, script, ritual behavior, physical features, dietary choices, architectural forms, clothing style, mortuary practices, the style of artifacts such as pottery, weapons and jewelry, a simple one-to-one correspondence between these cultural traits and ethnicity cannot be assumed. These traits may express status, 'style', or processes of assimilation or acculturation as much as ethnic distinctiveness (Finkelstein 1996: 203). In fact, different ethnic groups may share the same material culture, being distinguished largely by social networks that leave little or no material trace. Since ethnicity is largely a subjective category of self and other ascription, ethnicity in the past will be difficult to pinpoint from the purely material data of archaeology. As Dever has admitted, 'we may be able to ascertain some of what people actually did, but not what they thought they were doing, much less who they thought they were' (1995: 207). If such data is undergirded by reliable and contemporary written documentation, then perhaps access to the subjective reality of ethnicity is possible. The Hebrew Bible has been used to provide such documentation, but the uncertainty and debate over the dating of its texts makes it an unreliable source, especially for earlier periods. The quest to find evidence of Israelite ethnicity in the archaeological record of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages seems at this point improbable; only a rather uncritical reading of the biblical texts as documents dating back to this period has enabled the quest to proceed at all. On this issue see the divergent views of Dever (1993, 1995), Finkelstein (1997) and T.L. Thompson (1997). Emberling (1997) and Small (1997) provide good overviews of the problem from a strictly archaeological perspective, unfettered by prior assumptions of traditional biblical scholarship.

Text, History, Ideology Although Egypt in the Pentateuch means more than, or differently than, a straightforward historical location, this does not mean that the text of the Pentateuch is to be read unmindful of its historical context. There is a relationship between a biblical text and history, but this relationship is complicated by the text's rhetoric and ideologies. As LaCapra (1983, 1985) and Hayden White (1980, 1982, 1986) have shown, although historical and

1. Introduction

15

literary texts may refer to the 'real' world, they also have a work-like function constituted by their rhetoric which constructs the 'real' world to which they also respond.48 In Mieke Bal's words: Rather than seeing the text as a transparent, immaterial medium, a window through which we can get a glimpse of reality, I see it as a figuration of the reality that brought it forth and to which it responded. And rather than seeing the text as literary in the esthetic sense, as a fiction that has no connection to reality, I will try to show how the literary and linguistic choices made in the text represent a reality that they both hide and display (1988: 3).49

This means that an investigation of Egypt in the Pentateuch will be primarily focused, not on reconstructing actual historical connections between Egypt and Israel, but on the ideologies regarding Egypt manifested in the rhetoric of the Pentateuchal text. These ideologies have a particular historical context; namely, the time and place of the text's production. In other words, the Pentateuch's ideologies about Egypt illuminate the historical context of its production, and vice versa. This ideological approach to the biblical text has at least three interrelated methodological implications. First, a text will be potentially most informative and trustworthy about the historical period contemporaneous with its initial production, circulation and consumption. Secondly, the focus of investigation will necessarily be on the final form of the text rather than on hypothetical prior stages of the text's development. And thirdly, the stance of interpretation will be that of the resisting reader.50 Each of these implications requires further explanation. The Context A text will be potentially most informative and trustworthy about the historical period contemporaneous with its initial production, circulation and consumption. That is, although a biblical text may preserve information from periods prior to its composition, the selection, organization and presentation of this information tells the interpreter more of the context of the text's production than of the period being described by the text. Thus, although the Pentateuch describes an exodus from Egypt as an 48. Zagorin (1990) provides a good overview of the disputed positions of LaCapra and particularly Hayden White among historians today. 49. Similarly, see Geller (1982). 50. These three methodological implications correspond to the three members of the interpretive triad: 'the world behind the text', 'the world of the text', and 'the world in front of the text'. See Tate (1991).

16

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

event that happened in the past, the historicity and date of this event are not of primary interest; rather, from an ideological standpoint what is of interest are the ideological implications of how the exodus event is narrated and the images of Egypt and Israel of which it attempts to persuade the readers or listeners. The primary historical context for these implications is the period in which the Pentateuch was first produced and circulated as an authoritative document. Since the biblical text of the Pentateuch purports to describe a past more distant than the historical context of its own formation, its ideologies will not necessarily or likely appear on the text's surface. These ideologies need to be made manifest by careful attention to the rhetoric of the text. Furthermore, once such ideologies are exposed, the information they yield about the context of the text's production will tend to consist less of discrete items such as datable events and persons, and more of broader insights into social and cultural worlds.51 The Text The focus of investigation will be on the final form of the text. This methodological implication is first meant to distinguish the ideological approach employed here from traditional historical-critical approaches that tend to dissect the biblical text into its various developmentally linked strata. In contrast, the focus of this study is not on the origin, development and history of traditions in the biblical text, but rather on the 'biblical imagination'—'that collection of perspectives which the compiled, edited, and canonized text mediates' (Cohn 1981:4); it is on the final form of the text rather than on its prehistory (Greenstein 1989). The final form of the text is, however, not thereby privileged as if it speaks with one unified voice. The gaps, inconsistencies and contradictions in the biblical text, used by historical-critical analysis to fragment the text, will be noted here as clues to the biblical text as a site of contestation between different but largely contemporaneous ideological perspectives.52 For example, the tension between positive and negative 51. Parker makes a similar argument about the historical usefulness of all ancient narrative sources: 'Ancient narratives, whether in inscriptions recovered in modern times by archaeologists, or in a Bible transmitted for centuries by religious bodies, must be appreciated as narratives before they can be used as historical sources. Then they may yield more interesting historical information about the mental or social world of their authors than about the events to which the narratives refer' (1996: 221). 52. '.. .a text is a site of ideological struggle, deeply implicated in its own historical

1. Introduction

11

descriptions of Egypt, or between portrayals of the exodus as an expulsion and as a deliverance from slavery, will be analyzed, not by assigning each depiction to a distinct stratum or stage in the development of the biblical tradition prior to the production of the Pentateuch, nor by searching for the sophisticated narrative artistry whereby these conflicting portrayals are juxtaposed, but by seeing in them conflicting ideological perspectives present at the time of the production and initial circulation of the final form of the Pentateuch.53 Of course, it will often be the case that one of the ideological perspectives is dominant in the text; nonetheless, this dominance will be interpreted as the attempt by the producers of the text to subdue other alternatives, alternatives that may be reconstructed from the textual data. If the focus of this investigation is to be on Egypt as portrayed in the final text form of the Pentateuch, with the assumption that the final text form is criss-crossed by the contestation of various ideological perspectives, one problem still remains: what is to be considered as the 'final text form' of the Pentateuch? On the one hand, invoking the final form of the text is a means of ensuring that the investigation does not get lost in the prehistory of the text. But on the other hand, the very notion of a final text is problematic considering the fluid history of the text and the very different notions of textuality in the largely orally oriented world in which it was produced. In reality, no such entity as the final text form of the Pentateuch exists; instead, what we have are various textual traditions of the Pentateuch. These traditions have been classified into three main families, represented respectively by the Masoretic text, the Sepruagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch.54 When the evidence of the ancient textual material found in the caves at Qumran is taken into account, even this threefold classifimoment and in the competing ideologies present in the culture in which it was produced' (Pollak 1988: 281). Loewenstamm (1992) treats the divergences in the Pentateuchal Exodus account as coexisting but contending traditions. 53. The particular interpretive understanding of the text outlined here is not meant to denigrate or deny the efficacy of other interpretive methods such as the historicalcritical or the literary. Rather, the contrast of the ideological approach of this study with these other methods is meant merely to underline the distinctiveness of the approach and to stake out in advance the presuppositions upon which it depends. 54. According to P.M. Cross's theory of local texts (1976: 306-20), each of these textual families was originally linked to a particular area: the Masoretic or protoMasoretic text with Babylon, the Sepruagint or Old Greek text with Egypt, and the Samaritan or pre-Samaritan text with Palestine.

18

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

cation breaks down and it becomes more accurate to speak of textual plurality, a plurality already evident in the earliest extant manuscripts (c. 250 BCE) and lasting into the first centuries CE when a period of text stabilization and standardization began (Tov 1992: 194). Therefore, the 'final text form of the Pentateuch' is necessarily a heuristic construct.55 The basic Pentateuchal text used in this study is that of the Bibtia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (4th edition, 1990; henceforth abbreviated as BHS), which is based on what still is the oldest dated manuscript of the entire Hebrew Bible: Leningrad Codex B19A.56 This codex, while rather late (1009 or 1008 CE), represents the Masoretic textual tradition which stretches back to at least the proto-Masoretic manuscripts of Qumran.57 At the same time, variant textual traditions will be noted where they occur, especially the textual tradition represented by the Septuagint since this tradition likely originated in the Jewish diaspora in Egypt itself.58 55. That is, the existence of a final text form is assumed, although at present such a postulate remains incapable of proof, in order to facilitate the investigation. Tov similarly theoretically posits a 'final form', 'original shape' or 'pristine text' for each biblical book—'a textual entity (a tradition or a single witness) which stood at the beginning of the stage of textual transmission' (1992:180) or 'finished literary works, more or less similar to the biblical books now known to us' (1992: 199)—but admits that it is impossible, given the lack of definitive data from the earliest stages of the formation of the biblical text, to absolutely reconstitute such a final text (1992: 18794). Tov does connect the final form or edition of a biblical book with its acceptance as authoritative or canonical (1992: 179, 188). 56. The Aleppo Codex is somewhat earlier (c. 925 CE) but in 1947 most of the portion containing the Pentateuch was lost. 57. Actually the Leningrad Codex more accurately represents the Tiberian Masoretic tradition of Ben Asher. The Masoretic tradition in general includes various sources that differ from each other in many details (Tov 1992: 22-23). It is most common among manuscripts today because all Jewish communities beginning in the second century CE accepted it as authoritative. However, it was previously also favored by temple circles in Palestine and may have been the most prominent textual tradition in Palestine already in the last centuries BCE. The Qumran finds, if they are at all representative of the situation in Palestine, show a marked preference for the protoMasoretic text: 60% of the biblical manuscripts found there are of this type (Tov 1992: 114-17,194). Tov argues that the Masoretic tradition as it is represented inBHSis not to be discounted because of its relatively more recent age; the preservation of original readings in a manuscript depends more on scribal practice than the age of the manuscript, resulting in cases where later manuscripts contain readings closer to the original than older manuscripts (Tov 1992: 301-302). 58. For the Septuagint, the basic text will be that edited by John W. Wevers in Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum

1. Introduction

19

When significant textual variants are encountered in the following analysis of references to Egypt in the Pentateuch, rather than trying to reconstruct an original reading, such textual difficulties will be investigated as indicative of possible ideological tensions or contradictions. That is, a significant textual variant can indicate a strain or a crack in the dominant ideology of the text; a textual variant can thus become a clue towards the reconstruction of alternate ideologies that the text is attempting to suppress or contest.59 This approach assumes that significant textual variants may in many cases be contemporaneous, which is not unreasonable in light of the textual plurality of the earliest manuscript evidence; in any case, each individual instance will have to be evaluated on its own merits. The assumption made here that one can speak of a 'final text form' of the Pentateuch that is quite ancient, and which is also relatively close to the tradition represented in BHS, does not, however, indicate when and how that final text form emerged. The date and mode of production of the final text form of the Pentateuch is the subject of Chapter 5. Until then, for the most part such concerns will be temporarily suspended or bracketed out. A further assumption lies behind the term 'Pentateuch' itself, meaning 'a book in five parts'. The antiquity of this five-part form, which in the days preceding the invention of the codex would suggest possibly five originally separate scrolls, is not known. No reference appears to it in the biblical texts themselves, but Philo and Josephus are both aware of it, indicating that a five-part form existed before the Common Era.60 The continuous flow of the narrative from Exodus through Leviticus to the first part of Numbers makes the division between these books seem like a later act.61 Nonetheless, in this investigation, the five-part form will be taken for Gottingensis editum volumes I-III. In contrast to the MT of BHS, which is based on an actual manuscript, the LXX text produced by Wevers is an eclectic text that attempts to recreate the most original reading on the basis of a comparison of a wide range of manuscripts. 59. This will be true only of variants that are clearly not due to mechanical scribal error. 60. See Philo's Aet. Mund. 19 and Josephus's Apion 1.37-41 (Fretheim 1996: 19; Blenkinsopp 1992: 43-45). Blenkinsopp also mentions hints of a plurality of books in the Pentateuch in the Damascus Document (CD VII) from Qumran, inAristeas (30,46, 176, etc.), and in Aristobulus (3.2), as well as more remote indications in Ben Sira, the Septuagint and the structure of 1 Enoch; all of these suggest that by 200 BCE the Pentateuch was divided into books. 61. The whole question of scrolls and possible scroll sizes is involved in this ques-

20

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

granted as a heuristic construct and the references to Egypt will first be explored as they occur in each separate book or scroll; subsequently, these results will be synthesized into a view of Egypt in the Pentateuch as a whole. The Reader The stance of interpretation will be that of the resisting reader. This third methodological implication has to do with the act of reading and interpreting the text, an act that is integrally bound up with the nature of the relationship between the reader and the text. On that relationship, readerreception theory seems to be bifurcating into two camps.62 On the one hand are those who argue that a text projects for itself an ideal or model reader, and that therefore the best or most compelling reading of the text is the one that emulates the reading performance thus intended.63 On the other hand are those who argue that in the text the representation process itself is fraught with uncertainty, allowing for no definitive interpretive closure, and that therefore perhaps the more interesting or significant readings of the text are those that focus on disturbances in the text that undermine its manifest content.64 From the perspective of an approach that reads for the ideologies implicated in a text, the first option seems to imply the reader's subservience to the dominant ideological stance that the text is promoting. The second option allows for a reader that resists the persuasive appeal of the text in order to make manifest the contestation of ideologies that constitute the productive matrix from which the text emerged.65 Clearly, this second option is the one preferred in the following textual analysis. This notion of a resisting reading can be expressed more prosaically in tion. For now, it suffices to refer to Haran's( 1982,1983,1984,1985a, 1985b) opinion that the books of the Pentateuch were written on separate scrolls from the beginning. Among the scrolls of the Pentateuchal books found at Qumran, only three contain more than one book: 4QGen-Exoda (4Q1), 4QpaleoGen-Exod] (4Q11), and 4QLev-Numa (4Q23) (Tov 1992: 104). However, later rabbinic opinion permitted larger scrolls containing the entire Pentateuch, and the Talmud (b. Git. 60a) forbids for use in the synagogue separate scrolls of individual books of the Torah. The fragments of Genesis and Exodus and Numbers found at Wadi Murabba'at (2nd century CE) probably come from the same single scroll (Blenkinsopp 1992:46, referring to DJD II1961: 75-78). 62. On this bifurcation, see H.C. White (1995: esp. 48-50). 63. Umberto Eco exemplifies this approach (H.C. White 1995: 48). 64. Jacques Derrida exemplifies this approach (H.C. White 1995: 49). 65. Judith Fetterley (1978) coined the phrase 'the resisting reader'.

1. Introduction

21

terms of whether a text is approached with a hermeneutics of acceptance or suspicion. For instance, a historian can approach the biblical text as being relatively trustworthy in the information it contains unless there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary; such an approach is one that is largely accepting of the manifest content of the text and would respond positively to the text's dominant ideological appeal. Or a historian can approach the biblical text as being relatively tendentious in its selection and portrayal of the information it contains, thus necessitating an overall questioning and critical stance; such an approach is one that is largely suspicious of the manifest content of the text and would resist the text's dominant ideological appeal.66 The second approach, as employed in this investigation, will allow for the portrayal of Egypt in the Pentateuch's ideologies of identity to become clear. The Pentateuch One final preliminary matter needs to be addressed, and that is the question of why the Pentateuch has been chosen as the particular focus of this investigation. The separation of the Pentateuch from the rest of the Hebrew Bible may reflect a later division, and originally alternate arrangements such as a Hexateuch (von Rad 1966b) or a Tetrateuch and a Deuteronomistic History (Noth 1981) or a Primary Story (Freedman 1987, 1991) may have existed. Again, the focus on the Pentateuch alone is largely heuristic, based on the assumption that it was the first Hebrew writing to gain some form of canonical authority, and on the relative density of occurrences of Egypt in it vis-a-vis the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, the Pentateuch encompasses the life of Moses, with Genesis as a prologue, and the death of Moses at the end of Deuteronomy is portrayed as the end of an era (Whybray 1995: 2, 8; Blenkinsopp 1992: 52); thus the Pentateuch projects itself as a bounded literary entity. For these reasons, in addition to the concern to deal with a manageable corpus 66. An example of the first approach is Alan R. Millard's (1991a, 1991b) defense of the essential historicity of the Solomonic period as described in the Bible, in which he contends that historians must start with a positive stance to the biblical documents. An example of the second approach is that of J. Maxwell Miller (1991), who argues that historians must recognize the ideological aspect of the texts about Solomon as part of the evaluation of their historical veracity. See also Jobling (1991). On the hermeneutics of suspicion, see Stewart (1989), who, following Ricoeur, argues that a hermeneutic of suspicion positively opens up the world in front of the text to new possibilities of being.

22

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

of textual material, the Pentateuch presents the limits of this study. Obviously there is more to Egypt in the Hebrew Bible than that which is found in the Pentateuch, and so the focus on the Pentateuch alone may tend to limit or distort the image of Egypt that is encompassed in the symbolic or mental map of the biblical tradition. However, the preeminence of the Pentateuch in the biblical tradition, and the Pentateuch's overwhelming attention to Egypt over and above other non-Israelite ethnic or national entities, promises that the following analysis will at least establish a dependable framework for further investigations of the place of Egypt in the biblical tradition and in the formative era of Judaism. Overview In summary, the hypothesis so far presented is that the Pentateuch functions primarily to narrate the origins of biblical Israel, and thus issues of identity are central to its ideologies. Construction of identity often proceeds via comparison with an 'other'; in the Pentateuch it is Egypt that predominantly plays the role of 'other' over against Israel.67 In the following chapters, the significance of the topos of Egypt as 'other' in the Pentateuch will be explored and analyzed. The concept of 'mental map' from human geography has already been used to suggest that references to 'Egypt' in the Pentateuch do not function only or primarily as references to a particular extra-textual location but rather together constitute an intra-textual symbolic or imaginative map that informs the audience of the cultural values or ideologies of the producers of the text. In Chapters 2-4, the specific references to Egypt in Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus through Deuteronomy will be analyzed, paying particular attention to their narrative context and development, and thus to both their significance as the narrative of the Pentateuch unfolds and their thematic significance in the Pentateuch as a whole. In the fifth chapter, possible contexts for the earliest literary production and consumption of the Pentateuch, in a completed form similar to that in which we now know it, are explored. A variety of proposals dating the completed Pentateuch to various parts of the Neo-Babylonian, Persian or early Hellenistic periods 67. See Table 1 in the Appendix. As already noted, in the Hebrew Bible, the word 'Egypt' has the highest density in the Pentateuch. In contrast, the word 'Philistine' has a much higher density than 'Egypt' in the Former Prophets, and the combined density of the words 'Babylon' and 'Chaldean' exceed that of 'Egypt' in the Latter Prophets. The Writings display relatively little interest in these national or ethnic designations.

1. Introduction

23

will be evaluated. It will be argued that references to 'Egypt' in the Pentateuch, while incorporating older sedimented conceptions, in at least their present choice and arrangement can be read as signifying conceptions, or mental maps, of Egypt contemporary to these periods. In the final chapter, the dynamics of the Persian/early Hellenistic periods will be examined, focusing especially on the Jewish diaspora in Egypt and the Jewish polity in Yehud, as the historical context for the topos of Egypt in the Pentateuch. It will be argued that the place of Egypt in the Pentateuch's symbolic geography provides important clues to the perception of Egypt, and of the Egyptian Jewish diaspora, by the emerging Torahcentered Jewish polity in Yehud.

Chapter 2 EGYPT IN GENESIS

If one thinks of Egypt in Genesis, the story of Joseph immediately comes to mind. And, indeed, the majority (83 per cent) of the references to Egypt in Genesis appear in the Joseph narrative (37.1-50.26), a narrative that involves a migration from Canaan into Egypt and then is largely set in Egypt. Thus the image of Egypt presented in this first book of the Pentateuch is largely the image of the Egypt of the Joseph story. However, a significant cluster of references to Egypt appears also in the cycle of Abraham stories (12.1-25.18).' This cycle begins with a migration into and out of Egypt (Gen. 12.10-20) and includes kinship politics involving Hagar, an Egyptian woman (Gen. 16 and 21). These stories will provide a significant counterpoint to the image of Egypt in the Joseph story, as will be shown below. 'Egypt' is virtually non-existent in the two other major narrative cycles in Genesis, namely, the primeval (1.1-11.32) and Jacob (26.19-36.43) cycles.2 In fact, the primeval and Jacob cycles are oriented predominantly toward Mesopotamia. The primeval cycle begins with the garden of Eden located 'in the east' (Gen. 2.8) and ends with the tower of Babel, also in the east (Gen. 11.2).3 In this cycle, primeval humanity moves in a general 1. See Table 3 in the Appendix for the density of occurrences of the word 'Egypt' in various parts of Genesis. 2. In this work, the focus will be on explicit references to Egypt. It could be argued, of course, that Egypt also appears implicitly in parts of the Hebrew Bible. For example, Currid (1991) sees references to Egyptian cosmology in the Genesis creation accounts, and Gorg (1990) argues that the story in Gen. 3 constitutes a veiled polemic against Solomon's marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh. However, such implicit references will not be considered in this work. 3. The phrase DTpD, which appears in both stories, is usually understood as 'in the east, eastwards' but can also be interpreted as 'from the east'. Although Albright (1922) argued for a location of Eden in the far west, from the geographical perspective of the producers of the primeval cycle it seems more likely that Eden is located

2. Egypt in Genesis

25

eastward direction from the garden (Gen. 3.24; 4.16) until arriving in the plain of Shinar, which is the region of Babylonia (Gen. 11.2) (Wallace 1992). The Jacob cycle, geographically, revolves around an exodus or expulsion to the east—Jacob flees from the wrath of his brother Esau and lives with his uncle in the 'old country' of Aram in northwest Mesopotamia—and a subsequent return to Canaan. These points of contrast are particularly interesting in light of the proposal that the Pentateuch was composed, not out of several hypothetical parallel literary sources as in the classic Wellhausen documentary hypothesis, but rather by the editorial linking of various originally independent units of tradition.4 It is thus not intrinsically surprising that, as possibly originally independent traditions, the primeval and Jacob cycles show a dominant Mesopotamian orientation, in contrast to the Joseph cycle, and to some extent, the Abraham cycle, which are oriented more towards Egypt. The following analysis of Genesis will demonstrate that, in the linking of these cycles in the final text of Genesis, an attempt has been made to subordinate the Egyptian orientation, especially that of the Joseph cycle, to the Mesopotamian orientation of the primeval and Jacob cycles, and that the clearest evidence of such subordination appears in the way Egypt is presented in the Abraham cycle. This suggests a clash of ideologies, which will further be explored within the context of the Persian period in later chapters. In the following, the image and significance of Egypt will be analyzed as it unfolds, beginning with the first mention of Egypt in Gen. 10, and ending with the final mention of Egypt in the closing verse of the book. Egypt in the Primeval Cycle (1.1-11.32) While the primeval narrative cycle is primarily oriented towards Mesopotamia, Egypt appears twice in the segmented genealogy towards the end of the primeval cycle known as the Table of Nations (Gen. 10).5 This towards the east. The story of the Tower of Babel is clearly connected with Mesopotamia in terms of its location in Shinar (Gen. 11,2), which is Babylonia (Gen. 10.10), the disparaging pun on the name 'Babel', and the tower itself as a likely reference to Mesopotamian ziggurats. Furthermore, the flood story in the midst of the primeval cycle (Gen. 6-9) has clear affinities with Mesopotamian tales. 4. Advanced in current scholarship especially by Rendtorff (1990). 5. In the 70 nations or peoples listed in this genealogy, one finds a picture of the world as the author(s) understood it at their time, not primarily in terms of

26

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

genealogy portrays Egypt as one of four offspring of Noah's second son, Ham. Egypt's siblings are identified as Cush, Put and Canaan. If Cush is to be understood as referring to the land south of Egypt (i.e. Nubia) and Put as referring to the area west of Egypt (i.e. Libya) then this set of four siblings seems to correspond to the area variously under the sway of the Pharaohs—either of ancient Egypt, especially during the Late Bronze Age, or of the early Ptolemies. But is the concern of this Table of Nations necessarily geographic? That is, should the name 'Egypt', and the other names in this genealogy, be understood primarily as geographic or as ethnographic designations?6 In biblical terms, is 'Egypt' primarily an|*~iN, a 'territory', or a"1"]} or DP, a 'nation' or 'people'?7 The Table of Nations speaks of clans, tongues, lands and nations (10.5, 20, 31), and furthermore freely mixes proper names, gentilics and toponyms, thus intermingling ethnographic and geographic information. This practice seems to indicate that for the biblical writers and their primary audience ethnography and geography were not sharply differentiated. In terms of the mental map of the Pentateuch, then, one must be prepared to read 'Egypt' both as a geographic and ethnographic reference since these meanings seem to overlap. Only with a qualifying term such as f")N 'land (of)', or the gentilic form "~IUD 'Egyptian', is the text more specific.8 In spatial terms, the Table of Nations is presented as three overlapping blocks: at the center, both chiastically and in terms of the author's standpoint, are the territories of Ham; further out are the Mesopotamian territories of Shem; and furthest is a remote outer belt of regions only vaguely

geographical locations but more in terms of 'the political, linguistic and cultural connections between peoples' (Alexander 1992:980). The DnXD, 'Egypt' of the Hebrew text is transliterated by the LXX as MEapaip only here; elsewhere the LXX always translates D'HISD as AiyuTTTos. 6. Strictly speaking, D'HUQ in the Table of Nations refers to the eponymous ancestor of the Egyptian people. The usage D'HUQ flN, 'land of Egypt', that appears later, however, clearly indicates that the term can also refer to a land. 7. The main difference between'13, 'nation' andDJJ, 'people' seems to be that the former is based more on social and political ties, the latter more on kinship ties. 8. The LXX clearly differentiates between Egypt as a territory (Ai yu TTTOS) and as a people (Aiyurmoi), thus adding a differentiation that is not always explicitly present in the MT. When the word stands on its own in the Hebrew text, only contextual clues allow for a differentiation between these two meanings; and in many cases a differentiation may not be possible.

2. Egypt in Genesis

27

known or imagined, associated with Japhet.9 Accordingly, Egypt is within the center of the geographic perspective of the Table.10 Ethnographically, however, the Table arranges its constituent parts in terms of their perceived familial (which is to say, sociopolitical) relationships, from least important to most important, focusing in the end on the chosen lineage, which runs through Shem.11 Accordingly, Egypt is genealogically or ethnographically excluded from the Shemite line that will eventually lead to Israel.12 While Egypt may be geographically central, the Table of Nations prepares the reader to perceive Egypt in terms of the genealogical relationships that structure so much of the book of Genesis.13 Or, to put it another way, from the perspective of the producers of the Table, Egypt is 9. See Simons (1954), in whose view the Table is written from the perspective of being situated in Canaan and focuses most heavily on the descendants of Ham. 10. That is, the geographic perspective of the Table is more Egyptian than it is Mesopotamian. 11. The Hebrew descent material (i.e. from Shem to Terah, the father of Abram) is not highlighted until the following chapter (11.10-30). 12. Clearly, according to the Table of Nations, Egypt and the Hebrews descend from completely separate branches of the human family. However, that the Table lists several identical names under both the lines of Ham and Shem (Lud/Ludim, Ashur, Sheba and Havilah) tends to undermine the strict separation of these two lines. Furthermore, of the descendants of Ham, only Canaan is singled out for a curse in the preceding chapter (9.25). Egypt, here at least, escapes the kind of condemnation that is often leveled at the Canaanites in the Hebrew Bible. Interestingly, the Philistines are presented as a second generation offspring of Egypt (10.14); while in the former prophets, Philistines are Israel's prime enemy and oppressor, in Genesis they act as an intermediate group between Canaan and Israel. The seven first generation descendants of Egypt mentioned in the Table (10.13-14) constitute a formulaic list of peoples, all with plural endings (which contrast with the variety of terms used elsewhere in the Table), arranged in order of word length; they never appear elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible and are very difficult to correlate with known peoples or lands (see Westermann 1984: 518-20). All one can say is that these names are associated somehow with Egypt, but their original significance appears to be lost. 13. Naomi Steinberg (1993) demonstrates the importance of genealogies in the structuring of the narrative of Genesis. Particularly intriguing are the kinship contrasts she detects between the Sarah-Hagar and Rebekah cycles (part of the Abraham narratives), and the Rachel-Leah cycles (part of the Jacob and Joseph narratives). In the former only one chosen brother inherits the patrilineage, whereas in the latter all (12) brothers inherit the patrilineage equally (signifying the birth of the nation of Israel). Steinberg argues that the Genesis stories accord with postexilic realities, as is also argued in Chapter 5 below. For a somewhat different analysis which, however, comes to many conclusions similar to Steinberg, see Steinmetz (1991).

28

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

perceived as close geographically or spatially, but distant in terms of kinship. The reader is therefore prepared to see that, though Egypt may loom large in Israel's origin and history, ultimately Egypt is excluded from the lineage that leads to Israel. Egypt in the Abraham Cycle (12.1-25.18) While 'Egypt' occurs in the Abraham cycle less frequently than in the Joseph cycle, the term appears at strategic points in the narrative, clustering around two narrative movements. First, 'Egypt' occurs in the narrative movement of the ancestor Abraham into Egypt and out again (12.1013.13), followed by a subsequent gradual distancing of the ancestor from Egypt in the series of so-called 'wife-as-sister' stories (20.1-18; 26.6-16); this movement concerns the theme of land. Secondly, 'Egypt' appears in the narrative movement of Egypt out to the ancestor in the account of Abraham's attempt to gain an heir through Hagar the Egyptian (chs. 16 and 21); this movement concerns the theme of offspring and proper lineage. The themes of these narrative movements are obviously connected to the divine promise to the ancestors of land and offspring, first introduced in 12.1-3 and reiterated throughout the ancestral cycles. This divine promise can be seen as the ideological motor of the ancestral narratives, and, indeed, as the theme of the entire Pentateuch (see especially Clines 1978). The implication of Egypt in this ideology will be explored in the following. Going Down to Egypt (12, 13, 20, 26) The movement of the patriarch Abram in and out of Egypt in Gen. 12 sets the pattern for the first narrative movement. When famine threatens, the patriarch goes down (TV) to Egypt to settle there as a resident alien (12.10). That is, Egypt has an initial positive valuation as a place of food and survival. But then Egypt becomes an ambiguous place that both threatens danger and promises enrichment. At the border Abram is anxious that Egypt may mean death for him; so he prevails upon Sarai to present herself as his sister in order to reverse the perceived threat and to claim not only life but also enrichment (12.11-13).14 The strategy works; Abram lives and is indeed enriched (12.16), but Pharaoh and his household are struck with plague (12.17). Thus a fundamental ambivalence is associated 14. Abram's words 'that it may go well pB"1) with me' (12.13), in view of the goods he will gain in Egypt, can be understood as a reference to his hopes of enrichment.

2. Egypt in Genesis

29

with Egypt; it is simultaneously a place of potential great enrichment— note that Abram's wealth is not detailed until his Egyptian sojourn15—and also a place that raises fears, entices to deception, and so threatens death and plague. The same ambivalence presents itself in the immediately following episode where the fertile well-watered plain of the Jordan which Lot chooses is compared both to the garden of YHWH and to the land of Egypt (13.10).16 At first reading, these equivalencies suggest a very positive view of Egypt. The reader, however, is immediately alerted that the Jordan plain so favored by Lot will be destroyed when YHWH rains sulphur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah (12.10b, referring to 19.24-28). As well, the implicit comparison of Egypt with the garden of YHWH, in the light of Gen. 3, suggests that Egypt is a place of temptation. The allusion to the garden of Eden helps the reader to see the Egyptian leader, Pharaoh, in the same ambivalent light. On the one hand, just as Eve saw the beautiful fruit in the garden and took and ate (3.6), so also Pharaoh's officials see the beautiful Sarai and she is taken into Pharaoh's harem (12.15)—the same vocabulary is employed in both cases (NTTlp"?, 'see' 'take'). On the other hand, once the Pharaoh discovers Abram's deception, he confronts him in the same manner that the deity confronts Adam and Eve, or Cain, after their transgressions: 'What have you done?' (12.18—see 3.13; 4.10). In contrast to the silent Abram, Pharaoh here looks positively righteous. Thus Egypt is presented ambivalently, positively and negatively. However, against the background of the Table of Nations, and in view of the genealogical strategy of the ancestral accounts in Genesis, which focuses on weeding out unacceptable elements in the lineage that leads to

15. Gen. 12.16; 13.2. It seems that his nephew Lot was similarly enriched since after the Egyptian experience they could no longer live together because their possessions were so great (13.5-7). The notice of Abram's possessions acquired before all this in Haran (12.5) does not give the same picture of impressive wealth. 16. While the MT uses two phrases in apposition to describe the plain of the Jordan: 'like the garden of YHWH, like the land of Egypt'; the LXX separates the two phrases with KOI, 'and'. Wevers (1993: 180) argues that the Greek conjunction differentiates between the two comparisons—'after all, the garden of God is hardly the land of Egypt'—and that the LXX here faithfully interprets the Hebrew. However, this interpretation depends upon a prior assumption, not explicit in the text, that YHWH'S garden and Egypt cannot be comparable, and it flies in the face of the most obvious reading of the text, which is that the garden of YHWH and Egypt are viewed analogously.

30

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Israel,17 Egypt poses a definite danger. The taking of Sarai into the house of the Egyptian Pharaoh—signifying her assimilation as a proto-Israelite into the Egyptian kinship structure—represents the threat of the intrusion of Ham into the chosen lineage leading from Shem to Israel. A child of an Egyptian father, even of a Pharaoh, will not do as part of this chosen lineage. And so plague strikes to put an end to this disapproved union. The dangers associated with Egypt eventually outweigh the benefits, and so Egypt cannot be a place of permanent settlement for Abraham. The patriarch is expelled (n"?2J) and goes up (n^U) from Egypt, albeit far wealthier than before. Thus, almost at the very beginning of the story cycles that narrate the origins of Israel, the audience of the Pentateuch encounters a proto-exodus movement: a pattern of entering Egypt because it is clearly advantageous to do so, but also leaving or being expelled from Egypt because it cannot become a permanent home.18 Similarly, the disastrous decision of Lot to opt for the Jordan plain, likened to Egypt but destined for destruction (13.8-13), prefigures the later yearning of the exodus generation to return to Egypt (Wenham 1987: 300). Thus an ideological pattern around the term 'Egypt' is being established, which will influence the reading of the following narratives, predisposing the audience (1) to see Israel's origins as clearly non-Egyptian, (2) to see any connection between Israel and Egypt as temporary and fraught with danger, and (3) to see any yearning on Israel's part for Egypt as disastrous. The narrative of Abram and Sarai's experience in Egypt is the first of three sequential incidents in Genesis expressing the so-called 'wife-assister' or 'endangered ancestress' motif.19 The same motif appears twice more in Gen. 20 and 26. However, these further instances show an interesting distancing from Egypt. In neither Gen. 20 nor 26 does the story take place in Egypt itself; the action happens rather in Gerar, an area between

17. Steinberg (1993) notes that the genealogical strategy of the ancestral accounts in Genesis focuses on establishing a single appropriate heir until one arrives at the sons of Jacob in Egypt; then the strategy switches from a vertical to a horizontal concern and all of Jacob's sons are accepted as heirs. 18. The vocabulary used of Abram's journey to (IT) and from (fl^S, n^EJ) anticipates the same vocabulary used to described Israel's entrance into and exit from Egypt. 19. A more accurate label would be the 'endangered ancestor' motif. In line with the patrilineal disposition of the biblical text, it seems clear that the concern of the narrative in these incidents is more with the danger to the ancestor posed by a threat to his spouse.

2. Egypt in Genesis

31

Egypt and Canaan; that is, a liminal or transitional area.20 However, an Egyptian connection remains; Gerar is Philistine (26.1), and the Philistines, according to the Table of Nations, are the second-generation offspring of Egypt (10.13).21 The same pattern of deception and subsequent enrichment is repeated both times, but by the third instance, which involves Isaac, the Egyptian connection is repudiated. The deity tells Isaac explicitly not to go down to Egypt as his father Abraham had done (26.2). Isaac is still enriched; however, in this case not by the foreign ruler but rather by his own farming success (26.12-14). In Gen. 12 the ancestress is clearly in danger of being absorbed into the house of the foreign king, but by Gen. 26 this particular danger exists only as a potential. The first instances of Egypt in the Abraham cycle thus portray Egypt as a dangerous place that one enters and leaves quickly, but which promises riches at the cost of deception. As a proto-exodus narrative, the story presents Egypt as a detour. The greatest danger the Egyptian detour presents is to the chosen lineage, which is compromised by the attraction of assimilation into the house of Egypt. And so in the subsequent two repetitions of this movement, both the actual danger of Egypt and the need to go there in the first place are progressively muted and displaced.22 Hagar the Egyptian (16, 21) In the narrative of Abram's descent into Egypt, the danger of Israelite absorption into Egypt has been highlighted. However, the danger could also occur in the opposite direction; instead of the Israelite ancestor going down into Egypt, Egypt comes up into the Israelite house. The story of Hagar the Egyptian slave concerns just such a move. While in Egypt the danger to the chosen lineage was an Egyptian father, in this movement an Egyptian mother poses the threat. The story of Hagar is told in two parts. In Gen. 16, Sarai, who is barren, 20. See Gen. 10.19 where Gerar indicates one of the borders of the territory of Canaan, and Gen. 20.1 where Gerar seems to be located between Kadesh and Shur, Kadesh being a border of Canaan and Shur a border of Egypt. 21. Furthermore, the king of Gerar has an army commander named ^S, 'Phicol' (21.22, 32; 26.26) which may be an Egyptian name (Gorg 1993). 22. Van Seters (1975:168-83) and others (see Wenham 1987:286) see the account of the endangered ancestress in Gen. 12 as the textual basis for the similar accounts in Gen. 20 and 26; these latter accounts seem to make explicit references to the account in Gen. 12. Quite apart from whether such a hypothesis accounts for the actual literary development of the text, it accords with the experience of the reader or audience if the text is presented in a linear fashion.

32

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

arranges for Hagar, her Egyptian slave girl, to conceive a child by Abram. The fertility of Egypt is thus highlighted in contrast to the barrenness of the Israelite ancestress; just as Egypt has food during famine, so it harbors fertility during barrenness. In order to make the Egyptian connection clear, the text repeatedly insists on Hagar's Egyptian identity (16.1, 3; 21.9; 25.12). But, just like Abram's move to Egypt, Sarai's decision, while seeming on the surface to have the desired result, conceals a hidden danger. A verbal allusion to Gen. 3 underlines the potential problem. There, the deity berated Adam for listening to Eve (3.17), who took of the fruit and gave of it to her husband (3.6); so also here the same language is used to describe how Abram listens to Sarai, who takes Hagar and gives her to her husband (16.2-3). In both cases, the desired result leads to unforeseen consequences (Wenham 1994: 7-8). Hagar conceives—Egypt is indeed fertile—but the result is that she steps outside of her proper role and looks down upon her mistress. This leads Sarai to afflict (!"[]#) Hagar, causing Hagar to flee (!"[~Q) back in the direction of Egypt (16.6).23 Just as Abram entered Egypt and left, so also the Egyptian Hagar, having entered Israel, so to speak, now leaves. But the narrative pattern of Abram is not repeated in mirror fashion. Before Hagar reaches Egypt, the deity turns her back, announcing that she will indeed bear a son for Abram (16.7-12). This Egyptian woman receives a theophany and a promise of descendants; furthermore, she names the deity (16.13)! This favorable valuation of Egypt leads one to speculate that perhaps indeed the promised lineage can pass through Hagar's son. Abram later hopes for no less when he petitions the deity, 'O, that Ishmael may live in your sight' (17.18). But it is not to be. The second part of the Hagar story concerns the displacement of her son Ishmael by Sarah's son Isaac. At Isaac's weaning festival, Sarah sees Ishmael 'Isaacing' (21.9)—that is, somehow acting the role of the heir that she (and the deity—see 17.15-22) envision for Isaac alone. So she prevails upon Abraham to drive out (ETI3) Hagar and her son (21.10). This time Abraham is unwilling to listen to his wife and needs to be persuaded by the deity before he indeed expels (piel of n^ttf) the Egyptian and her son (21.11 -14).24 Again, an Egyptian origin for Israel has been avoided; the line of Abraham beginning in Mesopotamia has remained unadulterated. Egypt, for all its positive characteristics—in this case, fertility—is rejected. An Egyptian mother will not do any more than an Egyptian father. Ishmael, 23. These verbs foreshadow the Exodus account (Trible 1984: 9-35). 24. Again, the verbs foreshadow the Exodus.

2. Egypt in Genesis

33

like Cain, Ham and Esau, turns out to be one of the cul-de-sacs in divine history. But not entirely. Once expelled, Hagar procures a wife for Ishmael from the land of Egypt (21.21), just as Abraham will later arrange for a wife for Isaac from Mesopotamia (24.1-67).25 Ishmael is destined to become a people inhabiting a liminal or intermediary region between Israel and Egypt (25.12-18); there Ishmael will later play a decisive mediating role in bringing Israel back into Egypt again in the person of Joseph.26 So, whether the ancestors go to Egypt or Egypt comes to the ancestors, the concern of the narrative is to highlight the danger Egypt poses to the chosen lineage despite its obvious attractiveness in terms of food, fertility and wealth. On the symbolic map of the Pentateuch to this point, Egypt is portrayed as looming too close for comfort, and yet it is a comfort. Hence the deep ambiguity of 'Egypt' in the narrative, an ambiguity that can be interpreted as an ideological struggle, waged within the text, between proand anti-Egyptian tendencies. Egypt in the Jacob Cycle (25.19-36.43) The word 'Egypt' appears only once in this entire narrative cycle, when Isaac is explicitly warned by the deity not to go down to Egypt as his father Abraham had done (26.2). Although tempted to go to Egypt, Isaac is stopped; he also marries the proper woman from the 'old country'— Mesopotamia—as he should. Jacob also marries the proper women, and even spends a significant amount of time in the 'old country'; throughout much of his life he seems to have no contact with Egypt whatsoever.27 Thus, the overall orientation of the Jacob cycle towards Mesopotamia is underlined and the significance of Egypt, at least in this cycle, is negligible. This all changes with the following story of Joseph.

25. Note the care taken in the narrative to keep Egypt and Mesopotamia distinct. 26. Gen. 25.1-6 also mentions the children of yet another wife of Abraham's: Keturah. Keturah's children are given gifts but do not inherit the patrilineage anymore than does Ishmael. There seem to be significant overlaps between the genealogies of Ishmael and Keturah's sons, leading to speculation that Keturah is a variant of Hagar. Significant for this investigation is that the genealogy of the Midianites is traced back to Keturah; in the Joseph story both Midianites and Ishmaelites are involved in the conveyance of Joseph to Egypt and so perhaps both are cast in a mediating role between Israel and Egypt. See also the later important role of Midian in Exod. 2 and 18. 27. Not so his brother Esau, who marries a descendant of Ishmael (28.9).

34

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Egypt in the Joseph Cycle (37.1-50.26) The term 'Egypt' does not occur uniformly throughout the Joseph cycle. At times, the narrative takes the Egyptian setting for granted (or ignores it), but at other times, Egypt is highlighted by explicit references. The density of the occurrences of the word 'Egypt' peaks at four points: (1) the account of Joseph's rise to a position of power in Egypt (39.1—41.57, but especially in 41.37-57); (2) the account of Jacob's move to Egypt (45.947.12); (3) the account of Joseph's rule in Egypt (47.13-26); and (4) the account of Jacob's death and burial (50.15-26). It seems that in these episodes the narrative is at pains to stress the Egyptian setting. Furthermore, it will be seen that the portrayal of Egypt is quite positive in the first three peaks, but that in the fourth peak the desirability of Egypt is notably undermined. Entry into Egypt and Elevation to Power (39.1-41.57) Whereas in the account of Abraham Egypt is presented ambiguously, although predominantly in negative terms, one seems to enter a different map with the story of Joseph. At first the image of Egypt is also negative in that Joseph is taken to Egypt as a slave.28 In contrast, Abram had chosen to go to Egypt and had emerged enriched with, among other items, slaves. But Joseph has barely arrived in Egypt when he is described as successful (n^H, 39.2). The description of his success is balanced on the one side by the notice that YHWH is with him (in Egypt), and on the other side by the notice that 'he was in the house of his master the Egyptian'. When Sarai was taken into the house of Pharaoh, disaster struck in the form of plagues (12.17); in contrast, when Joseph is taken into the house of his Egyptian master,29 YHWH causes Joseph to prosper and blesses all that his master owns (39.3-5). Here, Israel is a blessing, not a plague or an affliction, to 28. The transition from Canaan (the territory of future Israel) to Egypt in the story of Joseph is effected by those liminal people, the Ishmaelites, who dwell between Canaan and Egypt and are related to both Egypt and Israel. In fact, the narrative oscillates back and forth between Ishmaelites and Midianites. Whether or not this phenomenon has its origin in different sources, in the final form of the narrative, if it is not meant to be totally confusing, it seems to signify that these two groups are considered equivalent. They also seem to be considered equivalent in the story of Gideon—see Judg. 8.24. The proximity of the genealogies of the children of Keturah and of Ishmael (Gen. 25) has already prepared the reader for this possibility. 29. And that his master is Egyptian is stressed three times: Gen. 39. Ib, 2, 5.

2. Egypt in Genesis

35

Egypt. The description of Joseph's initial success in Egypt stands in striking contrast to the one previous episode in Genesis where the same root n "?iJ is repeatedly used; that is, when Abraham sends his servant to Mesopotamia to procure a wife of the proper lineage for his son Isaac. The 'success' provided by YHWH in that episode is the proper endogamous match (24.21, 40, 42, 56)—quite the opposite of the match of YHWH'S blessing with the house of the Egyptian through Joseph.30 Nonetheless, Egypt is not without its temptations and dangers. In an interesting twist on the motif of the 'endangered ancestor', the wife of Joseph's Egyptian master finds him desirable (39.7) and attempts to seduce him. Joseph, in refusing her advances, is the analogue of the righteous Pharaoh or king of Gerar of previous incarnations of this motif.3' Nonetheless, he is falsely accused and ends up in prison. Thus, Egypt, although it is connected with ideas of success, is also a place of deception and danger; this is the same ambiguity associated with Egypt in the earlier narratives of Genesis. But a subtle undercurrent also permeates this episode and most of the following narrative: the superiority of the Hebrew over the Egyptian. Here, Joseph is sexually restrained in contrast to his Egyptian mistress. Later, Joseph will demonstrate his superiority in other areas such as dream interpretation and government administration.32 The narrative presupposes some sort of distinction between Egyptian and Hebrew,33 but Egypt itself is thereby not denigrated or made into a place that Israel is to avoid. On the contrary, the superior Hebrew is able to flourish in Egypt, as the account of Joseph's eventual elevation to power in Egypt demonstrates. 30. In light of the Hagar stories, the effort to find a proper match for Isaac in the 'old country' of Mesopotamia seems decidedly anti-Egyptian in that contact between Israel and the house of Egypt is assiduously avoided. In the Joseph story, however, it is precisely the contact between Joseph, son of Israel, and the house of Egypt that results in blessing and prosperity. 31. The woman accuses Joseph of 'Isaacing' with her (39.14, 17); in light of the use of the same term in 21.9, she may mean that he is acting inappropriately for his servant status. From the narrative perspective of Joseph, a union between himself and his master's wife is not permissible, but for moral, not genealogical, reasons. Joseph will in due time wed a proper Egyptian wife. 32. 'Part of the fascination of the Joseph story for its Jewish audience must have been that it showed a poor Hebrew beating the most cultured society of the ancient near east at its own game, and there must have been many who wished that they could do the same' (Ray 1995: 17). 33. This distinction will be explored further in the following chapter on Exodus.

36

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

The episode of Joseph's elevation to power (41.1-57) is noticeably saturated with explicit references to Egypt, from Joseph's interpretation of Pharaoh's dream and his advice as to what Pharaoh should do,34 to Pharaoh's decision to make Joseph second-in-command in Egypt and the carrying out of that decision. The occurrences of the term 'Egypt' are most dense in ch. 41, indicating that Egypt is especially significant at this transition in the Joseph narrative. Also significant is the lack of any portrayal of religious conflict or difference between Joseph and Pharaoh. Although the Egyptian C^QQin ('magicians or diviners')35 make an appearance (41.8, 24), they are portrayed less as opponents and more as providing exotic color and a foil for the superior abilities of Joseph.36 Joseph emphasizes that the dream content and the events they forebode, as well as the correct interpretation of the dreams, come from God. Pharaoh does not argue with this position and in fact recommends Joseph to his court because he obviously has the OTT^R mi ('spirit of God', 41.38). While the text may portray Egypt in some ways as exotic, at the same time Egypt is assumed to share Israel's basic theology. For his part, Joseph does not object to being given an Egyptian theophoric name, marrying an Egyptian woman, and becoming the son-in-law of an Egyptian priest (41.45). In these respects, Joseph functionally becomes an Egyptian. His transformation is further emphasized by the names he gives to his sons. The first he names Manasseh, because God has made him forget (ntffl) all his toil and all the house of his father (41.51); in fact, Joseph now has a new 'house', an Egyptian one. The second son he names Ephraim, because God has made him fruitful (ma) in the land of his affliction (41.52); this name echoes previous promises of fruitfulness made in Canaan to the ancestors (17.6; 35.11; 48.4), indicating that for Joseph this promise is being fulfilled for him, not in Canaan, but in Egypt.37 34. Advice that was not asked for but was freely offered, perhaps again a demonstration of superiority. 35. The word is used only to refer to diviners in a foreign court (Egypt's court in Gen. 41 and Rxod. 7-9, and the court of Chaldea in Dan. 1-2). 36. 'OT evaluation of these foreign magicians seems to be mixed. In contests with Israel's God or God's representative they are always defeated; however, they are frequently labeled hakam, "wise"' (Kuemmerlin-McLean 1992: 469). The Egyptian magicians appear in a more adversarial role in the plague narrative in Exodus (see Chapter 3). 37. Note, however, that nowhere in Genesis is Joseph explicitly described as the recipient of promises to the ancestors, nor does he appear on the formulaic list of the ancestors, 'Abraham, Isaac and Jacob'.

2. Egypt in Genesis

37

Attention can also be drawn to the formula of self-introduction used by Pharaoh in elevating Joseph to a position of authority over all the land of Egypt: nma']«, 'I (am) Pharoah' (41.44). This type of formula has been encountered before in Genesis only on the lips of the deity, particularly in the context of promising land in Canaan to the patriarch (15.1; 17.1, 8; 28.13; 35.11, 12).38 But here it is Pharaoh who occupies a role analogous to God in establishing Joseph in the land of Egypt.39 A negative evaluation of Egypt may be seen in these elements, particularly if they are read against the context of the previous ancestor accounts. Egypt is then presented as a place that causes one to forget one's true roots and to assimilate, thus causing a confusion of the Hamitic and Shemitic lines. Pharaoh usurps the role of God in granting authority and land. But the dominant emphasis is more positive. Egypt, proverbial land of plenty, will experience famine, but due to the timely wisdom and intervention of a proto-Israelite (or Hebrew), will not only be able to provide food for its own people, but also for neighboring peoples as it has done in the past. The blessing that is Egypt is shown to be due to the presence of Israel (and Israel's God40) within it. At the same time a large degree of assimilation to Egyptian ways is described without censure.41 Jacob/Israel Enters Egypt (42.1-47.12) At the point of his elevation to power in Egypt, Joseph seems to become thoroughly Egyptianized; or, at the least, an Israelite is shown to be quite at home in an Egyptian setting. He has forgotten his father's house. But now the narrative slowly reintroduces his Israelite identity. The process begins when Joseph's brothers appear in Egypt to buy food.42 They do not 38. In Genesis, these divine promises to the ancestors do not occur at all in the Joseph story, or in the land of Egypt. A possible exception is Jacob's flashback while in Egypt (Gen. 48.4). 39. This formula of self-introduction appears later twice on the lips of Joseph when he reveals his identity to his brothers (45.3,4); at the end of Genesis, however, Joseph assures his brothers that he does not view himself in the role of God (50.19). 40. In Gen. 46.4 YHWH himself promises to go down to Egypt with Jacob/Israel. But in Gen. 39.2-3 YHWH is already in Egypt with Joseph. 41. One notes how the image of Egypt and Israel presented in this story so far might fit very positively with Jewish communities actually resident in Egypt since it suggests that the prosperity of Egypt is due in no small measure to their presence there. It also legitimates a large degree of assimilation to Egyptian ways. 42. Here Egypt is still the place of sustenance, signifying life, but the strategy now is not to migrate to Egypt but to buy food in Egypt, perhaps presupposing a much more settled state in Canaan.

38

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

recognize him—to them he is an Egyptian. But Joseph is jolted with a recognition of the past that he has tried to forget (42.7-8). Several indications in the narrative show that his Egyptian identity begins to waver and be transformed. First, when the brothers return to Egypt with Benjamin on their second trip, they participate in a banquet at Joseph's house, in which the seating is segregated: the Egyptians sit by themselves, Joseph's brothers (the Israelites) sit at another table by themselves, and Joseph sits at his own table (43.32). The reason given for these seating arrangements is that it is an abomination (rQUin) for Egypt to eat with Hebrews,43 For the first time, a divide between Israel and Egypt is emphasized—but on what side of the divide is Joseph? That he sits by himself is probably an indication of his rank and a further confirmation of his wholesale assimilation to Egyptian ways; however, it may narratively also indicate his entrance into a transitional state: not Israelite since he has assimilated and is regarded by his brothers as Egyptian—but also no longer completely Egyptian since he has been reminded of his Israelite roots. Secondly, the goblet that is used to implicate the brothers as thieves in Gen. 44 is described as the goblet that Joseph uses for divination (2JTT3, 44.5, 15), a practice forbidden in Lev. 19.26 and Deut. 18.10, but likely seen here as fitting in an Egyptian setting.44 The practice is stated without censure and reinforces Joseph's Egyptian identity. Judah even explicitly states that Joseph is like Pharaoh himself (44.18).45 Joseph finally reveals himself to his brothers, however, acknowledging his Israelite roots.46 But this does not lead him out of Egypt back to Canaan, as in the preceding ancestral narratives. Rather, he arranges for the transfer of the entire Israelite family to Egypt (Gen. 45), using the imagery of 'remnant' (rP"18EJ) and 'survivors' (rW^B) to describe the purpose of this move (45.7); in the narrative context of Genesis, Egypt is 43. The term rQJJin is usually used in the Pentateuch to indicate the unacceptable practices of foreigners, usually non-Israelites. Here it is used to refer to practices foreign and unacceptable to the Egyptians. Herodotus, Diodorus and Strabo express a similar interest in the exclusive eating habits of the Egyptians (Westermann 1986: 126). 44. Divination is also engaged in by Laban (a Mesopotamian) (30.27) and, by implication, the Egyptian magicians or diviners. 45. Later in the narrative, Joseph continues to be described in very exalted Egyptian terms: father to Pharaoh, lord of Pharaoh's house, ruler of Egypt (45.8), highly honored (45.13). 46. Note that the Egyptians are specifically excluded from this scene (45.1-2).

2. Egypt in Genesis

39

to be for Israel much as the ark was for Noah and his family (7.23).47 Will this move, however, mean the assimilation of Israel into Egypt, as suggested by the case of Joseph himself? It is precisely at this point that the land of Goshen is first introduced (45.10); Joseph, it seems, has in mind a separate territory where Israel will live together. But where is this territory? As Goshen is not mentioned in Egyptian sources, scholars have made many attempts to provide a spatial referent for the place, using the sparse clues in Genesis and Exodus.48 Somewhere in the eastern Nile delta is the most likely location,49 although references to a Goshen in Joshua point to southern Judah.50 But in contrast to this emphasis on a separate territory for Israel in Egypt is the impression given elsewhere (particularly in Exodus) that Israel lived among the Egyptians and had spread throughout the land of Egypt. Furthermore, Pharaoh offers Israel the best pICD) of all the land of Egypt, the fat of the land (45.18, 20).51 The discrepancy between Joseph's desire to settle Israel in a separate territory, and Pharaoh's desire to offer Israel the best of all the land, leads to complex negotiations when the family of Israel finally does enter Egypt. Joseph is reunited with his father first in Goshen.52 He counsels his brothers to tell Pharaoh that they are shepherds, with the hope that, since 'all shepherds of the flock are myin, 'an abomination' to Egypt' (46.34),53 they will be settled separately in Goshen. Pharaoh, on the one hand, offers 47. The concept of a 'remnant' or 'survivors' is important in postexilic understandings of the survival of Israel; in this respect, it is significant that in the Joseph story, the remnant or survivors take root not in the Cisjordan but in Egypt. 48. For example, Goshen in the biblical accounts seems to be a place suitable for cattle, close to Joseph who may have lived in Heliopolis, close to the official residence of Pharaoh, along the Nile, and somehow associated with Pithom and Rameses. 49. A popular localization is the Wadi Tumilat. 50. Josh. 10.41; 11.16; 15.5. Usually these references are interpreted as pointing to a different place and a different tradition. 51. Not only does this cast the Pharaoh in a positive light, it also brings up again the motif of enrichment in Egypt. 52. Here Goshen seems to be a liminal place on the border of Egypt with Canaan. 53. Again, as in the previous mention of the Egyptian taboo against eating with foreigners (43.32), we have here an interesting ancient ethnographic observation about the Egyptians, which at the same time posits an unbridgeable gap between Israel and Egypt. Whereas the Egyptian taboo against eating with foreigners appears also in Herodotus and other early Greek writers, a taboo against shepherds is not found in other sources. Perhaps it is an expression of the dislike sophisticated urbanites or settled farmers may have felt for unruly nomads.

40

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

them the best of the land of Egypt, but on the other, gives them permission to settle in Goshen. A later notice by the narrator, however, indicates that Israel received land in the best part of the land of Egypt that is none other than the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had indeed instructed (47.11)! Finally, both the land of Egypt and the land of Goshen are mentioned one after the other as the place where Israel settled (47.27-28). What is one to make of this confusion? It seems that the narrative wants to say that Israel clearly settled in Egypt, but not entirely in Egypt. Perhaps here the concept of a 'mental map' may be used to interpret Goshen less as an actual location and more as an ideological construct that seeks to maintain the separateness of Israel while in Egypt.54 Goshen quickly drops out of view after this point has been made.55 Thus, Goshen seems to serve an ideology of the separateness of Israel from Egypt, which, however, sits somewhat uncomfortably with a vaguer notion that Israel was at home within Egypt itself. The story of Joseph thus far has been largely one of assimilation into Egypt. With the appearance of his brothers, however, Joseph remembers his Israelite roots. His transfer of Israel to Egypt, is therefore not meant to repeat his own story of assimilation; rather, the introduction of Goshen indicates a desire to maintain a distinct identity. But with the entrance of Israel into Egypt, the focus shifts to Jacob, and with him comes an intrusion into the Joseph story of the viewpoint of the prior ancestral accounts with their ambivalent, yet largely negative, image of Egypt. How is the viewpoint of the ancestral accounts to be reconciled with the move of Israel to Egypt? On his way to Egypt, Jacob receives a theophany (46.2-4) in which the deity reiterates promises, just as has occurred regularly in the previous ancestor accounts. But there are some significant differences. Whereas Isaac had been told by the deity not to go down to Egypt as Abraham had done (26.2), Jacob is now told not to be afraid to go down to Egypt (46.3). Whereas previous promises to the ancestors of many descendants and a great nation were to be fulfilled either in an unspecified context or in the context of Canaan, here the promise of increase is explicitly located in Egypt (DO, 'there', 46.3).56 But 54. That place of separateness, while perhaps not a definite location, was probably associated with that area of Egypt best known to the producers of the text, namely, the eastern delta and its bordering territories. 55. Goshen is mentioned only once more in Genesis (50.8) and then appears twice in Exodus (8.18; 9.26). 56. See 47.27 where, indeed, Jacob's family is 'fruitful and multiplies' in Egypt. Joseph's name is explicitly connected with fruitfulness in 49.22 (see also 41.52).

2. Egypt in Genesis

41

lest the audience (mis)understand that the promises of the deity have been redirected into Egypt, God promises not only to go with Jacob down to Egypt,57 but, significantly, also to bring him back up again (46.4). In contrast to Joseph, who sees Egypt as an ark for a remnant of survivors, here Egypt is transformed into a temporary place for the birth of a nation.58 The narrative stresses that all the seed of Jacob enters Egypt (46.6-7), and, to emphasize this point, they are listed and enumerated, all 70 of them (46.8-27). This enumeration includes even the two sons born to Joseph in Egypt, which the narrative twice insists on including among those who entered Egypt as part of Israel (46.20, 27).59 Whereas to this point the ancestor accounts have been concerned to weed out the wrong lines of descent or 'cul-de-sacs' in the ancestral genealogy of Israel, in Egypt that concern is reversed—all of Jacob's descendants are included.60 The promise of increase to the ancestors is to take place in Egypt. But what has become of the promise of land to the ancestors? The narrative twice informs the reader that Israel gained landholdings (mnN) in Egypt (47.11, 27). Previously, however, the deity had promised landholdings in Canaan (17.8), and Abraham had indeed proleptically acquired the cave of Machpelah as a burial site (23.4, 9, 20). The only other time the ancestors were offered land was by the people of Shechem (34.10)— and that ended in disaster. So these landholdings in Egypt are troublesome. Do they betray the promises to the ancestors? Do they bode disaster? Later, on his death bed Jacob reiterates the promise of landholdings in Canaan (48.4), and insists on being buried in the family property at Machpelah (49.30; 50.13). Thus there is a tension here between the landholdings of the ancestral promises and the landholdings granted to Israel in Egypt. Land in Canaan is only a promise while land in Egypt is a reality. The question is whether, just like the promise of increase, the promise of land to the ancestors has also been deflected into Egypt.

57. Since YHWH has been described as already being with Joseph in Egypt (39.2), the notion of the deity's descent with Jacob into Egypt represents an ideological tension between the characters of Joseph and Jacob in the narrative. 58. The motif of individual enrichment in Egypt has thus been completely expanded and transformed into the genesis of a people. 59. None is left in Canaan; Israel makes a complete transition to Egypt. The number 70 brings to mind the Table of Nations in Gen. 10 where Egypt first appeared. 60. See Steinberg (1993: 140-42) on this shift in genealogical strategy with the entrance of Israel into Egypt.

42

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Joseph as Ruler in Egypt (47.13-26) It is at the narrative juncture concerning landholdings that a detailed description of Joseph's administration of Egypt seems to interrupt the narrative.61 During the course of the famine, Joseph systematically impoverishes the Egyptians and gains for Pharaoh all the silver of Egypt (and of Canaan 47.14-15), the livestock, the land, and finally the very bodies of the Egyptians who sell themselves into slavery or serfdom (47.16-22). Joseph is also credited with introducing a 20 per cent tax on all produce (47.23-26). In return, Egypt does not die of starvation but lives. One finds here familiar motifs from the ancestor accounts: Egypt as a place of life and death, of danger and enrichment. This time, of course, outsiders are not involved: it is Pharaoh who is enriched and Egypt that is enslaved. The question is whether Israel in Egypt is subject to these measures. The narrative stresses that Joseph's measures took effect from one end of Egypt to the other (47.21); the only exemptions were made for priests.62 No explicit exemption of Israel or Goshen or Israel's landholdings otherwise in Egypt is mentioned. And yet, immediately following this account, the audience is informed that Israel gained landholdings, was fruitful and multiplied exceedingly—in Egypt (47.27). Again, the same aporia is evident; is Israel part of Egypt or not? The narrative seems to answer both 'yes' and 'no'. Jacob/Israel Leaves Egypt (47.27-50.26) Generally, Egypt is depicted in positive terms for Israel thus far in the Joseph narrative. Egypt is a place of benefit for Israel, a place in which Israel can multiply, gain landholdings, and prosper, a place Israel can call home, even while maintaining a separate identity to some degree. However, the desirability of Egypt is notably undermined in the concluding episodes of the narrative. The Joseph story comes to an end with the proleptic return of Jacob/Israel to Canaan (50.4-14) and the final deathbed repudiation by Joseph of his Egyptian identity (50.24-26). In other words, the story of Joseph, the assimilated Israelite hero in Egypt, is ultimately brought solidly into the orbit of the ancestral accounts, in which Egypt is a place from which one departs. 61. This segment of the narrative contains many rare expressions, leading Westermann (1986: 173) to interpret it as an etiological appendage that has no discernible function within the wider narrative. However, in ascertaining the image of Egypt in the final form of the text, it is important to investigate the rhetoric concerning Egypt in this text segment, whether it originated as an etiological appendage or not. 62. Note that Joseph had married into an Egyptian priestly family!

2. Egypt in Genesis

43

But loose ends and ambiguities still complicate the ideological rhetoric. First is the matter of the two sons bora to Joseph in Egypt of an Egyptian wife, Manasseh and Ephraim, who are the eponymous ancestors of two of the largest and most prosperous tribes of Israel. This incursion of Egypt into the lineage of Israel, so soundly repudiated previously in the case of Hagar and Abraham, is here nullified by Jacob's adoption of Joseph's two sons as his own; twice Jacob reiterates 'they are mine' (48.5). Thus the Egyptian mother is conveniently bypassed, and perhaps also the Israelite father who had become far too Egyptianized himself. By this legal fiction, a threat to the chosen lineage is again averted—Egypt has no part in the chosen people. But Joseph does not accept this solution: in the immediately following scene he presents Manasseh and Ephraim as 'my sons, whom god gave to me here'; that is, in Egypt (48.9). There is an unresolved tension in the narrative between the perspectives of Jacob and Joseph,63 pointing to an ideological tension surrounding the origin traditions of Israel in the context of the text's production. Secondly, Jacob insists that he should not be buried in Egypt (49.29-32), and when he dies and is embalmed, a funeral procession winds its way back to Canaan for the burial (50.2-14).64 This 'exodus' of Jacob from Egypt, with its strange round-about route around the Dead Sea through the Transjordan, seems to be meant proleptically to evoke the route of a very different exodus to come.65 But in contrast to the exodus to come, this particular exodus, significantly, takes place with the explicit permission of Pharaoh (50.6) and is accompanied by all the prominent people of Pharaoh's household and of Egypt as well as an armed Egyptian guard (50.7,9). Moreover, the Israelites leave their children and livestock behind (50.8), and Joseph explicitly promises Pharaoh to return (50.5). If exodus merely consists of burial in the Promised Land, then living in Egypt poses no obstacles.66 Furthermore, the Canaanites are portrayed as being so

63. Israel/Jacob also reverses the birth order of Manasseh and Ephraim. Whereas for Joseph, 'forgetting' his father's house had preceded 'fruitfulness', for Jacob 'fruitfulness' takes precedence over 'forgetting'. 64. One notes that the Egyptians are portrayed as grieving over Jacob's death for 70 days (50.3) which surely conveys a positive picture of Egypt. 65. A much more direct route leads from Egypt to Hebron. However, just as the Israelites leaving Egypt in the exodus are diverted from a direct route to the Promised Land (Exod. 13.17-18), so also the funeral procession follows a similar indirect route. 66. One seems to have here a depiction of how Israelites could be residents of Egypt and yet still fulfill their obligation to be buried in the land of promise.

44

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

impressed by the mourning of the funeral procession that they name the place after the Egyptians (50.11). From the Canaanite point of view in the narrative, the mixed company of Israelites and Egyptians is seen as Egyptian; Israel and Egypt are not distinct. This brings to two the number of proto-exoduses or prefigurations of the exodus in Genesis. One proto-exodus account is placed carefully near the beginning of the ancestral accounts in the story of Abraham's sojourn into Egypt; a story that is repeated in an increasingly muted form in the subsequent two occurrences of the so-called 'wife-as-sister' motif. And, at the very end of Genesis, all the adult Israelites in Egypt carry the corpse of Jacob up to the Promised Land, just as in the exodus account they will carry the corpse of Joseph with them. Finally, at the end, Joseph also dies (50.24-26).67 On his deathbed he demonstrates that he has been reclaimed by the ancestor cycle: just like his father Jacob, he makes his brothers, the sons of Israel, swear to bury him in the land promised to the ancestors. Even Joseph finally repudiates Egypt, thus supporting the point of view of the ancestral narratives that Israel does not belong there. Nonetheless, Egypt still has the last word: Genesis ends by informing the audience that Joseph dies, is embalmed and placed in a sarcophagus in Egypt (50.26). A narrative that has asserted the need to get out of Egypt, still ends there.68 According to the pattern of 'entry into and exodus from Egypt' established by the accounts of the Egyptian sojourns of Abraham and Jacob, the story is left hanging unresolved. Another story is needed—which the following scroll of Exodus handily supplies. Summary: Egypt in Genesis What, then, is 'Egypt' in Genesis? Certainly one does not learn many pertinent geographical facts about the place: the only precise toponyms mentioned are Rameses and On, the Nile appears only in Pharaoh's dreams, and the territory of Goshen eludes specification. By and large, geographically Egypt is pictured as being 'out there' beyond Canaan; one goes down into it and one comes up out of it. Neither is there much strictly ethnographically descriptive data: only some exotic details about divi-

67. He lives to see three generations of his children, and yet, although he is the second youngest of his brothers, he still predeceases them all (50.22-24)! 68. The very last word in the scroll of Genesis is, ironically, D'HUD, 'Egypt'.

2. Egypt in Genesis

45

nation, embalming,69 segregated eating, and a few Egyptian names. Rather than functioning primarily as a specific geographical or ethnographic reference, the 'Egypt' of Genesis seems to be overdetermined as an ideological marker of difference in the construction of a narrative of Israel's origins. The Table of Nations sets up the 'mental map' of Genesis in terms of lineage. On this map, Egypt is excluded from the chosen lineage, but keeps threatening to enter in. The ancestral accounts thus portray a dominant negative orientation towards Egypt in contrast to a more positive orientation towards Mesopotamia. In the Joseph story, the narrative of an Israelite hero at home in Egypt clashes with the viewpoint of the ancestral narrative but is wrestled somewhat uneasily into the dominant anti-Egyptian framework.

69. Both Jacob and Joseph are embalmed in Egypt—this distinctive Egyptian practice could signify 'Egyptianization'. However, Jacob is quickly returned to the ancestral tomb at Hebron, whereas Joseph remains in a coffin in Egypt.

Chapter 3 EGYPT IN EXODUS Almost half of the occurrences of 'Egypt' in the Pentateuch appear in the book of Exodus (see Table 2 in the Appendix), indicating that in the overall ideological strategy of the Pentateuch, Egypt figures most prominently in the narrative of Israel's escape from bondage. This may seem selfevident and unsurprising, given the Egyptian setting of much of this book. However, the seeming naturalness of the appearance of 'Egypt' should not obscure the ideological work towards which it is directed in the persuasive rhetoric of the Pentateuch. It has already been shown that, in the previous book of Genesis, Egypt functions as an ambivalent marker of identity, figuring prominently in Israel's origin narrative and yet having to be framed as a negative and secondary stage in Israel's development. How Egypt continues to function in the ideologies of Israel's identity is the subject of the following analysis of the book of Exodus. The term 'Egypt' occurs in Exodus most frequently in the first half of the book, and in this first half references to Egypt show a steady increase in density, peaking dramatically at the climactic point of the 'escape from Egypt' (13.17-14.31). Immediately following this climax, there is a sudden decrease in the number and density of occurrences of 'Egypt' in the rest of the book (see Table 4 in the Appendix). Interestingly, the Song at the Sea, according to some interpreters one of the most ancient texts in the Hebrew Bible, contains no explicit reference to Egypt; the mention of 'Pharaoh' in 15.4 is the only explicit connection with Egypt in the poem. The book of Exodus opens with a prologue (1.1-2.25) that introduces the main protagonists and the narrative complication that sets the plot into motion. It also sets the stage for the ideological contestation over Israel's identity that takes place in the book. Accordingly, these two chapters will be analyzed in detail with the goal of elucidating the main themes of identity, themes that will be further played out in the rest of the book.

3. Egypt in Exodus

47

Prologue (1.1-2.25) Israel in Egypt (1.1-7) 'Egypt' appears in the first verse of the scroll of Exodus as part of the heading or title of a list of the sons of Jacob/Israel who accompanied him into Egypt: nonHQ D'K3n bfcOfr1 '33 miDEJ n bttl 'And these are the names of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt' (1.1). The list functions to link the Exodus scroll with the Genesis scroll: the waw copulativum at the very beginning of Exod. 1.1 in the MT suggests the continuation of a narrative,1 but, more importantly, the list recapitulates, in summary form, a similar list found in Gen. 46.S-27.2 Thus, rhetorically, the scroll of Exodus begins by asserting that the coming narrative is not to be understood apart from the history of the ancestors as narrated in Genesis.3 Furthermore, it is emphatically stated that the people about whom the following story will be told are not native or indigenous to Egypt; it is only because they 'entered Egypt' (1.1) from outside that they can now be described as being 'in Egypt' (1.5). The introduction to the scroll, therefore, places what is to follow within the anti-Egyptian framework established in Genesis, albeit in a contested fashion. However, the textual tradition exhibits confusion about the place of Joseph in this genealogical list. The MT and Samaritan Pentateuch of Exod. 1.1 -5 do not list Joseph with the other brothers; rather, after giving the total of Jacob's offspring, these witnesses note that Joseph was (already) in Egypt (1.5b). In the LXX, again Joseph does not appear in the list of the sons of Jacob, but the note regarding his location in Egypt appears 1. Durham (1987: 3-4) stresses the importance of the copula at the beginning of Exodus as a marker of continuity with Genesis, and criticizes those translations that follow the LXX in omitting it. The waw copulativum also appears in the MT at the beginning of Leviticus and Numbers, suggesting that Genesis through Numbers was conceived of as continuous narrative by the final redactors of the Pentateuch (at least in the Masoretic tradition). The LXX lacks the copulative KCU at the beginning of Exodus, but has it at the beginning of Leviticus and Numbers. This suggests that in the Hebrew Vorlage of the Old Greek textual tradition, Exodus was seen as a new or original• beginning that continued into Leviticus and Numbers. 2. The order of names of the sons in the two lists differs somewhat; the Exodus list also includes only the names of the first generation. 3. Before the advent of large scrolls or the codex, each 'book' of the Pentateuch would have appeared on a separate scroll. One of the means to link one scroll sequentially to another would be by recapitulating material from one scroll in the introduction of the following scroll (see Haran 1985a, 1990, 1993).

48

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

right at the end of the list, before the total of Jacob's offspring is given. But in the Qumran manuscript 4QExodb,4 Joseph is listed with the rest of Jacob's sons and there is no mention of his location in Egypt. The question raised by these textual discrepancies is whether Joseph belongs with the brothers who entered Egypt or not; that is, whether he is a legitimate part of Israel or not.5 Furthermore, the textual witnesses differ over the total of Jacob's offspring who entered Egypt. The number in the MT of Exod. 1.5 is70.6 This is the same number that the MT counts at the conclusion of the similar list in Gen. 46.27, as well as in Deut. 10.22. The LXX and4QExodb, however, count 75 at Exod. 1.5.7 This discrepancy is again caused by the problem of whether Joseph and his family are to be counted among the descendants of Jacob/Israel. The total of 75 is arrived at hi the LXX by counting an additional 5 (Egyptian) offspring of Joseph,8 whereas the MT total of 70 includes only two sons of Joseph: Ephraim and Manasseh.9 Cross (1995: 135-36) and Klein (1974: 15) argue that 4QExodb witnesses to the most original text. Rather than searching for a putative original, however, Steinmann (1996) argues that in the textual tradition of Exod. 1.1-5 one finds two differing, perhaps competing, ideologies. One ideology, represented by the MT and the Samaritan Pentateuch, presents the family of Jacob as fractured and disunited; here, the position of Joseph and his offspring is tenuous. The other ideology, represented by 4QExodb, and developed by the LXX, presents the family of Jacob as united; here Joseph and his offspring appear to be wholly included. 4. As reconstructed by Cross (1995: 134-36). 5. The confusion over the position of Joseph is also explicit in the Genesis list to which the Exodus list is related: Gen. 46.26 and 27 give two different totals (66 and 70) for the number of Jacob's offspring who entered Egypt, depending on whether Joseph's offspring are counted or not. In the LXX the totals are 66 and 75. 6. 70 is likely an artificial and symbolic round number (Van Daalen 1993: 563, Westermann 1986: 158). Traditionally, 70 is also the number of the nations of the world according to the Table of Nations in Gen. 10 (Wenham 1987: 213). Therefore, the MT total at Exod. 1.5 portrays the Israel who entered Egypt as a microcosm of the macrocosm of the entire world (Wenham 1987: 214). 7. The LXX also counts 75 at Gen. 46.27 and, in many manuscripts, at Deut. 10.22. 8. See LXX of Gen. 46.27. 9. One might recall also the tenuous position of Joseph on various lists of the 12 sons/tribes of Israel. Sometimes Joseph is listed as one of the sons/tribes (Gen. 46; 49), at other times Joseph's sons Ephraim and Manasseh are listed instead of Joseph, and in yet other instances both Joseph and Ephraim/Manasseh are mentioned (eg. Num. 26; Deut. 33).

3. Egypt in Exodus

49

The ideological tension is over the status of Joseph. Because, according to Genesis, Joseph became thoroughly Egyptianized and fathered his children by an Egyptian wife, doubt is being expressed in the textual tradition about whether he rightfully belongs with the rest of the sons of Jacob. Joseph and his offspring disrupt the assertion of the narrative that Jacob's offspring are all outsiders to Egypt. Genesis already attempted to deal with this problem by genealogically bypassing Joseph in having Jacob adopt Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, as his own.10 In the very beginning of Exodus, the MT seems to question his membership in Israel, while the LXX seems to insist on it. Provisionally, it can be proposed that the MT version upholds a Palestinian or Jerusalem based ideology of excluding Egypt from any significant status in the origin traditions of Israel (thus the subtle exclusion of Joseph while still including his story). In contrast, the LXX, aimed at Egyptian Jews, includes Joseph, who is an Egyptian Jewish hero. These textual slippages around the inclusion or exclusion of Joseph bring up again the matter of the connection of Exodus with Genesis. The MT of Exod. 1.1-5 strongly assumes a continuity, whereas the LXX, lacking the initial copula and with its different emphasis on including Joseph, brings that continuity into question. This raises the possibility that there may have been a pre-Pentateuchal tradition of Israel's origins that began with Egypt and did not know or omitted the Genesis traditions, or at least some of them. In this connection, noteworthy is the transformation of the reference for Israel from an individual in Exod. 1.1 to a collectivity in Exod. 1.7; the death of Joseph and his siblings and 'all that generation' (1.6) is a watershed or dividing point in this process.1' From this point on, the individual names of the 'sons of Israel' largely drop out of the narrative: the concern is no longer with a family but with an emerging people. Thus, Exod. 1.1-7 functions specifically to link the following Exodus story of a people with the accounts of the individual family ancestors in Genesis. This linkage may have been forged to connect originally disparate traditions.12 10. This is, of course, only a partial solution to the Egyptianness of Joseph, for Ephraim and Manasseh have still been born and raised in Egypt by an Egyptian mother (compare the account of Hagar and Ishmael). 11. The reference to Joseph's death is also another direct reference back to Gen. 50.26; such a reference would help to link two disparate scrolls together in the proper sequence. 12. That Exod. 1.1-7 is a later editorial link is indicated by the fact that the last verse of Gen. 50.26 flows smoothly into Exod. 1.8.

50

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Exodus 1.7 describes the stupendous increase of the sons of Israel in Egypt13 with a unique pile-up of five verbs (mB, 'be fruitful', jHEJ, 'swarm', i"m, 'increase', DUU, 'be mighty or numerous', and N^D, 'fill') that is certainly an echo of the creation language in Genesis.14 These verbs also invoke the divine promise of increase to the ancestors in Genesis,15 with the result that, if Genesis provides the background, it seems as if this promise of increase is being fulfilled in Egypt. Again a strong link is being forged with Genesis, but, at the same time, certain ambiguities are evident. It is unclear whether the reference to the sons of Israel 'swarming' (]HEJ) is meant positively or negatively: certainly the Egyptian king will soon view it negatively (Exod. 1.10), and the plagues afford examples of undesirable increase where creation runs amok.16 More important is the note that 'the land was filled with them' (1.7b). Presumably this 'land' is Egypt; the impression given is that the sons of Israel had become so numerous that they were present in every part of Egypt. This claim disrupts the ethnic containment of the Israelites in Goshen, already adumbrated in Genesis (47.27) and mentioned later in the Exodus narrative (8.18; 9.26). These ambiguities may hint at an ideology, partially submerged by the text, which presented the Israelites as emerging throughout Egypt and thus more closely connected with the Egyptians than the Goshen tradition would allow. In summary, Exod. 1.1 -7, as an introduction to the scroll of Exodus, presents the reader with two important claims: (1) that Israel emerged as a people in Egypt; and (2) that the origins of Israel, nonetheless, are to be found in ancestors who were not indigenous to Egypt, but rather, according to the ancestral cycles in Genesis, originated in Mesopotamia. These claims, presented in Exodus as complementary and sequentially linked, may in other contexts have been quite separate and perhaps opposing viewpoints. If so, then the beginning of Exodus may have been edited in its present text form to negate the idea that Israel originated in Egypt. In other words, Exodus, which in a different context may have functioned as a tract celebrating the Egyptian origin of Israel, becomes in the context of 13. Read in the context of Gen. 46 and later passages in Exodus, a span of 480 years (see Exod. 12.40-41) is telescoped into one verse, during which the family of 70 mushrooms into a people of some 600,000 men, besides women and children (see Exod. 12.37). 14. See the use of the same verbs in Gen. 1.22, 28 and Gen. 8.17; 9.1, 7. 15. See Gen. 16.10; 17.2, 6, 20; 22.17; 26.4, 22, 24; 28.3; 35.11; 48.4. 16. For example: Exod. 7.28; 8.17; 10.6.

3. Egypt in Exodus

51

the Pentateuch a means of asserting the opposite; namely, a non-Egyptian ethnic identity for Israel. If Exodus in its present form and context expresses an ideology opposing and erasing the possibility of an Egyptian origin for Israel, then it is theoretically possible to attempt to reconstruct the erased ideology from the traces of it left in the present text. That is, in order to oppose and refute the tradition of an Egyptian origin for Israel, the producers of the final text form would necessarily have had to recapitulate some of that tradition.17 By reading between the dominant ideological lines of the present form of Exodus in the following analysis, an attempt will be made to ascertain whether an alternate tradition regarding Israel's origins in Egypt exists and can be recovered. Ethnogenesis: Israel versus Egypt (1.8-14) The actual narrative of the book of Exodus begins with 1.8.18 In the introductory verses of Exod. 1.1-7, Egypt has been presented as a place in which Israel multiplies and grows strong, and in which Israel is transformed from an individual and his family into a collectivity. But then a crisis changes things: a new king appears (1.8). And with this new king a new situation is narrated: the genesis of Israel as an ethnos or a distinct people.19 The new king is the first to recognize Israel as a people rather than as a family; it is on his lips that the words "7N12T13D DU ('people of the sons of Israel') appear for the first time.20 But what is especially significant is the 17. See Jameson, who argues that ideology is a strategy of containment 'which allows what can be thought to seem internally coherent in its own terms, while repressing the unthinkable which lies beyond its boundaries' (1981: 53), but which, by attempting to inscribe limits and repress other options, also contains within it the means of its own subversion. Ideology, as a legitimizing strategy, 'must necessarily involve a complex strategy of rhetorical persuasion in which substantial incentives are offered for ideological adherence' (Jameson 1981: 287); in this complex strategy, traces of opposing viewpoints will be present only to be subjugated to the dominant point of view. 18. As already noted, the last verse of Genesis (50.26) flows smoothly into Exod. 1.8, bypassing Exod. 1.1-7. 19. The word !Znn, 'new' signals this new situation. 20. In fact, this phrase appears only here in the entire Hebrew Bible. Usually, Israel in the Pentateuch (and the Hebrew Bible) is referred to as "witO" n]3 'sons of Israel'. ^ntO" CW 'people Israel' appears only in 2 Sam. 19.41; 1 Kgs. 16.21; Ezra 2.2; and Neh. 7.7, while b'N'lET' 'GU 'my people Israel' is a favorite of Ezekiel's.

52

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

framework within which the king gives voice to this recognition: it is the framework of ethnic differentiation, of discourse that differentiates between 'us' and 'them'.21 There is a constant play back and forth between these two polarities in the king's speech: 'Look, the people of the sons of Israel are more numerous and powerful than we. Come, let us deal shrewdly with them..." (1.9-10a).22 Through the king's speech, the narrative constructs an ethnic distinction between Israel and Egypt. The new king inverts the goodness of the blessing of increase in 1.7 by seeing it as a threat. In light of the Joseph story with its positive presentation of Israel's increase in Egypt, this inversion involves a deliberate interpretational shift by the king.23 The king asserts that Israel is anti-Egyptian and will therefore fight on the side of Egypt's enemies; furthermore, he argues that Israel does not feel at home in Egypt and will leave as soon as the opportunity presents itself (1.10).24 In the narrative context, these are purely hypothetical speculations. The Israelites themselves are given no voice to either confirm or challenge the king's inflammatory speculations. Yet these speculations support the narrator's emphasis that Israel is not indigenous to Egypt. The rhetoric of the king's speech in Exod. 1.9-10 is therefore intended to persuade the audience of the distinction being constructed; it is not at all necessary that the distinction was already accepted or presupposed by the audience. That the speech is propaganda can be recognized by the exaggeration that is used: the king inflates the numbers and strength of the Israelites so as to incite the fears of his people.25 In summary, the king constructs a differentiated identity for Israel by portraying them as not his people, that is, as not Egyptian; and he makes that differentiation into one 21. Investigations of ethnic discourse have highlighted that such boundaries between 'us' and 'them' are most often drawn between near neighbours in order to create a sense of differentiation (see Chapter 1). 22. The singular verbs used by the king in the MT to describe the actions of Israel serve to heighten the sense of Israel as one people. Contrast LXX and versions that use the plural and thus emphasize the plural collectivity of Israel. 23. That the increase of Israel in Egypt is a sign of (divine) blessing may indeed be part of the ideology that the present text is attempting to subvert and oppose. The king also subtly gives the increase implied in Joseph's name a negative twist by using the Niphal of the verb "p1*, 'to be joined to', to foster the fear that Israel will join Egypt's enemies (1.10). 24. The theme of 'going up from Egypt' is here introduced, and will quickly become the goal of the narrative. 25. That Israel is more numerous than the Egyptians (1.9) is clearly hyperbole.

3. Egypt in Exodus

53

of antagonism and threat. The king's portrayal of the people of Israel as an ethnic entity separate from Egypt agrees with the ideology of the narrator in Exod. 1.1-7, but it is here cleverly put into the mouth of the one who will be the main protagonist in the conflicts that follow.26 The consequence of the king's rhetoric of differentiation is the conscription of Israel into forced labor (1.11). His discourse is thus selfinterested in that it masks an economic motivation: a segment of Egypt's population is turned into a new source of royal labor.27 However, the overt reason the king offers for his enslavement of Israel is that Israel's numerical increase must be bridled or thwarted (1.10). The logic of this reason is not clear, since economic enslavement itself would not necessarily block the numerical increase of a group,28 and, in fact, an increase in one's slave population might even prove economically beneficial. Therefore, the text seems to contain two motifs that do not quite fit together: (1) the motif of Israel's stupendous increase in Egypt; and (2) the motif of Israel's enslavement in Egypt.29 The first motif may originally have signified Egypt as a positive place, while the second undergirds the picture of Egypt as an inhospitable place for Israel. What is it that is 'new' about this king that he makes a distinction between Israel and Egypt in order to enslave Israel? The text answers that

26. To an Egyptian diaspora Judaism, the message might be: 'See, it is the Egyptians themselves who reject you as being one of them or belonging in Egypt!' 27. The king's imagined fear that Israel will turn against Egypt makes most sense against a background in which those identified as Israelites were actively involved in Egyptian society, likely including the army. In this connection, it is interesting to note the Hellenistic portrayal of Moses as a commander in the Egyptian army, who leads an Egyptian expedition against Ethiopia (cf. Josephus, Ant. 2.238-53; Rajak 1978; Runnalls 1983). One can also note the presence of Israelite soldiers in Egypt already in the Persian period (at Elephantine), and prominence of Judeans in the Ptolemaic armies and government of Egypt (cf. Kasher 1978,1985: 29-74; Modrzejewski 1995: 21-44, 83-87). 28. Numerical increase can be blocked through far more direct methods such as selective or wholesale killing, but such methods are not considered until 1.15. 29. The introduction of the semantic field of "QI7 ('work, slavery, service, worship') here anticipates its importance in the later narrative. That is, now that the people Israel have been constructed as a distinct entity, whom are they to serve? The whole of Exodus can be seen as a competition between two answers to this question: either they are to serve Pharaoh or YHWH. Furthermore, it becomes clear that for the dominant ideology of the narrative, it is clearly impossible for Israel to serve YHWH in Egypt, and so no alternative but an exodus is possible.

54

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

this king does not know Joseph (1.8).30 In fact, the beginning of Exodus is a massive negation of the positive image of Egypt found in the Joseph story. Israel's enslavement involves the building of mjDDQ "HJJ 'supply/ store cities' named Pithom and Ramses (l.llb).31 Whereas the Israelite hero Joseph had initiated a program of storing food in Egyptian cities in order to provide salvation from famine (Gen. 41.35-36,48-49, 56), here, now that Joseph is no longer known, that program is inverted and the store cities signify oppression for Israel.32 Despite (or because of) its oppression, Israel continues to increase (1.12a); in fact the verb j"~lS is used, connoting a bursting out beyond boundaries.33 This excessive increase causes Egypt to experience an 'ethnic dread' of Israel (1.12b).34 Again, the narrative presents Egypt as the first to express this revulsion of one ethnic group towards another; the rhetoric of the king (1.9-10) seems to be having an effect. Egypt responds by increasing the oppression; the Egyptians become ruthless and add all kinds of building work as well as work in the field (1.13-14).35 30. Knowledge will be an important motif in the following Exodus account. The deity will be presented as knowing that Israel and Egypt are distinct, but both Egypt and Israel will need to be taught this knowledge so as to separate Israel from Egypt as the deity's own people. 31. The LXX adds the name of a third city: 'On, which is Heliopolis.' The names of these cities are the only specific toponyms in the beginning of the book of Exodus, and have often been interpreted as genuine historical recollections that help in ascertaining the veracity and date of the exodus. However, the phrase in which the names occur has all the appearance of a gloss (v. 1.11 a moves smoothly into v. 1.12), and was perhaps interpolated into the text in order to provide Egyptian color (so Redford, who also sees the gloss as reflecting an Egypt no earlier than the Saite period—1963,1987:138-44). 32. This contrast with the Joseph story is lost in the LXX which has Israel being forced to build rroAE i? oxupas 'strong/fortified cities'.The account in Exod. 1.9-11 of the MT also echoes the language of the account of the Tower of Babel in Gen. 11.1-9. An ironic comparison can be made: just as the building of the Tower of Babel frustrated the attempts of primordial humanity to remain united and resulted in its dispersal and division, so also the Egyptian king initiates building projects to prevent the dispersal of the people but his endeavors are negated by the exodus of Israel. 33. Note again that there is no explicit awareness of a separate territory of Goshen for Israel here. Rather, the notion of bursting beyond boundaries gives the impression that Israel could not be contained in any one place. 34. The verb j*1p is used in the majority of cases in the Hebrew Bible for a sort of dread or revulsion experienced between ethnic groups (Gen. 27.46; Lev. 20.23; Num. 22.3; IKgs. 11.25). 35. In these two verses, the root "C#, 'work/serve' appears five times, and also the

3. Egypt in Exodus

55

In summary, by the end of this textual section detailing the origin of the oppression of Israel in Egypt (1.8-14), a binary opposition between Israel and Egypt has been constructed, and in this binary, Egypt is given a negative valence. It is Egypt that first overtly differentiates itself from Israel, that strikes out against Israel with oppression, and that is said to loath or detest Israel. Just as Egypt seems to have been convinced by the rhetoric of its king, so also the unresisting reader is led by the narrative to be hostile to the Egyptians and to sympathize with the Israelites. At the same time, the reader implicitly acquiesces to the differentiation between Egypt and Israel that the producer of the narrative is at pains to make. Genocide (LI5-22) In 1.8-14, an antagonistic differentiation between Israel and Egypt has been constructed. Now, that differentiation is played out in a different register: Hebrews versus Egyptians. The term 'Hebrew' now becomes the dominant term for the rest of chs. 1 and 2 (1.15, 16, 19; 2.6, 7, 11, 13). What does this different register mean? Brueggemann interprets it in economic terms: 'Hebrews' are the 'have-nots' of society versus the Egyptian 'haves' (1994b: 695, 696). He depends here on the possible derivation of "H3U, 'Hebrew' from the Akkadian habiru/hapiru in ancient Near Eastern documents dating from the social upheavals in the Late Bronze Age, usually interpreted as referring to a social element of fugitives, refugees and outlaws (Lemche 1992). The term thus has connotations of trespass, foreignness, and low social standing. However, in the Hebrew Bible "~IDU always stands for members of the people Israel, usually from the perspective of non-Israelites;36 that is, the meaning of the term shifts from the socioeconomic to the ethnic register.37 But these two registers are not mutually exclusive: ethnic labels applied to a group by those outside the group often carry derogatory connotations of low social standing, trespass and alienism. The Hebrew etymology of ''"ntf itself suggests someone who comes from beyond or from the other side.38 The introduction of the words ~pB, 'harshness', "T1D, 'be bitter' andrTEip, 'severe', giving an overwhelming sense of Israel's cruel subjugation by Egypt. 36. Israelites are Hebrews from the perspective of the Egyptians in the Joseph and Exodus stories, and from the perspective of the Philistines in 1 Samuel. 37. The one exception is the law concerning Hebrew slaves inExod. 21.2-11 where the old social differentiation between habiru/hapiru and hup'su ('peasants') seems to have survived (Lemche 1979, 1975). 38. BDB: 720. The term is reminiscent of the somewhat derogatory English

56

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

term 'Hebrew' thus introduces into the differentiation between Egypt and Israel a sense of social and economic marginalization, allowing Israel to be feared and loathed from the Egyptian perspective as an intrusive foreign element. From the Israelite perspective, the use of the term would reinforce a sense of not belonging in Egypt. Having tried forced labor, the king of Egypt, or Pharaoh,39 now initiates a second strategy of killing the male newborns of the Hebrews (1.15-16). That the sons are to be killed whereas the daughters are specifically to be spared on the surface seems foolish in that it would deplete Pharaoh's labor force. Yet, if kinship passes through the male,40 this policy would be an effective means to assimilate Israel to Egypt; the Hebrew daughters would have only Egyptian families into which to marry.41 However, Houtman (1993: 262) suggests that one finds here the motif of the ruler who fears the birth of a rival and therefore conspires to kill all newborn male children; this suggestion is especially viable if this text is read as a prelude to the birth of Moses in ch. 2.42 Thus, the Pharaoh's genocidal strategy continues the narrative's rhetoric of differentiation by playing on the tropes of fear of assimilation (from the narrative Israelite perspective) and fear of a rival (from the narrative Egyptian perspective). But this ideology of differentiation is expressed here, not by the king (as in 1.9-10), but by the midwives. It is they who speak of a contrast between the Egyptian and Hebrew women when asked expression for someone who does not belong to one's class: 'from the wrong side of the tracks'. 39. Until now, the narrative has used the title 'king of Egypt' (except for one appearance of the title 'Pharaoh' in the parenthetical remark in Exod. 1.1 Ib). Now the titles 'Pharaoh' and 'king of Egypt' are used interchangeably. Magonet (1995: 81) suggests that the choice of title is not merely a stylistic variant but may be part of the particular narrative strategy at each point: 'it might be argued that the title "King of Egypt" emphasizes the full authority vested in him as he tries to persuade the midwives to do his bidding, whereas their courage in defying him is reflected in their addressing "Pharaoh" when they resist his orders.' 40. Patrilineal descent is the assumed norm in the Hebrew Bible. 41. Cassuto (1983: 14) suggests that the king's policy is modeled on the story of Abram in Gen. 12 where the male is threatened while the female is desired and brought into the Egyptian harem. As demonstrated in Chapter 2, the story of Abram in Egypt prefigures the dangers of assimilation Israel will face in Egypt. 42. Although the focus of Pharaoh here is on the killing of Hebrew male newborns, in 1.22 all male newborns (Egyptian boys are not explicitly exempted) are to be killed, thus strengthening the motif of Pharaoh's fear of the birth of a rival.

3. Egypt in Exodus

57

by Pharaoh why they have not complied with his orders: 'the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women' (1.19a). The phrase by which the midwives describe this difference, m'TIDi! jn^N KOD CHCDn run nTHD n'n (1.19b), allows for at least two opposing interpretations. First, understanding friTI as an adjective meaning 'having the vigor of life' (BDB: 313), the phrase reads 'because they [the Hebrew women] are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them'.43 That is, the Hebrew women are portrayed in very positive terms while the Egyptian women appear weak in comparison. Secondly, understanding PlTf as the plural of the noun '(wild) animal' (BDB: 312), the phrase reads 'because they are (wild) animals and give birth before the midwife comes to them'. That is, the Hebrew women are portrayed as barbarians who breed and give birth like wild animals while the Egyptian women appear cultured and civilized in comparison.44 Rather than opting for one meaning over the other, double-sided ethnic stereotyping can be seen at work here. From an ethnocentric Hebrew perspective, a complimentary ethnic stereotype of Hebrew women and a derogatory one of Egyptian women is heard. But from an ethnocentric Egyptian perspective, exactly the opposite is heard. The Egyptian king naturally hears the stereotype in the second way, as derogatory to Hebrew women.45 The midwives cleverly save their skin by allowing the king to hear what he already believes while at the same time implicitly criticizing Egyptian women over against Hebrew women.46 Thus the differentiation between Egyptian and Hebrew is again seen to be not a simple fact but a social construct, an ideology. This ideology of differentiation is, however, rendered problematic by the identity of the midwives: are they Hebrew or Egyptian? They are described as rVQUn m'ra (1.15), usually translated as 'Hebrew midwives'.47 How43. This translation is the one commonly adopted in English versions, for example NRSV, NJPS.

44. No widespread English version seems to have chosen this translational possibility. A third possibility is represented by the REB, which translates DVn as the piel infinitive construct of PITT (see BDB: 311): 'they go into labor and give birth before the midwife arrives'. 45. The king's words in 1.9-10 show him as predisposed to such an interpretation. As Nohrnberg (1981: 52) remarks: 'the lie they tell him—that the Hebrew women bear virtually spontaneously—is just the He his edict shows him readiest to believe'. 46. To the audience of the narrative, the pun on the word PVH would likely have constituted an insider's ethnic joke, much like the pun in Exod. 2 on Moses' name. 47. See NRSV, NJPS, REB.

58

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

ever, is the genitive here adjectival, meaning that the midwives are Hebrew, or objective, meaning that they are midwives for or to the Hebrews? 4S The first alternative allows the midwives only a Hebrew identity whereas the second leaves open the possibility that they could be Egyptian. If Hebrew, then they serve purely as ethnic heroes.49 If Egyptian, however, not only do they foreshadow the Egyptian princess who will save Moses but they also problematize an absolute differentiation between Hebrew and Egyptian50 since they transgress ethnic loyalties and are rewarded for it.51 The question of the midwives' identities is an old one. Philo and Josephus describe the midwives as Egyptian and the rabbis debated the matter.52 Again, rather than deciding the question one way or the other, one can read the ambiguity of the text and its interpretations as pointing to an ideological tension within the narrative. The midwives could be both or either Hebrew or Egyptian, and they thus question the distinction or boundary made between Hebrew and Egyptian women by the dominant ideology of the text. Pharaoh's genocidal initiative fails: 'the people' continue to increase (1.20b).53 Therefore, Pharaoh calls on 'all his people' to perform the murders that the midwives seem incapable of doing (1.22), by throwing newborn sons into the Nile but allowing daughters to live.54 It is noteworthy 48. On the distinction between adjectival and objective genitives, see Waltke and O'Connor (1990: §9.5). 49. The ethnic hero is a common topos in ethnic discourse. 50. There is always leakage around an ideology's strategies of containment. In Exod. 1 and 2, this leakage particularly occurs around the sign of women. 51. God provides them with 'houses' (1.21), which, if they are Egyptian, may signify that they were incorporated into Israel. Note also that it is in conjunction with the midwives that the deity is first mentioned in the book of Exodus. 52. See Houtman (1993: 251-52) and Leibowitz (1976: 31-35). 53. Given the ambiguity of the midwives' identity, the term 'the people' in this verse also becomes ambiguous. The reference seems to be to Israel (see 1.9) but the introduction of the somewhat ambiguous term 'Hebrews' and the ambiguity of the midwives' identity allows for thinking of other possibilities. For example, 'the people' might here refer to Hebrews, whether Israelite or not, or to a group of Egyptians who are being labeled as Israel or Hebrews although they may consider themselves Egyptian. 54. The words IDIT^D ('all his people') are a clue that the midwives can be understood as Egyptian. In 1.9, the king speaks to 'his people'; in 1.22, he speaks to 'all his people'. Between these two occurrences, he speaks to the two midwives. The implication is that in 1.22 he is speaking to more of his people than just the midwives; i.e. the midwives are considered part of Pharaoh's people, as Egyptians.

3. Egypt in Exodus

59

that the MT does not specify which newborn sons are to be killed; only the LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch and other versions indicate that it is 'sons born to the Hebrews' who are to die. The MT, in other words, allows for the possibility that both Hebrew and Egyptian sons are to be killed.55 If the MT reading is a textual slip, it is one that is quite revealing of the ideological tension within the narrative between a dominant view that constructs absolute difference between Egypt and Israel and a submerged view that questions such difference. Birth of the Ethnic Hero (2.1-10) The Israel constructed in the previous chapter of the book of Exodus has so far remained a fairly amorphous entity, the main characteristic of which is miraculous increase. No individual of this collective has yet stood out. No opportunity has yet been given for Israel to speak. This situation begins to change with the narration of the birth and early life of the ethnic hero. With Moses, Israel begins to take definite shape. But, as we will see, Moses is a figure fraught with ambiguity and his identification with Israel is at times quite tenuous. As the paradigmatic hero of Israel, Moses' ambiguous identity mirrors that of Israel itself. Moses, as an adult, will emerge from an Egyptian household, but the narrative is very concerned at the beginning to show that Moses' true origins are from outside Egypt. Both his father and mother are identified as Levites (2.1), Levi being one of the sons listed as having entered Egypt with Jacob (1.1-5). In fact, his mother is identified literally as the daughter of Levi himself (2.1 ).56 Furthermore, Moses is breastfed by his biological mother (2.7-9). The likelihood of foreign elements in Moses' family tree is made very remote. In this way, Moses, in his own history, replicates the text's ideology of Israel's distinctiveness; originally a pure Israelite, he, like Israel, will take a detour through the house of Egypt, but will reemerge in order to claim his true Israelite identity. As we have already seen, this master narrative of Israel's origins has already been initiated in 5 5. This is further evidence for the motif of the ruler threatened by the birth of a rival that may form one of the literary backgrounds to the narrative. 56. The MT reading 'I'rr'CTIK 'the daughter of Levi' is modified in the LXX to TCOV 6uyc
60

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

the book of Genesis; here, we see it put into play in the book of Exodus. At the same time, however, Moses' origins will later betray some problems. The genealogy of Levi, outlined later in 6.16-25, identifies Moses' mother as his father's paternal aunt (6.20), a relationship that is considered incestuous by the law code of Leviticus (18.20). Moreover, his father marries up a generation, when the usual practice portrayed in the Hebrew Bible is for a man to marry either in the same generation or down one generation. And finally, Moses' birth is described (2.1-2a) such that one assumes that he is the firstborn; however, suddenly an older sister appears (2.4), and later a brother (4.14 and passim), who, in at least one text, is described as three years older than Moses (Exod. 7.7).57 These ambiguities indicate hints of alternative traditions in which Moses might be other than what the text is at pains to portray him. Moses' mother literally obeys the Pharaoh's decree (1.22) by putting her child into the Nile, indicating that she is narratively identified as among the people of Pharaoh (i.e. Egyptians) to whom his decree is directed.58 Ironically, she does so in such a way as to actually subvert the king's command, putting her child in an ark (Ton) which she places among the reeds (^D) along the banks of the river (2.3). The word i"DP is a backward link to the story of Noah in Genesis (6-9), the only other place in the Hebrew Bible where the word mn for 'ark' is used. As the ark in Genesis was the vehicle of an entirely new beginning for humanity, so it also functions here to mark a new beginning for Israel. Moses is thus like Noah; just as Noah saved his family through the waters of the flood from the rest of wicked humanity, so also Moses will save Israel from the wicked Pharaoh and the Egyptians by leading them through the Sea of Reeds (^O'D1) (Exod. 14).59 However, in the immediate narrative context,

57. Aaron and Miriam are also portrayed as later rebelling against Moses' leadership (Num. 12). The relationships between Moses, Aaron and Miriam are pictured in various, and sometimes apparently conflicting, ways in the Hebrew Bible. For example, Miriam is described as related to Aaron alone in Exod. 15.20. Or, in many of the passages in which Moses and Aaron are mentioned together, Aaron's name could easily be removed without affecting the significance or meaning of the passage (Spencer 1992a: 3), suggesting that Aaron is perhaps a later addition. 58. Since Pharaoh addressed his decree to 'all his people' (1.22), by implication, Moses' mother is counted as one of Pharaoh's people. That is, on the literal level of the text Moses' biological mother is considered Egyptian. 59. Deliberate connections with Genesis seem to be forged repeatedly in the first two chapters of Exodus. The narrative intention seems for the macroscopic or universal

3. Egypt in Exodus

61

the ark is Moses' passage from an Israelite to an Egyptian identity.60 This transformation of Moses' identity is mediated by the Pharaoh's daughter who, although Egyptian, acts to save the infant Moses.61 She defies her father's orders, has the child wet-nursed out of her own budget, adopts the child and names it herself, and has him brought up in the royal palace right under her father's nose. The irony is that one in Pharaoh's own household subverts his genocidal plan. The irony also questions the antagonistic differentiation of Egypt and Israel, since it is an Egyptian who acts to save Israel.62 Nonetheless, in other ways the narrative upholds and even reinforces the distinction between Egypt and Israel. The Pharaoh's daughter, for instance, immediately recognizes the infant as one of the Hebrew children (1.6) and arranges for a Hebrew wet-nurse (1.7-8). The narrative seems to posit that a Hebrew was visually identifiable, but exactly how is not explained. Circumcision as an identifying mark has often been suggested (see Houtman 1993: 283-84) but runs into two difficulties. First, the later incident concerning the circumcision of Moses' son in Exod. 4.24-26 suggests that Moses was still uncircumcised as an adult. And secondly, circumcision was widely practiced in the ancient Near East, including among the Egyptians, thus lessening its efficacy as a distinguishing mark.63 Distinguishable racial characteristics such as skin color as an events in Genesis (creation, flood) to foreshadow the microscopic or particular events in Exodus (creation and salvation of Israel). 60. Moses' passage in the ark is thus an inversion of the passage in Exod. 14-15 from an Israel enslaved in Egypt to an Israel outside of Egypt and under YHWH'S sovereignty alone. 61. It is interesting that, like the midwives previously, those who mediate the opposition between Egyptian and Israelite Hebrew are all female. Perhaps the cultural codes of gender operative in the text allow female characters to especially fill this role of questioning rigid separations and thus to be potentially subversive to the text's main ideological program. The positive portrayal of Pharaoh's daughter here contrasts with the negative portrayal of the Pharaoh's daughter whom Solomon later marries (1 Kgs 10). 62. Similarly, but in an inverted manner, in Genesis, a (proto-) Israelite—Joseph— acts to save Egypt. 63. Jeremiah 9.25-26 recognizes that Egyptians (as well as the Transjordanian Edomite, Moabite, and Ammonite peoples) practice circumcision just like the inhabitants of Judah. In contrast, the uncircumcized par excellence in the Hebrew Bible are the Philistines (e.g. Judg. 14.3). Sasson (1966) argues that circumcision originated among northwest Semitic groups and then migrated south to Egypt, where the first evidence of the practice dates to the 23rd century BCE (ANET: 326). The Egyptian form

62

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

identifying mark are also questionable given the heterogeneity of the ancient Egyptian population and the general lack of color prejudice in the ancient world.64 Perhaps the abandoned condition of the child bore witness to its Hebrew identity, given the economic register of the term 'Hebrew'. The Pharaoh's daughter, while positively portrayed, is also the vehicle whereby the Egyptians are lampooned. The Pharaoh's decree allowed the daughters to live, but daughters, including even his very own daughter, are precisely those that undo his decree. A member of the Egyptian royal house heeds the advice of a lowly Hebrew girl, and is duped into paying for a Hebrew mother to nurse her own son (2.7-9). The future deliverer of the Hebrews is raised, and presumably educated in the art of leadership, right in Pharaoh's house (2.10-11). In these ways, the famous wisdom of Egypt is satirized, and the contrast between Egyptian and Israelite/Hebrew is supported. Yet the naming of Moses illustrates the ambiguity of this contrast. On the one hand, the daughter of Pharaoh is positively and sympathetically portrayed; she apparently knows Hebrew and gives Moses a name that she etymologically links to the circumstances of his rescue, namely, 'the one who is drawn out (of the water)'.65 On the other hand, she makes a grammatical mistake, for the name Moses is not the passive participle of the verb HEJQ, but rather the active participle, meaning 'the one who draws out'. In effect, Pharaoh's daughter unwittingly prophesies Moses' future role: he will be the one who draws Israel out of Egypt through the waters of the sea.66 So Pharaoh's daughter is positively portrayed as a redeemer, but also simultaneously lampooned. A further complication is that the name Moses is also an Egyptian name; derived from the verb ms 'to produce, bring forth', it is an abbreof circumcision, however, likely differed from the west Semitic form. Nonetheless, circumcision really becomes a significant identifying mark only in the Hellenistic period since the Greeks both practiced public nudity and abhorred circumcision (see Hall 1992: 1027-1029). 64. According to Yurco (1989,1996), the Egyptians themselves were derived from a broad range of peoples, and their skin color and racial features varied greatly. On the lack of color prejudice in the ancient world see especially Snowden (1983). 65. Philo and Josephus assumed that the Pharaoh's daughter spoke Egyptian and thus interpreted the name via Egyptian and Coptic as 'the one rescued from the water' (see Josephus Ant. 2.228; Apion 286; and Philo Vir. Mos 1.17). 66. Thus, 'the purpose of the etymology was not so much to 'explain' the name in itself as to link it with some legendary feature already present in the narrative tradition' (Barr 1974: 24).

3. Egypt in Exodus

63

viated form of a theophoric name such as Ptah-mose '(the God) Ptah is born/has engendered'.67 The Hebrew form of the name lacks the theophoric element, likely to avoid associating an Egyptian deity with an Israelite hero; it also shows signs of having been thoroughly hebraized.68 In light of the name's Egyptian background, it is possible that the Hebrew etymology provided for the name in 2.11 is an artificial attempt to erase its Egyptian origin.69 Thus the very name of Moses betrays Egyptian origins, and Moses himself, despite the attempts of the narrative to thoroughly hebraize him, comes across as a hybrid, ambiguously straddling the distinction between Egyptian and Israelite/Hebrew. Ethnic Differentiation and Death (2.11-15a) The king of Egypt in 1.9-10 first rhetorically constructed the differentiation between Egypt and Israel, and used it to justify economic exploitation. This differentiation was immediately incorporated into the omniscient narratorial perspective (1.12-13). The episode with the midwives (1.15-22) shifted the differentiation to that between Egypt and Hebrew, but, at the same time, the midwives were portrayed as manipulating or subverting this differentiation so as to save lives. The subsequent episode with Pharaoh's daughter (2.1-10) continued the same theme. However, now the differentiation leads to murder. Whereas previously violence was implicit in the oppression of Israel and in the genocidal policies of the Pharaoh towards the Hebrews, here the differentiation between Egyptian and 67. See Griffiths (1953). Other examples of this form of Egyptian theophoric name include Thut-mose, Ah-mose, Ra-mose and Amen-mose. Although the Egyptian origin of the name Moses is widely accepted, it is still disputed; see, for example, Zadok (1986: 393) who refers to possible Hurrite or Kassite etymologies. 68. The Egyptian 5 is rendered by the Hebrew tti rather than D (Griffiths 1953). Similarly, the place name 'Rameses' in Exod. 1.10 and Gen. 47.11, spelled with a double samekh, indicates both the influence of the Greek rendering of this place name and that the name was regarded as foreign. 69. Noth (1962:26) argues that neither the producers of Exodus nor their audiences were aware that 'Moses' is an abbreviated Egyptian name. However, it is just as possible, and in fact more likely, given the anti-Egyptian ideology of the text, that the producers of the final text form knew the name's Egyptian origins and were trying to repress this knowledge. The fact that the Pharaoh's daughter gives Moses his name is the vital clue since it stands to reason that she would give him an Egyptian name. The biblical narrative elsewhere assumes that an Egyptian would give another person an Egyptian name, as in the case of the Egyptian name that the Pharaoh gives to Joseph in Gen. 41.45.

64

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Israelite/Hebrew is explicitly drawn in blood. And the victim, interestingly, is not an Israelite or a Hebrew but an Egyptian. Moses, now grown up, 'goes out' ,70 presumably from the royal Egyptian household of his upbringing, to his kin.71 This movement, prefiguring the grand movement of Israel out of Egypt,72 promises an identification of Moses with his non-Egyptian Israelite roots. This promise seems to be fulfilled by the narrative, which repeatedly uses the term 'his brothers/kin' to emphasize Moses' solidarity with the Hebrews/Israel. Moses sides with the Hebrews and kills an Egyptian who is beating 'a Hebrew man from among his kin' (2.lib). By this action, it seems that Moses has himself made a drastic decision to identify with the Hebrews and sealed it with murder. But when Moses 'goes out' a second time, he finds that the people with whom he has identified reject him, viewing him in the same light as they see Pharaoh. When Moses tries to intervene in a quarrel between the two Hebrews, he demands HD1? ('Why?') (2.13b), just as the Pharaoh had previously demanded 'Why?' of the midwives (1.18b). Whereas the midwives had given Pharaoh an evasive answer that both confirmed the king' s prejudices and subtly made fun of his people, the Hebrews here soundly reject Moses' attempt to identify with them. For the first time the narrative gives access to the Hebrews' point of view; from their perspective the murder of the Egyptian by Moses was not an act of solidarity or liberation; instead it only confirmed for them the image of the oppressor. In the eyes of the Hebrews, Moses was exactly what he appeared to be, a member of an oppressive Egyptian royal house. Having been rejected in his attempt to identify with the Hebrews, now Moses also has his Egyptian identity repudiated, for the Pharaoh seeks to kill him (2.15a). To save his life he is forced to flee,73 without a sure Egyptian or Israelite identity. This uncertainty is typical of the early life of 70. The Hebrew word NIT ('to go out') is one of the programmatic words in the account of the exodus. 71. The Hebrew word here is Vi~IN, literally 'his brothers'. 72. Fretheim (1991b: 41-45) farther points out how 2.11-15a portrays Moses as embodying the experience of Israel in terms of conflict with Egypt and flight, and that it also anticipates the future office of Moses as judge over Israel (see Exod. 18). 73. Moses flees away from Egypt. Most of the other examples of persons in the Hebrew Bible who are forced to flee for political reasons, flee to Egypt (cf. Hadad the Edomite [1 Kgs. 11.14-22], Jeroboam [1 Kgs. 11.26-40], Uriah the prophet [Jer. 26.2023]). Thus, the pattern of Moses' flight is an inversion of the more common biblical pattern.

3. Egypt in Exodus

65

ethnic heroes, but in the case of Moses it also seems to indicate that, on the wider ideological plane of the narrative, the differentiation between Hebrew and Egyptian is still unstable. Furthermore, the image of Moses is tarnished almost from the beginning by this episode. Moses commits a premeditated murder, looking around first to make sure there are no hostile witnesses74 and afterwards surreptitiously hides the body (2.12). He presumes not only to identify himself with the oppressed Hebrews but also to act in the capacity of leader and judge over them, without any validation, human or divine.75 He then flees in fear rather than heroically resisting the oppressor. One can see an anti-Moses tradition at work here, or, as Silver puts it, an attempt to diminish Moses' heroic role. While such a diminishment may be attributed to theological reasons, on an ideological level it may be due to Moses' Egyptianness.76 Liminality in Midian (2.15b-22) Moses flees to the land of Midian (2.15b).77 In the preceding scroll of Genesis, Midian has appeared twice: as one of the sons of Abraham and Keturah (Gen. 25.2, 4), and, alternating with the Ishmaelites, as the caravan traders who convey Joseph as a slave to Egypt (Gen. 37.28, 36). Midian is thus placed in Genesis as a close kin of Israel and yet as a branch of the family rejected as a bearer of the promises to the ancestors. In other words, according to the geneaological ideology of Genesis, Midian will eventually be a dead end for Moses. In the present Exodus narrative, however, Midian signifies a liminal 74. An alternative interpretation is that Moses was looking around for help in stopping the beating and seeing none, took matters into his own hands (see Leibowitz 1976: 43-46). 75. On a theological level, the narrative has Moses' efforts fail here because the deity has not yet properly commissioned him. 76. In contrast to the heroic treatment of David in the Hebrew Bible, successive editions of the Torah 'seemed to have struggled against Moses' reputation rather than to have elaborated it' (Silver 1982: 17). 'The Torah's editors took every possible precaution to drive home the point that power and authority belong to God and that the community must be conscious always that Moses is simply God's agent, God is the Master' (Silver 1982: 21). On an ideological level, however, the Pentateuch in its final text form may be attempting to undercut or refute an image of Moses as hero celebrated by Judeans in Egypt, thus accounting for the ambiguous portrayal of Moses. 77. A similar motif of the flight of the disgraced hero appears in the Egyptian story of Sinuhe (ANET: 18-22).

66

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

space (Turner 1969), neither Egypt nor Israel, where Moses can find temporary refuge and work out his identity.78 The liminality of Midian mirrors the liminality of Moses. However, once identities have coalesced or settled, the liminal place is no longer necessary. So one finds in the later Pentateuch a gradual shift towards a rejection of Midian. Whereas Moses finds refuge in Midian (Exod. 2-4) he later divorces his Midianite wife who takes her sons back to Midian with her (Exod. 18.2-4).79 Similarly, whereas Israel is organized according to the advice of a Midianite priest (Exod. 18) and asks for Midianite guidance in the wilderness, later Midian refuses to join Israel (Num. 10.29-32), and the involvement of Midian in Israel's participation in idolatrous fertility rituals at Peor leads to Israelite hostility towards Midian (Num. 25). Finally, one of the last acts of Moses is to command the extermination of the Midianites (Num. 31). In Midian, Moses encounters the daughters of his future father-in-law at a well, a biblical topos associated with marriage alliances and the striking of new agreements.80 Moses is accepted into a Midianite family and marries one of the daughters. All of this raises the issue of the identity of Moses; previously, the question has been whether Moses is Israelite or Egyptian, but now there is also the possibility that he has adopted a Midianite identity. From the narrative point of view of the Midianites, Moses is an Egyptian.81 What Moses thinks of himself is less clear. He does not identify himself to his Midianite host, but is willing to settle in Midian and

78. Archaeologically, Midian has been identified with a sophisticated culture that arose in the Late Bronze Age in the northern Arabian peninsula east of the Arabah (Mendenhall 1992: 817). However, the biblical narrative is more interested in Midian as a foil for Israelite identity. 79. The verb used in Exod. 18.2 is the piel of FT^EJ, literally 'to send away', a technical term for divorcing a wife (see Deut. 24.1, 3). 80. See Gen. 21; 24; 26; 29. 81. The daughters of Reuel refer to Moses as an *~)i£Q ETK 'an Egyptian man' (2.19), exactly the same words used to describe the Egyptian whom Moses murdered (Exod. 2.11). Durham (1987: 23) regards this as nothing more than a narratorial connecting device. Others (e.g. Cassuto 1983: 25) speculate that Moses was wearing Egyptian clothes and/or speaking Egyptian. But these solutions only buttress the ideology of the text which wants to distance Moses from Egypt. In contrast, a reading that resists the dominant anti-Egyptian ideology of the text will see this reference as one of the places in which the text slips and reveals something of the alternative ideologies that it is opposing.

3. Egypt in Exodus

67

to many there, seeming to adopt a Midianite identity.82 But he has not forgotten his roots: in contrast to Joseph who in Egypt names his first son to signiiy that he has forgotten his former life (Gen. 41.51), Moses names his first son in Midian Gershom, interpreting it to mean 'an alien I am, or I have been, in a foreign land'.83 Yet, it is not clear just to what foreign land Moses refers.84 If it is Egypt, then Moses is supporting the narrative's ideology of differentiation between Israel and Egypt by indicating that he has not been at home in Egypt because he is not an Egyptian. If, however, the foreign land to which he refers is Midian, the land in which he finds himself at present, then Moses counters the ideology of differentiation between Egypt and Israel by indicating that he felt at home in Egypt and is homesick. Again, this ambiguity can be interpreted as the trace of an ideological tension between pro- and anti-Egyptian interests in the narrative.85 The explanation the text gives for Gershom's name is patently artificial, involving as it does the splitting of the name into two parts. The name is more likely based on the root verb 2TI3 ('to drive out, expel').86 According to this etymology, Gershom becomes a reference to Moses' expulsion out of Egypt, suggesting that he was forced to leave against his will. Since Moses narratively embodies or prefigures the experience of Israel, there may be an obscured suggestion here that Israel will also be expelled from Egypt unwillingly.87 This submerged tradition of expulsion from Egypt indicates a greater attachment of Moses and Israel to Egypt than the more dominant tradition of a willing exodus from Egypt. In summary, the account of Moses in Midian highlights the uncertainty 82. The verb ^W, 'be willing, pleased' (2.21) could mean that Moses not only rather passively agreed to settle in Midian, but that he was delighted and actively resolved to settle there (BDB: 384). 83. This pun involves dividing the name DET13 into two parts: "IJ and CEJ 'alien— there'. 84. The very term ~i~Q] 'foreign' evokes the ethnic differentiation between 'us' and 'them'. 85. While Durham (1987: 24) insists that the foreign land referred to is Egypt, and other commentators (e.g. Noth 1962: 37, Cassuto 1983: 26) assume that it is Midian, Fretheim (1991b: 42) concludes that the reference to the foreign land is ambiguous since it could refer to either Midian or Egypt. 86. The affixed L (or ] in the variant jiETU) is an afformative typical of proper names (GKC: §85 t-u). The verb 2TU is also suggested by the proximity of its usage earlier at 2.17. 87. A tradition of Israel's expulsion from Egypt is mentioned in Exod. 6.1; 11.1; and 12.39.

68

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

of his identity, and, by extension, the identity of Israel, vis-a-vis Egypt. The ambiguities surrounding the naming of Moses' son especially highlight the ideological work of the narrative, which attempts to neutralize or counteract alternate traditions that are more open to an Egyptian element in Moses' and Israel's origin. The Deity Enters the Ring (2.23-25) The king of Egypt dies (2.23a) but there is no relief from the oppression which he had initiated against Israel. The audience is finally given its first direct access to the narrative perspective of the Israelites, who are described as groaning and crying out for help from their slavery and oppression (2.23b). Finally the deity, who has been mentioned previously in the scroll of Exodus only briefly in the story of the midwives (1.17,2021), takes centre stage in the narrative. The main antagonists from now on will be the deity,88 working through his ambassador Moses, and the Pharaoh;89 they will fight over the ultimate ownership and identity of Israel. The deity hears the groans of Israel, remembers the covenant with the ancestors, sees the Israelites,90 and knows (2.24-25).91 88. The generic term DTT ^ ('God') is used here and in the story of the midwives. The tetragrammaton does not appear until the revelation at the burning bush in the next chapter of Exodus. 89. The antagonists are in the same class, in that the Pharaoh was considered divine, or at least semi-divine, in official ancient Egyptian ideology. The producers and audience of the text may have been aware of this Egyptian perspective. 90. The verb n»~l can be understood here in the sense of'recognize, acknowledge', perhaps indicating that the deity only now recognizes Israel as a distinct people separate from Egypt. A textual variant here reads: 'God saw the affliction/slavery of Israel' but this can be explained as an interpretive modification and/or an assimilation to Exod. 3.7 (HOTTP: 91). 91. What exactly the deity knows is not mentioned. This enigmatic ending to ch. 2 of Exodus effectively heightens the audience's desire to proceed with the narrative and to find out what the deity knows. And the answer, indeed, is given in 3.7. The LXX offers a different reading here 'and God was made known to them [i.e. the Israelites]'. This suggests that Israel did not know the deity during its sojourn in Egypt, an interpretation supported by Josh. 24.14 and Ezek. 20.7-8, both of which speak of Israel worshiping other gods or idols in Egypt. Either this means that Israel had lost the faith of the ancestors described in Genesis, or that there is a trace here of a tradition which sees the beginning of Israel, and Israel's faith in its unique God, in Egypt, without any previous ancestral period or origins in Mesopotamia. The claim made in Genesis is that Mesopotamia was the place where the ancestors of Israel worshiped other gods—see Gen. 31 and 35.1-4. Joshua 24.1-4 combines this claim with a claim that Israel also practiced idolatry in Egypt, perhaps in an attempt to fuse two traditions.

3. Egypt in Exodus

69

Structurally, these last verses of the second chapter of Exodus form an inclusio with the opening segments of Exodus: the mention of the three ancestors, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, complements the naming of the sons of Israel in 1.1-7; the reappearance of the term 'sons of Israel' instead of 'Hebrews' harks back to the usage in 1.1-14; and the ending 'and God knew' serves as a bracket with the new king who did 'not know' in 1.8. Just as 1.1-7 constitutes a strong link backwards to Genesis, so also does the mention of the covenant with the three patriarchs in 2.24. Exodus 1-2 thus forms a clearly delineated literary unit, perhaps deliberately crafted as a prologue linking the exodus story to the preceding ancestral stories in Genesis, with their largely anti-Egyptian stance. Furthermore, this prologue attempts to suppress the Egyptianness of Moses by having him replicate the master narrative of Israel, which is that of a true origin with distant ancestors in Mesopotamia and only a temporary detour through Egypt. EGYPT/PHARAOH

YHWH

MOSES

ISRAEL Figure 1. Characters in the Struggle over Identity in Exodus

Moses will be central to the ideological contest over identity in the rest of the scroll of Exodus. Essentially, YHWH and Pharaoh/Egypt will vie for ownership of Israel. The central question will be whether Israel belongs in Egypt or not. Moses will stand in the midst of this agonistic struggle, having an ambiguous relationship with the other major players in this drama of identity: Egypt, YHWH and Israel (see Figure 1). The following analysis of the remainder of Exodus will be structured around the narrative construction of the identities of these players, as seen in five major narrative segments.

70

Egypt on the Pentateuch 's Ideological Map

Encounter with the Deity and Return to Egypt (3.1-4.31) In this section of the scroll of Exodus, Moses and the deity are brought together. After resisting the divine mandate, Moses finally returns to Egypt to set the stage for the contest over Israel's identity. However, already before the contest explicitly begins, the narrative gives evidence of ambiguities that prevent any simple allocation of static identities to Moses or Israel and that are indications of a struggle between different ideologies of identity. The Identity of YHWH In the first two chapters of Exodus, God has appeared infrequently only as the more-or-less generic tra^K 'God' (1.20; 2.24, 25) or DTl'f'Krr 'the God' (1.17, 21; 2.23).92 Now, however, the references to God become more particular and detailed, with the fullest appellation occurring on the lips of the deity himself: 'YHWH, the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, (the God of) Isaac, (the God of) Jacob' (3.15, 16; 4.5). The tetragrammaton mil' ('YHWH'), the specific name of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible, dominates the references to the deity, especially after the revelation of God's name in 3.14. Especially significant, in terms of the construction of ethnic identities, is the definite link that is forged here between the deity as described in the ancestral accounts of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in Genesis, and the deity, or a deity, known to the Israelites/ Hebrews in Egypt.93 When the deity first speaks to Moses, he introduces himself as 'the God of your father (singular!), the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' (3.6)94—all other occurrences of this formula contain the plural 'your fathers'. Tournay (1996) argues that this textual anomaly is a trace of editorial work in which the phrase 'the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' was added to the text. That is, an explicit 92. The use of CTn^NH 'the God' maybe significant. The density of occurrences of this term is highest among biblical books that are clearly postexilic such as Qoheleth, Jonah, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. The term may thus reflect a Persian period usage that attempts to identify the God of the Yehudites with the high God of the Persian rulers (T.L. Thompson 1995). 93. The same link was forged in 2.24 with the more generic B'nbN, 'God' rather than the particular HIT, 'Yahweh'. 94. The Samaritan Pentateuch and some LXX manuscripts read the plural 'your fathers' here, bringing the phrase into conformity with 3.15, 16 and 4.5.

3. Egypt in Exodus

71

link to the ancestral accounts of Genesis is a later addition to a text that may not have originally known the Genesis tradition.95 The textual anomaly at 3.6 thus indicates that two traditions are being combined: one in which the deity is simply Moses' paternal God, perhaps the God worshiped in Egypt by the house of Levi; and the other in which the deity is the God of the three patriarchal ancestors with their Mesopotamian connections. This combination indicates that at the time of the production of the final text form of the scroll of Exodus, the equivalence of the God worshiped by the Israelites/Hebrews in Egypt with the God of the patriarchs of Genesis was not yet necessarily an established or accepted fact. Possibly, certain Judean communities, perhaps located in Egypt, did not have or did not accept the traditions connecting YHWH with the three patriarchs of Genesis.96 That a new link is being forged between the God of the Israelites/ Hebrews in Egypt and the God of the ancestors is further indicated by Moses' response in 3.13. He anticipates that Israel in Egypt will ask the name of the 'God of their ancestors' who has sent Moses to them, as if the notion of the God of their ancestors is unclear to them.97 The answer Moses is given concerns not only the name of God (3.14) but also the eternal identification of this God with the God of the ancestors of Genesis (3.15).98 In other words, Israel in Egypt is presented as not knowing that YHWH is the God of the ancestors of Genesis. The whole episode 95. Similarly, Romer (1990) has argued that the triad 'Abraham, Isaac and Jacob' is part of the latest redaction of Deuteronomy, which originally did not know of the ancestral traditions of Genesis. 96. Noteworthy is the omission of Joseph, the Egyptian proto-Israelite hero, from the ancestral formula. 97. The Hebrew Bible contains traces of a tradition that Israel worshiped a number of different gods in Egypt (Josh. 24.14; Ezek. 20.7-8), and so the question Moses anticipates Israel will ask may mean: 'which of these gods do you mean by your reference to the "God of our ancestors"?' In contrast, other commentators suggest that the question concerns the authority or credentials of the messenger (Durham 1987: 3738; Houtman 1993: 366) or the significance of God's name (Childs 1974:75-76). Such explanations take for granted, however, the equivalence between YHWH in Egypt and the God of the ancestors. 98. The near repetition of 'wltF ^^ 1DKH rn ('thus you shall say to the sons of Israel') from v. 14 in v. 15, and the adverb TIU, 'again' in v. 15, are strong indications that v. 15 is an editorial addition or insertion into the text. This supports the notion that the linkage of the God known to Israel in Egypt with the God of the Genesis ancestors who stem from Mesopotamia is a linkage of great concern to the producers of the final text form.

72

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

concerning God's name (3.13-15) functions to make this link explicit. YHWH'S attempts to convince Moses and Moses' resistance to YHWH'S persuasion thus mirror the attempts of the text to convince its audience of the link between the God of Israel in Egypt and the God of the ancestors of Genesis. Moses himself seems dubious of this claim. Whereas YHWH regularly announces himself as the God of the ancestors, of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (3.6, 4.5), and commands Moses to announce the same (3.15, 16), Moses in his own words does not explicitly repeat YHWH'S invocation of the Genesis ancestors; he instead refers solely to the 'God of your ancestors' (3.13) or to YHWH (4.1). Thus, in contrast to the sureness of the divine speech, Moses' speech voices uncertainty. While Moses is depicted as vacillating and unsure, the narrative presents the deity as unequivocally desiring to have Israel identified as separate from Egypt and thus attempting to put into motion a strategy to get Israel out of Egypt. However, the text presents at least two plans whereby this exodus from Egypt is to happen. The first plan is directed at Israel: Moses is to persuade Israel with various 'signs' (mmK) that YHWH desires to bring them out of Egypt to another land (3.16-17; 4.1-9); then Moses is to request the king of Egypt to let Israel go (3.10, 18); the king will refuse (3.19) whereupon YHWH will strike Egypt with 'wonders' (riK^SH); the king will finally let Israel go (3.20); and, in leaving, Israel will plunder Egypt (3.21-22). However, a second plan, directed at Pharaoh, is also presented: Moses is to perform before Pharaoh all the 'wonders' (DTIBID) with which YHWH has empowered him (4.2la); YHWH will harden Pharaoh's heart so that Pharaoh will refuse to let Israel go (4.21b); and finally, YHWH will kill Pharaoh's firstborn (4.22)." In the first plan, Israel will leave enriched by the Egyptians; in the second plan, Egypt will suffer death. Each of these plans is directed at one of the two parties, Israel or Egypt, that need to be persuaded by the deity of the ethnic differentiation of Israel

99. Two different plans are also apparent in the contrast between words Moses is commanded to speak to the elders of Israel (3.16-17) and the words they are then to speak to Pharaoh (3.18). To the elders Moses is to convey YHWH'S plan to bring Israel up out of Egypt to another land, whereas to Pharaoh they are to announce merely their desire to travel three days into the wilderness to worship their God. The separation of Israel from Egypt thus involves a deliberate ruse or deception of the Egyptians. Cassuto (1983:43), however, sees the words to Pharaoh in 3.18 as merely the opening gambit in a series of negotiations, according to the conventions of ancient Near Eastern negotiations in which one begins small and then asks for more.

3. Egypt in Exodus

73

from Egypt. The 'signs' that Moses performs will successfully persuade Israel, according to the first plan. However, according to the second plan, the 'wonders' that Moses performs will fail to persuade Egypt, not by its own fault but because of the deity's machinations.100 YHWH will ensure that the situation escalates to the point of death by hardening the Pharaoh's heart, suggesting that the Pharaoh might otherwise have been willing to accede to some less drastic and final form of differentiation.101 Ironically, while the king of Egypt first suggested the differentiation of Israel from Egypt (1.9-10), it now becomes clear that it is YHWH who most desires this differentiation. YHWH'S identity, as the God of Israel, becomes dependent on Israel's ethnic differentiation from Egypt. The narrative is careful to locate YHWH outside of Egypt. Moses' encounter with YHWH takes place outside both Egypt and Midian (3.1).102 YHWH claims that he has 'come down' to deliver Israel (3.8)—the same verb "TT ('to descend') is regularly used to describe the journey to Egypt.103 In other words, the text adamantly presents this deity as not native to Egypt. In fact, the God who reveals himself to Moses cannot, it seems, be worshiped properly in Egypt at all, for in his presentation to Pharaoh (3.18), Moses is to request permission for Israel to go a three days' journey out of Egypt so that the God of the Hebrews can be worshiped.104 The text, therefore, not only identifies the God known to 100. Because of these diametrically opposite effects, Cassuto (1983: 55) claims that the 'wonders' of the second plan are completely different from the 'signs' of the first plan. However, 'signs' and 'wonders' are often coupled in Deuteronomy (see 4.34; 6.22; 7.19; 26.8; 28.46; 29.2; 34.11), suggesting that the two terms form a hendiadys. 101. The motif of the 'hardening of Pharaoh's heart' becomes prominent in the narrative of the plagues. Pharaoh hardens his own heart in 7.13, 22; 8.15 and 9.35; YHWH hardens Pharaoh's heart in 4.21 andin9.12; 10.20,27; ll.lOand 14.4,8(10). 102. Durham (1987: 30) calls it a 'new, strange and distant place'—i.e. a no-place. On the reference to wilderness in 3.1, see Talmon (1966) on the desert motif in the Bible. Note, however, that later Moses meets Aaron at the 'mountain of God' (4.27). The narrative seems to understand this place as close to the border of Egypt, suggested by the swift transition from the meeting of Moses and Aaron to their presentation to the elders of Israel. (Josephus, in his retelling of the exodus, explicitly places the meeting of Aaron and Moses near the border of Egypt—Ant. 2.13.279.) The location of YHWH on the border of Egypt mirrors the attempt of the narrative to locate Israel in the same place; that is, outside of and separate from Egypt, but close enough to make Egypt the 'other' against which identity must be asserted. 103. For example, Gen. 12.10; 26.2; 39.1; 42.2-3, etc. 104. See also 3.12; 4.23. Houtman (1993: 373) argues that the God associated with the Hebrews cannot be worshiped on territory that is the domain of the gods of Egypt.

74

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Israel in Egypt with the God of the Genesis ancestors, but also simultaneously claims that this God cannot be worshiped properly in Egypt. In the context of the production of the final form of the text, a huge claim is being presented against the possibility of legitimate YHWH worship in Egypt.105 However, in order to effect the differentiation and exodus of Israel from Egypt, YHWH must, temporarily at least, move into Egypt itself. And so he does in the guise of Moses' staff, the one with which Moses is to perform signs, identified as the 'staff of God' (DTI ^Kn HCOQ) in 4.20. In Egypt, this staff will function to perform magic (7.9-12), to bring on some of the plagues (7.15, 17, 19, 20; 8.12, 13; 9.23; 10.13), and to divide the sea (14.16). YHWH is metonymically identified with this staff which embodies his power and presence; in the figure of the staff, it is as if YHWH invades Egypt to do battle against the Egyptians. The deity who claims Israel as separate from Egypt, and who is presented as not native to Egypt, can be present in Egypt only as the one who effects the strategy of ethnic distinction. The Identity of Israel Whereas the king of Egypt had disavowed the 'sons of Israel' by defining them as the negative pole of the ethnic 'us-versus-them' polarity (1.9-10), YHWH here claims Israel as 'my people' (3.7, 9, 10). Thus the ethnic dichotomy constructed in the previous two chapters of Exodus is further sharpened into an opposition between YHWH'S people and Pharaoh's people. That Israel is now to be regarded as a separate people is further suggested by the reference to its organizational structure of elders (3.16, 18), such as any discrete people would have been supposed to have.106 105. During the Persian period there was at least one YHWH temple in Egypt—at Elephantine. In the Hellenistic period there was an additional YHWH temple at Leontopolis. Furthermore, some of the earliest evidence for the emergence of the synagogue comes from Egypt. Although claims against the legitimacy of diaspora Judaism would not necessarily single out the diaspora community in Egypt, it seems that the Egyptian community is especially targeted here. In contrast, for instance, Ezek. (10-11) pictures the divine presence as going to Babylon with the exiles after abandoning the Jerusalem temple after the disaster of 586 BCE. 106. Every people was likely supposed by the biblical writers to have such a structure—the elders of Egypt are mentioned in Gen. 50.7 and those of Moab and Midian in Num. 22.7. However, these elders of Israel quickly fade from the reader's view in Exodus—in the later narrative Aaron seems to take their place and function (see Fretheim 1991b: 66).

3. Egypt in Exodus

75

However, this portrayal of Israel as a distinct people is subtly undermined or questioned by other aspects of the text. The character Moses, for instance, does not necessarily accede to the identifications of Israel advanced by either Pharaoh or YHWH. In his own words, he refers merely to the 'sons of Israel' (3.11, 13) without the qualifier 'your (i.e. YHWH'S) people'. But it is the motif of Israel's plundering of the Egyptians, introduced in 3.21-22 and appearing again in 11.2-3 and 12.35-36, that complicates any facile distinction between Israel and Egypt. On the surface, of course, the plundering motif seems to underline the distinction between the stupid or gullible Egyptians and the smart Israelites/Hebrews. The Egyptians, despite the blows or plagues they will suffer because of Israel, willingly give or loan Israel valuable items, so that their former slaves leave the land of their slavery enriched.107 Just as the midwives and Pharaoh's daughter had earlier duped Pharaoh, so here again women are depicted as duping the Egyptians.108 However, while the plundering motif portrays a distinction between Egypt and Israel in the domain of cleverness and gullibility, in the domains of residence and kinship it undermines an absolute distinction. That the Israelite women are able to request items of jewelry and clothing from their neighbors and 'boarders' suggests that Israel does not live segregated from the Egyptians as later references to Goshen will suggest.109 Furthermore, the motif of plundering is intertextually related to the slave release legislation of Deut. 15.12-18, which mandates that a freed slave is not to be sent out emptyhanded (Daube 1963: 57-61). However, that legislation concerns the release of slaves that share the same Hebrew kinship community with their master (Deut. 15.12). If the plundering motif is viewed in light of this legislation, it makes the Egyptians kin of the Hebrews/Israelites.110 107. Just as in Gen. 12 Abram left Egypt enriched. 108. Women are specifically mentioned as the agents of 'plundering' in 3.22. In 11.2, both women and men are mentioned, whereas only the plural ^"IJff1 '3D, 'sons of Israel' is used in 12.35. 109. Incidentally, that Israelites are portrayed as hosting presumably Egyptian sojourners, tenants or lodgers, servants, guests—the word ~il can carry all these meanings—who own valuable jewelry contradicts the picture of Israel's oppression elsewhere in Exodus. Daube (1963: 54) furthermore suggests that Exod. 3.22 may indicate the presence of both Israelite and Egyptian wives (or concubines) in the same household. 110. Houtman (1993: 384) however wonders if it is rather the motif ofplundering in Exod. 3.21-22 that has influenced Deut. 15.12-18. He finally disavows any linkage with the legislation in Deuteronomy and concludes that the plundering motif in Exodus

76

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

The narrative establishes a further important distinction between the land of Egypt ('that land', 3.8) and the land to which YHWH promises to bring Israel. While Egypt has so far been predominantly portrayed as a land of slavery and oppression (1.11, 13-14,16,22; 2.11,23-24; 3.7), the land that YHWH promises, in contrast, is described as 'good and broad' (3.8) and 'flowing with milk and honey' (3.17). But even this distinction is also fraught with ambiguity. First, if the description of the Promised Land is meant to be enticing to the Israelites in Egypt, then by contrast Egypt would be the opposite, namely a bad, restricted place, a place of scarcity and infertility. But, that does not accord with the description of Egypt in Genesis as a place of food and enrichment in time of famine.111 In fact, it is in Egypt that Israel is exceedingly fruitful, and becomes very numerous and powerful.112 Thus, if 'flowing with milk and honey' is a symbolic or metaphorical reference to abundance, then the description seems at least as much applicable to the fertile Nile valley as to the hills of Canaan. In fact, in Numbers 16.13, the phrase is used by Moses' opponents precisely to describe Egypt.113 Secondly, the description of the Promised Land in the scroll of Exodus always includes a list of the five or six tribes who already inhabit that place.114 These prior inhabitants would constitute an obvious obstacle to Israel's possession of the Promised Land. And so the Promised Land promises not only abundance and fertility but also conflict. These ambiguities throw into question the implication of the text that the land concerns a magic spell that YHWH will place on the Egyptians so that they give rich presents to the departing Israelites; eventually the spell breaks and the Egyptians are infuriated (14.5). 111. Abraham goes to Egypt to escape a famine in Canaan and comes out greatly enriched (Gen. 12). The family of Jacob/Israel migrates to Egypt to escape a famine and there gains landholdings and is 'fruitful and multiplies' (Gen. 47). 112. See Exod. 1.7, 9, 12, 20. This increase seems to take place despite the oppression. 113. Houtman (1993: 357-58) notes that the phrase 'flowing with milk and honey' could be a mythological reference to the food of paradise. If so, in the light of Genesis the description fits Egypt well; see Gen. 13.10 where the well-watered Jordan valley is compared simultaneously to Egypt and to the garden of YHWH. Houtman, however, concludes that the phrase here carries no mythological meaning and is used solely in the service of literary hyperbole. 114. The phrase 'flowing with milk and honey' comes up again in 3.17, 13.5 and 33.2-3 always in conjunction with the list of the same 6 tribes (in 13.5, only five of the tribes are listed).

3. Egypt in Exodus

77

promised by YHWH will be a better place for Israel than Egypt. Yet the narrative is determined to depict Israel as uniquely different from Egypt. YHWH claims Israel as his TO3 ('firstborn son', 4.22)'15 in explicit contrast to the firstborn son of Pharaoh (4.23).116 Not only does this formulation place both YHWH and Pharaoh into the role of rival fathers, it also further deepens the distinction between Israel and Egypt;'17 by divine kinship, as it were, Israel and Egypt are fundamentally separate.118 That the firstborn of Pharaoh must die as a consequence of Pharaoh's refusal to let Israel go—that is, his refusal to recognize Israel as distinctly not belonging to or in Egypt—underlines the deity's perspective that Israel's identity is shaped in explicit contrast to Egypt. The position of firstborn in itself connotes privilege; within the ancient Israelite family the firstborn son was destined to carry on the lineage of his father (Deut. 25.6) and ranked above his brothers in matters of inheritance (Deut. 21.17). Similarly, the claim of YHWH that Israel is his firstborn would designate a privileged status at least equal to, if not surpassing, any rival claims of Pharaoh. But firstborn are often displaced by younger siblings in the narratives of the Hebrew Bible, and so the privileges of this

115. Israel is claimed as YHWH'S firstborn son only here in the Hebrew Bible; elsewhere this epithet is applied once by the deity to Ephraim (in parallelism with Israel) (Jer. 31.9). Otherwise, Israel is occasionally described as a son of God (Hos. 11.1) or as children of God (for example: Deut. 14.1; 32.5-6, 18-20). 116. The syntax of Exod. 4.23 is awkward in that the verb tenses seem to refer to an event in the past—'I said to you', 'you refused to let him go'—and yet all of this is still to come in the narrative's future. What seems to be involved here is a prolepsis, or anticipation of a future act as if presently accomplished. From the perspective of the deity, the foreknowledge of Pharaoh's resistance settles the matter of Israel's fundamental, even divine, difference from Egypt. 117. Just as Israel, as YHWH'S firstborn son, is a collective, so also it seems that by the parallel firstborn son of Pharaoh is meant Egypt, not just literally Pharaoh's biological firstborn son. 118. Levenson (1993a: 40-42) warns against interpreting the notion of Israel as YHWH'S firstborn in purely figurative terms. The involvement of YHWH in the births of Israel's ancestors in Genesis indicates that more than a mere metaphor is involved. Levenson also points to the interesting passage in Hos. 11.1, which indicates that 'the divine father fell in love with the boy in Egypt, leading him forth...' (1993a: 39). The Hosea passage seems to suggest, in contrast to the Genesis accounts, an alternate tradition in which Israel's divine sonship begins in Egypt. Without the prologue of Genesis, the passage in Exod. 4.21-23 could be interpreted in accordance with this alternative tradition.

78

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

position are not guaranteed.119 Thus Israel's position as firstborn of YHWH is also not guaranteed. As the narrative will later make clear, the response of Israel to YHWH'S claim on it is also a constitutive part of Israel's identity. A positive response will confirm Israel's identity as YHWH'S own, separate from Egypt. A negative response, however, threatens the loss of this distinct identity.120 However, Israel in Egypt is portrayed as not yet aware of being a distinct people. When Aaron and Moses return to Egypt, they assemble the elders of Israel and speak to them all of YHWH'S words and perform the signs (4.29-30). The result is that 'the people'—not, as might be expected, the more concrete 'sons of Israel'—believe and bow down in homage (4.31). In fact, this 'people' recognizes that YHWH has noticed the 'sons of Israel' and their misery (4.31), almost as if the 'sons of Israel' are understood as a category not quite coterminous with 'the people'. The uneasy oscillation between the designations 'the people' and 'the sons of Israel' indicates the amorphous state of Israel's identity at this point in the narrative, not yet fully formed as a distinct and self-aware entity, and perhaps understood as a subset of a larger group ('the people').121 A further indication of the amorphous state of Israel's identity is the narrative's reticence about the object of this 'people's' belief and homage. Some commentators see 4.31 as describing the conversion of Israel to faith in its status as YHWH'S distinct people.122 However, the object of the people's belief or homage is not explicitly named. Furthermore, the narra119. For example, Isaac displaces Ishmael, and Jacob displaces Esau. On this displacement of the privileges of the firstborn see Greenspahn (1994) andBrin (1994). While Greenspahn argues that the biblical status of firstborn was not biologically determined but was rather a status bestowed at the behest of the father, Brin argues that the sanctity of the firstborn is a biological given, and, while the privileges of the position could be transferred, the designation itself and the holy status associated with it, could not. 120. The narrative as a whole calls on its audience to make the same positive response that Israel in the narrative is called to make; that is, to identify with Israel as separate from Egypt. The rhetoric of the text is aimed at persuading its audience that the ideology of Israel's identity of contrast with Egypt is divinely mandated and therefore natural. 121. The text is not clear about whether the terms 'sons of Israel' and'the people' are to be understood as equivalent. If the text wanted to make clear that 'the people' and 'the sons of Israel' are equivalent, it could have said in 4.31, 'the sons of Israel believed, and when they heard that YHWH had given heed to them... ' 122. E.g. Brueggemann(1994b:718).

3. Egypt in Exodus

79

tive to come will describe the people as doubting and resisting. When the people are portrayed again as bowing in homage much later after the instructions for Passover have been given, once more no explicit object of their homage is mentioned (12.27b). Not until after the crossing of the sea and the annihilation of Egypt in the waters is it said that 'the people feared YHWH and believed in YHWH and in his servant Moses' (14.31b). The ethnogenesis of Israel, the formulation of Israel's identity as unique and distinct from Egypt, is presented in the narrative as a long process that does not near completion until after the plagues and the crossing of the sea. In other words, Israel's distinct identity is won through contest with Egypt and is not secured until Egypt is beaten. The Identity of Moses Caught in the battle between YHWH and Pharaoh over Israel's identity is Moses. A hybrid Egyptian-Israelite, yet called by YHWH to separate Israel from Egypt, Moses embodies in himself the ambiguities of Israel's developing identity over against Egypt. The encounter of Moses with YHWH is structured around a series of four objections that Moses raises to YHWH'S call.123 Such resistance is apart of other call narratives in the Hebrew Bible;l24 what is striking in this case is the number and persistence of Moses' objections. Although this could be interpreted theologically as highlighting the initiative of YHWH over against human motivations,125 ideologically what seems to be happening is an undermining or deflation of a heroic picture of Moses.126 And yet vestiges of a heroic, even mythical, image of Moses still remain. For instance, Moses is instructed to be as 'God' to Aaron (4.16).127 On the surface this is 123. Fretheim(1991b: 52). The number of Moses' objections hinges on the interpretation of 4.13. The phrase here is ambiguous: on the surface it could be an expression of assent: 'please, Lord, send whomever you want' but under the surface it may conceal a subtle objection: 'anyone, that is, except for me!' Many translators and commentators prefer the second option (e.g. NRSV and NJPS). 124. For example, Jeremiah objects to his call (Jer. 1.6) and repeatedly laments his circumstances after being called (Jer. 11.18-12.6; 15.10-21). Jonah outright flees from the task given to him by the deity (Jon. 1.1-10). Gideon demands proof before accepting his divine calling (Judg. 6.11-24). 125. Houtman(1993: 325), for instance, interprets the extensive resistance of Moses as 'stamping the entire mission as God's undertaking'. 126. A heroic picture of Moses is found in Jewish Hellenistic literature; see, for example, the portrait of Moses in Artapanus (see Holladay 1983: 199-215). 127. See also 7.1 where Moses is to be as 'God' to Pharaoh, and Aaron is to be as 'prophet' of Moses.

80

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

likely meant as a metaphor for the communication process, in that Aaron is to faithfully pass on the word of Moses just as a prophet is to faithfully pass on the word of the deity.128 However, one can also see here a trace of a tradition that accords to Moses a much more exalted, perhaps even divine or semi-divine, role.129 The LXX obliterates even this trace by changing the wording to avoid any implication of divine status for Moses.130 Thus, below the apparent surface of the text there are vestiges of a different tradition concerning a more exalted Moses that the present text seems to be erasing. Further traces of a contestation of Moses traditions in the text can be found in the problematic status of Aaron in the narrative. For one, the role assigned to Aaron in 4.14-16 is not fully carried out in the following narrative; instead, Aaron slowly disappears and is nowhere to be seen in the climactic chs. 13 and 14.131 But in ch. 4 Aaron is introduced as a significant character who seems in some ways to overshadow Moses. He is introduced not only as Moses' brother or kinsman but also as 'the Levite' (4.14), an unnecessary designation in that the audience has already been informed that his brother Moses is a descendant of Levi (2.1). The designation 'the Levite', with the definite article, if not gratuitous, thus seems to be meant to set Aaron apart from Moses.132 Furthermore, Aaron is depicted as eloquent and quick to respond in contrast to Moses' thickness of speech and reluctance. In other words, Aaron is elevated at the expense of Moses, whose status is correspondingly diminished. Yet, Aaron's position is also undercut when he is assigned the function of Moses' mouthpiece 128. An allusion to an Egyptian idiom may also be involved. The words in 4.16 'he shall serve as a mouth to you' may recall the Egyptian official post of 'mouth of the king'. 129. The tradition of an exalted, even semi-divine, Moses might belong to Egyptian Judaism if some of the Hellenistic Jewish literature of an Egyptian provenance is any indication. 130. The LXX reads ou 6e otuTco SOT) TOC rrpos TOV 9sov ('and you will be for him the things pertaining to God'). Similar readings that avoid any implication of Moses' divinity are found in the Vulgate and Targums (see Houtman 1993: 417-18). 131. As Fretheim (1991b: 73) notes: 'Moses gradually works himself into the role that God originally intended. Hence plan B [the involvement of Aaron] turns out to be an interim measure.' 132. Houtman (1993: 415) notes the possibility that 'the Levite' might be a gloss referring to the office of priest. One could also speculate that Aaron's title as 'the Levite' implies that Moses, in contrast, is not a Levite, thus possibly indicating another trace of a tradition in which Moses enters Israel from outside.

3. Egypt in Exodus

81

(4.16). Thus the narrative displays a certain tension between the roles of Moses and Aaron, further indicating some anxiety in the text over the status and identity of Moses. Moses himself does not seem to be clear about his identity; his first objection to YHWH is "D3S 'D ('Who am I?', 3.11). On the surface, a stereotypical way of addressing a person of greater power and authority with suitable humility,133 this expression can also be read, in the context of the identity politics of the narrative, as an index of the uncertainty of Moses' identity. YHWH'S response addresses this uncertainty. While the words 'I will be with you' (3.12a) respond to Moses' feeling of inadequacy, the following words 'when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will serve God on this mountain' (3.12b) implicitly answer Moses' lack of identity. The second 'you' in the latter phrase is plural, implying that, from the narrative perspective of YHWH, Moses is part of Israel. From the narrative perspective of Moses, however, this identification with Israel is not at all clear. Although YHWH identifies himself to Moses as the 'God of your father' (3.6),134 Moses anticipates talking to Israel, not about the 'God of our ancestors', but about the 'God of your ancestors' (3.13), as if he were not included in the Israel whom he is addressing. Moreover, Moses also doubts that the sons of Israel will accept his message as coming from YHWH (4.1), indicating that from his narrative perspective he may not perceive himself as being accepted by Israel as a genuine Israelite.135 That YHWH gives Moses three signs to present to Israel (4.2-9) furthermore points to the possibility that his commission and message required the sort of authentication that might be demanded of an outsider.136 In these ways, the identification of Moses with Israel is brought into question. Whereas Moses made a rather straightforward narrative transition from Egypt to Midian (2.15-21), his return to Egypt is narratively very complicated, involving episodic jumps, temporal distortions, and geographic 133. For example, when David addresses Saul (1 Sam. 18.18) or the deity (2 Sam. 7.18; 1 Chron. 17.16; 29.14), or when Solomon addresses the deity (2 Chron. 2.6). 134. YHWH commands Moses to use the identical phrase in 3.15 and 16. 135. Moses has already previously experienced rej ection at the hand of Israel (Exod. 2.13-14). 136. Conversely, the signs themselves may have been understood as Egyptian in character. Besides adding Egyptian color to the story, the signs would portray Moses as an Egyptian magician, thus further highlighting his Egyptianness.

82

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

dislocations.137 These jumps and dislocations could be interpreted as due to careless editing. If so, however, why is the editing so sloppy in this section as compared to other parts of the narrative? It seems that the theme of 'return to Egypt' in the Pentateuch is highly charged on an ideological level, manifesting itself here in what seems to be a chronologically and otherwise confused narrative. The same theme reemerges later in the complaints of Israel in the wilderness, and in some of the Pentateuchal legislation, always in a negative context or as a proscribed action. If Israel's sojourn in Egypt is ideologically framed as an unfortunate and temporary detour, then a return to Egypt is unthinkable. And yet Moses, who replicates or anticipates within himself the destiny of Israel, here must return to Egypt after having successfully left.138 The narrative confusion mirrors ideological anxiety.139 Uncertainty over Moses' identity is indicated by the presence of an alternative tradition regarding Moses' return to Egypt. From the narrative perspective of the deity, Moses is to return to Egypt to gain release for Israel (3.16-18). But when Moses requests permission of his father-in-law

137. Moses first asks his father-in-law permission to return to Egypt, which is granted (4.18); suddenly, YHWH intrudes again, ordering Moses back to Egypt (4.19). Moses, with his family, returns to Egypt (4.20); YHWH again intrudes with instructions about 'wonders', not 'signs'(as in 4.8-9), which Moses is to perform, not for Israel (as in 4.1-9), but for Pharaoh (4.21). In 4.23 future events are spoken of in the past tense. In 4.24, Moses and his family are on the way again. Suddenly Aaron appears and meets Moses at the 'mountain of God' (4.27) where Moses had his revelation (3.1), even though the narrative has twice indicated that Moses is on the way to Egypt if not already there (4.20. 24). Finally, Aaron speaks the words and performs the signs for the people, presumably back in Egypt (4.30), and the people respond. Besides these narrative dislocations, there are elements of narrative continuity in this section as well: the staff (of God) in 4.17, 20; and the 'wonders' and 'signs' (4.21, 28). 138. Conversely, perhaps what is masked here is a tradition that Moses never left Egypt at all, and that his encounter with YHWH took place within Egypt. 139. Fretheim (1991b: 75) suggests that the narrative confusion is typical of the depiction of transitions, and that the movement from Midian to Egypt is here viewed from different angles. Similarly, Durham (1987: 60) suggests that here the compiler has brought together every reference to Moses' return to Egypt known to him. Both suggestions are plausible but do not explain just why such strategies are employed at precisely this point in the narrative, with this particular transition, and not at other transitional points, such as Moses' displacement from Egypt to Midian. It is my contention that the surface narrative tension is isomorphic to the deeper ideological tension that the text is attempting to mediate.

3. Egypt in Exodus

83

Jether/Jethro140 to return to Egypt, quite a different reason for the return emerges: 'Please let me return to my kinfolk in Egypt and see whether they are still living' (4.18). Moses makes no mention of his divine commission. One can also see here the uncertainty and resistance of Moses to YHWH'S commission; he has agreed to return to Egypt but for his own reasons. Surprisingly, the deity then seems to support Moses' perspective, telling him to return to Egypt 'because all those who were seeking your life are dead' (4.19). Here is an entirely different tradition regarding the return of Moses to Egypt. Namely, he had been forced to flee Egypt because of the murder he had committed (2.11-15), and now, since those seeking to kill him in vengeance for this murder are no longer a threat, he is free to return.141 This alternate tradition does not necessarily have anything to do with the liberation of a people Israel or an ethnic differentiation between Israel and Egypt. As in the popular Egyptian story of Sinuhe (ANET: 18-22), Moses appears as an Egyptian of high position who is forced to flee his homeland and settle abroad temporarily, eventually to return when the situation improves.142 However, this alternative tradition, does not survive in the overall narrative. The most striking episode in Moses' return to Egypt is the account of the nocturnal attack in 4.24-26. This episode is full of uncertainties. The referents for the pronominal suffixes are unclear; it is uncertain who was attacked (4.24), whose 'feet'143 were touched (4.25), and who is meant by the reference ('bridegroom of blood', 4.25). The meaning of the term CT QT|nn 'bridegroom of blood' (4.25,26) itself is not known. Textually, the LXX presents a somewhat different story; after circumcising her son, Zipporah does not touch his 'feet' but rather falls at his feet, and declares: 'the blood of the circumcision of my son is staunched' (4.25, 26). Again, 140. Note the variation in the names of Moses' father-in-law—Jethro, Jether, Reuel (Exod. 2.18), and perhaps also Hobab (Num. 10.29). Such variation highlights the ambiguous and transitional character of the place Midian in the exodus narrative. 141. Note how easily Exod. 2.23a (the notice of the Pharaoh's death) flows into 4.19 (YHWH'S command that Moses return to Egypt because those seeking his life have died), as if the intervening material in 2.23b—4.18 is an interpolation. The LXX duplicates 2.23a at the end of 4.18, further strengthening this impression. 142. Support for this alternate tradition of Moses' return to Egypt is found in the fact that he takes his family with him (4.20), giving the impression that he means to return to Egypt permanently. However, his family soon drops out of view, and notice is given later that his Midianite wife and two sons have returned to her father's house (Exod. 18.2-6), thus retrospectively aborting this alternate tradition. 143. The 'feet' are likely a euphemism for the genitals.

84

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

these textual variations and narrative confusions indicate the ideological tension involved in the notion of return to Egypt. That the ideological tension involves the issue of identity is suggested by the parallel of Jacob's encounter at the fords of the Jabbok (Gen. 32.2232), also an uncanny nocturnal attack involving an important transition. Jacob is similarly returning, with the family that he had acquired abroad, from a temporary exile in Mesopotamia. The attack on him results in a new name and identity (Gen. 32.28). The narrative of a nocturnal attack at a point of transition thus seems to be a type-scene signifying a change of identity. So also in the account in Exod. 4.24-26 a change in Moses' identity is signified.144 Although Moses does not receive a new name, he is here associated with circumcision; the final redactional comment in 4.26b, 'a bridegroom of blood in regard to circumcision', indicates that the producers of the final text intended the account to be understood in light of the rite of circumcision. Circumcision is established in Genesis as the identity-marking ritual par excellence for Israel (Gen. 17.9-14,23-27). Moses seems to lack the mark of this ritual; he and/or his son are not circumcised145 and thus not marked as Israelite. That is, Moses has not yet thrown in his lot with YHWH'S strategy of differentiating and separating Israel from Egypt. YHWH attacks Moses to force the issue, and Moses emerges as one committed to YHWH'S strategy.146 The Moses who has continued to retain an 144. The references to circumcision and marriage in the account also evoke rites of passage signifying changes or transformations of identity. 145. Or perhaps he is only circumcised in the Egyptian manner, which was less complete than that of the Hebrews—see Sasson (1966). Joshua 5.2-7 describes a second circumcision of the Israelites in order to roll away from them the 'reproach of Egypt'. This supports the argument that the present passage is about attacking an Egyptian identity and replacing it with an Israelite identity. 146. The narrative betrays a trace of a primary Egyptian identity for Moses even still at this point. Just before the account of the nocturnal attack, YHWH threatens to kill Pharaoh's firstborn son (4.23). Immediately following, YHWH tries to kill Moses (4.24) (assuming that the 'him' who is attacked refers to Moses). This textual juxtaposition suggests a metonymic identification between Pharaoh's firstborn son and Moses. This identification is not far-fetched since, as the son of an Egyptian princess, Moses could be pictured as Pharaoh's firstborn or favorite. (The term TD3, 'firstborn', does not necessarily connote only a literal biologically determined status but actually points more accurately to a socially determined status based more on preference or favoritism than on age, as Greenspahn [1994] demonstrates). It is this trace of Moses as Egyptian, as perhaps even the high-ranking son of Pharaoh, which must be erased for the strategy of YHWH to proceed. The nocturnal attack is a means of providing for such an erasure.

3. Egypt in Exodus

85

Egyptian identity is symbolically transformed into an Israelite. But even so the issue of Moses' identity is not definitively resolved. It is Moses' Midianite wife, an outsider to Israel, who wards off YHWH'S attack; more importantly, she does so, not by circumcising Moses, but by circumcising her own son and then transferring the effect of this circumcision to Moses by touching his genitals with the foreskin. In other words, Moses seems to have been circumcised only in a vicarious fashion. If so, his Israelite identity is still in question. The identity of Moses is thus no more firmly established in this text segment than are the identities of YHWH and Israel. The identity of Moses as Israelite, of Israel as a people originally from outside Egypt and separate from the Egyptians, and of YHWH as the deity of both the ancestors of Genesis who stem from Mesopotamia and of Israel in Egypt, are constructions of which the text attempts to persuade its audience. But beneath the surface of the text, in various ambiguities and textual anomalies, traces of other traditions and possibilities of identity can be detected, showing the text to be a site of ideological contestation. First Confrontations and Complications (5.1-7.7) The narrative prologue of the scroll of Exodus (1.1-2.25) and the account of the call of Moses and his return to Egypt (3.1 -4.31) have functioned to set in place the ethnic polarities of Israel and Egypt. The heart of the narrative begins in ch. 5, a narrative in which these polarities are put into active opposition to each other.147 Chapters 5 through 14 of Exodus comprise a narrative trajectory organized around a series of antagonistic encounters between Israel and Egypt that escalate into plagues and finally culminate with the ultimate showdown at the sea.'4S For the purpose of the following analysis, this trajectory will be divided into three major sections: (1) first confrontations and complications (5.1-7.7); (2) plagues (7.811.10); and (3) exodus (12.1-15.21). In each of these narrative sections, the ideological rhetoric of identity around Israel, Egypt, YHWH and Moses will be the subject of analysis. 147. Fishbane (1979:63-76) demonstrates that Exod. 1-4 iimctions as a prologue to the main part of the narrative that begins in ch. 5. 148. The formal literary connections discerned by McCarthy (1966) between chs. 5, 7-10 and 14 of Exodus suggest a coherent and continuous narrative framework for chs. 5 through 14. The hymn in 15.1-21 constitutes an epilogue and a transition to a new narrative trajectory that begins at 15.22.

86

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

The first encounters of Israel with Pharaoh upon the return of Moses to Egypt fail in realizing their objective. Moses' and Aaron's demands of Pharaoh (5.1-5) result in rejection and negative consequences (5.6-14). The complaints of the supervisors of the Israelites to Pharaoh (5.15-18) are likewise followed by negative results (5.19-23). Consequently, Moses must be called and commissioned again, because it seems that his first call and commission end in failure.149 Thus in ch. 6 of Exodus, the audience of the scroll encounters a reprise of material from ch. 3 and 4.150 This particular cycle of failure followed by a second beginning provides a rich set of insights into the ambiguous dynamics of identity construction in the Exodus narrative. The Identity of Israel It is clear that from YHWH'S dominant narrative perspective, as reported in the call of Moses, the separate identity of Israel, necessitating an exodus from Egypt, is firmly established. However, from the narrative perspectives of Egypt and Israel, this separate identity remains uncertain or unconvincing. While the king of Egypt first voiced a distinction between Israel and Egypt (1.9-10), and also expressed a desire to single out the Hebrews for genocidal treatment (1.15-19), the present Pharaoh's responses to his first encounter with Moses and Aaron do not present the same clear distinction. The term 'Israel' (5.2) appears once in the Pharaoh's discourse, only to immediately be replaced by multiple occurrences of the more general and ambiguous term 'people' (DU). Pharaoh refers numerous times to 'the people' (5.4, 6, 7), once to 'the people of the land' (5.5), and once to 'the men' (5.9). In each of these instances, the specific reference is unclear; while one might assume that Israel is meant, the references could just as well be to a working or slave class among the Egyptians. Therefore, according to Pharaoh's point of view as depicted in the text, it is uncertain whether Israel as a separate definable entity exists.151 A textual problem centering on Pharaoh's reference to 'the people of the 149. This is the opinion of Fretheim (1991b: 89-90). This interpretation also accords with the two-step 'build-up and climax' structure that is encountered in narrative in the Hebrew Bible, where an initial abortive attempt is followed by a second successful attempt (Gordon 1992). 150. Altogether, ch. 6 of Exodus shows more signs of compilation or editing than other parts of Exodus. Many interpreters see in 6.2 to 7.7 or 7.13 a strand of priestly material that has been inserted into the JE narrative. 151. The same ambiguous usage of 'the people' continues in 5.10, 12.

3. Egypt in Exodus

87

land' (5.5) highlights these ambiguous identifications. The MT reads: 'Look! The people of the land are now numerous, and you (i.e. Moses and Aaron) have caused them to cease from their burdens.' This text implies that Israel is equated with, or counted as part of, 'the people of the land'. The Samaritan Pentateuch, however, reads: 'Look! [They are] now more numerous than the people of the land, and you have caused them to cease from their burdens.'152 In this textual tradition, 'they', that is, Israel, are portrayed as distinct from the people of the land, presumably the Egyptians. And finally the LXX reads: 'Look, now the people are very numerous; let us not then give them rest from their work.' In this textual tradition, the reference to 'the people of the land' disappears. The term 'people of the land', in its older usage, most likely refers to the 'landed gentry' or to the 'free citizens of a given territory' (Healey 1992). In Exod. 5.5, the term would then refer to Egyptian citizens, and the MT rendering would imply that Pharaoh perceives Israel as Egyptian. However, in its later usage, especially in literature about the postexilic period, the term becomes one of derision for those peoples located outside of one's group (Healey 1992). Given the context of Pharaoh's scornful speech, a derisive meaning could be intended in 5.5, such that 'people of the land' would be understood by the audience as perhaps something like 'peasants' or 'commoners', an underclass or working class of people in Egypt who could be subjected to the royal corvee. In the MT tradition, Israel, from the narrative perspective of Pharaoh, would then be part of, or indistinguishable from, a larger mass of laborers. In contrast, the Samaritan textual tradition clearly differentiates Israel from the Egyptian citizenry or peasantry, thus steadfastly maintaining a unique identity for Israel even in the eyes of Pharaoh, whereas the LXX refers only to the generic and ambiguous 'the people'. These various textual traditions can be read as an indication of ideological tension in the developing exodus tradition around the notion of the distinctiveness of Israel vis-a-vis Egypt. While the Pharaoh thus does not seem clearly to acknowledge Israel as an entity separate from Egypt, neither does Israel itself. Again, a textual problem highlights the ambiguous nature of identity, this time from the narrative perspective of Israel. When the 'supervisors of the sons of

152. The Samaritan Pentateuch reads f ~!Kn DJJO, 'from the people of the land' instead of the MT ]Hfcn CI?, 'people of the land'; this maybe an alteration due to assimilation to the parallel passage in 1.9 and/or simplification of the text for an easier reading (HOTTP 94). The MT presents the more difficult reading.

88

Egypton the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Israel'153 complain to Pharaoh (5.15-16) regarding the elimination of the provision of straw (5.6-14), they not only refer to themselves before Pharaoh as 'your servants' (5.15-16),154 but also make a syntactically confusing complaint: ~$3 HKtarn D'SD "TH^l? i"13! 'and look, your (masculine singular) servants are beaten and you (feminine singular) have sinned/are guilty, your (masculine singular) people' (MT 5.16b). The difficulty lies in the last phrase "J<5^ nNtani; the verb form requires a feminine second person subject,155 for which there seems to be no antecedent, and there is no indication whether the phrase 'your people' is meant as the subject or object of the verb.156 The interpretations and emendations suggested to solve these difficulties present two main options. First, the second person feminine form of the verb in the MT could be read as a rare form of the third person feminine.157 The verb then agrees in person, if not in gender, with the following 'your 153. These supervisors (C'HBtO) are generally understood as having been recruited from among the Israelites, while the higher-ranking taskmasters (D'iDJj) are seen as Egyptian (5.6, 10, 13-14). That the 'WltF "33 HBtD ('supervisors of the Israelites') appear in apposition to the HUIS '2J23 ('taskmasters of Pharaoh') in 5.15 seems to support this interpretation. However, just as the earlier phrase rr~QDn m'TD ('midwives of the Hebrews', 1.15) could mean either 'Hebrew midwives' or '(Egyptian) midwives to the Hebrews', so also here the 'supervisors of the sons of Israel' could be either Israelite or Egyptian. 154. They thus acknowledge Pharaoh's authority over them. Furthermore, since in the following plague narrative, the phrase 'your servants' is used only to refer to the people of Pharaoh as distinct from the people Israel (7.28, 29; 8.5, 7, 17; 9.14, 30; 10.6; 11.8), the supervisors may here be indicating their lack of a notion of distinction between Israel and Egypt. However, in talking to Moses and Aaron (5.22), the same supervisors refer to 'Pharaoh and his servants' as if to indicate that they do not count themselves among those servants. In other words, publicly before Pharaoh they place themselves within Pharaoh's domain, but privately with Moses and Aaron, they distance themselves from Pharaoh's domain. 155. The form nNtpn is second person feminine singular perfect (GKC: paradigm O, p. 526). 156. If DU is meant to be the object of the verb, it lacks the customary *7 or 3 which marks the object of the verb Son (BDB: 306). Since DJJ is masculine, it is unlikely to be the subject of the feminine form of the preceding verb, which is furthermore second person. Since the feminine singular is often used for plurals of animals and things, and of abstracts (GKC: §145k), it may be possible that CJJ, as a collective, is being treated in a similar fashion, but this still does not solve the problem of the second person form of the verb. 157. Cassuto (1983: 71) makes this argument. This possibility is also mentioned by GKC: §73g only to be rejected as unlikely.

3. Egypt in Exodus

89

people'. And, since non-human plurals often take feminine singular verbs (GKC: §145k), it may be possible that DI3 ('people'), while a masculine noun, as a collective could take a feminine verb form.158 The resulting reading is: 'and look, your (masculine singular) servants are beaten and your (masculine singular) people have sinned/are guilty'.159 In this case, the Israelite supervisors are portrayed as positing a difference between their people (Israel) and Pharaoh's people (Egypt).160 Secondly, one can posit a scribal error in the MT and so repoint the verb KC3FT as a second masculine singular and add a preposition before DU in order to make it into a proper object of the verb: "]5I? "? PKCprn. The resulting reading is: 'and look, your servants are beaten and you (second person masculine singular) have sinned/are guilty against your people'. This is indeed the reading found in the LXX, Syriac and Pesher versions; it is also the suggested reading in BDB (p. 766), and has been adopted by the NRSV.161 In this case, the Israelite supervisors present themselves as part of Pharaoh's people, that is, as part of Egypt. Although the difference on the surface may be due to the mediating position that the supervisors occupy as part of middle management, under the surface the difference concerns the self-understanding of Israel in Egypt. These textual difficulties may be 158. Waltke and O' Connor (1990: 105) indicate that singular nouns that are collectives are often feminine but they do not cite the noun DU as an example. Cassuto (1983: 71) notes thatDU is treated as feminine in Judg. 18.7 and Jer. 8.5 because of the influence of nearby feminine nouns. Of course a simple emendation to the third masculine singular NEni would also solve the problem. 159. HOTTP (p. 95) prefers this reading (giving it a B rating), and also translates the verb as a future tense—'and your people will be guilty'—by reading the preceding waw as a waw consecutive. Cassuto (1983: 71) argues that a waw consecutive is not involved. Cassuto (1983:71) provides the interesting argument that the supervisors are portrayed as meaning to blame Pharaoh and therefore started out by saying 'you are guilty', but out of deference they swallowed the last part of the verbal form and added 'your people'. 160. Two suggested emendations come to a similar interpretation. The verb NEF1 could be repointed as a feminine noun in construct, making the problematic phrase read "]ftV nfctsrn ('and the sin/guilt [is] your people's'). (HOTPP [p. 95] rejects this reading as due to scribal error and/or misunderstanding of ancient Hebrew linguistic data.) Or KEF! could be repointed as a second masculine singular and a waw added before DU resulting in "]Qri riNtprn: 'and you and your people have sinned/are guilty' (Durham 1987: 67). 161. See also Brueggemann(1994b: 728). HOTTP (p. 96) rejects this reading as due to simplification of the text and/or scribal error and/or misunderstanding of ancient Hebrew linguistic data.

90

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

an indication of ideological tension underlying the text on the theme of Israel's identity in relation to Egypt.162 While YHWH clearly desires an Israel that is separate from Egypt, whether Israel at this point is narratively conscious of itself as separate or even desires an identity distinct from Egypt is uncertain. Israel does not yet act as a cohesive entity. The supervisors of the sons of Israel utter a curse against Moses and Aaron163 and seem to regard them as 'outsiders' who have caused undue trouble (5.21). Their accusation that Moses and Aaron have made them 'smell bad' before Pharaoh indicates that this is a split with Pharaoh that they did not desire. Rhetorically, what is at stake in this narrative of conflicting claims of ownership and identity is the allegiance of the scroll's audience to a particular view of Israel's identity vis-a-vis Egypt. While in the narrative Pharaoh and Egypt obviously need to learn to acknowledge YHWH'S claim on Israel as a people separate from Egypt, Israel itself must also learn the same lesson—and it is Israel which is not only a character in the narrative but also the primary audience of this text. Thus, while the following plagues seem largely aimed at convincing Pharaoh of Israel's uniqueness, it is noteworthy that, initially, not Egypt but Israel is threatened with sword and pestilence if it does not leave Egypt (5.3). That is, the real issue at stake on the textual level is Israel's acknowledgment of YHWH'S construction of Israel as distinct from Egypt, which translates on the readerly level to convincing the audience of the scroll that the same ideology of difference pertains to it. The initial confrontations of Moses and Aaron with Pharaoh show the contingent nature of the identity of Israel; rather than a given, Israel's distinct identity is being constructed as a viable concept for the audience as the narrative proceeds. While these confrontations at first seem unpromising for YHWH'S vision of Israel, YHWH claims that he will now himself act against Pharaoh (6.1). Yet ambiguity is present even in this assurance. YHWH claims that, by a mighty hand (HpTH T2), Pharaoh will both let Israel go (H^EJ) and drive them out (2TI3). Since no pronouns are attached to the word 'hand', it is

162. It is conceivable that the LXX version is original on the grounds that it is the more difficult reading and was thus altered by subsequent scribes who thought it was an obvious error to portray the Israelite supervisors as speaking of Israel as part of Egypt. 163. Contrast the far more welcoming response Moses and Aaron receive in 4.2933!

3. Egypt in Exodus

91

not clear whether YHWH'S hand or Pharaoh's hand is meant.164 Also, there is potentially a great difference between being let go and being driven out. The uneasy amalgamation of different exodus traditions may be indicated here, one tradition attributing the exodus to YHWH'S mighty actions in forcing Pharaoh to let the people go, and another tradition attributing the exodus to a forced expulsion by the might of Pharaoh.165 While it is the first tradition that the narrative desires to make dominant, traces of an alternative tradition are retained, making a definitive version of the exodus even in the final text form questionable and showing the ideological labor at work in the text. From YHWH'S dominant narrative perspective, a separate identity for Israel, necessitating an exodus from Egypt, is absolutely necessary. However, from the narrative perspective of Egypt, reported by Pharaoh, and the narrative perspective of Israel, reported by the supervisors of the sons of Israel, this separate identity remains uncertain and unconvincing. The text thus has woven into it two ideological tendencies: the dominant one, which sees the distinctiveness of Israel as necessitating an exit from Egypt, and the submerged one, which sees Israel as somehow Egyptian or at home in Egypt.166 The Identity ofYHWH That the Pharaoh does not seem clearly to acknowledge Israel as a separate entity is connected to Pharaoh's ignorance of YHWH, Israel's God (5.2). Much of the following plague narrative will be concerned with making YHWH known to Pharaoh and the Egyptians167 since the acknowledgment ofYHWH simultaneously entails recognition of Israel's distinct status. By defeating Pharaoh, YHWH will gain recognition for himself and 164. The phrase HpTn T3 is repeated twice in 6.1. See the LXX variant 'an outstretched arm', influenced by parallel passages such as 12.33. Cassuto (1983: 74) argues that the first hand is the deity's and the second is Pharaoh's. 165. The second tradition of expulsion reminds one of the slanderous tales current in Hellenistic Egypt and recorded by Manetho, which attributed the origin of the Jews to the expulsion of a community of lepers from Egypt (see Stern 1976: 62-86). 166. In a later chapter, the possibility will be raised that these two perspectives may correspond with the world view of Judeans of the Persian period in Palestine and in Egypt, respectively. 167. See 7.17; 8.10,22; 9.14, 29; 10.2, 8, 24; 11.7; 12.31; 14.4, 17. The concern is with making YHWH known not only to Pharaoh and the Egyptians, but also to Israel since Israel cannot acknowledge its own identity without recognizing YHWH as its God.

9

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

for his people Israel. To this end, the narrative portrays YHWH and Pharaoh in parallel fashion: the prophetic formula 'Thus says YHWH' (5.1)168 corresponds with 'Thus says Pharaoh' (5.10), YHWH threatens with the sword (5.3) as does Pharaoh (5.21), and both YHWH and Pharaoh are accused of causing evil (5.22-23).169 The narrative initially situates YHWH and Pharaoh on the same level in similar roles in order to highlight the conflict that is being sparked between them.170 Their conflict will center on the ownership of Israel; at stake is whether Pharaoh will continue to see Israel as merely a part of his Egyptian domain or acknowledge Israel as a separate entity to which YHWH has claim. It is significant that this second call and commission seem to occur in Egypt (see especially 6.28), in contrast to the location of YHWH'S previous revelation to Moses outside of Egypt.171 One finds here possibly the trace of a tradition which locates the origins of Israel as a distinct people not outside of but in Egypt itself; however, this tradition has been submerged under the dominant ideology of Israel's origins external to Egypt by being incorporated as the second step in a twofold repetitive narrative progression. The possibility of a tradition of an Egyptian origin for Israel finds support in the strong case made by YHWH in 6.2-8 for discontinuity between the Exodus narrative and the ancestor stories of Genesis. The ancestors did not know the deity as YHWH but rather as El Shaddai (6.3).172 Four times the deity here presents himself with the formula 168. This formula appeared once previously in the book of Exodus at 4.22. It will appear 8 more times in Exodus, 7 of these times in the plague narrative: 7.17,25; 8.16; 9.1, 13; 10.3; 11.4. The formula does not appear elsewhere in the Pentateuch. 169. The word used is U"l, translated here in the NRSV as 'mistreatment'. The same word also appears in 5.19. Cassuto (1993: 72) and others wonder whether there is here an allusion to Re, the chief deity of the Egyptian pantheon. In other words, an ethnic pun or slur may be involved, in which the Egyptian chief God is connected with evil. 170. Of course, the fact that Pharaoh was considered divine or semi-divine in Egyptian belief further makes him a worthy opponent for YHWH. 171. Verse 6.28 is oddly highlighted by a following paragraph break in the MT. It is difficult to know whether the emphasis in this verse is on YHWH'S presence in Egypt, or Moses' presence in Egypt, or both, or the fact that divine revelation or contact can happen in Egypt. 172. The transition from one name for the deity to another can have a purely literary function, quite apart from indicating the historical origins and development of Israel's religion. Cassuto (1983: 78-79) makes the interesting observation that the name El Shaddai is often used in the literary context of fertility or increase. It thus accords with the part of the promises to the ancestors regarding increase into a nation or people, a promise that seems now in the narrative to have been fulfilled. The name YHWH,

3. Egypt in Exodus

93

miT ']» ('I am YHWH', 6.2, 6, 7, 8), as if to underline this new name.173 Explicit reference by YHWH to the triad Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as 'your ancestors' (as previously in 3.6, 15, 16; 4.5) is absent. And in 6.7 YHWH asserts that he will take Israel as his people and that he will become their God. The language here suggests adoption or marriage or taking possession, language that presumes the beginning of a new relationship rather than the continuation of an old one.174 These elements of discontinuity with the ancestral accounts of Genesis heighten the sense that the creation, in Egypt, of Israel as YHWH'S people is a new beginning.175 At the same time there are also strong elements of continuity.176 The land promised to the ancestors is precisely the land that YHWH now promises to grant to Israel (4.8). The verb *?fcW ('redeem'), appears for the first time as a description of the exodus (6.6),177 connoting the continuation of an established familial relationship between YHWH and Israel; it places YHWH into the role of the kinsman who is obligated to rescue a member of the extended family from a difficult situation or obligation (Unterman 1992: 650-52).178 The term thus implies that Israel already however, is associated in the literary context of Exodus with getting this people, this nascent Israel, out of Egypt. 173. This is the first occurrence of this formula of divine presentation in the Pentateuch. Cassuto (1983: 76) demonstrates that the phrase is the normal way that a monarch presented himself in ancient Near Eastern texts found on stelae, and so argues that it is not a formula of revelation or theophany as much as a formula asserting authority. That is, YHWH here is not so much revealing himself as asserting his kingly authority over the people he has chosen for his own vis-a-vis Pharaoh. 174. The verb in 6.7 is in the imperfect tense, indicating perhaps future action; this seems to point to the events at Mt Sinai as the time when Israel fully becomes YHWH'S people. While in Egypt, Israel is still under Pharaoh's authority, necessitating a strong counter claim from YHWH. The first half of Exodus is the only place in the Pentateuch where the phrase 'my people' is found frequently on YHWH'S lips, indicating that the narrative is very concerned here with establishing the authority of YHWH over Israel. 175. Further on the discontinuity between Exodus and the ancestor traditions, see Moberly (1992), who argues that this discontinuity is a deliberate theological or ideological feature of the text serving to portray the events related in Exodus as an entirely new beginning. 176. See Brueggemann (1994b: 733) who sees a dialectic between continuity and discontinuity here. 177. Previously in the scroll of Exodus, the exodus has been referred to by the verbs KiT ('to bring out', hiphil in 3.10,11,12) and "»] ('to deliver', hiphil in 3.8; 5.23 and also here in 6.6). 178. The semantic field of b^3 (Gen. 48.16; Exod. 6.6; 15.13 and many times in

94

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

belongs to YHWH but has only temporarily come under the power of Egypt. The text oscillates between these elements of continuity and discontinuity connected with the deity, indicating an ideological dissonance between at least two differing understandings of Israel's origins. One asserts Israel's continuity with the ancestral traditions of Genesis and thus posits the origins of Israel with those ancestors outside of Egypt; the other claims discontinuity with those traditions and so stresses a new beginning in Egypt. Elements of both continuity and discontinuity are preserved in the final text form since the producers of the text seem to want to stress both Israel's primal origin in the ancestors of Genesis outside of Egypt and yet also the novelty of Israel's genesis as YHWH'S people inside of Egypt. Both Israel and Egypt must be persuaded of YHWH'S claim on Israel. Therefore, YHWH asserts that through the exodus both Israel (6.7) and Egypt (7.5) will know YHWH. Moses and Aaron are mandated to go to both the Israelites and to Pharaoh in order to free Israel from Egypt (6.13).179 Both Pharaoh/Egypt and Israel need to be convinced that the identities of YHWH and Israel are interwoven. As 6.7 and 7.5 make clear, the knowledge of YHWH as Israel's God is inextricably linked with the exodus of Israel from Egypt. Israel's identity, and YHWH'S identity as Israel's God, hinge on the exodus of Israel from Egypt; conversely, as long as Israel stays in Egypt Leviticus and Ruth) and the related term HIS, 'to ransom' (Exod. 13.13, 15; 21.8; 34.20) constitutes an ideological interpretive lens through which the narrative presents and understands the birth or formation of Israel as a distinct people through the exodus. One form of redemption is whereby an indentured Israelite could be redeemed from servitude by a monetary payment (Lev. 25.47-55, see also Exod. 21.8). However, if the narrative similarly envisions YHWH as redeeming Israel from indentured servitude in Egypt, the problem is that YHWH does not seem to make a payment of any sort. In contrast, the plundering motif (3.21-22; 11.2-3; 12.35-36) indicates that, if anything, the Egyptians seem to make payment to Israel. A second form or model of redemption is that of the 'blood redeemer' who avenges murder or severe harm inflicted on a relative (Num. 35; Deut. 19; and Absalom's killing of Amnon, his sister's rapist in 2 Sam. 13-14). YHWH'S killing of the Egyptian firstborn and drowning of the Egyptian army in the sea would then similarly be the action of the 'blood redeemer' to avenge the oppression of Israel by Egypt (see Unterman 1992:653). The plundering motif may then indicate an attempt by the Egyptians to ransom their lives from the death penalty imposed by the blood redeemer (on this sort of ransom, see Exod. 21.28-32). However, Pharaoh's genocidal policies towards Israel constitute murder, and since a murderer's life cannot be ransomed (Num. 35.31), the attempt fails. 179. In 6.13, the LXX omits the mandate to go to the sons of Israel (HOTTP: 96-97 sees this as a simplification of the text) and has YHWH commanding Moses and Aaron to go only to Pharaoh.

3. Egypt in Exodus

95

neither YHWH nor Israel can be who they really are, at least according to the dominant ideology of the text.180 The Identity of Moses If the overriding ideological concern of the text is the establishment of a firm non-Egyptian identity for Israel, then the identities of Moses and Aaron, Israel's leaders in the exodus, must also be firmly grounded both within Israel and outside of Egypt. It has already been noted that the identity of Moses is portrayed in ambiguous terms. Moses, for instance, does not seem to identity himself clearly as a part of Israel. In response to the recriminations of the Israelite taskmasters, Moses complains to YHWH, using the terms 'this people' and 'your people' of Israel (5.22-23). In response to a challenge to his leadership, he distances himself from the people.181 This division between Moses and the people reflects the tension in the narrative regarding Israel's identity and perhaps mirrors similar tensions in the audience of the scroll. On the other hand, however, in ch. 6 a genealogy provides a legitimate place within Israel for Moses and Aaron (6.14-25).182 The genealogy begins by listing, in order, Jacob/Israel's sons. But after a cursory treatment of Reuben and Simeon (6.14-15), a detailed treatment of Levi follows (6.16-25), and the other sons of Jacob are not mentioned at all. This shift is surprising in light of what the audience may have expected given the previous genealogical lists in Gen. 46 and Exod. 1, and so may have been designed intentionally by the producers of the text to highlight the very explicit purpose of this genealogy in legitimating Aaron and Moses. Such concern for genealogical legitimation is reminiscent of the postexilic reconstructionist concerns for pure lineage reflected in EzraNehemiah, and may suggest that some sort of resistance to the legitimacy 180. And therefore no compromises can be made with Pharaoh; thus, the motif of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart (7.5; also previously at 4.21) which will play an important part in the upcoming plague narrative. The notion that Israel cannot really be Israel in Egypt would be a strong message to Judeans settled in Egypt in the Saite, Persian or Ptolemaic periods (see Chapter 6). 181. Compare the similar dynamic in 2.14-18 where Moses flees to Midian. 182. Note the double emphasis on, and the chiastic arrangement of, the names of Aaron and Moses at the end of the genealogy (6.26-27). The genealogy is surrounded by a frame of repetitive material (6.11-13 and 26-30), suggesting that it has been interpolated into the text. Resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme) of material as a frame around an interpolation seems to have been an ancient editorial practice.

96

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

of Moses and Aaron among the target audience for the scroll of Exodus needed to be overcome. However, this effort at genealogical legitimation is itself ambiguous. For one thing, the effort to provide Aaron and Moses with an unassailably pure Levitical lineage results in having their father marry his father's sister, a type of marriage that is forbidden in Leviticus (18.12; 20.19).183 For another, an Egyptian etymology seems to lie behind several of the names in the genealogy.184 Thus both the purity and nonEgyptian character of the genealogy are undercut. Although the genealogy concludes by twice mentioning both Moses and Aaron (6.26-27), it is in reality far more concerned with Aaron. Descendants of Aaron extending all the way to one of his grandchildren are mentioned, but no descendants of Moses are listed, even though at least one son of Moses is already known.185 Genealogically, Moses disappears while Aaron lives on in his descendants.186 This dynamic fits the general diminishment of the heroic Moses that has already been noted earlier in the Exodus scroll. In contrast, in 7.1, Moses is given the status of a God 183. Durham (1987: 83) suggests that the importance of providing a pure genealogy for Aaron (and Moses) has here overridden the taboo against marrying one's father's sister. The LXX tries to rectify the problem by describing Amran's wife here as the daughter, not the sister, of his uncle. But the LXX agrees with the MT in Num. 26.59, where Jochebed, the mother of Moses and Aaron, is described as Levi's daughter. 184. The names Moses, Aaron, Miriam, Merari, Putiel, Assir and Phinehas likely have Egyptian etymologies (Noth 1966; Zadok 1986). The name Putiel is particularly interesting in that it may be a hybridized name of both Hebrew and Egyptian origin. 185. Moses' son Gershom appears in Exod. 2.22. Moses packs up his wife and sons (plural) in 4.20. A second son of Moses, Eliezer, is named later along with Gershom in Exod. 18.3-4. A few further descendants of Moses are listed in 1 Chron. 23.15-17, but in a context where they are clearly seen as secondary to Aaron's descendants who become priests. There is some confusion between Gershom, Moses' son, and Gershon, one of Levi's sons (1 Chron. 5.27; 6.1, 16 lists Levi's son as Gershom, but this is usually considered a scribal error). A different line of descent from Moses through Gershom is suggested in Judg. 18.30, where a priesthood descended from Moses is associated with a cult deemed illegitimate by the narrative (textual variants read Manasseh instead of Moses here); see Garsiel (1991: 136-38). 1 Chronicles 26.24-28 describes various descendants of Moses as levitical officials in charge of the treasuries. The second son of Moses, Eliezar, may be confused with Aaron's son Eleazar. Moses' Cushite wife in Num. 12 seems to be someone different from Zipporah, but no children connected with this wife are mentioned. 186. Durham (1987: 83-84) suggests that at the time the final form of the Tetrateuch took place, the legitimacy of Moses was firmly established but the legitimacy of Aaron was still being debated. However, it could be argued that the text seeks not just to legitimize Aaron, but also to displace the elevated status of Moses.

3 • Egypt in Exodus

97

vis-a-vis Pharaoh, while Aaron is to act as his prophet.187 The text labors, therefore, as in the erasure of Moses' descendants from the genealogy, to subvert any such tradition of an exalted status for Moses.188 While it is important that Moses be portrayed as non-Egyptian, it is also ideologically important for the text to portray him as not heroic or of divine stature.189 The ambiguity of Moses' identity is further manifested by his resistance to this second of YHWH'S commissions with the explanation that he is a person of'uncircumcised lips' (6.12,30). This comment is usually understood as a reference to some sort of speech disability like the one described by Moses in 4.10.19° However, the word b~lU ('uncircumcised') may imply that Moses felt that his success would be prevented by his outsider ('uncircumcised') status.191 Since the Egyptians seem to have practiced circumcision of a sort and refused access to the royal court to those they considered uncircumcised (Galpaz-Feller 1995), Moses could be referring to his outsider status vis-a-vis Pharaoh. However, he could just as well be referring to his lack of insider status among the Israelites;192 the possibility that he was not circumcised at all was already raised in 4.24-26. Again, the uncertain identity of Moses is highlighted. Conclusion After an initial attempt ended in failure (Exod. 5), Moses is commissioned a second time (Exod. 6). The play of continuity and discontinuity with the ancestor traditions of Genesis suggests two main perspectives on Israel's origins: from outside Egypt, and from within Egypt. The struggle of the first perspective for dominance is reflected in the need of both Israel and Egypt to be persuaded of YHWH'S plan for Israel's identity and exodus, 187. It has already been suggested that 4.16, where Moses is to be as a God to Aaron and Aaron is to be his mouth, not only subordinates Aaron to Moses, but also may indicate a tradition of a (semi) divine status for Moses. The word 'prophet' is used in Exodus only of Aaron (here) and of Miriam (15.20). 188. As Durham (1987: 86) remarks: 'at every crucial point, the presence of Moses is either forgotten or at least obscured by the Presence of Yahweh'. 189. The image of Moses as both Egyptian and as heroic or even (semi-) divine may have been held by Judeans settled in Egypt. 190. Brueggemann (1994b: 735), however, cautions against too quickly making a connection between the two texts. 191. Ezekiel 32 and 44 make extensive use of the epithet 'uncircumcised' as a category of exclusion and derision. 192. Abraham institutes circumcision in Gen. 17. Exodus 12.48 excludes the uncircumcised from participation in the Passover.

98

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

and in the genealogical legitimation of Moses and Aaron as genuine Israelites which forms the centerpiece of this chapter of Exodus. And yet the ambiguity of especially Moses' identity continues to attest to the presence of alternative traditions or understandings that confound or cloud the sharp ethnic distinction that the text is working to create. Plagues (7.8-11.10) It is in the plague narrative that the issue of Israel's identity vis-a-vis Egypt comes to a head. A striking feature of this narrative is that three times in it YHWH insists on an explicit, unequivocal distinction between Israel and Egypt (8.19 [23]193; 9.4; 11.7). That the distinction is insisted upon repeatedly with such vigor suggests that it was not self-evident or accepted by all members of the audience of the final text form of the scroll; it was a distinction that needed to be established. Moreover, violence and death mark this distinction. An escalating series of plagues, culminating with the climactic words of YHWH 'that you may know that YHWH distinguishes/ separates between Egypt and Israel' (11.7), lead inexorably to the death of the Egyptian firstborn and finally to the annihilation of Egypt in the sea. The impossibility of any rapprochement between Israel and Egypt is forcibly portrayed in the drawing of the boundaries of identity in blood. In the following, the analysis will focus on how the rhetoric of the narrative develops an identity for Israel as separate from Egypt. This involves unraveling several different threads of the narrative tapestry which contribute variously to the construction (or subversion) of a distinct identity for Israel. Since the purpose of this narrative segment is so singly directed towards Israel's identity separate from Egypt, the identity of YHWH will receive only brief treatment on its own, and the identity of Moses will not be considered separately at all. The Identity of Israel vis-a-vis Egypt Essentially the plague narrative portrays the cosmic contest between YHWH and Pharaoh for the definition and ownership of Israel. The narrative itself, however, begins with a more mundane version of this contest; namely, the competition between Moses/Aaron and the Egyptian

193. Where MT and English translation differ in verse numbering, the verse numbers in the English translation are enclosed in square brackets

3. Egypt in Exodus

99

magicians (7.8-13). While the greater cosmic contest is presented largely in solemn and serious tones, the contest with the Egyptian magicians contains elements of satirical ethnic stereotyping,194 and seeks to discredit the image of Egypt as a place of richness and wisdom. The contest begins with the transformation of staffs into snakes (7.8-13).195 While both Aaron and the Egyptian magicians are able to perform this trick, Aaron simply does so at the command of Moses. The Egyptian magicians do so DiTEn bn ('by their secret or arcane arts', 7.11); this phrase conjures up an image of the incomprehensible babbling of incantations.196 Furthermore, Aaron's staff is able to gobble up their staffs (7.12). Thus, the vaunted power of the D'EDf! ('wise ones') and G^BCnn ('conjurers'), the D'DQin ('scholar magicians') of Egypt,197 is ridiculed and discredited by Aaron and Moses, the Israelite heroes.198 The contest with the Egyptian magicians continues into the first plague, the plague of blood, which the Egyptian magicians are also able to duplicate 'by their secret or arcane arts' (7.22). However, instead of being able to reverse the plague, they have the power only to imitate its debilitating effects, thus intensifying the nuisance that the plague represents to the population of Egypt (7.21, 24). Furthermore, if Moses and Aaron had

194. The contest with the Egyptian magicians is of the popular folk genre 'contest between magicians' (see S. Thompson 1966: V, 2.67, 309). 195. Irwin(1977:195) draws attention to a similar motif in the Egyptian story 'The Wax Crocodile'. Houtman (1993: 137-38) suggests that the pP ('snake') in the biblical story should be understood as a crocodile. 196. See also 7.22; 8.3 [7]; and 8.14 [18], where the phrase appears asnrreta. It is usually connected to the root OK1? (see Judg. 4.21) with its connotations of secrecy and stealth. Alternatively, it may suggest the connotation of the blazing brilliance of a magical illusion (from the root BH *?), or the connotation of entangling in magical spells (from the root 01^). 197. The term D'QBin is itself an Egyptian loan word, meaning 'priest-reader'. All three terms designate the same group of people: those learned in secret knowledge and thus capable of interpreting dreams and displaying supernatural powers. Their presence at the royal court is indicative of their power and prestige. See also Gen. 41, which is also set in the Egyptian court, and Dan. 1-2, set in the court of Babylonia. That these are all non-Israelite contexts suggests that an exotic foreign, if not forbidden, practice is being described. 198. Note that, whereas the sign of the snake was given in 4.1-5 to persuade Israel, here it is directed towards convincing Pharaoh. Also, the snakes here are the more awesome and fearsome (pP), with their connotations as monsters or dragons of chaos, (e.g. Gen. 1.21;Ps. 74.13; Isa. 27.1) rather than the EJm ('snake') of 4.1-5. However, the term tOTT] is picked up again in 7.15.

100

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

already turned most of the water in Egypt into blood,199 very little water remained for the magicians to demonstrate their power.200 Similarly, the magicians are able only to duplicate, but not reverse, the annoying second plague of frogs (8.3 [7]). A humorous picture is presented of frogs jumping everywhere, even into Pharaoh's bed and into the ovens and kneading bowls (7.28 [8.3]). Pharaoh is unable to turn to his own magicians for help, but must request that Moses and Aaron bring an end to the frog plague (8.4 [8]). And then, ironically, the cure is no better than the plague itself; the frogs die everywhere and stink up the land (8.9-10 [13-14]). The ineffective power of the magicians reaches its limits with the third plague of gnats; this plague the magicians are not able to duplicate (8.14 [18]). In their defeat, they acknowledge that some sort of divine power is atwork: 'the finger of (a) God, this!' (8.15 [19]). Couroyer(1956a) argues that this phrase is an Egyptian expression, here referring to the staff of Aaron and Moses, which is seen by the magicians from their Egyptian perspective as a divine or magical tool. The phrase itself appears elsewhere in the Pentateuch only in Exod. 31.18 and Deut. 9.10, where the two stone tablets of the covenant are described as having been written by the 'finger of God'.201 Intertextually, therefore, the magicians may be portrayed more sympathetically at this point as recognizing in the plagues YHWH'S Torah or teaching.202 The magicians appear one last time in the sixth plague; they cannot stand before Moses because they are afflicted with boils along with all the other Egyptians (9.11).203 This last trace of their contest with Moses and Aaron signifies their final humiliation and defeat, for they cannot even protect themselves from the effects of the plague. The whole series of encounters with the Egyptian magicians can be read 199. The impression given by 7.19. However, 7.21 -22,24 seem to indicate that only the water in the Nile was turned into blood. 200. Unless the magicians changed the blood back into water before changing it into blood again, which would paint an even more ludicrous picture. 201. On the possible Egyptian background of the writing of the tablets of the covenant by the finger of God, see Couroyer (1956b). 202. Durham (1987: 110) argues that the magicians are not denigrated but seen as worthy opponents. 203. The phrase ''DS1? "TQU usually means to present oneself before someone, but it can also have the connotation of making a stand or holding one's ground against someone (e.g. Judg. 2.14); the magicians are thus pictured satirically both as physically not being able to present themselves and as not being able to hold their ground against Moses in the performance of wonders.

3. Egypt in Exodus

101

as a satirical discrediting of the highly vaunted and admired wisdom of Egypt, shown here to be no match for the power of YHWH at work in Moses and Aaron.204 The contest between the Egyptian magicians and Moses/Aaron becomes in the text a means of delimiting the boundary of identity between Israel and Egypt by ridiculing what is seen as the illusionary pretensions of 'them' in contrast to the authentic power and wisdom of 'us'. Nonetheless, the boundary thus drawn is not without its ambiguity; the magicians, after all, are the first Egyptians to seemingly recognize the divine at work in Moses and Aaron. They thus enter into a role structurally opposed to Pharaoh, representative of Egypt, who continues to refuse to grant the claims and demands of Moses and Aaron any legitimacy. Some commentators have seen in the various plagues intimations of a wider contest between YHWH and specific gods of the Egyptian pantheon.205 From the perspective of the producers of the text, however, rather than a polemic against specific Egyptian gods, the plagues as a whole signify the reversal of creation (Fretheim 199la, 1991b: 108-12). Just as the first creation account in Gen. 1 presented a progressive ordering of creation through six days, so the ten plagues present a progressive disordering of creation in Egypt. The plague of darkness comes as a climax in which creation in Egypt is returned to the primordial chaotic darkness (Gen. 1.2). This reversal contains a strong critique of the portrayal of Egypt as a wellwatered garden and as a paradisiacal Eden (Gen. 13.10), a portrayal that 204. Similarly, in the Joseph story, the Egyptian magicians are portrayed as unable to interpret Pharaoh's dream (Gen. 41.8,24), but, they are not defeated and humiliated as in the Exodus story. 205. The plague of blood is seen as an attack against Hapi, the Egyptian God connected with the annual inundation of the Nile. Cassuto (1983: 99) suggests that the phrase 'and in woods and stones' in 7.19 points to the practice of Egyptian priests who washed the images of their gods, made of wood and stone, early every morning. The plague of frogs is seen as an attack against the frog-headed Egyptian goddess Heket (Cassuto 1993:101). And the plague of darkness is interpreted as an attack against the power of the Egyptian sun-God Re. Cassuto (1983:126) also sees a punning allusion to the Egyptian God Re in the !tm of 10.10, as also possibly in 5.19 and 32.12. All these interpretations, however, likely assume more detailed knowledge of Egyptian religion than the producers of the final text form had (see Durham 1987:104). Furthermore, the narrative associates judgment against the Egyptian gods only with the tenth plague: 'against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments. I am YHWH' (12.12). To read judgments against specific Egyptian gods in the other plagues is probably a case of overinterpretation.

102

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

may have been part of a positive portrayal of Egypt among the intended audience of the scroll. Thus the narrative attempts generally to discredit Egypt. The contest with the Egyptian magicians ridicules the view of Egypt as a place of wisdom and magical power, while the reversal of creation signified by the plagues casts suspicion on images of Egypt as a place of plenty. But the plague narrative also strives more specifically, in a variety of ways, to differentiate Israel from Egypt. For instance, Israel is mentioned as exempt from the effect of some of the plagues: the fourth plague of flies (8.18-19 [22-23]), the fifth plague of livestock disease (9.4,6-7), the seventh plague of hail (9.26), the ninth plague of darkness (10.23), and the tenth plague involving the death of the firstborn (11.7; 12.21-27). Some commentators assume that the text means to exempt Israel from all of the plagues, even if the exemption is not explicitly mentioned for every plague. But this assumption is questionable, especially in the case of the first three plagues before the exemption of Israel is even mentioned.206 The narrative emphasizes that the effect of many of the plagues was felt throughout all the land of Egypt. During the first plague 'there was blood in all the land of Egypt' (7.19, 21), implying that Israelites could be among the Egyptians who could not drink from the river and had to dig for water (7.21,24). The second plague of frogs extends to all the borders of Egypt (7.27 [8.2]). When the frogs die, they are described as expiring in houses, courtyards and fields (8.9 [13]) without any indication of whose these properties are, and the identity of those who heap the dead frogs into piles is also not specified (8.10 [14]); again, by implication, Israelites could be among those affected. Similarly, the third plague of gnats takes place 'in all the land of Egypt' (8.12-13 [16-17]); in fact, 'all the dust of the earth' in Egypt is turned into gnats (8.13 [17]);207 again, without any indication of exemption, one could easily assume that Israelites were also affected. 206. Philo already argued (Vit. Mos. 1.143) that the theme of the distinction of Israel from Egypt was implicit in all the plagues and that Israel was spared from the effect of the plagues from the start (see Childs 1974: 157). But such a view depends on reading distinctions made in the narrative of the later plagues back into the earlier plagues. While such 'back-reading' is a legitimate interpretive move and may actually indicate the dominant ideology of the producers of the text, it should not be used to obscure the traces of other ideologies against which the producers of the text may have been writing. 207. The LXX tones this hyperbolic statement down by saying 'in all the dust of the land there were gnats'.

3. Egypt in Exodus

103

Although an exemption of Israel from the effect of the plagues begins to be mentioned with the fourth plague, the hyperbolic descriptions of the allencompassing scope of the plagues continue. The fourth plague of flies is said to spread destruction 'in all the land of Egypt' (8.20 [24]). The sixth plague of boils is present 'in all the land of Egypt' (9.9) and affects 'all Egypt' (9.11). The seventh plague of hail takes place 'in all the land of Egypt' (9.22, 24, 25). The eighth plague of locusts covers the land and houses of Egypt right to the borders (10.5-6, 14-15). The ninth plague of darkness covers 'all the land of Egypt' for three days (10.22). And, finally, the tenth plague is announced as inclusive: 'all the firstborn of Egypt' (11.6, see also 12.29) in 'all the land of Egypt' (11.7) will be affected. There thus exists a tension in the narrative between the wide-ranging extent of the plagues and the explicit exemption of Israel from at least five of them. Part of this tension can be dissolved by attributing it to the use of hyperbole. The extravagant exaggeration in the description of the extent of the plagues is meant to underline the awesome power of YHWH and, in turn, the incredible hard-heartedness of Pharaoh, even if this leads to some far-fetched results.208 In other words, the exemption of Israel from the plagues may not necessarily contradict the rhetorical description of the extent of the plagues. However, since the motif of Israel's exemption appears only with the fourth plague, it seems reasonable that Israel may have suffered the effects of at least the first three plagues along with the Egyptians. More problematic, however, is the means whereby Israel seems to be exempted from the effects of at least some of the subsequent plagues; namely, by residence in a separate territory, Goshen (8.18 [22]; 9.26).209 But what and where is Goshen? It is described both times in Exodus as an f*~1K ('land'), presumably meaning a distinct territory. If the plagues 208. For instance, the statement that 'all the dust of the earth became gnats in all the land of Egypt' (8.13 [17]) is literally incredible. Similarly, the statement that 'all the livestock of Egypt died' in the fifth plague (9.6) is literally contradicted by the mention of Egyptian livestock in the seventh plague (9.19-21). (Animals are also said to be affected by the boils of the sixth plague, but there nora, 'animal/cattle' is used rather than the HjpD, 'livestock', of the fifth plague). The seventh plague of hail is recounted in hyperbolic terms (9.24-25), but later the text tones down this exaggeration by noting that not all the crops were mined (9,31 -32). 209. Even the references to Goshen, however, are not consistent. For example, Goshen is not mentioned in the distinction between Israelite and Egyptian livestock in the fifth plague; only 'tomorrow this thing/plague will be in the land' (9.5)—with no specification of which land or territory. In 10.23 the Israelites are also exempted from the plague on the basis of where they live, but there is no explicit mention of Goshen.

104

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

affect 'all Egypt', then Goshen, to be exempt, must be outside of Egypt. And yet, the whole purpose of the exodus account is premised on the presence of Israel in Egypt. Furthermore, the location of the Israelites in this one territory contrasts with the picture elsewhere in Exodus that they are found throughout Egypt.210 Most problematic is the final plague that is averted from the houses of the Israelites by the mark of blood on the lintel and doorposts of their houses (12.7,12-13,21-27). If all of Israel lived in a separate territory, such a method of distinguishing their houses would not be necessary.211 Scholars usually locate Goshen in the eastern delta region of Egypt.212 But no satisfactory equivalence with places in the eastern delta has been conclusively established.213 For one thing, there is no Egyptian equivalent to either the Hebrew ] t£ft or Greek PEGS |_i, and the Hebrew and Greek terms themselves cannot be connected philologically. The identification of Goshen with the twentieth nome of lower Egypt, designated as 'Arabia' by the Greek geographers Pliny and Ptolemy, depends on the LXX, which reads FECEM 'Apafias ('Gesem of Arabia') in Gen. 45.10 and 46.34.214 The LXX designation has also been equated with the sphere of influence of Gesem the Arab, a Persian official of the fifth century BCE and an 210. 1.7 mentions that the 'land', presumably Egypt, was filled with the sons of Israel. In 5.12, 'the people' scattered in all the land of Egypt to find stubble to use as straw in their brick making. While likely hyperbole to emphasize the extreme extra effort that was placed on the workers, the statement also suggests the presence of Israel throughout the land of Egypt. The motif of the plundering of the Egyptians (3.21-22; 11.2-3; 12.35-36) seems to presume that the Israelites lived among Egyptian neighbours. In fact, there is no reason for the audience to suppose that Israel lives in a separate territory in Egypt until Goshen is mentioned for the first time in 8.18 [22]. Of course, the preceding book of Genesis mentions Goshen several times, but the term there is also not without its problems and ambiguities. Source critics solve this problem by pointing out that J pictures the Israelites as confined to Goshen, whereas E has them living side by side with the Egyptians. 211. Similarly, in the immediately preceding plague of darkness, while the Israelites are described as having light 'in their dwellings' (10.23b), Goshen is not mentioned. The reference to the Israelite dwellings does not necessarily point to a separate territory, and may in fact anticipate the distinction between houses, not territories, that will be made in the next and final plague. 212. The connection of Goshen with the eastern delta region of Egypt is dependent on references in Genesis (45.10; 46.28-29, 34; 47.1, 4, 6, 27; 50.8). 213. For a summary of the data, see Ward (1992). 214. The place name Gsm.t, found on several geographical lists of the Ptolemaic period, has been equated with the LXX TeasM, but the reading is not certain (Ward 1992).

3. Egypt in Exodus

105

opponent of Nehemiah (Neh. 2.19; 6.1-2,6). Thus, while the name in the LXX seems to have been meant to point to some place in the eastern delta of Egypt, in the MT it remains unattached to any extrabiblical toponyms. The eastern delta was a place that outsiders often entered in order to find pasture for their flocks, as ancient Egyptian records show (e.g. ANET: 259); the reference to Rameses and Pithom in Exod. 1.11, cities that interpreters usually locate in the eastern delta,215 support this general location. But Goshen also refers in Joshua (10.41; 11.16; 15.51) to locations in southern Judah.216 It seems that, at least in the MT, Goshen remains unlocatable and functions perhaps more as a symbolic territory, ambiguously located on the margins between Egypt and Canaan.217 In the plague narrative, then, Goshen functions twice to mark a utopic distinction between Israel and Egypt,218 while the remainder of the narrative portrays Israel as dwelling among the Egyptians.219 While exemption from some of the plagues and residence in Goshen are incomplete means whereby Israel is distinguished from Egypt, a much stronger case is made in the language of the deity. The dialogues between YHWH and Moses and Pharaoh abound in the ethnic rhetoric of'us' versus 'them'. The discourse of YHWH is especially strong in the use of the contrast between ^ftV ('my [i.e. YHWH'S] people') and ~[DI? ('your [i.e. Pharaoh's] people', see 7.26-29 [8.1-4]; 8.16-19 [20-23]; 9.13-19). The distinction is not quite as starkly drawn, however, in the discourse of Pharaoh and Moses. Pharaoh speaks of 'DU ('my people', 8.4 [8]; 9.28), but never of 'your people'. Moses speaks of ~p# ('your [i.e. Pharaoh's] people', 8.5 [9], 7 [11]), but never of 'my people'.220 Conversely, while 215. Uphill (1968, 1969), however, suggests that Pithom is to be located at Heliopolis near present day Cairo. 216. In these instances, the LXX reads fooop instead of FEDEM, suggesting that in the LXX tradition these places were considered different from the Goshen in Egypt. 217. See the analysis of Goshen in Chapter 2 on Genesis. 218. Ethnic discourse often includes an ideology of space: a territory or homeland that is associated with the particular group. However, this space need not be inhabited by the members of the group, nor need it necessarily be 'real' space. Fictive or Utopian spaces often function as part of the ethnic discourse of colonial or diasporal groups. On these types of ethnic groups, see A.D. Smith (1992). 219. Egypt and Israel are not physically separated until the pillar interposes itself between the Egyptian and Israelite camps (14.20). 220. Moses' words in 8.6 [10] 'so that you (i.e. Pharaoh) will know that there is no one like YHWH our God' seem to create the classic dichotomy between 'us' and 'them' in the MT. The LXX here, however, reads OTI OUK EOTCO aXAo? TrAr|V Kupiou ('that

106

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Pharaoh speaks only of DUTl^N ('your [i.e. Moses and Aaron/Israel's] God', 8.21 [25], 24 [28]; 10.8,16-17) and never of 'my/our God', Moses speaks only of 13^8 ('our God', 8.6 [10], 22 [26]; 10.25-26), and never of 'your God'. Thus, Pharaoh seems willing to acknowledge YHWH as Israel's God but not Israel as a separate people, while Moses for his part identifies with Israel's God but not necessarily with Israel as his people. That is to say, narratively, while the distinction between Egypt and Israel is clearly articulated by the character YHWH, in contrast, the characters Pharaoh and Moses articulate various grades of ambiguity regarding this distinction. Three times YHWH posits a clear distinction between Israel and Egypt (8.19 [23]; 9.4; 11.7); the problem is to convince both Egypt and Israel of this distinction. Furthermore, that the distinction is insisted upon with such vigor suggests that, in the context of the primary production and consumption of the final text form, this distinction was not at all self-evident but needed to be established in opposition to alternate views. That is, the audience towards which the Pentateuch was first directed included those for whom the distinction between Israel and Egypt was not important or self-evident, or was of a different nature altogether. Because the distinctions that matter most are those drawn between near neighbors (J.Z. Smith 1985: 5), it is most likely that the context for the contestation of these various views was not one of distance and isolation from Egypt, but of proximity to and interaction with it. YHWH first claims a clear distinction between Egypt and Israel when he announces to Pharaoh, through Moses, the fourth plague (8.18-19 [22-23]): I will make separate (hiphil of H^S) on that day the land of Goshen, upon which my people are situated; no swarm will be there, so that you will know that I am YHWH in the midst of the land. And I will set a ransom (ms TIQfcJl) between my people and your people; tomorrow will be this sign.

The ethnic distinction between 'my people' and 'your people' is immediately evident; it would be clear to the audience of these words that a distinction between YHWH'S people and Pharaoh's people is divinely mandated. However, the manner of the distinction is less obvious. there is none besides the Lord'), thus emphasizing a universal monotheism instead of an ethnic dichotomy. In this case the LXX displays a universalizing tendency as opposed to the ethnic dichotimization in the MT.

3. Egypt in Exodus

107

First, the rare verb n^S is used. This verb appears in the Pentateuch only in Exodus and always there in the context of some sort of differentiation of Israel: in 8.18 [22] the separation of Goshen, in 9.4 separation between the livestock of Egypt and Israel, in 11.7 separation between Egypt and Israel, and in 33.16 separation of Israel from all the people of the earth.221 Thus its primary signification of ontological or spatial separation seems to be firmly established in the scroll of Exodus. However, the verb appears three more times in the Hebrew Bible in Psalms 4.4 [3], 17.7 and 139.14, where it has a sense of uniqueness or distinction more by virtue of being extraordinary rather than separate. In these instances, the verb H ^S functions very much like the orthographically similar verb K ba, which means 'to be extraordinary' in the sense of being either marvelous or incomprehensible or impossible.222 This overlap of meanings compromises the strict sense of spatial or ontological separation indicated by the use of the verb H ^S in Exodus, and suggests that the separation of Israel from Egypt is more one of degree than kind. That is, Egypt is ordinary while Israel is extraordinary, which does not necessarily imply that they must be separate in origin or location. The LXX also hints at this alternative meaning in that, for each instance of ri^B in the MT of Exodus, it reads rrapaSo^a^oo ('to make wonderful, extraordinary', 8.18 [22]; 9.4; 11.7) or sv6oi;a£co ('to hold in high esteem', 33.16).223 When a sense of strict separation or division is meant, the Pentateuch usually employs the verbs ^"Q or "HE .224 The distinctive use of n ^S in Exodus, with its different concept of separation, seems to indicate some 221. Thenotion of separationis reinforced by theuse of]13...]''3, 'between' in9.4 and 11.7, and by the use of the partitive |G, 'from' in 33.16. 222. BDB: 811, on the basis of an Arabic cognate, suggests that n bs and K bs are actually parallel forms; in Ps. 139.14, they appear in juxtaposition. Both verbs seem to be based on some notion of separation: n ^S on separation per se, implying spatial or ontological separation, and N bs on separation from the ordinary or expected, implying more of a separation of degree. 223. The LXX could possibly have read the verb N ^S in its Hebrew Vorlage in these instances. The Samaritan Pentateuch, for instance, reads N^S in 9.4 and 11.7 (but not in 8.18 [22]). 224. For "?~D, see especially Lev. 20.24-26 where this verb is used of the separation between Israel and the nations. The verb ~I~S is similarly used of the separation of peoples and nations; see especially Gen. 13.9,11,14 (separation of Lot, ancestor of the Ammonites and Moabites, from Abraham), Gen. 25.23 (separation of Esau, ancestor of the Edomites, from Jacob), and Deut. 32.8 (division of the human race into separate nations with fixed boundaries).

108

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

ambiguity, even in YHWH'S words, as to whether the divinely mandated separation between Israel and Egypt is to be understood as complete or more as a matter of degree.225 Secondly, the phrase "|QI7 ) n m 'Dl? J'3 HIS TIDfol ('and I will set a ransom between my people and your people', 8.19 [23]) is odd. A ransom typically involves, not the act of distinguishing between different peoples, but a substitutionary payment to free a party from a particular situation. The root ms ('to ransom, redeem') in the Pentateuch is used for a variety of situations: the indemnity payment made by the owner of a goring ox to the family of the victim as a substitute for his liability for the death of the victim (Exod. 21.28-32),226 the redemption of a female slave from her owner (Exod. 21.7-11; Lev. 19.20),227 and, most frequently, the 'buying back' of the male firstborn of both animal and human who, according to the religious ideology of the Pentateuch, belong to YHWH (Exod. 13.12, 15; 22.28b; Lev. 27.26). For the latter situation, the Pentateuch discusses the procedure for the redemption of three types of firstborn.228 Male firstborn of clean animals such as cattle, sheep and goats are not to be ransomed, but are to be sacrificed to YHWH, the priests sharing the meat from these animals (Exod. 13.15b; 34.19; Num. 18.15, 17-18). Male firstborn of unclean animals—the donkey is the example given—require 225. The notion of a separation of degree supports an Israelite diaspora community in Egypt, since it would allow Israel to be in Egypt and still maintain a distinct identity. (The notion that Israel is distinct from Egypt in terms of being extraordinary also allows for an Egyptian origin for Israel; Israel is not ontologically or spatially separate from Egypt but developed out of Egypt as an extraordinary manifestation.) Conversely, the notion of absolute ontological or spatial separation would question the very possibility of an authentic Israelite diaspora community on Egyptian soil. 226. That is, the owner, being liable to the death penalty, would make a compensatory payment to the family of the victim as a substitute for giving his own life. If the victim was a slave, the payment was set at 30 shekels; otherwise the amount of payment was likely negotiated with the victim's family. 227. In Exod. 21.7-11, if a slave-bride (Durham 1987: 322) dissatisfies her ownerhusband, one of the options is to provide for her redemption, presumably by her family. No means or price is set for this transaction. In Lev. 19.20, it is implied that if a man became betrothed to a slave girl he would have to redeem or ransom her from her owner. Again, no means or price is set for this transaction. 228. Two Hebrew terms are employed to signify the firstborn: Dm "IDS ('opener of the womb') and "1133 ('firstborn'). The first term is more typically applied to animals, while the second term is used more often in the case of humans. The male firstborn is meant, as the occasional additional qualifier "OT 'male' indicates (e.g. Exod. 13.12, 15).

3. Egypt in Exodus

109

that a clean animal, such as a sheep, be sacrificed as a substitute; alternately, the unclean animal's neck must be broken (Exod. 13.13a; 34.20a; Num. 18.16; Lev. 27.27).229 Finally, male firstborn of humans require a substitute in the form of some sort of ransom, usually a payment of money to the sanctuary (Exod. 13.13b, 15; 34.20b; Num. 3.11-13, 44-51; 18.16).230 The question is what these procedures of substitutionary ransom have to do with YHWH'S determination to make a distinction between Israel and Egypt (8.18-19 [22-23]). Israel has already been identified as YHWH'S male firstborn in Exod. 4.22-23. Moreover, the Pentateuchal legislation regarding the ransoming of the firstborn described above twice includes a motive clause justifying the legislation by reference to the killing of the Egyptian firstborn in the tenth and final plague (Exod. 13.14-15; Num. 3.11-13). Thus, the phrase 'I will set a ransom between my people and your people' (8.19 [23]) could be read as a proleptic reference to the tenth plague which will distinguish between Israel, whose firstborn will live, and Egypt, whose firstborn will die. If so, however, based on the substitutionary logic of the ransom procedure, what sort of exchange, either monetary or sacrificial, is involved? The only monetary transaction involved in the exodus is the 'plundering' of Egypt by Israel. According to the logic of ransom, this would signify a payment whereby the Egyptians ransom themselves, but this does not seem to be the case. Another possibility is that the death of the Egyptian firstborn functions as a sacrificial substitute for the Israelites. When Israel is born as a distinct people, as the firstborn of YHWH (Exod. 4.22-23), the substitutionary ransom required of every firstborn male must be paid. In this case, Egypt is the substitutionary sacrifice. The ethnogenesis of Israel as a people, in terms of the metaphor of ransom, involves the drawing of distinctions via substitutionary violence.231 229. In the case of a vow (Lev. 27.27), an unclean animal could be ransomed by paying to the sanctuary its assessed value plus one-fifth. 230. The type or amount of ransom for the human male firstborn is not specified in Exod. 13.12-16 or 34.19-20. hi Num. 3.44-51, the Levites count as substitutes, but a ransom of 5 shekels apiece is set for human male firstborn over and above the number of Levites. See also Num. 18.16. Leviticus 27.3-8 provides a list of monetary equivalents for human lives, ranging from 5 to 50 shekels depending on age and gender, for the purpose of ransoming from a vow; in this list, the male from one month to five years of age is equivalent to 5 shekels. 231. The use of the root mS in Deuteronomy (7.8; 9.26; 13.6[5]; 15.15; 21.8; and 24.18) is quite different in that it refers exclusively to the rescue of Israel from Egypt

110

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Thirdly, the textual variants show that the meaning of Exod. 8.19 [23] is difficult or contested. The LXX reads Scooco SiacrroAr] ava (jeaov TOU EMOU Aaou Kai ava (jeaov TOU oou Aaou ('I will grant/sanction/permit a difference between my people and your people'). The term 5iaoroXr| ('distinction, difference') does not seem to translate the MT term ms ('ransom'), and is possibly a translation of P "?B, from the verb n bs ('to be separate/distinct'). However, when nbs appears in the MT in other passages in Exodus where the distinctiveness of Israel is asserted (9.4; 11.7; 33.16), there the LXX does not translate the verb as SiaoxoAAco ('to separate, distinguish'). Thus, perhaps yet another term lies behind the LXX translation.232 Durham (1987: 111-12), following G.I. Davies (1974:49192), proposes an emendation of the MT ma to n~ns, from the verb "HS ('to divide'), which the LXX does translate twice (Gen. 25.23; 30.40) with SiaojoAAco.233 These textual variations point out two different understandings of YHWH'S intention in Exod. 8.18-19 [22-23]: one is that of ransom, with its allusion to the redemption of the firstborn through a substitutionary sacrifice, and the second is that of division, separation or distinction. Either understanding speaks of a distinction between Israel and Egypt, but the understanding of ransom articulates more directly with the final plague (and the following climax at the sea) in which the distinction is signified quite literally by the death of Egyptians. This overlapping of notions of substitutionary ransom with notions of differentiation make the difference between Israel and Egypt far more compelling; indeed, rather than merely as the ransoming of slaves from slavery, without any connotation of the ransoming of the firstborn. The instances in Deuteronomy thus resemble the use of the root "7K3 in legislation regarding the redemption of property (Lev. 25.24-34) or kin (Lev. 25.47-55) that have been sold because of dire need. However, since the exodus does not seem to involve a payment to the Egyptians, Deuteronomy seems to refer more specifically to the concept of the C"in VlM ('redeemer/avenger of blood', Num. 25; Deut. 19) who avenges a homicide by killing the perpetrator. In any case, the functions of ms and bm can overlap, as they seem to do in the discussion of ransoming property, animals or human beings from vows in Lev. 27 (Snaith 1967: 268; Budd 1984: 36). 232. The LXX translates as TrapaSoKEco ('to make marvelous/mysterious') in Exod. 9.4 and 11.7, and as evSoKEco ('to make glorious') in 33.16, both possibly readings of N bs. Although the LXX uses 61 otoToAXco to translate some 21 different Hebrew verbs, il'PS is not among them. Once, in Lev. 22.21, the LXX uses SiotOToAAco to translate the closely related verb &"?£). 233. Durham (1987: 111) sees the word n~l~IS as meaning something like a 'protective shield'.

3. Egypt in Exodus

111

a difference of degree (as suggested by the ambiguous verb il "?S3 or 8 "73), it becomes an issue of life and death. The second time that YHWH explicitly claims a clear distinction between Egypt and Israel is in the announcement of the fifth plague of livestock disease (9.4): YHWH will distinguish/separate (hiphil of n"?!)) between the livestock of Israel and the livestock of Egypt; and not one thing of all that belongs to the sons of Israel will die.

In this case, the actual selective outcome of the plague is explicitly described (9.6); Pharaoh even makes inquiries, only to discover that indeed not one of the livestock of the Israelites has died (9.7). The textual variants in the Samaritan Pentateuch (8^2 instead of H^S) and the LXX (TrapaSoxeeo) again indicate uncertainty over the type of separation between Israel and Egypt, whether it is ontological and spatial or more a matter of degree. YHWH, for a third and final time in the plague narrative, asserts an explicit distinction between Israel and Egypt in the announcement of the tenth plague. Whereas previously YHWH'swords have distinguished between the territories in which Israel and Egypt live (8.18 [22]), or between their livestock (9.4), now the distinction unequivocally becomes one between Israel and Egypt per se. YHWH announces that he will go through Egypt and every firstborn, animal and human, will die, but in contrast (11.7): Not a dog will sharpen his tongue against any of the sons of Israel,234 against either human or animal; in order that you (plural) will know that YHWH distinguishes/separates (hiphil of n ^S)235 between Egypt and Israel.

Again, a distinction between 'them' and 'us', between Egypt and Israel, is starkly drawn. However, whereas YHWH'S two previous assertions of the 234. The dog generally appears in the Hebrew Bible as an unclean, loathsome creature, and thus in formulaic expressions of opprobrium and self-abasement (Botterweck 1995). Conversely, in Egypt, while the dog figured as a metaphor for 'slave/servant', it was also considered with affection as a domestic pet and functioned as a symbol in the religious cult, particularly that of Anubis, the dog-headed God of the dead. The dog is also associated with death in the Hebrew Bible, but with a shameful death (dogs are pictured as eating unburied corpses—e.g. 1 Kgs 14.11; 16.4; 21.24). The figure of the dog in 11.9 thus may imply that the sons of Israel will be protected from the shameful death that will befall the Egyptians. Durham (1987: 145) interprets the phrase 'to sharpen the tongue' as describing an attitude of malice. 235. Again, the Samaritan Pentateuch here reads N^S instead of HI7S, and the LXX translates irapaSoKEco, most likely also reading K^B.

112

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

separation of Israel and Egypt appear in speeches that Moses is commanded to speak to Pharaoh (8.16-18 [20-23]; 9.1-4),236 in this third and final instance the speech has no explicit addressee.237 Moreover, in the phrase 'that you will know that YHWH distinguishes/separates between Egypt and Israel', the verb I7T ('to know') is not singular, referring to Pharaoh, as in 8.18 [22], but plural.238 So who is being addressed? At first glance, the speech in 11.4-8 seems to be addressed to Israel, since the immediately preceding verses (11.1-3) are directed to Israel.239 Furthermore, Moses has just previously indicated that he will never see Pharaoh again (10.29), seeming to bring his audiences with Pharaoh to an end. But a subtle shift occurs in v. 11.8: Moses now seems to be speaking not YHWH'S words but his own words, and Pharaoh and his court, not the Israelites, are being addressed.240 Some commentators have solved this problem by seeing either different sources in the text241 or by bracketing 11.1-3 as parenthetical.242 It seems, however, that the text in its present form presents an ambiguity that cannot be conjured away but rather is a clue to the dynamics of the formation of biblical Israel's identity. That is, although YHWH'S assertions of distinction between Israel and Egypt are

236. In both cases the actual delivery of the speech is not reported, only the actual occurrence of the threatened plagues (8.20 [24]; 9.6-7). One can assume that the narrative means for its audience to understand that Pharaoh heard the speeches and that therefore, within the narrative world, it is Pharaoh that needs to hear and learn of the distinction between Israel and Egypt. Of course, by reporting only YHWH'S command to Moses to deliver the speech, the narrative betrays that its true concern is that the audience hear the speech and be convinced of the distinction between Israel and Egypt. 237. Furthermore, in 11.4-8 Moses is portrayed as actually delivering this divine speech without any explicit prior authorization from YHWH. 238. The LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch both read the verb as a singular here. 239. Admittedly, however, in 11.1-3 the ambiguous DI?n ('the people') is used and not the more specific 'sons of Israel'. This ambiguity does not exist in the LXX reading of 11.3: 'And the Lord gave favor to his people in the sight of the Egyptians... also, the man Moses was very great before the Egyptians and before Pharaoh and before all of his servants.' 240. And the phrase at the end of 11.8 indicates that only now does Moses leave Pharaoh's presence, and not earlier, as was implied by 10.29. 241. For example, against Noth (1962: 94), who suggests that the speech in 11.4-8 is addressed to Israel, Childs (1974: 133) argues that 11.4-8 is continuous with 10.29 in the J source. 242. For example, Cassuto (1983:131) wants to see 11.1 -3 as parenthetical since he cannot conceive of YHWH speaking to Moses in the presence of Pharaoh and his court.

3. Egypt in Exodus

113

ostensibly directed to Pharaoh,243 again it is really Israel that needs to be persuaded.244 The ambiguity of the addressee of the divine speech in 11.48 reveals that the purpose of the text is to convince its audience, namely the Israel to whom the narrative is directed, to see itself as distinct from Egypt. Rhetorically, the entire account of the plagues is aimed in this direction.245 The ideological message of the narrative could thus be summarized: 'To know YHWH is to know that Israel is YHWH'S people, which is to know that Israel is distinct and separate from Egypt.' As if to underline the critical nature of this distinction, the consequences of the very knowledge of the distinction also differ according to whether the recipient of the knowledge is Egypt or Israel. For Pharaoh and Egypt, such knowledge ultimately means destruction, a closing of the future (14.30); for Israel, such knowledge means life, an exodus into a new future. Israel is described as telling the story of the plagues from generation to generation into the future (10.2), while in contrast the text mentions only the past generations of the Egyptians (10.6).246 The plague narrative thus strives in a variety of ways to construct an ultimate difference between Israel and Egypt, the strongest expression or assertion of that difference appearing in the words of YHWH (8.19 [23]; 9.4; 11.7) examined above. The ultimate transcendental authority is invoked by the text as the main support of the ethnic polarity between Egypt and Israel. Thus, at issue is also the identity of YHWH.

243. The text singles out Pharaoh as requiring knowledge of YHWH and of the distinction between Israel and Egypt in 5.2; 7.17; 8.6 [10]; 9.14,29; and 10.7. Egypt is mentioned as requiring this knowledge in 7.5, and 14.4, 18. The formulaic phrase repeated in many of these instances is 'you/they will know that I am YHWH' (7.5, 17; 8.18 [22]; 10.2; 14.4, 18) with the variants 'you will know that no one is like YHWH/ me' (8.6 [10]; 9.14 and 'you will know that to YHWH (belongs) the land' (9.29). 244. That Israel is the one who needs to learn to know YHWH is already suggested by 6.7, where YHWH announces to Moses that he will take Israel as his people and they will know that he is YHWH, and by 10.2, where the future didactic function of the telling of the story of the plagues is to make YHWH known to Israel. 245. See Durham (1987: 96, 99-100), who argues at length that the plagues themselves are not meant to bring Pharaoh or his people to belief in YHWH (otherwise there would be no hardening motif), but are rather directed to convincing Israel (both the Israel in the text and the Israel that constitutes the audience outside the text) that YHWH is its God and they are YHWH'S people. 246. This orientation towards the past in the case of Egypt is also evident in 9.18, 24.

114

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

The Identity ofYHWH On this cosmic or transcendental level, the scroll of Exodus portrays a contest between YHWH and Pharaoh that must end with the absolute victory of one side and the total defeat of the other side. But the scroll also portrays a more mundane or human level that involves negotiation, bargaining, deception and compromise between human players. This level is evident in the exchanges between Moses and Pharaoh, and it stands in tension with the cosmic level of ultimate victory and defeat. Moses quite consistently presents Pharaoh with the demand of YHWH: 'Let my people go (piel of n'xJ)247 so that they may worship/serve me' (5.16; 7.26 [8.1]; 8.16 [20]; 9.1,13; 10.3). The demand is somewhat more specific at times, in that the people are to be let go so that they may celebrate a festival to YHWH (5.1) and sacrifice to YHWH (5.2), in the wilderness (5.1,2; 7.16; 8.22 [26]), a three-day journey away (8.22 [26]). Pharaoh at first absolutely refuses this demand, but after the fourth plague of flies is willing to make some concessions. First, he requires that Israel sacrifice to YHWH within the land of Egypt (8.21 [25]);248 when Moses counters that the sacrifices will offend the Egyptians (8.22 [26]), Pharaoh gives permission to go into the wilderness as long as it is not far away (8.23 [27]). After the announcement of the eighth plague of locusts and upon the advice of his courtiers, Pharaoh negotiates permission for the men to go, but not the women, children or livestock (10.8-11). No restrictions on the place and duration of the sacrificial festival are again mentioned. After the ninth plague of darkness, Pharaoh is willing to let all the people go, as long as the livestock are left behind (10.24); Moses counters that all the livestock must go (10.25-26). One wonders whether Pharaoh might have conceded in the end. However, YHWH intervenes by hardening Pharaoh's heart (10.27) and Pharaoh breaks off negotiations (10.28). This abrupt end to negotiations that finally seemed to be leading to some resolution is inexplicable except through divine intervention. YHWH apparently has no wish to see a negotiated 247. The piel of n^ has a number of nuances. The translation 'let go' or 'set free' picks up the nuance of being released from some sort of confining or abusive situation. But the verb can also have the more negative nuance of 'dismiss, expel' as, for instance, in the formula for divorcing a wife (e.g. Deut. 22.19, 29)—in this sense it is closer to the verb Kh3 ('to drive out'), which is occasionally used of the exodus (Exod. 6.1; 11.1; 12.39). 248. Verse 8.21 [25] only mentions 'within the land', but from Pharaoh's narrative perspective Egypt is to be understood.

3. Egypt in Exodus

115

solution but brings the negotiations to an end so that the final break can be made between Israel and Egypt. Therefore, as the intensity of the plagues increase, Pharaoh is portrayed as increasingly willing to negotiate and make concessions. He even displays a growing piety toward Israel's God.249 But at every turn, Pharaoh's increasing flexibility is thwarted by the hardening of his heart. Pharaoh's heart is hardened sometimes without the mention of an explicit agent (7.1314, 22; 8.15 [19]; 9.7, 35); at other times it is either Pharaoh himself (8.11 [15], 28 [32]; 9.34) or YHWH (7.3; 9.12; 10.1,20,27; 11.10; 14.4,8, 17) who is the agent of the hardening. However, as the narrative progresses, the agent of the hardening is identified increasingly as YHWH; after the eighth plague of locusts, when Pharaoh is portrayed as most willing to negotiate, it is YHWH alone who continues to harden Pharaoh's heart and prevent him from reaching a compromise with Moses.250 Pharaoh has no alternative for he is divinely destined to take Egypt to destruction.251 The motif of the hardening of the heart represents the intrusion of the level of the cosmic contest into the level of human negotiation. But on the cosmic level the contest is one-sided; it has already been decided in favor of YHWH and so really is no contest at all. In the context of the seventh plague of hail, YHWH quite clearly announces that his intention is to wipe Egypt off the face of the earth (9.15)252 and that he is prolonging the plagues only so as to display his power and humble Egypt (9.16-17).

249. He asks Moses to pray for him (8.24 [28]; 9.28), he acknowledges that he is in the wrong (9.27), that he has sinned against YHWH (10.16), and finally, when Israel leaves, he asks for a blessing (12.32). Of course, this piety may be negatively interpreted as a sign of Pharaoh's opportunism and cynicism. 250. See Brueggemann (1995) for a totally different interpretation in which the lack of compromise is glorified and the responses of Pharaoh are seen as signs of either the humiliation or untrustworthy cunning of a recalcitrant vassal who engages in futile negotiations in bad faith. 251. It is interesting how commentators attempt to exonerate YHWH from responsibility for the hardening of Pharaoh's heart: 'God as subject (of the hardening) intensifies Pharaoh's obduracy' (Fretheim 1991b: 98); 'lest the Pharaoh pay too much attention too soon and come prematurely to less than an unquestioning belief, he (YHWH) will harden the Pharaoh's resistance so that he will pay no attention to Moses and so bring about Yahweh's rescue of the Israelites in such a manner as to provoke even the Egyptians to belief (Durham 1987: 86). 252. This verse is often translated as a conditional statement (see NRSV, NJPS), but Durham (1987: 127) argues convincingly that neither the verse nor its surrounding context suggests a conditional sense.

116

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

YHWH reiterates these sentiments just before announcing the eighth plague of locusts; he has hardened the heart of Pharaoh and his courtiers in order to prevent any human resolution of the contention between Moses and Pharaoh. Thus, the signs of the plagues will be fully performed in the midst of Egypt (10.1; see also 11.9) so that the Israelites can tell their children and grandchildren how YHWH 'toyed with Egypt' (10.2).253 YHWH apparently does not have only the exodus of Israel in mind; he also intends the utter humiliation of Egypt by which he will gain glory for himself (10.3; 14.4, 17). The plundering of Egypt (11.2-3; 12.35-36) represents the apex of Egypt's humiliation; just as the victorious party would plunder the enemy after a military defeat, so also here Egypt will be stripped of its riches.254 Thus is underlined the divine desire portrayed in the narrative to construe an Israel that is so completely separated from Egypt as to require the humiliation and even the destruction of Egypt. The cosmic contest between YHWH and Pharaoh overwhelms the more prosaic human world in which things are never as neatly or sharply divided, in which ambiguity, negotiation, compromise, contingency and the blurring of boundaries is part of everyday experience. The text attempts to do away with such uncertainties, but to do so invokes a deity who insists on a reality of stark contrasts in which Israel is not only completely other than Egypt but in which Egypt must also be destroyed in order for Israel (and its God) to exist. The ethnogenesis of Israel as portrayed in the dominant ideology of 253. The verb used here is the hithpalel of ^S with connotations of diverting or amusing oneself by making a fool of someone else (e.g. Num. 22.29); see Durham's translation (1987: 131): 'how I amused myself aggravating Egypt'. It also carries more violent connotations of abuse: see Judg. 19.25 where the verb is used to describe a gang rape. 254. Various theories have been proposed to account for the motif of the plundering or despoiling of Egypt as part of the exodus. Daube (1963: esp. 55-61) finds the pattern for the exodus in the slave release legislation of Deut. 15.12-18 and thus suggests that the plunder represents the payment due a released slave. Knight (1976: 82-83) interprets the plunder as due payment for the years of labor that Israel provided the Egyptians. Coats (1968:453-57) sees in the plundering motif the remnant of a tradition of exodus by stealth in which items were deceptively 'borrowed' from the Egyptians. The interpretation that seems best to fit the narrative context of the cosmic contest between YHWH and Pharaoh, however, is that of Durham, who sees the plundering as part of the humiliation of Egypt by YHWH: Egypt is picked clean through a process that is supernaturally enabled by YHWH. On the practice of plundering in ancient Israelite warfare, see, for example, de Vaux (1961: 255-56).

3. Egypt in Exodus

117

the text is grounded in this worldview of sharply contrasting polarities and undergirded by divine sanction. Deception also plays a part in the humiliation of Egypt and the setting apart of Israel. In his dialogues with Moses, Pharaoh is given to understand that Israel is requesting permission for a temporary pilgrimage; a three-day journey into the wilderness is explicitly mentioned (5.2; 8.22 [26]; see also 3.18). But the audience already knows that YHWH intends not a temporary pilgrimage but a permanent exodus of Israel out of Egypt and into the land of Canaan (3.8, 17-18). Eventually Pharaoh seems to sense that more than a simple temporary pilgrimage is intended; his suspicions are aroused when Moses insists that all of the people, including men, women, children, along with their livestock, are to go (10.8-11).255 Although Pharaoh may simply suspect that by moving out en masse the people are intending to permanently quit the country, his suspicions also make sense against the Pentateuchal stipulation that only adult male Israelites are required to attend the main pilgrimage festivals (Exod. 23.17; 34.23; Deut. 16.16).256 While the goal of the pilgrimage is not specified at this point in the scroll of Exodus,257 a three-day journey into the wilderness at least points to a location outside of Egypt, raising the question of whether YHWH can be legitimately worshiped or served in Egypt at all.258 The plague narrative of Exodus overwhelmingly gives the impression that the worship or 255. It is interesting that, although Pharaoh is being deceived as to the true nature of the demand 'let my people go', Moses twice accuses Pharaoh of duplicity (8.25 [29], 9.30). Of course, Moses' charge is valid—Pharaoh does not live up to his promises— but the cause is the hardening of Pharaoh's heart that is increasingly directed by YHWH. 256. These alternative conceptions of pilgrimage maybe directly connected with the situation of diaspora Judeans during the production of the final text form of the scroll of Exodus. That is, the legitimacy of pilgrimage from the diaspora, especially from the Egyptian diaspora, maybe in question. The text presents two understandings: (1) from the narrative point of view of Pharaoh, such pilgrimage is temporary; Judeans in Egypt would visit Jerusalem but would return to Egypt; (2) from the narrative point of view of YHWH, such pilgrimage actually entails a permanent migration to Palestine. Thus, according to the dominant ideology of the text, a permanent migration is presented as the proper alternative for Judeans in Egypt. 257. The audience will perhaps however remember that at the beginning YHWH declared that, after the exodus, the people will worship at the mountain of God (3.12). 258. This question would obviously be of great significance for the Judean diaspora communities in Egypt.

118

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

service of YHWH in Egypt is impossible.259 In general this is the case because, according to the dominant ideology of the text, YHWH'S people Israel cannot properly be constituted as such until they are absolutely separated from Egypt. Moreover, the impossibility of worshiping YHWH in Egypt is also indicated more specifically. For instance, Moses warns Pharaoh that Israel cannot sacrifice to YHWH within the land of Egypt because PQTD D"HiJQ rQUin ('the abomination of Egypt we will sacrifice', 8.22 [26]). That is, the sacrifices that Israel intends to offer will be seen as detestable or sacrilegious by Egypt,260 thus necessitating a three-day journey into the wilderness.261 But then the text seems to slip; Moses' words continue, 'If we sacrifice the abomination of Egypt before their eyes, they will not stone us (ID^pD 8*71)' apparently directly undermining Moses' argument. The MT reading is usually interpreted as a rhetorical question: 'If we sacrifice the abomination of Egypt before their eyes, will they not stone us?' (e.g. NJPS, NRSV). Although the absence of an interrogative particle here does not exclude this interpretation,262 it does introduce some ambiguity. Furthermore, the LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch and the Vulgate all omit the negativeto*?,suspiciously as if to correct a prior difficult reading. Thus, on the one hand, the sacrifices of Israel are presented as making impossible Israel's worship in Egypt—'will they not stone us?'; on the other hand, the sacrifices of Israel present no barrier to worship in Egypt—'they will not stone us'. This ambiguity is indicative of an ideological tension that the text is attempting to resolve, a 259. Not only can Israel not sacrifice to YHWH in Egypt, but even the knowledge of exactly what is proper to sacrifice is not available in Egypt (10.26). 260. Note that the Elephantine temple community seems to have offended the priests of the Egyptian ram God Khnum by sacrificing rams. Later, the Elephantine community was given permission by Jerusalem to restore its worship, with the exclusion, however, of animal sacrifices (see chapter 6). 261. This interpretation depends on reading the construct chain DHiJD fOUID as an objective or adverbial genitive: i.e. 'objects or practices which Egypt finds abominable', thus expressing the Egyptian point of view according to the narrative. It is also possible to read the construct chain as a subjective genitive or genitive of agent: i.e. 'Egyptian objects or practices judged as abominable [by Israel]', thus suggesting the Israelite point of view. In this second possibility, the meaning of Moses' words may be that Israel will correctly sacrifice that with which Egypt only practices abomination. Although this second meaning is more difficult to establish, it may lurk beneath the surface of the text as a sly ethnic barb against Egypt and its religious cults. 262. The context can indicate an interrogative in the absence of a special interrogative pronoun or adjective. See GKC: §150a for examples, including Exod. 8.22 [26].

3. Egypt in Exodus

119

tension between the view that Israelite worship is not possible within Egypt and the view that it is. The text desires its audience to take the first view, but has also preserved a trace of the second view. Related to the issue of the legitimacy or possibility of worship of YHWH in Egypt is the question of whether YHWH is portrayed as being present in Egypt or not. When YHWH announces that he will set apart the land of Goshen where his people live so that they will not suffer the fourth plague of flies, he appends the following purpose clause: 'so that you (i.e. Pharaoh) will know that I, YHWH, (am) in the midst of the land' (8.18 [22]). Given the mention of Goshen earlier in the verse, 'the land' here would most naturally refer to Goshen. However, later YHWH announces to Pharaoh that he will send all his plagues 'so that you (i.e. Pharaoh) will know that there is no one like me in all the land' (9.14). Furthermore, YHWH intends for Pharaoh to be effaced 'from the land' (9.15), and has only spared him so far in order that 'my name will be declared in all the land' (9.16). Finally, the end of the seventh plague of hail is promised 'so that you (i.e. Pharaoh) will know that the land belongs to YHWH' (9.29). In these cases, the whole land of Egypt seems to be meant.263 And if YHWH is in Egypt and means for his name to be declared throughout Egypt, and if indeed the land of Egypt belongs to him, then it certainly seems possible that YHWH can be worshiped or served in Egypt.264 This possibility, however, exists in tension with the problem of Israelite sacrifice in Egypt, discussed above, and with the overall impression given by the narrative that YHWH only enters Egypt with Moses in order to constitute and rescue Israel and then leaves Egypt with the exodus of Israel. Further, Moses is in contact with YHWH while he is in Egypt.265 YHWH'S 263. These references to 'the land' have, however, also been interpreted as referring to the earth or the world in general; see, for example, the NRSV and NJPS translations of 9.14, 15, 16,29. If so, then a very elevated ideology of YHWH as the supreme God of the whole world is being propounded. This may indeed fit with the kind of monotheism that is developed in Second Isaiah, and with the sort of ecumenical 'God of the heavens' ideology promulgated by the Persian empire (see T.L. Thompson 1995; Bolin 1995). But it also stands in tension, then, with the emphasis elsewhere in the narrative that worship of YHWH by Israel in Egypt is impossible. 264. Note, however, that when YHWH goes out into the midst of Egypt (11.4) to execute the tenth plague, his presence in Egypt means death for the Egyptians, not the possibility of worship or service. 265. Moses is the main protagonist by the end of the plague narrative. However, in the first three plagues and the preceding sign of the staff turning into a snake, Aaron plays a very active role; in fact, there is some confusion as to whose staff is used in

120

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

revelation of each of the plagues comes to Moses in Egypt, once, it seems, even right in Pharaoh's court (11.4-8).266 Moses prays to YHWH in Egypt.267 In fact, prayer is offered to YHWH in Egypt on behalf of the Egyptian ruler; Pharaoh requests that Moses pray for him and Moses does so (8.4-5 [8-9], 24-25 [28-29]; 9.28-29; 10.17-18).268 Finally, the presence of what seem to be' YHWH-fearers'269 among those attached to the Egyptian court confounds the notion that YHWH cannot be served or worshiped in Egypt, and also, more importantly, blurs the distinction between Egypt and Israel. After the announcement of the seventh plague of hail, some of Pharaoh's officials, described as 'fearing the word of YHWH' (mrr ~Q~rnK NTH), put their slaves and livestock under shelter (9.20), while others, described as 'not taking the word of YHWH to heart' (mn1 "DT^K inb nerK1? ~\m), leave their slaves and livestock in the open. A distinction is thus made among Pharaoh's people, based on their response to YHWH'S word, which complicates the rather stark separation between Egypt and Israel otherwise advocated by YHWH in the text. However, this distinction among the Egyptians is short-lived; soon Moses insists that neither Pharaoh nor his officials yet fear YHWH God (9.30). The narrator then informs the audience that Pharaoh and his officials what way in the first plague of blood, indicating some tension between the roles of Aaron and Moses. After the third plague of gnats, though, with the exception of one more brief appearance in the sixth plague of boils (9.8-12), Aaron no longer appears in an active role. The plague of gnats and the plague of boils are also the last two times that the Egyptian magicians appear and they are shown to be completely defeated. It seems that with the end of the contest with the magicians, Aaron's active role is no longer required and his name now appears only formulaically joined to the name of Moses (e.g. 8.21 [25]; 9.27; 10.3, 16; 11.10; 12.1, 28 etc.). 266. In 12.1 the text is very specific in indicating that YHWH spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt. 267. However, Moses is portrayed as leaving the presence of Pharaoh (8.8 [12]; 10.18), and even the city, before praying (9.29, 33)—perhaps Egyptian cities, at least the royal residential cities, were not seen as appropriate places to offer prayer to YHWH. 268. This may reflect the practice of offering prayers for the ruling house that Ptolemaic rulers expected of their subjects and which (diaspora) Jews were quite willing to do. 269. The term 'YHWH-fearers' alludes to those Gentile sympathizers and/or adherents of Judaism called 'God-fearers' who are mentioned in Josephus, the New Testament, rabbinic literature and various Jewish inscriptions. The extent of their involvement in Judaism and the degree of their integration into the Jewish community varied greatly (S.J.D. Cohen 1989).

3. Egypt in Exodus

121

hardened their hearts (9.34; see also 10.1) even though subsequently those officials advise Pharaoh to let the people go (10.7).270 The text, in the interests of constructing and maintaining a separation between Egypt and Israel, thus abruptly seems to foreclose on the possibility that Egyptians might be sympathetic or receptive to Israel's God. And yet in the process of establishing the boundary between Egypt and Israel, the text contains these tantalizing glimpses that compromise the boundary's impermeability. YHWH'S identity is constructed in the text such that Israel cannot worship or serve YHWH in Egypt, thus necessitating Israel's separation from Egypt. But again there are traces in the text of an alternate view that sees some sort of worship or service of YHWH by an Israel in Egypt as possible, even if only the service of prayer (without sacrifice) together with an occasional pilgrimage. The tension between these two views is a clue to the historical situation that this narrative in its final text form is designed to address. Conclusion The plague narrative presents a complex tapestry in which various narrative threads dealing with the interrelated identities of Israel and Egypt are intertwined. The dominant voice of the plague narrative, heard especially in the pronouncements of YHWH, is one that wishes to construct an irrevocable and absolute difference or separation between Israel and Egypt. But at the same time other voices can be reconstructed from various clues in the text, voices that blur the boundary between Egypt and Israel. The contest with the Egyptian magicians, while serving to discredit the vaunted wisdom and power of Egypt, also portrays the capability of the wise ones of Egypt to come to a recognition of Israel's God. The rhetoric of 'us' versus 'them', while strong in YHWH'S speech, is muted in the speech of Pharaoh and Moses. The exemption of Israel from the plagues is incomplete and ambiguous. The possibility that Israel can worship or serve YHWH in Egypt is fleetingly glimpsed. Against these alternative views, however, the dominant voice of the text thunders 'that you will know that YHWH distinguishes/separates between Egypt and Israel' (11.7). The divine voice forecloses on the human level of negotiation and compromise, aiming for such a complete separation of Israel and Egypt that the deception, humiliation and destruction of Egypt is required. In the 270. See also 11.7 where Moses predicts that Pharaoh's officials will urge Israel to leave, a prediction fulfilled in 12.33 when Egypt urges the people to hasten their departure.

122

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

tension between this dominant voice and the alternatives which it seeks to overcome is mirrored the relationship between the text and at least some of its intended audience. That is, the rhetorical intent of the producers of the final text form is to persuade the intended audience to accept as true and valid the portrayal of Israel as absolutely separate from Egypt, and to overcome alternative perspectives in which a more positive relationship between Israel and Egypt is envisioned. Leaving Egypt (12.1-15.21) The actual exodus or separation of Israel from Egypt is finally attained when the tenth plague, in which the firstborn of Egypt die, has its desired effect in that Pharaoh lets Israel go. However the climax of the narrative plot is not immediately reached. YHWH effects one more hardening of the heart of Pharaoh so that he changes his mind and decides to pursue Israel with his army. The climax of the narrative, therefore, does not occur with the death of the firstborn and the departure of Israel from Egypt, but rather when Egypt is utterly destroyed in the waters of the Sea while Israel is saved. With this climactic act, the separation between Israel and Egypt is made complete. The entire narrative aims for this climax; the focus is entirely on the differentiation of Israel from Egypt. Ritualizing Identity Woven into the narrative are instructions for the performance of two ritual complexes: Passover and the redemption or ransoming of the firstborn.271 That the instructions for these rituals come at this point of the narrative, instead of being reserved for the later legal material that is revealed at Sinai, indicates that they are integral to the constituting of the final separation of Israel from Egypt. Passover and the ransoming of the firstborn are rituals that are meant to commemorate, and thus actualize, maintain and perpetuate, the distinctions and boundaries of Israel's identity which the narrative presents as divinely mandated.272 The instructions for these two 271. Instructions for Passover (including the festival of unleavened bread) appear in 12.1-28, 43-49 (with reference to the firstborn in 12.12) and 13.2-10. Instructions for the ransoming of the firstborn appear in 13.1-2 and 11-16, enclosing instructions for the festival of unleavened bread. 272. These rituals are introduced in 12.2 by a calendrical instruction—the month in which they are to be observed is to be the first month of the year for Israel. Thus, these rituals are to define the beginning of a new year just as they define the beginning or birth of Israel.

3. Egypt in Exodus

123

rituals are presented as being given or revealed, that is, originating, in Egypt. And yet the purpose of the two rituals is to memorialize the separation of Israel from Egypt and the destruction of Egypt. Ostensibly directed in the present time of the narrative towards the Israel that is still in Egypt, these instructions are in actuality directed in the future time of the narrative to the Israel that is the recipient or addressee of the scroll of Exodus.273 The catechetical material for Passover in 12.26-27 and for the ransoming of the firstborn in 13.14-15 makes this dynamic quite clear.274 Each of these rituals needs to be analyzed in turn as a component of the rhetorical work of the text in constructing the differentiation of Israel from Egypt.275 First, the ritual of Passover consists of two actions: the slaughter, cooking and eating of the Passover sacrifice (12.1-13, 21-27, 43-49) and the prohibition of leaven for seven days (12.14-20; 13.3-10). While, according to the consensus of most scholars, two originally separate rituals—a nomadic spring festival and an agricultural festival at the time of the barley harvest—have here been combined and converted into a historical commemoration, the text presents them as an integrated ritual of identity. That the drawing of boundaries of identity is at stake is indicated by the ritual actions themselves—the drawing of a mark of distinction in blood and the exclusion of leaven—and by the concern over who may legitimately participate.276 When the Passover sacrifice is slaughtered, some of its blood is used to 273. The switch back and forth between the present and future of the narrative is especially noticeable in 12.14, where the ritual is presented as an everlasting statute for future generations. See also the switch from a present to a future orientation in 12.24 and 13.5. 274. If the scroll is giving instructions for the celebration of Passover and the redemption of the firstborn as rituals that repudiate Egypt, one wonders if among the intended addressees are Jews settled in Egypt. If so, the celebration of these rituals in Egypt, and the very possibility of being both Jewish and Egyptian, become problematic. 275. Although each ritual will be analyzed in turn, they are presented in parallel fashion in the text. Both are means to actualize the exodus for later generations, and so the regulations for both in 13.1-16 contain the same elements in the same order: a reference to the Promised Land (13.5,11), catechetical instruction of the sons into the meaning of the rites (13.8, 14-15), and some sort of memorial signs on the hand and forehead (13.9, 16). 276. The word n~QJJ is used to refer to the future observance of Passover by Israel in the land which YHWH is giving to them (12.25,26), the same term used earlier of the oppressive labor in Egypt (1.14; 2.23; 5.9, 11; 6.6, 9 etc.). This emphasizes that the Passover ritual commemorates the victory of YHWH in his contest with Pharaoh, resulting in the transfer of Israel's service from one lord to another.

124

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

mark the lintel and two doorposts of the houses in which the sacrifice will be eaten (12.7, 22). This blood functions to ward off the tenth plague; when YHWH sees the bloody marks he will 'pass over' (11023) that dwelling, sparing those inside (12.13, 23, 27).277 The bloody mark signifies doubly in the narrative. First, according to the logic of YHWH'S ownership of the firstborn (4.22), the blood seems to signify that a substitute for the firstborn, that is, the Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Secondly, the blood signifies that the occupants of the house count themselves as part of the Israel that the narrative is constructing. Whereas YHWH had previously distinguished between Israel and Egypt through the plagues without requiring either the assistance or consent of those thus set apart, in this last plague the mark of distinction must be applied by those who identify themselves with Israel. While the contest between YHWH and Pharaoh has given birth to the idea of biblical Israel as a people separate from Egypt, the boundaries of this Israel must now be marked and affirmed by the people themselves. Hitherto, the people have had a very passive role; now they are called to draw the line in blood. And that is perhaps why the blood on the doorway, while ostensibly functioning as a marker for YHWH, is actually described as a H1K ('sign') for Israel (12.13). The sign of blood makes problematic the notion of a separate territory, Goshen, as the primary means of distinguishing Israel in Egypt, as already noted above in the discussion of the plague narrative. That is, the sign of blood would be unnecessary if Israel already lived in a separate territory. Rather, Israel here is distinguished by the actions of individuals, or, more accurately, household groups,278 who heed YHWH'S instruction through Moses and thus identify with Israel. The boundary that distinguishes Israel is thus shown as shifting and flexible. The mark of blood demonstrates that living within Goshen would be no guarantee of membership in YHWH'S people, nor would living without it be an automatic exclusion;279 only 277. The verb RDS is used only of the sparing of Israel from the plagues (12.13,23, 27), while the verb "QI7 ('to pass over, through') is used of the destruction that will hit the Egyptians. This dichotomy in vocabulary underlines the distinction between Israel and Egypt. 278. The Passover instructions, while directed at the 'whole congregation of Israel' (12.3, 47), are enacted in houses (12.3-4, 7, 13 etc.), which denote not only or primarily physical structures, but rather kinship groupings. Note the rTONTTD ('extended families') in 12.3, and the mnSEJQ ('clans') in 12.21. On these terms as descriptions of the social structure of Israel, see Gottwald (1979: 257-92). 279. These dynamics are extremely important if the scroll is addressing a situation in which some of Israel lives in the diaspora. If Goshen is a figure of Israel's own

3. Egypt in Exodus

125

drawing the line in blood would demonstrate or be a sign of one's inclusion in 'us'.280 The other side of the same coin is that, at least theoretically, those not yet counted among Israel could also draw the line in blood and be included. As earlier Egyptian 'God-fearers' had safeguarded their cattle and slaves by heeding the warning about the seventh plague of hail (9.20), so also, by the same logic, it would seem possible, although the narrative certainly contains no explicit warrant for it, that Egyptian household groups could draw the line in blood, be spared the effect of the tenth plague, and be identified as part of Israel. Therefore, the mark of blood simultaneously differentiates between Israel and Egypt and potentially blurs the boundaries of that differentiation. The exclusion of leaven is the other main ritual action of the Passover. For seven days, absolutely nothing leavened is to be eaten; even the possession of leavened products or the presence of leaven is prohibited (12.15, 17-20; 13.3, 6-7).281 The prohibition has been variously explained,282 but, in the context of the exodus narrative, the most compelling explanation is that it is a means of differentiation, and indeed itself symbolizes differentiation.283 Leavening, involving the admixture of an territory or homeland, then the last plague shows the homeland to be no guarantee of inclusion and the diaspora to be no guarantee of exclusion. 280. Note that the tenth plague is described as comprehensive; all the firstborn of Egypt are hit and there is no house in Egypt without death (12.29, 30). No explicit exemption for Israel is mentioned. 281. Two words are used of leaven in these prohibitions: ~IN!D, referring to the leavening agent itself, and f DH, referring to leavened dough and dough products. Elsewhere in the Pentateuch, leaven is absolutely prohibited in connection with sacrifices to the deity or with grain offerings (Exod. 23.18; 34.25; Lev. 2.11; 6.17), although it is permitted of offerings which would be eaten by the priests or others (Lev. 7.13; 23.17). 282. The view found in the New Testament and among the rabbis is that leaven is emblematic of corruption and decomposition; however, since leavened bread is otherwise not considered to be spoiled, this view is a questionable explanation of the prohibition at Passover. The view that leavened bread is prohibited as characteristic of settled life in contrast to the prevalence of unleavened bread in nomadic diets finds a counterpart in the narrative itself, which attributes the lack of leaven to the haste in which the Israelites had to leave Egypt (12.34, 39). The same explanation reoccurs in Deut. 16.3, where, moreover, it is given a negative valence since the resulting unleavened bread is called the 'bread of affliction'. However, such a historicizing explanation not only sounds like an explanation after the fact, but also does not account adequately for the strong connection between the prohibition and membership in Israel. 283. Kellerman (1980:490) speculates that the offering of leavened bread was likely

126

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

element that in some mysterious way changes the whole by an inward operation, is an apt figure for the danger of crossing boundaries or mixing categories that should be kept separate. Just as the new grain is a holy gift of the deity and would be profaned by the addition of leaven, so also Israel as YHWH'S holy people would be profaned by the addition of other elements that threaten to change it.284 To observe the prohibition of leaven at Passover is thus a powerful way of reinforcing the lesson of the exodus, not only of Israel's differentiation from the nations in general, but more specifically of Israel's separation from Egypt. That both the blood on the doorways and the prohibition of leaven are connected with the actualization of Israel's distinct identity is especially suggested by the explicit regulations for inclusion and exclusion that are embedded within the description of the Passover rituals. Whoever does not observe the prohibition of leaven will be cut off from Israel (12.15, 19). Extensive regulations for those that may or may not participate in the Passover sacrifice are listed in 12.43-49.285 Those excluded are the "Q]~p ('foreigner', 12.34),286 the 3&in ('temporary and dependent sojourner', 12.45),287 the TDfo ('hired laborer', 12.45), and the 'nu ('uncircumcised', part of Canaanite sacrificial cults from which the Israelites wanted to distinguish themselves. In Greek and Roman cults, leavened bread and honey were important sacrifices, especially for chthonic deities (Kellerman 1980: 490). On the prohibition of honey in connection with sacrifices to YHWH, see Lev. 2.11. The process of leavening itself was likely first discovered in Egypt (Latham 1987) and may thus have been particularly identified with Egypt. 284. The prohibition of leaven is absolute; there is to be none whatsoever within the borders ("703) of the land (13.7). The same term is used in Exod. 23.31 and 34.24, passages that speak of casting out before Israel all the original inhabitants within the borders of the Promised Land. Thus, the prohibition of leaven is isomorphic with the concern for a pure Israelite population. 285. The material in this section is clearly an appendix or a footnote, as indicated by the resumptive phrase in 12.51 which echoes 12.41b. This material is likely a later addition, but in its present form it functions as a footnote that reflects the gate-keeping concerns of the latest redactors of the document. 286. Literally, the 'son of foreignness'—as opposed to perhaps 'son of Israel'. The term refers to those outside of one's kinship group as indicated by Gen. 17.12 andNeh. 9.2, where it appears in apposition to those of one's IHT ('seed'). Significantly, inNeh. 9.2 those of pure Israelite descent separate themselves from 'foreigners' and continue by confessing the sins of their ancestors, who presumably allowed the leaven of such foreignness to enter Israel. 287. The term apparently signifies a more temporary and dependent status than that of the "13 ('resident alien', BDB: 444). Durham (1987: 169) translates it as 'transient'.

3. Egypt in Exodus

127

12.48). Those included are 'all the congregation of Israel' (12.47), conceived of as mTK ('native') to the land (12.48)288 and including purchased slaves who have been circumcised (12.44). The family group of the "1J 'resident alien' can also be included if all the males are circumcised (12.48). Thus, the main criteria of inclusion are kinship, permanent residence and circumcision.289 The various rules of inclusion and exclusion in 12.43-49 form a chiasmus around the central rules in 12.46: the Passover sacrifice is to be eaten in one house,290 none of the meat is to be taken outside of the house, and the bones are not to be broken. These rules, reinforced by the surrounding chiasmus, concern the unity of the Passover-eating community and the prohibition of crossing boundaries. The Passover rite is one that constitutes a particular bounded people who are separate from others. And yet, at the same time, the legitimate presence of some 'outsiders' in the Passover community is acknowledged; the 13 ('resident alien') falls under the same min ('Torah, instruction') as the miN ('native, indigene') (12.49). In other words, in the midst of regulations for a ritual celebration of distinctiveness, the door is left slightly ajar for the acknowledgment and participation of outsiders who otherwise might constitute the leaven that needs to be purged from Israel's midst. This loophole in the Passover regulations, allowing for a somewhat more porous boundary between 'us' and 'them', contrasts with the symbolism of the absolute prohibition of leaven. Moreover, in the Egyptian context it is Israel, according to the dominant ideology of the text, that is the "D and Egypt that is the mTN. 291 Although the rules of Passover, as they stand in the present text, presuppose Israel's settled status in the land of Palestine, and are thus placed anachronistically here in Exodus, their literary context is quite suggestive. That is, if the 'Migrant laborer' might also be an apropos translation given the connection with the T3&. Cassuto's translation 'settler' (1983: 150) is quite different and based on direct extrapolation from the root 3271. 288. Interestingly, the term mil?, meaning literally to arise from the land, in a Palestinian setting could imply that Israel is indigenous to Palestine, hi an Egyptian setting, such as in Exodus, the implication would be that Israel is indigenous to Egypt. 289. The importance of circumcision has already been pointed out in 4.24-26. 290. That is, within a cohesive kinship grouping, as much as within a single physical building. 291. The status of Israel as 'resident alien' in Egypt is several times used as a motive clause of Pentateuchal legislation. See the analysis of such motive clauses later in this chapter and in the following chapter.

128

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Israel addressed as mTK by these rules is still in Egypt, then the text is unconsciously admitting the possibility of Israel's native roots and origin in Egypt in contradiction to its dominant concern to deny such a possibility. The second ritual woven into the narrative of the tenth plague and the departure of Israel from Egypt is that of the ransoming of the firstborn (13.1-2,11-16).292 The ritual, probably in origin an ancient fertility rite, is reinterpreted as a memorial of the last plague in which all the Egyptian firstborn, human and animal, die (13.14-15).293 It thus functions here to actualize and perpetuate the differentiation between Israel and Egypt; whereas YHWH kills the Egyptian firstborn, the firstborn of Israel can be redeemed or ransomed. Every time the ritual of the redemption of the firstborn is carried out, Israel is reminded that it is not of Egypt.294 The embedding of instructions for the prohibition of leaven (13.3-10) in the midst of these instructions for the ransoming of the firstborn (13.1-2,1116) makes this purpose clear. In summary, the rituals of Passover—the Passover sacrifice, the prohibition of leaven, and the redemption of the firstborn, whatever their origins or previous purposes may have been—are here presented as rituals commemorating and actualizing the separation, in perpetuity, of Israel from Egypt. That is why these rituals are presented in the context of the final plague, the one announced by YHWH as providing the knowledge that 'YHWH makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel' (11.7). That such knowledge must be supported by a multiplicity of repeated ritual actions suggests, again, that alternative views were being contested, alternative views that did not see the same necessary distinction between Israel and Egypt.

292. This ritual has already been extensively discussed above, especially in connection with 4.22-23 and 8.19 [23]. 293. The last plague is also described in 12.12 as YHWH'S judgment on the gods of Egypt (see also Num. 33.4). Since in the Hebrew Bible the firstborn are conceptualized as god's property, by killing the Egyptian firstborn, YHWH, in effect, steals from the gods of Egypt what, by this logic, belongs to them, and thus shows them to be weak and ineffectual in comparison to him. 294. The words 'it will be a sign upon your hand and a frontlet (?) between your eyes' (13.16) could refer to some sort of mnemonic device—later Talmudic tradition sees here a reference to phylacteries. However, rather than referring to a literal symbol, these words could also be meant as a metaphor for constant remembrance. See also 13.9.

3. Egypt in Exodus

129

The Identity of Israel As the narrative of the first half of the scroll of Exodus progresses to its climax at the sea, the picture of Israel as a separate people takes more definite shape. Linguistically, the term Din ('the people') is increasingly clearly associated with ^NIET "DH ('the sons of Israel'). While at the beginning of the scroll of Exodus 'the people' was used somewhat ambiguously in that it was not always clear whether the reference was to 'the sons of Israel' or not, towards the end of the plague narrative the ambiguity disappears. Both terms appear alternately in Exod. 12-14, clearly referring to the same entity. In other words, the 'sons of Israel' are no longer primarily a familial unit but are now portrayed as truly a people. In fact, when Egypt is finally destroyed in the waters of the sea, it is not 'the sons of Israel' but just 'Israel'295 that sees Egypt dead and realizes the great deed of YHWH (14.30-31). This Israel is also increasingly inscribed as organized, strong and united. The Israel coming out of Egypt is addressed as a !~ni? ('congregation', 12.3, 6, 19, 47), a term used often in later passages to designate the body politic of Israel.296 Israel has a leadership structure consisting of elders (12.21),297 and is described with the termniK3H ('hosts', 12.17, 41, 51), usually connoting military organization.298 Israel is 600,000 DHZl^n ^ "2H ('foot-soldiers strong', 12.37)299 and marches out of Egypt in battle 295. The term 'Israel' by itself first appears on the lips of YHWH when he designates Israel as his firstborn son (4.22). It is mentioned thereafter sporadically in the plague and exodus narrative, usually in connection with the words or actions of YHWH, and in the context of an explicit differentiation between Israel and Egypt: 5.22; 9.4, 7; 11.7; 12.15; 14.5, 19,20. 296. In 12.6, the term ^Hp, 'assembly' is also used. Both mu and blip are used interchangeably to refer to the cult community of Israel (Pope 1962). 297. Elders of Israel have been mentioned previously in 3.16, 18 and 4.29. 298. Israel's exodus has already been anticipated in terms of DtOU ('hosts, troops, ranks') in 6.26 and 7.4. See also Num. 33.1. The term suggests that the Israel that leaves Egypt does not flee as a motley group of escaped slaves, but leaves as a disciplined and organized fighting force. 7.4 contains an interesting set of equivalencies: 'my hosts' = 'my people' = 'sons of Israel'. nNDH may here be a faint allusion to Judean military units that served in Egypt, especially in Ptolemaic times. Alternatively, flKZliJ could be connected with the idea of a ritual procession or just generally with (tribal) organization. 299. If women and children are added, the Israel that leaves Egypt would total two to three million persons, clearly a historical impossibility. Various solutions to this problem have been attempted, ranging from gematria to different meanings of ^K, 'thousand' (see Durham 1987: 171-72), but it is most likely that the number is

130

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

formation (13.18)300 and HQITn ('boldly', 14.8).301 Perhaps most importantly, after coming through the sea, the people finally 'fear YHWH and trust in YHWH and his servant Moses' (14.31).302 The impression given is of a strong, triumphant and distinct people, confident in their newly won identity.303 Yet at this key moment, when Israel is birthed by actual physical separation from the matrix of Egypt, its distinctiveness is brought into question. Israel is described as leaving Egypt accompanied by a numerous or great 3"jU ('mixture', 12.38). The same word, vocalized identically, appears in only two other places in the Hebrew Bible: in Lev. 13.47-59, where the term refers to the woof of cloth, and in Neh. 13.3, where, after the reading of the Torah, the returned exiles separate/divide (^"O) all mixture from Israel.304 The Nehemiah reference suggests that, according to at least one strand of postexilic thought, the Israel constituted in the exodus was not entirely pure and its impurity was not rectified until much later at the time of Nehemiah and Ezra.305 The Leviticus reference, hyperbolic (see the similarly large, but more exact numbers given in Num. 1.46; 26.51). The intention of the narrative seems to be to impress its audience with the immensity of this new people. 300. The meaning of the term CTEJlQn is uncertain. A similar word in Arabic suggests an army (perhaps organized into five parts?) (BDB: 332). Cassuto (1993: 156) translates the word as 'in proper military formation'. The Arabic cognate could also suggest 'courageously' (BDB: 332), which would correspond with the phrase i~IQ~l T3 in 14.8. A third possibility is that the term derives from the root 271 n and thus means 'hastening' (BDB: 301). 301. The phrase HQ~l TD, used as well to describe Israel's exodus in Num. 33.4, can also mean 'presumptuously' (see Num. 15.30; Deut. 32.27), which would give 14.8 an ironic twist. 302. The previous references to the obeisance of the people (4.31; 12.27) do not explicitly describe the object of their homage. 303. The notice that Israel was driven out of Egypt (12.39), however, belies this picture. See also 6.1 and 11.1 for the tradition that Israel was driven out of Egypt. From the perspective of the Egyptians, the exodus is a flight (14.5), not a triumphant march. 304. A similar term, vocalized slightly differently, in 1 Kgs 10.15; Jer. 25.20, 24; 50.37 and Ezek. 30.5, most likely refers to Arabian peoples (see especially the parallelism in Jer. 25.24), but the exact referent is not known. Similar also, but again vocalized differently, is the term used of the 'swarm' that constitutes the fourth plague (8.16-28 [20-32]). Again, the similar term for 'raven' may be suggestive, since the raven is excluded from the diet of Israel as unclean and detestable (Lev. 11.15; Deut. 14.14). 305. The prohibition of leaven as part of the Passover commemoration and actualization of the exodus would symbolically accord with the purging of mi? from Israel in

3. Egypt in Exodus

131

however, suggests the opposite; just as cloth requires both woof and warp in order to exist, so also the iny would be a necessary constituent part of Israel. Whether the term D"]U has negative or positive connotations, it indicates that the Israel that emerges from Egypt is a heterogeneous group which includes more than just those who can trace descent back to the family of Jacob.306 Given the narrative setting in Egypt, these additional others, although they are not further specified or described, could possibly include Egyptians. In 12.38, then, one finds an isolated trace of a tradition of a heterogeneous Israel with possible Egyptian elements, if not roots,307 a tradition at odds with the main ideological thrust of the narrative. The portrayal of Israel at the moment of the exodus as a distinct people with an established identity is also tempered by the anxiety manifested in the text that this people will desire to return to Egypt; that is, that they will abandon their new hard-won separate identity and dissolve back into their former Egyptian context. The desire to return to Egypt will be a major motif in the coming wilderness wanderings, and, significantly, it is introduced here even before Israel has fully left Egypt. YHWH decides to lead Israel by a roundabout route through the wilderness, rather than by the more direct route through the land of the Philistines, because he is concerned that, in the face of battle, the people will regret their decision, change their minds (CH3 ),308 and return to Egypt (13.17-18). The exodus is the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Note that Passover and Unleavened Bread in Ezra 6.19-22 is celebrated by those who had returned from exile together with those who had separated themselves ("n—) from the impurities of the nations of the land (Ezra 6.21). 306. Note the hapax legomenom ^IDBDK in Num. 11.4, translated as 'rabble' (NRSV) or 'riffraff (NIPS), seemingly describing some heterogeneous collection of peoples attached to Israel in the wilderness. The story of the ruse of the Gibeonites in Josh. 9 also suggests that the Israel that settles in Palestine is less than genealogically pure and includes heterogeneous elements, even among those who serve in the Israelite sanctuaries. 307. The possibility of strong Egyptian roots is also suggested by the lengthy period of Israel's presence in Egypt, 430 years according to the notice in the MT of 12.40. This number is difficult to reconcile with the 4 generations mentioned in 6.16-20 and Gen. 15.16 (and the 400 years of Gen. 15.13). The SP andLXX of 12.40 solve the problem by including in this figure also the time of the ancestors in Canaan; that is, they fold the narrative of Exodus into that of Genesis. If the MT figure were taken independently at face value, it would point to a very antique origin of Israel in Egypt. 308. The verb Oil signifies the feeling of regret after a decision or action that seems to have turned out badly, as well as the resolve to change one's mind. This verbal action is often attributed to YHWH (Gen. 6.6-7; Exod. 32.12-14).

132

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

barely underway and the possibility of returning to Egypt already occurs.309 That the possibility of return is brought up so soon is a sign of the tenuous and contested nature of the identity separate from Egypt being constructed by the narrative for Israel. YHWH'S presentiment is soon borne out; upon encountering the Egyptian army on the way out of Egypt, Israel in fear confronts Moses: Is it for lack of graves in Egypt that you have taken us to die in the wilderness? What is this you have done to us, bringing us out of Egypt? Did we not say to you in Egypt, 'Leave us alone and let us serve Egypt'? For it is better for us to serve Egypt than to die in the wilderness (14.11-12).

This fearful complaint, with its accumulation of references to Egypt, is the first time that Israel as a whole has been given a direct voice in the narrative.310 The narrative thus discloses a hitherto rare glimpse into the perspective of the Israel that YHWH desires to shape into a particular people distinct from Egypt. One finds that, not only in the face of adversity is Israel ready to reject its new identity, but that it has been resisting its new identity even earlier. From the perspective of Israel, there are two alternatives: to die in the wilderness or to live by serving Egypt. These alternatives of death or life are not only understood in terms of basic physical existence but also framed by the concern for proper graves (O^'Dp, 14.11). The Hebrew Bible, in common with its general ancient Near Eastern context, views proper burials in a family tomb as not only perpetuating the memory of the individual but also, more importantly perhaps, as establishing a visible claim to the family patrimony (Kennedy 1992; Bloch-Smith 1992). The wilderness, as a place of unmarked graves, thus presents the terrifying prospect of the end, not only of life, but also of memory and the landed property that undergirds it. In contrast, Egypt, as a bounded territory in which identification with landed property is possible,31! and known for its prominent mortuary monuments perpetuating the memory of the dead,312 is surely preferable.313 309. The same anxiety over 'return to Egypt' was manifested earlier in ch. 6 in the description of Moses' return to Egypt. 310. Previously, the audience has heard the voice of Israel directly only in the words of the Israelite labor supervisors in Exod. 5. The perspective of Israel has been voiced indirectly in some of the objections Moses raises to his call in Exod. 3-4. 311. According to the Joseph story in Genesis, the family of Jacob acquired landed property in Egypt (Gen. 47.11, 27). 312. See the LXX rendering nvrinaxa ('memorials/monuments of the dead') in 14.11.

3. Egypt in Exodus

13 3

The contrast presented in the narrative between Israel's pro-Egyptian perspective and the efforts of YHWH to define Israel over against Egypt is a clear marker of a major ideological struggle in which the text is engaged. The anti-Egyptian perspective of YHWH is likely the ideology of the producers of the final text form while the pro-Egyptian perspective expressed by Israel is probably the ideology of at least some of the intended audience of the text. The purpose of the text is to undermine this proEgyptian ideology and to persuade its audience to accept the anti-Egyptian ideology. The motif of murmuring and rebellion expressed in the desire to return to Egypt, of which Exod. 14.11-12 is only the first instance, most explicitly conveys this clash of ideologies. As the people of Israel leave, they plunder Egypt (12.3 5-36).3H Plundering presupposes a state of conflict or warfare and so underscores the separation between Egypt and Israel. However, plundering normally takes place after the enemy has been vanquished;315 here it takes place before the decisive battle. While this unusual sequence may be meant to emphasize the humiliation of Egypt,316 it simultaneously can also indicate a positive valuation, apart from the context of battle, of Egypt as a place where one can be enriched317 and whose inhabitants view Israel with favor: 'YHWH gave the people favor in the sight of Egypt' (12.36).318 This potential 313. The rhetorical polar question in 14.11, 'is it for lack of graves in Egypt..,', implies a negative answer: 'Of course not! Egypt is full of graves—you can see them everywhere!' The question is full of irony: Moses is accused of bringing the people out into the wilderness to die needlessly when there is no lack of suitable graves in Egypt. In contrast, the question could be read as expecting an affirmative answer; that is, 'Yes, there are no suitable graves for members of Israel in Egypt because Israel does not belong in Egypt and has no patrimony there.' However, usually a rhetorical question requiring assent is signaled by the combination 81'n (Waltke and O'Connor 1990: 684-85). 314. See Durham's translation: 'they picked the Egyptians clean' (1987: 165). 315. For example, Shechem is plundered after the males have been killed (Gen. 34.25-29), and Midian is plundered after every male has been killed in battle (Num. 31). 316. That is, Egypt is under the power of YHWH to such an extent that the Egyptians are persuaded (or bewitched) into giving valuable gifts to the departing Israelites. In effect, Egypt is shown to be defeated even before the final confrontation at the sea takes place. 317. The motif of Egypt as a place of enrichment is strong in the Genesis accounts of Abraham and of Joseph. 318. The so-called motif of the plundering of Egypt appears three times in the scroll of Exodus (3.21-22; 11.2-3; 12.35-36), but only twice is it explicitly described as

134

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

positive valuation of Egypt is, however, quickly negated by the description of Egypt as a DHDU ITU ('house of slaves') in 13.3, 14, this being the first time in the scroll of Exodus that Egypt is characterized explicitly in this way.319 Annihilation of the 'Other' YHWH himself leads Israel out of Egypt (13.17) and Moses brings along the bones of Joseph (13.19). In this way, the finality of leaving Egypt is stressed. Not even a trace of Israel's sojourn in Egypt is to stay behind.320 YHWH, who has been present in Egypt, is now definitely leaving. The pillar of cloud and fire (13.21 -22) signifies not only the presence of YHWH with Israel, but also the exodus of YHWH from Egypt. In the pillar YHWH, furthermore, for the first time explicitly physically separates Israel and Egypt (14.20).321 YHWH'S purpose, as portrayed in the narrative, is to destroy Egypt and so gain glory for himself; in fact, the destruction of Egypt will be the means whereby Egypt will come to know YHWH (14.4, 17-18). As we have seen, to know YHWH is to know Israel as YHWH'S people apart from Egypt, and so the separate identity of Israel will be asserted at the expense of Egypt's annihilation. In order to guarantee this outcome, YHWH again hardens Pharaoh's heart (14.4, 8, 17); there must be absolutely no possibility of compromise or negotiation at this stage. In the final showdown at

'plundering' (3.22; 12.36) and then only in a concluding phrase that could be an interpretive addendum. In addition, the ambiguous verb ^UD is used, rather than the more usual b^EJ (e.g. see Exod. 15.9); bU] has strong connotations of deliverance (see BOB: 664-65). 319. The phrase becomes a characteristic way of referring to Egypt in Deuteronomy (5.6; 6.12; 7.8; 8.14; 13.6, 11); it is also part of the Decalogue in Exodus (20.2). 320. The reference to the bones of Joseph is also, of course, a deliberate link between the exodus account and the account of the ancestors in Genesis (see Gen. 50.25). However, when the promises regarding the land are mentioned in this section of Exodus, they are promises made to 'you and your fathers' (13.5, 11) without any specific mention of the names of the three patriarchs. 321. The pillar that guides Israel in 13.21 -22 becomes a means of separating Israel from Egypt in 14.19-20. The MT text in 14.20 literally reads, 'there was the cloud and the darkness and it illumined the night', seeming to confuse the two functions of the pillar as a cloud by day and afire by night (13.21-22). The LXX reads, 'and there was darkness and blackness and the night passed'. The ambiguity of the pillar in the MT evokes a similar ambiguity regarding the identity of Israel. That is, even when Israel and Egypt are finally physically separated, that which separates them is uncertain.

3. Egypt in Exodus

135

the sea, YHWH'S overwhelming and utterly complete victory over Egypt is stressed. Israel has absolutely no part to play except for that of observer. YHWH looks down upon Egypt (14.24a),322 throws the Egyptian camp into disarray (14.24b), misguides the wheels of the Egyptian chariots (14.25a), and then, when the waters return, shakes the Egyptians into the water to drown when they attempt to save themselves (14.27). Not one Egyptian survives (14.28);323 Egypt is utterly annihilated.324 The progressive distinction between Israel and Egypt is brought to its climax when Israel sees 'Egypt dead upon the shore of the sea' (14.30).325 It is at this point that Israel finally acknowledges that the power of YHWH is greater than the power of Egypt (14.3 la).326 And so the people fear YHWH and trust/believe in YHWH and his servant Moses (14.3 lb).327 Previously, only Moses (3.6), the midwives (1.17, 21), and some of Pharaoh's servants (9.20) are described as fearing YHWH or God. Now Israel fears YHWH. Previously, the people are said to believe (4.31), but no object of their belief is described. Now Israel believes in YHWH who has distinguished it from Egypt. At this moment of climax, the narrative hovers on the brink of a Utopian dissolution; the 'other' so necessary for the stabilization of identity no longer needs to exist. Israel can stand as Israel without contrast because Egypt, Israel's other, has been destroyed. In a burst of song, this moment 322. The verb *|pK? indicates that YHWH looks down upon Egypt in disapproval; the same verb is used when YHWH observes Sodom and Gemorrah (Gen. 18.16; 19.28). 323. The same phrase—'not one remained/survived'—is used to describe the end of the fourth plague of the swarm (8.27 [31 ]) and the end of the eighth plague of locusts (10.19). The language describing the destruction of the locusts (10.19) is formally very similar to the language used to describe the destruction of the Egyptians (14.28). 324. The Egyptians have earlier had a premonition that the identity of Israel will mean death for them (12.33). In response to Israel's fear of death in the wilderness (14.11-12), Moses has told them that they will never see Egypt again (14.13). Israel's final view of Egypt is as corpses upon the seashore (14.30). All of these elements combine to paint a picture of total annihilation. 325. On a pragmatic level, of course, only the army of Egypt is destroyed in the sea. Numerous references in Exod. 14 describe the pursuing Egyptians as an army (14.4-9, 17-18,23-28). However, the army of Egypt functions as a synecdoche for all of Egypt, or the idea of Egypt, and so elsewhere in Exod. 14 the word 'Egypt' is used alone (14.4, 9, 10, 13, 17, 23, 25, 26, 27, 30). 326. The word T in 14.31 is emblematic of power. 327. The mention of Moses here in addition to YHWH is intriguing, given the narrative's attempts to generally downplay a heroic portrait of Moses. Perhaps one finds here a trace of the more heroic or elevated Moses that the text elsewhere suppresses.

136

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

of victory is elevated into a paradigm for the establishment of Israel on YHWH'S mountain under YHWH'S kingship (15.1-18, especially 13-18).328 For a moment the narrative pauses to be caught up into an ecstatic deferral of the contingencies of identity. And yet, as has been shown, the entire narrative of the plagues and exodus cumulatively betrays a self-critical tendency. On the one hand, the dominant goal of the narrative has been to construct an identity for Israel as absolutely separate from Egypt. But on the other hand, the narrative depicts the enormous cost of an identity for Israel that must be won at the expense of a Pharaoh whose heart must be hardened and an Egypt that must be drowned in the sea.329 Conclusion The description of the exodus is a key section of the narrative construction of the identity of Israel in the scroll of Exodus in that Israel is birthed as a distinct people by actual physical separation from Egypt. The Passover and firstborn rituals are meant, from this perspective, in perpetuity to memorialize and ever anew actualize this separation. Furthermore, the Israel that leaves Egypt has the definite shape of an organized people. But most compelling is the climax of the narrative, when at the sea, Egypt, the 'other' over against which the identity of Israel is forged, is erased. And yet, throughout this narrative there are hints of other views in which the 328. This song seems to be an insertion or addition—an ancient footnote—as indicated by the resumptive repetition in 15.19 of 14.28-29. Egypt is not explicitly mentioned in the song, although there is a single reference to Pharaoh (15.4); the song could thus become the paradigmatic celebration of rescue from any enemy. Israel is also not explicitly mentioned in the song itself; instead there are references to YHWH'S 'people'. This 'people' is described as having been redeemed (^83) and acquired or purchased (H3p) by YHWH; these expressions suggest an interpretation of the exodus as the redemption of captives or the purchasing of slaves. 329. For a modern reader, the graphic depiction of the cost of Israel's distinct identity threatens 'to swamp the text, overcoming the positive identity it seeks to establish by drawing our sympathies to the rejected Other, making them not rejected by us' (Schwartz 1995: 135). Thus, at the same time as the narrative insists on the rejection of Egypt so that Israel can be what YHWH intends, it also raises the question of whether Egypt is so abject as to be totally rejected. Pharaoh's last words to Moses are a request for blessing (12.32), reminding one of the promise of YHWH to Abraham that 'in you all the clans of the earth will be blessed' (Gen. 12.3). Pharaoh's request, however, is denied; in the scroll of Exodus annihilation of Egypt and not blessing is the outcome. This tension between the Abrahamic promise and the destruction of Egypt serves also to bring into question the abjection of Egypt. (On the dynamic of abjection, seeKristeva 1982.)

3. Egypt in Exodus

137

boundaries that set Israel apart are more porous than the dominant narrative lets on, and especially in which a pro-Egyptian voice is raised to counter the relentless anti-Egyptian thrust of the leading voice of the text. Even when Egypt is seemingly decisively erased in the waters of the sea, the text can pause only momentarily to savor this absolute triumph over the 'other', which is soon shown to be fantasy. An identity without any contrasting other is impossible. As becomes clear in the next major narrative sequence in Exodus—the wilderness wanderings—what has been repressed returns. Egypt will come back repeatedly to haunt Israel's memory.330 Wilderness and Sinai (15.22-40.38) Israel is now physically separated from Egypt, but the process of its ethnogenesis is not complete. The notion of Israel's distinct identity must now be internalized, and the wilderness provides the liminal setting for this completion of the identity formation process.331 The process includes scenes of rebellion, a covenant at Sinai, and an occasion of apostasy that almost aborts the process itself, finally culminating in autopic portrayal of YHWH in the midst of his people. The main focus of the narrative's ideology is the continuing differentiation of Israel from Egypt. However, the figure of Moses re-emerges as a complication to this narrative purpose. The Identity of Israel vis-d-vis Egypt Whereas previously the narrative offered only hints of perspectives opposing its anti-Egyptian rhetoric, now such perspectives are increasingly given a voice. The voice is that of Israel, but it is a voice of murmuring and rebellion. On the journey from Egypt to Sinai, the people three times voice their resistance to their new identity and their attachment to their former Egyptian identity, as was already foreshadowed in 14.10-14.332 The

330. The short vignette in 14.10-14 already anticipates this return. 331. On the one hand, the wilderness provides a liminal place between Egypt and the Promised Land for the completion of the construction and adoption of Israel's identity. On the other hand, the wilderness is already part of the Promised Land according to Exod. 23.31, which sets one of the borders of the Promised Land at the Red Sea/Sea of Reeds. The crossing of the sea is thus the transition par excellence in the formation of Israel's identity. 332. Similarly, much of the narrative in the scroll of Numbers (from ch. 11 to 21) will be taken up with the complaints of the people in the wilderness.

138

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

voice of the people's complaint gives access to a pro-Egyptian ideology which the present narrative attempts to subdue by casting it as a form of rebellion against the deity. Just before reaching Sinai, a counter-example to this voicing of an explicit pro-Egyptian perspective is offered in the person of Jethro. The narrative thus draws its audience into choosing sides for or against Israel's anti-Egyptian identity. The first of these three instances of resistance or rebellion occurs right on the heels of the miraculous deliverance at the sea. Barely three days into the wilderness, at a place named Marah where the water is too bitter to drink, the people (Gtfn) complain (]1"?) to Moses: 'What shall we drink?' (15.24). Moses cries out to YHWH, and YHWH instructs him how to make the water potable (15.25). The incident then becomes an occasion for YHWH to set a condition, described in the text variously as a legal ordinance (BBEto), an inscribed statute (pn), and a means of testing (!1D3) (15.25): If you really obey the voice of YHWH your God, and do what is right in his sight, and give heed to his commandments, and keep all of his statutes; (then) every sickness which I brought upon Egypt, I will not bring upon you, for I am YHWH your healer (15.26).

What is immediately striking about these words is the return of Egypt into the discourse of Israel's identity. Egypt, Israel's 'other', had just been effaced in the waters of the sea. An attempt had been made to stabilize the boundaries of a precarious and contingent identity by erasing the effect of the other, or, in effect, erasing the other. Violence and death were the result. But this same violence and death here return to undo what they were meant to establish. As YHWH tells Israel, there is no necessary end to the plagues that served to separate Israel from Egypt. The same plagues can be turned upon Israel if Israel is not vigilant in maintaining its distinct identity. It seems that no matter which way the lines of differentiation are drawn, 'the violence doesn't go away because the violence is in the lines themselves' (Schwartz 1995: 121).333 Thus Egypt returns into the discourse of Israel's identity as a threat used to maintain Israel's distinctiveness and separateness. YHWH'S words con333. Even when such violence is displaced or deferred to a sacrificial scapegoat (the Passover lamb) or to the transcendental realm (YHWH versus the gods of Egypt, 12.12; 15.11), it still results in real victims and the mark of differentiation remains that of death. Even when such violence is meted out 'measure for measure', as in the interpretation that Egypt suffers in due proportion to the sufferings it caused Israel, there is no Utopian closure to the continued attempt to subdue and annihilate the 'other': that which is repressed returns.

3. Egypt in Exodus

13 9

tinue to emphasize the polarity between Egypt and Israel; Egypt is associated with disease while Israel is associated with a divinity that heals.334 But, at the same time, this polarity is threatened in that if Israel disobeys, it will be treated just like Egypt, and the distinction between the two will collapse, hi other words, the identity of Israel as not-Egypt is here revealed, not as a given or divinely mandated fact, but as a contingency dependent upon constant obedience to the world-defining rules of YHWH. Egypt, which just previously seemed to have utterly disappeared into the sea, returns to haunt the precarious identity of Israel with the possibility of dissolution. The second instance of Israel's resistance occurs in the wilderness of Sin, where the 'whole congregation (mU) of the sons of Israel' complains (p *?) against Moses and Aaron (16.2): Would that we had died by the hand of YHWH in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pot, when we ate bread to satiation; For you have brought us out to this wilderness to kill all this assembly (v~p) with famine (16.3).

Again, the resistance of the people is described with the verb p1? ('to murmur, complain').335 From the perspective of Israel, Egypt is highlighted as a place of plenty while the wilderness is typified as a place of lack.336 In fact, death in Egypt, even at the hand of YHWH, is preferred to death in the wilderness by famine. Israel here even implicitly identifies itself with the Egypt that bore the brunt of YHWH'S hand in the plagues.337 Note also that the people, in their complaint, refer to themselves as 'all this assembly',338 and not as Israel, thus perhaps evoking the 'mixed crowd' (12.38) that left Egypt. These glimpses into Israel's point of view highlight, at this stage of

334. The appellative 'healer' stands out, since most cases of the formula of divine disclosure in Exodus simply state 'I am YHWH' (6.2, 6, 8, 29; 7.5, 17; 10.2; 12.12; 14.4, 18). See, however, also 31.13: 'I am YHWH your sanctifier.' 335. Apart from Josh. 9.18, this verb appears only as part of the 'murmuring and rebellion in the wilderness' motif in Exod. 15, 16, 17 and Num. 14, 16, 17. 336. In the earlier complaint in 14.11-12, Egypt even has an abundance of graves. One also recalls the status of Egypt in the ancestral accounts of Genesis as a place of plenty in time of famine. 337. The 'hand of YHWH' functions in the plague narrative to strike down Egypt and to bring out Israel (7.4-5 passim); that is, it functions to discriminate between Israel and Egypt. Here, however, Israel wishes that the hand of YHWH had been directed against it and Egypt indiscriminately. 338. Durham (1987: 215) translates 'this whole crowd'.

140

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

the narrative, the tenuous and unfinished nature of the people's identity visa-vis YHWH'S definition of who they are to be. The response of YHWH to the people's complaint is to turn the wilderness of lack into a place of regular nourishment; bread is provided miraculously in the morning and meat in the evening (16.4-8,12-14). But, as in the response to the previous complaint, this incident also becomes an occasion of testing (TIDD, 16.4). Specific instructions are given to keep no leftovers for the next day (16.19) except for the Sabbath, when no food will be provided (16.23). Some of the people fail the test; they either keep leftovers when the next day is not a Sabbath (16.20) or they seek to gather food on the Sabbath (16.27). Moses' anger (16.20) and YHWH'S rebuke (16.28-29) in the face of these infractions attest to the importance of Sabbath observance for the identity of Israel. Sabbath observance is here presupposed as constitutive of Israel's identity over against Egypt even though specific Sabbath legislation does not appear until later in the scroll (20.8-11; 31.12-17; 3S.2-3).339 That the formation of Israel's identity is inextricably linked with the knowledge of the deity that brought them out of Egypt is pointed out twice in this incident (16.6, 12). As already argued, the plagues were meant to bring both Egypt and Israel to knowledge of YHWH; for Egypt, this knowledge meant destruction, while for Israel it meant separation from Egypt. Apparently, insofar as the plagues were meant to engender Israel's knowledge of YHWH, and thus knowledge of itself as a distinct people, they were only partially successful. Although Israel is out of Egypt it still needs to know YHWH, which is to say that Israel still needs to know its own identity as YHWH'S distinct people. The narrative is aware that the identity it envisions for Israel is fragile and contingent, and so must be engendered anew every generation. Therefore, instruction is given that an omer of the manna be preserved so that each generation may be reminded of the deity who is defined primarily as the one who brought his people out of Egypt (16.32-34).340 339. Just as the legal stipulations for the observance of Passover and the redemption of the firstborn were inserted into the narrative of chs. 12-13, before the revelation of Sinai, in order to underscore the importance of these rituals as defining Israel's separateness from Egypt, so also here the Sabbath regulations appear before they are formally legislated in order to define Israel's uniqueness over against the people's desire to return to their old Egyptian identity. 340. That YHWH is defined primarily as the one who brought Israel out of Egypt is shown by the prominence of some form or variation of the formula 'YHWH your God

3. Egypt in Exodus

141

The third instance of the people's resistance to their non-Egyptian identity occurs at Rephidim, where there is no water. The people (121?) contend (IT~0 with Moses: 'Give us water to drink' (17.2). Moses interprets this quarrel as the people's testing (HD3) of YHWH (17.3), but the people (DUP!) further complain (p ^) against Moses: 'Why, then, did you bring us up from Egypt/to kill me and my sons and my livestock with thirst?' (17.3).341 In response, Moses intercedes with YHWH, arguing that his own life is in danger (17.4); YHWH instructs Moses to produce water from a rock (17.5-6). In a flashback, the narrator informs the audience that the sons of Israel had questioned: 'Is YHWH among us or not?' (17.7). Again, the same terminology of complaint (]1 *7) and testing (HDD) occurs; this time, however, YHWH does not test the people, but the people are described as testing YHWH (17.2, 7). In addition, the verb m, with its connotations of a legal dispute or lawsuit, is used to report the people's resistance (17.2, 7). According to the flashback in 17.7, it seems that the test or legal dispute has to do with proof of YHWH'S presence with the people. From the narrative perspective of Israel, the lack of water in the wilderness highlights an uncertainty about YHWH'S presence. In contrast, Egypt is associated with plenty of food (16.3), and here, implicitly, with abundant water. According to this perception of relative lack and plenty, Israel doubts whether YHWH is present in the wilderness; the people seem to think that surely YHWH is back in Egypt. If Egypt is connected with plenty and the presence of the deity, while the wilderness is connected with lack and the absence of the deity, then the very wisdom and necessity of leaving Egypt is brought into question. According to the logic of the dominant ideology of the narrative, this would also discredit the very existence of Israel as a distinct people separate from Egypt. And so the narrative now presents a counter-example in

who brought you out from the land of Egypt' in the Hebrew Bible. This formula forms the introduction to both versions of the Decalogue (Exod. 20.2; Deut. 5.6), and appears frequently in the scroll of Exodus (e.g. 6.7; 7.5; 18.1; 29.46; 32.11). In contrast, in Gen. 15.7, YHWH is defined as the one who brought Abraham out of Mesopotamia, an identification reiterated in the prayer of Ezra in Neh. 9.7. 341. The switch from the plural to the singular seems disconcerting in English usage. It was also disconcerting to the ancient translators: the LXX, Syriac and Targum versions all retain the plural throughout the verse, as does also the Samaritan Pentateuch. However, in biblical Hebrew the singular functions here either to represent the people as a collective (HOTTP: 108) or in a distributive sense to single out the members composing the aggregate (as in Exod. 13.8, 15).

142

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

the person of Jethro, who comes to confess YHWH as the one who delivered the people from the power of Egypt and who is therefore greater than all other gods (18.9-11).342 In Jethro's kerygmatic assertion, 'Blessed be YHWH who has delivered you from the hand of Egypt and the hand of Pharaoh' (18.10), is found the antithesis of the people's resistance. And yet Jethro is an outsider, a Midianite. Although he brings with him Moses' Midianite wife Zipporah and their two sons, these members of Moses' family never appear again in the narrative of the Pentateuch.343 While Jethro officiates at sacrifices (18.12) and advises Moses on how to establish Israel's legal administration (18.13-26), he then leaves for his own country (18.27). Just as Midianites facilitated the entrance of Israel into Egypt by their part in the Joseph story in Genesis,344 so also now a Midianite, Jethro, facilitates the exit of Israel from Egypt. But Midian does not join Israel;345 in fact, Israel is commanded later to engage in a holy war of genocide against Midian (Num. 31). Midian thus functions temporarily to facilitate the consolidation of Israel's unique identity in the transitional or liminal period in the wilderness—here as a foil over against Israel's 342. Verse 18.11 in the MT literally reads: 'Now I know that YHWH is greater than all the gods; indeed (or because of) in the matter in which they acted presumptuously or rebelliously against them.' The problem is to ascertain the antecedents of the pronouns 'they' and 'them'. BHS suggests a lacuna in the text while NRSV transposes a phrase from 18.10 in order to make the phrase mean that Egypt acted presumptuously against the Israelites (an interpretation that seems also to be found in Neh. 9.10). As it stands in the MT, the phrase seems to refer to the other gods, presumably the gods of Egypt, acting presumptuously against the Israelites, thus connecting with the notice in 12.12 that YHWH will execute judgments on the gods of Egypt. This is the interpretation of NJPS and Durham (1987: 239-40). The LXX, reading 'because of this, that they attacked them', seems to refer to the attack of the Amalekites, narrated just previously (17.8-16). These textual difficulties do not significantly affect Jethro's basic affirmation of YHWH as the God who separated Israel from Egypt. 343. Only here is the audience of the scroll informed that Zipporah and Moses' two sons have been back in Midian with Jethro all this time (the last time they were encountered was on their way to Egypt with Moses in ch. 4). Moses seems to have sent them back, perhaps even divorcing Zipporah—the piel of PI^EJ [18.2] is often used in this sense. Although they seem here to be reunited with him, Zipporah never again appears by name in the Hebrew Bible, and Eliezer and Gershom do not appear again in the Pentateuch (unless Gershom is a variant of Gershon, a name appearing once in Genesis and several times in Numbers). 344. Midianites (alternatively Ishmaelites) are responsible for conveying Joseph to Egypt (Gen. 37.28, 36; 39.1). 345. In Num. 10.29-30, Moses asks his father-in-law to join Israel, but he refuses.

3. Egypt in Exodus

143

longing for its old Egyptian identity—but is just as sharply separated from Israel as is Egypt when that function is fulfilled. In summary, once the physical separation of Israel from Egypt has been effected, the narrative allows the voice of Israel to come to expression. It is a voice that longs for its former identity in Egypt, and associates Egypt with plenty and the presence of YHWH. In this voice, the pro-Egyptian ideology that the text is attempting to combat is made manifest, but it is cast as a rebellious and complaining voice. Moreover, in this voice, Egypt returns as the 'other' over against which the identity of Israel continues to be constructed; the Utopian moment at the sea, in which the necessity of the other was dissolved, could not be sustained. Finally, in contrast to Israel's rebellious voice, the narrative offers the counter-example of Jethro, who affirms the centrality of the exodus to the identity of Israel and its God. And yet this affirmation comes from an outsider; the people have yet to make this affirmation their own. It is only at Sinai that the people will finally confirm their new identity apart from Egypt in the form of an agreement or covenant with YHWH. At Sinai YHWH designates Israel as a distinct and special people, and the people formally assent to a relationship with YHWH that is premised on their distinct identity.346 Here the ethnogenesis of Israel is advanced a further step in that Israel is legally constituted as a people defined by the covenant. The preparations for the making of the covenant in Exod. 19 proleptically anticipate the sealing of the covenant in Exod. 24,347 and so a structural inclusio serves to set apart and highlight this section. Since the necessary prologue to the formation of Israel as a people is separation from Egypt, YHWH begins the covenant-making process by first recounting what he did to Egypt and how on eagle's wings he brought the 346. The biblical terminology of 'covenant' (tY~Q) is used to describe the agreement reached between Israel and YHWH at Sinai. Underlying the biblical concept are the forms of ancient Near Eastern treaties and loyalty oaths (Mendenhall and Herion 1992). The exodus of Israel from Egypt and the events at Sinai signify the transference of Israel from a vassal relationship in Egypt subject to Pharaoh to a vassal relationship in the wilderness subject to YHWH. In contrast, the promise made to Abraham in the ancestor accounts of Genesis is of the form of a divine charter. Genesis and Exodus thus differ in their conceptualization of the relationship between (proto-) Israel and its God. 347. Exodus 19.7-8 has Moses setting before the people 'all these words which YHWH had commanded him' (even though the detailed covenant stipulations do not begin until Exod. 20), and all the people answering as one 'all which YHWH has spoken we will do'. These words are recapitulated almost verbatim in 24.3, 7.

144

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

people to himself (19.4). In exchange for the people's covenant obedience, YHWH offers them the identity of being his CPQirr'^DQ H^D ('treasured possession out of all the peoples'), his D^HD ro *?QE ('kingdom of priests'), and his EJnp ^ ('holy nation', 19.5-6). The affirmative response of the people to YHWH'S offer (19.8) marks the creation of Israel as YHWH'S special people or nation.348 Similarly, the Decalogue, marking the beginning of the list of covenant stipulations, begins by identifying the covenant sovereign as 'YHWH your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt' (20.2).349 In other words, the legal tradition that defines and undergirds the identity of Israel as a people is rooted in separation from Egypt. YHWH, the covenant lord, is identified primarily as the God who effected this separation. From the perspective of the dominant ideology of the text, without an exodus or separation from Egypt, the entire premise for the existence of Israel as a people in a covenant relationship with YHWH would not exist.350 The repudiation of Egypt is thus essential, for it defines both Israel and its deity. While separation from Egypt is therefore shown, according to the narrative, to be the foundation of Israel's legal tradition, Egypt itself appears only infrequently in the actual stipulations of that legal tradition. Significantly, Egypt is mentioned specifically in connection with legislation regarding the treatment of the "O ('resident alien'): A resident alien you will not afflict/humble (ilDJ?), nor will you oppress/ squeeze (JTI"?) him; for resident aliens you were in the land of Egypt (22.20 [21]). A resident alien you will not oppress/squeeze QTt 7), you know the life of the resident alien; for resident aliens you were in the land of Egypt (23.9).

348. 'Without that affirmative response, indeed, there would have been only "sons of Israel", the descendants of Jacob. With the affirmative response, "Israel", a community of faith transcending biological descendancy, would come into being' (Durham 1987:262). 349. Egypt is additionally described here in a negative way as aO''"QU fTO ('house of slaves'—see the first appearances of this description in 13.3, 14). This negative portrayal does not appear again until Deuteronomy, where it is used frequently (5.6; 6.12; 7.8; 8.14; 13.6, 11). 350. Note the repeated appearance of the autokerygmatic phrase 'I am YHWH (your God) who brought you out/up from the land of Egypt' (with minor variations) throughout the legal material of the Pentateuch, particularly in the Holiness Code of Leviticus with its emphasis on the separateness of Israel: Exod. 29.46; Lev. 11.45; 19.36; 22.33; 25.38; 26.13; Num. 15.41; Deut. 5.6.

3. Egypt in Exodus

145

The "12 ('resident alien'/'sojourner') refers to settled or temporary residents who have no familial or tribal affiliation with the dominant residents of a territory, and therefore usually lack full rights and are dependent on a patron for protection from abuse. This legislation presumes that Israel occupies the role of the dominant kinship group settled in the land, and so stands as a collective over against the resident aliens in its midst. In that situation, Israel's own experience in Egypt is to provide the motivation and the measure for its non-abusive treatment of the resident alien. Given the narrative's dominant interest in portraying Israel's Egyptian experience as oppressive, Israel's experience is easily interpreted as a negative example of the maltreatment of the resident alien.351 Israel is thus enjoined not to repeat such maltreatment when it itself achieves a position of dominance. However, Israel's Egyptian experience in this legislation could also be interpreted as a positive example that Israel is to emulate. The Joseph story, for instance, provides a positive example of how Egypt treated the resident alien. To a lesser extent, Abraham's experience in Egypt (Gen. 12) and the plundering motif in the exodus narrative point to Egypt as a place where resident aliens become enriched. In other words, the legislation itself is not intrinsically positively or negatively inclined towards Egypt, but the context in which the legislation is read will determine whether Egypt is seen as a positive or negative example. By making separation from Egypt foundational for Israel's constitutive legal tradition, the text of Exodus places this legislation regarding the resident alien into a context whereby it is most naturally read as anti-Egyptian. Had the same legislation been placed in a context friendlier to Egypt, such as that of the Joseph story, it could be read as pro-Egyptian. The legislation regarding the resident alien not only contributes to a negative image of Egypt in its present context, but it also plays a part in the portrayal of Israel vis-a-vis Egypt. Describing Israel as a resident alien in Egypt implies that Israel was not and can never be fully at home there but in actuality belongs elsewhere. In Egypt Israel can never be a mTN ('native, indigene'), only a "U,352 thus undergirding the separation of Israel from Egypt and the view that Israel's origins are to be found outside of 351. The verbs f n b and H3i3 have been used previously of the Egyptian oppression of Israel (1.11-12;3.9). Both verbs are brought together to describe Egypt's oppression of Israel in the credo of Deut. 26.5-9. 352. This notion would strongly undermine the legitimacy of a Jewish diaspora community in Egypt, at least one that sees itself as rooted in any significant fashion in Egypt.

146

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Egypt. However, other legal traditions in the Pentateuch call the distinction between IT1TK and "13 into question. For example, Israel is specifically enjoined that the same legal code is to apply to 1"!1TN and 13 alike,353 and various legal stipulations are directed to both niTK and "II354 Israel is even commanded to collapse the distinction between niTN and "13 precisely on the basis of its experience in Egypt: As a native among you shall be for you the resident alien residing with you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were resident aliens in Egypt (Lev. 19.34a).

That the distinction between PUTS and 13 is thus problematized by Israel's legal tradition itself355 has two implications. First, it suggests that Israel is recognized on at least a certain implicit level of the text to be not the homogenous and rooted kinship group (niTN) that the image 'sons of Israel' portrays it to be, but rather a collection of originally heterogeneous elements, including D''13.356 Secondly, it suggests that the image of Israel as a resident alien in Egypt does not as strongly imply the separate and foreign status of Israel there as it might seem at first. If the !"!1TK and 13 are equated in at least some of the Pentateuchal traditions, then the differential force of the assertion that Israel was a resident alien in Egypt is at least theoretically muted and it becomes possible to find latent in the text an Israel that is more at home in Egypt than the manifest text will allow.357 As the people's physical distance from Egypt increases, the concern for separation specifically from Egypt is increasingly generalized into a concern for separation or distinctiveness from all other peoples. For instance, the legal stipulations seem more interested in differentiating Israel from 353. Exod. 12.49; Lev. 24.2; Num. 9.14; 15.29. 354. Exod. 12.19; Lev. 16.29; 17.8-16; 18.26. 355. It must be recognized that occasionally the legal tradition does differentiate between the HITS and the 13, but such explicit distinctions are rare. An example is Deut. 14.21, in which Israel is prohibited from eating anything that has died of itself but is allowed to give it to resident aliens. However, the similar law in Lev. 17.15 stipulates that both native and alien resident become unclean if they eat that which has died of itself. 356. In other words, the notion of a common ancestry is a fiction that functions to unite originally disparate groups, including, one might speculate, Egyptians. 357. The ancestors of Genesis are regularly described as resident aliens in Palestine (e.g. Gen. 23.4; 36.6-7), and Jacob and his family are described as resident aliens when they migrate into Egypt (Gen. 47.4). However, the story of Joseph in Genesis portrays Israel as obtaining land in Egypt (Gen. 47.11, 27), a step towards gaining the status of niT« there.

3. Egypt in Exodus

147

the tribes in Canaan, than from Egypt (23.23-33; 34.11-26). This generalization is explicitly voiced in Moses' words to YHWH: 'And we will be distinct/separate, I and your people, from all the people who are upon the face of the earth' (33.16b).358 Thus, gradually the concern for differentiation from Egypt is opening up to include new foci for contrastive identity. In summary, the constitutive moment at Sinai, when Israel is given definitive shape through a covenant with YHWH, is framed within the context of separation from Egypt. The exodus through which Israel becomes distinct from Egypt provides the necessary historical prologue to the presentation of Israel's covenantal obligations. Yet within those covenantal obligations are legal traditions regarding the proper treatment of the resident alien that unsettle a too-facile distinction between Egypt and Israel, and make problematic the notion of an impermeable boundary between the two. And finally, the focus for contrastive identity begins to shift from Egypt to the tribal peoples of Canaan, although differentiation from Egypt remains the underlying paradigm. By the end of the scroll, Israel's identity as YHWH'S people separate from Egypt seems finally to be secured, but not until that identity is endangered and rescued. In the narrative of the golden calf (Exod. 32-34), Israel almost loses its newly birthed identity. In an ironic reversal of the plague narrative, in which YHWH had to persuade Pharaoh to let Israel go, in this narrative Moses has to persuade YHWH to stick with Israel. In the end, after repeated entreaties, YHWH'S covenantal relationship with Israel is renewed and Israel's distinctive identity is assured.359 And so the scroll of Exodus can end with a second utopic moment, with the indwelling of YHWH in the newly constructed tabernacle, indicated by the cloud and YHWH'S glory (40.34-38).360 While the tabernacle has been fused with the tradition of the tent of meeting, unlike the tent of meeting which was located on the margins of the camp (33.7), it is located in the middle of the 358. The LXX here reads 'we will be glorified beyond all the nations', a translation perhaps based on the verb N^S instead of il^S (see the remarks on 8.19 [23]; 9.4 and 11.7 above). 359. The proleptic instructions for the tabernacle's construction and for the institution of worship cannot be actualized until after Israel's identity has been endangered and rescued. The material concerning the tabernacle (25.1-31.18; 35.1-40.33) frames the narrative of Israel's apostasy and restoration (32.1-34.35), highlighting the centrality of this narrative to the text's construction of Israel's identity. 360. The cloud as an indication of YHWH'S presence has already been encountered in 13.21-22; 14.19-20, 24; 19.9; 33.9.

148

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

camp (25.8; 29.44-45).361 Thus, when YHWH'S presence enters the tabernacle, in the narrative world of the scroll it can truly be said that now YHWH indeed dwells in the midst of his people.362 The utopic indwelling presence of YHWH also finally secures Israel's identity. Throughout the golden calf incident, and even earlier in Exodus, the more general term 'the people' has alternated with the more specific terms 'sons of Israel' and 'Israel', but the general term was used more frequently. Although COT likely functions often as a synonym for 'Israel', in the context of the mixed crowd that leaves Egypt (12.31), it is also possible that the term is meant to evoke the yet heterogeneous nature of the people in the wilderness. In other words, from the dominant ideological standpoint in the text, not all that depart from Egypt are or can be legitimately part of Israel. But gradually the more specific term 'Israel' prevails, and the scroll ends with a reference to 'all the house of Israel' (40.38).363 Thus the narrative of Exodus has come full circle; the Israel that emerges out of Egypt is equivalent, except in numbers, to the Israel that entered Egypt. It has remained functionally intact as a group connected by a common origin extrinsic to Egypt; Egypt was but a dangerous detour or deviation, which in the end was overcome. And yet, the figure of Moses indicates that there is a surplus or remainder that does not fit this neat equation of those who enter and those who leave Egypt. The ambivalent status of Moses will continue to beset the narrative of the Pentateuch with an ideological contradiction between origins intrinsic and extrinsic to Egypt, leading eventually to his untimely death at the borders of the Promised Land. Egypt, far from being erased, will persist as the 'other' at the heart of Israel's identity. The Identity of Moses Moses, the key character in facilitating the covenant between Israel and YHWH, seems to embody the ambiguity about boundaries of identity in the 361. See the references to the hybrid 'tabernacle of the tent of meeting' in 39.32; 40.2,6,29. The narrative of Exodus contains a tension between the tabernacle, which will be a sign or house of YHWH'S presence in the midst of the camp, mediated by Aaron and his sons as priests, and the tent of meeting which is a sign or house of YHWH'S presence outside, on the margins of the camp, connected with Moses and Joshua. The tension is clearly resolved in the end in favor of the centrally located tabernacle, which subsumes (or subverts) the function of the tent of meeting. 362. And so the promise of YHWH in 29.46 is fulfilled. 363. This reference evokes the original family of Jacob/Israel with which the scroll of Exodus opened. See also the reference to the 'house of Jacob' in 19.3.

3. Egypt in Exodus

149

narrative. Only he is able to go up and down the mountain; strict boundaries circumscribe the movement of everyone else, including YHWH.364 Moses' ability to transgress these boundaries is due to his role as intermediary between Israel and YHWH; in this capacity, Moses functions like a "[N^D ('messenger/angel') of the deity. In this respect, it is interesting to consider the tradition reported in Exod. 14.19; 23.20-23; 32.34; 33.2; Num. 20.16 and Judg. 2.1-5 that an angel guided Israel out of Egypt, in the wilderness and into the Promised Land. Although no explicit connection is made between this guiding angel and Moses, the later tradition of the ascent and divine enthronement of Moses at Sinai, found in Jewish Egyptian, Samaritan and rabbinic sources (Meeks 1968) suggests the possibility that a more heroic and even semi-divine portrayal of Moses is obscured behind the figure of this angel. In any case, the people are depicted as believing that it is Moses, not the deity, who has brought them out of Egypt. While Moses and the narrator interpret the people's complaints as directed towards YHWH (16.7-8; 17.2, 7), the people themselves complain against Moses (15.24; 16.2; 17.2, 3). They blame Moses, not YHWH, for bringing them out of Egypt, a place of plenty, into the wilderness, a place of sure death. Even though Moses had announced that the miraculous provision of food in the wilderness would cause the people to know that YHWH had brought them out of Egypt (16.6), it seems that the lesson did not sink in. In fact, the people explicitly express a desire for death at the hand of YHWH in Egypt (16.3). The people's question, 'Is YHWH among us or not?' (17.7) indicates that, from Israel's narrative perspective, the plenty of Egypt is connected with the presence of YHWH, while the lack of the wilderness expresses YHWH'S absence. Moses, however, is present and to blame for their predicament.365 In contrast, YHWH insists that he is present with Israel because he brought Israel out of Egypt: 364. A strict boundary ("733, HUp) is set around the mountain that the people are not to break down or through (0~in) (19.12-13, 20-24). The same boundary constrains YHWH; the people are warned not to break through the barrier lest YHWH burst forth (f ~IS) against them (19.22, 24). Moses transgresses boundaries here that the people cannot cross, but later he is not allowed to cross a boundary that all the people cross, namely the Jordan River into the Promised Land. 365. While most of the plague narrative tended to emphasize the power and central role of YHWH, in comparison to which Moses was only an instrument to carry out the deity's work, it is Moses who is originally commissioned to bring Israel out of Egypt (3.10, 12). Later on, in the incident of the golden calf, YHWH admits that Israel is Moses' people, whom he has brought out of Egypt (32.7).

150

Egypt on the Pentateuch 's Ideological Map And I will dwell in the midst of the sons of Israel, and I will be for them (a) God; And they will know that I am YHWH their God, who brought them out of the land of Egypt, in order that I may dwell in their midst; I am YHWH their God. (29.45-46).

In this autokerygmatic statement, the audience of the scroll clearly encounters the logic of Israel's separation from Egypt; namely, that YHWH can dwell in the midst of Israel as its God. The implication is that, as long as Israel was still in Egypt, YHWH could not dwell in Israel's midst because YHWH cannot dwell in Egypt. Thus only outside of Egypt can Israel be truly Israel. But even though Israel is now physically outside Egypt, the incomplete aspect of the verbs indicates that Israel still needs to come to this knowledge of its God and its own identity. The narrative of the golden calf and its aftermath in 32.1-34.18 presents the ultimate crisis in terms of Israel's identity. Hitherto, the people have resisted and complained about their new non-Egyptian identity, but now they reject it outright and thus jeopardize the entire program of the exodus.366 The role of Moses in this story of apostasy is not only crucial in that he resolves the crisis and prevents Israel's destruction, but also because it evokes again his ambiguous status vis-a-vis Israel. The incident begins when, in the people's (DUH) estimation, Moses, who has brought them up from Egypt, shamefully fails to return from the top of the mountain,367 leaving them without leadership (32. la). So they gather against Aaron368 and demand that he make for them nTl^K ('gods')369 to go before them (32. Ib). From the people's perspective, it is Moses, not YHWH, who has brought them out of Egypt, and therefore it is for him that 366. Durham has captured well the sense of urgency and danger presented by the narrative of Israel's apostasy: 'The special treasure-people whose identity has been established by the arrival in their midst of the Presence of Yahweh himself are suddenly in danger of becoming a people with no identity at all, a non-people and a non-group...' (Durham 1987: 417). 'All that has been received is about to be lost' (Durham 1987: 418). 367. The active intensive po'el of tETD ('to be ashamed') is used of the people's perception of Moses. While BDB glosses this rare form, here and in Judg. 5.28, as 'to delay (in shame)', it seems that the shame involved is due to a perceived potential failure, not delay, in achieving a desired goal. That is, the people here do not believe that Moses is taking too long on the mountain but that he will fail to return altogether, thus, on the one hand, disgracing or shaming him, and, on the other, necessitating a new leader. 368. The use of the preposition *7JJ suggests an adversarial sense. 369. The term is here understood as plural since it is followed by a verb in the plural.

3. Egypt in Exodus

151

they seek a replacement. Furthermore, they seek a divine replacement, suggesting that they viewed Moses as (semi-) divine. Aaron takes the gold earrings370 offered by the people and fashions them into a calf,371 which the people then acclaim as 'your gods, O Israel, which brought you up from the land of Egypt' (32.4).372 According to the people, the golden calf substitutes for Moses, not YHWH, and thus the identity of Israel is associated primarily, or solely, with Moses.373 In response, YHWH angrily proposes to consume this' stiff-necked people' (^-lirrrtOp)374 and to make instead of Moses a great nation (32.7-10). Just as the people desired a replacement for Moses, so now YHWH proposes to replace them. However, precisely in his rejection of the people, YHWH agrees with their identification of themselves with Moses; 'your people, whomjyow brought up from the land of Egypt', he says to Moses (32.7; see 370. Gold earrings (DT3) seem to be associated with both idolatry and foreignness (Gen. 35.4; Judg. 8.24-27). Here, the earrings could be part of the jewelry that Israel acquired when leaving and plundering Egypt (Exod. 3.21-22; 11.2-3; 12.35-36). 371. Bull images were common in ancient Near Eastern worship; examples include the lunar cult of the Mesopotamian god Sin, the bull as the icon of Ugaritic deities such as El, Baal and Anat, and Egyptian representations of Amon-Re as a bull. The epithet of YHWH as TUN ('the Strong One', e.g. Gen. 49.24; Isa. 1.24), may actually refer to YHWH metaphorically as a bull. The use of "731? ('calf) in this text instead of a word for 'bull' may be deliberately derisive. See, for instance, the play on words between ^312 and King Eglon of Moab as part of the derisive ethnic stereotyping in the story of Judg. 3.12-30 (Handy 1992). 372. The plural 'gods' is puzzling here since only one golden calf has been produced (see also 32.8). The identical acclamation in 1 Kgs 12.28 suggests that the present passage is a direct reference to the two golden calves that Jeroboam produced for Israel (1 Kgs 12.26-29). Jeroboam, as also Solomon's other adversary, Hadad the Edomite, found refuge in Egypt (1 Kgs 11.14-22, 26-40; 12.2; Galpaz 1991), a notion that is anathema to the dominant ideology of the text. 373. That the calf also indicates a reversion back to Egyptian ways by the people is possible, though not explicitly indicated in the narrative. The people have not been depicted anywhere in the narrative, even while they lived in Egypt, as worshiping Egyptian deities. Also, rather than expressing a desire to return to Egypt, as in the previous incidents of the people's resistance, the making of the calf seems to reflect the people's acceptance of the exodus from Egypt (32.4, 8) and a concern for leadership forward in the wilderness (32.1). Sasson (1968) speculates that the calf, far from symbolizing connections with Egypt, actually preserves a link to the worship of the god Sin by the Mesopotamian ancestors of Israel. 374. The phrase is usually understood as portraying stubbornness or obstinacy. Since spl? means 'back of the neck', it also connotes a turning away; the 'stiffness' would indicate arrogant pride.

152

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

also 33.1). This statement is striking in that previously YHWH has insisted that he will bring the people out of Egypt so that they will be his people (e.g. 3.7-12; 6.6-7; 1 A;passim). On the narrative level, it seems that the crisis of the people's apostasy is so acute that YHWH is ready to jettison the whole project of the ethnogenesis of Israel and so distances himself from the people. On the ideological level, however, one can perceive in this agreement between the perspectives of the people and of YHWH hints of an alternative definition of Israel, of an Israel that is predominantly shaped by, and claims as its origin, the Moses of Egypt. Ironically, Moses is portrayed as the one who disagrees with this perspective. He challenges YHWH, 'Why, O YHWH, does your anger burn against your people whom you brought out from the land of Egypt?' (32.11), and urges YHWH to repent and change (Dm) 'regarding the evil/ wrong (you intend) against your people' (32.12).375 Repeatedly, Moses emphasizes that the people are not his but YHWH'S. The narrative uses the voice of Moses, even over against the usually authoritative voice of YHWH, to undermine precisely the notion that Israel is essentially defined by Moses and thus to support the ideology of Israel's identity as YHWH'S unique possession. To change YHWH'S mind proves, however, to be no easy matter. At least three times Moses must plead and argue to persuade YHWH to reclaim and maintain his ownership of Israel. First, Moses persuades YHWH not to destroy his people; he evokes YHWH'S honor or reputation in Egypt, which will be ruined if Israel is wiped out, and reminds YHWH of the promises to the ancestors (32.12-14).376 Moses then subjects the people to a trial by ordeal (32.20)377 and a violent purge (32.25-29)378 in an effort to cleanse 375. The roles of Moses and YHWH are here the reverse of what they were in Exod. 3-4. In the call of Moses, YHWH had to persuade Moses to accept his commission; here Moses has to persuade YHWH not to give up his project of the ethnogenesis of Israel. 376. The allusion to the ancestral stories of Genesis as a means of affirming Israel's essentially non-Egyptian roots is familiar from the story of the call of Moses (3.6,1516). The argument about upholding YHWH'S reputation in Egypt continues the motif of the demonstration of YHWH'S power to the Egyptians in the plagues. 377. Moses grinds the golden calf to powder and mixes it with water that he makes the sons of Israel drink. This procedure is somewhat reminiscent of the destruction of idols elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. 2 Kgs 23.6), but it especially exhibits parallels to the test of a wife's faithfulness on the occasion of her husband's jealousy as outlined in Num. 5. So also Israel's faithfulness to its God and its God-bound identity is at stake here. 378. Moses recruits the Levites to engage in a slaughter of three thousand of their

3. Egypt in Exodus

153

them of the stain of their apostasy. Additionally, YHWH sends a plague on the people (32.35).379 Despite these measures, YHWH, although he has changed his mind about destroying the people, threatens to withdraw his presence from them (33.3), offering the guidance of an angel instead (32.34; 33.2). YHWH refuses Moses' offer to be the substitutionary victim for the people's sin (32.32-33) and continues to refer to Moses as the one who brought the people up from the land of Egypt (33.1). Israel's identity is still at risk. In response, the people strip themselves of their ornaments in an ironic reversal of the plundering motif (33.4-6),380 symbolically putting themselves into the submissive role of the defeated enemy. For a second time, Moses argues to persuade YHWH to claim Israel as his own. Playing on his own favored status in YHWH'S eyes (33.12b, 13a), he reminds YHWH, 'And see, your people are this nation' (33.13b). Andagain: And in what will it be known, then, that I have found favor in your eyes, I and your people, if not in your going with us ? And we will be distinct, I and your people, from all the people who are on the face of the earth. (33.15-16)

Moses here twice explicitly links himself with the people, thus circumventing the attempt to single him out as unique. And yet Moses is indeed presented in the narrative as unique. He is the only one who can climb the mountain to YHWH,381 and YHWH even speaks with him face-to-face as one talks with a friend (33.11).382 And yet Moses uses his unique status precisely to dissolve his distinctiveness into the distinctiveness of the people: 'we shall be distinct, I and your people, from all the people who are upon the face of the earth' (33.16b). At the same time, Moses continues to insist that the people are YHWH'S, addressing YHWH consistently kin and neighbors. He also confronts Aaron, who tries to blame the people (32.24) and claims that the golden calf formed by itself (32.24).The narrator, however, blames both Aaron and the people, resulting in the unusual syntax of 32.35: 'And YHWH sent a plague on the people because they made the calf which Aaron made.1 379. This plague (*p3) evokes the plagues in Egypt that YHWH promised not to inflict upon Israel if it was obedient to his words (15.26). 380. The verb "7JM in 33.6 recalls the similar use of the same verb in the plundering motif (3.22; 12.36). 381. Even the covenant meal on the mountain in which the 70 elders of Israel participate (24.9-11) does not diminish Moses' uniqueness, for even here the text several times insists that only Moses actually encounters YHWH (24.2, 15-18). 382. In contrast, however, when Moses requests a theophany, he is only granted a view of YHWH'S back since no one can see YHWH'S face and live (33.20, 23).

154

Egypt on the Pentateuch 's Ideological Map

about 'your people'. For a second time, YHWH is persuaded, although his response focuses entirely on Moses with no mention of the people: 'Indeed, this very thing you have said I will do, for you have found favor in my eyes and I know you by name' (33.17).383 For a third and final time, Moses pleads with YHWH: 'If, please, I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, then, please go, my lord, in our midst; for it is a stiff-necked people, and (so) pardon our iniquity and our sin and take us as your inheritance/possession' (34.9).384 Again Moses identifies himself unequivocally with the people. Finally, YHWH responds decisively by making a covenant, thus replacing the former broken covenant, and by having Moses inscribe a new set of tablets (34.27-28). And the presence of YHWH with the people is now assured, for YHWH promises that he himself, and not an angel as previously mentioned (33.2), will drive out the tribes of the land before them (34.11). Yet, while Moses both identifies himself with the people, and sees them as YHWH'S people, YHWH continues to identify them as Moses' people while at the same time maintaining a sense of difference between them and Moses. YHWH speaks to Moses of 'your people', not 'my people' (34.10a), thus reiterating the people's own sense of identification with Moses. But in the same sentence, YHWH differentiates between Moses and the people in speaking to Moses of 'all the people in whose midst you are' (34. lOb). The same differentiation appears in YHWH'S later declaration to Moses: 'I have made with you a covenant, and with Israel' (34.27). Moreover, Moses' shining (or horned) face, and his need to veil his face (34.2935), underline his difference from the people.385 The whole incident of the golden calf and its aftermath thus plays on the aspect of uniqueness in identity formation. From the narrative perspective of the people, Israel is closely identified with Moses, who both comes from Egypt and is perceived as (semi-) divine in that he is interchangeable 383. The dialogue between Moses and YHWH in 33.12-17 is also significant in its emphasis of the theme of knowledge: the root UT appears six times in these six verses, recalling the importance of this theme in the plague and exodus narratives. 3 84. Moses' plea, with its twofold use of the particle of entreaty 83, echoes the same twofold plea of 33.13; it also evokes the invitation of YHWH in 19.5 that Israel be his special treasured possession. 385. Both Sasson (1968: 384-87) and Moberly (1983: 108-109) see in the word |~p a deliberate parallelism with the calf that the people substituted for Moses. The change in Moses' appearance—his face shines or has a horned appearance—has also been explained as a horned cultic mask signifying divine priestly authority or as the aura that signifies Moses' elevation to semi-divine status.

3. Egypt in Exodus

155

with the divine symbol of the golden calf. The narrative perspective of YHWH agrees withthatof the people insofar as it identifies Israel as Moses' people and at the same time ascribes a unique status to Moses in that he can be substituted for the people as a new starting point. From these two perspectives, Moses is both identified with, and yet distinct from, the people. Over against these perspectives is that expressed by Moses. Whereas the people and YHWH identify Israel primarily with Moses, Moses insists repeatedly that Israel belongs to YHWH. And whereas the people and YHWH place Moses in a unique position apart from the people, Moses constantly links himself with the people as one of them. In fact, Moses uses the unique favored status attributed to him by YHWH, not to glorify himself, but to plead for the restoration of the people's unique status by identifying himself with the people. Ironically, while Moses is successful in persuading YHWH to restore the people's unique status, YHWH continues to maintain Moses' own distinctiveness. Moses' attempt to be seen as one of YHWH'S people is rebuffed. Moses remains an exalted yet liminal figure, central to the constitution of Israel as YHWH'S people rescued from Egypt, and at the same time marginal in relationship to membership in Israel.386 This clash of narrative perspectives on the place of Moses in relation to Israel is integral to the conflict of ideologies in the narrative over Israel's identity in relation to Egypt. Moses, for all the efforts to distance him from his Egyptian background, has strong Egyptian associations. The various perspectives on Moses thus represent a variety of ways in which the connection of Israel with Egypt was conceptualized in the context of the primary producers and consumers of the scroll of Exodus. First, there is the people's view of Moses as a (semi-) divine 'strong one/bull' who leads them out of Egypt and through the wilderness, a view opposed by YHWH and Moses; this reflects an ideological conflict regarding the status of Moses as an exalted Egyptian Israelite hero. Secondly, there is Moses' view of himself as one of YHWH'S people contrasted with YHWH'S view of Moses as separate from the people; this reflects an ideological conflict about whether an Egyptian, no matter how exalted and beneficial for Israel, can really be a member of Israel. Thirdly, there is YHWH'S ambivalence about whether the people belong to him or to Moses; this reflects an 386. In order to be a mediating figure between the mundane and transcendent worlds, Moses must exist on the margins; the tent of meeting where YHWH and Moses meet, for instance, is located on the edge of the camp (33.7-11). But on the level of the clash of ideologies in the narrative, the marginalization of Moses may have more to do with his Egyptian associations.

156

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

ideological conflict about the status of Israelites from Egypt and whether they can claim membership in the true Israel descended from the eponymous ancestor who originally migrated from Mesopotamia. Summary: Egypt in Exodus The scroll of Exodus, as analyzed above, is a sustained argument for a particular distinctive, non-Egyptian identity for Israel. The scroll begins by setting up the classic ethnic polarity between 'us' and 'them', between Israel and Egypt, and then expends its rhetorical effort in persuading its audience to acquiesce to this binary opposition. Just as the Israel in the narrative only gradually comes to an awareness and acceptance of its identity separate from Egypt, so the audience of the scroll is likewise gradually persuaded, via its identification with the Israel in the narrative, to come to the same conclusion about itself. The evocation of the 'master narrative' of Israel found in the ancestor stories of Genesis, in which Israel's true origins are to be found in Mesopotamia and in which Egypt, therefore, represents only a temporary detour, proves to be a powerful argument. The image of Egypt as a place of plenty and security is effectively attacked as the voice of rebellion and complaint. However, the main persuasive force in the narrative is the voice of YHWH, who unequivocally insists that Israel and Egypt are distinct and actively seeks to actualize this distinction by the physical and emotional separation of Israel from Egypt. And yet the distinction between Israel and Egypt is continually compromised by ambiguity and hints of alternative understandings. When Israel is given a voice in the narrative, this voice speaks predominantly of an Israel that is rooted in Egypt and is reluctant to participate in an exodus. The very origins and composition of Israel are problematized by notions of heterogeneity that poke holes in absolute ethnic boundaries. Moreover, the spectre of a return to Egypt perturbs the ideological master narrative in which a return to Egypt is unthinkable. But it is especially in Moses that the ambiguities of identity formation in the narrative come together. Moses is a hybrid straddling the boundary between Egypt and Israel; he is also the hero who leads Israel out of Egypt. While the narrative attempts to distance Moses as much as possible from his Egyptian background, in the end his identification with Israel remains suspect. Furthermore, the narrative consistently attempts to undercut a heroic or even mythical portrait of Moses. These strong rhetorical moves indicate that the scroll of Exodus is engaged in a contest of ideologies in the context of its production, circulation

3. Egypt in Exodus

157

and consumption. The scroll is fundamentally aimed at combating and discrediting views that are pro-Egyptian. In the scroll, Egypt is the major 'other' over against which the unique and distinct identity of Israel is constructed by contrast. Views that construct Israel's identity more in terms of positive identification with Egypt are repressed and can only be partially reconstructed from hints in the narrative. The negative value attached to Egypt is intensified or aggravated to the extent that Egypt is erased in the destruction in the sea. But a contrastive Israelite identity without an 'other' cannot be sustained. Thus, although the various tribal peoples of the Promised Land to which Israel is moving gradually enter the picture as a contrastive focus for Israel's identity, Egypt returns again and again as the necessary 'other' that renews and actualizes, in ritual and law, in memory and desire, Israel's distinctiveness.

Chapter 4 EGYPT IN LEVITICUS, NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY The Pentateuch is characterized by an intertwining of narrative and summary, in the form of genealogy, list and law (Blenkinsopp 1992:34). However, one or the other genre tends to be in the foreground in different parts of the Pentateuch. While narrative is the dominant genre in Genesis and in the first half of Exodus, after Exod. 19 the genre of summary, especially legal prescriptions and institutions, is more prevalent. This invites a somewhat different approach to the analysis of Egypt as portrayed in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Whereas the analysis thus far has proceeded more or less sequentially, as befits the temporal unfolding of narrative, in this chapter more of a thematic approach will be employed. The themes will be ones that have already been introduced in the previous analyses of Egypt in Genesis and Exodus; in the following pages, new permutations and further developments of these themes will be highlighted. But first, a brief look at the occurrences of Egypt within the specific shape of each of these three books seems warranted. The scroll of Leviticus recounts further laws and statutes that are revealed to Israel at Sinai. The number of explicit references to Egypt in the scroll is rather small— only 11 occurrences—most of which appear in the latter half of the book, especially in the so-called Holiness Code (chs. 17-26). Egypt does not explicitly figure in the regulations of Leviticus regarding the organization of Israel's cultic life—the sacrificial system and the ordination of cultic personnel. However, when the focus shifts from specialized ritual requirements of cultic specialists to matters of concern for the layperson, such as regulations regarding purity, community life, festivals and so on, then Egypt reappears. These regulations outline forms of behavior that function to make Israel distinct from other peoples, as indicated by the frequent admonition throughout the latter part of Leviticus that Israel is to be holy as YHWH, its God, is holy.1 Egypt's appearance among these 1.

'Holy' or 'sanctified' (E7Hp) at root means to be set apart or separated, even

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

159

regulations is not surprising, given Egypt's function in the Pentateuch as Israel's 'other'. The scroll of Numbers narrates the actual movement of Israel from Sinai through the wilderness to the borders of the Promised Land. Although sometimes seen as a hodge-podge of law and narrative, the scroll is coherently structured around the significant transition from the Egyptian generation of Israel, those who left Egypt in the exodus, to a new generation, birthed in the wilderness, which is destined to inherit the Promised Land. This structure is indicated by the two census lists, one numbering the old generation (Num. 1) and the other numbering the new generation (Num. 26), which function to divide the scroll into two halves (Olson 1996:4). This generational transition is extremely important for the ethnogenesis of Israel via separation from Egypt. The old generation is portrayed in an overwhelmingly negative fashion as rebellious, desiring to return to Egypt, and therefore unable to inherit the land, while the new generation provides at least the potential or hope of being the Israel, totally disassociated from Egypt, that the ideology of the Pentateuch desires.2 The scroll of Deuteronomy presents itself as a series of four Mosaic speeches at the boundary of the Promised Land.3 Explicit occurrences of Egypt, while spread rather generally throughout the scroll, are most prevalent in the second speech of Moses. This speech presents a hortatory resume of the covenant stipulations that define Israel, and therefore Egypt seems to have an important role to play in that definition. Deuteronomy also ends with an account of the death of Moses outside of the Promised Land (34.1-12), and various references to his death appear in the first (1.37; 3.26; 4.21) and last (31.2; 32.51) parts of the scroll. The death of Moses thus forms an inclusio framing the scroll of Deuteronomy (Olson 1994: 18). Moses, with his ambiguous Egyptian-Israelite identity, has been made taboo. Leviticus also has one of the highest densities in the Hebrew Bible of occurrences of the verb ^~Q ('to separate'); only the book of Ezra has a higher density of occurrences. 2. See Olson (1996: 4-7), who characterizes the two generations as the 'old generation of rebellion' and the 'new generation of hope', and also outlines significant parallels or echoes between the two halves of the scroll, thus strengthening the notion that a primary purpose of the scroll is to narrate the replacement of the old Egyptian generation of Israel with a new generation that is unadulterated by contact with Egypt. 3. The division between the speeches varies somewhat among commentators. P.D. Miller (1990: 10-11) divides them as follows: 1.1-4.43; 4.44-28.68; 28.69-32.52; 33.1-12. Chistensen's division (1991: xl-xli) is somewhat different: 1.1-4.43; 4.4426.19; 27.1-31.30; 32.1-34.12.

160

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

central in the formulation of Israel's distinctiveness, and so his death will be significant in the ideological rhetoric of the Pentateuch. Separation from Egypt In the regulations of Leviticus, Egypt appears mainly as a marker of Israel's difference. Egypt first appears in Lev. 11 at the end of a list of dietary restrictions, recognized as norms that constitute the community of Israel, both by stabilizing its inner organization and by delimiting it over against other communities (Gerstenberger 1996: 133-34): Because I (am) YHWH your God, and you will make yourselves holy, and you will be holy ones, because a holy one (am) I; And you will not make yourselves unclean by any swarming animal that creeps upon the land. Because I (am) YHWH, the one bringing you up from the land of Egypt to be for you (a) God; and you will be holy ones, because a holy one (am) I (Lev. 11.44-45).

The first autokerygmatic statement, 'I (am) YHWH your God', is matched by a second one, 'I (am) YHWH, the one bringing you up from the land of Egypt to be for you (a) God'; that is, the very definition of YHWH is connected with the separation of Israel from Egypt. Furthermore, not only does YHWH separate Israel from Egypt, but he is essentially himself one who is set apart (2Jnp); so also Israel, the people whom he constitutes through the exodus from Egypt, is to be set apart. The root paradigm for Israel's holiness is separation from Egypt. The two autokerygmatic declarations enclose an admonition to avoid swarming, creeping animals, and, as Lev. 11.41-42 makes clear, such animals are not to be part of Israel's diet.4 If the dietary restrictions function to set Israel apart, and if the distinctiveness of Israel is tied closely to the exodus from Egypt, then one might suspect that these dietary regulations are set over against what the producers of the text took to be characteristic Egyptian dietary habits.5 However, the dietary regulations 4. Swarming Q"TO) may be contrary to holiness because it signifies an unpredictable, chaotic movement that is not proper to any element (Wenham 1979: 178) and which thus threatens to breach the boundaries of proper order. Note that the seemingly unnatural swarming increase of Israel in Egypt (Exod. 1.7) arouses dread on the part of Egypt (1.12). 5. In actuality, of course, Israel shared a host of cultural practices, including various prohibitions, with its Near Eastern neighbours. Circumcision and pork avoidance, for example, were also found among the Egyptians (Chan 1985: 97); pork avoidance

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

161

exhibit their own internal taxonomic logic,6 quite apart from any necessary reference to the contrasting dietary habits of other peoples. Furthermore, some of them, such as the prohibition of pork, may have developed out of the particular environmental constraints of Palestine.7 Therefore, it is more likely that a set of dietary restrictions emerging from a context in Palestine is here adopted as distinctive of Israel. The reference to Egypt in the concluding section then does not so much point to an opposition to specific Egyptian dietary habits as it formulaically incorporates the dietary regulations into the more general theme of Israel's distinct!veness generated by the exodus. As was already observed in the latter part of Exodus, the 'other' over against which Israel is defined is shifting from Egypt alone to include also the tribal peoples of the land that Israel is to inherit. This shift is discernible especially in the second explicit mention of Egypt in Leviticus, which occurs at the beginning of a list of sexual restrictions: I (am) YHWH your God. That which is done in the land of Egypt, in which you lived, you will not do; And that which is done in the land of Canaan, into which I am bringing you, you will not do, and their prescriptions you will not walk in/follow. My judgments/ordinances you will do, and my prescriptions you will keep, to walk in/follow them. I (am) YHWH your God (Lev. 18.2b-4).

Here the prescriptions and ordinances of YHWH for his people Israel are differentiated from both what is done in Egypt and what is done in Canaan. That Canaan is mentioned following Egypt mirrors the narrative movement from Egypt to Canaan. An extra phrase is attached to the prohibition of Canaanite behavior, and the conclusion of the list (Lev. 18.2430) matches the proscribed behaviors only to the abominations (ETCUm) of the nations or inhabitants of the land towards which Israel is journeying, and not to the behavior of Egypt. These characteristics indicate a shift from a primary emphasis on differentiation from Egypt to more of a concern with differentiation from Canaan. The mention of Egypt in 18.3 seems to be largely formulaic; the real concern of the prohibitions is with differentiation from Canaan.8 seems to have been a widespread custom among all Semitic peoples with the exception of the Babylonians (de Vaux 1972: 266). 6. See especially the analyses by Mary Douglas (1966, 1975 , 1993) and Soler (1979). 7. See Marvin Harris (1985: 68-84). For sophisticated analyses based on archaeological faunal remains in Palestine, see Hesse (1990) and Zeder (1996). 8. This conclusion is further supported by the ending of Lev. 20, a chapter that

162

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Again, one could speculate that the sexual behaviors proscribed in the following regulations were seen by the producers of the text as somehow characteristic of either the Egyptians or the Canaanites, or both. For example, consanguineous marriages between brother and sister, prohibited in Lev. 18.9, 11, were common in Greco-Roman Egypt and practiced occasionally among the royal families of Pharaonic Egypt (Cerny 1954). Bestiality, prohibited in Lev. 18.23, may be a reflection of the prominence of zoomorphic representations in the Egyptian cult.9 However, the greater contrast occurs within the Pentateuch itself: Abraham is married to his half-sister Sarah (Gen. 20.2, 12; 12.13) in violation of the taboo in Lev. 18.11 (also 20.17), Amram, Moses' father, marries his paternal aunt (Exod. 6.20) in violation of the taboo in Lev. 18.12 (also 20.19), and Jacob's marriage to both Leah and Rachel (Gen. 29.21-30) violates the taboo in Lev. 18.18.' ° Interestingly, all these violations take place outside of Palestine, in either Mesopotamia or Egypt. It seems therefore that, instead of focusing on prohibiting the customs of Canaan along with those of Egypt, the text, more in keeping with the previous narrative in Genesis and Exodus, could have focused on the customs of Mesopotamia alongside those of Egypt. That Mesopotamia is absent, while a concern for separation from Egyptian customs is linked to a similar separation from Canaanite customs, seems to betray an anti-Egyptian (and anti-Canaanite) but proMesopotamian ideological stance on the part of the producers of the text. The differentation of Israel from Egypt is evoked in several more occurrences of the autokerygmatic formula 'I am YHWH, who brought you out from the land of Egypt'(Lev. 19.36; 22.33; Num. 15.41). The example from Lev. 19 is of special interest in that, midway through the chapter, one finds a set of regulations prohibiting the mixture or confusion of what the producers of the text saw as incompatible categories: 'Your cattle you will not (inter) breed (between) two kinds, your field you will not plant (with) two kinds, and a garment (of) two kinds (T]i2,D2Jn) you will not put upon mirrors many of the sexual taboos of Lev. 18. The end of Lev. 20 contains some of the most explicit language about separation (20.24,26) but explicitly refers, not to Egypt, but only 'the nation which I am driving out before you, because all these things they did and I abhorred them' (20.23). 9. However, such representations are known also from other ancient Near Eastern sources. 10. The institution of levirate marriage (Gen. 38.8; Deut. 25.5-10) also technically violates the taboo in 18.16 (also 20.21). 11. This word is evidently a technical term for some sort of fabric made of two

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

163

yourself (19.19). Thus, the God who separated Israel from Egypt (19.36b) demands that his people maintain their distinctiveness to the extent even of avoiding behaviors that involve mixtures and thus model the possibility of heterogeneity. Again, the invocation of the exodus from Egypt at the end of this list of regulations likely functions not so much to oppose specific Egyptian practices as it does to raise the issue of differentiation itself, which the text inextricably links with Egypt.12 That mixtures are to be avoided, most especially mixtures between Israel and Egypt, is graphically portrayed in the only piece of actual narrative in the scroll of Leviticus, the account of the blaspheming son in 24.1023. On the surface, this narrative addresses the legal question of how blasphemy is to be punished. It is formally similar to three other Pentateuchal cases of ad hoc judgments: Num. 9.6-14, which addresses the question of whether someone who has touched a corpse can celebrate the Passover; Num. 15.32-36, which addresses the question of the appropriate penalty for working on the Sabbath; and Num. 27.1-11, which addresses the question of whether daughters can inherit in the absence of eligible sons. The Leviticus case differs however, in that, while these other cases refer to the people involved either in general, unspecified terms13 or place them expressly within Israel,14 the blasphemer in Leviticus is explicitly described as the son of an Egyptian father and an Israelite mother, the product of a mixed Israelite-Egyptian union. Several conspicuous elements of the narrative connected with the blasphemer's mixed origins demand attention. First, his Israelite mother is named and her genealogical connection to the tribe of Dan is traced (24.11). In contrast, his Egyptian father remains nameless and devoid of the context of kin; the only important descriptive piece of information about this father, from the perspective of the narrative, is his ethnic identification as an Egyptian. Furthermore, the son is twice referred to as the 'son of the Israelite woman' (24.11, 12).15 Secondly, the presence of different kinds of thread; in Deut. 22.11 it is defined as a mixture of wool and linen. Significantly, the term may be a loan word from Egyptian (Lambdin 1953: 155). 12. So also Egypt is evoked in Lev. 22.33 at the end of a series of regulations concerning the separation ("IT]) and special status of sacrificial offerings and donations. 13. Certain unspecified people touch a corpse in Num. 9; an unspecified 'man' is discovered collecting sticks on the Sabbath. 14. The daughters of Zelophehad in Num. 27 are explicitly linked by genealogy with the Israelite tribe of Manasseh. 15. However, it is unlikely that the narrative specifies the Israelite kinship of the

164

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

the product of an Israelite-Egyptian union with the people at Sinai is very suggestive. It suggests that intermarriage between members of Israel and Egypt took place in Egypt, and at least some of the offspring of such intermarriage took part in the exodus, counting themselves among those called out of Egypt by YHWH.16 Yet the narrative introduces the son in a peculiar fashion, saying that he 'went out into the midst of the sons of Israel' (24.10). The phrasing seems to imply that the son entered the place of Israel from elsewhere outside.17 Thus, the narrative seems ambivalent about the presence of this mixed Israelite-Egyptian, on the one hand according him an Israelite ancestry through his mother, but, on the other, making him marginal to the Israelite camp. If this narrative is mainly to be seen as a particular instance of the general procedure for dealing with cases of blasphemy, then the particular identity of the person involved as an example would be immaterial, as in the other three narratives of ad hoc judgments adduced in Numbers. However, the precise description of the perpetrator in this case as a mixture of Israel and Egypt has something additional to communicate. It has been argued that the son's mixed parentage is meant to illustrate the legal principle, stated twice (24.16,22), that the same penalty is to apply to both the mm ('native') and the 13 ('resident alien') (Fishbane 1985: 94). That is, in this particular example, the legal status of the 'half-breed' in Israel is equivalent to the status of a "U. However, the meaning of "13 has nothing to do, at least in its basic formulation, with mixed parentage.18 mother in order to prove the Israelite kinship of her son, since it contradicts the overwhelming system of patrilineal descent evident throughout the Pentateuch (and the Hebrew Bible). By that patrilineal system, the blaspheming son would be reckoned as Egyptian. The Jewish system of reckoning Jewish ancestry through the mother is a product of the much later Roman period (see S.J.D. Cohen 1985, 1986). 16. One recalls the notice in Exodus about a 'mixed crowd' leaving Egypt (Exod. 12.38). 17. An alternative reading is also possible; if the phrase ^S~l!2? ^32 ~p!"Q is taken to modify HJJQ STR, then the son's father is described as 'the Egyptian in the midst of the sons of Israel', and the implication that the son entered into the midst of Israel from outside is erased. This alternate reading indicates that the Egyptian father was present with Israel in the wilderness; otherwise, the text gives no direct indication of whether the son's parents are present with him or not. 18. The 13 is defined by his lack of kinship with Israel: 'The key is that the sojourner has no familial or tribal affiliation with those among whom he or she is traveling or living' (Spencer 1992b: 103). But the narrative specifically mentions the blaspheming son's kinship with Israel.

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

165

In contrast, it seems that the reference to the son's Egyptian parentage is not incidental. That it is the son of an Egyptian that blasphemes the name of Israel's God signals an anti-Egyptian textual strategy that highlights the dangers of Israelite contact with Egypt. Egypt is associated with blasphemy. That the son is executed would, moreover, signify that the mixture of Israel and Egypt must be purged from the body of Israel. In a similar fashion, although perhaps less drastically, the offspring of Abraham's union with the Egyptian Hagar is disinherited (Gen. 17.15-22; 21.8-14). The Hagar story and the story of the blaspheming son thus similarly promulgate an ideology that both pictures Egypt as inordinately and uncomfortably close to Israel—almost kin—and mandates the exclusion of this threat. The cleansing of Egypt out of the Israelite system is signaled on a small scale by the fate of the blaspheming son. It is signaled on a larger scale later, by YHWH'S decision that the entire generation that came out of Egypt will have to perish in the wilderness, and that only a new generation, untainted by Egypt as it were, can possibly possess the Promised Land.19 The stories of both Hagar and the blaspheming son prefigure this demise of the Egyptian generation, and for it, by virtue of their association with Egypt, they provide an ideological rationale. Separation from Egypt is also part of the ritual observances mandated in the Pentateuch. The Passover legislation in Exodus has already been analyzed as providing a means to ritually enact the foundational birth of Israel through an act of separation from Egypt. In the festival calendar of Lev. 23 however, the practice of living in booths for seven days during the festival of Sukkoth is connected with the exodus from Egypt: In booths you will live seven days; every native (T11TK) in Israel will live in booths, In order that your generations will know that in booths I made the sons of Israel live when I brought them out from the land of Egypt. I (am) YHWH, your God (Lev. 23.42-43).

There are several interesting aspects to this commandment. First, it is structurally part of material that seems to be an addendum to the festival regulations. After an introduction (23.4), the festivals of Pesach, Shavuot, Yom Kippur and Sukkoth are discussed, followed by a concluding summary (23.37-38). But then further regulations for the festival ofbooths are added, including the stipulation, found only here in the Hebrew Bible, that 19. See the analysis of the relevant texts in Num. and Deut. in the following section.

166

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Israel is to live in booths throughout the seven days of the festival. Thus, both the instruction regarding living in booths and the connection of booths to the exodus from Egypt appear as a supplement. Secondly, Lev. 23 is the only one of the festival calendars in the Pentateuch to make a specific connection between the festival of booths and the exodus from Egypt. The two festival calendars in Exodus (23.14-17; 34.1823) connect the exodus explicitly only with the festival of unleavened bread (34.18, cf. 23.15).20 And the festival calendar in Deut. 16 specifically connects both the festivals of Passover/Unleavened Bread and weeks, but not the festival of booths to the exodus.21 Leviticus 23 thus stands out in that it specifically connects only the festival of booths to the exodus from Egypt, making no such connection for either Passover/Unleavened Bread or weeks.22 The addendum or supplement of Lev. 23.39-43 thus gives particular value to the festival of booths, over against all the other festivals, as a means of perpetuating the memory of the exodus or separation from Egypt. Significantly, the postexilic celebration of booths described in Neh. 8.13-18, which is closely followed by a solemn separation of Israelites of pure descent from all 'foreigners' (Neh. 9.1-2), is clearly analogous to the festival calendar in Leviticus.23 Moreover, the eschatological celebration of booths imagined in the postexilic text of Zech. 14.16-19 follows upon a plague and plundering of the nations, strongly reminiscent of the plagues and motif of plundering that enable the separation of Israel from Egypt in the narrative of Exodus. In other words, the conspicuous connection in Leviticus between the festival of booths and the exodus articulates with particular ideologies of separation found in certain postexilic texts. Thirdly, the connection made between the festival of booths and the 20. Furthermore, in Exodus, Sukkoth is referred to only as the 'festival of ingathering'; the term 'festival of booths' occurs only in Lev. 23 and Deut. 16. 21. The festival of Passover/Unleavened Bread is emphatically connected with the exodus three times in Deut. 16.1,3,6. The connection of the festival of weeks with the exodus (16.12) occurs in the Hebrew Bible only in the festival calendar of Deuteronomy. 22. It may also be significant that the addendum does not refer to the 'festival of booths' as in 23.34, but rather to the 'festival of YHWH' (23.39) as if this were the only, or most important, of the festivals. 23. Fishbane (1985:109-12) describes both the similarities and differences between the Nehemiah and Leviticus passages. While the differences preclude a direct dependence of Nehemiah on Leviticus, the similarities indicate that both passages utilize a parallel tradition.

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

167

booths that the Israelites lived in during the exodus from Egypt is clearly artificial. As Gerstenberger remarks, 'it would be nonsensical to assume that from station to station (cf. Num. 33) the desert provided the Israelites with enough tree branches for thousands of refugees to build provisional shelters' (1996: 349). None of the narratives of the desert wanderings mentions booths. So the festival of booths is here rather arbitrarily made into a celebration, not only of the harvest, but also of the genesis of Israel as a people through separation from Egypt. This connection with the exodus, together with the supplemental nature of the material and its clear connection with decidedly postexilic texts, hints that the festival of booths has become in the Persian period a particular locus for the expression of an ideology of Israelite identity focusing on contrast with, and separation from, Egypt.24 Finally, it is noteworthy that, while separation from Egypt is a major goal of the text, Egypt yet geographically remains Israel's neighbor. Whenever the borders of the Promised Land are delineated, the southern border abuts on Egypt,25 and thus Egypt continues to be Israel's proximate 'other'. From Egyptian Generation to a New Generation The scroll of Numbers marks the transition from the generation of Israel that emerged from Egypt to a new generation birthed in the wilderness. Apparently, the exodus alone was not sufficient to produce an Israel separate from Egypt; an even more radical break is required and it is supplied in the scroll of Numbers by the definitive end of Israel's Egyptian-born generation. The Egyptian generation is enumerated in a

24. One further example of ritual enactment of separation from Egypt is found in Num. 15.41, where an autokerygmatic statement of YHWH as the one bringing Israel out of Egypt follows instructions for the making of tassels on garments. Just as the Passover or Sukkoth ritual memorializes and re-enacts separation from Egypt as the constitutive core of Israel's identity, so the tassels are to act as a daily reminder of Israel's distinction from Egypt. 25. In the promise to Abraham, the southern border of the Promised Land is designated as the 'river of Egypt', likely referring to the Nile (Gen. 15.18). In Exod. 23.31, the southern border is set at the Red/Reed Sea. Numbers 34.5 identifies the southern boundary as the 'wadi of Egypt', a designation appearing only here in the Pentateuch, but elsewhere to designate the southern border of Israel/Judah (Josh. 15.4, 47; 1 Kgs 8.45; 2 Kgs 24.7 passim). The 'wadi of Egypt' is likely referring to a fluctuating borderline further north in the Sinai Peninsula, variously identified with Wadi Besor or Wadi el-'Arish (see Hooker 1993; Na'aman 1986: 246-49).

168

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

census commanded by YHWH and described in the first chapter of the scroll. It consists of a count of the fighting men of 12 tribes, each tribe traced to a son or grandson of Jacob/Israel, thus reiterating the same emphasis on the sons of Jacob/Israel at the beginning of the scroll of Exodus. That is, an origin for Israel outside of Egypt is supported in that the generation that emerges from Egypt is homologous to the family that previously entered Egypt.26 But in Num. 14, in response to a rebellion of the people, YHWH decrees that, with the exception of Caleb and Joshua, not one of this Egyptian-born generation will enter the Promised Land (14.22-24, 29-35). A second census, again of those 20 and older and thus capable of military service, is reported in Num. 26. Initially this second census seems identical to the first one, which counted the Egyptian generation, because it is entitled 'the sons of Israel, the ones coming out of the land of Egypt' (26.4). However, at the end of the chapter the narrative insists that, with the exception of Caleb and Joshua, not one of those enrolled in the first census were counted here (26.64-65). With this clarification, the text reiterates the decision YHWH already made in 14.20-35 to exclude from the land all those counted in the first census. It is noteworthy, however, that this clarification comes at the end of the section and that the misleading title in 26.4 is allowed to stand. This juxtaposition of contradictory elements indicates a tension between a tradition emphasizing Israel's continuity with Egypt, and the dominant tradition of the Pentateuch, which emphasizes the discontinuity of Israel with Egypt.27 The scroll of Deuteronomy provides yet a further problematization of the notion of a clean transition from the Egyptian-born generation to a new generation untainted by Egypt. The scroll makes repeated reference to the mighty deeds of YHWH in Egypt, which the people addressed had witnessed (6.22; 7.18-19; 11.2-7; 29.1-2 [2-3]; 34.11-12).28 However, the very people whom Moses addresses with such words as 'Your own eyes

26. Of course this homology contrasts with other, less dominant, traditions that speak of the Israel that emerges from Egypt as a 'mixed crowd' (Exod. 12.38; Lev. 24.10-23; Num. 11.4). 27. The present text of Num. 26.3-4 is confusing and may contain a gap; the NRSV, for instance, supplies the phrase 'Take a census of the people' at the beginning of v. 4. (Cf. NJPS and see Budd 1984: 286, 292; HOTTP 252). Such textual uncertainty is an indication of ideological tension. 28. The mighty deeds of Moses, rather than YHWH, are referred to in 34.11 -12.

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

169

have seen every great deed which YHWH did' (11.7),29 are ostensibly the new generation of Israel; the former Egyptian-born generation that actually witnessed the mighty deeds of YHWH in Egypt has passed away (e.g. 2.16). The intention may be to present the eyewitness of the addressees in terms of the liturgical remembrance and representation that takes place, for example, at Passover.30 However, in terms of the chronology of the narrative, a strong sense of continuity between generations is presented which is contrary to the discontinuity signaled by the motif of the demise of the Egyptian-born generation.31 The census of the two generations in Numbers contains an interesting feature: the tribe of Levi is explicitly omitted from the census of Israel (1.47-49; 2.33) and is enumerated quite separately and differently (3.14— 4.49).32 The exclusion of the Levites from the general military census is explained by virtue of their special job of serving in, carrying and guarding the tabernacle (1.48-53; see also 8.5-15,19). In this occupational role, they are exceptionally claimed by YHWH to function, one-for-one, as substitutes for the firstborn of the Israelites (3.12, 41, 45; 8.16-18).33 Numbers etiologically traces YHWH'S claim to all Israel's firstborn to the tenth plague against the Egyptian firstborn (3.13; 8.17), as in Exodus (13.14-15). However, in contrast to the rules regarding the firstborn in 29. See also 29.1 [2], 16. 30. Participants in the Passover ritual are instructed to tell their children, 'It is because of what YHWH did for me, when I came out from Egypt' (Exod. 13.8), indicating that at Passover the exodus is ritually re-enacted and re-experienced. 31. Another example upsetting the discontinuity between the Egyptian-born generation and the new generation is found in 5.3, where Moses insists 'not with your ancestors did YHWH make this covenant [i.e. the covenant at Horeb/Sinai] but with us, who are all here alive today'. The impression given is that the generation that received the Sinai covenant (the Egyptian-born generation) is addressed as the generation that will inherit the land. 32. While all males of fighting age, that is, 20 years old and up, in the tribes of Israel are enumerated (1.3, 45), the Levites are first enumerated according to the number of males one month old and up (3.15), and secondly, according to the number of males 30-50 years old (4.3, 23, 30, 39, 43, 47). 33. The firstborn of Israel over and above the number of the Levites are to be redeemed by a monetary payment to the priesthood of five shekels (3.46-48). Even the livestock of the Levites are to function as a substitute for the firstborn of Israel's livestock (3.41, 45). Later in the scroll, however, the substitutionary function of the Levites is disregarded; 18.15-18 calls for the redemption of all human firstborn and the firstborn of unclean animals in Israel with a monetary payment of five shekels, and the sacrifice of all firstborn of clean animals.

170

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Exodus and Leviticus, here Levites, and not an unspecified ransom, provide the substitute for the firstborn. The Levites are specifically separated out from the rest of Israel34 so that no *\ti ('plague') will strike the sons of Israel for approaching the holy (8.19b); they function as a 'shielding priestly buffer zone' (Olson 1996: 18) protecting Israel from the holiness of YHWH'S indwelling presence (Budd 1984: 18-19). The 'line in blood' that is drawn in the final plague of exodus to make a definitive life-ordeath separation between Israel and Egypt is here drawn to mark a similar life-or-death distinction within Israel.35 Egypt, in other words, continues to function ideologically in the text as a principle mandating differentiation, not just externally but also internally.36 The purging of the old Egyptian-born generation from Israel extends even to Moses, Israel's leader in the exodus. In the preceding analysis of Exodus, it was noted that, in contrast to Aaron's, mention of the descendants of Moses is noticeably absent from the genealogy of Exod. 6.16-25, even though Moses is described in Exodus as married and fathering children. Similarly, although himself a descendant of Levi, no descendants of Moses are listed in the Levitical genealogical lists in Num. 3 or 26, even though Num. 3 begins 'and these are the generations of Aaron and Moses' (3.1).37 It seems that the lineage of Moses, who has at least two sons according to Exod. 2.22 and 18.3-4, has been erased from the Levitical lists.38 Moreover, the similarities in names between Gershom, Moses' first 34. See the use of "m ('to separate') in 8.14. 3 5. The word *)M is used in Exod. 12.13 in reference to the plague of the death of the firstborn; a similar plague may be in view here, which would be averted by the consecration of the Levites. 36. Furthermore, by the logic of substitution operative in the firstborn legislation, the Levites take the place of the Egyptian firstborn in substituting for the Israelite firstborn. A homology is thus structurally drawn between the Levites and the Egyptians, suggesting the possibility that the Levites may have strong Egyptian associations. That the Levites are not assigned any landholdings in the Promised Land may additionally indicate that they of all the tribes of Israel are remembered as originating from outside the land; Egypt, then, figures prominently as possibly their place of origin. 37. In fact, the genealogy of the Levites in 1 Chron. 23 is the only one in the entire Hebrew Bible to list descendants of Moses. A priestly descendant of Moses is also described in Judg. 18.30, although early scribes added a suspended 3 to this verse to change the name Moses to Manasseh. Perhaps this was done to prevent the association of the name of Moses with idolatry (Tov 1992: 57), but it can also be seen as a deliberate erasure of any trace of Moses' lineage. 38. The Egyptianizing Joseph also has two sons, but having his sons adopted by Joseph's father Jacob in this case solved the problem.

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

111

son, and Gershon, Levi's first son, between Eliezer, Moses' second son, and Eleazar, Aaron's third son, and between Moses and the Levitical clan of the Mushites, may mark traces of a Moses lineage that has otherwise been expurgated (Rehm 1992:299).39 Although Moses is the great man of God who leads Israel out of Egypt to the Promised Land, no textual trace of his family is allowed to survive. One can speculate that, in view of the anti-Egyptian stance of the Pentateuch, the exclusion of Moses' family is due to the strong association of Moses with Egypt.40 Not only is the lineage of Moses excluded from the Levitical genealogies, but Moses himself is excluded from the Promised Land. He is reckoned with the old Egyptian generation of Israel and so must die with them in the wilderness outside of the Promised Land. This exclusion of Moses is striking on two counts. First, Moses is depicted as selflessly working, not only to lead Israel out of Egypt, but also to avert from Israel the consequences of its sin and rebellion; precisely by refusing YHWH'S plan to make a greater nation out of himself, Moses persuades YHWH against disinheriting Israel (14.11-19).41 Yet, despite this selfless service and intercession, despite YHWH'S view of Moses as somehow more worthy than Israel, and despite his lack of involvement in Israel's rebellion, Moses is made to suffer, with the old Egyptian generation, exclusion from the Promised Land. Secondly, Moses' exclusion stands out in contrast to the exception that YHWH makes for Joshua and Caleb. While Joshua has previously appeared as a military leader in Israel (Exod. 17.9-14), and most prominently as Moses' assistant (Exod. 24.13, 32.17, 33.11, Numbers 11.28), Caleb and 39. A further irregularity in the genealogy of Moses is the uncertain text regarding Moses' parents in Num. 26.59, which literally reads, 'And the name of the wife of Amram was Jochebed, daughter of Levi, who bore her to Levi in Egypt.' It seems that the name of Jochebed's mother has been omitted, although the LXX, Syriac and Vulgate versions present yet other readings. This textual uncertainty indicates ideological contention over the status of Moses in Israel. 40. Further support for this speculation is found in Num. 12.1, where Aaron and Miriam speak against Moses because of his mixed marriage with a Cushite woman. Although the identity of Cush is disputed (see Budd 1984: 136), Ethiopia, closely associated with Egypt, is the most feasible candidate (the LXX makes this identification). However, the text immediately proceeds to a second reason for the opposition to Moses, namely, a dispute concerning prophetic uniqueness; the notion of Moses' mixed marriage is dropped and does not appear again. 41. Moses engages in exactly the same strategy on behalf of Israel in the earlier incident of the golden calf (Exod. 32.7-14).

172

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Joshua together are the chief characters in the story of the spies who are sent out to recormoiter the Promised Land (chs. 13-14). Of the twelve spies, only they encourage Israel to invade the land (14.6) and only they survive the plague that kills the other spies (14.38). They alone are thus singled out by YHWH as the only exceptions to the rule that the entire Egyptian-born generation of Israel must die in the wilderness (14.30, 26.65, 32.12), the reason being that 'they wholly follow after YHWH' (32.12).42 Yet their status pales in comparison to that of Moses, who is praised as unequaled among Israel's prophets in the concluding encomium of the Pentateuch (Deut. 34.10-12) and in YHWH'S panegyric in Num. 12.6-8. Nevertheless, Joshua and Caleb are allowed to enter the Promised Land, while Moses is excluded. The striking exclusion of Moses fits the dominant anti-Egyptian ideology of the Pentateuch if Moses is seen as too closely associated with Egypt. That is, even Moses must expire outside the land in order for the break between Israel and Egypt to be final. However, while this reason may be implicitly compelling as part of the overall ideological strategy of the Pentateuch, on the narrative level a more explicit justification for Moses' exclusion is required. And precisely such a justification is found in the story of the complaint at the waters of Meribah (Num. 20.2-13). The account in the scroll of Numbers is parallel to a similar story, also associated with Meribah, in Exod. 17.1 -7. As in the Exodus story, the people complain of a lack of water, Moses (and Aaron) turn to YHWH for help, water is miraculously provided from a rock, and the name of the place is connected to the people's complaint. However, the story in Numbers has its own unique features: YHWH commands Moses (and Aaron)43 to take 42. The exception of Joshua and Caleb is again mentioned in the retelling of the story of the spies in Deut. 1.22-40. Caleb alone is mentioned as the exception in Num. 14.24 and Deut. 1.36, indicating that originally separate traditions about Caleb and Joshua may have been fused in the present text, hi the end, Joshua figures more prominently than Caleb in that he is commissioned as Moses' successor (Num. 27.1823, Deut. 31.14, 23). Note Kissling's argument that, in contrast to Moses, who is sometimes portrayed as unreliable, Joshua is presented in the scroll of Joshua as a fully reliable character independent of Moses (1996: 70). Earlier, on historical-critical grounds, Dus (1976) argued that Joshua indeed was the true founder of Israel and that only later, as a result of priestly politics, was the socio-religious work of Joshua displaced onto Moses. 43. Aaron is mentioned in brackets because, as in many sections of the Pentateuch, he is only partially integrated into the story and seems to have been incompletely added to the text.

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

173

the staff, but not to strike the rock (as in Exod. 17.6) but speak to it so that it issues water (20.8); Moses addresses an unexpected and ambiguous question to the assembled people, 'Listen, rebels! From this rock, will we bring forth water for you?' (20.10); Moses strikes the rock twice and water issues forth (20.11); and YHWH condemns Moses (and Aaron) for their actions and excludes them from the Promised Land (20.12). It seems that a priestly writer has here rewritten the story in Exodus in order to explain the exclusion of Moses from the Promised Land (see, e.g., Budd 1984:217). The exact nature of the transgression of Moses, however, remains unclear. That Moses strikes the rock twice (20.11) seems to emphasize that he is not literally following YHWH'S command to speak to the rock (20.8). Moreover, his question to the people (20.10) is surprising and seems to imply that he is either emphasizing his own agency (over against YHWH'S) in providing the water or is exhibiting an unwillingness to provide the water (Olson 1996: 126-27).44 The verdict of the narrative is clear, however; whatever the exact nature of his sin, Moses (and Aaron) is excluded from the land along with the rest of the rebellious Egyptian-born generation of Israel. As YHWH says, 'you did not trust/believe in me to sanctify me before the eyes of the sons of Israel' (20.12a).45 While Moses calls the people rebels (20.10), ironically it is Moses (and Aaron) who are assessed as rebels in this instance, as the narrative later makes clear (20.24; 27.14).46 That Moses should be punished to this extreme for a vaguely articulated transgression is especially striking when compared to Aaron's seemingly far more serious involvement with the sin of the golden calf in Exod. 32, an involvement that does not result in any dire consequences for him. Moses' punishment seems to exceed the extent of his crime. The narrative needs to justify the absence of Moses (and Aaron) from the head of the 44. Moses' unwillingness might be positively motivated. Olson (1996: 127) notes that in the past when the people requested meat (Num. 11), they received meat but also a plague from God (11.33). Perhaps, therefore, Moses is cautioning the people that the satisfaction of their desires may in this case also prove detrimental. 45. Num. 20.12 is the only time that the belief or trust of Moses in YHWH is brought into question. Elsewhere, it is the people's trust in YHWH (Exod. 4.31; 14.31; Num. 14.11;Deut. 1.32; 9.23) or in Moses (Exod. 4.1-9, 31; 14.31; 19.19) that is the issue. That Moses did not sanctify YHWH in the eyes of the people suggests that perhaps Moses did not fulfill the duty of a client to maintain the honor of his patron. 46. The verb H~lQ ('to rebel') links these passages about Moses (and Aaron) with the motif of the rebelliousness of the people especially in Deuteronomy (1.26,43; 9.7, 23-24; 31.27).

174

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Israelite invasion of the Promised Land without incriminating them in any direct and serious fashion; thus, the apparent deliberate vagueness of the narrative as to the transgression that leads to their exclusion. Yet, the break with Egypt must be complete. If the people as a whole failed in their rebellion in the affair of the spies in Num. 13-14, and the Levites failed in the rebellion of Korah in Num. 16-17, so now even the very leaders of the Egyptian-born generation fail by an act of rebellion. The ideology of separation from Egypt is thus pushed to its logical extreme: all elements of continuity with Egypt must be expurgated. And yet even here the element of continuity represented by Joshua and Caleb, both apparently of the Egyptian-born generation of Israel and both allowed to enter the Promised Land, confounds the absolute separation that the text attempts to construct. Absolute separation is a Utopian aspiration that is impossible in the real world. As in Numbers, the reason for Moses' death in Deuteronomy is linked to the theme of rebellion in the wilderness. Deuteronomy (1.19-40) recounts the story of the spies and the people's consequent rebellion, a story told in Num. 13-14. While generally following the contours of the story in Numbers, the version in Deuteronomy adds these words of Moses: 'Also with me YHWH was angry on your account, saying, "You also will not enter there!'" (1.37). Whereas the exclusion of Moses from the Promised Land is connected in Numbers (20.2-13) to his wrongdoing at the waters of Meribah, in Deuteronomy the people's rebellion is to blame for Moses' exclusion. Moses is vicariously linked to the great sin of the people although he himself is not at fault. That Caleb and Joshua escape implication in the people's sin (1.36, 38) is even more striking in comparison. The same reason for Moses' exclusion is presented twice more in Deuteronomy. When Moses tells the people of his request that YHWH allow him to cross the Jordan and see the 'good land', he reports: YHWH became furious with me on your account, and would not listen to me; and YHWH said to me, 'Enough! Do not speak to me again about this matter!... For you will not cross over this Jordan' (3.26, 27b).47

And in the midst of an exhortation against idolatry that concludes Moses' first speech in Deuteronomy, he reminds the people that 'YHWH was angry with me because of your actions, and he vowed that I should 47. Near the end of Deuteronomy, Moses prepares Israel for his death and the transition of leadership to Joshua by reminding the people again, 'YHWH said to me, "You shall not cross over this Jordan'" (31.2).

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

175

not cross the Jordan' (4.21a). Thus repeatedly the reason given for Moses' exclusion from the Promised Land is the fault of the people in which Moses is made to share. A double image of Moses is presented; on the one hand, Moses is separate from the people since he does not participate in their sin, but, on the other hand, Moses is classified with the people in order to legitimate his death outside the Promised Land. On the one hand, thus, the text portrays a heroic Moses who stands above the people, but on the other hand, Moses is made one with the Egyptian-tainted generation of Israel. At the end of Deuteronomy, however, the sin of Moses at the waters of Meribah is given as the reason for his exclusion from the Promised Land (32.50-52), just as in Numbers (20.2-13). Therefore, within the scroll of Deuteronomy there is a tension between two very different explanations for Moses' death, one attributing it to the sin of the people and the other to his own sin. Matters are complicated even more by the actual account of Moses' death at the end of Deuteronomy (34.1 -8) which mentions neither of these reasons, but seems more concerned to portray Moses' death as due, not to old age, but to divine causation (34.5, 7).48 Yet even this description conflicts with the portrayal earlier of Moses' frailty because of old age (31.2). The figure of Moses in Deuteronomy is thus fraught with ambiguity. Deuteronomy contains contending traditions legitimizing Moses' death outside of the Promised Land and differing portrayals of Moses' state of health at death. Moreover, the narrator's concluding encomium emphasizes the incomparability of Moses and 'all the strong hand and all the great terrifying deeds which Moses did in the sight of all Israel' (32.12). Earlier, however, Moses speaks of the promise that 'YHWH will raise up for you a prophet like me' (18.15), and it is YHWH who is credited with the strong hand and the great terrifying deeds (see esp. 4.34 and 26.8). The figure of Moses, the great leader associated with Israel's ethnogenesis, thus gives rise to an anxiety about Israel's origins that is articulated in conflicting traditions and portrayals. That Moses is somehow central to the constitution of Israel is acknowledged, but simultaneously his enduring status as Israel's founder is undercut.49 48. The phrase mn' 'B'bjJ ('at the command of YHWH') literally means 'by YHWH'S mouth', thus giving rise to the legend that Moses died by a divine kiss. The description of Moses' vigor and undiminished eyesight at age 120 in 34.7 supports the text's intention here to portray Moses' death as divinely caused. 49. In Deuteronomy, the undermining of a heroic or even (semi-) divine status for

176

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Unlike Jacob's and Joseph's, not even the bones of Moses are allowed to enter the Promised Land nor is his grave locatable.50 A midrash has Moses complaining to God, 'You allowed Joseph's bones to be carried into the land, why not mine?' And God replies, 'Joseph never denied his origins, in Egypt he admitted he was a Hebrew (Gen. 40.15; cf. 39.14): but when you were identified as an Egyptian by the daughters of the priest of Midian (Exod. 2.19), you heard but held your peace' (quoted from Deut. R. 2.8 in Goldin 1987: 221). Although this midrash stems from a time much later than the production of the final text form of Deuteronomy, it seems to correctly identify an important dynamic in the text that lies behind the depiction of Moses' death outside the Promised Land. Namely, direct continuity between Moses and Israel must be interrupted since Moses is too closely associated with Egypt. And so only the record of Moses' deeds and words outside of the land is allowed to survive, but no enduring physical perpetuation, whether in the form of a gravesite or a continuing family line. Not only does Moses perish outside the Promised Land as part of the Egyptian-born generation, but unlike that generation, his descendants have no share or inheritance (n^rTJ) in the good land promised by YHWH (4.21).51

Moses is connected with a concern to portray Joshua as the legitimate successor of Moses. Most of the references to Moses' death outside of the Promised Land lead directly to a consideration of the succession of Joshua: 1.37-38; 3.27-28; 31.2-3. It is Joshua, and not Moses, therefore, who completes the process of Israel's ethnogenesis by establishing Israel in its true homeland. In a sense, Joshua usurps the position of Moses as the founder of Israel, a move that is clearly portrayed in the book of Joshua with its many parallels between the roles of Joshua and Moses (see Dus 1976). 50. Noth (1944) suggests that the location of Moses' grave was lost because it was in inaccessible Moabite territory. The argument that an unknown grave would prevent an ancestor cult from forming around Moses' tomb (Coats 1977: 42) seems to stem from after the time Christians erected a sanctuary in honor of Moses on Mt Nebo. It also clashes with the well-established and known burial places of the ancestors at Hebron and Shechem. Loewenstamm (1976) suggests that the unknown grave tradition covers up a tradition in which Moses was actually not buried at all but was directly exalted or assumed into heaven or occulted in some way, similar to the story of Elijah in 2 Kgs 12.11. This suggestion accords with other hints that the Pentateuch attempts to counter the tradition of a more exalted Moses. 51. The erasure of Moses continues even into the much later Passover haggadahs, which in their recounting of the exodus, make no explicit reference to Moses.

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

177

Pro-Egyptian Sentiments as Rebellion A major theme running through Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy is that of the people' s complaints and rebellions in the wilderness. This theme has already been analyzed where it appears in the scroll of Exodus (14.1014; 15.22-25; 16.2-30; 17.1-7; 32.1-6), where it was found to function to portray pro-Egyptian sentiments as anti-YHWH and thus anti-Israel. In the following, the occurrences of this theme in Numbers and Deuteronomy will be examined for their particular nuances and expansions on this theme. The first occurrence of rebellion in Numbers appears in a circumstantial clause that mentions the people complaining or murmuring52 of misfortune in the hearing of YHWH (Num. 11.1 a). The substance of the complaint is unknown; however, YHWH reacts with anger, sending a fire that consumes the edges of the camp (11 .lb). The people cry out to Moses, Moses intercedes with YHWH, and the danger is averted. The pattern of this complaint story displays significant differences from the previous complaint stories in Exodus. 'The divine intervention comes much earlier in the development of this story, and brings punishment rather than aid' (Budd 1984: 118). Also, Moses, instead of requesting YHWH'S help for Israel, becomes the intercessor saving Israel from YHWH'S wrath. In other words, the nature of the theme of rebellion seems to have changed. That YHWH'S response to the people's complaining is much harsher and indeed punitive indicates that complaints are no longer to be tolerated. In fact, they seem to be characteristic of the old Egyptian-born generation that needs to die in the wilderness. Egypt enters into the more detailed story of complaint that immediately follows. The complaint seems to have a twofold source: the 'gathered people/rabble',33 who exhibit a strong craving/desire, and the sons of Israel, who again weep (Num. 11.4). It is likely that the heterogeneous nature of the people who emerged from Egypt is being highlighted.54 The 52. The rare verb pN is used. Its meaning both here and in Lam. 3.39, the only other place in the Hebrew Bible where it is used, is uncertain; similar words in cognate languages suggest the meaning of complaining'. 53. The word "pBOKn, which appears only here, literally denotes a gathering of people and does not necessarily have any negative connotations. However, the association with strong craving or lust may indicate a negative assessment (see, e.g., Deut. 5.21). 54. Note the similarity with Exod. 12.38 where a 'mixed crowd' is described as exiting Egypt together with the sons of Israel. The 'gathered people/rabble' in this case

178

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

complaint itself features a positive depiction of Egypt as a place offering a varied diet at no cost, including meat, especially in contrast to the rather monotonous (and vegetarian) wilderness fare of manna: Who will feed us meat? We remember the fish which we ate in Egypt for nothing (DDIl), the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions and the garlic; but now our appetite is dried up, there is nothing at all, except for the manna before our eyes (Num.11.4b-6).

The same complaint is reiterated three more times: once in the words of Moses to YHWH (11.13), and twice in the words of YHWH to the people (11.18, 20). In this voice of complaint, Egypt is positively assessed as a place of plenty and variety in which Israel's hunger was satisfied for free.55 In contrast, the present situation of the people is one of hardship. The description of the effort required in order to gather and process the manna (11.7-8) further underlines the contrast between what appears to be a rather effortless life in Egypt and the arduous task of survival in the wilderness. These sentiments are attributed to the Egyptian-born generation of Israel, and that this generation cannot seem to make a definitive break with Egypt justifies the strategy in Numbers of replacing it with a new generation to inherit the Promised Land. In this complaint, voice is given to a pro-Egyptian perspective, one that holds a positive evaluation of Egypt vis-a-vis the ethnogenesis of Israel, but which the narrative seeks to undermine. The rhetorical strategy of the narrative is to give this positive evaluation of Egypt a voice, but to make it a voice of complaint and rebellion against YHWH, thus negating its legitimacy. Overall, the memory of Egypt as a positive place of plenty is not sanctioned, being branded as a false recollection produced by complaint and rebellion. Conversely, the memory of Egypt as a negative place of slavery and oppression is officially sanctioned and given an institutionalized means of maintenance and perpetuation in ordinances such as those for the celebration of Passover. But the scroll of Numbers goes beyond only negating the legitimacy of a pro-Egyptian perspective; it also demonstrates that such a perspective are described as '3"lpD ('in his/its midst', 11.4), presumably in the midst of Israel. Thus, the heterogeneous nature of the people is indicated while at the same time a sense of distinction is maintained between the sons of Israel and the others with them. 55. The word DDn can mean 'at no cost', but it can also signify 'for no purpose'. Thus, while the complainers may picture themselves eating in Egypt for free, the narrative may subtly imply that, while in Egypt, the people were eating without any purpose. (See the similar play of meanings in the use of D3PT in Job 1.9.)

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

179

leads to divine wrath and punishment. YHWH indeed heeds the complaint of the people by providing them with meat in the form of quails, but this meat will become strange or loathsome (11.20),56 and, just as they begin to eat it, a plague strikes them (11.33).57 The divine response to the complaint is not just aid, but more punishment. Such complaints, and the alternative pro-Egyptian perspective they embody, are not to be tolerated in the body politic of Israel. The climax to the theme of rebellion in the scroll of Numbers comes with the story of the spies who are sent out to reconnoiter the Promised Land (13.1-25). They bring back a report that verifies the fruitfulness of the land (13.26-27), but emphasizes the danger posed by the formidable inhabitants who are described as giants living in fortresses (13.28-29, 31-33). In response, the people weep and raise a complaint against Moses and Aaron: 'If only we had died in the land of Egypt, or if only in this wilderness we had died! Why is YHWH bringing us into this land to fall by the sword?— our women and our little ones will become plunder! Would it not be better for us to return to Egypt?' And each man said to his brother,' Let us appoint a leader58 and let us return to Egypt' (Num. 14.2b-4).

The entire collapse of the ethnogenesis of Israel as the dominant ideology of the Pentateuch envisions it is threatened in this complaint. The very existence of Israel as a distinct people under its God YHWH has been premised on separation from Egypt. Now the people threaten to undo this separation by seeking to return to Egypt. This notion of return to Egypt is anathema to the ideological purpose of the Pentateuch. In this complaint, then, is articulated an alternative pro-Egyptian perspective in a manner that sets it into the most stark opposition with the goal and purpose of the exodus. Correspondingly, the consequence or punishment is also harsher than any encountered thus far; namely, the exclusion of the entire Egyptianborn generation from the Promised Land by condemnation to death in the wilderness. 56. The word HIT is possibly an error for N~IT (see the Samaritan Pentateuch), which is derived from "TIT ('to be strange, foreign'), with connotations of repugnance. The LXX reads x°^Pav('cholera'), indicating that the meat will give the people gastro-intestinal pain and disease. 57. The phrase n~O' n~ICD (lit. 'before it will be cut off), can mean that the plague strikes the people as soon as they put the meat into their mouths, even before they begin chewing (see NJPS). 58. Alternatively, the phrase here could mean something like 'let us set a (new) direction' or 'let us head back' (see NJPS).

180

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

The pro-Egyptian perspective revealed in this complaint conceives of the Promised Land as a place of war in which the men will fall by the sword and the women and children will be taken as plunder. In contrast, by implication Egypt is seen as a place of relative safety and stability where war does not threaten. Such a perspective is portrayed in the text as mutinous since it results in the people's decision to choose a new leader and return to Egypt. Ironically, while the desire of the people to return to Egypt is rejected, their wish to die in the wilderness is granted; thrice YHWH emphasizes that their corpses will fall in the wilderness (14.29,32, 33). Just as the corpses of the Egyptians littered the shores of the sea (Exod. 14.30), so now the corpses of the Egyptian-born generation will litter the wilderness.59 While the story of the spies demonstrates the worst kind of rebellion, resulting in the exclusion of the Egyptian-born generation from the Promised Land, several further examples of rebellion follow in Numbers. Numbers 16 presents two rebellions that are rather uneasily interwoven: the Levitical rebellion of Korah against the priestly prerogatives of the family of Aaron, and the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram,60 of the tribe of Reuben, against the leadership of Moses.61 While the rebellion of Korah does not explicitly involve Egypt, Dathan and Abiram, in their resistance to Moses, use Egypt as a point of comparison: We will not go up! Was it not enough that you brought us up from a land flowing with milk and honey to cause our death in the wilderness, that you also insist on playing the chief over us? Moreover, into a land flowing with milk and honey you have not brought us, nor have you given us an inheritance of field and vineyard. Would you gouge out the eyes62 of these men? We will not go up! (Num. 16.13-14).

59. The complete end of the Egyptian-born generation is emphasized by the use of the verb nan (14.33, 35). 60. A certain On, son of Peleth, is also mentioned with Dathan and Abiram in 16.1, but does not subsequently appear elsewhere in the story. 61. Source critics assign the rebellion of Korah to P, and the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram to JE (Budd 1984: 181-86). In the present text, the rebellion of Korah provides the dominant framework for the story, into which traces of the rebellion of Dathan and Abiram are placed (Milgrom 1990:414-23). The end result in the final text is a portrayal of rebellion against both the political authority of Moses and the religious authority of Aaron. 62. The phrase is an idiom approximately equivalent to 'pulling the wool over the eyes'; i.e. acting deceptively or hoodwinking.

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

181

Remarkably, Egypt is described as a land flowing with milk and honey in this complaint, a description that hitherto has been used only of the Promised Land;63 in fact, the spies had just previously portrayed the Promised Land exactly as flowing with milk and honey (Num. 13.27; 14.8). It seems, therefore, that the very description applied to the Promised Land was employed also in a positive view of Egypt. As was already noted in the analysis of Egypt in the scroll of Exodus, if the phrase 'flowing with milk and honey' is generally symbolic of fertility and abundance, then Egypt has as much, if not more, of a claim than Palestine to this description. Yet this positive evaluation of Egypt is here proscribed as a symptom of complaint and rebellion. This particular complaint is leveled against the authority of Moses, and is thus reminiscent of the challenge to Moses' leadership already back in Egypt (Exod. 2.13-14). Not only is Moses directly defied in the twice repeated words, 'We will not go up!' that frame the complaint (Num. 16.12, 14), but he is also accused of being deceptive, of enticing the people with promises of abundance, of fields and vineyards, which he obviously has not been able to fulfill. The implication is that the best course of action is to return to Egypt, although this option is not explicitly stated in the text.64 Again, while voice is here given to what was likely a viewpoint among those to whom the Pentateuch is directed, that viewpoint is delegitimized by being cast as a voice of defiance and complaint. The complaint is furthermore joined with the rebellion against the priestly prerogatives of the house of Aaron, a rebellion that is severely punished by the destruction of the instigators and their families (16.23-35), and by a plague from YHWH that kills 14,700 Israelites before Aaron is able to intervene with a ritual of atonement (16.41-50). Again, a clear message is conveyed that a pro-Egyptian perspective that articulates the possibility of a reversal of the exodus is absolutely intolerable and subjects its adherents to divine punishment and annihilation.65 Another rebellion takes place at Kadesh, where a lack of water incites 63. Exod. 3.8, 17; 13.5; 33.3; Lev. 20.24; Num. 13.27; 14.8. 64. The verb nbu ('to go up') is used in general of the exodus from Egypt (e.g. Gen. 50.24; Exod. 3.8,17; Lev. 11.45, and in the present passage, Num. 16.13); thus, the refusal here to 'go up' implies a rejection of the exodus and the desire to return to Egypt. Is it possible that, in the refusal 'we will not go up!', is heard the voice of Judeans in the Egyptian diaspora during the Persian period? 65. The punishments that come as consequences of these complaints show again that the rhetoric against a pro-Egyptian perspective has escalated in Numbers when compared to Exodus.

182

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

the people to bring a legal complaint p1"!) against Moses and Aaron (Num. 20.2-3): If only we had expired when our brothers expired before YHWH! And why have you brought the congregation of YHWH into this wilderness, to die there, we and our cattle? And why did you bring us up from Egypt to bring us into this evil place, not a place of seed and fig and vine and pomegranate; —and there is not even water to drink!? (Num. 20.3-5).

This complaint reiterates the features of previous complaints, namely, that the real goal of the exodus is death in the wilderness, that the promise of a bountiful land has not been fulfilled, and that, by implication, the people should never have left Egypt because Egypt at least was a place of plenty. The fig, vine and pomegranate mentioned in the complaint are precisely the examples of produce brought back from the Promised Land by the spies (13.23), thus painting the present complaint as a notorious example of distrust. Again, voice is given to a pro-Egyptian perspective but in such a way that it can only be interpreted as an act of unfaithfulness. In the end, this incident of complaint also has a detrimental consequence in that it leads to the exclusion of Moses and Aaron from the Promised Land (20.12). A final story of rebellion occurs in Numbers when the king of Edom refuses to grant Israel passage through his territory (20.14-21). The people are forced to make a detour around Edom and become impatient, speaking against God and Moses: Why have you (plural) brought us up from Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no bread and no water, and we abhor this accursed/worthless bread! (Num. 21.5).

Familiar features occur again: the notion that the exodus from Egypt is a mistake leading to death in the wilderness, and the description of lack in the wilderness, implicitly contrasted with plenty in Egypt. However, in this case the complaint is directed not only against Moses but also against God.66 It is also contradictory, in that both a lack of bread and a loathing of the bread that was being provided in the wilderness (the manna) are mentioned at the same time. Thus, the very shape of their complaint undermines the integrity of those complaining. Divine retribution follows immediately, without any chance for Moses to intercede until after the punishment has already begun (21.6-7). So not only is a pro-Egyptian

66. The generic DTI ^N ('God') is used in Num. 21.5.

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

183

perspective portrayed as deserving of divine wrath, but also as inherently fabricated. The punishment comes in the form of poisonous "pto ('snakes', 21.6)67 and is mitigated only when Moses erects a copper representation of one of these snakes on a standard; looking at this representation would effect the homeopathic healing of those bitten (21.8-9). The homeopathic use of snakes, while widespread in the ancient world, is especially distinctive of ancient Egypt; Egypt is also the home for images of winged snakes (Milgrom 1990: 459-60). The Egyptian associations of Moses are thus strengthened. It is also fitting that this last unconvincing complaint of the Egyptian-born generation is met with a punishment evocative of Egypt. The scroll of Deuteronomy describes the rebellions and complaints of the people in the wilderness as a constant feature since the exodus (Deut. 9.7) or since Moses has known the people (Deut. 9.24).68 However, only once does the scroll actually quote the rebellious voice of the people, hi retelling the story of the spies (1.19-40), Moses reports that the people grumbled, 'Because YHWH hates us, he has brought us out from the land of Egypt, to give us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us!' (1.27). In this single utterance is summarized the scroll's judgment of the people's rebellion; it is nothing less than an act of distrust that imputes evil motives to YHWH.69 To question the separation from Egypt that is at the root of the Pentateuch's definition of Egypt is thus painted as apostasy. These stories of complaint and rebellion are portrayed as characteristic of the Egyptian-born generation of Israel, to be replaced by the new generation of hope enumerated in the second census of Num. 26. A constitutive element of these complaints is the expression of nostalgia for Egypt, expressed variously by the reproach that the only outcome of the exodus will be the death of the people in the wilderness, by a comparison that glorifies the people's previous state in Egypt over against the present and 67. The root f]~\^D means 'to burn' and has been taken to refer to the burning effect of the poison of these snakes or their glittering coppery appearance. However, they are more likely to be related to the mythical winged serpent-deities or seraphim (see Isa. 6.2, 6; 14.29; 30.6). 68. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the LXX portray Israel in 9.24 as rebellious ever since YHWH has known them. 69. The accusation that YHWH hates the people is later echoed in the description of Moses' appeal to YHWH after the incident of the golden calf; Moses informs YHWH that, if he abandons the people, Egypt will say that it is because YHWH hated the people from the beginning (Deut. 9.28). Thus, the accusation is portrayed as quintessentially Egyptian.

184

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

future, and by the desire, usually implicit, to return to Egypt (Romer 1991: 157).70 While the narratives of these complaints begin in the scroll of Exodus, it is in Numbers that they are shown to lead to dire consequences.71 The ideological message conveyed by these narratives is clearly one that stigmatizes or censures any critique of the necessity of exodus or separation from Egypt; the question HE1? ('why?') in the complaints is never given an explicit response except for divine disapproval of the very question itself. Such a rhetorical strategy indicates that, in the audience towards which the Pentateuch was directed, there existed a pro-Egyptian perspective that called into question the Pentateuch's entire project of constructing Israel's identity over and against Egypt. This perspective had to be undermined and delegitimized in the strongest and yet most persuasive manner possible. And so, while this alternative perspective was given a voice in the narrative, the voice it is given is one of rebellion against YHWH that can only lead to disaster. Prohibition of Return to Egypt In the series of complaints in the wilderness, the height of the people's rebellion was reached with the explicit suggestion that they return to Egypt (Num. 14.4).n The notion of a return to Egypt is also implicit in many of the people's complaints that describe Egypt in glowing terms in comparison to their present state in the wilderness. This ideological trajectory culminates in the scroll of Deuteronomy with two explicit references to returning to Egypt. First, in the 'law of the king' (17.14-20), the notion of 70. Only in Num. 14.3-4, however, do the people explicitly plan to return to Egypt. 71. Each of the narratives of complaint in Exodus has a corresponding narrative in Numbers: Exod. 14.10-12, describing the people's reluctance to leave Egypt corresponds to Num. 14.1-4. describing their reluctance to enter the Promised Land; Exod. 16.2-3 describes a complaint based on lack of food, corresponding to the complaint regarding the lack of meat in Num. 11.4-6,18-20; and Exod. 17.1-3 details a complaint about the lack of water, corresponding to a similar complaint in Num. 20.2-5 (Romer 1991: 156). Numbers is thus building on the pattern already established in Exodus. However, Numbers also includes the additional narratives of the complaint raised by Dathan and Abiram (16.12-14) and the final contradictory complaint regarding bread (21.5); this surplus indicates that the motif of rebellion and complaint reaches a climax in Numbers. Deuteronomy generalizes the theme of rebellion by making it a longstanding characteristic of the people. 72. The notion of a return to Egypt was already raised before the people even crossed the sea (Exod. 13.17).

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

185

an Israelite monarchy is legitimized as long as certain restrictions are met, among them the following limitation on the king's trade in horses: He is not to multiply horses for himself; and he is not to return the people to Egypt in order to multiply horses; Since YHWH has said to you, 'You will not return on that road again!' (Deut. 17.16).

The horses in this prohibition likely refer figuratively to the large professional armies of horses and chariots acquired by kings in the ancient world; Solomon is later explicitly described as having a large army of horses and chariots (1 Kgs 10.26) and as engaging in the importation of horses and chariots from Egypt for resale to the kings of the Hittites and of Aram (1 Kgs 10.28-29). Of special interest here are two items: first, that a prohibition of YHWH against return to Egypt is invoked, a prohibition that is not found explicitly elsewhere, and second, that a scenario is portrayed in which this proscribed return of the people73 to Egypt is used to multiply the king's military resources.74 The second explicit reference to a return to Egypt appears as the culminating punishment (28.68) in a long list of curses that are threatened as consequences of disobedience to the covenant (28.15-68): And YHWH will return you to Egypt in ships on the road of which I said to you, 'You shall not see it again!'; And you will put yourselves up for sale there to your enemies as male and female slaves, but there will be no buyer (Deut. 28.68).

Again, of interest here are two items: first, the quotation of a prohibition, this time stemming from Moses, against seeing Egypt, or the road to Egypt, again,75 and second, the depiction of a return of the people to Egypt in boats,76 instigated by YHWH as apunishment, andrelatedto the trade in slaves. 73. The term DOT ('the people') is very general; it could refer to mercenaries or slaves that were exchanged for horses, or, as suggested by Reimer (1990: 227-28), to the ambassadors sent to Egypt to negotiate an exchange of military aid for horses, as in the fable recounted in Ezek. 17.15. However, CUil seems often in the Pentateuch to be a designation for Israel. 74. Similar polemic against relying on Egypt for horses and military aid is found in Isa. 31.1; Ezek. 17.15; 29.16. 75. Reimer (1990: 224-25) argues that the parallel in Exod. 14.13 is the basis of the Deuteronomy passage through a process of inner-biblical legal exegesis. 76. The detail about returning to Egypt 'in boats' is puzzling. While the exodus route from Egypt to the Promised Land proceeds overland, a quicker route would likely be one along the coast in boats. Some sort of maritime interchange with Egypt seems to be envisioned (and condemned) in this verse. See Gorg (1984c), who, on the

186

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

In Deuteronomy thus one finds both a direct prohibition of a return to Egypt, and a depiction of such a return as punishment and slavery.77 That the explicit prohibition was necessary and that its violation is also described, suggests that the context towards which the scroll was directed included positive attitudes towards some sort of cooperative military and/ or trade ties with Egypt, involving the movements of people back to Egypt. Such a return to Egypt, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, is anathema to the Pentateuch's ideology of constructing Israel's identity via separation from Egypt, and is thus here roundly condemned and portrayed as having negative consequences. While the accounts of rebellion in the scrolls of Exodus and Numbers indirectly attest to a prohibition against returning to Egypt by portraying the desire to return in extremely negative terms, here the prohibition emerges in explicit form. Return to Egypt signifies the end of Israel's unique identity. Egypt as Negative Place The series of complaints in the wilderness portray Egypt in positive terms. However, by framing these portrayals as rebellion against YHWH, the text attempts implicitly to subvert the attractive picture they paint of Egypt. Elsewhere, Egypt is explicitly depicted in negative terms. For instance, in Lev. 26, Egypt is invoked as a place of servitude that stands in sharp contrast to the life of blessing under YHWH: And I will place my tabernacle in your midst, and I myself will not abhor you, And I will walk in your midst, and I will be for you (a) God, and you will be for me a people. I (am) YHWH, your God, who brought you out from the land of Egypt, from being for them slaves, and I broke the bars of your yoke, and 1 made you walk upright (Lev. 26.11-13).

The focus of this passage is on the contrast between Egypt as signifying the yoke of slavery and YHWH as signifying freedom from this yoke. The portrayal of Egypt here matches the label 'house of slaves' given to Egypt in Exodus and Deuteronomy.78 While the yoke is often a negative figure of basis of a 7th-century BCE Judean seal published by Avigad (1982), postulates the existence of a pro-Egyptian circle in Jerusalem or Judah that made use of Egyptian boat symbolism in its onomastics and iconography. 77. The notion of a return to Egypt also appears several times in Hosea, usually as a punishment for Ephraim (8.13; 9.3), but seems to be prohibited in 11.5 (Reimer 1990:219). 78. Exod. 12.3,14; 20.2; Deut. 5.6; 6.12; 7.8; 8.14; 13.6 [5], 11 [10]. See also Josh.

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

187

oppressive servitude (e.g. Deut. 28.43; Ezek. 34.27; Gen. 27.40), it is also used more positively or neutrally to symbolize proper obedience, even to YHWH (e.g. Jer. 2.20; 5.5; and chs. 27 and 28). Thus, the issue here is less one of freedom from restraint79 and more one of serving the proper master. In other words, YHWH broke Egypt's yoke in order that Israel might take on his yoke and serve him, the implication being that serving Egypt and serving YHWH are incompatible.80 Of course, this passage, although its context is one that emphasizes the importance of obedience to YHWH, does not speak explicitly of the yoke of YHWH, and neither does the rest of the Pentateuch. The figure of the yoke is reserved as a negative figure identified only with Israel's 'others'. This, however, erases the notion, on the one hand, that obedience to the particular ideology sanctified in the text by the invocation of the name YHWH could also be seen as a yoke,81 and, on the other hand, that taking up the yoke of a foreign nation can be interpreted as precisely the way that YHWH means to be served. If Jeremiah can counsel Israel that to serve YHWH means to submit to the yoke of Babylon (Jer. 27-28), then it is theoretically possible to argue the same for the yoke of Egypt. But this the text does not want to allow. Deuteronomy frequently associates Egypt with slavery. The characterization of Egypt as a 'house of slaves' is found throughout the scroll, beginning with the autokerygmatic statement at the beginning of the Decalogue: 'I am YHWH your God, who brought you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves' (Deut. 5.6).82 Similar is the repeated reminder that the addressees were once slaves in Egypt.83 The Passover in Deuteronomy is also much more explicitly made into a reminder of oppression in Egypt: the unleavened bread is described, uniquely in the Hebrew Bible, as the 'bread of affliction' (16.3). The verse otherwise focuses on the explanation, already encountered in Exod. 12.39, that the bread is unleavened because of the hasty departure of the people in the exodus. The notice regarding the

24.17; Judg. 6.8; Jer. 34.13. 79. A decidedly modern notion of freedom which it would be anachronistic to import into this ancient text. See especially the critique of the interpretation of the exodus by liberation theologians in Levenson (1993b). 80. Whether serving Persia and serving YHWH are incompatible is conveniently not discussed by the text. 81. Note YHWH'S claim in 25.42, 55 that the sons of Israel are his slaves. 82. See also Deut. 6.12; 7.8; 8.14; 13.6 [5], 11 [10]. 83. Deut. 5.15; 6.21; 15.15; 16.12; 24.18, 22.

188

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

'bread of affliction' thus seems to be a secondary explanatory expansion that highlights the association of Egypt with oppression. Deuteronomy also associates Egypt several times with disease (7.18; 28.27, 60). This association occurs in the context of the divine threat that if Israel disobeys the covenant, Israel will suffer again the diseases that were experienced in Egypt. A life of exposure to disease is portrayed as normal in Egypt; in contrast, if the people are obedient to the terms of the covenant, such disease will not strike them in the Promised Land. Thus, on the one hand, Egypt is rejected, but, on the other hand, Egypt returns as a threat that can foreclose on Israel's identity. An explicit contrast is drawn between Egypt and the Promised Land in Deuteronomy in terms of horticulture. Whereas the land of Egypt is characterized as one where 'you sow your seed and water it with your foot as a garden of greens' (Deut. 11.10), the Promised Land is described as one of hills and valleys which are watered by rain at the behest of YHWH (Deut. 11.11,14). This comparison means to show the Promised Land in a more favorable light than Egypt; namely, Egypt is watered by a system of irrigation that is dependent on human initiative and effort, whereas the Promised Land is freely watered by the divine gift of rain. While such a comparison may work on a theological level, on a pragmatic level it is not very convincing; as Eslinger remarks, 'only a fool would try to convince someone that the intermittent Palestinian rainfall was a superior water supply to the irrigation of the Nile valley' (1987:87). The lists of Egyptian garden produce in some of the complaints of the people (Num. 11.5; 20.5) support the notion that the description of Egypt as a 'garden of greens' (Deut. 11.10) seems actually to be quite a positive description, one that may reflect the trace of a pro-Egyptian perspective.84 However, the interpretation of the phrase 'water with your foot' (Deut. 11.10) as a description of irrigation flounders on the difficulty of correlating it with any irrigation method known in the ancient context of the text's production (Eslinger 1987: 86, 89). This makes attractive Eslinger's suggestion that the phrase employs the common biblical euphemism in which the 'foot' stands for the genitals. Thus, to 'water with the foot' becomes a derogatory and disgusting debasement of the green gardens of Egypt to 84. One might also recall the comparison made between Egypt, the garden of YHWH, and the well-watered plain of the Jordan in Gen. 13.10, as well as the association of green plants for food with the creation account in Gen. 1.30. On the other hand, the only other occurrence in the Hebrew Bible of the phrase 'garden of greens' may be derogatory; it appears in the story of King Ahab's desire for Naboth's vineyard, which he wants to turn into a 'garden of greens' (1 Kgs 21.2).

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

189

urine-watered cesspools.85 What seems at first glance to be a rather positive assessment of Egypt, is turned, via the use of a euphemism, into a negative and degrading picture. Such an inversion fits well with the strategy encountered before in the Pentateuch of articulating a proEgyptian perspective only in order to cast it in a negative light. One further description of Egypt is unique to Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, although it appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible; that is, the depiction of Egypt as the 'iron smelter' from which YHWH has taken the people to be his own possession (4.20).86 This image of Egypt seems negative at first glance; taken as functionally equivalent to the description of Egypt as a 'house of slaves', it appears to indicate the white-hot agony and pain of oppression. But the image of the iron smelter is also that of a crucible in which a stronger and superior substance is produced. Egypt as a crucible represents the liminal phase in a rite-of-passage.87 In the smelter, soft iron ore is heated and carburized, existing in a liminal state between what it was and what it will become, finally to be quenched and to emerge transformed into a far stronger metal. So also Egypt is where Israel exists in a liminal state, no longer a family but in the process of being forged into a people or nation. In crossing out of Egypt through the waters of the sea, Israel is 'quenched' and becomes a people. The image of Egypt as an iron smelter thus draws on the positive transformative associations of iron-producing technology,88 making Egypt into an indispensable element in the ethnogenesis of Israel. At the same time, this image serves the dominant ideology of the Pentateuch in that it not only presents Israel's Egyptian experience as positively transformative, but also presents the necessity of withdrawal from the smelter, that is, separation from Egypt. Complicating the Insider-Outsider Boundary The scrolls of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy fairly consistently present Egypt in negative terms and support the ideology of Exodus that insists on a separation of Israel from Egypt that allows for no possibility of 85. See the parallel passages of 2 Kgs 18.27 and Isa. 36.12, where the Qere suggests the phrase 'waters of the foot' for the noun 'urine'. 86. See also 1 Kgs 8.51 and Jer. 11.4. 87. In the classic formulation of rites-of-passage as first outlined by van Gennep and further developed by Victor Turner (1969), there are three phases: separation, a liminal or marginal phase, and aggregation. 88. On the use of iron technology in the context of the formation of Israel, see McNutt(1988, 1990).

190

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

return. However, as was already pointed out in the analysis of Egypt, various complications and ambiguities cloud the sharp distinctions or boundaries that the text wishes to draw between Israel and Egypt. Already in Exodus, the legal prescriptions pertaining to the relatively equal status of the ~i; ('resident alien') and the mTK ('native, indigene') revealed that the boundary between Israel and Egypt is more porous than the ideology of the Pentateuch wishes to allow. Similar prescriptions in Leviticus confirm and extend this analysis.159 mTK refers to someone who is part of the established and dominant kinship group of the sons or house of Israel,90 and thus has access to the family's landed property. A ~U, in contrast, lives in the same territory but is not a member of this dominant kinship group, and has no guaranteed or permanent access to the land, and is thus vulnerable to exploitation and dependent for protection on patrons from the dominant kinship group.91 Leviticus consistently calls for equal responsibilities and equal treatment of these two socio-economic groups (16.29; 17.8-16; 18.26; 20.2; 22.1820; 24.16-22). Furthermore, Israel is admonished: When a resident alien resides with you in your land, you will not oppress him; As the native from among you shall be for you the resident alien with you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were resident aliens in the land of Egypt. I (am) YHWH your God (Lev. 19.33-34).

Here Leviticus goes beyond the stipulation in Exodus (22.20 [21]; 23.9) to refrain from oppressing the resident alien in that Israel is to love the resident alien as if he or she were a native Israelite.92 The motive for such 89. The use of the paired terms "13 and mtK is especially prevalent in Leviticus (16.29; 17.15; 18.26; 19.34; 24.16, 22; 25.23, 35,47). It also appears in the Passover legislation in Numbers (9.14; 15.13-14,29, 30), mirroring Exodus (12.19,48,49), but is absent in Deuteronomy. 90. See 17.8-15, where the contrast between the house/sons of Israel and the resident alien, becomes the contrast between the indigene and the resident alien. In 19.34, the indigene is a person who is 'from you', meaning 'one of you' (the ]Q of source or origin), whereas the resident alien is one who is 'with you'; i.e. dependent upon you for protection as a client. For the producers of Leviticus, it is self-evident that the indigene is a son of Israel. 91. Leviticus recognizes the vulnerable position of resident aliens by classifying them with the poor f]JJ) in 19.10 and 23.22. 92. Just a few verses previous, Israel is admonished: 'You shall love your neighbor (in) as yourself (19.18). By 'neighbor' is meant a fellow-citizen or a person with whom one has reciprocal relationships; in other words, an associate located within the dominant kinship group of Israel, an insider as opposed to the resident alien who is an

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

191

behavior is the experience of Israel as resident aliens in the land of Egypt. That experience is usually interpreted as a negative example: the oppression which Israel experienced as resident aliens in Egypt, Israel is to avoid perpetuating when it becomes the dominant group in the land. However, it is also possible to read Israel's Egyptian experience as apositive example: just as Israel experienced fair and equitable treatment as resident aliens in Egypt, so also should Israel extend such favorable treatment to resident aliens. Positive examples of Israel's experience as resident aliens in Egypt are found in Genesis, even though YHWH'S prophecy to Abraham in Gen. 15.13 that his offspring will be enslaved and oppressed as resident aliens in a foreign land for 400 years already predisposes the audience of the Pentateuchal narrative to perceive Egypt negatively. Nonetheless, Abraham is enriched by Egypt and through Joseph Israel receives a bountiful welcome in Egypt. Only with the beginning of Exodus does the Pentateuchal narrative actually portray Israel's Egyptian experience as one of oppression (Exod. 1.11-14; 2.11; 3.7-9; 4.31; 5.4-23; 6.6-9). However, this explicit portrayal of Egyptian oppression does not appear in the following plague narrative or in the account of the actual exodus; nor does it appear again in the subsequent stories of the wilderness wanderings or in the legal material until Deut. 26.93 In other words, the tradition of the ancestors in Genesis, and much of the legal material, especially in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, does not necessarily presuppose a negative experience of Israel in Egypt. And yet, by framing the Pentateuchal narrative at the beginning with a proleptic anticipation of Egypt as oppressive (Gen. 15.13), and at the end with an analeptic retrospect of Egypt as oppressive (Deut. 26.6-7), the narrative disseminates an overpowering view of Egypt as predominantly a negative experience and example. Returning to the passage at hand, that Israel is portrayed as resident aliens in Egypt supports the Pentateuch's dominant view that the people from whom Israel was formed were never indigenous to Egypt. However, outsider. Therefore, the admonition in 19.34 to love the resident alien as oneself is more radical in that it involves crossing or erasing the boundary between insider and outsider. 93. That is, the terminology describing oppression (!"I317, ''DJJ, fnb, tao, and ntop nTQU) does not appear to report Israel's experience in Egypt. However, there are references to Egypt as a 'house of slaves' (Exod. 12.3, 14; 20.2; Deut. 5.6; 6.12; 7.8; 8.14; 13.6, 11), and a reference to unleavened bread as the 'bread of oppression/ poverty' (Deut. 16.3).

192

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

by insisting at the same time that the distinction between native and resident alien is to be disregarded or erased, the text also implicitly undermines the distinction between Israel as resident alien in Egypt and the native Egyptians. More significant is that Israel is here addressed as, and equated with, the native or indigene. If the context of enunciation is Israel in the wilderness, for which the most recent landed experience is that of Egypt, the implication is that Israel was originally native to Egypt. If the context of enunciation is, however, understood proleptically as Israel in the Promised Land, then the implication is that Israel is native to Canaan.94 Interestingly, both options clash with the notion in Genesis of Israel's Mesopotamian origins.95 It seems that the categories of 'native' and 'resident alien' are fluid and contingent upon the ideological interests of the users of these terms. To portray Israel as resident aliens in Egypt and as indigenous in Canaan may suit an ideology that seeks to promote Israel's lack of roots in Egypt and its claim to ownership of Canaan, but that ideology trips over its inherent contradictions, not least with a tradition of origins in Mesopotamia. The regulations regarding the sale of property and debt-slavery in Lev. 25 offer a particularly interesting view of how Leviticus further understands the status of the resident alien and the native in relation to the exodus from Egypt. The chapter contains references to a number of socioeconomic strata of society: from the lowest to the highest strata, one finds references to slaves (CH2U), both male (132) and female (ni2») (25.6,39, 42, 44), then the seasonal laborer (TDC?) and tenant laborer (327in, 25.6, 23, 35,40,45,47, 50,53), then the resident alien (12,25.23, 35,47), and, finally, the landholders, indicated by references to their inalienable property (nTHN, 25.10, 13, 24, 25, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 41, 45, 46).96 Over94. These laws in Leviticus (and the rest of the Pentateuch), by virtue of their concerns with the experience of a landed people, seem proleptically to be addressing the Israel that is settled in the land of promise. In the temporal scheme of the narrative, of course, it is the Israel-in-formation and on the move in the wilderness of Sinai that is here being addressed; but for this Israel the designations 'native' and 'resident alien' would presumably have little meaning. The interpretation of these terms in the narrative thus depends on whether the liminal wilderness period is seen as leaning back to the previous Egyptian experience or leaning forward in anticipation of the fully formed and landed people of Israel who will emerge in the end. 95. The ancestors who hark back to Mesopotamia, including Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob and Esau, are consistently described in Genesis as resident aliens in the land of Canaan (Gen. 17.8; 28.4; 36.7; 37.1; Exod. 6.4). 96. Interestingly, the term n~lTR ('native') is not used in this chapter.

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

193

lapping with this list are references to categories of kinship or kin proximity, such as brother or close relative (I"!N, 25.25, 35,36,39,46,47, 48), and relative or associate (JTQiJ, 25.14, 15, 17). The purpose of the chapter is to stress that the properties held by families in Israel, as well as individual Israelites themselves, are inalienable; even when Israelites sell property or their own selves in times of economic need, such sales are to be seen as temporary. In the jubilee year, all property, with the exception of property in walled cities, reverts to its original owners, and all Israelites who have sold themselves into indentured servitude are freed. These rules of inalienable property apply to the landholding Israelite alone. While an Israelite may out of need be forced to sell his property and so take on the status of a resident alien, or a tenant or seasonal worker, such a situation is not viewed as permanent (25.25-28). While an Israelite may out of need similarly sell himself into indentured servitude, again this situation is not seen as permanent (25.39-41). In contrast, slaves taken by Israel from the surrounding nations, or from the resident aliens born in their midst, are considered slaves in perpetuity and may be inherited in the same way as the family's landholdings (25.44-46). Thus, the attempt earlier in Leviticus to mandate the equal treatment of resident aliens here breaks down. The contradiction is especially evident if one compares the earlier invocation of Egypt to justify the equal treatment of the resident alien ('love the resident alien as yourself, for you were resident aliens in Egypt', 19.34) with the invocation of Egypt here to justify the differential treatment of the Israelite and the resident alien. The kinship group of the sons of Israel (see 25.46) is immune from permanent enslavement because YHWH claims, 'They are my slaves, whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; (therefore) they will not be sold as slaves are sold' (25.42, see also 25.55).97 Resident aliens, in contrast, are liable to permanent slavery because they do not belong to YHWH, not having been acquired by YHWH as slaves in Egypt. The comparison of Israel to slaves rather than to resident aliens allows Israel to be made distinct here not only from the surrounding nations and foreigners, but also from the non-propertied and non-kinrelated resident aliens in its midst. Earlier in the chapter, however, YHWH compares Israel's status to that of the resident alien (~IJ) and the tenant laborer pETin) (25.23). Again the comparison is not to engender any sympathy for these classes of people on the basis of Israel's analogous experiences in Egypt, but rather to prevent 97. The deliverance from Egypt is here pictured as the acquisition of slaves, either by purchase or, more likely, as booty of war.

194

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

the selling of patrimonial property by appealing to the dependent status of Israel over against YHWH. What is at stake is Israel's distinct status, a status constituted by separation from Egypt: 'I (am) YHWH your God, who brought you out from the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be your God'(25.38). Leviticus 25 thus presents tensions both internal to the chapter and externally with previous material in the scroll. Internally, the prohibition against charging interest or profiteering from one's kin (PIN, 25.36-37) conflicts with the provision of the jubilee year, which recognizes that just such practices are the norm. The prohibition of selling property in perpetuity, because the property in the final analysis belongs to YHWH (25.23), conflicts with the exemption of urban property (25.29-30). The very notion that YHWH owns the land (25.23) conflicts with the repeated recognition of, and emphasis on, the inheritable and inalienable land (nins) of the family or clan (nnS!±J) (see references above). And externally, the differentiation between the treatment of the resident alien and the landholding Israelite in ch. 25 conflicts with the earlier mandate in Leviticus to erase such differentiation in status and treatment. Such conflicts and tensions are inevitable because, in its association of legal precepts regarding property with traditions of status based on an exodus from Egypt, the text confronts an insoluble aporia; namely, the impossibility of making for Israel the native's claim to inalienable property and privileges while at the same time positing for Israel an origin outside of the land. The separation of Israel from Egypt, that is, its origin outside the land, is invoked precisely to defend the Israelite's immunity, as a person with landed property, and in contrast to the resident alien, from permanent slavery (25.41-42). Separation from Egypt becomes the symbol, not only of distinctiveness per se, but also of landed privileges. It is no wonder that Israel is finally pictured as the slaves of YHWH, the actual owner of the land (25.42, 55); YHWH becomes the term that mediates between Israel's foreign origin and Israel's indigenous claims. That Israel is depicted as YHWH'S slaves itself conflicts with the notion that YHWH has freed Israel from servitude in Egypt.98 And the notion of 98. Lev. 26.11 -13. The Decalogue begins with the autokerygmatic statement 'I am YHWH your God, who brought you out from the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves' (Exod. 20.2; Deut. 5.6), and Deuteronomy repeatedly characterizes Egypt as a house of slaves (6.12; 7.8; 8.14 and 13.6 [5], 11 [10]). Similar is the repeated reminder in Deuteronomy that the addressees were once slaves in Egypt (5.15; 6.21; 15.15; 16.12; 24.18, 22).

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

195

Israel's enslavement in Egypt in turn conflicts with the notion that Israel was a resident alien in Egypt." This latter notion, in fact, leads to a surprisingly positive and inclusive evaluation of Egypt: You shall not abhor an Egyptian for you were a resident alien in his land; Sons born to them, in the third generation, may enter to them into the assembly of YHWH (Deut. 23.8b-9 [7b-8]).100

This preferential treatment of the Egyptians, in comparison to the exclusion of other peoples,101 is often seen as surprising (e.g. P.D. Miller 1990: 176; von Rad 1966c: 146) given the dominant negative portrayal of Egypt elsewhere in the scroll. And indeed it is a rather rare explicit and undistorted articulation of a pro-Egyptian viewpoint in the midst of generally negative portrayals. In fact, if the Egyptian can enter the Israelite assembly of YHWH, then the whole process of Israel's separation from Egypt is brought full circle back to its beginnings. The Israel that was birthed in Egypt is now able to absorb the Egyptian. Ultimately, the notion of an absolute boundary between Israel and Egypt is confounded. Israel's Origins and Egypt The uneasy fit between the Genesis stories of Israel's ancestors from Mesopotamia and the Exodus stories of Israel's birth within an Egyptian matrix has already been noted several times in previous chapters. Traditions of a Mesopotamian origin seem to be in tension with traditions of an Egyptian origin. This tension is evident also in the scrolls of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. For instance, Lev. 26, which speaks of the possibility of restoration after disobedience and punishment if the people confess and make amends,102 contains the following verses:

99. Deut. 10.19; 23.8 [7] are the latest references to this notion in the Pentateuch. 100. The Egyptians are here classified with the Edomites, whom Israel is not to abhor because they are kin (23.8a [7a]). Children of both ethnic groups, Edomite and Egyptian, are allowed entrance to the Israelite 'cultic levy', which means that they were not considered unclean (von Rad 1966c: 146). 101. Compare the absolute exclusion of the "ITCO ('bastard?'), Ammonite and Moabite in 23.3-4 [2-3] and the command to exterminate Amalek in 25.17-19! 102. As Gerstenberger (1996: 426) notes, with v. 34 a different temporal category is evoked: a schema of potential disasters now becomes a reflection on a past that has already taken place. 'This entire section is thus dealing with the period of exile, specifically from the perspective of those who have already reflected upon and interpreted that terrible event. Apparently even the Persian emergence is already history...'

196

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map And indeed, while they are in the land of their enemies, I in turn will not spurn them, and I will not abhor them, to destroy them, to break my covenant with them, for I (am) YHWH their God. And I will remember on their behalf, the covenant of the first ones/ancestors (d'JlESn) whom I brought out from the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations, to be for them (a) God. I (am) YHWH (Lev. 26.44-45).

The restoration of YHWH'S covenant with Israel is here based on the recollection of the covenant with the 'first ones' or 'ancestors' whom YHWH brought out of the land of Egypt; in other words, a tradition locating Israel's first origins in Egypt seems to be invoked.103 This tradition is in tension with the immediately preceding reference to YHWH'S covenant with Jacob, and with Isaac, and with Abraham (Lev. 26.42), which evokes a tradition locating Israel's origins with the ancestors who migrated from Mesopotamia to Canaan. That is, within the space of a mere four verses, there is a tension between a covenantal history beginning with the exodus from Egypt (Lev. 26.45) and a covenantal history beginning with the ancestors familiar from the Genesis traditions (Lev. 26.42) (Gerstenberger 1996:431-32). The reference to the covenants with the ancestors in Lev. 26.42, while following the tradition in Exod. 2.24 and 6.3-4 of the deity's covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is unique in two respects. First, the Leviticus passage speaks of individual covenants with each patriarch rather than the idea of a single covenant renewed with each patriarch in succession as in the Exodus passages.104 Secondly, the Leviticus passage uniquely stresses the covenant with Jacob by placing it first in the series, before Isaac and Abraham, a reversal of the order found in the Exodus passages. This is striking in view of the fact that, as already noted, Genesis does not mention a formal divine covenant with Jacob, even in the crucial episodes 103. The adjective ]ltBN"l carries an overlapping series of denotations: former in time/previous, first in time, and first in degree/chief. The notion of an originating first time is strong in many occurrences of the adjective; for example, the former times of Deut. 4.32 are connected to the very beginning of the creation of humanity, the references in Exod. 34.1; Deut. 10.2; Jer. 36.28 concern a first set of tablets or a first scroll that is subsequently replaced by a second copy, and the second trip of Moses up the mountain to receive the Torah is seen in Deut. 10.10 as a repetition of the first time. In Deut. 19.14, the adjective describes the first generation of Israel to occupy the Promised Land. Therefore, the use of the adjective in Lev. 26.44 can clearly indicate that a reference is being made to the original ancestors of Israel, seen here as issuing out of not Mesopotamia, but Egypt. 104. In the ancestral traditions of Genesis, YHWH makes a covenant with Abraham (Gen. 15 and 17), which is subsequently renewed with Isaac and Jacob.

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

197

of Gen. 28.10-22 or 35.9-15. The Leviticus passage seems, for some reason, to bring Israel's more immediate eponymous ancestor to the fore. Jacob is the ancestor who migrated into Egypt according to the traditions of Genesis, and it is under his new name Israel that his descendants emerge out of Egypt. Perhaps the focus on him is meant to ameliorate or mediate the uneasy juxtaposition between an Egyptian origin tradition and a Mesopotamian origin tradition for Israel. An Egyptian origin tradition for Israel seems to be evoked in the narrative perspective of the outsiders, Balak, king of Moab, and Balaam, the Mesopotamian diviner whom Balak hires to curse Israel (Num. 2224). Israel is described by Balak as D'HJtDD fc!T DI7 ('a people that came out from Egypt',105 22.5, II) 106 while Balaam adds the notion of divine involvement in Israel's origins, DHiiQD D^UID "?K ('El, the one who brought [or brings] them out from Egypt', 23.22; 24.8).107 In contrast, Moses, in his message to the king of Edom requesting passage through his territory, makes it clear that Israel has not originated in Egypt: And our ancestors went down to Egypt, and we dwelt in Egypt many days, and Egypt did evil to us and to our ancestors. And we cried out to YHWH, and he heard our voice, and he sent an angel/messenger,108 and he brought us out of Egypt (Num. 20.15-16).

In these words are outlined the pattern of descent into Egypt, of affliction and outcry there, and of divine response resulting in an exodus from Egypt, that constitutes the spatial movement of the master narrative of the Pentateuch. Not only does this pattern negate any notion of an Egyptian origin for Israel, but it also portrays Egypt in a totally negative light; no trace, for instance, appears of Egypt's kindness to the family of Jacob through Joseph. These words of Moses depict what the text projects as the 105. The verb NIT can connote the notion of source or origin (see BDB: 423). 106. The MT of 22.11 is slightly different: ammo KITH DUn ('the people who came or are coming out from Egypt'), but the LXX and other versions repeat verbatim the formulation in 22.5. 107. The MT reads IK'JflD ('brought him out') in 24.8; the LXX and SP read 'guided him/them out'. The contusion between a singular or plural object is reflected in the textual variants to both 23.22 and 24.8. 108. The notion that Israel was led out of Egypt by an angel appears several times in Exodus (14.19; 23.20-23; 33.2-3). That this angel is not necessarily a circumlocution for YHWH, but perhaps a reference to Moses as a divine guide and messenger has already been considered in the analysis of Exodus above. The LXX in 20.16 reduces the angel's role by subordinating it to the role of God in a circumstantial participle.

198

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

insider perspective on the origins of Israel; the outsider perspective, in contrast, seems to know only of Israel's beginnings in Egypt. The articulation of both these perspectives, even if they are differentially evaluated according to their insider or outsider status, discloses again the possibility of at least two disparate traditions of Israel's origins in the context of the Pentateuch's production and dissemination, one starting in Egypt and the other in which Egypt is a detour. The tradition of an Egyptian origin for Israel is occasionally expressed by linking the origins of the people with Moses. For instance, in the scroll of Numbers, Moses responds to the people's complaints by himself complaining to YHWH that the burden of carrying the people is too great for him; he even implores YHWH to kill him rather than to require him to continue to be treated so badly (11.11-15). In the midst of his complaint, Moses asks the rhetorical question: Did I myself conceive all this people? Or did I myself give birth to it? that you say to me, 'Carry it in your bosom, as the nurse carries the suckling child', to the soil which you swore to their ancestors (Num. 11.12).

The intended answer to Moses' rhetorical questions is that, no, of course he did not conceive and give birth to the people Israel; the genesis of the people is YHWH'S work. Therefore Moses feels that he should not be made to carry the burden of the people alone; YHWH should more directly bear some of the burden. However, alternately, the answer to the rhetorical question could be positive, in which case implicit in Moses' complaint is the view that he is indeed the one to whom the ethnogenesis of Israel is to be traced. This alternative perspective may have been held by some of the audience towards which the Pentateuch was directed. Again, by articulating it in the form of a complaint, and furthermore in the form of a rhetorical question that assumes a negative response, this alternative perspective is undermined and negated. In a subsequent story of rebellion in Num. 14 in which the people explicitly plan to return to Egypt, Moses intercedes for the people and attempts to avert YHWH'S wrath from them. As in the story of the people's apostasy with the golden calf (Exod. 32.10), so also here YHWH decides to strike the people with plague, disinherit them, and to make in their stead a greater and mightier nation out of Moses (Num. 14.12). This notion of making a fresh start with Moses not only highlights the difference between Moses and the people,109 but, more significantly, it articulates the possi109. This difference continues to show the ambiguous status of Moses, who is never unambiguously portrayed as a full member of Israel.

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

199

bility of Moses as the origin of Israel. This alternative tradition, while given voice by YHWH, is cleverly negated in the text by the refusal of Moses himself to give it credence. Again, as in the apostasy story in Exodus (32.12), Moses persuades YHWH to change his mind by appealing to YHWH'S honor among the Egyptians (Num. 14.13). That is, if YHWH destroys the people in the wilderness, then Egypt will spread the word that the people's destruction is due to YHWH'S inability to bring them into the Promised Land (Num. 14.16). Although ostensibly destroyed in the waters of the sea, Egypt continues to return as a determining factor in Israel's fate. The appeal to YHWH'S honor among the Egyptians indicates that the status of YHWH in Egypt, and, by extension, the status of those who worship him there, is possibly an issue of concern or contention at the time of the promulgation of this text. Imbedded in the story of rebellion in Num. 13-14 is a note or gloss that the Hebron reconnoitered by the Israelite spies was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt (Num. 13.22). Surprisingly, no indication is given of the importance of Hebron as the burial place of the patriarchs and matriarchs of the ancestor stories of Genesis.110 Rather, the emphasis is on the antiquity of Hebron over against Zoan, capital of Egypt during the 21st and 22nd dynasties.''' The claim to antiquity is an important topos in the writing of Hellenistic and Roman authors, and its appearance here maybe a late addition to the text that attempts to bolster Israel's unique origins against Egyptian claims to greater antiquity.112 That Egypt and Israel are different appears to be taken for granted. 110. See Gen. 23; 25.9-10; 35.27-29. 111. That is, c. 1176-721 BCE. Zoan, known as Tanis in Greek, was often mistakenly identified with the older Pharaonic center of Pi-Rameses and Avaris, both in antiquity and by modern excavators, because many of the monumental buildings of these older centers were dismantled and rebuilt in Zoan. The producers of the notice in Numbers may have similarly mistakenly identified Zoan with the Rameses mentioned in Exod. 1.11. (Redford 1992b). 112. This interpretation was suggested in rabbinic tradition (Milgrom 1990:103). As Josephus remarked in his argument against Apion, people attempt to trace their origins back to the remotest antiquity to avoid appearing as the imitators of other peoples (Apion 2.152). In fact, Josephus begins his argument by referring to his previous work, Antiquities of the Jews, in which he made evident 'that our Jewish nation is of very great antiquity, and had a distinct subsistence of its own originally' (Apion 1.1). On efforts of Hellenistic Jewish authors to establish the antiquity of figures such as Abraham, Moses or Enoch, see Holladay (1983: 113, 137, 171-75, 180-81,252-55).

200

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

The scroll of Deuteronomy, with its image of Egypt as an iron smelter, also gives evidence of tensions in regard to the origin of Israel vis-a-vis Egypt. In Moses' first address, he extols YHWH by invoking Israel's miraculous origins from within Egypt: Has a God ever attempted to come and take for himself a nation from within a nation by trials, by signs and by wonders, and by war, and by a strong hand and by an outstretched arm, and by great terrors; As all that YHWH your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes? (Deut. 4.34).

Notably, Israel is pictured here as emerging out of Egypt without reference to any prior stage predating Egypt. Even the reference to the 'ancestors' which soon follows (4.37) does not explicitly indicate any prior stage of Israel's history; rather, by itself, this description literally speaks of Israel as originating from Egypt. Similarly, in the credo (P.D. Miller 1990: 180) embedded in the catechetical instructions of 6.20-25, only the origins of Israel out of Egypt are mentioned. The case is quite different, however, in Moses' later allusion to the 70 ancestors of Israel who went down to Egypt (10.22),'13 and especially in the credo embedded in the liturgy for the presentation of the first fruits (26.1-11): A straying/perishing Aramean was my ancestor, and he went down to Egypt and sojourned there, consisting of a few men; and he became there a great nation, mighty and numerous. And the Egyptians ill-treated us and afflicted us, and imposed upon us harsh service. And we cried out to YHWH, the God of our ancestors. And YHWH heard our voice, and saw our affliction and our toil and our oppression. And YHWH brought us out from Egypt with a strong hand and an outstretched arm, and with a great awe-inspiring action, and with signs and wonders. And he brought us into this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey (Deut. 26.5b-9).

Presented here, near the end of the Pentateuch, is the Pentateuch's master narrative in bare outline; in spatial terms, it consists of an origin with a Meosopotamian ancestor, followed by a detour into Egypt where the ancestor is transformed into a numerous people, and culminates with the people's entrance into the Promised Land. Egypt is depicted as quite separate from Israel, providing only the matrix for the transformation of 113. The allusion is to the opening verses of the scroll of Exodus, with its enumeration of Jacob's family as 70 (1.5) and its description of the extraordinary growth of this family in Egypt (1.7). These verses in Exodus, it will be recalled, function as a means of linking Exodus to the ancestor traditions in Genesis (especially to the enumeration of Jacob's descendants in Gen. 46.8-27).

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

201

Israel from a small ancestral family to a multitudinous people; even more importantly, Egypt provides the stage for the display of YHWH'S awesome powers in freeing this people from Egyptian oppression. This picture of Egypt corresponds perfectly with the dominant negative image of Egypt projected in the scroll of Exodus. It also, however, points to the productive and perhaps necessary function of Egypt in the construction of Israel's identity; that is, without the 'iron smelter' of Egypt, to borrow the metaphor at the beginning of Deuteronomy, Israel would not have been forged into the distinct people which the Pentateuch aims to depict it as. Nonetheless, whether Egypt is portrayed negatively or positively, a distinction is maintained between it and Israel. However, the credo's succinct summary of the Pentateuch's master origin tradition for Israel is not without its difficulties. The opening phrase 1 38 ~nN ""DIN, by its assonance, appears to be a formulaic phrase from the oral tradition, but its exact meaning is not certain. It has often been translated 'a wandering Aramean was my ancestor' (e.g. NRSV)"4 and understood as a reference to Jacob, the progenitor of Israel, and, more generally, to the ancestors of Genesis, who are depicted as wandering from place to place with no permanent home (e.g. von Rad 1966c: 158-59). However, the primary meaning of the verb ~DK is 'to perish', and it is with this meaning that the verb appears elsewhere in the Pentateuch.115 Moreover, the wanderings of the ancestors in Genesis are never described with ~DN.116 Finally, the appellation 'Aramean' is applied explicitly in the Hebrew Bible only to Laban and Bethuel, Jacob's maternal uncle and grandfather (Gen. 25.20; 28.5; 31.20, 24), but not to Jacob himself. Thus, the credo here in Deuteronomy may point to an origin tradition that is not necessarily immediately to be identified with the tradition of the ancestors as they are portrayed in Genesis. Rather, an Aramean ancestor 114. NJPS translates 'fugitive Aramean'; REV translates 'homeless Aramean'. 115. The verb is secondarily used of animals that have strayed from the herd and are lost, but only one instance of this usage is found in the Pentateuch, in the context of a legal ruling unconnected with the narrative (Deut. 22.3). Janzen (1994) rejects the traditional rendering 'a wandering Aramean' and, based on contextual indicators that point to famine as the reason the ancestors went down to Egypt, opts instead for 'a starving Aramean'. 116. Contrary to von Rad (1966c: 159), who refers to Gen. 20.13; the verb there, however, is nun, which is used elsewhere in the Pentateuch of Hagar's and Joseph's aimless wanderings (Gen. 21.14; 37.15) or of the aimless wanderings of livestock that have gone astray (Exod. 23.3). The more usual verb for the wanderings of the ancestors (also for the wanderings of Israel in the wilderness after the exodus) is UD].

202

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

at the point of extinction is described as finding refuge in Egypt and there becoming a great people. An origin outside of Egypt is preserved, but the line of descent seems to proceed directly from Mesopotamia, the place where the Aram of Genesis is located, to Egypt without any intermediary steps in Palestine. Jacob indeed is depicted in Genesis as spending a substantial part of his life with his Aramean relatives in Paddanaram and most of his sons, the eponymous ancestors of the tribes of Israel, are born there. The origin tradition of the credo seems thus to more tightly identify the origins of Israel directly with Mesopotamia, locating those origins with the indisputably Mesopotamian ancestors Bethuel and Laban, who are closely associated with Jacob. That Aramaic, the language of the Arameans, was the most common spoken language among the Neo-Babylonians, that it became the lingua franca of the Persian empire, and that by Hellenistic times it had replaced many local languages, including Hebrew (Pitard 1994: 227-28), raises the possibility that the origin tradition reflected in the credo attempts to identify the origins of Israel with the predominant linguistic trend in the ancient Near East of the first millennium BCE. The textual variants at the beginning of the credo further indicate that this origin tradition of Israel is a site of contestation or, at least, variation. On the one hand, the LXX translates Aramean as Syrian,117 and makes it the object of the action: 'My ancestor left behind/abandoned Syria and went down into Egypt.' On the other hand, the tradition found in the Syriac version, the Targums, the Mishnah and Talmud, and enshrined in the midrash that forms the core of the Passover Haggadah (Guggenheimer 1995: 252-53), makes the Aramean into the subject of hostile action against the ancestor: 'The Aramean destroyed my ancestor, but he descended into Egypt.''18 These variants indicate further different understandings of Israel's origin tradition. The LXX suggests that the ancestor rejected an Aramean origin in favor of Egypt, and yet this variant still 117. The usual Greek translation of the Hebrew 'Aram' is 'Syria'. The Aramean people are historically attested in substantial parts of ancient Mesopotamia and Syria. While the Aram of Genesis is to be located with the birthplace of Abraham in Mesopotamia, the Aram that appears in the scrolls of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles is associated with Damascus in Syria, thus giving rise, it seems, to the common Greek translation. One might also recognize the influence, contemporary with the translation of the Torah into Greek, of the series of wars in the third century BCE between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies over control of Palestine and Coele-Syria. 118. One might note that the MT links the terms ~nn and ""JK with a conjunctive accent, thus perhaps leading to the isolation of the 'D~IN as either the subject or object of the verbal action.

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

203

contains the notion of the ancestor entering Egypt from outside. The variant in the Targums and Passover Haggadah suggests a definite distancing from any implication of Aramean ancestry for Israel; rather, the Arameans are the enemy that would have destroyed the ancestor, had it not been for Egypt.119 But, again, the notion of the ancestor entering Egypt from outside is preserved. The text of the credo and its textual variants therefore provides no definite single account of Israel's origins, but instead seems to function as an entree into a variety of origin traditions. While some of these traditions posit an ancestral connection with the Arameans, others reject such a connection. Coincidence with the ancestral accounts of Genesis is not as substantially explicit as is sometimes assumed.120 However, all of the variants suggest that Israel's origins are to be located ultimately outside of Egypt. Thus, this credo, coming near the end of Deuteronomy and thus near the end of the Pentateuch, is a fitting conclusion to the Pentateuch's master narrative of origins that begins, in the scroll of Genesis, outside of Egypt. Summary The references to Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy present the audience of these scrolls with a complex tapestry of associations that in many ways continues and maintains the presentation and function of Egypt established in Genesis and Exodus, but which also adds its own particular nuances. A major concern is to separate Israel from Egypt, paint Egypt in a negative light, and prohibit a return to Egypt. The discontinuity of Israel with Egypt is emphasized. In the legal material, Egypt functions as a marker or emblem of Israel's distinctiveness without necessarily evoking a contrast with Egyptian 119. Laban here becomes the enemy that tried to destroy Jacob, an interpretation that accords with some of the sentiment expressed in the stories of Jacob and his uncle Laban in Genesis. 120. Deuteronomy usually refers to the 'ancestors' generically, without further specification. The triad, 'Abraham, Isaac and Jacob', appears only six times in the entire scroll (1.8; 6.10; 9.5, 27; 29.12; 30.20). Romer (1990) argues that the names of the patriarchs were inserted into the scroll after its completion in order to link it with the origin traditions of Genesis; originally the scroll betrayed no knowledge of the Genesis traditions and the 'ancestors' referred to the generation of the exodus (and, further, for the intended audience of the scroll, to successive disobedient generations after the conquest). For a contrary opinion, see Lohfink (1991).

204

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

practices; rather, as far as specific practices are concerned, there is a shift to contrast with the alleged practices of Canaan. As Israel's 'other', Egypt is also invested with seemingly negative properties, being described as the place where Israel suffered the yoke of slavery and the vulnerable status of the resident alien. Yet, the legal material also positively values these positions, in that Israel has the status of slave or resident alien vis-a-vis YHWH, thus generating equivocal meanings for these terms. This ambiguity especially becomes apparent when the exodus traditions are interpolated into the rules governing ownership of property; the identification of Israel with both the positions of the landholding, kin-related native (n~ITN) and the landless, unrelated resident alien (~)3) leads to an insoluble tension. Such strains are evident when separation from Egypt, on the one hand, becomes the principle justifying Israel's indigenous rights in the land, and, on the other hand, indicates an origin that differentiates Israel from the former inhabitants of the land. In the scroll of Numbers the ethnogenesis of Israel via separation from Egypt is radicalized in that a complete change of generations, concretely portrayed through the structural device of two censuses, is required before Israel can enter the Promised Land. The old Egyptian-born generation, through repeated incidents of rebellion culminating in the desire to return to Egypt, is shown to be incapable of abandoning its nostalgia for Egypt; only a new generation can hope to free itself of these strong Egyptian attachments. The discontinuity with Egypt demanded by the ideology expressed by the text affects every level of Israel, from the layperson to the Levites and priests, including even Israel's pre-eminent leader, Moses. Not only is Moses excluded from the Promised Land, but even his very lineage seems to be erased. Deuteronomy continues by replacing the Egyptian-tainted Moses with his successor Joshua. No physical trace of Moses, whether bones, gravesite or lineage, is allowed to survive. Egypt must be completely purged from Israel, and return to Egypt is prohibited. And yet this emphasis on discontinuity is compromised by the various and ambiguous reasons given to justify Moses' death outside of the Promised Land, by the conflicting reports on his health and uniqueness and by Moses' characterization of the addressees of his speech in Deuteronomy, not as a new generation, but as eyewitnesses to all that had transpired in Egypt and beyond. The exemption of Joshua and Caleb from the demise of the Egyptian-born generation of Israel, moreover, shows that an absolute discontinuity with the Egyptian-born generation is impossible. Furthermore, while a pro-Egyptian perspective is framed as a voice of rebellion that has no legitimacy and leads inexorably to divine punishment

4. Egypt in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy

205

and annihilation, its very articulation indicates the possibility of the existence of such a perspective. The dominant image of Egypt, nonetheless, is negative; Egypt is a place of disease and a 'house of slaves'. Even the abundance of Egyptian agriculture is twisted into a figure of debasement. And yet, in tension with this dominant effort, is the command not to abhor Egypt, and especially the depiction of an Egypt functioning productively and necessarily as the 'iron smelter' giving birth to Israel. This highlights the primary contradiction of the Pentateuch's ideology regarding Egypt: the very Egypt which is painted in such negative colors, which is the opposite of everything that Israel is to be, and return to which must be assiduously avoided, is precisely the Egypt that is indispensable to the birthing, definition and maintenance of Israel. The Egypt that Israel is to reject is the spectre that necessarily haunts the core of Israel's identity. The implication of Egypt in Israel's origin leads to tensions between various conceptions of Israel's origin, tensions that can be reconstructed from the text. In the legal material, the status of native for Israel implies an indigenous origin, while the status of resident alien implies an origin outside of the land, usually in Egypt, although the ancestral traditions of an origin in Mesopotamia are also occasionally summoned. That Egypt is an integral part of Israel's heritage is tacitly acknowledged, but only in the sense that Israel comes to be in contrast to Egypt. Fusion or mixture of Israel with Egypt is usually viewed with apprehension and a desire for purging, as illustrated by the horror called forth by the blaspheming son of the Israelite-Egyptian mixed marriage. However, traces of an Egyptian origin tradition for Israel are found, for instance, in the perspective of Balak and Balaam, and in the hints of Moses as the originating ancestor of Israel. These hints continue to subvert the hegemony of the Pentateuchal master narrative, which portrays Israel's Egyptian experience as a detour. Even the so-called credo at the end of Deuteronomy becomes the locus for various contending interpretations of Israel's origins, as is evident in the textual variants and the different scholarly conclusions. The absence of any sustained reflection on Israel's Mesopotamian origins or connections in the Pentateuch, and the negative portrayal of Egyptian origins and connections, is an indication of ideological debate or tension involved in the production of the text. That the references to Egypt also call forth ambiguity shows that the issues of Israel's identity in the historical context of the text's production were not clearcut but involved the overlapping of a variety of traditional, socioeconomic and cultic claims.

Chapter 5 THE PRODUCTION AND PROMULGATION OF THE

TINAL TEXT FORM' OF THE PENTATEUCH

The analysis of Egypt in the Pentateuch in the previous chapters has highlighted a strong anti-Egyptian ideology that seems to be contending with other views more friendly to Egypt. The task in this chapter is to attempt to date this ideological contention by assessing the evidence for a possible range of dates for the production and promulgation, as an authoritative document, of what can heuristically be called the 'final text form' of the Pentateuch.1 Keeping in mind that the Pentateuch at this stage likely consisted of separate scrolls, it is necessary to assess the evidence both in terms of the dating of individual scrolls and in terms of the date for the concept of the Pentateuch or Torah as a linked five-scroll collection. Furthermore, the notion of 'promulgation as an authoritative document' requires attention to the possible dynamics and contexts of the production and 'publication' of documents in the ancient world. As historical-critical scholarship has shown, the Pentateuch incorporates various earlier traditions. However, the exact nature of the composition of the Pentateuch, and the sources and traditions upon which it draws, are today hotly debated, disrupting the earlier virtual scholarly consensus around the documentary hypothesis associated with Wellhausen.2 It is unnecessary for the purpose of this investigation to explore the various contending theories regarding the composition of the Pentateuch, except to note the increasing tendency in Pentateuchal scholarship to focus attention on the final form of the text as having its own literary integrity, and to date 1. On the heuristic concept of the 'final text form', see the discussion in Chapter 1 above. 2. Descriptions and analyses of the recent history of scholarship on the compositional origins of the Pentateuch abound; some reliable and thorough efforts include Rendtorff (1993; 1997); Wenham (1996), Romer (1996), Whybray (1995) and Blenkinsopp(1992).

5. The Production and Promulgation of the 'Final Text Form' 207 the completion of this final form sometime in the Persian period (539-333 BCE). The focus on the final form as having an ideological intent and purpose of its own, rather than being merely an editorial compilation of previous views, complements the attempt in this study to explore the ideology of the Pentateuch, and not its precursor traditions, concerning Egypt's role in the formation of Israel's identity.3 And the tendency towards a date in the Persian period provides a first tentative suggestion for a historical period in which the final text form of the Pentateuch can be contextualized. However, the dating of the concept of the Pentateuch and of its constitutive scrolls must rest on more substantial evidence than the admittedly speculative and contested reconstructions of the process of its composition. In the following, it will be suggested that the search for possible dates must be based first on the more solid ground of the extant manuscript evidence. Corroborating evidence can then be found in the familiarity, or lack of familiarity, with the Pentateuch and its content exhibited in other more or less datable documents. Finally, comparative historical material on the authorization and canonization of certain documents can be drawn upon to provide the shape of possible historical contexts for the production of a work like the Pentateuch. The Manuscript Evidence Extant manuscripts of the entire Pentateuch are decidedly late. The oldest surviving manuscript of the entire Hebrew Bible, and thus of the entire Pentateuch, is the Aleppo Codex, dated approximately 925 CE.4 Almost as old, and also containing the entire Hebrew Bible, is Codex Leningradensis, copied, according to its colophon, in 1008 CE. Much earlier manuscripts exist of the Greek translation of the entire Hebrew Bible, including Codex Vaticanus from the fourth century CE and Codex Alexandrinus from the fifth century CE. Before this time, manuscript evidence for the Pentateuch consists only of fragments and parts of various scrolls. 3. Some Pentateuchal scholars even attribute the main work of the composition of the Pentateuch to a single author. Van Seters (1983) argues for a reconceptualization of the Yahwist as a historiographer who composed the basic Pentateuchal story of Israel's origins in the exilic period; Whybray (1987), following Van Seters, argues for one author of the Pentateuch. Such hypotheses helpfully emphasize the relative literary autonomy of the final text; however, the notion of a single author is not necessary to sustain the argument that the final form of the text expresses its own ideological purposes. 4. Unfortunately, it was damaged in anti-Jewish riots in 1947 and most of the Pentateuch (Gen. 1.1 to Deut. 28.26) was lost (Wiirthwein 1995: 36).

208

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

The earliest surviving manuscript evidence for the existence of several of the scrolls that make up the Pentateuch is found among the discoveries in the caves at Qumran. The earliest text of part of the Pentateuch is 4QExodLevf (4Q17), consisting of four fragments of a scroll containing Exodus and Leviticus,5 and dated on paleographical grounds to c. 250 BCE (Cross 1994: 134).6 These fragments confirm not only that the text of the scrolls of at least Exodus and Leviticus existed by the mid-third century BCE,7 but also that at this date these texts could and did exist as a combination on the same scroll. The earliest fragment of a scroll of Genesis appears to be 4QpaleoGenm (4Q12), a fragment containing part of Gen. 26.21-26, written in archaic Hebrew script,8 and dated paleographically to c. 150 BCE (Scanlin 1993: 56; Skehan, Ulrich and Sanderson 1992: 51). Besides 4QExodLevf 5. The contents of these fragments are parts of Exod. 38.18-22; 39.3-24; 40.8-27; and Lev. 1.13-15; 1.17-2.1. 6. Since none of the Qumran manuscripts bears the date when they were copied, they must be dated by other, less certain, means. Dates arrived at by paleography are often assigned in the range of half, or even a quarter, century, and have generally been shown to be relatively accurate, although tending to be somewhat earlier, when checked against the range of dates provided by accelerator mass spectrometry, a more refined form of carbon-14 dating (Bonani 1994; VanderKam 1994:17-19; Ml 1995). The only Pentateuchal fragment to have been subjected to this procedure is 4QpaleoExodm, and the radiocarbon range of dates (159 BCE-16 CE, Ml 1995) coincides reasonably well with the paleographic range of dates (100-25 BCE, Skehan, Ulrich and Sanderson 1992: 62). It must be noted that both carbon 14 and paleographic dating only give a range of possible dates, and it is debated just how narrow this range might be. Dates established by carbon 14 dating can present a range of 10 to over 100 years. Similarly, dates established by paleography can present a range of 25 to 125 years. (See, e.g., the charts in Bonani 1994: 443 and Ml 1995: 15.) 7. Cross (1994: 136) describes the text of these fragments as proto-Samaritan, in that it in no case stands with either the Masoretic or Old Greek tradition alone against other textual traditions. However, he also remarks, 'At the same time its freedom and tendency towards expansion provide an interesting insight into an early stage of the Pentateuchal text in Palestine' (1994: 136). 8. The transition from archaic Hebrew script to the square or Aramaic script still in use today took place beginning in the fifth century BCE. However, the archaic script continued to be used alongside the new script and, in fact, it enjoyed a revival of sorts during the period of Hasmonean nationalism. Thus, its use in the writing of biblical manuscripts does not indicate an early date; to the contrary, it seems to have been used deliberately later in an archaizing fashion. The tetragrammaton, for instance, is found written in archaic Hebrew script in some Greek texts of the Hebrew Bible as late as the fifth century CE (see Wiirthwein 1995: 1-4).

5. The Production and Promulgation of the 'Final Text Form' 209 (4Q17), discussed above, fragments of at least two other scrolls containing Exodus, and one containing Leviticus, have been dated to the early Hasmonean period (c. 150-100 BCE): 4QGenExoda (4Q1), containing parts of Genesis and Exodus (Davila 1994); 4QExode (4Q16), a fragment of Exod. 13.3-5 (Sanderson 1994); and 4QLevNunf (4Q23), containing parts of Leviticus and Numbers (Ulrich 1994).9 Fragments of several early scrolls of Deuteronomy include: 4QpaleoDeuts (4Q46), a fragment of Deut. 26.14-15 written in archaic Hebrew script and possibly dating to the late third century BCE (Scanlin 1993:63; Skehan, Ulrich and Sanderson 1992: 153); SQDeut (5Q1), containing parts of Deut. 7-9 and dated c. 200-150 BCE (Milik 1962: 169); 4QLXXDeut (4Q122), five fragments of a Greek translation of Deuteronomy, of which only one fragment can be identified with confidence as a text from Deuteronomy 11.4, dated to the early or mid second century BCE (Skehan, Ulrich and Sanderson 1992: 195); 4QDeuta (4Q28), containing parts of Deut. 23.26 and 24.1-8 and dated c. 175-150 BCE (Crawford 1995a); 4QDeutb (4Q29), containing fragments of Deut. 29-32 and dated c. 150-100 BCE (Duncan 1995); and 4QDeuf (4Q30), containing fragments of Deut. 3-32 and also dated c. 150-100 BCE (Crawford 1995b). Two manuscript fragments from Egypt possibly also date to the early Hasmonean period: the Rylands Greek Papyrus 458, containing a Greek translation of parts of Deut. 23-28 (Wurthwein 1995: 188); and the Nash Papyrus, containing a Hebrew text of the Decalogue, with affinities to both Exod. 20 and Deut. 5, and of the Shema from Deuteronomy (Albright 1937).10 Thus, the extant manuscript evidence confirms the existence of copies of all of the scrolls that make up the Pentateuch by at least the beginning of the Hasmonean period in the mid second century BCE. Moreover, this early manuscript evidence also attests to the existence of single scrolls containing at least two contiguous books of the Pentateuch, indicating that the 9. One might also mention 11 QpaleoLev (11Q1), which was originally dated c. 200 BCE (Freedman and Matthews 1985: 15) since its script is similar to 4QpaleoExod (4Q22), which was originally dated as early as 225 BCE (Sanderson 1986: 307). However, 4QpaleoExodm (4Q22) is now placed in the first century BCE (Sanderson 1988: 549; Skehan, Ulrich and Sanderson 1992: 61-62) and 11 QpaleoLev (11Q1) is dated c. 100 BCE (Matthews 1986: 173). 10. The Nash Papyrus is technically not a biblical manuscript, but is derived from a liturgical, devotional or instructional document (Wurthwein 1995: 34), although Albright believed it to be copied from a scroll of Deuteronomy (1937: 175-76). Albright's dating was supported by Cross (1955: 148), who suggested a date of c. 150 BCE or even slightly earlier.

210

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Pentateuch (with perhaps the exception of Deuteronomy) was considered as a literary unit of sorts.11 Finally, if the manuscript evidence from Egypt is taken into account, scrolls of books of the Pentateuch were geographically widely dispersed, one would assume among the Jews of the diaspora, by the beginning of the Hasmonean period. It is important to make two observations about the early extant manuscript evidence. First, the evidence indicates that the text of the various scrolls of the Pentateuch was not yet fixed or stabilized but rather exhibited pluriformity; that is, multiple forms of the 'original' Hebrew text existed. Setting aside orthographic variants and the minor individual variants peculiar to every ancient manuscript, significant variants among the various textual witnesses seem to indicate the coexistence of multiple literary editions of the same texts (Ulrich 1996). However, each of these editions is a revised version of a relatively stable base text, especially in the case of the scrolls that make up the Pentateuch.12 Thus, one can still 11. Links between Genesis and Exodus (4QGenExoda [4Q1 ]), between Exodus and Leviticus (4QExodLev [4Q17]), and between Leviticus and Numbers (4QLevNuma [4Q23]) are attested in the earliest extant scroll fragments. Later manuscript evidence contains further examples of two or more Pentateuchal books on the same scroll, such as 4QpaleoGenExod' (4Q11), IQpaleoLevNum (1Q3), and 4QpaleoExodm (4Q22) (which may have also included Genesis—see Sanderson 1988: 548; Skehan, Ulrich and Sanderson 1992: 56). The fragments of Genesis, Exodus and Numbers from Murabba'at (dated c. 100 CE) seem to have come from the same scroll, indicating a possible scroll of at least the first four books of the Pentateuch (Milik 1961: 75). Deuteronomy seems to stand alone as a separate scroll, perhaps indicating that it was not yet well integrated into a Pentateuchal structure. Interestingly, the remnants of almost twice as many scrolls of Deuteronomy as of any other single book of the Pentateuch were recovered from Qumran (see the charts in VanderKam 1994: 30; Schiffman 1994: 163), attesting to what seems to be the special importance of this book to those who gathered, used and stored the scrolls at Qumran. However, one must note also the fragments of what may be a single composition consisting of a running commentary on the Pentateuch (4QPentPar "e [4Q364-67]), which are dated c. 100 BCE or somewhat later (Tov and White 1994), and may demonstrate an awareness of the Pentateuch as a unified or connected composition by this time. 12. According to the extant evidence, the text of the various books of the Pentateuch or Torah seems to have stabilized relatively early. 'The Torah, whether in text or versions, exhibits remarkable stability in all the witnesses available. Even the some six thousand variants in the Samaritan Pentateuch are, except for a few, largely minor and fall within a range of relative stability' (Sanders 1992: 843). However, as Brooke (1992,1993) asserts, the Qumran evidence also indicates that in the last two or three centuries BCE even the scrolls of the Pentateuch were not slavishly copied but rather creatively represented as part of a living, and not fixed, tradition.

5. The Production and Promulgation of the 'Final Text Form ' 2 1 1 legitimately search for a possible range of dates in which the 'base text' (to use Ulrich's terminology) or the 'final text form' (the term adopted in this study), as the substantial end point of the composition of the text, was produced and promulgated.13 Secondly, that there is presently no extant manuscript evidence for the scrolls of the Pentateuch dating before the middle of the third century BCE14 does not necessarily restrict the options for dating to this time, although it does advise caution in too easily postulating much earlier dates. The early extant manuscript evidence could represent copies made of preexisting scrolls. Unlike the durable baked clay tablets used for writing in Mesopotamia, scrolls, whether of papyrus or leather,15 disintegrate under normal use, and, as well, are especially susceptible to damage caused by insects, rodents and moisture (Reed 1972: 181-91), and therefore require periodic recopying.16 Thus, one could postulate a period of time prior to 13. Of course, various adjustments and changes could still be made after the 'base text' or 'final text form' was composed or compiled, but these tend, at least in the case of the Pentateuch, to be largely minor or easily explained as harmonizations or expansions based on the content of the Pentateuch as a whole, after it was recognized as a bounded literary entity, resulting in the various textual traditions, or, as Ulrich (1996) puts it, multiple literary editions, among the Qumran material. More substantial changes need to be identified by careful textual criticism in each individual case, and, as is argued in this study, can be significant markers of ideological contestation. An example of a later significant adjustment tied to particular historical circumstances might be the imposition of a chronological system on a nascent biblical canon in the third century BCE (Larsson 1983, 1985). 14. The silver plaques excavated at the site of Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem, inscribed with two abbreviated versions of the priestly benediction known from Num. 6.24-26, and dated both on the basis of archaeological context and paleography to the latter half of the seventh century BCE (Barkay 1992), while they antedate the earliest biblical manuscripts from Qumran by over 300 years, do not constitute evidence for the early existence of the Pentateuch. A ritual blessing such as the priestly benediction could exist for a long period of time in oral form as part of priestly lore, and even be written in the form of amulets (which is what these plaques appear to be), before being incorporated into a more extensive literary composition. 15. Most of the scrolls of books of the Hebrew Bible found at Qumran were written on leather scrolls, although a few examples of papyrus scrolls were also discovered. Haran (1983) argues that a transition from predominantly papyrus to predominantly leather scrolls took place among the Judeans in the Persian period. 16. An example of the effects of use on an ancient biblical scroll is provided by 4QpaleoExodm (4Q22). Originally copied in the early first century BCE, it was corrected twice by a different hand, and, after being damaged, was patched and reinscribed by yet another hand (Skehan, Ulrich and Sanderson 1992: 70). Both

212

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

the mid third century BCE in which earlier scrolls, no longer extant, existed. However, it is difficult to specify, on the basis of the material evidence alone, just how long this prior period might have been.17 A conservative guess might be about 100 to 200 years, thus suggesting a date around 450350 BCE for the production of the final text form of the Pentateuch. Clearly, on the basis of the extant manuscript evidence alone, 250 BCE represents the terminus ad quern for the production of the final text form of the Pentateuch. It may also be helpful to suggest a terminus a quo. This remains a much more speculative matter, subject especially to the vagaries of various theories of the composition of the Pentateuchal text. However, a more fruitful approach is to investigate when, on the basis of the archaeological record, material conditions existed making it both possible and desirable for a composition of the nature of the Pentateuch to be produced in historical Israel. Or, to put it another way, when did scribal abilities and patronage (usually called 'scribal schools') of a sufficient mass to produce extensive literary documents exist in historical Israel? On the basis of inscriptional remains and the scribal practices of Israel's neighbors,18 Lemaire (1981, 1992a, 1992b), for example, has argued that scribal schools existed very early in Israel, appearing perhaps already during David's reign in the tenth century BCE. In contrast, Jamieson-Drake (1991) has argued that the archaeological evidence, such as settlement paleographic and radiocarbon dating indicate that the patch is about 30-50 years younger than the original scroll (Jull 1995). Another example is provided by 4QJuba, a scroll originally written c. 125-100 BCE. Apparently the outer sheet of the scroll became damaged or too worn; a scribe recopied the text in a later hand, dated to c. 50 BCE, and then the newer sheet was sewn to the older scroll (VanderKam and Milik 1994: 1-2). It seems reasonable, therefore, to postulate a period of about 100 years as the life of a scroll in use. Eventually, scrolls would become worn out and unusable; humidity especially would induce biological degradation. The only early scroll fragments that have survived from Palestine, therefore, are those that were preserved in desert caves with undisturbed conditions of almost total desiccation. 17. Documents were sometimes sealed in earthenware jars if they were meant to be stored for a long time, as Jer, 32.14 seems to indicate, and as the Qumran remains attest. However, just how long a scroll could be expected to survive under either normal conditions of use or storage would vary with the specific context, especially climate. No explicit estimate of the length of a scroll's life is given in descriptions of ancient writing materials (Forbes 1957; Reed 1972; Poole and Reed 1972; Haran 1982, 1983,1985b; Lemaire 1992b; Wiirthwein 1995: 4-7), although usually leather is seen as a more durable material than papyrus, being thus suited for writings intended for long or frequent use, such as canonical compositions. 18. Certainly in Mesopotamia and Egypt, and likely also in Canaan.

5. The Production and Promulgation of the 'Final Text Form' 213 size, and the presence or absence of public works and luxury items, indicates that Judah did not become a strongly centralized state requiring, or even making likely, the existence of scribal schools, until the eighth and seventh centuries BCE. In a survey of the debate, G.I. Davies, while critiquing some of the shortcomings of Jamieson-Drake's study, agrees that the evidence warns 'against claiming too much, especially for the early monarchy period' (1995: 209).19 Millard, a supporter of Lemaire's position (e.g. 1995), admits 'there are few ancient Hebrew texts which can be dated much before 700 BC' (1992: 339). In conclusion, this brief overview implies that the production of a literary work like the final text form of the Pentateuch, while it may draw upon previous written records, is unlikely before the last century of Judah's existence. Thus, tentatively, a terminus a quo of about 700 BCE is suggested.20 In summary, within this chronological framework of 700 to 250 BCE, a possible date for the appearance of the final text form of the Pentateuch within the late fifth or early fourth century BCE has been suggested above on the basis of the extant manuscript evidence. Two other types of evidence will now be drawn upon in an attempt to lend more support and precision to a possible range of dates for the production of the final text form of the Pentateuch.

19. See also Na'aman (1997) who agrees with Jamieson-Drake that Judah did not evolve from a chiefdom to a state until the eighth century BCE, but also argues for the presence of royal scribes already under David. 20. Such a terminus a quo does not take into account the caesura represented by the deportations and ravages effected upon Judah by the Neo-Babylonians in the early sixth century BCE. Although the ensuing exile is often painted as a period of great literary activity in which much of the biblical material was compiled or composed, the improbability of associating such activity with a period of dislocation and destruction in the ancient world is highlighted by P.R. Davies (1992: 41-44). Even the survival of documents from pre-exilic Israel through such a period must be questioned. Thus, a more realistic terminus a quo may be no earlier than the beginning of a new community in Jerusalem under the Persians in the late sixth century BCE. However, one must also note that the biblical picture of a devastated and empty land during the exile is belied by archaeological evidence of continued Israelite material culture during this period (on this issue, see the synthesis of Barstad 1996). Thus Israelite cultural life continued during the exilic period and perhaps with it also continued literary production, although the destruction of the societal macrostructure by the Babylonians would have seriously compromised the material conditions necessary for sustained literary production.

214

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

The Evidence of Other Documents Here, the evidence of datable, non-Pentateuchal documents that show familiarity with Pentateuchal texts and/or with the concept of a Pentateuch or Torah, will be briefly considered. This evidence falls into two categories: non-Pentateuchal biblical texts and extrabiblical texts.21 Each of these categories will be considered in turn. The evidence of the non-Pentateuchal biblical texts is made problematic by many of the same considerations that apply to the dating of the Pentateuchal text; namely, the lack of firm dates for many of the biblical texts, and the uncertainty and debate regarding their composition and redaction. For example, the biblical books of the prophets Amos, Hosea, Micah and Isaiah, prophets who are dated to the eighth century BCE, make various allusions to, or citations of, traditions also found in the Pentateuch. The argument has therefore been made that the Pentateuchal books were already composed and in circulation as canonical documents by this time (e.g. Rooker 1993). However, such an argument does not take into account the complex compositional and redactional history of these prophetic books, a history that likely extended well into the postexilic period. Thus, at the opposite end of the spectrum, one can encounter the argument that the actual prophets Amos and Hosea, for instance, never mentioned Pentateuchal traditions such as the exodus, but that references to these traditions were added to their respective prophetic books at a later time (e.g. Loretz 1992). Such contending arguments are typical of scholarly investigation of the dating of biblical books. So it is unlikely that references to Pentateuchal traditions in non-Pentateuchal biblical books, particularly the historical and prophetic books associated with the pre-exilic and/or exilic periods,22 provide firm evidence for dating the final text form of the Pentateuch.23 Moreover, even if relatively early allusions to Pentateuchal 21. By' extrabiblical texts' are meant those ancient documents that do not appear in the present Jewish canon of the Hebrew Bible as represented in the Tanakh. This is not to say that some of these documents may not have been considered canonical, or as Scripture, by various groups at various times. 22. The books of the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua-2 Kings), and the books associated with pre-exilic and exilic prophetic figures are particularly in view here. Although there are some significant references to Pentateuchal traditions in the Psalms, the Psalms are notoriously difficult to date. 23. What is actually more noteworthy or remarkable is the relative paucity of explicit references to Pentateuchal traditions in the non-Pentateuchal biblical texts (on

5. The Production and Promulgation of the 'Final Text Form ' 2 1 5 traditions can be pinpointed in these non-Pentateuchal biblical books, this only indicates a knowledge of some of the traditions incorporated, perhaps at a later date, into the Pentateuch and not necessarily of the final text form of the Pentateuch itself.24 Although there is thus no firm evidence in non-Pentateuchal biblical books to date the final text form of the Pentateuch, there are numerous references to a definitive min ('Torah'), which may indicate knowledge of the concept of a Pentateuch as a unified authoritative composition. Although iTYin can simply mean 'instruction', both human and divine, the use of modifiers, in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History, to specify a particular Torah, shows the development of an authoritative text of instruction.25 In works such as Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles, which are definitely postexilic, one sees frequent references to simply minn;26 it is also among these works that one finds references to the establishment of 'the Torah' as an authoritative document for the postexilic community in Jerusalem (Ezra 7; Neh. 8-10). Of course, it is not clear whether these references to the Torah are synonymous with something close to the final text form of the Pentateuch,27 but they do indicate awareness that a this phenomenon, see the comments of Rendtorff 1990: 204-205; and de Pury and Romer 1989: 78-79). For example, with the exception of Jacob (a name that can also signify the people Israel), the names of major characters from the Pentateuch, such as Abraham, Joseph or even Moses, are virtually absent in the rest of the Hebrew Bible, and appear most often only in the relatively late work of Chronicles. 24. Fishbane (1985) provides a finely nuanced discussion of the ongoing productive interplay between tradition (traditum) and the process of its transmission (traditio) as evident in the present biblical text itself, both within books and between books. 25. Thus one finds references, for example, to minn ISO ('book of the Torah', e.g. Josh. 8.34), HKin ITTinn ('this Torah', e.g. Deut. 1.5), nm min ('Torah of Moses', e.g. 2 Kgs 23.25), and other formulations (seeCarr 1996: 29). As Criisemann (1987: 66-67) aptly puts it, with the Deuteronomistic tradition, the dispersed and generalized concept of Torah is transformed into something far more specific: 'die eine, alles umfassende, schriftlich vorliegende, durch Mose in bestimmter Vergangenheit ubermittelte Weisung Gottes'. 26. See the discussion and biblical references in Carr (1996: 29-30). These works also contain references to 'the Torah/Book of Moses', to 'the Torah of God/YHWH', and other descriptions. 27. The problem is that some of the legislation described in Ezra and Nehemiah as deriving from 'the Torah (of Moses)' finds no literal counterpart in the present form of the Pentateuch. Fishbane (1985:114-29), for instance, demonstrates that the strategy of exclusions from the postexilic community, as described in Ezra 9-10 and Neh. 10 and 13, is not based directly on any part of the present Pentateuch, but involves an

216

Egypt on the Pentateuch 's Ideological Map

Pentateuch-like authoritative body of tradition was established by the Persian period.28 If the basic biblical traditions about Ezra are reliable, and Ezra's mission can thus be dated to either the mid fifth or early fourth century BCE, then a date of c. 450 or 390 BCE emerges as a possible time when an authoritative Torah work was established.29 If this Torah work was relatively close to the final text form of the Pentateuch, then these interpretive combination of textual blending, allusion and parallels rooted in various Pentateuchal traditions. Williamson (1987:90-98) argues that the present Pentateuch is indeed behind the laws described in Ezra and Nehemiah, but in a form reinterpreted for new circumstances. However, Blenkinsopp (1988: 152-57) is of the opinion that the laws reflected in Ezra and Nehemiah, with their partial affinity to, but also differences from, the laws of the present Pentateuch, show that the Pentateuch had not yet reached its final form at the time of the composition of these books. Rendtorff (1996b) points out a similar dynamic in the case of Chronicles; namely, while Chronicles seems to know the priestly traditions of the Pentateuch, Pentateuchal texts are not quoted directly, and exact priestly cultic terminology is not always used, making it less likely that the author of Chronicles was dependent on the present form of the Pentateuch. Callaway (1993: 170-71) notes that certain laws in Nehemiah not attested in the Pentateuch are, however, detailed in the Temple Scroll (11Q19-21), which may thus contain legal traditions that were not incorporated into the final form of the Pentateuch. Levenson (1987) cautions against the assumption that 'torah', even in late biblical texts, necessarily refers to the Pentateuch. 28. The letter prefixed to 2 Maccabees (1.10-2.18), dated to the second century BCE (Fischer 1992: 444) and attempting to persuade Egyptian Jews to celebrate the new festival of Hanukkah, contains the interesting observation that Nehemiah 'founded a library and collected the books about the kings and prophets and the writings of David, and the letters of kings about votive offerings' (2.13), thus seeming to portray Nehemiah as a leader who was interested in collecting documents. Of course, this portrayal serves the ideological purpose of legitimizing the innovations of Judas Maccabeus, who is similarly described in 2.14 as collecting the documents surviving the destruction in the time of Antiochus IV (1 Mace. 1.55-56). 29. The date of the mission of Ezra, as described in Ezra-Nehemiah, is disputed; the traditional date is 458 BCE, during the reign of Artaxerxes I, but arguments have also been made for 398 BCE, during the reign of Artaxerxes II. A third position, based on a conjectural textual emendation of Ezra 7.7-8, champions 438 BCE, a date later in the reign of Artaxerxes I (see Williamson 1987: 55-69; Blenkinsopp 1988:139-44). Of course, if it is assumed that Ezra brought the completed Pentateuch with him, then the date of the Pentateuch's final text form could be earlier. This is the position, for instance, of Sanders (1992: 845), and especially Freedman (1987, 1990, 1991), who argue that not only the Pentateuch but the entire 'Primary History' (Genesis through 2 Kings) was compiled during the exile by the mid sixth century BCE and was subsequently brought to Jerusalem by Ezra; Ezra was then responsible for separating the first five books into the special category of 'Torah'.

5. The Production and Promulgation of the 'Final Text Form ' 2 1 7 dates coincide with the range of dates suggested above on the basis of the manuscript evidence.30 The evidence of texts outside of the present canon of the Hebrew Bible will also now be briefly examined. Ben Sira, originally composed in Hebrew c. 180 BCE, and subsequently translated into Greek by, at latest, 117 BCE by the grandson of the author (Di Leila 1992: 932), who also added a preface to the work, is important in two respects.31 First, the original work contains a famous section (chs. 44-49) in which Israel's ancestors are praised. The persons on the list, and their order, correspond closely not only to the final shape of the Pentateuch or Torah, but also to the shape of the Prophets in the present Tanakh. In chapters 44 to 45, the following characters from the Pentateuch are successively praised: Enoch (44.16), Noah (44.17-18), Abraham (44.19-21), Isaac (44.22), Jacob (44.23), Moses (45.1-5) and Aaron (45.6-26), thus showing familiarity with the general outline of the Pentateuch.32 Therefore, the argument can be made that Ben Sira testifies to the knowledge of a bipartite Scripture consisting of the Torah and the Prophets, with the Torah corresponding to the final shape of the Pentateuch, by the end of the third century BCE. The prologue added to the Greek translation of the work some 60 years later several times refers specifically to the Torah (b vopos) and the Prophets (01 TTpo<J>r)Tai), seemingly as authoritative collections of documents, arguably following the practice of the original author (Orlinsky 1991: 486-4S7).33 30. The existence of a sectarian Samaritan version of the Pentateuch from about 100 BCE (Purvis 1986; Waltke 1992) confirms that at least by the second century BCE the notion of a Torah consisting of the books Genesis through Deuteronomy existed. 31. The text of this work was preserved in its Greek form as part of the Christian Old Testament. However, parts of the lost original Hebrew text were recovered in this century from the Cairo Genizah, Masada and Qumran. 32. The major omission from this list is Joseph; however, after the praise of the prophetic figures in chs. 46-49, the author closes with references to Enoch (49.14), Joseph (49.15), Shem and Seth (49.16a), and Adam (49.16b). Of course, here the proper order is disrupted, raising the question of whether this ending is a later addition, and whether the original author was aware of the Joseph story as part of the Pentateuch. 33. The reconstructed text of a document found at Qumran, 4QMMT (4Q394-99), contains a reference to 'the book of Moses, [the words of the pro]phets, and Da[vid and the words of the days of every] succeeding generation' (Carr 1996: 41), thus perhaps attesting to an authoritative Pentateuch—' the book of Moses'—by the second century BCE. Further references to the various divisions or categories of authoritative Jewish Scripture are found in Philo, Josephus, 4 Ezra, the New Testament and early rabbinic literature (see Orlinsky 1991:488-89; VanderKam 1994:144-49), but these sources are all first century CE or later.

218

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Secondly, the prologue to the Greek translation mentions the existence of (Greek) translations of the Torah, the Prophets, and other books. Thus, it seems that not only was a complete Pentateuch available by the mid second century BCE but also translations of the Pentateuch into Greek.34 Assuming that a translation would come some time after the initial composition of a work, one is again brought to the fourth or fifth centuries BCE as likely times for the first appearance of the final text form of the Pentateuch.35 The next work to be considered is the Letter ofAristeas, which purports to describe how the translation of the Torah into Greek came about. This work is available only in manuscripts dating no earlier than the eleventh century CE, but its composition has been placed in the second century BCE (Shutt 1985: 8-9). Two items of importance are indicated by this letter. First, it seems to refer only to the translation of the Torah or Pentateuch, which it associates with the reign of Ptolemy II (285-247 BCE) in Egypt. Secondly, the letter makes several allusions to what may be other Greek translations of the Torah, which it seeks to discredit (w. 30, 310-11). Thus, the letter seems to indicate the existence of not just one, but perhaps several coexisting or contending Greek translations of the Pentateuch by at least the second century BCE. Again, allowing for some lapse of time between the production of the final text form of the Pentateuch and its translation into Greek, one is again brought to the fourth and fifth centuries BCE as likely dates for the appearance of the Pentateuch. Next to be considered are the non-biblical manuscripts from Qumran. Many of these directly cite from the Pentateuch or show some sort of dependence on the Pentateuch. For example, the sectarian compositions of the Damascus Document (CD),36 the War Rule (1QM),37 and Manual of 34. Caird (1982) argues, on the basis of a comparison of the Greek translation of Ben Sira with the parallel books of the LXX, that the translator was certainly familiar with, and dependent on, the LXX Pentateuch, but that Greek translations of only some of the books in the Prophets or Writings seem to have been known to him. 35. Furthermore, the style of the various extant manuscripts of the Greek translation of the books of the Pentateuch shows that these books were translated by different translators, and likely at different times. 36. The siglum CD actually refers to the two copies of this work found in the Cairo Genizah and dating to the 10th and 12th centuries CE. However, fragments of this document, some dating to the first century BCE, were found in three of the Qumran caves (4Q266-73,5Q12,6Q15), proving the antiquity of this work (VanderKam 1994:55-56). 37. Besides the scroll from Cave 1 (1Q33), six more fragments of this composition were found in Cave 4 (4Q491-496) (VanderKam 1994: 65).

5. The Production and Promulgation of the 'Final Text Form ' 2 1 9 Discipline (1QS)38 all show awareness of at least those parts of the Pentateuch which they use as prooftexts. These manuscripts, however, date no earlier than 150 BCE and most were copied in the first century BCE or later, so they only corroborate the canonical nature of the Pentateuch by this time. The same can be said of the various biblical commentaries or paraphrases, or other works found at Qumran, that make reference to the content of the Pentateuch, such as 4QPentParb~e (4Q364-367); 4QpapParaphrase of Genesis-Exodus (4Q422), 4QCommentary on Genesis A-D (4Q252-2543), 4QTestimonia (4Q176), IQapGen or 11QT.39 Several copies of Jubilees, a retelling of most of Genesis and Exodus, and thus presupposing the existence of these Pentateuchal texts, were found at Qumran. One scroll remnant, 4QJuba (4Q216), may date as early as 150 BCE (VanderKam and Milik 1994: 2), indicating the likely earlier existence of authoritative (and linked) copies of Genesis and Exodus. Finally, the evidence of works produced by early non-Jewish Hellenistic writers needs to be assessed. The oldest extant account of Jewish origins in Greek literature appears to be from Hecataeus of Abdera, a Greek historian who wrote under Ptolemy I of Egypt about 300 BCE. It is extant as an excursus in the Bib. Hist. 40.3 of Diodorus Siculus, preserved by Photius, and generally seems to be regarded as authentic (Stern 1976: 2024; Gager 1972:26-37). Hecataeus describes a Jewish exodus from Egypt led by Moses, but his version differs in many ways from the Pentateuchal account, not least in that Moses himself is described as coming to Judea and founding Jerusalem and the temple. The account of Hecataeus thus does not seem to know the canonical Pentateuchal story, or seems to know it only in part; however, his account does contain a reference to written Mosaic laws that echoes a common summary formula found in the Pentateuch (Gager 1972: 32). Thus, it is possible that some sort of Greek translation of at least parts of the Pentateuch may have been available in Egypt at the time of Hecataeus; his divergence from the Pentateuch account may be due to his status as outsider to the Jewish community, his adherence to common schemata of Hellenistic historiography,40 and the influence on 38. Besides the nearly complete copy from Cave 1 (1QS), fragments of this work have also been found in Caves 4 and 5 (4Q255-264,5Q11 and perhaps 5Q13) (VanderKam 1994: 57). 39. See the brief but helpful descriptions of some of these texts in VanderKam (1994: 42, 52-55, 58-59). 40. For example, he describes the settlement of Judea according to the conventions of Greek colonization.

220

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

him of the actual contemporary situation in the Judea of his time.41 The third-century BCE Egyptian historian Manetho also wrote about the origin of the Jews in Egypt, albeit in a denigratory fashion; his account has been preserved by Josephus (Stern 1976:62-86; Gager 1972:113-18), and identifies Moses with an ex-Heliopolitan priest named Osarsiph. The anti-Jewish polemic of Manetho's account makes it unclear whether he is writing specifically against the Pentateuchal account or more generally reporting popular Egyptian views of his time; it has also been argued that the antiJewish passages are later interpolations into Manetho's account (e.g. Gager 1972: 116-18). The most interesting work to consider is the writing of Herodotus, the Greek historiographer of the fifth century BCE. Herodotus's History is the oldest historical work in Greek preserved in its entirety; in its historiographical patterns and dimensions, compared to extrabiblical, Near Eastern literature prior to the Hellenistic period, it provides the closest parallel to the continuous biblical account found in Genesis through Kings (see esp. Van Seters 1983: 8-54; 1992: 78-104). Not that Herodotus reports the same events as found in the biblical account, but rather the manner and conventions whereby Herodotus reports and organizes his account have been seen as similar to those employed in the biblical account.42 Comparative studies of Herodotus and what has been called the 'Primary History' (Genesis through Kings)43 have raised the question of whether either work 41. His description of the Jewish community as one that is ruled by priests seems to be influenced by the contemporary situation of Judea in the Persian and Hellenistic periods. 42. For example, Herodotus divides his work into nine books; Genesis through 2 Kings likewise comprises nine books. More cogently, 'In both works the material is subordinated to a causal and corporate progression of events. The causes of the Persian defeat in Hellas and of the Israelite exile respectively are explained, in both cases, as models for proper behavior in the writers' own age as well as in the future' (Nielsen 1997: 7—although he is referring primarily to the Deuteronomistic History; that is, Deuteronomy through Kings).' [B]oth... stress the relationship between the rise or fall of each nation and the state's leader's adherence to what is willed by the godhead. Hence, they emphasize the defeat of a nation as a consequence of (often repeated and escalating acts of) hubris or sin' (Mandell and Freedman 1993: 145-46). Stylistically, 'the two works have parallel motifs, parallel technical usages, and parallel literary techniques' (Mandell and Freedman 1993: 160). Mandell and Freedman characterize both works as 'tragic, primarily prose combined Roman a Clef and Documentary Novel in epic format' (p. 170). 43. The term 'Primary History' for Genesis through Kings is that of David Noel Freedman (1963,1987,1990), who postulates that this work was compiled, completed

5. The Production and Promulgation of the 'Final Text Form' 221 influenced the other, or, at least, have proposed that both works are the product of the same historical world view. While Mandell and Freedman (1993: 175-76) argue that Herodotus was influenced by a prior Primary History, Nielsen (1997:164) and Wesselius (1996) argue that the Hellenic literary tradition represented by Herodotus influenced the writing of the Primary History.44 It is not within the purview of this investigation to decide between these various alternatives, except to suggest that the parallels with Herodotus support a date in the fifth century BCE for the appearance of the final text form of the Pentateuch. In summary, the non-Pentateuchal biblical tradition associates the promulgation of an authoritative Torah with a figure named Ezra who is placed in Persian-period Yehud in the fifth or early fourth century BCE. Various Pentateuchal books are widely cited as authoritative texts in works found at Qumran, some copies of which may date to the third century BCE; this suggests the compilation and promulgation of the Pentateuch some time earlier. Greek translations of the Torah may have been available as early as the late fourth or third centuries BCE, suggesting a somewhat earlier date for the Hebrew originals. Variant or distorted versions of some Pentateuchal stories are known among non-Jewish Greek writers as early as the late fourth century BCE. And, finally, the historiographic parallels of Herodotus point to a fifth-century BCE milieu for the shaping of the Pentateuch. This evidence cumulatively, although not conclusively, points to the fifth or early fourth century BCE as the most likely period during which the final text form of the Pentateuch was produced and promulgated. Excursus: Dating Based on Language Development and Archaeology Some scholars base dating of the Pentateuch on the progressive stages of the development of the Hebrew language. This method, however, usually concerns the stages prior to the completion of the Pentateuch rather than the final text form of the Pentateuch. For example, it has been argued that the hypothetical source P of the Pentateuch reflects a pre-exilic stage of the Hebrew language; for an effective refutation of this argument, see Blenkinsopp (1996). Knauf (1990) compares the language of the Hebrew Bible with inscriptional remains and concludes that it is a composite of Hebrew from various periods, and that no biblical book was edited in its final text form and 'published' between 560 and 540 BCE, based on an interpretation of the last verses of Kings as a statement of the date and place of publication. 44. Wesselius, in fact, argues that the redactor of the Primary History took Herodotus' History as a model both to emulate and with which to contrast.

222

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

before the fifth century BCE. This view is supported on different grounds by Cryer (1994) but is contested by Ehrensvard (1997). See also P.R. Davies (1992: 102-105). Another form of evidence for dating the Pentateuch is to attempt to find correlations between Pentateuchal descriptions or legal stipulations and the archaeological record. However, this sort of evidence is subject to a wide range of interpretation, and furthermore may deal only with embedded ancient traditions in the Pentateuch rather than the Pentateuch itself. For example, since an aniconic tendency seems to be part of the ideology of the final text form of the Pentateuch (however, see the reservations of Schmidt 1995), one could attempt to date the Pentateuch to the time when the archaeological record indicates the beginning of a consistent aniconic practice in Judahite society. The trend toward aniconism in Judean private name seals of the sixth and fifth centuries BCE has been interpreted as evidence that the Pentateuchal ban on images was in force by this time; yet, the same data can be interpreted as due to nonreligious factors such as growing literacy among the seal-owning elite and an increasing distinction between the functions of seals and amulets (see Uehlinger 1993). Conversely, Edelman's study (1995a) of images on coins minted in Cisjordan in the Persian, Ptolemaic, Seleucid and Hasmonean periods, suggests that aniconism as religious legislation was not introduced until the late Persian or early Ptolemaic periods.

Official Authorization and Promulgation The final type of evidence to be drawn upon in the search for a likely range of dates for the production of the final text form of the Pentateuch is comparative historical material on the production and authorization of certain documents by governing bodies. It must be remembered that scrolls in the ancient world were the product of professional scribes who had not only the ability to write but also the support and motivation, economic and political, to produce substantial literature; access to official archives is also implied in some cases (P.R. Davies 1992: 106-109). In other words, scribal production was largely undergirded and directed by the governing authority. If the final text form of the Pentateuch was produced in the Persian period, as the evidence assessed above seems to indicate, then one might search for instances during this period when there was official imperial impetus for the production of something like the Pentateuch as an authoritative and imperially sanctioned document. During the Persian period, Judea or Yehud existed as a colony in the Persian empire. Especially beginning with the reign of Darius I (522-486 BCE), the empire shifted from conquest as a primary mode of resource extraction from its territories to more long-term strategies of imperial colonization (Berquist 1996: 17-18). Part of this process included the authorization and support of the codification and standardization of local

5. The Production and Promulgation of the 'Final Text Form' 223 legal traditions in the various provinces and colonies, which would then be understood as the king's law.45 The mission of Ezra has been interpreted in light of this imperial policy, leading to the suggestion that the 'law of your god and the law of the king' (Ezra 7.26) which Ezra is instructed to teach and administer is a reference to a similar codification of Israelite law undertaken under Persian imperial auspices; and, furthermore, that this codification is to be associated in some way with the Pentateuch.46 The production of the Pentateuch is thus a product not only of the internal need of the community of Yehud to construct a sense of cultural and religious identity, but also, significantly, of the external pressure exerted by the Persian empire for standardized law.47 Although this interpretation is very attractive, it is conjectural. Actual examples of Persian imperial authorization are rather infrequent, range over two centuries, and seem to concern texts much shorter than the Pentateuch (Romer 1996: 51). Furthermore, the historical authenticity of the biblical traditions concerning Ezra are subject to debate (Grabbe 1994). However, whether it is completely authentic or not, the biblical tradition places the figure of Ezra in the fifth century BCE, and associates him with the promulgation of an authoritative Torah. Even if it is a non-contemporary canonization legend for the Torah,48 the story of Ezra at least 45. See Peter Frei (1996) for the argument that the Persian empire had two tiers of government: a central system focused on Persia, and a secondary system in which the laws and customs of local subject peoples were allowed to operate with relative autonomy, insofar as they concerned internal matters, and with the official authorization of the Persian king. As evidence for this thesis, Frei evokes, among others, the trilingual Xanthos inscription from Lycia (during the reign of Artaxerxes III) giving imperial authorization for a sanctuary to the goddess Leto, the Egyptian demotic chronicle with its description of a commission set up by Darius I to codify traditional Egyptian law, and the so-called Passover Papyrus from Elephantine mentioning an edict of Darius II legitimating the Passover celebration. This idea of imperial authorization (Reichsauthorisatiori) is also applied by Frei to the interpretation of the mission of Ezra. 46. See Berquist (1995: 110-12,138-39; 1996: 19-22); Blenkinsopp (1987; 1992: 239-42); Hoglund (1992: 228-36); Blum (1990: 345-60); Criisemann (1989). 47. Berquist (1995: 138-39). Gottwald (1985: 320) refers to the same internal and external factors, adding that the internal need included the necessity of compromise between different traditions (a P Torah and a D Torah) resulting in a 'new consensus Torah'. The idea that the Pentateuch represents a compromise between two different contemporaneous traditions is also argued by Blum (1990) and Romer (1992a, 1992b, 1996). 48. Similar, for example, to the legend of the canonization of the LXX presented in the Letter of Aristeas.

224

Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

points to the Persian period as a time in which the process of the production of the Pentateuch likely took place, although it does not, of course, guarantee that the final text form of the Pentateuch was completed in the fifth century BCE. Conclusion The cumulative weight of the evidence examined above suggests the Persian period as the most probable period during which the final text form of the Pentateuch was produced. The extant manuscript evidence, references to and citations from an authoritative Torah in non-Pentateuchal biblical texts and non-biblical texts, and references to early Greek translations of the Torah indicate that the Pentateuch in its present overall shape existed most likely at least by the fourth century BCE; that is, by the late Persian and/or early Hellenistic periods, if not somewhat earlier. If the parallels with the writings of Herodotus are cogent, and if at least some of the traditions concerning Ezra are reliable, then a date in the mid or late fifth century BCE is possible. Although dates during the earlier Persian or even exilic period (sixth century BCE) can be postulated, they are more difficult to justify on the basis of the available evidence. Later dates in the Hellenistic period or even in the Hasmonean period are also possible if the above evidence is interpreted from a more skeptical position.49 In sum, it seems reasonable to propose a date for the final text form of the Pentateuch c. 450-350 BCE, with the awareness that such a date can only be tentatively proposed on the basis of the available evidence, and that it thus remains possible that adjustments to either a somewhat earlier or a somewhat later date may be necessary.

49. For example, some argue that the genesis of the Pentateuch (usually together with the Deuteronomistic History) is a product of the encounter with Hellenism (Lemche 1993; P.R. Davies 1995—changing from his focus on the Persian period in his 1992 work; Bolin 1996) or the product of the Hasmonean need for a legitimizing national tradition (T.L. Thompson 1995).

Chapter 6 THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT: EGYPT AND ISRAEL

In Chapters 2—4 above, the various images of Egypt projected by the Pentateuch's symbolic geography have been mapped out. In Chapter 5, a • range of possible dates for the production and promulgation of the final text form of the Pentateuch was proposed, and a date in the later Persian period was seen as most likely. In this chapter, the history of both Yehud and the Egyptian Judean or Jewish1 diaspora within the context of the Achaemenid empire will be explored, with the aim of identifying possible sociohistorical contexts for the images of Egypt found in the Pentateuch. The exploration will proceed as follows. First, the history of the Achaemenid empire will be briefly surveyed, with a focus on events having to do with the empire's relations with Egypt and with Yehud's position as an administrative unit on the empire's frontier with Egypt. Secondly, the history of the Judean diaspora community in Egypt will be briefly surveyed, with a focus on that community's relationships with Jerusalem. Thirdly, an attempt will be made to specify more precisely the producers and intended audience of the Pentateuch's final text form in the Persian period. And fourthly, alternative, but less likely, contexts for the Pentateuch's images of Egypt, such as the earlier Neo-Babylonian and exilic periods, or the later Ptolemaic, Seleucid or Hasmonean periods, will be briefly explored.

1. The use of the term 'Jewish' is problematic since it presupposes that some sort of normative or essential Judaism existed already in the Persian period. Rather, as many scholars are recognizing, this period (and even later periods extending to the rabbinic period) is characterized by many different forms of religion and culture somehow connected to Judea. Thus, it would probably be more correct to speak of a 'Judean' diaspora rather than a 'Jewish' one. See P.R. Davies (1995) for a stimulating discussion of the problem, and the suggestion of a three-stage development beginning with an unreflective Judean culture, progressing to 'Juda-ism', in which this culture becomes a conscious object of community and ethnic definition, and finally 'Judaisms' in which the formulations go beyond the culture of Judea.

226

Egypt on the Pentateuch 's Ideological Map

The Persian Period The Persian period was inaugurated by the reign of Cyrus the Great (559530 BCE), who defeated the Neo-Babylonians in 539 BCE and is credited by the scroll of Ezra (1.1-4; 6.3-5) with a decree granting Judean exiles permission to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple of YHWH.2 The return of such exiles is portrayed as taking place under both a certain Sheshbazzar, variously depicted as a 'prince of Judah' and 'governor' (rrns),3 andZerubbabel, called 'governor of Judah' (rmrv HPIS).4 Achaemenid policy in this regard presents little change from previous NeoBabylonian and Assyrian precedents, in that the goal is the creation of populations of peoples dependent on centralized imperial control (Hoglund 1992: 5-11, 23). In the following reign of Cambyses (530-522 BCE) Egypt was conquered and added to the Persian empire (525-526 BCE). The expeditionary force that accomplished this task would have marched south through the Levant and therefore conceivably may have had some impact on Judea, or Yehud (as the area was known in the Aramaic lingua franca of the Persian period). The reign of the next Achaemenid king, Darius I (522-486 BCE), marked a period of profound change for the empire. The accession of Darius was characterized by revolts throughout the empire, including Egypt (Bresciani 1985: 507; Ray 1988: 262), leading Darius to undertake a program of administrative reorganization. It is Darius who is credited with ordering the continuation of the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem (Ezra 6.6-12), and it is in his sixth year (515 BCE) that the temple is reported as completed (Ezra 6.15). Yehud is clearly depicted in the biblical sources as being by this time an autonomous administrative unit, with its

2. The Cyrus Cylinder (ANET: 316) is usually cited as evidence that such permission for the return of exiles is not only historically authentic but also not unique to the exiled Judeans. However, as Williamson (1985: 13-14) cautions, especially on the basis of the study of Kuhrt (1983), the evidence of the Cyrus Cylinder does not refer to a general return of deported populations and is not as close to the biblical text as is often claimed. 3. Ezra 1.8, 11; 5.14, 16. 4. Haggai 1.